Posted on 04/28/2011 10:23:14 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Fighter jet rebuff, Roemer exit, signal US-India distance
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN |
Apr 28, 2011, 09.58pm IST
WASHINGTON: In an alphabet soup of acronyms that spell informal diplomatic tie-ups featuring India, there's the newbie BRICS, the neighbourhood SAARC, the spread-out IBSA, the under-stated BIMSTEC, the formidable ASEAN, and the hoary NAM, not to speak of the various Gs that have nothing to do with spectrum: from G-77 to G-20. But there's one big association that has repeatedly failed to live up to promise for much of this decade: Indo-US.
On Thursday, the emerging alliance was dealt a significant blow when New Delhi rejected two American firms from a massive jet aircraft deal while pencilling in two European firms for final selection.
There was dismay in Washington at the decision, particularly since the Obama administration and proponents for a strong U.S-India strategic alliance had invested much energy in lobbying for the two American fighter jets - from Lockheed Martin and Boeing - which were in the race.
"There is an acute sense of disappointment in the US Government about this decision," said Ashley Tellis, a Carnegie Endowment scholar who authored a 140-page report titled "Dogfight" on the India's Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) decision. "As best I can tell, the downselect was made entirely on the basis of the technical evaluations - the cost of the aircraft or the strategic considerations did not enter into the picture."
Indeed, Tellis, who was also a key figure in the U.S-India civilian nuclear deal, had indicated in his study that the Eurofighter, one of the two finalists, would edge to the top of the list in terms of overall sophistication. But, he had argued, "having an American airplane in the IAF livery would simply be transformative for bilateral defence relations and it would send an important signal about the changing geopolitical dynamics in South Asia." U.S officials, from President Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Ambassador Tim Roemer in New Delhi, had sent out the similar messages. The Americans were also keen on the deal as an export factor which would help job creation at home.
But New Delhi, suddenly in thrall of strengthening ties with BRICS and the European Union, remained cool to U.S entreaties even as the warmth of the Obama visit appears to have faded quickly. Evidently, the MRCA decision, as Tellis told ToI in an email, was largely made on technical metrics at the expense of strategic considerations. Enjoy life conditioning by LG
"The IAF, which is a fighter force, chose a fighter pilot's fighter: airplanes that are hot rods," Tellis explained, adding what this leaves India with now is a choice between two "incredibly expensive" fourth-generation jets ($85million + for the Rafale and the $125million+ for the Eurofighter by his estimates). If India goes with the former, it will end up literally bailing out Dassault which has not sold a single Rafale abroad yet, he added.
Expectedly, proponents of the use of the MRCA decision as a strategic choice are pillorying New Delhi's call. "The UPA government's decision to reject both American proposals, of the F-16 and F/A-18, demonstrates either a poor appreciation of the geostrategic aspect or worse, indicative of a lingering anti-American mindset," said Nitin Pai, a Fellow at the Takshashila Foundation. "This move will most certainly reduce India's geopolitical leverage with the US military-industrial complex, at a time when India needs it most."
Pai, who also edits the journal Pragati, the Indian National Interest Review, maintained that India was being "gratuitously generous" to Europe, where Italy had blocked India's UNSC candidature and other smaller countries had tried to wreck the U.S-India nuclear deal. "Not buying fighter aircraft from a US supplier is strategic stupidity of enormous proportions," he added, while mockingly asking whether "Europeans will use their non-declining global superpower in support of India in AfPak, East Asia, UNSC etc."
For their part, the arms companies have played it cool, aware that there is yet more than $ 100 billion at stake as India modernizes its military. Boeing, whose F-18 Super Hornet lost out in the MRCA deal, still has its heavy lift helicopters Apache and Chinook in play in a separate deal, having already won contracts for heavy lift transport planes. "We are obviously disappointed with this outcome. We believe we offered the Indian Air Force a fully compliant and best-value multi-role aircraft for the defined mission," the company said in a statement, adding, "We will continue to look for opportunities to help India modernize its armed services and enhance its aerospace industry."
Tellis too suggested both sides should look forward without rancor. "Whatever India goes with, I hope the commercial negotiations are concluded quickly and that the chosen fighter enters the force soon - IAF force structure will simply dissolve without the MRCA and the LCA," he warned.
The larger question though is whether the MRCA set-back to Washington will affect the broader U.S-India relations, which have been frequently bedevilled by trade spats and strategic misperceptions. Already, Washington is fuming about New Delhi not keeping its end of the nuclear deal bargain. The annual strategic dialogue between the two sides scheduled for April had to be deferred ostensibly because of regional elections in India, but some analysts have suggested that it was because of the nuke deal screw-up and the impending MRCA rebuff. The sudden resignation of U.S ambassador to India Timothy Roemer, coming within hours of the MRCA decision being made public, is also seen as a setback although Tellis believes it is not linked to the MRCA call.
Amid all this, the regional environment is getting increasingly complex with a toxic Pakistan upping the ante with Washington and demanding India's downsizing in Afghanistan as price for its cooperation. U.S Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman headed out to New Delhi last night on the first leg of his trip to the region where more than Af-Pak is at stake.
It was just like Obama lobbying for the Chicago Olympics. Epic fail.
I wonder if the engines for the Indian war ships are still on hold? Obama seemed to not want to send them and perhaps the Indians saw the writing on the wall.
I think there is some overflow concerning Obama’s willingness to stop the sale of those garden variety marine engines to India.
does the fact that both aircraft (f-16 and f-18) were designed in the late 60’s and early 70’s come into play???
Nope, that was essentially a bureaucratic review which was blown out of proportion by the media and other usual supporters (read Russian/Euro lobbies).
The Super Hornet is a much newer aircraft; in terms of age, its newer than the Rafale and the Eurofighter. If anything the US products are more mature and less expensive.
I think the issue was one of growth potential as well as possible technology restrictions. The F-35 will replace the F-16 and the Super Hornet was newer very agile in the first place. There’s plenty on FR about it.
Thanks, I did not know that they had been ok’d to receive the engines. It seemed a bit overblown but I couldn’t tell whether it was the press or the beaurocracy that was over blowing it.
When you refer to the agility of the SuperHornet, are you referring to the “wing drop” problem?
Super Hornet and F-35 are both whizzy on electronics,, but slow in both to speed and acceleration. Original F/A 18 can out turn, out run, and run a super hornet out of gas. Considering that India might need to defeat hot rods from Russia, its always nice to be fastest,,, lets you decide when the fight is over.
Electronics can be installed on a fast airframe,,, and that fast approaching day us when not to be in an F-35 or a super hornet. Both planes are nothing more than a statement that we are willing to coast on the skill of our pilots,,,, but the machines are slow.
Nope, I think that’s fixed. The usual complaints against the type has to do with its turn rate and transonic acceleration. There have been many discussions on that on FR itself.
’ We offered the IAF a fully compliant and best value multirole aircraft for the defined mission’
Translation,,,, we offered them Ford Tauruses,, and they are now debating between a 5 series BMW and a mid size Lexus,,,,, as we stand there complaining that they aren’t respecting our alliance by buying the adequate Taurus.
good point about technology restrictions, France was very willing to fall with Brazil in that arena.
And what happens when China balks at Europe and threatens some action if the sale of Eurofighters goes through?
Once again Sarkosy brings home the bacon to Paris. Would that Obama was as good a salesman.
Worst case scenario, the Europeans react the way the US has with Taiwan’s request for F-16s.
Or realistically, the Chinese will push harder for the lifting of the EU arms embargo. Like they did with demanding Russia supply more advanced equipment.
India disses and backstabs the US at BRICS meetings. I am not surprised.They sided with the soviets in the cold war and they have a ton of muslims in their population. Enjoy your euro planes. If china takes more of your territory and kicks your ass again go ask them for help. The US is tired of the world and its double standards against us.
Yawn and what exactly is BRICS-a term coined by an journalist? About backstabbing the US, US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are doing a great job at that. Not much India or anyone else can contribute to that.
If China takes US weaponry sold to Pakistan, like they have been doing, who does Washington go to??
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.