Rolls-Royce Proposes Full IP Transfer for AMCA Engine Development

In a move that could significantly bolster India's indigenous defense capabilities, Rolls-Royce has proposed a revolutionary collaboration for the development of the engine for India's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). Alex Zino, the company's future programs chief, has committed to a complete transfer of intellectual property (IP) rights to India for a jointly developed engine.

This unprecedented offer is a departure from traditional models, empowering India with full ownership of the engine's technology. The collaboration is aimed at fostering knowledge transfer and indigenous capabilities, going beyond mere production or licensing agreements.

"We are ready to deepen our partnership with India by designing and developing aero engines in collaboration with Indian entities," Zino stated, highlighting Rolls-Royce's commitment to joint development and knowledge sharing. He also emphasized the rarity of such an offer, signaling the company's high regard for this potential partnership.

Furthermore, Zino stated that Rolls-Royce is working closely with India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to propose solutions that transfer capabilities to India, develop IP, and establish manufacturing in India for both national security and potential export in the future.

This collaboration, if realized, could be a game-changer for India's aerospace industry, establishing the country as a self-reliant force in aero-engine development with the potential to become a global exporter of its expertise.

 

[Sandeep]

Nope. Only MoU was signed. PIB release has mentioned that.

A MoU was signed which stated that a brand new engine will be designed and developed and manufactured in India. Currently they are working out on who develops what, technology requirement, work share agreement, technology involved, machinery required etc. So a deal is going to be signed in a more detailed contract that specifies everything which only happens after a firm commitment was given by the MoU where a signed deal follows.

 

[Sandeep]

We didn't sign a deal, only a MoU. It was included provisionally in that technology roadmap.

Yes a MoU is only signed if there is a firm commitment and a contract always follows that finalises the engine, technology, work share agreements, capabilities, machinery involved, metallurgy requirements and composition etc. So India has made it certain that they want to develop it with Safran.

 

[Anurag]

Not necessary. Saab keeps offering 100% when they only have 45%. Russia offered 70% ToT for Ka226T but then refused being 63%(33% of overall tech).

Moreover, what they have may be of poor quality as well. EF consortium refused it. US refused it. Even UK refused it. They sent proposals to all.

GoI will of course decide. But if we were to not even discuss it then this platform won’t exist. When it happens then we will switch our comments to that.

I am not talking about Saab or Russia here!!
it is about fighter jet engine for future and getting best deal possible!!
And about discussion we should do that but it just about getting better deal for our forces!!

 

[Anurag]

I very well know the meaning of blank check but it seems you don’t. Mod gives blank checks to DRDO.

They have no option. Mod has made it compulsory since the last 3-4 years and that’s why they are giving it,

Indeed it is comical that DRDO gets blank checks and then wastes it all and delivers nothing. Yet no action against them. Very very comic but painful,

I don't know for you 2.8billion Us$ means unlimited money!!
Basically you just know it for how many programs run for it!! That's pathetic to say it is never going to enough for the further and various projects run and various programs got on hold due to lack of funds!!
Wastage of money for people like you R&D is never a waste of money!! If you don't know the basics of R&D then I am not going to say anything!!

 

[PKPRS]

Oh history shows us that France haters need it more. Like how you all said F18 would win but lost badly. Or no more Scorpenes but we bought them. So you should buy a whole truckload now.

But history changed in the last few years after COVID and Ukraine war, it is upside down now, it has taught India and other Countries valuable lessons, most importantly not to buy anything from puppets.

 

[Akshat]

But history changed in the last few years after COVID and Ukraine war, it is upside down now, it has taught India and other Countries valuable lessons, most importantly not to buy anything from puppets.

That’s why France became the world’s second biggest arms exporter? 😂😂😂😂 Heartburn for French haters

 

[Anant]

Yes a MoU is only signed if there is a firm commitment and a contract always follows that finalises the engine, technology, work share agreements, capabilities, machinery involved, metallurgy requirements and composition etc. So India has made it certain that they want to develop it with Safran.

Nope, MoU is an indication of both sides willing to discuss the plans in greater detail. It is by no means an assurance of an order.

MoUs can showcase potential deals, but they are very rarely legally binding. For instance, Malaysia had, at one point, signed an MoU for the Tejas, but they ended up procuring the FA-50. Similarly, while Argentina signed a MoU last year for the LCH and LUH, it doesn't mean they'll buy them for sure.

 

[Anant]

First India dont want to Join either FCAS or GCAP , India wants its own stealth Fighter jet AMCA to fly with Indigenous Engine which want to develop with Foreign help.But UK want India India to Join Tempest program. against the expense of AMCA Project.Mark my word This Engine is Linked with Tempest project.RR have two offers One Engine will b developed which is Just Like GE-414 Type(may help developing Hot cre section) Second offer is 6th Gen Engine JV with India for Tempest.But India can make use of UK offer to put pressure on other contenders to get Best deal.I previously also said India want every nut / bolt to b manufactured in India with Fully Eco-system developed whether it is Engine of Fighter jet. & Tempest being Multinational project India will not have chance to established complete Eco-system developed around it in India.But French know it,a common Engine can b developed for AMCA & FCAS. Second thing If Rafale wins MRFA which is most likely the same Engine which Safran/DRDO develped for AMCA (110 kN) will also b integrated on Indian Rafale (Air force & Marine both 36+26+114=176) french are in front runners at the moment.

Um, respectfully, I disagree. Something like the Tempest should be seen as a replacement for the Su-30MKI, not as an AMCA substitute. To put it very simply, we are in absolutely no shape to develop a sixth generation fighter by ourselves, and unless we want to remain 20 years behind the rest of the world for the next century when it comes to aircraft development, we need to start pushing the envelope as well.

Coming to the engine itself, RR has never offered the Tempest engine to India. They cannot do that, since they aren't the sole developers. That engine is being co-developed by RR, MTU, and JAE. In any case, even if we were to, hypothetically speaking, join GCAP, we still would almost certainly not be allowed to use the Tempest engine on AMCA.

Coming to FCAS, France and Spain are working on a different engine for FCAS. It isn't the same engine that Safran is proposing for AMCA, so while they may be similar, they will also be different engines. Secondly, doing something like integrating some other engine on an aircraft is very difficult unless you build in the capability. If you decide to, hypothetically again, refit the AMCA engine (co-developed with Safran in this scenario) on India's Rafales, then you have a set of constraints on dimensions and weight for the AMCA engine, which, in complete honesty, is an avoidable set of constraints.

Don't mix up engines, and don't bring in unnecessary constraints. Both of them end badly.

 

[Akshat]

I don't know for you 2.8billion Us$ means unlimited money!!
Basically you just know it for how many programs run for it!! That's pathetic to say it is never going to enough for the further and various projects run and various programs got on hold due to lack of funds!!
Wastage of money for people like you R&D is never a waste of money!! If you don't know the basics of R&D then I am not going to say anything!!

Did I say unlimited money? I said blank check. So you have proven you don’t know what a blank check means.

Similarly you don’t know the basics of R&D either. I never said don’t develop. I said give a chance to those who can develop and not to failures. But seems you only advocate for the failed.

 

[Akshat]

I am not talking about Saab or Russia here!!
it is about fighter jet engine for future and getting best deal possible!!
And about discussion we should do that but it just about getting better deal for our forces!!

You said if they have given an offer then they must have the tech. Saab offer proves that one can make headlines (and offers) by offering what they don’t have as well. It’s called analogy.

 

[Akshat]

because they know that they don’t want one more or will get the funding to get one more and wanted to use Navy’s Rafale along with the ever only 36 Rafale’s.

Yet we got more Rafales than the failed planes like F18 or EF or FGFA or Gripen or F16 (from Indian perspective).

 

[Akshat]

A MoU was signed which stated that a brand new engine will be designed and developed and manufactured in India. Currently they are working out on who develops what, technology requirement, work share agreement, technology involved, machinery required etc. So a deal is going to be signed in a more detailed contract that specifies everything which only happens after a firm commitment was given by the MoU where a signed deal follows.

MoU is not a deal. They are not binding and either side can move out at any point.

 

[Sandeep]

Nope, MoU is an indication of both sides willing to discuss the plans in greater detail. It is by no means an assurance of an order.

MoUs can showcase potential deals, but they are very rarely legally binding. For instance, Malaysia had, at one point, signed an MoU for the Tejas, but they ended up procuring the FA-50. Similarly, while Argentina signed a MoU last year for the LCH and LUH, it doesn't mean they'll buy them for sure.

A memorandum of understanding is a formal document and agreement that states the intention, purpose and steps to be taken to achieve whatever is signed in the agreement.

This is why they are discussing everything on how to develop an engine, technology involved, work share agreement, machinery requirements, scientific research and knowledge, engineering, price etc. This is a serious agreement that they will make and implement as we would never sign a MoU if we weren’t going to develop an engine with Safran and vice versa.

India never signed a MoU with Malaysia or Argentina on buying the Tejas. Prachand and light utility helicopter. Show me a link to prove it please.

 

[Sandeep]

MoU is not a deal. They are not binding and either side can move out at any point.

They can be legally binding if they include that legally binding provisions within the MoU. Also a MoU is a firm commitment and agreement that India wants to develop an engine with France and neither side would bother if they weren’t serious to develop an engine.

 

[Pad UwU]

The problem is that India and France signed a deal last year to design and develop a brand new engine. RR only just started to clearly say they will give us 100% of the IP, technology and manufacture it all in India. They are late.

Doesn't matter if we sign another deal with other countries and company LMAO 😹😹😹😹 it's called future proofing