India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2011 02:35

Another pop quiz, this one deeds speak more than words:

Which nation sanctioned India in anticipation of a war to prevent a very major asset from being operational? And, which asset was it? And, what did India do to overcome this sanction?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2011 02:39

Nikhil T wrote:
eklavya wrote:US envoy to Pak justified funds as ‘defence’ against ‘threat from India’
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-en ... a/841357/0
I used to believe the Americans when they blamed the Pakis for diverting the humanitarian aid towards military purchases against India, but this is as straight from the horse's mouth as it gets. Double speak is one thing but actively arming Pakis under the garb of aid as a state policy is truly eye-opening.

True, it does sound very obnoxious.

BUT, please note that is an amby making a statement TO the State dept. That is not a policy of the SD as far as we can tell.

There are very similar stories of US ambies making WRT China. Bush Sr. was a very pro China man - mainly because of his time as Amby to china.

Diplomats do have huge biases. So, please take that with a pinch of salt.

I doubt it will come as surprise for anyone in the diplomatic circles.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 06 Sep 2011 03:24

NRao wrote:
Nikhil T wrote: I used to believe the Americans when they blamed the Pakis for diverting the humanitarian aid towards military purchases against India, but this is as straight from the horse's mouth as it gets. Double speak is one thing but actively arming Pakis under the garb of aid as a state policy is truly eye-opening.
True, it does sound very obnoxious.

BUT, please note that is an amby making a statement TO the State dept. That is not a policy of the SD as far as we can tell.

There are very similar stories of US ambies making WRT China. Bush Sr. was a very pro China man - mainly because of his time as Amby to china.

Diplomats do have huge biases. So, please take that with a pinch of salt.

I doubt it will come as surprise for anyone in the diplomatic circles.

Most of the stuff in the cable was routine but I disagree that this is not the policy of the SD because of one word in the cable:

FMF money sent to Islamabad ‘is and should continue’ to be directed towards increasing Pakistan’s conventional

'Should continue' implies a Post's recommendation but 'is' means a SD tacit approval.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2011 05:00

I will leave the details to you, but, the "should continue" - to me - is associated with the flow of funds, and not associated with threats from India. To me the threat from India is a added feature to ensure that the funds continue. IMVVHO, it seems that the funds were to either discontinue or cease. And to ensure continuity of the funds this point was brought up. Again, I have not read the details, so I digress.

However, this is not something unexpected or controllable from an Indian PoV. In fact it is rather trivial in the broader scope. IMVVHO of course. I would be extremely surprised and disappointed if India did not expect something of this nature. I think India is a LOT more mature in such respects. Lokpal notwithstanding.

Let me put it this way: I would expect every amby to Pakistan from all countries to have a Pakistani tilt.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 06 Sep 2011 10:34

Kovy wrote:BTW, since Argentina is a democracy, they have received all the support needed for their French kits

Israel was a democracy too, and that didn't stop France from cutting them off when they felt the heat.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bourg.html

Actually, it's a twofer, both Germany and France caved.

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 06 Sep 2011 13:38

@George..
Whats the point???
Americans are out??? And dont give the BS that americans have any love lost with us.. They have been bumbling this and bumbling that.. They got to show upfront that they mean business and then this who short changed who and who back stabbed who is relevant.
What France or any other country did to any other third country is of no relevence.. We go by what has been done to us.. So in comparison to US france has / had been more supporting.. Let US change its bumbling ways and come to a concrete conclusion as to what they want from us and how and then lets move from there.. Until then US will be the backstabbers for us.. and they did it at every possible opportunity..
In relation to Pakistan they could have been neutral knowing the dynamics between India and Pakistan. They didnt.. So they made their choice and India its.. so dont be a CRYBABY now.. learn from what went wrong and start afresh.. there is still a lot of scope to reverse this bad blood. Coming here with wise ass one liners and POP QUIZ not gonna change anything..

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 06 Sep 2011 15:13

France has a tried and tested relationship with India.
IIRC only France,Russia and Israel did not not condemn Pokhran-2 tests and did not impose sanctions.
Recently in the news France had also stopped billion euro worth of supply of electronics and missiles to Pakistan under Indian pressure

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Sep 2011 15:14

NRao wrote:Let me put it this way: I would expect every amby to Pakistan from all countries to have a Pakistani tilt.

Please show me where the mission heads from any other country (especially one seeking a strategic partnership with India) have said that building up Pakistan's military capability vis-a-vis India will reduce terrorism against India. Living in Pakistan should make Patterson even more aware of the true nature of the ISI and Pak Army. The Americans cannot play it both ways on terrorism against India. You cannot arm the terrorist and then reasonably claim that the victim of terrorism will benefit. There is "tilt" and there is "unreasonable bias". This stuff from Patterson is in the latter category. India needs to take heed and deal with America with great caution.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2011 15:57

eklavya wrote: Please show me where the mission heads from any other country (especially one seeking a strategic partnership with India) have said that building up Pakistan's military capability vis-a-vis India will reduce terrorism against India.

Hmmmm. States have interests!!! Keep emotions aside and deal with it and you will come out a winner.

Living in Pakistan should make Patterson even more aware of the true nature of the ISI and Pak Army. The Americans cannot play it both ways on terrorism against India. You cannot arm the terrorist and then reasonably claim that the victim of terrorism will benefit. There is "tilt" and there is "unreasonable bias". This stuff from Patterson is in the latter category. India needs to take heed and deal with America with great caution.

Why Patterson, everyone up and down in the present admin (too) says that Pakis back terrorism. Is there anything new in that? Pakistan and the US and all other states are doing what they think is best for themselves. India too. There is absolutely nothing new in this news item. Check out an e-book written by a BRiet for greater details.

Those in power (as can be seen in India too) do anything they please. Sad as it sounds, that is the fact.

Just BTW, that same US has and is still "helping" India with internal security. Which is how India got to know what Lt. Gen. Pasha (head of ISI) and Mr. Karzai talked about.

Nations have interests. Patterson articulated what we thought to be a fact - that is all - just a mere confirmation.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 06 Sep 2011 16:17

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Kovy wrote:BTW, since Argentina is a democracy, they have received all the support needed for their French kits
Israel was a democracy too, and that didn't stop France from cutting them off when they felt the heat.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bourg.html

Actually, it's a twofer, both Germany and France caved.

Germany is part of the EFT consortium. So basically, George we cant trust both of them. This shoots down one of the arguments for EFT, i.e. sourcing a fighter from a group of countries, such that even if one country imposes sanctions, the other countries will provide it from their fleet or reserves or some where else.

EFT has two fundamental flaws, firstly it has too many points of failure or like they say too many cooks. Secondly EFT's DNA is of a air-dominance fighter unlike Rafael which was designed from day one as multi-role.

Just to be clear, I have personally favor EFT over Rafael. But we should not gloss over EFT's drawbacks.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Sep 2011 18:43

Troy is spot on.The US desperately wanted both India and Pak to buy US weaponry,in similar fashion to both Israel and Egypt operating US aircraft.However,in the Indian subcontinent's case,the patsy like Egypt,would be India and the true ally would be Pak! Pak would be overjoyed at India being effectively castrated by the US as we would not be able to defeat Pak or threaten it if we used US weapons,whose key capabilities would be compromised and given to the Pakis in any conflict ,and would invite US sanctions if we went "native" refusing to obey the white man's diktat! The US would also make massive amounts of money out of our combined msiery and like the Iraqis and Iranians,even if a spat arose and the US could not prevent it,would both beggar ourselves just as Saddam and Khomeini did during the Iran-Iraq War.

The insidious manner in which MKN has acted like a p*mp for the US is simply shocking.The man should've been protecting India's interests not that of the US.A mag did allege that during the N-deal vote,MKN used RAR safe houses for meeting with MPs to arrange for their votes in favour of the deal.The inordinate time he also spent abroad wa another controversial story.At least in both Euro contenders,specially with the French,we should not have any problem in after sales support and accelerated deliveries of spares,etc. during a crisis (though we must get absolute guarantees from the Germans).

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 06 Sep 2011 19:04

It is wise to engage US by buying non-serious stuff. Nothing more than that. While we buy serious stuff from Russians and French, it is also imperative that we develop our own industry if we really want to aspire for a great power status. Otherwise, we will continue to dream. No body builds a great power, it is based on self development and reliance

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Sep 2011 20:08

NRao wrote:
eklavya wrote: Please show me where the mission heads from any other country (especially one seeking a strategic partnership with India) have said that building up Pakistan's military capability vis-a-vis India will reduce terrorism against India.
Hmmmm. States have interests!!! Keep emotions aside and deal with it and you will come out a winner.

The Indian state also has interests, and options, and both the Rafale and the Typhoon are by far superior options to US made aircraft.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Sep 2011 20:43

It would be naive to ignore geo-political aspects when dealing with the sole super power. We can't be in a safe haven and with an indigenous policy and politics, assuming a clean political boundary without interference.

The failure at the helm of external affairs is not because of khan politics, but how well it has to be needled such that we are benefited by the whole game.

Chess will be played no matter we buy or sell. Only the fit, survive. so, this is a mute point in telling that we have our own agenda, and we can safely ignore what happens around [example: pakis getting arms from both USA and China], indirectly against India.

There must be a stronger force to build home grown products, to have a larger say on geo-political matters.

Narayanan would have made a larger impact if we had enough of such a force.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2011 21:35

eklavya wrote: The Indian state also has interests, and options, and both the Rafale and the Typhoon are by far superior options to US made aircraft.

NO. Not so trivial. Got to hit higher up - break up PakiLand. (Of course, then the US can sell to more nations.)

BTW, as though on cue:

NYTimes :: Today :: Leak Offers Look at Efforts by U.S. to Spy on Israel

In 2011 !!!!!!

Go figure.

Sh1t happens. Anyone in this business looking for a bottle of antacids is surely in the wrong business.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 06 Sep 2011 22:51

GeorgeWelch wrote: To be frank, Pakistan is no longer a military threat to India no matter what the US gives them. I know you have a lot of history with them, but it's just that: history.

I'm not saying they can't be pests, but a serious military threat? No.

OK they may not be a "military" threat today but what happens tomorrow of a "pure" Islamic government takes command ?

What do you mean by military threats ?

Is bombing our cities not a military threat ?
Is waging a "low intensity" war in Kashmir for the past 25 years not a military threat ?
Is hijacking our aircraft not a military threat ?
Is arming the rebels amongst our neighbours not a military threat ?

History cannot be wished away.

And Mr George as we have no idea who (Saudi ? China ? etc) may rush weaponry into Pakistan incase of hostilities we have to be prepared for that eventuality

Kersi

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Sep 2011 03:29

The thread cycles back to a US relations question every twenty pages or so. Ah well... we'll get back to the EF/Rafale question eventually.

Kersi D wrote:What do you mean by military threats ?

Is bombing our cities not a military threat ?
Is waging a "low intensity" war in Kashmir for the past 25 years not a military threat ?
Is hijacking our aircraft not a military threat ?
Is arming the rebels amongst our neighbours not a military threat ?

Actually technically speaking they're not. They're all unconventional threats. Not to be overlooked certainly, but very different for example, from the genuine military challenge posed by an ascendent China.

History cannot be wished away.

One shouldn't be held hostage to history either.

Lets examine the US actions from the Pakistani perspective. In an effort to check the USSR globally, Pakistan was invited to join the Baghdad Pact (CENTO) as well as SEATO in 50s. Yet the US assisted India in 1962 against the Chinese while rejecting all support to Pakistan in 1965 and imposing sanctions on both countries involved (even though only Pakistan was seriously effected). It resumed support for Pakistan during the Nixon administration and availed of its assistance in negotiations with the PRC. In 1979 sanctions were again imposed on Pakistan due to concerns about its nuclear program. Barely eight months later the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and Pakistan once again became a 'trusted' ally in the fight against communism. The Soviets pulled out by 1989, 16 months later Pakistan was again under US sanctions thanks to the Pressler Amendment. In the mid-nineties, the Americans negotiated with Taliban to lay a gas pipeline across Afghanistan (Unocal-Centgas). Barely half a decade later Pakistan was given a 'with us or against us' ultimatum for supporting the very same Taliban.

The US perspective is no less interesting. Its major supply line still runs via Karachi (though major diversifications have taken place in the last couple of years) and it still relies on both overt and covert Pakistani support for cross-border operations. Concern about Indian casualties and Indian civilians is bound to be secondary, when US soldiers are losing their lives to Pakistani backed groups. The Pakistani government retained its solvency thanks to direct US aid as well as US backed aid via the IMF and World Bank, while UBL relaxed an hours drive away from Islamabad.

Point is the US-Pakistani alliance (incl. its formal MNNA status) is a farce. The US knows it, Pakistan knows it, the NATO knows it and India knows it, regardless of the feel-good opinions stated by American diplomats in Pakistan. While US troops are deployed in Afghanistan, a degree of support for Pakistan is absolutely necessary. India may find that fact unpalatable but its an even more bitter truth for the Americans to swallow. Over the long terms (say the next quarter century and beyond) US and Indian interests will inevitably converge and buying American equipment is a relatively small facet thereof. By 2035 China will have eclipsed the US in size, while India will be approaching parity. Perhaps now is a good time to get over a fear of sanctions or other means of arm-twisting.

jai · Post by **jai** » 07 Sep 2011 04:26

Viv S - great post !

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Sep 2011 04:48

Viv S, perhaps now would be a good time for the US to stop asking India to sign umpteen binding, intrusive, and limiting agreements. Actions speak louder than words. We're giving the US billions. Let them join the party. Everything isn't up to India.

I don't want to hear BS from the American agents on this thread that the agreements are LAW and India must comply. American law changes by the year and greater changes, like the nuclear agreements, have been brought into effect when the will is there from the American side.

Quite frankly, if the American dismissal from this deal holds, it would've been a deal that the Americans lost first and the Europeans won later, not the other way round, and it would've been because of the American requirement to screw everyone they get into bed with.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 07 Sep 2011 06:34

aniket wrote:France has a tried and tested relationship with India.

What you all aren't getting is that France doesn't care about 'India', they care about your money.

In all your past relationships with France, you've been the party with the most money so it works out well.

aniket wrote:Recently in the news France had also stopped billion euro worth of supply of electronics and missiles to Pakistan under Indian pressure

EXACTLY!

Are you all blind? Do you not get it?

France always kowtows to the side with the most money.

As long as you're dealing with Pakistan, great.

But when you're dealing with China, hmmm . . . .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Sep 2011 07:27

I don't want to hear BS from the American agents on this thread that the agreements are LAW and India must comply. American law changes by the year and greater changes, like the nuclear agreements, have been brought into effect when the will is there from the American side.

No need for any agents to do anything. Both sides (US and India) have very quietly put into place a reworded agreement (per Mr. Leak). US agents make routine trips to places like B'luru - per these agreements.

It is just a matter of supply and demand and accommodation. Events will force issues and events will force resolutions.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Sep 2011 07:36

For non-agents of the US only:

Aug 3, 2011 :: No US waiver to DRDO on technology imports: Antony

He also made it clear that technology export required clearance from the US government and each request was reviewed on a case-to-case basis.

“The usage or import of technologies or systems by DRDO laboratories will be subject to periodic monitoring or inspection by the US agencies,” he said.

“Pre-license checks and post-shipment verifications were permitted as the part of India-US End Use Visit Agreement signed in September 2004. However, such visits have been very few, and no visits have taken place since 2009,” he added.

So much for arms twisting!!!!!!!

Nations have interests!!

Fear is a terrible thing.

Sorry for the BS.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Sep 2011 07:51

Interesting twist in this thread ending up with agents and anti-agents of the great MRCA divide. 2035 would be all Matrix involution with a-gents and ladies taking gold and silver pills.

What is the need of the hour is what is the best deal that the euro suppliers can provide.. and that is not evident here, whereas it appears that all types of agents are ensuring that this will never happen, as shiv says, wake him up after another 10 years.

I hope I would be alive.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Sep 2011 08:44

So, according to NRao, a country unafraid should go ahead and sign away every right to independent action. Well played!

The only fear is in the US, and that of losing Indian billions.

"Fear is a terrible thing". Go tell that to someone who cares.

------
“Pre-license checks and post-shipment verifications were permitted as the part of India-US End Use Visit Agreement signed in September 2004. However, such visits have been very few, and no visits have taken place since 2009,” he added.

That they have taken place at all is a cause for concern. That they have taken place as recently as 2009 is a cause for concern. I don't think the IAF is interested in being a poodle air-force.

NRao wrote:Both sides (US and India) have very quietly put into place a reworded agreement (per Mr. Leak). US agents make routine trips to places like B'luru - per these agreements.

If the rewording of the contract has any truth in it, then as long as it involves stripping off the ball-and-chain contracts then all is well!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 07 Sep 2011 08:53

I am surprised that anyone seriously thinks we would waste MMRCAs on the freaking pakis. We are bestowing those duds with more importance than they deserve when we do that. Come on guys, discussions about who will do what to India will only be meaningful if we understand that MMRCA = China specific. We need to treat the damn pakis like the nobodies they are, fit only to be whipped by MiGs & Mirages. Looked at in this light, things take on a different meaning but I guess habits are hard to break.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Sep 2011 09:06

Victor wrote:I am surprised that anyone seriously thinks we would waste MMRCAs on the freaking pakis.

So what are you willing to waste on them, Victor? The Su-30MKI? Or is it the LCA, which so far isn't located anywhere near the border?

The 500 AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM that Pakistan got as recently as 2009 is no biggie?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Sep 2011 14:34

The problem is US' control freak nature. The moment they relate with any country their whole mode goes into how the whole deal can be used in future to control the country. They are proactive.

All the propaganda about french being unreliable partner is laughable. While they may do it under pressure in rare cases. US is proactive in the whole matter.

When India does nuclear tests, US rages, US gets very very angry. Not French not Russians.

Its out of the control freak nature of US that such binding documents like EULA, EUMA shuma have to be signed even for cargo carrying c 130s. Even for such a/cs we have to find a way to source certain things from third source. Who the hell are US to check our forces c 130s, c 17s & P8s.

While French didn't object when M2ks were rigged for nuke role. Russians don't check the equipment sold. Well the moment you point out these things, unkil supporters come and chide you with "its there rules what to do?"

No no other supplier can be compared to this "control freak".

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Sep 2011 15:41

PratikDas wrote:Viv S, perhaps now would be a good time for the US to stop asking India to sign umpteen binding, intrusive, and limiting agreements. Actions speak louder than words. We're giving the US billions. Let them join the party. Everything isn't up to India.

Umpteen? There are only three AFAIK - LSA, CISMOA and BECA, of which only the latter two have a direct impact on operational security. The fact that there have been no inspections since 2009 makes is evident that the US doesn't question India's willingness to abide by rules but would still prefer to have the rules formalized. India has similar agreements with Russia acknowledging that Russian technology will not be reverse engineered and operation of classified components (eg. MKI's Bars radar) will remain secure. The real problem isn't with the agreements but with their nature, in that they treat the US as a supranational authority. India naturally would not like to sign a 'set-piece' agreement. The best solution would a single bilateral agreement hashed out between the two parties that addressed elements from all three agreements.

I don't want to hear BS from the American agents on this thread that the agreements are LAW and India must comply. American law changes by the year and greater changes, like the nuclear agreements, have been brought into effect when the will is there from the American side.

And those changes will happen with time. Unfortunately the world changes a lot slower than we would like. Also, American agents? Surely one is entitled to an opinion without having his patriotism questioned. I have a very positive outlook on US-India ties but still would like to the see the EF win the MRCA contract.

Quite frankly, if the American dismissal from this deal holds, it would've been a deal that the Americans lost first and the Europeans won later, not the other way round, and it would've been because of the American requirement to screw everyone they get into bed with.

The US has been transparent and upfront in most of its dealings with India. I don't see how we've been screwed by them anymore than we have by the Europeans or Russians. We haven't for example been promised an aircraft carrier at certain terms and then later told there was an accounting error and the price had just tripled. We haven't been offered sophisticated fighter aircraft to defend the country and then denied submachine guns on account of HR violations. For that matter shouldn't some ire be directed at Israel and South Africa too - we invited Denel and Soltam to do business in India and they promptly decided to be part of the corruption business. And lest you think France's hands are clean - they showcased the Rafale for purchase by Libya in 2010 and then showcased it to the world by bombing Libya with it in 2011.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Sep 2011 16:17

PratikDas wrote:So, according to NRao, a country unafraid should go ahead and sign away every right to independent action. Well played!

Nope. THAT was according to the Raksha Mantri HIMSELF - it is a direct quote. That link was meant to prove that the GoI HAS made decisions that are contrary to your stand. Already done. Like in 2004! (PD, Sorry to state this, but BR has declined over the past 10 years or so, just because people do not do proper research and get emotional about issues. You are a good example of it. Sorry.)

The only fear is in the US, and that of losing Indian billions.

"Fear is a terrible thing". Go tell that to someone who cares.

See elow. (Again, this is more of an emotional post than a researched one.)

------
“Pre-license checks and post-shipment verifications were permitted as the part of India-US End Use Visit Agreement signed in September 2004. However, such visits have been very few, and no visits have taken place since 2009,” he added.
That they have taken place at all is a cause for concern. That they have taken place as recently as 2009 is a cause for concern. I don't think the IAF is interested in being a poodle air-force.

People who are involved do not think it is a cause for concern!!! Besides, the trend is downward. In fact no visit has taken place since 2009 - again according to the RM!!! So, you are concerned about that trend and perhaps increase in US confidence? Eh!!!

