India-US Strategic News and Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Sep 2013 08:40

So very clearly there is India specific clauses in the immigration bill.Ombaba is being true to his form of trying to screw India since he was a Senator.

Former envoys urge US Congress to remove India-specific immigration
Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:29 am (PDT) .

Former envoys urge US Congress to remove India-specific immigration barriers
http://www.indianex press.com/ news/former- envoys-urge- us-congress- to-remove- indiaspecific- immigration- barriers/ 1168149/0

Press Trust Of India :
Washington, Thu Sep 12 2013,

US urges the removal of India specific barriers in immigration reforms to avoid friction. (Reuters)

Five former US Ambassadors to India have requested the Congress to remove India-specific discriminatory provisions in immigration reform, underscoring that continuation of such steps would have an adverse impact on the bilateral relationship between the two countries.
Related: US Immigration Bill: IT Inc sees rays of hope

In a letter to top lawmakers, these former envoys observed that American competitiveness and vitality depend heavily on robust US-India commercial ties.

Related: TCS to be worst hit if US immigration Bill gets nod

They further said any comprehensive immigration reform legislation approved by the Congress needs to appreciate the mutual benefit of deepening the bilateral partnership, which is vitally important to the two countries and global economy.

The letters were addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives John A Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

The letter was jointly signed by former US Ambassadors to India – Thomas Pickering, Frank Wisner, Richard Celeste, David Mulford and Robert Blackwill.
{note most of these are Repub nominated envoys!!!}

"While we believe that the US Congressional efforts to further Comprehensive Immigration Reform can be of great benefit, we are concerned that the high-skilled visa provisions in legislation currently contemplated by the Senate are not in US economic interests and they complicate our relations with India," they said.
The US India Business Council (USIBC) and the recently formed Coalition for Jobs and Growth worked with these five former US Ambassadors to India to reach Congress about American jobs and competitiveness.
The letter comes ahead of the scheduled meeting between the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President Barack Obama at the White House on September 27.
"We hope the visit of PM Manmohan Singh and his meeting with President Obama will reinvigorate the US-India ties, prompting the US Administration and Congress to take a second look and eliminate specific discriminatory provisions in the immigration reform bill, which will hurt American competitiveness and damage US-India commercial ties," USIBC president Ron Somers said.
"We ask that any comprehensive immigration reform legislation approved by Congress appreciates the mutual benefit of deepening the US-India partnership, which is vitally important to our two countries and the global economy," Somers said in his letter to the Congressional leaders accompanying the Ambassadors letter.
In their letter, the five former envoys write that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation that has passed the US Senate unfortunately differentiates between US providers of IT services, and Indian IT companies including Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), HCL Technologies, which provide the same services to American businesses using virtually the same labour pool sourced from India.
"In particular, the bill will block Indian IT companies (as well as significant US IT service providers) from providing these essential services, and free-market competition, to our leading US-based multinational companies.
Equally important, such legislation sends a protectionist signal to our Indian counterparts – a signal normally reserved for nations with whom we have non-productive relations. India does not fit this category," the envoys argued.
"Many US companies entering the Indian market have found tremendous success. Others have struggled with Indian policies related to tariffs, intellectual property, tax treatment and local manufacturing requirements as well as needless interference by state and local officials," the letter said.
"Our ongoing bilateral dialogue with India and not punitive legislation has, in the past, helped resolve differences.
Departing from this approach will not solve these problems. It risks provoking 'tit for tat' retaliation, which denigrates this important relationship, " the letter said.
"We would appreciate your bringing our concerns to the attention of those who are responsible for the preparation of final comprehensive immigration legislation, and ask that they revise those sections and remove those features of any Bill that would limit market entry of IT professionals who work for so-called Visa-dependent IT companies," they said.
"These provisions, currently in the Senate Bill and any which may be included in the counterpart pending House Bill, are virtually punitive and cry out for redress and excision," wrote the former American envoys.

point is why doesn't India Inc open shop in India and move these jobs permanently?

habal · Post by **habal** » 13 Sep 2013 09:23

Sagar G wrote:CRamS saar I agree on most of your points but US having the ability to do a "Syria on India" is taking it far too much.

CRamS is absolutely correct. The new US policy doesn't require boots on ground.

Just destabilising and they leave it at that. Just like how they did in Libya where too they have no boots on ground, just threw off the govt of the day and that was it. Pummel the air-defence, wreck and demoralize the armed forces, post a few videos of Islamic kindness beheading by al-qaeda types, allow drones to make the sorties and take out whomever you wish later. Foment internal dissent so that no strong group comes up, wreck economic power so that no organized economic activity is allowed to take place.

CNN/Fox/BBC will immidiately take to air making sly remarks of how India has centuries of caste oppression, muslim oppression, daleet oppression, minority oppression. {Meaning it deserves to be whacked anyways, so why you care spectator}.

Footsoldiers on ground are all Muslim Brotherhood, IM, Al-Qaeda (Al-Ciaida), armed with weapons like AK-47, LMG, Austrian Hand Grenades supplied by friendly countries like Pakistan, also NORINCO AKMs, RPGs, Type 67 GPMG so no need of boots on ground. Just destabilize and leave it at that.

This is the New World Order envisaged by Council For Foreign Relations and aided by US military. This will maintain their foreign relations for years to come.

Fortunately there is only one thing that deters them. And India has that, I guess.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 13 Sep 2013 09:32

CRamS wrote:rajanb,

I agree, there must be some hard-nosed diplomacy with US without actually turning into some kind of "axis of evil". Remember, if US wants, they can do a Syria on India too given all the negatives India has and the number of 5th columnists that India has.

The corner stone of US policy is to groom both India & TSP as its munnas, and in this process, TSP terror against India suits US just fine as long as is it doesn't get out of hand. US carefully manages this India TSP equal equal equation. That has got to stop or else I see no hope, none whatsoever for India to be any kind of power, let alone regional or global power to reckon with.

CRamS,

I would beg to disagree. The US would get a far bloodier nose if they tried anything with us.

They tried a panga in 1971 with the USS Enterprise. It is lucky for them that elements of the Russian fleet also landed up in the Bay of Bengal. And it became a stand off. if the Russians hadn't landed there we would have been left to our own devices. Considering how the US hates to lose lives, we shouldn't forget an isolated incident at Sarghodha airbase, where a frustrated IAF pilot rammed his A/C into the base trying to get to the underground hangars. A Kamikaze attack. One such guy flying a MiG21 loaded to the gills with dumb bombs could have caused havoc.

Add to that our standing in NAM in those days. And the fact that though IG was a tough woman, her service chiefs were even tougher and innovative.

The US suffers from a lot of doublespeak and look where it has got them. A no nonsense, yet friendly attitude from us, where we have every right to further our own interests is the approach to take.

In view of Putin's stance re: the Syrian conflict he seems to be yet tough but a lot more sophisticated than his previous term in office. Not the heavy handed KGB type. But yet capable of using KGB methods if necessary.

With USSR collapsing we seemed to have become easy meat for the west. And, of course, the dismal quality of our leadership added to that. Now, with Russia pulling out of the doldrums, we need to recalibrate our relationship. Iron out the irritants in the defence sector, which have been many.

This recalibration, would to a certain extent have to be beneficial to Russia also. India as a counter balance to China. Also an India who would politely and logically stand up to the US. Personally I was surprised that MMS stood against the usual US attitude of "lets drop bombs!" at the G20. We need to stand up for our rights of buying oil from Iran as usual and continue with legal commercial relationships. And keep our interests foremost in a balanced way.

It would need to be an India which Russia remembers from IG days in the realm of realpolitik.

I, who have had good American friends. Some friendships spanning four decades, love them as individuals. But when it comes to the USA as a champion of freedom? I find their meaning of freedom tainted. Freedom only for themselves. Freedom for them to commit and condone actions tantamount to war crimes.

I was trying to recount the military successes they have had post WWII. The only ones seem to be in countries which export bananas.

Their handling of OBL was breath taking of course But Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan are failures. Even Bakistan has outplayed them!

My 2 (by now devalued) paise.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Sep 2013 11:47

The cornerstone of Indian foreign policy has been that of non-intervention by foreign powers .There are exceptions to the rule.Bangladesh in '71,where 10M refugees from the Paki pogroms against their Bengali brethren forces us into slicing Pak into two,thanks to "Durga's gift to India",Mrs.G.,Op.Cactus to squash a coup in the Maldives and the IPKF,sent in as "peacekeepers",ostensibly similar to UN peacekeeping duties,where no major military conflict was expected.By completely misreading the true nature of the LTTE and the cynical selfishness and ultra-clannishness of Northern Lankan Tamils,it ended up in a major conflict with great loss of life and wounded on our side,plus the later assassination of Rajiv G and many others.

We have continuously rejected any foreign military intervention that did not have UN sanction.Rajiv G. was bumped off because he dared to do what he did in the IOR region,alarming powerful anti-Indian interests who want India to take a permanent back seat in international affairs ,only acting "under orders",like a mercenary force.For the first time in recent years we have stood on the same side of the line as Russia,China and the other non-interventionist G-20 nations.The economic tsunami that would accompany a US led strike on Syria is perhaps uppermost in the minds of the UPA,struggling to keep its head above water before the elections. But the armtwisting continues as under US pressure,fast-tracking of arms deals with Uncle Sam is going on a apace ,as slow-coach AKA assures his US cunterparts.

Meanwhile,here is a good old-fashioned American way,"the Ugly American",how to lose friends and make rabid enemies.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... nes-qurans

Florida pastor Terry Jones arrested on way to burn Qur'ans
Jones is stopped in pickup truck towing barbecue-style grill before planned burning to mark 9/11 anniversary

A Florida pastor was arrested on Wednesday as he drove to a park to set fire to nearly 3,000 Qur'ans to mark the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Sheriff's deputies in Mulberry, Florida, arrested Terry Jones, 61, and his associate pastor, Marvin Sapp Jr, 44, on felony charges of unlawful conveyance of fuel as they travelled in a pickup truck towing a large barbecue-style grill filled with Qur'ans soaked in kerosene.

Jones had said he was heading to a nearby park to burn 2,998 Qur'ans – one for every victim of the 2001 attacks. Sheriff's officials said that Jones was also charged with the unlawful open-carry of a firearm and that Sapp faced a charge of having no valid registration for the trailer.

Both were being booked into the Polk County jail, according to Sheriff Grady Judd.

Mulberry's mayor, along with area elected officials, a sheriff's deputy and several Polk County residents, have talked about the need to express love and tolerance for all faiths on 11 September.

Jones is the pastor of a small evangelical Christian church who first gained attention in 2010 when he planned to burn a Qur'an on the anniversary of 9/11, although he eventually called it off.

His congregation did burn the Muslim holy book in March 2011 and last year he promoted an anti-Muslim film. All three incidents sparked violence in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The most violent protest happened after the 2011 Qur'an burning as hundreds of protesters stormed a UN compound in Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan, killing seven foreigners, including four Nepalese guards.

Jones has repeatedly ignored pleas from the US military asking him not to stage his protests. Military officials say his actions put US and western troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in danger.

Mulberry is a town of about 3,000 between Orlando and Tampa and has no connection to Jones's church.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Sep 2013 09:52

The IISS: Will India's Rice and Kerry' diplomacy in Washington take off? ( Discussion Audio )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWqTFFdlmlA

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 15 Sep 2013 15:41

habal wrote:CRamS is absolutely correct. The new US policy doesn't require boots on ground.

habal wrote:Fortunately there is only one thing that deters them. And India has that, I guess.

Your statements are in contradiction which makes your post meaningless so please first decide whether India is strong enough or not for USA to do a Syria on India and then I would reply.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Sep 2013 20:11

Meanwhile

Behind U.S. heat on fridge gas pact, thirst for markets
Nitin Sethi

http://www.thehindu .com/todays- paper/behind- us-heat-on- fridge-gas- pact-thirst- for-markets/ article5118286.ece

Ministries advise PMO to resist arm-twisting in run up to PM’s visit

The U.S. is pushing India hard to sign on to a pact that would eventually lead to New Delhi replacing climate-damaging
refrigerant gases with alternative, but expensive, technologies
proprietary to a few U.S.-based companies. Signing the pact — the
multilateral Montreal Protocol — would open a huge market for these U.S. firms that hold patent rights on the replacement gases and their
attendant technologies.

In a meeting with Indian officials, minutes of
which were accessed by The Hindu , the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change, Todd Stern, demanded that
Indian officials agree to the beginning of discussions on the phase out
of these refrigerant gases under the Montreal Protocol before Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh visits the U.S. Records show that he warned that if the decision was not taken at the official level, President Barack
Obama would raise it directly with the Indian Prime Minister.
Mr. Stern, in his meeting, told Indian officials that it is a political
priority not just for the U.S. administration but also personally for
President Obama.
The Ministry of External Affairs and the Environment Ministry — both nodal points for environment- related
international agreements — have opposed the move strongly, raising a red flag on several counts. They have said that the Union Cabinet had
earlier decided against such a move. It’s noted that the new technology
and gases being pushed as the alternative are patented by select
industrialised country companies, are 20 times more costly at times and
untested for safety in some cases.
The ministries
have warned of the potential impact on India’s defence equipment —
submarines and aircrafts, which use the refrigerant gases. Besides, such a decision promises to weaken the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change and dilute existing responsibilities of the developed world to
fund reduction of global emissions, it has been pointed out internally.
But India has been caught in a bind with the Prime Minister signing on
to the recent G20 communiqué that encouraged such technology transition
in breach of the Union Cabinet decision, which was taken in 2012. The
PMO approved the communiqué signed at St. Petersburg without the
knowledge of the nodal environment ministry. The Indian government’s
position against bringing this transition under the technology
replacement regime of the Montreal Protocol has been reiterated
innumerable times in domestic, bilateral and multilateral forums for
years now besides being laid down in 2012 as part of India’s climate
negotiation redline as a Cabinet decision.

But Mr.
Singh’s approval of the St. Petersburg communiqué has left the Indian
flank open with the U.S. special envoy, Mr. Stern, pointing to the
communiqué specifically while leaning on Indian officials to approve the decision.

So MMS is PM for foreign interests in India?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 15 Sep 2013 20:25

^^^ You still have doubts about the present setup ???

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 15 Sep 2013 20:27

MMS has always been the Foreign Interests Minister of India. FIMI.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Sep 2013 22:20

Ramana:point is why doesn't India Inc open shop in India and move these jobs permanently?

A bunch of reasons...lower margins, delayed payments, smaller deals and also the usual bugbear, corruption. One hears stories about how a Japanese MNCs IT consulting wing in India was invited to most populous state for a deal. They noted no Indian firm was there in the room. Only "rich" MNCs. After presentation babuji lit his smoke and tells the team..."madamji wants 15 percent" is that ok? Many central IT contracts are there which Indian firms are working on, successfully.

But issues of scale and things like above do exist..

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 16 Sep 2013 12:21

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/showbiz/m ... reactions/

Look at the Bigotry....and adding insullt to Injury too.....

Of course, it's all first amendment onlee....

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 16 Sep 2013 17:01

The bigots are getting away with all the hate mongering in most productive and industrious society which is also the only remaining superpower. Very strange and probably normal only in 2013.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Sep 2013 19:33

What bigotry ??? You people expect any "better" or "human" behaviour from the white people

vishvak wrote:The bigots are getting away with all the hate mongering in most productive and industrious society which is also the only remaining superpower. Very strange and probably normal only in 2013.

Syria !!!!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 16 Sep 2013 19:45

Breaking: Shootout underway in US Naval Base in DC..4 dead as of now.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Sep 2013 19:10

In the Washington Naval yard shooting an Indian Marine Engineer Mr VB Pandit was gunned down. He was working for the Naval Sea Systems command.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 17 Sep 2013 20:00

So what is the best plan to distract people from seeing the underlying truth about your racist race???? GET THE RENTED INDIANS OUT !!!!!

Why Miss America, Nina Davuluri, 'Would Never Win Pageants In South Asia' by Mallika Rao

a sample

But there was an unfortunate irony to the win, noted mostly by Indian and Indian-American writers. Davuluri is dark-skinned. In India, where skin color is a national obsession, you likely wouldn't see someone of her complexion in a pageant, much less winning one.

Enjoy

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 17 Sep 2013 23:37

Harbans - My nephew, a scientist with the navy, visits that place and often works from there..(like others he has often eaten in the cafetiere where shooting took place)..Thankfully we got a call almost right away, just when the news broke, that he was safe and sound and actually not near the scene at the time.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Sep 2013 23:57

Welcome back AmberG. The math thread was missing you.

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 18 Sep 2013 04:34

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/world ... 730CA71A4E

Throw up alert. Narendra modi is responsible for U.P. riots

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 18 Sep 2013 21:22

DC_Convoy

Last year the American Truckers Association prepared a report for Congress highlighting the susceptibility of the nation’s just-in-time delivery system, the majority of which is made possible by the transport and delivery of freight. In the event of a catastrophic disaster such as a war that drives fuel prices through the roof or even a natural disaster such as a solar flare that renders electronic trucks inoperable, there would be a “a swift and devastating impact on the food, healthcare, transportation, waste removal, retail, manufacturing, and financial sectors,” according to the report.

The backbone of commerce in the United States is the truck drivers who spend long hours on the road ensuring our very survival as a modern society.

But with fuel prices continuing to rise, wages dropping, jobs becoming harder to find, and rampant corruption in Washington D.C. furthering the country’s economic death spiral, America’s truck drivers, like the majority of our fellow citizens, are fed up.

Between October 11th and 13th they have called for a general strike, asking truck drivers around the country to refuse to haul freight, a move that could carry with it a significant impact on the American economy.

The protest calls for truckers to make their way to Washington D.C. in a massive convoy in an effort to call attention to, among other things, the Benghazi cover-up, the recent attack which killed 25 members of SEAL Team 6, ever rising fuel prices, and claims that President Obama has engaged in treasonous crimes NOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

Moreover, they’ve requested that the American people join them in solidarity by not shopping or engaging in any economic activity that benefits the government or their corporate interests.

The American people are sick and tired of the corruption that is destroying America! We therefore declare a GENERAL STRIKE on the weekend of October 11-13, 2013! Truck drivers will not haul freight! Americans can strike in solidarity with truck drivers!

Breaker 1 9 calling on all Trucker to shut America down for three days October 11-13. The American people are bleeding out with no relief in sight, It is time to change the NEWS. Let us show our elected officials that we are 100% fed up with corruption and the blatant disregard of the Constitution that they swore to defend.

My fellow Patriot this effort is to support the truckers in a major shut down of America in a 3 day strike October 11th thru 13th.
Obamacare will be in effect and most people will be ready to take action. No commerce on those days stock up on items that you will need. No banking no shopping no money transactions. It does not matter If a million or 50 roll through DC in this effort. Congress will listen to We The People. Which is remove Obama from office for crimes of treason and misdemeanors. We want Congressional hearing on Benghazi and Seal Team 6. Louis Learner put in jail. No amnesty, remove all Muslims in our government that do not uphold the Constitution. Remove Eric Holder from office for crimes against the people and the Constitution. Last but not least is Fuel prices. - Via: The Truckers to Shutdown America Facebook Page
The protest comes on the heels of a massive biker rally held in Washington D.C., and other grassroots efforts to hold the government to account for various Constitutional transgressions including everything from stripping Americans of their right to bear arms, to forced health care mandates soon to be implemented across the country (with exemptions for members of Congress and corporations with insider access, of course).

Calls of accountability have grown louder over the years from all political sides, starting most notably with the Tea Party movement and progressing to Occupy Wall Street.

The corruption and need for real change in America’s government has transcended political lines.

If the hundreds of thousands of truckers across America who keep our delivery systems running efficiently were to join together and stop hauling freight for even a week, the impact would be devastating and could not be ignored.

There’d be no food on the shelves, no fuel at our gas stations, and no medical supplies at our pharmacies and hospitals.

Congress and the President, who would like nothing more than to be perceived as our saviors and benefactors, would have no choice but to address the concerns of freight haulers, because the American people would feel the effects of the protest directly. And, chances are they’d be in the streets protesting themselves because of lack of access to essential goods they can’t live without.

We may often feel as if we, as individuals, have no power against the mighty United States government, but as Karl Denninger points out, we have much more power than we think.

If we get just 10% of America on board the entire game changes.
Especially when the business world — and government — realize that the next one is Black Friday weekend.
Just 10% of Americans can change the course of history, much like they did during the Revolutionary War.

Whether it happens in October, during Black Friday sales this November, or at some point in the future, this seemingly untenable situation is coming to a head.

Robert Kennedy may have said it best:

A revolution is coming — a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough — But a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability. - Robert Kennedy, Senate Floor, May 9, 1966
The snowball in America continues to roll down the hill, gaining speed and mass.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 18 Sep 2013 21:47

Anantha wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/world ... 730CA71A4E

Throw up alert. Narendra modi is responsible for U.P. riots

Hari Kumar contributed reporting from Ahmedabad, and Nida Najar from Muzaffarnagar, India.

Always remember to mark out the rented "Indians".

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Sep 2013 01:18

Viv S wrote:We're talking about investment and workshare. They may not grant total access to technology to us. They may not agree to cede the state of Colorado to us. That's not being offered as the proposal's primary merit.

I don't want the state of Colorado I only want them to share technology with us if they are willing to do that then they are welcome otherwise India must not waste it's time on listening to speeches of co-development of paper missiles.

Viv S wrote:This is your statement that started this debate -

'Show me a military deal where the buyer has made more money off than the seller.'

Having been shown one, instead of acknowledging it (even as a one-off) you insist on discussing poodles, doodles, dancing, masters-slaves, babytalk and so on.

It's pathetic that you didn't even get the question that I posted and to top that now want me to acknowledge a reply that you think proves that a buyer nation can make more money from the technology that it purchases than the seller nation who sells it in the first place !!!!! You are saying that with the 15% arrangement UK is going to make more money out of selling F-35 than USA who in the first place created the programme and are the main technological contributor

No thanks but I am not a fan of nonsense so excuse me if I ignore your's.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Sep 2013 01:44

Sagar G wrote:I don't want the state of Colorado I only want them to share technology with us if they are willing to do that then they are welcome otherwise India must not waste it's time on listening to speeches of co-development of paper missiles.

We were talking about getting onboard the program for co-production rights not for technology.

Viv S wrote:It's pathetic that you didn't even get the question that I posted and to top that now want me to acknowledge a reply that you think proves that a buyer nation can make more money from the technology that it purchases than the seller nation who sells it in the first place !!!!! You are saying that with the 15% arrangement UK is going to make more money out of selling F-35 than USA who in the first place created the programme and are the main technological contributor

Unless you were yet again rambling on about unrelated issues, the statement was in the context of Karan M's statement about 'making money of the US'. You claimed it couldn't be done. Not by a 'buyer'.

So yes the my example was perfectly apt. And you were wrong. In their bilateral exchange, far far more money will flow from the US towards the UK than the other way round.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Sep 2013 01:51

Viv S wrote:We were talking about getting onboard the program for co-production rights not for technology.

Not we it's only you who was talking about that and now trying to drag me in my stand is simple give us the technology for Javelin then India should think about any co-development.

Viv S wrote:Unless you were yet again rambling on about unrelated issues, the statement was in the context of Karan M's statement about 'making money of the US'. You claimed it couldn't be done. Not by a 'buyer'.

And I still stand by my statement the money we are going to make off by selling some parts of Javelin to USA is definitely going to be less than what they will make by selling the missile to us in the first place.

Viv S wrote:So yes the my example was perfectly apt. And you were wrong. In their bilateral exchange, far far more money will flow from the US towards the UK than the other way round.

Show me proof I don't take unverified claims on there face value.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Sep 2013 02:03

Karan M wrote:These deals are political deals. They are basically done to "secure" future cooperation etc. Ideally, we'd do everything ourselves.
Question is whether there is business benefit in a political deal even so, and it can be made useful to some degree, even if not ideal. If negotiated well, the answer is possibly.

The only thing that I am saying is that the "possibility" of that happening is very less in case of USA. If USA wants to earn India's trust they should be ready to transfer tech no ??? But they aren't and that's indication enough for me regarding their actual intentions. Hence my stubbornness regarding USA supplying us with the tech first and only then we must move forward about any paper NG missile.

Karan M wrote:Its not just the MOD but the Govt as a whole which does not understand the importance of having a proper MIC and how it can contribute to the national economy, if properly harnessed (of course with proper checks and balances). Only guy who seems to get it so far is Modi.

Totally agree with you .

Karan M wrote:If its a JV, both make money, not just one side. Even without JV, if we get license rights to make Javelin and re-export, plus codevelop the NG version and re-export, we could make money. All depends though on how the deal is drafted, US actions post deal signing and the Indian partner executing on the deal, well.

Let's keep JV out of this discussion since that's a future prospect let's talk about the current intentions of USA so even if by chance the underlined thing happens no matter how much we re-export I don't think we will ever make money more than what USA will make by at the first place selling the missile to us and then bringing more orders for the same of which some parts will be manufactured here. Why would USA move the entire Javelin production to India and hence kill jobs back home ??? Isn't creating jobs a basic requirement for any defence deal ??? Both of us know that the critical tech transfer is not happening and low tech that will be transferred to us will be the same as in the current DPSU setup. No matter in which way I see this Javelin deal I fail to see India gaining anything useful out of it if there is no critical tech transfer.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2013 02:54

2 year old article. As a FYI, the Javelin is only an example to start the ball rolling - IF India wants it to roll. And there are more actors in this play than just the govs and industry. PACOM - from the US side - has been pushing (not co-development, but co-procurement) for more than a year now.

Aug 2, 2011 :: 'US, India should co-develop weapons tech'

The United States and India should consider co-developing weapons technology in light of US legislative restrictions on technology transfer, two experts have said.

............................................

They said one solution lies in the United States co-developing technology with India, as it does with Israel. Since new technology is not yet developed, it cannot be subjected to restrictive US laws.

..............................................

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Sep 2013 03:17

Sagar G wrote:Not we it's only you who was talking about that and now trying to drag me in my stand is simple give us the technology for Javelin then India should think about any co-development.

Assuming they're not parting with core technologies, joining the program primarily for co-production is still well worth considering. I'm not totally convinced either, but my post was to indicate precedence.

And I still stand by my statement the money we are going to make off by selling some parts of Javelin to USA is definitely going to be less than what they will make by selling the missile to us in the first place.

We don't have the means to build a fire-and-forget man-portable ATGM in-house. Not in the time-frame and to the standard that the IA requires. We'll be importing/license-manufacturing it one way or the other. If not from the Americans, then from Israelis.

Show me proof I don't take unverified claims on there face value.

Proof? Its simple maths. Workshare worth 15% by value. 2500 units(min) each valued at $100 million(min); $37.5 billion.

US orders currently stand at 2443 with another expected 700 export orders. Average cost will be higher too when factoring in the F-35B and F-35C variants. Also including the support contracts and you have a figure that can well be in excess of $50 billion.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2013 06:35

"Quisling" Singh to betray the nation and parliament for his US masters ?

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/m ... epage=true

Manmohan may carry nuclear liability dilution as gift for U.S. companies.

Sandeep Dikshit J. Venkatesan

It is for operator to exercise ‘right of recourse’ under section 17 of Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act

Under sustained pressure from the Obama administration, the Manmohan Singh government is looking to use the opinion of the Attorney- General to effectively neutralise a key provision of India’s nuclear liability law that would hold American reactor suppliers liable in the event of an accident caused by faulty or defective equipment.

In an opinion to the Department of Atomic Energy, which referred the matter to him on September 4, Goolam Vahanvati has said it is for the operator of a nuclear plant in India to decide whether it wished to exercise the ‘right of recourse’ provided to it by section 17 of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act.

The AG’s opinion effectively paves the way for the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, which will operate any nuclear plant using imported reactors, to repudiate a right that Parliament explicitly wrote into section 17(b) of the law to ensure that foreign suppliers don’t get away scot-free if a nuclear accident is traced back to “equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub standard services.”

American nuclear vendors Westinghouse and GE have lobbied hard with Washington and Delhi to have this provision amended or removed. Though India has publicly stuck to the line that dilution of this provision is not possible, Mr. Vahanvati’s view opens a door for the government to accommodate the U.S. demand when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meets President Barack Obama on September 27.

Reiterating the opinion he gave to the government in October 2012 in the context of the Inter-Governmental Agreement between India and Russia, Mr Vahanvati noted, “Section 17(a) provides for recourse if such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing. If the operator chooses not to incorporate such a provision in the contract, it would be open for him to do so.”

In its reference to the AG, the DAE had sought confirmation “regarding the presumption that the existing provisions of section 17 of the Act facilitate the operator either to exercise his ‘right of recourse’ by incorporating a clause in the contract or to waive his right or to limit the liability on the part of the supplier.”

The AG endorsed the view expressed by the Ministry of External Affairs in an internal note that “a right was given to the operator to have recourse against the supplier but there was no mandatory obligation or requirement for the operator to do so and that the operator could choose not to exercise that right.”

The AG’s view is likely to be challenged by the opposition, since section 17 grants the operator the right of recourse under one of three conditions: (a) if the right is expressly provided for in writing; (b) if the accident is caused by faulty material or equipment provided by the supplier; or (c) the accident results from an act of commission or omission of an individual done with intent to cause nuclear damage.

Since 17(b) suggests Parliament intended to hold suppliers responsible even if there is no contractual liability, it is not clear how a public sector undertaking like NPCIL, which is answerable to Parliament, could give its suppliers a free pass.

In 2008, India had promised American companies 10,000 MWe worth of contracts for setting up nuclear power plants in return for the U.S. administration helping to end the country’s nuclear isolation.

Now, five years later, NPCIL and Westinghouse are set to sign an agreement that in theory will give the American company the go ahead to begin work on its proposed nuclear power park in Mithi Virdi, Gujarat.

Keen to improve the ‘atmospherics’ around the signing of the pact, likely to be on the day Dr. Singh and Mr. Obama meet at the White House, the government is asking NPCIL to announce $100-175 million as the first token payment for the Gujarat reactor.

Keywords: Manmohan Singh, Barack Obama, Indo-US civil nuclear deal, nuclear liability law, NPCIL, Westinghouse, Gujarat nuclear power park, nuclear damage liability, nuclear reactors, nuclear fuel

PS:Mir Jafar,etc., watch out.There's a new claimant for the title of greatest betrayer of the nation.watch the Rupee plunge further.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 19 Sep 2013 11:04

What could happen in the next few weeks cannot be stopped. MMS govt will probably do it.

ATM, the BJP govt must give all possible messages and signals to the americans that this WILL BE UNDONE eventually in the future. I'm sometimes very appalled at the way the BJP is influenced by its overseas diaspora.

Modi has been getting some support from the US because of his willingness to let american companies operate in gujarat. He must be made aware that indian strategic interests matters more than liberalising the markets for an enemy.

I welcome modi's arrival but sometimes I'm not sure if he is entirely aware of geopolitics. Atal bihari vajpayee was too innocent. He had expected the world to be ethical just like nehru and he ended up with a nuke deal and giving up tibet. Modi should examine his predecessors and be wise.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 19 Sep 2013 11:56

The US debt ceiling is going to kick in on 1st October. Again. It happened a couple of years back in Oct.

All this stuff about JDs for the javelin, emal etc. are just a leaf out of our JD's with Ru. The Khan MIC needs money and add to that the cut backs in their defense spending.

I sincerely hope I am wrong because last time our markets crashed.

If I was in charge, I would hold back and negotiate a better deal for any business with the Khans. Use the pretext that they are flushing millions into the Pakis pockets for arms. As for the $ to Rupee do enough forward trading to keep our essential purchases safe.

We should unashamedly twist their arms for whatever concessions we can get.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 19 Sep 2013 16:43

American joint missile plan on radar

The US is also keen to sell to India excess military equipment from its war machinery in Afghanistan as the troops drawdown begins. The excess equipment is also on offer to Pakistan and any other country willing to buy them.

Washington has also indicated that it has made changes to its policy on high-technology exports to favour India exceptionally. This would give India an assurance on transfer of technology before entering into licence-production agreements.

Piloting the new offers from the US on defence trade and technology relationships is a proposal for co-production of a futuristic Javelin anti-tank guided missile. Carter acknowledged that an older proposal “was a long but not a happy history because it did not have the desire from India on co-production and co-development”.

The new proposal was being made to no other country but to India, said Carter, for the co-development of the “next generation” of Javelin missiles for domestic consumption as well as for international buyers (exports).

“The newness of what we are trying to do is challenging the reluctance of our bureaucracies,” Carter replied when asked if India would still be required to sign fundamental defence agreements with the US like the Cismoa (Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement) and the Logistics Support Agreement.

“We are working around them but we cannot ignore them (because) they are required under US law,” he said.

In theory "assurance on transfer of technology before entering into licence-production" seems good but I am wary of the fine prints. Our history with supposed deep tot is not very inspiring ..T-90, konkurs-M, Sorpene. Also the Javelin will come with all the usual US agreements.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Sep 2013 17:01

rajanb wrote:The US debt ceiling is going to kick in on 1st October. Again. It happened a couple of years back in Oct.

We should unashamedly twist their arms for whatever concessions we can get.

You mean like we do with the Russians

. We can't sell Brahmos to third parties where it would compete with Onyx and they won't buy it for their own forces.

The excess stuff in Afghanistan is worth a look where we already have some in inventory or plan to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... istan.html

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Sep 2013 19:57

Viv S wrote:Assuming they're not parting with core technologies, joining the program primarily for co-production is still well worth considering. I'm not totally convinced either, but my post was to indicate precedence.

Seeing the quality of "assumption" that you make your replies make sense to me now.

Viv S wrote:We don't have the means to build a fire-and-forget man-portable ATGM in-house. Not in the time-frame and to the standard that the IA requires. We'll be importing/license-manufacturing it one way or the other. If not from the Americans, then from Israelis.

Whoever is ready to share critical technology with us should get the deal whether it is America or Israel, no critical tech no deal.

Viv S wrote:Proof? Its simple maths. Workshare worth 15% by value. 2500 units(min) each valued at $100 million(min); $37.5 billion.

US orders currently stand at 2443 with another expected 700 export orders. Average cost will be higher too when factoring in the F-35B and F-35C variants. Also including the support contracts and you have a figure that can well be in excess of $50 billion.

You still haven't got the question !!!! First of all it wasn't in the context of collaborative development but since you are pursuing on that line then let me ask you in more simpler terms are you saying that UK will earn more in return from there participation than what USA will earn since it is the champion and main technological contributor of the programme ??? Let's take your 50 Billion $ figure for UK, are you saying that USA will earn less than this ??? If yes then I want proof regarding that.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Sep 2013 20:21

NRao wrote:2 year old article. As a FYI, the Javelin is only an example to start the ball rolling - IF India wants it to roll. And there are more actors in this play than just the govs and industry. PACOM - from the US side - has been pushing (not co-development, but co-procurement) for more than a year now.

Playing with words now NRao ??? Javelin tech is not on the table but instead a paper "NG" missile, there is no confirmation that Javelin tech will be transferred. India didn't champion technological restrictions against India it was the USA lest you have forgotten so if USA wants to earn some trust then it can do that by transferring critical technology to India. So the responsibility to set the "ball rolling" is still with USA not India.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Sep 2013 20:33

Read NRao.....

Whom does the US sanctions hurt ? Date: 05/07/2012

During his June 2012 visit to India, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta made an assurance to initiate measures to provide India access to dual use technology. India has for long been contending that despite lifting of sanctions, the country has had difficulties in accessing US critical technologies for defence and space. The denial of the so called dual use technological systems by the US to India’s Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDO) was one of the key issues that Mr Panetta discussed with the Indian Defence Minister Mr AK Antony.

The assurance of Mr Panetta seems to be no different from similar assurances made earlier by other visiting US dignitaries, which unfortunately have failed to assume any practical shape or form. During his 2010 visit to India, the US President Barack Obama stated that the dual use rules by which many of the Indian organisations were denied access to US high technology services and hardware would be amended and updated. Following President Obama’s statement the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the removal of nine Indian space and defence related organisations from the Entity List. Following the 1998 twin Pokhran nuclear blasts, US had imposed sanctions on a number of Indian space, defence and strategic organisations including Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and DRDO.

At the ground level the reality seems to be altogether different. As stated by Dr VK Saraswat, the DRDO chief, the successful development of advanced Indian missiles have made mincemeat of US’ technology denial regime. For instance, the Agni-V missile that made its debut flight in April of this year, featured many of the home-grown high-tech systems including ring laser gyro based inertial navigation system, high speed on-board computers, light weight composite materials and sophisticated software packages. In late 1990s US had exerted tremendous pressure on India to drop its programme to develop the nuclear capable Agni-II intermediate range ballistic missile. The overwhelming view in Washington at that time was that Agni-II project derived heavily from the technologies developed for India’s first solid fuel driven launch vehicle SLV-3 that had its maiden flight in 1980. Dr Saraswat believes that the technology embargo have nudged India to develop many critical products hitherto imported, thereby implying that US industry is the net loser to that extent of the sanctions regime.

Dr Saraswat of DRDO points out that the lifting of US sanctions had remained only on paper and its impact was not even 10 percent in terms of implementation of new Indian technology. Tejas, India’s fourth generation fighter aircraft, which is now winging its way towards final operational clearance, is the star example of how India’s home-grown technology led to a successful high tech defence project based on home-grown technology despite stiff US sanctions . This state of the art fighter aircraft with the fly by wire system has its control laws developed in India. The flight control laws are the preserve of only a handful of advanced countries that are not willing to share their expertise in this crucial area with other nations. Thus, the design and development of flight control laws for a high performance, unstable aircraft like Tejas was one of the most significant achievements of the Bangalore based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) which was set up by DRDO to facilitate development of Tejas.

Mr PS Subramanyam, Director of ADA stated that the 1998 US sanctions were the best thing that could have happened to India’s scientific and technological efforts as its spurred Indian scientists and engineers to develop many of the critical and classified technologies and systems themselves. He also noted that “When BAE Systems’ officials inspected Tejas, they were amazed by its latest configuration and its completely indigenous design.”

In 1992 ISRO was at receiving end of the US technology sanctions for alleged violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). In this context, USA had managed to coerce an economically emaciated and politically turbulent Russia, to drop its commitment of transferring the cryogenic engine technology to India on the grounds that the dual use aspect of cryogenic technology could be exploitation in the military sector by India. Following US pressure, Russian space agency Glavkosmos which had entered in an agreement with ISRO for the transfer of cryogenic engine technology, watered down the deal to supply seven cryogenic engines to India without any technology transfer. Despite such sanctions, ISRO has designed and developed a cryogenic engine constituting the upper stage of the three stages GSLV (Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle). The flight of GSLV with home-grown cryogenic engine stage is slated for the second half of 2012. The successful realization of GSLV would imply triumph of home grown technology in face of US sanctions. In the aftermath of US sanctions, ISRO developed many of the complex technological systems for satellites and launch vehicles with indigenous efforts. For instance, for India’s manned space flight programme slated for launch in 2016, ISRO has decided to exploit Indian expertise to develop the space suit for the use of astronauts. The space suit technology is a closely guarded secret of a handful of space-faring nations. Thus, for India’s strategic sectors, US sanctions have proven to be a blessing in disguise.

The US export regulation that disallows the launch of a commercial satellite built in USA and also the use of satellite carrying US made components by countries like India and China has significantly contributed to the dwindling fortunes of US satellite building enterprises. It is a known fact that Indian and Chinese space vehicles are more cost effective as compared to their US and European counterparts for delivering payloads in space. In conclusion, the US trade sanctions and export restrictions have hit the American industry more than the countries it was aimed at. A clear indication of the declining prospects of the American space industry can be seen from the fact that its share of commercial satellite production has plummeted from more than 80 percent in the early 1990s to the present-day share of 50 percent.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Sep 2013 21:07

Sagar G wrote:Seeing the quality of "assumption" that you make your replies make sense to me now.

Whoever is ready to share critical technology with us should get the deal whether it is America or Israel, no critical tech no deal.

Neither is willing to share critical technology. And the Russians don't have products in the same segment (not that you can rely on them for ToT either).

You still haven't got the question !!!! First of all it wasn't in the context of collaborative development but since you are pursuing on that line then let me ask you in more simpler terms are you saying that UK will earn more in return from there participation than what USA will earn since it is the champion and main technological contributor of the programme ??? Let's take your 50 Billion $ figure for UK, are you saying that USA will earn less than this ??? If yes then I want proof regarding that.

This was in the context was 'making money off the US'.

The final size of UK's F-35 order is presumed to stand at 138. Even assuming that the entire balance 85% of that value goes to US companies, that still comes out to be only $12-18 billion (@ $100-150mil).

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Sep 2013 22:09

Viv S wrote:Neither is willing to share critical technology. And the Russians don't have products in the same segment (not that you can rely on them for ToT either).

Well then we are wasting time looking at foreign OEM's to provide a solution, if this deal is really that necessary then we should order a few units to be deployed in selected units of IA. SAMHO is a man portable version it can be ordered in huge quantity though it's not of the same class as wanted by IA but you have to make do with what you have.

Viv S wrote:This was in the context was 'making money off the US'.

Well we do make money off US, recently the explosive detection kit was sold to their firm so there you go. I don't see the need to make money off US by shooting ourselves in the foot.

Viv S wrote:The final size of UK's F-35 order is presumed to stand at 138. Even assuming that the entire balance 85% of that value goes to US companies, that still comes out to be only $12-18 billion (@ $100-150mil).

Hain jii what is this !!!! Conveniently forgetting the 700 export order that you yourself said and only considering the numbers that UK will purchase, why this sudden amnesia I pooch ??? In addition to this have you considered the money earned over life cycle of the fighter in terms of spares, upgrades not to forget the royalty that would have to be paid to the OEM for license manufacturing. Also what is a fighter jet without weapons ??? What about the truck load of money which will be earned by USA in that ??? Calculations based on improper amount of data and biased assumptions will only yield false data.

About the price of F-35

What is the cost of an F-35? How is that cost determined?

The estimated cost for an F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 (the first expected year of full rate production) will be about $85 million in inflation adjusted “then year” dollars. This is equivalent to about $75 million in 2012 dollars. That price includes the airframe, engine, mission systems, profit and concurrency.

Now whose word about the cost of F-35 shall I trust your's or LM's ???

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2013 22:32

NRao wrote: .......................As a FYI, the Javelin is only an example to start the ball rolling - IF India wants it to roll.

..............................

Like I said ..................And, more to come ...........................

US offers help for next generation aircraft carrier

The United States has offered to develop the next generation aircraft carrier technology with India, visiting deputy secretary of defence Ashton Carter said Wednesday.

The technology on offer, Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, will be a quantum leap for the Indian Navy that currently relies on the Russian ski-launch technology.

Both Indian carriers, INS Vikramaditya, coming in November, and INS Vikrant, being built in Kochi, can ski-launch only light fighter aircraft. But EMALS would make it possible to launch heavy aircraft, including early warning systems, refuellers and transporters, from future ships. India has yet to freeze the design of the second indigenous carrier it plans to build after Vikrant.

Carter said the US is keen to develop and co-produce defence equipment with India on the lines of Brahmos, a missile developed jointly by India and Russia and which is on offer for export to a third country. One such technology that can be shared under the Defence Technology Initiative is EMALS, Carter said. "The US is developing and fielding that system and is offering the technology to India which has an aircraft carrier and is considering making more," he said.

Also on offer for joint development is the next generation anti-tank guided missile, Carter said.

The Javelin system has been on offer to India for years but it never managed to make the cut due to restrictions imposed by US law on transfer of technology, a critical factor guiding most of India's new defence acquisitions. But Carter said work has been done to amend bureaucratic processes and new version of this system can be jointly developed.

He emphasised that the US wishes to replicate, in part, the Russian model of cooperation with India. "That is exactly the same kind of thing where two industry teams are involved in the whole product life cycle; where the product is both co-produced and developed."

And ............. like I also said and this is crucial to note:

He dismissed concerns that such collaboration can be hampered due to India's refusal to sign the so called frameworks agreements.

The reason was given in 2010.

Here is another item of interest: I sincerely hope that India looks at these offers outside of just plain technologies. Techs, IMVVHO, are the least of India's concerns.

Time to pack those old articles. They will soon have no meaning. But, then the ball is India's court. Up to India to make something out of this or keep on complaining.

The train is in the station, will leave soon.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Sep 2013 22:44

Yawn and move on onlee more verbal tamasha from USA.

People here must think why EMALS is on "offer" to India when it is a cutting edge technology.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Sep 2013 03:07

Sagar G wrote:Well then we are wasting time looking at foreign OEM's to provide a solution, if this deal is really that necessary then we should order a few units to be deployed in selected units of IA. SAMHO is a man portable version it can be ordered in huge quantity though it's not of the same class as wanted by IA but you have to make do with what you have.

The Spike and Javelin are being examined because they're required. They cannot be used interchangeably with the SAMHO. Now if the issue had to do with the LAHAT or AT-11, it would have been a different matter.

If say tomorrow Russia were to refuse to share core technologies relating to X,Y or Z component of the PAKFA, would we walk out of the program, up Tejas orders and wait twenty years for the AMCA to arrive?

Well we do make money off US, recently the explosive detection kit was sold to their firm so there you go. I don't see the need to make money off US by shooting ourselves in the foot.

The only thing at risk is the initial investment and as long as that isn't threatened, its hardly akin to shooting one's own foot.

Hain jii what is this !!!! Conveniently forgetting the 700 export order that you yourself said and only considering the numbers that UK will purchase, why this sudden amnesia I pooch ??? In addition to this have you considered the money earned over life cycle of the fighter in terms of spares, upgrades not to forget the royalty that would have to be paid to the OEM for license manufacturing. Also what is a fighter jet without weapons ??? What about the truck load of money which will be earned by USA in that ??? Calculations based on improper amount of data and biased assumptions will only yield false data.

The UK is not footing the bill for Japan or Australia. The only payments its sending to the US is for the development and its own purchases which amount to 138 aircraft.

With regard to support, yes its paying for that for its 138 aircraft fleet. But seeing UK companies are involved in the supply chain as well, its issuing invoices to operators of 3,100 aircraft.

What is the cost of an F-35? How is that cost determined?

The estimated cost for an F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 (the first expected year of full rate production) will be about $85 million in inflation adjusted “then year” dollars. This is equivalent to about $75 million in 2012 dollars. That price includes the airframe, engine, mission systems, profit and concurrency.
Now whose word about the cost of F-35 shall I trust your's or LM's ???

Like I said before, the figures are not inflation adjusted. And most observers agree that the aircraft will come in at around $100 million. Also add in the cost differential for the B & C variant which will form about 30% of the order book.

But lets assume an ideal case and call it $75 million all inclusive in 2012 dollars. 15% of 3100 aircraft still amounts to about $35 billion. All for an investment of $3.5 billion and orders for another $10 billion (2012 dollars). We're used to talking about offsets, in this case, offsets equal at least 260% of the contract, so to speak.