All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
eklavya wrote:Think 2030 or 2040, with Chinese GDP approaching or exceeding US GDP, significant Chinese technological capabilities, and significantly expanded Chinese military power. If this China is as prickly and malign as today's China, not just the US, but the whole world will need India: a rich, strong, and benevolent India. The strategic partnership is insurance.
And do you think, the world would remain stagnant while china rise? or we need american to ensure we need a rich, strong and benevolent India?
While UK has better resources than France, the latter has more say in the world order for one small (pun intended) reason, it is not an Amercian proxy as the earlier....
All this Geo-political hype associated with the deal aside, the real question that remains to be seen is - Will IAF get what it wants, and, if not, how further away from IAF's "preferred choice" will the actual winner be ?
Either of F-16 and F-18 will bring/require a whole new breed of associated paraphernalia along with them ( from Weapons -to- spares etc.etc.) and for that matter so will EF and Gripen, and to some-what lesser extent the Rafale ( depending on the degree of components commonality with the Mir-2000.. not too sure how much !!)
So, if the IAF is to anyhow invest pretty heavily on setting up all the infrastructure associated with the a/c it will get, why put such a huge investment at risk from future( very probable) sanctions..
Therefore, IMVHO, barring the initial high-cost of acquisition, Rafale is the safest and least risk option for the IAF, because other than the Rafale no other contender can in my humble opinion offer an unhindered support of their system in the event of future sanctions.
nrshah wrote:
While UK has better resources than France, the latter has more say in the world order for one small (pun intended) reason, it is not an Amercian proxy as the earlier....
..Thank you...Please explain how UK has more resources than France and also how France has more say...
We all have this respect for countries that have managed to avoid being influenced by more powerful allies...And its all very good... but when we stay blind to our own strategic environment and blindly pursue independent foreign policy as an end in itself, we take it a little too far...
US of A aligned with UK in the first world war...Does that mean US of A had less say in spite of more resources??? In an alliance both countries influence each other and over the years US of A has emerged as the senior partner...To keep an independent foreign policy as an end in itself is ridiculous particularly when the interests are converging.
We are saying - We will do the same things that you want us to do because it is in our interests but we will not take the services that you are willing to give us for doing so because we have an independent foreign policy
We have bought all kinds of military hardware but we wont buy an amrikhan MMRCA because we have an independent foreign policy...even if your president begs for it.
And even if we can bargain real hard for it and hold all the cards..
Regards
eklavya wrote:Think 2030 or 2040, with Chinese GDP approaching or exceeding US GDP, significant Chinese technological capabilities, and significantly expanded Chinese military power. If this China is as prickly and malign as today's China, not just the US, but the whole world will need India: a rich, strong, and benevolent India. The strategic partnership is insurance.
And do you think, the world would remain stagnant while china rise? or we need american to ensure we need a rich, strong and benevolent India?
While UK has better resources than France, the latter has more say in the world order for one small (pun intended) reason, it is not an Amercian proxy as the earlier....
India will buy whatever suits our security needs best. India cannot be and will not be pushed around on this issue, or make a sub-optimal choice under duress of any sort. I hope this clarifies the matter.
And do you think, the world would remain stagnant while china rise? or we need american to ensure we need a rich, strong and benevolent India?
While UK has better resources than France, the latter has more say in the world order for one small (pun intended) reason, it is not an Amercian proxy as the earlier....
On the MRCA topic, ALL air crafts have met the RFP. So, we have to believe that technically all are sound "choices" for the IAF.
From reports, it seems that there are genuine concerns that India has. I would suspect that it is a political issue, where the IAF needs assurances that the IAF can function to deliver what the GoI wants done in the event of a war. Naik's statement about sore losers leads me to believe that the GoI have not been able to give such an assurance to the IAF, and that I believe is one (major?) reason why the IAF would prefer the European product/s.
Just one or two note: Indian economy hit the one trillion USD mark in 2007. She will hit the two trillion USD in 2011. Doubled in four years. $10 billion sounds a lot, but compute it as the %age of the economy, spread over N years, it is trivial. (To the US economy it is even more trivial.)
France/Germany/UK do NOT have the same geographic importance that India has HAD and have. No comparisons, IMHO.
Indo-US strategic interests (I said this in 1996ish) will converge. In the coming years even more. WRT the MMRCA, even if India buy European product, the IAF will work a LOT more closely with the USAF that the RAF/FAF/RuAF/whatever. That is just how it is. I am not sure what all that will mean or is supposed to mean, but the reality is that IF there is a foreign entity that is closely intertwined with Indian "strategy", it is the US. One can take/make whatever they want out of that statement, but that - IMHO - is the foundation moving forward (IMHO).
So the MRCA thread is about politics and not about air superiority?
We need to do what is right for our country. PAF may have free F16s but look at the state of their country? Was it worth it?
Our fate is in our hands and I hope the establishment, the government and the opposition, ensure that we keep it that way.
I have the faith.
I would go for the rafale. Omababa's letter, (having worked as a sales guy in unkils MNCs for two decades) indicates to me that unkil feels he is losing!
Expect a quick blowback on the Indo-US nuclear deal, with US and some anti-nuclear lobbies gaining strength with an 'I told you so' chip on their shoulder and consequent spill-over effects on the MRCA.
I expect some backtracking from the US expecting 'renewed commitments' from desh. Due to the time-crunching nature of the Japanese quake/tsunami/radioactivity incident, a US bird will invariably be linked with the Nuke deal. Unkil will have only one explanation to offer, which is 'Our hands are tied too!'
Never in the history, we have made decisions to buy weapons without politics. Perhaps we can change that. Even with home grown produce, we have zillion politics, and I don't have quote and derail here. Starting from 1947 till now, we are influenced by world politics on our decision making, and we have matured from there.