In the category of "Nations have interest" (and NOT being a poodle is one of them, true): IAF did make two purchases of the C-130J for special ops and the GoI did make the IAF the second largest operator of C-17s. Like it or not the fact remains that both were based on no fear. Kudos to those who make such bold decisions.

And, just BTW, IN is a poodle navy I guess - for having so many Russian and now a few US components.

NRao wrote:Both sides (US and India) have very quietly put into place a reworded agreement (per Mr. Leak). US agents make routine trips to places like B'luru - per these agreements.
If the rewording of the contract has any truth in it, then as long as it involves stripping off the ball-and-chain contracts then all is well!

[/quote]

Cannot say all is well. All I cna say is that BOTH nations have come to an agreement to overcome any differences, and what differences that remain are trivial FOR THE TIME BEING - both can live with them.

THAT is how nations have always worked. And, in this case the IAF too is working. (BTW, I have never seen the MMRCA decision as one being anti nation. It is a pro India decision. Which is how it should be. BUT so is the C-130J and C-17 decisions pro Indian.)

On "has any truth", obviously you missed the news on the US cables. Also, you seemed to have missed the news on the split of the MMRCA contract topic - did not happen so far - but that was the news. Again it comes back to a lack of research and emotional posts.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Sep 2011 17:01

GeorgeWelch wrote:What you all aren't getting is that France doesn't care about 'India', they care about your money.

In all your past relationships with France, you've been the party with the most money so it works out well.

France always kowtows to the side with the most money.

And America is different how from the above? One can replace France with America in the above post and the same will hold true. So we are basically dealing with money grabbing whores? Nothing new

GeorgeWelch wrote:As long as you're dealing with Pakistan, great.

But when you're dealing with China, hmmm . . . .

When we lost the next war against China, you can come up and take the share of the loot (if anything is left). The J-20 will overpower the Rafale & Eurofighter (but definitely not the F-18). Move on "W"

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 07 Sep 2011 17:25

Umpteen? There are only three AFAIK - LSA, CISMOA and BECA, of which only the latter two have a direct impact on operational security. The fact that there have been no inspections since 2009 makes is evident that the US doesn't question India's willingness to abide by rules but would still prefer to have the rules formalized. India has similar agreements with Russia acknowledging that Russian technology will not be reverse engineered and operation of classified components (eg. MKI's Bars radar) will remain secure. The real problem isn't with the agreements but with their nature, in that they treat the US as a supranational authority. India naturally would not like to sign a 'set-piece' agreement. The best solution would a single bilateral agreement hashed out between the two parties that addressed elements from all three agreements.

Inspections will start from the date US president does not like his morning breakfast... Besides, wether for nature or agreement themselves, problem remains the same...With history of bullying the other party, what is the garantee that the agreements will be honoured all the times... I understand the agreement to help develop FBW for Tejas did not had option of confiscating all the efforts made by Indian Scientists or did it contain such term? What if tom we test another nuke or into a war with some of *hore of them? Who will bell the cat if they decide to show middle finger to agreements? Even if we bell them in the peace time, what will happen during the course of war? And as you say, when they are so confident of India's history of non proliferation (as you say they did not visit since 2009), why such agreements with us?

And those changes will happen with time. Unfortunately the world changes a lot slower than we would like. Also, American agents? Surely one is entitled to an opinion without having his patriotism questioned. I have a very positive outlook on US-India ties but still would like to the see the EF win the MRCA contract.

Ya, but the world has not changed since the collapse of USSR till date... The watered down avionics of F 18 at least does not convey anything else... What has changed is the language and that is after rise of India backed by economic and human capital which has raised it to a state where it has become uninvited member in the list of superpower and necessary for them to keep their economy running...

The US has been transparent and upfront in most of its dealings with India. I don't see how we've been screwed by them anymore than we have by the Europeans or Russians. We haven't for example been promised an aircraft carrier at certain terms and then later told there was an accounting error and the price had just tripled. We haven't been offered sophisticated fighter aircraft to defend the country and then denied submachine guns on account of HR violations. For that matter shouldn't some ire be directed at Israel and South Africa too - we invited Denel and Soltam to do business in India and they promptly decided to be part of the corruption business. And lest you think France's hands are clean - they showcased the Rafale for purchase by Libya in 2010 and then showcased it to the world by bombing Libya with it in 2011.

How many dealings we had with US? It is just a start compared to the more than 4 decade relations with USSR/Russia and France and it will take time to establish the credibility... Just timely delivery from a factory which is running just because of orders of USAF to save the job of the worker does not decide it. It is decided by turning blind when Mirages were prepared for Nuke role, by supplying ammuniations from your stock or sending Submaries to ward of USS enterprise... It is not sanctioning the critical spares after nuke test or holding engines or FBW related works...Besides, france hands may not be clean, but neither are American hands and at least the dirt on the hands of French is not Indian unlike US....Also, Even Americans have a bug.. Refer CAG report about Jalaswha and helicopters...

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 07 Sep 2011 19:26

We Indians are honest (We dont reverse engineer whatever is given to us). But at the same time we don't want somebody to teach how honest we have to be(No agreements and punishments). The thing with US is people of both countries are very comfortable with each other but not the respective state departments.But with Russia and France , i am afraid it isn't.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Sep 2011 20:09

nrshah wrote:Inspections will start from the date US president does not like his morning breakfast...

Per the EUMA, inspections are to be held at a time and place of India's choosing. If the Americans decide to be difficult on a whim, the Indian bureaucracy can ensure they keep running around in circles.

Besides, wether for nature or agreement themselves, problem remains the same...With history of bullying the other party, what is the garantee that the agreements will be honoured all the times...

What is the guarantee we will honour the agreement at all times and not ship off US products to Russia, Iran and Venezuela? Its a matter of trust. There is a reason they've been only a few inspections since the start of the Indo-US 'strategic relationship' in 2004 and no inspections since 2009.

I understand the agreement to help develop FBW for Tejas did not had option of confiscating all the efforts made by Indian Scientists or did it contain such term? What if tom we test another nuke or into a war with some of *hore of them? Who will bell the cat if they decide to show middle finger to agreements? Even if we bell them in the peace time, what will happen during the course of war? And as you say, when they are so confident of India's history of non proliferation (as you say they did not visit since 2009), why such agreements with us?

Plenty of things have changed since 1998 and even more will have changed by 2028 (the Indian economy will be the third largest in the world and set to become the second largest). No one's going to lay sanctions against India because its in no one's interest to do so - even in the case of another round of nuclear tests (which too India has little incentive to carry out). Which is why we need to get over the fear of being pushed around.

Ya, but the world has not changed since the collapse of USSR till date... The watered down avionics of F 18 at least does not convey anything else... What has changed is the language and that is after rise of India backed by economic and human capital which has raised it to a state where it has become uninvited member in the list of superpower and necessary for them to keep their economy running...

The world has changed enormously since the collapse of the USSR. In any case, that wasn't the 'change' I was referring to. Its was the changing nature of India-US ties which are blossoming though still a while away from being mature.

With regard to the SH, I don't claim to know the details of the proposal, but yes its possible that the version offered didn't have same grade of avionics as that operated by the USN. That still doesn't explain your venom. It was an open and fair competition, the IAF didn't find the SH as marketed to it upto scratch, and picked the EF and Rafale instead. Boeing was disappointed, as was LM, Saab and Mikoyan. Life goes on. Except here where one saw a spate of gloating - 'serves them right', 'keep the Yanks out' etc.

How many dealings we had with US? It is just a start compared to the more than 4 decade relations with USSR/Russia and France and it will take time to establish the credibility... Just timely delivery from a factory which is running just because of orders of USAF to save the job of the worker does not decide it. It is decided by turning blind when Mirages were prepared for Nuke role, by supplying ammuniations from your stock or sending Submaries to ward of USS enterprise... It is not sanctioning the critical spares after nuke test or holding engines or FBW related works...Besides, france hands may not be clean, but neither are American hands and at least the dirt on the hands of French is not Indian unlike US....Also, Even Americans have a bug.. Refer CAG report about Jalaswha and helicopters...

You've missed the entire context within which I made my post. I wasn't about real or imagined slights to our pride, it was about the holier-than-thou attitude taken by those wanting to boycott the US in favour of European or Russian suppliers as a matter of principle. It was also about the future of the global strategic balance (by 2035, the Chinese economy is expected to equal the US and Indian economies combined).

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Sep 2011 20:32

NRao wrote: Pratik: So, according to NRao, a country unafraid should go ahead and sign away every right to independent action. Well played!

Nope. THAT was according to the Raksha Mantri HIMSELF - it is a direct quote. That link was meant to prove that the GoI HAS made decisions that are contrary to your stand. Already done. Like in 2004! (PD, Sorry to state this, but BR has declined over the past 10 years or so, just because people do not do proper research and get emotional about issues. You are a good example of it. Sorry.)

The DRDO is not the IAF! And the Russians don't need us to sign these intrusive contracts!

Very good attempt at character assassination, NRao. I guess that is a last stand when you have nothing else left. If you take one media report or blog article about a split deal then that is your choice. Obviously you haven't heard of DDM. Can you show me any government-released information? No you can't. This attempt at character assassination should be reported, but I won't bother.

You saying that a piece is not researched doesn't make it so, my fellow disgruntled BRFite. I read any and all open sources of information that is typically referred to on BR. You just don't like my conclusions and choose to target my age as an indirect sign of stupidity. You are, I'd suggest, being stupid. Oh yes, to borrow your style in every post, Sorry!

And if every Wikileak is the full and final story then why hasn't the world fallen over itself yet in an act of purging? If you have been watching things in India long enough you'd know that nothing is final till the contract is signed, yeah? Well, that hasn't happened yet.

Instead of you playing your rona dhona "fear" track in an endless loop, why don't you look at media reports emanating from the US on the outcry over getting thrown out of the MRCA deal. Sounds like the fear, pain, PMS, is all on the American side.

As for your claims about BR dropping in quality because of younger folk, that is a complaint of anyone in any walk of life getting old.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Sep 2011 20:37

Viv S wrote:
PratikDas wrote:Viv S, perhaps now would be a good time for the US to stop asking India to sign umpteen binding, intrusive, and limiting agreements. Actions speak louder than words. We're giving the US billions. Let them join the party. Everything isn't up to India.
Umpteen? There are only three AFAIK - LSA, CISMOA and BECA, of which only the latter two have a direct impact on operational security. The fact that there have been no inspections since 2009 makes is evident that the US doesn't question India's willingness to abide by rules but would still prefer to have the rules formalized. India has similar agreements with Russia acknowledging that Russian technology will not be reverse engineered and operation of classified components (eg. MKI's Bars radar) will remain secure. The real problem isn't with the agreements but with their nature, in that they treat the US as a supranational authority. India naturally would not like to sign a 'set-piece' agreement. The best solution would a single bilateral agreement hashed out between the two parties that addressed elements from all three agreements.

The nuclear deal has only been around as long as the MRCA deal. So the world managed to change for something as monumental as the nuclear deal but not the MRCA?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Sep 2011 21:01

You guys can say anything you want. The fact remains that India has already signed what she wanted to sign and not signed what she did not want to sign - IAF included. What inspections have had to happen, have happened and are continuing - people have not read news reports. That is the way any nation behaves. It is neither anti US nor pro US. When the time comes to do more with the US India will do, when the time comes to do less India will do that too. These discussions about fear of arm twisting and sanctions have existed on BR since around 1997 and we have only seen cooperation with the US increase. My feel is that trend will continue till around 2030 or so and then things could be different.

I for one see a very bright future for India (provided the political wing wakes up).

BTW, the IAF has agreed to US inspections at one site. And, also BTW, the Russians are allowed to look at MiG-21s only under some circumstances - this since 1980s. Read up on the problems USSR gave over the years. Just the way nations (not individuals) behave. Neither does US nor Russia love India.

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 08 Sep 2011 01:41

well said nrao..

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Sep 2011 02:12

Yes, that's more like it. Everything at the right time, with the devil out of the detail, just like the C-130J and C-17 purchases with the super-duper comms systems being tossed out in favour of something that doesn't require CISMOA.

India-US cooperation is a good thing and I too would like to see it flourish, with the operative word being cooperation. There is no holier-than-thou agenda that I'm attracted to. I don't think asking for American flexibility for Indian billions is asking too much. If everyone is looking out for their own self interests, then India should look out for it's own too.

Refusing CISMOA, LSA not to Impact Operational Effectiveness says Indian Air Force Chief P.V. Naik

"Government had asked us about our opinion on these agreements and we told them that this will not make any substantial difference to our operational capabilities"

-- Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik

Eric Thompson · Post by **Eric Thompson** » 08 Sep 2011 08:53

Its a matter of trust. There is a reason they've been only a few inspections since the start of the Indo-US 'strategic relationship' in 2004 and no inspections since 2009.

India has taken the bait and entered the Padmavyuha (agreements) .. Only time will tell whether India was Abhimanyu or Arjuna

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

Eric Thompson · Post by **Eric Thompson** » 08 Sep 2011 09:11

Plenty of things have changed since 1998 and even more will have changed by 2028

"the more things change, the more they stay the same" --- Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr