April 2015 The Hindu [with IE & The Hindu Editorial]

April 2015 The Hindu link: Click Here
April 2015 The Hindu ONLY Editorial link: Click Here
April 2015 Indian Express ONLY Editorial link: Click Here

March 2015 The Hindu [& Editorial]

March 2015 The Hindu link: Click Here
March 2015 The Hindu ONLY Editorial link: Click Here

[Opinion/Analysis] Rafale and Indian Art of Defence Purchases

• The decision to buy 36 Rafale fighters exposes the complexinstitutional mechanisms in defence procurement.

• Three broad conclusions were immediately drawn by strategic analysts, when the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his recent three nation tour (including France), asked the French President to consider supplying 36 Rafale fighters through government-to-government (G-to-G) route to India. First, such a decision was surprisingly puzzling because a larger 126 MMRCA tender process is still underway in technical terms, in which Rafale is the L1 (lowest bidder, technically-qualified). Second, a G-to-G supply will negatively impact the much publicized ‘Make in India’ effort as neither offsets obligations nor transfer of technology would be binding in this new deal. And third, such G-to-G contracts, more of which are likely in near future as stated by the Indian Defence Minister in response to the Rafale decision, would probably be a preferred choice for strategic systems purchases.

• In sum, the decision, as argued by many experts, appears to be ill-timed, ill-advised and certainly ill-calculated. On the contrary, some analysts and industry watchers have argued that the announcement connotes decisiveness at the politico-bureaucratic executive level and it may not jeopardize the larger ‘indigenization’ effort as it is just another one-off deal.

• There are some merits in both arguments, although critics appear to outnumber defenders in this case. It is not my intention to question the wisdom of either the government or commentators. As a student of strategic affairs, I am supposed to relate fundamentals of defence purchases to the deal in question and place reasonable assumptions for further debate and consideration. I advance a set of three pointers: a) the G-to-G Rafale purchase decision appears to be a decisive politico-bureaucratic choice with objective and strategic considerations; b) the decision may negatively impact ‘indigenization’ efforts in the short run, only if future big-ticket items follow competitive bidding routes; and c) the decision exposes institutional weaknesses in defence procurement processes.

• First, absence of transparency in defence procurement often leads to surprise announcements that often times embeds political considerations. Examples exist where recipients have reserved, reversed or taken altogether new decisions in arms procurements. Rafale’s exports history stands as a testimony to fluctuating decisions by buyers / potential buyers like Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Malaysia, Brazil, Singapore and others. The fundamental principle of arms trade is that the supplier is always at the mercy of the recipient – hence employment of lobbies or well-timed visits of high profile political leaders to recipient countries during times of negotiations. Because arms purchase decisions are more politico-bureaucratic than economic or technology driven, specific deals will invariably have broader political considerations by the recipient. Seen from this prism, the decision on Rafale by India appears to be politico-bureaucratic driven – both objectively as well as strategically. Objective considerations would necessitate a decision on a long pending complex deal (126 MMRCA) that has gone nowhere, thus impinging negatively on the modernization process of the IAF. This required resolute political decision, which incidentally was linked to the Prime Minister’s visit to France. Strategically, the decision is intertwined with the larger Indo-French bilateral relations where spin off benefits could come from other sectors like civil nuclear cooperation and technology driven business domains. Interestingly, larger strategic interest convergences between India and France was one of the major factors in the 126 MMRCA selection process as well. In any case, the Indian Defence Procurement Procedure (hereafter, DPP) has provisions for such decisions under ‘fast track procedure’ and ‘strategic considerations’ whereby a particular deal can bypass DPP.

