India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Apr 2011 09:16

I would ignore Ashleybhai's comments. He is an ex US govt man.

Kepner-Tregoe gave a good process to make selections when there are many factors.

All of them can be divided into musts and wants.
Those options that don't meet the musts get eliminated.
The wants are given weighting factors from 1 to 10.

The options are assigned marks (high, medium or low) for how they meet each want.

The end totals are made. The highest two or three get in the pool. Now one looks at adverse consequences of each choice and how to hedge them. The best option might not be the highest scorer if it has too many adverse consequences.

This has been in use from the late 1950s and quite effective.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2011 09:17

Vishnu wrote: in which case ... this entire tender process is a joke ... where companies end up spending upwards of 25 million dollars to fly down jets to get them evaluated in what is, realistically, a lost cause for them.

MMRCA tender has always been a joke , how else would you justify a Gripen and Rafale competing for the same pie or F-18E/F and F-16 competing for the same share of market when there is a vast difference in capability and performance.

An ex-chief mentioned that there would not be any discrimination between single and dual engine fighter and in the end IAF chooses a fighter it really wants.

The tender was just a political gimmick to show every thing was fair and square , they should have instead sent restricted tender if they want selective and equal capability to be proven on ground based on parameters IAF has set , for eg sending tenders to just Boeing , Dassult and EADS would have been a very fair process , considering the others are in light/medium category.

IAF definitely gets what it wants and rightly so but this would leave the other losers thinking they were just made to look like fools in the entire MMRCA process.

Humorix · Post by **Humorix** » 29 Apr 2011 09:24

Vishnu wrote:

The show had the following contents ...

1. A basic graphic identifying the winners with a handful of stats.
2. A discussion on the winners and what they bring to the Indian Air Force.
3. A graphic identifying the losers with source based information on why didnt make the downselect.
4. A discussion on the process of selection.
5. A graphic identifying unanswered questions ... raising the question of how the 2 who made the cut didn't have fully operational AESA radars at the moment but the US birds did.
6. An explanation (linked to the unanswered questions gfx) of how the MoD has now clarified that 42,000 crores is a notional figure on the value of the deal and that the total value is likely to go up.
7. A discussion on the decision making process and how India didn't feel it imperative to buy either American or Russian.
8. A discussion on the offset requirements and what India is attempting to do with this ToT.
9. A rather incomplete look at how the MMRCA acquisition will affect the balance of power in the region ...

Quite a lot ... I honestly believe ... for a programme lasting 22 minutes ...

I would be happy to answer any other criticism ... hopefully substantive ...

Thanks
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
NDTV

I have been a lurker on this forum for quite a few years now and this is my first post. In case I tread toes I seek apologies before hand as a newbie. I did see the show yesterday (at NDTV's site) and while I agree that quite a bit was covered by the program, and it did raise quite a few interesting questions, it also did fall short of providing an 'in-depth' insight, 'in-depth' here being relative as what might be 'superficial' to members of this forum might be 'in-depth' to the rest of the audience to whom the MMRCA could be of peripheral interest.

However at the end of watching the program I was left thinking, I hope a separate team has done as exhaustive a study of all possible ramification in terms of TOT, offset, absorbable technology, our own self reliance roadmap and how it might get a booster does, identification of key areas of technology where a lift up will give us a fillip, how does the economics of operation works out...etc. Admiral Menon did bring out the interesting angle of getting percentage stake in SAAB might have got us more leverage to accessing hi=tech than paying for it on a piecemeal basis etc though I don't think in his days there was any fighter fight offs. We just took in what was handed out to us. But the point here is one hopes an as evolved matrix of consideration was taken into account from the strategic POV as it was by the flyboys towards the tech evaluation of the aircraft.

While 22 min might be short for a program based on discussion, it might not be short if the facts were presented infographically. Moreover with net based media, time is not necessarily the same criteria as a broadcast agency. Would anybody be interested in collating the facts of the case. I (my organization) can help with creating an animated infographic presentation wherein all possible angles may be looked into (please note as this is something we will create in our spare time, we being an animation agency, the project might be time consuming).

Thanks

Avi

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Apr 2011 09:26

Again, it would be only mother of all assumptions, if anyone thinks Uncle will bend over and change rules. Unless, you want to show how you consider yourself to your uncle, and let him know, hey, can you really look at your laws, and that is not allowing us - means that we are game for a bigger play?

And that is, we really can afford to not choose any of these MMRCA craft, and we trash the whole contract process.. Don't we see read that between the lines, when babooze keep delaying, and especially making sure the new policies establishes newer purchases has to be via home grown technologies. It could be on that strategic line as well.

Now, the job is well done.. in antagonizing uncle. We should really start working on home grown capabilities, if the confidence is shown there., and produce to our forces, that we can do it better than uncle.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2011 09:27

comment by JCR in milphotos.net forum mrca thread about Roemer's resignation:

US has always had a different understanding of diplomacy than the rest of the world.
Usually it is "sign this or we will bomb you", at least this time it was "sign this or I will pack my bags".
One of the perks of being a nuclear power I guess

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Apr 2011 09:28

that was evil!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Apr 2011 09:30

SaiK wrote:Again, it would be only mother of all assumptions, if anyone thinks Uncle will bend over and change rules. Unless, you want to show how you consider yourself to your uncle, and let him know, hey, can you really look at your laws, and that is not allowing us - means that we are game for a bigger play?

And you think this has not been done? These rules have been discussed many times when Mike Mullen/Hillary etc visited India.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Apr 2011 09:32

may be I missed that.. can you link that here abhishek?

niran · Post by **niran** » 29 Apr 2011 09:34

Vishnu wrote:<snip>

As an example .. Did the IAF really need the F-16 to fly down to India for it to be failed on the grounds that its design life was reaching an end ? (Assuming that this was the thinking in the IAF). Did the Gripen really need to fly down a prototype to India for the IAF to be convinced that the jet was still a product in development? its just the process I am questioning ...

Thanks
Vishnu

your post raises a question in me head, you are crying "foul" in PC speak,
why?
did US company promised some candies for you and your TV kompany?
and no, me is too poor to pay to watch your TV kompany but still it is moi tax Rupee
going into that purchase, and i wanna know your reason for weeping.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2011 09:35

pandyan wrote:how else would you extract the best deal? competition is wonderful....

It is as long as you compete with similar types in a fair manner , if you want to buy a Mercedes or BMW you would not let Skoda or Maruti Esteem compete against it isnt it ?

I have been saying this from a long time there is a vast difference in capability , performance and price amongst the MMRCA contenders , IAF should have gone for restricted tender and just let the types that broadly meets its requirement for a given class compete. That would have also made this process much faster and would have saved effort and money from types that really have no chance make it any ways.

So if IAF wanted a F-16 class of fighter then it should have allowed Gripen and Mig-35 compete and if IAF wanted a Typhoon class then Rafale and F-18 were equal competitors

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Apr 2011 09:36

SaiK wrote:may be I missed that.. can you link that here abhishek?

here and
here

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2011 09:38

nobody forced the vendors to participate. they saw the RFP and made their own calls. the single engine F16 probably muscled its way in via GOTUS support. as with any such contract they will have to bring their wares and demo here, which was a few days process at own expense.

I dont see why we have to be "nice" and feel any takleef at the losers.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 29 Apr 2011 09:39

Singha wrote:I dont see why we have to be "nice" and feel any takleef at the losers.

+1 only.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Apr 2011 09:40

Austin, IAF would have RFI-ed based on MMRCA specifications. Now, what prevented Uncle to throw JSF or F15s for that matter satisfying those specs? I guess, the specifications were either too abstract or complex for them field appropriate craft.

I am sure, IAF did not ask for Maruti and BMW for a race. They said, they wanted a car with these specifications, and perhaps both matched having four wheels. We have to wait for the RFI/RFP details to analyze this better.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2011 09:43

Singha wrote:nobody forced the vendors to participate. they saw the RFP and made their own calls. the single engine F16 probably muscled its way in via GOTUS support. as with any such contract they will have to bring their wares and demo here, which was a few days process at own expense.

I dont see why we have to be "nice" and feel any takleef at the losers.

Its a open tender so any one would compete since IAF scripted the tender in a way that would let any body compete including a Light and heavy fighter , barring the Flanker that was told not to compete and perhaps even the F-15.

Restricted tender is not uncommon in the industry if you know what you want and who can compete to get it.

The issue is lot of those looser will now try not to be nice and could try tricks to delay the entire process and that is the apprehension that the IAF chief also noted recently.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 29 Apr 2011 09:44

niran wrote:
Vishnu wrote:<snip>

As an example .. Did the IAF really need the F-16 to fly down to India for it to be failed on the grounds that its design life was reaching an end ? (Assuming that this was the thinking in the IAF). Did the Gripen really need to fly down a prototype to India for the IAF to be convinced that the jet was still a product in development? its just the process I am questioning ...

Thanks
Vishnu
your post raises a question in me head, you are crying "foul" in PC speak,
why?
did US company promised some candies for you and your TV kompany?
and no, me is too poor to pay to watch your TV kompany but still it is moi tax Rupee
going into that purchase, and i wanna know your reason for weeping.

Everybody has a right to an opinion.

Mr. Vishnu, I did not see your program, but you might want to look into the accusations like the wrong description for AESA. Typo or not, it ruins credibility, also every news channel has bias but don't get your personal opinions in the debate too much, you will pull your station under like Fox media, where even their own sitcoms make fun of the network. I can give an example of a great host and interviewer, and his name is Peter Mansbridge from the CBC; all Canadian from the left to the right respect him because he plays non partisan.

On the other hand, LM is really screwing up with the JSF and now the Canadian Tories had to be forced to an election because the price of the 65 jets jumped from CAD $10 bil to CAD $30 bil. LM did not need to bring the F 16 down to India, hell they shouldn't even have entered but they did, and the IAF in all its integrity and professional research declined American MMRCA contenders as well as the Russian and Swedish. These people are the ones that defend the country and their opinions trump all of ours.

Regards

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Apr 2011 09:44

abhishek, in my understanding, those were mostly to do with gov-gov exchange programs FMS route.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 29 Apr 2011 09:44

Austin wrote:It is as long as you compete with similar types in a fair manner , if you want to buy a Mercedes or BMW you would not let Skoda or Maruti Esteem compete against it isnt it ?

I think the focus was on 'multi-role'. If the Esteem could technically perform all the tasks of a Merc (for e.g apart from getting to place B from place A, say how about seeing if the driver survives a 100 km/hr head on collission in both cars

), then possibly buying an Esteem type of aricraft would have been a better bang for the buck for the IAF. But obviously - technically that did not happen.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Apr 2011 09:45

Vishnu, I disagree with what you're saying. The very idea of a competition is that the competitors agree to do what the customer Air Force asks them to do. They do have the option of withdrawing from the competition if they so desire. the IAF or the MoD wouldn't have arm-twisted any of the vendors to bring their jets to India for the flight trials or for the air-show. They did it because they felt they had a chance.

Did India raise a stink when Chile made HAL transport 3 Dhruvs to Chile, fly them for over 100 hours in Chile itself, and spend whatever was required for that? Did HAL crib that they had to get Chilean certification for that, all that for just about a dozen or so Dhruvs, and the order finally went to a costlier Bell helicopter instead?

Lets face it- the Americans are no victims. They have used their political muscle to shove other vendors out of fighter sales (South Korea and Singapore come to mind immediately). And they're not small time vendors who cannot afford a few million $ in sales campaigns. I feel a bit sorry for SAAB since they're a much smaller firm and needed the MRCA much more than anyone else except MiG, but the MRCA selection is not a charity. the IAF made their choice and it was inevitable that 5 of the 6 contenders will end up feeling bitter that they lost. That's just the way such a competition goes, but they were willing to shell out a few million $ when the payoffs could have been billions of $.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 29 Apr 2011 09:47

To be sure ... I entirely accept the argument that the IAF SHOULD get the jet is truly wants ... in which case ... this entire tender process is a joke ... where companies end up spending upwards of 25 million dollars to fly down jets to get them evaluated in what is, realistically, a lost cause for them.

Over the next 30 years, the deal would be worth welll over $25billion. Please let that sink in first. . That could mean it provides for 50000 direct and indirect jobs in Europe. And this $25million would be cat food in comparison to what its worth in the long run.
And I am not sure how IAF is to be blamed for this. All it takes is for one of them to offer to fly journalists and media persons. The next one would want to better that and offer something more and then it snowballs from there on.

In these hard times in both Europe and the US , where you see empty industrial buildings every 50 km, something like this is a godsend. Reputations , plump salareis , bonuses and powerful positions would beckon anyone who manages to clinch the deal. And the risk of $25million is nothing in comparison to that!

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 Apr 2011 09:49

It is as long as you compete with similar types in a fair manner , if you want to buy a Mercedes or BMW you would not let Skoda or Maruti Esteem compete against it isnt it ?

Errr, isnt it the foolishness of the Skoda/Maruti dealer to send his car over even when he saw he was competing against Merc and BMW?

Why should the customer be blamed for taking test rides on which ever he chooses?

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 Apr 2011 09:51

^^ Think Desh must be the only country where we will give more weight-age to what losers of a competition feel and will be ready to blast our own IAF for why US/Sweden/xxx is sulking!!!

Wonder why US doesn't remember and feel bad about the times it openly dissed us and acted against our interests( even happening now)..why should only India keep carrying the guilt of the world?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Apr 2011 09:51

Yup, HAL was the Indian Gripen for Chile.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 29 Apr 2011 09:53

sum wrote: Errr, isnt it the foolishness of the Skoda/Maruti dealer to send his car over even when he saw he was competing against Merc and BMW?

Why should the customer be blamed for taking test rides on which ever he chooses?

More so if the brochure of the Esteem says that it is a Merc in disguise

(LM said 'F16IN is a different beast compared to all previous avataars). We have to separate the true wares from the brochure wares.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2011 09:55

sum wrote:Why should the customer be blamed for taking test rides on which ever he chooses?

Because the customer has been saying every one would be given a fair chance

Well what we can now just hope that this process does not get delayed any further and one winner gets selected quickly. Its good for IAF if this process is done quickly.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2011 09:57

SaiK wrote:Yup, HAL was the Indian Gripen for Chile.

BTW who was competing in Chile with Dhruv ? If Bell came with 212 or 214 then its a fair deal.

If it was competing with Mi-17 or BlackHawk then it would be unfair to Dhruv and Bell.

I tried to google but could not find who was competing with Dhruv.

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Apr 2011 10:01

As I see it folks, the way it worked is this.

1) Gripen : It was never in the running. It is an incomplete plane, just past the paper stage and seriously in the look out for an order (India/Brazil/Scandinavian country) to actually do the whole nine yards and come up with a full plane. What we had was a half assed demonstrator. Gripen tried "compensating" for that with a high pitched ad camapaign (print media etc), tried roping in TV "influcencers" with rides and trips to Sweden.. Err, when the rubber hits the road, the real enchilada stands out anyways. Anyway, Gripen NG will have exactly similar capabilities as LCA MKII at similiar timelines. It was a lost cause, so Sayanora .

2) F-16 : It was a dead duck. It would have created a furore if India paid $11b to buy a plane that the US is giving away to the Pakis for free! Plus it is the end of life and you are buying a 1960s plane.

3) F-18 : Too big, too expensive, not really suited for Indian Air Force, more a Navy plane, and has big performance defecits.

4) Typhoon & Rafale : Technically best in the pack. Latest designs that can stand up to a 40 year life cycle from now with the least amount of obsolescence among the 6 contenders . A credible path to AESA must have been shown.

5) Mig 35 . It was dead on arrival. Already obsolete and an evolutionary dead end, best consigned to the pages of history with an epitaph as "Mig 29, one of the best soviet fighters with maneuverability that matched the teen series" .

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 29 Apr 2011 10:02

It took us a decade to decide this deal. But I think the value of the deal is such that that the delay is par for the course.

A plan for a high-speed train line from Munich city to Munich airport costing about 2 billion Euros was being discussed for over 4 years and it got shelved! That after spending 10 million on land surveys, acquistion estimates etc.

ashkrishna · Post by **ashkrishna** » 29 Apr 2011 10:18

I agree that the IAF must have the final say in all acquisitions. But, is it worth the strategic cost of alienating ( at least on the surface) the Americans? What remains to be seen is whether the govt. machinery has thought out the response to the possible backlash from khan. If not, there may be some serious downhill skiing displays in the future.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 29 Apr 2011 10:25

If it was all about making Khan happy then why this tender-shender at all. Why couldn't they just order khan's planes in the first place? But we can't do that because then what would Russia think of it, right? Are we going to get dhoti shivers every time about some one or other being unhappy about our actions? We did what we had to do. No need to look for external validation for our decisions.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 29 Apr 2011 10:27

ashkrishna wrote:I agree that the IAF must have the final say in all acquisitions. But, is it worth the strategic cost of alienating ( at least on the surface) the Americans? What remains to be seen is whether the govt. machinery has thought out the response to the possible backlash from khan. If not, there may be some serious downhill skiing displays in the future.

First of all everybody should understand that strategic alliances are not influenced by business deals ( even as big as the MMRCA). You do not start friendships like this. Oh you are scratching my back, great we can be friends. meaning you are buying my aircraft, boy sure we can be friends. Its the other way round, you ask your friend to scratch that itch on your back. So in our case, this so called strategic partnership that everybody is crying about, needs to be first forged in fire, for us to feel comfortable in before we buy something from them. People are saying that since we are not giving the 10 billion dollars of deal to the americans we are alienating them. Well think about it this way, what if after you gave them the 10 billion dollars and made friends with them, some body else comes out and give them a deal of 30 billion dollars to break that friendship with us. as they say , its only a fool, who thinks he has bought a friend, all he gets is a prostitute to sleep with.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2011 10:31

maybe the H1 quota for indian workers, F1 for indian students or harvard scholarships for the kids of delhi elites will be reduced as punishment ? maybe they will put the indian GC applications into a slow punishment queue ? maybe obama will not celebrate diwali with leading lights of NRI community this year?

*shiver shiver dhoti shiver*

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 29 Apr 2011 10:31

Hi Folks ... points well taken ... the basic one being that the IAF invited companies to come forward ... it was for them to accept or to reject that invitation and since they accepted it ... then the govt/IAF cannot be blamed for their rejection.

It would, however, be interesting to get a proper look at the reasons given for the failure. From what I have heard from credible sources ... and I am not posting this here ... because I have not SEEN any of this myself ... some of the reasons given were trivial and could easily have been overcome if the IAF had its heart set on the platform. That ISN'T to say the reasons themselves were inaccurate or conjured up ...

At the same time, none of these companies will complain because India is too big a player ... but, on a debate on MMRCA, I see no problem in debating the tender process.

