The IAF's MRCA contract: The RFP Puzzle

With the attention of competing companies and nations focused on the Indian Air Force's (IAF) 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) tender, the request for proposal (RFP), the initiating document for the entire acquisition process, is keenly awaited.
 
As for the likely direction the RFP may take, here are some statements as they have appeared in media reports over the last year and a half.  These statements have been collated for the light that they may throw on the likely direction that the RFP - and by extension, the MRCA contract - may take over the coming months.

Instead of an RFP, an RFQ?

"The ministry, according to highly placed sources, is considering converting the Request for Proposals (RFP) into a full-fledged Request for Quotations (RFQ) to cut short the time interval between the evaluation and price negotiations."

Dated 3/10/2006
www.india-defence.com/reports

Comment: Quite likely. There aren't very many mysteries that the various competing aircraft hold for the IAF - not in an age of joint exercises with various air forces or of multi-location/nation/company development and manufacture of aircraft and technologies. Enough information is available about the capabilities of various platforms, and technologies, and so a RFP isn't really going to reveal very much that the IAF doesn't already know.

In the case of 'sensitive' technologies, 'client' governments would tend to receive political 'clearances' for technologies much in advance, before even entering into any negotiations with companies. For that matter, companies interested in doing business with any country would also need to receive 'clearances' before they offer sensitive wares for sale. So, the package would already have been 'negotiated' with respect to its significant sections even before official 'negotiations' would ostensibly begin.

An RFQ would indeed cut matters short, more so, because the IAF MRCA is already an inordinately delayed project.   

The Russians have it, don't they?

"Sections within the air force are believed to favour the MiG-35 over its US and European rivals, arguing that Russia has been a reliable partner since the 1970s - when the Soviet Union and India were strategic geopolitical partners during the Cold War. But Tyagi denies that the country of origin will be a factor, pointing to past purchases of the UK's Hawk jet trainer and France's Dassault Mirage 2000.

"Over the years, the air force has procured equipment from various vendors depending on our operational requirement and the strategic compulsions. The strategic compulsions of bygone eras do not exist in the highly competitive defence industry of today," he says. "There would be no bias towards any country whose aircraft are currently being operated by the air force."
13/2/2007
Flight International

Comments: No room for sentiments, obviously. ACM Tyagi puts it bluntly - the game is open.

Ownership costs

"He (Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi) said that for the first time the factor of life cycle cost or ownership cost was being taken into account while acquiring a fighter.

"How to calculate the ownership cost was the problem and that's why it has taken more time in taking a decision (with respect to the RFP)," Tyagi said.

Dated 1/6/2006
PTI report

Comment:  Russians are the most competitive, especially as far as price is concerned. The goodies come in very cheap. The IAF has realized through decades of hard experience, however, that what the Russians lose out on in the initial contract they more than make up for it through subsequent sale of spare parts, accessories and upgrades - much like any automobile manufacturer, who knows that the sale of the car is only the start of a sales cycle that will yield double or treble the value over the years in terms of spares and upgrades. 

The argument holds good for any company for that matter, and not just the Russians, for they are all into the same game. But, in the author's opinion, the hint dropped here by ACM Tyagi would have been specifically for the Russians, a warning that they might not get away with their usual gambit.

Interestingly, the comment was made in Moscow, where ACM Tyagi had gone to witness a demonstration flight of the MiG-35.

So, it won't be the Russians?

"Others believe India should move away from Russian equipment due to the poor safety record - more than 150 Indian pilots have been killed while flying MiGs.

Tyagi, however, says that the situation has improved. "Our experience indicates that Russian equipment is robust, cost-effective, and comparable with the best in the world. The accident rates of aircraft fleets of Russian and Western origin, of corresponding vintage, are similar," he adds."
13/02/2007
Fight International

Comments: Once again, Tyagi's comments are blunt and self-explanatory - the game is open.

So, will the MiG-35 get it?
"Tyagi, (air chief marshal SP Tyagi) who watched a demonstration flight of the Mig-35 (Mig-29OVT) fighter at a Russian air force base near Moscow, said the demonstration was brilliant, but said, "The IAF is looking for an aircraft to win wars and not for impressive demonstrations.

"Any aircraft is nothing but a khokha (shell), but what matters is what is inside it," the Air Chief Marshal underscored.

Dated 1/6/2006
PTI report from Moscow

Comment:  There is a 'lag' that Russian arms industry suffers from - in the area of electronics. The ACM's comment about the 'Khokha (shell)' is a reference to the Su-30MKI, which the Indians insisted should carry an avionics package, other than just Russian. The Indians won the argument and a superb fighter platform like the Su-30MKI now carries an amalgam of electronics - Indian, Russian, French and Israeli.

So, if the Russians expect that the impressive MiG-35 platform, and associated technologies that come along with it, is going to be enough to land them the entire contract, then ACM Tyagi, at that point of time (1/6/2006) let them know that the IAF may have other ideas - a la Su-30MKI.