Countries that have the "know-how", but not the money?

[contedicavour]

100% home made may not save you any money, if that's what you are suggesting. It's not economically efficient as you may not have the critical mass required, instead it's advisable to develop your core competency in critical areas.

Fully agree. By the way, if I may talk economics 2 seconds ...
this fancy idea of producing everything at home is the classical "import substitution fallacy" in international economics. Governments try to kickstart development by building factories to produce anything from cars to steel to chemicals, etc to limit imports. For decades the cost of each car, tonne of steel, litre of chemicals, is several times higher than what the government would have paid for if it had imported it. In the meanwhile the government is short of money to develop education, health, infrastructure (anything from roads to airports), and is forced to tax local activities (agriculture, textile) for projects that have no chance in hell of ever turning a profit.
In a globalized world with decently free trade, the best interest of a country is to develop areas of expertise that will allow it to export its products worldwide, and import the rest. If a poor developing country is better at textiles than MBTs, so be it, sell the textile and import the MBT . If really the government wants to spend on defence, instead of replicating everything, concentrate on something your armed forces may need in sufficiently high quantities to return on investment (even if it's an unsexy copy of the AKs machineguns...)

cheers

 

[vivtho]

I agree with you when you say that a country should focus on core competencies. Personally, I do not think that any government has any business in industries. The free market is the best judge of whether a commodity is cheaper to import or to self-manufacture.

However, while this approach works for consumer goods, it does not apply to military systems. First, because the only customer is the government (in the form of the armed forces, police etc), and second, because military systems are used as bargaining chips by other countries in the interests of diplomacy.

India has been affected by such tactics in the past. Every time India decided to do something in her own interests (and against that of the US), we were 'punished' by sanctions. The most recent example was that of sanctions placed on India after conducting nuclear tests. The list of US sanctions at the time ranged from holding up spare parts for Indian helicopters to holding back the flight-control system for the LCA being co-developed with Lockheed (this was despite India already having paid for it), forcing India to look for other alternatives (like rewriting the entire flight control codes).

The end result of such tactics is that India has decided to be self reliant in defense matters. No doubt that it might be more expensive, however it does not allow any other country to have a say in the matter.

 

[contedicavour]

I agree with you when you say that a country should focus on core competencies. Personally, I do not think that any government has any business in industries. The free market is the best judge of whether a commodity is cheaper to import or to self-manufacture.

However, while this approach works for consumer goods, it does not apply to military systems. First, because the only customer is the government (in the form of the armed forces, police etc), and second, because military systems are used as bargaining chips by other countries in the interests of diplomacy.

India has been affected by such tactics in the past. Every time India decided to do something in her own interests (and against that of the US), we were 'punished' by sanctions. The most recent example was that of sanctions placed on India after conducting nuclear tests. The list of US sanctions at the time ranged from holding up spare parts for Indian helicopters to holding back the flight-control system for the LCA being co-developed with Lockheed (this was despite India already having paid for it), forcing India to look for other alternatives (like rewriting the entire flight control codes).

The end result of such tactics is that India has decided to be self reliant in defense matters. No doubt that it might be more expensive, however it does not allow any other country to have a say in the matter.

You bring up a fair point : monopsony (only 1 customer). Although I'd say that each government is a customer and a competitor, thus re-establishing a minimum of free market
Sanctions because of nuclear programmes or because of other disagreements can impact more than just defence programmes (civilian aerospace, advanced IT, etc). Once a country decides to go against international consensus, virtually any industry could be hurt. Does that mean that in each industry self-reliance becomes a must ? I'm sceptical...

cheers

 

[atilla]

thıs ıs not cooperatıng wıth X or Y ıt ıs cooperatıng of countrıes whıch doesnt have ınterests ın same areas or same goals. lıke for better example lets say brazıl and kazakıstan ıs cooperatıng about space program they dont have same vıtal ınterests about propotıon of hazer natural gas links theır cooperatıon ıs only exchangıng the knowleds and helpıng eachother ın theır tech so ıf any polıtıcal crıses could accur lets say for brasıl there ıs no poınt for kazakıstan to cut the lıne or to stop cooperatıon or to gıve less tech buy. thıs way lıke many countrıes whıch ıs developıng defence ınd. or any other fıeld lıke space can work together when ıt comes to west or USA type cooperatıon thıs type of cooperatıons could lead developıng countrıes def ,or ındus. to dısaster for example Kırmean war and so much could be fınd

why??? because the one who ıs holdıng more knowlede ıs not passıng tech fully free or usıng ıt as a force multıpılıer ın polıtıcs lıke german leo tanks ın south east turkey example ..... or patrıot batalıons whıch was goıng to be send by germany durıng ıraq war and ıf pakıstan ındıa ıran turkey ısrael can start maybe lets say space program wıth out ınreferıng of west or EU thıs even could lead to peace between many states other wıse gun racıng wıll make many US fırms or EU fırms rıch whıle developıng countrıes ıs spendıng too much money on equıpment to buy them from outsıde

When ıt comes to Un sanctıons many of them ı belıve un faır even ınthe example of Iran and we all can see ıran spendıng too much on probably outdated equıpment from russıa thıs could look nıce for rıvals but could turn ın to dıfferent wınd also no one ıs dump ın thıs part of the world

durıng cold war when Us started Marshal plan ın turkey there was an plane factory ın cıty of kayserı producıng realy good planes for that tıme but ıt closed ıt took for us to open TAI more than 50 years and plus US dumped bad equıpment and spare parts expendıture probly cost more then state of art tank u can also contınue ıf turkey wouldnt accep that equıpment maybe nato couldnt exıxst tıll now ıt ıs thıs much sımple beleve or dont belıve

 

[kams]

You bring up a fair point : monopsony (only 1 customer). Although I'd say that each government is a customer and a competitor, thus re-establishing a minimum of free market
Sanctions because of nuclear programmes or because of other disagreements can impact more than just defence programmes (civilian aerospace, advanced IT, etc). Once a country decides to go against international consensus, virtually any industry could be hurt. Does that mean that in each industry self-reliance becomes a must ? I'm sceptical...

cheers

Every country has its laws, constitutional obligations to which it has to adhere to. In case of USA, sanctions are automatic if any country other than the 5 permanent UN security council members conduct nuclear test. This does not mean that you try to be 100% self reliant. No country can be 100% self reliant even if the cost is not a factor. Modern tools of warfare are too complex for any one country to achieve technical mastery over all systems (including almighty USA). One should aim to have the industrial and technical backbone to withstand effect of santions for short period of time as these kind of sanctions are not perpectual (unless you invade and occupy another country or carry out mass genocide).

Global economy has changed drastically. And it's no longer capability of this nation vs that nation, rather it's this company of one nation vs that company of another nation. Thats what I meant by core competency.

Today trade between nations is used as a political tool. Look at the politics involved in civil aviation industry. Nations have used the rivalary b/w Boeing and Airbus (i.e b/w USA and Europe) very cleverly to extract political as well as other technical milage/ concession (example India and China, India's state owned airline ordering 60 or so planes from Boeing while majority of the private operators have been gently pointed towards Airbus ). Public infrastructure projects involving 100s of billions of Dollars is another area. Purchasing huge amounts of agricultural products yet another example (India's recent purchase of wheat from Australia instead of say from Canada/USA, have you noticed recent good relation b/w New Delhi and Canbera?).


Relationship b/w nations are not black and white ...lots of gray involved.

 

[Burner]

From Europe, countries that have the "know-how" but no or not enough money are mainly form Central and East Europe, as others have at least a decent amount of money on their hands. So... Turkey (though not 100% European ), Romania, Serbia, Czechia, Slovakia and Poland. Of course, Russia could be on the list, but they, as Turkey, are not 100% European and so far they have managed to handle it with a little amount of money.

 

[Waylander]

I risk some bad replies but I would not say that serbia has neither know-how nor money.

 

[contedicavour]

I risk some bad replies but I would not say that serbia has neither know-how nor money.

Most Eastern European countries have good expertise in some segments of the weapons market : AIFVs, modernized T72s, helos and light/patrol aircrafts (Poland and Romania), limited shipbuilding (Poland, Romania), but that's about it. Which isn't bad by the way, if they start working on export markets and continue to develop joint ventures (such as Romania with Israel). Still we are very very far from being capable of autarchic production of all segments of the armed forces' equipment !!

And yes, Serbia's defence industries were very limited and often shared with Croatia and Slovenia...

cheers

 

[Burner]

[...]
And yes, Serbia's defence industries were very limited and often shared with Croatia and Slovenia...

cheers

Not to mention the Soko Orao programme with Romania. Nevertheless, Serbia still has "know-how" in some fields, although limited.

 

[Awang se]

it's difficult to get the "know how" when you don't have the money. in order to gain a know how (except some basic knowledge) you need an R&D program. R&D require a range of equipments, properly equiped facility and trained manpowers (researchers, developers etc). all of that require money and the more you invest, the more you can get out of it.

 

[contedicavour]

it's difficult to get the "know how" when you don't have the money. in order to gain a know how (except some basic knowledge) you need an R&D program. R&D require a range of equipments, properly equiped facility and trained manpowers (researchers, developers etc). all of that require money and the more you invest, the more you can get out of it.

Yes though to develop R&D programmes you need a decently-sized market, both domestic and international (via exports or joint ventures). Start low with simple local copies or adaptations of foreign products, then climb up the technology ladder to more sophisticated components, etc.
Trying to do this the other way around (with prestigious national MBT or fighter jet programmes for example) and you end up with no relevant know-how on which to build the future. Plus of course wasted money and unhappy armed forces.

cheers

 

[Awang se]

You got that right!!!