sudeepj wrote:Rakesh ji
Aiyoo! Drop the ji
And this is a long post, so when replying....do not quote the entire post please.
sudeepj wrote:1. Russia provided X and US provided thenga, while nominally true, ignores the political and strategic context in which these transfers happened. We had signed a treaty with the Russians. We voted in the UN with them. There was a lose understanding, which side we were on. We had good relations with client states of the Rus, such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela etc.
Is India not living (literally!) in "trying
" political and strategic times vis-à-viv China? We share a border with them. They illegally hold a portion of Ladakh (Aksai Chin). We fought a war in 1962 and lost. We had a border skirmish in 1987. We have numerous border flare ups in the past decade alone. As George Fernades said in the late 90s, China is Enemy No 1. And to the US, it is no different. The Chinese are a thorn in their side too.
We have signed agreements with the US i.e. BECA, LEMOA, COMCASA. The last one is especially crucial, because it gives India access to some key technologies. The US Govt has granted India the status of Major Defence Partner. If you listen to some of the spin masters on BRF, India and US were in a perpetual honeymoon phase during the Carter-Parrikar regime.
With a common enemy as China and the bonhomie between the two nations, do you honestly believe it is wise for the US Administration to dangle the noose of CAATSA over India's head? Agreeing to intervene in the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan? Tacitly send some intern from the Pentagon to go and count the PAF's F-16 fleet and then proudly claim that no F-16s were lost in Feb? I mean, whose side is the US really on?
Rhetorical question Saar. Because you already answered it ---> There is no concept of permanent friendship, principles or even enmity in international relations between nation states.
And since such a scenario has not existed in the past, is not existing in the present and will not exist in the future...is it wise for India (who is slowly wrangling itself out of Russia's embrace) to jump into the arms of the US without even giving any thought? I do not believe that is a wise idea.
sudeepj wrote:2. What if we were to sign a treaty with the US? Honestly, I dont know if strategic weapons technology can be expected from the US. (btw. there is significant partnership and enabling by the US for Indian programs. I wont say what I know because its not publicly known information.. but the cooperation for many 'name brand' strategic Indian capabilities is there.. We would be hard pressed to get these operational if it were not for the type of cooperation that was there. I.e. we plugged into a global supply chain of technology, ideas and hardware..)
If they are not going to provide their crown jewels (to be very honest, I would be surprised if they did!), then the relationship will remain very much a transactional one. And in my humble opinion, it would be best if it stays that way. Buy what we need, but this aligning-with-the-US
drama is quite frankly nauseating.
And may whatever they are co-operating and partnering together on, achieve success. But that does not mean we should be joined at the hip.
sudeepj wrote:3. Even if the Rus helped us do the Arihant, fact is, it has not changed the nature of the Salami slicing warfare faced by us. Pulwama happened. Our response, while gratifying to my heart, still left a lot to be desired. We could well see another Pulwama tomorrow and our response will be tested.. Arihant is almost a NOP (No operation/ null operation) in this scenario.
And just like in the previous Pulwama episode, the US will certainly not come to our aid in a future encounter either.
And in a future Pulwama encounter, if it escalates into all out war.....the IN can silently move Arihant to a strategic location to strike if required. If the Russians did not help on the reactor design, good luck on having the Arihant.
India also needs a nuclear triad (air, land and sea), no? Or are we expecting Ohio Class SSBNs to come to our aid?
sudeepj wrote:4. Rus did help us in the past, but their programs have run out of steam. Their stealth fighter will be one among many others, perhaps even behind rafale. I have repeatedly used the word 'vestigial' about their programs. Please name one post cold war platform. T90/Flanker are both cold war programs. The T14 armor and the stealth fighter are unknown quantities..
So let us talk about the one US program that is moving at full steam - the F-35. That is a fairly strategic and state-of-the-art program, would you agree? They are willing to sell F-21 with F-35 tech, but no F-35
I do not want to compare programs, as the F-35 is way ahead of the Su-57. And where ever the Su-57 is sitting on the technological totem pole and no matter how cunning the Russians are being again (by offering India co-development
) on the Su-57 program, the point remains is that at least the Russians are willing to open the door to this. How about the US?
I can think of one program that is causing quite a bit of takleef to the US - the S-400 and the up-coming S-500. And they are trying every trick in the book to convince nations to not get the S-400 system. They are taking a page right out of the late US President Lyndon Baines Johnson's playbook ---> The Johnson Treatment, which has been described as incredible potent mixture of persuasion, badgering, flattery, threats, reminders of past favors
and future advantages
. The latter is not even guaranteed!
sudeepj wrote:5. International relations are always about the future.. And the futuristic weapons are almost all American. And this when the US has scaled down its military investments. If there were to be a new cold war, one can expect the expenses to rise up again. Then the US is an economy and a system that provides us with a huge market. If it were not for weapons, what would we sell/buy with the Russians? And in what quantities? How much Chai can we sell them?
You are making some very dangerous assumptions there my friend!
But the main point is this - How much of those futuristic weapons will India get her hands on? Do you have a quantifiable number or a percentage? You are assuming that India will just be given access to them? On what basis?
India asked for engine tech. India got shown the door. That was a given anyway. Why talk about futuristic weapons, when India cannot even get bread-and-butter
sudeepj wrote:6. One problem I see with the US system is that it almost requires the loss of 'subjectivity'. If you are a Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy.. you have to accept the US wasp-y type of system. India is a Dharmic country. Are we expected to submit to US ideas as well, if we were to be a part of that alliance system? France offers one potential model, but France is France. Will the US agree to letting us be a France? And how can the cultural aggression from American churches, silicon valley companies, publishing/opinion forming organizations go on like it has and the US/India alliance system even come into existence?
So India wanting to be like France (with its own MIC) is now a threat to the existence of the American MIC? Why do we need the US to agree if India wanted to be like France?
And you are *OKAY
* with the cultural aggression from American churches, silicon valley companies, publishing/opinion forming organizations go on like it has?
Dude, what is wrong with you? I am not doing a personal attack on you. But I am surprised how you can make such a statement!
Are you even for real? I am incredulous and flabbergasted!
sudeepj wrote:There are sub-systems that are sourced externally. We are not NK. Having said that, none of those three systems can help us win the war imposed on us by Pak or the economic/political coercion forced on us by the Chinese. At best, they keep the window of conflict open. To win a conflict against Pak on our own terms, we need things like: SDBs, PGKs, Navigation equipment, command control, electronics.. missiles like meteor, javelin, etc. etc. etc. These are not fairy tale weapons, they are all partially or completely implemented and available for use.
Why don't you enlighten us and tell us what sub-systems are sourced externally in those platforms?
You do realize that Meteor is from MBDA, a European consortium? From a cost perspective sense, it is a fairly tale weapon onlee!
As for the other stuff, India has made or is making significant inroads in acquiring them locally. Here are some examples...
* The Indian Army's AWAN (Army Wide Area Network)
* Secure Cloud Storage for the Indian Army --> https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 643144.cms
* The Shakti Artillery Combat Command and Control System (ACCCS)
* India's Sterlite Tech is building the Indian Navy's new digital network
* AFNet is the Indian Air Force's new digital information & communication grid
* Bharat Electronics Ltd has an entire host of electronic/navigation systems (way too long to list). Just visit website ---> http://www.bel-india.in/Products.aspx?M ... =1&link=59
* Man Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missile (MP-ATGM)
* DRDO's Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon (SAAW)
* Stand-Off Anti-Tank Guided Missile (SANT)
* ADE's Sudarshan laser-guided bomb
* Prahaar tactical ballistic missile
* Helina anti-tank guided missile
* Shaurya hypersonic missile
* Pralay ballistic missile
* Nirbhay cruise missile
* NPOL's USHUS sonar
* Astra BVRAAM
* Etc, Etc, Etc
All systems that can help us win the war imposed on us by Pak or the economic/political coercion forced on us by the Chinese. Unless you have some evidence that proves otherwise. And you can add Arihant, Akash-1S and Agni to the above list.
sudeepj wrote:For all other current/future platforms you pointed out - Rafale, Triomphant, Barracuda - two are strategic platforms designed for cold war type conflicts. Rafale is something that can be used by us, but is prohibitively expensive precisely because its not plugged in to the global industrial, technological and intellectual supply chain. Its on its little island, and we can only procure laughably small numbers. The french technological island alone can not provide the edge that we need.
Allow me to provide with you with some figures. Are you aware of the amount budgeted for 57 naval fighters for the Indian Navy? Rs 95,000 crore and the last time I checked that was around USD $15 billion. The F-18 is a contender for this contest, along with the Rafale M, Sea Gripen and the MiG-29K. If the F-18 wins (very likely), it will cost nothing less than $15 billion. And that US $15 billion is just a starting point! Now do you know how much the new Vikrant costs? US $2.8 billion and to be fair....that cost will continue to rise till commissioning. But it will be nowhere close to US $15 billion. Now with that US $15 billion figure, would you like to venture a guess as to how much 114 F-16s or F-18s is going to cost the Indian Air Force? Or for that matter, any of the other MMRCA aircraft in the contest? BTW, 57 x 2 = 114. Just Saying!
You are making the same mistake that the spin masters on BRF made during the Single Engine Fighter contest. F-16 is dirt cheap for the USAF, so that automatically will translate into dirt cheap prices for the Indian Air Force! One spin master on BRF went even as far as to say that a weapons-free F-16 Block 70/72 will cost the IAF, nothing more than $45 million per aircraft! This is the same dude that said the IAF will get 200 F-16s and 100 F-18s and it is the price that India must pay for US engine tech
Never mind that how these 300 American birds will fit into the IAF's ORBAT. Details like that are inconsequential to him!
You are making assumptions again my friend
You are assuming that since the goodness & fatness
of the global industrial, technological and intellectual supply chain flows out of the US and that somehow and in some hallowed & divine manner, those blessed droppings are going to miraculously fall on India. The only thing India must do is align herself with the US. You need to drop that notion or provide some concrete evidence to prove your statement.
sudeepj wrote:I want to point out that most Russian systems are 'all or nothing' weapons, when in reality, our defense posture is not about all or nothing. We can float as many Cold Starts as we want, its not happening. Its telling, that in the Don Bass region, Russian invasion was mostly about compromising the population there and using militias.. Classic 4G stuff.
What we need is stuff that can fight Salami Slicing, stuff that gives us a decisive advantage in subliminal 4G warfare. Most such stuff is really really refined/high tech, and most Russian platforms are industrial, rather than high tech.
And American systems are not all or nothing
? Can you even put a Russian missile on a US-origin fighter or put a US-origin missile on a Russian fighter? I am sure you know the answer to that. And I am not referring to the technical ability, but rather whether the US OEMs will allow such a move.
The IAF has done that though. The Mirage 2000 carries the R-73E close combat missile. French Aircraft, Russian Missile. The Su-30MKI is expected to carry the AIM-132 ASRAAM in the future. Russian Aircraft, Western Missile. Good luck doing that on an American platform i.e. F-16 or F-18. Honestly, Good Luck!
sudeepj wrote:Coming to the nature of high tech.. technology is incremental in nature. We get criticized for reinventing the wheel, but if no one is selling you a wheel, you do need to reinvent a wheel to get a chariot!
So then allows us to reinvent the wheel (Kaveri engine) to get the chariot (Tejas) going. Give us the tech!