India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 10 Apr 2016 12:55

Viv S,

Your summary is good. I'm familiar with the past and current geopolitics.

My argument was about the rivalry between the US and russia. China is no military match for the americans but russian and chinese interests converge in this rivalry. So when these two are passively moving against the americans, are we(india) in their way?

My fear is that we are going to get sucked into this conflict without will.

wrt our situation with the chinese, it is my understanding that it will be a "either them or us" situation. India can live with china but I do not think the chinese can live with an india. Due to history, they will always remain worried by us. And hence my main question, in the inevitable conflict between india-china, while the americans hope that both will exhaust each other, what do the russians want?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Apr 2016 15:19

krishna_krishna wrote: Massa and desh can only have transactional relationship perod!!!.

True. In fact, I do not think anyone can have anything other than 'transactional relationship' with the US. I think that is where we have always faltered and Pakistan has been successful.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Apr 2016 15:33

NRao wrote:I see no leverage after Carter leaves, outside of a LM/Boeing kicking and screaming.

. . .And, I have a gut feel Carter will deliver. Else he would have never sent LM/Boeing AND a Pentagon team to India - do all this and only to have MP say "No"?

I have no clue what will be delivered, but I *suspect* it will be beyond expectations. ??????

NRao, I agree that Ash Carter has taken a number of initiatives, especially the DTTI. There is a sense of comfort in dealing with him both in the UPA & NDA governments. But, he alone doesn't make the US Government. Depending one one guy is a problem though we must make the best use of him while it lasts since the relationship, which is not much now, is transactional anyway. Besides, there is no guarantee that the incoming administration would follow the same policy. Though this is an issue with any country in the world, the US could affect us enormously. That's why I believe that India plays it prudently.

In any case, if the 'returns' are commensurate then it is a different game altogether. After all, we should also learn to maximize profits for our country just as the US is trying to do.

China & commerce are leverages that we will *always* have.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Apr 2016 15:50

SSridhar wrote:
NRao wrote:I see no leverage after Carter leaves, outside of a LM/Boeing kicking and screaming.

. . .And, I have a gut feel Carter will deliver. Else he would have never sent LM/Boeing AND a Pentagon team to India - do all this and only to have MP say "No"?

I have no clue what will be delivered, but I *suspect* it will be beyond expectations. ??????
NRao, I agree that Ash Carter has taken a number of initiatives, especially the DTTI. There is a sense of comfort in dealing with him both in the UPA & NDA governments. But, he alone doesn't make the US Government. Depending one one guy is a problem though we must make the best use of him while it lasts since the relationship, which is not much now, is transactional anyway. Besides, there is no guarantee that the incoming administration would follow the same policy. Though this is an issue with any country in the world, the US could affect us enormously. That's why I believe that India plays it prudently.

In any case, if the 'returns' are commensurate then it is a different game altogether. After all, we should also learn to maximize profits for our country just as the US is trying to do.

China & commerce are leverages that we will *always* have.

In the end, how does it matter, saar??

Ash Carter is amreki and he is negotiating for and on behalf of the US govt.

It is their interest that he will keep uppermost in his mind and not ours.

As long as the US govt is protestant / church driven, India will always get the dirty end of the stick.

As for the relationship being transactional goes, it will always be, because the US deep state sees us as brown skinned supplicants, who should be doing their bidding anyways.

They are in many ways angling for the control over the IA like they have control over the paki army.They have been trying seriously since ABV's time in the govt

transactional is part and parcel of the US culture and they think that money solves all problems.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Apr 2016 01:34

http://businessworld.in/article/India-U ... 016-95529/
India-US Defence Relationship 'Strategic Handshake'

The defence relationship between India and the US has emerged as that of a "strategic handshake", Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said on the eve of his second visit to India."Over the course of my years at the Defence Department, I have seen a remarkable convergence of US and Indian interests what I call a strategic handshake," Carter said in his major policy speech on Asia Pacific on the eve of his nearly two-week overseas trip that will take him to India, the Philippines and the Middle East.Travelling to India at the invitation of his Indian counterpart Manohar Parrikar, Carter would be visiting the Defence Minister's home state of Goa, and New Delhi where he would be meeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Aptly reflecting the defence relationship between the two countries, Carter for the first time used the term "strategic handshake" from a public forum to describe defence ties between the two largest democracies in the world."As the United States is reaching west in its rebalance, India is reaching east, in Prime Minister Modi's 'Act East' policy that will bring it farther into the Indian and Pacific Oceans," Carter said in his remarks before the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR), a top American think-tank.The Defence Framework is foundational and will guide the US-India defence relationship for the next 10 years."There is another handshake between our countries as well a technological one. In 2012, the United States and India created the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative, or DTTI, to leverage the convergence between our industrial and technological abilities in an unprecedented way," Carter said.DTTI grasps hands with Modi's 'Make in India' campaign to expand the nation's industrial and defence base and will lead to greater co-production and co-development of defence capabilities.In his meetings with Modi and Parrikar, Carter said, he would be discussing the progress the two nations have made in aircraft carrier, jet fighter, and jet engine collaboration."We will talk about exciting new projects, the details of which I cannot go into this afternoon," he said.

"The US-India relationship is destined to be one of the most significant partnerships of the 21st century. Ours are two great nations that share a great deal: democratic governments, multi-ethnic and multicultural societies with a commitment to individual freedom and inclusivity and growing, innovative, open economies," Carter said."There is so much potential here, which is why we're seizing every opportunity we can," Carter said adding that last year, the Indian government reached out to the US to discuss the possibility of launching joint production on a new platform, to build on the work Lockheed Martin and Indian industry achieved on the C-130J aircraft programme, and what Boeing and Indian industry will achieve in the production of Apache and Chinook helicopters India recently purchased.A team of senior Pentagon officials and the defence industry are currently now in India looking at the potential co-production of fighter aircraft.These conversations represent the growing enthusiasm of the US-India partnership, and even more than that its promise, he noted.
Acknowledging that these negotiations can be difficult and global competition is high, Carter said he has no doubt that in the coming years, the US and India will embark on a landmark co-production agreement that will bring the two countries closer together and make the militaries stronger."As our strategic and technological interests have drawn together, so too have our military ties. We are coming together operationally across domains by air, land, and sea to collaborate in humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, maritime security and domain awareness," Carter said.This week, India and the US will also conclude several important agreements, including one on commercial shipping information exchange, which will make many new things possible in the future, Carter said.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 11 Apr 2016 01:46

Would the text of the agreements be published somewhere? I want to read them to see what nullifying clauses and any other asymmetries built into them (as is the nature of massa).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Apr 2016 02:00

LokeshC wrote:Would the text of the agreements be published somewhere? I want to read them to see what nullifying clauses and any other asymmetries built into them (as is the nature of massa).

1. Logistical Support Agreement (LSA) (with Philippines)

2. Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA) (with Norway)

3. Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum Agreement (CISMOA) (with South Korea)

Haven't had the time to go through them myself so do share your observations.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 11 Apr 2016 02:03

Thx for taking the time to dig that up. Going through the Korea one now. (Disclaimer: Not a lawyer).

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 11 Apr 2016 04:45

chetak wrote:..

transactional is part and parcel of the US culture and they think that money solves all problems.

Let's not kid ourselves: we Indians are also very transactional. This was not so in the 1950s and even 1960s when it was a question of karma. Today, when I have business dealings with Indians/ PIOs, I am struck by how inflexible they are and how very short term their thinking is. Who are these people? McKinsey Partners, Goldman MDs at the top and even 'CEOs' of start ups. THe worst are the newly minted IIT types who have come for their graduate degrees—their vaulting arrogance is truly breathtaking.

In short, we (Indian and non Indian) have gone from being a market economy to a market society—globally. The quid pro quo has to be both tangible and immediate.

The good part about transactional relationships is that everyone knows exactly what the exchange rate is. So no surprises. In international relationships among states, that's a good thing.

Money may or may not solve all problems but in the absence of instant divine justice brought to bear on our human time scale, it's as good as it gets.

member_28042 · Post by **member_28042** » 11 Apr 2016 05:43

How a US president and JP Morgan made Panama: and turned it into a tax haven

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Apr 2016 06:17

2 Indo-US pacts ready; only one likely to be signed
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 033_1.html

Widely regarded as a staunch friend of India, Carter might achieve during his visit what his recent predecessors have failed to: signing the first of three "foundational agreements" that are billed as a springboard for the US-India defence relationship.Hectic discussions between the US Department of Defense (DoD, or Pentagon) and India's defence ministry (MoD) over the past four months have brought two of those agreements close to the point of signatureHowever, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has ensured that the discretion remains with India. The agreement will be signed under a new name, the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), to appear as an India-specific agreement, not a pro-forma LSA.After Parrikar's visit to the US in December, the MoD asked the Pentagon to send out a team to address India's queries on all three agreements. In January 2015, a US legal team travelled to India. In rapid-fire exchanges since then, drafts of the LSA were exchanged, and New Delhi's concerns addressed.CISMOA-protected category of communications equipment has been denied to India so far, even in advanced aircraft bought from the US - like the C-130J Super Hercules special operations transporters, and P8-I Poseidon maritime multi-mission aircraft. India chose to buy these with the original CISMOA-protected equipment replaced by commercially available radios of a lower order.The US insists on CISMOA as a condition for supplying this equipment because it is afraid its advanced technology may leak out to India's other defence partners, especially Russia.Says Ben Schwartz, the aerospace and defence head of the US-India Business Council: "Washington understands that India needs to maintain its defence relationship with Russia, but there needs to be a firewall between the cooperation that India does with Russia and its cooperation with the US. And that firewall doesn't exist at this point." In the absence of CISMOA, India has accepted greatly reduced operational capabilities in the aircraft it has bought from the US. For example, when an Indian Navy P8-I detects an enemy submarine, it needs to communicate that intelligence to an Indian submarine that can destroy the enemy vessel. However, the advanced radio needed for an aircraft to talk to the submerged submarine is protected by CISMOA.Similarly, the C-130J, which carry Special Forces into enemy territory and make very precise night landings on tiny airstrips, do not have the encoded radios needed to communicate with the commandos who secure the airstrip. Instead, India has opted for commercially available radios.New Delhi worries that CISMOA-protected communications might contain a bug that would allow the US (and potentially its allies) to detect and track Indian platforms equipped with those radios.These apprehensions have been largely assuaged in the latest CISMOA draft. However, MoD officials may choose to sign only the LEMOA during Carter's visit, as a trial balloon to gauge the political reaction, with CISMOA signed later.

Meanwhile, there is no consensus on the third of the foundational agreements, the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Information and Services Cooperation (BECA), which relates to digital mapping - a key component of military operations, especially accurate targeting with long-range missiles.Government sources say the Pentagon wants digital sensors placed on Indian territory, which New Delhi finds unacceptable as it would allow the US military extremely high-resolution digital imagery of India. Since Washington is not providing the Indian military with imagery of Pakistan of that accuracy, New Delhi is not inclined to sign BECA.Furthermore, given that India's own satellite imaging capability is of a very high order, New Delhi believes that we need not rely on US geographical information systems (GIS) that would become available through BECA. While India's security agencies have begun digitising the sub-continental landmass, this has been hampered by a lack of coordination. Government sources say each military service and security agency has been operating on a different GIS protocol, a lapse that is only now being corrected.
Consequently, when Indian military troops were deployed for earthquake relief operations in Nepal, they approached the US for local maps. Technically, the US could only supply digital maps to signatories of BECA. However, since this was a humanitarian aid mission, an exception was made for India.Carter will also review the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), of which he has been a key driver. Business Standard learns that India is set to float a Request for Information (RFI) to US shipbuilders for cooperation in designing the navy's second indigenous aircraft carrier.However, there is less progress on the second major partnership under the DTTI - the co-development of a jet engine for India's proposed Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft. This requires negotiation with a private US company, General Electric, rather than a government-to-government negotiation.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Apr 2016 07:08

Government sources say the Pentagon wants digital sensors placed on Indian territory, which New Delhi finds unacceptable as it would allow the US military extremely high-resolution digital imagery of India. Since Washington is not providing the Indian military with imagery of Pakistan of that accuracy, New Delhi is not inclined to sign BECA.

Sounds dubious. High resolution maps would be generated through satellite imagery (with most modern systems capable of sub-metre resolution). The US military already has high-resolution digital imagery of most of the world. Don't see what purpose ground based 'digital sensors' would serve. More likely that the major hurdle is in the lack of a unified national/military database.

Interestingly, while the LSA was obvious a cinch (mostly), I would have the thought the CISMOA would be a tougher sell than the BECA.

Furthermore, given that India's own satellite imaging capability is of a very high order, New Delhi believes that we need not rely on US geographical information systems (GIS) that would become available through BECA. While India's security agencies have begun digitising the sub-continental landmass, this has been hampered by a lack of coordination. Government sources say each military service and security agency has been operating on a different GIS protocol, a lapse that is only now being corrected.

Consequently, when Indian military troops were deployed for earthquake relief operations in Nepal, they approached the US for local maps. Technically, the US could only supply digital maps to signatories of BECA. However, since this was a humanitarian aid mission, an exception was made for India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Apr 2016 08:07

First of all, kudos for a LCA-IN.

I would have the thought the CISMOA would be a tougher sell than the BECA.

Will depend on what is being negotiated. Changes from nation to nation.

Furthermore, US naval vessels have been visiting Indian ports for repair, refueling, stocking, relaxing, etc. Both nations have been issuing waivers for years now.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 Apr 2016 08:30

In any event, we need to be careful with Khan now. Coming 8 years of Hillary and her paki girl friend will really test the will of Indian leadership. I do not see anyone from GOP side defeating her except Trump and GOP itself will ensure he will not be their candidate.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 11 Apr 2016 08:41

How reliable is Huma S ?, lungi dance moment if below is true says desh not ready to sign the 3 amigos pact :

http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... us/233897/

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Apr 2016 09:38

krishna_krishna wrote:How reliable is Huma S ?, lungi dance moment if below is true says desh not ready to sign the 3 amigos pact :

http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... us/233897/

This is, unsurprisingly, a poorly researched article. Note:

Highly placed sources told FE that the signing of CISMOA and BECA during Carter’s visit is not going to happen as “India is not ready yet to put itself in a corner and be drawn in conflicts, especially in the Middle East, which will not be in line with India’s foreign policy in the region.”

The agreement that could see India being involuntarily drawn into conflicts is the LSA, not the CISMOA or BECA. So, the author gets this basic point wrong. And the right answer is mentioned later in her own freaking article:

“India is closer to signing the LSA but not CISMOA and BECA. Even on the LSA, there are people who argue that India might be drawn into conflicts in the Middle East if we are to permit the US forces access to Indian military bases.”

Even over the LSA, she misses the real news which Ajai Shukla shares:

However, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has ensured that the discretion remains with India. The agreement will be signed under a new name, the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), to appear as an India-specific agreement, not a pro-forma LSA.

End result: journalism fail.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Apr 2016 10:16

Cosmo_R wrote:
chetak wrote:..

transactional is part and parcel of the US culture and they think that money solves all problems.
Let's not kid ourselves: we Indians are also very transactional. This was not so in the 1950s and even 1960s when it was a question of karma. Today, when I have business dealings with Indians/ PIOs, I am struck by how inflexible they are and how very short term their thinking is. Who are these people? McKinsey Partners, Goldman MDs at the top and even 'CEOs' of start ups. THe worst are the newly minted IIT types who have come for their graduate degrees—their vaulting arrogance is truly breathtaking.

In short, we (Indian and non Indian) have gone from being a market economy to a market society—globally. The quid pro quo has to be both tangible and immediate.

The good part about transactional relationships is that everyone knows exactly what the exchange rate is. So no surprises. In international relationships among states, that's a good thing.

Money may or may not solve all problems but in the absence of instant divine justice brought to bear on our human time scale, it's as good as it gets.

we are not transactional as a culture. They are.

If we were we would not be in the soup that we are in today, having allowed all and his grandmother
free entry to the country for thousands of years and giving them land to set up their churches/mosques, what not.

Individuals are transactional based on circumstances, experience and upbringing. I noticed that my GSD is also transactional on occasion and we have had this blighter from since he was a pup of eight days.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 11 Apr 2016 11:46

Jhujar wrote:2 Indo-US pacts ready; only one likely to be signed
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 033_1.html
However, MoD officials may choose to sign only the LEMOA during Carter's visit, as a trial balloon to gauge the political reaction, with CISMOA signed later.

Proceeding with abundant caution is the most advisable thing in relationship with the US. Despite enormous progress in relationship in recent decades, there exists a huge confidence-gap, trust-gap with the Americans which certain developments reinforce frequently.

India has been very clear, for a long time, about these agreements being altered for meeting India-specific needs rather than being accepted in their proforma form & content. Hence the delay, apart from of course a lack of political will in India. So, it is not surprising that rather than LSA, it is LEMOA.

It is also a good sign that we are not going to sign all of them in one go. India must extract more than mere assistance for ship-building as a quid-pro-quo. These agreements revise the Olaf Caroe-doctrine and that is a very, very big change, IMHO. It is also a significant change in India's foreign policy. This overwhelms the 'Peace Treaty' with the USSR and that treaty helped us to break-up Pakistan though we didn't initiate the break-up ourselves. These foundational agreements therefore must go well beyond that Soviet treaty.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 11 Apr 2016 12:39

Take Ajai Shuklas notes with salt. He is a plain quack on some matters of defense and has a habit of pitching personal theories as official foreign policy.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Apr 2016 18:09

The first person to actually report on this LEMOA business was Sujan Dutta of The Telegraph.

US renews defence pact push - April 8

SUJAN DUTTA

New Delhi, April 7: Defence minister Manohar Parrikar is set to host US defence secretary Ashton Carter on board the Indian Navy's aircraft carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, next week during a visit being shaped to pitchfork India-US relations to an altogether different level.

First, after more than a decade of dithering, New Delhi has indicated to Washington that it is willing to take a closer look at one of three "foundational" pacts the US has been insisting on.

Re-christened "Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement", LEMOA for short, the new pact is a variant of the logistics support agreement (LSA) that the US has with its Nato partner-countries and others.

The LSA was first formally proposed to India in 2004. Despite US insistence, the UPA government could not conclude the agreement chiefly because of opposition from A.K. Antony's defence establishment. The then defence minister, being from Kerala, was aware of the Left's opposition to the agreement.

But the Modi government is in a position to use its political heft to see the pact through. The Left opposes the LSA - or the LEMOA - because it alleges that it would give the US basing rights in Indian military establishments.

The government denies this. Sources in the government claim the LEMOA would give each party (India and the US) the discretion of inviting or denying access. The LSA itself was a variant of the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that the US had with its partner countries during the decades of the Cold War.

Second, India is also looking to sign an agreement during the three-day visit of the US defence secretary - first to Goa and then to New Delhi - to open an assembly line of twin-engined fighter aircraft. This is likely to be the Boeing-made F/A-18 Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is flown chiefly by the US Navy that bases the aircraft on its carriers.

That is where the visit by Carter to the Vikramaditya is carefully crafted. In December last year, Parrikar and his delegation were hosted on the US carrier, the USS Dwight D Eisenhower. In a sense, India is reciprocating the gesture.

Carter is expected to be in India from April 10 to April 12. The Vikramaditya will berthed at the naval base in Karwar when Carter boards it. The Russian-origin carrier also has Russian-origin MiG 29 K fighter aircraft on board. Carter will be flown to the base from Goa, Parrikar's home state. Parrikar is expected to also give Carter a tour of Panaji.

A US navy warship, the USS Blue Ridge, is also expected to be in Goa at the time of Carter's visit.

Also, reports on a new information-secrecy agreement to facilitate naval collaboration (esp. vis a vis the IAC Vishal project).

Left-forbidden talks with US - April 9

SUJAN DUTTA

New Delhi, April 8: India and the US are in talks on an information-secrecy agreement to collaborate in the development of a new class of aircraft carriers for the Indian Navy ahead of defence secretary Ashton Carter's scheduled visit next week.

Called the "Information Exchange Agreement", the pact is designed for sharing of classified data. Signing the navy-to-navy agreement will formalise the collaboration in the project to build a new generation of aircraft carriers for the Indian Navy.

Even in recording the progress on sharing the sensitive technology, along with considering new agreements such as the "Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA)", Indian officials say they have told the US that India cannot consider being a part of joint naval patrols in the Indian Ocean region.

The US has not made a structured proposal for such patrols but both sides have jointly stated that they are in favour of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. China and five other countries have conflicting claims in the South China Sea where the US last year conducted patrols that went into areas claimed by Beijing.

The administration in New Delhi has been so far wary of signing these agreements, primarily because of opposition from the Left. The LEMOA is a re-christening of the Logistics Support Agreement that the US began signing with its Nato allies and then with other friendly countries.

But the political heft that the Narendra Modi government carries has pushed the defence establishments here and in the Pentagon to probably the friendliest military-to-military cooperation in recent years.

"The Modi government is seriously considering signing the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), which will convert India into a military ally of the United States on par with countries like Pakistan, Philippines and South Korea," wrote former CPM general secretary Prakash Karat in an article titled "Bharat Mata with Stars and Stripes" on a website today.

"The LSA, which is another name for the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements (ACSA), will provide for the respective militaries to use each other's base facilities for logistic support such as refuelling and berthing facilities and to borrow specified "non lethal" defence equipment for use elsewhere. This would facilitate the United States using India's air force and naval facilities for military operations against third countries," Karat wrote in the article.

Talks on collaborating on designing an aircraft carrier are part of the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) that Prime Minister Modi and President Barack Obama decided to bolster in their meetings last year.

US defence secretary Carter is expected in India on April 10 for three-day talks with Indian counterpart Manohar Parrikar. Carter will begin his tour with a visit to the INS Vikramaditya aircraft carrier at the INS Kadamba, the Indian naval base in Karwar, Karnataka.

Of the six "pathfinder projects" identified under the DTTI, Indian and US officials acknowledge progress in the talks on sharing aircraft carrier technology.

The Indian Navy is looking closely at the US navy's Gerald R Ford-class of carriers for its Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-II (IAC-II), an ambitious project for its next generation of carriers. The Indian Navy is scheduled to retire one of its two carriers, the INS Viraat, in November this year. The first IAC-1, to be named the Vikrant, is scheduled for sea trials towards the end of next year.

The IAC-II - with a probable tonnage of 65,000, that is still on the drawing board - is tentatively called the Vishal. India is considering the EMALS (Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launch System) - a technology being developed for the Gerald R. Ford class to launch aircraft from flight decks faster.

The aircraft carrier technology consultations have progressed alongside discussions on what the Pentagon calls the "foundational agreements".

A draft of the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), to be renamed the "Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement" (LEMOA) has been agreed. But there are doubts on whether it would be signed during Carter's upcoming visit.

The two other agreements the US has been trying to convince India to sign for the last 12 years is a Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and a Basic Exchange Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Cooperation (BECA).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Apr 2016 18:29

Any news from India?

U.S. defense secretary visits India on mission to draw militaries closer

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter began a three-day visit to India on Sunday, seeking to advance a relatively new defense relationship with a country Washington sees as a counterweight to the growing power of China.

In a sign of the importance Carter places on improving defense ties with India, the visit is his second in less than a year, and it kicks off in Goa, the west coast home state of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar.

For India, closer U.S. defense ties would bring greater access to American technology, and it too has been alarmed by China's naval forays in the Indian Ocean. But India has been historically wary of drawing too near to any one country.

"India's very reluctant to be seen as too close to the United States, but the Pentagon is very bullish on this relationship," said Shane Mason, a research associate at the Stimson Center in Washington.

It is also a favored initiative of Carter, who established a special cell within the Pentagon last year to promote cooperation with India.

"There's no question about where the United States-India relationship is going," Carter said on Friday, at a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "We can control and influence the pace, and I want to do that."

The U.S. military has made clear it would like to do more with India, especially in countering China's moves.

Last month, Admiral Harry Harris, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, said the United States wanted to expand the naval exercises it held with India each year into joint operations across the Asia-Pacific.

But India, which has never carried out joint patrols with another country, said there were no such plans.

"The Indians are being careful because it's their neighborhood," said a U.S. congressional source familiar with U.S.-India military discussions. "It's been a long-standing Indian policy to deal with China on a bilateral basis."

DEFENSE MANUFACTURING

U.S. defense manufacturers hope closer ties will boost their own prospects in India, which is one of the world's biggest defense spenders but still has major gaps in its military capabilities.

India has been looking to rebuild its aging air force and last week Lockheed Martin and Boeing pitched their fighter planes to its defense ministry.

In a statement, Boeing said it was in talks with India about the possibility of making F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft in India.

A Lockheed spokesman said the company also took part in talks last week between India and the United States on fighter jet production opportunities.

Separately, the two countries are negotiating India's request for 40 Predator surveillance drones, officials said, a possible first step towards acquiring the armed version of the unmanned aircraft.

But deeper security cooperation has been tricky, because India has for more than 10 years demurred at signing three "foundational" defense agreements that would streamline military interactions.

India is concerned that the pacts, including the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) that allows the two militaries to access each other's bases, could draw it into an undeclared military alliance with the United States.

Ahead of Carter's trip, an Indian defense source said both sides were eager to conclude the negotiations on the LSA.

"They're actually quite prosaic agreements," said Benjamin Schwartz, until last year the India country director at the Pentagon.

Nonetheless, signing them "would indicate that the Indian government is more willing to work with the U.S., even if it means that they're going to take some political heat," said Schwartz.

salaam · Post by **salaam** » 11 Apr 2016 19:35

US Defence Secy visits India to draw militaries close
[no-link]http://pakobserver.net/2016/04/11/us-de ... es-closer/[/no-link]
...Carter places on improving defence ties with India, the visit is his second in less than a year...
...India´s very reluctant to be seen as too close to the United States, but the Pentagon is very bullish on this relationship...

United States Ambassador to Pakistan to visit India, discuss key issues
http://www.firstpost.com/world/united-s ... 14746.html
...During his two-day staying in New Delhi, the Special US Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, will discuss on promotion o

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 11 Apr 2016 20:48

Ashton carter is not the matter. There is no cause for india to sign the three american agreements.

The DTTI was conceived in 2012. Till date, neither the US or India has been able to figure out its actual working purpose.

Lets host carter like we hosted obama and go back to our lives

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Apr 2016 01:57

A few more data points (amid no news yet from ND?):

Will India and the United States Coproduce Fighter Aircraft?

India and the United States may sign an agreement for the coproduction of Lockheed Martin F-16V and {?}Boeing F/A-18 fighter aircraft, according to Indian and U.S. defense officials. The deal is likely to involve technological transfers and the local production of U.S. fighter jets in India to meet Indian Prime Minister’s Narendra Modi’s so-called Make in India Initiative.

“Members of my team, and industry, are right now, as we are here in New York, in India looking at the potential coproduction of fighter aircraft,” U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said during a speech at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations prior to departing on a three-day visit to India. “I have no doubt that in the coming years, the United States and India will embark on a landmark co-production agreement that will bring our two countries closer together and make our militaries stronger, “Carter added.

Senior Indian defense officials have confirmed that the Indian government could approve the establishment of joint-production facilities during Carter’s visit to the country this week:

Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar will once again strike a tough bargain for India (…) a bargain that will see the country benefiting on both the economic and strategic front besides gaining immensely on the technical front…. setting up of a manufacturing line in India for either F-16 aircrafts or F/A18 super hornet jet fighters may be announced.

Defense News reports that both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have confirmed the ongoing negotiations. “Lockheed Martin is in discussions with the U.S. Government, the Government of India, and our Indian industry partners about potential new production F-16 aircraft to address India’s fighter recapitalization requirements,” revealed a Lockheed Martin spokesperson.

As my colleague Ankit Panda reported previously, talks between Boeing and the Indian government over the procurement of F-18s have been going on at least since the beginning of the year. One of the major stumbling blocks ahead in the negotiations will be what technological know-how the U.S. government will permit to be transferred to India—indeed the entire deal may hinge on the precise details of that part of the agreement.

“We are not discussing buying the fighter (aircraft). We want to make it in India through transfer of technology for our requirement,” said Indian Defense Minister Parrikar, according to an April 9 Indian media report. “nless the American government gives permission to transfer a particular technology, the American companies, even if they want to do it, cannot.”

U.S. defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, along with their F-16 and F-18 aircraft, were outbid in 2011 under the now-scrapped $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project by French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation, with India opting for Dassault Aviation’s Rafale fighter instead in January 2012. However, the MMRCA project was cancelled after years of difficult negotiations in July 2015.

In its place, New Delhi decided that it will only purchase 36 off-the-shelf Rafale aircraft in a government-to-government deal. Yet, to this date no final contract between India and France for the procurement of the fighter jets has been signed and a deadlock persists. (One major obstacle remains the offset clause which stipulates that France will have to invest 50 percent of the contract value as offsets in India.)

Should the Rafale deal be signed, it is unlikely that India will acquire F-16 or F-18 fighter jets given, among other things, the extra cost that setting up a separate logistical base for the U.S. aircraft would entail. Maintaining a fleet of French, Russian, and U.S. fourth-generation aircraft would be both impractical and wasteful for the Indian Air Force.

And while the Rafale deal is currently deadlocked, it still has a higher chance of being concluded than a possible U.S.-Indian fighter aircraft deal, given the months of detailed negotiations that have already taken place between India and France that have addressed the majority of outstanding issues.

When it comes to Indian defense deals (or any defense deals for that matter), it is the details that have often proved to be the undoing of foreign defense contractors, including offset clauses, Indian demands for technical modifications and reconfigurations, as well as the signing of detailed cost-sharing agreements. Historically, it is during this detailed negotiation phase that talks have the biggest chance of breaking down.

As a consequence, even if a preliminary agreement between Carter and Parrikar will be concluded this week, it is unlikely that a final contract will be signed in the immediate aftermath (or at all). India’s interest in U.S. aircraft may indeed just be just a move to strengthen New Delhi’s negotiating position vis-a-vis Paris and to obtain additional concessions before finally signing the inter-governmental agreement for the Rafale fighter jets.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Apr 2016 02:15

X-posting

Viv S wrote:Manoj Joshi of ORF weighs in -

India is Making Up for the Lack of Vision by Bandwagoning with the US

BY MANOJ JOSHI

India may be on the verge of signing several agreements that will strengthen its military ties with the US. But before it jumps on board, India needs to have a clear vision for why it is doing so.

Following Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s visit to the United States last December, his American counterpart, Ashton Carter, waxed eloquent. “We’ve done so much more in the last year, probably more than we’ve done in the ten years before that,” said Carter. “I’m guessing that in the next ten months, we will yet again do more than we’ve done in the last year,” he added.

Carter was merely expressing what most observers believe to be true. Through the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) years, former Defence Minister A.K. Antony stood like a Leftist rock against closer military links with the US, despite the views of his boss, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Antony knew he had Sonia Gandhi’s blessings, and he was able to successfully block all measures to enhance the India-US military relationship, which had looked so promising when the two countries had signed the New Framework of Defence Cooperation in 2005, and the Maritime Cooperation Agreement of 2006.

With the IIT-educated, tech-savvy Manohar Parrikar as the Defence Minister of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, the US has made it more than obvious than its military ties with India are on a roll. In February this year, the news agency Reuters reported that India and the US had discussed the idea of joint patrols in the South China Sea. The item, by the world’s leading news agency, implied that the discussions had taken place during Parrikar’s visit, and that there had been follow-up discussions since.

But the next day, a spokesperson in Washington DC issued a clarification, saying, “At this time, there are no plans for any joint naval patrols.” On March 5, at a press conference, Parrikar too said: “As of now India has not taken part in joint patrols, but we do participate in joint exercises. So the issue of joint patrols at this time does not arise.” Neither side is categorically denying the idea of joint patrols; all they seem to be saying is that it is a matter of time.

The foundational agreements

In the run up to US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter’s visit to India in April, the two countries have been having intense discussions on a range of issues, and joint patrolling is only one of them. The discussion is focussed on the need for India to sign ‘foundational’ agreements which will enable the India-US military relationship to grow deeper roots. The three agreements are the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) for geospatial intelligence.

Of the three, the LSA is said to be the closest to being signed by the Indian side, despite resistance from the military and civilian officials of the Ministry of Defence. Initially, this was called the Access and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) but later it was renamed the Logistics Support Agreement. The ACSA is a standard agreement that the US has with its NATO allies and other countries like Singapore, Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka. The US and Pakistan also signed an agreement in 2002, which lapsed in 2012.

Under the LSA, the two sides can access supplies, spare parts and services from each other’s land facilities, air bases, and ports, which can then be reimbursed.

In the past, India has provided logistics assistance to the US on a ‘case by case’ basis. So for a short while, we permitted the refueling of American aircraft in Bombay during the first Gulf War in 1991. During Operation Enduring Freedom, India permitted US ships to visit Indian ports for repair and fuel. It also offered the US military bases for operations in Afghanistan before Pakistan was coerced into doing the needful. India also escorted US vessels through the Malacca Straits in this period.

The CISMOA would allow the US to provide India with its encrypted communications equipment and systems so that Indian and US higher commanders, aircraft and ships can communicate with each other through secure networks in peace and war.

The BECA would provide India with topographical and aeronautical data and products which will aid navigation and targeting. These are areas in which the US is very advanced and the agreement could definitely benefit India, although the armed forces which use systems from many other countries like Israel and Russia are not comfortable with sharing information about their systems with the US.

India has told the US that it is agreeable ‘in principle’ to all these agreements but wants them to be modified to be ‘India specific’, in other words, allay India’s reservations, wherever they exist.

All these agreements are reciprocal. But only the most obtuse analyst can ignore the fact that in the ultimate analysis, we are talking about a relationship, a partnership if you will, between two very different countries: a country with a global military reach, and another which is hard put to remain afloat in its own region. India may have the potential of being a regional power, but at present and for another decade at least, this potential is all there will be.

Two other agreements are not being discussed, but remain problematic. These are the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) and the Enhanced End Use Monitoring Agreement (EEUMA).

The US requires all foreign buyers to sign up to these agreements, and this includes close allies like the UK and Australia. In response to a question about the EUMA in Parliament in 2014, Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs VK Singh said that India had various end use monitoring arrangements with the US since the 1990s.

Then in 2009, the two sides signed a generic agreement to smoothen the process. This is not a formal agreement, but an India-specific arrangement. The EUMA and EEUMA remain major deal-breakers when it comes to India acquiring US equipment, because India cannot always permit the US to access locations where equipment or weapons systems are located. What do you do about, say, air-to-air missiles which are located in operational locations?

Does India need the foundational agreements?

The big question is: Does India need the foundational agreements?

The answer to this is complex. If India intends to maintain its relations with the US at the current level, it can live without them. But if it plans to enhance its ties to the level of strategic coordination, or even cooperation, India would be well advised to sign them.

What would India gain by them? India could definitely benefit from BECA. The LSA can theoretically extend the reach of the Indian Navy deep into the Asia-Pacific region, where it has no base facilities. But this begs the question: does India intend operational deployment in those areas anytime in this decade?

The LSA could also be useful in Indian operations in its backyard in the Indian Ocean, but could it access American facilities in Oman for some future contingency in relation to Pakistan? Probably not.

The downsides of the CISMOA are obvious – it would enable the US to listen in on Indian conversations in operations where the US may be neutral or even adversarial, such as contingencies relating to Pakistan.

It is for this reason that India has refused to accept advanced communications equipment with US made C-130J transports and P8I maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and instead outfitted them with non-US communications equipment.

As for the US, it does not quite have to depend on an Indian LSA. It has prosecuted two wars in the past decade and more, without any real need for Indian facilities. But getting India to sign up on the LSA, CISMOA and BECA would serve the purpose of binding India closer to the US militarily, because it would make their equipment interoperable.

The US’ larger goals in its ties with India are no secret.The 2006 version of the National Security Strategy of the United States noted that US interests required a strong relationship with India, and that “India now is poised to shoulder global obligations in cooperation with the United States in a way befitting a major power.”

More recently, at the Raisina Dialogue on March 2, 2016, Admiral Harry B Harris, of the US Pacific Commander called for the two countries to not just exercise together, but “to conduct joint operations.” In the context of India’s exercising with Australia and Japan as well, he said, “As India takes a leading role as a world power, military operations with other nations will undoubtedly become routine.”

But the Indian perspective remains clouded because it has no declared national security strategy, and hence it is difficult to determine what exactly it is seeking from its relationship with the United States. The most obvious and general answer is that it wants high-technology, trade and good political ties with the world’s primary power which would aid its economic growth. Only the US has the clout to line up the Nuclear Suppliers Group to waive its rules governing civil nuclear trade, as it did in 2008. American blessings are needed to get rid of other technology restraints arising from the Wassenaar Arrangement or the Australia Group, and for the big prize – a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

But would India be game for joint military operations? If so against whom? China or Pakistan, or some other party? These things could be fraught with hazards if they are not thought through. India and the US do not have a common world or regional view – the US may be inimical to China, but its relations with Beijing are denser than those between India and China.

Likewise, it may have difficulties with Pakistan, but not of the kind India has. India views good ties with Iran as a strategic asset, and the US position is different. The same could be said of Russia on whom the Indian military machine will be dependent for at least another decade and a half.

But the American pressure is very much on. The draft US-India Defence Partnership Act which was introduced in the US Congress some weeks back seeks to amend the US Arms Control and Export Control Act to give India a special status equivalent of US treaty allies and partners.

In addition, this act will call on the US president to “develop military contingency plans for addressing threats to mutual security interests” as well as call on the president to “annually assess the extent to which India possesses strategic operational capabilities to execute military operations of mutual interest to the United States and India.” Presumably, if India lacks those capabilities, the US will help to make up the deficit.

The obvious point is whether India wants that kind of a relationship with the US. “Military operations of mutual interest” implies a military alliance. And military alliances come up when there is an imminent sense of danger.

What India needs to do

So, the one calculation that India has to make is whether the balance of power in its region has become so skewed and the situation so dangerous in its relations with China that it needs a military alliance with the US to maintain the balance of power.

If indeed India we feel that we need US muscle to deal with China, we need to clearly assess whether or not Washington and New Delhi are on the same page on issues relating to not just the South China Sea, but the Sino-Indian border, the Sino-Pakistan relationship and so on. We need to gauge whether the US will be there for us if we need them. And that is where we go into an entirely new realm of analysis.

Actually, the real problem with India is its inability to be cynical about its relationship with the US. It tends to go overboard, and this is a special weakness of the NDA which when asked to bend, tends to crawl before Uncle Sam. In 2003, when the US asked for Indian troops to participate in the Iraq War, almost the entire NDA Cabinet backed the decision. It was just one wise man, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who stood against his entire cabinet committee on security lineup, and said “No.”

New Delhi should learn from the way other US allies and proto-allies have dealt with Washington. Countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and even China have gained a great deal of political and strategic support or military aid by lining up with the US. But at the end of the day they have played their own game. The trick, as discerning readers will detect, is not to be carried away by the rhetoric, and to relentlessly pursue the national interest (provided you have a clear idea of what the national interest is).

Finessing the ability to play Uncle Sam is the name of the game. If you are up to it, signing the foundational agreements is not a major problem – none of them are so drastic that they will by themselves alter the nature of the Indo-US relationship. At the bottom of all this is the vision you have for India. If you think partnering with the US will take you there, by all means do so. But first figure out where “there” is. Is it a “great nation” status, or an independent pole in a multi-polar world? Or do we have the gumption to dream, like China does, of becoming the lead – not the MEA’s ‘leading power’ in the future?

Unfortunately, what India really seems to be doing is making up for the lack of vision by bandwagoning with the US.

Manoj Joshi is a Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 12 Apr 2016 03:53

nvishal wrote:Ashton carter is not the matter. There is no cause for india to sign the three american agreements.

The DTTI was conceived in 2012. Till date, neither the US or India has been able to figure out its actual working purpose.

Lets host carter like we hosted obama and go back to our lives

+1

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Apr 2016 04:02

Carter: US backs India’s naval expansion

MORMUGAO PORT, India — Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Monday that India could become a key guarantor of security in the Asia Pacific region as it seeks to modernize its naval fleet.

India is planning to increase its naval fleet from 130 to 166 ships, including adding a third aircraft carrier, a senior Indian defense official said in a background briefing with reporters traveling with the defense secretary.

That will allow India to be a “net supplier of security in the region,” Carter told reporters aboard the USS Blue Ridge, the flagship of the U.S. 7th Fleet, after hosting Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar. “That’s very compatible with our policy.”

Carter spent the morning with Parrikar on board the INS Vikramaditya, one of India’s two aircraft carriers.

India is rapidly expanding its naval fleet to be able to expand its role from one that has focused on anti-piracy and near coastal threats to one that now has an eye on China.

India wants to be able to respond to “any political, diplomatic or extremist unrest in the world,” the senior Indian defense official said.

In the last year, as China has militarized a string of man-made islands in the South China Sea, India has responded by deploying its ships to the South China Sea six times, the official said.

U.S. ships and aircraft also have passed near the islands in recent months to ensure freedom of navigation, angering China.

India currently has two aircraft carriers. In June of last year,the country launched its first India-built aircraft carrier, the INS Vikrant, and in 2013 it purchased and refurbished the INS Vikramaditya, a Russian-made carrier named the Admiral Gorshkov.

Carter and Parrikar have been working on technology sharing terms that would help India acquire a third, U.S.-India co-developed carrier.

Undersecretary of Defense Frank Kendall has been in India for the last week in advance of Carter’s visit to finalize an agreement that would allow India and the U.S. to share catapult-launch technologies for aircraft aboard an Indian-U.S. produced carrier by 2028. An announcement on the terms of that agreement is expected Tuesday.

The U.S. has been expanding its naval presence in the region, 7th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin said. Many of the Navy’s new systems, including the Zumwalt class DDG-1000 destroyer, will be deployed in the 7th Fleet Area of Responsibility.

“There’s a big synergy between our two countries,” Aucoin said.

India, one of the world’s largest defense importers, has traditionally relied mainly on purchases of Russian equipment. More recently, however, New Delhi has been looking to diversify its foreign arms purchases, choosing Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft and French Rafale fighters in multibillion-dollar deals.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 12 Apr 2016 04:26

krishna_krishna wrote:
nvishal wrote:Ashton carter is not the matter. There is no cause for india to sign the three american agreements.

The DTTI was conceived in 2012. Till date, neither the US or India has been able to figure out its actual working purpose.

Lets host carter like we hosted obama and go back to our lives
+1

-1

Like it or not, we are in the PRC's gun sights. We are ill prepared to deal with them on land sea or air. They know this through our bluster.

We've fu**ed up our economic development since 1947 and our national interest since 2005 when we got the Bush Administration to commit to helping us becoming a 'global power' (google Zelikow) but failed to leverage it.

In the 1950s we had the same detachment from the US and had to beg JFK to help when we got whacked in 1962 by the Han. JLN wanted Indian Army disbanded in to police force just 10 years before. That is the level (low) of strategic thinking we as an 'India' must junk.

You can host Carter like Obama (or subsequent POTUS) but our children's lives will be Chinese. The Han eat everything. Secret, undeclared wars are the their forte. Look up what the are doing to Indonesia and you'll get the drift.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Apr 2016 04:41

^^^^^

There are paid analysts and there are biased analysts. India has plenty of both.

Obama did not go back with nothing. Besides, Modi approached Obama to see if the two nations can build on what they had done thus far.

And even if one sent Carter back without responding, who is going to assist India to the high table? There is none at the moment. No Russia, no EU.

Reordering is taking place. India needs visionaries, unbiased. Time to drop the old mantle, sanctions, a clean Hawk or a British helicopter, etc are all fine. But they cannot enter current affairs.

Small window.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 12 Apr 2016 04:50

like individuals, countries have ups ans downs.

any analysis w/o recognizing India's solid progress particularly in the last 25 years, is unduly negative.

India is a major customer of China. there is leverage to be had there.

I think it is telling that India is developing an economy more like America's rather than China's top down command export economy.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 12 Apr 2016 05:53

talks between Boeing and the Indian government over the procurement of F-18s have been going on at least since the beginning of the year

And so are talks on the Tooth Fairy...

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 12 Apr 2016 06:00

NRao wrote:^^^^^

Small window.

Indeed.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 Apr 2016 06:03

That Manoj Joshi article was brilliant.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 12 Apr 2016 06:04

[quote="Cosmo_R]
-1

Like it or not, we are in the PRC's gun sights. We are ill prepared to deal with them on land sea or air. They know this through our bluster.
quote]

Why Dhoti shivering Sir. We have been more naked in the past (read vulnerable) than we are today.
I am not in favor of our children reciting Mandarin,I am not in favor of reciting them jai massa.
however chipandas even if in a full blown war would leave them broken and they have never been on civilization destruct route that Massa and co. takes on via church etc.
It was during 71 war aircraft carrier was dispatch to india to teach them lesson, that failed on their face (only country able to do that as far as I can recall after world war II) (Why ??)
It was during kargil that GPS signals were turned off (Why ??)
It was only after 98 tests realization hit massa that desh cannot be ignored, plain bitter truth no love for Indians
It was during parakram that combat patrols were taken from aircraft carrier off Arabian sea so that artificial entity (whatever of it is left) stays intact.
It was during Mumbai attack their own agent was involved
Not counting all the baksheesh paid to porkis (in billions of dollars), I ask you why they gifted F solah's and viper helicopter for free to destroy goat herder as recently as yesterday despite of your so called bear hug with us recently. What kind of ally or strategic partner does that?????? ( I leave that answer for you to find out)

"What kind of lala land are you living in ? this is pure realpolitik/strategic interests which for us and Massa in long term are not aligned. They still want vestigial super duper power world where as more multipolar world which in next 25 years would be a reality is in our interest. " Even though it is a declining super power ,albeit still a super power for forseeable future there is no harm in being friends but strategic partner no way.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Apr 2016 06:06

Every two bit commie crook thinks he can give advice to chaiwala.

I am talking of Manoj Joshi.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 12 Apr 2016 06:12

krishna_krishna wrote:[quote="Cosmo_R]
-1

Like it or not, we are in the PRC's gun sights. We are ill prepared to deal with them on land sea or air. They know this through our bluster.
quote]

Why Dhoti shivering Sir. We have been more naked in the past (read vulnerable) than we are today.
I am not in favor of our children reciting Mandarin,I am not in favor of reciting them jai massa.
however chipandas even if in a full blown war would leave them broken and they have never been on civilization destruct route that Massa and co. takes on via church etc.
It was during 71 war aircraft carrier was dispatch to india to teach them lesson, that failed on their face (only country able to do that as far as I can recall after world war II) (Why ??)
It was during kargil that GPS signals were turned off (Why ??)
It was only after 98 tests realization hit massa that desh cannot be ignored, plain bitter truth no love for Indians
It was during parakram that combat patrols were taken from aircraft carrier off Arabian sea so that artificial entity (whatever of it is left) stays intact.
It was during Mumbai attack their own agent was involved
Not counting all the baksheesh paid to porkis (in billions of dollars), I ask you why they gifted F solah's and viper helicopter for free to destroy goat herder as recently as yesterday despite of your so called bear hug with us recently. What kind of ally or strategic partner does that?????? ( I leave that answer for you to find out)

"What kind of lala land are you living in ? this is pure realpolitik/strategic interests which for us and Massa in long term are not aligned. They still want vestigial super duper power world where as more multipolar world which in next 25 years would be a reality is in our interest. " Even though it is a declining super power ,albeit still a super power for forseeable future there is no harm in being friends but strategic partner no way.

[/quote]

What kind of lala land are you living in ?

Your question and answer

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 12 Apr 2016 06:14

so u cut and run without intelligent debate ?

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 12 Apr 2016 06:18

Rama-Rama!

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 12 Apr 2016 06:23

^^^ Sir, didn't know Yak herders from ulanbator were so dharmic and religious

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Apr 2016 06:33

'U.S keen to build fighter jets in India'

Interview with U.S Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Frank Kendall.

There seem to be issues with the initial path finder projects between the two countries, agreed to under the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI). Can you give an overview of the progress so far?

There are no issues with the ongoing projects. The two cooperative agreements were signed six months ago and they are progressing well-- mobile hybrid power source and protective ensemble. The other major activities are on the two working groups one for aircraft carrier cooperation which is moving very well. The jet engine working group has also recently done a trip to India and we are looking at some opportunities for cooperative development on jet engines. That is not as far long as the cooperation on carrier work is but is making good progress too. One of the things that falls under DTTI is technology cooperation. We have four more I think that we are close to agree to. Each side has put certain things on the table for consideration by the other and I will be going to India in few weeks and we will see if we can make some progress on the initial ones.

There are about 17 projects we are considering and I think both sides looking for something significant we can do together now that we have made significant progress in kind of building relationships and establishing initial projects. I think what we are all looking for is to scale the work up. Now if we do substantial cooperative work on aircraft carrier side I think that might fit the requirement. I think there is a possibility on the jet engine side as well that we are looking at. I think what we are looking is the future plans for the two militaries and see where opportunities might exist to do some things together. We both have interest in some common kind of capabilities. But I am really encouraged that DTTI has moved forward a lot during the last two years under the Modi administration and I am looking forward to additional progress. Our next formal meeting will be this summer but we are not waiting for that, we are trying to move things forward.

You talked about cooperation in UAVs. India has for some time expressed interest in procuring armed drones. Do you see any movement on that front?

Armed drones are a problem just because technology transfer is an issue. I don’t think we are doing armed drones any time soon or a specific program to develop one soon. We have pretty good capability there but there are issues. But we are working on UAV technologies like sensor technologies.

In the context of the high technology projects that are in the pipeline how important are the three foundational agreements?

I do not think they are essential but they would be helpful. The three agreements -- Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA) -- I don’t think that they are standing in the way of cooperation on DTTI but I think they will create an environment which will facilitate cooperation in general. Our relationship with India carries a lot of things besides DTTI. We have a lot of exercises we do together, we have lot of military to military contact. We are looking at acquisition training for management that is one of the things we are talking under DTTI. So it is a much bigger and broader relationship than technology transfer and technology trade certainly. The agreements we are talking about cover other aspects for the most part.

Is there a possibility of F-16 fighters rolling out of a production line in India?

We are talking about of this and it is not clear that it will be under DTTI. India has a requirement for additional fighters and both F-16 and F-18 are possibilities for that. We have cleared some information to be provided to India from Lockheed and Boeing on what they might offer. I think both of them have some strong Make in India components in what they are proposing. We are aware of the discussions and facilitating them so much as we can. The Indian government has not made a decision yet. At this point it is not part of DTTI but if India takes a decision to go with one of those we could include it under DTTI.

What are the new areas you are exploring for co-development and co-production?

The fighter possibilities I think pretty good. What is needed to move forward is agreement that we have a programme of some kind, we both have a shared requirement. I was hoping at one time that out new jet trainer for the Air Force would be a possibility. But the timing was not accurate. We are starting a program shortly but India is in the middle of producing an aircraft perhaps so it did not work out. I am looking for other things like that with a year or two lead time before we start working a contract and so on.

Finding something like that is largely the target of opportunity. There may be cases where we would like to do something but we don’t have adequate budget to do it. India would like to do it, they don’t have adequate budget to do it. But together we could afford it. That would be almost an ideal win-win but I have not identified a program like that yet.

Any projects under consideration?

No, there are possibilities in the area of say ground vehicles, would be one I would look at. The US Army does not have a new program for ground vehicles but is working on new technologies for them. I know India is looking at a program there. That’s one area I would be interested in discussing. Again a lot of parties would have to come together to make that happen. The Army would have to decide to do it, add resources for that, shift resources for that, and we have to align schedules. I am giving you a sense I hope of the difficulty of getting to a program of mutual interest in doing something and our budgets can align and our requirements can align. We need to get all the pieces together to get to that kind of a program. That is what we would like to do with India under DTTI.

In the four earlier projects under DTTI, two projects failed to make progress. What are the reasons?

The industry projects-- interesting lesson we learnt on that. We were trying to facilitate industry to industry cooperation. Raven Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) was one of those and C-130 roll-on, roll-off kits was the other. Those have not made a lot of progress. I think there is still a chance that the Raven/Cheel UAV might be required in India. Those were cases where our government wasn’t planning to buy the product and we were facilitating industry to industry cooperation and we are still happy to do that but I think it is hard to move those forward when there is no government commitment. India took a look at both of them, they still looking at a UAV, they are competing for a small tactical UAV. They did not have a requirement for the roll-on, roll-off modules we are talking about. I would say those are the ones not moving forward at this time in time. But it taught us about the kind of things we should try and do under DTTI. We may try to still facilitate some industry to industry things but I am probably less optimistic on them simply because of our experience with these two. It is easier to get commitments on the government to government things than on the industry to industry things. There has to be a business case for the industry to industry things.

Anything we do we are very understanding of India’s desire of Make in India and technology transfer. So we will work on aspects of that to make sure we met the objectives.