What IAF wants is already decided and given their choice to our men at highest level of bureaucracy. We can only hope kalmadi genres don't play spoil sport, and in that hope we may trust. I think we have high tolerance value towards politics, especially desh kind.
Since this thread is straying geopolitically-OT somewhat, I’d like to offer a few thoughts germane to the MMRCA contest:
The original American strategic rationale for the Pro-Pakistan tilt was set in the Eisenhower Administration, on the desks of John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Welsh Dulles, who created the ideological schema through which all ‘Cold War’ matters were viewed by Americans. This thinking still colours institutionalized American foreign policy making to this very day. Together, the Dulles brothers successfully promulgated an extremely simplistic (mis)understanding of the Post WWII dispensation, wherein, “You’re either with us or against us”. Rakshaks will recall very similar sentiments expressed by Bush-43 after 9/11.
India, being true to her own ideological roots, while grounded in a deep appreciation for history, and informed of the high stakes involved, and with a long-view in mind; chose instead to walk a Non-Aligned path. If Rakshaks will permit me this; in so doing, India effectively threw America behind Pakistan, because the simple-minded US administration couldn’t figure out what else to do, and Pakistan was all too willing (which is not intended to blame India – she had to do what she had to do, and the Americans didn’t know any better – and apparently still don’t). This Indian decision wasn’t just a reflection of a post-colonial desire for independence. Nor was it naïve, facile or expedient. Indeed, it was quite the opposite. Indians of the day knew that when everyone picks one side or another, that wider war becomes *inevitable*. Yet, standing apart from either block carries its own dangers, which was a conscious decision taken with bravery, let no one doubt. For these reasons among others, India did not become a “poodle” of either Cold War superpower, as evidenced by the military engagements she undertook during that period – always on behalf of herself and none other.
In this light, anyone now advocating for India to closely ally with the United States is effectively abrogating pretty much all of Indian strategic thought going back just about three thousand years. No thinking person with pro-India inclinations should undertake this lightly (nor at all, I would suggest). Granted, this in itself does not instruct India not to pick the F-16 or F-18 if indeed either is technically superior to the other MMRCA contenders. But, it does caution against an overly-close or formalized alliance with the United States (a la CISMoA), because to the Indian mind, alliance is an obligation, whereas to the American mind, alliance is an opportunity – and this ideological and philosophical mismatch will bring nothing but woe to India if ever a formalized alliance is instituted between India and the United States. By all means, buy American warplanes if they’re in fact the best on offer and can be had without abandoning Indian sovereignty or military prerogative – but don’t do it for any supposed (short-sighted, ill-considered) geostrategic reason bent on alliance with America. That’d be stupid, and could set India on a very dangerous course.
Consider that India’s Non-Aligned stance gave the Americans enough of a reason to back Pakistan in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, despite the complete lack of any moral justification to do so. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan gave the Americans an even bigger Pro-Pakistan reason in the 80s – a reason that was shared between “all three” (being the US, Pakistan and China, owing to the ‘Sino-Soviet Split’). But let no one forget that when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the Americans effectively ignored Pakistan until 9/11/2001. Then, once again, Pakistan became “a major non-NATO US ally”. What does this mean for the MMRCA contest? It means that the Americans will offer India “the moon” (including a UNSC P-seat, F-16, F-18, even F-35, etc.), but only because of America’s own interests (such as Af-Pak, countering China, US manufacturing jobs, etc); American interests which seemingly are always calculated on very short time frames, subject to change without notice.
Now, I will admit that I have no way to prove this, but let me ask you, dear Rakshak, if India had ‘fallen in line’ with US interests when she first had the ‘opportunity’, do you think America would have exhibited the Pro-Pakistan tilt from 1950-1979? Of course you don’t and neither do I. Make no mistake, America of that day would have quickly disposed of Pakistan had India ‘played ball’. Furthermore, in a very real sense; America’s arming of Pakistan contributes to Indian insecurity, which (they hope) leads to Indian purchases of American weapons, thereby profiting America. In a way, India purchasing American weapons validates and facilitates this dynamic, and feeds into a continuing cycle of insecurity and American weapons purchases. The only way to effectively break this dynamic is to not buy American weapons. If the Americans see that the instability and insecurity they foster goes to enrich Russia or France, they will not play that game with the same gusto they have been.
When America’s interests shift, which they inevitably do because of the short-sightedness inherent in expedient strategymaking, so too does American support for her client states. In fact, I would argue, that the structural dynamics of the American establishment itself – with its ‘checks and balances’, open access for paying lobbyists, two-year-long election cycles, the milindustrial complex itself and the combined heavy dependence on middle-eastern oil and Chinese sovereign credit – this virtually guarantees that America’s interests vis a vis India will shift over the coming decades, as they have over the past decade, making it by no means certain that relations will improve along the current trajectory.
If history provides any salient lesson, we can be assured that the present push for warming relations will not last indefinitely, especially as the ramifications of global climate change increasingly pit the so-called ‘developed world’ at loggerheads with the ‘developing world’. If India plans to fly the MMRCA winner for 30-40 years, as I’ve read; then India should consider buying from a country that has exhibited a far greater degree of geopolitical constancy than has the United States of America. By my geopolitical estimation, that would indicate either Russia or France (Mig-35 or Rafale, respectively).
IMHO, far too many here on BRF are keen to kick Russia to the curb. I think this is also a short-sighted response to the aggravation of perceived cost overruns on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya, and also the supply disruptions that came in the wake of the Soviet collapse. I also think there is some significant misperception of the strategic position of Russia. Allow me to explain briefly:
Firstly, third-party observers to the Gorshkov refit (like you and me) are in no position to question the validity of costs on the project. Any upset on the topic can only be informed by inflammatory media portrayals, ignoring the fact that the GoI/MoD finally came to accept things and the whole affair was settled. Nobody on BRF should overlook that.
