F-18 for India ?

[Mikesingh]

Ironic considering half of US is Snow hole and mountainous

It's not just the weather but also the altitude. Huge drop in weapon loadouts was unacceptable.

 

[Mikesingh]

Coming to the choice of plane, it literally makes ZERO sense to buy any other plane except additional Rafales. If we don't have money, then buy fewer. Buy more later when funds are secured. Compromising on quality or capacity due to short-term monetary problems will prove to be a grave error.

Doesn't seem we're short of money. Look at most states that are waiving farmers loans to the tune of approx Rs 40,000 crores each - enough to buy another two squadrons of Rafales! 10 states have done it. That means enough money to buy 18-20 squadrons of Rafales!! But then vote banks are the be-all and end-all in mera Bharat!

 

[Indx TechStyle]

LCA want meant to be a Multirule fighter

First improve your English. Second, you know nothing John Snow.

 

[Gessler]

Doesn't seem we're short of money. Look at most states that are waiving farmers loans to the tune of approx Rs 40,000 crores each - enough to buy another two squadrons of Rafales! 10 states have done it. That means enough money to buy 18-20 squadrons of Rafales!! But then vote banks are the be-all and end-all in mera Bharat!

The falling defence budget as a percentage of GDP is the clearest indicator that the current govt cares more about socialist/public-appeasement policies rather than pursuing national security as a top priority....or at least not allowing appeasement policies to overshadow defence spending needs.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

The falling defence budget as a percentage of GDP is the clearest indicator that the current govt cares more about socialist/public-appeasement policies rather than pursuing national security as a top priority....or at least not allowing appeasement policies to overshadow defence spending needs.

The falling defence budget as a percentage of GDP is a result growing share of homegrown equipment in military which is relatively low in cost.

Continously ramping up military budget mindlessly will only lead to corruption, killing domestic projects and purchasing more & more.

India is a lower middle income economy who should be more about economic growth and military budget should remain as a minimal percentage of economy. Extra money invested in defence won't give any economic return and only a temporary military superiority because of impoted which we will lose in a decade and will again struggle for indigenization like we are doing today. And we aren't first one to follow the way. China kept military budget low as a percentage of economy.

Our budget seems large because our GDP is large. As economy is growing, defence budget as a total is substantially growing every decade. It is still enough to project us as a major power on map. It should still grow in numbers and should come down as a percentage of economy as it doesn't give returns.

Military budget should be enough only to serve the country's national security. It is not a compulsion to spend a certain minimum amount on defence for country's growth or security unlike education, infrastructure and R&D are needed.

It should be "enough only".

 

[Meghavan]

First improve your English. Second, you know nothing John Snow.

I will one day, slave of English.

 

[ashdoc]

I will one day, slave of English.

pakistan was also ruled by english you know....

 

[Indx TechStyle]

I will one day,

Then it's better you comment only after you come to know about things.

slave of English.

Not stupid enough like you. No matter what West did to us. English has become international and its a hard fact.

This isn't WW2 era where we colonize other countries. We need business for that. And people who got money speak English. So, we learn it to earn. Fortunately, most if Indians understand it.

 

[Aaj ka hero]

I will one day, slave of English.

Are toh hindi me baat karo.
Kisne Roka hai.

 

[ashdoc]

Are toh hindi me baat karo.
Kisne Roka hai.

His Urdu is probably better lol

 

[Gessler]

The falling defence budget as a percentage of GDP is a result growing share of homegrown equipment in military which is relatively low in cost.

Continously ramping up military budget mindlessly will only lead to corruption, killing domestic projects and purchasing more & more.

India is a lower middle income economy who should be more about economic growth and military budget should remain as a minimal percentage of economy. Extra money invested in defence won't give any economic return and only a temporary military superiority because of impoted which we will lose in a decade and will again struggle for indigenization like we are doing today. And we aren't first one to follow the way. China kept military budget low as a percentage of economy.

Our budget seems large because our GDP is large. As economy is growing, defence budget as a total is substantially growing every decade. It is still enough to project us as a major power on map. It should still grow in numbers and should come down as a percentage of economy as it doesn't give returns.

Military budget should be enough only to serve the country's national security. It is not a compulsion to spend a certain minimum amount on defence for country's growth or security unlike education, infrastructure and R&D are needed.

It should be "enough only".

And who determines what is "enough only"?

And how do you hope to build up local defence industry when so little funds are available for investment or R&D? You've got it in reverse - with smaller funds, you can't afford to fund R&D cycles within reasonable timeframes and as a consequence are forced to adopt foreign gear off the shelf.

As of spending as percentage of GDP - we need to remind ourselves that we are not living in Europe. We are not surrounded by friends & allies. We are not shielded by NATO.

We are surrounded by two hostile, nuclear-armed neighbours. For our situation, nothing less than 2.5% of GDP is reasonable. Anyone who thinks we can get by with pitiful allocations like 1.46% is living in their own la-la land.

Swedes spent $13 billion on Gripen. As of 2015, we spent $1 billion on LCA program. Swedes allocated twice the amount (over $2 bn) we spent on entire LCA program, just to develop the E variant of Gripen. And then we wonder why domestic projects take so long to deliver and why they're already outdated when they come.

Money is the answer. Injection of funds is what allows us to up the ante with indigenous solutions, not reducing spending. That's a nonsensical idea. Development of competent solutions always costs more than acquisition of them. In the long run it will be cheaper, but not initially.

The Air Force is left to fly outdated piece of crap platforms like MiG-21 owing to the fact we spend so little on R&D. Now you go ahead and say it was "enough only". It's only enough if you think delivering a product 10 years behind schedule and 20 years outdated is enough.

 

[maomao]

Better go for SU-35. F18 is too old a platform and americans are unreliable. More so we have seen F16's performance vis-a-vis a vintage Mig21! SU35 has latest avionics which can give competition to F22 in a dogfight.

 

[vayuu1]

A project like mwf need atleast 7-8 billion atleast ,you can add 12-13 further for amca
All in all 22-25 billion dollars for these 2 projects

Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

 

[vayuu1]

China spend 70 billion in their aviation industry, we need atleast 25 billion

Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

 

[vikata]

Mk1 didn't meet required multirole capabilities. Mk1A meets multirole and Mk2 meets even specifications.

Better say haven't allocated. India's indigenization in military has gone up to 65 from 30% and defence exports to $1.5 billion from pathetic $200 millions.

Military budget have been cut down not because we got any shortage but local vendors supplying a lot.

can you share the source ,its quite interesting as well quite a feat if we were able to achieve that

 

[Indx TechStyle]

And who determines what is "enough only"?

The immediate war with China has been out of picture most of time as tensions didn't reach that extent. India needs to prepare against Pakistan only and India is well prepared for even a military expedition inside Pak.

And how do you hope to build up local defence industry when so little funds are available for investment or R&D? You've got it in reverse - with smaller funds, you can't afford to fund R&D cycles within reasonable timeframes and as a consequence are forced to adopt foreign gear off the shelf.

A large part of R&D budget in countries who spend "enough" actually comes from private sector and non strategic fields like automotive sector.
But yeah, still more money is needed in R&D. It's still low. That doesn't justify overspending in military.

As of spending as percentage of GDP - we need to remind ourselves that we are not living in Europe. We are not surrounded by friends & allies. We are not shielded by NATO.

We are surrounded by two hostile, nuclear-armed neighbours. For our situation, nothing less than 2.5% of GDP is reasonable. Anyone who thinks we can get by with pitiful allocations like 1.46% is living in their own la-la land.

Percentage of GDP spent is a horrible way of assessing nation's security readiness.

With a GDP of Nepal, spending even 10% of GDP won't give any significant leverage. With a GDP of America, even 2% of spending can rock the world.

Obviously, we got hostile neighbors and that's why we are even spending. Otherwise, India wouldn't have been spending even that much its spending right now.
Our Military budget is much higher than Pakistan while still well behind that of PRC. We are not at an economic stage to spend that much of amount.

Now, increasing $10-20 billion isn't going to give any major military leverage or significant numerical advantage. Indian Armed Forces will go for any expensive weapon and you know how much time is there consumed in procurement from abroad. Foreign lobbies will be able to secure bigger deals by investing little as budget limitation won't be a barrier for corruption. Overhead expeditures & wastages will shoot up. Actually, they did and government just plugged them.


The two actual reasons for lower defense spending are:

1. Government had made most of vital military procurements last year. Nothing big may be purchased this year.
2. Share of local industries.

Seriously, what immediate leverage we are going to generate by spending 2.5-3% of GDP on defence? We won't start to have a blue water navy or an expeditionary Air Force as local production would be needed to induct fast & cost effectively in large numbers.
Spending should comply with future patterns of expanding military forces and not just because you want to show that you are spending. Putting India's military budget to $80 billions won't make much difference to forces.

And remember, defence budget as a percentage of GDP should come down always. Besides providing security against enemy missions, military budget doesn't give any returns.

can you share the source ,its quite interesting as well quite a feat if we were able to achieve that

I posted somewhere in Defence industry indigenization & exports watch thread.

 

[Gessler]

A large part of R&D budget in countries who spend "enough" actually comes from private sector and non strategic fields like automotive sector.
But yeah, still more money is needed in R&D. It's still low. That doesn't justify overspending in military.

There is no overspending. For the situation we are in, 2.5% of GDP is extremely reasonable amount.

Now, increasing $10-20 billion isn't going to give any major military leverage or significant numerical advantage. Indian Armed Forces will go for any expensive weapon and you know how much time is there consumed in procurement from abroad.

It's not going to be a one-time allocation of 10-20 billion extra, it should be 2.5% of GDP on defence, every year. Even if we assume for sake of argument that our GDP will remain stagnant for next 5 years, it means we would have spent 100 billion more - that's a huge amount.

Foreign lobbies will be able to secure bigger deals by investing little as budget limitation won't be a barrier for corruption. Overhead expeditures & wastages will shoot up. Actually, they did and government just plugged them.

So possibility of corruption increases if we have more money in hand? And the solution to mitigating corruption is to ensure we don't have more money?

What kind of self-defeating logic is that?

Here's the deal, there are a couple points:

> No matter how much you indigenize, there will always be equipment categories where we have no indigenous alternative (such as heavy-lift helo, heavy attack helo, long range maritime patrol aircraft, medium multirole fighter etc. etc.), and here, we have to buy from abroad anyway. Having more money on hand ensures these deals can be pushed ahead at a faster pace.

There are umpteen examples of how deals remain stuck at one table or the other because the CAPEX we have remaining is not enough to move forward. Usually, when these deals and their associated DAC clearances lapse, the little bit of capex we have remaining (which wasn't enough to push any major deals anyway, so doesn't get utilized) is return at end of FY and we get the impression that our coffers are overflowing. It's not so.

> Indigenous equipment is not always cheaper. Case in point, the rifles we are buying now.

The two actual reasons for lower defense spending are:

1. Government had made most of vital military procurements last year. Nothing big may be purchased this year.
2. Share of local industries.

It's not a question of this year. Spending as a percentage of GDP has been falling gradually over the past several years. Usually, this happens when the threats the country is facing subside or disappear. In our case that is not true.

Seriously, what immediate leverage we are going to generate by spending 2.5-3% of GDP on defence? We won't start to have a blue water navy or an expeditionary Air Force as local production would be needed to induct fast & cost effectively in large numbers.
Spending should comply with future patterns of expanding military forces and not just because you want to show that you are spending. Putting India's military budget to $80 billions won't make much difference to forces.

20-30 billions more makes no difference?

LOL

And remember, defence budget as a percentage of GDP should come down always. Besides providing security against enemy missions, military budget doesn't give any returns.

It should come down if the threats faced by the country come down. For example, if you are Europe and the USSR just collapsed, it makes sense for you to reduce your defence spending.

Unless Pakistan just deactivated all its nukes or split their country into four pieces, there is no logical reason to reduce our spending on defence. The reason why we do it - is because we have to make room for one socialist policy or the other. Like loan waivers, giving 2000 per year to farmers, etc.

If you want to say, that socialist spending is more important to this govt, then fine, you're calling it for what it is. But it cannot be justified as saying we don't need more money for defence.

Imagine how much UK would have been spending if Germany & Ireland were nuclear-armed and hostile to Britain.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Edit: Seems that I've got what you're talking about. Just have to make you get what I'm trying to explain.

There is no overspending. For the situation we are in, 2.5% of GDP is extremely reasonable amount.

You are running after percentage again & again. How many times one gotta clarify?

It's not education or health expediture whose spending is calculated in percentage and spending proportion affects population. It's an amount to be expended (obviously expecting no returns) which is to be numerically anticipated after assessing the threat to the country.

It's not going to be a one-time allocation of 10-20 billion extra, it should be 2.5% of GDP on defence, every year. Even if we assume for sake of argument that our GDP will remain stagnant for next 5 years, it means we would have spent 100 billion more - that's a huge amount.

Okay, could you define what will you buy with those $100 billions? Ignore this part of post and move ahead.
Just keep in mind above the part. Government has targets for military in dollars and not as percentage of GDP.

So possibility of corruption increases if we have more money in hand? And the solution to mitigating corruption is to ensure we don't have more money?

What kind of self-defeating logic is that?

There is nothing self defeating. More than sufficient money is always wasted.

You don't have a stock of weapons ready next door and nor a simple a cash payment system for rapid procurement.

Here's the deal, there are a couple points:

> No matter how much you indigenize, there will always be equipment categories where we have no indigenous alternative (such as heavy-lift helo, heavy attack helo, long range maritime patrol aircraft, medium multirole fighter etc. etc.), and here, we have to buy from abroad anyway. Having more money on hand ensures these deals can be pushed ahead at a faster pace.

There are umpteen examples of how deals remain stuck at one table or the other because the CAPEX we have remaining is not enough to move forward. Usually, when these deals and their associated DAC clearances lapse, the little bit of capex we have remaining (which wasn't enough to push any major deals anyway, so doesn't get utilized) is return at end of FY and we get the impression that our coffers are overflowing. It's not so.

> Indigenous equipment is not always cheaper. Case in point, the rifles we are buying now.

I never said that indigenous equipment is always cheaper. It's cheaper on average and government also goes for foreign stuff if performance of desi maal doesn't justify its cost.

It's not a question of this year. Spending as a percentage of GDP has been falling gradually over the past several years. Usually, this happens when the threats the country is facing subside or disappear. In our case that is not true.

Threat matrix has nothing to do with GDP as a percentage of economy but total amount of defence budget. In India's case, defence budget is growing steadily while inventory is growing very fast. It's falling on terms of percentage as Indian Economy is growing faster.
Country's goals are:

1. Self sufficiency
2. Stronger & bigger forces

While defense budget has two major components (besides salaries & pensions):

1. To purchase inventory
2. To maintain current assets, capabilities and exercises etc.

The requirement of funds varies mostly because of no. 1 while increase in inventory eventually leads to permanent increment in no. 2. This is how it works. You can't suddenly increase your YoY defense budget by 50-60% for further and expect results. There should be something predecided to purchase from it.
Between 2020-25, defense budget will increase substantially to purchase various weapons like Tejas, Vikrant or S400 etc. which will either be locally produced for induction or purchases from foreign will arrive at that time.

Indian Navy is building 32 warships right now and has target to operate 200+ large warships (against 47 of current) may be with 50+ submarines and multiple CBGs to have a blue water navy in 2050. IAF has to rescue its declining fleet and once it does, it will start to follow similar goals. Depending upon the era of purchase/build up, defense budget will be up & down intermittently and will be increased substantially because India has ambitions to emerge as a global power. Now, we can't say if it will go up as a percentage of GDP wise or not.

If you wanna spend more to have a stronger force, you first need to have a roadmap and a long term goal of building the kind of armed forces and military industrial complex you want to have. Set the goal and start to pursue it. And I still can't say what percentage of GDP it would comprise.
Pakistan had only one goal, to build deterrence against threat India's military expedition of they have screwed their other sectors for it. India on the other hand has goals far beyond its neighborhood and with full spectrum deterrence, yet its military budget is minimal as percentage of GDP.

20-30 billions more makes no difference?

LOL

Obviously won't. You can't spend money forcefully without requirement or they will go down the drain of corruption.
You need to have a requirement, stuff you need to purchase and maintain and defense budget is increased according to it.

It should come down if the threats faced by the country come down. For example, if you are Europe and the USSR just collapsed, it makes sense for you to reduce your defence spending.

NATO and USSR were in a race. Race from arms to the space. We aren't racing with anyone for immediate cause. Our goal is to catch up with world's greatest power and at the same time, we have to look on threats from our immediate neighborhood.

Unless Pakistan just deactivated all its nukes or split their country into four pieces, there is no logical reason to reduce our spending on defence.

India's defense spending isn't directed towards Pakistan unlike Pakistani ones spins entirely around us. Pakistan is just a small component of it and resources we deploy against Pakistan are already an overkill for them.

The reason why we do it - is because we have to make room for one socialist policy or the other. Like loan waivers, giving 2000 per year to farmers, etc.

If you want to say, that socialist spending is more important to this govt, then fine, you're calling it for what it is. But it cannot be justified as saying we don't need more money for defence.

Though I'm not a commie, I have a favor for a capitalist economy with high standard of living but with a socialist foundation so that the poorest people don't suffer.. Economic development is the actual goal for which we have weapons.
Nevertheless, these are long term goals and economic status of country that would determine military budget.
Somewhere around 2027-28, India will escape the tag of "poor" countries and enter the league of early middle income countries.
You can expect a dramatic shift in goals and military budget after that. Moreover, a healthier and more educated population is better for all kind of R&D in country, sector includes defense also.

The current growth is haphazard just because of rapid poverty alleviation and new initiatives, not planned one. Imagine if NITI Aayog is successful in its long term targets, for example providing "world class" infrastructure by 2030 (may not be world class but good actually) and so for other kind of facilities, a much larger chunk of population will be skilled.

Rapid industrialization and organized faster growth will start which will even dwarf the increased defense expenditure growth.

Imagine how much UK would have been spending if Germany & Ireland were nuclear-armed and hostile to Britain.

Obviously 5%. UK is a developed country, is self sufficient in technologies at least they need for stand off and tactical battles and was a part of west block during arms race.

India isn't going to take part in any arms race at least for next 3 decades.

 

[Gessler]

You are running after percentage again & again. How many times one gotta clarify?

It's not education or health expediture whose spending is calculated in percentage and spending proportion affects population. It's an amount to be expended (obviously expecting no returns) which is to be numerically anticipated after assessing the threat to the country.

No, it's not expecting no returns. Only if you think military-industry does not exist. But it does. Every rupee expended on an indigenous solution goes back into the Indian economy itself. And now even foreign deals have huge offset quotas (Rafale deal had a quota to the tune of 50% deal value) which help local industry hugely.

How can you say its spent expecting no returns?

Okay, could you define what will you buy with those $100 billions? Ignore this part of post and move ahead.

$100 billion? More than enough to push the most important piece of the puzzle - BMD. And give much-needed push to SSN program.

Injection of funds speeds up EVERY project. And right now, lack of sufficient spending is one of prime reasons why everything is delayed - and as a result, is already outdated by the time its delivered.

There is nothing self defeating. More than sufficient money is always wasted.

You're saying no need to spend more than sufficient. I'm saying we need to spend sufficient amounts.

Sufficient amount is when you can take delivery of a system, and not have to ask for a totally overhauled version not long after in order to keep abreast of emerging needs.

i.e. Mk-1 and Mk-1A Tejas.

Sufficient amount is when you don't have to seek DAC clearance for a project 3 times because each time it lapses owing to the fact there's no Capex to move forward.

i.e. Project 75I

Threat matrix has nothing to do with GDP as a percentage of economy but total amount of defence budget.

Actually it does. That's why NATO asks its member countries to spend 2% of GDP on defence. It does not ask them to spend X billion dollars.

In India's case, defence budget is growing steadily while inventory is growing very fast. It's falling on terms of percentage as Indian Economy is growing faster.
Country's goals are:

1. Self sufficiency
2. Stronger & bigger forces

While defense budget has two major components (besides salaries & pensions):

1. To purchase inventory
2. To maintain current assets, capabilities and exercises etc.

You are only speaking in terms of capital expenditure (with regard to acquisitions). You're not considering the amounts allocated to research grants. R&D programs. Spending money here today is what allows you to have cutting-edge platforms tomorrow.

If you wanna spend more to have a stronger force, you first need to have a roadmap and a long term goal of building the kind of armed forces and military industrial complex you want to have.

Oh we do have goals. Unfortunately, our goals are always pushed back by decades - owing mostly to the lack of funds needed to meet the targets on time.

India on the other hand has goals far beyond its neighborhood and with full spectrum deterrence, yet its military budget is minimal as percentage of GDP.

That's because our decision-makers are unable to put their money where their mouth is. Singing songs like jai jawan jai kisan does not express one's importance given to national security or strategic objectives. Hard decisions do - like budgetary outlays.

Obviously won't. You can't spend money forcefully without requirement or they will go down the drain of corruption.

Arey baba, who said there is no requirement?

Requirement for P-75I expressed. Where are the subs?
Requirement for NUH/NMRH expressed. Where are the helos?
Requirement for LHD expressed. Where are these ships?
Requirement for threatre-level BMD expressed. Where is it?

Just some things I had in back of my mind. Most of these (if not all) were requirements that were needed for 10+ years. The reason why these much-needed acquisitions keep getting pushed back is because more often than not, there's no Capex to push these forward.

As a result, Navy is left flying with crap helos from Cold War...and most ships don't even have helos.

And you say...money is not needed.

NATO and USSR were in a race. Race from arms to the space. We aren't racing with anyone for immediate cause. Our goal is to catch up with world's greatest power and at the same time, we have to look on threats from our immediate neighborhood.

You don't need a race to justify 2.5% spending. As a percentage of GDP, that's actually a very small allocation. If we were in an arms race, we'd be spending over 5%.

India's defense spending isn't directed towards Pakistan unlike Pakistani ones spins entirely around us. Pakistan is just a small component of it and resources we deploy against Pakistan are already an overkill for them.

We spend money to meet our goals. And right now, the money is not enough to do so. As a result, the goals we should have met back in 2005, we now hope to meet by 2025. And so on.

Too bad you don't see that.

Though I'm not a commie, I have a favor for a capitalist economy with high standard of living but with a socialist foundation so that the poorest people don't suffer.. Economic development is the actual goal for which we have weapons.
Nevertheless, these are long term goals and economic status of country that would determine military budget.
Somewhere around 2027-28, India will escape the tag of "poor" countries and enter the league of early middle income countries.
You can expect a dramatic shift in goals and military budget after that. Moreover, a healthier and more educated population is better for all kind of R&D in country, sector includes defense also.

The current growth is haphazard just because of rapid poverty alleviation and new initiatives, not planned one. Imagine if NITI Aayog is successful in its long term targets, for example providing "world class" infrastructure by 2030 (may not be world class but good actually) and so for other kind of facilities, a much larger chunk of population will be skilled.

Unfortunately, poverty is not alleviated by giving people more incentives to continue staying in a low-income field like agriculture. Poverty is alleviated by bringing people OUT of a low-income sector and putting them in a middle/lower middle-income one like industry.

Instead, the money is spent by the govt to KEEP people in the low income fields. Why? Because doing so get's them votes as a lot of people are in that field. Industry is taxed & punished in order to subsidize the already poorly performing fields with loan waivers, free this and that, and so on.

I'm sorry but this is not helping the country in any way. If this is what they're going to take out money from defence spending for, then I must say its truly not worth it.

 

[asianobserve]

As of spending as percentage of GDP - we need to remind ourselves that we are not living in Europe. We are not surrounded by friends & allies. We are not shielded by NATO.

We are surrounded by two hostile, nuclear-armed neighbours. For our situation, nothing less than 2.5% of GDP is reasonable. Anyone who thinks we can get by with pitiful allocations like 1.46% is living in their own la-la land.

The best way to neutralize China is to make it overspend on defense. India can help do this by ramping its own defense spending (smart and well accounted for defense programs of course). The more India (plus US, Japan, SoKor, Australia, ASEAN) spends the more China will try to respond resulting in overspending. Note that the good about checking China is that it is up against a lot of heavy weight powers. So a coordinated defense ramp up will make China go crazy. It has no choice but to catch up.

This strategy is better and will turn out cheaper than actually going to war with China (which will only happen if China percieves India is weak).