Philip wrote:No one is defending the delay in the Vik-A's arrival and escalated costs.Both Russia and India grossly underestimated the cost of refurbishing and rebuilding the carrier.
The liability for an increase in cost usually lies with the contractor if the contractor was the party responsible for a huge mistake during appraisal. Which is the case here.
We studied it for a whole decade before deciding to buy it.The case is history now.
I'm willing to call it history, a done deal, as long as you don't keep slipping in dubious statements about how the deal resulted in great value-for-money.
Both sides came to a mutual agreement upon final costs (remember the boiler cladding problem,due to our specs),etc.
Were the boiler cladding requirements slipped in by the Indian Navy after
negotiation? Was it not known to the Russian side when the deal was originally being hashed out?
For that matter, did the Russians negotiate in good faith once the actual costs for refurbishing the Gorshkov were revealed? Did they convey any contrition? Or did they instead -
1. Keep the escalation and delays under wraps for a long time?
2. Demand nearly $3 billion to complete it?
3. Try to influence negotiations by blackmailing an Indian naval officer?
4. Pressurize India by hinting it could be transferred to the Russian Navy?
The QE carriers are a case in comparison.
No they're not. The QE program had been built around fixed price contracts. With a funding crunch in 2008, the UK govt decided to extend the delivery schedule and draw out payments over a longer term. That
was the primary reason for the cost escalation along with the flip flop on adding CATOBAR capability.
Had its construction continued uninterrupted, it would have cost maybe about 1.5 times as much as the Vikad, while delivering far superior value.
If our funding is patchy,work now stopped because there are no funds in the kitty,eventually it is going to keep on rising as CAG reports have shown with other ships and subs constructed in the country.Even.our homebuilt warships have key components like sensors,weaponry,powerplants,etc. obtained from abroad. Take the case of the minesweepers ,no decision yet! HSL dismantled a Kilo sub and cannot put it together again,infuriating the IN which has lost a sub worth at least $300M for no fault of its own,requiring all Kilos to be refitted/upgraded in Russia.
- Does awarding contracts to Russia for Talwars increase or decrease the funds available for the Shivalik/P-17A?
- Does sourcing 'key components' from abroad made locally developed ships less capable?
- Are the Shalki and Shankul, less capable by virtue of having been built at MDL?
- Were some industrial capacity generated at MDL through the U-209 production?
- If so, was it a wise decision or a mistake not have placed follow-on orders to capitalize on that?
- Will Scorpenes built by MDL be mothballed because they are late/over-budget?
- Should the capabilities built up at MDL, at a non-refundable cost, be written off (instead of being exploited with follow-on orders)?
- Is the nuclear triad a farce because the Arihant is being built by domestic yards?
It is inescapable that if we are to build up the IN to planned future strengths,the entire fleet cannot be built solely at home,especially when the MOD thus far has protected the DPSUs and not awarded major contracts to pvt. yards like L&T,etc.,which are quite capable of building subs,warships,etc.
If it was a mistake to involve private yards, one would presume that it would be rectified by including them now
, rather than dispatching work and funds overseas.
In several cases foreign yards can build faster and at affordable rates sophisticated vessels like the fleet auxiliaries built in Italy. One must compare the time taken to build the 6 Talwars with the time taken to build the Delhis and Shivaliks.
The Shivalik was a clean sheet design, so it was bound to take longer. That said, the third and final Shivalik was launched nine years ago. Is it your case that MDL was incapable of building anymore from that day forth?
On 07 August 2007 ShipbuildingRu reported that Kaliningrad based Yantar shipyard had laid down the head project 1135.6 frigate for Navy of India. For this contract Yantar had invested considerable means in modernization of the manufacturing infrastructure, and bought a lot of modern equipment. Construction of the frigates was to be completed in 2012.
There are many reasons for this.Dockyard space constraints,lack of modernisation,etc. A complete revamp of the indigenous warship and sub building capability is required if the IN's planned replacements,modernisation and future ambitions are to be realised.
The Baltic Shipyard did not receive the contract for the second consignment of three frigates. After extended talks, it was given to Kaliningrad shipbuilders. "The Yantar plant was given the second series of ships for political reasons," said Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. "This was done not so much to support the specific plant as the economy of the entire Kaliningrad exclave."
^ So orders from India funded the modernization of Russia's Yantar shipyard.
Yet the 'lack of modernization' in domestic shipyards is offered as a reason why India should continue importing ships from Russia.