Am just amazed this print article made it to print. The dude is all over the place, asking the whole world "sir, sir what in your view constitutes indigenization". We have anonymous folks, academics, others all weighing in. Nothing, literally from, what we've achieved.
India actually defines indigenization quite comprehensively, by both value, by LRU count. A platform may be 35% indigenous by value and then 60% indigenous by LRU. What this means is while we've done a fair bit on the number of parts, the cost per imported part is high.
This automatically triggers the Indian establishment, to seek further indigenization. That's the logic. In some cases, we've had to import some parts because of the the licensing deal, like ATGMs licensed, where Indian industry can provide almost everything yet must import parts.
Then there is subcomponent level indigenization which goes beyond line replaceable units/ LRUs to actual components. This is again a herculean task and has to be prioritised. For instance, you shouldn't indigenize all items which are available off the shelf. Only specific ones.
So this is why Indian programs indigenize at the design level first & then move carefully down to the LRU le el, and then even subsystem level, prioritising by both part numbers and costs of the overall program itself.
Then we have entire policies around resign and develop vs licensed production in India built around these concepts. Quite comprehensive in fact. Far more well thought out then what academics in UK etc think and state. It's a work of decades to do what we've done.
No offence to the reporter, he meant well perhaps, and was just looking for opinions, but what kind of stuff is print printing if it can't even address the depth of what India has achieved.
Loading suggestions...