What's new

INDIA: Building a Modern Arsenal in India

Well, Rahul The fact is They are actually making Licensed Copies of Su27 as J11, very much like MKI.
MKI had advantages due to the extra Western and Israeli stuff.

China's Aviation industry is more advanced than India.
The J10 comparable to F16, is definitely superior than LCA, and Most importantly it doesn't use any parts from out side, as in LCA 30% parts are from outside.

LCA gives us real edge over Pakistan which does not have an Indigenous Fighter and JF17 is Like our FGFA Programme, developed by Russia But Funded by India and Russia.

Its Expected that Russia will induct its First PAKFA by 2018 and China may have its JXX by 2020.

So in other words, The Indian FGFA and Chinese JXX will be in picture at the same time but till we dont develop our MCA and get it airborne we cant get the "Indigenous Developed" Edge that China will enjoy with JXX Programme.

yup true...India need to catch up in manufacturing...
but then China always claim more than they have....so they call a 3 gen plane as 4, 4 as 4.5 and so on....

but anyways a chinese 5th Gen(as per them but actually lower) is not something to cause any worry...it will be lower in performance and quality than Russian/Indian planes anyday...
 
.
yup true...India need to catch up in manufacturing...
but then always claim more than they have....so they call a 3 gen plane as 4, 4 as 4.5 and so on....

but anyways a chinese 5th Gen(as per them but actually lower) is not something to cause any worry...it will be lower in performance and quality than PAKFA anyday...

Actually u should think over two facts :

#1. The Generation of The Fighter Planes is NOT really accurate. How do u compare an LCA and MKI OR EF Typhoon with Saab Gripen which all lie in Gen 4.5 Category ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft#4.5th_generation_jet_fighters

#2. The Chinese have a differnet scale of Generation.

Our Generation 5 = Chinese Generation 4
Our Generation 4 = Chinese generation 3

So F22 is a Gen 5 Plane in west while it will be regarded as Gen 4 Plane in China.

China's fourth-generation fighters reported by media recently refer to a series of modified J-10 fighters, a Chinese Air Force official said November 23, 2009.

As to the classification of fighter generations, the world's military powers are varied. The U.S. defines F-15, F-16 fighters with the characteristics of transonic speed in medium-low altitude as third generation fighters and F-22, F-35 fighters with good performance in stealth, super sonic cruise and super maneuverability as fourth generation fighters.

Russia defines MiG-29, Su-27/30 fighters as third generation fighters and defines Su-35, the modified third generation fighters as fourth generation. The new generation of fighters with good performance in stealth, super sonic cruise and super maneuverability are defined as fifth generation.

The official said that China's fighters were independently created on the basis of introduction and imitation of Russian-made equipment and the fourth-generation fighters referred to the modified J-10 fighters.
 
.
Actually u should think over two facts :

#1. The Generation of The Fighter Planes is NOT really accurate. How do u compare an LCA and MKI OR EF Typhoon with Saab Gripen which all lie in Gen 4.5 Category ?

#2. The Chinese have a differnet scale of Generation.

Our Generation 5 = Chinese Generation 4
Our Generation 4 = Chinese generation 3

So F22 is a Gen 5 Plane in west while it will be regarded as Gen 4 Plane in China.

u got me wrong here...
i meant to say they claim their figher to be superior than they actually are...
so if they say their plane P is equivalent to a western/russian 4 gen, than it is actually equal to a western/russian 3rd gen in performance.....and so on....

meanwhile let them do whatever they want to do, Indian-Russian 5th gen is going to be a hot property for them to handle...:cheers:
 
Last edited:
.
The J10 comparable to F16, is definitely superior than LCA, and Most importantly it doesn't use any parts from out side, as in LCA 30% parts are from outside.

I beg to differ, There is no benchmark available that puts J10 at par with F-16.. And it can't be definitely said to be superior to LCA, for the very reason i have stated earlier, No benchmarks available for comparison.. Furthermore LCA has not been inducted yet (because our air force doesn't believe in induction with simultaneous development while J10 has been inducted while CAC is developing it further simultaneously, credit goes to the PLAAF)

And as far as indegenoues components go, even J10 is not 100% Chinese, their engines are Russian.. As a matter of fact, today no country can develop a 4th gen aircraft using 100% locally produced components..
 
.
I beg to differ, There is no benchmark available that puts J10 at par with F-16.. And it can't be definitely said to be superior to LCA, for the very reason i have stated earlier, No benchmarks available for comparison.. Furthermore LCA has not been inducted yet (because our air force doesn't believe in induction with simultaneous development while J10 has been inducted while CAC is developing it further simultaneously, credit goes to the PLAAF)

And as far as indegenoues components go, even J10 is not 100% Chinese, their engines are Russian.. As a matter of fact, today no country can develop a 4th gen aircraft using 100% locally produced components..

Well, no harm in differnet opinions mate.
But with an underpowered engine and lesser range it makes a Good Replacement for Mig 21s but still fells short of the Mirage 2000s.
The LCA's most vital factor is its Carbon Carbon composite Airframe which makes it stealthier as it has very reduced RCS.

LCA MK II however will be very superior to Current LCA.
It might have an AESA, EF or GE 414 Engines and More Endurance.

The MKII varient will be stuff definitely superior to current JF17 and comparable to F16 and J10 however its better .. or not that can be only decided once we have the real stuff in air.
 
.
I was waiting for your military comparison between India and China. it turn out to be a 1 sided affair. Just like a lot of Indian media talking about comparing between the 2 countries, its a one sided view.

I also you give too optomistic about the advancement of Indian weaponry. Especially strategic weapons. In my view, I do not believe that India would have an operational SLBM by 2020, especially the ICBM kind. Its a big jump from IRBM to ICBM and given India's progress, I would be surprise if Indian can test a land based ICBM by 2020, let alone deploy one. Finally, India has no need for ICBM.

Well I only spoke about India Achieving self reliance. A goal well In reach over the Next 10 years. And spoke of what is necessary to achieve it. I never said there was a Guarantee we would by 2020.

The Biggest hurdle i have acknowledged was the Army's Deplorable state.

As far as your comment on Agni. Please Look at the Facts.

According to one of the country's top defence scientists, Dr M Natrajan, DRDO scientists are working on an upgraded version of the Agni III known as the Agni-V (Earlier known as Agni-III* (Agni-III star) and Agni-IV). The missile will have a range of about 5000-6000 km and the first test flight is expected in 2010 end.

What makes 5000 km range Agni-5 missile deadlier: Rediff.com India News

I have Given DRDO 10 years from first testing to Induct India's fisrt MIRV'ed and canister Missile.
A whole decade to induct the Agni-5 is not the most Optimistic outlook is it.

I said Hoping the Big Leap works, India is in position to develop or test a fully fledged ICMB by 2020. (Agni-6 ?)

If you wish To argue the specifics of what i have said than i will participate.


Also to note Is that I have listed a number of Achievable goals that Need to reached In order for India to compete with China. by 2020

Not prophecy's that will come to pass. They could take longer.
 
Last edited:
.
China is ahead of India in the following technologies:

1 - Rifles and machine guns (aka Ansas)
2 - Tanks (aka Arjun)
3 - Jets (aka Tejas)
4 - Subs with engines (aka Arihant)
......

1.) Since you have a blup up Rifle(in service. I will give you that one. But we also have a Multi-caliber Blup-up rifle for the F-INSAS program.


2.) T-90 can Compete with T-99. Arjun can compete with T-90. They are on the Same level

3.)Tejas can Compete with the J-10 any day. Its more agile And has a smaller RCS. Whilst J-10 can Carry more and is faster.

4.) Point valid till Arhiant is Inducted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
MRCA DEAL
An interesting article from Defense Industry Daily enjoy
The Competitors: Analysis


AESA usage concept
Recent changes in India’s needs and the contest participants are changing the relative rankings of the contenders. Geopolitical considerations are also intruding, as most of these choices have the potential to improve relations with an important potential ally. Standardization arguments will also carry weight. As of January 2006, India’s Air Force operated 26 different aircraft types, and the IAF is not eager to add to its support headaches.

Rather than attempting to predict, DID will simply summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the listed competitors. These aircraft also group into two very different categories: single engine lightweight fighters in the $25-50 million flyaway cost range (F-16 Falcon, JAS-39 Gripen, MiG-35); and larger dual-engine mid-range fighters in the $65-120 million flyaway range (Eurofighter, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Rafale).

Note that Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radars have a number of benefits over conventional mechanically-scanned radars, including durability, maintenance, the ability to track both air and ground targets via continuous scans instead of rapid switching, and potential electronic attack uses. A narrower field of view with less sidelobe “leakage” is both an asset and a drawback, depending on the situation. All MMRCA contenders to date appear to be proposing AESA radars in their fighters.

Lightweight Fighters


F-16F “Desert Falcon”F-16 Fighting Falcon (Lockheed, USA). Presumably, Lockheed’s “Block 70” offering would be an upgraded version of the F-16E Block 60 “Desert Falcon” currently serving with the UAE. Strengths include the widest multi-role capability among lightweight fighters; its proven AN/APG-80 AESA radar; the addition of integrated IRST (Infa Red Search & Track) capability; the widest choice of proven avionics and weapon systems; a long record of proven service so all issues are known; and widespread compatibility with potential allies in Asia and the Middle East who also fly F-16s. The combination of an AESA radar on a less expensive platform is also good news for cruise missile defense efforts, if that’s considered a priority.

Even so, the Indian Air Force has never seemed very interested in the F-16. Weaknesses include the fact that Pakistan also flies F-16s; the fact it’s a new aircraft type, so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed; Lockheed Martin’s difficulty in complying with industrial offset provisions, given their lack of penetration in India. The MMRCA RFP’s delays may have helped Lockheed, by allowing them ample time to find arrangements with Indian firms. There are also reports that the US government is pushing this option, because of the regional reassurance factor. While an F-16 E/F Block 60+ would have a number of important advantages over Pakistan F-16 A/Bs and even its new Block 50/52 aircraft, the common underlying aircraft type would probably take some of the edge off of the deal from Pakistan’s point of view.


JAS-39s in South Africa
JAS-39 Gripen (Saab, Sweden; marketed by Britain’s BAE). The Gripen is a true 4th+ generation lightweight fighter and significantly more capable than category competitors like the F-16 and Mirage 2000, though the MiG-35 may give it a run for the money. Gripen NG begins to address the aircraft’s range limitations, and would include an AESA radar among its other enhancements. Other strengths include a wide choice of integrated weapons and pods; reasonable purchase cost; the fact that it has been designed for exceptional cost of ownership; and the ability operate from roads instead of runways if necessary. With respect to industrial offsets, Saab has made a strong offer, backed by excellent record in countries like South Africa, Hungary, The Czech Republic et. al.

As an interesting side note, the JAS-39NG’s use of GE’s F414G engine could create future commonality with the failed Kaveri engine’s successor. The Tejas LCA will use GE’s F404 engines until an Indian substitute is ready, and GE’s F414 is one of 2 engines under consideration as the basis for the Tejas Mk2’s power plant.

The JAS-39’s drawbacks include its short range; the fact it’s a new aircraft type for the IAF; its AESA radar’s developmental status; and a low volume of international orders to date that raises questions about the platform’s ability to modernize over the next 30-40 years. While ordering a Swedish fighter carries no geopolitical benefits, the platform does have a wid card in South Africa’s adoption, and Brazil’s potential adoption. These 3 countries are beginning to collaborate more closely in defense matters, and a common fighter platform could offer intriguing military and industrial benefits.


MiG-29OVT/-35
MiG-29OVT, aka. MiG-35 (Rosonboronexport, Russia). This modified MiG-29 includes improved radar and avionics that give it multi-role capability, extra fuel in a new aircraft “spine,” and thrust-vectoring engines a la India’s SU-30MKIs. Strengths include compatibility with the existing and future MiG-29 fleet, and its ability to carry advanced Russian missiles already in service like the revolutionary AA-11/R-73 Archer and longer range AA-12/R-77 “AMRAAMski.” The presence of MiG-29 infrastructure and a new plant for license-building RD-33 Series III engines in India also makes compliance with industrial offset requirements easier.

The MiG-29’s biggest weaknesses were short range, engines that produce telltale smoke (very bad in air combat) and lack of true multi-role capability; the MiG-35 largely fixes these issues, and may even add an AESA radar of its own if Phazotron-NIIR can have its new Zhuk-AE ready in time. Technology sharing and co-production are also considered to be strengths; as one Indian officer put it: “Russians have their problems of delayed projects and unreliable spare supply but they give access to everything, unlike the Americans.” He’s referring to the IAF’s not-so-great experience with India’s existing MiG-29s, which have had maintenance problems in addition to their other deficits.

Remaining weaknesses in the MiG-35 bid include the serious difficulties India has had with Russian firms over the refit of its new carrier, order for more Mi-17 helicopters, and order for 3 more Krivak-III class frigates. All have featured failure to deliver, and post-contract price renegotiation demands that have raised prices up to 200%. Reports that MiG-35 delivery cannot start before 2014 at the earliest add a further disadvantage, especially compared to competitors with active production lines and rapid delivery capability.

There has also been legitimate speculation about the future viability of the MiG-29 family platform, which has been eclipsed by the SU-30 family. Despite Yemen’s interest in buying more MiGs, Algeria’s canceled $1.8 billion order adds further risk to a platform whose current order book revolves around refurbishment programs. India has ordered a handful of MiG-29K variants as its future carrier aircraft. Nevertheless, doubling down to add the MiG-35 would make India the first customer for both variants – neither of which has other sale opportunities on the near horizon. That could be spun as a positive industrial opportunity, but it’s also a cost and risk issue.


Tejas LCA
Mirage 2000-5 (Dassault). Withdrawn. Industry analyst Richard Aboulafia points out that the history of global fighter purchases shows strong clustering at the lower-price end of the market; shutting down Mirage 2000 production will shut Dassault out of that niche. A Mirage 2000 entry would have had strengths that included compatibility with Mirage 2000s already in service, which performed very well in the 1999 Kargil skirmishes. An infrastructure already exists for industrial offsets, and its low end price could be raised along with its capabilities by adding equipment developed in the Rafale program.

The Mirage 2000’s potential performance similarity to the Tejas LCA project was both its weakness and its strength. One the one hand, that would have made it a good insurance policy if confidence in the Tejas fell. On the other hand, it may not have been seen as adding enough to the force mix if confidence in the Tejas program remained high. On Dassault’s end, the firm decided that it couldn’t keep that entire production line open without foreign orders for several years, while India decided on a potential buy. The aircraft was withdrawn before the official RFP was released, in favor of the larger and more expensive Rafale.

Tejas LCA (HAL et. al., India). A lightweight, indigenously-developed fighter aircraft expected to enter service around 2010. Currently in testing using GE’s F404 engine, while India’s accompanying Kaveri jet engine project stalled and was scrapped in favor of a potential new engine partnership. The Tejas is not an MRCA competitor – but its development plans, the confidence in its success, its ability to stay under $25 million, the potential for a naval variant, et. al. will have a behind-the-curtains influence on every MRCA decision. See “India: LCA Tejas by 2010, but Foreign Help Sought” for more.

Mid-Range Fighters


Indra Dhanush 2007:
SU-30MKI, Typhoon, F3
Eurofighter Typhoon (EADS/BAE, Europe & Britain). A fourth generation aircraft currently optimized for the air-air role through its performance characteristics and what is by all accounts an excellent pilot interface. One surprise plus for Eurofighter could be its Eurojet EJ200 engines, which are being considered as the base powerplant for India’s LCA Tejas Mk2.

Typhoon fighters reportedly have “supercruise” capability beyond Mach 1 without using afterburners, though some analysts have cast doubt on how sustainable that is once weapons are attached. Some observers believe that aside from the F-22A Raptor, the Eurofighter is the next-best in-service air superiority aircraft world-wide, though the 2007 Indra Dhanush exercise that matched it up against India’s SU-30MKI makes a case for the MKI. Tranche 2 upgrades are giving this plane full multi-role capabilities, and India’s delay has given those developments more time to mature.

With respect to industrial offsets, BAE already has an order from India for 66 BAE Hawk trainers, 42 of which are being built in India. That order has run into trouble, however, which could hurt the Typhoon’s chances. Given EADS’ key role in the Eurofighter consortium, Airbus might also be able to contribute on this front.

Weaknesses include the aircraft’s $100+ million expense, which may stretch India’s budget to the breaking point; the fact it’s a new aircraft type for the IAF so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed; its lack of naval capability; the developmental status of its CAESAR (Captor AESA Radar) technology; and the non-existent geopolitical benefits of selecting it. Given the Eurofighter’s performance and costs, simply buying more SU-30MKIs would appear to make far more sense.


F/A-18E, Parked
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet (Boeing, USA). Highly upgraded version of the F/A-18 A-D Hornet, enlarged and given new engines and avionics. Commonality between the Hornet and Super Hornet is only about 25%. Strengths include its powerful AN/APG-79 AESA radar, which has drawn significant interest from India. This radar could allow Super Hornets to play a unique role in India’s fighter fleet as versatile “quarterbacks” (or better yet, “cricket captains”) due to their radar’s performance and information sharing abilities. Other advantages include carrier capability, a very wide range of integrated weapons, a design that is proven in service and in combat, F414 engines that may also serve as the base for LCA Tejas Mk2; and complete assurance in its future upgrade spiral, given the US Navy’s commitment to it.

The existence of a dedicated electronic warfare variant as of 2009 in the EA-18G Growler may also be a potent motivator, as the growth of sophisticated air defense systems will place a growing premium on this unique capability. Last but certainly not least, this choice offers an opportunity to create an early “win” which would strengthen India’s new alliance with the USA and prove its new status in the world. After all, when clearance for the aircraft was given, no other nation had even been offered the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.

Since then, of course, close American ally Australia has bought 24 F/A-18F Block IIs in a controversial A$ 6 billion purchase, and even taken steps to modify 12 aircraft toward EA-18G Growler status. Australia’s deployment of Super Hornets gives the platform an additional selling point in the “allied commonality” department, and Boeing’s planned $1.5 billion investment in India’s aerospace market may help deal with defense industrial offset issues. The Super Hornet’s Boeing connection adds many industrial options in the civil aircraft market as well.

Weaknesses of the Super Hornet platform include deep distrust of America’s reliability as an arms supplier, technology transfer concerns, and the aircraft’s expense. Given the costs to other customers so far, it seems unlikely that Boeing can deliver 126 fully-equipped F/A-18 E/F Block II aircraft for just $10.2 billion, let alone aircraft plus lifetime support. The Super Hornet also offers poorer aerodynamic performance than the Eurofighter or Rafale, due to inherent airframe limitations. Finally, it’s a new aircraft type for the IAF, so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed from the ground up.


Rafale w. Scalp
Rafale (Dassault, France). Advantages include demonstrated carrier capability in the Rafale-M, which could be a very big factor if the RFP includes that as a requirement. If so, it offers superior aerodynamic performance vs. the F/A-18 family, has exceptional ordnance capacity for its size, and can have its range extended via conformal fuel tanks. The Rafale claims “supercruise” capability, but observers are skeptical, and it has been challenging to demonstrate this with the Snecma R88-2 engine. The Rafale also offers some equipment, maintenance and spares commonalities with existing Mirage 2000 fleet, which would probably increase if India’s Mirage 2000s are modernized in future. At the moment, however, that’s a big “if”. France’s general reliability as a weapons supplier, good history of product support, and long-standing relations with India, offers additional plusses.

Weaknesses include the continuing absence of a compatible surveillance and advanced targeting pod, the need for additional funds and work to integrate many non-French weapons if one wishes to use them on the Rafale, and its lack of an AESA radar until Thales finishes developing the RBE2-AA. The Rafale’s failure to win any export competitions is also an issue – one that reaches beyond mere perception of “also-ran” status. As DID noted in an update to “Singapore’s RSAF Decides to Fly Like An Eagle,” export failures are already forcing cuts in future Rafale procurement, in order to pay for modernization. That dynamic is likely to get worse over the next 30 years.

Initial reports indicated that the Rafale did not meet India’s technical evaluation criteria, because critical information was not included. Dassault persisted, and their fighter is now back in the race.


F-35B JSF Cutaway

F-35 Joint Stike Fighter (Lockheed-led, multinational). In February 2006, India’s Chief Air Marshal recently specificaly noted that the JSF was not in their plans for this buy, a likelihood that DID’s analysis had noted earlier due to probable lack of availability before 2015. The August 2007 MRCA RFP confirmed this.

If it were flying today, the F-35B STOVL variant would probably be by far the best fit for India’s requirements. The planes would be carrier-capable from all of India’s naval air platforms, including smaller carriers the size of INS Viraat (ex-Hermes) or LHD amphibious assault ships, and could use roads and short field runways on land for maximum operational flexibility. F-35 JSFs would sport ultra-advanced systems that include the AN/APG-81 AESA radar, and incredibly advanced sensor systems and electronics that would make it India’s most capable reconnaissance asset and even a potential electronic warfare aircraft. Other strengths would include greater stealth than any other competitor, which is critical for both air-air dogfights and strikes on defended targets. The Super Hornet may be able to fill the role of an aerial cricket captain, but the JSF is more like Sachin Tendulkar.

India has been invited to F-35 events. With potential US order numbers dropping, India might even be accepted into the program if they pushed for it. The F-35’s killer weakness was timing. Its advanced systems, established industrial partnership structure and program procurement policies could also make it nearly impossible to meet India’s industrial offset rules

:cheers:
 
.
T-90 can Compete with T-99. Arjun can compete with T-90. They are on the Same level
Thats bad. The T-90 is a different catagory for a tank. so is the T-99. The difference between the two tanks being that the T-99 can add armor and is not weilded. Probabily to transport the tank and additional armor later on. They weren't designed to be expensive or last long. The T-99 with armor weighs in at 55 tons around there. Thats heavy for a tank that is designed after a T-72. If you have keen eye you can spot the changes and still see a T-72 behind the added armor but it has a extended chasis. Most likily for the larger 1500 HP engine. Both designs are the same on the inside and probiliy have the same defects, like crew space. The cost of these tanks is around 1-3 million a peice.
The cost of a Arjun is 4-6 million even if it was all indian. The extra armour, and too many bells and wissiles is probabily the reason for the costs. But they had to build survilibility and situational awarness into because even empty its expensive, training the crew aswell which it can atleast do. It was mean't to inexpensive when it comes to operating it. It weighs in at 59-62 tons apperantly. Its different, it was designed orginally to challenge the M1A1, but that never happened and the IA sees no point in this when they need a dimenionally a smaller tank for its transports. None the less the experience gained in not a lose. To think DRDO with help built a modern heavy tank is remarkable.
 
. .
Well I only spoke about India Achieving self reliance. A goal well In reach over the Next 10 years. And spoke of what is necessary to achieve it. I never said there was a Guarantee we would by 2020.

The Biggest hurdle i have acknowledged was the Army's Deplorable state.

As far as your comment on Agni. Please Look at the Facts.



What makes 5000 km range Agni-5 missile deadlier: Rediff.com India News

I have Given DRDO 10 years from first testing to Induct India's fisrt MIRV'ed and canister Missile.
A whole decade to induct the Agni-5 is not the most Optimistic outlook is it.

I said Hoping the Big Leap works, India is in position to develop or test a fully fledged ICMB by 2020. (Agni-6 ?)

If you wish To argue the specifics of what i have said than i will participate.


Also to note Is that I have listed a number of Achievable goals that Need to reached In order for India to compete with China. by 2020

Not prophecy's that will come to pass. They could take longer.

Given that India totally lacks any manufacturing infrastructure, no wonder Agni II, which was tested in 2001, is still not operational. But maybe after a few years, those guys would iron out the problem and the army and the researcher can move on to make Agni III reliable in a consistent fashion.

As, isn't Agni V an ICBM. It think its a short range ICBM but tis still an ICBM. Maybe that is what India would have it declare to be tested by 2020.
 
.
Given that India totally lacks any manufacturing infrastructure, no wonder Agni II, which was tested in 2001, is still not operational. But maybe after a few years, those guys would iron out the problem and the army and the researcher can move on to make Agni III reliable in a consistent fashion.

As, isn't Agni V an ICBM. It think its a short range ICBM but tis still an ICBM. Maybe that is what India would have it declare to be tested by 2020.

India's manufacturing base isn't nearly as big as China's, but that doesn't mean it is non-existent. Also the Agni-II has already been inducted by the armed forces.

India doesn't need a full blown ICBM at the moment, we need a credible delivery system that can hit any place in China from the Indian hinterland. While the Agni-III is already capable of doing so the focus now is on producing a missile with an even greater payload, range and MIRV capability.
 
.
Up to the task? India's response to shifting security patterns

India faces important economic and strategic choices over the next decade, especially in terms of its diplomatic relations and defence industry. While there are limited signs that India has made positive steps to improve regional relations, urgent reform is needed at the national level to ensure its security.

The 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks have forced the Indian government to urgently re-evaluate its national security policy. While the challenges posed by regional rivals such as China and Pakistan remain high on New Delhi's list of priorities, the threat posed by non-state actors and domestic terrorist activity has begun to increase.

Consequently, the architecture of defence spending and investment is changing to meet this new threat. This follows wider reforms in all aspects of the economy taken over the last decade, which have invigorated bilateral trade routes with major international powers such as the United States and Russia. The question is whether the changes implemented by the Indian government since the Mumbai attacks are sufficient to effectively deal with the range of domestic, regional and international threats - and responsibilities - that the world's largest democracy currently faces.

Domestic Terror Threat

While India has faced a number of internal security challenges from illegal armed groups and political movements since securing Independence in 1947, the threat of domestic terrorism is becoming more acute.

According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, 765 people were killed in terrorist attacks committed by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) during the first three quarters of 2009. In particular, the number of Maoist-related security incidents has spiked in recent months, including several high-profile attacks on railway tracks, as well as one attack on a Bihari village on the 2 October which resulted in sixteen deaths. In response the government has launched a large-scale offensive in western provinces, granting the Indian Air Force greater autonomy to strike "Maoist-affected areas". It has also launched a $1.65bn development package to rebuild local infrastructure in Maoist strongholds such as West Bengal and Orissa.

The threat posed by Islamic extremism is equally pernicious. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency is frequently accused of spreading Islamic fundamentalism in the Indian mainland. For example, the Director-General of Police in Punjab accused ISI of sponsoring Islamic extremist groups in the region in October, much to the embarrassment of Islamabad.

New Delhi remains concerned about the porous nature of the Nepali and Bangladeshi borders and their use by extremist groups. For example, the government has become increasingly concerned by extremist activity instigated by ISI the in s madrassahs across the southern Tarai plains of Nepal. Furthermore, despite the election of a civilian government in Bangladesh in 2008, the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) and insurgents operating in Magaland have crossed the border to take refuge there.

However, Pakistani state patronage and poor governance along the northern border have facilitated rather than caused the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world, which in certain pockets of the country is vulnerable to Islamic extremist preaching.

Once radicalised, some Indian groups have adopted the Al-Qa'ida 'franchise' to promulgate their fundamentalist philosophy, rather than having direct regular contact with extremist leaderships in Pakistan. This has led to the inflated notion among Indian security policy-makers that Osama bin Laden's network is prevalent throughout India. Nevertheless, the well-coordinated Delhi bombing campaign on 13 September 2008 revealed the capacity of domestic Islamic groups to execute sophisticated terror attacks.

Regional Relations

India's most problematic relationship is with China, and concerns a number of long-standing border disputes in the north-eastern state of Arunchal Pradesh and the north-western frontier near Ladakh. These disputes have lasted for decades but resurfaced over the last six months in light of numerous alleged Chinese helicopter incursions into Indian territory. This prompted India to bolster its defence capabilities along the entire border. The Nyoma airstrip near Ladakh, completed in early October 2009, is the third advanced landing area to be built in the North West following the revival of two more in Daulat Beg Oldi and Fukche.

Tensions have also mounted in Arunchal Pradesh. The Chinese have made persistent attempts to block a $2.9bn loan from the Asian Development Bank to India because $60m was allocated to flood-control projects in the disputed region. In an act of defiance by New Delhi, Manmohan Singh visited the Tawang area on 7 October, much to the anger of Chinese officials. Although China is unlikely to try to annex Arunchal Pradesh through force, military skirmishes with the Indian Armed Forces are highly plausible unless the two sides urgently restore peaceful dialogue.

Indo-Pakistan relations have been relatively quiet in recent months. However, the enduring conflict in Kashmir and the growing threat of Islamic extremism remain sources of antagonism which have the capacity to produce frequent diplomatic and military spats.

The Border Security Force in Indian-controlled Kashmir twice came under attack from the opposing side of the international border during the last two weeks of September 2009, prompting suggestions from Indian Intelligence that Pakistan is pushing militants into Jammu and Kashmir. India has also continued to apply pressure on Islamabad to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice and has pushed for an open trial of Ujjwal Nikam, who was allegedly involved in '26/11'.

However, Islamabad is unlikely to release dossiers on the Mumbai attacks, especially when it is preoccupied with an urgent domestic threat after the terrorist atrocities in Peshawar and Rawalpindi in early October. As Indo-Pakistan relations remain caught in an uneasy stand-off, a quick resumption of the Composite Dialogue is doubtful.

The United States and India

The Indo-US relationship developed rapidly during the Bush Administration, capped by a nuclear deal in June 2008 which provided India with civil nuclear technology, reactors and fuel. The deal gives the US exclusive access to Indian civil nuclear energy trade and significant leverage over Indian foreign policy. This has proven especially important for blocking Indian trade routes with states ambivalent or hostile to the US, such as Iran, and also for influencing India's role in Afghanistan.

The McChrystal Report, while lauding Indian development activities, warned that greater Indian involvement in Afghanistan could jeopardise its key relationship with Pakistan in rooting out the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida. However, the US will have to offer India more than access to nuclear civil and military technology if it is prevent New Delhi from trading with Iran and checking involvement in Afghanistan.

A three-week joint army exercise in Uttar Pradesh, which has focused on counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations in semi-urban environments, is the largest exercise of its kind between the US and India and signals the additional support Washington will need in order to sustain its leverage over New Delhi.

Changing Times in the Defence Industry

The Indian defence and aerospace landscape is changing rapidly. For the fiscal year 2009-2010, the government has pledged to increase defence spending by 34 per cent. An augmented military budget and weak global financial climate has made India a highly lucrative market for foreign investment.

The United Kingdom, for example, has expressed its desire to create new trade links with India's aerospace industry. On the 21 September 2009, UK Trade, Investment and Business Minister Lord Mervyn Davies undertook a four-day visit to India to investigate new trade possibilities. UK Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth is also due to visit India next year. Such deals will facilitate the expansion of Indian defence systems by $40bn over the next fifteen years.

Renewed economic ties between India and Russia are a further indication of growing bilateral trade deals in the defence market. A trade forum held on 29 September 2009 brought together finance ministers, business leaders and security analysts from India and Russia, stating their ambition to boost bilateral trade to $15bn over the next three years. By 2015, the two sides also pledged to develop a new hypersonic cruise missile BrahMos with a range of 290km. Problems with this relationship could surface over the coming weeks, primarily because of a brewing row over the quality of technology used in another joint project to produce a medium-haul military transport aircraft. Nevertheless, such Indo-Russian projects follow an increasing trend of joint ventures in all aspects of the Indian economy.

In addition to financial stimulus, the locus of defence investment has shifted in accordance with the changing security threat. Given that the Mumbai attackers entered the city via the sea, the Indian Defence Ministry announced significant changes to sea-border security in March 2009. This includes assigning the Navy as the chief coordinator of coastline operations. Moreover, on 26 July 2009 India launched its first domestically built nuclear-powered submarine 'Arihant' to patrol its shores to counter the threat of non-state terrorist activity and the rising naval capacities of the Chinese armed forces.


Implications for the Future

India has made significant strides in its security and defence industry and has bolstered its regional presence. Through opening its markets and encouraging foreign investment it has created a successful model that has triggered the growth of indigenously built aerospace technology.

Analysts predict that economic growth will jump to 7.5 per cent in the fiscal year 2010-11 as India continues to diversify its trade basket. In spite of its notable progress, however, the sophistication of India's arsenal lags behind regional rivals and other leading international powers. India lacks the number of production facilities and sufficient trained labour found in other countries as economic reforms have been relatively recent. Furthermore, the rapid liberalisation of the Indian market means its defence industry faces stiff competition from domestic and foreign firms in rival industries in order to attract top Indian talent. It will take time for India to consistently secure the biggest global defence contracts.

India faces important economic and strategic choices over the next decade, especially in terms of its political relationships and defence industry. However, while it has implemented progressive economic reform, there are few signs that India has strengthened the bilateral relations with regional allies that are needed to improve border security and counter the threat of domestic terrorism.

The Indian Intelligence services, bereft of information networks and strategic vision, are particularly fallible in this respect, remaining reactive rather than proactive in their policing. Counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist strategies lack the required technical expertise to respond to broad range of threats which face India today. Although development packages in the west were welcome, greater efforts must be focused on political and economic engagement with affected provinces.

Without reforming this aspect of national security policy, dislocated regions of the country will remain vulnerable to terrorist networks and the threat of extremism will continue to grow.
 
.
f45ecfc0a4f6aa305219eeada39ab767.jpg


Dhruvs Airborne Again Hal team in Ecuador parties :cheers:


It's Official: Ecuadorian Dhruv Crash By Pilot Error

It's what even the Ecuadorian air chief said on the day of the crash. And as reported consistently here on LiveFist, it was indeed cyclic saturation caused by a hard left by the pilots that caused the Dhruv to rapidly lose altitude, tip over and go down. Sources say that the conclusion was drawn as much from the analysis in the US of the FDR/CVR as from the direct testimony of the pilots of the crashed chopper and the one flying directly behind them. More details soon. For now, the HAL folks in Quito can breathe just that little bit easier. But only just.
 
.
'Dhruvs Best In Their Class, No Question Of Returning Them' - Ecuador's Defence Minister

While providing testimony to an Assembly Committee on International Affairs analysing the Dhruv helicopter crash of October 27, Ecuador's Defence Minister Javier Ponce yesterday called the Dhruv the best choice for the country's air force, and ruled out returning the remaining helicopters to India as a consequence of the accident.

"There is no reason to return the machines. There was a very clear decision that this was the best choice and the best offer. The helicopters will be back to full operational status after Accident Investigation Board delivers its report on November 26," he said.


Salute to Indian Engineering :cheers:
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom