Thread by @elmihiro

This op-ed is being widely shared as "incisive" and "hard-hitting". But it is is riddled with inaccuracies, and does a rather poor job at making its case. Deserves a comprehensive rebuttal. Thread...
theprint.in/national-inter…

Claim: "Today’s arms bazaar carries almost no secrets about platforms. If you are buying the Meteor missile to go with the Rafale, not just the Pakistani and Chinese air forces, but any teenaged defence nerd with a smartphone can give you a tutorial on it."

Truth: Teenaged defence nerd’s tutorial would be most superficial, and would merely regurgitate the info available on Wikipedia or in Jane’s. It would barely scratch the surface of a weapon’s capabilities, and would be tainted by misinformation deliberately released by the OEM.

Let’s take missile ranges for example: Teenaged defence nerd would only know the advertised range (“in excess of 100 km"). He wouldn’t know the engagement envelope, the kinematic performance, the capabilities of the seeker, the ECM resistance, the specs of the datalink, etc. etc.

These details are – for good reason – highly classified. The manuals pertaining to the missile's use and operation are kept in secure lockers inside access-controlled rooms. And Gupta wants the MoD to discuss it in public?

Claim: refusing to “answer any questions on the pricing … by claiming a secrecy clause between two democratic governments where all spending is subject to parliamentary and audit scrutiny” is “arrogant”.

Truth: It is nothing of the sort. “Parliamentary scrutiny” doesn’t mean public release. The Standing Committee on Defence may decide to vet the deal, but they would be prevented from disclosing details to the public.

If the Opposition wants access, their MPs will have to acquire OSA clearance, as @iyervval points out here. And they too would be bound by the terms of the confidentiality agreement. But they don’t want that, for obvious reasons.

https://twitter.com/Iyervval/status/1020411241473478656

Moreover, a confidential briefing is a privilege, not a right. The government is free to deny opposition MPs that privilege if they raise questions in bad faith and put national security at risk.

At that point, the Opposition can leverage public anger to put pressure on the government and demand more information, but the Congress Party isn’t exactly faring well in terms of public support. So public pressure is out of the question.

Further, “audit scrutiny” is a red herring. CAG *is* auditing the contract and the process that led to it.

Finally, “questions on the pricing” have been answered to the extent that the security agreement permits. In Parliament. Why people insist on harping on this point despite evidence to the contrary baffles me.

Claim: “all ‘boring’ procedure like [securing the approval of] the Cabinet Committee on Security” was bypassed.

Truth: It wasn’t. CCS approval is not required to sign an MoU (which Modi and Macron did in 2015). It is required to conclude an inter-governmental agreement (which was executed in September 2016), and was obtained at that stage.

Claim: The latest excuse for not proceeding with the earlier deal of 126 Rafales, 108 of which were to be manufactured by … Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), is that it didn’t have the back-end infrastructure.

Truth: Nope. The Opposition simply conjured the allegation out of thin air. The defence minister pointed to negotiations between Dassault and HAL breaking down as the reason.
firstpost.com/politics/rafal…

Claim: The “emergency purchase” justification is nonsense. “This Rafale deal is a great commentary on the inability of a nation with super power fantasies to buy for its Air Force a couple of fighter squadrons that were critically needed two decades ago”

Truth: The Rafale acquisition (which I think was unnecessary and too expensive for the capabilities offered) is just part of the equation. The current govt also compelled the IAF to commit to 12 squadrons of the Tejas.

Funny how that little decision, which will boost squadron strength more than any Rafale purchase, always gets neglected in these debates.

Claim: “this country is yet to see any private sector company make anything major for the military”

Truth: The private sector is doing rather well, and ramping up its participation in defence. It is ridiculous to expect it to deliver finished systems from day one. Manufacturing capability and capacity takes years to build. As of now, the private sector has delivered:

- Multiple transporter-erector-launcher vehicles for homegrown missiles (Tata, Ashok-Leyland)
- Propulsion and airframe for the Akash missile (L&T)
- Akash missile launchers (Tata SED)
- Pinaka missile systems (Tata SED and L&T)

- Multiple components of the BrahMos missile (Godrej & Boyce)
- BrahMos missile seekers (Astra Microwave)
- K-9 Vajra SPGs (L&T)
- Apache helicopter airframes (Tata Boeing Aerospace)
- Hull + multiple subsystems for the Arihant class submarine (L&T)

- Aircraft displays (Samtel)
- Ballistic helmets (MKU)
- Sights, night vision devices, and opto-electronics (Tonbo)

I could go on for ages. “Nothing significant” indeed. 🙄

Having said that, it is no one's case that the Modi government deserves all credit for these successes. Many are the result of the investments that earlier governments made.

But if there ever was a right time to aggressively seek out global partnerships to give private entities that much-needed boost in acquiring technology and know-how, it is now. And the current government deserves kudos for pursuing these partnerships.

And here we are, whining because ... what? ... Rome isn't being built in a day?

To quote Prakash Raj: "kuch bhi!"