And to be sure ... I WANT the MMRCA deal to go through .. irrespective of the aircraft selected ... and I am not, for a moment, questioning the potential of either of the two platforms selected. I just hope the Rafale or Typhoon deliver.

Thanks for the programme feedback ... Gurinder, I have been extra careful to ensure there is no bias in anything I have reported ..

Cheers

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 29 Apr 2011 10:33

King decided to hold a dancing competition since he wanted a best dancer out of best dancers around in his court. He spread the word around. He released the specs for vitals of dancers. Dance troupes came with their saj-o-saman and tried to perform to best of their abilities.

Katrina came, Rakhi came, Sonakshi shook her legs and many named and unnamed dancers danced and beauties paraded in front of the king. King liked Katrina and her neighbour Sonakshi. King has shortlisted two beauties. King will select what he wants.

Remember King Does No Wrong.

Who, we are, the 'subject' of king to question king's likes and dislikes.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2011 10:38

From a financial pov the loss of $10-12 billion is not a big deal for the US , considering the fact that they are coping with multi-trillion dollar debt , those money of MMRCA might just be penut for American defence industry.

From a pov to penetrate the Indian Defence Market its a setback , if US would have won they could have got foot hold into Indian Fighter community and would have had access to bases and built up regular contacts over a period of time , not to mention CISMO and other stuff would have allowed them to be on ground and see how things function first hand. US would regret not winning the MMRCA in much bigger way compared to others.

ashkrishna · Post by **ashkrishna** » 29 Apr 2011 10:39

So , are there no strategic implications worth considering or have they been taken into account with consensus being reached within the govt. and the babu machinery? It had better be the latter. The next few weeks should provide an answer. Considering what has been the preferred opinion of some members on this forum vis-a-vis the govt's foreign policy, MMS seems to have grown a solid spine from no where.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Apr 2011 10:40

SaiK wrote:abhishek, in my understanding, those were mostly to do with gov-gov exchange programs FMS route.

I don't think so. My understanding is that they were discussing the sale of American equipments in general. C-130 etc were special cases.

For example: see

Since 2005, the proposal to sign ACSA has been dropped in favour of the LSA. But India is not yet ready to commit to that agreement or the CISMOA or the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Cooperation (BECA), which the U.S. says are essential for any transfer of sensitive electronics and avionics.

Alse see 'Military pacts during Antony's U.S. visit ruled out'

Defence Secretary discusses CISMOA

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Apr 2011 10:41

nukavarapu wrote: I fail to understand that in trying to prove that we are liberal and open minded democracy, at the end whose interests are we actually trying to protect? What happened to INDIAN INTERESTS being the priority???

Well said nukavarapu. Well said. People, stop cribbing about the shortlist. The IAF wanted these 2 to be selected for the shortlist and they and we were lucky enough that the MoD didn't force a fighter that they DIDN'T want down their throat. It's only the right thing to do ! Taking care of OUR OWN INTERESTS, pure and simple.

ashkrishna · Post by **ashkrishna** » 29 Apr 2011 10:45

Dilbu wrote:If it was all about making Khan happy then why this tender-shender at all. Why couldn't they just order khan's planes in the first place? But we can't do that because then what would Russia think of it, right? Are we going to get dhoti shivers every time about some one or other being unhappy about our actions? We did what we had to do. No need to look for external validation for our decisions.

I dont think its about external validation and seeking approval. Its more a question of whether our mantriji's and babooze are able to stand by their decision on the face of a "possible" knee jerk response from the khans . If they are, then its best situation I can imagine and the deal will go through with maximum benefit and minimum delay for its intended beneficiary - the IAF.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2011 10:45

^ maybe he always had one, but prefers to appear meek and influencable...while doing his own thing in the end. trying to find chankian straws to clutch at ....

the JSF deal for usaf/usn/usmc/clients at around 2400 units and $400 billion dwarfs any other aviation deal in history....so its not right for media to crow that this was biggest deal.