Corruption in arms deals, India paying more.

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by luckyy, Jul 28, 2010.

  1. luckyy

    luckyy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    3
  2.  
  3. luckyy

    luckyy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    3
    is that's the reason , now we are only buying Govt-to-govt deals or though tendor process..
     
  4. luckyy

    luckyy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    3
    pakistan reportedly paid $ 1bn for 7 saab-2000 AWACS systems ..
    http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=81571

    someone will argue that Iseali systems are better , ...but how much better ..the difference in the two systems is whoping 366-146=200ml$/copy......

    and we heard IAF like to buy 3 more ...

    does only Isreali make AEWCS systems ....even now , why no tendor issued ..?....
     
  5. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    The same question can be brought up about the price of the C-17'S????
     
  6. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    You have a valid question here . Israeli Awac system is really a lot better than swedish but should not be that costly. I think Indian Awac system is mounted on better plane and it was modified for Indian need and has better load and range capability but definitely it should not be so much costly. I am sure there may be some hidden technical collaboration deals that was also included in cost.
     
  7. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,623
    Likes Received:
    11,702
    they are over over charging us....................:angry_10:
     
  8. luckyy

    luckyy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    3
    today defence minister A K Antony informed Parliament that the Central Bureau of Investigation had recommended the blacklisting of four companies that had been involved in corruption, at various stages of procurement: Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK); Germany’s Rheinmetall; Israel Military Industries (IMI); and another Israeli company, Soltam..... Denel,a South African company, had been blacklisted earlier;
     
  9. prateikf

    prateikf Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    42
    let that incompetent minister blacklist himself and his ministry . that would be a good service to our nation. has he gone nuts to blacklist all the possible artillery manufacturer's in the world? what else can we expect from a man who ruined kerala while he was the cm
     
  10. neo29

    neo29 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    india
    Sometimes the price of certain hardware is not always whats shown. It involves life time support, spare parts, maintenance and certain accessories involved to use the hardware. All these together will be added to the final cost of the hardware.
    I dont know if India tax's/pays customs for defence imports.
     
  11. luckyy

    luckyy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    3
    Defective choppers bought for 182cr
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6252961.cms

    NEW DELHI: Even as it expressed serious concern at the alarming shortfalls in aging helicopter and aircraft fleets of Navy and IAF, the CAG has blasted the defence ministry for procuring six defective and phased-out UH-3H helicopters from the US for Rs 182.14 crore.

    The six helicopters were manufactured in January 1961-July 1965 and were decommissioned by the US Navy in 2005 itself.

    "Audit examination revealed the helicopters procured were life-expired and had many defects which would ultimately compromise operational effectiveness," said CAG.

    The helicopters were bought from the US government under the ‘‘foreign military sales’’ programme, which is a direct government-to-government deal without any multi-vendor competition.

    The helicopters were acquired to operate from the second-hand amphibious transport warship USS Trenton, rechristened INS Jalashwa by the Navy, also purchased from the US in 2006.

    The latest CAG report, tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, said, "Considering the vintage of the helicopters and the obsolescence of spares, maintenance of the six refurbished helicopters by Indian Navy would be a challenging task. In fact, one helicopter has already been cannibalised to ensure serviceability of the other five helicopters."

    The CAG report said the helicopters were bought in "as is where is" condition with‘‘no guarantee of supportability and replacement of defective rotables due to obsolescence’’.

    Moreover, the helicopters are devoid of any type of weather/surface surveillance radar, which is the most important sensor of a utility helicopter during its "search-and-rescue" operations.
     
