INDO-US Relations may feel the heat of MMRCA Deal.

[rkjindal91]

Why dont you write all the points in just one post the word limit is good enough

I thought it wud be easy to answer each answer seperately. If that is not the case and it feels irritating do let me know i will take care of it next time.

 

[deckingraj]

I thought it wud be easy to answer each answer seperately. If that is not the case and it feels irritating do let me know i will take care of it next time.

Yeah please post in one rather than multiple points....In fact it becomes harder to discuss when all the questions are not at one place....

 

[pmukherjee]

I totaly agree with you.
India cannot end up being a client state of US. We have our own priorities and our own geopolitical aims.
Although US can never be trusted (Like in the MMRCA case; they were trying to push their fighters down our throat, when we refused to do so, their think tanks started threatening our geo-political strategic relations) but many believe that

1) $10 billion was the price of a ticket for UNSC along with
2)cutting the US-Pak artery and
3)a total India friendly domain in Afganistan which ultimately results in accomplishment of a few important geopolitical aims.
4)India instead of becoming a client state wud have become a major policy changer and influence the US coz we wud have helped them to revive their struggling economy. Instead of being a liablity like other client states, we were going to be looked upon as a equal partner.

Mind it, the above 4 scenarios would have worked if US had kept to their word of supporting India once we accept their deal.
Please comment.

Interesting thought RK. However my observations are as follows.

1. The US had refused to give us the fighters with their full suit of avionics and EW (electronic warfare) systems which make them the potent platforms that they are. TOT for the AESA radars was not being shared. There were other restrictions as well under the ITAR which fell well short of our expectations. This affected future upgradations. Next was the question of utilising these fighters in theaters where US would not approve like in Pakistan or the Persian Gulf and the reliability of the US maintenance and technical support during use in such areas as also use during joint operations and exercises with other nations. CISMOA was also a big issue. All in all, I feel that the IAF and the MOD decided that it was simply too much of a hassle since comparable technology was available in Europe without the strings.
2. Hey, USD 10 billion for an UNSC permanent seat? No way buddy. The US will extract far more than that for their support and they can't guarantee anything. World opinion is far too fractured for the US to call the shots except in certain countries. UNSC is a long haul buddy and we know that. It is good that we are not going to bend over backwards for the support we may get from the US.
3. The US has a limited role in determining the post US scenario in Afghanistan. They have a strangle hold over Hamid Karzai yes, but what happens when they leave? There are 3 main players in the region which influence Afghanistan and Pakistan is just one of them. We are on the inside track with the other two, namely Iran and Russia.
4. If India wants to be a major player on the international scene and be a 'Policy Changer', as you put it, it is of paramount importance that India should retain its independence in deciding its future course. Aligning ourselves too closely with the Americans or with anybody else will destroy our credibility in the eyes of most countries. The bottom line, I feel, is that India should do what is in India's interests without worrying about American interests or that of other nations. The US has always worked that way and so has Russia and China.

Regards.

 

[pmukherjee]

What I meant to say was
Many believe India could have ordered a few jets (either boing or lockheed) say just 30 to avoid total disappointment from US coz already the news in the air that the actual number of fighters wud b around 200-230. This wud have been a signal to US that we do no want to threaten our partnership.

The bottomline is that if we wud have gone for 126 Typhoons/Rafales + 30 Boing/Lockheed (or 200+30) cud the IAF manage such a huge variety of machines?

Why are we so concerned about what signals the Americans get? We should simply do what suits us. If we go for the Apaches or the Chinooks tomorrow, it will be because they are good for us and not because we want to please the Americans.

 

[anon45]

What I meant to say was
Many believe India could have ordered a few jets (either boing or lockheed) say just 30 to avoid total disappointment from US coz already the news in the air that the actual number of fighters wud b around 200-230. This wud have been a signal to US that we do no want to threaten our partnership.

The bottomline is that if we wud have gone for 126 Typhoons/Rafales + 30 Boing/Lockheed (or 200+30) cud the IAF manage such a huge variety of machines?

I'd hate to be working out logistics for that!

 

[Garry]

its funny... how every punk kid on the street tends to become a defence analyst...

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

it was known all along that US would not get the MMRCA deal. we have had pretty bad examples in front of us. wat stops US for putting sanctions on india in future. India has given enough incentive (read deals) to tone down its dissapointment. in future US might get the deal but for that it has to start treating india as a equal partner much like any nato country.

 

[luckyyy]

but there would have been a even more stain relationship with US , had india choosen the F-16/18...

 

[punit]

come on Usa ..THERE IS much on the plate .. heli deals, howitzer, tankers etcc.. there is always a next time.

frankly only f18 has some chances . f 16 had no chance since day 1. what went against F 18 is its image of being a carrier plane , low max speed ( 1.8 mach ) and Obama ( yes !!!!!) .

 

[Kinetic]

India just cleared 10 C-17 Globemaster-III worth $ 12 billion. Boeing also won 12 P-8I and may be Apache.

 

[Pak_Sher]

I totaly agree with you.
India cannot end up being a client state of US. We have our own priorities and our own geopolitical aims.
Although US can never be trusted (Like in the MMRCA case; they were trying to push their fighters down our throat, when we refused to do so, their think tanks started threatening our geo-political strategic relations) but many believe that

1) $10 billion was the price of a ticket for UNSC along with
2)cutting the US-Pak artery and
3)a total India friendly domain in Afganistan which ultimately results in accomplishment of a few important geopolitical aims.
4)India instead of becoming a client state wud have become a major policy changer and influence the US coz we wud have helped them to revive their struggling economy. Instead of being a liablity like other client states, we were going to be looked upon as a equal partner.

Mind it, the above 4 scenarios would have worked if US had kept to their word of supporting India once we accept their deal.
Please comment.

US does not take dictate on foreign policy issues. India is not in a position to dictate any of the terms from 1-3. For Item #4, India does not want to become a US Client State is something India has control over. I think India made the decision where they were getting the best deal and technology sharing.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

come on Usa ..THERE IS much on the plate .. heli deals, howitzer, tankers etcc.. there is always a next time.

frankly only f18 has some chances . f 16 had no chance since day 1. what went against F 18 is its image of being a carrier plane , low max speed ( 1.8 mach ) and Obama ( yes !!!!!) .

F-18 had no hope. it was a political decision all the way to keep US fighters out.

 

[jha]

India just cleared 10 C-17 Globemaster-III worth $ 12 billion

I thought it was $5.b Bill.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

India just cleared 10 C-17 Globemaster-III worth $ 12 billion. Boeing also won 12 P-8I and may be Apache.

sorry buddy it was 5.8 billion dollar deal i think.

 

[rkjindal91]

US pressure fails to pull its fighter
through IAF test Apr 29, 2011, 03.13am IST TNN [ Rajat Pandit ] NEW DELHI: From a US versus Europe
battle, it has become a Europe versus
France tussle. The US did mount a high-
voltage campaign over the last four years,
with even President Barack Obama
making a strong sales pitch for American fighters in the final stages but in the end
India went "purely" by the gruelling
technical evaluation. Officials, in fact, said both PM Manmohan
Singh and defence minister A K Antony
had made it clear that the selection
process for the gigantic $10.4 billion
project to acquire 126 medium multi-role
combat aircraft (MMRCA) should be guided solely by IAF's operational
requirements, not by "any other
extraneous factor", as also the prospect
of further modernizing the jets during
their 40-year lifespan. This came even as representatives of only
Eurofighter Typhoon (EADS, backed by the
UK, Germany, Spain and Italy), French
Rafale (Dassault) jets were called to the
defence ministry on Thursday to extend
the validity of their yet-to-be-opened commercial bids, within two weeks, till
December 31. Rejection letters, in turn, have already
been handed over to the other four
contenders, American F/A-18 'Super
Hornet' (Boeing) and F-16 'Super
Viper' (Lockheed Martin), Swedish Gripen
(Saab), and Russian MiG-35 (United Aircraft Corporation). Though the Europeans were apprehensive
that the Americans might use their clout
to swing the MMRCA project, like US has
done in other defence deals in the past,
their fears have now been laid to rest. The Eurofighter, followed closely by
Rafale, "came closest" to meeting the 643
technical attributes specified by India
during the long-drawn field trials held by
IAF test pilots both in India and abroad
under different weather conditions. "The other four fell below the base line of
minimum air staff qualitative
requirements to be met," said the official. It is, of course, no secret that India
remains unhappy with US for supplying
more F-16s to Pakistan on the pretext of
the war against terror. Neither is the
defence ministry, led by Antony,
convinced about the "utility and benefits" of the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA),
Communication Interoperability and
Security Memorandum Agreement
(CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and
Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial
Cooperation (BECA), the foundational military agreements being pushed by US. While the absence of CISMOA restricts US
from transferring certain high-tech
equipment to India, the already-inked
End-Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA)
gives Washington the right to inspect the
military equipment sold to New Delhi as well as puts certain restrictions on their
operational use. Is it any wonder then that India seems to
be restricting its military aircraft
purchases from the US to transport and
reconnaissance planes the like three
Business Boeing Jets, six C-130J 'Super
Hercules', 12 P-8I Poseidon and 10 C-17 Globemaster-III, which together cost
upwards of $8 billion. Moreover, it's not as if the Eurofighter and
Rafale were pushovers despite the geo-
political clout of the US. The former is,
after all, backed by UK, Germany, Spain
and Italy. France, too, has been a long-
term defence partner of India and, incidentally, did not impose sanctions
after the Pokhran-II nuclear tests in 1998.