China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

[Surya]

The Chinese space program was founded by Hsue-shen Tsien, the co-founder of JPL. He was one of the original guys that debriefed von Braun, so China got its start in the space program the same as the Soviets and Americans.

Err then why did everything take off only after the Soviet union dissolved and their engineers\technology were available for hire\purchase??

[Karan M]

Guys, thanks! I have just been following their programs for a while and my belief is that to compete we have to chart our own path. Following them on theirs will be sub-optimal.

1) Made in China is low quality
2) China buying all of her advance military technology from RU and Israel, including J-20 and AESA. China is mainly doing ctrl-c and ctrl-v work
3) Even China buying her military technology, those stuff will only work but won't work great. J-20 no match for AMCA.
4) India has high standard unlike China, that's why Tejas MK1 is not inducted yet. India MIC has provided reasonable modern systems in the last two decades.
5) India will outcompete and outfight China. Don't worry, have curry!

Ashi, why the angst?
Lets address your claims one by one..
1. Made in China is low quality...

Well, it depends on what you define quality as. Because as you see, one can define it in two ways - the actual level of the item itself, in terms of sophistication and second, whether it can do the job it promises across the board, in terms of mass produced items, which of course brings us to the common perception of "quality in manufacture"..

But the first, the overall ranking of where the item is in the scheme of things is pretty important too. And here, its a fact that while China has come a long way, its nowhere near what is on the open market, let alone whats available to the developer nation. For instance, the JSF as and when it arrives will have integrated systems on board that dwarf those on the J-10, 20 etc. Its not about just the platform really but the constant innovation into specific subsystems. So yes, you'll have an AESA radar on the J-20 whereas the JSF will have a 4Gen system with more advanced modules with dense packing. Stuff like that matters...

There is also the issue of quality fade. Lets face it, production in China is having issues and the rampant political interference in the structure across all levels means that there will be issues in solving problems efficiently.

Bottomline - your systems work, but all I am saying is that they don't work at the level of sophistication, the systems made by other nations are at. If you take an Abrams tank and compare it to the Type 99 whatever, the former still has the edge in its latest upgraded variant versus the obvious issues with the latter from its warsaw pact style design heritage (carousel autoloader, lack of ammo separation et al). And there is the point. You guys are still copying other folk's platforms and ideas. It leads to rapid development, true but is not best in class. And since you have not made this move, how are you going to produce at that level consistently, since the arms embargo has ensured those who made the transition will not work with you at the platform level. Basically, you are limited to western subsystems and russian integration expertise - while these can take you so far...its not at the level of having the ability to integrate a Rafale AND a PAK-FA..

2. No, you are making your own stuff, but lets face it, you have taken a LOT of help along the way, and in contrast to India or other nations, you have not been open about it. That Taikonaut stuff and Russian assistance for example. There are western imprints all over the Chinese military apparatus, the real modern stuff that is. There's no shame in this, but it seems you guys dont do nuance.

3. Depends on what great is, and thats the point I was making. Your stuff probably meets the minimum requirements set by PLAAF commanders but then again, apart from Pakistan when is the last time your lot actually saw what the rest of the worlds integrated platforms are capable of? Indian pilots through the MMRCA saw the best of todays planes compete. They know what these can and cannot do. Those guys will pass on their lessons to people making local programs and set the standard. Basically, look if you are the leader and spend trillions to do so, like the US or Cold War era Russia, then you are at the top of the pile and others look towards you. Otherwise, there are limits to the isolationist approach, currently imposed on China (justifiably) thanks to arms embargos. Your guys are reading about sensor fusion in technical papers, they can even make their own unique stuff..but point is the actual understanding of how that works in an existing platform with different missions as on the Rafale is not available to them..

As regards J-20, I do think the FGFA will be superior to it, not the AMCA. The AMCA will be in a different weight class, which means range and payload limitations. But yes, if India plays its cards right, the AMCA can have advantages in terms of sophistication over the J-20, but I'd rather not speculate. The FGFA on the other hand, will be ahead of the J-20 in several criteria, IMO - especially aero performance and sensor sophistication. Russia has a significant lead in both fields. There is still talk about purchasing S-400's and it is S-300s which are the baseline of the Chinese AD system. Just shows, all said & done, which nation's systems are still the gold standard..

4. This part is true, and yes, Indian user's standards are higher, because unlike China, India is not subject to an arms embargo. So its services will only induct the best of what they can get. In India, the services don't regard giving the national industry orders as some sort of given goal, they have a focus on winning conflicts. Now, you can well argue this vision is blinkered (and I'd agree, and its changing as they too are beginning to support industry), but they will not compromise on requirements which are often derived from international standards. In a recent seminar, a senior Army functionary, made the exact same point -"we will not compromise standards, standards will be based on our requirements and what is available to us from the market" etc. to paraphrase what he said.

5. Well, if India plays its cards right, it can indeed outcompete China, or more accurately match China's moves without having to spend itself into trouble (like Pakistan did in trying to match India). The point is of the big picture. There are already significant moves underway to steadily move India from its traditional pacifist mindset, weapons are bad, peace is all...to its more traditional civilizational outlook towards what weapons mean! And I must say, China has a lot to do with this. First 1962, then the arming of Pakistan and now the border obnoxiousness...in short, China has forced its neighbours to junk their pacifist ideals and become realists.

1. There is no economics in the research and development for military programs. The only difference between Lockheed Martin and AVIC is private profit-public loss vs. public/state profit-public/state loss. The cost-plus 15% guarantees Lockheed will make money every time regardless of delays or huge overruns. General Dynamics still made money from huge failures like the Crusader and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. And the F-35 could be delayed another decade and Lockheed will still make plenty of money on the program for its shareholders.

There are obviously economics in military programs, because if a nation spends too much on its military as versus keeping its revenue generators intact and growing them, plus on growing its quality of life indices...it is headed on a path to disaster. The US can afford its high end thingmajigs because of the scale at which they operate. They are a developed nation and need to sustain, as versus build.

Countries like India, with huge and varied requirements, need to optimize.

Further, what you don't understand is that the US believes in disruptive technology - its by now baked into their MIC. There are several reasons for this, the cynical note that it keeps the MIC happy with heavily funded programs. The less cynical also note that it makes sure the US industry, which is now heavily dependent on the MIC for unique, local manufacturing capabilities - which span all forms of engineering (compsci, electrical & electronics, aerospace, mechanical) remains at the cutting edge. Both are true. The third is that these capabilities are asked for by the user, the US military, which by now is amongst the most technology savvy forces in the world. They embrace technology because it allows them to fight a war on their terms. The sort of innovations that they pursue in terms of a)locating the enemy b) fixing the enemy c)maneuvering for the fight ....are unmatched.

Holding up a few showpiece projects is fine, but the US is learning from its procurement boondoggles. In several homeland security projects, the transition to fixed price contracts has already occurred. If the budget pie were to shrink, then the US would actually go for less ambitious programs. I'd daresay, you in China would NOT be happy. Because then, the US will make full use of cost effective incremental upgrades - which even though its not cool or sufficiently advanced by their MIC requirements - is something they have mastered. Take a look at how the Aegis has developed, or the umpteen blocks of the Viper (F-16) or the Eagle (F-15). If they get into the same developing country style more bang for the buck mentality, they'll probably field more platforms and their recapitalization effort may actually speed up!

Bottomline - there are economics to military programs, which is why military spend as a % of GDP or one tracking mechanism or the other (e.g. spend as a % of the national budget) is closely tracked by analysts. And second, the US really operates on its own level based on its economic strengths, superpower aspirations & requirements. Using them as an example for other nations to emulate is fraught with problems.

2. The Indian system is really the worst of both worlds. Invest huge sums in an indigenous program and then eventually import it from foreign defense companies anyway. The list is huge, but all the jet and basic trainers is but one example.

This pretty much shows that you have completely misunderstood how the Indian defense set up is working. India is dual sourcing. It is importing and making it on its own. For pretty much every program where it has industrial capability, it has imported a few items for partial fill for its requirements, rest it is looking within. In the process, what it makes on its own also improves to a new benchmark. Lets look at ESM fits. India made the Ajanta fit, decided to move to the next gen Ellora, in between it imported Israeli suites as an interim, Ellora was upgraded & these are the new standard. Similarly, in radars, for each class of radars the IAF is using for its Ground Based net, there is a local radar in development or ordered already to supplant/complement the limited numbers for other systems ordered already (LLTR, MPR, LLLWR). In some cases - eg the Rohini/Rajendra etc - they are unique and are the only ones in their category meeting specific requirements. Helicopters - the LCH order split between HAL & a foreign vendor and India will likely insist on offsets for the foreign order as well. The examples are so many...one just has to put a frame of reference and understand what is going on..

Now, India is moving to the next phase, in that it is insisting that even all the orders for the interim systems it places - either come with offsets (MPR order with Elta) or are joint ventures (MTA, FGFA) as well. Net, the aerospace & defence industry in India is set to boom, and that too driven by organic orders.

In other cases, where there is ample time to have a proper program in place, these have been moved to the "make" category, as reports note, with 180 programs in line & large ones already lined up.

While there are delays in decision making, the progress made is substantial and is well on the way to creating a far more rational MIC, than that operating purely with the management of the state.

3. The arms embargo has been the best thing to ever happen to the Chinese defense industry. I hope it stays for another decade.

There are advantages to an embargo in terms of local sourcing. But lets face it, it did cut off technology to China at a crucial time, which is good for all of China's neighbours. And, the more China rises, the longer the embargo shall remain in place. What China was very stupid about, was its overt bellicose posture on everything from Spratly to the Indo-Chinese border issue ...and many others, plus overtly challenging the US on many issues. Its basically set the warning bells ringing in every capital about Chinese intentions. And in turn the US, which leads all the Arms sanctions groups has also become wary of Chinese military build up..

4. The Chinese space program was founded by Hsue-shen Tsien, the co-founder of JPL. He was one of the original guys that debriefed von Braun, so China got its start in the space program the same as the Soviets and Americans.

Thats irrelevant.. Just because a program is started the same time, with one or two biggies does not mean its at the same level as that in another nation which has had a far better economic and industrial base to leverage, with its attendant human resources. China may have started many things but they all went nowhere fast thanks to Mao and his little red book inspired purges..and lets face it, Chinese industry was stagnating and it was Deng who opened up industry and got in foreign technology to provide the impetus on which "todays China" is built.

[wong]

The Chinese space program was founded by Hsue-shen Tsien, the co-founder of JPL. He was one of the original guys that debriefed von Braun, so China got its start in the space program the same as the Soviets and Americans.

Err then why did everything take off only after the Soviet union dissolved and their engineers\technology were available for hire\purchase??

Err, by the same logic the Indian space program should have taken off too. After all, you guys have a closer relationship with the Soviets and could just as easily hire/purchase talent too on the international market.

The Chinese space program dates back to Oct. 8, 1956.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_space_program

The list of accomplishments from the 1950's and 1960's is there.

[wong]

Karan
1. There was no ROI for the manhattan project. Fix price doesn't work either, think Boeing virtual fence.

2. Dual track? Whatever. Nice spin. Pilatus and BAE thanks you for the $1 billion "dual track" for their basic trainer and jet trainer, respectively.

3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CAC, SAC and XAC are working for China.

4. China's space accomplishments from the Mao era can be found in the wiki link above.

[Karan M]

Err, by the same logic the Indian space program should have taken off too. After all, you guys have a closer relationship with the Soviets and could just as easily hire/purchase talent too on the international market.

The Chinese space program dates back to Oct. 8, 1956.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_space_program

The list of accomplishments in the 1950's and 1960's is there.

No, because you are comparing apples to oranges. India could not afford to invest in its programs at the requisite scale till the middle of the previous decade (its economy was yet to take off) and second, it had and still does have, reservations in employing hiring/purchasing external talent. China has been far more blase about both. India too has sought to get tech. from the soviets - the cryo engine etc programs are well known. But the scale is still limited to program by program. since the Indian economy simply did not allow for lavish funding.

More importantly, though - your link from wiki shows there is no difference between a military program and a space one, or at least thats what the link shows with all its talk of SRBMs, MRBMs etc.

In which case, what talk of space program, this is but the Chinese missile program and its well known that for the the PRC, military spending has always been a priority.

Initially the space program of the PRC was organized under the People's Liberation Army, particularly the Second Artillery Corps. In the 1990s, however, the PRC reorganized the space program as part of a general reorganization of the defense industry to make it resemble Western defense procurement.

The China National Space Administration, an agency within the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense currently headed by Sun Laiyan, is now responsible for launches. The Long March rocket is produced by the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, and satellites are produced by the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation. The latter organizations are state-owned enterprises; however, it is the intent of the PRC government that they not actively be state managed and that they behave much as private companies would in the West.

[Surya]

Err, by the same logic the Indian space program should have taken off too. After all, you guys have a closer relationship with the Soviets and could just as easily hire/purchase talent too on the international market.

The post Soviet era it was money not relationship that mattered.

[Karan M]

Wong

Karan
1. There was no ROI for the manhattan project. Fix price doesn't work either, think Boeing virtual fence.

What nonsense..so you are going to compare a project for a unique war winning capability run at wartime, when the entire country is pretty much mobilized, to peacetime exigencies re: building a nation and wasteful spending across multiple similar programs!

Besides which public expenditure does not have a targeted ROI, or intent to achieve! Whether it be delivering products or services or growing quality of life indicators or meeting populace aspirations. If disproportionate spending on the military ruins the country, there is little point to it!

And about virtual fence, thanks for proving my point, that the US can and is learning about procurement boondoggles and is not afraid to take hard decisions: "Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, said she had decided to end the five-year-old project, known as SBI-Net, because it “does not meet current standards for viability and cost effectiveness.”

2. Dual track? Whatever. Nice spin. Pilatus and BAE thanks you for the $1 billion "dual track" for their basic trainer and jet trainer, respectively.

Hmmm, clearly your rush to score dodgy points dwarfed reading comprehension...I quite clearly made the point:For pretty much every program where it has industrial capability, India pursues dual sourcing...AND...Now, India is moving to the next phase, in that it is insisting that even all the orders for the interim systems it places - either come with offsets....

The Pilatus order comes with offsets!

AWST notes:

In accordance with Indian defense procurement policy, Pilatus has entered into a separate offset contract with the Indian government representing 30% of the contract’s value. The Swiss firm will also establish in-country, depot-level maintenance capabilities, which includes the required transfer of technology to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), enabling in-country maintenance of the aircraft throughout its service life of more than 30 years.

And the BAE order came with local assembly & tech transfer (including the engine blades).

In both cases, India's single HAL did not have the idle capacity to spare or the ability to go back in time, to reverse procurement decisions made decades earlier and suddenly come up with world class products overnight...alternative would be to make mediocre products and then pass them off to a willing customer...and nor would the customer accept them (JL-9 for example).

So the Govt could not go back in time & fix the procurement issues but made a choice which will still assist indian industry..

For pretty much every other program - again - read this - where India has industrial capability (which means where it can develop an item in the required time and manufacture it) it is pursuing dual sourcing..

That, in case you still can't get it ...means that India is NOT going to making C-17s on its own or a handful of Chinooks, or jump into every category because it must and should be local..

....but it will make all those subsystems like radars, EW gear which increasingly count for more and more in conflicts, because it has the industrial capability to do so, and in these, it will split the programs into dual sourcing whenever it needs the items urgently allowing time for the local products to clear their D&D process, or move to an entirely local make procedure..when it has time.

And in platforms, over the past decade, it has started planning things out pretty well..
For light weight & medium weight platforms - it has the LCA/AMCA - the Rafale as a hedge for delays in the latter, for the heavy weight it has the FGFA..

Many examples exist...the fact that you can't even admit these, just shows that "china strong" is too reflexive I guess..

3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CAC, SAC and XAC are working for China.

Working, but at what cost? CAC is at least moving to its own base somewhat..in the sense that after productionizing an Israeli aircraft - the Lavi, and calling it the J-10, the J-20 at least will have significant Chinese input and is not a full 1-1 ripoff despite its well known similarities with the 1.42 planform..
But SAC? I mean, they have been just putting together copies of an early 80's era Flanker, and these are not even competitive against advanced Flankers let alone the latest Su-35...and China remains critically dependent on foreign engines..

The sort of distributed structure which China has pursued, with empire building spread out across multiple firms - is way too wasteful for India to replicate.

Not to mention the huge amount of excess manpower which has to be sustained somehow..

4. China's space accomplishments from the Mao era can be found in the wiki link above.

Looks more like a military missile program with space tacked on as a sideshow..and lets face it, pretty underwhelming achievements...with all the fancy stuff like the EWS and high power laser all cancelled after Mao..

Man, Mao really harmed China, if this single idiot hadn't done what he did to Chinese industry and technical manpower, you lot would have perhaps really been innovators in the military arena, given the disproportionate spend there..

He basically brought y'all to a standstill, and yet he is venerated in the PRC..

[svinayak]

1) Made in China is low quality
2) China buying all of her advance military technology from RU and Israel, including J-20 and AESA. China is mainly doing ctrl-c and ctrl-v work
3) Even China buying her military technology, those stuff will only work but won't work great. J-20 no match for AMCA.
4) India has high standard unlike China, that's why Tejas MK1 is not inducted yet. India MIC has provided reasonable modern systems in the last two decades.
5) India will outcompete and outfight China. Don't worry, have curry!

Ashi, why the angst?
Lets address your claims one by one..

These guys are patronizing Indians. They are using the free media to make fun of Indians when they hide behind China closed media.

[D Roy]

and don't forget Honeywell's help to the Chinese in the mid-nineties.

Nor should GE's continuing transfer of avionics tech to China be ignored.

[Karan M]

These guys are patronizing Indians. They are using the free media to make fun of Indians when they hide behind China closed media.

Well, but at the end of the day, they are fooling themselves. They should be using the free media to understand the state of affairs in their country the more, its actual strengths and weaknesses...instead they seem to be into "image, image, image".. I mean, artillery is the key plus for Chinese ability over India as things stand now...and even there, it was Gerald Bulls design transferred to Norinco which was mass manufactured.

They have and do come up with good stuff on their own, but they simply ignore how the rest of the world has helped them.

and don't forget Honeywell's help to the Chinese in the mid-nineties.

Nor should GE's continuing transfer of avionics tech to China should be ignored.

Yup pretty much every western firm has transferred tech to China..which is why I find their achievements somewhat underwhelming.

[svinayak]

and don't forget Honeywell's help to the Chinese in the mid-nineties.

Nor should GE's continuing transfer of avionics tech to China should be ignored.

If this is studied carefully it shows that all next gen tech is transferred just when China is lagging behind other major countries. It is as if somebody is watching PRC and making sure that it is ahead of India and other countries.

[nakul]

and don't forget Honeywell's help to the Chinese in the mid-nineties.

Nor should GE's continuing transfer of avionics tech to China should be ignored.

If this is studied carefully it shows that all next gen tech is transferred just when China is lagging behind other major countries. It is as if somebody is watching PRC and making sure that it is ahead of India and other countries.

Its no secret. Its called balancing & the west is open about it. Why do you think we are get artillery from US? Because China is ahead of us. Pakistan gets F-16s because India is ahead in planes. The same applies to China.

[svinayak]

Its no secret. Its called balancing & the west is open about it. Why do you think we are get artillery from US? Because China is ahead of us. Pakistan gets F-16s because India is ahead in planes. The same applies to China.

It has not been consistant.
They had Pak with F4 and advanced fighters even before India had a modern fighters. This was cold war and aggressive lobbying.

But after 1990 PRC lobby was even stronger and they could get crucial mil tech and their vast tech espionage system got the rest. PRC espionage pipeline is tracked and fed with tech when needed.

[ashi]

1) Made in China is low quality
2) China buying all of her advance military technology from RU and Israel, including J-20 and AESA. China is mainly doing ctrl-c and ctrl-v work
3) Even China buying her military technology, those stuff will only work but won't work great. J-20 no match for AMCA.
4) India has high standard unlike China, that's why Tejas MK1 is not inducted yet. India MIC has provided reasonable modern systems in the last two decades.
5) India will outcompete and outfight China. Don't worry, have curry!

Ashi, why the angst?
Lets address your claims one by one..

I have no angst. I am happy with the development progress in both of the countries. I merely summarize your points.

[nakul]

It has not been consistant.
They had Pak with F4 and advanced fighters even before India had a modern fighters. This was cold war and aggressive lobbying.

Even with the new planes, Pakistan could not defeat India. They were given so as to close the gap between India & Pakistan. No secret about it. As I said, they were "balanced" against India.

But after 1990 PRC lobby was even stronger and they could get crucial mil tech and their vast tech espionage system got the rest.

Got the rest? Are you kidding?! When is the next Chinese raptor coming?!!
They only got what they could manage with the embargo in place. Its not that the Americans were standing with open arms. Even today China struggles to compete in the arms marketplace. Its the cost factor that makes it favorable for the Chinese. Not the technology,

[svinayak]

Take it easy. What it meant was what they have till now.

[nakul]

America has been succesfully followed the policy of supporting the weaker guy to make it a more equal fight. This helps inflict maximum damage on both the fighters. While a shorter one-sided fight will make the agressor stronger, a prolonged fight weakens both.

Eg. Germany was stronger than Russia in WW II. They sided with Russia to maximise the damage to both of them.

India is stronger than Pakistan. So they give arms free to Pakistan but sell to India. Similarly, China is stronger still. So they dont sell them weapons as freely as they do to India. This is how they continue the British policy of watching their opponents fight and take advantage as they themselves remain unaffected.

[D Roy]

Oh by the way do you want to know something even nicer?


Norinco has managed to copy the M777 ULH. They have badged it the AH-4 and claim it'll be ready in a couple of years for export etc.

Acharya,

Check Advanced Persistent threat or APT. It is the name given by the Pentagon to the wide ranging Chinese cyber espionage program.

I think you will find the details a tad interesting.

[svinayak]

I have been told about APT

[wong]

Karan, this is your "dual track".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_HPT-32_Deepak

After 19 crashes and unable to fly upside down, they finally gave up and gave a $1 billion to Pilatus.

Like I said, the worst of both the Chinese and US procurement system. That you don't see it?? Good. Carry on.

[D Roy]

Rakshaks would note that China actually flies a couple of "civilian" C-130s (L-100) that it received from Lockheed Martin in 1987.

[Karan M]

Karan, this is your "dual track".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_HPT-32_Deepak

After 19 crashes and unable to fly upside down, they finally gave up and gave a $1 billion to Pilatus.

Like I said, the worst of both the Chinese and US procurement system. That you don't see it?? Good. Carry on

Wong, it seems like you PRC fankids get real upset whenever somebody questions your world view..

Lets see, 19 crashes as compared to how many Chinese crashes? I mean the IAF actually flies & has a world class reputation, when was the last time the PRC did anything of the sort..go on, let us know of the transparent PRC system when it comes to flying training?

I mean seriously, why are you desparate?

India chose to actually not develop its own plane and import a Pilatus off the shelf because the IAF decided the HTT-40 program would not deliver significant benefits over a local one. That's India's choice to make, program to program.

Unlike China, India is not going to indulge in false pride and induct a clunker like this as its LIFT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_JL-9

In 2012, this is what the PLAAF has decided to induct as its trainer. Pretty much shows what they think of the Yak-130 ripoff, if the platform they choose for their future is a reworked MiG-21 Mongol.

Now, given that you can't seem to admit the obvious, heres a list of equipment where India has implemented dual sourcing ...and I am just limiting myself to the past decade..

Radars
Medium Power Radar: MPR Elta:15: MPR LRDE/BEL:8
LLTR: Thales: 19 LLTR: LRDE/BEL: 37/15
LLLWR: Elta: ~21 LRDE/BEL: 20+
WLR: AN/TPQ-37: 12; LRDE/BEL: 28 (requirement of upto 45)

AWACS
Phalcon: 6 (Elta)/ AEW & C: 3 (+6-8 more required), Project India (3)

SAMs
MRSAM: 9 Squadrons with MRSAM as a JV; AKASH: 8 Sq/2 Regiments; both kept in same group as both essentially replace the same units for the IAF, SA-3 Pechoras

SSMs:
Brahmos (Indo/Russian JV)/ Nirbhay Indian SSM

EW (AF)
Jammers: Split between Elta/Indian jammers; upgrades receiving both Indian jammers & compatability with existing IAF jammers ex-import
EW (Naval)
Rafael ESM/EW suite (interim); Sangraha final - with Ellora for large platforms, Varuna for smaller platforms

Combat radios (Army)
Split between Tadiran/ BEL-DRDO CNR, BEL STARS-V

Helicopters
LUH: 197 import (with license manufacture)/ 187 local design HAL
MRH: Naval requirements to be met by import: IAF/IA requirement to be met by MRH program by HAL; Mi-17V versions to be imported in interim

Fighters:
Heavy platforms - now approximately ~60% of the fleet: Su-30 MKI (licensed assembly)/ FGFA - JV with Sukhoi with greater Indian input

Army IFVs:
Current: ~2000 BMP IFVs (Russia); In progress: Indian industry make venture

Navy - I mean, here I'll leave it to the rest of the folks here...the split between Indian frigates & Russian frigates to quickly build up capabilities is well known!

This is apart from areas where India has been procuring local almost completely.

Lets now look at Joint Ventures and even licensed manufacture.....in each case, with India open about the deal, unlike China which can't even bear to admit that its maiden taikonaut venture had Russian design assistance in the critical crew module..

Joint Ventures - for platforms where India could have just procured off the shelf and license assembled, but instead chose the JV path. In each and every case, far better tech than China has access to:

Heavy fighters: FGFA
Transports: MTA project
SSMissile systems: Brahmos 1, Brahmos -2
SAM: Barak-8/LRSAM/MRSAM - note that in contrast to China, India has not dumped billions of dollars into Russian industry and is then taking second gen stuff (which Russia used to develop the S-300). Its actually chosen a partner to develop something state of the art.

Licensed Production:
In each case, getting technology better than what China has today & on top of it securing spares and supplies. Not running to Ukraine for spares after reverse engineering stuff..

Heavy fighters: Su-30 MKI (still far better than anything in PLAAF service)
MMRCA: Rafale chosen, will come with transfer of production line & TOT; 50% offsets
Trainers: Hawk/Pilatus - both better in terms of tech., and with far better reputations WW than anything China has made; 30% offsets for each

There are so many examples where India actually has got things right, following a consistent strategy that I am not going to even bother typing them out..

Its not just that you are ignorant, its that you are unable to admit that "China strong" is not good enough.

Whats ironic is that China via its braggadocio has basically woken up ALL of its neighbours. India is just ONE of them. All of them are paying attention to their militaries and indigenous development, and in most cases, they all have industrial capabilities or technology access which is ahead of China's..

This is what is happening in Korea:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/world ... ssile.html
http://asw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=11056

Whats fun is that with a range of 930 miles, that missile can hit into China, not just NK. And what does the report mention - China's proliferation to North Korea!

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... earization

While you Chinese went about bragging and showing off "strength" which was work in progress, this is what has been happening!

The Japanese are re-arming, India is re-arming, South Korea is arming, the US is refocusing on encircling China...

And all you Chinese can do is pat yourself on your back about how some aircraft on some truck will be a message to prevent Seal team 6 from entering China. That's like the heights of insecurity.

[Karan M]

I have no angst. I am happy with the development progress in both of the countries. I merely summarize your points.

Well then you got to work on your summarizing skills, buddy because that summarization was way off target. Must say, that it does seem, after seeing you, Wong, and the other Chinese guys who periodically come to this forum to show off, that you just don't do nuance.. its like either its "China strong" or its "China weak", there's no in-between...it totally reminds me of a certain gentleman whom I know who comes to India to detox (his words, not mine)...because despite China being about ok lifestyle wise and all, he can speak freely and normally in India which he simply can't do in China...in his words, talk to anyone in China about anything broken and openly so, they say its "perfect", even when its not...and to any normal person, well that's frustrating.

Its like one big reality distortion field that y'all have surrounded yourselves with. All I did was point out that China's so called state driven MIC is an incredible resource hog and simply not sustainable by Indian standards, if we seek to replicate it. And even pointed out where and when China acquired tech....seems to have struck a raw nerve.

Looking at Wong's increasingly strident responses, sure seems so.

[Karan M]

Norinco has managed to copy the M777 ULH. They have badged it the AH-4 and claim it'll be ready in a couple of years for export etc

Its sort of weird, dont you think? Its like they think the way to success is to ape the west in everything. Take a western product & then remake it, and automatically money will flow. Clearly, its not like they are stupid, its just a mindset thing. I mean form follows function and all that..but this is across the industry, not just their military, which is why I think the bit about quality fade (documented in civil industry) applies to the mil. industry as well.

For instance: http://www.chinacartimes.com/2006/11/13 ... ng-eq2050/
Apparently used by Chinese military.

In contrast, check out the disparate line-up here:http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20 ... 2bco6.jpg/
The LSV lineup - combo of local designs, JVs etc. But no 1 to 1 ripoffs.

[Karan M]

There is systemic data to indicate, that despite everything Chinese equipment remains problematic.. the isolation from international military goods may mean a pliable user..but still..

Like China, Pakistan, its poodle hides and fudges crash statistics, so a 50 center think he can use India's own open media to run agit prop using crashes during flying training..unfortunately even Pak occasionally lets out information to visitors!

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... aruns.html

I met ACM Mehra after he returned from a visit to Pakistan as part of a team of retired senior defense officers. This visit was a confidence building measure but ACM Mehra found the team was frustrated with the inability of the Pakistani establishment to honor mutual agreements and the Pakistan Army's hypnotic fixation on Kashmir. In lighter moments after business meetings with Pakistani counterparts the subject of frequent Mig-21 crashes as reported by Indian media had cropped up. Apparently the PAF officer said “Mehra Sahib aap ke jahaz to kam se kam Russi hai, hamara kya haal hain un Chinee copies ke sang mat pooch”. Translated it reads “ Mehra sir, at least your Mig-21’s are from Russia, imagine what we are suffering with our Chinese copies of MIG-21!”.

Then, there is this:

Rotting From Within: Investigating the massive corruption of the Chinese military.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... rom_within

Then there is this, which is what I meant by saying quality of manufacturing is an issue across the Chinese industry. Two items..note - heavy engineering, the so called lynchpin of China's engineering prowess & then, consumer electronics..we all know how many warnings exist in India about not using fake chinese electronics parts for reputed bran items.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 427921.cms

Chinese 'invasion' leaves Haryana powerless
Ajay Sura, TNN | May 24, 2012, 06.19AM IST

CHANDIGARH: If Haryana is hit by erratic and unscheduled power cuts, like many other things, blame it on China. The All-India Power Engineers' Federation, the apex body of power engineers in the country, has shot a letter to the Union power ministry claiming that there have been repeated breakdowns particularly in newly-constructed Chinese units in the power plants of Khedar in Hisar and Yamunanagar districts of Haryana.

In the letter, the federation has informed that the old units of indigenous Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL) at Panipat are performing well, while new units from China have developed faults in the turbine at Khedar as well as in the Yamunanagar unit.

Recently, Haryana power minister Ajay Yadav had told TOI that breakdowns in power units of Haryana were so unpredictable that it was not possible for the state to announce power outages in advance anywhere in Haryana, including Gurgaon. Both the units in Yamunanagar, 300 MW each, are shut since April 1, while one unit of 600 MW in Khedar is shut since April 28, causing a sudden shortfall of 1200 MW in the state. Both these plants had Chinese equipment and they were all due to turbine vibrations.

A departmental inquiry into the bending of turbine rotor of unit 2 at Yamunanagar also confirmed serious deficiencies in construction and design of these equipment.

According to official figures, Haryana procured Chinese equipment at a low cost of Rs 3.49 crore per MW at Yamunanagar and Rs 3.19 crore per MW at Khedar in Hisar, while BHEL units would have cost around Rs 4 to 4.5 crore for every MW.

"While buying turbines at low cost could have been a short-term gain, the savings would be wiped out in the first or second year of the plant due to poor performance and generation loss," said the Padamjit Singh, chairman, All-India Power Engineers' Federation. "There is a perception among power engineers in the state that the poor performance of plants in Haryana is a result of winning bids for construction of thermal plants at the lowest price, compromising on quality," added Singh.

Haryana has three major sources of power production - Yamunanagr power plant (600MW), Khedar in Hisar (1200 MW) and Panipat thermal power plant (1360 MW). The state is expected to face minimum shortage of around 288 lakh units daily on account of forced outage of these units till the end of June.

And..

http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/random- ... blast.html

NAGPUR: A 12-year-old boy lost his right eye while playing with his father's China-made mobile, which exploded while it was being charged

This sort of thing is clearly endemic across the Chinese industry. The military supply chain is not going to be immune.

In India, the services use foreign imports as a benchmark and enforce pretty high standards (sometimes setting bizarre ones even), but where is the Chinese standard.

There was also a pretty revealing note about Chinese equipment during the JF-17 saga. The PAF made a strong attempt to make the mission avionics ALL FRENCH, and even BVR weaponry as French despite, on paper, the SD-10 having a longer range etc.

They finally accepted Chinese when they didn't have a choice and then made the usual all iz well statements. Pretty much showed, that for all the stuff about having caught upto the west, the PRC still has a long way to go.

Bottomline: While the PRC has indeed made credible advances in its military industrial complex, its got a long way to go before its held as the standard for other nations to adopt or even emulate. Best that other nations seek their own path, which in many cases may be better.

[wong]

Lets see, 19 crashes as compared to how many Chinese crashes? I mean the IAF actually flies & has a world class reputation

Dude, 19?? IAF is at 2000+, easy.

Now, This is where I spend 4 seconds to write 3 sentences and you respond with a novel.

[wong]

Joint Ventures - for platforms where India could have just procured off the shelf and license assembled, but instead chose the JV path. In each and every case, far better tech than China has access to:

It's almost like you live in your own make believe land. Let's look at what wikileaks has to say about these joint ventures...

WikiLeaks cables reveal critical assessments of HAL’s capabilities by US ambassador Tim Roemer, following a February 2010 visit to one of their facilities.

“The potential for HAL to successfully partner with US firms on a truly advanced aircraft remains untested and suspect…. [they are] two to three decades behind the United States and other western nations [and given the facility’s lack of automation and safety provisions, US firms would have to take care to] understand the management and technological experience [limitations] of Indian firms”.

That assessment is widely held beyond the US embassy, but the experience of other cooperative programs, from SU-30 fighters, to Hawk trainers, to Scorpene submarines, shows that Indian governments and their state-owned firms will almost never admit local shortcomings. Planning for those shortcomings, and for public responses to delivery failures, is likely to be one of the key challenges facing foreign M-MRCA partners.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=15547

[SaiK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chicken_and_the_Pig

[Karan M]

Dude, 19?? IAF is at 2000+, easy.

Now, This is where I spend 4 seconds to write 3 sentences and you respond with a novel.

Thats fine, 50 center. It allows me to show the reality behind your photo-ops. Your masters wont be pleased..

IAF attrition, your silly numbers aside, are because the IAF flies and is led by competent leadership.

In contrast, lets look at China.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... rom_within

What is unknown, however, is whether the Chinese military, an intensely secretive organisation only nominally accountable to civilian leaders, can develop the human software to effectively operate and integrate its new hardware.

Judging from a recent series of scathing speeches by one of the PLA's top generals, details of which were obtained by Foreign Policy, it can't: The institution is riddled with corruption and professional decay, compromised by ties of patronage, and asphyxiated by the ever-greater effort required to impose political control. The speeches, one in late December and the other in mid-February, were given by Gen. Liu Yuan, the son of a former president of China and one of the PLA's rising stars;

And Chinese flying skills were very much on display here, dude. Thanks to wrong way wang wei (any relation of yours?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

Note typical Chinese Govt behaviour..

Both the cause of the collision and the assignment of blame were disputed. The American government claimed that the Chinese jet bumped the wing of the larger, slower, and less maneuverable EP-3. After returning to U.S. soil, the pilot of the EP-3, Lt. Shane Osborn, was allowed to make a brief statement in which he said that the EP-3 was on autopilot and in straight-and-level flight at the time of the collision. He stated that he was just "guarding the autopilot" in his interview with Frontline.[17] The U.S. released video footage from previous missions which revealed that American reconnaissance crews had previously been intercepted by Lt. Cdr. Wang. During one such incident, he was shown approaching so close that his e-mail address could be read from a sign that he was holding up. Based on the account of Wang Wei's wingman, the Chinese government stated that the American plane "veered at a wide angle towards the Chinese", in the process ramming the J-8. This claim cannot be verified since the Chinese government refuses to release data from the black boxes of either plane, both of which are in its possession. [18][19][20][21][22]

[Karan M]

Joint Ventures - for platforms where India could have just procured off the shelf and license assembled, but instead chose the JV path. In each and every case, far better tech than China has access to:

It's almost like you live in your own make believe land. Let's look at what wikileaks has to say about these joint ventures...

WikiLeaks cables reveal critical assessments of HAL’s capabilities by US ambassador Tim Roemer, following a February 2010 visit to one of their facilities.
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=15547

First, nice try in quoting this snippet as part of the above article ...

That assessment is widely held beyond the US embassy, but the experience of other cooperative programs, from SU-30 fighters, to Hawk trainers, to Scorpene submarines, shows that Indian governments and their state-owned firms will almost never admit local shortcomings. Planning for those shortcomings, and for public responses to delivery failures, is likely to be one of the key challenges facing foreign M-MRCA partners.....

..which is not part of the above article on reading the link..looks like whosoever entered it in the 50 center database under "India" made a few sneaky additions! LOL!

Dude, that bit of attempt to mislead apart, I understand english isnt your first language, but man are you silly.

You can't seem to even understand the basics of what anyone is telling you. Seriously, if you are the product of the PRC education system, I must pity it.

Or are you one more of the proud expats, sitting in Canada or the US, waving the flag high. Of a state that'd sooner throw you in jail than put up with you.

The entire purpose of foreign cooperation is to raise the local technological level. After all, if things were perfect, why would one cooperate with international firms.

Thats exactly what I wrote. Note: Joint Ventures - for platforms where India could have just procured off the shelf and license assembled, but instead chose the JV path. In each and every case, far better tech than China has access to:

And you come back with what you think is an intelligent reply, saying that "oh, you aren't good enough right now coz this guy thinks so"...! And then quote Tim Roemer - as an expert. The man is no aerospace expert either.

And then to cap it all off, you havent even mentioned one proper joint venture. All you mentioned were licensed assembly programs with limited indian input. Wow!

The problems are known and which is why India is investing to solve known problems.

So as regards HAL and automation.

HAL plans mega Rs 25,000 crore capex in 10 yrs
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/369 ... 25000.html

HAL and the MMRCA
http://investment.contify.com/story/hin ... ka-9025002

HAL and electronics
http://investment.contify.com/story/hin ... 2011-10-13

See,unlike what you guys seem to be culturally attuned to (do what others do) - we do our own thing and dont need to wait for the US Ambassador etc to tell us what to do.

And the US lost the MMRCA race to the French! India now has two state of the art programs to use to move its industry ahead. The FGFA and the Rafale, apart from what its doing on its own.

As regards Roemers comment about HALs ability to make advanced fighters in cooperation with partners - this says it all!
http://expressbuzz.com/nation/desi-sukh ... 28968.html

Besides which speaking of the US embassy and what not, when was the last time this happened to China strong?

Dude, your authoritarian state can't even prevent a blind dude from escaping to the US embassy and then making his way to the US..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ijing.html

And you post comedy about half finished planes on a trailer preventing seal team 6 from attacking you in your jammies!

[Karan M]

What makes you think they want to be discreet about it?? That's not the vibe I'm getting. They've got a new toy that they want the Americans to know. I'm getting the "send SEAL Team 6 and we'll be waiting" vibe.

This has to be the most insightful comment ever...because it gives a sneak peek into wong and co.

The Chinese are showing off a new plane because the Americans successfully penetrated Paki AD (which uses PRC radars and what not)...and think they have to be "China strong and death to the white devil". So they show off a plane on a highway with suitably staged pics and videos.

Basically, wong says China felt impotent thanks to the OBL raid and the "leak" is about being potent again. Just in case Seal Team six, those meanies, decide to pay China a visit.

Apparently, PRC is a country, where the military shadow-boxing against the elected Govt, passes on its own message. What a bunch of clowns!

http://www.chinesenegotiation.com/2012/ ... rontation/

During his meeting with Hu, Gates asked, “President Hu – A J20 flew today. Was this directed at me or the United States? What can I tell the US press corps when they ask me?” According the former Ambassador, there was a flurry of conversation down the line of PRC officials and advisors until it became clear that this was the first news of the test flight that many -if not all – the Chinese civilians in the room had heard.

Americans respect direct, straight-shooting partners who air their of grievances and work out differences with brutal honesty. Chinese don’t. Huntsman understood that once the Chinese side feels insulted or that they have lost face it undermines the relationship and makes further negotiation impossible.

[Karan M]

So, is this why per Wong, the PRC shat its pants over the OBL raid?

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/08/ ... recka.html

Because it realized its much vaunted modern radar network could not detect something similar?

And Seal Team Six could swoop in anytime and do whatever it wanted to Chinese pride?

So, a mocked up plane on a tarpaulin had to be shown...wow!

[nash]

It's almost like you live in your own make believe land. Let's look at what wikileaks has to say about these joint ventures...

WikiLeaks cables reveal critical assessments of HAL’s capabilities by US ambassador Tim Roemer, following a February 2010 visit to one of their facilities.

“The potential for HAL to successfully partner with US firms on a truly advanced aircraft remains untested and suspect…. [they are] two to three decades behind the United States and other western nations [and given the facility’s lack of automation and safety provisions, US firms would have to take care to] understand the management and technological experience [limitations] of Indian firms”.

That assessment is widely held beyond the US embassy, but the experience of other cooperative programs, from SU-30 fighters, to Hawk trainers, to Scorpene submarines, shows that Indian governments and their state-owned firms will almost never admit local shortcomings. Planning for those shortcomings, and for public responses to delivery failures, is likely to be one of the key challenges facing foreign M-MRCA partners.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=15547

Mr. wong care to tell me then why USA so eager to exporting C-17,C-130 super hercules,Apache,M-777,P-8I,etc.

[ashi]

I have no angst. I am happy with the development progress in both of the countries. I merely summarize your points.

Well then you got to work on your summarizing skills, buddy because that summarization was way off target. Must say, that it does seem, after seeing you, Wong, and the other Chinese guys who periodically come to this forum to show off, that you just don't do nuance.. its like either its "China strong" or its "China weak", there's no in-between...it totally reminds me of a certain gentleman whom I know who comes to India to detox (his words, not mine)...because despite China being about ok lifestyle wise and all, he can speak freely and normally in India which he simply can't do in China...in his words, talk to anyone in China about anything broken and openly so, they say its "perfect", even when its not...and to any normal person, well that's frustrating.

Its like one big reality distortion field that y'all have surrounded yourselves with. All I did was point out that China's so called state driven MIC is an incredible resource hog and simply not sustainable by Indian standards, if we seek to replicate it. And even pointed out where and when China acquired tech....seems to have struck a raw nerve.

Looking at Wong's increasingly strident responses, sure seems so.

I think it is quite the opposite, from your lengthy response that spins left and right, and mixed with name calling.

[member_20067]

Major flame war... lolz..we should just stfu..as nothing really matters in the long run....too aggressive spending and posturing eventually leads to the demise of regimes... like Soviet Union.. we just need to sit and wait--- Chinese will implode on their own...unless some major shift in their policies to let the steam out of population

[Manish_Sharma]

What makes you think they want to be discreet about it?? That's not the vibe I'm getting. They've got a new toy that they want the Americans to know. I'm getting the "send SEAL Team 6 and we'll be waiting" vibe.

This has to be the most insightful comment ever...because it gives a sneak peek into wong and co.

The Chinese are showing off a new plane because the Americans successfully penetrated Paki AD (which uses PRC radars and what not)...and think they have to be "China strong and death to the white devil". So they show off a plane on a highway with suitably staged pics and videos.

Basically, wong says China felt impotent thanks to the OBL raid and the "leak" is about being potent again. Just in case Seal Team six, those meanies, decide to pay China a visit.

Apparently, PRC is a country, where the military shadow-boxing against the elected Govt, passes on its own message. What a bunch of clowns!

http://www.chinesenegotiation.com/2012/ ... rontation/

During his meeting with Hu, Gates asked, “President Hu – A J20 flew today. Was this directed at me or the United States? What can I tell the US press corps when they ask me?” According the former Ambassador, there was a flurry of conversation down the line of PRC officials and advisors until it became clear that this was the first news of the test flight that many -if not all – the Chinese civilians in the room had heard.

Americans respect direct, straight-shooting partners who air their of grievances and work out differences with brutal honesty. Chinese don’t. Huntsman understood that once the Chinese side feels insulted or that they have lost face it undermines the relationship and makes further negotiation impossible.

I am thankful to chinese deputed troll like wong who has through his 'china stlong..... china stlong' like posts provoked Karan M to write these brilliant posts.

[rajanb]

So, is this why per Wong, the PRC shat its pants over the OBL raid?

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/08/ ... recka.html

Because it realized its much vaunted modern radar network could not detect something similar?

And Seal Team Six could swoop in anytime and do whatever it wanted to Chinese pride?

So, a mocked up plane on a tarpaulin had to be shown...wow!

Karanji, thanks for taking the time to respond to Wong and in the process educating me. I look forward to your posts with enthusiasm.

These posts elicited a question in my mind. Considering the state of their military machines, and in the case of another conflagration with India a la 1962 (God forbib I am all for peaceful coexistense of the civilised and not '62 kind ), do you think the chinese will resort to throwing hordes of men at us as they did in 62? This time, obviously, they will have more hardware to throw at us.

Or are their lives as cheap as they were in 62?

[wong]

Mr. wong care to tell me then why USA so eager to exporting C-17,C-130 super hercules,Apache,M-777,P-8I,etc.

Err, money?? High paying jobs for Americans. It's an almost perverse, reverse welfare system. $1 Billion for propellers planes for Switzerland. What's next for Indian arms imports ?? $1 Million AK-47's from Qatar or $2 million RPG's from Monaco ??

[wong]

First, nice try in quoting this snippet as part of the above article ...

That assessment is widely held beyond the US embassy, but the experience of other cooperative programs, from SU-30 fighters, to Hawk trainers, to Scorpene submarines, shows that Indian governments and their state-owned firms will almost never admit local shortcomings. Planning for those shortcomings, and for public responses to delivery failures, is likely to be one of the key challenges facing foreign M-MRCA partners.....

..which is not part of the above article on reading the link..looks like whosoever entered it in the 50 center database under "India" made a few sneaky additions! LOL!

Dude, that bit of attempt to mislead apart, I understand english isnt your first language, but man are you silly.

No attempt at mislead. The full quote is here...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/

------------------------------------------------
"Feb 18/11: HAL a hindrance? WikiLeaks cables reveal critical assessments of HAL’s capabilities by US ambassador Tim Roemer, following a February 2010 visit to one of their facilities.

“The potential for HAL to successfully partner with US firms on a truly advanced aircraft remains untested and suspect…. [they are] two to three decades behind the United States and other western nations [and given the facility’s lack of automation and safety provisions, US firms would have to take care to] understand the management and technological experience [limitations] of Indian firms”.

That assessment is widely held beyond the US embassy, but the experience of other cooperative programs, from SU-30 fighters, to Hawk trainers, to Scorpene submarines, shows that Indian governments and their state-owned firms will almost never admit local shortcomings. Planning for those shortcomings, and for public responses to delivery failures, is likely to be one of the key challenges facing foreign M-MRCA partners. Defence Management."
-------------------------------------------------------------


So it "Defence Industry Daily" instead of "Defence Managment" with the last quote. My mistake. But Big F'ing deal.

[Christopher Sidor]

Mr. wong care to tell me then why USA so eager to exporting C-17,C-130 super hercules,Apache,M-777,P-8I,etc.

Err, money?? High paying jobs for Americans. It's an almost perverse, reverse welfare system. $1 Billion for propellers planes for Switzerland. What's next for Indian arms imports ?? $1 Million AK-47's from Qatar or $2 million RPG's from Monaco ??

I have to agree with wong on this one. America is selling us arms for only one reason, money. We dont have a pact with America which allows us to procure arms from it at so called "friend-ship prices." And if India and China get involved in some long worn out conflict then it will suit american interest just fine. This is not a critique of closer Indian-American relations per se, it just a reminder of how the foreign relations are conducted.

We end up paying top dollar for arms. Think the tatra truck fiasco. It is sad commentary that even 60 years of independence we still have to depend on imports for more than 70% of our defense needs.