India (Superthread)

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well, whoopdidoo!

F/A-18 E/F would be for the Indian carrier force. However, the INS Vikrant, which was laid down in 2009 but has yet to enter service (sea trials expected starting possibly in 2019 if nothing more goes wrong! And commissioning somewhere in the 2021-23 timeframe) is a STOBAR carrier and cannot operate F-18's.

Those airplanes would be for the yet to even be started INS Vishal. President Trump's clearing India to receive demonstration and potential acquisition of EMALS launchers (even though he thinks they are crap and wants them removed from US carrier(s) and go back to steam) for the Vishal cleared the way for a potential CATOBAR carrier. However, the Vishal is now not expected to arrive before some time in 20230's. Will F-18's even be around by then?
 

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting social changes going on in India, as more and more people are adopting English as their primary language at home. The idea of a globe spanning Anglosphere becomes stronger, especially as these people become a larger and more influential demographic in India (they already represent an affluent and influential section of the population). Interesting article at link:

https://scroll.in/magazine/867130/indo-anglians-the-newest-and-fastest-growing-caste-in-india

Indo-Anglians: The newest and fastest-growing caste in India
An influential demographic or psychographic is emerging in India  – and it is  affluent, urban and highly educated.

Indo-Anglians: The newest and fastest-growing caste in India
Feb 02, 2018 · 11:30 am
Sajith Pai

Sometime around 2012 or 2013, my daughters stopped speaking in Konkani, our mother tongue. It isn’t entirely clear what provoked it. Perhaps it was a teacher at their Mumbai school encouraging students to speak more English at home. Or perhaps it was something else. It didn’t matter. What did matter was that our home became an almost exclusively English-speaking household, with the occasional Konkani conversation.

We were not alone. Clustered throughout the affluent sections of urban India are many families such as ours, predominantly speaking English and not the tongues they grew up with.

Some of these families, or at least parents in these English-speaking households, do make an attempt to speak their mother tongue as much as they speak in English. But even in these bilingual households, English still dominates. It takes an effort for the kids to speak in the Indian tongues, beyond a few simple phrases. English, on the other hand, comes naturally to them; the larger vocabulary they possess in English helping them express complex thoughts and propositions far easily.

I have been looking for a term, an acronym or a phrase that describes these families who speak English predominantly at home. These constitute an influential demographic, or rather a psychographic, in India  –  affluent, urban, highly educated, usually in intercaste or inter-religious unions. I propose to call them Indo-Anglians.

 

[MarkOttawa]

This could take while--and US would have well-justified security concerns about F-35s in India:

Indian Air Force requests [briefing on] F-35A fighter aircraft

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is requesting a classified briefing on the F-35A Lightning II fighter aircraft, the Business Standard reports on 15 February.

Business Standard learns the IAF top brass is formally requesting for a classified briefing by the F-35’s prime builder, Lockheed Martin, on the capabilities of the sophisticated, fifth-generation fighter developed under the US Joint Strike Fighter programme.

The local source reported that IAF looks to procure a “next-generation fighter aircraft” to replace its MiG-27 and MiG-29 combat aircraft. It is expected that the IAF plans to order 126 new fighters that incorporate “conventional take-off and landing”...
http://defence-blog.com/news/indian-air-force-requests-f-35a-fighter-aircraft.html

And what about Su-57?  Which India has been working with Russia on.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

CHARLIE FOXTROT to the max, eh?  Excerpts:

Glavin: Justin Trudeau's trip to India could hardly be going worse

...nobody seems quite sure why Trudeau is travelling around India with his wife and his children and an entourage of cabinet ministers and MPs and various officials and a celebrity chef from Vancouver.

It has struck the BBC’s Ayeshea Perera that the point of it “appears to be a series of photo ops cunningly designed to showcase his family’s elaborate traditional wardrobe.” There sure doesn’t seem to be much business to attend to. A half-day here, a meeting there, perhaps a whole day all told out of an eight-day state visit set aside for what you might call state business.

Straight away, the tone was just weird.

There he was with his wife Sophie Gregoire and their children, Ella Grace, Xavier and Hadrien, at one mood-setting location after another, posing. And in elaborate costume. Different location shoot, a different costume. Oh look, here they are at the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad. And now they’re at the Mathura Wildlife Sanctuary, with the elephants Maya, Bijlee and Lakshmi!

The Taj Mahal, the Jama Masjid, and then Mumbai, with movie stars. Hey, who’s that posing for a photograph with Sophie Gregoire? Oh my goodness it’s convicted Khalistani would-be assassin Jaspal Singh Atwal, the triggerman in the attempted murder of Punjab cabinet minister Malkiat Singh Sidhu on a backroad on Vancouver Island in 1986, when Sidhu was in Canada to attend a nephew’s wedding.

And oh, look, there he is again, in another photo, posing with Edmonton member of Parliament and Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi.

Crikey, this is awkward. Trudeau and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan had just managed to finagle a meeting with the notoriously paranoid Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh, a military man who had made a name for himself in Canada by accusing Canada’s Sikh MPs and cabinet ministers of Khalistani terrorist sympathies. The meeting had gone well. Everything seemed to be going swimmingly. Bygones, bygones. And then Atwal shows up.

The posed photos were one thing. But what do you know, in Atwal’s possession was an embossed invitation from the Canadian High Commission to attend a dinner with Trudeau and his ministers and all the other bigshots, in Delhi, on Thursday night.

Great. Just great.

It is worth keeping in mind that Trudeau didn’t have much else to do in India that was more important than disabusing everyone of the misapprehension that Canada was becoming a safe haven for Khalistani whackjobs again. Trudeau’s one big job was to convince Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi and everyone in between that Canada’s Liberal government was not backsliding to the ethnic-bloc politics of the 1980s.

Apart from posing for photos and sightseeing and attending a few meetings, the only thing Trudeau really needed to do was persuade India that despite appearances, Canada wasn’t returning to the days when Liberal politicians were happily oblivious to the theocratic-fascist Khalistani movement, which wants an independent Sikh homeland, had set itself up in Canada, with its dreams of carving out a Sikh state from the Indian portion of ancient Punjab, and its “government in exile” in Vancouver...

Two years ago, the Khalsa Darbar gurudwara in Mississauga decided that the temple would be forthwith off limits to Indian diplomats. The pretext was some row involving the visit of a diplomat accompanied by an RCMP security detail. The diplomat-barring quickly became a diplomat boycott involving 14 Sikh temples in Ontario. Within months, the boycott had spread to Sikh temples across the United States, Britain and Australia.

At the conclusion of his meeting with Trudeau and Sajjan, Chief Minister Singh gave them both a list of nine Canadians alleged to be involved in terrorist activities and “hate crimes” inspired by militant Khalistani politics.

The list almost certainly contains the same names that Indian officials had already passed on to the Canadian High Commission. The individuals, from Vancouver, Surrey, Brampton and Toronto, whose whereabouts are unknown, are alleged to be fundraisers and gunrunners for Khalistani terrorists. The men are associated with the Khalistan Zindabad Force, listed as a terrorist entity by the European Union, the Khalistan Liberation Force, a Pakistan-based group that has carried out a series of assassinations in Punjab over the past two years, and Babbar Khalsa International, listed as a terrorist entity in Canada [emphasis added]...

In this handout photo released by the Amritsar District Public Relations Officer on Feb.21, 2018,  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (R), along with his wife Sophie Gregoire Trudeau (L), daughter Ella-Grace (2nd L) and son Xavier (2nd R) pose for a family photo as they pay their respects at the Sikh Golden Temple. HANDOUT / AFP/Getty Images

In this photograph released by the Amritsar District Public Relations Officer on February 21, 2018, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (L) meets with Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh in Amritsar. HANDOUT / AFP/Getty Images
http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/glavin-justin-trudeaus-trip-to-india-could-hardly-be-going-worse

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Prime Minister Trudeau, himself, but more directly his team, the PMO ~ Butts, Purchase, Telford et al ~ have failed, massively on both the domestic political and international/diplomatic level.

Canada has, since 1948, had something of a special relationship with India ... St Laurent and Pearson and Nehru and Krishna Menon were famous for their cooperation and close consultation in trying to defuze the cold war. St Laurent and Pearson persuaded Truman and Atcheson and Eisenhower and Dulles to accept Menon's "non-aligned" movement and to be extra patient while India developed, slowly one must admit, into the world's greatest democracy. Given what I saw of Prime Minister Modi's remarks at his joint press conference with Prime Minister Trudeau, it appears that Canada was sent home with an ever so polite warning to stop associating with Sikh separatists ... I didn't detect a shred of goodwill in Modi's welcoming tweet (sent five days after Trudeau arrived) or in his remarks to Trudeau. Canada is just a small country that came to look for access to India's huge and growing market and was sent away, empty handed.

The prime minister emerged as a bit of a global laughing stock for his "Mr Dressup" routine, but the Atwat affair raised serious questions about the honesty of his pledge to Punjab leader Amarinder Singh that Canada supported Indian national unity. Trudeau's attendance at a Khalsa Day parade in Toronto in April 2017 is what lies behind his strained relations with India. While people like Jason Kenney took pains to distance Canada from Sikh extremists, Trudeau blundered into their trap and India, at the highest levels, was shocked and offended.

The Trudeau plan, to use this trip as a source of photos for the 2019 campaign also backfired ... those pictures will get used, I think, but mostly in Conservative campaign adds mocking the PM for insulting India and being ridiculed by the world.

The Indians are also worried about Trudeau's seemingly single minded quest for a free trade deal with China. Now, let me be clear, I favour a free(er) trade deal with China ... I favour free(er) trade with everyone. But China is not the only market that matters and, anyway, Xi Jinping sent Trudeau packing without a hoped for deal because he (Trudeau) was a bit too "uppity." And that came after Trudeau managed to offend Australia, Japan and the Philippines on one short trip.

India is emerging as a major global power ... in 25 years it may rival China. Canada needs good relations with India. Team Trudeau has failed, miserably, at achieving an important, strategic goal. It will take years, and I suspect, a new government, to set things right

 

[Cloud Cover]

ERC, do you think Canada could likely also do just as well without having anything to do with India, period?  I've been there, worked there, wouldn't want to do it again.  China is not so bad, really.

Is it possible that Trudeau went there for so long because he is running away from the issues at home, does it appear that he and his inner circle lack the competence to deal with substantially in manner that is in the best interests of the entire population.  Perhaps, to make it worthwhile, he have spoken with the government in India* about their experiences with legal use of cannabis over the post 4000 years, the "trip" (no pun intended) might have productive and the local garb more appropriate.   

The controversies about India are a heaven sent diversion for Trudeau helping him to avoid serious domestic governance.     
Agreed on all the rest though. 

* for an uncanny resemblance to the current Canadian government see the Wikipedia entry on the 1893 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission and the "... The report the Commission produced was at least 3,281 pages long, with testimony from almost 1,200 "doctors, coolies, yogis, fakirs, heads of lunatic asylums, bhang peasants, tax gatherers, smugglers, army officers, hemp dealers, ganja palace operators and the clergy."  Except for the clergy part, replace that with a 4 or 5 letter acronym or something with a #. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

India might almost make RCAF new fighter procurement look good (further links at orginal):

India Upends Its Single-Engine Fighter Competition and Will Also Consider Twin-Engine Jets
Lockheed Martin led the existing competition with its F-16IN Viper, but will now likely face Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet and France's Rafale.

ndia has reportedly halted its plans to purchase nearly 115 single-engine fighter jets in order to reassess its requirements and open the tender up to twin-engine designs. The decision will delay purchases of any aircraft for at least two more years and will have significant ramifications for Lockheed Martin, which increasingly appeared to be the favorite with its F-16IN Viper under the existing terms, as well the Indian Air Force.

On Feb. 23, 2018, The Times of India first revealed the new course of action, citing anonymous sources, which Indian online outlet DefenseNews.in also reported afterwards. The competition, which could have been worth up $18 billion, has already been going on since 2016 with Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN, an advanced India-specific version of the company’s F-16 Block 70, and Saab’s Gripen-E being the only two contenders. This tender followed another failed deal to purchase new fighters that had collapsed the year before.

“The original plan placed an unnecessary restriction on only single-engine fighters, which limited the competition to just two jets [the F-16IN and Gripen-E],” an unnamed individual told The Times. “The aim is to increase the contenders and avoid needless allegations later.”

Exactly what potential allegations this individual might have been referring to is unclear. But India has struggled to procure new fighter jets over the past two decades and Indian authorities are undoubtedly keen to avoid a repeat of the failed Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft competition, also known as the MMCRA or MCRA.

That tender, which could have been worth approximately $20 billion and formally began in 2007, had been open to all fighter jet designs, regardless of engine configuration. India picked France’s Dassault Rafale, a twin-engine fighter, as the winner, but the actual contract quickly became mired in disputes over local production or assembly of the planes and India finally backed out completely in 2015. 

Reopening the tender to twin-engine fighters will almost certainly mean that many of the former MMRCA contenders will submit new offers. The most likely entrants will be American manufacturer Boeing with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and one or more Russian aircraft, such as the MiG-35 Fulcrum or Su-35 Flanker-E.

Broadening the competition would definitely make a certain amount of sense. After protracted negotiations, India is on track to acquire 36 Rafales for the country’s Air Force as part of limited, interim purchase. The first of those fighters are supposed to arrive some time in 2019, but the deal remains mired in controversy.

The Indian Navy is also in the market for new jets to embark on its upcoming fleet of new aircraft carriers. Super Hornet, Rafale, the MiG-29K, all twin-engine designs, as well as a single-engine navalized Gripen-E known as Sea Gripen, are presently competing for that contract.

In 2016, the service rejected a proposal to purchase a carrier-borne version of the notoriously under-performing indigenously developed Tejas fighter jet. It is also reportedly increasingly unhappy with the performance of its existing Russian-made MiG-29Ks.

Having Air Force and Navy units flying the same aircraft, or similar variants with a high commonality between airframe components and mission systems, could help reduce logistics and other sustainment costs. It could potentially help offset any higher costs associated with operating a twin-engine versus a single engine design, as well.

Boeing and Dassault seem most poised to benefit from the changes to the competition's requirements. As noted already, India is already in talks to buy dozens of Rafales and the navalized version of aircraft has a well established service record of carrier operations with the French Navy...

This rebooted competition could upend the partnerships that both Lockheed Martin and Saab had announced with local firms as part of their bids for the existing contract. In June 2017, Lockheed Martin had announced a particularly attractive arrangement with Indian industrial consortium Tata, stating that if its F-16IN won it would establish a shared production line in the country to make the jets for the Indian Air Force and use that assembly line to build additional aircraft for export elsewhere [emphasis added]. It was also considering working with Tata to build F-16 components even if the contract fell through, though.

But whatever happens and whatever benefits there are to be had from reframing the competition, the Indian Air Force is unlikely to be thrilled at the prospect of having to wait at least two more years for the jets. The service first identified a requirement for nearly 130 modern fighters in 2001 [emphasis added]...
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18733/india-upends-its-single-engine-fighter-competition-and-will-also-consider-twin-engine-jets

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

ERC, do you think Canada could likely also do just as well without having anything to do with India, period?  I've been there, worked there, wouldn't want to do it again.  China is not so bad, really.

Is it possible that Trudeau went there for so long because he is running away from the issues at home, does it appear that he and his inner circle lack the competence to deal with substantially in manner that is in the best interests of the entire population.  Perhaps, to make it worthwhile, he have spoken with the government in India* about their experiences with legal use of cannabis over the post 4000 years, the "trip" (no pun intended) might have productive and the local garb more appropriate.   

The controversies about India are a heaven sent diversion for Trudeau helping him to avoid serious domestic governance.     
Agreed on all the rest though. 

* for an uncanny resemblance to the current Canadian government see the Wikipedia entry on the 1893 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission and the "... The report the Commission produced was at least 3,281 pages long, with testimony from almost 1,200 "doctors, coolies, yogis, fakirs, heads of lunatic asylums, bhang peasants, tax gatherers, smugglers, army officers, hemp dealers, ganja palace operators and the clergy."  Except for the clergy part, replace that with a 4 or 5 letter acronym or something with a #. 

My take, worth exactly what I'm charging you in consultant fees  : , is that Xi Jinping is taking China in directions that may not be in Canada's better interests, and that even if we do ~ as I think we should ~ make a free(er) trade deal with China, we still want India as a counterbalance. In fact, I think everyone wants India to counterbalance China and I don't think anyone else, maybe not even the USA, can do that.

The worst thing, for everyone, is a failing India; so it is in our interests to do what (relatively little) we can to help India grow and prosper and remain a stable democratic bulwark against Chinese ambitions in Asia.

I'm also serious when I guess that India might match and even overtake China in a quester century ... China has to wrestle with some domestic, traditional demons, just as India does, but India has some advantages ~ institutions ~  that China still needs to discover, let alone build.

I take your points that China, today, looks a lot better than India ... I haven't been to India for a decade and when I was there I was dealing with some, relatively, elite people who shared pretty much all of our North American/Western European outlooks and values. I have, in these pages, talked about my admiration for the Chinese school system but I was blown away by what I saw in a couple of India's technical universities.

My  :2c:

 

[MarkOttawa]

So Indian Air Force not looking at F-35A after all?

Not approached Lockheed Martin for buying US F-35 fighter jet: IAF chief BS Dhanoa
IAF Chief BS Dhanoa has said that no such request for procuring the American F-35 Lightning II aircraft has been made to the US.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has categorically rejected reports that it has approached global US defence contractor Lockheed Martin for a classified briefing on F-35 Lightning II muti-role fighter jets.

Reacting to reports, IAF Chief BS Dhanoa said that no such request for procuring the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II aircraft has been made to the US.

''Americans have not been officially approached for a briefing on the F-35, ''IAF Chief Dhanoa was quoted as saying by the Indian Express.

The clarification from Dhanoa came at a time when IAF is already down to 31 squadrons of fighter aircraft against an authorisation of 42.

In view of IAF's fast depleting fleet, the Centre is expected to go for a government-to-government deal to get the next set of fighters.

However, any decision on buying the next set of fighter jets will be taken only after considering several factors like financial considerations, especially when budgetary provisions are limited for any big-ticket procurement by the Defence Ministry.

The report also quoted sources as saying that the proposal to buy and make a single-engine fighter was taken two years back on multiple considerations, including its cost [emphasis added]

Importantly, the cost of a single-engine fighter is significantly lower than that of a double-engine fighter like Rafale.

Also, the cost of operating a single-engine fighter is much less than that of a double-engine fighter.

An early decision in this regard would have certainly come as a big relief to the IAF and helped it build up its fighter strength, along with the induction of HAL-built indigenous Tejas fighter aircraft.

The government later decided to scrap the proposal for a single-engine fighter because it felt that it would result in a single-vendor situation, which would not be acceptable in the current political environment...
http://zeenews.india.com/india/no-formal-request-made-to-us-for-buying-f-35-fighter-jet-iaf-chief-bs-dhanoa-2085496.html

Indian procurement really has a rather Canadian ring to it, eh?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on make-in-India Super Hornet in running for Indian Air Force fighter competition:

India eying Boeing's Super Hornet in latest twist to air force procurement

Boeing Co, considered the frontrunner in the race to supply the Indian navy with new fighter jets, is now in contention for a much bigger $15 billion order after the government abruptly asked the air force to consider the twin-engine planes.

Until recently, Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-16 and Saab AB’s Gripen were in a two-horse race supply at least 100 single-engine jets to build up the Indian Air Force’s fast-depleting combat fleet.

Both had offered to build the planes in India in collaboration with local companies as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s drive to build a domestic industrial base and cut back on arms imports.

But last month the government asked the air force to open up the competition to twin-engine aircraft and to evaluate Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, a defense ministry source said. That jet is a finalist for the Indian navy’s $8 billion to $9 billion contract for 57 fighters.

The defense ministry plans to within weeks issue a request for information (RFI), the first stage of a procurement process, for a fighter to be built in India. The competition will be open to both single and twin-engine jets, the official said, but both Lockheed and Saab said they had not been informed about the new requirements.

The latest change of heart is a major opportunity for Boeing, whose only foreign Super Hornet customer so far is the Royal Australian Air Force...

It also illustrates how dysfunctional the weapons procurement process and arms industry are in the world’s second-most-populous country [emphasis added]. The need for new fighters has been known for nearly 15 years, but after many announcements, twists and turns, the country’s air force has only three-quarters of the aircraft it needs...

France’s Dassault Systemes SE’s Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Russian aircraft are also potential contenders under the new requirements, the air force source and industry analysts said.

Admiral Harry Harris, the head of U.S. Pacific Command, told the U.S. House Armed Services Committee last month that India was considering the stealthy F-35, among other options. But the Indian air force said no request had been made to Lockheed for even a briefing on the aircraft[emphasis added]...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-boeing-analysis/india-eying-boeings-super-hornet-in-latest-twist-to-air-force-procurement-idUSKCN1GR081

One wonders how the speed of this process will compare with the RCAF's fighter farce.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile might not be a bright idea to get involved in a land fight with the PLA in, say, the Himalayas (pity our serving GoFos can't speak so frankly--along with the reports of our Commons' committees):

Indian Army says its equipment is obsolete and not ready for war
A series of deep budgetary cuts has eroded the Indian Army's war fighting capabilities, the Vice-Chief has told Parliament

In its direst warning to India’s Parliament yet, the Indian Army’s top brass stated that deep budgetary cuts have severely eroded its capabilities to fight a war.

“The budget of 2018-19 has dashed our hopes and most of what has been achieved has actually received a little setback,” Vice-Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Sarath Chand, told Parliament’s standing committee on defense.

His views have been published in the 42nd report of the standing committee, ironically headed by a Member of Parliament from the ruling Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) and an army veteran. Major General B. C. Khanduri, who retired from the army more than a decade ago, is a former minister and the Chief Minister of the state of Uttarakhand from the BJP. This report is the most strident criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s security polices and comes at a time when India faces dual challenges from China and Pakistan. The report was released on March 14.

The report focusses on the ‘capital budget’, which is meant for new acquisitions and the modernization of the Indian military. All three services – the Army, Navy and Air Force – present their cases to the Standing Committee twice a year, before Parliament approves the demand for grants. While the Standing Committee’s work is only recommendatory in nature, it is the only connection the military has to present its case to Parliament.

Shocking deficit

While the Indian Army has stated on record that 68% of its war fighting equipment is obsolete, the report has an even more disturbing fact. “Every year the military has to allocate a large part of its capital budget to pay for old and ongoing projects. This is known as the ‘Committed Liability.’ The actual amount left for new purchases is about 10% to 12%. But this year we have noticed that the Indian Army is actually facing a deficit,” a member of the committee told Asia Times on condition of anonymity. The budget, which was presented by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Feb. 1, has allocated less than even the ‘Committed Liability’ for past projects. “This is shocking,” the member said.

Former military chiefs agree that this has never happened before...
http://www.atimes.com/article/indian-army-says-equipment-obsolete-not-ready-war/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

And to add to Indian Air force (and maybe navy) fighter procurement confusion--is F-35 in fact in the picture after all?

U.S. Pacific Command Boss Mentions Potential Sale Of F-35 To India
It would be the first official statement regarding the U.S. potentially selling F-35s to India.

Just as India's once again hits the reset button on its premier fighter aircraft procurement program and becomes ever more disillusioned with Russia's 5th generation fighter offering, the head of U.S. Pacific Command has supposedly stated that he supports the sale of F-35s to India. This would be the first official admission that such a possibility is even on the table, although The War Zone has long suspected this would be the case.

First reported on by Stratpost.com, during a recent House Armed Services Committee hearing USPACOM boss Admiral Harry Harris Jr. is quotes as stating the following:

    “At the moment, India is considering a number of U.S. systems for purchase, all of which USPACOM fully supports: the F-16 for India’s large single-engine, multi-role fighter acquisition program; the F/A-18E for India’s multi-engine, carrier-based fighter purchase; a reorder of 12-15 P-8Is; a potential purchase of SeaGuardian UAS; MH-60R multi-role sea-based helicopter; and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter... 

    ...India will be among the U.S.’s most significant partners in the years to come due to its growing influence and expanding military. As a new generation of political leaders emerge, India has shown that it is more open to strengthening security ties with the U.S. and adjusting its historic policy of non-alignment to address common strategic interests. The U.S. seeks an enduring, regular, routine, and institutionalized strategic partnership with India. USPACOM identifies a security relationship with India as a major command line-of-effort...

    ...USPACOM will sustain the momentum of the strategic relationship generated by the POTUS-Prime Minister-level and the emerging 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue through strengthening our military-to-military relationship and working toward additional enabling agreements to enhance interoperability...

    ...Over the past year, U.S. and Indian militaries participated together in three major exercises, executed more than 50 other military exchanges, and operationalized the 2016 Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA). Defense sales are at an all-time high with India operating U.S.-sourced airframes, such as P-8s, C-130Js, C-17s, AH-64s, and CH-47s, and M777 howitzers.”

The potential confirmation comes after India has denied that they are interested in the F-35, or that they have been briefed directly on the program. But rumors of background talks about the possibility of purchasing the stealth fighter have persisted...

India's need for fighters that can operate from land and from ships, with catapults and without, could prove to make the F-35 especially enticing, as the Indian MoD could use all three variants in the coming years.

Obviously tight export controls would have to be part of any F-35 deal with India, and it is very unlikely that technology transfer or major industrial offsets would be included in a purchase. But India could buy other aircraft, even the F-16 Viper or F/A-18 Super Hornet, or something from another country, to accomplish those goals. So an F-35 purchase would be a longer-term strategic play, with the possibility of industrial offsets and technology transfer occurring much farther down the line...
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19268/u-s-pacific-command-boss-mentions-potential-sale-of-f-35-to-india-report

Crikey.  How many types of fighters might the Indians end up operating?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Lots here that might resonate with Canadians--excerpts:

India is more secure than we fear, and our political leaders are smarter than we concede
Politicians must be made to understand that defence expenditure is like an insurance premium on national security, so defence budget needs to be boosted.

The Army’s submission to the parliamentary standing committee on defence [see recent post] has brought public attention momentarily back to the narrative of “our defence budget is inadequate”. Sage analysts made the point that with so much of our defence equipment falling into the vintage category, India is certainly in no position to fight the two-front war that the armed forces have been directed to prepare for.

The question is: who thinks India will fight a two-front war?

Defence officers and security analysts do, as they should. The political leadership – past, present and, I dare say, future prime ministers – do not. In fact, going by their actions, you can conclude that they do not think national security is a big problem at all. Over and above the purely political task of winning elections and staying in power, the public issues they are more concerned about are jobs, subsidies and the implementation of social programmes [emphasis added]. Serious politicians across the board agree that achieving high economic growth is the primary national interest.

They believe the borders are reasonably secure, insurgencies are reasonably under control and India is, by and large, safe. Which is why prime ministers don’t meet the service chiefs regularly, care little about foreign intelligence reports, but pay attention to the political parts of domestic intelligence briefings.

At this point, if you are a defence officer or a security analyst, you are likely to say that the political leaders “don’t get it”. You are likely to look down on politicians for caring more about the next election than about the two-front war that you are concerned about.

But seriously, it is those who believe a person can get to the top of the political heap by being insensitive to real issues that need a strong reality check. P.V. Narasimha Rao, H.D. Deve Gowda, I.K. Gujral, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi might have different political styles and ideological persuasions, but every single one of them packed an astute, political sense of national priorities. Looking at the view from the very top, it is unlikely that they saw or see defence and national security as something to lose sleep over.

...Because political leaders aren’t too concerned about national security, our military capacity is falling short of what might be necessary to defend ourselves against potential threats in the future. Frequently, military officials and analysts try to draw attention to defence needs by showing how India is underprepared for a two-front war right now. But the prime minister doesn’t think this will come to pass, so he probably privately rolls his eyes when he hears this. It’s easier for him to use diplomacy to avoid getting into a situation that could escalate to a war, than invest political capital in military modernisation. The ghost of Bofors still haunts New Delhi.

So we need a new, different way of making the case for defence reform and bigger defence budgets. One way forward would be to impress on the political system that defence expenditure is like an insurance premium on national security — that it is best to buy insurance when we are young and healthy. You buy additional insurance for additional risks that might arise in the future. You must do whatever you can to stay healthy, but get adequate insurance to cover you in case something bad happens...

Nitin Pai is director of the Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy.
https://theprint.in/opinion/pm-modi-not-seem-concerned-two-front-war-may-good-news/42926/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Surprising--and could upset US quite a bit:

India ready to accommodate China in South Asia, but there's a red line China shouldn't cross: Report

(MENAFN - NewsIn.Asia) New Delhi, March 28 (Indian Express): A senior Indian government official told The Indian Express: 'The days when India believed that South Asia was its primary sphere of influence and that it could prevent other powers, such as China, from expanding its own clout are long gone.

'India cannot claim sole proprietorship of the region. We can't stop what the Chinese are doing, whether in the Maldives or in Nepal, but we can tell them about our sensitivities, our lines of legitimacy. If they cross it, the violation of this strategic trust will be upon Beijing.'

In its exclusive story, The India Express said: "India has told China it will not intervene in the Maldives but it expects China to reciprocate India's 'strategic trust' by not crossing certain 'lines of legitimacy.'

The two countries are sizing each other up in the aftermath of the Doklam crisis last year when they faced off on the Himalayan plateau.

'The days when India believed that South Asia was its primary sphere of influence and that it could prevent other powers, such as China, from expanding its own clout are long gone,' a senior government official told The Indian Express.

'India cannot claim sole proprietorship of the region. We can't stop what the Chinese are doing, whether in the Maldives or in Nepal, but we can tell them about our sensitivities, our lines of legitimacy. If they cross it, the violation of this strategic trust will be upon Beijing,' the official said.

Despite some harsh words about India during his election campaign and his overtures to China, the new Nepalese Prime Minister K.P.Oli is making his first foreign trip to India — and Delhi is taking some comfort on that score.

Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale is expected to travel to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh soon.

Sources said he will not go to the Maldives, despite Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen's messages of peace.

But the senior government official pointed out that the Doklam crisis is an opportunity for both India and China to re-evaluate each other, notwithstanding the widening economic differential between them.

Embarking on a 'reset' of its relationship with Beijing in the run-up to the meeting in June between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting — this includes tamping down of its public affection for of its public affection for the Dalai Lama as well as visits to Beijing by Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj in the coming weeks — it is clear that Delhi expects Beijing to reciprocate...
http://menafn.com/1096668661/India-ready-to-accommodate-China-in-South-Asia-but-theres-a-red-line-China-shouldnt-cross-Report

Very big hmmm.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Maybe a very severe Chinese reaction to the incident described in this tweet helps explain the apparent Indian back-down reported just above:
https://twitter.com/IndianInterest/status/978691671503376390

The Indian Interest
‏ @IndianInterest

STUNNING revelation: Around Feb. 22, Indian navy warned Chinese PLAN warships not to approach the Maldives, even fired warning shots, forcing the Chinese fleet to retreat.

Not a word about this in the Indian media!!

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Maldives-lifts-state-of-emergency-defusing-China-India-tensions
...
According to Indian government sources, China sent several vessels, including missile destroyers, near the Maldives, apparently in response to a Maldivian envoy's visit to Beijing on Feb. 7. Yameen has counted on China for support, including investment, which has proven controversial.

But around Feb. 22, when these ships were around 30 nautical miles from India's vessels, the Indian Navy threatened action -- a warning shot and "war drill" -- if they were to come within 20 nautical miles. The Chinese fleet retreated to the southeast, stopping in waters 276 nautical miles from the Maldivian capital of Male...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Great headline for our great rival in fighter procurement (note mission profile):

No Breaths Held, India Embarks On New Fighter Building Quest

The Indian government has taken the first step in its latest effort to buy and build new fighter jets in country. The government today published an expected global request for information (RFI), alerting aircraft manufacturers that include all of the six firms that competed for the erstwhile Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contest. The MMRCA, a contest for 126 fighter jets, collapsed without result, was scrapped and replaced with a 2016 contract for 36 Rafale jets. The new contest that tentatively begins today will see the Rafale tentatively compete once again against the five aircraft it faced off with in the MMRCA contest.

With the cancellation in February of India’s proposed single-engine fighter contest, this new prospective competition could pit single and twin engine jets once again at each other. The government stipulates that 85% of the 110 aircraft need to be built in India with a strategic partner, with a total of 75% of the aircraft to be single-seat jets [emphasis added].

To be sure, this RFI document is an all-too-familiar first baby step towards what promises to be a complicated process that remains bereft of clarity on the path forward. If you’re looking for the state of play amidst the mess of questions choking India’s endless effort to buy or build new fighter jets in the country, we said what we had to here. Probably reflecting the Indian government’s need to keep things open, the RFI is expectedly a broadstroked document with a few specifics. Sample this on the jet’s intended roles:

An interesting page in the RFI is this one that hasn’t figured in earlier documents released by the Indian Air Force, depicting desired performance parameters on a typical mission profile:

Expect the original pack of six that competed for the MMRCA to field their wares — albeit with variant tweaks — in this new prospective contest, that doesn’t yet have an official title. Boeing F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet, Lockheed-Martin F-16 Block 70, Saab Gripen E, Dassault Aviation Rafale F3R, United Aircraft Corp. MiG-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon. While the strategic partnership model makes it incumbent on competitors to lock relationships with Indian firms — and all of them have — it remains unclear if India’s state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. will be eligible for consideration as an Indian production partner.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/04/no-breaths-held-india-embarks-on-new-fighter-building-quest.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

They should just buy the F-35 or sell them the F-15.

 

[YZT580]

They would definitely not get in-country production or control of software with the F35.  SAAB offered them the best deal with all construction in India but they stalled out on that one.  They are the only country that seems to have more trouble than we do when buying something and that is saying something

 

[a_majoor]

India may be realigning itself with the West against China. Including Japan, Australia and India essentially makes exiting the First Island Chain, the Second Island Chain and transit through the Indian Ocean and the choke points like the Straights of Hormuz and the Straits of Malacca potentially much more difficult for China and the transport of raw materials and export goods to and from China in times of increasing tension:

https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20180410222444.aspx

The Indo-Pacific Quad Confronts China
by Austin Bay
April 10, 2018
U.S. Pacific Command still calls itself PACOM, but it appears INDO-PACOM -- India-Pacific Command -- might be the acronym of the future.

Pentagon and State Department studies now routinely refer to the "Indo-Pacific region," as do the defense and foreign policy papers authored by their counterparts in Japan and Australia.

"INDO" obviously contracts Indian Ocean, equivalent to "PAC." However, Chinese admirals in Beijing detect another implication: the huge nation that dominates that body of water -- India.

To paraphrase Shakespeare's Hamlet, (SET ITAL) aye, there's the rub. (END ITAL)

For China, India is a very large rub. The subcontinent dominates the Indian Ocean. China, seeking to assure a steady supply of raw materials and energy for its expanding economy, has invested heavily in Africa and the Middle East. Tankers carry oil from Sudan and freighters cobalt from Congo to China, passing through waters patrolled by the Indian Navy.

That's the result of long-standing geographic circumstances. However, in the last 25 years, other facts have changed.

As the Cold War faded, a cool aloofness continued to guide India's defense and foreign policies. Indian military forces would occasionally exercise with Singaporean and Australian units -- they'd been British colonies, too. Indian ultra-nationalists still rail about British colonialism, but the Aussies had fought shoulder to shoulder with Indians in North Africa, Italy, the Pacific and Southeast Asia, and suffered mistreatment by London toffs. Business deals with America and Japan? Sign the contracts. However, in defense agreements, New Delhi distanced itself from Washington and Tokyo.

The Nixon Administration's decision to support Pakistan in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War embittered India. Other issues hampered the U.S.-India relationship. Indian left-wing parties insisted their country was a "Third World leader" and America was hegemonic, etcetera.

However, in the last 12 to 15 years, India's assessments of its security threats have changed demonstrably, and China's expanding power and demonstrated willingness to use that power to acquire influence and territory are by far the biggest factors affecting India's shift.

In 2007, The Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue), at the behest of Japan, held its first informal meeting. The Quad's membership roll sends a diplomatic message: Japan, Australia, America and India. Japan pointed out all four nations regarded China as disruptive actor in the Indo-Pacific; they had common interests. Delhi downplayed the meeting, attempting to avoid the appearance of actively "countering China."

No more. The Quad nations now conduct naval exercises and sometimes include a quint, Singapore.

The 2016 Hague Arbitration Court decision provided the clearest indication of Chinese strategic belligerence. In 2012, Beijing claimed 85 percent of the South China Sea's 3.5 million square kilometers. The Philippines went to court. The Hague tribunal, relying on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea treaty, supported the Filipino position that China had seized sea features and islets and stolen resources. Beijing ignored the verdict and still refuses to explain how its claims meet UNCLOS requirements.

That is the maritime action. India and China also have mountain issues. In 1962, as the Cuban Missile Crisis diverted world attention, the two Asian giants fought the Indo-Chinese War in the Himalayas. China won. The defeat still riles India.

Armed incidents still occur in two sectors where the border is disputed. One is in the east, the India-Bhutan-China border "trijunction," and one in the west, near the junction of the China-Pakistan-India border.

By the way, China supports Pakistan in its nuclear-armed cold war with India. India says Chinese rhetoric vis-a-vis the Himalayan disputes echoes its intransigent positions regarding the South China Sea.

The Quad would be a fearsome foursome. The decision lies in New Delhi.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is all well and good for India to make temporary common cause with e.g. Australia, Japan and the USA to try to "contain" China but seems, to me, highly unlikely that India sees any of the other three "quad" members as anything more than useful "fair weather friends," to be used in a competition that may last for centuries.

India, like China and like the somewhat more amorphous West is one of the world's great "civilizations," as Sam Huntington used that word. India has an immense population, an ancient and sophisticated culture and, potentially, a bright future as a great power ~ at least a great regional power. That it bumps up against China, with an equally immense population and an equally impressive past and potential future, creates problems that can either be addressed productively, for both, or otherwise.

My own, very personal sense, is that India is still looking for its own, unique, place in the world order. It saw itself, fifty or sixty years ago as the leader of a non-aligned group of nations when America and the USSR led two antagonistic factions. At the time Indians, like Nehru and Menon, seemed bemused by China's alliance with Russia and, of course that alliance came apart and I doubt that the current Sino-Russian "friendship" and cooperation is anything more than tactical and transitory, at least in so far as Xi Jinping is concerned.

India and China must either work out a mutually acceptable modus vivendi or, eventually, fight it out to see who dominates the Indian Ocean. My guess is that neither Xi nor Modi thinks that war is an acceptable choice ... not in their lifetimes, anyway. Each sees his country as needing far more time and resources to accomplish their overarching strategic aims ... which might be more compatible than many analysts think.

My, again very personal assessment (wild guess may be a much better phrase), is that, for now, anyway, since about the year 2000, China's rise has been, largely, at America's expense and India has not been unhappy with that. India, like China, sees Asia as being for the Asians ~ Australia and New Zealand are harmless outposts of the liberal West and serve as a constant reminder of the notion that the West is not Asia's natural friend or ally. The West came to conquer and to colonize, not to cooperate.

India has a whole hockey sock full of problems ... but it is the world's greatest democracy. When, not if, in my opinion, it gets it's act together it will also be one of the world's great powers ... along with China and ...?