indian dream
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 0
Not selecting the US fighters in MMRCA has nothing to affect in the Indo-US relations...Already C17,c130j is in their(US) pocket...
Americas Indian Rebuff
- Thread starter bhagat
- Start date
MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
After reading 5 pages of this thread,
It seems that chinese and pakistani members are cheekily happy that india is not entering ant strategic alliance with USA.
the only strategic alliance that we have on paper has been with USSR which was followed by Russia.
Although people would love to read a lot into MMRCA going to europe, it doesn't in anyway means that india is distancing itself from USA or Russia.
What pakistani and chinese members often forget that we have extensively used french and british equipment in our airforce along with Russian aircrafts, so this is nothing new.
Also it seems that chinese members are boasting of China forming some alliance with iran and pakistan and dominating middle-east, becoming the super power which pakistani members have joyfully "thanked".
Please remember, china doesn't stand even close to US and Russian military power.
coming back to alliances, although some paranoid members here have decided that Indian affiliation is going to "shape the new emerging blocks " it's just figment of their war mongering imagination. India throughout the history was a non-alligned country unlike some of its neighbors, Although we subscribed to Soviet hardware, it was still bought from them, no donated by signing pacts. what makes you think India will try to form a power block to exert pressure on china.
These new alliances are needed by entities who have fear of existential annihilation or have goals of territorial expansion, India has neither.
Indian foreign policy is not dominated by any super power or all weather allies. We had to fight hard to get independence in 1947 and we will not sell that independence to any other country for a few f16's or J10's.
Another question often asked by a member over and over again in this forum is how India can benefit US as an ally. With the one of the largest growing markets and tremendously robust economy, it will be foolish for any superpower not be good list. Next if India does have a favorable foreign policy towards USA, the military potentials are infinite with the second largest army and the third largest airforce, US power projection in Asia can be very well supported. And then what other option does US have in asia to compare with India???
It seems that chinese and pakistani members are cheekily happy that india is not entering ant strategic alliance with USA.
the only strategic alliance that we have on paper has been with USSR which was followed by Russia.
Although people would love to read a lot into MMRCA going to europe, it doesn't in anyway means that india is distancing itself from USA or Russia.
What pakistani and chinese members often forget that we have extensively used french and british equipment in our airforce along with Russian aircrafts, so this is nothing new.
Also it seems that chinese members are boasting of China forming some alliance with iran and pakistan and dominating middle-east, becoming the super power which pakistani members have joyfully "thanked".
Please remember, china doesn't stand even close to US and Russian military power.
coming back to alliances, although some paranoid members here have decided that Indian affiliation is going to "shape the new emerging blocks " it's just figment of their war mongering imagination. India throughout the history was a non-alligned country unlike some of its neighbors, Although we subscribed to Soviet hardware, it was still bought from them, no donated by signing pacts. what makes you think India will try to form a power block to exert pressure on china.
These new alliances are needed by entities who have fear of existential annihilation or have goals of territorial expansion, India has neither.
Indian foreign policy is not dominated by any super power or all weather allies. We had to fight hard to get independence in 1947 and we will not sell that independence to any other country for a few f16's or J10's.
Another question often asked by a member over and over again in this forum is how India can benefit US as an ally. With the one of the largest growing markets and tremendously robust economy, it will be foolish for any superpower not be good list. Next if India does have a favorable foreign policy towards USA, the military potentials are infinite with the second largest army and the third largest airforce, US power projection in Asia can be very well supported. And then what other option does US have in asia to compare with India???
Capt.Popeye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 11,937
- Reaction score
- 12
"To buy stuff" is in fact one (significant) reason!
But not in the sense that Indian orders will keep US industry and the economy from keeling over. However the projected Indian orders are significant enough to infuse some money into part of a faltering economy, keep alive some production lines and provide some impetus to employment. All of which the USA desires and needs. Indian orders will put "real" dollars into the US economy not "printed" ones.
Having said the above; the USA also needs India for something else. To help create "working arrangements and adjustments" in furtherance of certain aims. That is and will be subject to negotiations, just as the above is.
Capt.Popeye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 11,937
- Reaction score
- 12
Wishful thinking!
India's capabilities may be shrinking only vis-a vis one adversary. While India is steadily building up trade and economic relations with that country. While simultaneosly bolstering up her own economic capabilities. Economic power is the most important ingredient in the "Statregic Soup". Military power follows behind. Countries that have overlooked (and are overlooking) that factor, have gone into "deep $hit". And have lost their significance or been reduced to becoming supplicants.
India has been very consistent with this line of thought and action.
p.s. I have used the word adversary w.r.t. to the country concerned because that is more correct rather than the word enemy that has been chosen by you.
Paan Singh
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 7,636
- Reaction score
- 0
Capt.Popeye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 11,937
- Reaction score
- 12
Have you read the geo-political scenario correctly? Does not seem so, since you are still clinging to the (old and outdated) "Cold War Bloc" theories. That has lost currency in the present era. Todays eco-geo-political requirements are very dynamic. And policies are being constantly re-fashioned and tweaked many times over to work effectively.
How else will you explain China's efforts to revisit military policies with the EU?
Or Russia's efforts to settle some issues with NATO/USA?
Or Sino-Japanese and Sino-Indian trade (not forgetting Sino-US trade)?
Or Russia buying warships (and hopefully) other hardware from France and other countries in the West?
Can you say when was the last time you heard about "the evil Empire"?????
Amigo "faithfulguy "; you seem to be stuck in some "time warp".
Looks like you are still surrounded by "iron curtains" and "bamboo curtains".
They seem to be obstructing your vision majorly!
Gandhi G in da house
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 9,475
- Reaction score
- -24
- Country
- Location
I am amazed at the arrogance of some my Indian bothers on this thread .
US needs India and India does't need US ? really
They helped us get the nuke deal ( and went through some sh*t for it) , supported us after 26/11 and were right here after that incident but still some of us are hating on them and saying no to a friendship ? They ven now are asking their government to dump Pakistan and embrace India in the post osama scenario in almost every article i read but here we are hating on them . what is so special about us ?
An i thought only Bangladeshis are thankless , but some of us internet, i repeat "internet" indians are no less.
Some "internet" Indians say whenever US says anything pro- india "that oh they do it only because its in their interest" . You think Russia supports us for any other reason ? Are you really that naive ?
Thank god real world Indians are much more humble than some of us here and are looking forward to a friendship with US and so are the people in the government .
This is for DBC ( the American)-
Leave this forum now , you were here to debate for your F-16s and F-18s .Your work is over . If you stay any longer these arrogant ones among us will give you a very wrong picture of India and Indians and will turn you into an India-hater which happens with many non-indians who interact with some of us crazies here. India values US's partnership and it was always meant to be an equal relationship and will be .
Talk to other more humble Indians on other forums , You will get an idea.
Thank you
I am wondering if 7 years of rapid growth has done this to some of us what will happen in the next few decades when we become the third largest economy and a major global power which is inevitable ? We will probably be the most arrogant nation on earth if this trend continues . LOL
And remember my Indian brothers no country can survive without friends not even the superpower US and we are not even close right now.
P.S- I m not against the DoD decision to reject American fighters and am a Rafale supporter myself but am appalled to see the anti US arrogance on this forum post that decision was made .
US needs India and India does't need US ? really
They helped us get the nuke deal ( and went through some sh*t for it) , supported us after 26/11 and were right here after that incident but still some of us are hating on them and saying no to a friendship ? They ven now are asking their government to dump Pakistan and embrace India in the post osama scenario in almost every article i read but here we are hating on them . what is so special about us ?
An i thought only Bangladeshis are thankless , but some of us internet, i repeat "internet" indians are no less.
Some "internet" Indians say whenever US says anything pro- india "that oh they do it only because its in their interest" . You think Russia supports us for any other reason ? Are you really that naive ?
Thank god real world Indians are much more humble than some of us here and are looking forward to a friendship with US and so are the people in the government .
This is for DBC ( the American)-
Leave this forum now , you were here to debate for your F-16s and F-18s .Your work is over . If you stay any longer these arrogant ones among us will give you a very wrong picture of India and Indians and will turn you into an India-hater which happens with many non-indians who interact with some of us crazies here. India values US's partnership and it was always meant to be an equal relationship and will be .
Talk to other more humble Indians on other forums , You will get an idea.
Thank you
I am wondering if 7 years of rapid growth has done this to some of us what will happen in the next few decades when we become the third largest economy and a major global power which is inevitable ? We will probably be the most arrogant nation on earth if this trend continues . LOL
And remember my Indian brothers no country can survive without friends not even the superpower US and we are not even close right now.
