Posted on 06/18/2011 7:00:54 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
China Needles, India Responds
Security | South Asia | India
June 18, 2011 By Nitin Gokhale
The latest transport aircraft purchase by India is just a first step in a transformation of its military. It’s China that has it worried.
This month, India’s Cabinet Committee on Security approved the purchase of 10 C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift transport aircraft from the United States for use by the Indian Air Force, in a deal worth $4.1 billion.
The contract, which has an offset obligation of about $1 billion, is the highest single value military contract that New Delhi has entered into with the United States, and will certainly go some way to assuaging any hurt feelings on the US side over its losing out in the race to secure a lucrative contract to supply 126 combat jets to the Indian Air Force.
But the diplomatic benefits aside, the C-17 planes will significantly enhance India’s strategic lift capacity. With a payload capacity of more than 73,600 kilograms, the planes are capable of carrying 188 passengers, have reverse thrust engines for short turnaround, and are equipped with a missile warning system with flares to disengage any incoming missile attack. Until now, the Russian IL-76 ‘Gajraj’ and AN-32 has been the Indian Air Force’s mainstay for transporting men and material.
Combined with the purchase of half a dozen tactical lift C-130J Super Hercules aircraft from the Lockheed Martin stable earlier this year, the Indian Air Force is now well on its way to effectively equipping itself to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The Air Force, currently the largest beneficiary of India’s rising military budget, is in the middle of shifting its focus from being a purely Pakistan-centric force, to one that will be capable of simultaneously meeting the twin threats posed by an insecure Pakistan and an increasingly belligerent China.
In fiscal 2009-10 alone, for instance, the Air Force spent over $4 billion in capital acquisition, almost three times the amount spent by the Army. And over the next few years, the Air Force budget for new purchases is only likely to rise with plans to buy six new-generation tanker transports, 22 attack helicopters, 12 heavy-lift helicopters and nearly 200 basic trainer aircraft.
But there has been more to the Indian build-up than just hardware acquisition as India undertakes a doctrinal shift in all three forces. The IAF, for example, is currently in the middle of tweaking its ORBAT (Order of Battle). This shift has involved reviving and expanding air bases close to the border with China border, including placing a squadron each of Sukhoi-30 MKIs—currently India’s most advanced fighter jets—at two hitherto small bases at Tezpur in north-east India and Bareilly in the north.
Air Force planners say this is just the beginning. Over the next three years, India has plans to deploy at least a squadron of Sukhois at Nyoma—currently just a basic air strip—about 25 kilometres from the Chinese border in the high altitude desert of Ladakh.
Military analysts say operationalization of the Nyoma airfield will be a major step in India beefing up its defences in the region close to a disputed boundary. Coupled with the Indian Army’s plans to raise, induct and deploy more mountain divisions along the Chinese frontier, India hopes to have a major deterrent against any Chinese aggression.
The Army, too, wants to gradually raise a mountain strike corps, which would be deployed closer to India’s vast mountainous border with China, either in the east or the north. The fact is that although no one in India’s military establishment wants to spell it out, China is at the centre of future strategic planning in the Indian armed forces as a whole, not just for the Army.
The Navy, meanwhile, is now driven by a conceptual shift from an emphasis on ‘numbers’ of platforms — that is, from the old bean-counting philosophy — to one that concentrates upon capabilities. Among its near-term plans is the acquisition of ships in accordance with the Navy’s current Maritime Capability Perspective Plan. There are presently 40 ships and submarines on order, meaning that by 2013, the Indian Navy will have two aircraft carriers and several spanking new stealth destroyers, frigates and Boeing P-8i long-range maritime reconnaissance planes, among other platforms.
All these plans are in keeping with a broader military philosophy toward China that can best be described as ‘trust but verify, and keep your powder dry.’ Last October, Indian Defence Minister AK Antony told the Unified Commanders conference that they should be prepared to meet the twin threats posed by Pakistan and China, which are increasingly seen as acting in concert to keep India under strategic pressure.
Over the past two years, fChina has shifted from its earlier position of calling Kashmir a bilateral issue between New Delhi and Islamabad, to terming it a disputed area. It also started issuing loose leaf visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir. More ominously for India, Chinese footprints in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and the northern areas have increased dramatically over the past couple years, under guise of helping out flood-hit areas and repairing the Karakoram Highway linking China and Pakistan.
The unprecedented chill that had set in between the two countries was compounded by China’s refusal to issue a visa to a senior Indian Army Commander on the grounds that he commanded troops in the ‘disputed’ Kashmir region. India’s tough stance since has forced the Chinese to alter course somewhat, but New Delhi’s military establishment is under no illusions that China will continue to pursue a policy of strategic stability and tactical uncertainty with India.
In a way, all this might seem surprising. After all, Sino-India bilateral trade is set to touch $60 billion over the next year, and is expected to cross the $100 billion mark in the next five. But with Beijing’s insistence on needling New Delhi through small border intrusions along its undefined frontier, India’s defence planners feel they have little choice but to constantly reinvent policy.
Nitin Gokhale is Defence & Strategic Affairs Editor with Indian broadcaster, NDTV 24×7
Putting a base that close to the border isn’t the brightest idea in the world. The Chinese can just scoot over the border and steal the planes. They probably already have a set of keys made.
The irony for the USA over here is that given free choice, India would gladly purchase over 75% of its military hardware from the USA. However, the USA continues to be an UNRELIABLE partner to India.
We have held India hostage over technology transfers and suspended signed agreements over the drop of a political hat.
India, being an emerging superpower, cannot be held hostage like this.
The US needs to treat India as an ALL WEATHER friend. Imposing sanctions on India (as the US has done multiple times) do not generate confidence in India
One of the big reasons for India choosing European fighters for a 128 (eventually to be a 256) multi role fighter order is the ironclad confidence in Europe that it will not suspend a military contract with India in case war breaks out with Pakistan or China.
However, in the US, the Pakistan lobby is so powerful in the halls of Congress, that if war ever breaks out between India and Pakistan, there is a very good chance that the Pakistani apologist Congressmen (of which there are many) will put pressure on the existing adminstration to suspend all military contact with India in “the name of peace”
It is a shameful situation how we continue to support a jihadi country like Pakistan over a democratic and America loving country like India
If you extend that logic, how far is safe enough? Bases which are hundreds of miles away can and will be targeted by air and missile strikes. The key issue here is more bases are being modernised and expanded to take new fighters and transport aircraft to hold off a Chinese offensive.
Thanks sukhoi-30mki for the topic, thanks SoftwareEngineer for the comment.
A 10% offset. Screw 'em.
The Indian offset requirements are hardly earth-shattering.
Actually it’s a 30% offset.
Given the current trade imbalance with India, a 30% shakedown to build Indian industry is ridiculous.
Again-offsets are pretty much the name of the game irrespective of trade deficits. If the US doesn’t offer the same, someone else will.
Besides, it’s not like the customer can dictate what it wants. Lobbying by US and European vendors has resulted in changes in the offsets policy issued in 2011 which permits expansion of agreements into the civilian sector rather than exclusively in the defense sector.
Oh my God.
That's fine. Let them go buy a Euro heavy-lift aircraft.
Or may be Boeing should have just turned down their request. And along with shut down the Long Beach plant.
Even with 30% offset a $10 billion contract isn’t such a bad deal. The $10 billion would have gone a long way to fix the imbalance. It means more then 30,000 jobs. You cannot fix trade imbalance by saying NO to $10 billion over offset issue. Nobody is here to do charity. How many countries (other then UAE and Saudi Arabia)are a position to shell out billions of dollars of contracts in this economy? Europe? UK? Australia? Canada? Israel? Countries are drooling over Indian money and are willing to agree to any offset terms. And there is plenty of sellers out there for India. Indian buying power gives her leverage and she is using it. Nothing wrong with that.
Does the US need Pakistan's help in the war on terror in Afghanistan? Does the US want Pakistan to fall to the further into the hands of a Taliban like group? The US has needed to balance its ties with Pakistan and India, especially during the Cold war. This might change in the coming years as the US State Department begins to realize the economic, military and political weight China can muster.
how about we just end the problem with pakistan and nuke them till nothings left. Then in a couple of decades the Indians can move in and build some decent golf courses.
Ah, an advocate of the Final Solution.
Pretty much. It’s coming one way or the other. Might as well get it over with.
“Does the US need Pakistan’s help in the war on terror in Afghanistan?”
US thinks she does. Is the US getting the help she wants for her money’s worth? The answer to that is clear cut NO. Fact is it would have been cheaper to just destroy Pakistan then to be bled in a useless alliance with Pakistan.
“Does the US want Pakistan to fall to the further into the hands of a Taliban like group?”
The US may not want that but the important question here can US prevent that from happening? The answer to that again is a clear cut NO. Especially not by funding and arming the same Army and ISI establishment that created Taliban in the first place
“The US has needed to balance its ties with Pakistan and India, especially during the Cold war.”
Another something US thought she needed but turned out to be a wrong strategy.
Ah. Leverage. So if not the C-17 then what?
Let me be clear. India is a second rate, starving nation with no right to demand ANYTHING from America.
Perhaps in 30 years she may become a power at the level of Russia today,but for now we are talking about a 3rd world hellhole at a late 1960s level of technology. So ultimately, India needs to get her weaponry from advanced countries and she better be polite to her suppliers.
And on that note, NOBODY is stupid enough to teach India how to build anything on her own. Not the Russians, and definitely not the Europeans.
Think about it, your screen handle is a plane that has been assembled in India for the last 15 years. And if the Russians pulled out today, India would not be able to build a single Su-30 on her own. Your country can’t make the engines, the radar, the avionics, the munitions, the sensors....etc. Hell even the composites for the airframe has to be imported from Kazakhstan of all places.
For a nation of a billion People, India is the classic case of big hat, no cattle.
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.