  12. luckyy

    luckyy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    3
    Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) report ; IN bought non-capable Derby BVR missile ....

    http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/indian-navy-harrier-upgrade-imprudent.html

    the CAG report also notes that the Navy was "predisposed" towards selecting the Rafael-made Derby BVR missile "even though the missile did not fulfil the needs of the Indian Navy". The report notes, "The RFP issued in August 2003 stipulated that the IN’s requirement was for the Derby missile. As no corrigendum to the RFP was issued, clearly, competition in procurement was ruled out. As a result, although the RFP was issued to seven firms and an extension was granted till October 2003, only the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of the Derby missile responded. The trial directives were issued in March 2008 after scaling down the NSQRs at the instance of vendor. Consequently, the acceptable maximum range of the missile was reduced from ‘A’ Km to ‘B’ Km, which was 54 per cent of the original accepted range. Actual live firing of missile was conducted, in March 2008, on an upgraded prototype Sea Harrier aircraft at a range of ‘B’ Km for missile in mid envelope scenario (33 67 per cent). The vendor was unwilling to guarantee performance of the missile beyond the scaled downrange of ‘B’ Km. One of the basic aims of the acquisition of BVR Air to Air missile was to destroy targets at beyond visual ranges of up to ‘C’ Km. However, the missiles acquired failed to achieve the desired ranges in the live firing. The capability of the seeker, at the range prescribed in NSQR (‘A’ Km) was also not demonstrated in live firing.. Moreover, the missile launcher design is being used for the first time for airborne operations."

    http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3480072&c=ASI&s=AIR

    20 Derby missile were bought at whoping $25ml....
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  13. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    India's national audit watchdog agency, the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) has severely criticised the Indian Navy's upgrade of 14 Sea Harriers. The Navy embarked on the upgrade -- called the Limited Upgrade Sea Harrier (LUSH) programme -- in March 2005.

    The new CAG union audit report on the Indian Navy, tabled in Parliament yesterday, observes, "The contract for limited upgradation was concluded but only in March 2005. The delay was mainly on account of finalising technical requirements, issuing the Request for Proposal, conducting Technical Evaluation for the missile and associated radar. Not only did this delay defeat the very purpose of execution of the project on fast track basis but the Navy would also be able to exploit the upgraded Sea Harrier aircraft for a very limited period only, i.e about three years or less. Even subsequently, there were delays in the execution of the programme by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and the first milestone of handing over two prototypes to Navy by February 2007 could not be achieved.
    Consequently, delivery of the remaining aircraft, scheduled for February 2008 was postponed to December 2009."

    Further, the report says, "The Sea Harrier has had, over the past few years, a very high attrition rate. In fact, subsequent to the time of mooting the proposal, in October 2001, Navy lost two aircraft in August 2003 and December 2004. Despite being aware of these facts, Navy initially committed all its aircraft for the upgradation though they ultimately reduced one aircraft from the final contract. Further they did not include any provision in the contract for payment on prorata basis depending on the number of aircraft upgraded by the vendor. As a result, after conclusion of contract, when more aircraft were lost in accidents, Navy had no option but to make payment of Rs 204.30 crore to HAL towards upgradation of these nonexistent aircraft lost in the interim period. Navy would, however, be able to setoff only Rs 16.16 crore payable to HAL for their services."

    Damningly, the CAG report also notes that the Navy was "predisposed" towards selecting the Rafael-made Derby BVR missile "even though the missile did not fulfil the needs of the Indian Navy". The report notes, "The RFP issued in August 2003 stipulated that the IN’s requirement was for the Derby missile. As no corrigendum to the RFP was issued, clearly, competition in procurement was ruled out. As a result, although the RFP was issued to seven firms and an extension was granted till October 2003, only the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of the Derby missile responded. The trial directives were issued in March 2008 after scaling down the NSQRs at the instance of vendor. Consequently, the acceptable maximum range of the missile was reduced from ‘A’ Km to ‘B’ Km, which was 54 per cent of the original accepted range. Actual live firing of missile was conducted, in March 2008, on an upgraded prototype Sea Harrier aircraft at a range of ‘B’ Km for missile in mid envelope scenario (33 67 per cent). The vendor was unwilling to guarantee performance of the missile beyond the scaled downrange of ‘B’ Km. One of the basic aims of the acquisition of BVR Air to Air missile was to destroy targets at beyond visual ranges of up to ‘C’ Km. However, the missiles acquired failed to achieve the desired ranges in the live firing. The capability of the seeker, at the range prescribed in NSQR (‘A’ Km) was also not demonstrated in live firing. Moreover, the missile launcher design is being used for the first time for airborne operations."
     

Share This Page