India's missile deal with Israel in controversy, Marxists demand probe, Congress reje

[abdulrafi]

India's missile deal with Israel in controversy, Marxists demand probe, Congress rejects
Wed, 2009-04-01 03:10
By M Rama Rao, India Editor, Asian Tribune

New Delhi, 01 April, (Asiantribune.com): (asiantribune.com): India’s Rs. 10,000 crore deals with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for a medium range surface to air missile, has hit an air pocket. The Marxist Communists allege that there were kickbacks in the deal. They also argue that the Israeli missiles are unnecessary.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, the Left parties have demanded that the government should not proceed ahead with the deal since the CBI is investigating an earlier deal with IAI for Barak missiles for kickbacks.

Both the government and the Congress have rejected the demand. The defence minister AK Antony is however worried about the impact of the allegation on Congress party’s electoral prospects. According to local media reports, he is considering placing all the IAI missile deal details on the internet to nip the controversy in the bud.

What spurred the Comrades into opposing the deal was an ‘investigative’ report in Mumbai based DNA newspaper. The report said that the Israeli missile deal involved a "business charge" which is six per cent of the total value (approximately Rs. 600 crore). The Left naturally smells a scam and believes that the scandal may be ten times more than the Rs. 64 crore Bofors kickbacks that had rocked the Rajiv Government.

Given the Barak missile stink, the IAI deserves to be blacklisted and not rewarded with a new deal, the Left maintains. They also believe that the Israeli missile would mean throttle the indigenous missile system developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The DRDO doesn’t have an enviable track record in the indigenization of armaments and is in fact at the receiving end of the ire of three services and also of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the statutory auditor of all government spending.

The Left parties nevertheless have rallied in favor of DRDO saying that DRDO developed missile system is superior to the one being offered by the IAI for
co-production. They reiterated that IAI should have been blacklisted just like the South African firm Denel after it came under investigation for kickbacks.

In their letter to the Prime Minister, the Left parties have raised the following serious questions:

1. The IAI had got the contract for the supply of Barak missile in 2000 during the NDA regime. The FIR lodged by the CBI in October 2006 names IAI as an accused besides naming the Delhi-based arms dealer, Suresh Nanda and other family members as agents of the Israeli firms, IAI and Rafael Corporation. Why was the IAI not embargoed from further supplies till the case was disposed off?

2. Was the Government not aware that the Israeli authorities had investigated the IAI for malpractices in contracts with other countries? Such charges led to the head of the IAI stepping down in 2005.

3. Was the Ministry of Defence not aware that an Indian agent of the Israeli company replaced by another petitioned the Israeli defence ministry claiming additional commissions were due to him?

4. What does the Manmohan Singh government have to say about the DRDO having developed and field proven its Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile capacity? Why was the DRDO compelled to enter into the so-called "joint development" of the IAI air defence missile when it already has its own superior AAD missile?

5. Was the Manmohan Singh government not aware of the fact that like in the Barak missile deal, there are middlemen and intermediaries involved who are being paid commissions/kickbacks? Was the government not aware of identity of these agents?

6. How does the Manmohan Singh government explain the six per cent "business charges" on the total value of the deal? Is this not contrary to the stipulations against engagement of agents and payment of agency commissions?

7. Why is it that the contract was signed on February 27, 2009 and the fact was kept a secret? The information about the date of signing has now become known from the IAI which has claimed that the Indian government wanted the signing of the contract to be kept secret.

8. Why did the government get the contract signed on February 27, 2009, just two days before the announcement of the Lok Sabha elections?

 

[DeathInvader]

India's missile deal with Israel in controversy, Marxists demand probe, Congress rejects
Wed, 2009-04-01 03:10
By M Rama Rao, India Editor, Asian Tribune

New Delhi, 01 April, (Asiantribune.com): (asiantribune.com): India’s Rs. 10,000 crore deals with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for a medium range surface to air missile, has hit an air pocket. The Marxist Communists allege that there were kickbacks in the deal. They also argue that the Israeli missiles are unnecessary.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, the Left parties have demanded that the government should not proceed ahead with the deal since the CBI is investigating an earlier deal with IAI for Barak missiles for kickbacks.

Both the government and the Congress have rejected the demand. The defence minister AK Antony is however worried about the impact of the allegation on Congress party’s electoral prospects. According to local media reports, he is considering placing all the IAI missile deal details on the internet to nip the controversy in the bud.

What spurred the Comrades into opposing the deal was an ‘investigative’ report in Mumbai based DNA newspaper. The report said that the Israeli missile deal involved a "business charge" which is six per cent of the total value (approximately Rs. 600 crore). The Left naturally smells a scam and believes that the scandal may be ten times more than the Rs. 64 crore Bofors kickbacks that had rocked the Rajiv Government.

Given the Barak missile stink, the IAI deserves to be blacklisted and not rewarded with a new deal, the Left maintains. They also believe that the Israeli missile would mean throttle the indigenous missile system developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The DRDO doesn’t have an enviable track record in the indigenization of armaments and is in fact at the receiving end of the ire of three services and also of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the statutory auditor of all government spending.

The Left parties nevertheless have rallied in favor of DRDO saying that DRDO developed missile system is superior to the one being offered by the IAI for
co-production. They reiterated that IAI should have been blacklisted just like the South African firm Denel after it came under investigation for kickbacks.

In their letter to the Prime Minister, the Left parties have raised the following serious questions:

1. The IAI had got the contract for the supply of Barak missile in 2000 during the NDA regime. The FIR lodged by the CBI in October 2006 names IAI as an accused besides naming the Delhi-based arms dealer, Suresh Nanda and other family members as agents of the Israeli firms, IAI and Rafael Corporation. Why was the IAI not embargoed from further supplies till the case was disposed off?

2. Was the Government not aware that the Israeli authorities had investigated the IAI for malpractices in contracts with other countries? Such charges led to the head of the IAI stepping down in 2005.

3. Was the Ministry of Defence not aware that an Indian agent of the Israeli company replaced by another petitioned the Israeli defence ministry claiming additional commissions were due to him?

4. What does the Manmohan Singh government have to say about the DRDO having developed and field proven its Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile capacity? Why was the DRDO compelled to enter into the so-called "joint development" of the IAI air defence missile when it already has its own superior AAD missile?

5. Was the Manmohan Singh government not aware of the fact that like in the Barak missile deal, there are middlemen and intermediaries involved who are being paid commissions/kickbacks? Was the government not aware of identity of these agents?

6. How does the Manmohan Singh government explain the six per cent "business charges" on the total value of the deal? Is this not contrary to the stipulations against engagement of agents and payment of agency commissions?

7. Why is it that the contract was signed on February 27, 2009 and the fact was kept a secret? The information about the date of signing has now become known from the IAI which has claimed that the Indian government wanted the signing of the contract to be kept secret.

8. Why did the government get the contract signed on February 27, 2009, just two days before the announcement of the Lok Sabha elections?

Inducting these missiles is killing AKASH & TRISHUL........... but if the government finds it necessary then we should go ahead as it is only gonna increase the national security which is definitely not unnecessary......

 

[heartwinlion]

check the differnce between MRSAMs. Akash & AAD

 

[heartwinlion]

Indo-Israel missile deal: All sides of the story

Indo-Israel missile deal: All sides of the story

Left, BJP have alleged corruption in the $1.665 bn contract for medium-range surface-to-air missiles that the Defence Research & Development Organisation signed with Israel Aircraft Industries on February 27. Defence Minister A K Antony told DRDO to answer questions raised by the Opposition. Shishir Gupta explains:
•Why are the missiles needed?

DRDO-IAI joint venture will develop and equip Indian Air Force (IAF) with 18 combat management systems with 435 MRSAMs. Missiles will replace obsolete PECHORA missile systems. In December 2008, DRDO chief M Natarajan informed Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) that the nation’s air defence was under threat: IAF had reported that 17 out of 60 firing units of PECHORA had already been phased out.


•What do Left and BJP say?

The Left, traditionally opposed to defence ties with Tel Aviv, wants the deal scrapped because IAI is under CBI scrutiny in the Barak missile deal. It also wants the Government to explain why 6% of the contract sum is being paid as business expenses to IAI. The BJP says the deal reeks of middlemen, and will scrap it if it comes to power.

•What is the background of the deal?

Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) of the Ministry of Defence took the decision to develop MRSAM with Israeli collaboration on June 19, 2006. On January 4, 2007, the Defence Minister approved the Price Negotiation Committee headed by DRDO’s VK Saraswat and IAI’s Itzhak Nissan. On December 16, 2008, CCS cleared the deal. DRDO told CCS that MRSAM was the land derivative of an ongoing long-range surface-to-air missile project with Israel for the Navy. DRDO conceded that Akash, the indigenous missile system in development since 1984, had been a sub-optimal performer, following which it was decided that IAF would purchase only two squadrons, to be deployed in less-than-strategic airfields.



•What questions did Antony ask?

What DRDO did not explain was why it needed to develop a missile with a 70-km range with Israel when American (Standard Missile MK IV), French (Aster 15/30) and Russian (RIF) missile systems with longer ranges (up to 240 miles) and proven performance were already in service. A stickler for transparency, Antony asked DRDO to address the concerns expressed by opposition parties.


•India already possesses a more powerful missile in the same class: the advance air defence (AAD) missile, which is part of India’s anti-ballistic missile shield.

DRDO: MRSAM is four times more manoeuvrable than AAD. AAD performs sub-optimally while engaging aircraft in tail-chase mode, reducing the air defence engagement envelope.


•The deal could mean the death of the Akash missile system.

DRDO: MRSAM can engage targets 70 km away; Akash has a range of just 25 km. Deputy Chief of Air Staff has stated that PECHORA is obsolete and IAF needs a replacement urgently.


•No open tendering process was followed.

DRDO: Decisions on acquiring weapons systems are made by DAC. IAF had, after evaluating the ongoing long-range surface-to-air missile (LRSAM) project, concluded the missile met operational requirements for an MRSAM system as well. IAF proposed a joint development programme between DRDO and IAI to move quickly on an urgent need. DAC approved “make” decision and thus, no tenders were floated.


•Missile seeker technology has not been transferred.

DRDO: Significant share of work in seeker technology has been awarded to Indian industry. For more than 80% of missiles, seeker sub-assemblies will be manufactured, assembled, tested in India with complete production drawings and assembly/test procedures.


•Six per cent business charges are being paid.

DRDO: Business expenses are costs towards warranty, bank guarantees, financing, insurance, transportation etc. These are included in the cost of the product. The 6% figure was not mentioned in IAI quote and is not in the contract. It was mentioned only in the report of the price negotiation committee, which brought it down from 13%, to demonstrate its approach in arriving at the reasonability of the negotiated price.


•Bribes were paid as part of business expenses.

DRDO: Not true. IAI signed an integrity pact before price negotiations began. Final contract (article 30.1) is very stringent about integrity. Contract can be scrapped in case of an irregularity.


•Contract was not examined from the legal angle.

DRDO: CBI has filed FIRs in connection with deals for Barak and 200 missiles with IAI and Rafael of Israel, but is yet to submit charge-sheet. Additional Solicitor General had opined it would be appropriate to wait for the charge-sheet before deciding to bar the firms. The Law Ministry felt an embargo only on the basis of an FIR may not be justified, and asked The Defence Ministry to first assess urgency of the national security need. Central Vigilance Commission felt results from CBI’s probe lent credibility to allegations of involvement of middlemen, but asked the Defence Ministry to make the final decision after consulting the Law Ministry.

The Law Minister said the decision should be made at the highest levels. The entire matter was referred to Air Headquarters, which, with concurrence of the Air Chief, reiterated the immediate need to induct LLQRM (low level radars from Rafael), MRSAM and additional Aerostat radars. It was only due to this urgency, strategic implications of delay, IAI’s integrity commitment, and the ASG’s view, that CCS cleared the MRSAM project.

 

[heartwinlion]

Indo-Israel missile deal: All sides of the story

Indo-Israel missile deal: All sides of the story

Left, BJP have alleged corruption in the $1.665 bn contract for medium-range surface-to-air missiles that the Defence Research & Development Organisation signed with Israel Aircraft Industries on February 27. Defence Minister A K Antony told DRDO to answer questions raised by the Opposition. Shishir Gupta explains:
•Why are the missiles needed?

DRDO-IAI joint venture will develop and equip Indian Air Force (IAF) with 18 combat management systems with 435 MRSAMs. Missiles will replace obsolete PECHORA missile systems. In December 2008, DRDO chief M Natarajan informed Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) that the nation’s air defence was under threat: IAF had reported that 17 out of 60 firing units of PECHORA had already been phased out.


•What do Left and BJP say?

The Left, traditionally opposed to defence ties with Tel Aviv, wants the deal scrapped because IAI is under CBI scrutiny in the Barak missile deal. It also wants the Government to explain why 6% of the contract sum is being paid as business expenses to IAI. The BJP says the deal reeks of middlemen, and will scrap it if it comes to power.

•What is the background of the deal?

Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) of the Ministry of Defence took the decision to develop MRSAM with Israeli collaboration on June 19, 2006. On January 4, 2007, the Defence Minister approved the Price Negotiation Committee headed by DRDO’s VK Saraswat and IAI’s Itzhak Nissan. On December 16, 2008, CCS cleared the deal. DRDO told CCS that MRSAM was the land derivative of an ongoing long-range surface-to-air missile project with Israel for the Navy. DRDO conceded that Akash, the indigenous missile system in development since 1984, had been a sub-optimal performer, following which it was decided that IAF would purchase only two squadrons, to be deployed in less-than-strategic airfields.



•What questions did Antony ask?

What DRDO did not explain was why it needed to develop a missile with a 70-km range with Israel when American (Standard Missile MK IV), French (Aster 15/30) and Russian (RIF) missile systems with longer ranges (up to 240 miles) and proven performance were already in service. A stickler for transparency, Antony asked DRDO to address the concerns expressed by opposition parties.


•India already possesses a more powerful missile in the same class: the advance air defence (AAD) missile, which is part of India’s anti-ballistic missile shield.

DRDO: MRSAM is four times more manoeuvrable than AAD. AAD performs sub-optimally while engaging aircraft in tail-chase mode, reducing the air defence engagement envelope.


•The deal could mean the death of the Akash missile system.

DRDO: MRSAM can engage targets 70 km away; Akash has a range of just 25 km. Deputy Chief of Air Staff has stated that PECHORA is obsolete and IAF needs a replacement urgently.


•No open tendering process was followed.

DRDO: Decisions on acquiring weapons systems are made by DAC. IAF had, after evaluating the ongoing long-range surface-to-air missile (LRSAM) project, concluded the missile met operational requirements for an MRSAM system as well. IAF proposed a joint development programme between DRDO and IAI to move quickly on an urgent need. DAC approved “make” decision and thus, no tenders were floated.


•Missile seeker technology has not been transferred.

DRDO: Significant share of work in seeker technology has been awarded to Indian industry. For more than 80% of missiles, seeker sub-assemblies will be manufactured, assembled, tested in India with complete production drawings and assembly/test procedures.


•Six per cent business charges are being paid.

DRDO: Business expenses are costs towards warranty, bank guarantees, financing, insurance, transportation etc. These are included in the cost of the product. The 6% figure was not mentioned in IAI quote and is not in the contract. It was mentioned only in the report of the price negotiation committee, which brought it down from 13%, to demonstrate its approach in arriving at the reasonability of the negotiated price.


•Bribes were paid as part of business expenses.

DRDO: Not true. IAI signed an integrity pact before price negotiations began. Final contract (article 30.1) is very stringent about integrity. Contract can be scrapped in case of an irregularity.


•Contract was not examined from the legal angle.

DRDO: CBI has filed FIRs in connection with deals for Barak and 200 missiles with IAI and Rafael of Israel, but is yet to submit charge-sheet. Additional Solicitor General had opined it would be appropriate to wait for the charge-sheet before deciding to bar the firms. The Law Ministry felt an embargo only on the basis of an FIR may not be justified, and asked The Defence Ministry to first assess urgency of the national security need. Central Vigilance Commission felt results from CBI’s probe lent credibility to allegations of involvement of middlemen, but asked the Defence Ministry to make the final decision after consulting the Law Ministry.

The Law Minister said the decision should be made at the highest levels. The entire matter was referred to Air Headquarters, which, with concurrence of the Air Chief, reiterated the immediate need to induct LLQRM (low level radars from Rafael), MRSAM and additional Aerostat radars. It was only due to this urgency, strategic implications of delay, IAI’s integrity commitment, and the ASG’s view, that CCS cleared the MRSAM project.

 

[heartwinlion]

US, Russia, Indian Muslims out to down IAI deal

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562885120&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle/ShowFull

Muslim political parties in India as well as Russian and American defense corporations are suspected of working behind the scenes to torpedo a $1.4 billion deal signed recently between Israel Aerospace Industries and India for the development of a missile defense system, Israeli defense establishment officials said on Wednesday.

SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World The deal was signed in February for the reported development and production of a land-based version of the Barak 8 missile systems. The sea-based version is already in advanced development stages.

IAI will reportedly supply India with 2,000 missiles capable of intercepting enemy aircraft and missiles within a 70-kilometer range.

The deal was first reported in March after IAI officially announced the new contract to the Israel Securities Authority last week. Due to Defense Ministry regulations, IAI did not disclose the name of the foreign country involved or the product it was selling.

Following the notification to the Israel Securities Authority, media reports originating in India claimed that IAI withheld notification of the deal until it received an advance payment. Some reports claimed that the deal included "business expenses" that were to be used to pay kickbacks to senior Indian government officials who approved the deal.

In a highly-unusual move, IAI released an official press statement rejecting the claims that it purposely withheld notification of the deal to the Israel Securities Authority.


"Lately, various articles have appeared in the media regarding a large transaction for the sale of weapon systems to the country of a foreign customer, which have included information that is incorrect and biased, and which have originated, apparently, from entities that are trying to harm IAI's business ties with this customer," the statement read.

Israeli defense officials said it appeared that pro-Muslim political opponents of the New Delhi government as well as competing defense companies from around the world were spreading rumors of financial irregularities to damage Israeli-Indian defense ties.

The Muslim opposition to the deal, the officials said, could be backed by Iran, which last year tried to thwart the launch of an Israeli spy satellite from India. The IDF's Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip in January was also playing a role in stirring opposition to the deal.

Officials said it was possible that Russian defense companies were also working behind the scenes to sabotage the deal. In 2008, Israel surpassed Russia as the main defense supplier to India after breaking the $1 billion mark in new contracts signed annually over the past two years. According to news reports, Russia had averaged sales of $875 million annually to India for the past 40 years.

In August, the Indian Defense Ministry approved a $2.5b. joint IAI-Rafael Advanced Defense Systems deal to develop a new and advanced version of the Spyder surface-to-air system.

In May, India is scheduled to receive the first of three new Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) developed for the Indian Air Force by Israel Aerospace Industries. The sides are in talks for the possible purchase of another three AWACS.