Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II
sir there is a difference between comaprision india & germany
when germany started the projects they know they were under sanction and had to develop everything in house
in indias case when they contracted foreign things they were not under sanctions
so timelines and budgets (finances ) would have been structured accrodinlgy
now suddenly when they are put under sanctions
then they budget for (finances) and start tech development - which again is not concurrent
so these factors do affect - timelines & financial budgets in an unforeseen way
India has faced sanctions many a time. Therefore, India has to cater for such eventualities. Hence, the same fate as Germany.
We have to be self reliant. And if there is issues then we should take Projects one at a time or that many that we can deliver with confidence and not walk in as to prove that we are a world pacesetter and jack of all trades.
In the interim, undertake Research with real earnest in areas that we want to develop and when we have adequate knowledge, then go for it.
There is nothing wrong on the part of India to take foreign support to enhance DRDO's effort.
India has attained a considerable degree of domestic capability regarding ballistic missile development, while it continues to rely on foreign support in other areas, such as cruise missiles, submarines, and ballistic missile defence.
India's missile and aerospace programs have also benefited from a number of suppliers who provide components for its missile and rocket systems, often procured illegally from abroad. Below is a brief list of several suppliers of note:
Cirrus Electronics: Operates in the United States, Singapore, and India; knowingly supplied U.S.-origin controlled items to Indian organizations on the U.S. Entity List without the required export license, including semiconductors and capacitors, which can be used in missile guidance and firing systems, and static random access memory computer chips.
Enterysys Corporation: Operates in the United States and India; exported U.S.-origin controlled electronic equipment to BDL without the required licenses when it was on the U.S. Entity List.
NPO Mashinostroyenia: Russian firm that co-develops the BrahMos cruise missile in cooperation with the DRDO; co-founded the BrahMos Aerospace Joint Venture with the DRDO.
Rajaram Engineering Corporation: Accused by the U.S. Department of Commerce of illegally supplying an Indian space center with U.S.-origin equipment and technology related to the research and development of launching systems, including missile delivery systems.
On January 18, 1991 the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) inked an agreement with the Russian space agency Glavkosmos for the transfer of cryogenic technology. Following the collapse of its Soviet empire, Russia was under considerable American influence. In this backdrop, both Glavkosmos and ISRO anticipated the United States would try and stymie the deal.
So Glavkosmos and ISRO drew up Plan B – outsource the manufacture of the cryogenic engines to Kerala Hi-tech Industries Limited (KELTEC). The arrangement was designed to get around the provisions of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) – a Western cabal that aims to deny ballistic missile technology to non-Western countries, especially India.
The space czars of the two countries – Aleksey Vasin, officer-in-charge of cryogenic technology in Glavkosmos, and ISRO Chairman U.R. Rao – reckoned that if Russian cryogenic technology was passed on to ISRO via KELTEC, technically it would not be a violation of the MTCR.
