Following a raft of technical tests by the IAF, the Manmohan Singh government has shortlisted the Eurofighter consortium's Typhoon and the French-made Dassault Rafale for a multi-billion dollar fourth generation fighter deal. New Delhi will almost certainly come under intense pressure to review its decision.
Less than six months ago, President Barack Obama described the growing relationship between his country and India as “one of the defining and indispensable partnerships of the 21st century.” India's decision to pick European-made jets to equip its frontline combat jet fleet instead of United States-manufactured competitors has led more than a few to argue that the relationship has already hit a dead-end.
Sadanand Dhume, writing in the journal of the American Enterprise Institute, has argued India has “rebuffed the US offer of a closer strategic partnership”; and Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has argued that New Delhi “settled for a plane, not a relationship.” Indian commentators seem to agree: Nitin Pai, the editor of the strategic journal Pragati, charged India with being “gratuitously generous” to Europe; and The Times of India's Chidanand Rajghatta said the decision had dealt the India-U.S. alliance “a significant blow.”
These critics are thoughtful commentators who need to be taken seriously. They are also wrong.
Like all other transactional dealings between states, arms purchases do indeed have strategic implications. India ought, for sound common sense reasons, to pursue a robust relationship with the United States. It is unclear, though, why the purchase of this particular weapons system ought to undermine the larger strategic relationship between India and the U.S.
If countries like the United Kingdom and France can actually produce and operate combat jets not made by their key strategic partner, the U.S., there is no particular reason why India's decision to buy them ought be seen as a strategic affront. Earlier this year, India picked U.S.-made engines for its Tejas light combat aircraft over European competitors; its strategic relationship with Europe did not fall apart as a consequence. Nor will India and Russia end their enduring military relationship because the MiG31 lost the combat-jet dogfight.
Secondly, the U.S. itself has pursued multiple strategic relationships that best serve its interests — and India, like every other nation state, ought do the same.
Ever since the tragic events of 9/11, the U.S. has supplied Pakistan with a raft of military assets of no conceivable use other than against India — among them, eight P3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft, 32 F16 variants, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, and anti-artillery radars. K. Alan Krondstadt's 2009 survey for the U.S. Congressional Research Service shows that much of this equipment was paid for through military assistance grants.
American diplomats were made aware of Indian concerns. Back in 2004, Robert O. Blake, the U.S. Charge d'Affaires in New Delhi, had warned in an Embassy cable, accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks (23418:confidential, November 30, 2004), that sales of F-16s to Pakistan could “be a blow to those in the GOI [Government of India] who are trying to deepen our partnership.” Mr. Blake again warned, in a 2005 cable, of “universal opposition in India to the supply of sophisticated arms to Pakistan, with the F-16 aircraft symbolizing a US commitment to upgrading the Pakistani armed forces” [28592: confidential, March 11, 2005].
But the administration of President George W. Bush made the argument that such grants would help Pakistan meet its “legitimate defence needs” – and claimed, more disingenuously, that the aircraft would be used for close air support in the war against jihadists.
It would have been churlish for India, though, to make its relationship with the U.S. contingent on how Washington chose to engage Islamabad. It would be similarly churlish for the U.S. to insist that India ought not to exercise its right to buy the best equipment on offer for its money.
The only question ought be: has India picked the right jet?
No such thing as “the best thing”
“Imagine,” says a senior Indian Air Force official, “being asked to pick between a top-end Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar and Ferrari. It would be plain stupid to think of one high-performance car as better than another. For example, one might have better acceleration; another greater range; a third better handling.”
The IAF's Request for Proposals brought into contention the European multinational Eurofighter consortium's Typhoon, the French-made Dassault Rafale, the Swedish Grippen, the Russian MiG35, and the United States' F16IN and FA18.
Each aircraft had distinct advantages: though it has a slow top speed compared with the Eurofighter Typhoon, the F-16IN or the MiG 35, the Grippen had a better sustained turn capability; the Rafale did not manoeuvre well at high speed, but demonstrated outstanding instantaneous turn rates; the Lockheed Martin-produced F16IN and its Boeing rival, the FA18, had the best radar.
The MiG35s, though from a stable that has been plagued by maintenance problems and untested in service in Russia, had genuine multi-role capabilities, would have cost just $45 million apiece, and come with generous transfer-of-technology provisions.
Few are surprised that the Eurofighter appears to be leading the race: the aircraft has won the admiration of Indian pilots who have encountered it in exercises with their British counterparts. In November 2010, The Telegraph reported from London that Eurofighter was closing in on the multi-billion deal.
Dr. Tellis noted, in a thorough scholarly appraisal, that the Typhoon “conformed most closely to the [IAF's] Request for Proposals, and in a purely technical sense, it arguably remains the most sophisticated airplane in the mix – at least in its fully mature configuration, which is still gestating.” Eurofighter advocates point, among other things, that it was the only one of the contenders to demonstrate some supercruise capabilities – which means it can achieve supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners, improving endurance and reducing its radar signature.
Pilots told The Hindu they were also impressed with the aircraft's man-machine interface, which presents data streams from dozens of on-board and off-board sensors on a single screen
But the aircraft, like its European counterparts and the MiG35, also had a significant weakness – the absence of active electronically scanned array radar, or Aesa. Aesa broadcasts signals across a band of frequencies, enabling the radar to at once be powerful and stealthy. Eurofighter variants due to come into service around 2015 will carry an Aesa radar system called Caesar – but the aircraft's competitors pointed out that the radar, unlike those on the F16 and FA18, is untested.
Each U.S. contender was also a remarkable aircraft: although the F16 has been in service in 1979, the variant India was offered was state-of-the-art and proven in combat. Ramesh Phadke, a former Air Force pilot who serves as an analyst at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, noted the F16 “is destined to be remembered as the best multi-role fighter ever.” The FA18, too, is combat tested, and won over its competitors in some spheres.
In the end, the IAF short-listed the two frontrunners after putting the contenders through a raft of complex technical tests – tests that no one has yet claimed were skewed or rigged. Each firm has been provided a technical appraisal of why its offer was rejected, an appraisal it is free to dispute.
New Delhi will now have to determine which of the two contenders it will choose – and finance could play a key role. The Eurofighter is likely to charge some $125 million apiece, which means the initial purchase of 126 jets will cost India $15.75 billion, and a likely final order of around 200 aircraft, $20 billion. The Rafale is likely to be pegged around $85 million apiece.
Though the Grippen would have cost around the same as the Rafale, the F-16IN and FA-18 would have come at around $60 million each, and the MiG35 a relatively modest $45 million – though, given problems with its engine, the overall life-cycle costs of the Russian jet may not have been much lower than its U.S. competitors.
It is imperative, though, that the decision is made fast. Back in 1969, the IAF determined that it needed 64 squadrons, 45 of them made up of combat aircraft, to defend the country. India's economic situation, however, meant it could build only 45 squadrons, 40 of them made up of combat jets. Even that meant it retained an almost 3:1 advantage over Pakistan through much of the 1980s.
In the years since, though, the en bloc obsolescence of aircraft like the MiG21, MiG23 and MiG25 has meant the IAF's edge has blunted: Pakistan today has 22 squadrons of combat jets, or some 380, to India's 29 squadrons, or 630 fighters.
Pakistan, moreover, has received new jets from the U.S., as well as the JF-17 from China, and a slew of advanced radar and missiles. Its air defence capabilities are due to be enhanced with four Swedish SAAB-2000 jets equipped with Erieye phased-array radar, and Y8 anti-electronic warfare platforms from China.
Even as India's advantage over Pakistan diminishes, it has China to consider – not because a war is probable, or even plausible, but because militaries must plan and be prepared for worst-case scenarios.
For much of its history, China's People's Liberation Army Air Force had a huge air inventory, numbering over 5,000 aircraft, but over three-fifths of this consisted of obsolete MiG19 second-generation fighters. But in recent years, China has moved towards becoming a genuine aerospace power: by 2020, the PLAAF will have more fourth-generation fighters than the entire IAF fleet.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government will almost certainly come under intense pressure to review its decision. It would do well to accept the expert assessment of those who understand its combat aviation needs the best – the women and men who may or may not, one day, have to fly them into danger.
(Praveen Swami is Diplomatic Editor of The Daily Telegraph, London.)
Keywords: cable23418, cable28592, The India Cables, cablegate, WikiLeaks
I thoroughly agree with the author. Buying a good aircraft for our forces has nothing at all to do with strategic partnerships. We should continue to make defense purchases on a merit-based approach.
Well researched article! Thanks for the deep insight.
There is still a lot of time as per the Defence Minister's statement to zero in on either Typhoon or Rafale. India should go for adoption of latest technologies rather than falling prey to marketing strategies adopted by other participants. Our Air Force is capable of selecting a suitable fighter jet to meet the defence requirements of future of this great nation.
At this point it is obvious that the final choice will be based on the deal they get from each side and also the operational cost as well, future upgrades.... By short listing these two planes, India indicates it will be technically satisfied by either plane.
India finally had the spine to decide on policies beneficial to the country and not bow down to American bullying. Every country has the right to decide what is best for its citizens and it applies to the decision in choosing the right fit of choosing combat jet to meet its strategic need. The Americans have tried all kinds of stunts - right from initiating positive stories in the Indian media on the capabilities of American jets to offering a free flying opportunity for popular celebrities like Abhinav Bindra, Shahid Kapoor in F-16 during the annual aero shows.Why should we place an order for American jets to provide employment opportunities for few thousands there when they are adopting a protectionist stand for their products.? It is time India looks beyond America and look at alternative partner and this development seems to be in the right direction.
Its crucial for India to choose but we can go either way opt for technology transfer . As we set our desktop configuration we can set the best for our own. Its true aerodynamics feasiblity is not that easy but for longterm we need to focus much on our own inventory. A slight sucess in that can be converted.
Good to see this analysis. India should stick to her decision and uphold her national interests above all else.
Excellent Article - Also another point to be noted is that EADS has mentioned ,if the deal goes through, India being the single largest customer ,would become a de-facto partner in further develpment of EFT. Also there is a high posiibility of some specialist jobs , like avionics could be transferred to India..Rafale wouldnt be counted out either , given the performance of the Mirages in service....
Very good article. One of the best and in great contrast to the usually ignorant articles on such matters one encounters in the Indian broadsheet press. I guess it all boiled down to who was willing to transfer technology and source code for the AESA radars. The US was not willing to while the Europeans are. It is not of much use to India to receive black box radars and avionics embedded in the US aircraft without the technology. I hope India will again stick to fundamentals on selecting either the Typhoon or the Rafale - by this I mean performance and financials - and not be swayed by other considerations. And please, for goodness sake, let this deal be scam free!
@ Rajesh, You're missing the point altogether. The analogy of a car and then equating that casual feel of a civilian transport vehicle to an airplane that will, in seconds, destroy hostile targets or suffer from potential destruction, is, to my opinion, a little off the point. For the information, the hard drive or the car doesn't get bombed by getting out-maneuvered by fellow road users Rajesh. The co-relation you suggest is flawed. In the air, in a dog fight, every second counts. A pilot, in a dog fight, is 1 second away from getting killed - a tested radar is one of the many things he has at his disposal to evade and outflank the adversary so as to avoid getting hit. Quite frankly the comparison of a ferrari with a harddrive or worse, a fighter aircraft is terribly misguided. It is the lives of our highly skilled pilots at stake here. I doubt any serious minded Indian in India or elsewhere can take such an analogy with a pinch of salt. @ M Evens, Again, you've just stated the magic word, you suggest the *potential* for growth of the Typhoon, so you're suggesting military expenditure on the basis of potential, I am assuming that you acknowledge that the Typhoon isn't the best potential air superiority fighter available today. That is precisely my case against it. Because even if it has growth potential, it is nowhere close to the F22 or the F35 programme, consider their potential - make a note and really follow, given you're privy to the technical aspects of the aerospace industry, given you claim you're not a 'forum fan boy' but a professional. Go on it, dissect both instances case by case and tell me, give me your 'professional' opinion that Typhoon is the best craft that the IAF can procure for the next 20 years. Note that in terms of maneuverability, I've read that the Rafale actually managed to out-maneuver the Eurofighter when tested by Indian pilots - this has been a publically attested result, surely you're privy to this revelation. I have not found any of the aircrafts in this tender impressive to be honest, given its' supposed to be our air superiority fighter, but I can say that the Typhoon will surely put our highly skilled pilots in risk for several years if used by the IAF. I would also request that you not misguide fellow readers with numbers such as the year 2015 - anyone with any experience in defense procurement will tell you that the quoted deadline is flawed. You should know that logically, one should place the AESA on the Typhoon to be fully functional sometime in 2018. This is also a widely acknowledged fact. Likewise, you should know that 2015 is an ambitious target indeed for an project in development to actually be completed. The Typhoon got in not because of its' technical superiority, hardly that, if you are to believe reports, it got it (I am assuming it will, over Rafale) because of the generous technology transfer of the aircraft. Its' hardly a proven superiority fighter. I find your utter denial of the RAF's potential downsizing of their Eurofighters in their inventory alarming as well. At one hand, you suggest that such information is indeed at available for people who seek it, but at the other, you call such an information baseless without offering any form of warranted evidence, citing your own opinion as provisional fact. Unless you provide us all with data on how many wars it has been used in, or what its' dog fight kill rate or its' performance against aircrafts such as the F16 variants or the degree of augmentation it provides to pilots - you know it and I know it, it's all hearsay. For professionals, hard facts and data counts – not opinions. Of course, I respect your opinions – but for the layman, your opinion fits in the same category as those 'amateur' articles that you contest (though I have to add that Jane's Weekly is hardly such a media outlet). I appreciate your time and effort to elucidate on the contentious issues concerning the procurement process.
@Raj, I respect your opinions and thoughts but the simple fact of the matter is, you're so wrong on so many. Yes, maybe I am biased in favour of the Eurofighter Typhoon but its not because I am a "forum fan boy" as they seem to be called, its because I know a lot about it as much as I do about Dassault's Rafale, the latter is a mighty fine aircraft, don't get me wrong it really is, but compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon it's overall capabilities, growth/upgrade potential, airframe design etc, it'll be very tough for it to match the Eurofighter Typhoon, and I mean as an overall package. I've studied both aircraft for many years with a little help from both sides of the English Channel and that is my conclusion, although, its not to say the Rafale is a bad aeroplane, think of it as a Jaguar XJ220 compared to a Mclaren F1. Like I say, I know a lot of reliable sources within the RAF and elsewhere and yet again - The RAF are NOT phasing out their Typhoons in favour of another. I do read up, I do follow and I do make sure of what I read up on and what credibility ones have. And only an amateur would suggest that a mature radar will not be deployed by 2015 without knowing what they're actually up to. But what else can I say, its difficult to communicate with someone that takes unreliable sources for granted.
I really thank The Hindu & Praveen Swami for this thread bare analysis, and also all readers for their views and debates. I am really not the person who understands so much technical details, but I have been a sales man all my life. What I understand from a sales perspective is to pitch the best product for the customer; best product against any other competitor. However in this case US has been complacent by trying to pitch Lockheed Martin's F16 aircraft (which is of lower technology and has been in production since 1979) and Boeing's F18(which the US air force itself is not too interested and wants to migrate to F22 or F35). There are couple of other very important point that most of us tend to miss, the US clause of EUMA (end user monitoring agreement) and Technology Transfer. The US never gives any concessions on these issues. Now, imagine a situation where US officers will inspect your assets; equally bizarre is the situation of no technology transfer, the asset that you have bought cannot be reproduced, serviced or upgraded until Uncle Sam's officers want to do it. If US is really serious about winning the bid why not pitch with the best products and services, why try to sell the same age old products sold to our neighbours and its allies? Relationships are built with a cement called trust not with a myth called self centered opportunism.
@Raj: Assume you are shopping for a luxury sedan. You get to test drive Audi, Beamer, Mercedes, Lexus, Infinity, Jaguars and Ferrari. All the cars are built for same basic purpose 'Transport filthy rich' in style. Among the lot there is no car which is bad. It also means if you buy Ferrari that doesn't mean all other cars you test drove are waste of money. Say Ferrari doesn't offer DVD 40GB hard drive HD navigation but other manufacturers offer. But Ferrari promised you free upgrade once they release the DVD hard drive HD navigation. This does not mean you can't trust Ferrari's navigation or it will take you to wrong city. BTW commonsense suggests if you have a good map just like old school,that is enough to hover around places without getting lost.
@ Rajesh Note that the AESA on the Eurofighter will be available post 2015 - this is the reason why it has failed in that requirement, the Americans (in the NYTimes) have pointed this particular issue out and have requested a de-brief. For India, 2015 is too far off for a 'in test' radar - common sense simply suggests that despite BAE involved, you can't expect the same capabilities as a F35 due to copyright issues and it will take at least 5-8 years for a battle tested workable AESA.
@ M Evens I am not sure how you can say, with such conviction, that you're right. All I am saying is that you should read more, your comments appear biased in favour of the Eurofighter, and Indians will obviously loose more in this case - that they will wait on a radar not yet battle tested until 2015 or worse, 2018 on a fighter that hasn't even used that radar in battle yet - that is 4-8 years of vulnerability in the air, and you clearly deny the RAF phase out programme for Eurofighter, which is a publically held notion in the RAF circles. For me, your points are clearly biased in favour of the Typhoon, which I find illogically centric to a point in an idea - please diversify your opinion by logically reading more. You've also vindicated my position by accepting potential sources for my opinion (what you call misleading articles, I wonder if Jane's Weekly misleads too, but I leave it to your opinions). I personally prefer Eurofighter in this competition too - but it's hardly the best, as none of the fighters in the competition were world class and on top of their life cycle. Only amateurs will suggest the Eurofighter with a radar that has never been battle tested, to be developed by 2015 - you up that date to 2018-2020 so that the IAF better gets used to it. There's no such thing as an 'out-of-the-box' radar - the time frame needed for the Typhoon's radar is simply not feasible... let common sense prevail here. India, given it's volatile neighbourhood, cannot afford to wait for 5-8 years for a proper fighter. 2015 on paper, but implementation/training takes far longer.
Thinking from a purely cost to benefit perspective, a Eurofighter Typhoon seems like an expensive choice. If the prices mentioned in the article are correct, the F16 and FA18 would have made improved the fighter squadron strength substantially. At the end of the day, a fighter is a fighter, and numbers matter. My guess is that any commander would prefer to take 2 F18s against one Typhoon to battle. Did anybody pit a FA18 Hornet against the Typhoon in a real combat situation, and decide that one was superior that the other?
To me this is a waste of $20billions that could be better sent on counter terrorist organisation better intelligence service. What purpose do these fighter jets serve? Defend ones sovereignty when there is a high probability that India will never be attacked by another sovereign nation this paranoia is nearly as bad as America saying Iraq had WMD. Spend more countering terrorist and intelligence to counter another mumbai bombing and not on military accessories that are a waste of money that make nations go into debt to UK and America.
@Raj No, it does not help because you are very wrong. Believe or not if you wish. But I happened to know a lot of what goes on behind the scenes and have reliable contacts within the RAF that have very high ranks to their name. Again, the RAF are not phasing out the Typhoon in favour of the F-35 and I personally have not heard a single complaint regarding the Typhoon let alone heard them express their willingness to replace the Typhoon with an aircraft with current order of only 40 aircraft in UK service - which has been suggested and likely to be due the rising costs of the F-35 programme. The American parts in the Typhoon are tiny, the major ones being that of the GPS and the hydraulic system that operates the airbrake. In terms of weapons, theres the likes of AMRAAM and a couple of air-to-ground ordinances', the latter being European spec that suits its users. Hardly anything for the Americans to worry about and to point out, they're not in any position to interfere with the competition since they have other contracts going on in India, even they're not stupid enough to do that, not after their wake up call in the MMRCA programme. And anyway, theres a strong possibilty that India will do a deal with MBDA that produce the likes of Meteor, Storm Shadow, Brimstone and ASRAAM etc, MBDA which happens to produce more weapons for the Typhoon than they do for the Rafale, plus, the weapons systems in the Typhoon Tranche 3s' offered to India support the weapons I listed, and more. The AESA for Typhoon will be available by 2015, that is correct, but that doesn't mean it will not be developed when it enters operational service. Eurofighter GmbH have a strict policy to intergrate mature-only major systems onto their Typhoons, in other words, developing them before their in-services date. The actual radar itself is far from being the weakest in the tender. Even though Rafale's AESA is due to enter service before Typhoon's, it is already flawed compared to the Typhoon's, in actual fact you can say it was already flawed the moment the Rafale was just a paper blue print. This is due to the Rafale's small front end and nose cone, in turn forcing the French to produce an AESA that is made to fit in a small space and of course, limiting its radar performance. The Typhoon on the other hand has a slighty bigger front end and a much bigger nose cone to fit a bigger AESA which already has almost twice as many modules and is coupled to a swashplate increasing it's effectiveness. So, I am aware of a lot of things and I'm certainly aware of what I read up on, I suggest you should do the same. There's a lot of articles out there that are misinformed, misleading and put a twist to their own words with no regard to their own credibility. No offence.
@Raj: Fact check- EFT's present Tranche II jets have doppler radar.
Tranche III will be replaced by CAESAR(AESA) radar.BTW AESA radar will be built by EADS/BAE, the same consortium building ELECTRONIC WARFARE UNIT for F-35. So it is not fair to say EFT's AESA radar is the weakest.
@ M Evens: Nope, I have to point some facts to you - the RAF have made their complaints public and have expressed their willingness to replace the Eurofighter with the F-35 of which they are the biggest non-American investor. After the RAF's billion-dollar investment in the Lightning F35 programme, they want to phase out the Eurofighter as their preferred air superiority fighter. Note that the Americans are right if they say that for the Europeans, this tender was a matter of survival, for the Americans it was gravy. Eurofighter programme is basically stuck in a limbo. Also, do note that the end user agreement that comes with the American defense equipment requires their activation codes hence they are not feasible. And note, I am not sure of your source, the AESA for the Eurofighter would be available sometime in 2015. So the Eurofighter had the weakest radar in the tender, do read up some of the information being made available. Hope this helps.
There is a lot of skeptic thoughts by Indian media and think tanks regarding MoD/IAF decision to pick either of Rafale/EFT. Some feel India has damaged the emerging warm US relationship with India.Here are few cents of my thoughts what would have made IAF/MoD come up their decisions to pick MMRCA winners:
1.F16 has been in service with Pakistan for a long period of time.By this time they would had known the aircraft vulnerabilities and strengths.If a war breaks out between India and Pakistan just like Kargil, PAF F16 will definitely have a edge over new rookie Indian F16 airmen on a state of art new F16IN. 2.F18 Super hornet is a big, busty beautiful sexy machine.But its air maneuvers are limited to excess air frame weight and large armaments it would carry under its belly.This machine was built for ground attack and close air support. NOT for air dominance role. 3.PAF already have JF-17 which is based on MIG corporations abandoned project. JF-17 is powered by Russian Klimov RD-93 engines which has more thrust and power compared to RD-33MK on MIG-35's. 4.EFT/Rafale are unknown to PAF/China.Even though AESA radar is under development, the time IAF gets these aircraft it will be fully fitted with AESA. 5.Difficult US laws on transfer of technology.Even if they transfer key technologies to be built in India, the avionics/Radar software will not be a part of transfer.USA never sells with full avionics package to countries other than program partners.This makes the state of art US aircraft's useless for IAF. This puts extra burden to create in house avionics or search compatible foreign vendors for these aircraft's. 6.EFT/Rafale might be transferring the new AESA radar technology and current Doppler radar suite. 7.SAAB Grippen would have been eliminated because it already sells airborne phased array radar erieye to PAF.There may be some fear in IAF that some of this erieye technology might be used in Grippen as well as. 8.Rafale unknown to world other than French air force.Further they will do agree and transfer their technology at any cost to find a 'First' international customer. 9.Mirage was out in the MMRCA competition on the fears by IAF that PAF has the same aircraft.This would have made dassault to bring rafale. 10.EFT/Rafale was choice of IAF pilots rather than politicians.
India took the correct decision in rejecting theF16 deal with USA. If US had offered F22, India could have accepted and gone ahead with that but to offer the old ancient f16 was a bummer of a deal to sign and that US should know supposedly the smartest country in the world or something. F22 is the current state of the art cutting edge in aeronatics and not the f16 passe ancient jet of the last 20th century.
Hopefully the IAF had better reasons than the ones Mr. Swami gives. There is no technical analysis here but just attempts at strategic analysis: why buying a plane from UK/France is ok and not buying a plane from US is ok. Which plane is better and why? Also, the reaction of the US officials is pretty muted. Nobody is saying Indo-US relations are going to suffer. So not sure what the need for all this hyperbole.
