What's new

Working on giving India access to Defence technology: US

Yeti

BANNED
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
7,400
Reaction score
-7
Country
India
Location
Thailand
The United States is working on giving India the same status as some of its ‘very closest allies’ in the area of techonology and export controls by getting the bureaucratic hurdles out of the way, says a top Pentagon official.

As part of its efforts to take the India-US Defence relationship to the next level and help New Delhi raise the indignation of its of its Defence systems, the Pentagon has initiated several India-specific steps, details of which have not been revealed so far.

Deputy Secretary of Defence Ashton B Carter will be in India with a number of co-production and co-development projects to New Delhi to see whether India would be interested in them and could further be discussed when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meets President Barack Obama on September 27.

“So what we’re doing is in the technology and export controls area, working so that India has the same status as our very closest allies and that our system is operating on a time scale that’s consistent with the needs for the Indian side to make decisions,” Deputy Secretary of Defence Ashton B Carter told news reporters.

Carter, who leads the US side for the Defence Technology Initiative, will have discussions with officials in India on the DTI. National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon leads the Indian side.

Asserting that the US and India are destined to be partners in the world stage even though their interests do not coincide always, Carter said the Obama Administration is keen to take the India-US defence relationship to the next level and help New Delhi increase indignation of its defence system.

US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who arrives in India on a two-day visit on Monday, has masterminded a proposal that could dramatically boost US-India defence relations. The US department of defense (Pentagon) has written to India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD), proposing the two countries collaborate in jointly developing a next-generation version of the Javelin anti-tank missile.

India has been offered a specific share of the development programme and requested to respond by a specific date. If India chooses not to participate, the Pentagon would go ahead with the programme on its own.

Last year, Carter had proposed US companies join hands with Indian partners in setting up manufacturing facilities for five major systems in India. These include the MH-60 Romeo multi-role helicopter, built by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin; a delivery system for scatterable mines; and the M-45 127-mm rapid-fire naval gun. Later, the US proposed co-producing the Javelin missile, built by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

New Delhi has not yet responded to the proposal. Now, Carter has raised the ante with his proposal for co-developing the next-generation Javelin.

India has a successful co-development project with Russia for the BrahMos cruise missile, and with Israel for the long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) and medium-range surface-to-air missile (MR-SAM). But with the US, India has only bought equipment over the counter. American equipment has not even been manufactured in India with technology transfer, far less co-developed.

Speaking anonymously, US officials confirmed the co-development proposal would be on Carter’s discussion agenda during his meetings in New Delhi on Tuesday. Carter would meet a host of Indian officials, including National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon.

Senior MoD sources told Business Standard the US co-development proposal for the next-generation Javelin had been received and was being evaluated.

A senior DRDO source confirmed the US offer. “DRDO welcomes co-development of advanced weapon systems, provided there is real technological collaboration involved. India needs to fill its technology gaps and co-development should ensure both partners build upon their mutual strengths,” he said.

Carter’s proposal is part of a 15-month-old American push to intensify its defence relationship with India. Earlier, in response to New Delhi’s interest in the Javelin, the US state department had said fulfilling India’s requirement would “alter the regional military balance”. Worse, Washington refused to transfer key technologies New Delhi insisted upon as a part of the deal.

That approach changed dramatically since June 2012, when then US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta nominated Carter to break down the bureaucratic barriers in Washington that impeded the US-India defence relationship, which Washington had determined was pivotal to America’s future in Asia. A formal mechanism called the DTI — tellingly, the US called it the defence trade initiative, while India referred to it as defence technology initiative — was set up. Carter co-chairs the initiative, along with Shivshankar Menon.

A close watcher of the Pentagon says Carter has pushed the US bureaucracy hard to change its approach towards India. Earlier, US officials regarded India as just another non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) country, one with which America did not even have a formal alliance and which was unwilling to sign cooperative agreements with the US. “Before Carter got to work, releasing technology to India required a comprehensive justification to be made out. By April 2013, Pentagon officials needed to justify why a particular technology could not be released to India,” said the Pentagon watcher.

Now, the Javelin is a focus area for Carter. At one stage, MoD was close to buying a rival missile, the Israeli Spike, for its $1-1.5-billion tender for 8,400 missiles and 321 launcher units for the army’s 350-plus infantry units. But the MoD, wary of a single-vendor buy, ordered a “technology scan” to ascertain whether there was no missile in the market other than the Spike.

The FGM-148 Javelin, jointly built by US companies Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, is the world’s premier man-portable, anti-tank missile. It gives infantrymen, highly vulnerable to enemy tanks on the battlefield, a weapon with which to destroy heavy armoured vehicles from a distance of 2.5 km.

But the Israeli Spike, while not nearly as capable, is likely to be a good deal cheaper. If the MoD chooses price over capability, the Spike is likely to emerge the winner. “But if the MoD agrees to Washington’s co-development proposal, the Javelin would become the clear frontrunner for the $1-1.5-billion Indian contract. That is now a realistic prospect,” says a member of the US defence industry.



[US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who arrives in India on a two-day visit on Monday, has masterminded a proposal that could dramatically boost US-India defence relations. The US department of defense (Pentagon) has written to India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD), proposing the two countries collaborate in jointly developing a next-generation version of the Javelin anti-tank missile.

India has been offered a specific share of the development programme and requested to respond by a specific date. If India chooses not to participate, the Pentagon would go ahead with the programme on its own.

Last year, Carter had proposed US companies join hands with Indian partners in setting up manufacturing facilities for five major systems in India. These include the MH-60 Romeo multi-role helicopter, built by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin; a delivery system for scatterable mines; and the M-45 127-mm rapid-fire naval gun. Later, the US proposed co-producing the Javelin missile, built by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

New Delhi has not yet responded to the proposal. Now, Carter has raised the ante with his proposal for co-developing the next-generation Javelin.

India has a successful co-development project with Russia for the BrahMos cruise missile, and with Israel for the long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) and medium-range surface-to-air missile (MR-SAM). But with the US, India has only bought equipment over the counter. American equipment has not even been manufactured in India with technology transfer, far less co-developed.

Speaking anonymously, US officials confirmed the co-development proposal would be on Carter’s discussion agenda during his meetings in New Delhi on Tuesday. Carter would meet a host of Indian officials, including National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon.

Senior MoD sources told Business Standard the US co-development proposal for the next-generation Javelin had been received and was being evaluated.

A senior DRDO source confirmed the US offer. “DRDO welcomes co-development of advanced weapon systems, provided there is real technological collaboration involved. India needs to fill its technology gaps and co-development should ensure both partners build upon their mutual strengths,” he said.

Carter’s proposal is part of a 15-month-old American push to intensify its defence relationship with India. Earlier, in response to New Delhi’s interest in the Javelin, the US state department had said fulfilling India’s requirement would “alter the regional military balance”. Worse, Washington refused to transfer key technologies New Delhi insisted upon as a part of the deal.

That approach changed dramatically since June 2012, when then US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta nominated Carter to break down the bureaucratic barriers in Washington that impeded the US-India defence relationship, which Washington had determined was pivotal to America’s future in Asia. A formal mechanism called the DTI — tellingly, the US called it the defence trade initiative, while India referred to it as defence technology initiative — was set up. Carter co-chairs the initiative, along with Shivshankar Menon.

A close watcher of the Pentagon says Carter has pushed the US bureaucracy hard to change its approach towards India. Earlier, US officials regarded India as just another non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) country, one with which America did not even have a formal alliance and which was unwilling to sign cooperative agreements with the US. “Before Carter got to work, releasing technology to India required a comprehensive justification to be made out. By April 2013, Pentagon officials needed to justify why a particular technology could not be released to India,” said the Pentagon watcher.

Now, the Javelin is a focus area for Carter. At one stage, MoD was close to buying a rival missile, the Israeli Spike, for its $1-1.5-billion tender for 8,400 missiles and 321 launcher units for the army’s 350-plus infantry units. But the MoD, wary of a single-vendor buy, ordered a “technology scan” to ascertain whether there was no missile in the market other than the Spike.

The FGM-148 Javelin, jointly built by US companies Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, is the world’s premier man-portable, anti-tank missile. It gives infantrymen, highly vulnerable to enemy tanks on the battlefield, a weapon with which to destroy heavy armoured vehicles from a distance of 2.5 km.

But the Israeli Spike, while not nearly as capable, is likely to be a good deal cheaper. If the MoD chooses price over capability, the Spike is likely to emerge the winner. “But if the MoD agrees to Washington’s co-development proposal, the Javelin would become the clear frontrunner for the $1-1.5-billion Indian contract. That is now a realistic prospect,” says a member of the US defence industry.
 
.
These Americans will not give the time of the day to anybody if it doesn't suit them.However my opinion is that state of the art 'Nag' which was undergoing extensive desert trials has been proven successful especially the seeker and if that is true India will use that technology for Shoulder launched anti tank missiles and MANPADS. Americans want to jump in to give some half baked technology funded solely by India and call it something like JV or TOT.
Still good news
 
.
When we are a nuclear power with sufficient deterrence Against Pak and China, why do we need cutting edge Conventional weapon? Wasnt Nuclear Deterrence supposed to be sufficient to prevent war ? It is surprising that South Asia continues to be an area with highest arms race.
 
.
We they are willing to work with US without the over cumbersome regulations, them I am a go for this deal. But we must first make sure is it if we are capable of handling the load, since our government run companies don't really have a great production and delivery schedule, while in the case of the US they follow the deadline to the point.

When we are a nuclear power with sufficient deterrence Against Pak and China, why do we need cutting edge Conventional weapon? Wasnt Nuclear Deterrence supposed to be sufficient to prevent war ? It is surprising that South Asia continues to be an area with highest arms race.

Mate deterrence is only the last case scenario, no country jumps to their nuclear weapon in the beginning. Conventional arms are a need of time with growing terrorism and instability in the middle east, we are not going to nuke the middle east if there is an attack on our soil by terrorist groups. Arms are needed to secure border and to maintain law and order.
 
.
When we are a nuclear power with sufficient deterrence Against Pak and China, why do we need cutting edge Conventional weapon? Wasnt Nuclear Deterrence supposed to be sufficient to prevent war ? It is surprising that South Asia continues to be an area with highest arms race.

Nuclear weapons today can only be used for maintaining integrity of country no help for borders etc.If Pakistan or china try to take kashmir India wont be using nuclear weapons.The radiation will effect all of Asia and Europe and approx 1 billion people will die or be deformed not only from the impact but also from radiation so conventional weapons have to be maintained.As far as south asia is concerned we don't like in a vacuum. For 1000 years this south Asia has been attacked by people of a particular religion and then by Britishers.We can stop it only if the whole world agrees to it not just south asia.China will not stop because of America. India will not stop because of china and pakistan will not stop because of India.Even Iran wants Nuclear weapons since it fears America and Pakistan.Any way ask the Tibetans how there pacifist policy has made them so happy and glad that they want to burn themselves for enjoyment.
 
.
We they are willing to work with US without the over cumbersome regulations, them I am a go for this deal. But we must first make sure is it if we are capable of handling the load, since our government run companies don't really have a great production and delivery schedule, while in the case of the US they follow the deadline to the point.



Mate deterrence is only the last case scenario, no country jumps to their nuclear weapon in the beginning. Conventional arms are a need of time with growing terrorism and instability in the middle east, we are not going to nuke the middle east if there is an attack on our soil by terrorist groups. Arms are needed to secure border and to maintain law and order.

We dont need anti tank weapons against terrorists. That needs a different armory.

If Tanks are being used against us at the border then it is nothing if not a conventional war - one which the nuclear weapons were designed to prevent.
 
.
Nuclear weapons today can only be used for maintaining integrity of country no help for borders etc.If Pakistan or china try to take kashmir India wont be using nuclear weapons.The radiation will effect all of Asia and Europe and approx 1 billion people
will die or be deformed not only from the impact but also from radiation so conventional weapons have to be maintained.As far as south asia is concerned we don't like in a vacuum. For 1000 years this south Asia has been attacked by people of a particular religion and then by Britishers.We can stop it only if the whole world agrees to it not just south asia.China will not stop because of America. India will not stop because of china and pakistan will not stop because of India.Even Iran wants Nuclear weapons since it fears America and Pakistan.
Any way ask the Tibetans how there pacifist policy has made them so happy and glad that they want to burn themselves
for enjoyment.

The most absurd response I have seen. How do you maintain the integrity of the nation if you cant protect the borders. So, nuclear weapons will not be used even if we face a full scale attack in Kashmir / Arunachal? What good are they then for? When will we use them? When the enemy reaches Pathankot? Ambala? Or when it is in the vicinity of Delhi? If our enemies are not scared of our nuclear deterrence, why keep them at all and risk a radiation holocaust in SA?
 
.
We dont need anti tank weapons against terrorists. That needs a different armory.

If Tanks are being used against us at the border then it is nothing if not a conventional war - one which the nuclear weapons were designed to prevent.
Tanks are needed in case of war with Pakistan and China, even if it is a small war, look at kargil. Even though it was a small war we needed heavy guns such as the bofors and the fighter jets to take those guys out. India, Pakistan and China know that neither of them can use the nukes because of international retaliation. The main reason three maintain such large armies are to make sure is to if there is a war, they can move in to their enemy's land fast and with force and take as much land as they can before the international pressure starts to build up. All three know that the moment they use nuke, they will be in deep $hit. Because then it will be mutual destruction.
 
.
We they are willing to work with US without the over cumbersome regulations, them I am a go for this deal. But we must first make sure is it if we are capable of handling the load, since our government run companies don't really have a great production and delivery schedule, while in the case of the US they follow the deadline to the point.

What if they make a deliberate mess and delay further than our indigenous firms.Better to go with them share costs equally and technology fully.Simultaneously we should also have another programme running indigenously with all technologies created and
only go into production if the Americans play any hanky panky.
 
.
The most absurd response I have seen. How do you maintain the integrity of the nation if you cant protect the borders. So, nuclear weapons will not be used even if we face a full scale attack in Kashmir / Arunachal? What good are they then for? When will we use them? When the enemy reaches Pathankot? Ambala? Or when it is in the vicinity of Delhi? If our enemies are not scared of our nuclear deterrence, why keep them at all and risk a radiation holocaust in SA?

Simple as a deterrence against China and Pakistan. India got nukes after China just to maintain a safe reach so we won't have to face a full blown war with no means of stopping. Same reason Pakistan got nukes. Nukes guarantee that there will never be a long drawn out war between the two. The only reason both Pakistan and India show restraints till now are because of the nukes, otherwise we would have had another war right after the mumbai attack, it were the nukes that twisted everyone arms.
 
.
The most absurd response I have seen. How do you maintain the integrity of the nation if you cant protect the borders. So, nuclear weapons will not be used even if we face a full scale attack in Kashmir / Arunachal? What good are they then for? When will we use them? When the enemy reaches Pathankot? Ambala? Or when it is in the vicinity of Delhi? If our enemies are not scared of our nuclear deterrence, why keep them at all and risk a radiation holocaust in SA?

There is a saying in Hindi that you can wake somebody if they are sleeping but not somebody who pretends to sleep.Why dont you ask this question to America, UK,France,Russia,Israel,Pakistan, N Korea who have N weapons and conventional weapons since no matter what I say you will not be convinced and please go to the border and convince the Chinese not to grab our land since we have nuclear weapons now.
 
.
Tanks are needed in case of war with Pakistan and China, even if it is a small war, look at kargil. Even though it was a small war we needed heavy guns such as the bofors and the fighter jets to take those guys out. India, Pakistan and China know that neither of them can use the nukes because of international retaliation. The main reason three maintain such large armies are to make sure is to if there is a war, they can move in to their enemy's land fast and with force and take as much land as they can before the international pressure starts to build up. All three know that the moment they use nuke, they will be in deep $hit. Because then it will be mutual destruction.

What good is taking land??? You can't annex it? And if you take too much land, that country is supposed to retaliate nuclear, isn't it? I thought Nuclear weapons were supposed to be insurance against a serious invasion - kind of making up for asymmetry in conventional weapon. Now it appears such is not the case and the conventional arms race must go hand in hand with a nuclear race.

There is a saying in Hindi that you can wake somebody if they are sleeping but not somebody who pretends to sleep.
Why dont you ask this question to America, UK,France,Russia,Israel,Pakistan, N Korea who have N weapons and conventional
weapons since no matter what I say you will not be convinced.

I m not convinced because you have not given me a convincing arguement.

Simple as a deterrence against China and Pakistan. India got nukes after China just to maintain a safe reach so we won't have to face a full blown war with no means of stopping. Same reason Pakistan got nukes. Nukes guarantee that there will never be a long drawn out war between the two. The only reason both Pakistan and India show restraints till now are because of the nukes, otherwise we would have had another war right after the mumbai attack, it were the nukes that twisted everyone arms.

Then why go for cutting edge weaponry? Because when nukes are present, even the 2nd best tech will do since a serious invasion is ruled out. Simply more toys for the boys , eh!
 
.
What good is taking land??? You can't annex it? And if you take too much land, that country is supposed to retaliate nuclear, isn't it? I thought Nuclear weapons were supposed to be insurance against a serious invasion - kind of making up for asymmetry in conventional weapon. Now it appears such is not the case and the conventional arms race must go hand in hand with a nuclear race.

Taking land doesn't just mean you have to give all of it back. The war between India and Pakistan might only last weeks, and considering we would be fighting in the mountain ranges, even gaining a strategic hill would be big victory. In the last war when the terrorist and Pakistani army personnel were dung into high ground we lost too many men to retake those places. Now we gain those strategic places, it would be a great thing. We would never get enough time to push in far into the enemy country but we will get ample time to take strategic points near the border. Now if we don't have the adequate technology and weapons then we would lose big time because the other side will do the same thing they will just move in and take strategic places and wait for the international community to come into force. No one will give their strategic land that they have won near border.
 
.
Good, I say India should by all it's weapons from the US. Keep pushing Russia towards Pakistan, we love you for it! ♥♥♥
 
. .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom