No, it is not stealing. It is patent infringement. It is not like the Soviets did not do it either in their time. Like with the Nene jet engine or the B-29. But in the modern globalized trade regime doing something like that is typically frowned upon. If you are causing the original designers of the product to lose revenue, don't expect them to have as much good will to trade with you in the future. China has only been able to negotiate with Russia to the degree they have because of Russian economic weakness. Otherwise something quite different might have happened. Still you see Russia doing deals like sharing nuclear submarine technology with India to a degree they have not with China. I would not be surprised if that was one of the reasons. Also AFAIK most of the technological help the Chinese have had in the last decade came from Ukraine. But now that it is increasingly falling into the USA sphere of influence, and Ukrainian technology is becoming increasingly obsolete since they had little funding to continue tech development, so expect that well to run dry.
Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
No, it is not stealing. It is patent infringement. It is not like the Soviets did not do it either in their time. Like with the Nene jet engine or the B-29. But in the modern globalized trade regime doing something like that is typically frowned upon. If you are causing the original designers of the product to lose revenue, don't expect them to have as much good will to trade with you in the future. China has only been able to negotiate with Russia to the degree they have because of Russian economic weakness. Otherwise something quite different might have happened. Still you see Russia doing deals like sharing nuclear submarine technology with India to a degree they have not with China. I would not be surprised if that was one of the reasons. Also AFAIK most of the technological help the Chinese have had in the last decade came from Ukraine. But now that it is increasingly falling into the USA sphere of influence, and Ukrainian technology is becoming increasingly obsolete since they had little funding to continue tech development, so expect that well to run dry.
MwRYum
Major
One need to take note of the context and timeframe when China made those deals with Russia, compare with that when India made their deals with Russia.
The thing about China being so adamant in securing the tech by whatever means necessary is because they got burned too many times in the past, when played nice and by the rules but the counterpart pulled out at the most critical phase, leaving China with at best some reference sample and incomplete schematics, or nothing in the most typical of days.
India, on the other hand, had none of China's disadvantage, but when it was China that turned out came ahead puzzles me. Logics dictates it should be India came ahead instead.
On the other hand, you mentioned Ukraine...Ukraine has been for decades selling off their ex-USSR legacies piecemeal, and by now they've sold away pretty much everything of value.
China's lead over India is a direct result of organisational superiority. Thankfully China seems to have formed a more coherent strategy to deal with the whole "catching up" business. Authoritarianism doesn't always allow for greater focus and superior organisation but in China's case, it would appear the issue was completed with relative success. Perhaps the whole thing could have been done even faster with less violence and outside antagonism if the Communists didn't win the civil war but that's irrelevant to technology acquisition "by any means" because all peoples, nations, and political groups have in the past used various means to steal and learn technology. For God's sake everyone uses paper and Hindu numbers don't they? The Western empires dominated and looted the world using gunpowder did they not? The architectural and engineering theory that provided for the basic infrastructure that allowed for the development of those empires were all completed copied/ learned from the North Africans, Arabs, and Hindus too.
This whole "copying" thing is tiring now. Resorting to proclaiming China's success is from copying and stealing tech is genuinely the excuse of the sore loser. For ALL cultures became great from some lesser state. And all lesser states became greater by learning. The process itself is where the detail is. All of us at some stage of life was "smarter" than a 10 year old Einstein. And if reverse engineering was easy, how come only a few nations have proven capable of it? USA did it, Japan did it, South Korea did it, Soviets did it A LOT... etc.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
More favorable terms only really mean something if you can actually capitalize on it. As other posters has pointed out, India suffers from a bureaucratic redtape nightmare. Also it's domestic industry is not geared towards one of heavy industry (its main industry is software and the service sector) making the production of serious military hardware difficult.
And on a final note, just because India may get more favourable terms compared to China does not mean that the supplier will be prepared to sell lock, stock and barrel to it. We have no idea what the details of said transfer of technologies really are. And in many cases, patent and copyright issues may prevent India from getting the really valuable techs. This is not yet including India's propensity to sometimes demand unrealistic terms, like the Rafael issue where India demanded that France not only guarantee the quality of units produced in France, but also those built domestically in India itself. No supplier could have agreed to such disadvantageous terms.
So unless India is prepared to do what China did and blatantly copied everything with a straight face, I highly doubt they can make the same headway like China in the same time frame.
Skywatcher
Captain
You also need to accept a lot of inferior domestic copies and reverse engineered systems, at least for a couple of product generations, so your domestic industry gets the institutional experience to stand on its own two feet. Unfortunately for the Indians, doesn't seem like New Delhi are willing to accept higher domestic content Tejas and Arjuns, for example, if they have lower performance.
If there will be a domestic missile entering service, it will only be first integrated with other more indigenous platforms like the Tejas or the Su-30MKI. Trying to get it work with Rafale will be a difficult task so in other words, if they want a working longer-range AAM for Indian Rafales, the Meteor is a much viable (and possibly only) option.
I think the Meteor would be a great BVRAAM option for the Indian air force.
Same reason why I think they should go with the Grippen E for the low weight fighter.
It can also use the Meteor and has an advanced sensor suite.
Not to mention they supposedly already have the infrastructure for the engine on that.
So it would be rather trivial to adapt their manufacturing infrastructure for it. I think.
Same reason why I think they should go with the Grippen E for the low weight fighter.
It can also use the Meteor and has an advanced sensor suite.
Not to mention they supposedly already have the infrastructure for the engine on that.
So it would be rather trivial to adapt their manufacturing infrastructure for it. I think.