Sale of Typhoon to India
Discussion
ForzaWhitesGen2 said:
How do Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE have a 'need' for Typhoons, or similiar capable A/C?
Mainly as a deterrent against Iran. Qatar has Mirage 2000s, the UAE has F16s, both could do with upgrades. Similarly the Saudis were the biggest export customers for Tornado so the potential market IS there (although they've recently bought a shedload of F15s).Best Answer
A number of historians both India and foreign writers and historians have started justifying the empire and even asking USA to take up the “White Man’s Burden” to bring civilizations and justice to the dark world of the dark skinned people. The views of the Western historians like Neil Ferguson or Michael Ignatief are being reflected by their Indian counterparts like Triankar Roy, Dipak Lal, or even Man Mohan Singh in his lecture in Oxford University recently. The surprising matter is that even the Sangha Parivar writers like M.S.Menon, and Priyadarshi Dutta are also propagating the benefits that the British rule has brought to India.
Before the British came, India was one of the richest countries in the world. In 1800, India, China and Egypt (and probably many of the kingdoms of central Africa) were economically more developed than Britain. Indeed the British had nothing for sale that was of interest to the Indians or Chinese. When the British left in 1947, India was poor and industrially backward.
Britain did bring free trade to India and China. Britain had extracted large surpluses from India, and forced it into a free-trade pattern, which obliged India to export commodities and become a dumping ground for British manufactures. Historians estimate that the net transfer of capital from India to Britain averaged 1.5 percent of GNP in the late nineteenth century. The wealth transfer was financed by a persistent trade surplus of India, which was sent back to Britain or spend to expand the British Empire. India’s export-import ratio was 172.5 percent in 1840-69, 148 percent in 1870-1912, and 133.4 percent in 1913-38. This export orientation was a tool of colonial exploitation, and free trade a British ploy to force its manufactures on India and crush domestic industry.
Instead of enriching the world, the British Empire impoverished it. The empire was run on the cheap. Instead of investing in the development of the countries they ruled, the British survived by doing deals with indigenous elites to sustain their rule to extract maximum amount of revenues for Britain itself, which the British historians now deny.
Whether in 18th-centuryIndia, 19th-century Egypt or 20th-century Iraq, the story is the same. As long as taxes were paid, the British cared little about "the rule of law". They turned a blind eye to Indian landlords who extracted rent by coercion or indigo and opium - planters who had forced Indian farmers to cultivate and their products were forced upon the Chinese. Unable to sell anything to the Chinese, Britain sent in its gunboats, seizing Hong Kong and opening up a market for opium grown in India. Despotic repression was fostered where it protected British interests.
India is the prime example. Ruled by Muslims before the British, India was a prosperous, rapidly commercializing society. The Jagat Seth, India's biggest banking network and financier of the East India Company, rivaled the Bank of England in size. British rule pauperized India. The British restricted Indian weavers' ability to trade freely and the result was a drastic drop in living standards. Dhaka, now the capital of impoverished Bangladesh, was once a state-of-the-art industrial city. Its population fell by half during the first century of British rule. Now, average Indian incomes are barely a tenth of the British level in terms of real purchasing power. It is no coincidence that 200 years of British rule occurred in the intervening time.
Rabindranath Tagore wrote “The chronic want of food and water, the lack of sanitation and medical help, the neglect of means of communication, the poverty of educational provision, the all pervading spirit of depression that I have myself seen to prevail in our villages after over a hundred years of British rule make me despair of its beneficence.”
The impact of British rule in India:
As Davis concludes: "If the history of British rule in India were to be condensed to a single fact, it is this: there was no increase in India’s per-capita income from 1757 to 1947." (in Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino famines and the making of the Third World by M. Davis, London, Verso Books, 2001) In fact, incomes may have declined by 50 percent in the last half of the 19th century.
A number of historians both India and foreign writers and historians have started justifying the empire and even asking USA to take up the “White Man’s Burden” to bring civilizations and justice to the dark world of the dark skinned people. The views of the Western historians like Neil Ferguson or Michael Ignatief are being reflected by their Indian counterparts like Triankar Roy, Dipak Lal, or even Man Mohan Singh in his lecture in Oxford University recently. The surprising matter is that even the Sangha Parivar writers like M.S.Menon, and Priyadarshi Dutta are also propagating the benefits that the British rule has brought to India.
Before the British came, India was one of the richest countries in the world. In 1800, India, China and Egypt (and probably many of the kingdoms of central Africa) were economically more developed than Britain. Indeed the British had nothing for sale that was of interest to the Indians or Chinese. When the British left in 1947, India was poor and industrially backward.
Britain did bring free trade to India and China. Britain had extracted large surpluses from India, and forced it into a free-trade pattern, which obliged India to export commodities and become a dumping ground for British manufactures. Historians estimate that the net transfer of capital from India to Britain averaged 1.5 percent of GNP in the late nineteenth century. The wealth transfer was financed by a persistent trade surplus of India, which was sent back to Britain or spend to expand the British Empire. India’s export-import ratio was 172.5 percent in 1840-69, 148 percent in 1870-1912, and 133.4 percent in 1913-38. This export orientation was a tool of colonial exploitation, and free trade a British ploy to force its manufactures on India and crush domestic industry.
Instead of enriching the world, the British Empire impoverished it. The empire was run on the cheap. Instead of investing in the development of the countries they ruled, the British survived by doing deals with indigenous elites to sustain their rule to extract maximum amount of revenues for Britain itself, which the British historians now deny.
Whether in 18th-centuryIndia, 19th-century Egypt or 20th-century Iraq, the story is the same. As long as taxes were paid, the British cared little about "the rule of law". They turned a blind eye to Indian landlords who extracted rent by coercion or indigo and opium - planters who had forced Indian farmers to cultivate and their products were forced upon the Chinese. Unable to sell anything to the Chinese, Britain sent in its gunboats, seizing Hong Kong and opening up a market for opium grown in India. Despotic repression was fostered where it protected British interests.
India is the prime example. Ruled by Muslims before the British, India was a prosperous, rapidly commercializing society. The Jagat Seth, India's biggest banking network and financier of the East India Company, rivaled the Bank of England in size. British rule pauperized India. The British restricted Indian weavers' ability to trade freely and the result was a drastic drop in living standards. Dhaka, now the capital of impoverished Bangladesh, was once a state-of-the-art industrial city. Its population fell by half during the first century of British rule. Now, average Indian incomes are barely a tenth of the British level in terms of real purchasing power. It is no coincidence that 200 years of British rule occurred in the intervening time.
Rabindranath Tagore wrote “The chronic want of food and water, the lack of sanitation and medical help, the neglect of means of communication, the poverty of educational provision, the all pervading spirit of depression that I have myself seen to prevail in our villages after over a hundred years of British rule make me despair of its beneficence.”
The impact of British rule in India:
As Davis concludes: "If the history of British rule in India were to be condensed to a single fact, it is this: there was no increase in India’s per-capita income from 1757 to 1947." (in Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino famines and the making of the Third World by M. Davis, London, Verso Books, 2001) In fact, incomes may have declined by 50 percent in the last half of the 19th century.
Countdown said:
Mainly as a deterrent against Iran. Qatar has Mirage 2000s, the UAE has F16s, both could do with upgrades. Similarly the Saudis were the biggest export customers for Tornado so the potential market IS there (although they've recently bought a shedload of F15s).
Just because they bought them, doesn't mean they need them! Read my post in full? The massive 5th fleet hovering around is more than a deterrent against a few aging Mig's and indeed poorly maintained F14's of Iran. Having been twice to Iran, my view is that the countries listed above are not considered to be 'enemies' of Iran.... believe me, they have much bigger aspirations.....
Isaac Hunt
How many of those (that you met) would have actually lived under British rule?
There's two sides to every story. However the main driving force for british rule in India was commercial, any benefits to the Indians were incidental. Whether the benefits outweigh the costs is open to debate.
How many of those (that you met) would have actually lived under British rule?
There's two sides to every story. However the main driving force for british rule in India was commercial, any benefits to the Indians were incidental. Whether the benefits outweigh the costs is open to debate.
ForzaWhitesGen2 said:
Countdown said:
Mainly as a deterrent against Iran. Qatar has Mirage 2000s, the UAE has F16s, both could do with upgrades. Similarly the Saudis were the biggest export customers for Tornado so the potential market IS there (although they've recently bought a shedload of F15s).
Just because they bought them, doesn't mean they need them! Read my post in full? The massive 5th fleet hovering around is more than a deterrent against a few aging Mig's and indeed poorly maintained F14's of Iran. Having been twice to Iran, my view is that the countries listed above are not considered to be 'enemies' of Iran.... believe me, they have much bigger aspirations.....
I happen to think they do need to modernise their air forces and that presents an opportunity to BAe. When you say "not considered to be enemies of Iran" - considered by who ?Iran does not have cordial relations with any of its Sunni neighbours, especially Qatar and Saudi Arabia. And if KSA was so happy to rely on US protection why would it have spent so much on its own Air Force ? KSA is trying to become as independent of the US as possible for domestic political reasons. That is why there is very limited US military presence in KSA at the moment.Countdown said:
I raed your post in full I happen to think they do need to modernise their air forces and that presents an opportunity to BAe. When you say "not considered to be enemies of Iran" - considered by who ?Iran does not have cordial relations with any of its Sunni neighbours, especially Qatar and Saudi Arabia. And if KSA was so happy to rely on US protection why would it have spent so much on its own Air Force ? KSA is trying to become as independent of the US as possible for domestic political reasons. That is why there is very limited US military presence in KSA at the moment.
BAe of course will chase the money no matter where it is.... (good example is the sale of Hawks to Indonesia - that used them to bomb their own people)... and as we saw are not adverse to the old brown envelope gig.... something that would have come out much more if the SFO were 'allowed' to carry on their investigations...... I happen to think they do need to modernise their air forces and that presents an opportunity to BAe. When you say "not considered to be enemies of Iran" - considered by who ?Iran does not have cordial relations with any of its Sunni neighbours, especially Qatar and Saudi Arabia. And if KSA was so happy to rely on US protection why would it have spent so much on its own Air Force ? KSA is trying to become as independent of the US as possible for domestic political reasons. That is why there is very limited US military presence in KSA at the moment.Sadly BAe pulled out of the civilian market to concentrate on Military sales....and at times took desparate measures, hence my above comment about envelopes..
KSA are as neurotic as they come, and the US has an enormous military presence in the area. History shows us that when the Iraqi's (for instance) kicked off ..none of the surrounding countries did anything whatsoever, ...relied on the US...to take the lead..(sadly)..similiar thing maybe happening in Syria...
BAe have great designers, engineers, facilities, history and pedigree, it was very short sighted of them to pull out of the civilian market..... A market that you now see such enterprises as COMAC take up the slack...
If Embraer, GAC, Cessna, (indeed, even PORSCHE got involved!!) can knock out some great civilian A/C in a highly competitive marketplace, why cannot BAe......?
Edited by ForzaWhitesGen2 on Thursday 2nd February 13:22
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I am Indian...and there are many young people of my age group who have openly advocated that the British should have stayed for another 30-40 yrs atleast. I am now proud to be BRITISH. I have first hand experience in my family and others who were under british rule and were extremely happy and are now extremely sad at how India is after independance. The writers that jas quoted have valid points...but I would tell you this one thingIndians are India's biggest problem. Same goes for sri lankans, bangladeshis, Pakistanis.
And before the East India Company came around...There was no India!!! It was all small kingdoms which were at war with each other! The north of India was united under the muslim rulers. The rest of the country was fragmented on caste, religion, language, culture!!! The british united all of them as India and they all took their united anger at the East India company and fought the British crown! The truth is that the British..after 2 world wars was too broke to develop india and invest in India and they did not know how to deal with the Indians and their infighting with different cultural and religious issues.
Then came the golden chance of handing over the keys to Mr. Gandhi and making a dignified exit...but then Nehru and Jinha f
ked it all up and carried on their Indian way of doing things. Brits get blamed for it all!The quotes by jas refer to the East India Company and its trade practices under british army support...the British raj or rule under the crown was a completely different life altogether! All the major business dynasties, politicians, literary scholars, Lawyers, Administrative heads from India were very very close to the Britain before and after independance. The Indian armed forces have very close links with britain. My uncle was a commander in the Indian navy and retired only about 10yrs ago... and now works for HAL. So I have heard many a tale about this aspect of British influence.
Indian railways is the biggest employer in the world...the only problem is that the infrastructure is atleast 85% still british! Same goes for all major buildings, dams, roads etc till around 10 yrs ago! Even the prestigious institutions of education, health, judiciary etc all were british built till around the 90's.
There are only 2 possible reasons for dassault to beat BAE in this bid
1. backhanders and pricing
2. Ongoing support and convenience of integration into current infrastructure.
And if we dont get this deal..we should stop the aid! No ifs..no buts. We all know its a bribe and we agree to it.. CMD is probably ready to pull the plug and say that public opinion was so strongly against this aid package so he pulled it! And that is how we should deal with the Indians.
I spend a couple of weeks every year visiting India. I travel from one end of the country to the other meeting Indian clients. These are mainly middle class employers or middle-management. The majority are ambivalent towards the UK. Some retain a fondness for us. However, in a country of 1.2 billion, you're always going to get some loud-mouthed hard-liners who take great pleasure in sticking their finger up at the old colonial power. They will mock us when things don't go our way and will deny that anything any good ever came out of the UK. They think that all was rosey in the Garden of Eden before we turned up. Indian history, just like everyone else's, shows otherwise. These are the people who make headlines when we're donating aid, but they are certainly not representative of the vast majority of the population, who are just peacefully going about their daily lives.
Despite their space programme and likely big Rafale order, I know where I'd rather live. I would imagine that the many Indians living in the UK feel the same.
