| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| U.S. fighter bids for India hit tech-transfer snag |
| 2007-12-09 |
| WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A split in the Pentagon over how much cutting-edge technology to share with India is complicating bids by Lockheed Martin Corp for a potential $10 billion fighter jet contract. At issue, among other things, is advanced radar know-how India wants as part of any deal for the 126 new fighter jets it plans to buy from one of six global aerospace powerhouses, say current and former Pentagon officials. Detailed offers from all bidders are due to be submitted to the Indian defense ministry by March 3. The contenders come from Russia, Europe and the United States. If the deal goes to Americans, it would crown a post-Cold War trend toward tighter U.S.-Indian security ties, a potential counterweight to China's growing might. Lockheed Martin and Boeing — the Pentagon's No. 1 and No. 2 suppliers by sales — were invited by India for the first time to bid to supply fighters. Lockheed Martin is proposing a version of its widely sold F-16 Fighting Falcon but has not made public any detail of which radar it will offer. Boeing has said it is pursuing U.S. government approval to sell its F/A-18 Super Hornet "Block 2" strike attack aircraft, used by the U.S. Navy and Australia. It is equipped with what Boeing has called "ground-breaking" Raytheon Co APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. Also in the race: Russia's MiG 35, France's Dassault Rafale, Sweden's Saab AB JAS-39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, made by a consortium of British, German, Italian and Spanish companies. "There's advocates and non-advocates" of meeting India's hopes for maximum radar technology-transfer and co-production, said a senior U.S. Air Force official, who declined to be named. Asked about deliberations on licensing the so-called AESA radars for export to India, U.S. Navy Secretary Donald Winter told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit: "I know that that's under consideration." "There's a very well detailed process that is followed by the department (of defense) that I'm not expert on, and I would defer to those who are," Winter said on Wednesday. The trade-offs involved in U.S. reviews are complex. They include business pressure to make Lockheed and Boeing as competitive as possible while protecting a key U.S. war fighting technology. "The Indians want as much co-production and as much technology transfer as they can get," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, who stepped down in August as the Pentagon's top arms-sale official. "The U.S. government has to decide how far it will go toward meeting India's requests." "I think this a very critical decision that needs the attention of top government officials," said Kohler, now an unpaid advisor to the private U.S.-India Business Council. Ron Somers, president of the council that represents 275 of the biggest U.S. companies investing in India, referred to India's fighter market as "a tremendous opportunity for U.S. companies that should not be missed." "We hope the U.S. government will get its act together," Somers said by telephone. "Time is of the essence if we hope to compete with foreign companies for this hugely important deal." Lockheed Martin and Boeing declined to comment on the U.S. government's delay in approving their India packages, as did the Indian embassy in Washington. Bob Gower, vice president of Boeing's F/A-18 program, said Boeing was confident the U.S. government ultimately will clear release of the APG-79 radar. "The F/A-18 has an advantage in that we are the only airplane in the competition with a fielded production AESA radar," Gower said in a written response last month to questions from Reuters. "I like our competitive position on the AESA radar." AESA presents many military advantages, boosting pilots awareness of any threats, according to William Ostrove, a radar market analyst at Forecast International, an aerospace consultancy in Newton, Connecticut. "The United States has the most advanced AESA technology in the world," he said. "No other country currently has an AESA radar in production." The United States already has sent AESA technology to Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, but they did not demand as much access to the underlying know-how as India has done, Ostrove said. Washington might resolve its AESA-related dilemma by clearing a "dumbed down" version, he said. Substituting a less powerful processor, for instance, would make it less capable than one now flown by U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet pilots. "This would allow the Indians to build the radar themselves while preventing the most advanced American technology from leaving the country," Ostrove said. As part of a strategic initiative designed to cement new security ties, President Bush in March 2005 gave Boeing and Lockheed the nod to sell advanced fighters to India. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #24 I noticed 15 Saudis & 4 Egyptians The Saudis were ethnic Yemeni (like bin Ladin). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-12-09 22:54 |
| #23 Please don't be an ass, Zhang Fe. Of course your Muslim friends object to American support of Israel -- it's them thar Jews claiming sovereignty over Muslim soil... and the Muslim world has this odd idea that without America Israel would fall to the Lions of Islam. Before crying that we ought to act on your friends' likes and dislikes, you'll want as a baseline to see if they're any fonder of the European countriess, who also wish the U.S. hadn't stepped in in 1973. If they aren't, then perhaps their real problem with America is something else than Israel. If they are, then perhaps we shouldn't be consulting their wishes as the best guide to the actions that are in the best interest of our own nation. So long as we don't kow tow to the Ummah, entirely too many Muslims will find reasons to think our actions unacceptable, Rage Boy being only an extreme example. *shrug* I'd prefer my country didn't adjust its behaviour to make Pakistan or Saudi Arabia dance the Hora, even if it does make your life -- and Mr. Wife's -- a bit more difficult when you're out there. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-12-09 22:52 |
| #22 India had no choice. It was part of the Empire. The Indians in Traansval pushed the government to get them to fight. You're way off base on Vietnam and Korea. Those were very clearly in our best interest. Fighting Communism was job one. Just because India didn't see Russia as threat that needed to be fought in Vietnam doesn't mean they're of no value. g(r)om, Nice try with the Saudi bit. It's mighty rich for the originators of selling our tech to our enemies to come to bash us for selling it to our allies. What are you doing awake anyway? I though Uncle sugar tucked you in for the night? Zhang, the support for Israel thing is a red herring. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-12-09 22:49 |
| #21 Zhang Fei's never had anything good to say about India regardles of what the facts are. I bet he'd support us gtransferring technology to Pakistan or China instead. I bet he's Chinese or Pakistani. |
| Posted by: Sonny Graiper3958 2007-12-09 22:41 |
| #20 Are you trying for a tenure track position, Mr Zhang? No. I noticed 15 Saudis & 4 Egyptians. And no again, Osama didn't mention Palestine once, until 2-3 years later. It was all about the American infidels in the holy land of the two mosques, and conquering the world for Islam. Tenure track people blame America, and suggest that Israelis are the bad guys. I think Israelis are the good guys, but ultimately, parasites who damage our relations with the Muslim world. My mistake on the hijackers - I had read somewhere that some of these people were of Palestinian origin. But here is what I believe to be Muhammad Atta's 9/11 view: In Germany, Atta was registered as a citizen of the United Arab Emirates. His German friends describe him as an intelligent man with religious beliefs who grew angry over the Western policy toward the Middle East, including the Oslo Accords and the Gulf War. MSNBC in its special "The Making of the Death Pilots" interviewed German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohamed Atta. Bodenstein said, "He was most imbued [sic] actually about Israeli politics in the region and about U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that." But I don't have to go all the way to Muhammad Atta for that. I have Muslim friends. The one thing they constantly harp on Uncle Sam's support for Israel. As a justification for attacking us on 9/11, it's lousy - but the fact is that we took a licking because our support for Israel. It's like what happens when you help out a guy who's been marked for death by the Mafia - it's not a good reason for the Mafia to kill you, but the fact that you got involved does make you a target. In our case, 9/11 happened. It's not Israel's fault, but the fact is that we wouldn't have been targeted if we hadn't backed Israel. But then we get Israelis like you stepping all over us in spite of our support for Israel. We sure could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble in 1973. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 21:56 |
| #19 Did you happen to notice that among the hijackers were a bunch of Palestinians of various Arab nationalities who were angry at the US for supporting Israel? Are you trying for a tenure track position, Mr Zhang? No. I noticed 15 Saudis & 4 Egyptians. And no again, Osama didn't mention Palestine once, until 2-3 years later. It was all about the American infidels in the holy land of the two mosques, and conquering the world for Islam. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2007-12-09 21:33 |
| #18 lotp: India's undergoing rapid change - but is early on the 'ally' curve IMO. I'd be pretty leery about serious tech xfer. Mongolia sent troops to Iraq. I'd rather transfer technology to the Mongols than to the Indians. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 21:29 |
| #17 India's undergoing rapid change - but is early on the 'ally' curve IMO. I'd be pretty leery about serious tech xfer. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-12-09 21:27 |
| #16 g: And it doesn't have any choice now. Anybody who'd sell advanced equipment to Soodies, and give it Pakis etc... Goodness - the Israeli had to jump in. A citizen of the same Israel that has sat out every American war since Israel's founding? The stupidity of the critique of sales to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is stunning. We sell better versions of these weapons to Israel, don't we? Was 9/11 accomplished using advanced American weaponry? Did you happen to notice that among the hijackers were a bunch of Palestinians of various Arab nationalities who were angry at the US for supporting Israel? Do you realize that we could nipped that in the bud by letting Israel go under in 1973, instead of almost getting into a nuclear war with the Soviets? What is your major malfunction? Why do you persist attacking Uncle Sam instead of your real enemies - the Europeans, who have no compunction selling weaponry to the Arabs, but don't send $6b in grants annually to prop Israel up? Is it because you can't stand that we're not socialists, like the Europeans? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 21:25 |
| #15 MN: All I'm saying is that nations don't generally go to war unless it's in their best interest. I can only think of a couple wars in the last century when america lost hundreds of thousands. Americas best interest, obviouslt to enter WWII. WWI might be a little different, but outside our time frame. We got involved in the Korean War. And the Vietnam War. In both of these wars, our interests were peripheral. Was it in the Indian interest that Korea and Vietnam end up under communist rule. I really can't see that. But we sure as heck did not see India do anything but jeer from the sidelines, did we? Was it in the Indian interest to see Iraq own Kuwait? I don't think so. Did you see India offer to jump in? Basically, all of these wars were in the Indian interest, but in no instance did India offer to participate. Basically, the Indians are myopic and cynical - why offer to help when somebody else will do it for you? These parasites don't deserve any special treatment from us. Let them buy Russian junk. We don't need another Israel competing with us in the arms market. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 21:16 |
| #14 India had no choice. It was part of the Empire. And it doesn't have any choice now. Anybody who'd sell advanced equipment to Soodies, and give it Pakis etc... |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2007-12-09 21:14 |
| #13 If we're going back that far than we need to give consideration to Indian contribution in the Boer War. Even Gandhi himself was a very vocal supporter of Indians going to fight. India had no choice. It was part of the Empire. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 21:10 |
| #12 All I'm saying is that nations don't generally go to war unless it's in their best interest. I can only think of a couple wars in the last century when america lost hundreds of thousands. Americas best interest, obviouslt to enter WWII. WWI might be a little different, but outside our time frame. If we're going back that far than we need to give consideration to Indian contribution in the Boer War. Even Gandhi himself was a very vocal supporter of Indians going to fight. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-12-09 20:55 |
| #11 I think the Indians can be counted to jeer us on from the sidelines, nothing more. If they want to buy the planes, I don't have any problems with that. If they want the production technology, they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 20:48 |
| #10 MN: Nations go to war when it's in their own interest(generally), not just for their allies. In the same time frame how many wars has America fought when it wasn't in her best interest? Balkans? Maybe. The list is a damn short one. The US has gone through campaigns when it has lost 100,000 lives when its territorial integrity was not at stake. When has India done anything like this? What the heck has India done for us in Afghanistan? Iraq? And we're supposed to count on them as an ally? And I'm referring to a troop presence, not some civilian type stuff. Heck - even the Arab countries have sent their special forces people. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 20:46 |
| #9 MN: In the same time frame how many wars has America fought when it wasn't in her best interest? The Indians are myopic and cynical - they don't fight wars when it is in their interests - they're content to wait until the enemy is at their doorstep. Was it in the Indian interest for China to conquer Tibet? No. Did they acquiesce to it? Yes. And the result was that the Chinese not only took Tibet - which served as a buffer state between India and China - they also took a big chunk of Indian territory not too many years later. The only time we can count on Indian cooperation is when China invades Indian territory. For a leech like this, no technology transfer is necessary. Let 'em bleed. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 20:41 |
| #8 Nations go to war when it's in their own interest(generally), not just for their allies. In the same time frame how many wars has America fought when it wasn't in her best interest? Balkans? Maybe. The list is a damn short one. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-12-09 20:11 |
| #7 Bottom line is that India nowhere near the ally that either Singapore or the UAE are, and it's pointless to make empty comparisons between them. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 18:31 |
| #6 MN: Call. me crazy, but I think India could be our most important ally in the next 20-50 years. How many wars has India fought in support of its allies since independence? The idea of India as an ally of any kind is quite foreign to the Indian mind and to our historical experience. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-09 18:29 |
| #5 Call. me crazy, but I think India could be our most important ally in the next 20-50 years. Give 'em access to what we have to, but no more. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-12-09 15:17 |
| #4 we can reasonably trust the Indians not to share it (except perhaps with Israel) And Israel sure is careful with our secrets. And how do we know the Clintons haven't already sold it to China? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-12-09 14:24 |
| #3 Let them have the AESA. We're still ahead, we can reasonably trust the Indians not to share it (except perhaps with Israel), and the Boeing guys/gals are already working on the next generation. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-12-09 14:11 |
| #2 The United States already has sent AESA technology to Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, but they did not demand as much access to the underlying know-how as India has done, Ostrove said The F-15 pilots whose planes were 'shot down' by Mig-21s during the recent wargames reported that, to their surprise, the Indian Migs did not have the normal Russian export version radars. |
| Posted by: john frum 2007-12-09 08:37 |
| #1 Ron Somers, president of the council that represents 275 of the biggest U.S. companies investing in India, referred to India's fighter market as "a tremendous opportunity for U.S. companies that should not be missed." "We hope the U.S. government will get its act together," Somers said by telephone. Been sleeping under that tree for quite some time have you Mr. Somers? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-12-09 07:51 |