Second, the Soviet collapse caused a great deal of disruption in Russia, and regrettably this resulted in some supply disruptions, but that was the past, and there is no indication that anything like that would happen again – so while Russia may not be a perfect supplier yet, they are on the road to improving and with continued patronage (and larger production volumes) the Russian milindustrial complex should stabilize its operations and improve their supply performance. Don’t forget, other deals with the Russians have already been settled (notably the FGFA) and so any steps to thicken the foundations of Russian producers is likely to pay dividends to India over the long term.
Third, with regards to Russia’s geostrategic position; like India, Russia has concerns about Chinese expansionism; like India, Russia has concerns about terrorism and Islamist militancy; like India, Russia has concerns about petro-dollar fuelled Islamism; WHILE AT THE SAME TIME; unlike the United States, Russia is an energy exporting country; and unlike the United States, Russia’s sovereign debt is below 10% of GDP (much lower than any other MMRCA contender).
Undeniably, Russia has gone through a rough patch since the collapse of the USSR, but things are improving rapidly. If India wanted to pick a geopolitical power with which to partner to march into her preferred future, it should not be one that is so beholden to China, which would include America, of course, but increasingly also the EADS member countries.
Some additional rebuttals:
1) A number of posters have commented that India, the world’s largest democracy, is a “natural ally” of America, the world’s oldest democracy. This depiction of America is wrong-headed because the United States didn’t become a true democracy until the Civil Rights act of 1964(!) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965(!!). By this measure, India is an older democracy than is the United States, so please spare us the revisionist depiction of American democracy – overlooking a recent history of racial segregation and disenfranchisement.
2) America didn’t enter WWII on the side of the British until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in December 1941! That’s right, America stayed out of the fray from 1939-1942, and in fact a number of American companies and businessmen were trading with the Nazis even after the Americans entered the European theatre, notably IBM which provided a punch-card system the Nazis used to “catalogue” concentration camp prisoners, thereby improving the efficiency of Hitler’s holocaust machine. The take-away lesson here: America has demonstrated a depth of moral bankruptcy that should give any Indian pause when considering formal alliances with the United States.
3) Have no concern about blow-back on the US-India nuclear deal. For starters, there are entirely different lobbies in the US for nuclear equipments and warplanes, and so little chance that a sour note for one will taint the other. More importantly, India has already made the sound decision to operate low-enriched fuel, heavy-water moderated nuclear reactors, and the Americans have long ago made the *cheap* decision to operate light-water moderated reactors. This means that India doesn’t really want US reactors, only access to other NSG products and fuel. BRIEFLY, the main safety advantage of heavy-water moderated reactors is that a loss of containment, and leakage of heavy water, would result in an automatic shutdown (because the reaction requires ‘slow neutrons’), whereas in the light-water reactors offered by America, a loss of containment and loss of water would result in a meltdown, which is exactly what we’re seeing in Fukushima right now. For this reason, I don’t think India or anyone else would consider buying a light water reactor anymore, because they are inherently unsafe, whereas pressurized heavy-water reactors will always ‘fail safe’. (IMHO, India would be better off buying an AECL reactor from Canada, like the CANDU-6 or ACR-1000, both of which will burn thorium, unlike any American reactor.)
Last edited by Ravi Karumanchiri on 16 Mar 2011 22:43, edited 1 time in total.
^^^ Thanks for your kudos -- I appreciate them very much, and I'm humbled.
ONE DISCLAIMER: Nothing I've written above should be construed as 'Anti-American'. Some of my favourite people, places and things are American, and no one should doubt that. But, I do find lots of fault with American foreign policy, as I know do many Americans. I sincerely hope for a better day for everyone around the world, including my American brothers and sisters.
Good post Ravi and amazing analysis. However, IMHO you seem to be equating the Soviet Union and her interests in the cold war to the Russia of today. Does that hold in your opinion? Today's Russia is like a mercenary - all techs available for a price.
Groshkov delay is but one symptom of the problems that beset Indo-Russian relations. That GOI agreed to the amount asked does not explain it away. What other options were on the table - walk away and lose time and money or pay the amount asked. And you had Russian posters o BRF explaining that the reason for the problem was that the GOI had been "greedy" in their negotiations. This would lead to thinking that the escalation was part of a deliberate plan.
Lets not forget the delays in the Sukhois for years, the current problems in adapting them for air launched Brahmos is another point of soreness. And of course the problems with Mig-29s are well documented - we call them teething troubles now. Would we ever allow the LCA similar leeway? Then there is the T-90 and problems with its TOT. The most vital part to all this is the delay in the Nerpa. The last agreed delivery date was March 2011. Then it was said that the interiors were not well painted. So this has now been shifted to October 2011. When that date draws near another will a similar excuse be givem to not hand over the sub? Time will tell.
We talk about Chanakya yet behave otherwise. Right now, India is deeply engaged with the Russians for spares for 80% of armed forces hardware plus Gorky, plus MTA, plus FGFA, plus T-90, plus Frigates, plus ......... So it is not as if the Russians are being kicked to the kerb like you suggest. But what do they expect from us? And by feeling "obligated" to buying everything from Russia are you not going back on India's strategic gameplan for the past few decades?
India should "engage" the west as well as Russia. India's position in the world is bigger than it was in 1971. I agree that India was not a Russian poodle and will not become that of the west. India needs to buy technologies instead of finished products. Techs that will improve the LCA or the Arjun or the IAC or the Shivaliks or the Arihant and not the finished product.
I would humbly request, Admins to move these posts to a new thread, titled appropriately, suggest "Strategic Sovereignty: India's options". Ravi: Good Post.
No mention either about the sale of the Su-27 to China, which they're cloning with gusto, or the Su-30 MKK.
Am I the only one to think that this analysis is biased?
The Cold War is indeed over and the American line of thought might not have changed much, but the Russian line of thought is certainly not as disciplined as portrayed.
PratikDas wrote:
The Cold War is indeed over and the American line of thought might not have changed much, but the Russian line of thought is certainly not as disciplined as portrayed.
America has direct interest in having a presence in Central asia and also in af Pak area.
Russia does not have that kind of resource to do it. PRC is already in Aksai Chin and POK and has access to af Pak area.
So India has to do all its relationship based on its best interest.
PratikDas wrote:Is the Indian interest served with a China equipped with Su-35?
Absolutely not and even SU MKK is a problem from India. This is the reason why the supplier countries are called super powers and countries like PRC is not in their league.
I wanted to suggest the American in this thread that his country should consider selling the F16/F18 to PRC also and maybe India may fund some of these. Then it will be truly global.
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:if India had ‘fallen in line’ with US interests when she first had the ‘opportunity’, do you think America would have exhibited the Pro-Pakistan tilt from 1950-1979? Of course you don’t and neither do I. Make no mistake, America of that day would have quickly disposed of Pakistan had India ‘played ball’.
So you're saying the way to stop US support of Pakistan is closer alliance with the US
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:The only way to effectively break this dynamic is to not buy American weapons. If the Americans see that the instability and insecurity they foster goes to enrich Russia or France, they will not play that game with the same gusto they have been.
So you're saying the way to stop US support of Pakistan is to freeze the US out even more.
India has done exactly what you suggested for the last 50 years and it clearly didn't deter the US from supporting Pakistan. Perhaps a new approach is needed?
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Furthermore, in a very real sense; America’s arming of Pakistan contributes to Indian insecurity, which (they hope) leads to Indian purchases of American weapons, thereby profiting America.
I realize that you view everything through an Indian lens, but realize that the world does not in fact revolve around India. The US supported Pakistan because they needed Pakistan's support in Afghanistan, simple as that.
Don't go so crazy coming up with wacky conspiracy theories that you overlook the obvious.
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:If India plans to fly the MMRCA winner for 30-40 years, as I’ve read; then India should consider buying from a country that has exhibited a far greater degree of geopolitical constancy than has the United States of America. By my geopolitical estimation, that would indicate either Russia or France (Mig-35 or Rafale, respectively).
Yes both France and Russia are very consistent, consistently willing to sell to the highest bidder. Russia is now getting ready to sell the Su-35 to China. France has been the leading European proponent of ending the arms embargo on China.
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:A number of posters have commented that India, the world’s largest democracy, is a “natural ally” of America, the world’s oldest democracy. This depiction of America is wrong-headed because the United States didn’t become a true democracy until the Civil Rights act of 1964
Even leaving aside the accuracy of your comment about the US not being a 'true' democracy till recently, the argument is about the natural alignment between two of the largest democracies in the world. Whether the US became a democracy in 1776 or 1976, it is one now and the political consequence is the same.
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:America has demonstrated a depth of moral bankruptcy that should give any Indian pause when considering formal alliances with the United States
I do find the irony in this statement particularly rich considering all the criticism the US gets for being involved in wars far from its borders.
So not intervening in a war that doesn't affect us is 'morally bankrupt', good to know
But getting back to the facts, the US was actively supporting the UK even before Pearl Harbor though the Lend-Lease act which sent massive amounts of supplies across the ocean.
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 17 Mar 2011 01:20, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks for your kudos. I will attempt to clarify my thinking as you’ve enquired, while trying not to become BRF’s main Russian cost-overrun apologist.
The Soviet Union had geopolitical interests that were (ill)defined along ideological lines. Russia of today is much more pragmatic, and arguably to a degree, to use your term, “mercenary”, I would agree. However, I don’t think they would offer “all techs available for a price”. I am certain there are things the Russians are not selling, and even what they do sell, may not be all the same as what they keep for themselves or sell to more trusted buyers. Specifically, the Sukhoi-30; from what I understand the version they sold China is heavier and less manoeuvrable with weaker radar and less endurance than the Su-30MKI – so while they sold both India and China the Su-30, it would be a mistake to assume each version is equivalent to one another, or even on par with what Russia flies.
WRT cost overruns and delays, I will offer this: No supplier anywhere wants to develop a reputation for cost overruns or delays. Everyone knows this is bad for business, but sometimes it happens. I believe it would be a mistake to perceive cost overruns and delays as a deliberate Russian strategy to extract more money from India, even if that is the end result. I think it is much more likely a result of poor management, inadequate systems, defective negotiations processes and other organizational/structural problems, rather than any kind of deliberate tactic. Consider that profit-focussed enterprises in the West, long operating with sophistication in competitive marketplaces, still do not have a very good track record of cost control and adherence to schedules, particularly in defence-related industries. Frankly, neither does India. Now consider Russia, which is still growing out of an era where she was not profit-focussed nor operating with sophistication in a competitive marketplace, and therefore had a number of inherent deficiencies in middle management, capacity scheduling and cost estimation systems, etc. (owing to a history of communism and unwieldy centralized planning, among other Soviet-era failings). This systemic Soviet legacy that still constrains Russia has created a number of unfortunate situations where the Russians were prone to over-promise and under-deliver.
Specifically WRT the Gorshkov, Indians went and studied the situation in detail and decided to come to terms with the cost increase and the lengthened schedule. It is not for either of us to second guess that process or the outcome. When the Gorshkov is ultimately inducted as the INS Vikramaditya, I will be sure it will be worth every rupee, and before you second guess that, you should study what other alternative could be had within the same time frame, with the same capability at a lower cost. (I’ll spare you the effort – no such option existed or exists.)
Yes, there have been other delays, many of which came with no cost increase, meaning that the Russian profit margins on these deals were certainly eroded. Indians should not take any satisfaction in this, because a supplier who isn’t making a profit cannot reinvest into its operations and hire-up and train new staff to increase productivity, efficiency or quality – which poses further risks to Indian military supply. Believe me; it is in India’s interests that Russian equipment makers are profitable. Specifically with reference to the recent plan for the air-launched BrahMos on the Su-30 MKI; I understand that a high price was initially quoted by the Russians. This tells me that they don’t really want to undertake this work, probably because their engineers are working on something else (like the FGFA, for example); and so they quoted a high price to motivate HAL to undertake the job in-house (which they can do, because they have the drawings too). The Russians just didn’t want to come out and flatly say “Nyet”, so they quoted a high price. There is no reason to get upset by this, especially since every indication exists that it will have no bearing on the timing of the BrahMos/Su-30MKI integration.
Also, make no mistake, just because some Russians signed up to BRF and posted some things about “greedy” Indians, doesn’t mean they were in on any of the dealings personally. IMHO, Indians should have more confidence in their own experts, and if they decided to accept a higher price tag for the Gorshkov, well, that’s their expert opinion and that should be enough to satisfy everyone here on BRF, in large part because none of us have any informed basis to second guess that decision.
As for ‘Transfer of Technology’ (ToT), there are few brief points I’d like to make on this issue.
1. Some here on BRF would like to see India 100% self-reliant for all defence technologies. This would be economically and intellectually foolhardy. India has other pressing security concerns, such as for energy security, food security, and water security, and I would strongly advocate that Indian engineering students also aspire to careers aimed at addressing these other, non-military security concerns.
2. I understand that ToT is meant to help with the indigenization of military production, and this is a laudable goal. However, it should not be undertaken for emotional reasons, but rather for practical reasons. Moreover, ToT is not a proper substitute for indigenous R&D – which DRDO and affiliated labs seem to understand.
3. Rakshaks should understand that the reason MMRCA contenders may be reticent for ToT is because they don’t want to end up with a situation whereby they have to compete in the global marketplace against an Indian equipment maker who has received ToT. In fact, I am quite sure the ToT agreements would preclude Indian defence equipment makers from embedding transferred technologies into export products. Therefore, taking the long view, hoping for the day when India exports more of her defence production – ToT today may be an impediment for tomorrow. Indigenization of R&D is very definitely of greater importance for India than is ToT. If India has money to spend, she should pour it into indigenous R&D, and into universities, scholarships, bursaries, and also defence lab staff salaries. The advantages of ToT are transient at best.
4. With further reference to my earlier post above: American technological supremacy was built on the backs of scientists who came to the United States from all over the world. In the post WWII era, the ‘best and brightest’ had but one destination of choice, and that was America. They went to work in American research labs and contributed richly to the entire gamut of American military technologies. America is still heavily dependent on imported ‘human capital’ to staff high-end R&D initiatives of every kind. Well, particularly since 9/11, this inflow of expertise into the United States has slowed greatly, as visa requirements increased, and the value of the dollar decreased (while the standard of living has improved tremendously in other countries). Recently, I read that most Indian students studying in the United States are keen to return to India after they graduate. This accelerating trend marks another downward force on the prospects of continued American geostrategic leadership.
One thing we can agree on wholeheartedly: India should engage with the whole world, but not at the cost of her own interests.
GeorgeWelch wrote:I realize that you view everything through an Indian lens, but realize that the world does not in fact revolve around India. The US supported Pakistan because they needed Pakistan's support in Afghanistan, simple as that.
George, isn't your statement somewhat arrogant -viz he cannot think that the world revolves around India, yet it is ok for you to think that it revolves around US. I may not agree with his views entirely because Russia is elevated to a position that it is not worthy of today. But I cannot understand your post either.
Everyone will have their perspective. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?
Vivek K wrote:yet it is ok for you to think that it revolves around US.
No, I just think every country makes decisions based on its own needs.
Vivek K wrote:But I cannot understand your post either.
My post is very simple: don't assume every US policy decision regarding Pakistan is driven by a desire to screw India. Most of the time, consideration of India doesn't even enter into the picture.
Vivek K wrote:Everyone will have their perspective. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?
You can have your perspective, you what you can't do is falsely assign motive to other people. That's when you start to get into libel.
America is going to do what America wants to do (today – which is subject to change tomorrow). They have no inherent affinity for democracies, as evidenced by their support of a whole host of dictatorial and authoritarian regimes, not to mention state sponsors of terrorism like Pakistan. IMO, there is nothing India can or should do to pull apart America and Pakistan. America is finding out on her own, that with a friend like Pakistan, she has no need for enemies. I think China will learn this lesson the hard way too, one day.
Indian democracy will never be as compliant as Pakistani generals, so I don’t think India should even make the attempt to sidle-up to America in the Pakistani style. India has taken a Non-Aligned path, and I think she should continue on that course indefinitely. If America, China and Pakistan want to play their games with each other, I would suggest that India do whatever she can to stay out of it, let them all stew in their own soup, and focus on non-geostrategic imperatives, such as education, infrastructure and bringing more Indians out of poverty. Of course, this requires security, but it does not inherently mean alliance with America or confrontation with China.
Yes, America needed Pakistan after 1979, but what was the rationale for the pro-Pakistan tilt prior to this? (It was India’s Non-Aligned stance, and Dulles dull-witted black-and-white worldview, as I explained in my first post today.) You may call me crazy or characterize my ideas as “wacky conspiracy theories” if you like – but to me and many others, the truth is obvious enough. If you’re curious for proof yourself, I would direct you to the Nixon tapes, wherein he professes much admiration for that butcher Yahya Khan, and utter disdain for Mme. IG.
Running interference for the AQ Khan network, the shadowy dealings of one ‘David Coleman Headley’, on top of freebie F-16s, et cetera, et cetera, only further underscore the validity of what you choose to call my “wacky conspiracy theories”.
A last point of clarification: One of the things I most admire about India is her sovereignty, despite the terrible pressures on her to compromise on it. As a Canadian nationalist, you might even say that I am a little jealous of it. Something like the MMRCA contest could never happen in my own country, nor in the United States or almost anywhere else, IMO. As a corollary to this, Russia and France selling to the highest bidder – this is the exercise of Russian and French sovereign prerogatives, and I would be a hypocrite if I faulted the Russians or French for this, which I don’t. But, don’t parallel Russian and French sales to the Chinese, to the American *gift* of F-16s to the Pakistanis, because this isn’t just another business transaction, particularly since it’s a freebie deal.
Lastly, GeorgeWelch....
You can have your perspective, ... what you can't do is falsely assign motive to other people. That's when you start to get into libel.
I accept your appology for falsly labelling my comments as "crazy conspiracy theories". Please don't let it happen again.
Last edited by Ravi Karumanchiri on 17 Mar 2011 02:05, edited 1 time in total.
I have some serious issues in your post and you seem to bend over backwards to be obligated to Russia even more than we are now (which is already at very high levels) even to the point of criticising India. Then you end up with a totally contradictory statement that India should consider her own interests. What then in your view is Indian interest?
..However, I don’t think they would offer “all techs available for a price”. I am certain there are things the Russians are not selling, and even what they do sell, may not be all the same as what they keep for themselves or sell to more trusted buyers. Specifically, the Sukhoi-30; from what I understand the version they sold China is heavier and less manoeuvrable with weaker radar and less endurance than the Su-30MKI – so while they sold both India and China the Su-30, it would be a mistake to assume each version is equivalent to one another, or even on par with what Russia flies.
There is nothing charitable in that. Russian national security concerns do not allow them to make a neighbouring country as strong as their forces.
WRT cost overruns and delays, .... Everyone knows this is bad for business, but sometimes it happens. I believe it would be a mistake to perceive cost overruns and delays as a deliberate Russian strategy to extract more money from India, even if that is the end result.
Really!!!
I think it is much more likely a result of poor management, inadequate systems, defective negotiations processes and other organizational/structural problems, rather than any kind of deliberate tactic. ....enterprises in the West, ..still do not have a very good track record of cost control and adherence to schedules, particularly in defence-related industries. Frankly, neither does India. Now consider Russia, which is still growing out of an era where she was not profit-focussed nor operating with sophistication in a competitive marketplace, and therefore had a number of inherent deficiencies in middle management, capacity scheduling and cost estimation systems, etc. (owing to a history of communism and unwieldy centralized planning, among other Soviet-era failings). This systemic Soviet legacy that still constrains Russia has created a number of unfortunate situations where the Russians were prone to over-promise and under-deliver.
So you would have India 100% obligated committed to buying from a vendor going through systemic collapse and facing poor management, yada, yada....
Specifically WRT the Gorshkov, Indians went and studied the situation in detail and decided to come to terms with the cost increase and the lengthened schedule. It is not for either of us to second guess that process or the outcome. When the Gorshkov is ultimately inducted as the INS Vikramaditya, I will be sure it will be worth every rupee, and before you second guess that, you should study what other alternative could be had within the same time frame, with the same capability at a lower cost. ....
So they had India by the b$lls and since there was no other option and therefore India had no other options to pay the ransom and "come to terms with the cost increase".
.....Specifically with reference to the recent plan for the air-launched BrahMos on the Su-30 MKI; I understand that a high price was initially quoted by the Russians. This tells me that they don’t really want to undertake this work, probably because their engineers are working on something else (like the FGFA, for example); and so they quoted a high price to motivate HAL to undertake the job in-house (which they can do, because they have the drawings too).
Last we heard, HAL did not have the tech for the MKI therefore needed the Russians.
Also, make no mistake, just because some Russians signed up to BRF and posted some things about “greedy” Indians, doesn’t mean they were in on any of the dealings personally.
Well, you are a very believing person IMHO. BRF regularly sends Chinese trolls to the cyber hell, think why? And why are the Russians different? Because they are Russians?
IMHO, Indians should have more confidence in their own experts, and if they decided to accept a higher price tag for the Gorshkov, well, that’s their expert opinion and that should be enough to satisfy everyone here on BRF, in large part because none of us have any informed basis to second guess that decision.
I am speechless!!
As for ‘Transfer of Technology’ (ToT);;.
1. Some here on BRF would like to see India 100% self-reliant for all defence technologies. This would be economically and intellectually foolhardy......
2. .... ToT .. However, it should not be undertaken for emotional reasons, but rather for practical reasons. ..
3. Rakshaks should understand that the reason MMRCA contenders may be reticent for ToT is because they don’t want to end up with a situation whereby they have to compete in the global marketplace against an Indian equipment maker who has received ToT. ..
4. ... Recently, I read that most Indian students studying in the United States are keen to return to India after they graduate. This accelerating trend marks another downward force on the prospects of continued American geostrategic leadership.
Quite a lot of gyaan here!! Tell me one thing - how does one become self-reliant without indegenous R&D?
One thing we can agree on wholeheartedly: India should engage with the whole world, but not at the cost of her own interests.
So there is no problem if India continues to buy everything Russian but when buying from teh rest of the world, we must be careful!
One thing we can agree on wholeheartedly: India should engage with the whole world, but not at the cost of her own interests.
So there is no problem if India continues to buy everything Russian but when buying from teh rest of the world, we must be careful!
What has the world helped and done for the country. If not helped which country has avoided harming Indians in terms of racial, colonization or religious wise.
The French sell submarines and Mirages to Pakistan. Maybe that is a conspiracy to make India buy French submarines and Mirages. Looks like the naive folks in New Delhi fell for it ...
The Russians sold Su-27s to China, much before India thought of buying the same system. The sale of Su-27s to China in their hundreds was one of the key reasons India had to consider the Su-30MKI. Never mind chaps, the Su-27 (the Su-30MKI) they sold us is lighter, faster, more whizzy, etc etc, so the Russians are serving our national security interests by selling junk to China ....
The Swedes sold AEW systems to Pakistan. Maybe that is a conspiracy to make India buy the Swedish fighter ...
The British looted India for 200 years, broke up the country, and created Pakistan. Now that was a conspiracy ... to make us buy the Wapiti, the Spitfire, the Hunter, the Gnat, the Jaguar, and the Eurofighter. Looks like the naive folks in Delhi might fall for it .... again!
Time to stop being naive and put india first. Don't buy ....... anything.
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Something like the MMRCA contest could never happen in my own country, nor in the United States or almost anywhere else, IMO.
KC-X was a far bigger competition than MMRCA
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote: But, don’t parallel Russian and French sales to the Chinese, to the American *gift* of F-16s to the Pakistanis
Of course not, Russia and France want to sell top-of-the-line gear while the US gave Pakistan old gear, no parallel at all.
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:
I accept your appology for falsly labelling my comments as "crazy conspiracy theories". Please don't let it happen again.
Nice attempt to deflect from what you actually said. Namely that the US just gave Pakistan weapons to force India to buy US weapons.
eklavya wrote:
The French sell submarines and Mirages to Pakistan. Maybe that is a conspiracy to make India buy French submarines and Mirages. Looks like the naive folks in New Delhi fell for it ...
I apologize if my previous post has caused you angst and confusion. I will try to be very, very clear.
WRT the MMRCA contest, the Indian interest is the purchase of an aircraft competent to meet the security needs of the Republic of India. Primarily, this is a technical issue, and I believe it should be settled on a technical basis, factoring for operational cost over the lifespan of the aircraft. However, assuming that more than one aircraft should meet that standard, the question then becomes how to pick between them. Some have argued that this is where geopolitics comes into play. I tried to explain that geopolitically speaking, India has more affinity with Russia or France than with the United States, counter to what others have argued. In making this determination, I considered history, current geopolitical tides, macroeconomics, and also the fact that India already operates Russian and French aircraft. I also made the estimation that India’s purchase of American aircraft would soon be balanced by American gifts to Pakistan. Another thing that just occurred to me is all the American system currently in the Taiwanese inventory will eventually be subsumed into the Chinese arsenal. This is inevitable with the official American acquiescence to the ‘One China’ concept.
With specific reference to the Russian supply of equipment to India; I never – and neither should you or anyone else – expect Russian charity. Likewise, I never made the case for any kind of Indian obligation to buy Russian equipment or any other country’s equipment. Like I’ve said, such decisions should be made on a technical basis factored for operational cost. However, there is such a thing as ‘supplier development’. It is very common in manufacturing industries, to send experts and advisors to one’s suppliers and to extend them credit and favourable terms provided they meet quality standards in timely fashion and reinvest profits into their business. All I was suggesting was that it is in India’s interests to leave a little meat on the bone. If Russia has systemic problems and managerial deficiencies, then India’s best interests, IMHO, would be to help Russia work on those issues, not as an act of charity or obligation, but for strategic imperatives.
I understand your frustration WRT cost increases, but I don’t think it serves anyone’s interests to assume personal indignation or ascribe maleficent motive, where incompetence is the more likely cause. For one, hurt feelings don’t spare any pain. Secondly, incompetence can be addressed – apparently to the satisfaction of the GoI/MoD. All I was trying to say was that you and I are not in a position to second guess that, particularly if our only insight is inflammatory articles in the Indian press.
Last I heard the dispute over the cost of redesigning the Su-30 to carry the BrahMos hinged on who should foot the bill. Why do you think the Russians should carry that cost? Why do you think the quoted cost is too high? More to the point, why do you think HAL cannot do it in-house, I mean, they certainly have the drawings because they are putting Sukhois together from kits – so HAL should have all it needs to do the job in-house – don’t you think? Regardless of what either of us thinks, you must admit that neither of us has anything more to go on other than what we read in the (often inflammatory) press, so maybe, just maybe, we should calm down a bit?
Quite a lot of gyaan here!! Tell me one thing - how does one become self-reliant without indegenous R&D?
Clearly, you’ve misconstrued my meaning and even the face-value of what I wrote. Please re-read my (offending) comment – I accept your apology in advance.
So there is no problem if India continues to buy everything Russian but when buying from teh rest of the world, we must be careful!
Firstly, I never said that, and I don’t particularly appreciate you misconstruing my meaning or falsely attributing comments or intentions to me. Please stop.
Secondly, there is something else you should understand about the American military industrial complex that distinguishes it greatly from the Russian establishment, as an example of the opposite extreme. That distinction is politics. The entire defence planning and acquisitions process in the United States is heavily politicized, so much so that the American military has famously fielded a number of ‘dud’ systems because they had widespread political support (mostly because factories are spread out across every congressional district, and arms lobbyists have the run of the entire American political class). There are many examples, like the Patriot missile system (which never shot down a single incoming ‘SCUD’ during the entire first Gulf War), the V-22 Osprey (which killed dozens in crashes) or the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (which was made of aluminum and would catch fire if hit with tracer rounds). By comparison, the Russian defence planning and acquisitions process is not nearly as politicized – not by a long shot – and the Russians never field a system that doesn’t operate when frozen.
As long as I’m making controversial comments, I’ll offer a few more: The Russians, having suffered invasions themselves, seem to take defence a bit more seriously than do the Americans, who are always preparing to fight on foreign shores. For the Russians, the most important thing is that their equipment works. For the Americans, the most important thing is that their equipment is bought, and the higher the price, the better – even if it's their own military doing the buying.
I have some serious issues in your post and you seem to bend over backwards to be obligated to Russia even more than we are now (which is already at very high levels) even to the point of criticising India. Then you end up with a totally contradictory statement that India should consider her own interests. What then in your view is Indian interest?
Remember this is not between Indians but between India and rest of the other countries. For Indians Indian interest first.
Acharya wrote:
What has the world helped and done for the country. If not helped which country has avoided harming Indians in terms of racial, colonization or religious wise.
So we became Russian Vassals? What kind of rational thought is that. Today we are bigger than the British that ruled for centuries over us. We have a governance system that all the muslim countries and their citizenry are envious of . So why are we afraid of engaging the world confidently on our terms?
Remember this is not between Indians but between India and rest of the other countries. For Indians Indian interest first.
So then why do Indians launch into self-criticism when they have to defend issues relating to foreign nations? We need confidence in ourselves and in our products. BRF did not allow me to continue to raise the fact that - MRCA is not needed and that LCA IS the de-facto MRCA because of the very fact that it is here before the MRCA contract is signed. What we need is AESA radars, engines, munitions to make the LCA accomplish its mission. NOT the MRCA!
Vivek K wrote:MRCA is not needed and that LCA IS the de-facto MRCA because of the very fact that it is here before the MRCA contract is signed. What we need is AESA radars, engines, munitions to make the LCA accomplish its mission. NOT the MRCA!
In fact, if you rummage through this long winding thread of all these years, you will not get much by way of the rationale for the MRCA. The best I have found so far is that the IAF prefers a light, medium and heavy category and hence MRCA is needed, to replace the middle category of Jaguars, M2K's. I am sure assets once acquired can be put to some use, when needed. However, the fault here is not of the IAF but of the MoD, for not defining a proper mission and vision and then executing as per the same.
Another purely technical consideration I’d like to raise:
India plans to fly the MMRCA winner for 30-40 years. During that time the chosen aircraft will certainly undergo upgrades, probably to the entire avionics suite – including the radar – and very likely the engines as well. The only thing that will likely not be subject to a significant upgrade program is the airframe itself.
Therefore, the MMRCA purchase decision should weigh the functional value of the airframe above all other components of the competing aircraft, which are subject to change over the operational lifespan of the IAF selection.
I'd be very interested to hear the opinions of BRF members as to which airframe is superior and why.
Acharya wrote:
What has the world helped and done for the country. If not helped which country has avoided harming Indians in terms of racial, colonization or religious wise.
So we became Russian Vassals? What kind of rational thought is that. Today we are bigger than the British that ruled for centuries over us. We have a governance system that all the muslim countries and their citizenry are envious of . So why are we afraid of engaging the world confidently on our terms?
Who said India has to be a vassal. Can India take care of its interest and projects its national ethos. Indian religions are still banned in those muslim countries.
"“Ahead of the price negotiations, a price negotiation committee has to be set up, which is a complex process,” an industry sources told FE on condition of anonymity. “So far, neither has the committee been set up, nor the qualifying vendors been informed. Therefore, there is no possibility of the negotiations starting by the month-end.”
Those who have been shortlisted have to be given enough time to get ready for the talks and even those who have failed to make the cut would get point-wise explanations from the MoD for not qualifying
An MoD Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) is currently looking at the ‘offset’ proposals, a requirement that the winning contractor source a certain amount of the value of each aircraft that India buys from Indian industry. Their proposals for transfer of technology are also being examined.
After this, the TOC will select three companies to go to the next stage of the bidding process.
The lowest bidder will be called by a contract negotiation committee to finalise the terms of the deal. After this is done, the MoD, the finance minister and finally the Cabinet committee on security will have to sign off on it.
At the recent Aero India show, the air chief said this will be done by September, but MoD officials have told FE it is likely to happen only at the end of the year or early next year.
GeorgeWelch wrote:
KC-X was a far bigger competition than MMRCA
KC-X was between only two competitors, one American and one European.
The MMRCA is between six competitors, including two Americans, three Europeans and one Russian.
Ipso facto, the MMRCA is a bigger competition then KC-X, even if the dollar value and number of copies is greater.
I have 8 restaurants representing 6 nationalities (Chinese, Thai, Greek, Italian, Mexican, American) compete for my lunch business, therefore the 'GeoregeWelch lunch competition' is bigger than MMRCA.
More importantly, you completely miss/misrepresent the point.
You were trying to argue that the US would never open up a core defense competition to foreign competition like India is with the MMRCA and I was pointing out that was clearly wrong.
If I have misinterpreted what you were trying to say, please explain what you were trying to say.
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:A last point of clarification: One of the things I most admire about India is her sovereignty, despite the terrible pressures on her to compromise on it. As a Canadian nationalist, you might even say that I am a little jealous of it. Something like the MMRCA contest could never happen in my own country, nor in the United States or almost anywhere else, IMO.
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Therefore, the MMRCA purchase decision should weigh the functional value of the airframe above all other components of the competing aircraft, which are subject to change over the operational lifespan of the IAF selection.
The better question is which airframe will still be receiving upgrades that far into the future.
Which service has developed substantial upgrades for older models (USN) and which service has scrapped older models rather than upgrade them (RAF).
Theoretical upgrades do no good unless you actually develop them.
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Another purely technical consideration I’d like to raise:
India plans to fly the MMRCA winner for 30-40 years. During that time the chosen aircraft will certainly undergo upgrades, probably to the entire avionics suite – including the radar – and very likely the engines as well. The only thing that will likely not be subject to a significant upgrade program is the airframe itself.
Therefore, the MMRCA purchase decision should weigh the functional value of the airframe above all other components of the competing aircraft, which are subject to change over the operational lifespan of the IAF selection.
I'd be very interested to hear the opinions of BRF members as to which airframe is superior and why.
Ravi I suspect that the factors you have listed might not necessarily be the main clinchers. There are other issues like offsets and what offsets India will be able to absorb. In other words deficiencies in an Indian ability to absorb technologies being offered as part of offsets might impact a vendor even if his airframe and offer is otherwise "better" as per air force assessment
Now consider Russia, which is 