 Welcome to NewsClick, amidst all the pomp and show of the 71st Republic Day Parade where Indian military displayed its firepower and its arsenal, what stuck out or rather what what disturbed one was the fact that more than 70% of the weapons on display were of foreign make. So 71 years since we became a republic we are still grappling with a major issue that we might appear to be a leading or a major military power but actually it may not be a true depiction of the reality because our dependence on foreign manufacturers, our dependence on foreign technology or dependence on foreign capital makes our position as a leading power or something of a suspect. But there are many issues related to it and once again as we come close to the annual budget it is time for us to take a quick look at some of the major developments that have taken place. We have with us Dira Gunandan, member of Delhi Science Forum and a defense analyst to take us once again through the zig-zags of our military acquisition procurement policies. Welcome to NewsClick, Raghu. Let me start. It struck me as rather once again that most of the weapons that we were being shown on the Republic Day were of foreign make. Now that itself should not be a surprise except we have in the last six years been trying for what is called make in India policy and thought that in the last six years maybe there have been some developments, something to show that we are gradually moving away from our dependence on foreign technology. Raghu, just as an overall impression of yours, what do you think? How do you react to this? See, we have gone through several years of modification a decade or more of the defense procurement policy and recently a new category has been introduced which is of indigenous design development and made, manufacture, which is supposed to be given top priority. That is, once you identify a piece of equipment then if you go down the priority list, indigenous designed and manufactured weapons should come first and then you go lower down transfer of technology, license production, outright import, etc. However in practice, I think on the political side there is a very clear preference for dealing with foreign OEMs with partnerships of foreign OEMs with domestic private sector manufacturers coming next in priority. Unfortunately, a fairly substantial section of the armed forces also goes along with this and as you know, this section of the armed forces has never had faith in indigenously made equipment. They think it takes too long for indigenous development to take place and that in any case it will end up being inferior to what you can buy from the West. So, that strand is also continuing to function. However, I am increasingly seeing some straws in the wind where it looks as if some sections of the military and some sections of this wider strategic community are beginning to realize the perils of over dependence on foreign OEMs. Particularly because as I am sure we will discuss domestic manufacture in collaboration between Indian private sector and foreign OEMs is also a path which is totally dependent on the foreign OEMs. What I find surprising and a welcome shift is precisely in the kind of language that we are hearing for the first time. After hearing how HAL, the public sector, Hindustan aeronautics limited or the ordinance factories were damned, maligned, I thought, run down for all kind of reasons where the question their capability and etc. You seem to be hearing from now the new lot of armed forces commanders a different language. For instance, the Indian Air Force chief came out and said that he believed in indigenous and now the Air Force, for instance, for the advanced multi role combat aircraft, they have said that they are going to add a clause which insists that the engine which is put on the AMCA would be of local origin. So, the first two squadrons will use an advanced version of GE-414 engine of American make. Hopefully, the rest of them would be local manufacturers. But the surprising thing is the senior officers of Indian Air Force believe that there are some European companies or countries which would be willing to share engine technology. So, Rabu, my first question to you is how realistic is this? I mean, I welcome this move for insisting on indigenous, local manufactured engine, but how realistic is this? There are two aspects to this. One is dealing with volumes. If you are going to manufacture engines, it can only be done if there is a substantial number of aircraft that you also manufacture. If you take the 36 Rafales that India has ordered, not only does it not make economical sense to manufacture the aircraft, it makes even less economical sense to manufacture engines in such small numbers. So, that's one aspect that needs to be taken into account. The second aspect is if you get collaborators from foreign engine manufacturers who are prepared to collaborate with you in manufacture. India has been doing that for years. In HAL, we have been manufacturing British-made Orpheus engines. We have been manufacturing helicopter engines from Turbomeka and Snecma and so on. We could continue doing that. The point really is for India to be able to develop its own design development capability for aircraft engines. That's a steep mountain to climb and it would be welcome if there is a foreign consultant or manufacturers who are prepared to help you develop that capability through hand-holding during from the design process on till manufacture. I would hold my breath. Yeah, why would they do it? Why would they do it? Precisely. Engine technology, as I've discussed with you before, is the most difficult aspect of aeronautics. Even China, which has advanced rapidly in terms of airframe development in fighter aircraft as well as in civilian passenger aircraft, is still struggling to develop engines, which just goes to show that it's a tough ask and it will require persistence and considerable funding. And unfortunately, the government of India has still now not shown its stamina and courage to deal with long gestation research and development projects, which necessarily will be costly, but which will show its returns over several decades. But it remains to be seen if that can happen. It's welcome that the Air Force has expressed its preference, but if we look at the near to medium term, it is likely to lead to collaboration in manufacture, whether it will lead to collaboration in design development capability remains to be seen. In fact, it's interesting. The recently negotiations took place between India and Russia for purchase of 200 Kamov helicopters, so price negotiations took place for variety of items that would go into making of it. One of the interesting features of the Kamov helicopter, Ragu perfectly well, is that it uses saffron engine. It's a French saffron engine. That's right. Now, which in fact goes to prove the point that you're making. But what is equally interesting is that a consultant appointed by Ministry of Defense recently came out with a statement saying that India should not be purchasing any foreign helicopters because, and particularly with reference to Navy, because he said, you get the Dhruv helicopter, advanced Dhruv helicopter, light helicopter that HAL has manufactured, is quite capable of being used for naval purposes. And instead of buying something foreign, we have something domestic and that should be. Absolutely. I mean, on this there, I have written about this extensively earlier as well. You have an existing platform based on which you can design or in fact, just adapt the naval utility helicopters to make them ship-borne. Particularly, you need to have a foldable rotors because you can imagine in a small constricted space of a ship, if you have helicopters with rotors extending becomes difficult. So, you have foldable rotors and also a foldable tail so that they occupy less space. And HAL is confident that it can develop this from its Dhruv ALH in a matter of two to three years, which even if you contract with a foreign OEM, they are going to take three years to start delivering in any case. But I will add, going back to the Rafale example I was citing, part of the offsets deal there is an investment by Safran of about 7000 crores in assisting with the final stage of development of the indigenous Kaveri engine, which is intended for the AMC for the advanced. So, it remains to be seen how far that gets implemented, whether it goes the distance that India wants because if India plays its cards well, works out a proper deal with Safran, then that could form a platform for future development of other aero engines because if you develop one engine, it gives you the capability of developing a family of engines around that design. So, 7000 crores is not a very large amount, but it's not too small an amount either and something can be done depending on the base from which you are starting. It's interesting what you said initially in your opening comments that you made. You do attention to the fact that strategic partnership where a domestic private manufacturer ties up with a foreign OEM and manufactures goods in India is something seems to be the part that the government is still relying on pushing. That seems to be happening now it seems with the Rs. 45 crores still submarine production, where they have shortlisted two companies. One is Mazagon talks limited and the other is L&D. Now, the interesting thing there Ragu, we talked about it last time also in our program was that Adani defense had suddenly entered the scene and complicated the matters and there was confusion as to how they could enter the picture anyway. Mercifully the Ministry of Defense has sorted that out and have narrowed it down to Mazagon talks limited and L&D. Now, what is your assessment? Do you think Mazagon talks limited which is a public sector unit, would they be preferred over L&D or with the government of India you think in the name of pushing its make in India program and strategic partnership? There are two aspects to this. First is that while L&D is yet to develop or yet to demonstrate its capability of complete submarine manufacture systems integration etc. L&D has considerable expertise in the submarine area and has played a big role in the manufacture of India's indigenous Arihant nuclear powered submarine. Secondly, Mazagon talks has got all the capability but there are doubts about whether it is not overloaded with prior orders. Personally, if you ask me there are several areas of defense equipment manufacture in this country which in which the private sector can play a role either in manufacture of large components, large sub assemblies or even full scale equipment manufacture precisely because HAL has got its orders books fairly full at least now and is relatively up to capacity provided it gets the LCA orders and provided the naval helicopters. In fact, the naval helicopters would come in very handy because HAL is already setting up the come off factory a separate facility for that and it would not be too difficult to add the manufacturing assembly lines for the naval helicopter to that. But there are capacity constraints in the public sector. So, I would not dismiss the idea of involving the private sector to expand capacity provided they have the capability and that is where I think there are in the Indian private sector very very few manufacturers who one can rely on to manufacture whole systems be it land based or ship based. So, it remains to be seen whether that feasibility is there. I would like to add however that till now the major docks in India the ship building yards which are incidentally managed by naval officers have shown extraordinary ability to be able to design and manufacture our own vessels. So, even if we undertake this in collaboration with the foreign manufacturer it would only help in further augmenting this capability. Do you get a feeling I mean as the last question I like to post to you is given this back and forth that has been happening do you get a feeling that we there seems to be a realization that somehow we have to get back to focusing on indigenization. Do you get a feeling that we are headed that way? I am not too sure and the reason why I say that is there is a mistaken assumption that domestic manufacture is equivalent to domestic technological capability. We have been doing domestic manufacture under license for the past 50 to 60 years, but developing indigenous design and development capability is another cup of tea altogether. So, I would go along with the suggestion that you are making provided I see the commitment to developing design development capability and that will involve substantial dedicated long term commitment on the part of the government to defense R and D funding and that has still now not been forthcoming. If you look at even the LCA project while much has been said about the delays etcetera by DRDO the fact also remains that they have been doing this on a shoestring budget and if money comes in driblets to you that is no way to design expensive and high tech military hardware. So, I would reach a conclusion of the kind that you are suggesting only when I seek commitment to defense R and D funding on the part of the government. But it also involves that you create capabilities so that you own and control the technology. That is precisely what I am that is precisely why I am emphasizing the defense R and D expenditure. Because if you enter into license manufacture which goes under the name of technology transfer which it is not. There is really no technology transfer they will always sell you the important hardware which they do not want to part with the technology and then you can assemble the rest of it and make secondary hardware for that. The real test is whether you are able to get the technological capability. I have always believed this is not something you will get through foreign collaboration because why should the collaborator pass on technology to you and cut his own feet because tomorrow they are stopping you from ordering from him. So, this is something you have to do on your own as we have shown in nuclear or in space no collaboration you had provided you with that know how. This is something you had to learn the hard way and we will have to do the same here.