Skip to main content

Serving Air Marshals join Rafale dogfight. Serving whom? Decision to buy fighters taken without consulting IAF

By Mohan Guruswamy*
We have a tradition in India, actually a discipline, that officers in uniform don’t take part even in political discussions let alone debates, which are mostly about scoring points. But we recently saw that tradition breached when two senior Indian Air Force officers spoke to television about the ongoing contretemps over the purchase of 36 Rafale fighters from France’s Dassault Aviation. 
The Vice Chief of the IAF, Air Marshal SB Deo, an accomplished officer who designs and builds smart weapons in his front yard for a hobby, speaking to the media on the sidelines of a recent Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS) and Confederation of India Industries (CII) seminar said: “Those criticizing the deal must understand the procurement procedure. It is a beautiful aircraft. It is a very capable aircraft and we are waiting to fly it.”
The Rafale was chosen after a grueling process to pick a fighter out of six contenders for original 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) requirement. That has now been truncated to just 36 completely built up units. There is no question raised about the quality and capability of the Rafale. But as far as the procurement procedure is concerned, I doubt if the Air Marshal himself understands it, for strange are the ways of governments. But it nevertheless was a well-crafted statement and he kept within the folds of the envelope persons in uniforms are required to be within.
But his junior, the Deputy Chief Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar, speaking to reporters at the 8th Heli- Power seminar said: “Those who are claiming such numbers, I think they are misinformed and probably not aware of the facts that are known to us in the Indian Air Force. As we are the ones who were very much part of the negotiations with the French government. And we have the facts with us. And, I don’t think what is being alleged matches up with facts at all. I can tell you that the Rafale that we have gone for is substantially lower than the price that was on the table in 2008.”
He is talking rubbish. The decision to buy 36 Rafale’s was made without consulting the IAF. Even the then Foreign Secretary, travelling with PM Modi didn’t know. Perhaps only Modi, Doval and Anil Ambani knew. But more important than that is that Nambiar was thus imputing, wittingly or unwittingly, that the previous price fixed was substantially inflated. Nambiar even ventured the figure now as being “40% cheaper.” What made him put himself squarely in the centre of a political fracas is probably best known to him?
Now here are the facts as known to lesser mortals. The IAF was hoping for a minimum of four squadrons of Rafale fighters, but the Narendra Modi government has kept the initial order down to 36 fighters in a flyaway condition for 7.8 billion euros or $9.13 billion (@1 euro=$1.17). Commenting on this, the officer who headed the intensive selection process that led to the choice of the Rafale, Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran pointedly observed: "The original MRCA tender was cleared for $10.5 billion for 126 aircraft”. 
In the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements’ (ASQR) provided by the Indian Air Force there were 13 ‘India Specific Enhancements’ demanded by India during the 126 aircrafts MMRCA contract. These included AESA radar and radar enhancements, helmet mounted display, towed decoy system, low band jammer and the ability to operate from high altitude airfields. 
That these were the same for the 36 Rafale’s ordered by PM Modi is made clear by the Joint Statement dated 10th April, 2015 issued by French President Francois Hollande and Prime Minister, Narendra Modi which reads, “…that the aircraft and associated systems and weapons would be delivered on the same configuration as has been tested and approved by Indian Air Force…”
There is much noise about the huge costs at which the 36 Rafale’s have been contracted for. The comparable costs of the 126 and 36 deals can only be read when all the costs are factored in. The cost of the new deal for 36 Rafale fighters is 3.42 billion euros as the cost of the bare planes; 1.8 billion euros for associated supplies for infrastructure and support; 1.7 billion euros for India-specific changes to the plane; and 353 million euros for “performance-based logistics support”; with the weapons package of 700 million euros being the extra. So take out 1053 million euros out and you have the comparable cost, which means it is it is 7.1 billion euros. It appears that the fiddle is in the India specific costs, additional infrastructure, and support and performance logistics support.
Mohan Guruswamy
IAF deployed "spokesmen" have even been justifying the Rafale purchase because the package includes the Meteor air-to-air missile. The Meteor is the new game changer in the air. It increases the "no-escape" zone for a hostile aircraft by about three times. The Meteor is an active radar guided beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) developed by MBDA. 
It will offer a multi-shot capability against long range maneuvering targets in a heavy electronic countermeasures (ECM) environment with range in excess of 100 kilometers (62 mi). According to the manufacturer, in a head-on engagement the Meteor provides a no-escape zone three times greater than that of a conventionally powered missile.
But the Meteor missile is not exclusive to the Rafale. The fact is that the Swedish Gripfen has now been integrated with the Meteor and open sources indicate that the IAF too is contemplating integrating the SU-30MKI and Meteor. Even the Tejas can be fitted out with Meteors. So we are not buying the Rafale for the Meteor. Besides missile purchase can never be part of the capital cost of a fighter. Since they are expendable, and presumably mean to be expendable, they should be part of revenue expenditure.
A few months after Narendra Modi and Francois Hollande, then French President, signed the deal, our old friend Anil Ambani signed a deal with Julie Gayet, Hollande’s actress girlfriend on January 24, 2016 to jointly produce a film. Talk about sweetheart deals and sweetening a deal. The French have a long and well honed tradition of dealing with African and Arab tin pot dictators and their leaders, a long line from Giscard D’Estaing to Nicholas Sarkozy, have been known to help themselves a bit on the side too. We know ours do.
This should lend further credence to that. According to Ministry of Company Affairs, Reliance Defence Limited was registered on March 28, 2015. On April 11, 2015 Reliance Defence Limited becomes the main partner in to ensure the 50 percent offset clause under which Dassault and other related French parties will invest half the contract value back in the country. Government officials insist that 74 percent of the offsets will be exported earning 3 billion euros for the country in the next seven years. The experience with all offsets suggests this is far fetched. It has not happened so far.
Incidentally Anil Ambani’s flagship company , Reliance Communications Ltd (stylized as RCom), just defaulted on a major foreign loan and its future ability to fulfill its Rafale offsets commitment should now be in doubt. Recently the IDBI Bank filed an insolvency application to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking debt resolution of Reliance Naval and Engineering, the shipbuilding Anil Ambani company, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Yet Reliance Defence is gung ho about fulfilling its Rafale related obligations. It’s not without reason that Anil Ambani is believed to be close to Prime Minister Modi and to some in his close circle.
Make no mistake. The Rafale is a top class 4+Gen fighter. Probably even the best there is. The political dogfight is over the costs. The IAF should be happy that it will soon operate the Rafale and should seek to persuade the politicians that it needs more. The Air Marshals are best advised to stay away from dogfights they are not trained and qualified for.
---
*Well-known public policy expert. Source: Mohan Guruswamy’s Facebook timeline

Comments

TRENDING

August 22 to be observed as Apostasy Day: International coalition of ex-Muslim groups

By Our Representative
In a unique move, an international coalition of ex-Muslim organisations has decided to observe August 22, 2020 as the Apostasy Day. To be observed for “the abandonment or renunciation of religion”, the coalition, calling upon people to join the call, said, the decision to observe the Apostasy Day has been taken because of apostasy is “punishable by death in Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, UAE, and Yemen.”

Buddhist shrines massively destroyed by Brahmanical rulers in "pre-Islamic" era: Historian DN Jha's survey

By Our Representative
Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book, "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

RSS' 25,000 Shishu Mandirs 'follow' factory school model of Christian missionaries

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak*
The executive committee of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) recently decided to drop the KISS University in Odisha as the co-host of the World Anthropology Congress-2023. The decision is driven by the argument that KISS University is a factory school.

India must recognise: 4,085 km Himalayan borders are with Tibet, not China

By Tenzin Tsundue, Sandeep Pandey*
There has as been a cancerous wound around India’s Himalayan neck ever since India's humiliating defeat during the Chinese invasion of India in 1962. The recent Galwan Valley massacre has only added salt to the wound. It has come to this because, when China invaded the neighbouring country Tibet in 1950, India was in high romance with the newly-established communist regime under Mao Zedong after a bloody revolution.

Time to give Covid burial, not suspend, World Bank's 'flawed' Doing Business ranking

By Maju Varghese*
On August 27, the World Bank came out with a statement suspending the Doing Business Report. The statement said that a number of irregularities have been reported regarding changes to the data in the Doing Business 2018 and Doing Business 2020 reports, published in October 2017 and 2019. The changes in the data were inconsistent with the Doing Business methodology.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur*
Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Delhi riots: Cops summoning, grilling, intimidating young to give 'false' evidence

Counterview Desk
More than 440 concerned citizens have supported the statement issued by well-known bureaucrat-turned-human rights activist Harsh Mander ‘We will not be silenced’ which said that the communal riots in Delhi in February 2020 have not been caused by any conspiracy, as alleged by the Delhi Police, but by “hate speech and provocative statements made by a number of political leaders of the ruling party.”

WHO chief ignores India, cites Pak as one of 7 top examples in fight against Covid-19

By Our Representative
In a move that would cause consternation in India’s top policy makers in the Modi government, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, World Health Organization (WHO) director-general, has singled out Pakistan among seven countries that have set “examples” in investing in a healthier and safer future in order to fight the Covid-19 pandemic.

Tata Mundra: NGOs worry as US court rules World Bank can't be sued for 'damages'

By Kate Fried, Mir Jalal*
On August 24 evening, a federal court ruled that the World Bank Group cannot be sued for any damage caused by its lending, despite last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the same case that these institutions can be sued for their “commercial activity” in the United States.