HAMMER Production in India: Strategic Leap or Tactical Tokenism?

On 25 November 2025, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) inked a joint venture agreement with France’s Safran Electronics & Defence (SED) to manufacture the HAMMER (Highly Agile Modular Munition Extended Range) weapon system in India. A joint venture company, split 50:50, is set to localise up to 60% of HAMMER's sub-assemblies, electronics, and mechanical parts over time — a move hailed as a boost to India’s defence indigenisation under Make in India. The question is: will this collaboration succeed in delivering on its lofty promises, or is it yet another overstated declaration in defence partnership rhetoric?

Why HAMMER Matters

HAMMER is no ordinary ordnance. Its precision-guided capabilities adapt to bombs weighing between 250kg and 1,000kg, offering strike range up to 70 km — critical for stand-off attacks, where aircraft remain outside hostile air-defence zones. With compatibility for platforms like the Rafale and India’s Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, it’s tailored for operations in areas such as Ladakh’s unforgiving terrain. Unlike traditional munitions, HAMMER’s agility ensures accuracy even in mountainous warfare conditions.

France’s willingness to enable indigenous production is entwined with broader strategic goals. Defence cooperation already spans Rafales, Scorpene submarines, and the co-development of advanced fighter jet engines. However, HAMMER’s localisation plan with BEL signals a shift — potentially positioning India as a hub for defence manufacturing under its “Atmanirbhar Bharat” ambitions. Notably, the planned 60% indigenisation is as much a test of India’s domestic capacity as it is of France’s readiness to transfer technology.

The Case for Joint Manufacturing

The argument in favour of the HAMMER joint venture begins with self-reliance. India’s defence imports have long been criticised for jeopardising strategic autonomy. By localising production of such cutting-edge systems and achieving 60% indigenisation, this partnership aims to upend dependence on foreign suppliers for ammunition.

The benefits extend beyond military preparedness. The economic ripple effects of such projects are often understated. Defence-sector localisation stimulates job creation in ancillary industries, particularly electronics and sub-assemblies. Furthermore, India's plan to incorporate HAMMER technology into multiple aerial platforms — from Rafale to Tejas — ensures interoperability across systems, enhancing operational efficiency.

This collaboration runs parallel to India’s broader geopolitical strategy. France, a trusted defence ally, has consistently backed India’s Indo-Pacific initiatives. Joint exercises like Varuna and FRINJEX-23 signal France’s commitment to India’s regional security interests. HAMMER, being adaptable for counter-terrorism operations or maritime preparedness, could bolster India’s defence posture in these sensitive contexts.

The Case Against: Skepticism in Practice

But these optimistic projections demand scrutiny. If India’s experience with Scorpene submarines (Project P-75) teaches us anything, it’s that localisation timelines often stretch beyond initial estimates. The touted 60% indigenisation goal may not materialise uniformly across assemblies — sub-systems and electronics will likely rely heavily on French imports.

India’s strained supply chain capacity poses challenges. Defence manufacturing, particularly precision-guided systems like HAMMER, demands high-end tooling and robust technical expertise. In 2022-23, India's defence production saw localisation hovering under 50% for several high-profile projects. BEL’s joint venture must overcome systemic gaps in raw material availability, skilled labour, and on-site testing infrastructure.

The French side, too, evinces caution. Historically, major defence collaborations — be it Rafale acquisition or negotiations over fighter engine co-development — reveal a reluctance to undertake deep technology transfer. HAL's partnership with Safran Helicopter Engines has yet to bear substantive fruit despite signed agreements. Without meaningful technology transfer protocols, India risks falling into the trap of merely assembling imported components, with little transformative impact on domestic capability.

Lessons From South Korea: Balancing Localisation and Global Ties

South Korea wrestled with similar dilemmas during its collaboration with U.S. firms to produce the SLAM-ER (a precision-guided cruise missile). By focusing on stringent agreements for dual-use technology transfer, it minimised dependence on imports and achieved 72% localisation within four years — a model India could learn from. However, South Korea’s success hinged on proactive state investments in talent development and R&D infrastructure. India’s defence R&D spending (approximately 0.08% of GDP in 2023) compares poorly to South Korea’s robust financial commitment, which exceeds 0.5% GDP annually.

Where Things Stand: Ambition vs. Realism

HAMMER’s localisation plan represents a major step forward in India-France strategic partnership, but skepticism abounds regarding its execution. While the joint venture underscores progress on paper, its eventual success depends heavily on India’s ability to address technical constraints, upskill its manufacturing talent pool, and formalise detailed technology transfer commitments from France.

The risk? Without these institutional safeguards, India could be boxed into producing an internationally dependent, semi-indigenous system — a halfway measure that helps neither our military preparedness nor our defence autonomy. The structural limitations of India’s defence R&D and manufacturing ecosystem must be tackled urgently if HAMMER is to represent more than a symbolic partnership.

Prelims Practice Questions

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions