Boeing Thinking Big in India

Boeing Thinking Big in India

Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS), India head, Dr Vivek Lall told Manu Sood, Editor of 8ak, that he expects $31 billion of defense business in India in the next 10 years. Since it’s commonly suggested in business circles that India will spend $100 billion on weapons acquisitions in the next 10 years, this seems to be an ambitious 30 percent market share. This will also create a direct offset liability of roughly about $12 billion (based on 8ak’s assumptions, including an average 40 percent offset), which basically means they will have to create an aerospace and defense industry in India with the additional challenge of integrating it in to the global supply chain.

Here’s a transcript of part of the interview:

8ak: How are your various aircraft deals progressing?


Dr Lall: Boeing announced the P-8i deal in January this year. We have had discussions with the IAF to showcase its capabilities and brought it to Aero India as well, we have submitted the Apache and Chinooks for the IAF’s helicopter tenders, will respond to the RFI for the Naval Fighters and are confident about our Super Hornet offering in the ongoing MMRCA tender.

8ak: Since Lockheed Martin was involved in both the 5th Generation projects JSF and Raptor it seems that it has left Boeing behind with no future in this segment?

Dr Lall: The Boeing fighter products currently in production approach future requirements from a position of balance, because the cost and schedule availability to meet the vast majority of mission requirements is known. At the same time these aircraft have significant margins for growth that permit additional capabilities to be rapidly inserted, while controlling both cost and schedule. We are constantly looking at innovative approaches to adding capabilities that pace the threats as they emerge and have specific plans to do that well into the future.

A very heavy design emphasis on a few narrow capabilities can drive cost to unaffordable levels and undermine the design’s flexibility to address the spectrum of threats and other conditions it must face over time. The result can be too few aircraft due to cost, with those aircraft being ineffective in some important missions.

Conversely, a “balanced approach” to design can keep cost and capability across the required mission set in equilibrium, and then adds capability in focused areas from a position of balance. For example, the Super Hornet delivers highly advanced, complete, multi-role capability. It combines state-of-the-art airframe and avionics to fight and survive in the 21st century. As its fighter/attack designation signifies, the Super Hornet provides the flexibility to perform a broad range of missions, including air dominance; precision attack; close air support; and reconnaissance – all in a single platform.

The Super Hornet’s advanced sensors, included its fully integrated, combat-proven APG-79 AESA radar, designed-in stealth, unlimited angle of attack, twin engines, self-repairing flight controls and precision stand-off weapons, ensure the Super Hornet maintains extremely high levels of both survivability and lethality.

8ak: Are you predicting a 30 percent market share in Indian defense?

Dr Lall: While Boeing’s India focus has primarily been on Aircraft, our IDS division provides space and homeland security solutions. These have not been adequately marketed in India and will also contribute towards our $31 billion goal.

8ak: Which non-aircraft market are you most confident about?

Dr Lall: The homeland security market in India is worth around $22 billion and in the U.S. Boeing has designed and deployed large border security projects. One of these is SBInet which is part of the U.S. secure border initiative that will go online in January 2010.

8ak: With PM Manmohan Singh’s recent Russia visit, we are only strengthening this relationship adding new programs like Medium Transport Aircraft (MTA) development to ongoing Fifth Generation Fighter (FGFA), missile development and nuclear programs. With Boeing expecting such large sales, are you expecting Russian sales to diminish significantly? Same with the Israelis who have a strong base in India?

Dr Lall: The defense and homeland security pie is expanding rapidly in India and there is room for Russian and American companies. Creating the aerospace and defence industry eco-system and capability that Boeing forsees will require an effort from many countries.

Regarding Israel, it has key strengths that are often different to what Boeing is offering ie. They are not bidding in the MMRCA, chopper etc programs and Boeing is not involved in some of the upgrade programs, so we see them more as partners than competitors.

8ak: India has virtually no defence industry especially in the private sector. Will you be able to successfully discharge your offset obligation in India?

