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 Europe

Commentary
A New Age of Nuclear Policy: Perspectives from Gen Z
As the nuclear order rapidly evolves, what can Europeans and other key players do to strengthen deterrence and reduce risks?
Jamie Kwong, ed.
Commentary
Strategic Europe
Taking the Pulse: Can Europe Fund Ukraine Without Russian Assets?
A sizeable funding shortfall looks increasingly likely to hit Ukraine in 2027. Can the Europeans, with their strained budgets and economies, come up with the cash without seizing frozen Russian assets?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
Commentary
Strategic Europe
No, A Democratic Congress Won’t Save Europe
A blue wave has swept over the U.S. midterms, with Democrats regaining control of both houses of Congress. But Europeans hoping for a return to business as usual should think again.
Rym Momtaz
Article
Turkey’s Four Headaches Are Also Europe’s
Between stalled economic ties and a push for greater security cooperation, EU-Turkey relations remain uncertain. Ankara’s continued slide toward autocracy is the likeliest common denominator in these competing dynamics.
Marc Pierini
Commentary
Strategic Europe
Member States Must Make Enlargement Their Own
The European Commission is preparing the EU for its next enlargement. But member states need to make it a project that European citizens can understand, shape, and support.
Iliriana Gjoni

More Work from Carnegie Europe

Commentary

A New Age of Nuclear Policy: Perspectives from Gen Z

As the nuclear order rapidly evolves, what can Europeans and other key players do to strengthen deterrence and reduce risks?

Jamie Kwong, ed.

Commentary

Strategic Europe

Taking the Pulse: Can Europe Fund Ukraine Without Russian Assets?

A sizeable funding shortfall looks increasingly likely to hit Ukraine in 2027. Can the Europeans, with their strained budgets and economies, come up with the cash without seizing frozen Russian assets?

Rym Momtaz, ed.

Commentary

Strategic Europe

No, A Democratic Congress Won’t Save Europe

A blue wave has swept over the U.S. midterms, with Democrats regaining control of both houses of Congress. But Europeans hoping for a return to business as usual should think again.

Rym Momtaz

Article

Turkey’s Four Headaches Are Also Europe’s

Between stalled economic ties and a push for greater security cooperation, EU-Turkey relations remain uncertain. Ankara’s continued slide toward autocracy is the likeliest common denominator in these competing dynamics.

Marc Pierini

Commentary

Strategic Europe

Member States Must Make Enlargement Their Own

The European Commission is preparing the EU for its next enlargement. But member states need to make it a project that European citizens can understand, shape, and support.

Iliriana Gjoni