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 Endowment for International Peace

Commentary
Next Steps Toward Peace After the Armenian Elections
It’s time to build momentum, and Ankara is the venue of the next opportune diplomatic window to do this.
Alper Coşkun, Garo Paylan
Commentary
Strategic Europe
European Security Strategy: In Search of a New Ambition
The EU is putting together a new security strategy to meet today’s myriad challenges. But for any proposal to be effective, the union needs to grapple with its identity and ambitions.
Pierre Vimont
Commentary
Reviving Kosovo-Serbia Normalization Talks
Three years after the Ohrid Agreement, Kosovo and Serbia remain far from normalization. To revive implementation, the EU should abandon its ambiguity and act as an even-handed arbitrator.
+1
Miloš Pavković, Fitim Gashi, Iliriana Gjoni, …
Commentary
Emissary
Washington and Tehran’s Very Dangerous Moment
The Islamic Republic’s words and actions suggest that it has changed its approach to both diplomacy and war.
Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar
Commentary
Strategic Europe
The Climate Blind Spot in Europe’s New Migration Pact
The EU’s new migration policy is not suited to today’s realities. With climate change increasingly becoming a driver of displacement, Europe needs to rethink its deterrence-focused approach.
Shana Tabak

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Pashinyan surrounded by supporters while speaking to reporters

Commentary

Next Steps Toward Peace After the Armenian Elections

It’s time to build momentum, and Ankara is the venue of the next opportune diplomatic window to do this.

Alper Coşkun, Garo Paylan

Commentary

Strategic Europe

European Security Strategy: In Search of a New Ambition

The EU is putting together a new security strategy to meet today’s myriad challenges. But for any proposal to be effective, the union needs to grapple with its identity and ambitions.

Pierre Vimont

Commentary

Reviving Kosovo-Serbia Normalization Talks

Three years after the Ohrid Agreement, Kosovo and Serbia remain far from normalization. To revive implementation, the EU should abandon its ambiguity and act as an even-handed arbitrator.

- +1
Miloš Pavković, Fitim Gashi, Iliriana Gjoni, …

Commentary

Emissary

Washington and Tehran’s Very Dangerous Moment

The Islamic Republic’s words and actions suggest that it has changed its approach to both diplomacy and war.

Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar

Commentary

Strategic Europe

The Climate Blind Spot in Europe’s New Migration Pact

The EU’s new migration policy is not suited to today’s realities. With climate change increasingly becoming a driver of displacement, Europe needs to rethink its deterrence-focused approach.

Shana Tabak