P.S- I m not against the DoD decision to reject American fighters and am a Rafale supporter myself but am appalled to see the anti US arrogance on this forum post that decision was made .
desioptimist
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,084
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with you 100 percent. Sometimes this superpower talk of Indians among us is too much to bear. But at the same time we want america to help us all the time, and do our job.
Nothing wrong with the non-selection of their harware in open and transparent competition though. I am sure americans understand that.
As do the russians.
WHITESMOKE
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2010
- Messages
- 512
- Reaction score
- 0
Well i have said this in another thread also that faithfulguy is auto programmed to praise US goodies. His all posts will end up saying " Buy from USA" or something bowing down to USA...blah blah. No matters what you reply him, he will sing only one tune. Then why to bother and reply him. KEEP IT SIMPLE SILLY... 
dbc
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 6,551
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
LOL! US industries will run just fine without India. Get your head out of your a$$ and check publicly available figures on US trade with India.
majesticpankaj
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,877
- Reaction score
- -14
Why India chose to disappoint the US
By Trefor Moss
India's procurement of 126 multi-role combat aircraft has been one of the most eagerly anticipated defense deals in years, and not just because of its US$11 billion value.
The selection was always going to be interpreted as an expression of New Delhi's evolving strategic outlook, and to some in Washington, which has built an increasingly close alliance with India driven by a mutual wariness of China, a win for either Boeing or Lockheed Martin, the two US contractors competing for the contract, seemed assured.
But the Americans were wrong to think that friendship alone would unlock the door to India's defense dollars. At the end of April, the Indian government announced that neither US firm had even made
it onto the final short list, with Dassault of France and the European EADS consortium winning through at their expense.
Having made plain that the US was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome, the US ambassador to India promptly resigned, citing personal reasons that seemed barely to mask his frustration that American lobbying had failed in spite of President Barack Obama's personal appearance in New Delhi last November.
Lockheed Martin's F-16 was perhaps always an outsider to fulfill India's requirement: Pakistan already operates the aircraft, and this counted against it right from the start. But the Americans thought, not unreasonably, that Boeing's versatile F/A-18 Super Hornet, backed up by industrial offsets from General Electric as well as Boeing itself, was a strong claimant.
Unfortunately, the Indian Air Force's technical evaluators didn't see it that way. They felt that the newer French and European fighters performed better in India's often challenging operating environments. The Europeans also went further on technology transfer, while the US's end user agreements struck India as needlessly prohibitive.
"The Air Force was focusing on getting an aircraft that would be superior, and the American aircraft on offer just didn't cut it," says Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, the senior fellow for South Asia at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. "There was surprise in India at the extent of the US disappointment ... The Indian mindset was that this deal wasn't about cementing relationships, it was about getting the best deal. The Indian view is that the Americans should have offered better aircraft."
Both sides are left with the sense that the other might have attached more value to their alliance in order to make the fighter deal happen. For the US, that the Indians were unduly blase in ejecting both US aircraft from the competition; from the Indian perspective, the Americans should have dug deeper and demonstrated their commitment to the Indian relationship by putting together a much stronger package.
"I hope [the Americans] learn from this," says aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Teal Group. While maintaining that the Super Hornet was as strong technically as the other competitors, Aboulafia suggests that the Americans' complacency lost them the deal. "If the US had really reformed its processes and said to the Indians, 'You're our partners, you're our equals,' then the F-18 would have had a very strong chance. That's the approach the Europeans took - they came and said, 'We need you'. I hope this is a rude awakening for them."
Aboulafia points out that the US also failed to overcome the "unfortunate legacy" of its refusal to export critical aircraft components to India during the 1999 Kargil conflict with Pakistan. India needed cast-iron guarantees that nothing like this would ever happen again, and these were not forthcoming.
Much has been read into India's refusal to do the US any special favors in this case, with some commentators applauding what they see as a return to India's traditional non-aligned roots and a rejection of a US-India strategic bloc. But by opting for a European aircraft, India is not seeking to avoid aligning itself with the US. India clearly is aligning itself with the US, but as a partner rather than a client; it also sees the US as one of several key strategic partners, rather than the only ally that counts.
India's strategy, above all, is to spread the risk. It has already signed significant contracts with the US for military surveillance and transport aircraft, as well as civil nuclear development. Russia, once India's principal arms supplier, also missed out of the multi-role fighter deal, but is jointly developing a fifth-generation fighter with India.
France recently secured a $20 billion contract to build civil nuclear reactors in India - an agreement which may count against Dassault in the final round of the fighter contest if New Delhi truly is determined to spread its largesse. Partnership with France is already secured, whereas the selection of EADS' Eurofighter would give four more countries - Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom - a vested interest in the modernization of India's military-industrial base.
Political considerations will now dictate which of the two finalists secures the contract, and also when a deal is announced. The government's corruption woes are such that it would be far too sensitive to announce a major contact award in the next few months, perhaps pushing back a final decision until 2012.
The stakes for EADS and Dassault could hardly be greater. A Eurofighter win could potentially propel the aircraft to further success in other Asian markets which have shown an interest in acquiring it - such as Japan, Indonesia and Malaysia - while the fortunes of Dassault's Rafale, which has only Brazil as a significant export customer so far, would be similarly transformed.
For the US, there is everything reason to be optimistic about the defense relationship with India, despite this setback. The Indian Air Force has already ordered six C-130J transport aircraft from Lockheed Martin, and eight P-8 multi-mission aircraft and 10 C-17 transport planes from Boeing; it will probably come back for more of all three types within the next few years.
But the biggest opportunity could be in encouraging India to buy Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II, a fifth-generation fighter that would be a capability leap beyond any of the aircraft under consideration this time around. Such a deal would be fraught with difficulties - not least how to involve Indian industry (as offset rules demand) in the construction of an aircraft that is far beyond its current technical capability - but the US has perhaps a decade to figure out how to get around them. India will certainly require a fifth-generation fighter as China makes progress towards acquiring one, and its prospects of successfully developing a fifth-generation fighter with Russia are mixed at best. The US certainly has a big incentive to learn the lessons of its recent setback.
After absorbing the initial disappointment, the US will put India's rebuff behind it and refocus on making the strategic relationship with India a cornerstone of its foreign policy in the Asian region. In this, it will find a willing partner, though India's assertiveness in rejecting the US aircraft will do it no harm as it strives to make that partnership an equal one.
Trefor Moss is a freelance journalist who covers Asian politics, in particular defense, security and economic issues. He is a former Asia-Pacific editor for Defense Weekly.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
By Trefor Moss
India's procurement of 126 multi-role combat aircraft has been one of the most eagerly anticipated defense deals in years, and not just because of its US$11 billion value.
The selection was always going to be interpreted as an expression of New Delhi's evolving strategic outlook, and to some in Washington, which has built an increasingly close alliance with India driven by a mutual wariness of China, a win for either Boeing or Lockheed Martin, the two US contractors competing for the contract, seemed assured.
But the Americans were wrong to think that friendship alone would unlock the door to India's defense dollars. At the end of April, the Indian government announced that neither US firm had even made
it onto the final short list, with Dassault of France and the European EADS consortium winning through at their expense.
Having made plain that the US was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome, the US ambassador to India promptly resigned, citing personal reasons that seemed barely to mask his frustration that American lobbying had failed in spite of President Barack Obama's personal appearance in New Delhi last November.
Lockheed Martin's F-16 was perhaps always an outsider to fulfill India's requirement: Pakistan already operates the aircraft, and this counted against it right from the start. But the Americans thought, not unreasonably, that Boeing's versatile F/A-18 Super Hornet, backed up by industrial offsets from General Electric as well as Boeing itself, was a strong claimant.
Unfortunately, the Indian Air Force's technical evaluators didn't see it that way. They felt that the newer French and European fighters performed better in India's often challenging operating environments. The Europeans also went further on technology transfer, while the US's end user agreements struck India as needlessly prohibitive.
"The Air Force was focusing on getting an aircraft that would be superior, and the American aircraft on offer just didn't cut it," says Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, the senior fellow for South Asia at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. "There was surprise in India at the extent of the US disappointment ... The Indian mindset was that this deal wasn't about cementing relationships, it was about getting the best deal. The Indian view is that the Americans should have offered better aircraft."
Both sides are left with the sense that the other might have attached more value to their alliance in order to make the fighter deal happen. For the US, that the Indians were unduly blase in ejecting both US aircraft from the competition; from the Indian perspective, the Americans should have dug deeper and demonstrated their commitment to the Indian relationship by putting together a much stronger package.
"I hope [the Americans] learn from this," says aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Teal Group. While maintaining that the Super Hornet was as strong technically as the other competitors, Aboulafia suggests that the Americans' complacency lost them the deal. "If the US had really reformed its processes and said to the Indians, 'You're our partners, you're our equals,' then the F-18 would have had a very strong chance. That's the approach the Europeans took - they came and said, 'We need you'. I hope this is a rude awakening for them."
Aboulafia points out that the US also failed to overcome the "unfortunate legacy" of its refusal to export critical aircraft components to India during the 1999 Kargil conflict with Pakistan. India needed cast-iron guarantees that nothing like this would ever happen again, and these were not forthcoming.
Much has been read into India's refusal to do the US any special favors in this case, with some commentators applauding what they see as a return to India's traditional non-aligned roots and a rejection of a US-India strategic bloc. But by opting for a European aircraft, India is not seeking to avoid aligning itself with the US. India clearly is aligning itself with the US, but as a partner rather than a client; it also sees the US as one of several key strategic partners, rather than the only ally that counts.
India's strategy, above all, is to spread the risk. It has already signed significant contracts with the US for military surveillance and transport aircraft, as well as civil nuclear development. Russia, once India's principal arms supplier, also missed out of the multi-role fighter deal, but is jointly developing a fifth-generation fighter with India.
France recently secured a $20 billion contract to build civil nuclear reactors in India - an agreement which may count against Dassault in the final round of the fighter contest if New Delhi truly is determined to spread its largesse. Partnership with France is already secured, whereas the selection of EADS' Eurofighter would give four more countries - Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom - a vested interest in the modernization of India's military-industrial base.
Political considerations will now dictate which of the two finalists secures the contract, and also when a deal is announced. The government's corruption woes are such that it would be far too sensitive to announce a major contact award in the next few months, perhaps pushing back a final decision until 2012.
The stakes for EADS and Dassault could hardly be greater. A Eurofighter win could potentially propel the aircraft to further success in other Asian markets which have shown an interest in acquiring it - such as Japan, Indonesia and Malaysia - while the fortunes of Dassault's Rafale, which has only Brazil as a significant export customer so far, would be similarly transformed.
For the US, there is everything reason to be optimistic about the defense relationship with India, despite this setback. The Indian Air Force has already ordered six C-130J transport aircraft from Lockheed Martin, and eight P-8 multi-mission aircraft and 10 C-17 transport planes from Boeing; it will probably come back for more of all three types within the next few years.
But the biggest opportunity could be in encouraging India to buy Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II, a fifth-generation fighter that would be a capability leap beyond any of the aircraft under consideration this time around. Such a deal would be fraught with difficulties - not least how to involve Indian industry (as offset rules demand) in the construction of an aircraft that is far beyond its current technical capability - but the US has perhaps a decade to figure out how to get around them. India will certainly require a fifth-generation fighter as China makes progress towards acquiring one, and its prospects of successfully developing a fifth-generation fighter with Russia are mixed at best. The US certainly has a big incentive to learn the lessons of its recent setback.
After absorbing the initial disappointment, the US will put India's rebuff behind it and refocus on making the strategic relationship with India a cornerstone of its foreign policy in the Asian region. In this, it will find a willing partner, though India's assertiveness in rejecting the US aircraft will do it no harm as it strives to make that partnership an equal one.
Trefor Moss is a freelance journalist who covers Asian politics, in particular defense, security and economic issues. He is a former Asia-Pacific editor for Defense Weekly.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Tigershark
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2010
- Messages
- 611
- Reaction score
- 0
It goes to show american jets are all they're cracked up to be.
HongWu
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,604
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
LOL.... Indians are still deluding themselves. You guys really think China is some kind of third world hole like India?
Urbanized Greyhound
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 2,067
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Somehow I never understood how not choosing an American fighter is a "rebuff ". It did not suite our requirements , it wasn't technically compatible with our operational scenarios so it was rejected ..
The U.S always seems to consider an alliance with another country in terms of a master -slave relationship , It was good that they were disappointed if they were hoping with this 'deal ' Indian policies would finally come under their control. The U.S will be made to understand sooner or later , that it will have to deal with India on Indian terms and interests, first.
The U.S always seems to consider an alliance with another country in terms of a master -slave relationship , It was good that they were disappointed if they were hoping with this 'deal ' Indian policies would finally come under their control. The U.S will be made to understand sooner or later , that it will have to deal with India on Indian terms and interests, first.
Similar threads
