Can India Emerge As A Top Global Military Power?

     

      A recent study by Britain's ministry of defence has predicted that India is likely to be among the top three military powers in the world by 2045, along with the US and China, with a projected defence outlay of $654 billion. Though India's military-industrial acumen is unlikely to surpass technological sophistication of the US by 2045, it may, along with China, rival it in terms of size. 

It is also likely to surpass Japan, Australia and South Korea (which will be ahead of other regional military powers) by developing sizeable and technically advanced armed forces, including ocean-going navies, capable of delivering an enduring and capable maritime presence both regionally and further afield, according to the study titled 'Global Strategic Trends - Out to 2045'.


This projection explains why the Narendra Modi government is aggressively pushing its defence agenda. Recently the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) cleared purchases worth Rs 80,000 crore, including six submarines worth Rs 50,000 crore. DAC also approved purchase of 8,356 Spike anti-tank guided missiles and 321 launchers from Israel. Modi's reaction to the recent Pakistan-engineered skirmish on the Kashmir border—which resulted in the death of hordes of civilians besides forcing hundreds of villages to flee their homes as troops exchanged fire in perhaps the worst violence in the region in a decade—also amply demonstrated that India is posed to strongly defend its borders and foil any peer attempt aimed at weakening its military might. 

Modi not only asked the army to retaliate befittingly, but warned Pakistan that its military infiltration may cost the neighbour more than what it imagines. Pakistan's subsequent retreat showed that it was sort of taken aback by the strong, calculated response from the Indian side. India's 'retaliation response' to Pakistan followed its equally strong reaction during the recent border standoff with Chinese forces that overshadowed Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to India aimed at deepening commercial ties between the two countries. 

The Modi government also unveiled plans to build 54 more border posts in Arunachal Pradesh and strengthen Indo-Tibetan Border Police, which guards the Indo-China border. In another geopolitical move, India said it will supply naval vessels to Vietnam and help it modernise its defence system during the India visit of Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung. All these recent moves are early signs of India's determination to strengthen its defence prowess and slowly emerge a top military power globally.

While the US will continue to be a key partner in India's quest to emerge a global military power, as reflected by the Modi government's recent decision to acquire Boeing's Chinook and Apache helicopters in a deal worth $2.5 billion, what is more important is India's growing defence alliance with Israel. The fact India chose to buy anti-tank guided missiles worth $670 million from Israel, rejecting a rival US offer despite US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel's 'unprecedented' offer to co-develop and co-produce US' Javelin missiles in India during his recent India visit, reinforces that Israel is likely to be a crucial defence ally for India going ahead.

A key feature of Modi's government's defence strategy is to indigenously develop military equipment as part of its broad 'Make in India' strategy—the decision to build six submarines in India at a cost of about Rs 50,000 crore is a clear deviation from the hitherto followed strategy of sourcing military equipment from outside. However, the government will find it difficult to convince the top honchos of armed forces which want sophisticated, ready-to-use foreign weaponry, than trying to develop it locally which may involve a lot of time and effort. The Modi government also has to keep lobbyists for foreign manufacturers of defence equipment at abeyance. 

While study by the Britain's ministry of defence portrayed a bullish future for India as a military power, it warned that the country has to "overcome domestic political issues and improve the way it invests to attain the capabilities needed to project conventional military power globally". One hopes that PM Modi is listening.

India, Russia to export BrahMos to mutually agreeable countries

     The governments of India and Russia have agreed that BrahMos missile will be exported to a list of mutually agreeable countries for defensive purposes. There is also a negative list to which exports are barred.

The missile has been showcased in several countries to apprise the potential customers of its capabilities. “If any country approaches us we will look into it on a case by case basis. BrahMos Aerospace has the production capacity, game plan and skilled labour to supply. I would like to state that we are ready and waiting. It is for the government of India to decide”, Sudhir Mishra, CEO and MD of BrahMos Corporation said on Wednesday.

It has been learnt that three submarine manufacturers Amur (Russia), HDW (Germany) and Navantia (Spain) have approached BA for installing BrahMos on the new Project- 75I submarines should they bag the contract. The manufacturers have all assured that BrahMos can be installed on their submarines without affecting the quality of the missile or the submarine. Land attack capability is one of the requirements of the Project 75I submarines.

Asked about the deliverables for the next five to seven years, Mr. Mishra said, “We are concentrating all energies on the air launched variant to deliver it on schedule. Second is advanced land variants for the Army. We have recently demonstrated a steep dive capability at 65 degree to identify targets in a clutter. Next we are working on a near vertical and surround capability for use in the mountains.”

Mistral Decision Coming Next Month

      French President François Hollande will decide in November whether France will go ahead with a delivery of the Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia, Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Tuesday.

Sources have said previously that a decision was expected in either late October or early November.

“In early September, the president said that if the political conditions did not change, he could not imagine authorizing a delivery,” Le Drian told journalists at the Euronaval trade show.


“He would decide when it was time for delivery. It will be in November,” he said.

Asked about France’s reliability and the Mistral sale to Russia, Le Drian said, “I have never made any forecast on the president’s decision.”

Hollande has set the conditions as the ceasefire being observed in Ukraine and a political settlement between Kiev and Moscow.

In Le Drian’s speech to the foreign delegations at the official opening of the exhibition, the minister spoke of France as a “reliable partner,” citing the 34 years of support and maintenance for warships sold in 1980 to Saudi Arabia under the Sawari export program.

On arms exports for 2014, Le Drian said sales would be similar to the €6.87 billion (US $8.7 billion) reached in 2013, up almost 43 percent from the previous year.

“I think we will be close to that again this year,” he said. “That shows our companies’ performance, technological excellence, the French performance,” he said. “That does not happen without competition, without a contest. The figures show the results are there.”

France agreed in 2011 to the €1.2 billion sale of two Mistral class warships to Russia, with options for two more. The former two are named Vladivostok and Sevastopol. Following the crisis in the Ukraine and the deadly downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, Paris is under pressure from allies to cancel the Mistral handover.

But there is also domestic concern over jobs on the second vessel and potential damage to French reliability as a supplier in the world arms market.

Nuclear power not the best option for China's next aircraft carrier

Want China Times

Chinese Navy's Liaoning aircraft carrier

Cao Weidong, a Chinese military expert told state-run Beijing Television that China should not build its first domestic aircraft carrier as a nuclear-powered vessel since the nation does not have the technology to operate it.

During the interview, Cao said that it is better for China to construct an aircraft carrier for the People's Liberation Army Navy with a displacement of 60,000 tons. Since a light aircraft carrier cannot carry as many aircraft, Cao suggested that China's new aircraft carrier should at least be a medium-sized vessel like the Liaoning, China's first carrier introduced from Ukraine. However, a medium-size carrier can only carry 30 aircraft on board.

Cao said that China's future carrier should be able to carry as many aircraft as possible. He believes that it is important for China to gain control of the air when fighting strong adversaries at sea. Cao said the PLA Navy needs a supercarrier similar to the Forrestal-class aircraft carriers of the United States Navy. He said, however, that China's first supercarrier should not be powered by a nuclear reactor.

Cao said that China still lacks experience in operating a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and that it will take more time for China to acquire such knowledge. He also said that China needs at least three aircraft carriers to defend its 14,500 kilometer coastline as well as dealing with threats in the South and East China seas.

Airbus Defence teams with Tata for Indian Air Force bid

Flightglobal

Airbus C-295

     Airbus Defence and Space has announced it is teaming up with Tata Advanced Systems to bid to replace the Indian air force’s ageing fleet of small tactical transport aircraft with the Airbus C295 twin-turboprop medium airlifter. The main competitor is for the bid is Alenia Aermacchi with its C27J Spartan.

If the C295 were to be chosen for the contract, Tata Advanced Systems would be the Indian production agency for the project, which entails replacing a fleet of 56 severely ageing British Aerospace Avro 748s.
Airbus says it would supply the first 16 aircraft "in flyaway condition from its own final assembly line", and the remaining 40 would be manufactured and assembled by Tata Advanced in India. Airbus explains: "This will include undertaking structural assembly, final aircraft assembly, systems integration and testing, and management of the indigenous supply chain."

Domingo Ureña Raso, Airbus Defence and Space executive vice-president for military aircraft, says: “We firmly believe that in the C295 we have clearly the best aircraft to replace the IAF Avro fleet, and in Tata Advanced Systems we have secured the cream of the Indian private aerospace sector as our partner for this project."

Tata Advanced Systems chairman S. Ramadorai says: “We are extremely pleased to announce our partnership with Airbus Defence and Space for the Avro replacement programme for the Indian air force. It is a landmark for the development of aircraft manufacturing capability in India, now that Tata Advanced Systems is poised to take this step toward building entire aircraft in India. The selection of Tata Advanced Systems by Airbus demonstrates the confidence that has been built in our ability to undertake this complex programme.”

China's Mysterious J-31 to debut at Zhuhai air show next month

Want China Times

Chinese Shenyang J-31 Gyrfalcon Stealth Fighter

China's mysterious J-31 fighter jet will make its long-awaited debut at the annual China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai on Nov. 11, reports our Chinese-language sister paper Want Daily.

The J-31, also known as "Gyrfalcon," or Falcon Hawk by some military enthusiasts, is a twin-engine, mid-size fifth-generation jet fighter currently under development by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. The jet is said to be even more mysterious than the J-20, the fellow fifth-generation fighter being developed by the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation.

The J-31 has reportedly been undergoing a series of flight tests to prepare for its official unveiling at the upcoming air show in Zhuhai in southern China's Guangdong province next month. Analysts say it is important for the plane to be fully prepared as its specifications will inevitably be challenged by experts if there are technical issues that have not yet been resolved.

The debut of the fighter jet is said to be of major significance for China's aviation industry. On the one hand the J-31 will show off the maturity of China's stealth technology. On the other, it is believed that the J-31 may become the first figher jet developed by China to enter the global arms market, which could bring in the necessary funds to fund future investments and continue the development of the domestic indistry.

British Forces Hand Over Control of Last Base in Afghanistan

     British forces Sunday handed over formal control of their last base in Afghanistan to Afghan troops, ending combat operations in the country after 13 years which cost hundreds of lives.

The Union Jack was lowered at Camp Bastion in the southern province of Helmand, while the Stars and Stripes came down at the adjacent Camp Leatherneck — the last US Marine base in the country.


All NATO combat troops will depart Afghanistan by December, leaving Afghan troops and police to battle Taliban insurgents on their own.

The huge joint base built in the desert near the provincial capital Lashkar Gah was the most important installation for the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

Between 2010 to 2011, it housed almost 40,000 foreigners including sub-contractors.

Hundreds of US Marines and British troops are set to leave Helmand soon, though the precise date has not been revealed for security reasons.

In a ceremony Sunday the Afghans took formal control of the base, despite already being present in a portion of it. The British and US flags were lowered, leaving only Afghanistan’s national flag to flutter in the breeze.

Britain’s Defence Secretary Michael Fallon paid tribute to his nation’s role in fighting the Taliban.

A total of 453 British troops and 2,349 Americans were killed.

“It is with pride that we announce the end of UK combat operations in Helmand, having given Afghanistan the best possible chance of a stable future,” he said in a statement from London.

Many facilities such as pipelines, buildings, roads and even office furniture remain in place, with the US alone estimating $230 million worth of equipment is being left behind.

Cautious Optimism
Marine Gen. Daniel D. Yoo, regional commander, said the Afghan army is now now capable of taking over the reins.

“I’m cautiously optimistic they will be able to sustain themselves. I know from my experience that they have the capability and the capacity if they allocate the resources properly,” he said.

“We’re very proud of what we’ve accomplished here,” added the officer, who was among the first Marines on the ground in autumn 2001, when a US-led coalition toppled the Taliban who had been in power since 1996.

Gen. Sayed Malook, who leads the Afghan forces in the region and has now established his quarters in the base, said the camp would become a military training center and house 1,800 soldiers.

“I’m certain we can maintain the security,” he said Sunday. Asked about the departure of the NATO troops, he said: “I’m happy and sad. I’m happy because they are going to their home, I’m sad because they are friends.”

At Camp Leatherneck troops busied themselves with packing up, sorting out what medical equipment will go and what will remain.

Cpl. Ruf Stevens, in charge of vehicle transport, returned to his hut with his assault rifle in one hand and a guitar he found in a dustbin in another.

“I just think we got the job done. It’s a dirty job but pride comes with it,” he said.

The operational command center, a small room in a wooden hut filled with surveillance screens and computers, is seeing out its final days.

Surveillance has picked up little in the way of insurgent activity in recent days as the yearly fighting season comes to an end.

After Camp Leatherneck and Bastion, the most important NATO bases will be at Kandahar, Bagram, Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif.

There are now about 40,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, down from their 2011 peak of around 140,000.

A residual force of around 12,000 soldiers including 9,800 Americans and 500 Britons will remain after December as part of a security pact signed by new president Ashraf Ghani.

Their role will be training Afghan troops and counter-terrorism.

Israel Positions Itself To Boost Satellite Business

    
 After silently settling what many here have characterized as the most potentially damaging lawsuit in Israeli aerospace history, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has taken full control of ImageSat International (ISI), a company it created to stimulate satellite business, but ended up as a renegade, aspiring rival.

The merger of ISI into the corporate portfolio of state-owned IAI aims to revitalize Israel’s remote sensing sector and fuel export sales after a decade of edge-eroding industrial infighting.


IAI, a majority shareholder in the locally based, Dutch Antilles-incorporated firm that owns and operates IAI-built Eros satellites, never announced the out-of-court settlement of billions of dollars claimed by ISI minority partners.

Nor did it go public when it bought out ISI, the company that was created as a commercial vehicle for spinoff service sales in support of Israel’s IAI-built Ofek line of strategic spy satellites.

Both events were concluded more than a year ago; but terms, costs and conditions remain under wraps. ISI will now sell imagery, access and services for IAI-built satellites as a subsidiary of IAI’s Missile and Space Division.

The only hint of the material change in ISI’s corporate structure can be found on its website, where the traditional sentence describing the firm as being owned by “IAI, Elbit Systems, and US and European investors” no longer appears.

The milestone settlement and subsequent buyout were only recently confirmed by both firms and parties involved in years of legal proceedings in US and Israeli courts.

In dozens of interviews, executives conceded that competing interests got way out of hand as IAI sought to sell turnkey programs to the same foreign governments that ISI was targeting for timeshare-like access to its own IAI-built Eros.

ISI, the commercial cutout created to stimulate IAI’s business, was perceived as effectively undercutting its majority shareholder with its attractive lease-like alternative to the limited number of countries with the budget and license approval to buy IAI satellites.

Several sources said the crux of the conflict stemmed from export licensing constraints limiting IAI’s ability to sell mili­tary-grade satellites to countries where ISI was able to offer total control of commercialized satellites as they orbited over a predetermined area, with no questions asked and no government interference. ISI does not sell satellites, merely services, one of which allows use of the satellite camera as it orbits over a partner nation’s area of interest.

“Adding insult to IAI’s perceived injury,” recounted a key figure in the dispute, was ISI’s ability to “book nearly $300 million in service business on a $40 million [satellite bought from] IAI.

“IAI had the plan to get governments hooked on their satellites through services offered by ISI,” he said. “But when customers could essentially control that same satellite over their area of interest for just $10 million to $15 million a year, why buy a $120 million system?”

The ensuing backroom intrigue by ISI and IAI executives and turf-battling officers on the ISI board sparked a decade of bad blood that some sources cited as the reason behind failure to publicize events of the past year.

But without exception, all those interviewed expected the claim-free merger to revitalize Israel’s imaging satellite sector after a decade of opportunities squandered by internecine strife.

“No doubt, there were opportunities missed in the last several years. But that’s all behind us. Period,” said Jacob Weiss, a former IAI general counsel who led ISI-related litigation and the eventual settlement of claims.

In August, he was appointed as the post-merger chairman of the ISI board.

“Today ImageSat is basically a fully coordinated arm of the IAI portfolio. The two entities are operating in a coherent harmonious way, with business objectives 100 percent in sync,” Weiss said.

IAI Chief Executive Joseph Weiss — no relation to the former IAI attorney now chairing the ISI board — characterized the acquisition as a long-overdue tailwind for fortifying Israel’s competitive edge in an important sector of the global market.

Prior to the buyout, IAI owned some 70 percent equity in ISI. It held approximately 45 percent from its initial investment in the 17-year-old firm. The rest it acquired from Elbit Systems, another original partner and former majority shareholder of ISI.

Under a December 2008 agreement between Israel’s two largest aerospace firms, IAI agreed to indemnify Elbit for any losses arising from three separate lawsuits. In 2012, Elbit divested itself of all ISI holdings.

“Today ISI is under our full control after working very hard to implement the post-merger assimilation and integration as smoothly as possible,” Joseph Weiss said.

He said the two firms are honing a strategy based on “this big IAI and this little ISI” working in tandem to grow global sales.

“These days, there’s no competition whatsoever,” said the IAI chief executive.

“We want ISI to push us ahead in the product domain, not in the satellite domain. The more they can sell product, the more this will bring us new satellite business.”

Steve Wilson spearheaded multiple lawsuits on behalf of minority shareholders after working for years with senior Israeli executives and government officials to create ISI. He served as the company’s founding chief executive and secured the initial $90 million in American equity that jump-started operations in mid-2000 after the company was started in 1997.

He also devised ISI’s business plan — unique at the time — offering special operating partners freedom to uplink and downlink images captured by the ISI-owned, IAI-built satellites orbiting over a predetermined, 1,500-kilometer-plus footprint. Partners included India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the UAE.

Wilson on Oct. 21 said confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements prevented him from discussing ISI business or the out-of-court settlement. Nevertheless, he said Israel is still “uniquely capable of becoming a real player” in the dual-use, high-resolution, remote sensing market.

“All I’ll say is that it’s a real shame Israel hasn’t done better in leveraging its unique advantages. I sincerely hope that the settlement will enable Israel to reposition itself in what has now become a well-established and viable commercial market,” Wilson said.

Great Expectations, Dashed Hopes, Lessons
ISI was established in 1997 by IAI, Elbit and a group of American and European investors brought in by Wilson, with enthusiastic regulatory support from the Israeli Defense Ministry.

It was the commercial joint venture all hoped would leverage the government’s 30-year investment in military space.

By selling imagery, access and services from IAI’s military-grade satellites and their Elbit-built payload, ISI was viewed as a commercial springboard for new satellite orders that would increase volume in an industry struggling to survive.

Instead, it became synonymous with untapped potential, battling turf and an industry distracted by years in court.

A copy of its business plan from March 1999 — a plan that was used to raise considerable private-sector investment — aspired to a constellation of eight Eros-class satellites through 2005.

Only two are in orbit.

And one, the Eros A launched in December 2000, is no longer generating revenue and has essentially run out of life.

Moshe Keret, a former IAI chief executive involved from the beginning in ISI, said the entity created to boost business became an annoying and often bitter competitive threat. ISI was tripping over IAI’s toes all over the global market, he said.

“The whole ISI story started out promising, but didn’t end well,” Keret said. “At a certain point, it became a case of the tail wagging the dog.”

Keret was one of the many current and former top executives — a veritable who’s who of Israel’s aerospace sector — targeted for some $6 billion in damages for a 22-count slew of alleged offenses ranging from fraud, conflict of interest and contractual breach.

Weiss, the former IAI general counsel now chairing the ISI board, insists the initial July 2007 lawsuit filed in the US Southern District Court of New York was “a major nuisance lacking in merit” that never actually posed a debilitating threat to Israel’s aerospace industry.

Contrary to minority shareholder claims that major Israeli partners were purposely draining the firm of business potential, Weiss said ISI has always made money and remains solidly in the black.

Nevertheless, in an Oct. 21 interview, he conceded that the protracted litigation proved “very disruptive for a very long time.”

Plaintiffs claimed ISI rights or royalties on all technologies developed in the context of the Eros program, including a potential $1.6 billion venture between IAI and Northrop Grumman — long dormant — to sell up to eight radar satellites to the US government.

The 197-page lawsuit contained not only sensitive details of ISI’s international dealings dating back seven years, but classified information on MoD’s cooperative ties.

The suit revealed details that ISI, until today, refuses to discuss, including exclusivity agreements with Taiwan, Angola and Venezuela terminated by customer or geopolitical demand.

It detailed ISI’s extensive global presence, with “formal associations” with leading remote-sensing users in Argentina, Australia, Canada, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden and Taiwan.

It was so explosive that even though the suit had been filed in US court, Israel’s MoD got judicial authorities here to impose a gag order on the entire case.

“There’s a strong market for high-quality, reasonably priced, high-resolution satellite imagery and access. And there’s no question that having been freed of that nuisance, ImageSat, in lockstep with IAI, can grab our fair share of the market with a harmonized portfolio of products and services,” Weiss said.

Retired Maj. Gen. Itzik Ben-Israel now serves as chairman of the Israel Space Agency. But in a previous role as MoD director of defense research and development, he spent “an insufferable amount of time” on the protracted dispute.

“I really hope all the legal problems are behind them. If so, it should help IAI’s business plan to succeed,” he said.

Nirbhay Cruise Missile : Fearlessly taking India to new heights

Deccan Herald

Nirbhay long range subsonic cruise missile

     The successful launch of India’s first long range subsonic cruise missile Nirbhay is an important landmark in the country’s missile development history. 

It is expected to fill a vital gap between supersonic cruise missiles and long range ballistic missiles in the country’s war fighting capabilities. It has long been in development and the success now comes after a failure when it was launched for the first time in March 2013. The missile had then strayed off its course and failed to hit the pres-designated target. But this time, it was a complete success with the missile flying along 15 pre-determined points on its 1,000 km course in the Bay of Bengal and maintaining an accuracy of 10 metre in the entire path. 


It is a low-flying missile moving just about the speed of commercial aircraft and is designed to evade detection by radars. It has such high accuracy that it can even hit a targeted building in populated area about 1,000 km away. The fact that it is nuclear capable raises its profile. 

The most important feature of Nirbhay is that it is completely indigenously designed and manufactured. The scientists and engineers of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), who have worked on it for years, can be proud of their achievement. The missile’s specialised engine was made at the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) in Bangalore. DRDO has not risen to the nation’s expectations in many areas and on many projects but it has done well in the development of missile technology. The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) forbids signatory countries from assisting India in the development of a cruise missile with a range of over 300 km. 

That is why the range of the BrahMos missile, which was developed in a joint venture between India and Russia, had to be limited to 295 km. Pakistan has its Babur missile which is in the same category as Nirbhay, but its engine is considered to have been supplied by China in violation of the MTCR. The US, Russia and France are the only other countries which have the cruise missile technology. The missile will need more changes and fine-tuning and it will take three years before it is deployed in the forces. When it is ready, it is likely that it will be as good as the US’ iconic Tomahawk missile. It is a multi-platform weapon and can be launched from land, air, sea and underwater. The ability to launch them from submarines will greatly increase India’s strike power. It is also felt that it will fit well into the framework of India’s much discussed “cold start’’ strategic doctrine.

Airbus may partner Tatas for manufacturing defence transport aircraft in India

   TNN

Airbus C-295 AEW&C

     European aeronautics giant Airbus is likely to tie up with the India's Tata group to manufacture transport planes for the defence sector, sources familiar with the development told TOI.

The planned partnership is likely to mark the first big-ticket entry after the Narendra Modi government raised the FDI limit in defence production to 49% from 26% to boost domestic manufacturing and reduce outgo of foreign exchange.

The proposed entry of Airbus in partnership with the Tatas puts at rest doubts that were expressed when the sector was opened up. The government had faced criticism for not allowing majority control for foreign partners and there was an apprehension that global majors might stay away.

India Air Force has plans to replace its Avros aircraft, and the Airbus-Tata combine is one among several groups that are expected to bid for the contract. An email sent to a Tata Sons spokesperson did not elicit any response.

Several Indian companies ranging from Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries to the Mahindras and Bharat Forge have entered the defence industry but the Tata Group seems to have taken an early lead in a segment hitherto dominated by imports.

The government has embarked on a "Make in India" campaign to ensure that the country emerges as a global hub for low-cost quality manufacturing; the defence sector is a key element in this strategy.

In August the Union cabinet approved raising the FDI in the sensitive defence sector and opened up railway infrastructure to foreign firms. The cabinet had also decided that FDI beyond 49% would be allowed in state-of-the art defence equipment manufacturing, with technology transfer under Indian control and management.

Technically, this means 100% FDI is allowed, but sources said this has been the position since 2002. As a safeguard, the Cabinet Committee on Security will approve such proposals. Sources also said that FDI up to 24% would be allowed via the automatic route.

Headquartered in Toulouse, Airbus has had close links with India, a key market for planes, for a while now. In 1988, Airbus struck a deal with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for the Indian PSU to manufacture passenger doors for the A320 aircraft. In addition, Airbus India Engineering in Bangalore employs 350 local engineers working in engineering design and innovation activities; the number working directly or indirectly on Airbus programmes has reached some 5,000 Indian jobs, according to the company's website.

Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tata Sons, is the strategic aerospace and defence arm of the Tata group. It has a tie-up with US helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky.

US Army Explores Its Armored Vehicle Options

Defense News 

M2A3 Bradley IFV

    Nearly a year after the US Army canceled the Ground Combat Vehicle, officials defended the program as on-budget and called the decision to scuttle it a pragmatic move to improve further-along armored vehicle programs with available money.

On Tuesday, Brig. Gen David Bassett, commander PEO Ground Combat Systems, noted that the Future Fighting Vehicle (FFV) program, a follow-on to the GCV, is largely a science-and-technology development effort, meant to help the Army explore its options while it pursues various engineering-change proposals for its existing armored vehicles.


Bassett had some fun with reporters who may have thought the FFV was at this point more than notional.

“If you came today thinking we were going to describe the future fighting vehicle, that we were going to tell you whether we would retain the nine-man squad in the back, and have a manned or unmanned turret, or that we had discovered some new armor technology, I apologize. You’re not going to get any breaking news on that front,” Bassett said.

Program officials repeatedly mentioned the reality of shrinking defense budgets. Bassett said the decision to cancel the GCV was the best way to ultimately provide airborne brigades with better ground vehicles.

“I think it reflected a different budget environment than when the program was initiated,” he said, “an acknowledgment that we faced either an investment with the GCV or a set of investments across the entire [brigade] formation.”

Next Steps
The future of the Bradley and the FFV are intertwined. In 2016, the Army plans to decide whether to turn the FFV program into an effort to produce actual vehicles, a potential Bradley replacement, or lead to a third round of improvements for the Bradley.

If the Army sticks to its current schedule, then the two major Bradley upgrades are a variety of mobility improvements that would include a new power pack, a new suspension and possibly up-gunning to a 30mm or larger cannon.

Meanwhile, the service has promised to release about $50 million in funding that it had left over from the GCV in order to finance further concept development from the two competitors, BAE Systems and General Dynamics, which likely will receive about $20 million each, with another $10 million going to Army research laboratories for further in-house work.

The program office is monitoring technology development at the Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center, searching for breakthrough armor technologies and other advancements. That includes an advanced combat engine, a modular active protection system and new hull manufacturing.

“If GCV represents the technology that was available and affordable, by the time you get to this new program start, it might take a 70-ton vehicle and bring it to 60 tons,” Bassett said.

Bassett offered the caveat that the FFV must be achievable and affordable.

“We ran into this in the GCV program where we looked at armors that were lighter, but the cost was a multiple of what we ended up adopting,” Bassett said. “It doesn’t do us any good to adopt something we can’t afford.” 

US Military Girds for More 'Unconventional Warfare'

      

      The US military must prepare for murky, undeclared wars in which foreign entities use proxy insurgencies against established governments, typified by Russia and Iran, US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) writes in a new white paper.

The paper, “Counter Unconventional Warfare,” describes how US rivals are employing unconventional warfare (UW) — the external sponsorship of insurgent and separatist movements — and argues for a comprehensive joint, inter-agency, intergovernmental and multinational [JIIM] strategy that applies “political, economic, military and psychological pressure,” with a prominent role for US special operations forces.


The term unconventional warfare may be new, but the concept is familiar to US troops who created Filipino guerrilla forces to fight the Japanese during World War II and the Sons of Iraq in 2007. Today, Russia employs its “New Generation Warfare,” to organize pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, filling out their ranks with advisers and fighters, says the white paper. While Iran, it says, employs proxy forces that include Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and various groups in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq and the Caucasus.

“While the joint force must prepare for protracted conflict with increasingly powerful non-state actors, we must also counter state adversaries who use modern military technologies as well as proxies and surrogates,” the USASOC paper says. “Difficult to detect in a timely fashion via conventional methods, countering these hybrid threats will place a premium on broad-based intelligence efforts, rapid, coordinated innovation and adaptation, and a commitment to undermining the means and will of adversaries to persist in conduct inimical to US and allied interests.”

Ahead of budget season, it is white paper season. The USASOC white paper and two recently released documents also highlight the Army’s role in national defense and the spread of complex threats. There is a Rand study, “Improving Strategic Competence: Lessons from 13 Years of War,” the Army’s operating concept, “Win in a Complex World.”

The US has used proxies of its own, partnering with irregular, “non-statutory” civil defense forces (CDFs) as a cheap, stop-gap security measure, though these groups can be difficult to control and have agendas of their own, according to a recent CNA Corp. report, “Risky Business: The Future of Civil Defense Forces and Counterterrorism in an Era of Persistent Conflict.”

While the Obama administration’s national security guidance eschews large-scale stability operations in favor of small-footprint “by, with, and through” approaches, the report presents a strategy for using civil defense forces to fight non-state organizations such as the Islamic State, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Shabab, and Boko Haram, which have local political objectives and depend on the population for support.

How might an unconventional warfare approach look against the Islamic State? The US could thwart the Islamic State’s recruiting efforts by using foreign double agents to taint the ranks and sew distrust, writes Clint Watts, a former executive officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point, in the blog “War on the Rocks” on Oct. 20.

“Unconventional warfare approaches always have potential disadvantages or consequences that naturally arise when working through surrogates rather than the direct command of militaries,” Watts writes. “But the US’s taste for large enduring deployments has long soured; proxies must now be utilized to defeat [the Islamic State].”

Naming the rise of the Islamic State, Russian revanchism and the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, as three surprising and disruptive “black swan,” events, USASOC commander Lt. Gen Charles Cleveland said the US must maintain a “persistent influence” in foreign nations, for peace, stability and good governance, to get ahead of conflicts before they metastasize.

And he argued against budget cuts that undermine such efforts.

At a panel at the US Army’s annual meeting on Oct. 15 with a State Department official and policy experts, Cleveland called for an interagency planning framework, and the ability to win through a whole-government approach, without US military’s “iron mountain.”

“Unconventional warfare is a form of warfare, and there are practitioners out there across the globe that are getting very good at it,” Cleveland said. “Do we not owe the American people a capability to be as good as our adversaries at this form of warfare — and know it to the detail needed so we can counter it or practice itself when our interests are at stake?”

Sarah Sewall, undersecretary of state for civilian security, democracy and human rights, said military and the State Department must work together closely amid “dynamic” and “gray” scenarios. Categories such as insurgency, terrorism and civil wars are blurring together, and defying categorization.

“Failures of governance and rising extremism are interrelated phenomena that are structurally tearing apart at the global fabric,” Sewall said, adding later: “We are needing to intervene earlier, before things are being seen as full-blown crises.”

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, director of the Army Capabilities and Integration Center, said the service should build expertise in negotiation theory, interest mapping and how to exert influence, whether through persuasion or coercion.

“I think we have to bolster the legitimacy of our key partners and ultimately trace grievances back to the enemy, who are really causing these problems,” McMaster said.

The US has a choice to help stabilize nations now in a deliberate way, or fight wars later, said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“If we don’t have nation-states that are capable of keeping peace — law and order — on their own, that creates gaps which extremist groups like [the Islamic State] can exploit, and then we get sucked in to deal with the resulting problems,” Boot said.

Selex, Raytheon Compete To Supply IFF System to UK

Defense News

      Raytheon UK and Selex ES are going head-to-head to supply a new identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system for the British military, the Ministry of Defence announced.

The two companies have each been awarded £5.1 million (US $8.2 million) assessment phase contracts to provide the new NATO-mandated Mode 5 IFF system for British military aircraft, warships and battlefield vehicles.


The MoD will select the winning contractor to provide a new generation of equipment aimed at reducing blue-on-blue engagements after the conclusion of yearlong competitive studies.

A final contract award is expected in 2016

“Mode 5 IFF represents the new standard for all military transponders and interrogators which will be used by NATO countries using modern modulation, coding and cryptographic techniques,” said Defence Procurement Minister Philip Dunne.

“It is an essential piece of kit for future operations and interoperability with our allies. This study is an important step forward in bringing this capability to our armed forces,” Dunne said.

The current Mode 4 standard equipment used by the British is supplied by Raytheon.

Britain to speed up Typhoon upgrade for Iraq campaign

Telegraph

EurofighterTyphoon and C-27J Spartan

     The Ministry of Defence is speeding up plans to upgrade the RAF’s Typhoon jets with precision missiles in case they are one day needed to bomb Isil fighters in Iraq.

Defence sources said Britain’s role in the unexpected campaign against Islamist militants had exposed a shortage of ground attack jets which will only get worse as the RAF’s ageing Tornado planes retire.

Only Tornado GR4 fighter-bombers are fitted with Britain’s highly accurate Brimstone missiles which are considered critical to the campaign against Isil forces who have swept across Northern Iraq.

Commanders say the missiles are unique among the coalition forces and envied by America for their ability to hit moving vehicles, while minimising civilian casualties with a small warhead.

The MoD announced earlier this year it planned to fit the missiles to Typhoons by 2019 so they can take over the Tornados ground attack duties when the jets retire that year.

But RAF chiefs have now warned the unexpected extra burden of the Iraq campaign on its shrinking fleet of combat jets means they may soon struggle to field enough planes carrying the £105,000 missiles.

The Government has already given a one year reprieve to a squadron of Tornado GR4s which had been due to be axed early next year.

The MoD is now in talks to speed up the upgrade, but defence analysts say it could still be 2017 before the Typhoons are ready.

Howard Wheeldon, a defence analyst, said: “It’s a pity this decision was not made a long time ago. Typhoon will not be fully air-to-ground capable until 2019, and that’s really too far out.

“It isn’t just about bunging Brimstone on the aircraft. Even if it went really well, I think 2017 would be the earliest that it could really be operational.

“It was only six months ago that the Defence Secretary was saying we would not be fighting any more conflicts abroad in the near future. Things have changed a lot since then with Iraq, while we are still in Afghanistan, as well as Nigeria and the Falklands.

“They don’t have the capacity to do that. This is a realisation that we need to be able to operate more than one campaign.”

Air chiefs have also warned that the strain of the seven or eight hour round trip to bomb Isil targets from the Tornados base at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus will increase the wear and tear on the ageing planes.

Ministers have admitted the Iraq campaign could take several years. The US-led coalition has already launched hundreds of air strikes in both Iraq and Syria, but Iraqi forces have been unable to capitalise on the onslaught to drive back Isil, also known as Isis or Islamic State.

Typhoons were designed in the 1990s as air-to-air combat fighters to defend Britain’s skies against enemy planes, rather than for ground attack.

The RAF has begun taking delivery of upgraded planes which can drop the Tornados’ Paveway IV guided bombs.

An MoD spokesperson said: “We have already deployed a number of Tornado GR4s to support coalition operations against Isil in Iraq.

“Whilst we constantly review our options, there are no plans to deploy Typhoon to Iraq as the GR4 provides the optimum capability for the operation. Although work is under way to evaluate the integration of Brimstone missiles with the Typhoon aircraft, no firm decisions have been made.”

Why India needs to rethink the Rafale deal

Russia India Report

Fighter planes fall into two categories – the hunters and the hunted. The French are pitching their Rafale as the dogfight duke that is the crème de la crème of jet fighters. But the Russian side disagrees. Alexander Kadakin, Russia's ambassador in India, says Chinese-made Sukhoi-27s would be able to swat the Rafales like “mosquitoes on an August night.”

At this point it’s pointless to deliver the verdict on which aircraft is superior. The Rafale is a largely unknown commodity in aviation circles. Like most French fighters, it is most likely an unassuming, unspectacular but honest aircraft.


But what Kadakin left unsaid is ominous. First up, he said the hundreds of Su-27 Flankers supplied by Moscow to Beijing are much less advanced than the Flankers in India’s inventory. Now forget the Su-27 for a while and let’s talk about the two squadrons of the latest Su-35 Super Flanker that Russia has cleared for sale to China. This new iteration is a huge advancement over the already potent Su-27. If the aircraft's stupendous performance at the 2014 Paris Air Show is any indication then the Rafale is likely to fare even worse against the Su-35.
Costing dogfight

To be sure, the most significant aspect of the Rafale deal is the cost. Originally pegged at $10 billion, the size of the deal has climbed to a stratospheric $30 billion. So instead of bolstering the country’s air power, the Rafale is threatening to blow a gaping hole in India’s overstretched defence budget.

India may the third largest economy on the planet but in the backdrop of numerous projects requiring bucket loads of cash, New Delhi can’t afford to splurge on weapons, especially when alternatives are available for far less.

The IAF’s requirement of 126 aircraft can be quickly met – at a fraction of the cost of the Rafale – by inducting more numbers of the technologically superior Su-30s, which the IAF described as its “air dominance fighter,” and which is being produced at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL).

Each Indian made Su-30 costs approximately $75 million per unit. So if the IAF goes for 126 of them, the total cost will come to under $10 billion, which coincidentally is the originally envisaged amount. Plus, the Sukhois will provide more bang for the buck. “These aircraft will be the high end of India’s air power, and can be expected to remain in the force past 2030, and are competitive with or superior to top-end European fighters and American F-15 variants,” says Defense Industry Daily.

Another option is to buy more of the – even more cheaper – MiG-29, which is the mainstay of India’s interceptor force, and which had shattered the morale of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) during the 1999 Kargil War.

With the $20 billion or so saved, India can import leading edge aviation technology – from France, Russia, Germany or even the US to beef up its military aviation. With manufacturing declining in the US and Europe and thousands of defence sector jobs facing the axe, western engineers would be more than happy to work in India.

There is a precedent in this area. After 1991 when elite Soviet weapons engineers and scientists found their jobs gone, many of them found work at Chinese and South Korean companies – both military and civilian. Russian scientists and engineers ended up transforming the defence sector in both these Asian countries.

India too needs to tread the same path. Hiring unemployed or underemployed European defence sector workers would cut the development time frame of Indian defence projects. In fact, even Pakistan has a tenuous Russian connection. An administrator of Pakistan’s Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission from 1967 to 1970 was Polish aeronautical engineer air commodore Wladyslaw Turowicz. Born in Siberia, the Pole made significant contributions to Pakistan’s missile programme as an aeronautical engineer.

That brings up the third option. India’s homemade Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) is being fielded in limited numbers, and further development can easily make it a world class fighter. India can then produce hundreds of LCAs costing around $40 million – for the IAF. For decades, China has adopted this policy of having hundreds of obsolete aircraft because “quantity has a quality all its own”.

Sending hundreds of LCAs swarming into Pakistani air space would completely overwhelm that country’s defences. In 
effect, the Tejas fleet would kick the door in, allowing the Sukhois to pulverise targets with the supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles.

The LCA even become the military equivalent of India’s $2000 TATA Nano car, for which there was a waiting list in Sri Lanka. Similarly, the LCA could be the ideal export aircraft to small countries with limited budgets. Aircraft such as the Su-30, MiG-29 and F-18 are too expensive and too big for the use of such nations. India could be the first to market a no-frills fighter.


Why Rafale?
When the MMRCA tender was floated over a decade ago, it seemed like a good idea. One, it was aimed at lowering India’s overwhelming dependence on Russia for advanced weapons.

Secondly, India wanted to acquire a medium aircraft that would fill the gap between the low-end LCA and the premium Sukhois.

The third reason was to shore up the IAF's depleting fighter fleet. The IAF’s sanctioned strength is 39.5 squadrons (an IAF combat squadron consists of 18 aircraft in service with another 3-4 in maintenance) but its current fleet is down to 34 squadrons. The air force says it requires 44 squadrons to meet a full-scale war with Pakistan, while also maintaining "a dissuasive posture" against China.

Earlier this year, the IAF told a Parliamentary standing committee on defence that a "collusive threat" from China and Pakistan would be difficult for it to handle. This was played up by the media, which failed to see the fine print: the IAF admitted (in the same statement) China may not pose “a collusive threat” if hostilities were to break out between India and Pakistan.

Indeed, why would the Chinese team up with a rapidly balkanizing Pakistan and attack a fellow BRICS member? It is not only counterintuitive but also a ridiculous idea.

As for the threat from Pakistan, it is really a joke. The arrival of the MiG-29 and the Sukhoi-30 in the 1990s has given the IAF a fearsome qualitative advantage over the PAF. This edge was demonstrated during the 1999 Kargil War. While a number of IAF aircraft took part in that campaign, it was the cover provided by the MiG-29 that spooked – and demoralised – the PAF pilots.

Says Strategy Page in a report dated May 20, 2005: “While PAF fighters did fly Combat Air Patrols (CAP) during the conflict, they stayed well within Pakistani air space. On occasions, IAF MiG-29s armed with the deadly R-77 BVR air-to-air missiles were able to lock on to PAF F-16s, forcing the latter to disengage.”

So scared were the Pakistani pilots of the Indian MiGs that the “PAF simply refused to play any part” in the war.

In the report “Airpower at 18,000 feet: IAF in the Kargil War” published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 2012, Benjamin Lambeth says the Pakistani F-16s “typically maintained a safe distance of 10 to 20 miles on the Pakistani side of the LoC”.

Qualitatively, the IAF is on an upward curve. In fact, in an interview to the media in 2012, former air force chief N.A.K. Browne gave the lie to the claim that the IAF was becoming weaker. According to Browne, the IAF is replacing older MiG-21s with Su-30s. He said once older aircraft are replaced with brand new Sukhois the IAF will have “far greater capability than even what we have today”.

If India and France sort out the numerous issues dogging the MMRCA deal and a contract is signed this year, then the first 18 Rafales will arrive from France in 2016. If all goes smoothly, the rest of the 102 aircraft could start rolling off HAL’s assembly lines by 2018.

But here’s the rub: around 2020 Sukhoi’s stealth fighter, the PAK-FA, in which India is a junior partner, will be ready to join the IAF. Why India is committing itself to a stopgap aircraft is mysterious.