US-India Defense Ties

US, India Expand Partnership with Defense, Nuclear DealsBy David Gollust
New Delhi
20 July 2009

The United States and India have expanded their emerging partnership with agreements that could clear the way for large-scale Indian purchases of U.S. nuclear and military technology. The accords were announced as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton capped a five-day visit to India.

The agreements announced by Clinton and Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna aim to accelerate a growing partnership ignited by the two countries' landmark nuclear cooperation accord reached in 2005.

In a step to advance the nuclear accord, India has approved two sites in that country where U.S. firms will have exclusive rights to build nuclear power plants, action that could mean $10-billion worth of business for American companies.

The sides also reached a so-called "end use" monitoring agreement that would ensure U.S. military technology provided to India is not sold or otherwise transferred to third parties.

That accord mandated by the U.S. Congress is a necessary prerequisite for American aerospace firms to bid on a pending Indian purchase of 126 multi-role fighter jets, potentially the largest-ever arms sale.

At a news conference, Clinton and her Indian counterpart said they had agreed to launch and be co-chairs of a "strategic dialogue" that will involve a wide range of government agencies on both sides.

Clinton said the two countries, which had frosty relations during the Cold War era and beyond, still differ on some key issues but that their new partnership has the potential to be a "signature accomplishment" of the two governments.

"At a time when the headlines are filled with challenges, the relationship between the United States and India is a good news story. And I believe, minister, that it is going to get even better," she said.

Clinton said Indian Prime Minister Monmohan Singh, with whom she met earlier Monday, had accepted an invitation from President Obama to visit the White House November 24 for the first official state visit for the Obama administration.

Foreign Minister Krishna said the understandings reached with Clinton add a "qualitative substance" to the bilateral relationship.

"India and the United States of America regard each other as global partners. Our two democracies can play a leading and constructive role on the global level in addressing the urgent global challenges of our times," he said.

The Clinton visit was not without discord, with India saying flatly Sunday it intends to stand firm against western demands that it accept binding limitations on the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions.

Clinton, who insisted India can make emission cuts without harming its economy, said she is optimistic the two governments can reach a common approach before the world conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/07/mil-090720-voa08.htm
Discuss!

US ready to offer F-35 JSF stealth jet to India

Washington is prepared to offer India its latest F-35 Lightning II stealth combat aircraft, otherwise known as the Joint Strike Fighter, according to India’s IANS news agency, after U.S. companies lost a tender earlier this year to sell 126 fighter aircraft to Delhi.

If India is interested in the JSF, the United States is prepared to supply information about the aircraft as part of the sales process, according to a Pentagon report on cooperation with India presented to Congress.

“If India shows interest in the JSF, the USA would be prepared to provide information about it, including its technical characteristics, and other information to support India’s request,” the agency said quoting the report.

The F-35 is currently still being tested, but low-rate initial production is already underway, with full-rate production due to begin around 2016, according to Aviation Week magazine. The United States alone wants to buy almost 2,500 F-35s.

India is currently involved in another procurement program for a Russian-built stealth design, the Sukhoi T-50, also known as PAK-FA. Two T-50 prototypes are flying on test in Moscow, while a third is close to completion at the assembly line in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. Series production is due to start around 2014-15, with a derivative of the design built in India due to enter service with the Indian Air Force around 2020.

Indian press reports claim the United States is willing to offer the JSF as an alternative to the T-50.

Developed by the U.S. Lockheed Martin group, the F-35 is a multirole stealth design. The aircraft will replace thousands of F-16s, A-10s and other aircraft in the air forces of the United States, Britain and many other NATO allies.

Earlier this year, American companies were dropped by India from a tender competition to supply 126 light fighter aircraft. Russia’s MiG-35 fighter and the Swedish SAAB Gripen were also dropped. Only the Eurofighter Typhoon and France’s Rafale remain in the competition.

Indian military sources quoted by the local press said only the Typhoon and Rafale met the technical requirements of the Indian Air Force, which had been demonstrated in extensive flight trials by all the participating aircraft in India.

http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111102/168346252.html

Interesting move by the US.

Wonder what US allies like the UK are thinking... the US wouldn't even allow the UK the source codes to integrate their own weapons, so if Britain wanted to use Brimstone or ALARM on their own F-35s they would have to hand over those weapons to the US and get them to integrate them.

I am sure India would want to assemble their own aircraft and perhaps even produce a few parts, but the real question is what sort of stealth performance level will the Indians get in comparison with the US version.

Well MMRCA bids are to be opened today in presence of MoD people and reps from Rafale and EF consortium. So, US thinking goes like this. Indian officials could get sticker shock when they open files from two companies. There is a bench mark price which is agreed upon by Contract Negotiation Committee(CNC) which comprises of people from various organizations/entities such as HAL, DRDO, MoD, offset facilitation agency, IAF etc.etc. The L1 bid(lowest one) should normally be lower than the benchmark which is agreed upon by CNC. If L1 is below benchmark then the contract will be signed with L1 bidder without any more discussions on price. If if L1 bid is higher than Benchmark price then the process could be delayed. So, in that case US will pull/try to pull all the levers to rattle MMRCA process and give an offer of F-35 and LM has been beating the drum that F-35 could be delivered to India from 2015 and with the flyaway cost of $65 million each. That is mouth watering price to say the least, considering HAL built MKI costs between $50-60 million. IMO Rafale and EF will be around $100 million or more each. But off course downsides are no or minimal ToT for F-35 and questions marks over manufacture in India, CISMO & EUM agreements, source codes and question marks over integration of Indian weapons on F-35. Funny part is the timing of this F-35 announcement, just before bids are to be opened. So that if there is a sticker shock, the F-35 offer is fresh in the minds of officials and IAF. BTW decision on bids will take atleast a month or so. If the difference between the two bids is more tahn 15%, it should take minimal time.

Interesting... except there is no way they could deliver F-35s for less than twice that, and probably not even three times that price.

Not to mention the maintainence costs... if stealth really was that cheap... everyone would have it.

F-35: Should India Really Ride The Lightning?

The recent statement by a United States Department of Defence official, that the US would be willing to discuss a possible sale of the F-35 Lightning II to India, or even consider bringing India into the ambitious programme as a partner, has generated a lot of attention in
the Indian media. While this is not the first time the F-35 has been offered to India, the timing of this fresh pitch is interesting. Coming six months after the two American contenders vying for the lucrative Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract -- the F-16 and F/A-18 -- failed to make the Indian Air Force (IAF) shortlist, and just days before the bids by EADS Cassidian and Dassault were opened, many perceive this as an attempt by the US and Lockheed-Martin to work themselves back into the equation. Sections of the Indian news media – both print and electronic – have called for the F-35's consideration in the MMRCA tender itself (and some have called for an outright purchase) resulting in a new round of teeth-gnashing over a topic that has stretched over a decade. All things considered, here's why we don't think the F-35 for India is a very good idea.

To be clear, there is no doubt that the F-35 will meet accuracy and modernity standards required from any new-generation military equipment. But does it provide true bang-for-buck that the Indian Air Force needs? The way we see it, not really.

The Lightning II can barely be called a “medium weight” aircraft – the only aircraft heavier than it in the MMRCA competition was the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Now couple this with the fact that its payload just about matches that of the Tejas, and you start to wonder whether it's such a good fit for the IAF. Next, even if it is advertised as a “multirole” aircraft, its capability on the aerial warfare front is still seriously suspect. At present the best it can do is carry four air-to-air missiles internally, less than half the capability of either the Typhoon or Rafale. It cannot operate without air cover as it does not possess a swing-role capability. Also, its stealth is not all-aspect like the F-22’s, and so it cannot be relied upon to make its way in and out of enemy territory unassisted.

Additionally, the F-35 features a significantly smaller combat radius than either MMRCA finalist when on internal fuel and weapons (which also means a smaller payload due to restrictions on space available). There is no official mention yet about external fuel tanks on the F-35, and the moment you hang weapons on external pylons, you can kiss both range and stealth goodbye. There are doubts, too, about its aerodynamic capabilities. The aircraft features thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading figures poorer than those of any contemporary fighter. One wonders how well it would perform in the key strike role in the thin air over the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau – the likely setting of any future India-China conflict.

There is also an issue that seems minor at first sight, but could throw a spanner in procurement. The IAF has, over the last two decades, gravitated towards two-man crews for any aircraft that will be involved in strike roles beyond close air support. This was highlighted in the Kargil War when IAF Mirages had to perform precision bombing tasks at high altitude while avoiding air defences, staying within the border and keeping an eye on possible interception. It is the reason why a third of the MMRCA batch is touted to comprise tandem-seaters just as all the new Jaguars have been. The lack of a two-seat F-35 means that not only will the IAF not get what it wants for deep penetration strike roles, but it means that any pilot training will have to be done on expensive simulators only.

Another problem is the complexity of the design itself and the fact that many of its technologies are radically new and untried. The USAF is learning the hard way that the F-22’s radar absorbing skin (which the F-35 also uses) is highly vulnerable to rain and dust, and very expensive and difficult to maintain. Advertised as having the computing power of two Cray supercomputers, it is so complex that it can only fly for an average of 1.7 hours before suffering a critical failure. Even six years after it entered service, new and potentially fatal problems continue to surface with alarming regularity. It isn’t too hard to guess how the F-35, whose design borrows heavily from that of the F-22 and even outclasses it in certain aspects, will fare in this regard.

If that wasn't bad enough, it gets worse once we start talking about timelines and costs. As of today, the F-35 (without development costs included) is priced at the same level as the Eurofighter and the Rafale. But while the latter two are combat proven and available today (in a fashion), the Lightning II won't be for a decade. Going by past experience, further schedule slippages and cost overruns look like a distinct possibility. Now, factor in the additional uncertainty created by the possible need to develop a tandem-seat version for the IAF alone, and one quickly begins to see why any optimism regarding timelines and costs could be highly misplaced. In the midst of all these arguments and calculations, the main reason why new medium fighters are being bought is often forgotten: the IAF needs new aircraft as fast as possible to shore up numbers and make up for the rapid obsolescence of a large portion of its fleet, and each delay only serves to make an already precarious situation worse. It is already taking a significant risk with the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) as it is. What is the point of bringing more uncertainty into the equation now, that too to procure a fighter that offers little in addition to low-observability?

And speaking of low-observability, how much will it cost to maintain the stealth features, especially in the hazy, dusty conditions of India? For that matter, will the IAF even get an aircraft that is as stealthy as the ones the US and UK operate? Will it get all the avionics, even watered down versions? The US is reluctant today to provide the UK, the only level-1 partner in the project, with full access to the aircraft’s source code. What are the chances of India getting a better deal?

Finally, there is one additional issue that bears examination in this debate, and that is how procuring the F-35 will affect the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project. Because of the similar roles the two aircraft shall be expected to fulfil, there is a distinct possibility that purchasing the F-35 will kill the AMCA for good, with disastrous long-term consequences. Detractors may argue that the AMCA is nowhere close to completion, and may be delayed by years just like the Tejas has been. That may well be the case, but if the AMCA does suffer inordinate delays, India can always place a future order for an F-35 with many of its niggles hopefully sorted out. There is little reason to make that call now, when the AMCA is still a design on paper.

Having said all that, one can imagine a few scenarios in which the F-35, even with all its problems, would serve a useful purpose in the IAF. For years, the IAF maintained a handful of high-maintenance MiG-25R Foxbats for a niche profile: reconnaissance of enemy territory, out of reach of interceptors or SAMs. Likewise, the IAF could consider one or two squadrons of the Lightning II, for the simple purpose of “kicking the door down” in the first few days of the war, taking out vital air defence nodes, logistics nodes, or AEW&C and tanker aircraft before handing over the heavy lifting to other aircraft that can announce their presence.

And yet, the reason this may turn out to be a bad idea is that in the same way the MiG-25 was replaced not by another aircraft but an indirect replacement – spy satellites – the F-35's role can be performed not by another aircraft, but by missiles. We already operate the ground-launched BrahMos. The air-launched version should be available within the next few years, giving us a 300-km reach anywhere beyond its launch point. Throw the Shaurya into the mix and suddenly we can hit targets deep inside enemy territory without having to risk aircraft or pilots. Granted, missiles cannot do everything an aircraft can but even if cruise missiles provide partial coverage, the costs in maintaining a squadron’s worth of special aircraft and pilots cannot be justified.

This is not to suggest that the F-35 Lightning II is a turkey, or that the US military is making a humongous blunder in buying it. But in the Indian context, we see little rationale behind spending large sums of money today on something that will only arrive a decade from now at the very best, be a difficult fit in our existing doctrine as well as punch a hole in our finances. If Lightning should strike our enemies, we would rather it not have our tricoloured roundels on it.

GarryB wrote:Interesting... except there is no way they could deliver F-35s for less than twice that, and probably not even three times that price.

Not to mention the maintainence costs... if stealth really was that cheap... everyone would have it.

we have enough to handlem the cost

If you have so much you want to throw some away let me give you my address to send a few big bags of money to... in fact, no, just set up an account with Rosoboronexport in my name and put money in it...

Indian state doesn't have anything to throw away. Ok, economy is doing great, but there is also the problem of inflation etc. What the heck the govt. is going to stop subsidizing Diesel and LPG soon and I have to pay more to cook my food and travelling will get expensive as well . It is the threat from China that the IAF is having almost a free run to get a what they want. There are many rich people in India who also act as they are above law but India is far from being a rich country.

Dear f-insas, please don't peddle bull$hit.

Indian state doesn't have anything to throw away.

It wouldn't be throwing it away... I really would appreciate it...

But seriously I know they haven't got money to throw away, but paying half a trillion dollars EACH for C-17s... tell me that makes sense.

There are many rich people in India who also act as they are above law but India is far from being a rich country.

Seems to be a problem for every country, whether they admit it or not.

GarryB wrote:tell me that makes sense.

No it doesn't, it only makes sense if it was a payback for something else like for example helping end India's isolation when it comes to buying nuclear fuel from NSG countries, most of which are US stooges (to put it bluntly)

Pretty amusing considering who created that isolation in the first place (the US).

The Russians are working on Breeder reactor designs again and pretty soon will have nuclear fuel to spare.

For those who don't know what a fast breeder reactor is, it generate a huge amount of excess neutrons... if you store used up nuclear fuel rods around the core they become re-enriched and can be used for fuel or to make bombs depending on how long you leave them.

GarryB wrote:Interesting move by the US.

Wonder what US allies like the UK are thinking... the US wouldn't even allow the UK the source codes to integrate their own weapons, so if Britain wanted to use Brimstone or ALARM on their own F-35s they would have to hand over those weapons to the US and get them to integrate them.
.

The source code is the original language and symbology of which the computer software is written in. Then the software is put through a process called 'compiling'. Compiling is the process that converts or translates the original software language to a language of which the weapon system can use. The compiled software is the actual software language that is placed into the weapon system. Once compiled one can not determine what the original statements, language or, symbologies were. Now you could write the software yourself, compile it and see how close your compiled software compared to the original compiled software. Modify it, redo and redo the process and hope you eventually get it right, an extremely time consuming process.

Compiling occurs before the "software" can be executed, by precompiling you turn the software from the programming language used to write the software into machine code (binary or something similar low level machine code that would mean little to humans)

Because it is already compiled it runs much faster because it doesn't need to be interpreted first.

Of course the difference between open source and not open source is Linux and Windows... the former you can look at and see how it works and make changes to it to improve performance to better suite your needs and uses of the system.
With Windows you just get bloatware... you don't know what programming they have used and how efficient it is.

To integrate Brahmos with the F-35 you would need to hand over all the source code and data on it... which would pretty much be giving away the keys to the castle.

The F-35's software is encrypted. And even if it isn't, trying to decompile the source from executable binary is ultimately an exercise in futility. All the fuss over the source codes issue is because it gives a tremendous insight to the current state of the art in terms of radar control, EW methods and other technologies in which the US leads the world. Basically, it is a bunch of greedy nations trying to ask for stuff they didn't pay for hoping that if they make enough noise they will get at least something if not everything for free.

You DO NOT need the F-35 source codes to integrate additional weapons and functionality. All you need to know is the framework by which such software modules can be written. It is just like you DO NOT need Windows XP's source code to write device drivers for it or to write additional software than runs on it. All you need to know is how you must write these things to comply with the existing framework.

When you buy a copy of Windows you are not entitled to its source codes. When you buy a BMW you are not entitled to its engine management software source codes. When you buy a GPS navigation hand held you are not entitled to its sources codes either. Buying a fighter is no different.

First of all there would be tremendous penalties in terms of performance if the operating systems and software for the F-35 was encrypted... and to little advantage, as most supercomputers could manage a brute force attack to decrypt it anyway.

Second we are not talking about off the shelf buyers of the aircraft... we are talking about allies with a special relationship who are punting up quite a bit of cash in a JOINT VENTURE to build the F-35 including manufacturing components.

Third... machine code is hardware specific and is written for the components on the F-35 or that can be fitted to it.

Getting your hands on the machine code only makes sense if you also have an aircraft to go with it.

All you need to know is the framework by which such software modules can be written. It is just like you DO NOT need Windows XP's source code to write device drivers for it or to write additional software than runs on it. All you need to know is how you must write these things to comply with the existing framework.

You don't need an open source copy of Windows to write and add software that will operate within windows, but you do need to follow the windowa standard and make it windows compatible.

For instance if you design a brand new printer with lots of new and fantastic features... you also need to write a piece of software called a driver that is installed into part of the operating system so that the operating system knows what the new piece of hard ware can and cannot do and how it works and what data and information(commands) it needs and what it will transmit to the computer (ie empty ink, or no paper in tray... or that it has finished printing.)

You could run the printer using a generic printer driver, but none of its special features will be available and it might not always work as expected.

When you buy a copy of Windows you are not entitled to its source codes. When you buy a BMW you are not entitled to its engine management software source codes. When you buy a GPS navigation hand held you are not entitled to its sources codes either. Buying a fighter is no different.

When you contribute billions of dollars to the development of and make guarantees to buy xxx number of the final product of any of the above then it intitles you to administrator access... ie you can install your own software.

The reason why the US wants to sell these aircrafts to India is because with the ever growing cost and production delays there is every possibility that partner nations will cut back on the number of aircrafts that they had initially planned to buy.

And it becomes a surprise to everyone.

It is standard procedure before a design is ready to inflate the number of aircraft that will be bought. The more that will be bought divides the costs and increases profit levels and makes everything look peachy.

When the F-22 was originally talked about they were talking about 1,000 aircraft.

Then it became 700, then 300, then 200 and finally 189.

The thing is that after everyone has committed to the program it is OK to be more realistic, but that inflates the prices.

As more and more countries cut their numbers for the F-35 because it is too expensive... the price of the F-35s they do get will increase and increase and pretty soon some countries will have to cancel rather than cut.

The question is... will they find new buyers to save them, or will the US military increase their orders?

When they are buying over 1,500 aircraft it can actually make sense for them to increase their order to save money.

If 1,500 aircraft produced alone will cost $300 million per aircraft, but if they were producing 2,000 the cost per aircraft drops to $200 million per aircraft by actually ordering more they can save money because 1,500 at 300 million each would cost 450 billion, while 2,000 at $200 million each would "only" cost 400 billion... get 500 extra aircraft and spend 50 billion less.

The problem is tipping points... what production numbers would shift the price enough to make the extra purchases worth it.

From memory the original claims were based on about 3,000 aircraft sold which is fairly unlikely now.

Personally I think the Russians should say that the PAK FA program is on track and that the LMFS program should start early so that they can get to initial flight tests by 2020. If they leave it too long then... well actually if they get in fast enough they could deal a body blow to the F-35 program and force a from scratch redesign which might kill the program and force the west to spend an enormous amount of money to simply achieve parity.

Most of what the west does seems to be aimed at making Russia waste money on empty counters to western programs.

The European ABM system is a good example of this... there is no threat from Iran... it is all a provocation directed at Russia... a way for new europe to get US forces based on their territory and to be able to give Russia the fingers. The irony is that the Russian response will simply be very powerful weapons directed at them, so it will actually make them rather less safe, which is the opposite of the stated purpose.

NEW DELHI: India is getting ready to order 22 heavy-duty Apache helicopters for around $1.4 billion, in what will be yet another big defence deal to be bagged by the US.

The US has already made military sales worth over $8 billion to India over the last few years, despite it having lost out to France in the almost $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to supply 126 fighters to IAF, which is in the final commercial negotiations stage.

In the battle for the attack helicopters, Boeing's AH-64D Apache Longbow met all ASQRs (air staff qualitative requirements) during the extensive field trials conducted by the IAF, while the Russian Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant's Mi-28 Havoc failed to pass muster.

"It's just a matter of time before the contract is inked for the Apaches after final commercial negotiations. Most of the hurdles have been cleared,'' a defence ministry official said. The US and Russia are also locked in battle to supply 15 heavy-lift helicopters to IAF, with the Boeing-manufactured Chinooks pitted against the Russian Mi-26 choppers.

is Russia losing its biggest market ??

Nah.

The light helicopter market and heavy helicopter market are more lucrative.

I rather doubt the Indians would have allowed the Russians to win all three competitions, so I think losing the armed helicopter program is probably the best option for Russia.

The Mi-28N needs a little more work, but when the Mi-28M is ready I think the Indians will think they bought too soon.

The Apache is a capable aircraft that is well proven in combat.

It is also a high maintainence aircraft that is expensive to buy and operate.

Once Mi-28M and Hermes come online however I think they will be a step above the Apache.

when i look at the things which russia and india makes ,they tend to put a lot of things in the same basket . like if they make a helicopter they will add space to carry 3-4 soldiers with it , but why i like apache is cuz it is a pure fighting machine , and looks good too lol

i know looks dont count but we live in a world where propoganda is the weapon of choice lol

indians and russian are the same , if u look at any airforce base in usa u wont see even a small paper lying on the ground ,they literally have men circle the entire base to pick up trash . but if u look at indian or russian bases , u will see all kinds of things lying around , the equipment made in these 2 countries i think is made for rough use ,

FOD is a problem on any airfield, and I rather suspect Russian and Indian personel will march the flight line at least once a day for safety.

when i look at the things which russia and india makes ,they tend to put a lot of things in the same basket . like if they make a helicopter they will add space to carry 3-4 soldiers with it , but why i like apache is cuz it is a pure fighting machine , and looks good too lol

If you are referring to the Hind with its small troop carrying capacity, I would suggest they are different designs with different design focuses.

The Hind is an assault helo and is ideal for small groups like special forces or police units.

The Mi-28N has a small avionics bay in the rear that you could squeeze two people into if you needed.

It is an emergency only type thing... for instance if a single downed pilot is located they can be picked up immediately.

AFAIK the Apache has a large pod that can be carried under a pylon for the same purpose, but obviously you need to know you are going on a rescue mission, whereas the space in the Mi-28N is always available.

I rather suspect India might buy some Mi-35M2s as the new versions with night and all weather capability added and new weapons and components from the Havoc looks to be a much more capable aircraft than the previous models.

The twin barrel nose mounted 23mm cannon is ideal for helo use and new sensors and weapon options make it a very capable machine with the potential for reloads in the main cabin.

Looks is fashion and fashion changes.

I used to find the Mig-15-21/Su-7-11 + -17 aircraft a bit boring, but now I like them again.

There is such a thing as over exposure...

india always used russian helicopters but in kargil none of the helicopters could work in high alltitudes ,thats the reason india had to use JETS . and that is one reason why india made its own Helicopter HAL LCH .
MI35 are too heavy to fly at high altitudes ,but i think APache will do that job for india

It was simply a matter of timing - when India had the tender, Mi-28N lacked (and still does!) many of the systems operational on the Apache. Give the Mi-28N some time, and I think it will exceed the Apache in basic performance characteristics, but the Apache wins on production, support, system integration etc right now.
It is not all catchup ofc, the Ka-52 for example already is produced with DIRCM, the Apache is not.