Actually it's no more question of 'why' when we assume we will learn new manufacturing techniques from Rafale deal. If that's 'no', which is what it is --- most of 108 so-called HAL Rafales would be build from S-KDKs and rest from F-KDKs because a) IAF needs them fast and HAL is simply not capable of it
No. The Rafale deal will come with an indigenous production run.
HAL not being capable was only for the LCA program, which HAL denied later.
Of course we need to see how well HAL absorbs technology. But if we can't absorb this technology then the AMCA program is screwed.
then we will end up wasting whole lot for not learning the most required skill which we falsely assumed we will.........We have cheated ourselves enough, four decades ain't less.
Huh? What? You think HAL will not learn anything from assembly. Have you even talked to HAL engineers? You are only assuming there will be no indigenous production after SKD and CKD phase. How about waiting for it.
HAL isn't ADA. Leave the designing aspect of Indian projects to ADA right now. We will worry about HAL much later. They will be busy with PMF either way.
Absorbing new manufacturing processes now while we are designing and testing 5th gen aircraft is the way to go. HAL can use their own experience from PMF to better Rafale's manufacturing processes and apply it to PMFs and later AMCAs.
As for learning from new. Well past 2015, we can and shall learn these skills from PMFA program. I guess Russian PAK-FA will sure enough stand parallel to Rafale program in terms of manufacturing efficiency.
HAL may very well better it. PMF is a program expected in the next decade. Heck Rafale's assembly line may end up coming to a close by the time PMF is ready. What we set up for PMF won't give us the time to setup the same for AMCA or even AURA class UCAVs.
It is not necessary the Russians may follow French processes either. So there will be newer methods to learn.
With bit of luck, some consultancy and lot of hard work (only possible if this need it taken up as National Program) things can get to acceptable standards with or without any program.
That's what they said when LCA started. A little bit of luck and consultancy. We can see what that lead to.
Consultancy is not easy here. You need to buy their products to learn modern manufacturing processes. Tools and equipment costs billions. Costs are absorbed by buying their products. Also the tools and equipment are specific to the product, it won't suit other products. The consultants biggest experience is with the products they have worked on.
If they come into our domestic programs, then we will have to give away information about our own development. This won't be to our interests and IAF won't accept a compromised product in the end. It is fine for LCA, it is between a 3rd and 4th gen aircraft. But it won't be fine for LCA Mk2 and definitely won't do for AMCA.
Consultancy is like going to the doctor and stripping down to your birthday suit, so he comes and grabs you by the balls. You give away everything.
Nevertheless LCA program is something where we have lot of flexibility as we are responsible for drawing blueprints and manufacturing chart. Here an experienced partner can scale down risk factor and rightfully so ADA-HAL is hiring consultancy from that matter.
It is fine for LCA. Not worth the effort for AMCA and AURA.
Buy stuff now, so we can use it later. Simply remove the third party involvement in the long run. It has been the same for so many other programs. Russians were involved in Arihant, Agni (through SLV) etc. But both are TDs. Once we start developing operational systems, remove the third party.
-------------------