@Raj: You said : "The Eurofighter, as of now, is being phased out of the UK airforce and is expected to be replaced by the F35, so it has problems as well. Without the AESA, it is not any more valuable that a MIG MKI India already has."
At least three things are wrong with that sentence, first off; The Eurofighter is not being phased out of the RAF, secondly, it will not be replaced by the F-35 and third, a working AESA is in production and it part of Eurofighter's bid to India, meaning it will come with Typhoon Tranche 3s the IAF shall operate. Also, Eurofighter GbmH have clearly stated that the four Eurofighter partner governments do not demand End-User Monitoring (EUM), site-inspections or any other agreements which comprimise India's sovereignty, neither do they have implicit diplomatic demands linked to purchasing the Typhoon.
Very nice article.India should go with what fits best for its military.If the air force says Eurofighter and Rafael are the best options we should stick to it.
@ BS Kumar: Even in the pilot phase, the aircraft is America's air superiority fighter. It was the perfect selection, if given the choice. Eurofighter should be the Indian choice, if logic prevails. It's new, with complete transfer of technology for DSRO to really open and dissect - without any restrictions. I agree with Schmitty, any aircraft that required the Americans to provide the key-codes before use would have been useless to India. Though personally, if it were the F22, I might have recommended (in my amateur perspective) it. I've to agree, the Hindu is the only paper with some indepth analysis of the decisions. None of the other papers have anything worth reading on this.
While the article is balanced there appears a slight tilt towards EF. Let the Air force decide without journalists circulating supposed comments from the evlaution phase.
"The Rafale seems more effective (in Libya.)" Evidence please not the predictable Rafale fan boy propoganda. Or is this a reference to the collateral damage caused to anti-Gadafi rebels? If this plane is such a world beater why has it not chalked up a single export order?
Some people here have mentioned the F22. But it might be embarrassing for the USA to offer the F22 based on its current unconvincing, incomplete form. The aircraft holds much promise but hasn't delivered much so far. There is far too much testing and rectifying required of it before it can become battle ready. The Rafale appears really solid and the Eurofighter appears like its upgrade path is fairly clear. With the Russian jets no longer holding the edge India desires, all choices have been perfectly logical.
Like all good salesmen all vendors said that theirs was the best. Similarly IAF like a seasoned customer now says that any of the shortlisted two will meet it's requirements. Hence all this hyper noise not understood. Yes for the final selection we must go for the best bargain in terms of price, life cycle cost,transfer of tech, reliability during crisis, support for our strategic causes, other economic activities etc . Like we may ask the French to help us in designing the nuclear powered aircraft carrier and so on--they do it also.
No developing country in this world should be 'lucky' enough to be considered a friend by the US. Because that would mean towing their line, following their writ and buying their products. Most of their 'allies' are in the same position. India needs technology unhindered by the shenanigans of the various agreements that Ms. Clinton wanted to push down the GoI's throat. As an American writer said recently, the law of the land is that the US simply can't sell India some of the technologies it seeks. If that is the case, I wish they would stop taking it so personally and move on. If the so-called India-US strategic partnership deals mainly on India buying American arms, then its my sincere wish that this partnership never materializes.
Having a strategic relationship with the US does not mean that we must buy everything from the US. In my view the technical evaluation by the users of the aircraft must be respected. It's critical for the Indian Government to give the IAF piots what they want to defend our country. We should not thrust them with something which does not meet their technical requirements. So many lives have been lost by the IAF through aircraft crashes in the recent years during the peace time. If this decision by the IAF can prevent such incidents & save a lot of lives apart from the huge costs of replacing the lost aircraft, the recent decision is justified.
As per various reports in the media, our Defence Minister Mr. A.K.Anthony stood upto the pressure from the US and shielded any political influence in the decision making process. If this deal goes through without any further hitches & does not stir up any controversy like the Bofors deal, full credit must be given to the IAF and Mr. Anthony.
There is no mention in this article about End Use Monitoring (EUM) that is required for all defense purchases from the US. @Rajat Bhadra It isn't as much F16 vs Typhoon, as also EUM vs No EUM.
Not a mention of the Rafale by this author from the Daily Telegraph and he makes a sales pitch for the Typhoon in which the country that he writes in/for has an interest. So he loses his balance here, in an otherwise thoughtful article.
This is a good beginning but we need more scholarly appraisals and debates of this and other weighty decisons made by New Delhi's mandarins if we were to have a more accountable governance and oversight of public money.
Come on Mr.Praveen Swami get your facts right SAAB Gripen(Single Engine) Is a fighter in the same class as F-16 not RAFALE(Twin Engine) . Other than that it is a well rounded article. A very good decision made as the 2 picked are the most mordern. I hope We pick the RAFALE because it a very good one developed perfectly to meet the multirole capabilities ..also IAF already has the reliable MIRAGE 2000 so the familiarity will certainly help reducing the costs and integration will be less troublesome.
It's a matter of great conviction to support Government of India at this stage when every citizen is questioning every odd move made by our government, thanks to various scams and our media. This article is an eye-opener for all of us.
