Daily Archives: August 1, 2016

CHASERI First Win E – Video no Eng

edi

photo (1)

Made in Thailand

Published on Jul 22, 2016

สุดทึ่ง!!! คนไทยผลิตรถหุ้มเกราะ ส่วนประกอบรถถัง ส่งออก 37 ประเทศทั่วโลก ปืนยิงแค่สะกิด ระเบิดแค่ถลอก ความแข็งแกร่ง ฝีมือติดอันดับ 1 ใน 3 ของโลก เธอคือเจ้าของฉายา “มาดามรถถัง” เจ้าแรกและเจ้าเดียวของประเทศไทย

ออกอากาศทางรายการเมดอินไทยแลนด์ ยกระดับ กระชับสยาม
เมื่อวันที่ 21 เมษายน พ.ศ. 2557

Translated by Google

Most amazing !!! Thailand’s production of armored vehicles Tank components exported to 37 countries worldwide.  The owner is well known by her nickname “Madame Tank” the first and only one in Thailand

****-END-****

First Win, the highest protection in range with Bullet and Blast protection.   
 
Mobility
Power  300 hp   Weight 11 ton Payload 2 ton 
Power to weight ratio 23-27 ton
4×4 or 4×2 Selectable with differential lock
Rigid Axle with ABS (Optional CTIS)
 
Protection 
Ballistic STANAG Lv 2 ( Optional Lv3)
Mine Blast STANAG Lv3

CHASERI WEBSITE: Here

Related post:

Chaiseri First Win vehicle at Defense & Security 2015 Thailand (With video of First Win E field testing)

WIN E_1

India Considers Buying Russian IL-78 MRTT After Ending Six Year Old Airbus Deal

10414481_10152793078921181_6153596338710951083_n

16:09 01.08.2016

High costs and pending inquiries against Airbus has forced India to abort a 2 billion dollar deal with Airbus. Sources say a contract for Russian Ilyusin-78 (IL-78) aircraft is likely to be signed by October of this year.

India has terminated the a 2 billion dollar contract for six multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) aircraft with Airbus Defense and Space. This comes as no surprise for observers as the deal was troubled by objections over its high costs. Many officials were also skeptical considering protracted inquiries against the European consortium in India dating back to the 1970’s.

India’s Ministry of Defense had shortlisted six Airbus A330 MRTT for the Indian Air Force following a RFP issued six years ago. According to highly placed sources, the Finance Ministry was of the opinion that the aircraft were too expensive and asked the Defense Ministry to look for cheaper options. A new RFP was released, following which the budget was increased to $2 billion and included lifecycle costs in the price arguing that the Airbus plane would work out cheaper in the long term over its Russian competitor if lifecycle costs were to be considered.

Meanwhile, a Member of Parliament wrote to the Defense Ministry against the deal, as a result of which the case was sent to the Law Ministry for an opinion. In April 2015, the Government referred the deal to the Defense Ministry’s Vigilance Department for clearance after ascertaining the status of the old cases against the consortium. However, it was found that only one such case against the consortium had been closed due to lack of evidence and that the other inquiries were pending.

This is the second MRTT aircraft global tender to be cancelled by the Ministry of Defense since 2006.

According to sources, India is now considering procurement of the four-engine Russian Ilyusin-78 aircraft which was rejected in favor of the two-engine Airbus-330 MRTT. Highly placed sources said the Ministry of Defense is likely to sign a contract with the Russian company by the end of October this year, under which upgrades of already operating IL-78MKI will be included as well.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) already operates several Il-78MKI tankers delivered in 2003-2006. Sources said that six IL-78MKI will be upgraded to the IL-78MKI-90 MRTT standard while another IL-76MD transport aircraft will be converted into an IL-78MKI-90. The Ministry of Defense also wants to upgrade IL-76MDs to the IL-76MD-90 standard, which is likely to be part of the yet to be signed contract.

Original post @sputniknews.com

****-END-****

India planning direct purchase of six refueling jets

refuling-jet-content

“As was earlier reported by TOI, the two-engine A-330 MRTT was twice selected over the four-engine Russian IL-78 in technical and commercial evaluation over the last decade. But there were “concerns” over the life cycle cost (LCC) methodology used in selecting A-330 MRTT over the IL-78. The LCC basically identifies “total cost of ownership” of an aircraft or other equipment through its entire operational life of 25-30 years. “With oil prices drastically dropping, Russia was contesting the LCC model used to select A-330 MRTT over the IL-78 (guzzles more fuel with four engines but cheaper off-theshelf). There were finance ministry’s objections and other problems,” said a source.”

The Economic Times

Read full article: Here

Ilyusin-78

082_0566w5

IL-78 is designed on the basis of Il-76MD is intended for refueling in flight distance and frontline aircraft day and night in clear weather conditions in order to increase their range. IL-78 can be used to transport fuel to the airfield maneuver and refueling of aircraft on the ground.

The cargo cabin two fuel tanks installed. Using three ORM consoles installed under the wing and fuselage tail section is provided as the fuel transfer tanks from the fuselage and from the tanks in the wing box.

If necessary, the aircraft under operating conditions can be converted into a transport for the transportation of personnel, equipment and cargo, transfer of patients.

  • MAXIMUM THRUST (ISA, H = 0)

    4h12000KGF

another figure

Main Specifications

Geometric characteristics
Length m 46.6
Height, m 14.76
Wingspan, m 50.5
Wing area (trapezoid), m² 300
The diameter of the fuselage, m 4.8
The characteristics of the power plant
Number x Motor type 4hTRDD
Engine D-30KP Ser. 2
Maximum thrust (ISA, H = 0), kgf 12000
Mass Properties
Maximum take-off weight, t 190
The capacity of the fuel tanks, l 109 500 Wing
36 000 fuselage tanks
The transferred fuel (take off from the runway)
Frontier refueling 1000 km, ie, 69.2
Frontier refueling 2000 km, ie, 50
Frontier refueling 3500 km, 20.7
Aircraft performance
Cruising speed, km / h 750 (440-600 during refueling)
Maximum flight height, m 12100
Takeoff run, m 1700
The path length, m 930
Number of places
Crew. 6
Specified life
Calendar, years 35
Number of flights 6000
The number of flight hours, hours 8000

Source @ilyushin.org

Ilyushin IL-76MD-90A (IL-476): Details

A330-200 (MRTT): Details

a330mrtt_refuelling-pods-ejected.jpg

World order in 2035: US could lose ability for global dominance, DoD paper says

 

Published time: 30 Jul, 2016 14:30

By 2035, the US could find itself in an environment where Russia or China may match or even exceed the West’s military and economic might in some areas, taking advantage of a “disordered and contested world,” the Pentagon’s research unit said.

In just 20 years, the US and its allies will live in a world where shaping a global order the way they have since the end of the Cold War would be increasingly difficult, if not impossible, Pentagon’s research division, the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), warned in a new foresight report.

“The future world order will see a number of states with the political will, economic capacity, and military capabilities to compel change at the expense of others,” reads the paper entitled “The Joint Force in a Contested and Disordered World.” 

“Rising powers including for example, China, Russia, India, Iran, or Brazil have increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with their roles, access, and authorities within the current international system,” it states.

“Russia will modernize its land, air, and sea-based intercontinental nuclear forces” and make use of deterrent operations such as “snap nuclear exercises, bomber flights, and strategic reconnaissance overflights into US territory,” the Pentagon’s researchers predict.

The report admits Russia and China are among countries dissatisfied “with the current Western-derived notion of international order.”

Russia, China, India, and others, labeled “revisionist states” in the report, would promote alternate international alliances, while the West’s shrinking resources would also have an impact on Washington’s dominance across the globe.

“Although seemingly insignificant today, organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union could grow as China, Russia, India, and others turn to these multinational groups to reorder international rules in their favor.”

“Demographic and fiscal pressures will continue to challenge NATO’s capacity and capability,” the paper warns. “In Asia, perceptions of reduced US commitment may encourage current allies and partners to pursue unilateral military modernization efforts or explore alternative alliances and partnerships.”

However, though the Pentagon’s report states that “no power or coalition of powers has yet emerged to openly oppose US global influence and reach,” it claims “the United States will operate in a world in which its overall economic and military power, and that of its allies and partners, may not grow as quickly as potential competitors.”

A number of states “can generate military advantages locally in ways that match or even exceed that of the Joint Force and its partners,” while American technological superiority “will be met by asymmetric, unconventional, and hybrid responses from adversaries.”

Offering a vision of the world in 2035, the paper says in conclusion it is unclear if the US “can be simultaneously proficient at addressing contested norms and persistent disorder with currently projected capabilities, operational approaches, and fiscal resources.”

“There may be times when it is more appropriate to manage global security problems as opposed to undertaking expensive efforts to comprehensively solve them.”

Moscow has repeatedly denied allegations of it harboring global ambitions as opposed to that of the US.

Russia “is not aspiring for hegemony or any ephemeral status of a superpower,” President Vladimir Putin said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum last year, adding: “We do not act aggressively. We have started to defend our interests more persistently and consistently.”

Earlier this year, Russia adopted a new edition of its foreign policy doctrine, which mentions a shift towards a multipolar and a “polycentric” world.

“A transition to polycentric architecture should be ideally based on the interaction of leading centers of power,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in April. He added however, that he was not sure if that was achievable.

Original post rt.com

The Joint Force in a Contested and Disordered World PDF: Here

****-END-****

Related post:

China to have ‘world’s largest navy’ by 2020, says report

Will Japan Become The Next Big Military Superpower?

America’s rising danger of imperial overstretch

How China Is Building the Biggest Commercial-Military Empire in History

Future Superpowers – The World To 2100

This in about Futurism, and tagged , , was written by onJune 27, 2011 .

future-superpowers1.png

Most projections of future trends in national power fail to appreciate the importance of three crucial factors: (1) the declining EROEI of energy resources (including, but not limited to, “peak oil”); (2) the importance of human capital to economic growth, especially in developing countries’ attempts to “catch up” to the advanced world; and (3) the impacts of climate change, which are projected to be more and more catastrophic with every passing year. Disregarding these trends produces predictions such as George Friedman’s (STRATFOR) argument that Mexico – a low human capital country experiencing plummeting oil production and growing water stress – will become a superpower by 2100.

Using my current estimates of Comprehensive National Power as a base (an index of power that attempts to express a nation’s economic, military, and cultural power in a single number), I will specially stress the above factors in my analysis of future global power trends. Some results will look plausible and familiar (e.g. Chinaovertaking the US as a superpower by the 2020’s); others will appear utterly bizarre (e.g. Canada becoming a major Great Power in by the end of the century, while India and Brazil plummet back into obscurity). But they are nonetheless all plausible and even likely outcomes, derived from bringing together worlds that all too often are considered independently of each other: the economy; human capital; geopolitics; energetics; and climate change.

There may of course be unexpected discontinuities – popularized as Black Swans by Nassim Taleb – that unravel these projections (the probability of their happening increasing exponentially over time). This will be covered in greater depth below. In the meantime, bear this caveat in mind as you read the rest of the post.

comprehensive-national-power1.png[Graph shows CNP of the greatest Powers 1980-2100; the “superpower” is always at 100 and all other Great Powers are shown relative to it. Click to enlarge.]

Phase 1: The End of Pax Americana (1980-2025)

The US is the current superpower, but China is rapidly making up ground. Its real GDP is now at $10 trillion, though according to some estimates it has already overtaken the $14.5 trillion American economy.

Some critics claim that nominal GDP is a better measure of power, even using these figures to claim that even at 10% growth it will be decades before China surpasses the US. This is a product of economic illiteracy, because it doesn’t take into account the convergence of Chinese price levels to those of developed countries (its nominal GDP has been expanding at more than 20% in the last 5 years).

There are a number of other factors that are often quoted to predict the doom of China’s rise, such as: (1) Growing regional disparities; (2) Income inequality; (3) Environmental degradation; (4) Bad loans and financial collapse, aka Japan; (5) Aging population; (6) Excessive export dependency; (7) Social unrest; (8) Authoritarian nature of its Marxist-Leninist political model.

Suffice to say that they are either common to most industrializing countries (1-3, 7); will only seriously affect it by the time its already developed (4-5); are overestimated (4, 6); or it is unclear why they should derail its economic ascent for long even if they lead to a democratizing revolution (7-8). I address all these points in detail here.

In any case, most of these are factors have yet to be realized, whereas many of the same trends undermining US power are already in evidence. You can point out the accumulating weight of China’s bad loans, but it is the Western financial system that had to be bailed out in 2008 at social expense; you can argue that the aging of China’s population will bankrupt its (minimal) social net, but it is the US that is facing a budget deficit of >10% of GDP and a national debt soaring into the stratosphere.

China is already the world’s largest manufacturing power. On current trends, it is due to overtake the US economy by the mid-2010’s (followed in nominal terms sometime in the 2020’s, as restrictions on the yuan are lifted and it appreciates). Since China produces its own military hardware, real GDP is what matters; consequently, it will take less relative effort for the PLA to match and overtake the US (especially in the crucial East Asian region and the Indian Ocean). As Paul Kennedy noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (of which, incidentally, the Chinese are great fans) military and political power follows naturally in the wake of economic power, whereas trying to achieve results from the opposite directions leads to the “imperial overstretch” that contributed to Soviet collapse and is now undermining American power.

Which brings us to the last point. China’s population is four times bigger than America’s, and human capital among the youngest generations is now as good as the US average. This makes its per capita convergence – and consequently, its ascent to economic primacy – almost inevitable.

But rather than assessing the situation dispassionately and preparing for a strategic retreat, the US is digging in all fronts: foreign wars, deficit spending, oil dependence, political gridlock, etc. This increases the probability that US decline will take the form of a sudden collapse, as of Argentina’s in 1999-2002, instead of fading away like the British Empire after 1945.

Phase 2: The Return of the Middle Kingdom (2020-2075)

The cultural decline will be slower. It took Latin more than a millennium after the collapse of the Roman Empire to lose its status as a lingua franca. Needless to say, the US will still retain a great deal of power by virtue of its large population and developed economy, it will remain in second place, almost no matter what, well into the 21st century. Furthermore, it will retain its deep ties – economic, cultural, etc. – with the Anglo-Saxon world (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and, to a lesser extent, Europe. Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and the Ivy League will remain staples of global culture and technology.

However, there’s only so much power you can exercise through the English language, Google, or even Chuck Norris. For everything else there’s China – after a two hundred year break (a mere blip in its millennial history), the Middle Kingdom will have returned to its rightful place at the center of the world.

China is now roughly where South Korea was in 1990. A similar growth profile will by 2030 leave its economic power equal to 25 of today’s Koreas. Imagine that!

It’s unclear what political system China will have by then. Democratization on the Taiwanese model is not inevitable. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has studied the Soviet collapse in rigorous detail and is determined not to repeat its liberalizing mistakes. What I consider at least equally likely is an emergence of a “consultative Leninism”, in which the current NEPist model is opened up to democratic elements (e.g. competitive local elections; policy-making based on opinion polling) but under the continuing hegemony of the CCP. This could be China’s own, sovereign road to democracy.

Other possibilities are also possible, e.g. a Singaporean authoritarianism, or “managed democracy” in the style of Putin’s Russia. But short of a reversion to Maoism – which is exceedingly unlikely, given that China now has a commercial class that would strongly oppose it – it’s unclear how the widespread mantra that political change must be accompanied by a cessation of economic growth can be justified.

China’s rise will be accompanied by the flock of BRIC’s trailing in its wake: Brazil, Russia, and India. The first two will enjoy a massive resource windfall from selling their plentiful energy, mineral, and water (in the form of food) reserves to a world made increasingly ravenous by depletion elsewhere and the effects of an increasingly destructive and chaotic climate. Russia will remain a first-class Great Power, and India will join its ranks; Brazil will be the most prominent of the second-class powers, which will also include France, Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK, Turkey, and Korea.

As with China, there are many reasons cited to explain for why Russia will fail to achieve its promise, such as (1) demographic decline; (2) corruption; (3) resource-based economy; (4) crumbling infrastructure; (5) authoritarianism. All these factors are either exaggerated (1-5), typical of most middle-income countries (2, 4), or it is unclear why they are necessarily negatives at all (3, 5). But it also has great strengths. Russia combines the BRIC’s fiscal sturdiness and economic dynamism(both lacking in the West) with a GDP per capita that is almost twice that of the next richest BRIC, Brazil. Its human capital is on a par with the developed world’s,allowing for an easy convergence. Crucially, Russia is perfectly positioned for the coming age of “scarcity industrialism”, in which food, energy, and energy prices soar and global warming opens up vast regions of the country, including the Arctic, to shipping, energy production, agriculture, and habitation. Even at current growth rates of 4% per year, Russia should converge to European income levels by 2020-25 and spend the next few decades comfortably, its energy riches shielded by its nuclear umbrella.

Obviously Russia lacks the population mass, at least at this stage, to become a true superpower (even if it absorbs the other post-Soviet nations into a Eurasian union). This is not the case for India, which will overtake China to become the world’s most populous nation by 2025. But within that fast-growing population illiteracy is still rife and 47% of children remain malnourished. Though it suffers from many the usual ailments of low-income countries – creaky infrastructure, caste-based inequalities, sluggish courts and bureaucracy, etc. – it’s India’s low level of human capital that is the primary cause of its falling so far behind China (manufacturing output is an order of magnitude lower, and the poorest Chinese provinces are equal to the Indian average). Nonetheless, India has the coal to power itself, and temperatures will remain within acceptable bounds for producing stagnant grain harvests for at least the next few decades. And quantity counts. That is why India will become a first-rank Great Power, equaling Russia and approaching the US.

With its ample lands and resources (e.g. iron, oil), not to mention its successes with sugar cane-derived ethanol, Brazil is set to enjoy – much like Russia – a comfortable existence as a regional hegemon in a world of high prices for food, energy and minerals. Its military strength is paltry, but irrelevant given its distance from other Great Powers. It is also the least corrupt of the BRIC’s. However, its prospects for true superpowerdom are constrained by relatively low human capital; as its economy wasn’t distorted by a legacy of socialist mismanagement (as with China or Russia), its GDP per capita is already, more or less, “where it should be.” In the background, Canada will be getting very rich off supplying fuels and water to an increasingly parched and energy-starved US. However, for the time being its profile will remain modest.

The European Union is conspicuous by its absence. Europe is no longer united by the memory of war and the Soviet threat, and each country concerned above all for its own national interests. This is not a stable foundation for a union, and as such it will likely retreat into something like a glorified free trade area by the 2020’s. Real power will be concentrated among the big European Powers, which will carve out spheres of influence and compete with each other for neo-colonial influence: e.g. France (Maghreb); Germany (East-Central Europe); Turkey (Balkans, Azerbaijan, Arab world); the Scandinavian bloc; the Visegrad bloc. Arguably there is already evidence of this in the Anglo-French effort to oust Qaddafi. Read more here.

No European Power will have the mass to become a first-rank Great Power, though it may be (marginally) possible for France and definitely possible for coalitions of European Powers. By themselves, all the European nations will be lingering near the bottom of the CNP scale.

There is no point discussing any other country or alliance. NATO is becoming more irrelevant with each passing year. Japan is technologically advanced, but reliant on the US for its security and dependent on the same oceanic supply routes as China; as soon as the latter becomes the new regional hegemon, Japan’s effective sovereignty is history. Indonesia is similar India, but five times smaller. South Africa, Mexico, Australia, Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are all some combination of (1) too underpopulated, (2) too underdeveloped, and (3) too vulnerable to climate change.

Read rest of article: Here

Emerging Foreign Economies

The BRIC Emerging Economies

While economists consider the G8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the US, plus the European Union) to be the most prominent economies, they also recognize certain emerging economies, collectively called the BRIC, as major upcoming market players.

The BRIC economies include the rapidly growing and emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China.  The BRIC have accomplished phenomenal growth since embracing the path of global capitalism and are now predicted to be on the forefront of the world’s list of leading economies.  China is already the world’s second largest economy on the basis of purchasing power parity (PPP).

While the average wealth levels of individuals in developed economies will continue to surpass that of the BRIC economies in per person wealth, there will be an incremental increase in the already growing middle class population of the BRIC economies.  Assuming that the governments of these nations continue to implement growth supportive policies, India and China will be seen to take the roles of dominant suppliers of manufactured goods and services, while Brazil and Russia may become dominant suppliers of raw materials.

Read rest of the paper assembly.ca.gov

China to lead the world’s economy by 2026

27th July 2015

China is set to edge ahead of the US in just over a decade, while India is expected to move up the rankings to third place – pushing Japan out of the world’s top three economies.

127-china-india-usa-future-2026-2050-timeline.jpg

China is expected to overtake the US in 2026 in nominal GDP terms to become the world’s largest economy, and will maintain this position until at least 2050 according to The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

In a new report, Long-term macroeconomic forecasts: Key Trends to 2050, which extends the EIU’s economic forecast for 82 countries up to 2050, emerging markets are expected to grow faster than developed economies, and as a result countries such as China and India are likely to overtake current global leaders such as Japan and Western Europe.

The report finds that:

• China is expected to narrowly edge ahead of the US for the first time in 2026, with a nominal GDP of US$28.6trn versus the US’s US$28.3trn.
• By 2050, China will boast a GDP of US$105.9trn, compared with the US’s US$70.9trn.
• The UK will fall out of the world’s top 5 economies by 2026.
• Indonesia and Mexico will rank among the top ten economies at market exchange rates by 2050, overtaking economies such as Italy and Russia.
• Asia will continue its rise and by 2050 will represent 53% of global GDP, compared with from 32% in 2014.

128-china-india-usa-future-2026-2050-timeline.jpg

Yet in terms of individual spending power, today’s advanced economies are likely to continue to dominate. Emerging economies such as China, India and Indonesia are projected to see levels of consumer spending to rise significantly by 2050, but at best will represent 50% of the individual spending power of an American consumer. Despite their low growth outlook, advanced economies cannot be ignored, as the spending power of consumers in these regions will remain significantly higher.

Patricia Morton, Lead Economist at The Economist Intelligence Unit, comments: “Given China’s and India’s economic might, they will take on a much bigger role in addressing global issues such as climate change, international security and global economic governance. In the medium term, this will require the world’s existing powers – notably the US – to let India, and especially China, play a greater role on the world stage and adapt international institutions to allow them to exert greater influence.”

Original post futuretimeline.net

626.jpg

 

Buying American Blades

outlook_logo.jpg

HAL’s Make in India prowess is ignored; Boeing to supply assault helicopters

USHINOR MAJUMDAR

On the eve of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second trip to the US as PM in September last year, the Cabinet Committee on Security cleared the proposal to purchase 22 ‘assault helicopters’, or helicopter gunships, from Boeing for the Indian air force and the army. The decision had come as a surprise to experts then, for Boeing was offering a version of the Apache by way of direct sale. Moreover, this flew in the face of the Make In India policy.

Public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has been manufacturing Light Combat Helicopters (LCH) and Light Utility Helicopters (LUH) for the army. Independent experts like Ashok Parthasarathy, former scientific and technology advisor to Indira Gandhi, felt HAL had the capacity to deliver assault helicopters to the IAF, but was ignored. Parthasarathy told Outlook that he had raised the issue in 2014 and 2015 “at the highest levels” of the Ministry of Def­ence. The state-owned aircraft manufacturer HAL’s proposal, he recalls, was received with great enthusiasm but was discarded for reasons he fails to fathom.

“HAL has considerable local, technological and industrial base in the area of des­igning and manufacturing helicopters,” says Parthasarathy. HAL, he points out, has designed, developed and prototyped the Tejas, India’s own Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The IAF has placed an order for 140 Tejas fighter jets.

The Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) of India’s latest report, however, records how HAL’s delivery of indigenously-made helicopters flopped, with the Army discarding all 17 helicopters delivered to it.

Around the time the Apache sales were cle­­ared, the government cleared a $400 million deal with Israel to purchase ‘Heron’ unmanned attack drones. This was while HAL was developing the Rustom-II, an attack drone of similar class.

1469703177.jpg

Following the deal, Boeing decl­ared it would manufacture the chopper’s fuselage in Hyderabad in partnership with the Tata group. Soon afterwards, the government followed this by easing FDI norms in the defence sector, but without mention of technology transfer. India being a top defence importer, the government has maintained that its intent was to promote indigenous manufacture with transfer of technology. Most of its executive decisions, however, seem to contradict this.

The question raised is why the Ministry of Defence bypassed the Make in India programme and decided to imp­ort the expensive hardware, rather than involve HAL and ensure transfer of technology.

The IAF required ‘gunships’ or assault helicopters to replace its aging Russian-made Mi-25 and Mi-35 choppers. It wanted 22 gunships and about nine heavy lift choppers. In 2008, the UPA-1 government floated a tender for the choppers and six companies placed bids. The deal was valued at around $1 billion. The tender was dropped after Boeing and Bell pulled out in 2009 and  was re-issued later that year. Eurocopter, Augusta Westland and Sikorsky also opted out for various reasons.

In 2014, the government had a choice between Boeing, for its Apache A64D, an earlier version of which had first been used in Vietnam, and Mil’s Mi-28. The Boeing aircraft had been first tested during the ’70s and the Russian chopper a decade later. Some considered the Russian chopper to be superior in many ways and dismissed the Apache as a relic of the Vietnam War and the 1991 Iraq conflict.

The IAF and the MoD chose Boeing’s Apache for a direct procurement of 22 cho­ppers. The view was that the Mi-28 lacked sufficient manoeuverability and it didn’t make the cut during trials. The direct military sale reportedly included no plans for manufacture, assembly or transfer of technology. It would also mean that the IAF would be dependent on Boeing for spares.

The issue of spares often plagues defence procurements. Priced much lower at first, prices for the spares are raised by 200-500 per cent once the procurement is made. Locating spares is another task—Indian agencies often have had to employ middlemen to locate and app­roach spares manufacturers.

The army’s army aviation corps had also demanded 39 similar assault choppers. However, no separate tender was issued for additional requirements and the government placed an order with Boeing on the same terms and conditions. That means an order for around 60 choppers through direct import, without any local manufacture, assembly or transfer of technology.

Parthasarthy claims that once he learnt of plans to import the large number of military choppers, he app­roached the then HAL chairman to ask if they could manufacture or at least assemble the helicopters here. HAL was already developing its light combat helicopters.

“HAL put together a proposal and I app­roached the MoD at its highest levels. This was around late 2014 or early 2015 and it fell in line with the government’s Make in India policy,” says Parthasarathy. “At the time, the decision for the 22 helicopters for the air force was still pending and the MoD promised to combine the air force and army orders. That would allow HAL to manufacture the 61 helicopters,” explains Parthasarthy.

This would have allowed HAL to build helicopters, get the technology and also be self-reliant on spares. But despite having given the impression that it was favourably disposed towards HAL, the ministry placed the order with Boeing for supplying the choppers between 2017 and 2020. MoD and Boeing did not respond to Outlook’s queries.

Advertisement An editorial in the July 15 issue of the Economic and Political Weekly notes how essays written by experts at Western defence thinktanks promote defence procurements to keep up with China and Pakistan, but exhort India to be “realistic about its domestic capacity to manufacture sophisticated combat aircraft”. The comment appears unc­omfortably close, say defence experts, to considerations driving defence procurements that turn the government’s own initiatives into mere ‘jumla’.

READ MORE IN:

TAGS: DEFENCE
SECTION: NATIONAL
OUTLOOK: 08 AUGUST, 2016
Original post @outlookindia.com

****-END-****

So where is the “Made in India” thing going?

SAM from Israel and attack helicopter from US!

BTW “Apache A64D” were not produced yet during the Vietnam war!

Than I wonder why Egypt chose the Mi-28 over the Apache?  

Related post:

TATA-Boeing to make fuselage for Apache H’copter in India

Longbow to equip India’s AH-64E Apache helicopters with Fire Control Radar Systems

Apache AH-64: DetailsAH-64E 20 Feb 2015.jpg

HAL Light Combat Helicopter: Detailstumblr_nk4r3kXSBV1tjfjuco6_1280.png