I guess the P8Is will have harpoons integrated with them. 🙂

so will the P-8As, although the Brahmos and its future hypersonic version will add an altogether different the kind of punch. I guess the integration could be done by India itself, like it integrated Sea Eagles on the Tu-142s..

Well, you want the US to understand India’s view. You have to inturn understand ours. Really, the problem to us was. Do we want to see India and Pakistan who both have fought several conflicts to have Nuclear Weapons? Personally, it didn’t sounds like a good idea to me at the time. Not so much about India. Just that Pakistan would want them in turn. Then maybe other countries would follow suite? Which, is exactly what happen. First it was India……….then Pakistan and maybe now IRAN. So, where do we stop from here??? Do we really want a world full of Nuclear Weapons???? So, from our point of views. Its not that we are worried about India getting Nuclear Weapons. Just the countries that will likely follow! Also, as long as you bring up the Pakistan issue. We are hardly buddy buddy’s……We used them against the Russian is the Afghan War and now against the Terrorist. Which, you hold that relationship against us. Yet, India was close to Russia even back in the Soviet Days. Which, was a sworn enemies………Regardless, this is not a good place to have these debates. Feel free to send me a private message and would be happy to discuss the topic further………

That said, many in the US understand India’s misgivings and reluctance. Yet, are you considering ours???

this is where the US’ hypocrisy comes to fore. its alright for a few “responsible” nations to protect their citizens with nuclear weapons- in fact, none of them (at least as far as I know) have a stated no first use policy either, unlike India, which does. others however, whatever their track record in the past, are not to be trusted with nukes, whatever their security needs be..

South Africa renounced its nuclear program because they have no natural enemies to match them in Africa and due to external pressure. How could India have been stopped when it fought a short but bloody border war with China, a nuclear Have, in 1962?

If the US was so worried about nukes, they should’ve banned them from all nations decades ago, instead of forming an exclusive “We-got-’em-first-hence-we-keep-’em” club.

besides, as Swerve and I pointed out, India already had a nuclear weapon tested in 1974, so those sanctions imposed in 1998 were only meant to hurt India, not stop any weapons program. that kind of an attitude hardly inspires any trust.

The US applied sanctions to India after India conducted nuclear warhead tests in 1998. The sanctions were not to stop India from building nuclear weapons, but to show US disapproval of what India had already done, i.e. build nuclear devices small enough to be usable as practical weapons. Note that India had exploded a nuclear device, but one supposedly too bulky to be practical as a weapon, in 1974. It is very hard to see how waiting until that device had been developed into possible weapons, & then imposing sanctions, could have been meant to stop India doing what it had just spent the previous 24 years actually doing.

US sanctions did not have any impact on Indias nuclear weapons programme, but on its conventional forces. They were a gesture of disapproval, & a punishment. The same might be expected if India offended the USA in other ways, as, for example, Turkey did in 1974 – and was punished by the withholding of spares & support for its US-built weapons. Or Indonesia, over East Timor.

There are plenty of precedents. The USA is a reliable supplier of weapons, as long as the recipients are obedient. I don’t see India being content to obey US directives on foreign & some domestic policies, as would be required to keep up a steady supply of US support for Indias weapons.

exactly my point. For instance, India had good ties with Iran for decades, and no govt. would ever be allowed by its domestic constituency who still view it as being a friend (despite a cooling of ties since this Congress govt. came to power), to contribute troops to any effort to attack it by the US and its allies, most of whom are meddling in a region far enough from their own territories..the same was true of Iraq as well, and India turned down a US request to send its troops to Iraq.

What if tomorrow, India is attacked by Pakistani terrorists in a big way and India has to respond with a military strike that diverts Pakistani troops from Waziristan to the eastern border with India ? it’ll **** off the Americans because all they’re concerned about is Pakistani “cooperation”, however reluctant it may be, in their efforts on the the Afghan border.

Most Indians will never forget how the US threatened India by sending a carrier group to the Bay of Bengal during the 1971 war to protect a West Pakistan regime that was the perpetrator of one of the worst genocides (East Bengal) since WW-II.

The US Sanction in the past was to stop India (and Pakistan) from acquiring Nuclear Weapons. Which, most would agree was hardly the wrong course. At least from there perspect of……….Needless to say they both did so and its now a moot point. Regardless, the vast majority of the free world purchase weapons from US without any problems and have done so for decades. Clearly, India has no more to worry about than the UK, Germany, France, Australia, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Israel, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, this argument that the US is un trustworthy doesn’t hold water…….

how was it the right course for the US to prevent India from getting nukes when its biggest threat was a nuclear China, with which relations have never been good, which occupies its territory and which illegally supplied nuclear bomb designs and technology to Pakistan?

Besides, India had already tested a nuke in 1974, primarily as a deterrent for China, so its not like those sanctions could PREVENT India from getting nukes- rather it was punishment, which was ridiculous, because India had broken no treaty when it tested its nukes.

as it is, India isn’t like Pakistan, which sold its nuclear technology (which it itself got from China) to North Korea for missile technology..if the US treats India and Pakistan similarly, despite the dramatically different track records, then India will never really be a US ally. thats one of the reasons there was such opposition to a nuclear accord with the US. and this govt. is the most pro-US there has been for a long time, so one may never know what the next govt. may do.

besides, all the countries you named, (except France which to some degree retains its independence) are US allies- the US will in some way or the other dictate what they should do in return for economic and military aid. Germany, Japan, Australia, UK have all been US allies since WW-II, whereas the newer ones in Europe are becoming allies because of their bad experiences with Russia.

most had to send troops to Iraq, even if they couldn’t care less about Iraqi regime before. India has followed its own independent foreign policy all these decades and no politician will want to be seen as an American stooge.

Anyway, whatever experiences India has had with the US will shape the way it views it- as there are more positive experiences, there will be a better opinion in India of the US and the trust will grow. nevertheless, France will be a better option for India as far as a reliable supplier is concerned.

BTW, Victor posted an article on the Naval aviation thread that claims that the Russians have asked for a 60% price escalation for the 29 follow-on MiG-29Ks that the IN wanted to order, putting the price tag in the range of $ 75 million..which means that the MiG-35 will surely be priced in that range only, not as cheap as it seemed earlier (which to me was its only great advantage).

Good for the IAF in a way, since this may improve the chances of the Rafale if its price is close to the same mark.

Ankush,

Bar politics, which plane would you like to win if say all offer similar ToT.

I would say the Rafale- has everything that India wants, and has growth potential as well.

but ante_Climax, unfortunately, politics will play a major role in the selection.

I’m against US types primarily due to restrictive clauses and even the remotest possibility that going against US interests in any way would mean sanctions, grounding a fleet that would be the backbone of the IAF alongwith the MKIs. We’ve seen what it did to the Tejas, Sea Kings, etc. and when the IAF went to great lengths to not have any US-sourced parts on its Hawk fleet, it showed how averse they were to any US sanctions.

I mean, say tomorrow, India tested its nukes or developed an ICBM, I’m pretty sure that the US would impose technological sanctions. India would never accept US nuclear umbrella kind of agreements, so eventually they wll need to test their updated nukes to keep a deterrant posture against China.

even ISRO did suffer due to “Dual use technologies” or parts that the US would not sell to it. in fact, the US even pressurised Russia not to part with cryogenic engine technology, and the Russians reneged on an agreement to do so under US pressure. France is pretty much immune to such pressure-politics and although its equipment is expensive and support is costly, its top notch and definitely more reliable than Russian equipment (I have this from an IAF maintenance guy and a Mirage pilot as well, who praises the Mirages very highly).

For a few high end items like the P-8 or C-130, India could stock up on spares since there are so few airframes, so that even if there is a blockade, they could keep them flying, but for 126+60 MRCA fighters, its vital that they be operational under any given circumstance.

if India was like Australia (a close US ally that has not hard any bitter experiences with the US), then I’d have no doubt that the SH would be a potent MRCA and considering the US Navy’s support, likely to be upgraded for another 20-25 years as well.

Yet, all considered, my choice would be the Rafale, without a doubt.

I predict India wil buy the Boeing P-8.

It already did..the agreement was signed first week of January, 2009.

Well, that’s why I like the idea of India joining with Boeing. As Lockheed Martin will have the lion share of the US Fighter Business for some time. So, its very much in the interest of the US to keep Boeing in the game. Further, while such a project would aid both the US and India. It would provide healthy competition vs Lockheed Martin 5th Generation Types like the F-22 and F-35.

while the idea of Boeing, and more specifically, IDS, with all its experience of building fighters will bring a lot to the table, one also has to take into account that India will not accept their participation if it means restrictive clauses on technology transfer and how the MCA will be used or whom it’ll be exported to. again, as of now, no reports of any collaboration have emanated.

then again, it could be a big opportunity for Boeing as well, because if they don’t start work on a 5th gen fighter, that would mean that they’re out of the manned fighter business once the F-35 enters service in numbers and proves itself better than the SH. The Strike/Slam Eagle line may not last much longer than 2014 considering that its not a major contender in any of the major competitions worldwide, excepting Japan maybe.