The Hindu : Ministry defends purchase of missiles

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Apr 04, 2002

National

National

Ministry defends purchase of missiles

By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI APRIL 3. The Defence Minister, George Fernandes, continued his public spat with the Comptroller and Auditor-General's (CAG) report on defence purchases, for the second consecutive day.

On Tuesday, the Defence Ministry contested the CAG's caustic comments on the purchase of special purpose helicopters.

In the process, it revealed more details on the choppers than the CAG report had done. Today, South Block went on the offensive against the CAG on the purchase of anti-aircraft missiles meant for the Kargil War.

This time also, it revealed more about the type of missiles and their country of origin. This is scrupulously avoided by the CAG.

Dismissing charges that the procurement of these missiles at an unduly high cost on a single tender basis was avoidable, the Ministry said it had opted for the import of `Igla missiles' in view of the over-riding considerations such as its capability, performance, trials conducted at sea and also future in-house production at Bharat Dynamics Limited.

"It is wrong to say that anti-aircraft missiles were imported even though sufficient anti-aircraft missiles were available with the Navy.

Lack of acoustic miss-distance indicator capability of ships was a hard reality and Igla missiles were procured to augment the last ditch, hard kill terminal defence of ships for engaging the hostile aircraft and anti-ship missiles,'' it said.

The Ministry claimed that 100 Igla missiles were purchased from Russia because the life of the Strella missiles in the Indian Navy's inventory had expired and no Igla missile was held with the Navy.

The single-tender was necessitated because the missiles had already been selected in accordance with procedures laid down and its suitability for the Navy was subsequently established.

Further, due to post-Pokhran sanctions, it was not feasible to negotiate with other suppliers and no alternative source existed.

In this case too, the CAG had stated that the case was referred to the Ministry in August 2001 and their reply was awaited.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National