Why dont Indians do more reverse engineering

[Vladimir79]

Getting back to the subject of reverse engineering, I think there are three key factors to being successful. First, you need lots of money, time, and geniuses to study and determine how a piece of advanced technology works.

For example, according to Wikipedia, China reverse engineered an U.S. Mark 48 torpedo (see Yu-6 torpedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). However, it required ten years and 18 patents. Here's an excerpt:

I wouldn't rely on wiki for anything unless it has an independent source. All of China's torpedos are copy of Russian design.

A final note about the PLAN submarine force. Long thought to use inferior Chinese designed torpedoes, it is entirely equipped with Russian torpedoes. The Yu-1 is the Type 53-51, the Yu-3 is the SET-65E, the Yu-4 is the SET-60, the Yu-5 is the TEST- 71/96 and the Yu-6 is the Type 53-65 (which has been compared to the Mark 48). Only the newer boats are fitted to use the Yu-5 and Yu-6.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/plan/subs.pdf

In my opinion, India has plenty of talented scientists and engineers. Therefore, I think that India does not perform more reverse engineering due to a lack of commitment, focus, or money. Just my two cents. And, by the way, congratulations to Mr. Dong Chunpeng. It's scary that some people are like ten times smarter than I am.

Don't feel too bad... he didn't actually develop anything. More making of smoke by Chinese propoganda.

 

[badguy2000]

I wouldn't rely on wiki for anything unless it has an independent source. All of China's torpedos are copy of Russian design.

typical "Vladimir-style" claim.....isn't it?

once you claimed that " WS10 is the copy of AL41",didn't it?


now it is the turn of the torpedo.

 

[Vladimir79]

typical "Vladimir-style" claim.....isn't it?

once you claimed that " WS10 is the copy of AL41",didn't it?

now it is the turn of the torpedo.

WS-10 is a copy of the AL-31... keep up.

The author of the torpedo statement is a retired USN Captain who has been analysing PLAN for years and works for FAS. He knows what he is talking about far more than a generic wiki line.

 

[badguy2000]

WS-10 is a copy of the AL-31... keep up.

The author of the torpedo statement is a retired USN Captain who has been analysing PLAN for years and works for FAS. He knows what he is talking about far more than a generic wiki line.

Before 1980,PLA's torpedos were all copies of SOviets..

after 1980,CHinese torpedos started to used lots of west tech,espeically Italy's and French tech.

 

[tarunraju]

Why don't Indians reverse-engineer more? Simple. Reverse engineering stunts scientific temperament and innovation. It's not that we have great inventions/innovations to boast of either, but I digress. We aren't half bad with our space-program, missile technology, etc.

 

[Vladimir79]

Before 1980,PLA's torpedos were all copies of SOviets..

after 1980,CHinese torpedos started to used lots of west tech,espeically Italy's and French tech.

The only Western torpedos China ever bought were EuroTorp A-244s which are a completely different class. Every torp China apparently copies from Western powers comes from fishing trawlers snagging US Mks. Now you say they are copies of Eurotorps which are completely different than the Yu-6.

 

[amoy]

Japan is the real master in reverse engineering and advances far beyond copycat. and S. Korea.

When I was a kid we had everything Japanese almost from electronics to cars as 1st class. But hardly any 'reinventing'.

 

[Minghegy]

Guys, China's way is a bad way, India should keep away from this road.
India's competitive target should not be China, you also need a different way.

 

[Armand2REP]

Guys, China's way is a bad way, India should keep away from this road.
India's competitive target should not be China, you also need a different way.

China's way is the only way for China. They don't know how to invent, only mimic. Nobody trusts them anymore to sell latest tech, not even Russia. India's competitive target should be China as that is who they are trying to edge out of in the defence export market. They will not sell in my lifetime to developed countries that buy American and European arms, but they will move into the 3rd and developing world which are the Russian and Chinese markets.

The Indian way so far has been to sign JVs and license manufacture with Russia, Europe, Israel and slap the 'Made in India' sticker on it. The end result is alot of capital flowing into foreign coffers, but equipment that is far superior to China. India's imports have grown from 70% to 75% of purchased equipment. This model is not ideal for indigenisation of the Indian MIC nor is it going to help close the export gap of 197:1. The proposed way forward is to increase FDI limit beyond 50% to attract foreign defence firms and refocus DRDO to more limited, but attainable technology goals. DRDO will work on technologies that are critical to be kept in India while having foreign companies provide the rest under the watchful eye of GoI. The approach to DRDO is correct, the approach to FDI is incorrect. The end result will be the takeover of Indian MIC by Western defence firms and a DRDO that cannot compete with it. Open tenders with a DRDO product competing against a Western product made in India will not compete. The technology gap is too wide. The correct approach is to reform DRDO and actually give it money to carry out its research, not penny pinching the budget as they always do. Modern weapons cost money to develop, something GoI does not understand.

 

[Minghegy]

China's way is the only way for China. They don't know how to invent, only mimic. Nobody trusts them anymore to sell latest tech, not even Russia. India's competitive target should be China as that is who they are trying to edge out of in the defence export market. They will not sell in my lifetime to developed countries that buy American and European arms, but they will move into the 3rd and developing world which are the Russian and Chinese markets.

The Indian way so far has been to sign JVs and license manufacture with Russia, Europe, Israel and slap the 'Made in India' sticker on it. The end result is alot of capital flowing into foreign coffers, but equipment that is far superior to China. India's imports have grown from 70% to 75% of purchased equipment. This model is not ideal for indigenisation of the Indian MIC nor is it going to help close the export gap of 197:1. The proposed way forward is to increase FDI limit beyond 50% to attract foreign defence firms and refocus DRDO to more limited, but attainable technology goals. DRDO will work on technologies that are critical to be kept in India while having foreign companies provide the rest under the watchful eye of GoI. The approach to DRDO is correct, the approach to FDI is incorrect. The end result will be the takeover of Indian MIC by Western defence firms and a DRDO that cannot compete with it. Open tenders with a DRDO product competing against a Western product made in India will not compete. The technology gap is too wide. The correct approach is to reform DRDO and actually give it money to carry out its research, not penny pinching the budget as they always do. Modern weapons cost money to develop, something GoI does not understand.

you are totally right

 

[Phenom]

The verdict is still out on reverse engineering. It may give a boost to defence in the short term, but going by the Chinese example it seems it hurts the country in the long run. We'll probably know how this goes in the next few decades.

 

[Armand2REP]

The verdict is still out on reverse engineering. It may give a boost to defence in the short term, but going by the Chinese example it seems it hurts the country in the long run. We'll probably know how this goes in the next few decades.

There is a place for reverse engineering when you do not know the principles behind it. The process provides an understanding of the underlying technology. Where it hurts is when you copy it. You will not know how to deal with technical challenges as they arise as you never went through the discovery phase. Perfect example is Chinese failure to produce high performance turbofans. The more complex the item, the longer the delays in fixing it. The other factor is when you copy a product, you will be charged with IP theft, then no one will want to sell you anything. The last downside is when you rely too heavily on it, you do not know how to invent new, you will always be behind and the more complex weapons get, the greater that gap will grow.

 

[Minghegy]

There is a place for reverse engineering when you do not know the principles behind it. The process provides an understanding of the underlying technology. Where it hurts is when you copy it. You will not know how to deal with technical challenges as they arise as you never went through the discovery phase. Perfect example is Chinese failure to produce high performance turbofans. The more complex the item, the longer the delays in fixing it. The other factor is when you copy a product, you will be charged with IP theft, then no one will want to sell you anything. The last downside is when you rely too heavily on it, you do not know how to invent new, you will always be behind and the more complex weapons get, the greater that gap will grow.

You are right, hope Indian learn from China's bad way.

 

[mattster]

I think that most countries that are big on reverse engineering understand that it only helps close the initial huge technology gap, but eventually they have to develop their own highly skilled manpower.

The Japanese in the early fifties and sixties were accused of copying everything too, but they closed the gap because of the high quality technical workforce and work ethic. But India and China have not been so successfull even with TOT.

I think that part of the reason for this is that much of the best Indian and Chinese talent have always moved overseas. Plus both countries produce a lot of engineers but only a handful of universities produce top notch students. The quality drops off very sharply after the top few elite universities.

The Chinese spy who defected to the US recently is on record as saying that China spends a great deal of time on industrial and military espionage.
Thats another form of copying or reverse engineering.

 

[Minghegy]

Chinese envy Indian, India can buy any weapon, if no one sells advanced weapon to China, two decades later China will found nothing has been improved =sad=sad=sad

 

[satesh27]

Recently India has been carrying out a lot of reverse engineering in the production of missiles . The only so called lacuna is in the mettalurgy, wherein we are strggling to get materials of the same composition... but things are improving...

 

[no smoking]

The reason china has not been successful on tech advance after ages of copying is:
Time: when you use Japan as the example, you have to consider that Japan's copying history started fro 1865 instead of 1945. If you look at japan army's equipment in 20 century early, you will find most of them were copies of western weapons. Some US companies even accused that the famous Zero was a copy of thieir products. So it actually took japan more than 100 years to move forward from copy to innovation. Korea is another example, until 1990s, the majority of korean products are copies.

 

[Dinesh_Kumar]

From school, Indian kids taught that copying is bad.....

In USA, open book tests are there..

 

[Chris Jude]

Why don't Indians reverse-engineer more? Simple. Reverse engineering stunts scientific temperament and innovation. It's not that we have great inventions/innovations to boast of either, but I digress. We aren't half bad with our space-program, missile technology, etc.

What does the word digress mean, it should be disagree right!

 

[Chris Jude]

People, the topic is why the Indians don't reverse engineer and lets. Stick to that and not deviate,
India has never copied any stuff for that case and has always produced its own, which may not be fourth or fifth generation but is always up to the mark, and have served our purpose and we have constantly been improving on them, which itself is a sign of growth! Whereas reverse engineering gives very little or no hope for improvement because it has only been copied and not engineered to know its intricacies !