Foreign partnerships

Cooperation in defence technology can work for India, with caveats

13 min read

Updated On: Oct 10 2026 | 4:20 AM IST

An Indian Army variant of the Medium-Range Surface-to-Air Missile, jointly developed by the DRDO and Israel Aerospace Industries, during a flight-test off Odisha’s coast in April 2025 (PHOTO: PIB)

An engine for India’s first indigenous radar-evading fighter. A prospective aircraft that could one day prove its technological successor, readying the Indian Air Force (IAF) for aerial combat challenges beyond 2050. Propulsion technology likely to drive the Indian Navy’s amphibious warfare ships. A future fleet of advanced conventional submarines. Each hinges on either developing next-generation technologies from the drawing board, or manufacturing complex equipment and platforms at home.

But what of producing in India an anti-tank missile already fielded by foreign militaries? It is no aeroengine — considered the crown jewel of defence technologies — nor a stealthy multi-million-dollar submarine.

Yet these defence ventures share a common thread. All will, in one form or another, involve foreign companies.

India has licence-produced a diverse array of platforms, from tanks and submarines to combat aircraft. That did not give it unrestricted authority to alter their design or upgrade them. More importantly, it did not, by itself, contribute meaningfully to India designing and building comparable platforms or their crucial components. India spent decades producing foreign-origin military engines, including advanced turbofans for the IAF’s Sukhoi Su-30MKI combat aircraft under transfer of technology (ToT). Yet that experience did not prepare it to develop its own, as the eventual reliance on an American engine powering indigenous Tejas jets showed.

IG Defence plans trials of India's first private-sector micro-missile soon

India is pursuing defence self-reliance (Aatmanirbharta), with various indigenous systems climbing the technology readiness level (TRL) ladder. Yet these remain vulnerable to being crowded out by foreign alternatives, whether imported outright or built in-country through collaboration.

That warrants examining the circumstances in which such partnerships should be chosen.

Ready, or not

“While military modernisation needs drive procurement decisions, when these involve foreign collaboration, whether such an arrangement yields desired results hinges on domestic TRL in whichever crucial components, systems or platforms are concerned,” said Samir V Kamat, who retired in May as secretary of the Department of Defence Research and Development (DDR&D) in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and as chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United States (US) devised TRL, a scale now used worldwide to grade technological maturity. It has nine levels. At levels 1 to 3, research begins with basic scientific findings, moves to laboratory studies, and often ends with a simple model. At levels 4 to 6, the technology’s parts are tested together, first in the lab and then under conditions made as close to real life as possible, until a fully working prototype exists. At levels 7 to 9, that prototype is demonstrated in its real operating environment, certified and, finally, proven in an actual mission.

Kamat also drew a distinction between co-production and genuine co-development. The former involves manufacturing a foreign-origin system or platform in India, with varying degrees of eventual indigenous input and ToT. The latter is rarer, with a foreign party genuinely coming on board from inception to design, develop and then manufacture equipment alongside an Indian partner.

“Co-development is beneficial where a technology or equipment’s domestic TRL lies between 4 and 6 — basically, if at least some prototyping can happen in-country,” he said. “It can reduce risk and time, while letting you absorb the expertise a foreign partner shares, along with its technology.”

He cautioned, however, that above or below this range, choosing foreign collaboration must be weighed carefully against possible pitfalls. “At higher TRLs, buying through co-production can eat into the market for indigenous equipment, or depress its procurement prospects. At lower domestic TRLs, an Indian partner simply won’t be correctly placed to absorb technology on offer from its foreign counterpart well enough for further developing that equipment or building follow-on products.”

Against this backdrop, jointly developing sixth-generation combat aircraft can be a meaningful proposition. “The fifth-generation advanced medium combat aircraft’s (Amca) design phase is complete. Its development-cum-production partner is being finalised, and building prototypes will yield further learnings. With this knowledge in hand, we can benefit from collaborating on prospective next-generation combat aircraft,” said Kamat. He explained that many capabilities set to characterise sixth-generation aircraft were still being defined or developed. Collaboration here would build on existing capabilities while reducing risk.

In August 2026, the MoD informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence that it had “initiated efforts in a concerted manner to co-join the 6th Generation Fighter Aircraft Development Programme”, namely the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), spearheaded by the French Government.

Led by France and Germany, with Spain and Belgium as junior partners, the FCAS has hit a dead end, at least in its original form. In June 2026, France and Germany reportedly abandoned their effort to jointly develop a crewed sixth-generation combat aircraft. The British-led Global Combat Air Programme, with Italy and Japan on board, is still underway.

Given the scope of research and development (R&D) and resources required, most nations are keen on collaboration, unlike the US and China, each developing its own next-generation jets independently. Both France and Germany have reportedly reached out to Sweden for cooperation on building a next-generation fighter.

India’s existing TRL in aeroengines, along with the complexity involved, also underpins cooperation on this front. Such complexity demands mitigating risk to ensure timely delivery.

“Our Kaveri engine project has given us a knowledge base, which will enable absorption of whatever expertise and technology any foreign partner brings to the table,” said Kamat. He was referring to the DRDO’s proposed programme for jointly developing a 120-kilonewton aeroengine with a friendly foreign country’s original equipment manufacturer (OEM). France’s Safran, Rolls-Royce of the United Kingdom (UK) and US-based GE Aerospace are all in contention.

Sanctioned in 1989, the Kaveri programme yielded a working engine. But, it ultimately failed to deliver Tejas’ required thrust.

Once cleared, the new engine programme will take at least 10–12 years to complete development. And time is of the essence, with Amca series production expected from 2035 onwards. With projected development costs of up to ~50,000 crore, the new engine is intended to power the aircraft’s second tranche.

India possesses many technologies that will go into the engine, albeit largely at laboratory level. The foreign OEM will therefore bring manufacturing expertise, along with data and software tools to aid what is a challenging testing process. “This programme has been designed as a genuine joint development initiative, one that will result in India acquiring intellectual property (IP) rights for the engine,” added Kamat.

It was reported in August 2026 that India and the UK were poised to sign an inter-governmental agreement covering development of integrated full electric propulsion (IFEP) technology. In such setups, a vessel’s marine gas turbines, diesel generators or both produce electricity, rather than spinning its propellers directly. This output feeds propulsion motors, lighting, computers, life support, sensors and weapon systems all at once. Earmarked for four landing platform dock amphibious warfare ships the Indian Navy has planned, this IFEP system is meant to be developed alongside British firm GE Vernova.

Experience from the Kaveri programme could help again. Its spin-off Kaveri Marine Gas Turbine has undergone testing in the past.

“We are well placed to benefit from co-development in both the engine and electric architecture,” explained Kamat.

Domestic defence production rose about 140 per cent between FY17 and FY26, from Rs 74,054 crore to roughly Rs 1.78 trillion. Arms exports grew more than 25-fold over that period, from about Rs 1,522 crore to Rs 38,424 crore. Mastering propulsion and next-generation air power technologies could carry the country further on both fronts too.

But where do the anti-tank missile and the submarine mentioned earlier fit into this scheme of things?

At the end of August, India’s Tata Advanced Systems (TASL) signed a memorandum of understanding with the Javelin Joint Venture (JJV), a partnership of US-headquartered RTX Corporation with Lockheed Martin, to explore co-producing the complete, ready-to-use Javelin missile round in India. It came just days after India signed a deal with the US to buy Javelin anti-tank guided missile systems for the Indian Army under the Emergency Procurement (EP) route, comprising around 60 missiles, at a cost of Rs 292 crore.

JJV has selected TASL as its “prime partner for future in-country co-production efforts”. Both sides will explore establishing a “final assembly and integration facility” for the Javelin round and “component production capabilities” in India. The proposed arrangement would involve

sub-assembly kits and guidance electronics units, produced in the US, being shipped to India for final assembly and integration.

This is unlikely to yield an ability to design and develop weapons comparable to the Javelin. But, future co-production could improve the army’s operational readiness and is unlikely to scuttle any strategic indigenous programme.

Under Project 75 India (P75I), state-run Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) will construct six conventional submarines, with ToT from Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). Designed by TKMS, these boats will carry a German air-independent propulsion system.

Reported to be at an advanced stage, the deal is yet to be signed. MDL has already built eight foreign-designed submarines. Six were Kalvari-class vessels, with ToT from France’s Naval Group, commissioned into service between 2017 and 2025. The other two were Shishumar-class boats delivered in the early 1990s under an agreement with HDW, a German shipbuilder now part of TKMS. Despite such a track record, foreign ToT remains necessary for the next generation of submarines.

The P75I vessels remain crucial, as the navy faces a depleting underwater arm and Pakistan beefs up its own fleet with Chinese submarines.

Defence materiel has been produced in India under contracts with foreign firms since the 1950s. “Almost all these agreements, to date, have been carried out by state-owned defence public sector undertakings and the former ordnance factories, as licensed production. Each licence permitted building only a set number of units locally. The foreign supplier would ship finished units initially, followed by semi-knocked-down and completely knocked-down kits for local assembly. ToT as we understand it today came in later, allowing assemblies, sub-assemblies and even individual parts of the final product to be made here. Critical components, however, kept coming from abroad,” said N Raveeswaran, former chief executive officer of Mahindra’s aerospace and defence strategic business.

Understanding how ToT works is also necessary to grasp why decades of pursuing it has not by itself yielded substantive indigenous capability.

“ToT has two components, know-how and know-why,” said Giridhar Aramane, formerly defence secretary at the MoD. Know-how means being able to build, run and repair a system by following instructions its original maker supplies, such as drawings or production processes. By contrast, know-why goes deeper, covering the science and engineering reasons behind every design choice. With it, engineers can fix unfamiliar problems, improve or upgrade a system, and design fresh equipment of their own, without depending on its original maker. “Foreign firms usually hand over

know-how, while know-why, which is what builds genuine indigenous capability, remains restricted,” he added.

Immediate defence capability requirements can drive procurement, Kamat noted. In such cases, co-production, even at lower domestic TRLs, ends up imparting some manufacturing ToT to the Indian partner, and can still help over the short term. It can seed a domestic ecosystem of parts and components suppliers, one with at least some depth. Local production of at least some spares or consumables the equipment needs for upkeep and sustenance also becomes possible. “But this, by itself, will not yield substantive indigenous capability to design and develop our own comparable systems,” he added.

Selective application

This does not mean foreign collaboration has never benefited the country. Perhaps India’s greatest success in this regard is the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. The missile made a successful combat debut during May 2025’s Operation Sindoor, striking targets inside Pakistan. It has also come to symbolise India’s success in defence exports, with the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia as buyers.

BrahMos Aerospace, a joint venture (JV) of India’s DRDO with Russia’s NPO Mashinostroyenia, emerged from an inter-governmental agreement the two countries signed in 1998.

“Take the Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missile (MRSAM) programme, for instance. This India-Israel co-development yielded an air defence missile that all three services use. Choosing co-development for both BrahMos and MRSAM ensured that learnings from their associated technologies went on to benefit other DRDO programmes,” said Kamat, crediting reasonably high domestic TRL in missiles for this. Kamat argued for assessing which specific platform or equipment categories stand to benefit from various types of foreign collaboration, and where it would be superfluous at best, perhaps harmful for indigenisation at worst.

Defence R&D’s budget share hits six-year low

“Co-development could perhaps prove beneficial for very large radars designed towards space situational awareness. It might also help with air-breathing hypersonic munitions. For most radars, sonars and munitions like torpedoes, it would be largely unnecessary,” he said.

Co-development and co-production are both stepping stones. “Two things helped China graduate from producing foreign-origin equipment to domestic capability: continuous R&D on top of the ToT and an insistence on deploying whatever that yielded. Engines China copied from Russia, for instance, had about one-third of the original’s operational life, yet they were still put to use and improved,” explained Kamat.

Experts have argued for lifting R&D spending from its current five per cent share of the defence budget to somewhere between 10 and 15.

Such a shift would align India with global patterns, since the US devotes roughly 17 per cent of its military outlay to research, and China about 15.

Raveeswaran argued that trade-offs should be weighed carefully.

“Critical defence programmes will shut down if a gap opens in engine technology, so we should not shy away from foreign collaboration, whether for land, air or naval platforms. That will keep the larger indigenous platform programmes alive,” he explained.

Advocating a stage-wise approach, Raveeswaran said the first, attracting foreign direct investment, JVs with overseas OEMs and licence manufacturing, had already been achieved.

Stage two, a progressive increase in indigenous content across equipment categories, was under way. The final aim should be stage three, taking self-reliance in defence as close to 100 per cent as feasible by 2047.

“Even then, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel every time. No country is actually fully self-reliant, but crucial and mission-critical technologies should be mastered,” he added. He also cited the navy, where complete indigenisation had been achieved in the hull component of its vessels and was now being pursued across weapons and sensors, with propulsion remaining the gap to address.

Co-development can be made to work. Defence spending is rising worldwide, and many countries are rebuilding their military industrial bases or widening their supplier pools. That makes India’s growing capabilities an attractive proposition. The onus is now on the country to be ready to absorb whatever technology partners bring, then put it to work by building on it.

Premium ContentPremium ContentSubscription ExpiredSubscription Expired

Your access to Blueprint has ended. But the story is still unfolding.

No longer a subscriber? There’s a new reason to return.

Introducing Blueprint - A magazine on defence & geopolitics

Introducing Blueprint - A magazine on defence & geopolitics

Like what you read? There’s more in every issue of Blueprint

From military strategy to global diplomacy, Blueprint offers sharp, in-depth reportage on the world’s most consequential issues.

Exclusive pricing for Business Standard digital subscribers

Choose your plan

Exclusive Pricing

Choose your plan

58% off

₹6,000

Blueprint Digital

₹2,500

annual (digital-only)

₹208/Month

70% off

₹12,000

Blueprint Complete

₹3,500

annual (digital & print)

₹291/Month

41% off

₹6,000

Blueprint Digital

₹3,500

annual (digital-only)

₹291/Month

62% off

₹12,000

Blueprint Complete

₹4,500

annual (digital & print)

₹375/Month

Subscribe NowSubscribe NowRenew NowRenew Now

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Browse all Plans

Here's what's included:

Access to the latest issue of the Blueprint digital magazine
Online access to all the upcoming digital magazines along with past digital archives
* Delivery of all the upcoming print magazines at your home or office
Full access to Blueprint articles online
Business Standard digital subscription
1-year unlimited complimentary digital access to The New York Times (News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter, The Athletic)

Written By :

Bhaswar Kumar

Bhaswar Kumar has over seven years of experience in journalism. He has written on India Inc, corporate governance, government policy, and economic data. Currently, he covers defence, security and geopolitics, focusing on defence procurement policies, defence and aerospace majors, and developments in India’s neighbourhood.