Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Dear Leonidas,
It appears that we are at cross-purposes; or are we? Let's try a reality check.
You're saying:
There're a lot of good private sector companies, and they have done a lot of good work in their own sectors, not military, not aerospace. We should encourage them to move into the aerospace sector, and that might help us to bridge the gap. They will probably do more, much more than the public sector has, over the last 60 years, to fill some of the gaps in technology that we have.
If this is correct, please confirm, and I will reply in detail.
If this is not correct, we need to figure out what you are saying that I am not able to get, and move forward from there.
I hope you find this a reasonable suggestion.
Regards,
Ignore the beginning; treat that separately please. with specific reference to your post,
(1) it is hugely incorrect to say that private sector has been ignored; they have chosen to stay out.
(2) those who came in wanted quick and easy pickings, and wanted to invest nothing.
Will you let me quote chapter and verse, as a private sector person watching this unfold, with considerable horror?
Not correct. Two do; I will send you details in PM. No need to be indiscreet.
I want to say that I do not think it pathetic to suggest that the private sector should get involved.
I do think it pathetic that we are under the impression that engine design just takes a little minimal effort, the public sector are not putting in this effort, and the private sector, given reasonable opportunities, will. Nothing personal, please be sure. The impression is pathetic, not the person labouring under the impression.
I do not think it pathetic to suggest that the private sector should get involved in R&D. I've watched them dodge serious issues so blatantly that I am sick of them. I had profit targets too, and didn't think that I would get 3 month ROI.
Sure, a hundred times, of course, right away.
But what makes you think they'll do better? Their past record? Or what? Please specify. I have serious problems with this illusion.
I know it can be tackled. I have specifically tackled the technology issue, not personally, but at management level. But I am also aware of how private sector giants behave in this regard, vis-a-vis profitability competing with technical advancement, and am sceptical.
Would you agree that the Chinese state sector is superb, streets ahead of both our public and our private sectors?
Are you aware that they have been manufacturing military equipment for the last forty years, or more, themselves?
How come they still look around for engines? How come a Russian threat to ban export of Russian-design engines causes such high BP in China and in Pakistan? It shouldn't be an issue; China, after such experience, far exceeding ours, and with such razor-sharp leadership of technology, should be able to substitute this engine within a few days of work.
It is clear that you think that I am an idiot. Sometimes I feel like an idiot myself, particularly when everybody is wildly enthusiastic and I find myself alone in dogged opposition.
The private sector is a hopeless sector, and the less we trust it to carry everything before it, the better. We will not get results, first; the private sector is NOT result oriented where result equates to technology, rather than profitability. Second, you speak of results without lapses. Dear Lord, preserve us.
Let me get your responses first; I am really troubled at the naivete that some of you exude, and this is not intended as sarcasm or as a jibe.
Regards,
It appears that we are at cross-purposes; or are we? Let's try a reality check.
You're saying:
There're a lot of good private sector companies, and they have done a lot of good work in their own sectors, not military, not aerospace. We should encourage them to move into the aerospace sector, and that might help us to bridge the gap. They will probably do more, much more than the public sector has, over the last 60 years, to fill some of the gaps in technology that we have.
If this is correct, please confirm, and I will reply in detail.
If this is not correct, we need to figure out what you are saying that I am not able to get, and move forward from there.
I hope you find this a reasonable suggestion.
Regards,
Joe,
I guess you just got a bit of what my intentions were.
Terrestrial vehicles, our pvt sector companies hardly have any experience and that is what i was pointing in my post. If we would not have ignored them from so long, their R & D and the final output would have been much better then what it is right now.
Ignore the beginning; treat that separately please. with specific reference to your post,
(1) it is hugely incorrect to say that private sector has been ignored; they have chosen to stay out.
(2) those who came in wanted quick and easy pickings, and wanted to invest nothing.
Will you let me quote chapter and verse, as a private sector person watching this unfold, with considerable horror?
Well, i was just naming all our private defence companies & none of them specialize in aviation sector to be particular.
Not correct. Two do; I will send you details in PM. No need to be indiscreet.
The idea of involving the Indian private sector is excellent indeed & i wondered why you called it pathetic to let our private sector get involved in R&D even after being late for so many years.
I want to say that I do not think it pathetic to suggest that the private sector should get involved.
I do think it pathetic that we are under the impression that engine design just takes a little minimal effort, the public sector are not putting in this effort, and the private sector, given reasonable opportunities, will. Nothing personal, please be sure. The impression is pathetic, not the person labouring under the impression.
I do not think it pathetic to suggest that the private sector should get involved in R&D. I've watched them dodge serious issues so blatantly that I am sick of them. I had profit targets too, and didn't think that I would get 3 month ROI.
It has to start one day or the other. The sooner the better, because we cannot afford another 27 year old tejas, 36 years old arjun (after its designing) & a hell loads of missiles & miscellaneous weaponry which might become obsolete by the time they mature to be fit for induction.
Sure, a hundred times, of course, right away.
But what makes you think they'll do better? Their past record? Or what? Please specify. I have serious problems with this illusion.
I know it can be tackled. I have specifically tackled the technology issue, not personally, but at management level. But I am also aware of how private sector giants behave in this regard, vis-a-vis profitability competing with technical advancement, and am sceptical.
Here, in the case of HAL-Snecma too, HAL has been manufaturing helicopters since late 60's & early 70's, its been around 40 years & still not able enough to develop a helicopter engine by its own. Doesn't it causes some concern that something is not good enough somewhere?
Would you agree that the Chinese state sector is superb, streets ahead of both our public and our private sectors?
Are you aware that they have been manufacturing military equipment for the last forty years, or more, themselves?
How come they still look around for engines? How come a Russian threat to ban export of Russian-design engines causes such high BP in China and in Pakistan? It shouldn't be an issue; China, after such experience, far exceeding ours, and with such razor-sharp leadership of technology, should be able to substitute this engine within a few days of work.
Outlandish suggestion, to bring in private sector, really??
Its the matter of our defence & we need results without lapses, for which private sector is the way to go.
Regards
It is clear that you think that I am an idiot. Sometimes I feel like an idiot myself, particularly when everybody is wildly enthusiastic and I find myself alone in dogged opposition.
The private sector is a hopeless sector, and the less we trust it to carry everything before it, the better. We will not get results, first; the private sector is NOT result oriented where result equates to technology, rather than profitability. Second, you speak of results without lapses. Dear Lord, preserve us.
Let me get your responses first; I am really troubled at the naivete that some of you exude, and this is not intended as sarcasm or as a jibe.
Regards,