Commentary:Will the USS Kitty Hawk cement U.S.-India military ties?

Thanks largely to India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who shared with his leftwing British friends a dislike of the Yanks, the geopolitically senseless alienation between the United States and India continued for five decades after India's independence in 1947.

What seems finally to have convinced the British to leave India was the seepage of loyalty from the Indian component of the armed forces. More than 2 million Indians saw action on the Allied side during World War II. Yet during the war, their loyalty to the Crown was tested by the discriminatory treatment meted out to Indians in the services. British personnel dominated the higher reaches of the military and were given perquisites and privileges far beyond those enjoyed by Indians.

Several thousands of soldiers joined the pro-Axis Indian National Army during the war. Within the ranks of those who remained on the Allied side, there was visible sympathy for those Indian officers and men who switched sides and refused to fight for the British monarchy that denied them the privileges enjoyed by soldiers from the Australian, New Zealand, U.S. and Canadian complements. The possibility of widespread revolts within the armed forces concentrated minds in London and speeded up the withdrawal from India

During World War II, the Muslim League under M. A. Jinnah backed the Allies unreservedly, and was later rewarded with Pakistan, a Muslim state carved out of Hindu-majority India. Jinnah's effusive backing for the British was matched by his successors' similarly emollient line toward the United States. As a result, Washington joined London in regarding Pakistan as a reliable ally, in contrast to the "undependable" Indians -- a tilt that continued until 9/11.

Even as late as the 1990s, the U.S. was pressuring India to surrender the Kashmir valley to Pakistan. At the same time the Clinton administration was covertly backing the jihadi elements that finally took power in Kabul in 1996 as the Taliban. Interestingly, as yet the U.S. Congress has not opened an enquiry into the 1994-96 policies that resulted in Osama bin Laden's patrons being given charge of Afghanistan, with consequences that have been disastrous for international security.

Relentless U.S. and British pressure since the 1950s on the Kashmir issue, and lavish military and civilian help given to Pakistan, caused New Delhi to gravitate toward the Soviet Union. Even in its 1971-1977 heyday, however, the strategic relationship between New Delhi and Moscow never resulted in a single Soviet soldier coming to India for basing or training.

Nowadays the U.S. military routinely undertakes joint exercises and training sorties in India. Fear of international jihad and worries over a fast-developing Chinese military have made the United States and India de facto military allies.

However, within both countries strong lobbies are still at work to abort this alliance. Within the United States these anti-India groups have coalesced around two poles. The first comprises those who take a Euro-centric view of the world, seeing it in terms of the West and the Rest. Such individuals see little value in a full-fledged alliance with India that might divert focus from NATO. According to this school, the only core international partners of value to the United States in worldwide conflicts are the other NATO countries.

The other lobby hard at work within the United States to sabotage the India-U.S. military alliance comprises backers of the Pakistan army. Recent efforts by officers who seek to forge a comprehensive military relationship with India to offer the USS Kitty Hawk carrier to the Indian Navy -- as the USS Trenton was a few years ago -- seem to have foundered on opposition from pro-Pakistan and NATO-centric elements in the U.S. military. They see the move as potentially alienating the Pakistan military.

Such a transfer would link the United States and India in a military supply relationship that could lead to the displacement of Russia as the primary supplier to India of defense equipment. Yet both the NATO and Pakistan lobbies within the U.S. military are working overtime to scuttle the plan to offer the USS Kitty Hawk to the Indians.

Within India too there has been resistance to the induction of the USS Kitty Hawk. It comes from the segment within the Indian Navy that is in favor of Russian or French platforms, both being lucrative sources of patronage. Their efforts at downplaying the force multiplier effect of the U.S. carrier focus on its "obsolete" catapult technology and the expenses involved in a refit.

That their primary interest is to prevent a reversal of the Indian decision to induct the Russian carrier Gorshkov (now estimated to cost US$1.6 billion in place of the $500 million quoted earlier) is clear from the primary argument used against the U.S. naval vessel, which is the age of the four-decade-old ship. However, unlike the Gorshkov, which is unable to sail at all, the U.S. vessel is operational, and was recently in the news for its attempt to dock in Hong Kong over the Thanksgiving weekend.

The fear among those within the Indian defense establishment with financial ties to Russian and French defense suppliers is that acquisition of the USS Kitty Hawk would result in New Delhi purchasing U.S. aircraft for the carrier, and later for the air force, in place of Russian ones. As such purchases could amount to US$22 billion over the next five years, the stakes are substantial even in purely financial terms.

Eager to get India to pay an extra US$1.4 billion for the Russian carrier, the pro-Russia lobby in India has ignored the fact that the modified Kiev class aviation cruiser was earlier mothballed due to a collapse of its propulsion systems. After nearly $500 million was paid toward a refit by India, it has been pulled out for a very expensive refurbishment and rechristened the INS Vikramaditya. The effectiveness of the multidimensional firepower it could unleash after such a $1.9 billion refit is yet to be tested.

The French and Russian lobbies were alerted by the Indian Navy's procurement of the former USS Trenton LPD-14. This ship, rechristened the INS Jalashwa in 2006, has a long record of operational performance with the U.S. Navy's carrier and amphibious groups. The Indian Navy's amphibious expeditionary capabilities have been significantly enhanced with the Jalashwa, the induction of which has helped familiarize naval personnel with U.S. systems.

The Indian Navy will add at least another 45 vessels in the next decade to maintain a 140-ship navy for operations. The focus is to reinforce sea control and sea denial capability that spans the Persian Gulf to the China Seas. The induction of the USS Kitty Hawk could be the trigger for the switchover from Russian-French to U.S. platforms in first the navy and later the air force and the army.

Indeed, the Kitty Hawk was the lead carrier along with the USS Nimitz CVN 68 in the recently concluded Malabar 07-02 in the Bay of Bengal, which significantly enhanced interoperability between U.S. and Indian forces. If it beats back hostile lobbies in both the U.S. and India and is rescued from oblivion by joining the expanding Indian Navy, the USS Kitty Hawk may serve as a force multiplier in the U.S.-India defense relationship.

(Professor M.D. Nalapat is vice-chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and professor of geopolitics at Manipal University. ©Copyright M.D. Nalapat.)

Yes, blame it all on Nehru. It is not as though short-sightedness on the part of the United States, and our (their) view that if you are not with us you are against us in the war on communism, didn't lead to a decision to make an alliance with Pakistan and cut India adrift.

The only correct part of this is that this has made no sense. We are natural friends of India, sharing language, jurisprudence, and a belief in technological innovation as a positive benefit to society. But instead of wanting friends, we wanted bought and paid for sycophants.

Kitty Hawk would save time if not money. As for Gorshkov it may take a while before it think of hitting the waves. Moreover I have doubts about its performance-there may not be much difference between Gorshkov and Viraat. A lot of experts have described the Gorshkov as the “white elephant”. Why not spend more and get a real carrier?

Most of these Indian defense "analysts" are dumber than a sack of bricks and deluded by their self importance to boot.

All of this theorizing (more accurately conspiracyizing) is just dancing around the two simple facts that put to rest his entire arguement. One, the U.S. has not offered the Kitty Hawk for sale nor will it. Two, India cannot afford to pay for the overhaul and operation of the Kitty Hawk and it's airwing nor does it even have the capability to operate it. Keep in mind that the Indian Navy budget is a little more than 3 Billion USD as of 2006, in comparison the US Navy is operating on over 130 Billion. Overhauling the Kitty Hawk will cost billions and it will cost that and again some in operating cost for it's remaining life cycle. To purchase the Kitty Hawk, the Indian Navy would be required to jettison it's procurement policy for the next decade or more throwing long term plans into complete disarray. Furthermore the ship will require over 4000 additional highly specialized sailors which do not spring forth from nowhere in no time. Not to mention the additional land based support elements and and miscellaneous costs that always emerge in large projects. Purchasing and refitting the Gorshkov was a big enough mistake as is, repeating it on a grander scale with the Kitty Hawk would be just stupid.

Well,both the Rafale & Mig-35 are also competing for the MRCA contract,which is for the IAF.The Rafale already has a carrier variant(& is lighter than the Super Hornet) & systems from the 35 can be used on the Mig-29K.Infact the Rafale M was favoured over the Mig-29K initially for the Gorshkov.So the carrier angle cannot be used here,unless ofcourse the Indian navy was also slated to get new aircraft under the contract-which is unlikely as of now.

Nobody’s doubting that it is a great platform,but why would the Indian Navy want it(those are air forces you have cited) & that too without a carrier???The Indian Navy has always operated a very small air arm from which it needs to get the maximum.The Hornet variants are both short on range for a shore based role unlike the SU-30 or F-15E.

For once,I am in agreement with Cmdjing says!!While the Hawk is a bigger & better ship than the Gorshkov,there are serious drawbacks to the idea.One is that it will start acting like the Viraat is now within 15 years.The Gorshkov may not be any better,but it’s 20 years younger & unused.Then there is the whole question of expanding support facilities in the Navy as well as training additional crews.The Gorshkov will still have a crew half the size of that found on the KittyHawk-it takes years to train up such personnel-so the Kitty would not essentially be 100 percent fit to go into combat.

Umm,As far as I know the countries which have cooperated with India on aerial refuelling was Britain(leased VC-10s a decade ago) & ofcourse the Russians(IL-78 tankers) & Israel(refuelling systems)-I don’t see much overt US involvement in all this.

I think it was an article in the Air Force Times that mentioned a big exercise involving USAF and India Air Force aircraft and some long-range refueling exercises over the Pacific. India is also going to be participating in Red Flag next year (they have already worked with the US and Britain in past wargames but the move to have them involved in Red Flag in a larger role is important).

In addition to the half-dozen Il-76 Russian tankers they already have, they are looking to expand their capabilities quite a bit and the US is trying to sell them on using US aircraft as their tankers.

As a matter of fact, even though the IAF just signed a deal with Russia for some new transport aircraft, this past summer they also inked a deal with the US to buy some fancy new C-130Js. The Indian Air Force Chief of Staff has also made it clear that future fighters need to have aerial refueling capabilities.

Even though the C-130Js are to be used for Indian special operations, the door is now open for the US, so hopefully some American companies can get in on India's military expansion. They've been upping their military buying almost in the double digits every year for several years now.

India will most certainly want to up it’s aerial refuelling capabilities,but the IL-78s are new(less than 5 years old,IIRC) & the IL-76 has been serving in India for 2 decades.So infrastructure won’t be a problem.About US products,well if the USAF is considering a European aircraft(the KC-30),you can’t push others to choose an American design!!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.