Indian Air Force News and Discussions ll

[r3alist]

But you shouldn’t need to either. There has to be a new Indian model that specifically addresses the R&D challenges when it comes to both cultural hurdles and resource availability.

So that would mean changing the culture...

This feels like a really rudimentary and basic aspect which remains unresolved....

True. Your competitors are America and the Western order.

India for the next couple of decades will be a inward looking nation with it's sphere of influence limited to South Asia and the Indian Ocean.

Some of the outliers are India being involved in the Caucasus by heavily arming Armenia and being more militarily involved with some European powers like Greece, France and Israel in ME.

China is no longer your rival, it was always Pakistan, lol, ok

So really your benchmark is Pakistan

 

[r3alist]

We need Scientists like Kalam or Vikram Sarabhai to spear head such projects. Leaders with vision and charisma. Changing the entire model and the ecosystem seems almost impossible. The reason is our society and deeply entrenched work culture issues.

This is an indictment.

Looking up for a scientific Napoleon is putting hope on A prayer.

you need your weakest links to be no less weak than your rivals.... across the whole system, including people resources and technology.

 

[CallSignMaverick]

For Medium Transport Aircraft project

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Corax]

For Medium Transport Aircraft project

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What happened to the indigenous MTA? Another "indigenous" project that was abandoned because it failed and instead you had to buy a foreign product.

 

[CallSignMaverick]

What happened to the indigenous MTA? Another "indigenous" project that was abandoned because it failed and instead you had to buy a foreign product.

There was never an Indian project for it though. The one with Russians was abandoned long ago.

C-390 would be made in India if it wins the MTA contract for 80 aircrafts, like C-295.

 

[m52k85]

Can someone tell me all the steps:
1. DAC
2. CAC
3. PAC
4. PM?

Negotiation with Dessault start after all these approvals?

 

[CallSignMaverick]

Can someone tell me all the steps:
1. DAC
2. CAC
3. PAC
4. PM?

Negotiation with Dessault start after all these approvals?

DAC gives AoN (acceptance of necessesity) then it goes to CCS (if the deal cost is high) for approval for contract signing. Informal negotiations would be going on since DAC has approved he proposal.

 

[CallSignMaverick]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ali_Baba]

China budget for research and development is five times
I hear china has spent 40 billion dollars for their own engines to get it right ...
Let that sink in
That's on engines alone over the last two decades

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That is how much it costs to build the core technology for jet engines, and why the French, or anyone else will not give over the core technology to India no matter how much India wants them to.

India will have to walk the long path to develop its own engine technology. They are the crown jewels on which hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue is generated on.

Every country that has the technology, has had to develop that technology for itself at great cost and time.

 

[Michael]

Using your logic Pakistan should have used the humiliation it faced on 10th May for revitalization of its nascent MIC.

Your comprehension skills are worrying. You need to read and understand that article carefully.

Pakistan does not have an indigenous turbofan engine research program. They can easily purchase the turbofan engines they need from Russia and China. Pakistan doesn't face this pressure, and naturally, it lacks the motivation for independent development.

However, India has always had such programs. Furthermore, India's fighter jet program has consistently been influenced by the supply of engines from the United States.

China budget for research and development is five times
I hear china has spent 40 billion dollars for their own engines to get it right ...
Let that sink in
That's on engines alone over the last two decades

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There are many things in this world that cannot be measured in money.

Let me give you a real-life example:

A relative of mine received multiple job offers when he graduated with a master's degree many years ago.
A well-known private company offered him an annual salary of 1.6 million RMB, plus an additional 300,000 RMB settlement allowance.
A state-owned research institution offered only around 200,000 RMB annually, plus an additional 180,000 RMB settlement allowance.
Ultimately, he chose the state-owned research institution. He is still employed there.
This isn't simply about patriotism. Rather, it's about the fact that while state-owned research institutions offer lower salaries, they provide something that money can't buy.

This is the underlying core of the rise of China's military industry.

 

[Yasser76]

Your comprehension skills are worrying. You need to read and understand that article carefully.

Pakistan does not have an indigenous turbofan engine research program. They can easily purchase the turbofan engines they need from Russia and China. Pakistan doesn't face this pressure, and naturally, it lacks the motivation for independent development.

However, India has always had such programs. Furthermore, India's fighter jet program has consistently been influenced by the supply of engines from the United States.


There are many things in this world that cannot be measured in money.

Let me give you a real-life example:

A relative of mine received multiple job offers when he graduated with a master's degree many years ago.

A well-known private company offered him an annual salary of 1.6 million RMB, plus an additional 300,000 RMB settlement allowance.

A state-owned research institution offered only around 200,000 RMB annually, plus an additional 180,000 RMB settlement allowance.

Ultimately, he chose the state-owned research institution. He is still employed there.

This isn't simply about patriotism. Rather, it's about the fact that while state-owned research institutions offer lower salaries, they provide something that money can't buy.

This is the underlying core of the rise of China's military industry.

No need to beat him further Michael, think he is already dead.....

 

[Vkdindian1]

This is an indictment.

Looking up for a scientific Napoleon is putting hope on A prayer.

you need your weakest links to be no less weak than your rivals.... across the whole system, including people resources and technology.

Institutional strength and systemic excellence are the most valuable long term assets any society can possess. Across South Asia namely India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal—institutional capacity exists, but it remains uneven and, in comparative terms, weaker than that of countries that outperform the region on development, governance, and innovation metrics. This is not a problem unique to one state but it is a structural regional constraint.

The region does not suffer from a shortage of talent. On the contrary, human capital quality is often high at the individual level. The constraint lies in institutional ecosystems that fail to consistently identify, nurture, scale, and protect excellence. Weak institutions tend to personalise success rather than systematise it. As a result, breakthrough achievements often depend on exceptional individuals rather than resilient structures.

This explains why transformative progress in strategic sectors has historically required singular figures.
- A. P. J. Abdul Kalam in India’s missile and nuclear efforts,
- Vikram Sarabhai in the early development of India’s space program, and
- Abdul Qadeer Khan in advancing Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities.

These cases illustrate a pattern. when institutions lack embedded excellence, progress becomes personality driven. Individual brilliance compensates for structural deficiencies, but this model is inherently fragile and difficult to replicate at scale.

Most educated observers can outline, in broad terms, the reforms required. Regulatory coherence, meritocratic appointments, insulation from political volatility, long term capital allocation, and accountability mechanisms. However, institutional reform is not merely a technical exercise. It is deeply embedded in political economy, social hierarchies, and historical legacies. That is why transformation proves difficult despite widespread awareness of the shortcomings. HAL is a good example of that. While ISRO is at other end of the spectrum due to leaders they had at an earlier stage. There are many other institutions that fall in either of these categories.

In such an environment, breakthroughs may require either a catalytic leader capable of restructuring incentives and enforcing discipline across systems, or a highly efficient private sector ecosystem.

China has displayed exceptional institutional excellence and harmony which we can’t at thier scale.

Luckily, India has a robust private sector and an ecosystem of suppliers courtesy Tejas, that can take on complex projects. Thats why we have hope in AMCA and many other projects lined up under these companies.

 

[r3alist]

Institutional strength and systemic excellence are the most valuable long term assets any society can possess. Across South Asia namely India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal—institutional capacity exists, but it remains uneven and, in comparative terms, weaker than that of countries that outperform the region on development, governance, and innovation metrics. This is not a problem unique to one state but it is a structural regional constraint.

The region does not suffer from a shortage of talent. On the contrary, human capital quality is often high at the individual level. The constraint lies in institutional ecosystems that fail to consistently identify, nurture, scale, and protect excellence. Weak institutions tend to personalise success rather than systematise it. As a result, breakthrough achievements often depend on exceptional individuals rather than resilient structures.

This explains why transformative progress in strategic sectors has historically required singular figures.
- A. P. J. Abdul Kalam in India’s missile and nuclear efforts,
- Vikram Sarabhai in the early development of India’s space program, and
- Abdul Qadeer Khan in advancing Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities.

These cases illustrate a pattern. when institutions lack embedded excellence, progress becomes personality driven. Individual brilliance compensates for structural deficiencies, but this model is inherently fragile and difficult to replicate at scale.

Most educated observers can outline, in broad terms, the reforms required. Regulatory coherence, meritocratic appointments, insulation from political volatility, long term capital allocation, and accountability mechanisms. However, institutional reform is not merely a technical exercise. It is deeply embedded in political economy, social hierarchies, and historical legacies. That is why transformation proves difficult despite widespread awareness of the shortcomings. HAL is a good example of that. While ISRO is at other end of the spectrum due to old leaders that they nurtured.

In such an environment, breakthroughs may require either a catalytic leader capable of restructuring incentives and enforcing discipline across systems, or a highly efficient private-sector ecosystem with executional rigor and long term strategic focus.

China has displayed exceptional institutional excellence and harmony which we can’t at that scale.

Luckily, India has a robust private sector and an ecosystem of suppliers courtesy Tejas, that can take on complex projects. Thats why we have hope in AMCA and many other projects lined up under these companies.

Unfortunately this is waffle, and I don't want to necessarily say that for such a considered post which would actually be rude, but I'm not trying to be rude

The structural problem is attitude to each other, South Asia is unique in that regard. China comparatively is meritocratic but also creates a society that allows meritocracy.

The military domain is iron sharpens iron, we are not talking about a commercial company but national security and therefore if after coming onto a century the level has not changed sufficiently that is a ceiling, because that is what the polity is capable of.

You will tell me about progress but it's about keeping up, so anything that prevents you from keeping up is simply not good enough, the world does not stand still

When you start talking about things being done in a Pakistani or Indian context or whatever they starts to sound basically like a poor excuse, you can allow it to a point.

But if it persists then you have to assume it is a ceiling, it becomes a reflection of capability.

 

[Vkdindian1]

But if it persists then you have to assume it is a ceiling, it becomes a reflection of capability.

In your post #199 you suggested that what should and could be done at structural level to achieve excellence.
I do agree that structural excellence is the best thing to achieve but, why it can’t be and that is a regional shortcoming. Your nation suffers with that, as much as mine. If it was so simple then shouldn’t Pakistan have implemented it and achieved it?

Inspite of all these shortcomings, India is better placed in this regard due to an ecosystem in the private sector that has come up in the last 8-10 years. An industrial capacity and capability has come up that can collaborate and innovate for us.

Basically, we may not be able to achieve comprehensive national level changes to the mindset, we are better poised to get the job done.

Tatas, Adanis, JSW, Bharat Forge and hundreds of smaller enterprises are ready to achieve what could not be done by state backed behemoths.

 

[r3alist]

In your post #199 you suggested that what should and could be done at structural level to achieve excellence.
I do agree that structural excellence is the best thing to achieve but, why it can’t be and that is a regional shortcoming. Your nation suffers with that, as much as mine. If it was so simple then shouldn’t Pakistan have implemented it and achieved it?

Inspite of all these shortcomings, India is better placed in this regard due to an ecosystem in the private sector that has come up in the last 8-10 years. An industrial capacity and capability has come up that can collaborate and innovate for us.

Basically, we may not be able to achieve comprehensive national level changes to the mindset, we are better poised to get the job done.

Tatas, Adanis, JSW, Bharat Forge and hundreds of smaller enterprises are ready to achieve what could not be done by state backed behemoths.

Actually I did not mean structural excellence exactly , you need different aptitudes at different levels.


You can take any system, for example running trains, you might think that doesn't take much but the point is are even these types of jobs being done well? each job or capability needs a minimum hurdle rate, the floor rising is the best metric in the south Asian context

This is why I said your weakest link cannot be much weaker than your rivals and it cannot be more prevalent, before you can be cutting edge dont you think you need to be anti-fragile first?