COST CONTROL
Abhijit Bhattacharyya
One sincerely hopes that what one is writing today is subsequently proved wrong, thereby giving India the right signal pertaining to the purchase of high-end defence hardware from foreign countries. Owing to the inability of the indigenous defence industry to meet the demands of the Indian armed forces, approximately 70 per cent of our military hardware is imported. As Western manufacturers face the grim reality of drastic reductions in the military expenditure of richer nations, the sellers may have to give a fresh chase to potentially prosperous customers like India. In this situation, when choices are available to the buyer rather than to the seller, India should have been able to make a good bargain, making the sellers offer their products at a price lower than the usual contract price. However, that does not seem to be happening.
Let us study the example of American military equipment on sale, offered to, or contracted with India. In 2007, India made a deal with Lockheed Martin for the supply of 06C-130J Hercules medium multirole (transport) aircraft worth $1.02 billion under the foreign military or government sales programme. According to Military Balance 2010, these aircraft are "for special forces operations configuration with AN/AAR-47 missile approach warning system and radar-warning receivers".
Obviously, there appears to be some special stuff embedded in the aircraft that makes the price of each flying machine $170 million. However, it appears from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2010-2011 that the same type of aircraft was sold to Australia in 1995 for $55 million — the "baseline price of C-130J for US Air Force [was] quoted as US $67 million in early 2002", and there was a "multilayer procurement of 40 C-130J-30s for the US Air Force [at a ] unit price [of] US $67.5 million".
Bottom line
Again, in 2003, the contract for one aircraft for the Air Force Reserve Command was worth $70.5 million. This disparity of more than $100 million per aircraft between Australia and the United States of America on one hand and India on the other is intriguing. Why did the price of the same type of aircraft shoot up so high when offered to India?
Initially, in early 2002, potential buyers were expected to be Australia, Canada and Italy, which were to begin negotiations "concerning cost and work-sharing aspects of the collaborative venture". However, all "three countries withdrew by mid-2005". Not unexpectedly, after the retreat of the three developed nations, the "early" entry of India took place, with a $2.1 billion-order for an aircraft which was still far (five years) away from the development and production line. The US was in dire need of cost or risk sharing partners, and it missed the bus. Instead, it got a $2.1 billion moneybag in New Delhi.
However, there is no doubt that American aircraft continue to be top-class, which, understandably, is why overseas clients want it. As Americans are conscious of the unmatched quality of their product, they tend to be difficult at times and try to arm-twist those customers who dare to have a contrary view. And here lies the danger for India as a customer of US military aircraft. India may have to contend with extreme reluctance on the part of the US to part with its "latest and best technology".
Successive US governments have acknowledged the existence of rigid export controls but have failed to loosen the checks owing to opposition from the US Congress. Even President Barack Obama may not be able to change this practice. Hence, India will have to remember the ground realities of cost, quality and control checks of the US aviation when it tries to acquire aircraft for the Indian air force.
Check the cost of deal vs those for Allies
I am happy. we should go for Europe and french for hi tech stuffs. They are still better than our neighbors and will serve our purpose. will will have peace of mind as well due to less fear of interference.so they are not going to lift ban on sales of dual-use technology exports to India :angry_10::angry_10: good then they should forget everthing from nuclear reactors to fighter planes
He has a lot to gain from this trip. He will sign deals for American weapons for India. he will force us to modify nuclear liability bill to allow American companies to do business. He will stop outsourcing from America and will ask us to open our market for USA companies. We will be forced to open our agricultural sector . He is here to show to American people that he care for them and he is here to protect American interest.With "no" to our major wishlist, i dunno what is left for obama to visit in india, except being a leisure trip.
Moron has set the negative tide for his visit, even before it commences. I am disappointed already, and kills all the excitement.
I hope congress babu's dont bend down to sign up for his wishlist as well.
During Bush's trip there were 5000 security personnel and a few dozen dogs.^^^ US is paranoid seriously....:15:
Friend! actually its a new way of invasion.. In history, they used colonization for invading a country and sucking the natural resource by establishing a pre-dominant rule in India.. They slaved our people for their benefit...Really? Yet you have no issue with the social and political "invasion" of Indians into the West, particularly the USA? How about the benefits of American and Western outsourcing thanks to their open market policies guaranteed by their respective governments? What about the rapidly growing technical input from the West benefiting a vast array of industries and institutions in India such as higher education, agriculture, energy, electronics heavy industry etc. etc.? Let's not even get into information technology.
Maybe it might be worth reassessing the question... who exactly is "invading" whom here?
Advanced societies dominate and/or conquer weaker ones, that is life. This is also the reason why stronger Indian kings invaded and ruled the weaker kingdoms before they were defeated and conquered by more advanced and stronger forces. The British expansion is not the 'starting point' of anything because this cycle predates them. The reason the West plays the 'king's role' is because they are industrialized and advanced in most aspects of economics and social growth which gives them an edge over all those who aren't. The Chinese nationalist "hate the West" view is just as absurd considering they owe their entire rise to the West.Friend! actually its a new way of invasion.. In history, they used colonization for invading a country and sucking the natural resource by establishing a pre-dominant rule in India.. They slaved our people for their benefit...
British colonization and ambition over conquering the world was the starting point for all cause... This is the main reason Chinese still hate western (Could be an O.T. but has to to mention)
Now, the trend has changed and the world has grown. And they know how to still dominate the world. They outsourced the jobs to developing nations and they rule us remotely. (I do agree that it helped our nation's growth). But here, who is playing the king's role?? Do you object if I say its Western??
they should also make obama levitate since earthquake can come anytime and who knows if land beneath his feet will tear apart :emot15:^^^ US is paranoid seriously....:15:
"Healthcare reforms were part of Obama's presidential campaign. With the increasing number of Americans visiting Mumbai for affordable healthcare, the industry in India is looking forward to some form of collaboration with the US," Fortis Healthcare CEO Vishal Bali said. Official figures show nearly five lakh Americans came here for cheap treatment in the last one year.
"A cardiac surgery in India costs a foreigner $13,000, including stay and travel. The same surgery in the US costs $55,000-$75,000. While a joint replacement surgery in India costs $9,500, in the US it costs $50,000. With the recent economic slowdown, people in developed countries like the US, are looking for better value for money, and India offers the best deals," said Bali.
An American patient, Misty, who is undergoing spinal surgery at Fortis hospital at Mulund, said, "When the doctors in the US said I need to undergo spinal surgery, the only option I had was a spinal fusion surgery as disc replacement was not covered under medical insurance because I am self-employed. That's when I thought of looking out for options, at a quality place at an affordable price. I researched on the Internet for almost six months and Fortis came up. My surgery would have cost $200,000 in the US, whereas I have paid $20,000 here, which includes travel, hospital stay and surgery cost."