View: https://x.com/cvkrishnan/status/1876700919796056405
It's a mixed bag. Of the list of some 7-8 tech we need where we're purportedly facing "tech deficiencies" in most of the cases it's more a question of infrastructure & investment & a couple where we'd be there in the next 4-5 yrs. It's only in a couple of areas we're far behind the tech curve.
We often berate babooos out here which we should for their bureaucracy ineptitude & corruption but we don't give them credit where it's due. Allow me to elaborate - What's the total expenditure we've incurred for developing the Kaveri TF ? It's < INR 3,000 cr.
Now compare that to what is spent internationally on such programs. Forget China , we've had a member from UK here who put up information that RR has an annual R&D budget purely for TFs amounting to 1 billion USD. What exactly do you expect to get in that amount we spent on the Kaveri ?
Please remember babooos are into policy implementation . They may help shape policies , they don't make them. That's the remit of the dhoti class. With someone like Mulayamwa in the Raksha Mantri's chair or another specimen like the current one who I've maintained is a mere place holder, what informed decisions are they in a position to take or do we expect them to take ?
Returning to what our babooos have achieved given the constraints - visible & otherwise , let's take a peek into it. It's an equation comprising of 4-5 parts -
The First Past :- The Kaveri program was officially shut down in 2016 . However individual projects concerning realisation of tech we didn't have or further iterative developments on ones not fully realised continued being financed by DRDO's R&D budget as opposed to the project specific budget approved for the Kaveri TF.
That's how SAFRAN who as part of their offset obligations consulting on the Kaveri program certified it as good enough to go into an FTB for certification in 2018-19. The catch was they were offering the M-88 core for some 4-5 billion USD in addition to their offset requirements. Alternatively we had to rebuild the entire engine from scratch after redesigning certain areas. The IAF rejected GTRE's recommendation to go in for SAFRAN's offer & rightly so.
You see in spite of receiving all the know how & know why's it's better we go in for iterative process as that prepares us for problem solving in future for we've been there & done that . It's the kind of experience that receiving know how's & know why's just doesn't provide.
I suggest you check out Indranil Roy on Twitter. He's done an excellent job some years back explaining this philosophy of iterative development done in house , arguing why it absolutely must be done by GTRE & only GTRE with other partners such as academia assusting at best, in realising this tech leaving external participation to the bare minimum, restricted only to consultancy.
The Second Part :- Hence either by design or default or a combination of both we're now on the cusp of realising the Kaveri TF with Dry Thrust - 50 KN / Wet Thrust - 75 KN. Once that is done we'd be realising the analogue of the GE F-404 TF with ~ a Dry Thrust - 60 KN / Wet Thrust - 90 KN followed by an analogue of the GE F-414 TF with a Wet Thrust of ~ 100 KN.
The Third Part :- Then there's the issue of mfg tech primarily which needs to be addressed . This is being addressed thru the ToT of the GE F-414 TF to be locally mfgd. A lot of tech deficiency in the tweet I've attached will be addressed thru this ToT. Now while this seemingly came out of the blue & as a complete surprise, that's not the case.
Our babooos have been at it since at least 2009. I believe the offer extended then wasn't < 50% , a standard clause of such agreements with the US which they'd extended to other treaty partners & we're not even that. It's taken us >16 years to achieve 80% ToT including know why & know how, when we sign the agreement with GE this year.
Along the way a lot of developments helped us including increasing comfort in the Indo US relationship, a basic level of trust, increasing belligerence by China , significant breakdown of Sino US relationship which peaked with Trump's sanctions & finally the Wuhan virus pandemic, etc.
The Fourth Part :- This includes setting up of testing & certification infrastructure within the country. I believe we'd commence this activity in this year. Saurav Jha in one of his podcasts mentioned we needed INR 40-50,000 cr & 4-5 years to achieve this. Given all the lamentation & soul searching in public , the Defence Secretary , Dr Kamat & ACM A. P. Singh indulged in, it's a given there'd definitely be movement on this front & I'm talking of major movement. Of course they were also preparing the ground for additional Rafales to be inducted & possibly Su-57 too though I'm not too sure of the latter.
The Fifth & Last Part :- This would be the upcoming JV for the development of the 120 KN TF with a Foreign OEM which in all likelihood appears to be SAFRAN. Modi's expected to visit France next month where we'd be signing the agreement for 26 nos Rafale M & 3 nos additional Scorpenes. We could potentially see an agreement for that JV with SAFRAN.
Our placeholder of a Defence Minister asked the MoD same time 2021 to expedite the JV for the 120 KN TF. It's exactly 4 years since. What exactly could be the reason for the delay? I suspect it's something similar to what HAL & SAFRAN went thru before the recent agreement for the TurboShaft for the IMRH to be mfgd in a JV was signed last year.
Apparently, the French were closely following our HTSE program. As soon as a few key breakthroughs occurred they immediately consented to a JV with "generous" work share for HAL ( I believe it to be > 35%) as opposed to the Shakti TS wherein our work share was < 20% , around 12-15 % to be precise.
I suspect something similar is at play here, otherwise there's no reason for the JV to be so delayed. It's a question of price & proprietary tech we can receive along with the IPR. The French who keep close track of these developments immediately calibrate their offer accordingly.
Let's see how much of what I've written plays out & in what form.
