Your making the massive assumption HAL can replicate all the consumables.It’s good you have faith in them, even if the IAF does not….

There’s the little matter of the company called SAAB…

Sigh.

Take a look at the attached picture and then try and conviince yourself everything will be alright as an organisation as incompetent as HAL will replace/manufacturer everything.

Sigh.

Which of the American components in the chart above come under the heading of ‘consumables’?

I really dont care about the love in between you and JSR, my point was his opriginal statement was very valid.

No the original statement was MINE – ‘the US has overtaken Russia and Israel as India’s largest defence supplier‘.

JSR decided to dispute that based his own trollwork until you decided to wade in, in his support.

Firstly 2014 is not over yet, secondly from 2009-2013 (years for which we have complete information for) Russia provided 75% if India’s arms imports.

So he does have a very valid point, but all you do in response to someone who disagrees with you is to accuse them of trolling, despite them being right.

Really? Defending JSR of all people? I call him a troll, because he is a troll. And I make a point of it because I’ve apparently been bestowed upon, a place on his ‘people-to-be-trolled’ list.

US becomes India’s biggest arms supplier

February 2014

For over four decades, Russia has been India’s largest arms supplier by a comfortable margin. Last year, the US overtook Russia to grab that spot.

According to the defence and security analysis group, IHS Jane’s, India has also supplanted Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest buyer of American weaponry. In 2013, India imported $1.9 billion worth of US equipment, including the C-17 Globemaster III and the P-8I multi-mission aircraft.

Defence equipment imports from the US have shot up from just $237 million in 2009, to eight times that figure last year. And, with several high-value US contracts in the procurement pipeline – including a $600-700 million purchase of 145 M777 guns; additional C-130J Super Hercules and C-17 Globemaster III aircraft; and a possible billion-dollar buy of 8,400 Javelin anti-tank missiles – this is poised to rise even higher.

According to Indian analysts, the defence ministry in New Delhi is increasingly comfortable buying weaponry directly from the US department of defence (the Pentagon), partly because of the perception that this provides no space for corruption and arms agents. An increasing number of US contracts, such as those for C-17 aircraft and the M777 gun, are being routed through America’s foreign military sales programme, in which the Pentagon negotiates the rates and supply schedule with the vendor, on behalf of the buyer.

I meant the broader expertise in fields of strategic interest that could be leveraged in future projects. Sweden is an amazing country for its size, but it can’t really compete with US, Russia, or even France in this respect. Case in point: Sweden doesn’t even have its own turbofans.

The MMRCA contract does NOT require any unrelated ‘strategic content’ to be transferred to India.

But if you look at the nature of these deals, they are all small and/or off-the-shelf purchases, which is very different proposition from MMRCA.

The issue is the cumulative scale of purchases from the US. It very clearly proves that the GoI, based on its interaction with the US Gov over the last decade (including the Obama’s first term), does not have any fear of future sanctions.

The closest thing to a ‘strategic’ acquisition there is the P-8s, and even those will be sharing MPA duties with the Il-38s for a decade or more to come. On the American side we know that there are concerns regarding technology transfer to India — India being much friendlier with Russia and Iran than Washington would like — and that the P-8s are downgraded export models.

Do you know it was ‘downgraded’ for a fact? Would it make a difference to US interests if the ‘I’ variant APY-10’s range was 10% greater or less? As far as the Indian Navy is concerned, its been deeply involved in customizing the P-8 to its own specific requirements. The P-8I will form the core of its ASW capabilities for the next three decades with the fleet expanding to 12 and then 24 aircraft.

(BTW the IN’s fleet includes only five geriatric IL-38s and their performance even post upgrade has been an issue.)

The Bush administration courted India heavily in what was probably one of the few intelligent actions of that administration, but it does not seem that the Obama administration has pursued the relationship with the same vigour, and in the absence of such pressure from above, there are a number of roadblocks — or at least speedbumps — in the way of substantive Indo-US cooperation, some of which have manifested in the implementation of the landmark 2005 US-Indo agreement.

There will continue to be question marks over the US-Indo relationship until another project of strategic import crops up.

The current bilateral relations may not have the same amount of ‘fizz’ as before (nor do US-UK relations for that matter) but defence and strategic cooperation between the two countries has continued to thrive (driven by the Pentagon & MoD rather than the State Dept & MoEA). Their armed forces for example conduct more joint exercises than that of any other non-allied nations. That’s not going to change as long as both share a common perception of China as a long term adversary, if not threat.

If the US can muscle in on India’s future carrier plans by offering design assistance, EMALS, and F-35, that would certainly demonstrate a strength and tenor to the relationship that a couple dozen Apaches stripped of sensitive communications gear does not.

May 2013 – Indian Navy seeks EMALS system for second Vikrant-class aircraft carrier
Sep 2013 – US offers help for next generation aircraft carrier

The comm equipment on the AH-64 was not installed because both nations haven’t signed the CISMOA (or equivalent agreement) so far. Its not been withheld. It’ll be replaced by Indian equipment and according the Indian military brass, the lack of CISMOA makes ‘no substantial difference to operational capability’ (link).

Uh, that’s a pretty major strategic objective…

All that does is exclude the MiG-35.

In any case, where the program came from is neither here nor there. By the time of the 2007 RFP it had evolved to encompass broader objectives of comprehensive technology transfer and laying the foundation for future strategic-industrial linkages — objectives that SAAB & Sweden were not as well positioned to meet.

Doubtful. Technologically, there’s only a (limited) incremental difference between the Gripen E and its fellow Eurocanards.

I’m glad someone brought up the issue of US sanctions. As much as it is gratifying to note that not everyone has swallowed the US kool-aid that speed and agility are irrelevant, I believe F-16IN and Super Hornet were ultimately excluded for political reasons, both out of a reasonable reluctance to enter into such an arrangement with the United States, and as a rebuff and reality check to Washington as to what it could expect from the Indian relationship, and what it had (and hadn’t) bought with the 2005 Indo-US nuclear agreement.

That may have been the sentiment in 2007. But the sheer scale of purchases from the US since, suggests the fear of sanctions has evaporated. Between the C-130J, AH-64E, C-17, the decidedly high-end P-8I as well as lower end items like the M777, F404, F414, LM2500, F125, CBU-105, etc, the US has overtaken Russia and Israel as India’s largest defence supplier, sending a very positive message to Washington.

Er….

Wrong on both counts.

PAF F-16 servicability was around 50% during the 90s (sanction era) and that was only because very friendly F-16 users (Turkey, Egypt, Bahrain ) helped them out.
So good luck with that.

Reduced serviceability isn’t the same as being ‘grounded’. In the Tejas/Gripen’s case only the engine is American (with a lifetime equaling that of the airframe) and its being license built by HAL.

Also, US sanctions have already grounded the Tejas in the past after Indian exploded a nuke.

The Tejas wasn’t even in prototype form in 1998. It was delayed somewhat yes, but hardly crippled.

On the other hand both could be grounded with US sanctions. I think India now wait to see, what will France do with Russian Mistrals. If France will deliver those Mistrals, than it will be a partner, whom you could trust. In opposite India will go for MiG-35.

Ten years of sanctions didn’t ground the PAF’s F-16s. They’ll hardly ground the Gripen or Tejas, not that sanctions are likely.