US offers Cutting Edge Technologies To India

[That Guy]

The stringent export regulations were applied on the javelin missile at the early stage - so what does US do in a couple of months? goes around it and offers complete co development and local production of a new age javelin system - Something on the lines of how they ignored systems, laws and procedures for signing the nuclear deal.

DTTI aims to cut down bureaucracy and red tapism mostly from the Indian side - and we know how time consuming and snail paced it is, their major demand under DTTI is that we smoothen out our procedure for transfer, sale, development and production contracts and remove a few stringent bottlenecks. For e.g. they demanded for a floating TOT percentage depending on the absorbability and ease in closing contracts so that we are not burdened with delays in both signing of contracts and in manufacturing. They also pledge to remove stringent export regimes and complicated procedures of accountability and regular site inspections and user limits as an exclusive offer for us. The re-offer for the new govt has already been cleared by the US senate and they have designated Kendell to close it.

DTTI is actually a complicated offer where both sides pledge to ease the process and remove the wrinkles, it is not limited to exports of any particular system but involves geopolitics, policy changes, an increase in bilateral trade to 500 billion p.a., intelligence sharing and joint data centers for terrorism related info, an integrated radar, info and comm platform for both forces to operate together, regular bi and multilateral joint exercises between both forces, they also intend to overhaul our entire armed forces training processes and procedures.

The deal is a complicated one and is a unique offer. The export regime and the bureaucracy are intended to be by passed at all levels.

So, from what you've said, it all boils down to pledges. Hey, if it works out for India, good for you guys, if it doesn't, you guys have Russia you can fall back to.

 

[axisofevil]

Whatever happened to the much tom-tom'd indigenous defence industry program? Are we just gonna assemble American kits in our factories and be forever dependent on them?

If we are so concerned about reliance then we would select Saab to co develop our fighters. We don't. I wouldn't turst Congress to handle that Dassault contract properly, kickbacks and bribes were probably part of the package!

 

[maxpayne]

India already declined F-35 and F-22.

US do not offer F-22 to any other country. Can you provide some source?

 

[hitenray09]

US do not offer F-22 to any other country. Can you provide some source?

Nah..its never done..the member just wrote it down to add some salt and pepper...cool down mate...

The stringent export regulations were applied on the javelin missile at the early stage - so what does US do in a couple of months? goes around it and offers complete co development and local production of a new age javelin system - Something on the lines of how they ignored systems, laws and procedures for signing the nuclear deal.

DTTI aims to cut down bureaucracy and red tapism mostly from the Indian side - and we know how time consuming and snail paced it is, their major demand under DTTI is that we smoothen out our procedure for transfer, sale, development and production contracts and remove a few stringent bottlenecks. For e.g. they demanded for a floating TOT percentage depending on the absorbability and ease in closing contracts so that we are not burdened with delays in both signing of contracts and in manufacturing. They also pledge to remove stringent export regimes and complicated procedures of accountability and regular site inspections and user limits as an exclusive offer for us. The re-offer for the new govt has already been cleared by the US senate and they have designated Kendell to close it.

DTTI is actually a complicated offer where both sides pledge to ease the process and remove the wrinkles, it is not limited to exports of any particular system but involves geopolitics, policy changes, an increase in bilateral trade to 500 billion p.a., intelligence sharing and joint data centers for terrorism related info, an integrated radar, info and comm platform for both forces to operate together, regular bi and multilateral joint exercises between both forces, they also intend to overhaul our entire armed forces training processes and procedures.

The deal is a complicated one and is a unique offer. The export regime and the bureaucracy are intended to be by passed at all levels.

summed up well the DTTI..initiative

 

[godofwar]

The stringent export regulations were applied on the javelin missile at the early stage - so what does US do in a couple of months? goes around it and offers complete co development and local production of a new age javelin system - Something on the lines of how they ignored systems, laws and procedures for signing the nuclear deal.

If I am not wrong, we have been asking asking for Javelin for about 4-5 years, if not more, rather than a coupe of months.We were refused every single time, even when we offered to buy it off the shelf.Why the sudden interest in co-developing next version of the premier US anti-tank missile when previously they were not even willing to sell it to us without any ToT ?

DTTI aims to cut down bureaucracy and red tapism mostly from the Indian side - and we know how time consuming and snail paced it is, their major demand under DTTI is that we smoothen out our procedure for transfer, sale, development and production contracts and remove a few stringent bottlenecks. For e.g. they demanded for a floating TOT percentage depending on the absorbability and ease in closing contracts so that we are not burdened with delays in both signing of contracts and in manufacturing. They also pledge to remove stringent export regimes and complicated procedures of accountability and regular site inspections and user limits as an exclusive offer for us. The re-offer for the new govt has already been cleared by the US senate and they have designated Kendell to close it.

Isn't that bad for India though ?It essentially means US can easily deny any relevant ToT to India citing lack of maturation of our industries wrt absorbing the tech ?
The French are trying to renege on MMRCA deal using the same loophole if I am not wrong.

DTTI is actually a complicated offer where both sides pledge to ease the process and remove the wrinkles, it is not limited to exports of any particular system but involves geopolitics, policy changes, an increase in bilateral trade to 500 billion p.a., intelligence sharing and joint data centers for terrorism related info, an integrated radar, info and comm platform for both forces to operate together, regular bi and multilateral joint exercises between both forces, they also intend to overhaul our entire armed forces training processes and procedures.

The deal is a complicated one and is a unique offer. The export regime and the bureaucracy are intended to be by passed at all levels.

Trade of 500 billion p.a and inter operability of armed forces seems to be an extremely ambitious task, something I do no think will happen is the next decade.
Overhaul of training and operating procedures of armed forces is something that we really need and should be welcomed with open arms.

Looking for your input since you seem to very be clued into this initiative.Any links ?

 

[illusion8]

If I am not wrong, we have been asking asking for Javelin for about 4-5 years, if not more, rather than a coupe of months.We were refused every single time, even when we offered to buy it off the shelf.Why the sudden interest in co-developing next version of the premier US anti-tank missile when previously they were not even willing to sell it to us without any ToT ?

Our hand held atgm requirement is for about 30 - 40,000, so it doesn't make sense to buy them off the shelf - the RFP evolved over the years and spike and javelin became front runners last year after the selection concluded and it was last year that the selection went through for clearance to the US export regime where they refused transfer of some critical components - and, if I am not wrong that would be the seeker. The policy change towards co developing came about when Panetta visited India and took in our perspective. He proposed a complete overhaul of the defense relations and sent Ashton Carter with an offer for 10 JV's in Sept 13, India hasn't replied to the offer yet. A US senate body recently asked for the list of the 10 JV's and have since approved it and have also appointed Kendell to take it up with India.

The earlier refusal came under their export restriction regime and would have involved changing it for the sake of India and would have to be approved by both the houses - obviously resulting in complicated maneuvers and would have been time consuming - the new initiative came under the DTI (defense trade initiative for the US and defense technology initiative for Indians)m Since then they have rechristened it as DTTI (defense trade and tech initiative to cover both sides) and will come up during the security dialogue when Chuck Hagel visits India and also when Modi visits the US.

Isn't that bad for India though ?It essentially means US can easily deny any relevant ToT to India citing lack of maturation of our industries wrt absorbing the tech ?
The French are trying to renege on MMRCA deal using the same loophole if I am not wrong.

The french have valid concerns - if the delivery schedule or quality gets affected during local production (by their perception it would because what they saw was unsatisfactory) then it messes up the whole deal and both sides lose money and may get inferior products or perpetual delays in fulfilling the contract - i.e. bad name for rafale.

What they are asking for is a flexible TOT percentage - a JV or transfer of TOT requires complex agreements between our PSU's and the OEM, also how odes one exactly work out the percentage? or what we need as TOT and what they intend for us to manufacture?, using both sides expertise will also come under stress ? it will also lead to numerous disputes and complaints over time from both sides - what they are saying here let's not hold the whole contract or the agreement hostage to precise percentages and calculations, lets first start manufacturing and see how it proceeds over a period of time going with the belief that more and more components will be turned towards manufacturing locally over time. Makes sense and reduces red tape and bureaucracy.

Trade of 500 billion p.a and inter operability of armed forces seems to be an extremely ambitious task, something I do no think will happen is the next decade.
Overhaul of training and operating procedures of armed forces is something that we really need and should be welcomed with open arms.

Looking for your input since you seem to very be clued into this initiative.Any links ?

In essence the whole goal is to be the largest trading partner of each other. Any initiative needs a goal to work towards - policies are drawn based on the target, what happens or not later will depend at that moment.

 

[godofwar]

The french have valid concerns - if the delivery schedule or quality gets affected during local production (by their perception it would because what they saw was unsatisfactory) then it messes up the whole deal and both sides lose money and may get inferior products or perpetual delays in fulfilling the contract - i.e. bad name for rafale.

What they are asking for is a flexible TOT percentage - a JV or transfer of TOT requires complex agreements between our PSU's and the OEM, also how odes one exactly work out the percentage? or what we need as TOT and what they intend for us to manufacture?, using both sides expertise will also come under stress ? it will also lead to numerous disputes and complaints over time from both sides - what they are saying here let's not hold the whole contract or the agreement hostage to precise percentages and calculations, lets first start manufacturing and see how it proceeds over a period of time going with the belief that more and more components will be turned towards manufacturing locally over time. Makes sense and reduces red tape and bureaucracy.

But this goes against what was agreed under MMRCA deal.
Shouldn't both sides agree what they each want from the deal before they jump into bed with each other, lest one or the other become disillusioned.
In the scenario you are suggesting, India carries all the risk in case things go south.
Also not only is ToT important for us, but the timing of transfer is critical as well.
ToT is of no use to us if it is transferred at a time when it is obsolete.
E.g What use is AESA to us if the French supply it in 2030(they decide our industry is finally mature enough to absorb AESA in 2030) by which a new gen radar has already been developed and in use by all major air forces.

We would have essentially paid through our noses, in 2014, to get an obsolete technology in 2030.

Because such gimmicks have been used in the past to deny ToT to India as was stipulated in various agreements.

MMRCA deal was designed for the very purpose of preventing these incidents.
The French had no reservations before they were declared L1 bidder and exclusive negotiations started.
I think French are negotiating in bad faith bringing up these issues when the deal is so close.
I fear same will be the case with DITT.

 

[illusion8]

But this goes against what was agreed under MMRCA deal.
Shouldn't both sides agree what they each want from the deal before they jump into bed with each other, lest one or the other become disillusioned.

The reason why a single contract took so long even after selecting is precisely because of the complexity of the agreement - this is what is dragging the whole deal. There is a clear percentage mentioned in the contract but the haggling is based on the specifics of it. Dassault has to fulfill the contract because they are the one's who are carrying the responsibility of the deal, they are the one's who will manage the financials as well. The PSU's or the private contractors will not be held responsible for any delays or failures or any penalties. There is something that's happening behind the scenes - especially because of reliance though which is another aspect.

In the scenario you are suggesting, India carries all the risk in case things go south.
Also not only is ToT important for us, but the timing of transfer is critical as well.
ToT is of no use to us if it is transferred at a time when it is obsolete.

What do you mean by India carries all the risks?
Again, the MMRCA evolved over the years and there have been numerous changes compared to what was initially planned, there is overdue hype about TOT - we also have an issue with absorption of tech transfers.

A JV under DTTI is co development and co production and is completely different from a percentage based TOT - here both parties will be jointly developing a product that will be bought by both parties and may also be exported - provided both parties agree.

As far as MMRCA is concerned - I agree that there has been a lot of inordinate delays and we cannot pass on the blame to the French entirely. Besides, Rafale is still in evolution and upgrades and system enhancements and research is already built in the contract. There is a lot of leeway allowed for contingencies.

E.g What use is AESA to us if the French supply it in 2030(they decide our industry is finally mature enough to absorb AESA in 2030) by which a new gen radar has already been developed and in use by all major air forces.

If dassault doesn't come up with an AESA (they are already testing it on rafale right now) by the time the first air frames are ready then that means delays again and penalties for it.

We would have essentially paid through our noses, in 2014, to get an obsolete technology in 2030.
Because such gimmicks have been used in the past to deny ToT to India as was stipulated in various agreements.

No one will pay for 4th gen tech in 2030 - so rest assured that if dassault ends up delaying it for so long then the deal would die mcuh earlier than 2030...it's not even a scenario to consider.
happened before? You mean the Russian contracts - the PAKFA? that's a whole different beast.

MMRCA deal was designed for the very purpose of preventing these incidents.
The French had no reservations before they were declared L1 bidder and exclusive negotiations started.
I think French are negotiating in bad faith bringing up these issues when the deal is so close.
I fear same will be the case with DITT.

Could be that you are right about the french dragging or delaying it - but I don't see the point of them being keen on killing the deal. Why would they do that?