[ads11]

Originally Posted by ads11

F/A-18 Super Hornet Is Now Undergoing Ski Jump Launch Trials For The Indian Navy

Looks like Boeing is putting it's money where it's mouth is - an honest to god physical demonstration off a mock up ski jump would go a long way towards strengthening their case. A fact I discovered reading this article is apparently in it's infancy, Mcdonnell Douglas actually ran ski jump tests of the F-18.
Attachment 2045576
F/A-18 Hornet test jet taking off a ramp c.1980s

While it's obvious the overwhelming commonality argument would favour the IN going with the Rafale M to work in tandem with the Rafale's of the sister service. However the Super Hornet isn't without interesting possibilities of it's own.

Should we acquire the Super Hornet I imagine the benefits would be thus:

1. Cost: It's likely to be cheaper than the Rafale, I'd imagine Boeing would be eager to chuck in some sweeteners to keep their production line going, and maybe shifting a large part to their Indian partner (Tata iirc)
2. Platform synergy across services: Potentially that opens up the Super Hornet for the IAF by the back door, if the IN goes in for it, might as well aim to achieve uniformity through backing the American jet.
3. Synergy with regional friendly nations: in particular Australia. The RAAF is looking to fly their Super Hornets well into the future and having a regional partner with strong alignment with India should mean ample opportunity for cross pollination of ideas, training and operational doctrine (considering both have to deal with a more muscular China)
4. Advanced UAV programme: On the Australia note - I wonder then if this opens the way for India to seek to get involved with their loyal wingman programme. That could prove to be an excellent force multiplier for supposed 4+ gen jets, and allow India to enter the teamed UAV domain. Furthermore, the programme is an exclusively Australian one undertaken by Boeing, so it won't have the immediate weight of the Pentagon to deal with in terms of getting India involved, instead it should come down to ties with Canberra mostly.
   Attachment 2045609
   The Airpower Teaming System Vehicle developed by Boeing exclusively for the RAAF
5. Future proofing for any IN flat top: Having the Super Hornet means the IN fleet air arm would have a jet that would in principle be able to work off a future IN CATOBAR carrier just fine. In fact the Rafale M also is proven off CATOBAR, unlike the Mig-29K which unfortunately is STOBAR rated only.

Some background on the drone

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?time_c...ture=emb_title

So there are my thoughts, really it's the prospect of the IN operating teamed Super Hornets and UAVs that's the most tantalising aspect. As usual the oft discussed issues arising from any dealings with Uncle Sam remain. It doesn't change the fact that in principle, figuring out the money issue should really be the only stumbling block to a larger order of Rafales for both IAF and IN service. However if Indian procurement were so simple, you wouldn't have the entire cottage industry that's come up trying to work out what curveball will come up next out of New Delhi

About the Super Hornet tests, here's what was covered in a previous thread. Hope it helps.

Originally Posted by dhanushmenon

Strictly speaking, Izumo is a Helicopter carrier. Cannot call it as an aircraft carrier in the strictest of terms. There were plans afoot to convert it into a proper aircraft carrier; however, that didn't seem to have seen the light of dawn as yet.

I would rather invest on submarines than these poster boy Aircraft Carriers. Unless you are an expeditionary force (like the US), sea denial is more effective than sea control in war time scenario. Carriers are expensive behemoths. The economy of effort is pretty too much.
.

Come now, the Izumo is only semantically speaking not an aircraft carrier. When the JMSDF launched it there was predictable outrage from their neighbours, especially when they declared their wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-and-largest-vessel-since-WW2 a "helicopter carrying destroyer" while barely able to keep a straight face. I mean the damn thing was built with a strengthened deck to combat the corrosive effects of jet-wash (as plagued the Americas class). Other than the Osprey, there's only one platform that comes to mind that burns a hole in your deck and it isn't a rotary wing platform, it's a fast jet - the F-35B.
Small surprise then when the sheepish Japanese finally admitted that, oh look, turns out we can fly fast jets off our massive new flat top. Wouldn't you know.

Asahi Shimbun's sources went on to say that a consensus was privately reached among the service's leadership that the Izumo class would be designed for conversion into a fixed-wing capable aircraft carrier in the future but the Japanese government would deny this due to the issues surrounding violating Article Nine of the Japanese constitution.

Furthermore, the Japanese really wouldn't need to deviate from a pure F-35A order if they weren't going to base their F-35B's from a mobile airbase and sure enough they're ordering more than the Brits plan to of the latter.

The [Japanese] Defense Ministry has formally announced the selection of the U.S.-made F-35B cutting-edge stealth fighter jet as part of its plan to acquire short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft.

Remember what I said about Japans neighbours being none too pleased about their blatant carrier - well, the South Koreans now have submitted proposals for their own carrier. Now normally this would be a good thing in terms of more carrier capability to combat PLAN forays but there's the little matter of WW2 and bad blood still lingering between the Koreans and Japanese so while it's unlikely the ROKN would field their new flat top in a shooting war against the JMSDF, their move to acquire one is absolutely a direct rebuttal in a sense.

The South Korean government has revealed that its next amphibious assault ships will be aviation-centric platforms with a heavy focus on operations involving the country's future short and vertical takeoff and landing capable F-35B Joint Strike Fighters. The vessels will not have a well-deck to launch and receive landing craft or amphibious vehicles and will be in a configuration more akin to the U.S. Navy's first-in-class USS America.

Anyway, to come back to your last point, yes, practically speaking your undersea component is far more useful, and cost effective as an area denial capability. And I think that's why you had the comments not too long ago from CDS Rawat about shifting priorities away from IAC-2, the clean sheet indigenous second carrier and mooted true CATOBAR flat top, towards focusing on bolstering our submarine fleets and other areas in need of the funds presently. And in terms of the new IN aircraft, I'm afraid himanshugoswami is right, the Rafale M would certainly be a non starter on the Vikramaditya, without folding wings it won't fit on the elevators. So really it's down to the Super Hornet and Mig-29K and again he's right, the dismal availability of the latter would play on the IN's mind. But, in time honoured tradition we won't have long to wait till we find out, 10 years give or take.

[dhanushmenon]

Originally Posted by ads11

About the Super Hornet tests, here's what was covered in a previous thread. Hope it helps.... But, in time honoured tradition we won't have long to wait till we find out, 10 years give or take.

Absolutely spot on. And thanks for providing the relevant links. Was really helpful and informative.

Rafale is not a solution to the Navy in its current version. I had said the same a few posts earlier. Naval aircraft need to be designed so from its drawing board. Though, Naval variant of Rafale is in service with the French, operated from its carrier Charles De Gaulle. Like you have already brought out, the one we have now is not the Naval version. And yes, it takes atleast ten years for a new aircraft to settle down and iron out its initial niggles; if not more.

Below are two photos from Ex Varuna 2019. Naval version Rafales (centre four) flanked by Naval version Mig 29K (two each on either flanks) in a close formation flypast over their respective carriers. One E2C Hawkeye guards the tail.

Fly by over CDG


Fly by over Vikramaditya.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ads11

Q. Do you think formalising the Quad in terms of the joint exercises and cooperation as it stands today is sufficient or do you think India getting drawn into a more concrete set up a la NATO is the logical conclusion? And if the latter is the case, are you comfortable with the implications this has on our other relationships going forward?

Great question. No easy answers. The United States would dearly want a NATO style alliance - political, military primarily. It would fit in with their style of working and instruments of power and implementation they are familiar with. Japan & Australia already have a deep military alliance with the US of A that requires the USN to step in immediately if threat levels from China or where ever else start to get out of hand. That really leaves only India. It is not in our interests to so deeply align ourselves with any one power or against any one power that if things move too much in one direction or the other we don't have room for manoeuver. Today USA, nice boy in parts, China, bad boy in most parts. In a trice this could change to USA nice boy only some of the time and China rascal only some of the time. It is not in our long term interests to tie our coat tails to be either too pro-USA or too anti-China while at the same time showing both we have the good sense to be flexible and the willingness to act in our self interests, the capacity to talk and listen from strength. So all in all a fine balancing act.

A loose semi-informal collaboration as the current Quad is, in my opinion, more efficacious than a NATO style formalized and, by definition, more rigid structure. In an informal alliance you can tighten the alliance or let it be looser depending on the situation. You can vary the military versus diplomacy mix in a jiffy and yet not be accused of ganging up. From a military point of view this is largely a naval alliance and can deploy the greatest asset of a warship without firing a shot .... simply turn up and fly the flag....coast along just outside territorial water limits. One of my favourite sayings - a warship is the last 400 feet of a our nations foreign policy!

Having said all this China under Xi Ping is more warlike than at any time after Mao's incursion into Korea in 1950. And he presides over a China several times more powerful in all respects than Mao's in 1950. His predecessors all maintained the inner party democracy within the CCP which ensured smooth transition of power for a quarter century. No longer. He has made himself dictator for life just when his citizenry is now economically well off enough for the current generation to want more - freedoms, votes etc. Such collisions usually lead to trouble.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Great question...Such collisions usually lead to trouble.

As ever, great response - I'm in agreement. It just doesn't seem like it fits India's longstanding aversion to boxing ourselves in when it comes to international relations. Sure this means a lot of our relationships aren't maximised to their fullest potential but it also creates a situation where there aren't burnt bridges anywhere either. The third way that was propagated by Nehru and has essentially been institutionalised in our diplomatic corps since has for the most part meant India hasn't gotten dragged into too many major power engagements. Though like you point out with China's rising wealth and power, and India's too in the last decades, it's only natural that the citizenry start to expect a more muscular approach fitting with the more elevated status they envision for themselves and their countries now.

I think you touch upon an interesting point regarding China. Outwardly it would absolutely appear that the growing prosperity of their populace should eventually clash with how the CCP envisions their iron grip on power. I suppose the clashes in Hong Kong are testament to how far ordinary folk are willing to go to prevent that fate. What's without a shadow of a doubt is that the greatest threat to the CCP beyond all else is losing their grip on power. I can't remember where I read it but the following summarises nicely: unlike other countries, the lack of elections in China means the CCP can never truly gauge the wider public sentiment and mood towards the party - that is, if a govt in a democratic country were to pursue a course of action that the public at large found disagreeable, the logical conclusion is that that disaffection would manifest at the polling booth. But in the CCP's China that really can't happen and with big brother always watching and the Great Firewall stifling expression - they've built themselves a big old blind spot. But for sure, having under the guise of his anti corruption "tigers and flies" purge of the military and party Xi has removed many alternate power bases. It was only logical then that he would take the drastic step of enshrining himself in the constitution ("Xi Xinping Thought") - elevating himself to a level only Mao and Deng had previously - thus positioning himself to be in charge for a long while to come. Our leadership and professional corps will have to contend with his China and his instincts for the foreseeable future, whoever resides on 7 Race Course Road.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ads11

As ever, great response - I'm in agreement. It just doesn't seem like it fits India's longstanding aversion to boxing ourselves in when it comes to international relations. Sure this means a lot of our relationships aren't maximised to their fullest potential but it also creates a situation where there aren't burnt bridges anywhere either. The third way that was propagated by Nehru and has essentially been institutionalised in our diplomatic corps since has for the most part meant India hasn't gotten dragged into too many major power engagements.

For a growing country of global reckoning it is the only path we can follow keeping a 50 to 75 year perspective. Subjugating your military and diplomatic flexibility to a greater power is ok if you are a smaller nation. In this Nehru got it right at the start. And even at the height of the cold war and our friendship with the Soviets we politely refused all their overtures for a military alliance. And our need was far greater in 1971 than today and the Soviets {not to be confused with today's Russia} were far more reliable than the Americans of today. So a formal alliance with USA will not happen.

Coming to matters naval. The PLAN has built up a vast arsenal of modern ships but I wonder about strategy & long range deployments & doctrine. It is one thing to build warships {a creditable achievement no doubt} and quite another to evolve a naval doctrine of how to use it. In this I believe the IN is ahead. We learnt a lot from our exposure first to the Royal Navy {1947 to late 1960s} and then the Soviet Navy. The PLAN has not had any such learning by osmosis from a bigger greater Navy. Much more than on land or air in a Navy clarity of what is your strategy and within that what is your naval doctrine counts for a lot.

I think you touch upon an interesting point regarding China. Outwardly it would absolutely appear that the growing prosperity of their populace should eventually clash with how the CCP envisions their iron grip on power. I suppose the clashes in Hong Kong are testament to how far ordinary folk are willing to go to prevent that fate. What's without a shadow of a doubt is that the greatest threat to the CCP beyond all else is losing their grip on power. I can't remember where I read it but the following summarises nicely: unlike other countries, the lack of elections in China means the CCP can never truly gauge the wider public sentiment and mood towards the party - that is, if a govt in a democratic country were to pursue a course of action that the public at large found disagreeable, the logical conclusion is that that disaffection would manifest at the polling booth.

Every Govt that loses its ear to the ground risks not knowing what's brewing in the minds of its majority or its opponents or its other rival nations. This happens when they start listening only to the chattering classes -- drinking their own kool-aid -- believing their own press clippings. It happens in democracies too. Nehru's 1962 debacle was because for years prior he chose not to listen to his Chiefs or the IAS or much earlier to Sardar Patel. Indira Gandhi lost 1977 for the same reason -- even her own Intelligence Bureau stopped telling her the truth because she did not want to listen -- Vajpayee ji in 2004 started believing their own 'Incredible India' story more than the rural populace and so on. Given TBHP's no politics rule I'll refrain from commenting on the current regime's capacity to listen.

Yes you are right. China's and Panda bear Xi's greatest risk comes from within his system and a coup d'etat. I can imagine him sleeping in a different bedroom each night.

[Sutripta]

Prepandemic Australia used to pussyfoot around China. And might do it again tomorrow.
A non rigid non binding structure gives us flexibility. But it also grants the same flexibility to our 'allies'. As long as we have no illusions about that.

Nehru, the master of English, made a mistake choosing the term 'nonaligned'. That straight away accepts the premise that the world is divided into two mutually exclusive and exhaustive blocs. When reality is not that. Aligned to your own selfinterest is the goal. Not aligned to someone else is not, or should not be a goal.

Xi - Lookout for power solidifying purges before June 2021. And the fate of Wang Xishan. And if he is replaced, by whom.

Sutripta

[V.Narayan]

India and USA sign the BECA – Basic Exchange & Cooperation Agreement

https://indianexpress.com/article/op...-meet-6906084/
https://indianexpress.com/article/ex...ompeo-6906637/

India and the United States on Tuesday (October 27) signed the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), which, along with the two agreements signed earlier — the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) and the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) — completes a troika of “foundational pacts” for deep military cooperation between the two countries.

BECA will help India get real-time access to American geospatial intelligence that will enhance the accuracy of automated systems and weapons like missiles and armed drones. Through the sharing of information on maps and satellite images, it will help India access topographical and aeronautical data, and advanced products that will aid in navigation and targeting. This could be key to Air Force-to-Air Force cooperation between India and the US.

Net net it will give Indian missiles the same accuracy for precision strikes as US missiles enjoy.

LEMOA was the first of the three pacts to be signed in August 2016. LEMOA allows the militaries of the US and India to replenish from each other’s bases, and access supplies, spare parts and services from each other’s land facilities, air bases, and ports, which can then be reimbursed. LEMOA is extremely useful for India-US Navy-to-Navy cooperation, since the two countries are cooperating closely in the Indo-Pacific. The signing of LEMOA was in itself an affirmation of the mutual trust between the two militaries, and its application will enhance the trust. It languished for a decade {2004 to 2014} but its signing bridged the trust deficit between India and the US, and paved the way for the other two foundational pacts.

COMCASA was signed in September 2018, after the first 2+2 dialogue during which then External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and then Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman met the visiting Secretary of State Michael R Pompeo and then Secretary of Defence James N Mattis. The pact allows the US to provide India with its encrypted communications equipment and systems so that Indian and US military commanders, and the aircraft and ships of the two countries, can communicate through secure networks during times of both peace and war.

The strengthening of the mechanisms of cooperation between the two militaries must be seen in the context of an increasingly aggressive China, which threatens a large number of countries in its neighbourhood and beyond, and which has been challenging several established norms and aspects of international relations. Amid the ongoing standoff on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh — the longest and most serious in three decades — India and the US intensified under-the-radar intelligence and military cooperation at an unprecedented level, especially since June. But in reality this is a logical culmination of the process started in 2016 with the signing of LEMOA and is not a knee jerk reaction to China's current posturing.

One thing is clear we are now aligned with the Americans fully and truly. In the 1980s we peaked in quantity and quality of our equipment and were way ahead of our two adversaries in quality and capability. A big reason was that it was the culmination of a 20-year Indo-Soviet build up. To build up that lead we need a super power backing us. The Americans are our new partners.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

India and USA sign the BECA – Basic Exchange & Cooperation Agreement
.

I have a slightly different view on this. While I agree that it is great for India that Indo-US relations and agreements have strengthened to such great extent, I only hope that this doesn't increase the sense of complacency and jingoism that seems to have been hyped up by the media especially, that in the event of a war with China, the other three members of the Quad would intervene militarily.

While all the agreements and co-operations with like minded countries are a must in light of a very openly hostile China, let us all remember that we will have to fight our wars on our own and next time, we will have to fight a war against two countries together as the two so called Iron brothers will not hesitate to put pressure on their respective borders with India to aid the other. It is critical to boost and encourage domestic defence production and not to show laxity in signing deals for procuring arms and fighting machines (the fate of the LCA and LCH orders & the v2.0 MMRCA circus are unfortunate and prime example of these)

Let us also remember how the US propped up countries like Pakistan and Iran against the Soviet Union during the 60s and 70s, how Afghanistan's government and security forces have been abandoned to get mauled by Taliban now. How Turkey, a staunch US ally once upon a time and having the second largest F-16 fleet in the world, has been kicked out of the F-35 programme and is now equally hostile towards US & Russia. I only hope that this India does not get to experience this "use & throw" policy of the US. While I agree these examples of those failed countries cannot be equated with India, India is where it is today, because it has/had a largely independent foreign policy. The Chinese threat needs to be addressed and possibly a triple threat of Turkey, Pakistan and China ganging up against India over Kashmir in the near future, especially after what Turkey managed to do successfully in Syria, Libya and of late in Armenia.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

How Turkey, a staunch US ally once upon a time and having the second largest F-16 fleet in the world, has been kicked out of the F-35 programme and is now equally hostile towards US & Russia. I only hope that this India does not get to experience this "use & throw" policy of the US. While I agree these examples of those failed countries cannot be equated with India, India is where it is today, because it has/had a largely independent foreign policy. The Chinese threat needs to be addressed and possibly a triple threat of Turkey, Pakistan and China ganging up against India over Kashmir in the near future, especially after what Turkey managed to do successfully in Syria, Libya and of late in Armenia.

I feel compelled to interject that the Turkish getting booted out of the F-35 programme was on them, and more particularly Erdogan. As Erdogan has pushed towards the right, and particularly following the purges in the aftermath of the 2015 coup attempt. Recent behaviour from the Turks makes it apparent that Erdogan fancies himself as a regional sultan, evoking very much the Ottoman Empire quite literally (check out the lavish Ottoman period piece serial that's a huge hit there). He's been making bullish moves across the Mediterranean, be it following the Chinese Nine-Dash playbook and just slapping a straight line on Microsoft Paint to lay claim to vast swathes all the way across to Libya; he's intervened on behalf of the UN recognised forces there to halt the progress of Haftar's forces; he went into Syria to boot out the Kurds specifically and create a buffer zone; and now he's been involved with shipping Syrian fighters into Nagorno Kazabakh to fight that other ethnic group the Turks have historically had it in for (the Armenians). Oh and now he's out there picking fights with Macron and EU leaders over the former's comments at Samuel Paty's eulogy. Recep is cultivating a siege mentality, an us-vs-them atmosphere in Turkey and it's all from his bull headed moves. The S-400 deal was petulance on his part to act out against the US for refusing to hand over Gullen to him. He got what was coming in terms of booting out from the F-35 programme - he forced the hand of Congress to act in defence of other JSF partners. In fact it's precisely what he needed to feed his restive populace on the same kool-aid he drinks.

Anyway, besides that Turkey point, you're right. Have to be cautious with the fact that US foreign policy especially under the current regime, and some could argue mostly in the 21st century is almost transactional in nature. Our current closeness is absolutely the result of an alignment in national objectives. As long as our leadership is clear about the extent to which this entente between the two nations goes in the international sphere, I think we can progress from the latest deal. Which is absolutely a good deal. Seeing as more US kit is making its way in, might as well make sure they can operate with the best data that they're used to working with. And as long as parallel options (through domestic industry) like you said are kept simmering on the back burner, it should cover contingency situations.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

While I agree that it is great for India that Indo-US relations and agreements have strengthened to such great extent, I only hope that this doesn't increase the sense of complacency and jingoism that seems to have been hyped up by the media especially, that in the event of a war with China, the other three members of the Quad would intervene militarily.

Our media behave and speak in a most immature and under informed manner. The Foreign Ministry and the Military know better that if there is a war we are on our own. Only now to some extent a greater and better basket of American technology will be available to us.

Let us also remember how the US propped up countries like Pakistan and Iran against the Soviet Union during the 60s and 70s, how Afghanistan's government and security forces have been abandoned to get mauled by Taliban now. How Turkey, a staunch US ally once upon a time and having the second largest F-16 fleet in the world, has been kicked out of the F-35 programme and is now equally hostile towards US & Russia. I only hope that this India does not get to experience this "use & throw" policy of the US. While I agree these examples of those failed countries cannot be equated with India, India is where it is today, because it has/had a largely independent foreign policy.

With time bed fellows change, interests stay forever. USA is our friend today due to convergence of interests and right now, and for the last 12 years, USA has actually been wooing us and giving in more than the extent we have reciprocated. For USA to 'dump' us is not the same as the about face they've done in Afghanistan or with Pakistan. With the latter USA went along knowing Pakistan was two faced. They operate with a higher sophistication of holding contradictory situations simultaneously and playing along with a frenemy. Their economic and technological power allowed them that flexibility. Having watched the Indo-Soviet friendship grow in the 1970-90 era what I see here with USA is deeper and likely to be longer lasting. Also our common threat, China, isn't going away any time soon unless a USSR style collapse were to happen.

China's increased belligerence is clearly a sign of heightened internal turmoil.

The Chinese threat needs to be addressed and possibly a triple threat of Turkey, Pakistan and China ganging up against India over Kashmir in the near future, especially after what Turkey managed to do successfully in Syria, Libya and of late in Armenia.

Well said. This is the new axis emerging. Turkey, like Britain lost an Empire and still yearns for it. On Kashmir with the stalwarts of the Middle East also not willing to stand up for Pakistan they are skating on thin ice now. That country is headed for ever deeper financial trouble and will sink further into becoming a Chinese colony in all but name. Not necessarily good for us.

[torquecurve]

I sincerely hope and pray we don't go for the F-18 for our carriers. I think we have enough Mig29's for two aircraft carriers plus we have our own twin-jet AMCA/ORCA / TEDBF which will give a powerful home grown option. As it is IAC2 is a while away and enough time to get our own aircraft for this.

[airbus]

On Navy Day, Lockheed Martin India shared a photo of MH-60 Romeo for the Indian Navy. India has placed orders for 24 MH-60 Romeo.

[ruzbehxyz]

*Greetings to you on Navy Day*.

Indian Navy Day is observed on 4 December to commemorate the courageous attack on the Karachi harbour during the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 by the Indian Navy. Which incurred heavy losses to Pakistani Naval Forces and to the Pakistani Oil Fields.

This day recognizes the splendour, great achievements and role of the naval force to the nation.*

This day is to celebrate proudly - The administration rendered to the country by our daring and magnanimous warriors – The Men In White, who serve the country, it’s kin, it’s coasts and all the frontiers.

Wishing all proud indians - A VERY HAPPY NAVY DAY!

JAI HIND !!! 🇮🇳

[V.Narayan]

What Joe Biden's Defense Secretary pick ,Lloyd Austin, said on US's ties with India

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/what...kistan-2355111

Excerpts...

"I would further operationalise India's ''Major Defence Partner'' status and continue to build upon existing strong defense cooperation to ensure the US and Indian militaries can collaborate to address shared interests," Lloyd Austin said.

"If confirmed, my overarching objective for our defense relationship with India would be to continue elevating the partnership," retired Gen Lloyd Austin told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday. President-elect Joe Biden has nominated him as his Defense Secretary

As a first indication of the direction of their thrust it is a welcome statement. Let's see what else unfolds. A nervous Xi Ping is capable of plunging into a stupid unprovoked war. His greedy eyes would be on Arunachal. The way the risks are against us, with power #2 determined to cause trouble, it is worth our while to have USA allied with us and vice versa. The mis-trust and reservations of earlier times now need to be put aside. With Biden China might try to test the waters by baring its fangs and we might be in the way.

[dragracer567]

An interesting development here. Apparently Turkey has decided to transfer the technology to build 5 support vessels at the HSL shipyard in Vizag. This is very interesting given the increasingly adversarial relationship between India and Turkey due to the latter’s support to Pakistan. However, in the end of the day, pragmatism and generating business are greater priorities it seems, India is still a better business partner than Pakistan can ever be.

Source

Visakhapatnam-based Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) is expecting an order from the Indian Navy by the year-end for building five mammoth naval support vessels with transfer of technology from a Turkish shipbuilding firm, people familiar with the development said on Monday.

The project, estimated to cost between $1.5 billion and $2 billion, will involve transfer of technology from Anadolu Shipyard, part of the TAIS consortium of Turkey, with which HSL signed an agreement for technical collaboration last year.
HSL is expected to deliver the first fleet support vessel (FSV) to the navy within four years of the go-ahead, with the other ships to be delivered at the rate of one every 10 months to 12 months. The vessels will be 230 metres long and have a displacement of 45,000 tonnes. FSVs carry fuel and other supplies for warships.
“The agreement with the Turkish consortium will kick in after HSL gets an order from the Indian Navy. If all goes well, that could happen by October 2021. Several Indian vendors will also be involved in the project,” said one of the people cited above, requesting anonymity.

Unlike other projects of this type, which usually witness at least one of the vessels being constructed in the country providing the technology, the Turkish side has decided to go ahead with transfer of technology from the initial stages and back the Make in India initiative by constructing all five vessels at HSL, said a second person, who too declined to be named.
“Turkey’s shipyards are fully booked for a long time and there is nothing to lose by transferring technology and having all the vessels built in India. Turkish engineers will come to India to assist with the project,” the second person said.

Sameer Patil, fellow for international security studies at Gateway House, said, “Turkey under President Erdogan has focused on building commercial relations with all countries. This pragmatism is being seen in this effort to collaborate with India despite the proximity with Pakistan. India wants to build its naval capabilities and Turkey has a defence industry that is very advanced.”