Is it not true that US has been generating data on Indian submarine, along with Russian one's (for obvious reasons)?
Don't think too much of it, Levina. Even our allies aren't immune.
No matter how close our nations are, or what agreements we have signed (including no-spying agreements), we'll collect critical data regardless. Maybe not overtly or during joint exercises or through industrial or military spying operations conducted via US intelligence, but I'd wager low key, low visibility options are being leveraged with frequency and great efficiency.
Sub launched AUVs could be a critical asset as they are small and hard to notice, even for high-power acoustic sensors.
Unlike air-dropped or ship launched varieties, sub launched AUVs have extended ranges and recovery options and don't tend to be tethered to the submarine, as they are to a ship when launched to prevent the AUV from being rendered unrecoverable during an operation.
It's part of how we retain our edge.
It was declared that India is not going to turn into an American base, but it would be wrong to assume that LEMOA would primarily benefit India, that's being naive to American intentions. JMHO!
It's a logistics agreement, so no, you aren't going to become our satellite, but you are becoming more entwined with our influence.
These types of agreements can turn into basing treaties with a few wording changes, but at present they are for logistics and resupply.
I've expanded on this a bit in the post and thread below:
I don't really care. I just want to stop this:
This agreement has nothing to do with NATO. India would need to negotiate separate agreements with NATO nations.
India isn't going to clear NATO nations for logistics support within them... those NATO nations will clear India and either allow or bar India from accessing their support and facilities, not the other way around.
To support extended operations in non-local territory. This agreement could allow India to make use of US bases in South Korea, Japan or Australia (assuming they are given clearance by the local government) for logistics resupply by the US. This in turn would allow the IN or IAF to support operations such as FONOPs in the SCS, East China Sea, Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan and beyond such as goodwill visits to South or Central America or up into Europe with support from the US in the Med or North Sea and Baltics (again with approval from regional nations. India doesn't have Carte Blanche' access to NATO bases because of this agreement).
Neither India or China can support extended ops in each others regional waters, unlike the US with a vast support and logistics network in regional nations, Russia can't either. This agreement allows for the prospect of the IN and IAF to actually achieve such extended ops in non-regional air and water space, which is largely unprecedented, but again and like so many before it, is a function of US logistics support.
Such bases would include Misawa, which is a USAF basing and logistics facility (subject to Japanese approval. Given Indo-Japanese relations, this isn't too unlikely to be granted.).
Or at Doha.
And even US owned bases like Andersen in Guam.
But frankly, I don't give two sh*ts about what India gets out of the deal.
I'm interested in how it impacts US operations in the region such as in Afghanistan or the Indian Ocean and West Africa.
https://defence.pk/threads/indian-d...ment-with-pentagon.446627/page-4#post-8634202
Uh, sorry for the mean words at the end there
. That's just me being honest. I care about how the US is effected, both positive and negatively... India not so much.
What happens to projects like Akula?
You do the smart thing that begin to develop submarines in-house. It'll take years, if not decades, but hey, that new-found bonhomie with the US could bear fruit here too.
We don't export submarines, but do export our technical skills, even for nuke boats. What our threshold is js debatable, or at least something I'm not going to answer or part with with 100% disclosure, I'd posit it's nothing past design elements found in Advanced LA - not changes updated for Seawolf, Virginia or newer blocks of Virginia which have been partially internally redesigned.
Maybe with some minor non-critical items such as better reactor containment vessels and placement, internal quieting techniques (note I did say non-critical), hull design and optimization during the design phase or internal layout to accommodate a VLS or even light "Sherwood Forest", as has been looked into for later Virginia blocks to fill a gap left by the retiring of the Ohio class before the SSBN(X) comes on line. Virginias will replace the SSGN variant of the Ohio, which is currently occupied by the first 4 boats of the class.
*Trivia:
The US once had plans to arm the Albany Class Cruiser with eight Polaris ballistic missiles, the same found on SSBNs at the time.
Space was retained on the ships incase the plan was to be implemented.
It, like Russian input could help serve as a springboard to build off of for future indigenous classes, and those boats would sill be some of the best operating in the region.
It'd require further advances with the US and in the short-to-medium term could threaten the Akula acquisitions, but in the long-term India would benefit greatly from US assistance, assuming the US is willing. This is where Russia is a better partner. Submarines are something they are willing to part with. We are not and even our expertise is restricted.
