ManuJ wrote:The services don't choose the platform, they provide a comprehensive report with the results of the evaluation trials. This report is exhaustive and objective and it brings out the pros and cons of each platform. The report may disqualify some contestants based on technical or other criteria. Any platform not disqualified is a potential candidate for purchase, though there will always be a platform that would come out on top. However, it is important to note that the government is not bound to select the top-most platform.
In MMRCA 1.0, it was the IAF that chose the Rafale and the Eurofighter as the two aircraft that cleared the minimum requirements. None of the others - F-16IN, MiG-35, Gripen NG and F-18E/F - made the cut. Not my words, but from a senior IAF officer who was involved in the selection process. Please see below. It clearly shows the technical downselect was done by the IAF and the Govt followed that dictum. The Govt really had no other choice, because air combat is not their domain. It is not like the Govt can go back to the IAF and have a technical discussion on why the rejected aircraft should be re-entered into the competition. That is not a discussion in which the Govt is going to prevail.
No Govt can circumvent that process because 1) they do not have the requisite technical knowledge and 2) it will reek of corruption. The services choose the platform from a variety of competitors/contestants and the Govt then gets involved in the overall cost of the deal plus any strategic benefits (factory, JV, ToT, etc) with the OEM chosen by the service. The procurement system is designed in this manner. The red text highlighted below is the technical downselect of MMRCA 1.0 and the blue text is where the then UPA Govt got involved.
India’s $20B Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) Contract
https://eurasiantimes.com/indias-20b-mu ... -fighters/
07 Feb 2022
Air Marshal Pranab Kumar Barbora (Retd), who was serving as the Vice Chief of Air Staff during the time of evaluation of the fighter jets for the MMRCA tender, offers some insight into the testing process.
“The IAF had done extensive testing — testing of the highest caliber — because we had to evaluate six fighters. We were quite rigorous in this assessment. Since we came to the conclusion that the Eurofighter and the Rafale cleared the minimum requirements, we put up the case to the government, stating that these are the two aircraft that will be suitable.
Thereafter, it became a financial bid. What the contractors looked like, how much they would cost us, etc. was evaluated by the government. And that was the time when Rafale was chosen for the 126 aircraft,” he said.
The report is exhaustive and it does bring out the pros and cons of each platform, as you stated above. But the platforms are also graded/scored. The highest scoring platform (or the top two, if there is a large pool) then moves on to the next stage --> cost negotiation. It is only at this stage when the Govt gets involved. Because the Govt is signing on the dotted line. If there are two contestants - as in the case of MMRCA 1.0 - then the Govt does a cost analysis (L1) to determine, which of the two is cheaper. Once L1 is announced, the Govt cannot jump back to L2 either.
Just imagine if the then GOI turned around and told the IAF, that they are rejecting the Rafale and Typhoon in favour of the F-16IN or MiG-35 or F-18E/F or Gripen E...it would have raised a political windstorm. The Government would have to explain why. The two OEMs - Dassault and the Euro Consortium - would have added their own fuel to that fire. The explanation of strategic partnership will not fly - not with the opposition, the media or even the citizenry. Everything in foreign defence deals is about the best platform at the cheapest cost.
Every mega defence deal in India is viewed with great suspicion, because of the penchant of underhand dealings. Therefore every mega defence deal is audited by the CAG to ensure that everything was followed to the letter in the procurement process. Any deviations are highlighted and corrective action taken. These deviations are also taken up by the opposition and are argued at great length in parliament. The opposition will also hold press conferences, conduct morchas, attend political rallies and do everything else under the sun to show that the government is corrupt. In Parliament the opposition will echo the standard line - this Govt must resign.
To avoid this un-necessary tamasha, the Govt negotiates with the OEM (based on the service's choice), but in where the Govt finalizes the cost and any strategic benefits that come with this mega deal. Tomorrow if anything goes drastically wrong (technically) with the platform, the Govt can readily argue in Parliament, "We did not choose the platform, the service did." They will dump that right on the service's head. The Vikramaditya acquisition is a good example. Which politician or MoD Babu has faced even an iota of scrutiny over the dismal technical performance of the Vikramaditya? Ownership of that white elephant solely sits with the Indian Navy and she sails out once (or twice) a year for yoga day.
ManuJ wrote:For example, if in IN trials F/A-18 scores over the Rafale, the government may still decide to with the Rafale based on geopolitical reasons. The happy path is where the service top recommendation is also the government's strategic choice.
If the Rafale scores lower vis-à-vis the F-18, I sincerely hope the Government does not give the excuse of geopolitical/strategic partnership with France as the reason to still go in for the Rafale. Especially with the stain of the first Rafale deal, that is the last excuse to give. The opposition and the media in India will have a field day with it.
The average citizen in India does not give two hoots about a 110kN turbofan for AMCA, that France is more geopolitically reliable than the US or whatever else. They are primarily concerned about the Government being financially honest with taxpayers' money and the Govt not helping their supposed cronies (i.e. Anil Ambani) get lucrative & underhand defence deals with their money and while these same taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet. The rest (i.e. strategic partnership) is fairy dust to them.
ManuJ wrote:There have been many instances in the past where the government of the day has gone against the service recommendations and procured non-optimal platforms.
I believe I have a fairly good idea of the examples you may have, but I don't want to jump the gun. So please advise which platforms.