What's new

India wants fighter jets – but without American baggage

angeldemon_007

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
5,298
Reaction score
0
As Boeing vies for a contract to build 126 new fighter jets for India, an estimated 35,000 new US jobs are at stake. But America’s foreign policy may tilt India toward European firms instead.
0225-India-wants-fighter-jets_full_380.jpg


Bangalore, India
An Indian Air Force pilot dressed in a flight suit and sunglasses struts up to an F/A-18 flight simulator and a Boeing salesman engages.

“Your call sign must be Maverick,” says the Boeing agent, referencing "Top Gun," an ‘80s film probably older than this Indian jet jockey. “You look like Tom Cruise."

After a curt “no,” the Indian pilot asks to test out the machine. He lauds the F/A-18's maneuverability and touch-screen cockpit display. It's a far cry from what he currently flies: A Soviet MiG-21 that was outdated even in Maverick’s day. India is looking to buy 126 new fighter jets and Boeing is dogfighting against five international firms to land the deal this year.

Despite some of the sales tactics on display at the recent Aero India 2011 show in Bangalore, there’s more to selling fighter jets than moving Chevys. Giving "test-drives" and offering value for money is important, but so are international politics. And on that score, US firms have hurdles that European competitors do not.

Much is at stake for the American economy, including a $10 billion-plus sale and an estimated 35,000 new US jobs. Trips by presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush to India have increased US chances of bringing home that bacon. But America’s not-so-humble foreign policies over the years may prove costly in an era of strong European competition in the defense industry.

“The quality of European airplanes today – for that matter the Russians, too – has now reached a point where countries like India really do have choices,” says Ashley Tellis, author of a study on the jet fighter tender for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “In that sense, [US] political choices are more constrained than they were before.”

India's 'trust deficit' toward America

Retired Indian generals and industry analysts say Indian officials have two reservations about buying American.

First, New Delhi worries about relying on US parts given the sanctions Washington imposed in 1998 when India went nuclear. In case of a war with archrival Pakistan – a US strategic ally – would Washington curtail military trade again?

Second, US law requires defense agreements to be signed by any country purchasing certain high-tech military equipment. The US failed during Obama’s visit last year to get Indian sign-off on two such agreements: the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), and the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMoA).

According to Mr. Tellis, the CISMoA would keep India from transferring sensitive US encryption technology to another country. The BECA, meanwhile, has been misunderstood as a deal that would plot Indian military units on a global grid visible to the US and its partners.

“The fact of the matter is that this is not true,” says Tellis, who has served on the US National Security Council.

He and other analysts doubt the defense agreements will be central to Delhi’s decision on the fighters. But the suspicion about the agreements speaks to the lingering distrust of the US.

An Indian defense industry consultant who works with international firms and the Indian military says the Indians will only buy American for systems where there is no good competitor. The trust deficit, he says, comes not just from the 1998 sanctions, but US treatment of other friends.

Do European firms have less baggage?

It’s a point other nations bring up.

Ravit Rudoy, marketing communications manager for Israeli firm Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., argues the US will be careful to ensure a military balance between India and Pakistan, while that concern is not shared by the one Russian and three European firms also vying for the fighter jet deal.

Tellis sees Europeans as more willing to provide equipment with no questions asked because their firms need foreign sales more to stay afloat. “The European market is so small, so they cannot afford to make their commercial products playthings of geopolitics.”

Representatives of Boeing and Lockheed Martin say international politics are not a hurdle for US firms here. Rick McCrary, Boeing’s lead on the jet fighter bid, points to the “ongoing, improving relationship” between Washington and New Delhi that has now spanned three administrations, both Republican and Democratic.

Obama builds goodwill toward US firms

Much has changed since 1998, including the signing of a nuclear deal under Mr. Bush and the lifting of export restrictions on Mr. Obama’s recent visit, he adds.

Ramesh Phadke, a retired Indian Air Force officer, agrees that Indian suspicions about the US have diminished in recent years, signaled by some purchases of equipment.

“America maintaining a special relationship with Pakistan has always been a major factor in all decisions India has made with Americans, but it’s also been accepted up to a point,” says Air Commodore Phadke. “That does not mean that India likes it.”

Privately, one US executive who is not authorized to speak argues the defense agreements are a “barrier” for the American bids.

“The playing field isn’t level” with the Europeans, says the executive. “We’re perceived by the Indians as being heavy handed. If you actually read the language of the agreements they are not as intrusive as the Indians are making them out to be…. [But] they want a relationship on an equal footing.”

Obama has played to that desire by endorsing India’s bid for a permanent UN Security Council seat. And Tellis says the administration will continue to be accommodating if a US firm is a chosen as a finalist.

“I think the Obama administration will really do its utmost to make sure that whatever concerns India has both on a political and technical level are assuaged, because the US at this point for economic reasons really wants to see this deal.”

India wants fighter jets
 
Well written facts. US will never change, we should go for European fighters. EFT is the best, but will not mind if they go for Rafale.


I am 200% sure US will stop crucial supply chain in time of war if there anything against US's interests. One thing India doing good is buying large number of spare parts.
 
US has lot of reasons to change situational policies, deploy or remove doesn't seek particular agreements, it may happen over interests polarity. I think US just spreading butter on slices, obviously India ever preferred his traditional allay in military needs but with change of time requirements changed enough but still US has to work hard to get something match to his desires.
 
US has lot of reasons to change situational policies, deploy or remove doesn't seek particular agreements, it may happen over interests polarity. I think US just spreading butter on slices, obviously India ever preferred his traditional allay in military needs but with change of time requirements changed enough but still US has to work hard to get something match to his desires.

Agreed that US have most of the best weapons but two things....

1) They will not share their best weapons like all other countries Russia, France etc.
2) So many end user agreements.
 
Well written facts. US will never change, we should go for European fighters. EFT is the best, but will not mind if they go for Rafale.


I am 200% sure US will stop crucial supply chain in time of war if there anything against US's interests. One thing India doing good is buying large number of spare parts.

same is my choice..TYPHOON or else rafale.

american jets may be mature or better for now but in ten more years others will overtake them..they are the young guns.

we are buying fighters for 40+ years not for the immediate ten years.

we can use our own weapons also in those fighters.
 
the logic used in this article and posted by some defies,well, ' logic'. It is pretty obvious what is most concerning for the US on the global arena - 'China'

and it sees India as an integral part in helping to check mate China. so tell me again, why would they stop / sanction India on Pakistan , when India is needed for their' surround" China policy? I'm not saying Indian concerns are without merit. But I'm saying look at what their larger strategic interest are...

Go F 18E/F !:usflag:
 
Agreed that US have most of the best weapons but two things....

1) They will not share their best weapons like all other countries Russia, France etc.
2) So many end user agreements.

Even the best Russian or European hardware are inferior to anything US has to offer. Also, if India feel that it might be sanction by the US, than it should adjust its foreign policy so it wouldn't not be sanctioned. Why would US sanction India if India is not doing something wrong?
 
Also, if India feel that it might be sanction by the US, than it should adjust its foreign policy so it wouldn't not be sanctioned. Why would US sanction India if India is not doing something wrong?
So your definition of doing right means do what US likes ??/ Look buddy I am pro-US but still US got to change its policy towards India. In the present case, US is not getting anywhere. By the way, we are the biggest Democracy, you think changing our foreign policy will be so easy.

Dude government will fall down,if we follow your ways. Not voting for Iran in a couple of meetings is a different thing. But attacking an innocent country just because US thinks its right to do, sorry to say this buddy, but whatever US gives to India, India won't join them in their misadventure.
 
the logic used in this article and posted by some defies,well, ' logic'. It is pretty obvious what is most concerning for the US on the global arena - 'China'

and it sees India as an integral part in helping to check mate China. so tell me again, why would they stop / sanction India on Pakistan , when India is needed for their' surround" China policy? I'm not saying Indian concerns are without merit. But I'm saying look at what their larger strategic interest are...

Go F 18E/F !:usflag:

policy can change any time..from any side..we can't risk our political and operational freedom.we have deals on table with better flexibility and know how sharing then why should we go for america?
 
one can go see the the best American war machinery lying in patton nagar known as the graveyard of patton tanks.And by the india has nice trustworthy relations with russians an french.India is war machinery for fighting war not for some display.If anything lesson india can draw from usa-pak relationship is that never trust usa.
 
Even the best Russian or European hardware are inferior to anything US has to offer. Also, if India feel that it might be sanction by the US, than it should adjust its foreign policy so it wouldn't not be sanctioned. Why would US sanction India if India is not doing something wrong?

that's the thing we don't want..adjust our foreign policy for ever to stay in america's good book.we have independent foreign policy.
 
policy can change any time..from any side..we can't risk our political and operational freedom.we have deals on table with better flexibility and know how sharing then why should we go for america?

it is not going to change before those aircrafts become obsolete. you dont need spend twice more to get some perceived flexability..on a 4th gen aircraft. This India is not 1998 India.
 
Even the best Russian or European hardware are inferior to anything US has to offer. Also, if India feel that it might be sanction by the US, than it should adjust its foreign policy so it wouldn't not be sanctioned.
India's changing its policy? Not possible in a light year!!! If US wants business they need to change the way, the ball is in their court. Blockades in between India and US relations coming from US not India. According to latest report as India didn't sign CISMOA, US MRCA contenders lack key communication equipments, thats not the way. US changed its law for nuclear deal with India, so again its up to US, ts the way around.

Without CISMOA, U.S. M-MRCA Contenders Come Minus Kit

Without a communications interoperability and security memorandum of agreement (CISMOA) or information security (INFOSEC) agreement between India and the United States, the Boeing F/A-18I Super Hornet and Lockheed-Martin F-16IN Super Viper -- both contenders in the IAF's $12-billion M-MRCA aircraft competition -- won't come with certain pieces of equipment that are categorized under the highly restricted US C4ISR list. While a specific list of the withheld equipment is not yet available, my sources sent me this list:

* IFF transponder equipment (Mode IV IFF CRYPTO)
* "KY" radios
* GPS/PPS
* Data links
* Sensor source codes for all AN/APG

According to the same sources, US rules dictate that exceptions can be made on a case by case basis, and that India doesn't need to sign the CISMOA if it is granted a waiver by the US government. However, that may not be the case any more. To quote from a 16 March 2006 policy memorandum authored by USAF Lt Gen (Retd) Jeffrey B. Kohler, then head of the Pentagon's foreign military sales agency (and since 2008, ahem, VP at Boeing IDS for international strategy):

Transfers of U.S. C4ISR systems to eligible countries and international organizations must support a U.S. Combatant Commander’s (COCOM) interoperability requirements. The COCOM must require the transfer of the capability. A purchaser’s desire to be interoperable with the United States is insufficient justification for release. Additionally, the purchaser must negotiate and sign a Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) or other bilateral INFOSEC agreement (e.g., COMSEC MOU, INFOSEC Equipment Agreement) with the COCOM, prior to physically receiving any U.S. INFOSEC products or services associated with a secure C4ISR system. The COCOM and the purchaser’s authorized official sign the bilateral CISMOA unless covered under a multilateral treaty and/or separate bilateral agreements, which negates the requirement to sign a CISMOA. The COCOM may negotiate exceptions to a CISMOA on a case-by-case basis. A purchaser should be approved for access to classified C4ISR data and INFOSEC prior to submitting a C4ISR Letter of Request (LOR).

Interestingly, a year later on 23 March 2007, Kohler rescinded the earlier policy. In the new one, among a lot else, the line noting the possibility of exceptions to CISMOA on a case-by-case basis was summarily expunged. No exceptions.

When I asked the Indian Air Force chief last in October last year about his concerns with the CISMOA overhang and what it would strip from American aircraft being delivered to his force, he had said it would make no substantial difference. Someone needs to ask him specifically about the M-MRCA.

Livefist: Without CISMOA, U.S. M-MRCA Contenders Come Minus Kit


Why would US sanction India if India is not doing something wrong?
There is nothing called 'wrong'. India will do whatever in its interest and it may not always align with US's.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom