Rafale Wins MMRCA Bid

[Oracle]

I want to understand one thing. What strings does the US defense equipment come attached with? Stitch, you say that it might get downgraded from US Mil specs, which I think is fine, as I don't see US and India going to war against each other, not now, not in the foreseeable future. What other things?

If India does buy US jets then,

#1. Indian armed forces cannot use them against Pakistan in case of a war?
#2. Indian armed forces cannot use them against an US ally (Pakistan or others)?

IN already uses Boeing's P-8I, with AGM-84L Harpoon Block II Missiles and Mk 54 All-Up-Round Lightweight Torpedoes. And, mind you, India is the first customer of the P-8, and right now only USN & IN uses those. As per wiki, the P-8I features two major components not fitted on the P-8A, a Telephonics APS-143 OceanEye aft radar and a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD), which is complimented by (BEL) Data Link II communications, which allows it to exchange tactical data between Indian Navy aircraft, ships and shore establishments. What else?

[citanon]

Indian forces can use them against whoever they wish until the spare parts run out. :)

[Stitch]

I want to understand one thing. What strings does the US defense equipment come attached with?

It's mostly a TOT (transfer-of-technology) thing; some of the components in the radar systems and engines may be militarily sensitive (i.e.: we don't want other countries trying to figure out how we're able to make certain things, like the silicon carbide CMC turbine blades in the F414, or the semiconductor chips in the AN/APG-79), so companies (like Boeing) might insist that as part of the sales contract, only THEIR technicians can work on sensitive systems, like the engines and the radar, in order to protect their technology lead in those areas. The US military even does this with a lot of the newer weapons systems they have; for one thing, there simply isn't enough time to train an AD in all of the intricacies and technology involved in a 5th-gen gas turbine, or an AT on a fairly advanced radar system like the AESA AN/APG-79.

[Oracle]

Indian forces can use them against whoever they wish until the spare parts run out. :)

Ah! Then that is exactly the attitude on part of the US administration that is not helping. Which is probably why India went to Israel & France for supplies during the Kargil war, and is still keen on buying stuff from them, however costly. On one hand US arms the Pakistanis and showers them with billions of dollars in aid, knowing well against which country those would be used, and on the other they want to sell us Military hardware and have us by the balls. Until policy and it's makers change in Washington, and the attitude too, there is no need of buying US hardware that comes with such stupid strings. And just to make sure, there should be a clause on the contract for continuous supply of spares even in times of war against an US ally.

[Oracle]

It's mostly a TOT (transfer-of-technology) thing; some of the components in the radar systems and engines may be militarily sensitive (i.e.: we don't want other countries trying to figure out how we're able to make certain things, like the silicon carbide CMC turbine blades in the F414, or the semiconductor chips in the AN/APG-79), so companies (like Boeing) might insist that as part of the sales contract, only THEIR technicians can work on sensitive systems, like the engines and the radar, in order to protect their technology lead in those areas. The US military even does this with a lot of the newer weapons systems they have; for one thing, there simply isn't enough time to train an AD in all of the intricacies and technology involved in a 5th-gen gas turbine, or an AT on a fairly advanced radar system like the AESA AN/APG-79.

That I think should be fine. If I build a product, I wouldn't sell the source code to anyone. I will protect the IP rights. What about citanon's post?

[SteveDaPirate]

And just to make sure, there should be a clause on the contract for continuous supply of spares even in times of war against an US ally.

Would such a clause be worth the paper it was written on? I certainly don't see the French abiding by such an agreement.

During the Falklands war, the French quit supplying Exocets not only to Argentina, but even countries on the international market like Peru that might resell them to Argentina. Not only that, they gave British intelligence the missile codes and homing radar for the Exocet after the Sheffield was hit.

[Oracle]

Would such a clause be worth the paper it was written on? I certainly don't see the French abiding by such an agreement.

During the Falklands war, the French quit supplying Exocets not only to Argentina, but even countries on the international market like Peru that might resell them to Argentina. Not only that, they gave British intelligence the missile codes and homing radar for the Exocet after the Sheffield was hit.

That was then, this is now. There is no way Argentina then, or now is worth France the trouble. The same goes for US w.r.t Pakistan. Strategic interests, my friend. What is the use of being the sole superpower? Call a spade a spade, and build allies on mutual benefit and shared principles.

One more thing, I thought about it, and I do not agree with citanon's post. India would never buy US hardware if it doesn't come with the guarantee of spares in times of war. And the military relationship with US is on the upgrade, not only army/naval/air-force exercises, but by sales too. Chinook/Apaches are on order, and so would be the US Howitzers.

[bolo121]

That was then, this is now. There is no way Argentina then, or now is worth France the trouble. The same goes for US w.r.t Pakistan. Strategic interests, my friend. What is the use of being the sole superpower? Call a spade a spade, and build allies on mutual benefit and shared principles.

One more thing, I thought about it, and I do not agree with citanon's post. India would never buy US hardware if it doesn't come with the guarantee of spares in times of war. And the military relationship with US is on the upgrade, not only army/naval/air-force exercises, but by sales too. Chinook/Apaches are on order, and so would be the US Howitzers.

I dunno, the US is a pretty weak reed to cling to nowadays. A very apropos article from the economist.
The 70-year itch
America struggles to maintain its credibility as the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific
If push comes to shove America will always put her interest first, whether supporting pakistan or not annoying China

America needs to get serious and stop kissing the pustulent arses of Big Pharma and also junk their disgusting IP rights section.
Maybe then TPP might have ghost of a chance. As it is it just tramples on the small guys and makes China laugh a lot.
Fxxx the companies, just for one grow a pair and put the nation first.

[Stitch]

One more thing, I thought about it, and I do not agree with citanon's post. India would never buy US hardware if it doesn't come with the guarantee of spares in times of war.

Which may be EXACTLY why the US can't/won't sell high-end tech to India; the US Gov't may require that we stop supplying materiel/tech support to India if they should ever go to war with Pakistan again, which is the most likely scenario for using US-supplied weapons.

And the military relationship with US is on the upgrade, not only army/naval/air-force exercises, but by sales too. Chinook/Apaches are on order, and so would be the US Howitzers.

And don't forget the ten C-17's that the IAF bought from the US.

[SteveDaPirate]

That was then, this is now. There is no way Argentina then, or now is worth France the trouble.

The French decided that their relationship with the UK was more important to maintain than keeping Argentina as a customer. The example shows that national interests trump mere sales opportunities and as far as I'm concerned they always will. I doubt any foreign weapons supplier will guarantee future sales and support if doing so would jeopardize their national interests. That kind of logic hasn't changed from from the 1980s until now.

The thing is, maintaining a strong positive relationship with India isn't really crucial to any of her potential weapons suppliers. Israel, France, US, and Russia all consider India important as a counterweight to China, but that that is certainly less crucial to them than maintaining close ties with their longstanding allies and neighbors. Can you really imagine Russia continuing to sell weapons to someone attacking Kazakhstan?

[Oracle]

I dunno, the US is a pretty weak reed to cling to nowadays. A very apropos article from the economist.
The 70-year itch
America struggles to maintain its credibility as the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific
If push comes to shove America will always put her interest first, whether supporting pakistan or not annoying China

America needs to get serious and stop kissing the pustulent arses of Big Pharma and also junk their disgusting IP rights section.
Maybe then TPP might have ghost of a chance. As it is it just tramples on the small guys and makes China laugh a lot.
Fxxx the companies, just for one grow a pair and put the nation first.

Well, I'm an optimist, I see fertilizer in a shitpool. :-)
Trade is a different thing, however I'm not really convinced that India would buy US hardware without any guarantees. I do not.

Which may be EXACTLY why the US can't/won't sell high-end tech to India; the US Gov't may require that we stop supplying materiel/tech support to India if they should ever go to war with Pakistan again, which is the most likely scenario for using US-supplied weapons.

Fine, no one is asking the source code for the F-22s (even Britain was denied). But again, I'm not convinced. What is the use of buying US weapons that cannot be used in times of emergency. The people will kick the Government out in a day. And while we are there, why this bending over and giving it free to the Paks?

And don't forget the ten C-17's that the IAF bought from the US.

You forgot the C-130Js. :-)

The French decided that their relationship with the UK was more important to maintain than keeping Argentina as a customer. The example shows that national interests trump mere sales opportunities and as far as I'm concerned they always will. I doubt any foreign weapons supplier will guarantee future sales and support if doing so would jeopardize their national interests. That kind of logic hasn't changed from from the 1980s until now.

The thing is, maintaining a strong positive relationship with India isn't really crucial to any of her potential weapons suppliers. Israel, France, US, and Russia all consider India important as a counterweight to China, but that that is certainly less crucial to them than maintaining close ties with their longstanding allies and neighbors. Can you really imagine Russia continuing to sell weapons to someone attacking Kazakhstan?

How/Why is Pakistan that important? I understand the past, so kindly give me a brief from, say, 2017 onward. All I can see is a perilous habit of some people in Washington putting their money on the wrong horse.

[SteveDaPirate]

How/Why is Pakistan that important? I understand the past, so kindly give me a brief from, say, 2017 onward. All I can see is a perilous habit of some people in Washington putting their money on the wrong horse.

The US considers international terrorist organizations an ongoing threat, and it just so happens that some of the biggest happen to be in and around Pakistan. It's proximity to Afghanistan and Iran make it a valuable location for the CIA/USAF in their prosecution of said terrorist organizations or in the event of a conflict with Iran should the détente fail.

Despite those ongoing reasons for Washington to stay involved with Pakistan, that support would dry up in a hurry if Pakistan decides to do something that really pisses off the US. In fact, support for Pakistan has not been constant, and in 1990 the US congress passed an amendment to suspend support to Pakistan and place them under an arms embargo due to their nuclear program. This even included impounding brand new F-16s that Pakistan had already bought and were just rolling off the assembly line.

It just so happens, the Pakistanis were so desperate to update their Air Force in light of the US embargo that they turned to the French and entered talks to buy Dassault Mirages. Sound a bit familiar?

US military aid and sales to Pakistan resumed either as a bargain or a thank you for their contributions in the "War on Terror" and included releasing the F-16s that had been held up in the US and proceeding with modernizing the Pakistani Air Force.

Arms sales are always dictated by the whims of national policy. Pakistan certainly doesn't get a free ride in that regard, and if relations with the US decline again, ( which wouldn't surprise me) she'll have to get her toys elsewhere.

I personally think the US has the right idea in increasing ties with India both as a counterbalance balance to China and as a fellow democracy, but Pakistan, however distasteful her government may be, still has its uses going forward.

[bolo121]

the us considers international terrorist organizations an ongoing threat, and it just so happens that the biggest happens to be pakistan.

ftfy

[SteveDaPirate]

What is the use of buying US weapons that cannot be used in times of emergency. The people will kick the Government out in a day.

Arms sales are a risk to both parties really. The seller is taking the risk that the buyer will use those weapons in a way that harms the seller's interests or end up in the hands of someone else entirely. Meanwhile the buyer is taking the risk that support and supply for arms already purchased will dry up if relations between the parties take a dive.

There are a couple of ways to manage the risk as a buyer however.

• One is to buy enough arms and spares to be able to have enough supplies on hand to continue to operate them for quite some time even if the source dries up.
• Another is to develop a domestic industry capable of producing spares for the normal components and slowly cannibalizing for the parts that are unable to be replicated. (Iran managed to keep F-14s going a long time this way without US resupply)
• Finally, you can buy from suppliers you are confident of maintaining good relations with going forward.

In the case of India, buying Sukhois and Pak FAs are fine if relations with Russia are maintained. If India has plans to attack Kazakhstan in the future, she better be prepared to support those aircraft on her own or start stocking up on supplies now. The same situation applies to the US, France or whoever.

The ONLY way to fully insulate arms supplies from national relations is to build them yourself. That will likely mean making tradeoffs in quality, price, and procurement time and involves significant domestic hurdles as HAL has demonstrated.

[anil]

I understand the past

Then also understand that you cannot go back in time and change the past