For a more informed take read Nitin, Dhruva. Also read U.S. based analyst Ashley Tellis and the Mint’s editorial.
Without laboring into the technical details on the various players in this deal here are some considerations rooted largely in common sense.
It is clear in a post Nuclear era the likelihood of India engaging in a conventional war with either of its nuclear armed neighbors are next to none. Neither the current generation of fighter jets nor the next generation of fighter jets would have made much of a difference in an unconventional act of war of the kind witnessed during Kargil or more recently in battling Terror. So when one looks at a 10 billion dollar price tag for fighter jets that are unlikely to see a conventional war ever commonsense suggests that investment has to be about something more than a technical showpiece of a fighter jet. Common sense from the world of procurement in commercial industry also suggests that when you are looking at such a massive price tag you are not really buying a product you are investing in a relationship. In fact it is not uncommon in the commercial industry where a strategic investment in a vendor relationship is scripted by the buyer in a manner that makes it a win-win for both in a partnership model.
So when one sees a 10 billion dollar decision being made on technical considerations where perhaps the distinction between the best and the second best is academic (given the low likelihood of a conventional war) one is compelled to ask
what exactly is the quid pro quo here for it is not every day India decides to pump 10 billion dollars into a foreign economy.
Without getting into the recent history of transactions with the Americans one can think of several reasons why a 10 billion dollar investment into the American economy is more beneficial than perhaps an equivalent investment into the French or the EU economy.
The routine moral grandstanding from the Europeans apart, what else will these 10 billion dollars to the French, Germans, British and Italians fetch India ?
Filed under: Offstumped, UPA-II Critical Appraisal
On the contrary , it was a brilliant move on the part of India. We are not only getting a technologically superior , cheaper product but also entering into a “No Strings Attached” deal” unlike the “strings attached” American ones.
As a nation , India should never accept American “strings” on any defense related purchases. Also , we need to stay far far away from “USaeli” military industrial complex.
Lastly , after a full decade of “great friendship” with US what has India gained from it????? Its not China but Uncle Sam is the greatest source of arms and money for Pakistan…not a single India-centric terrorist have been killed or arrested in the last decade.
“Benefits” that India may derive from USA is a complete myth….USA will engage with India , invest in India , be friends with India because of its own self-interest….
Writing about everything under the sub,,does nt make anyone an expert.
Friendship eh–
we bought their huge cargo carrying aircrafts..we bought P-8..we are buying others things too…why buy F-16?y buy F/A-18 when we have better aircrafts to buy…
we gave them enough contracts to b happy with.
ask them to sell their best..not the ones they will be retiring in few years with F-35 n F-22.sorry no room fr US leftovers in Indian airforce.
if they are so happy in doing business with india.
ask the US to sell us Abrams tanks..tell em to lease a nuclear submarine with SLBMs..will they???No..will they keep their one aircraft carrier group permanently at our disposal to deter both Pakistan n China ..no..
they wont come to our aid in case of a conflict but we hould buy their crafts…
when we have to fight on our own…we will fight with best hardware available..
if US is nt going to sell us their best hardware..they can go take a hike.
“when someone writes
“So when one sees a 10 billion dollar decision being made on technical considerations where perhaps the distinction between the best and the second best is academic (given the low likelihood of a conventional war) one is compelled to ask”…
one is compelled to ask..if the person writing this..loves writing on whims n fancies or with any real military sense.
the K Subramanyam piece was another exercise in futility…wars are nt fought from the north n south block..but from airbases with best aircrafts available
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5905&sid=baf08d2086fb6d7ee10e8040bb91ee76
Go though this bharat rakshak forum……most of them are cheering this knocking out of US planes.
I hope you do realise that the US is still too powerful to be swayed by anyone one nation or group of nations irrespective of how many fighters you buy. Look at how they responded to demands for greater access to JSF source codes from the likes of Australia, UK and Israel.
To assume that buying 126 or even 300 fighters would suddenly elevate Indo-US ties to a new level is well….juvenile. strategic ties will continue for a host of reasons, primary one being necessity. The US had a very close strategic partnership with China for about 15 years until Tiannammen Square happened. How many fighters did they buy. All this talk of
‘buying a relationship, not a fighter’ sounds like the tired curriculum of an over-rated Business School.
yeah, why spend 10 billion on a weapon system used by Pakistan airforce to chase goat-herders? we are buying truckloads of weaponry from US, have a huge russian legacy and have bought great planes from europe before (mirage, jaguar, hawks). no reason to question the decision on so-called strategic terms.
Really, Yoss, you should be asking what the American aeroplanes would contribute to India. They won’t let us buy the best stuff, they won’t let us develop our indigenous aircraft industries by refusing security clearances to Boeing and Lockheed Martin in various defence consultancies (due to Pentagon’s `sensitivities’), they won’t even let us use the aeroplanes as we want after we buy them, but make us adhere to obnoxious end user clauses, and of course, they won’t transfer any tech to us because theirs is the state of the art and they cannot give us anything. Whose interests do you have in mind?
In contrast, the cash strapped European companies came up with far more generous tech transfers, they have won the trust during consultancies (all the consultancy offers refused by the Americans were won by EADS and Dassault later and they have provided their expertise very well) and most of all, they are not providing freebies to the Pakistanis, arming them to the teeth, providing them UAVs, and what not, and you seriously want India to spend billions for what the Americans are providing the Pakistanis for free?
This deal was not about geopolitics, it was about what the contestants can contribute to our air defence capabilities. Americans came up short and they lost out. Best accept that with grace.
Regards,
Maidros
The routine moral grandstanding from the Europeans apart, what else will these 10 billion dollars to the French, Germans, British and Italians fetch India ?
Why, multiple squadrons of an advanced fighter plane, of course! Ones that can be used against an adversary in case a war breaks out, to boot!
Funny how such little details are missed by the strategic thinkers who strategically strategise on geo-strategy, all the while strategically scratching each others’ backs.
Answer is: jets
[...] “MMRCA deal – short post” – [...]
[...] aircrafts out of contention of the $10 million deal has been said (by Nitin, Dhruva, Rohan and Shashi), there is little left to add to it. However, there are two questions that still need to be asked, [...]
“Neither the current generation of fighter jets nor the next generation of fighter jets would have made much of a difference in an unconventional act of war of the kind witnessed during Kargil”
This is not accurate. The turning point of Kargil war came about when the supply dump at Muntho Dhalo was bombed, wiping out over 50 structures with over 180 dead. The camp was earlier spotted by LDP from air and could not have been bombed by artillery because it was in the reverse slope. After that, the war (for Pakistan) was lost in the Batalik sector for all practical purposes. This was done with Air Power. Precision strikes played a huge part in the taking of Tiger Hill when their Battalion HQ was bombed. Other bunkers destroyed by artillery was preceded by reece from the air to mark targets.
Kargil was won by Air power and artillery working hand in hand. Both of which India was hugely deficient then and is now. The war could have been won sooner with better aircraft, better reece pods, better precision targetting.
In addition, PAF did not fly out to defend camps like Muntho Dhalo because none of their aircrafts could take on the Mig 29s which were escorting the Mirages employed for ground attack (They were saving their F16s should a bigger conflict break out). Without this superiority, India would not have prevailed in Kargil.
If the aircraft are not really needed because of nukes, then why buy them and waste taxpayer money?
Is it just me or did anybody notice how all blogs, press etc talk about this but give absolutely no details? I have been through 6 news items now, all in Indian media incuding this one and not one talk about the price, performance, any limitations on tech transfer etc.
What if those F16s came with riders that they cannot be used in a war that is not approved by the seller? How much would you pay for those?
Yoss, in name of strategic interest, I have a dozen 1965 Ford’s to sell you. Interested?
Stop getting in wars, stop supporting the military industrial complex, and use the money on solar electric and thorium reactors, sewers, wells, and contraceptives.