End User Agreement : India's capitulation to US interests ?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 29 Jul 2009 05:52

That article by ACM Krishnaswamy is pure gold. It should be at the top of every DRDO whinefest thread, to tell people why rushing out to buy the shiniest toys is not the way to be an independent nation.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 29 Jul 2009 07:01

Yes, it's well articulated. Our own Sanku has been doing great service here. It would be a joy to see consensus forming on the issue, is it?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 08:03

ACM Krishnaswamy's is one perspective..But there are others as well...

Here is a melange of "contrary" views, again from ex servicemen..

Some quotes:

Cmdr Uday Bhaskar

"I think this is really not as extreme as it is made to sound. If India wants to obtain access to US military supplies it has to enter a protocol of this type. We wouldn't need the agreement if we could have done without US help," National Maritime Foundation Director C. Uday Bhaskar told IANS.

Gen Ashok Mehta

The opinion is echoed by Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta.

"Every country ensures that its technology does not fall into wrong hands. If you need American hardware, if you want to diversify your inventory and not be completely dependent on the Russians, we would like to go to the US, which has the most sophisticated technology today," Mehta said.

The most telling logic is this:

"It makes sense to have options; otherwise the seller will bargain hard with you. With 70 percent of our defence equipment being imported, we cannot afford to have a single vendor and the US is a worthy contender," he said.

I also find ACM Krishnaswamy's assertions on being able to have "improved, upgraded, repaired, modified and refurbished imported equipment within the country, sometimes engaging expertise from abroad" a trifle disengenuous...Not so long back the Su30 MKI (the model of "collaborative purchase") fleet was said to be grounded due to lack of tyres! The mig 29 fleet earned the sobriquet of "hangar queens" because of its engines for years before the OEM was persuaded to make major improvements..there are many such examples..

Moving on..

While we have adapted sensors and weapon systems of origin other than Russian on the SU-30MKI, the US will not permit India to adapt sub-systems, weapons and munitions of non-US origin, especially from Russia on US machines in Indian inventory. It is also unlikely that the US will permit India to develop and produce spares and other support needs for the aircraft indigenously other than through license manufacture process.

This has got nothing to do with the EUVA at all..Whether we want to put in an Israeli radar, or the Litening pod on the F16 is a question of the specific product negotiation (MRCA in this case) and final config that gets signed off on..We can for example say that any aircraft that gets chosen will need to put in the Elta 2052...Various unrelated issues are being mixed together under the EUM umbrella....

It is also unlikely that the US will permit India to develop and produce spares and other support needs for the aircraft indigenously other than through license manufacture process.

What is the example of any other vendor, Russians included, to have allowed anything other than "license manufacturing"?

The most disengenous of all:

Even if 82 countries have signed such agreement, that is no compulsion for India to sign

To extend a corollary, the foreign equity stake for foreigners in Indian Insurance companies is restricted by law at 26% - but it should not aply to American companies! Or that curently the Atomic Energy Act does not permit foreign ownership of nuke power plants, but nuke plants set up by GE should be nevertheless owned by GE! Or better still, if a defence contract mandates 70% offset as per DPP, LM asks for a lower offset requirement for being American!

What we do have is an option NOT TO BUY...and ACM Krishnaswamy's successors can ensure that easily by saying that Amercian equipment do not match up to our ASQRs! Its as simple as that..

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 29 Jul 2009 09:37

We can for example say that any aircraft that gets chosen will need to put in the Elta 2052..

A quibble here, somnath. The ACM's point is that India makes several adaptations far into the life of a defense system, that could not and should not have been in the original specs. Allowing foreign personnel to come inspect those, is not acceptable.

This is NOT the same as the seller's concern over their technology being leaked to some third party. They can say: "Warranty is void is cover is opened", but India should not accept any "we can enter your house any time and see what you are doing to your living room because the TV set-top converter is covered by EUMA.". (I once had a cable TV deal where they actually had written in such a thing, but it ended when I ended their contract once and for all).

IMO, India should just write into procurement deals that any company that insists on such EUMA is disqualified. The Parliament should pass this law. Then the vendors can decide whether to sell under a written exemption from the EUMA, or watch their competitors get ahead.

Maybe they can have a 3-year EUMA, if they provide a 3-year full warranty. That would be a fair exchange. After the 3 years, no claim to check anything.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Jul 2009 09:50

Somnath why quote the article selectively to peddle your pov ? MKI fleet was grounded due to the unavailability of the tyres but then do you know what is the latest update on that ? for last I checked MKI fleet is up and flying. And you did not highlight the fact that RU not only provided the license for manufacturing the MKI but also shared enough IP so that Indians could mate third party sensor suite and weapons to the MKI . RD-33 issue was resolved long back and afaik Koraput plant did manufacture several hundred RD-33 inhouse after that this definitely would not have happened without the RU input.

You have cleverly omitted the part where ACM Krishnaswamy mentions about US track record of guarding its IP to a level where the buyer is a sitting duck and at total mercy of GOTUS. An EUMA is an official and written proof of such a policy, so that in event of GOTUS showing its true colours GOI cannot even

.

And lastly ACM Krishnaswamy says

American interests may lie in guarding technology, but it is in our right to innovate and explore. At the political level, we witness a strong convergence of views and interests between US and India.

Convergence of views and Interests ...where ?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 10:21

narayanan wrote: A quibble here, somnath. The ACM's point is that India makes several adaptations far into the life of a defense system, that could not and should not have been in the original specs. Allowing foreign personnel to come inspect those, is not acceptable.

This is NOT the same as the seller's concern over their technology being leaked to some third party. They can say: "Warranty is void is cover is opened", but India should not accept any "we can enter your house any time and see what you are doing to your living room because the TV set-top converter is covered by EUMA.".

IMO, India should just write into procurement deals that any company that insists on such EUMA is disqualified. The Parliament should pass this law. Then the vendors can decide whether to sell under a written exemption from the EUMA, or watch their competitors get ahead.

Maybe they can have a 3-year EUMA, if they provide a 3-year full warranty. That would be a fair exchange. After the 3 years, no claim to check anything.

Well, any vendor will say that..Didnt the Russians get involved when we wanted to upgrade the Mig21? Did they simply allow us to plnk in a bunch of Israeli avionics by ourselves? About your EUMA-v/s-warranty deal, thats exactly how it will work...As long as we think that their servicing is required, we play ball..If we think that the "modifications made" is more important than getting servicing from the OEM, we ask them to bugger off..They cant force their way into India to inspect, can they?

negi wrote:Somnath why quote the article selectively to peddle your pov ? MKI fleet was grounded due to the unavailability of the tyres but then do you know what is the latest update on that ? for last I checked MKI fleet is up and flying. And you did not highlight the fact that RU not only provided the license for manufacturing the MKI but also shared enough IP so that Indians could mate third party sensor suite and weapons to the MKI . RD-33 issue was resolved long back and afaik Koraput plant did manufacture several hundred RD-33 inhouse after that this definitely would not have happened without the RU input.

You have cleverly omitted the part where ACM Krishnaswamy mentions about US track record of guarding its IP to a level where the buyer is a sitting duck and at total mercy of GOTUS. An EUMA is an official and written proof of such a policy, so that in event of GOTUS showing its true colours GOI cannot even .

And lastly ACM Krishnaswamy says

American interests may lie in guarding technology, but it is in our right to innovate and explore. At the political level, we witness a strong convergence of views and interests between US and India.
Convergence of views and Interests ...where ?

Negi, I am only referring to the sheer "terminological inexactidue" in the good ACM's assertion that anything else we have bought from elsewhere we have been able to maintain and modify ourselves without having to be dependent on the OEM..There, my point was that even in a super collaborative deal like Su30, we are dependent on the OEM for something as (realtively) elementary as the tyres..So why quibble if the same standard applies to American OEM?

About RD33, you are exactly right, we were able to "license manufacture"...But the good ACM says that Americans would ONLY allow us to license manufature - as if others are allowing anything different..Thats the limited point..

Guarding of IP etc is question of product level negotiation, nothing to do with EUMA..If for example, we want the source codes of the AESA in our ASQRs and the yanks dont agree, they are simply disqualified! The level of IP shared will be part of the complex decision making matrix involving offsets, ToT, costs etc etc etc..We can for example make IP sharing and ToT the single heaviest weight in the offsets for a contract...nothing to do with EUMA, and thats the red herring being invoked..

about convergence of interest...well, that would take us waaay OT.....Suffice to say that the good ACM is a good pilot and officer, but has also been steeped in the dominant discourse of his generation!

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Jul 2009 10:32

Those who oppose the EUMA seem to be saying:

1) The US is a perfidious nation as Sanku so eloquently said a few pages back and hence would be trying to harm India.
2) The current government can’t be trusted to keep India’s interests in mind and would sign on deals, which are against Indian interests. This would of course include the military folks because saying they have zero input in the final choice of something like the MRCA contract for example is bit of a joke.
3) We can sign the EUMA for whatever we need to buy in future on a case by case basis as we have been doing till now.

The first two are just a POV and there’s no point in trying to debate on that as we saw during the marathon Nuclear deal debate. Folks who think that a particular political party or leader will betray India will keep on thinking that till the cows come home (or even after a few more siblings of Arihant are prowling in the Indian Ocean).

And folks who think US is always on the look out to harm India - and India will just roll back and be harmed - will continue to think so and the only way out is to stop buying anything from the US. Period. However, I find that the same folks who think the US is out to jack us are cagey about taking this very rational step.

Which brings us to the third point. Now from available information – mind you none of us has seen the actual text – it seems that the EUMA contains two important points which the Indian side, which negotiated it, feel are positive gains. They are a) the inspection will be at a time of India’s choosing and b) the inspection will take place at a place of India’s choosing.

Assuming that this is factual, can somebody please explain to me what a product specific EUMA would have that will be over and above these two points? And why the US would agree to something like that when it seems this draft was the farthest they are willing to go. Trust me I’m really trying to understand this particular POV.

Another point about case-by-case EUMA. Take the MRCA contract. Assuming that our Air Force thinks that one of the F-numbered planes is what they want, then we’d have to get down to the labourious task of negotiating a EUMA for this very complex contract. Anthony said that this particular omnibus EUMA took 3 years to negotiate. If that’s the case can we assume that a EUMA for the MRCA would take at least a year?

I raised this point earlier. However, one bright spark dismissed by saying: “Oh we can start negotiations in parallel to the MRCA contract negotiations”. With my limited understanding I couldn’t really figure how we could negotiate a EUMA on the plane and various subsystems that may come with it like the AESA radar when we don’t even know if the F planes would win the contract in the first place? And even if we did what would the other vendors be thinking if we start a EUMA negotiation with the US even before the contract was awarded? I tend to think the real world is bit more complex place than is assumed on BRF.

Finally I’d just like to repost an interesting comment from an India-first retired Army officer, Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta. The comment can be found here

"Every country ensures that its technology does not fall into wrong hands. If you need American hardware, if you want to diversify your inventory and not be completely dependent on the Russians, we would like to go to the US, which has the most sophisticated technology today," Mehta said.

I know everyone of us thinks India is special as it indeed is and we will have our day in the Sun. However, it’s useful to remember that even now we import 70 per cent of our defence requirements.

And we are very dependent on one vendor, who has certainly stood the test of time but we've reached a stage where our military is looking for hardware which is either not available with Russia or is not state-of-the-art. The whole idea of looking at US for military supplies is based on that premise isn't it? Wasn't that the reason why the NDA govt turned to the US for the urgently needed weapons locating radars from the US.

Ultimately the whole debate boils down to this:

One group thinks India does not have the wherewithal to resist the US attempts to gain advantage over India in negotiations. The other group thinks India is sufficiently equipped to counter any US machinations and is no babe in the woods?

A self-confidence issue?

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Jul 2009 10:35

pandyan wrote:It is better to stick with purchase of non-critical items from the US for the time being and may be after 20 years, lets revisit this again....

Aha Pandyan, thank you for saying this in clear terms. This is what I wanted to hear and I have absolutely no issues with this POV.

However, what I find confusing is that those opposing the omnibus EUMA are not categorically saying: "Don't buy US under any circumstances"!

Of course then the whole debate about a product specific EUMA or an omnibus EUMA doesn't arise.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 10:37

pandyan wrote:As the story goes...to escape from a tiger...you have to run faster than the slowest person.
That means in Indian context, India has to maintain a clear edge over China from weapon systems.

Having said that, given the choice of systems available...both in-house and from other countries, the incremental gain in procuring US made systems may not make a noticeable difference.

We need an affordable, reliable, flexible system that will serve the purpose of the nation...last thing we want is go around with begging bowl in times of need.

Another way to look at it is whether we want to put trade and military in one basket. today, there is a logical separation between largest trading partner and largest weapons partner. If both are in the same basket, the arm-twisting capability goes up several notch.....capitalist would dictate the relationship and policies.

It is better to stick with purchase of non-critical items from the US for the time being and may be after 20 years, lets revisit this again....

You are right, we may stick to buying only non critical stuff from the US - thats an option we have..But to say buying American stuff doesnt create a gap over China is no true at all...The P8I would be a quantum leap over whatever else anyone fields in Asia for maritine surveillance..The Aegis class, if we buy, will be another game changer...So would any cooperation on BMD....Even things like AESA...US equipment is a generation ahead of anyone else, used intelligently they are huge force multipliers..

About trade and military, well trade is bilateral, so two way....Arms imports would be part of the trade basket...If the US our large trade partner, it is because it sells us Boeing planes, GE powerplants, MS software, and potentially, nuclear power plants and military equipment...That increases our leverage, not decreases it....

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 29 Jul 2009 11:33

I got a pretty naive question -
How do the US arms manufacturers plan to compete with one hand tied (EUMA)
againt the Israeli, French, Russian contenders?
Especially when relationships with the latter has progressed to technology transfer and joint manufacturing.
Is GOTUS willing to do less than what the US arms manufacturers desire vis-a-vis Indian market?

India as a country has a right to decide who and when to buy arms under what terms, but with or without EUMA it seems what the US arms manufactures have to offer falls short compared to what the other contenders are willing to do.
Or is the US asking the EUMA to be the enabler for tech transfer and joint manufacturing?
Question does this cost provide India with a revolution in capability?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 11:36

^^^ Pandyan, In case the difference is only marginal, we dont buy maybe..But a in range of tech, Amercian tech is a generation ahead of everyone else (BMD, AESA..)..

about power of lobbyists and companies - even if China is the largest client of all these compaies, fact is that the US does not (by law) sell weapons to China..We need to exploit this "US regulatory arbitrage" opportnity!

How do the US arms manufacturers plan to compete with one hand tied (EUMA)
againt the Israeli, French, Russian contenders?
Especially when relationships with the latter has progressed to technology transfer and joint manufacturing.
Is GOTUS willing to do less than what the US arms manufacturers desire vis-a-vis Indian market?

simple, the US pitch is a different generation of technology...they will offer something that is transformational, not something that is incremental - it is upto us to decide whether its relevant for us..

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jul 2009 11:48

somnath wrote:Negi, I am only referring to the sheer "terminological inexactidue" in the good ACM's assertion that anything else we have bought from elsewhere we have been able to maintain and modify ourselves without having to be dependent on the OEM..There, my point was that even in a super collaborative deal like Su30, we are dependent on the OEM for something as (realtively) elementary as the tyres..So why quibble if the same standard applies to American OEM?

Before accusing the former ACM of lying, it would be better if you visited any of Aero India stalls to see many small and medium industries manufcaturing lot of parts for the aircraft in Indian inventory, including the mig series. It is easy to pick up one instance and extrapolate it to all items and say that the ACM is lying, but it is not a surprise coming from you. For your information, the Mig-27 and jaguar upgrades were done by India by integrating Israeli, french and Indian equipment on those platfroms. India won't be able to do that to the aircraft purchased from US. Jaguars were mated with Russian missiles, and Migs with French missiles. It won't be easy to customize the american products as per our needs.

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Jul 2009 11:49

Pulikeshi wrote: Or is the US asking the EUMA to be the enabler for tech transfer and joint manufacturing?
Question does this cost provide India with a revolution in capability?

Very valid question Pulikeshi ji.

I think the best test case for this would be the upcoming MRCA contract. Let's see what the US puts on the table. If it so wants it can certainly offer (radar) technology which is at least a generation ahead of what the others offer. Will it do so? Time will tell.

However, the point in this debate is even if we sign on the omnibus EUMA, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are beholden to US to only their maal.

I think the concern of many folks who are opposed to this EUMA is that they think this particular government will use this to buy everything from the US and acquiescence to the most intrusive of contracts.

The question is, is this an accurate prognosis?

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Jul 2009 11:54

RaviBg wrote: For your information, the Mig-27 and jaguar upgrades were done by India by integrating Israeli, french and Indian equipment on those platfroms. India won't be able to do that to the aircraft purchased from US. Jaguars were mated with Russian missiles, and Migs with French missiles. It won't be easy to customize the american products as per our needs.

Ravi,

I don't want to get involved in this debate about what the ACM wrote. However, I'm just curious, the part I bolded in your quote, do you have some specific information about this? Maybe you can share with us because as far as I know we don't yet operate any US-made defence planes apart from some Hercules transports, as far as I can recall.

I'd also like to point out that the Mig-27 and Jaguar upgrades were done when these planes were no longer the state of the art and the home countries of these planes had stopped using them in their airforce.

I don't think we've got any US military inventory that qualifies for this and so it would be speculation to think that the US wouldn't allow third party upgrades of hardware that they have stopped using due to obsolescence.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jul 2009 11:55

somnath wrote:simple, the US pitch is a different generation of technology...they will offer something that is transformational, not something that is incremental - it is upto us to decide whether its relevant for us..

That is up for debate! Even the US had selected the French A330 based tankers for its airforce before it was cancelled. The F-16 is nearing end of its life, and the F-18s are not used by USAF but by USN. They are no way the best there is out there. So saying that US is offering something transforamtional is plain BS.

And Arms are not part of the trade basket per se. There are no treaties like WTO for purchasing arms. And what leverage do countries like Japan and UK have wrt defence deals? The japanese are arm-twisted to purchase US arms, and it has been the same with Singapore too. Trade with them is much more than trade with India. UK being their strategic and large trade partner couldn't get some of the keys for F-35 aircraft.

When the US is putting conditions even before we buy anything from them, saying that by buying more with those conditions increases our leverage is laughable at best, and pitiable at worst!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jul 2009 12:05

Amit, it is not just the retd ACM but all news channels are saying the same thing :

What is the End-Use Monitoring Agreement?

# EUMA restricts what the purchasing country, India, can do with the US-origin defense equipment, even within its own borders.
# Under the terms of EUMA, India cannot modify the purchased defence article or system in any form.
# Also, to prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on the United States for maintenance, EUMA restricts India from getting US-origin defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from the United States.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 12:08

RaviBg wrote: Before accusing the former ACM of lying, it would be better if you visited any of Aero India stalls to see many small and medium industries manufcaturing lot of parts for the aircraft in Indian inventory, including the mig series. It is easy to pick up one instance and extrapolate it to all items and say that the ACM is lying, but it is not a surprise coming from you. For your information, the Mig-27 and jaguar upgrades were done by India by integrating Israeli, french and Indian equipment on those platfroms. India won't be able to do that to the aircraft purchased from US. Jaguars were mated with Russian missiles, and Migs with French missiles. It won't be easy to customize the american products as per our needs.

First, I am not saying that the ACM is lying, just that he is selectively interpreting facts on the ground...Out of the many upgrade programmes going around, most of them happen at the OEM's facilities (M2k, Mig29 etc etc)...Those that get done all by ourselves are few, and the ability to upgrade is a direct correlation to our ability maintain the upgraded version without the OEM's help..In case we can do it with American equipment, we simply ask the OEM to go jump!

How do you conclude from an EUM that India wont be able to do the same with US equipment?

As for "mating" various types of missiles is concerned, its a question of having access to course codes..and that is a question dealt at product negotiation level (IP, sopurce codes) - again a red herring as far as EUM is concerned.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 12:16

RaviBg wrote:Amit, it is not just the retd ACM but all news channels are saying the same thing :

What is the End-Use Monitoring Agreement?

# EUMA restricts what the purchasing country, India, can do with the US-origin defense equipment, even within its own borders.
# Under the terms of EUMA, India cannot modify the purchased defence article or system in any form.
# Also, to prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on the United States for maintenance, EUMA restricts India from getting US-origin defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from the United States.

These are generic terms being "spun" the way each analyst wants to view them as, especially since the actual text hasnt been seen by anyone...I repeat, its not as if Russia, after all these years, has allowed us to overhaul the Tu142Ms in India! It didnt even allow us to go ahead with an Israeli upgrade of the aircraft (it was subsequently done in some form I guess)..

Terms of the equipment purchase are negotiated for that equipment - if we negotiate ToTs, IP transfers and maitenance facilities in India as part of the agreement, these fears would be unfounded..

RaviBg wrote:
somnath wrote:simple, the US pitch is a different generation of technology...they will offer something that is transformational, not something that is incremental - it is upto us to decide whether its relevant for us..
That is up for debate! Even the US had selected the French A330 based tankers for its airforce before it was cancelled. The F-16 is nearing end of its life, and the F-18s are not used by USAF but by USN. They are no way the best there is out there. So saying that US is offering something transforamtional is plain BS.

And Arms are not part of the trade basket per se. There are no treaties like WTO for purchasing arms. And what leverage do countries like Japan and UK have wrt defence deals? The japanese are arm-twisted to purchase US arms, and it has been the same with Singapore too. Trade with them is much more than trade with India. UK being their strategic and large trade partner couldn't get some of the keys for F-35 aircraft.

When the US is putting conditions even before we buy anything from them, saying that by buying more with those conditions increases our leverage is laughable at best, and pitiable at worst!

Sure, if the military brass thiks US equipment is not worth it, they shouldnt buy!!Simple!

About leverage on arms purchases, well...No one forces anyone to buy..But if India is always having the ability to choose from 2 or 3 suppliers, all of them will fall over each other to get the contract..Especially because the deal sizes that India is talking aboput are HUGE...How much you get for a particular platform is a matter of detail...Who do you think was lobbying the most for the Indo-US nuke deal in the US Congress? The likes of GE and Westinghouise!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jul 2009 12:23

somnat wrote:First, I am not saying that the ACM is lying, just that he is selectively interpreting facts on the ground...Out of the many upgrade programmes going around, most of them happen at the OEM's facilities (M2k, Mig29 etc etc)...Those that get done all by ourselves are few, and the ability to upgrade is a direct correlation to our ability maintain the upgraded version without the OEM's help..In case we can do it with American equipment, we simply ask the OEM to go jump!

somnath wrote:Negi, I am only referring to the sheer "terminological inexactidue" in the good ACM's assertion that anything else we have bought from elsewhere we have been able to maintain and modify ourselves without having to be dependent on the OEM.

Dude, you accused the ACM of "terminological inexactitude" in his article. Now your statement bolded above is a "terminological inexactitude"

The ACM also mentions that we have modified them "Sometimes with experts from abroad". So calling the former ACM a liar while you read only what you wanted to read is a sad reflection on you.

Only the mirage upgrade is hapening at the OEM facility, but that too only the first two. Remaining will be upgraded in India. However, for Jaguar and Mig-27 ( Russia did submit a bid, but HAL's was cheaper), HAL stepped in to do the upgrades. And it is not a question of asking the OEM to go jump, as we still need the OEM to get other spares and services. Just becasue HAL is doing the upgrades for Mig-27 and Mig-29 doesn't mean we can tell Russia to go take a hike, as they can still withhold crucial spares. And irrespective of ToT, no manufacturer gives out 100% ToT, so we will always be dependent on OEM for some things, and it would definitely help if the OEM was supportive.

And getting codes for mating various non-US equipment isn't going to be as easy as it was with French/Russian aircraft.

amit wrote:I'd also like to point out that the Mig-27 and Jaguar upgrades were done when these planes were no longer the state of the art and the home countries of these planes had stopped using them in their airforce.

Also, the initial Darin upgrade was done by HAL when the aircraft was in service with UK at that time. Amit, that doesn't mean that those countries didn't bid for the upgrades. Upgrades/modifications are multi-billion dollar deals in themselves ( look at the Mirage upgrade pgm). So companies would definitely want a piece of that action. Also note that the ACM did say that we maintain the equipment for over 40 years. I have no doubt that which ever MRCA we select, it will be around for at least 30-40 years.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jul 2009 12:29

I dont know whats so difficult for some people to understand that as a buyer, its we who ahve options and not the americans.

Calling ACM a liar and that he is spinning the truth etc, might be fine for MUTU crowd, but is more than offensive to see on BRF.

In fact that one assertion of sheer denial of truth (of what ACM is saying) and attacking him for saying the truth is in itself compeltely telling for any person who cares for Indian interests.

Much like Sanjay Baru's attacks of Kakodakar.

--------------------------------------------------------------

RaviBg, just want to pip in and add that you speak for me word for word, I have rebutted some of the points raised before too, and the reasons that you give are in my opinion spot on, I would also add my voice to the rebut of the canards, but you have done a great job already.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jul 2009 12:34

Pulikeshi wrote:I got a pretty naive question -
How do the US arms manufacturers plan to compete with one hand tied (EUMA)
againt the Israeli, French, Russian contenders?

True but its the problem for the US right, with signing the blanket EUMA, we have made it our problem. As long as we dont accept the blanket EUMA, the fact that the GOTUS rules make it difficult for US to sell to us remains a problem of their companies. The moment we buckle and accept the conditions, that differential goes away, however the reality that the EUMA is extremly harmful to Indian interests stays. So for us its double whammy, losing a bargaining lever as well as doing something against national interests.

Question does this cost provide India with a revolution in capability?

No it does not. At most a minor leg up, and even that is not certain yet.

The concern is not with the EUMA alone per se, but the fact that the GoI is repeatedly taking steps where the Indian interests play a second fiddle to US interests. Things which would have never been done are being done because the US wants us to do them. The overall trend is very disturbing with EUMA being an important factor in those.

As the ACM says.
.

It could not have been an easy decision, and past governments have been reluctant to sign such an unprecedented ‘blanket agreement’.

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Jul 2009 12:42

RaviBg wrote:Amit, it is not just the retd ACM but all news channels are saying the same thing :

What is the End-Use Monitoring Agreement?

# EUMA restricts what the purchasing country, India, can do with the US-origin defense equipment, even within its own borders.
# Under the terms of EUMA, India cannot modify the purchased defence article or system in any form.
# Also, to prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on the United States for maintenance, EUMA restricts India from getting US-origin defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from the United States.

Ravi,

I've seen the Rediff article. What it says about modifying is this:

# Also, to prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on the United States for maintenance, EUMA restricts India from getting US-origin defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from the United States.

If you note that it says the equipment can be serviced in a third country with permission from the US. Now the question is was the initial Darin upgrades done on the Jaguars despite the UK prohibiting the same?

And as you say we use military maal like aircraft almost 40 years. Assuming a MLU of say one of the US planes takes place after 15 years, can we predict now that the US will not let us upgrade to our satisfaction. And the other point is if the US does the upgrade to our satisfaction is there a big No, No involved? Why in that case do we need a third country. Or is the assumption that the US will jack us in any case?

And also this:

These 'cradle-to-grave' restrictions arm Washington with continuing leverage over the recipient country. After all, any equipment or system needs maintenance. Such leverage, in turn, can help ensure that the recipient country cooperates with Washington on larger political matters.

Reading the second quote its pretty obvious that the writer is dead against any buying of equipment from the US. As I've said so many times, that a perfectly legitimate POV but not relevant to this discussion.

How, for example, would it be possible to get a deal specific EUMA for the MCRA contract which (hypothetically) the F16 wins, to ensure that such restrictive conditions will not apply?

Remember its one thing to say Don't buy American because of restrictive clauses and quite another to say: Omnibus EUMA is bad but we can live with deal specific EUMAs.

Also note that after this Rediff article many others have come out which paint a different picture. For exmple see here, here and here.

Do note that the last two links quotes Defence Minister Anthony as stating that "all concerns have been met". Surely MLU is one of those concerns?

Sorry but I would go with what the Defence Minister says rather than what a Rediff article says.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jul 2009 12:44

amit wrote:
These 'cradle-to-grave' restrictions arm Washington with continuing leverage over the recipient country. After all, any equipment or system needs maintenance. Such leverage, in turn, can help ensure that the recipient country cooperates with Washington on larger political matters.
Reading the second quote its pretty obvious what the writer is dead against any buying of equipment from the US. As I've said so many times, that a perfectly legitimate POV but not relevant to this discussion.

.

No Amit it does not. This is a trick you keep trying, if any one says, "there are trouble some clauses". Your only answer is "he is against US but does not want to accept it"

This is a tired old horse and dead. Stop flogging it.

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Jul 2009 12:50

Sanku wrote:No Amit it does not. This is a trick you keep trying, if any one says, "there are trouble some clauses". Your only answer is "he is against US but does not want to accept it"

This is a tired old horse and dead. Stop flogging it.

How, for example, would it be possible to get a deal specific EUMA for the MCRA contract which (hypothetically) the F16 wins, to ensure that such restrictive conditions will not apply?

Remember its one thing to say Don't buy American because of restrictive clauses and quite another to say: Omnibus EUMA is bad but we can live with deal specific EUMAs.

I'll stop flogging a dead horse when you stop your neat trick of selective quoting of posts in order to take the discussion off in a tangent my friend.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jul 2009 12:55

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:No Amit it does not. This is a trick you keep trying, if any one says, "there are trouble some clauses". Your only answer is "he is against US but does not want to accept it"

This is a tired old horse and dead. Stop flogging it.
I'll stop flogging a dead horse when you stop your neat trick of selective quoting of posts in order to take the discussion off in a tangent my friend.

No its you who are taking it on a tangent by making irrelevant, incorrect, mischievous and motivated comments on the critiques of the EUMA both on and outside the board.

When caught as usual you try and put the blame on others.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 12:56

RaviBg wrote: Dude, you accused the ACM of "terminological inexactitude" in his article. Now your statement bolded above is a "terminological inexactitude" The ACM also mentions that we have modified them "Sometimes with experts from abroad". So calling the former ACM a liar while you read only what you wanted to read is a sad reflection on you.

Only the mirage upgrade is hapening at the OEM facility, but that too only the first two. Remaining will be upgraded in India. However, for Jaguar and Mig-27 ( Russia did submit a bid, but HAL's was cheaper), HAL stepped in to do the upgrades. And it is not a question of asking the OEM to go jump, as we still need the OEM to get other spares and services. Just becasue HAL is doing the upgrades for Mig-27 and Mig-29 doesn't mean we can tell Russia to go take a hike, as they can still withhold crucial spares. And irrespective of ToT, no manufacturer gives out 100% ToT, so we will always be dependent on OEM for some things, and it would definitely help if the OEM was supportive.

And getting codes for mating various non-US equipment isn't going to be as easy as it was with French/Russian aircraft.

I am not rreading what "I want to"..the whole article by the ACM was depicting a case of the IAF having been able to manage to maintain and upgrade all its equipment on its own (with some foreign help) till now, and the American option will not allow that...Surely, that is not true (you call it lying, call it TE, call it whatever you will)...There are tons of cases where disruptuion in supplies of spares and services by OEMs have grounded entire fleets, and we have been able to do jackshit about it - some examples I have already given..

Most large upgrade programmes have some involvement of the OEM, if not the full upgrade..And both M2k and Mig29 upgrades would be done by the OEM - doign the upgrade in India is akin to license manufacturing a new aircraft here..

BTW, HAL doingthe Mig29 upgrade?
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/20 ... ig_29.html

According to sources, while the first six MiG-29s will be upgraded in Russia, the rest will be retrofitted at the IAF base repair depot at Nashik.

You (and ther good ACM) are assuming a lot of the worst case scenarios about US equipment and ascribing them as standadr clauses in the EUVA - thats the red herring...We have seen very very bad scenarios with Russia (wholesale suspension of spares supply after the breakup of SU, periodic problems with every single platform on after sales service, older platforms delivered as new etc etc)...doesnt mean we stop buying from them - because thre is a strategic imperative..

What makes you think US wont give us source codes, wont allow third party integration, wont allow mid life upgrades using third party components etc etc...

If they dont, and if we think its still worth it, we will buy, if not we wont..

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jul 2009 13:03

Amit, you raise some good questions, let me try to answer those.

amit wrote:If you note that it says the equipment can be serviced in a third country with permission from the US. Now the question is was the initial Darin upgrades done on the Jaguars despite the UK prohibiting the same?

The issue is, did UK require such a clause? Obviously not, but the US requires it.

amit wrote:And as you say we use military maal like aircraft almost 40 years. Assuming a MLU of say one of the US planes takes place after 15 years, can we predict now that the US will not let us upgrade to our satisfaction. And the other point is if the US does the upgrade to our satisfaction is there a big No, No involved? Why in that case do we need a third country. Or is the assumption that the US will jack us in any case?

Amit, the reason we need a third country is due to the capabilities that they have. For e.g. the amount of avionics in say Cheetah helicopter or jaguar was very low, and it reflected the technological limitations 20-25 years back. Now, things have changed. no doubt Thales might make better avionics now. But if we find Israeli avionics better, we should be able to use that. And if we can do the upgrade ourselves to save some money, we should be able to do that. That is what we did with cheetahs and jaguars and mig-27s.

These 'cradle-to-grave' restrictions arm Washington with continuing leverage over the recipient country. After all, any equipment or system needs maintenance. Such leverage, in turn, can help ensure that the recipient country cooperates with Washington on larger political matters.

amit wrote:Reading the second quote its pretty obvious that the writer is dead against any buying of equipment from the US. As I've said so many times, that a perfectly legitimate POV but not relevant to this discussion.

This is relevant to the discussion. Almost all arms deals have a political connection and the governments try to push for their companies. But it also has a military operations angle too. Suppose we go to war with Pakistan, and US for some reason want to halt the war. What better way to do that than to withhold crucial spares or information? What if India needs to test a nuclear device based on some threat perception which US might not agree with? We saw what happed to the seaking helicopters when US refused spares. What if tomorrow, the US says that they will sell spares at 10x the amount unless India signs NPT/CTBT? Aren't these all political blackmail? We need to look at the reliability of the supplier too.

amit wrote:Do note that the last two links quotes Defence Minister Anthony as stating that "all concerns have been met". Surely MLU is one of those concerns?

Sorry but I would go with what the Defence Minister says rather than what a Rediff article says.

Weren't there articles earlier stating that the US wanted to go through PMO and EAM instead of MoD? Why did Krishna work on the EUM instead of Antony as it was logically his domain? Weren't their reports that Antony told the visiting US DoD secretary that they can't sign EUMA or the logistics agreement? Was Antony pressurized into accepting it? Some of the reports said that Antonty was shown some EUM agreements where the MoD officials had given away more that what was asked. Does such aberrations mean that we will codify that into an umbrella document?

What would have happened if Indai had said that they won't sign the EUMA and only companies which don't expect that will be allowed to compete. Logically, the US was at the receiveing end since without signing it, they woldn't even get a foothold. So they were supposed to make the most concessions. However, the pressure was on India to sign. Why was this? Was there a quid pro quo somewhere else? Didn't the undersecretary of US say that this was part of the nuclear deal?

There are wheels within wheels here, and that is why I am wary of this agreement. In case of S-e-S the foreign secretary accepted mistake was made. Who will own up here?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 29 Jul 2009 13:07

somnath wrote: These are generic terms being "spun" the way each analyst wants to view them as, especially since the actual text hasnt been seen by anyone...I repeat, its not as if Russia, after all these years, has allowed us to overhaul the Tu142Ms in India! It didnt even allow us to go ahead with an Israeli upgrade of the aircraft (it was subsequently done in some form I guess)..

That same country helped us during the development of Arihant, gave us cyro-tech for ISRO and so on, which your fav country has blocked actively.

When your fav country reaches the level of help which Russia was willing to provide when we need it, yes then let us compare what US has not given and what Russia has not given.

Terms of the equipment purchase are negotiated for that equipment - if we negotiate ToTs, IP transfers and maitenance facilities in India as part of the agreement, these fears would be unfounded..

Hint Hint: ToTs, IP transfers are different from EUMs.

Sure, if the military brass thiks US equipment is not worth it, they shouldnt buy!!Simple!

I just remembered what does the word of military brass carry for the artillery systems which are commonly called God of war- zilch, nada.

About leverage on arms purchases, well...No one forces anyone to buy..But if India is always having the ability to choose from 2 or 3 suppliers, all of them will fall over each other to get the contract.

really let me just remember what did US do to Swedish MRCA chances for combining with Israel's radar?

.Especially because the deal sizes that India is talking aboput are HUGE.

All the more reason why India should keep all leveraging points intact, the profits we are talking are HUGE.

..How much you get for a particular platform is a matter of detail...Who do you think was lobbying the most for the Indo-US nuke deal in the US Congress? The likes of GE and Westinghouise!

for their own benefit. Those didnt stop senators to include conditions of cap on ENR tech in the Hyde act. So please dont give this BS.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 13:08

Ravibg,

In case the policy makers (incl military officers) think all that you are saying are legit, they will simply not buy! There is no gun pointed at our head to buy!

Was there a quid pro quo somewhere else?

If signing a EUVA is quid pro quo for the nuke deal its a very very cheap price! I would suspect that the US would want some real money in exchange - they have got zilch till now, while the French, Russians and Kazakhs have all walked away with the contracts..

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Jul 2009 13:10

Sanku wrote:No its you who are taking it on a tangent by making irrelevant, incorrect, mischievous and motivated comments on the critiques of the EUMA both on and outside the board.

When caught as usual you try and put the blame on others.

You know only a certain type of people lose their cool so easily.

I responded to something Ravi wrote, he gave his response, I gave mine. Everything was very cordial and civil.

You jump in within two posts you use adjectives like irrelevant, incorrect, mischievous and motivated comments without giving a proper riposte to what I wrote to Ravi. Incidentally Ravi gave a very informative and civil response to my post, in case you didn't notice.

Is it very hard for you to stop using personal insults and ignore what I write to other posters?

Is it too much to ask?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jul 2009 13:12

somnath wrote:I am not rreading what "I want to"..the whole article by the ACM was depicting a case of the IAF having been able to manage to maintain and upgrade all its equipment on its own (with some foreign help) till now, and the American option will not allow that...Surely, that is not true (you call it lying, call it TE, call it whatever you will)...There are tons of cases where disruptuion in supplies of spares and services by OEMs have grounded entire fleets, and we have been able to do jackshit about it - some examples I have already given..

Can you please show me where in the ACM said that "all equipment" ? And when he says that the American option won't allow that, I am inclined to believe him as he has probably seen some version of EUMA and still has good contacts within the IAF. I would take his word any day over yours. And if you call him a liar because he didn't mention where he got that info from, than shame on you. You who have never even seen any version of that document has no qualms about accusing him of lying!!

Regarding tons of cases where there has been disruption in supplies, the ACM never mentioned that htey have indigenised all equipment 100%. That is your selected reading/interpretation which you are often prone to. What he has said was they have been able to maintain and upgrade equipment in ways that they weren't originally designed for, and making it suitable to our needs.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 13:13

Ravi_ku

That same country helped us during the development of Arihant, gave us cyro-tech for ISRO and so on, which your fav country has blocked actively.
When your fav country reaches the level of help which Russia was willing to provide when we need it, yes then let us compare what US has not given and what Russia has not given.

You obviosuly didnt read all that I said in another post - that we continue dealing with Russia because there is a strategic imperative..Similarly, if there is a strategic imperative, we buy from the US, else we dont..

Hint Hint: ToTs, IP transfers are different from EUMs.

Exactly - the "fears" on not being able to modify, upgrade etc are thoese related to product negotiation on IP etc, not EUM..So its a red herring..

I just remembered what does the word of military brass carry for the artillery systems which are commonly called God of war- zilch, nada

Well in that case, we should be giving up in any case - the country has gone to the dogs with everyone trying to sell it short!!!

for their own benefit. Those didnt stop senators to include conditions of cap on ENR tech in the Hyde act. So please dont give this BS

Exactly..LM and Boeing would also lobby in our favouyr for thier own benefit - this is what is called positive network externality in economics terms! About ENR - its OT here, but can discuss in the appropriate form..

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Jul 2009 13:18

RaviBg wrote: This is relevant to the discussion. Almost all arms deals have a political connection and the governments try to push for their companies. But it also has a military operations angle too. Suppose we go to war with Pakistan, and US for some reason want to halt the war. What better way to do that than to withhold crucial spares or information? What if India needs to test a nuclear device based on some threat perception which US might not agree with? We saw what happed to the seaking helicopters when US refused spares. What if tomorrow, the US says that they will sell spares at 10x the amount unless India signs NPT/CTBT? Aren't these all political blackmail? We need to look at the reliability of the supplier too.

Ravi,

Thanks for your response and indeed you raise very valid points regarding dealing with the US.

Actually long time ago I wrote something in my professional avatar. And that was: It's always risky trying to swim with a Blue Whale in an enclosed Lagoon because the whale could hurt you even if unintentionally.

The engagement with US is fraught with risks and missteps and we should go in with our eyes wide open. And the US is known to arm twist to get what they want.

However, I think we may be missing a particular issue within the broader parameters of India-US interactions.

Remember the original premise for the discussion on this thread was whether an omnibus EUMA would be better than deal specific EUMAs.

If we stick to just that can you say there's enough evidence to show that a deal specific EUMA would work where an omnibus EUMA wouldn't? Remember the question of a EUMA would only come if we decide to buy US maal.

This is the point I'm trying to understand.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jul 2009 13:20

somanth wrote: If signing a EUVA is quid pro quo for the nuke deal its a very very cheap price! I would suspect that the US would want some real money in exchange - they have got zilch till now, while the French, Russians and Kazakhs have all walked away with the contracts..

It has already started to tighten the noose. Look at the ENR techinology denial statement from G8 for non-NPT signatories. They are slowly trying to squeeze India to sign NPT/CTBT/FMCT etc. The EUMA by itself is not a quid pro quo but the actual purchase of US arms. I have no doubt that the MRCA will go the US way. And that is not the end, for US arms is just an advance payment for the quid pro quo.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jul 2009 13:27

amit wrote:
Is it very hard for you to stop using personal insults and ignore what I write to other posters?

Is it too much to ask?

Yes, when you and Somanth, ascribe qualities and motives to ACM, BC and others of their stature on a open public board, any of the public members has the freedom to step in in call you out on the less than accurate portrayal.

Defend your POV all that you want to on your own, just don't start ascribing qualities to others because you have no other logical defense.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jul 2009 13:28

amit wrote:Remember the original premise for the discussion on this thread was whether an omnibus EUMA would be better than deal specific EUMAs.

If we stick to just that can you say there's enough evidence to show that a deal specific EUMA would work where an omnibus EUMA wouldn't? Remember the question of a EUMA would only come if we decide to buy US maal.

This is the point I'm trying to understand

Amit, I started my response to somnath who started asserting that the ACM was lying through his teeth. I am a late comer to the deal-specific vs umbrella EUMA.

From my PoV, it is better to have an omnibus EUMA and based on that EUMA decide at the start itself which arms puchases will not be from the US. And it is good that we have this debate out in the media because as seen from some reports, even some of the officals in MoD themselves weren't aware of what they were signing on ( which I find strange but that is what has been put out by the PMO spin masters).

However, for the omnibus to work, it should be the most lenient EUMA that India can hope to acheive under any circumstance. But if we had already shortlisted F16 or F18 and the deal was held up based on parts of EUMA which we found objectionable, and we are trying to award it to the next favorable company, would we have the same EUMA that we have now?

Or like I alluded before, if the decision is already made, then it would explain the hurry for US to get the EUMA wrapped up asap.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2009 13:32

RaviBg wrote:
Can you please show me where in the ACM said that "all equipment" ? And when he says that the American option won't allow that, I am inclined to believe him as he has probably seen some version of EUMA and still has good contacts within the IAF. I would take his word any day over yours. And if you call him a liar because he didn't mention where he got that info from, than shame on you. You who have never even seen any version of that document has no qualms about accusing him of lying!!

Regarding tons of cases where there has been disruption in supplies, the ACM never mentioned that htey have indigenised all equipment 100%. That is your selected reading/interpretation which you are often prone to. What he has said was they have been able to maintain and upgrade equipment in ways that they weren't originally designed for, and making it suitable to our needs.

If the ACM has "seen" some version of EUMA, then there are a ton of other ex servicement who are saying the opposite thing (see my link above) - they would have also seen some version, no?

What the ACM is implying is that there are a bunch of problems relating to upgrades that would arise out of buying American equipment, whereas I am pointing out with examples that those issues are even there with the others, and are being tackled by armed forces and the system..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jul 2009 13:33

somnath wrote: I am not rreading what "I want to"..the whole article by the ACM was depicting a case of the IAF having been able to manage to maintain and upgrade all its equipment on its own (with some foreign help) till now, and the American option will not allow that...Surely, that is not true (you call it lying, call it TE, call it whatever you will)..

This is a good example of how to create a strawman and go after it and taking the discussion on a tangent, by interepreation of a perfectly straightforward statement.

At no time has ACM claimed that IAF does all on its own. In fact

If we had stuck to the configuration originally delivered and relied only on Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) support,

How does not depending only on OEM == doing everything in house

The only person resorting to terminological inexactitude is you here (with due help from like minded folks), knowing full well that the facts stink and is indefensible you start twisting words rather than than trying to put counter arguments.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jul 2009 13:34

somnath wrote:
If the ACM has "seen" some version of EUMA, then there are a ton of other ex servicement who are saying the opposite thing (see my link above) - they would have also seen some version, no?

What the ACM is implying is that there are a bunch of problems relating to upgrades that would arise out of buying American equipment, whereas I am pointing out with examples that those issues are even there with the others, and are being tackled by armed forces and the system..

Bull shit, trying to twist the debate again arent you? The question was where has ACM said what you said he said.

To answer that you bring up all EUMA are same, a lie which has been nailed before.

Pathetic.

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Jul 2009 13:34

RaviBg wrote:Amit, I started my response to somnath who started asserting that the ACM was lying through his teeth. I am a late comer to the deal-specific vs umbrella EUMA.

From my PoV, it is better to have an omnibus EUMA and based on that EUMA decide at the start itself which arms puchases will not be from the US. And it is good that we have this debate out in the media because as seen from some reports, even some of the officals in MoD themselves weren't aware of what they were signing on ( which I find strange but that is what has been put out by the PMO spin masters).

However, for the omnibus to work, it should be the most lenient EUMA that India can hope to acheive under any circumstance. But if we had already shortlisted F16 or F18 and the deal was held up based on parts of EUMA which we found objectionable, and we are trying to award it to the next favorable company, would we have the same EUMA that we have now? Or like I alluded before, if the decision is already made, then it would explain the hurry for US to get the EUMA wrapped up asap.

Ravi,

I hope you notice that despite Sanku's ridiculous allegation, I did not say a word about what the ACM wrote. In fact in my first post to you I very clearly stated that I don't want to get into the debate about what the ACM wrote.

Regarding the haste for the EUMA, my thinking is that the US wants to get that out of the way as, if I'm not mistaken, the actual plane trials are about to start and so this would be just about the time to settle this issue.

From an Indian POV - again this is a guess work - I think the govt wanted to get this out of the way as, if one of the US planes are selected and then negotiations for the EUMA started, it could easily put the induction back by about a year - about the time IMO it would take to hammer out the EUMA deal.

Of course as you say it could very well be that one of the F planes have already been chosen and all this is just for public consumption.