One of the biggest disadvantage U.S manufacturers have is U.S. foreign policy. India simply does not believe that U.S will provide parts when needed. So, it takes decades to develop a mutual understanding and strategic partnership. The warm relations are already showing with increase purchase of US military equipment in surveillance and military transport. This one deal is not a big deal. Relations between two large countries cannot depend on a single sale.
The real test will be how well the Europeans keep their word and provide real technology transfer. At the very least, we should make sure that we don't have to depend on the Europeans for spares or parts and can continue operations in India come what may. This would mean that engine retooling and a good amount of the sundry parts would have to be made locally. Also, we should be able to add our own ECM to the aircraft choosen. In one way spending $20 billion dollars on aircraft that will never have to face real war is a sad thing considering how many Indian children can get a good education for that same money.
Perfect reply. I feel this article came in just about the best time. The sentiment " settling for a plane rather than a relationship" is flawed at its core. I am pretty sure the IAF chose euro-fighter over other air crafts based only on its requirements and test results. The military exercises the IAF had with various air forces around the world did finally help it in its decision!
I think India has made a great statement by not stooping before America and accepting what they offered on the plate without rational assessment of complex technical parameters. This really was a historic decision.I think it also signifies that India has been pragmatic in its approach and has not let others factors dominate its strategic decisions.True ,that when Obama came to India there was much hoopla about creating more jobs in the USA,more mutual cooperation,strengthening trade relations and much talk on bilateral issues and it being a defining partnership.That should still happen and should in fact be done on a more broader scale.The US should understand that it was a perfectly strategic decision based on the considerations of a plethora of technical,economical and security related factors .And India like any country has the right to make its international decisions keeping its prosperity in mind.
India, its leaders, its defence staff and people ought to take some genuine pride in their country's interests, be level headed and do things are a right for the country and its long term interests and for the safety & security of its national borders. This may not have been the case upto now, but its time they took a fresh view, and allowed any power or bunch of overseas leaders to dictate how we go about doing our business, and try and dump their second class garbage on us, and that too for an enormous price , with kickbacks involved. Firstly, we need to make sure we have clean adminstrators and service people, who don't get lured into offering or taking any sort of bribes, then the rest of it becomes an easy job...and things fall into place for India. This sends a clear signal to the rest of the world that we mean business and when we get our job done right, we tend to think right and attract whats good for us. It's been ingrained in our culture to be short sighted and only think of immidiate self and family and their welfare, and not have our country's interests at heart, but in a healhy way and not full on arrogance. If our intentions aren't good... rest can be assured, the overall outcome will be sheer waste of time and resources and goal unachieved.
US would only sell superseded items to countries such as India and that takes away any advantage for India. If you can get reliable 'latest and best' from any source, that would certainly count. Remember, if they can sell it, they can kill it too!! R&D and indigenous development is the way to go if India wants to spring any surprise in a combat situation.
Don't you have some Indian journalist to find out why IAF did go ahead with this deal. I am sure India has done the right thing, but would like to know the actual reasons behind it.
Enormous amounts of money will be spent on these jets from foreign countries. We have seen fighter jets sold to Iraq and Libya being destroyed on the ground. Countries that sell have advantage of knowledge that can be sold off to enemies of the state buying it thus tilting the balance. Indian history is full of French and British providing the marginal tilt leading to ultimate colonialism. It is imperative therefore military planners need to ensure the aircraft will remain operational in case of any war by ensuring proper spares and free from any markers built into jets supplied that will give away their whereabouts. If even ten per cent of 10 billion is spent on developing indigenous capacity by encouraging private companies to work with engineering institutions , India's ability to maintain its independence can be assured.
Thank you Praveen Swami for presenting incontrovertible facts in support of our IAF zeroing in on Eurofighter and Rafaele. I hope MOD backs the IAF all the way. It appears after a long time in the history of defence acquisitions in India objectivity and technical consderations are acquiring primacy over imagined tactical and strategic advantages in going with Russia or the US. Should this be logically concluded, sooner the better, India should be applauded for assessing its independence in decision making, although the current geo-political situation should also have contributed to such a stance. I would go so far as to say that in view of the urgency to revamp our IAF, orders must be placed quickly and we should not stumble over hurdles that we ourselves put up by so called annually announced Defence Procurement Policy.
Brilliant Article.
Finally relieved to see someone making a rebuttal. All around I have hearing criticisms that India rebuffed a "strategic relationship" with the US. None of these respectable commentators seem to trust the efficacy and diligence of the assessors of this deal.
It's a veritable truth that India, like every other nation, must keep its own interest paramount and not cave in to US pressure and sulking.
Unless IAF's pilots consider one typhoon to be a better option than having two F16s, why not buy two F16s at $120 million instead of one Typhoon at $125 million?
Great Article Sir !
Very well done comparison among several systems and a comprehensive survey ! Most news articles conclude without conducting a discussion , but your approach is quite appreciable.
Thats why I liked The Hindu .
India is a soveriegn country and has complete right too chose the best in the market. It's ties with U.S. would not depend upon any deal. And if according to experts India-U.S. tie depends on some deal then first of all U.S. should rethink about its deals with Pakistan.
Indian Prime Ministers has no reason to bend under pressure.
Thank you for a nicely researched article. The key in negotiating and finalizing contracts lies in understanding the total cost of ownership. It is not necessary that the vendor with the lowest price win the contract - many factors including after sales service, reliability, availability and affordability of spare parts are critical and essential in determining a cost effective and reliable vendor. If it is a totally new platform, associated training and induction costs need to be considered as well. Procuring new fighter aircraft with advanced avionics calls for ensuring system compatibility with current infrastructure on the ground including length of runways.
Its MIG 35 not MIG31
Ultimately, the decision should be transparent based on proper technical assessment by those who are going to use it. The pros and cons of all the offers must be made transparent. US cannot pin their relationship with India on this issue alone. Just as they supply arms etc to Pakistan --our immediate neighbour--based on their mutual interests, we too have to protect our interests. Price wise US and Russia seem to be cheaper but probably suffer in comparison on technical grounds.
I think Indians were right in their decision because the F16 was not at all feasible given the Pakistani military's use of these aircrafts. The F18 are in transition as the American military has publically confirmed to have them replaced with F22s/F35s in about 5-10 years. A credible defense need of the IAF emerges from the required lifecycle in aircrafts of at least 20-30 years. India cannot afford obsolete hardware.
If the Americans had offered the F22, things would have been different. The F18, which was the only logical alternative, did not have any technology transfer arrangement as well - it was not of value. The Eurofighter, as of now, is being phased out of the UK airforce and is expected to be replaced by the F35, so it has problems as well. Without the AESA, it is not any more valuable that a MIG MKI India already has.Rafale, on the other hand, has no history of exports ever. It has never won any global tenders, rejected in all of them. Based on technical avenues, if the pilots thought that the Eurofighter was better, it should be accepted as so - because it's in production, the makers say they intend to plug India in their global supply chain and they offer technology transfer, which India needs in it's own Medium Role Combat Aircraft production project anyways. It's the only fighter left with credible economic, technical and military benefits. But it's also used in the Saudi Military... which is a close Pakistani ally - I hope Indian decision makers give this a thought. Saudi Arabia has funded Pakistani military affairs and they even have a university in Pakistani Kashmir.
None of the fighters (won't even bother mentioning Mig35) were really all that impressive, Eurofighter without AESA certainly isn't so too - and so India should demand upgrades, modification (as it did with MKIs) and really customize the aircrafts intensively. If the Americans had offered F22s, yep then it was a completely different beast altogether but F18, to be replaced in 10 years, is not what Indians need given their volatile neighbourhood. In fact, I say, Americans, if they were sincere enough in their relationship with India, they would have offered us the F22 instead.
US is mainly responsible for the failure of the deal to go through. They insisted that India enters into a bilateral pact that the Indian military leadership is deeply suspicious about, called CISMOA ( Communications Inter- operability and Security Memorandum Of Agreement.) In fact Indian refusal to sign the pact has lead to the striping of five specific pieces of high-end equipment, that the US have stripped from the Lockheed Martin; C-130J 'Super'; Hercules turboprop military transport aircraft being sold to India. These equipment facilitates secure, encrypted communication deeply useful in covert or special forces operations.
Excellent article sir. Thank you very much for a thorough and detailed analysis of this important issue. And you sum it up really well "It would do well to accept the expert assessment of those who understand its combat aviation needs the best - women and men who may or may not, one day, have to fly them into danger". Yes, indeed.
Your sentence says it all: "Even as India's advantage over Pakistan diminishes, it has China to consider - not because a war is probable, or even plausible, but because militaries must plan and be prepared for worst-case scenarios." Spending several billions on aircraft that can kill lots of people in worst-case scenarios. And I also read another report by an angry young journalist about why he doesn't care about The World Cup because lots of farmers are killing themselves due to poverty and debt.
And then there is this daily drama of ministers dishing out licences and deals for bribes. What a splendid theatre of human stupidity. Hope God won't die of too much laughter.
I hope that India will make decisions that are good for the country rather than be swayed by the intimidation tactics of 'Big Brother US' government.
The MMRCA deal had nothing to do with the diplomatic and stratgic relatioship between India and USA and even if it were so, why should we care at all. Have USA ever cared about India's interests and concerns, be it the sale of F16 to Pakistan or the harmful measures adapted by USA to blow the indian economy on IT forefronts.So India did what was in its best interests while sorting out the contenders of MMRCA, selecting one of the best fighter jets with transfer of technology and diversifying the defence partnership.
In addition to what the author has elaborated, India, for the first time, has shown guts by not going in for the MiGs (flying coffins) from Russia.
Excellent analysis. We should pick what is best for us. If defence department has picked the correct aircraft they should stick to it. Now we should be investing in these technologies and producing these aircrafts instead of buying from outside. Govt. should invite private investors to invest in this sector.
Well argued Sir. Spending 3/4 billion USD more to defend a nation of 1.2 billion is money very well spent. India must pursue its interests without apologies.
Nice! We need more of these thoughtful analysis.
Please Email the Editor