What's new

Can India and the United States Work Out the Kinks for a Fighter Production Deal?

Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
3,056
Reaction score
-4
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
The U.S. and Indian governments continue to work on at least a couple of proposals to shift production of fighter aircraft from the United States to India. The core problem, as outlined by Aditya Kalra and Sanjeev Miglani, is that U.S. firms worry about the security of their technology. Lockheed Martin and Boeing, in particular, have expressed concern that by taking a minority stake in joint ventures with Indian companies, they will lose control of sensitive military technologies.

Acquisition of technology (especially sensitive defense technology) is a key part of the deal for the Indian government, which has continued to struggle with developing a world-class defense industry. Protection of technology, conversely, is a key demand of U.S. firms considering partnerships in India. As Indian rules limit foreign partners to a 49 percent stake in any joint ventures, the U.S. firms have real concerns.

With respect to the F-16, the technologies in question have matured to the extent that it is unclear how exposed Lockheed Martin is to the risk of technology appropriation. However, the terms of the F-16 deal will set a precedent for future collaboration between U.S. and Indian defense and technology companies. Boeing faces a similar situation with the F/A-18, although some of the technologies associated with the Hornet are more cutting edge.

American firms have also expressed concern over the ability of private Indian firms to manage production of sophisticated aviation technology. Apart from HAL, few Indian companies have extensive experience with producing components for military aircraft. Given that Lockheed Martin, at least, expects to produce F-16s for export in India, the ability to manage the manufacturing tree is a serious concern.

The debate (perhaps not yet a dispute) takes place against a dual backdrop; first, of hopes in both Washington and New Delhi for a closer strategic partnership, and second, of long-term concerns over the protection of American intellectual property in India. The Trump administration has pursued both of these issues with varying degrees of seriousness, while Modi has, perhaps implicitly, suggested that the latter is negotiable in pursuit of the former. One government official, at least, has suggested that U.S. firms can expand their stake beyond 49 percent, depending on the sophistication of the technologies they bring to the partnership. How this would function in practice remains unclear, however.

Still, similar concerns over technology transfer scuttled the largest envisioned version of the Dassault Rafale deal; they have also repeatedly cropped up in the Su-57 joint project with Russia. Both of these situations were different in character from the U.S. complaints, however, as both involved Hindustan Aeronautics Limited as the lead Indian contractor. In the case of the Su-57, concerns were more about the Russian production side than the Indian, although with the Rafale the French repeatedly raised concerns about the quality of Indian production and maintenance.

These concerns seem manageable on their face. However, Boeing and Lockheed Martin wield significant influence in Washington, and the Indian defense bureaucracy have proven intractable before. It is possible that the two sides will not find their way to a deal, especially given the availability of other fighters for the Indian Air Force.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/can...-out-the-kinks-for-a-fighter-production-deal/
 
It won't be much of a concern because in a Gripen/F-16 fight, the Gripen will win.
 
It won't be much of a concern because in a Gripen/F-16 fight, the Gripen will win.

You are assuming that there would be a fight the two when RFP for the Single Engine Fighter has not even been issued. There are more chances that GoI would go for a G2G to procure F-16 fighters from the US.
 
Why has the Modi govt given Indian defence the Cinderella treatment?
https://theprint.in/2018/02/03/why-...ence-the-cinderella-treatment-in-its-budgets/


India = Cash crunch if not cash crisis.
India is not a cash cow as China is.

25% of India's entire budget (which is peanuts anyway) allocation is dedicated to debt service. India = 69% debt to GDP ratio.
Modi can't make miracles without borrowing extra money from WB/IMF.

Hence if these F-16 would come, India's fiscal deficit would grow, as it is (now).

No exceptions here.
But Modi may fool his Bhakts and other gullible voters who have little worldly knowledge (which he regularly does).





 
You are assuming that there would be a fight the two when RFP for the Single Engine Fighter has not even been issued. There are more chances that GoI would go for a G2G to procure F-16 fighters from the US.

There are zero chances of the govt going for a GTG without a competition.

The process is through Strategic Partnership, which can only be done through a tender. The final contract, whichever jet wins, will be a GTG.
 
There are zero chances of the govt going for a GTG without a competition.

The process is through Strategic Partnership, which can only be done through a tender. The final contract, whichever jet wins, will be a GTG.

If Rafale fighters can be purchased through a G2G deal why not F-16 fighters?
 
If Rafale fighters can be purchased through a G2G deal why not F-16 fighters?

Rafale won the MMRCA tender. Tenders happen for price discovery. The GTG deal used the same price and they brought it down even further after that.

But in Gripen's or F-16's case, there has been no price discovery. And price discovery is possible only through tenders because that's the only time vendors give competitive prices, lest they lose.

Once price discovery is done, we will pick the cheapest aircraft. Then the tender will convert to GTG. After that, we can negotiate further.
 
Rafale won the MMRCA tender. Tenders happen for price discovery. The GTG deal used the same price and they brought it down even further after that.

But in Gripen's or F-16's case, there has been no price discovery. And price discovery is possible only through tenders because that's the only time vendors give competitive prices, lest they lose.

Once price discovery is done, we will pick the cheapest aircraft. Then the tender will convert to GTG. After that, we can negotiate further.

F16 and Gripen have also participated in the MMRCA.
 
But they didn't even get shortlisted. They need to get shortlisted at the minimum, but actually win for it to matter.

See, Either you have a Single Engine deal or you don't. If there is a single engine deal then F-16 and Gripen are the options and GoI can go for a G2G with either of them like it did with Rafale.
 
See, Either you have a Single Engine deal or you don't. If there is a single engine deal then F-16 and Gripen are the options and GoI can go for a G2G with either of them like it did with Rafale.

The procurement is going through Strategic Partnership Model. It is a tender.

GTG will come after the tender is finished and a L1 is chosen. So the govt that represents the winner of the tender will sign a GTG with the Indian govt.
 
The procurement is going through Strategic Partnership Model. It is a tender.

GTG will come after the tender is finished and a L1 is chosen. So the govt that represents the winner of the tender will sign a GTG with the Indian govt.

Tender is not a mandate. It is GoI's prerogative. Going through tender could ensure better deal due to competition but if GoI already knows what each party is ready to offer it is not required.
 
Tender is not a mandate. It is GoI's prerogative. Going through tender could ensure better deal due to competition but if GoI already knows what each party is ready to offer it is not required.

Tender is a mandate. A GTG deal is supposed to be signed only when the product either has no competitor or there is an immediate emergency. Rafale GTG was signed due to the latter issue.

And when it comes to SPM, it has to go through a tender process anyway.

More importantly, without a tender, you don't really know what you are buying and whether the cost is reasonable. For example, if GoI goes straightaway for a GTG with the US, then LM could easily overcharge by 100% or even 200%, there is really no limit to how much they can ask. For some weapons and ammunition, we have paid the Russians as much as 300% higher than the markup price.

In simple terms, a non-competitive GTG is the last resort. Tender is the first option, always.
 
Tender is a mandate. A GTG deal is supposed to be signed only when the product either has no competitor or there is an immediate emergency. Rafale GTG was signed due to the latter issue.

And when it comes to SPM, it has to go through a tender process anyway.

More importantly, without a tender, you don't really know what you are buying and whether the cost is reasonable. For example, if GoI goes straightaway for a GTG with the US, then LM could easily overcharge by 100% or even 200%, there is really no limit to how much they can ask. For some weapons and ammunition, we have paid the Russians as much as 300% higher than the markup price.

In simple terms, a non-competitive GTG is the last resort. Tender is the first option, always.

As I said earlier, GoI already knows what product and ToT is being offered and at what price. Now it is up to GoI to delay the deal with more negotiations through a tender process or go for a G2G to get the induction expedited.
 

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom