India and Russia going to sign biggest-ever defence deal worth $ 35 billion

NEW DELHI: India's quest for a futuristic stealth fifth-generation fighter, which will see the country spend around $35 billion over the next 20 years in its biggest-ever defence project, has zoomed into the decisive phase now.

India and Russia are getting all set to ink the full and final design or R&D phase contract for the 5th Gen fighter by this year-end or early-2013, say sources. It will again underline India's firm rejection of the US offer of its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) or the F-35 'Lightning-II'.

Ahead of the R&D contract, under which India wants to induct over 200 stealth fighters from 2022 onwards, a senior team of Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) engineers and IAF experts is going to Russia within a fortnight to ensure that the "full documentation and other work" of the earlier preliminary design contract (PDC) has been completed.

During his visit to Moscow last week, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne reviewed the performance of the 5th Gen fighter, called Sukhoi T-50.

While the Indian fighter will primarily be based on the T-50, it will be tweaked to IAF requirements.

India had inked the $295 million PDC with Russia in December, 2010. The R&D contract on the anvil is pegged at $11 billion, with India and Russia chipping in with $5.5 billion each.

"The three Russian T-50 prototypes have flown around 180 sorties till now. HAL's Ozar facility at Nashik will get three prototypes in 2014, 2017 and 2019...they will be flown by IAF test pilots," said a source.

"Russia has already given the draft R&D contract to us. It will include the cost of designing, infrastructure build-up at Ozar, prototype development and flight testing. So, India will have scientists and test pilots based both in Russia and Ozar during the R&D phase up to 2019. HAL will subsequently begin manufacturing the fighters," he added.

Interestingly, after first specifying the requirement for at least 166 single-seat and 48 twin-seat of these 5th Gen fighters, India is veering around to the view that it will go in for only single-cockpit jets now.

"Both F-35 and T-50 are single-seaters. A second cockpit will compromise the stealth capabilities by at least 15% apart from adding to the weight and reducing fuel capacity. Moreover, R&D costs could go up by another $2 billion for the twin-seater," he said.

As a critical interim measure and confronted with a declining number of fighter squadrons, IAF also wants the almost $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to acquire 126 French Rafale fighters to be sealed within this fiscal.

Nations are obliged to look to their interests first, not their sympathies. Although the US and India are more than friends, they are less than allies. With the US denying key first tier arms and technologies even to its closest allies, it cannot be expected to provide them to India, which is not an ally.

The key consideration is whether India's arms procurement practices and strategies serve India's interests. I submit that delays, corruption, poor planning and management, and over reaching have squandered time and resources and diminished India's military strength and her security as a nation.

Coming from an American, this claim seems to offend you. I urge you to take that out of consideration by running a Google search with the terms +India +military +corruption and focusing on Indian and other non-US sources. Note the many courageous military officers, journalists, and civilian reformers who address the corruption issue.

More broadly, with the same method, take a critical look at India's national security strategy and whether its military procurement effort actually serves India's interests as well as it should. I submit that India's lack of adequate modern weapons today means that she should seek to procure them and put them into service as soon as possible instead of in the extended time frames that joint development projects with Russia imply.

Otherwise, it seems likely that a militarily weak India will one day need to call Washington for essential help at a decisive moment. I prefer for the sake of both countries that such a day never arrives.

The argument here isn't about sympathies. Its about which country has the best reputation as the most reliable supplier of weapons and technologies. Let alone denying key first tier technologies, India was under a 30 years arms and technology embargo even while US passed on hi tech weapons to both Pakistan and China. Those embargoes have only been slightly eased under Bush administration. The relationship India has with Russia, France and even Israel isn't likely to be replaced by US unless there is something extraordinary happening.

Delays, corruption, poor planning, management in the area or defense isnt unique to India. You and I both know even a country like US has a fair share of similar problems. You only need to look at your own F-35 delays and biblical cost overruns. Also read about Royal Navy's strategic disaster with Harriers replacement with F-35 JSF program.

And running a Google search means nothing. All you will get is random sound bytes. I follow Indian defense new very closely and much of the stink raised by vested interests over Indian procurement policies are just pure garbage.

Americans like you blindly assume that when it is India, everything is corrupt. Fact is quite the opposite, in recent times India's procurement policies have been the most transparent and corruption free. Ever since the Bofors scandal killed the Rajiv Gandhi government, successive governments have been extremely cautious and transparent with their procurement policies. And that is one of the major reasons for the massive delays in defense acquisition.

A major element of future defense modernization is indigenisation of production and design of defense equipment alongside JVs with close allies. And that's the trajectory India has rightly chosen. And yes there will be ample problems with delays, poor planning and cost overruns. It is expected and India will just have to work through those issues. Most of the JVs with Israel and some of the JVs with Russia such as Brahmos, Su-30MKIs and nuclear submarine development have been some of the most successful ventures.

Either ways, none of the above issues will likely be addressed by hastily expediting defense procurement process and buying extremely expensive and downgraded equipment from America whose reputation as a reliable supplier is kinda sketchy. That way you only end up being paper tiger like Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, South Korea or any of the European countries (all US allies). None have any real strength to fight their enemies let alone take on global heavyweight.

India on the other hand, even with corruption and delays has REAL military power unlike ANY of the so-called "US allies".

Suppose, for example, that a botched coup leads to civil disorder in Pakistan. Who is better prepared to use persuasion and force to assure that several Pakistani nukes do not get into the hands of Islamic terrorists intending to use them on India? India, or the US?

Whatever India's military capabilities may be for such a crisis, as the Bin Laden raid demonstrates, those of the US are far more substantial than those of India. In fact, India does not even have the Chinook and Apache helicopters used on that raid or any equivalents, let alone the ancillary equipment and men trained and ready for deep incursions into hostile territory.

By spending a lot of money in opaque ways, after ten or twenty years, India might develop and produce the needed military equipment through indigenous manufacturing -- assuming that is, the Americans or Europeans or Israelis can be persuaded to provide the technology.

As best as I can tell, India's strategy for dealing with a major crisis with Pakistan is to engage US mediation by threatening war, a war that would almost certainly soon become a nuclear war. Except for US intervention, that very nearly happened after the Mumbai attacks.

Call me an opinionated American if you will, but India being strong enough to avert a nuclear war with Pakistan seems to be in India's interest. Among other things, that requires that India have a robust ability to monitor and defend her borders and lands against Pakistani terrorism -- and that India have the ability to do this as soon as possible, not on the vague, extended time frames used in India's arms indigenization program.

Logically, that means India needs to purchase military equipment from foreign suppliers and get it into the hands of her armed forces on an expedited basis. If not, in the event of an emergency, I am sure that India's Foreign Ministry knows how to reach the US State Department. For the sake of Mumbai, the rest of India, and the world, I hope that the US and India and their relationship -- more than friends, less than allies -- are able to bring any such crisis to a successful resolution.

If Pakistan goes out of control right now, US military would be the first target not India. You would be more worried about your own supply lines and safety of your men who would be stranded in Afghanistan, then worry about India-Pak squabble. You would be more in need of Indian help then India in need of yours. Ironically India-Pak stuff has actually cooled off at the moment because of US-Pak drama right now.

And if you know anything about Indian foreign policy, India vehemently opposes any third party mediation, especially US mediation.......(all said and done there are still some trust issues). India goes to Washington only to tell US to muzzle up her dog that's all.

American options currently with Pakistan are already very limited and if Pakistan goes out of control then you actually have none despite all your political and military resources. You would have to simply work out a strategy with India. Bush government recognized this problem early on and hence decide to get closer with India.

As for the Bin Laden raid, I highly doubt US pulled it off with just Chinooks and Apaches. Somewhere somehow Pakistan Army was part of this. Even though most of Pakistan's air defense is concentrated on the eastern side it would still not have been a cake walk for Apaches to fly in unopposed. And lucky for the US, it is geographically isolated from any threat of retaliation from Pakistan. Its not something India can enjoy even with substantial military capability.

Secondly India has over 600 military helicopters (including Mi-17V,Mi26, Mi35 and Hal Dhruvs). NONE of US allies have that many. The RAF may have a few Chinooks but still nothing on India. A few Chinooks and Apaches that India may buy will help replace India's aging fleet but wont add anything substantial to change the paradigm of Indian military doctrine/tactics against Pakistan.

As for a broader counter insurgency role, I think India has actually gained more experience and fared better then US. In Kashmir where India for decades faced the same enemy Russians faced in the past and Americans are facing at present, terrorist insurgency has been reduced to near zero. There isn't an inch of Indian territory that India has lost control to Mujaheddin. Cannot say the same about US in Afghanistan despite all the military assets at your disposal.

And India has plenty of options against Pakistan that can be exercised without the threat of crossing nuclear threshold. During Kargill war, Indian navy blockaded Karachi harbor nearly cutting off their economic lifeline. And it was Pakistan that ran to Washington for US involvement, not India. India is building damns across all the rivers that go into Pakistan, so that water can be diverted to add yet another level to escalation. And India has also been carrying out covert low intensity war by proxy for decades inside Pakistan (Pakistan has nearly lost control of Baluchistan). This happens under the media radar but its no secret for Washington and Islamabad.

Currently as far as conventional and nuclear superiority over Pakistan goes, India is far ahead of Pakistan then any time in her history. The drive for military indegenisation & modernization has little to do with Pakistan and more to do with India's bigger adversary China. You cannot fight China with a few fancy weapons brought from US. You need a robust military industrial complex to take on China. Regardless of how long it takes, it is a strategic and economic necessity. Question is, how is the US going to accommodate itself towards this strategic goal? Is the US willing to be an equal partner in military and technological cooperation with India or is it going to treat India as just another client state like Saudi Arabia? That is a question US will have to answer for herself. India will be going ahead with her strategic objectives one way or another. And where possible India will be expediting weapon procurement policies from whatever sources available to fill in immediate gaps but with indeginisation (alongside foreign JVs) still being the ultimate goal.

Besides you don't seriously think India would be so naive to put all her eggs in American basket and pray that US picks India's side and not pull the plug during a conflict with Pakistan? It has happened before. And Pakistan is still America's ally.

US power is currently diminishing in Asia. Let for the moment assume that US has only good intentions for India. Even then there is a limit to what US military can do. The best weapons brought from US will not help win you a war otherwise Pakistan would have won in 65 and 71 not India. Weapons brought from a foreign sources will only keep you at the mercy of that source. It will not help you become an independent global power. The road to indegenisation is long and arduous but you have to start somewhere. India cannot become a superpower by just buying off the shelf weapons from outside.

Well, I seem to have touched a nerve. My time is limited, so I must try to respond to your posts in a rapid and concise manner.

If Pakistan comes unglued, India is more likely to be the immediate target of loose nukes than the US, which you later describe correctly as "geographically isolated from any threat of retaliation from Pakistan." And, as Bin Laden's Islamist critics contend, attacking the US on 9/11 was foolish because it provoked a devastating response against Al Queda and its allies.

Many of the details of the Bin Laden raid remain hidden, but I too am sure that more than a few Apaches and Chinooks were involved. That supports my point, that carrying out such a raid called for a wide and deep military capability that the US alone possesses -- and on a global basis, at that.

My understanding is that India is eying getting a relative handful of Chinook and Apache helicopters for its special forces. Of course, as you contend, it will take more than first rate helicopters to carry out a Bin Laden type raid deep into enemy territory.

As for implication that the US is "losing control" of Afghanistan, we never desired to have control of it. For better or for worse, the US is now disengaging, hoping that it can provide enough support to maintain a relatively friendly government in power in Kabul.

If not, Afghanistan's neighbors -- Pakistan, India, Russia, and China -- will have to pay the heaviest cost for the ensuing chaos. If so, will India be ready militarily?

The US had not sold weapons to China, although Russia did and still does. The major weapons sales by the US to Pakistan and the establishment of the supplier relationship were during the Cold War, with the specific aim of defeating the USSR in Afghanistan. Since the USSR and India were broadly aligned at the time, India cannot justly complain now of the results it suffered because she willingly chose the losing side.

With but a few exceptions, American weapons and military equipment are the best in the world for quality, durability, reliability, and capability. They also tend to be expensive and to require a degree of organizational coherence and mechanical training and talent that is not always available in the military organizations of other nations.

Here's a news flash about the F-35. It is in early production, pilot instructors are being trained in the Florida panhandle, the test regime is progressing, and the aircraft's problems are being ironed out. It will have a long and successful service life, including with the Royal Navy and other allies.

Meanwhile, the US is moving along with the research and development of autonomous, unmanned combat aircraft. They will likely begin to go into production around the time that the Russian-India fighter program starts rolling out its first examples of the prior generation of aerial combat technology.

Give my suggested Google search a try, sorting out what sources you regard as reliable and reasoning your way through. Who knows, but you may one day be in a position to join the ranks of India's governmental and military reformers.

The key concern for India must be not if she has military power, but if the military power that she has is adequate to her needs and national security strategy. Many Indian and independent professional military observers overseas see grave deficiencies, with India lacking a clear national security strategy, a reliable procurement program suited to that strategy, and then the budgeted resources to carry it out.

Reliable, independent measures show that corruption is a major problem in India, including in military procurement. Although India needs to develop her indigenous arms industry, to do so in an effective manner will require the adoption of First World business practices. Otherwise, vast sums will continue to be be squandered by India for weapons that will be late, flawed, and over budget with a Made In India stamp.

American boots are overtly and covertly on Pakistani soil right now. Bin Laden was a hero in Pakistan and he was killed on Pakistani soil. US drones kills Pakistanis every now and then. Pakistani protesters burn US flags almost on a daily basis not Indian. I dont think you follow Pakistani news channels but I do. Ironically some of their extremist radical Islamic leaders have claimed that India is not their real enemy, never was, it's only due to circumstantial reason it turned out that way....US is their existential enemy. Pakistanis are currently burning with rage over America not India.

As I said, when Pakistan falls apart, US would be far more worried about their own butts. US has men and material locked up in Afghanistan that will become the first target in the on going war. And geographical isolation didn't stop 9/11 from happening.

The Chinooks and Apaches are not stealth jets. They flew unchallenged deep inside Pakistani airspace over densely populated Abbotabad which also has their main military base, only a few miles away from capital Islamabad and only a few mile away from Indian border. You really think you caught Pakistan by surprise with American military capability?

Bin Laden outlived his usefulness to Pakistanis. Regardless of what military capability you may have, if Pakistani air defense had decided to engage, those Apaches and Chinooks would have dropped down like flies.

Yes controlling Afghanistan until the Taliban was completely destroyed and installing a friendly/democratic government was the US objective in Afghanistan. Until those objectives were later on deemed unachievable and thus today its watered down to simply cutting and running. Obama govt invented a fictitious “moderate Taliban” with whom they can now come to a “settlement”. Fact is US lost in Afghanistan.

Even when Taliban was at its peak the couldn't do much in Kashmir. Apaches, Chinooks and special forces raid make for interesting cover stories. They don't necessarily win wars.

What you see as Pakistani “paranoia” is very calculated Pakistani charade to not cooperate in WOT or extract a higher price from Washington for it. They play their “paranoia” card so that they can get Washington to put pressure on India to concede more. Thus they can milk US and also get away with murder. And the world can paint India as the culprit for Pakistan’s paranoia.

If Pakistan really desires peace its not a very difficult proposition. India with her economic growth has far more to lose in a conflict and more to gain from peace. That doesn’t mean India will sit quietly even after several 9/11 like provocations. India has a way of giving it back to Pakistan without lowering the nuclear threshold.

You need to read up on history. You are very typical of an American strong opinion but pathetically misinformed.

US has been selling weapons to Pakistan LONG before Afghanistan war. US sold 100 F-86 sabers to Pakistan as early as 1957. You can't pin that one on India. In 1965 war India beat American weaponry used by Pakistan not with Russian but with British weaponry. Indian had close military ties with western bloc (UK and France) as much as Eastern block (USSR). India was non-aligned and US was haughtily riding her moral high horse of leading the free world. You picked the losing side. India won every single war against Pakistan. And emerged the economic winners in Asia. And we all saw how your alliance with Pakistan and China worked out. Now tell me who picked the wrong side.

Sorry but there is no news flash. F-35 development is still WAY behind schedule not to mention the costs are going to be enormous and its technological edge isnt going to be all that great by the time it comes out. It production time lines are FAR behind schedule. As for Royal Navy.... they got rid of their Harriers and now they don't have an aircraft carrier. They spent enormous money to turn their ski jump carrier to flat tops only to spent yet more money revert back to ski-jump to operate F-35Bs of lower capability. And currently they don't have any ACs. India even with her Gorshkov delays will soon field a 4 ACs navy. 2 of them being indigenously built.

While whatever the US herself uses may be the best in the world, what US is willing to sell to the world is definitely far from being the best. LM and Boeing couldn't even win the Indian MMRCA competition where it had a fair chance. US F-16s and F-18E crapped in the trials.

As for unmanned autonomous combat aircraft, those are wildly optimistic time frames. Forget going into production, we are yet to see even a prototype flying. And with the type of budget cuts we saw for F-22s and F-35s, very likely we wont even see a prototype flying until the next decade.

And thanks for the suggestion. I do Google searches everyday. Google is not a “source”. And you dont even know enough to tell me what sources are reliable, so lets just leave it there.

The US needed a forced alliance with Pakistan to prosecute the Afghan war. The attrition suffered by Al Queda and its allies there and throughout the world though has now diminished the potential for renewed use of Afghanistan as a base for terrorism against the US.

Claims by Pakistan's Islamists that they do not regard India as an enemy ought to be taken with much caution. The ISI guided attack on Mumbai and Pakistan's growing nuclear arsenal pointed at India suggest that Pakistan thinks of India with something other than affection.

Apparently, newer US technologies can spoof targeted radars to the point of disguising intruders as if they are innocuous. As you hint, the US may also have had the benefit of bribery or covert official assistance in the Bin Laden raid.

“world though has now diminished the potential for renewed use of Afghanistan as a base for terrorism against the US.”

That's the nonsense Obama media has peddled to claim victory in Afghanistan and get the hell out. Anyone who knows the actual situation on the ground knows the opposite to be true.

Pakistan's Army (and ISI) are a different entity from the Islamists. The Pakistan's Army (and ISI) are hostile to India. I am not saying the Islamists think of India with affection. At the moment they just hate US a little more then India. Pak army on the other hand is wholly a tool of the US. They are completely funded and armed by the US. Without US, Pak army is nothing, they will cease to exist tomorrow. A country that is tethering on the brink of civil war between it various disenchanted sectarian groups, the army keeps a firm grip on the country by fanning a common historical hatred for Hindus. If hatred for India is absent, their army will have no role for itself.

“Apparently, newer US technologies can spoof targeted radars to the point of disguising intruders as if they are innocuous. “

Nonsense. If such radar spoofing technology had been that perfected to be able to fly in Chinooks for 160 miles from Afghanistan, landing them and then going and back via the same route without Pakistan ever knowing, countries (US included) wont be spending Billions of dollars developing fighters jets and helicopters with stealth technology that are completely blind to the radar. Would be an awful waste of money if we can just spoof radars that easily.

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.