Decoding India's MMRCA Decision

{
  "authors": [
    "Ashley J. Tellis"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "India"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

Decoding India's MMRCA Decision

India's rejection of America's F-16IN and F/A-18E/F in its MMRCA competition was not a strategic snub, but rather the product of technical considerations alone.

By Ashley J. Tellis

Published on Jun 3, 2011

Source: Force

Decoding India's MMRCA DecisionIndia ’s rejection of the F-16IN Super Viper and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in its hotly contested medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) competition has disappointed many in the United States. Because there were great expectations that New Delhi would leverage this fly-off to cement its strategic partnership with Washington — particularly in the aftermath of the herculean American efforts to consummate the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement — India’s selection of two European platforms, the Eurofighter and the Rafale, as the finalists for the multirole component of its air force led many American observers to conclude that the country had settled for an airplane, not a relationship.

Many analysts have explained India’s decision as an expression of concern over America’s reliability as an arms supplier, or representing dissatisfaction with potential transfers of key technologies, or even an attempt to distance itself from the United States. In a new article in Force, Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis concludes that these explanations are incorrect, and describes how India’s “down-select” decision was made entirely on technical grounds. The two-step procurement procedure adopted by the Indian Ministry of Defense precluded political, strategic, or financial considerations from intervening in any way. Though this process might not serve India’s larger national security interests in an age of limited resources and numerous threats, India’s decision does not represent a strategic setback for U.S.-Indian defense cooperation over the long term.

About the Author

Ashley J. Tellis

Former Senior Fellow

Ashley J. Tellis was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Recent Work

Paper
Multipolar Dreams, Bipolar Realities: India’s Great Power Future
- Ashley J. Tellis
Commentary
India Sees Opportunity in Trump’s Global Turbulence. That Could Backfire.
- Ashley J. Tellis

Security Military Foreign Policy South Asia India

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

Commentary
China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of Everything
Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.

Damien Ma
Commentary
Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder
Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.
Elina Noor
Commentary
When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan
For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.
Elina Noor
Commentary
Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China
In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.
Nguyễn Khắc Giang
Commentary
China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia
The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.
Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat

More Work from Carnegie China

Commentary

China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of Everything

Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.

Damien Ma

Commentary

Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

Elina Noor

Commentary

When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan

For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.

Elina Noor

Commentary

Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China

In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.

Nguyễn Khắc Giang

Commentary

China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia

The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.

Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat