DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: Russian Bombers Intercepted Off Southern UK

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: Russian  Bombers Intercepted Off Southern UK

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by K. V. Seth from reliable sources Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - February 19, 2015: The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) scrambled two Eurofighter Typhoon fighter aircraft to intercept a pair of Russian bombers that were flying close to British airspace, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced on 19 February.

The Tupolev Tu-95 'Bear' strategic bombers were intercepted and shadowed by the Typhoons off the coast of Cornwall, in the southwest of the United Kingdom.

While no further details were available at the time of writing, it is more than likely that the Typhoons were launched from RAF Coningsby in eastern England, which is home to the UK's southern Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) force.

It is not believed that the Russian bombers violated UK airspace.

This incident comes at the same time as large scale Russian Air Force exercises involving more than 50 combat aircraft (mainly fighter types) are taking place near St Petersburg.

*Link for This article compiled by K. V. Seth from reliable sources Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - U.K. DEFENSE NEWS: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Simply A Penomenal Flying Machine

Defense News: DTN News - U.K. DEFENSE NEWS: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Simply A Penomenal Flying Machine

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor, at Patuxent River Naval Base, Maryland 8:0AM BST 04 May 2013
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - May 4, 2013: The smile on the face of the test pilot as he completed a successful vertical landing of Britain’s newest generation of fighter jets said it all. “This is simply a phenomenal flying machine.”

After all the bitter controversy over the Government’s decision to scrap the iconic Harrier jump jet in 2010 as part of the defence cuts, a team of Britain’s top gun fighter pilots has now arrived in the U.S. to begin testing its successor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Under the Government’s plans to build two new aircraft carriers equipped with state-of-the-art fighters, the role of the F-35 is crucial to the programme’s success. Like the Harrier before it, the F-35 has the ability to conduct vertical landings.

And last week at the American military’s Patuxent River naval air base in Maryland, I became the first British journalist to see one of the British pilots conducting a perfect test landing of an aircraft that is set to become one of Britain’s leading strike fighters for the next generation.

One of the most impressive aspects of Britain’s first stealth warplane is its Rolls Royce vertical landing system, which will enable the aircraft to land on the deck of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers that are currently under construction in Scotland.
During last week’s test flight I watched as one of Britain’s prototype F-35 fighters approached the landing area at around 150mph, before the aircraft slowly came to a complete halt. It then hung perfectly motionless in the sky for a full minute at around 100 feet before making a gentle landing on the tarmac.

“This aircraft is light years ahead of the Harrier in terms of what it can do,” said Peter Wilson, 47, the British test pilot who conducted the landing. A veteran Harrier pilot who has flown combat missions in Iraq, Bosnia and Sierra Leone, Mr Wilson, who is now one of Britain’s leading test pilots, said the Harrier was a difficult plane to fly, and required immense skill on the part of the pilot to conduct vertical landings. “We have learnt our lessons and the F-35 has all the Harriers faults designed out of it,” said Mr Wilson, from Whalley, Lancs.

A key element in the versatility of the Harriers, which played a vital role in the campaign to liberate the Falkland Islands and more recently saw action in Iraq and Afghanistan, was their ability to make vertical landings in the most challenging conditions, whether on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a driving gale or at a remote desert airstrip.

Now the team of British pilots and technicians working on the F-35 are making sure the new aircraft has the same capability. If all goes according to plan, and the new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are built on time, then the F-35s will available to fly off the decks on combat operations by 2020.

Apart from its flying capability, the F-35 is also fitted with the latest intelligence-gathering and stealth technology. Named Lightning II in honour of Britain’s supersonic jet fighter during the early Cold War era, the F-35 can fly at nearly twice the speed of sound and its stealth capability means it can penetrate deep into enemy territory without being tracked by radar. “The stealth factor means you can detect enemy aircraft but they cannot detect you,” explained Mr Wilson.

“It is a joy to fly,” said Lt. Commander Ian Tidball, 43, a former Royal Navy Harrier pilot who arrived in the U.S. four weeks ago to begin test flights. “It is very responsive compared to the Harrier, and has a far wider range of capabilities.”

These include a specially designed helmet that gives the pilot a 350 degree view around the aircraft simply by tilting his head, while the cockpit is filled with a multi-screen display consol that enables the pilot to collect and assess intelligence collected by the aircraft’s advanced sensors will assessing which targets to attack. In all the most advanced combat aircraft ever flown by the British military contains around eight million lines of software code.

“The helmet is like wearing a laptop on your head, while the cockpit has been designed with its own in-built i-Pad before the i-Pad had even been invented,” explained Group Captain Harv Smyth (correct spell), 41, another veteran RAF Harrier pilot who won the Distinguished Flying Cross during the Iraq War in 2003 and is overseeing the project. “The main problem we face is that the technology is now so advanced that we have to make sure it fits in with our air worthiness requirements.”

At $110 million (around £71 million) a piece, the Lightning does not come cheap and, like the previous Eurofighter project that produced the RAF’s Typhoon interceptor, the development programme has been beset by spiralling costs and serious equipment setbacks. During early trials pilots found that the helmets – which cost around £300,000 each – did not function when the plane hit turbulence, a potentially fatal failing in a combat environment, while more recently the entire test fleet was grounded earlier this year when cracks were found in the engine turbine blade.

Critics of the ambitious plan to provide a new generation of aircraft carriers with top-range fighters also say that at a time when the Government is trying to cut the deficit Britain simply cannot afford to continue with the most ambitious military project undertaken in recent British history.

But Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, who visited the American test site last week, said he remained committed to maintaining the £10 billion programme. He said Britain’s participation in the American-led F-35 venture will create 25,000 jobs and has the potential to earn an estimated £35 billion in exports during the life of the programme. In addition it will help to strengthen the transatlantic alliance.

“It’s great to be back in the business of vertical landing aircraft again,” said Mr Hammond. “This aircraft will enable Britain to have one of the world’s leading war-fighting capabilities for many years to come.”

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor, at Patuxent River Naval Base, Maryland 8:0AM BST 04 May 2013
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: Harmonizing European Defense Efforts

Defense News: DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: Harmonizing European Defense Efforts
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Robert K. Ackerman, SIGNAL Magazine
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - May 6, 2012: The European Union is trying to bring the defense programs of its 27 member nations into synchronicity before the budget boom is lowered on military spending. This harmonization has been a goal for several years, but now it has assumed greater urgency in a time of both greater limitations and more diverse missions.

With the United States the world’s undisputed military superpower and NATO the prevailing defense alliance, the European Union (EU) is striving to develop a military force among member nations that is both effective and efficient. It has participated in several multinational operations, some of which are ongoing. However, the EU force has yet to achieve a satisfactory complementary role with NATO, and the budgetary pressures that are affecting democracies around the world threaten to derail EU efforts to build a distinct military force with its own identity in the global security realm.

So, that force is working to improve its functionality in a time of rising demand and declining resources. Solutions for the two issues may go hand-in-hand as the continent grapples with achieving its long-term goals.

Gen. Håkan Syrén, SWN, is the chairman of the European Union Military Committee (EUMC). He states that solving most of the challenges facing the European Union may require the effective pooling and sharing of defense efforts, which will allow the European Union to attain greater operational effect without increases in spending. This approach would not entail all EU members engaging in the same activity; rather, it would involve clusters of nations cooperating in complementary ways. Areas where this approach would bear fruit quickly include training and exercising, procurement and surveillance, the general points out.

“We must not just look at what we don’t have. We must also look at what we have,” Gen. Syrén declares. In this vein, the European Union is looking at overcapacities that can be altered to realize greater efficiencies.

The past year has seen progress in getting European nations to pool and share—to “work smarter,” the general says. However, that type of cultural and logistical change takes time, which is in short supply with severe budgetary pressures constraining member nations.

Gen. Syrén describes four strategic priorities for the short term. These include ongoing operations in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East as well as developing a more effective use of European military capabilities. Also on the list is the advancement of strategic partnerships with organizations such as the United Nations, the African Union, NATO and individual states outside of the European Union. And, the EUMC is pursuing a comprehensive approach to its operations. The general observes that the European Union’s operations in the Horn of Africa could serve as a testbed for the comprehensive approach, which is outlined in the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon that laid the foundation for a permanent European structured cooperation in defense.

For the long term, Gen. Syrén allows, the EUMC is facing a strategic change that is underway on the other side of the globe. “It is very clear that the center of gravity is going from this corner of the world to the Far East,” he says. Combined with the budget constraints, this shift is affecting Europe’s defense activities. The general recalls how former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in a farewell statement, called for Europe to shoulder more responsibility for its own defense.

Yet, as with all democracies’ militaries, the global financial crisis has hamstrung Europe’s defense efforts. Since the end of the Cold War, European nations intended to spend about 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. However, that goal has faded in recent years, and Gen. Syrén admits that some nations even come in as low as 0.7 percent of GDP for defense. “When you have 27 member states doing their defense budgets individually, it is difficult to have a holistic view of this. Member states are really losing their capacity to keep up a long-term perspective,” he observes, adding that it is difficult for the European Union to coordinate defense efforts in this environment.
  
An Airbus A400M lands on an unpaved airfield. Gen. Syrén cites strategic airlift as one area that needs modernization to improve Europe’s defense capabilities.

However, Gen. Syrén emphasizes that Europe is not out of money for defense spending. Its members spend a total of about $200 billion annually on defense. These nations must maximize their return on that investment.

Ironically, the budget crisis is a good argument for EU member states to cooperate on complementary military development. “I understand that 27 sovereign states must have 27 headquarters, but we have to look very carefully at how we are executing our business,” the general says. “Do we really need all the war colleges? Can we continue with many different logistical concepts? Do we need a dozen different manufacturers of armored personnel vehicles? Do we need more than a dozen naval shipyards? Do we really need four different fourth-generation combat aircraft?

“We have to look at how we are doing the business; and in this context, pooling and sharing can be both a useful tool and also a useful wakeup call that we can do business together,” he states.

The general continues that the European Union has developed a number of initiatives and proposals, but these represent just a first step. “If I compare the situation today with when we started this effort one and a half years ago—and I can count on my fingers what kind of savings this can give us against the budget cuts we have seen the past year and that we have ahead of us—the situation is getting worse. So, we have to take pooling and sharing to a completely different level.”

Part of the challenge is that many nations agree with the concept in principle, but then they cannot agree on how to implement it. Leaders come to view the next step in implementation as a threat to their nation’s sovereignty, the general allows. Some nations also view it as a threat to their defense industrial base, with resultant reductions in domestic employment. “This discussion must be taken to the highest political level to work out these very difficult questions,” he says. “We are at that stage.”

Many European nations have taken to forming bilateral or even trilateral military force alliances with their neighbors. These mini-alliances are a positive development, the general says, and the European Union can build on them. The battle group concept, in which regional forces group in clusters, also contributes to the building of a European defense force. Training and exercise in particular benefit from these agreements.

These local cooperative approaches might be a key to reaching the goal of an EU-wide complementary defense. “A bilateral or trilateral [approach] can be a good initiative or inspiration for other member states to join and make it better and wider,” the general suggests.

Not only does this approach break down barriers between countries, it also provides better cost-effectiveness, Gen. Syrén points out. “The driver is the pooling and sharing initiative, along with the understanding that we cannot continue to do business as we have done before. We have to do it differently while we are under these budget constraints.”

And, as with all modern militaries, Europe must modernize its force to respond to changes in the global security arena. The recent operation in support of the Libyan people rebelling against the government of Muammar Gaddafi illuminated several shortcomings in European defense capabilities. These included precision munitions, strategic airlift and intelligence. All of these must be addressed in the long term, Gen. Syrén points out.

“You can take any one of the conflicts [in which the EU has participated] and these [needs] have been asked for,” he relates.

The general adds helicopters, mid-air refueling, medical units and engineering to this list of military shortcomings that need remedying. In terms of capabilities, Gen. Syrén wants a single surveillance picture for maritime units.

New threats such as cyberwar and the consequences of climate change also are affecting defense planning for the European Union. These threats join weapons of mass destruction as concerns for the EUMC.

The European Union has not yet clearly defined its course of action for dealing with the cyberthreat, Gen. Syrén admits. A commission is expected to generate its first paper toward developing a framework for action shortly.

Climate change is an issue because the melting Arctic icecap is opening up new sea lanes. Many of the nations that border the Arctic now are looking at newly accessible regions in which the undersea shelf may hold vast natural resources such as oil and gas. The potential for competing claims makes this a geopolitical issue, and the military must stand ready if needed to contribute to resolution, the general observes.

Even though 21 of the European Union’s 27 member nations also belong to NATO, the relationship between the EU military and the Atlantic alliance remains unsettled. For example, some in NATO are concerned that a strong EU military will weaken NATO. Gen. Syrén describes the barriers between NATO and the European Union defense force as purely political. Accordingly, eliminating them will require action at the political level. “We in uniform cannot solve the problems alone; nor can the civilian authorities,” he says. Both the NATO secretary-general and the EU high representative have been clear about their efforts to resolve differences. “Willingness is not the problem,” Gen. Syrén allows. “Now, we have to wait for the result.”

The general notes that the two forces have cooperated well in operations such as Ocean Shield in the Gulf of Aden and in Afghanistan. The two organizations are able to work out important details when they cooperate in theater. He views his job as ensuring that no competition emerges between NATO and the EUMC, and he lauds the relationship he has with his counterpart in NATO. “We really can be complementary to NATO,” Gen. Syrén offers.

One way that the European Union can complement NATO is through civilian operations. These can include state-building measures such as economic assistance, food relief and establishing law and order mechanisms.


*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Robert K. Ackerman, SIGNAL Magazine
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS 

DTN News - BRITISH DEFENSE NEWS: The SDSR Is A Slash-And-Burn Campaign Plan - And It's Time The Government Admitted It

Defense News: DTN News - BRITISH DEFENSE NEWS: The SDSR Is A Slash-And-Burn Campaign Plan - And It's Time The Government Admitted It
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By William Forbes - Daily Mail UK
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - April 10, 2012: Four days ago I wrote, in respect of the Falkland Islands but with relevance to all British interests in the wider sense:

'The most effective deterrent of all, the true guardian of the Islands‘ security, is British clarity of vision, rational national defence policies, and consistently unambiguous and fudge-free ministerial communication. Those are issues this blog will examine during the next few months.'

Our theme for this, Rational Defence First, is linked to Effects-Based Financing (EBF) and to unwavering insistence on Integrity as the principal virtue of our national leaders. That integrity must include the willingness to admit incapacity, to acknowledge failure, and to surrender office to others better qualified in knowledge, experience and skill.

So where, amid what defence analysts recognise as a truly appalling political, economic and military situation, should we begin? If we are to concentrate on what has happened and will happen under the present coalition government (treating the dreadful years of Mr Brown’s stewardship, about which we can do little now, as merely the platform for future disasters we can still avert), then the obvious place to begin is this government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, the SDSR (or, as it is known among defence analysts, the Suicidal Disarmament and Surrender Retreat).      

Fair-minded readers may ask whether the selection of such a defenceless target can be justifed? Perhaps it seems like bullying, but effectively the target has been chosen for us by the government’s own insistence that the SDSR will not be amended (even while ministers surreptitiously seek to do just that as the true horror of their position, and of the nation’s military weakness, sinks into the government’s addled corporate brain). 

Despite its condemnation by a host of defence experts, highly qualified by experience, especially by members of the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA), whose criticisms are countered solely by personal smears (but while the MoD employs a battalion of PR spin doctors they may as well be used, no?), and despite the mounting evidence of the SDSR’s irrelevance, the government refuses to budge from its obtuse stance.

Again it may be asked if such criticism is not rather too harsh, for were the authors of the SDSR themselves not highly qualified experts who knew exactly what they were doing? Well, yes, they did know, but they were not composing the rational strategic review expected from their deliberations and they did not produce one. They were responding to what the Treasury dictated, not to strategic requirements, and the result was a slash-and-burn campaign plan that is incrementally destroying the UK’s ability to protect its sovereign interests.

As independent analysts everywhere accused the government of fantasy, a serious charge when the nation’s defences are in question, again we must ask if the charge is too harsh. To this the analysts reply that the hub of the SDSR’s thinking is the acquisition at some time in the future of two aircraft carriers equipped, at some further time in the future, with squadrons of the F-35B or F-35C Joint Strike Fighters. Future issues of this blog will deal extensively with the practicality of this plan, especially in respect of its cost (which is already, we are told, out of control, and far beyond our ability to pay), but for today I shall restrict the criticisms to those in a formal paper I have had on file for a year.

The basis of the paper’s argument was ‘the conflict between the SDSR’s representation of the F-35 JSF as “the world’s most advanced multi-role combat jet” and (when paired with the Typhoon) “two of the world’s most capable combat aircraft”, a claim for which the MoD can produce no valid evidence ...’ and the paper charged: ‘The SDSR claim was untrue and destroyed its credibility.’ 

The paragraph of the SDSR relevant to this stated:

“Our fast jet fleet will be made up of two modern and highly capable multi-role combat aircraft, the Typhoon and Joint Strike Fighter. This combination will provide the flexibility and strike power to deal with a variety of new and existing threats, while also radically improving cost-effectiveness and efficiency.” 

The Typhoon was described two decades ago by a very senior RAF officer as “the aircraft that will bankrupt the Air Force,” and it has been reported that when quoted to an American audience it drew a snort of derision: “We have an airplane that will bankrupt the whole ******* country.”  The full JSF programme began life modestly, so when it was predicted that its cost would rise to near one trillion dollars there were questions to answer. First there was denial, and then admission that this might possibly be correct, then that it was but it might be higher, then that it would be $1.3 trillion, then $1.45 trillion, and now there are rumours it will be $1.5 trillion (or $1,500 billion, or $1,500,000,000,000 if that is easier for the MoD, which has problems with figures, to comprehend). 

The paper continues with a reference to a recent letter from the MoD pleading that 'the JSF programme is in the early development stage' and thus implicitly accepting the validity of the original criticism of the SDSR’s promotion of the JSF as a superior aircraft in its category, and also of the MoD’s subsequent claims that it is most 'cost-effective'. 

Such claims may easily mislead the public. No aircraft in the inchoate development stage of the JSF – nine years behind schedule and with three million lines of code yet to be written (another six years at the current rate of progress) – can be portrayed as one of the world’s best, nor may it be validly described as 'cost-effective' when neither its costs nor its effectiveness are known or are capable of calculation.

We shall have much to discuss on this fantasy in future issues of the blog, principally on the grounds that, first, the carriers, if they are ever ready to put to sea ten years or more from now, will be too vulnerable to risk in war, and second, that the JSF design is not what the UK wants or can afford.

So the SDSR should be scrapped immediately, plans for any more cuts should be stopped immediately, and a new review commissioned for production within a realistic timescale. The SDSR, as the government must understand, has no credibility and has been shown, in its distortion of the truth about the immense financial commitments the MoD is making on our behalf, that it lacks the integrity essential for government communications in a democracy.

Having started with the SDSR, several of the coming posts must be used to provide the information the MoD has forgotten to give the public. None of it is secret. All will be taken from material in the public domain, much of it in America. Owing to the crucial role of the carriers-JSF programme in the SDSR's plans, most of it will be concentrated on these two immensely expensive items - whose real costs, the MoD has admitted, have been grossly underestimated by the department's ‘conspiracy of optimism’ and hidden by processes described in Parliament as ‘dysfunctional and incompetent’.

More...

• *£10billion spent on refuelling planes which don't work on RAF jets
• *Bill for Britain's new stealth fighter jets soars up to £15bn
• *Scandal of the 800 hero Army dogs put down after military service... because they were considered too fierce to become pets

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By William Forbes - Daily Mail UK
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS 

DTN News - SAUDI ARABIA DEFENSE NEWS: BAE Systems Signs Saudi-Eurofighter Deal

Defense News: DTN News - SAUDI ARABIA DEFENSE NEWS: BAE Systems Signs Saudi-Eurofighter Deal
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Rhys Jones - Reuters
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - April 4, 2012: British defence contractor BAE Systems said a contract to build 48 Typhoon aircraft in Britain for the Saudi Arabian air force had been signed but changes to the price of the deal had yet to be agreed.

BAE had expected changes to the terms of the deal to be signed off in 2011, but it warned in January this year that talks over proposed adjustments to the final assembly of the last 48 of the 72 Typhoon aircraft would continue into 2012 and could hit 2011 profit.

The proposed changes -- such as the creation of a maintenance facility in Saudi Arabia, the addition of new capability to some aircraft and the formalisation of price changes -- could affect the price of the deal.

The Salam deal to build a total of 72 aircraft was signed in 2007 and is worth around 4.5 billion pounds ($7.21 billion), with the first squadron of 24 already delivered to the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF).

"The contract for the final assembly of 48 Typhoon aircraft in the UK has now been signed and final assembly has commenced at our Warton facility, discussions are ongoing with regard to the creation of a maintenance facility in Saudi Arabia and the formalisation of price variations," BAE said in an email sent to Reuters on Tuesday.

"In terms of ... conversion to Tranche 3 and formalisation of price escalation, good progress has been made with budgets approved in December 2011 through the royal decree. Negotiations on price escalation will continue into 2012."

Conversion of the jets to a Tranche 3 variant will see new missile and radar technology added to the Typhoon.

The Saudi royal decree, which was signed off at the end of 2011, releases some 1.5 billion pounds ($2.40 billion) on top of the existing Salam programme commitment for a series of enhancements, BAE said.

Saudi Arabia's Defence Minister Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz is due to meet British Prime Minister David Cameron and Defence Secretary Philip Hammond in London later on Tuesday. Saudi Arabia is a key Arab ally and a major buyer of British-made defence equipment.

Prince Salman is responsible for securing multi-billion dollar arms purchases, which have been used to cement Saudi Arabia's ties with the West. He is also seen as a possible candidate to one day rule the conservative Islamic kingdom.

Earlier this year two Western defence sources said Saudi Arabia, which placed a $29.4 billion order for new Boeing F-15 jets in late 2011, was in the early stage of talks to increase its Typhoon order by as many as 48 aircraft.

Earlier this year BAE said talks with Saudi over changes to its order for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets would continue into 2012. The delay hit its earnings last year, which fell 7 percent.

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Rhys Jones - Reuters
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS 

DTN News - INDIA DEFENSE NEWS: Ripple Effect From India's Biggest Defense Deal

Defense News: DTN News - INDIA DEFENSE NEWS: Ripple Effect From India's Biggest Defense Deal
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Harsh V. Pant - Special to The Japan Times
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - March 6, 2012: First it was the United States that got annoyed, and now it is Britain's turn to ask some tough questions about its India policy. Ever since the French Rafale fighter was declared the lowest bidder in the multibillion dollar contract to provide a new generation fighter for the Indian Air Force, a debate has been raging in the United Kingdom as to what went wrong with Prime Minister David Cameron's charm offensive in wooing India.

His visit to India in 2010 was widely viewed as a highly successful. He made all the right noises in India about Pakistan and terrorism, and there was a sense that U.K.-India ties had finally turned a corner. The Cameron government has also decided to give India £1.4 billion between now and 2015, amounting to almost 1 percent of Britain's own £159 billion debt.

But when it came to the much sought-after Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract, France was the winner and the Eurofighter, produced by a consortium of four nations, including Britain's BAE systems, lost. Apparently, saying the right things and giving aid doesn't get you any influence in New Delhi!

From the very beginning, this saga has been rather interesting. Last year in April, India rejected bids by Lockheed Martin and Boeing (along with Russian and Swedish bids) for the $10 billion-plus contract for the 126 combat aircraft, despite extensive lobbying by the U.S. military-industrial complex, supported by President Barack Obama himself.

Nothing works better in New Delhi than a putdown to the U.S. — and that was quite a snub indeed! Instead, New Delhi short-listed Dassault Aviation's Rafale and the Eurofighter Consortium's Typhoon. There were extensive field trials, and technical considerations ostensibly drove the final decision. But the dismay in Washington was widespread and, to some extent, understandable given the investment that the U.S. has made in cultivating India in recent years.

The focus then shifted to the French vs. British, Rafale vs. Eurofighter rivalry in which the French came out on top. Dassault Aviation, Rafale's French manufacturer, will be entering into commercial negotiations with India over the next few months before final deals are signed. As this is a company that has been struggling to get foreign buyers, it would be keen on signing the contract more or less on Indian terms.

Deemed expensive and not cutting edge, the Netherlands, South Korea, Singapore, Morocco, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates and Switzerland have all turned Rafale down in the last few years. India, in more ways than one, will now be subsidizing the French defense sector.

India's decision was clearly influenced by the price factor as the EADS Eurofighter Typhoon is a much more expensive venture. But technology transfer was clearly another guiding factor with the tender stipulating 50 percent direct offset obligation for the winning bidder.

The Indian Air Force's familiarity with French Mirage 2000 aircraft would also have helped as Rafale is operationally and technically similar to the Mirage 2000. India would be buying the aircraft over 10 years with 18 Rafale jets constructed in Dassault plants in France and 108 assembled by Hindustan Aeronautics in India.

Coming just before French elections in which President Nicholas Sarkozy is trailing, this decision will boost his prospects.

It's no wonder that Sarkozy was euphoric, suggesting that "France is delighted at the decision by the Indian government. ... It will include important technology transfers guaranteed by the French government."

At a time when major European countries are drastically cutting their defense budgets, the defense sector needs external help to survive and India's decision will be a big help to France. Dassault was quick to react, saying it is "honored and grateful to the government and people of India." In Britain, on the other hand, there are fears of job losses at BAE Systems, which owns 33 percent of Eurofighter. The deal has been described a "major win for France and a major loss for the U.K." The U.K. government, at least publicly, is still hoping that New Delhi could yet reject the French offer and turn to the Eurofighter.

This is India's largest defense contract at a time when India's defense modernization has been attracting a lot of attention. The fighter levels in the IAF have dropped to an all-time low of 32 squadrons compared with an official level of 39.5 and a desired 42 squadrons. The IAF is desperate to replace its aging fleet of MiG 21 fighters.

At one level, the seeming transparency of the process should indeed be heartening to those who have puzzled over India's inability to get its defense modernization program on track for some time now.

For a usually lackadaisical Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD) this is a welcome change. After years of returning unspent money, the MoD last year not only managed to spend its entire budget but also asked for capital procurement funds.

Now, with movement on the MMRCA bids, it is clear that the ministry wants to move swiftly on new defense procurement, relegating its ultra-cautious approach to the sidelines.

But there is a larger question that still needs to be answered. Major defense purchases are not an end in themselves. Ideally, they should be a means of helping a nation achieve its strategic objectives.

It's not readily evident what strategic objectives of India are being served by choosing Rafale over Typhoon. One can only hope that the Indian defense establishment is not missing the wood for the trees.

Harsh V. Pant is a professor of defense studies at King's College, London.


*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Harsh V. Pant - Special to The Japan Times
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS