Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 28 Oct 2010 15:04

Companies Gear Up To Meet Indian Sensor Demand
Aviation Week

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 31 Oct 2010 17:31

Swedish Firm SAAB Buoyant on India

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 02 Nov 2010 09:40

Saab To Form Joint Venture With Mahindra Satyam

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 02 Nov 2010 09:47

India-US Defence Ties are Multi-Billion Dollar Prospect

India Not Yet Ready to Sign Defence Pacts

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 03 Nov 2010 10:32

New Delhi weighing all pros and cons before finalising defence deals with USA

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 03 Nov 2010 10:37

American weapons sales to India overpriced?
COST CONTROL

Let us study the example of American military equipment on sale, offered to, or contracted with India. In 2007, India made a deal with Lockheed Martin for the supply of 06C-130J Hercules medium multirole (transport) aircraft worth $1.02 billion under the foreign military or government sales programme. According to Military Balance 2010, these aircraft are “for special forces operations configuration with AN/AAR-47 missile approach warning system and radar-warning receivers”.

Obviously, there appears to be some special stuff embedded in the aircraft that makes the price of each flying machine $170 million. However, it appears from Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 2010-2011 that the same type of aircraft was sold to Australia in 1995 for $55 million — the “baseline price of C-130J for US Air Force [was] quoted as US $67 million in early 2002”, and there was a “multilayer procurement of 40 C-130J-30s for the US Air Force [at a ] unit price [of] US $67.5 million”.

in 2003, the contract for one aircraft for the Air Force Reserve Command was worth $70.5 million. This disparity of more than $100 million per aircraft between Australia and the United States of America on one hand and India on the other is intriguing. Why did the price of the same type of aircraft shoot up so high when offered to India?

Initially, in early 2002, potential buyers were expected to be Australia, Canada and Italy, which were to begin negotiations “concerning cost and work-sharing aspects of the collaborative venture”. However, all “three countries withdrew by mid-2005”. Not unexpectedly, after the retreat of the three developed nations, the “early” entry of India took place, with a $2.1 billion-order for an aircraft which was still far (five years) away from the development and production line. The US was in dire need of cost or risk sharing partners, and it missed the bus. Instead, it got a $2.1 billion moneybag in New Delhi.

However, there is no doubt that American aircraft continue to be top-class, which, understandably, is why overseas clients want it. As Americans are conscious of the unmatched quality of their product, they tend to be difficult at times and try to arm-twist those customers who dare to have a contrary view. And here lies the danger for India as a customer of US military aircraft. India may have to contend with extreme reluctance on the part of the US to part with its “latest and best technology”.

Successive US governments have acknowledged the existence of rigid export controls but have failed to loosen the checks owing to opposition from the US Congress. Even President Barack Obama may not be able to change this practice. Hence, India will have to remember the ground realities of cost, quality and control checks of the US aviation when it tries to acquire aircraft for the Indian air force.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 03 Nov 2010 10:40

India’s defence mart
Abhijit Bhattacharyya for The Island - The writer is an alumnus of the National Defence College of India and a Member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 04 Nov 2010 08:22

India Likely to Ease Offset Norms to Include Aviation, Internal Security
The Indian Express

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 04 Nov 2010 13:52

Juggi G wrote:India Likely to Ease Offset Norms to Include Aviation, Internal Security
The Indian Express

From the link

Indian Ambassador to the US Meera Shankar on Wednesday said while it might be a bit early to raise the FDI cap on the defence sector, the government is more likely to bring about changes in the offsets clause.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 05 Nov 2010 18:33

X-post

US defence and nuclear deals could touch $15 bn

vic · Post by **vic** » 06 Nov 2010 08:57

shukla wrote:X-post

US defence and nuclear deals could touch $15 bn

I thought that I would make a list of equipment which is under discussion for purchase by India or could be purchased through tenders:-

1. P-8 Additional 4 after 8 around US$ 1 billion
2. C-17s around US$ 3.5 billion
3. C-130s Additional 6 apart from aircraft for paramilitary forces around US$ 1 billion
4. C-27s competing for tactical lift for paramilitary around US$ 500 million
5. Boeing Mid air refuelers – in competition? around US$ 1 billion
6. Apache helos – competing for 22 around US$ 1 billion
7. C-47s competing for 10-24 around US$ 1 billion
8. Harpoons 24 around US$ 170 million
9. Javelins around 2500 around US$ 300 million
10. Hellfire - ?
11. CBU-105s around US$ 350 million worth
12. M777 – 145 around US$ 6-700 million
13. GE414 engines around US$ 1 billion
14. LM2500 engines
15. Offer for Haweye 2D for the navy?
16. JSF for Navy?
17. Night sights? Thermal sights?
18. Will USA offer HALE UAV? Predator?
19. Will USA offer Stealth UCAV?
20. Off course MRCA competition
21. LOH competition
22. Turboprop trainer competition
23. There are some offers which are not likely to succeed in near future like Aegis radar, Patriot missiles
This comes to around US$ 15 Billion of possible deals as of today with other big ones to follow.

vic · Post by **vic** » 06 Nov 2010 09:09

shukla wrote:American weapons sales to India overpriced?
COST CONTROL

My guess is that spare parts and maintenance for around 10 years is built in or atleast the option is built in the FMS approval placed before the congress

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 06 Nov 2010 09:18

x-post from Cyberwar thread:

How Israel Spoofed Syria’s Air Defense System - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10 ... rael-spoo/

Earlier this month, Israeli fighters bombed a suspected nuclear materials site in Syria. Here’s the million dollar question: How did they do it without tipping off Syria’s Russian-bought air defense radar? Radar expert Dave Fulghum over at Aviation Week’s Ares blog may have the answer: Israel hacked the network.

Israel U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year.

The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.

Russia sends 3rd AWACS plane to India
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20101104/161205321.html

Russia has completed its part of a contract on the delivery of A-50 Mainstay AWACS aircraft to India, a Russian aircraft industry official said.

India ordered three A-50EI variants, developed on the basis of the Russian Il-76MD military transport plane and fitted with the Israeli-made Phalcon radar system, in 2004. The first two aircraft are already in service with the Indian air force (IAF).

It would be extremely surprising if the radar spoofing technology has not already been built into the Israeli avionics in the new AWACS planes.

How would it be used? There are lots of possibilities. Recall the faked call from Pranab Mukherjee to Zardari while the Mumbai 26/11 attack was in progress ...

Hopefully the DRDO understands that you cannot have security until and unless you control the manufacturing process right from the semiconductor foundry stage.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 08 Nov 2010 15:09

Pranav wrote: Hopefully the DRDO understands that you cannot have security until and unless you control the manufacturing process right from the semiconductor foundry stage.

I hope that the IA, IAF and IN understand this. They may, over a period of time.

I hope that the netas and babus also understand this. Doubtful.

K

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 08 Nov 2010 19:21

He is likely to push India to buy more US military hardware, the President is targeting to firm up arms sales worth $26 billion.

India will shop for 145 howitzers at $8 billion and Cluster bombs for $880 million.
Indian Air Force (IAF), Navy aircraft for AWACS, refuellers worth $2 billion
10 heavy lift aircraft for IAF for $ 4.5 billion and Boeing is the front-runner to clinch the deal

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/joint ... s+-+India)

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Nov 2010 19:29

Pranav wrote:Hopefully the DRDO understands that you cannot have security until and unless you control the manufacturing process right from the semiconductor foundry stage.

I am sorry, why should they basic research and basic manufacturing when all can be imported.

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 08 Nov 2010 20:30

India will shop for 145 howitzers at $8 billion and Cluster bombs for $880 million.

$8 billion for 145 howitzers??

DDM strikes again!

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 11 Nov 2010 03:34

India To Introduce Defense Production Policy

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 11 Nov 2010 06:20

^^^ quote from above link..

Meanwhile, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India has recommended DPP 2010 should consider a higher foreign direct investment cap of 49% to encourage foreign joint ventures.

Wake up AK!!!!

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 11 Nov 2010 12:19

In Major Shift, DRDO Looks at Building Arms with America

Business Standard

In Major Shift, DRDO Looks at Building Arms with America
Ajai Shukla
New Delhi November 11, 2010, 0:12 IST

India is co-developing and building missiles and military aircraft with Russia; it is co-developing missiles with Israel. But targeted American sanctions, and a Washington licence raj that stifles the outflow of military technology, has ensured that India's Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) has never co-developed weaponry with the world's most evolved and high-tech defence industry - that of the United States.

The US, in turn - even while selling billions of dollars worth of military aircraft to India - has failed to mine the richest lode of the Ministry of Defence (MoD): Joint development contracts like the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), which will be signed next month with a corpus of $12 billion, which could rise to over $20 billion. Or, like the $2-billion partnership between DRDO and Israel Aerospace Industries to co-develop an anti-aircraft missile.

But that seems likely to change with Washington agreeing, during the run-up to President Obama's just-concluded visit, to relax controls on technology and defence exports. Top DRDO officials now believe that, given the growing closeness between the US and India, the two defence establishments would be jointly developing high-tech military weaponry by 2020.

DRDO's chief controller, Prahlada, told Business Standard just ahead of the US president's visit: "Within a decade, we will have major joint collaboration. Maybe in aeronautics, maybe radars… something will click. We are working with Israel and Russia in missiles; with the US, we may work on something else. Both countries are moving towards that."

DRDO, aware of the US defence industry's technological self-sufficiency, believes India's key attraction would revolve around lowering the cost of a product through cheaper development and testing costs. And, as the US defence budget plateaus and even reduces, the assured custom from India's Military would Add Significant Economies of Scale.

DRDO's chief, V K Saraswat, is explicit about the military projects the US and India could undertake jointly. He says: "We have discussed this many times. India has an excellent base in IT, especially computer simulation, virtual reality, and robotics. In any contemporary military platform, you need command and control and communications software. We have some of the best brains in this area and we can develop these systems for both India and the US. If these Indian strengths are harnessed with American technologies, we could build the best and the cheapest military systems in the world.

As DRDO notches up successes in high-tech fields like missiles, aerospace, electronic warfare systems and command networks, its senior officials are confident that their laboratories have much to offer. Prahlada says: "American and European companies earlier believed that the Indian defence R&D was at some lower level. But now they listen and observe because they know we have developed systems of complexity and that… if they do not work with us, we will somehow find a solution. So, that is not there. Definitely there is an improved way of looking at India."

While the Indo-US Defence Policy Group (DPG), a joint deliberative body that meets regularly - has long provided a forum for exploring research areas, Saraswat complains that US legal restraints have hamstrung its work: "We have identified areas where we can work together. But the US legal framework - regimes such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR); and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) - require many permissions and raise legal issues on dual-use technology."

Now, after Obama's unambiguous promise to reform export controls, DRDO expects that many of these difficulties will ease.

According to Saraswat, the US technology regimes have permitted cooperation in fundamental research, but not in developing specific technologies or military systems. The DRDO chief explains: "If we wanted to do research on, say, bio-medical engineering, then it is okay (with the US). But there would be hesitation on their part for research on, say, hypersonic technology, which is used in missiles."

Washington's technology safeguard regimes have hindered not just joint military R&D, but also Indian academics researching in US institutions. Saraswat says: "A large number of Indian scientists go and work in the US universities, etc, but when it comes to really doing research in application areas, these US laws are not permitting cooperation in application-oriented research."

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Nov 2010 12:26

shukla wrote:^^^ quote from above link..

Meanwhile, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India has recommended DPP 2010 should consider a higher foreign direct investment cap of 49% to encourage foreign joint ventures.
Wake up AK!!!!

CII has already made a detailed report on how 26% is fine, and any increase must be done after careful consideration.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Nov 2010 20:37

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 0/jav3.jpg
Yudh abhyas is good, but imho javelin should be tested not squatting on a cushion yankee ishytle.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 11 Nov 2010 20:45

SaiK wrote:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 0/jav3.jpg
Yudh abhyas is good, but imho javelin should be tested not squatting on a cushion yankee ishytle.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/s ... my_001.jpg

http://cdn.wn.com/pd/65/13/b7bf182ee7d1 ... grande.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... velin3.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/javpic2.jpg

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 11 Nov 2010 21:28

SaiK wrote:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 0/jav3.jpg
Yudh abhyas is good, but imho javelin should be tested not squatting on a cushion yankee ishytle.

Why is that?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Nov 2010 22:10

thats the most peculiar weapon firing position I have seen

should be called YudhaSana or some other yogic name.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Nov 2010 22:33

context: cushion comfort.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 11 Nov 2010 23:06

^^^A newbie question..

Will we need US permission to dust of the cushion by virtue of all the restrictive covenants?

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 13 Nov 2010 09:03

Eurocopter Inaugurates India Unit

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 13 Nov 2010 18:35

The american camo is extremely effective

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Nov 2010 19:01

SaiK wrote:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 0/jav3.jpg
Yudh abhyas is good, but imho javelin should be tested not squatting on a cushion yankee ishytle.

If you fire in the classic position, i.e. kneeling on one knee that means that if your hand shakes while firing the missile, the backblast of javelin will burn off your foot (of the leg on which you r kneeling). Note-Javelin is fired in lofted profile unlike say Carl Gustav, so the backblast is already very close, unlike RPG-RCL where is it straight back (in most situations)

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Nov 2010 19:58

SaiK wrote:context: cushion comfort.

The firing position is because of the lofted - top attack profile of the Javelin ATGM.

Just think of the height of the trip/bi-pod required and attendant weight to acheive the level of inclination as obtained using the squatted firing position.

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Nov 2010 01:10

Javelin is cold launched so there is no backblast as such and more over it has a LOAL capability so one need not have to actually aim at the target itself; I do not know about the posture part there are videos all over youtube showing soldiers firing it from kneel down/sitting position.

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Nov 2010 02:04

^ Boss I should have been clearer, I used back blast in context of hot launched missiles (likes of Milan2 in IA service).

vic · Post by **vic** » 14 Nov 2010 17:14

The first fire of the Javelin burns inside the tube therefore when the missile comes out then it does not burn the face of the firer. Now just because it is called cold lauch does not mean it is cold. It is as cold as girl scorned which is quiet firey. Just imagine the power requried to throw a empty gas cylinder across and over your house. That is the amount of power required.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Nov 2010 09:40

X-post

Ministry of Defence Comments

Defence Expenditure Review

The system of compilation of expenditure does not capture the country-wise details. Therefore, the desired information is being collected from the Service Headquarters and shall be laid on the Table of the House in due course.

Defence Expenditure Review Committee headed by Shri V.K. Misra, former Secretary (Defence Finance) was constituted to recommend measures that would bring about:
i) Optimal efficiency in the system, with greater focus on Information & Communication Technology (ICT);
(ii) Greater efficiency and economy in supply services through outsourcing and reorganisation;
(iii) Greater transparency and accountability in regard to management of defence expenditure;
(iv) Higher efficiency in logistic supply chain management;
(v) Outcome orientation in defence spending;
(vi) Enhanced self-reliance by tapping the strength of the vibrant private sector;
(vii) High levels of preparedness/serviceability of weapon systems;
(viii) Greater efficiency and economy in training.

The main recommendations made by the Committee relate to greater use of Information & Communication Technology; Streamlining of Acquisitions and Procurement; Empowering Defence Industrial Base and enhancing private sector participation; and, improvement in logistics and maintenance management, support services, training, infrastructure, financial management and project management.

Various officers in the Ministry of Defence have been assigned the responsibility of looking into the recommendations of the Committee for further action on the same. This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri S. Semmalai and Shri Sivasami C in Lok Sabha today.

Irregularities in Purchase of Arms

Procurement of equipment/weapon systems under the Capital Head for the Army are done as per the provisions of Defence Procurement Procedure. The said Procedure contains, stringent provisions aimed at ensuring the highest degree of probity, public accountability and transparency.

As and when any irregularity comes to notice, appropriate action is taken as per rules. This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Prof. Ram Shankar in Lok Sabha today.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 17 Nov 2010 18:01

Interview with Mr. Lova Drori, Executive Vice President, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems

^^ Interesting take on offsets policy, India's civil security market oh and Iron Dome's and David's Sling being offered to India..

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 17 Nov 2010 18:06

Highlights of the interview for me..

"While offset clause only focuses on the value of the deal, there is no weightage given to quality of the technology provided. E.g. high-tech electronics system and machined components are assigned same value. There is no added bonus or incentive for companies to provide advanced technology when compared to mediocre components."

"All I can share is that we are offering Iron Dome and David's Sling to the Indian armed forces."

"Mid-east countries like UAE are on buying spree, but that is not our traditional market." LOL

^^ http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4811

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 17 Nov 2010 18:42

Rafael Confirms Offer of Iron Dome, David's Sling to Indian Armed Forces

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 17 Nov 2010 19:05

SriSri wrote:Rafael Confirms Offer of Iron Dome, David's Sling to Indian Armed Forces

Iron Dome would be an 'expensive' but 'effective' defensive countermeasure to the rocket and artillery shell threat, especially on the paki border.
Its really interesting that they are offering David's sling as it is a 'true' joint US-Israel collaboration.. Obama sahib is meherban, looks like the samosas did the trick!

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 17 Nov 2010 19:17

Yeah .. David's Sling surprised me when I heard the interview for the first time .. Trying to get Raytheon to confirm this as well .. More importantly, U.S. or Indian Govt. confirmation would be awesome (if some BRfite can work on this?)

These companies will always push for more business, it's been known that Boeing India wants to offer the Growlers but are waiting lifting of restrictions by DoD. We need some Growlers on the table to prove Obama's love for samosas!