• Second, although details of the new 36 Rafale purchase are yet to emerge, one can reasonably argue that the deal in all certainty will neither have ‘offsets’ or technology transfer obligations. This has prompted many to argue that G-to-G deals will negatively impact the ‘make in India’ efforts in defence production. This is true for the 36 Rafale sale only. If more big ticket items in future follow the same G-to-G procurement route, then it will definitely bring in much disappointment for the Indian industry as there would be less indigenization efforts because of lack of orders and incentives. The Defence Minister’s recent statement that ‘G-to-G route is better than competitive route’ or ‘more strategic choices would be considered through G-to-G route’ needs to be examined closely. He is merely stating a fact on the former, which may or may not necessarily conform to all elements of DPP. It is not clear as to what he actually intends to state in the latter observation. If his intent is to buy only strategic systems through G-to-G route, then it is fine. Most analysts do not realize that this is embedded in the ‘strategic considerations’ and ‘buy global’ sections of DPP. India can waive L1 and even bypass normal procedural routes, if it feels that acquisition of a particular system could benefit it in strategic terms. In this case, a particular choice becomes subjective. ‘Buy Global’ choice permits the decision makers to opt for a system or technology, which are not available within India. Rafale may fall into the category of ‘strategic considerations’, but it is certainly not a ‘buy global’ choice. It can be argued that Rafale deal may jolt the aspirations of Indian industry for the short term, but if such decisions are avoided in future and more and more defence contracts go through competitive bidding process, then defence indigenization and industrialization process can bounce back from the current position. This requires careful planning and resolute political decision.

• Last but most important, the new Rafale choice has dealt a severe blow to the on-going 126 MMRCA tender process in many ways – not only has it exposed the inherent procedural weaknesses in the DPP but more importantly put a question mark on the negotiating capabilities of the Indian side. Political indecisiveness is also evident in the whole process. Consider these: a) the 126 MMRCA was conceived after much deliberations during the end of the then NDA tenure in 2004 (which actually means that the necessity must have been contemplated at least since the late 1990s); b) it took the UPA government more than 3 years to issue RFI (request for information); the vendors sought more than normal time allotted to respond to the RFP (request for proposal) by late 2009; the stage from RFP to culmination of technical evaluation (tests in high altitude, desert and plain conditions by six competing vendors) took nearly 3 years (2012); the commercial (including offsets, ToT, life cycle costs and others) negotiations have already taken more than 3 years with no definitive results in sight as of today! If this is not enough, three more committees have been added to the existing half a dozen multi-disciplinary committees to evaluate elements of DPP, constitution and inclusion of which have been taken up during the so-called review and refinement process of DPP (DPP has been revised ten times in a span of 13 years since 2002, with one more revision coming any time by the end of this year). With no clarity on offsets, ToT, life cycle costs and contract negotiation processes, contained within RFP issued to the vendors, and all such provisions subject to negotiations, the ultimate scenario is: the vendors and their negotiators are as clueless as their counterparts from the Indian side (the MoD mandarin and representatives of the end-user IAF). It is not for nothing that the 126 MMRCA process has led to further confusion and thus forced the decision makers to opt for an altogether new decision.

• At the heart of the problem lies a vaguely worded, often overlapping, relatively unclear and horrendously lengthy procedural arrangement called DPP. 36 Rafale decision would not have happened if DPP had addressed procedural complexities.

Written by: DEBA RANJAN MOHANTY
Source: sspconline.org

All you need to know about Earthquakes (Nepal Updates)

For Recent Nepal Earthquake Updates [Part 1-26/04]: Click Here
For Recent Nepal Earthquake Updates [Part 2-12/05]: Click Here

What is an earthquake?

• An earthquake is what happens when two blocks of the earth suddenly slip past one another. The surface where they slip is called the fault or fault plane. 

• The location below the earth’s surface where the earthquake starts is called the hypocenter, and the location directly above it on the surface of the earth is called the epicenter.

• Sometimes an earthquake has foreshocks. These are smaller earthquakes that happen in the same place as the larger earthquake that follows. Scientists can’t tell that an earthquake is a foreshock until the larger earthquake happens.

• The largest, main earthquake is called the mainshock. Mainshocks always have after shocks that follow. These are smaller earthquakes that occur afterwards in the same place as the mainshock. Depending on the size of the mainshock, aftershocks can continue for weeks, months, and even years after the mainshock!

What causes earthquakes and where do they happen?

• The earth has four major layers: the inner core, outer core, mantle and crust. 

• The crust (Fig.2) and the top of the mantle make up a thin skin on the surface of our planet. But this skin is not all in one piece – it is made up of many pieces like a puzzle covering the surface of the earth. 

• Not only that ((Fig. 3) ), but these puzzle pieces keep slowly moving around, sliding past one another and bumping into each other. We call these puzzle piecestectonic plates, and the edges of the plates are called the plate boundaries.

• The plate boundaries are made up of many faults, and most of the earthquakes around the world occur on these faults. Since the edges of the plates are rough, they get stuck while the rest of the plate keeps moving.

• Finally, when the plate has moved far enough, the edges unstick on one of the faults and there is an earthquake.

Why does the earth shake when there is an earthquake?

• While the edges of faults are stuck together, and the rest of the block is moving, the energy that would normally cause the blocks to slide past one another is being stored up.

• When the force of the moving blocks finally overcomes the friction of the jagged edges of the fault and it unsticks, all that stored up energy is released.

• The energy radiates outward from the fault in all directions in the form of seismic waves like ripples on a pond. The seismic waves shake the earth as they move through it, and when the waves reach the earth’s surface, they shake the ground and anything on it, like our houses and us! (see P&S Wave inset)

How are earthquakes recorded?

• Earthquakes are recorded by instruments called seismographs. The recording they make is called a seismogram.

• The seismograph (Fig. 4) has a base that sets firmly in the ground, and a heavy weight that hangs free. When an earthquake causes the ground to shake, the base of the seismograph shakes too, but the hanging weight does not. Instead the spring or string that it is hanging from absorbs all the movement. The difference in position between the shaking part of the seismograph and the motionless part is what is recorded.

How do scientists measure the size of earthquakes?

The size of an earthquake depends on the size of the fault and the amount of slip on the fault, but that’s not something scientists can simply measure with a measuring tape since faults are many kilometers deep beneath the earth’s surface.

So how do they measure an earthquake?

• They use the seismogram recordings made on the seismographs at the surface of the earth to determine how large the earthquake was (Fig. 5).

• A short wiggly line that doesn’t wiggle very much means a small earthquake, and a long wiggly line that wiggles a lot means a large earthquake. The length of the wiggle depends on the size of the fault, and the size of the wiggle depends on the amount of slip.

The size of the earthquake is called its magnitude. There is one magnitude for each earthquake. Scientists also talk about the intensity of shaking from an earthquake, and this varies depending on where you are during the earthquake.

How can scientists tell where the earthquake happened?

(For more about P waves and S waves: Click Here)

• Seismograms come in handy for locating earthquakes too, and being able to see the P wave and the S wave is important. You learned how P & S waves each shake the ground in different ways as they travel through it.

• P waves are also faster than S waves, and this fact is what allows us to tell where an earthquake was.

• To understand how this works, let’s compare P and S waves to lightning and thunder. Light travels faster than sound, so during a thunderstorm you will first see the lightning and then you will hear the thunder. If you are close to the lightning, the thunder will boom right after the lightning, but if you are far away from the lightning, you can count several seconds before you hear the thunder. The further you are from the storm, the longer it will take between the lightning and the thunder.

• P waves are like the lightning, and S waves are like the thunder. The P waves travel faster and shake the ground where you are first. Then the S waves follow and shake the ground also. If you are close to the earthquake, the P and S wave will come one right after the other, but if you are far away, there will be more time between the two. By looking at the amount of time between the P and S wave on a seismogram recorded on a seismograph, scientists can tell how far away the earthquake was from that location. However, they can’t tell in what direction from the seismograph the earthquake was, only how far away it was. If they draw a circle on a map around the station where the radius of the circle is the determined distance to the earthquake, they know the earthquake lies somewhere on the circle. But where?

• Scientists then use a method called triangulation to determine exactly where the earthquake was (Fig. 6). It is called triangulation because a triangle has three sides, and it takes three seismographs to locate an earthquake. 

• If you draw a circle on a map around three different seismographs where the radius of each is the distance from that station to the earthquake, the intersection of those three circles is the epicenter!

How are quakes classified?

Based on their magnitude, quakes are assigned to a class. An increase in one number, say from 5.5 to 6.5, means that a quake's magnitude is 10 times as great. The classes are as follows:

• Great: Magnitude is greater than or equal to 8.0. A magnitude-8.0 earthquake is capable of tremendous damage.
• Major: Magnitude in the rage of 7.0 to 7.9. A magnitude-7.0 earthquake is a major earthquake that is capable of widespread, heavy damage.
• Strong: Magnitude in the rage of 6.0 to 6.9. A magnitude-6.0 quake can cause severe damage.
• Moderate: Magnitude in the rage of 5.0 to 5.9. A magnitude-5.0 quake can cause considerable damage.
• Light: Magnitude in the rage of 4.0 to 4.9. A magnitude-4.0 quake is capable of moderate damage.
• Minor: Magnitude in the rage of 3.0 to 3.9.
• Micro: Magnitude less than-3.0. Quakes between 2.5 and 3.0 are the smallest generally felt by people.

After an earthquake strikes, its magnitude is continuously revised as time passes and more stations report their seismic readings. Several days can pass before a final number is agreed upon.

What are the seismic zones of India?

• The Geological Survey of India (GSI.) first published the seismic zoning map of the country in the year 1935.

• With numerous modifications made afterwards, this map was initially based on the amount of damage suffered by the different regions of India because of earthquakes.

• Color coded in different shades of the color red, this map shows the four distinct seismic zones of India. Following are the varied seismic zones of the nation, which are prominently shown in the map:

Zone - II: This is said to be the least active seismic zone
Zone - III: It is included in the moderate seismic zone
Zone - IV: This is considered to be the high seismic zone
Zone - V: It is the highest seismic zone

Can scientists predict earthquakes?

• No, and it is unlikely they will ever be able to predict them. Scientists have tried many different ways of predicting earthquakes, but none have been successful. On any particular fault, scientists know there will be another earthquake sometime in the future, but they have no way of telling when it will happen.

• First, a statistical study of historical earthquakes in a given region shows how frequent quakes of various magnitudes have been in the past. From those figures, they can guess how likely future quakes will be. For example, if a certain region has been struck by four magnitude 7 quakes in the last 200 years, seismologists would say there is a 50 per cent probability of another such quake occurring in the next 50 years.

• Seismologists can also measure how much stress a certain region of the earth's crust is under, and how quickly that stress is increasing. That knowledge, along with the elapsed time since the last earthquake, helps scientists determine if another earthquake is on the way. This method is far from perfect, though, and requires extremely detailed seismological data, which simply isn't available for most regions.

Is there such a thing as earthquake weather? Can some animals or people tell when an earthquake is about to hit?

• These are two questions that do not yet have definite answers. If weather does affect earthquake occurrence, or if some animals or people can tell when an earthquake is coming, we do not yet understand how it works.

Major Earthquakes (1976-2015 Till now dates):

Date	Location	Magnitude	Estimated number of deaths
April 25,  2015	Nepal (Easten Pokhara & Kathmandu)	7.9	1600+
April 16,  2013	Iran	7.7	40
Sept. 5, 2012	Costa Rica	7.9	Tsunami alert
Aug. 31, 2012	Philippines	7.6	1
Aug. 11, 2012	Northwestern Iran	6.4 and 6.3	306
April 11,  2012	Indian Ocean	8.6	Tsunami alert issued, no major damage
Oct. 23, 2011	Turkey	7.2	603
April 7, 2011	Japan	7.1	3
March 11,  2011	Japan	9.0	Approx. 16,000 (9,000 missing)
Feb. 27, 2010	Chile	8.8	At least 700
Jan. 13, 2010	Haiti	7.0	85,000 to 316,000 (gov't estimate)
Sept. 30, 2009	Near Padang, Indonesia	7.6	1,110
April 6, 2009	Near L'Aquila, Italy	6.3	283
May 12, 2008	Sichuan province, southwest China	7.8	More than 80,000
May 27, 2006	Java, Indonesia	6.3	5,135
Oct. 8, 2005	Pakistan-administered Kashmir	7.6	80,000
March 29,  2005	Indonesia	8.7	1,000
Dec. 26, 2004	Off the coast of Indonesia	9.0	230,000 (includes tsunami victims)
Dec. 26, 2003	Bam, Iran	6.6	26,271
Jan 26, 2001	Gujarat, India	7.7	20,000
June 21, 1990	Iran	7.7	35,000
Dec. 7, 1988	Armenia	6.9	At least 25,000
Sept. 19,  1985	Mexico	8.1	9,500
Sept. 16,  1978	Iran	7.5 to 7.9	15,000
July 28, 1976	China	7.8 to 8.2	242,000
Feb. 4, 1976	Guatemala	7.5	At least 23,000

U also like to see Earthquake Science Explained by USGS: Click Here

Source: usgs.gov, wikipedia.org