Despite their space programme and likely big Rafale order, I know where I'd rather live. I would imagine that the many Indians living in the UK feel the same.
This Rafale order for the Indian Air Force has still not been finalized, one year after the Memorandum of Understanding with Dassault was signed. The Indians are still trying to knock down the price, whereas Dassault is still asking for clarification on the role of HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) in the manufacturing process. Apparently only the initial 18 aircraft would actually be built by Dassault in France, with the remaining 108 aircraft being constructed by HAL in Bangalore.
LotusOmega375D said:
This Rafale order for the Indian Air Force has still not been finalized, one year after the Memorandum of Understanding with Dassault was signed. The Indians are still trying to knock down the price, whereas Dassault is still asking for clarification on the role of HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) in the manufacturing process. Apparently only the initial 18 aircraft would actually be built by Dassault in France, with the remaining 108 aircraft being constructed by HAL in Bangalore.
Another reason why they should have chosen Typhoon I guess. I think HAL have been building Hawks for years, so the relationship is already in place and pretty well tested.AshVX220 said:
LotusOmega375D said:
This Rafale order for the Indian Air Force has still not been finalized, one year after the Memorandum of Understanding with Dassault was signed. The Indians are still trying to knock down the price, whereas Dassault is still asking for clarification on the role of HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) in the manufacturing process. Apparently only the initial 18 aircraft would actually be built by Dassault in France, with the remaining 108 aircraft being constructed by HAL in Bangalore.
Another reason why they should have chosen Typhoon I guess. I think HAL have been building Hawks for years, so the relationship is already in place and pretty well tested.mrloudly said:
What a load of bks this has become.... Nice meal on the Royal Yacht Britannia, season's skiing, and a 48 setting service of Royal Doulton would have sorted this no problem a few years back! Interfering idiots ruin everything...
Instead now Dave would probably take them to Nandos give them a box set of The Only Way is Essex and then give them a guided tour of Lakeside.ks this has become.... Nice meal on the Royal Yacht Britannia, season's skiing, and a 48 setting service of Royal Doulton would have sorted this no problem a few years back! Interfering idiots ruin everything...mrloudly said:
What a load of bks this has become.... Nice meal on the Royal Yacht Britannia, season's skiing, and a 48 setting service of Royal Doulton would have sorted this no problem a few years back! Interfering idiots ruin everything...
The French are FAR better than we are at "that sort of thing"[/FatherTed].ks this has become.... Nice meal on the Royal Yacht Britannia, season's skiing, and a 48 setting service of Royal Doulton would have sorted this no problem a few years back! Interfering idiots ruin everything...This particular contract is going to come down to technology transfer. The ME countries aren't that bothered about it, India definitely are.
A long shot but PM seeks to salvage India Eurofighter deal
In other related news, it has been alleged that the former head of the Indian Air Force (and his family) took kickbacks in relation to an Agusta Westland helicopter deal.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/lots-of-evidence...
It appears this is only way to 'get business done' in that part of the world.
In other related news, it has been alleged that the former head of the Indian Air Force (and his family) took kickbacks in relation to an Agusta Westland helicopter deal.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/lots-of-evidence...
It appears this is only way to 'get business done' in that part of the world.
Countdown said:
AshVX220 said:
LotusOmega375D said:
This Rafale order for the Indian Air Force has still not been finalized, one year after the Memorandum of Understanding with Dassault was signed. The Indians are still trying to knock down the price, whereas Dassault is still asking for clarification on the role of HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) in the manufacturing process. Apparently only the initial 18 aircraft would actually be built by Dassault in France, with the remaining 108 aircraft being constructed by HAL in Bangalore.
Another reason why they should have chosen Typhoon I guess. I think HAL have been building Hawks for years, so the relationship is already in place and pretty well tested.
As for the "sweeteners", it's how business is done in an awful lot of the world, but our Great British meddling and PC'ness (and the US using it as an excuse to drop us in it) have spoilt that kind of thing.
What I found interesting this week was the revelation I learnt that Belgium actually give more in aid to India than the UK, which was a surprise. it's lucky they don't have home grown jets to sell.
Victor McDade said:
A long shot but PM seeks to salvage India Eurofighter deal
In other related news, it has been alleged that the former head of the Indian Air Force (and his family) took kickbacks in relation to an Agusta Westland helicopter deal.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/lots-of-evidence...
It appears this is only way to 'get business done' in that part of the world.
Knowing DC's luck, instead of reviving interest in a possible Typhoon contract, he'll come back from India with an order cancellation for Agusta-Westland!In other related news, it has been alleged that the former head of the Indian Air Force (and his family) took kickbacks in relation to an Agusta Westland helicopter deal.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/lots-of-evidence...
It appears this is only way to 'get business done' in that part of the world.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff