Moslem should behave more confidently as in some high tech product we can actually above Japan or China. CN-235 for instant is better than Japan and China product in this market segment...thats why international market prefers CN 235. Japan until Today doesn't have any confidence to compete with Western aerospace manufacturer for civil segment, compare to Indonesia that has tried to compete with ATR/Boeing/Airbus since we had tried to develop N-250 and N-2130 in 90s...Even though failed to enter market because extra funding for another prototype and FAA certification is denied by government due to IMF requirement during 98-2003.
Thanks to IMF who was eagerly want to shutdown this project while letting many big Indonesian private companies get money from our government, IMF is actually didnt put any money to help us...They just put an account in our Central Bank to convince market that IMF will help if it is needed, yes, there is an account but not fresh money,...)Thanks to ALLAH we have the braveness to kick them out in 2004...now we tries to compete with ATR 72 again with a plane designed much better than N-250 (R-80). And now, even we help financing IMF as European financial crisis happens...
Turbofan is also not a different case, before IMF came, PT DI had already tried to produce its own engine (during 1990s). The first time we need is confidence...it is the ultimate beginning. Cruise Missile is a good start, because military usually will need to stock pile it at least until 1000 units. A joint development for plane turbofan is quite needed..so we can broaden the market. But, in my opinion, for the first step....Cruise missile industry has to be mature in several moslem countries before any collaboration on a bigger turbofan project ever exist.
Bro, you can see here in this thread some Turkish brothers express reservation about religion based grouping, and there are others who are not Muslim majority nations, their opinions matter little in this discussion I believe. I think considering Turkey's delicate relationship with EU and its being a NATO member country, such concerns are understandable. This also means that if NATO dictates some decision to Turkey, they will be obliged to follow that decision. For example they may ask Turkey not to share technology and know-how that they have gained from partnership with Pratt and Whitney subcontracted manufacturing of engine parts and Turkey will have no choice but to follow those decisions, since those partnerships are more valuable to them.
Turkey has one of the best industrial base among Muslim countries, due mainly in part to its strong relationship with EU and NATO (USA) industries, but considering the risk associated with this affiliation, I think Indonesia is a better and safer choice for closer ties in manufacturing and I support putting Turkey on a second level in priority. There is no question of excluding Turkey, hopefully our Turkish brothers do not misunderstand my point, rather putting preference on Indonesia considering the risk factor involved.
As for religion based grouping, human beings need some additional sense of commonality than just our commonality of being human beings, I believe and religion is as good as any other. Religion happens to divide us, why not use the same religion to unite disparate parts of humanity, I see nothing wrong in it, I think it is positive for humanity as a whole, we are not doing something negative after all, rather just helping each other, while there are many who are avoiding us precisely because of our religion.
Lets look at European Union strategy for technological base, which is essentially an ethno-religious club:
European Defence Technological and Industrial Base Strategy
Strategy for the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base
The maintenance of a strong and competitive DTIB in Europe is a fundamental underpinning of the European Security and Defence Policy. A robust European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) is a prerequisite to the European Defence Agency (EDA) achieving its mission: improving the EU’s defence capabilities.
It is this DTIB which supplies the bulk of the equipment our armed forces use. It is also a valuable economic asset. Europe possesses a widely-capable, and in many sectors, world-leading DTIB but we need to ensure that the DTIB is capable of meeting our needs on time, to specification, and to budget.
Change is needed therefore. The essence is to recognise that a fully adequate DTIB is no longer sustainable on a strictly national basis. We need therefore to achieve consolidation on both the demand and supply side of the market. Requirements in Europe have to be aligned, development and production optimised and our various needs will have to be fulfilled by pooling & sharing of equipment. The result is an increasingly integrated European DTIB.
One of EDA’s main roles is to help - within a capability-driven approach – to strengthen the EDTIB. This function was in fact incorporated in the Agency’s founding charter, the 2004 Council Joint Action. The Agency was required to bring forward, in consultation with the European Commission and Industry, as appropriate, relevant policies and strategies to develop the EDTIB in a balanced fashion.
This role has been reaffirmed in the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty recognises the Agency’s role in “identifying and implementing any useful measure for strengthening the industrial and technological base and improving the effectiveness of military expenditure”.
An EDTIB Strategy
The EDTIB challenges are significant, but the Agency has made progress. In its role as catalyst, EDA is helping create a truly European DTIB - one that it is more than a disparate range of national capacities. In May 2007 Member States endorsed the strategy to create a stronger EDTIB, focused on meeting the real operational requirements of the Armed Forces of the future, able to rapidly exploit the most promising technologies and be more competitive both in Europe and around the world. The EDTIB which pMS aspire to have needs to be: capability-driven, competent and globally competitive. Such an EDTIB will need also to be more integrated, less duplicative and more interdependent. Centres of Excellence should generally emerge from a market-driven process.
This EDTIB must also be more closely integrated with the wider, non-defence European technological and industrial base, with less dependence on non-European sources for key defence technologies. This EDTIB is, however, not a “fortress Europe”, excluding imports from, or competition with, overseas suppliers.
The challenge lies in its successful implementation: how can EDA ensure that Europe’s DTIB is maintained, strengthened, developed and its global competitiveness enhanced?
The EDTIB Strategy sets out how we should get from where we are today to where we want to be tomorrow and highlights the critical enablers to help achieve the aspired objectives through:
- clarifying priorities (namely prioritising military capability needs; identifying the key technologies and key industrial capabilities for preservation or development in Europe);
- consolidating demand;
- increasing investments;
- ensuring Security of Supply;
- increasing competition, and co-operation.
In September 2007, the Steering Board approved a series of roadmaps covering a broad range of activities to implement the EDTIB strategy, including identification of key industrial capabilities, security of supply between countries, increased competition in the defence equipment market, deepening and diversifying supplier base, and increased armaments cooperation. The roadmaps lay out the timetables and milestones for each work strand. This work is facilitated by close liaison with the governments and industry. Information on the current status of the different workstrands can be found on the specific webpages.
More information
European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB):
http://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/docum...defence_technological_and_industrial_base.pdf