Dr Lall: Boeing’s offset liabilities in India in the next decade will be between U.S. $7 — $12 billion. Boeing has already signed $600 million in defense offset deals and some of them are already delivering results. For example, HAL has been contracted to make the gun bay doors for the F-18 Super Hornet and integrated in to our global supply chain.

For the MMRCA fighter, 16 top U.S. suppliers with over $454 billion in annual sales had signed MoUs with 38 companies in India. So while we are committed to developing India’s aerospace and defence industry, we believe that the defence offsets must be expanded to include commercial aerospace as well since there is a lot of commonality between the two.

8ak: What is Boeing view on the 26 percent FDI cap?

Dr Lall: It is important to point out that having an FDI policy and limits is progressive and demonstrates the Government of India’s understanding of the importance of foreign investment as a catalyst to achieve its industrial objectives, and also underscores its willingness to encourage such investment. It is also important to look at FDI in the context of India’s defense offset policy. This policy has been promulgated to support the industrial policy objectives of the Government of India, the primary aim of which is increasing the competitiveness of the Indian aerospace/defense supply chain in the global market. Encouraging foreign vendors to invest in India via strategic partnerships such as joint ventures means that FDI in the defence industry (including research and development activities) is a tool to accomplish this objective.

The present FDI limit of 26 percent represents a significant foreign investment in India’s military infrastructure. It also represents a vehicle for fulfillment of offset obligations as the 26 percent investment is eligible for offset credit. There is, however, scope to widen the aperture of this offset policy and increase the FDI limit to an amount higher than the present 26 percent while still allowing Indian firms to keep management control of the joint business entity in question. FDI limits could thus be safely increased up to 49%, which would have the following benefits:

An increase to 49 percent would make the defence FDI limit consistent with the FDI limits in several other sectors (eg telecomm).
A higher limit would further incentivize foreign vendors to invest in India since their ownership stake is greater (even though not a majority ownership, a 49 percent ownership constitutes a higher level of ownership than 26 percent and thus carries with it the perception of having more control and direction in the management of a company).

A higher FDI limit also provides further incentive for a company to invest in India, because of the higher rate of fulfilment of offset obligations. (Editor’s note: If investment amounts are equal, the foreign vendor investing 49 percent gets more offset credits than the foreign vendor that invests 26 percent).

Finally, a higher FDI limit can also serve as a yardstick for the Indian authorities in gauging the seriousness of foreign vendors to participate in offset programs in a manner that enhances the industrial objectives of the Indian Government. A 49 percent investment, for example, is almost twice as large as a 26 percent percent investment. Foreign vendors that can identify a robust business case that achieves their objectives are more likely to be extremely serious about making such large financial commitments to India.

Since the success of such a business venture must rest on their meeting the needs of their customer, it is logical that businesses which are made up of a higher percentage of foreign ownership will have a vested interest in meeting the industrial objectives of the GOI.

Join the Conversation

What is this “offset liability obligation” with regards to India’s defense industry?

Something like 50% of the total value of an acquisition must be sourced from India’s domestic manufacturers.

Good Morning Folks,

It would seem Boeings expectations here to be unrealistic. Less the a year ago India was approached by US defense firms and were flat out shown the door. The Indians quite clearly would rather do business with the Russians. One would think that the US’s relationship with PaKistan has a lot to do with India’s coolness.

India always insist from the Russians that they would buy a few prototypes and then be licensed to do further production and to make changes, I don’t think this is what Boeing has in mind. Boeing of course is looking to be a player in the Asian market for multi-engine transport air frames. The cheap Asian labor could open up as of yet undeveloped and emerging markets for Boeing.

With Russia’s recent problems with the Il-76 and Il-78 it might be a good time to enter the market and defense products would be a cheap entry.

Now we come to the elephant in the middle of the room that no one wants to mention. The transfer of military technology, as clearly stated in the story above Boeing is intending on using as a selling point it will provide to India American military technologies.

I think Boeing’s proposed actions here make a strong case for the United States Government to get back into the development and production of weapons for US forces, after all the Gov’t, along with the Trade Unions (UAW) now have controlling ownership of both Chrysler and GM, both companies have long experience in defense manufacturing.

The selling of the US family jewels shouldn’t be a problem if the Gov’t had control of the processes, and not let the US defense advantage be subject to being peddling world wide by only for profit rogue defense contractors, who will sell to anybody. This is the DIRECT result of the process started in the Reagan era of contracting out to the civilian market America’s defense.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

@TMB: India imports 70% of its weaponry and has until recently restricted the role of its private sector in defence manufacturing. The industry has set a goal of reducing imports to around 30%. To make this possible, the laws have been changed so that any weapons import of over US$75 a minimum of 30% should be manufactured, sourced or invested in India. Since this can only be done from the defence industry, and not from say the auto industry, it is called a direct offset. More on my website http://​www​.8ak​.in

Obama, et al, aren’t that smart.

Here I must disagree with Byron — in his statement that the US govt needs to take over weapons production. I guess, as a contractor, that I should take offense at the “for profit rogue defense contractors, who sell to anybody” but I will let that slide for now. Except to point out the vigorous efforts the US makes to get other countries to buy US made weapons — gives us great leverage over them.

It sounds like Byron has never worked in a defense contractor, and so does not know that they are run by (with possible exceptions of course) honorable, patriotic people that apply common sense to their daily actions. Defense contractors are encouraged to SELL SELL SELL by their government, but often lose sales due to applying common sense about who might end up with the product.

part 2 of overly long reply
Byron possibly works for the government, and so is blinded to the fact that (as can happen with contractors) even government employees can release technology to hostile actors. Our government employees make mistakes too.

One thing to note is that government employees are far less efficient than contractors — and so systems produced by government employees will always be more expensive and less available. I have worked producing hardware both with government employees (both in the AF and in non-military government areas) and have always found government employees to be far less concerned with cost and delivery schedule. They may be training on TQM and Lean Six Sigma and who knows what — but they all realize that they are hard to fire. It is always much easier to just add people to an effort — and allow some of them to slack off.

part 3
I am sure that I do not want GM to start using their work processes — even before they were slowed down by government interference — to define how to produce weapon systems. Wasn’t GM the company that just recently had run a reputable brand into the ground and needed a huge bailout??? That is our example of how to build products we need to defend ourselves?

Charles
LtCol, USAF Retired

Good Afternoon Charles,

No I don’t work for the Federal, or for that matter other level of Government, I’m retired, with the exception of my time in the military. I have done a bit of contracting with the military on non weapons projects and by personal experience and I have yet to see a Government contractor not in it only for the money and that included working on projects with KBR, J.A. Jones, SAI (before it became SAIC, when Bob Byster still ran it) Triton (when Gene Ray ran it) to name a few of companies I have some familiarity with.

Your statement of contractors as being honorable, patriotic people I just can’t support. Any of these contractors would sell American defense technology to any body in the world in a heart beat. The above article clearly states that Boeing has offered the F-18 technology to India, one also must assume to anybody else with the cash too.

As a AF officer I don’t have to remind you that the E/F/A-18G that is replacing the E-6B is considered a national intelligence asset.

The picture with the story which includes an image of either a Soviet Golf or Hotel submarine being watched by a P8 Maritime Partol aircraft, which is a prime part of the United States ASW abilities, but Boeing it appears by implication is offering up this vital technology to a foreign country.

As far as the efficiency of Government employees, where is you evidence. I would say a company like Boeing that had over a decade to develop the FCS and still couldn’t come up with products is not a model of design, developmental or production efficiency.

I’m open to any suggestion that you might have Charles of how the United States can keep this vital defense technology secure and from being peddled to anybody world wide who has the money. Other then the DoD (Government) like they did in from WWII till the 1980’s by controlling all steps of the process?

Boeing is a big company that has a problem, declining US defense spending. They have very limited options. Voluntarily reduce their corporate size and sell off its military divisions to either the Government, or to equity groups that will do what Lenovo did to IBM or peddle US defense secrets to foreign countries. This is how the Capitalists system works, forget national loyalty or patriotism, Boeing is as patriotic as the Rosenbergs and Greenglass were, thats for the poor saps who don’t hold equity.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron — from your words, your time in the military must have been short and unrewarding!! I’ll leave it up to the many other retired military folks here to respond that they (as current contractors) are not mere mercenaries. You casually fling around accusations of thousands of American citizens that routinely break federal laws — by even offering sensitive technology. Your world is certainly a scary one.
Might I ask which US technology you sold to our enemies, during your time doing quite a bit of contracting?? Do you want to fess up to any of the breaches of technology transfer that you committed? So your motivation as a contractor was money only?

Good Morning Charles,

Any information that I had I’m sure was already in the hands of anybody who desired it. Since I worked mostly with NPW. MWR and most of the onboard ship work was done on unallocated funds I had limited restrictions other then the usual of not disclosing work done to third parties, no colluding with unsuccessful bidders, returning all project specifications, drawing, when working on board ship I followed all of the security boiler plate in the project manual.

When I worked with the big boys (KBR, J.A. Jones etc.), I kept my mouth shut and followed the rules as I knew them, this cost me work but I didn’t find myself in front of a Federal Grand Jury either as some of my co-contractors did.

One piece of advice I will pass on to you Colonel is be mindful of what you say on certain topics such as “Signal” or “Nuc’s” especially, you may get some visitors to your computer that you don’t want.

My time in the military like yours is no ones business but my own. I seldom if ever question anybodies source for their arguments and expect the same courtesy. For the record, again I served in the US Army, was regular Army, my MOS was 11B and served in Vietnam. That’s about all. you get.

As for my statements and the loyalty of Defense Contractors, news of unauthorized technology over the past 50 years by contractors and or their former or current employees from the smallest firms to the big boys is not hard to find. The American Corporation is not a patriot organization but a return on share holders equity invest.

In the 21st, Century Defense Contractors are have to compete with such investment devices as hedge Funds, Commodity Speculation and derivatives etc. for investors money. These investments often pay returns in the double digits, where manufacturing traditionally has mid single digit returns plus what ever increase in equity value a company can manage. For a company to sell defense technology that the US abandoned or had seemingly exhausted is not out of the realm of possibility.

A recent example is in 2007 and IMB’s sale of it personal computer business to Lenovo of China (an owned and operated company of the PLA). A deal breaker was the inclusion of the IBM R&D Center in Columbia South Carolina in particular the 3ed. Floor secured area that dealt with US Government projects. The deal as I’m sure you know went through.

Anyone who is up on the history of Tom Watson and IBM of course is not at all surprised by this. During WWII IBM leased tabulator machines to the Germans, leased new units to the Nazi’s through a manufacturing deal in Switzerland and manufactured the cards in Sweden and sold them to the Nazis. These devices and cards helped track the Jews and got the trains to the death camps.

IBM was also a defense contractor for the US they made M-1919 MG’s. and office equipment that they sold to the US Government.

After the war IBM placed a successful claim against the US Government for reimbursement for tabulator machined destroyed in bombing raids in Germany, Italy and occupied France. They were paid.

Officially of course there was no loss if critical technology to China, unofficially there is a different tale being told.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Good Afternoon Folks,

I would seem that this story can be put to rest. A bit ago over the Islamic Republic News Agency it was announced that India have reached an agreement for India to buy the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier and 16 Mig-29’s.

It also appears that Russia and India are nearing a deal for India to get 160 Su-35 a 4+ generation fighter.

This would seem to have slammed the door on Boeing as far as any military sales to India while at the same time causing some major heart burn in Beijing.

By mid century when Russia has delivered the weapons that have been purchased in the past couple of weeks by Vietnam and India the tensions in South Asia and the South China Sea should be kicked up a couple of notches.

I would appear that China’s predictions of last summer that it seems likely during the next decade that their will be some military actions involving Vietnam and India appear to be on the path of coming true.

We are truly living in interesting times.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement