India (Superthread)

[Nfld Sapper]

BTW she is a copy of the Russian Charlie Class Subs.

 

[CougarKing]

Saw these today on Financial Times site, thought they dove-tail with this thread:

India plans to build 100 warships
By James Lamont in New Delhi and Varun Sood in Mumbai

Published: July 30 2009 19:28 | Last updated: July 30 2009 19:28

India has plans to add about 100 warships to its navy over the next decade as it seeks to modernise its armed forces, and develop its low-cost shipbuilding capabilities.

Captain Alok Bhatnagar, director of naval plans at India's ministry of defence, said on Thursday that 32 warships and submarines were under construction in the country's shipyards. Work on 75 more ships, including aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates and amphibious vessels, would begin over 10 years.

New Delhi is sensitive to lagging behind Beijing's naval might in the region. China has three times the number of combat vessels as India and five times the personnel. Officials are wary of port developments in neighbouring Pakistan and Sri Lanka that offer Chinese warships anchorages and potentially greater control of the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.

However, India has one of the fastest growing navies in the world. Its fleet of about 120 vessels is the fifth largest. At the weekend, it launched a locally built nuclear-powered submarine, based on a Russian design, to join only a few countries with the technical prowess to produce such a war machine.

Speaking at a seminar on naval self-reliance in New Delhi, Capt Bhatnagar said it was a "strategic necessity" for India to develop its own naval shipyard capabilities to avoid "being held hostage to foreign countries in a crisis situation".

Current strength of the Indian navy 
Aircraft carriers 1
Destroyers 8
Frigates 13
Corvettes 24
Minesweepers 14
Landing ships 10
Missile boats 2
Fleet Auxillary ships 8
Submarines 16
Research ships 9
Seaward Defence Forces 13
Offshore patrol vessels 6


Since the end of British rule 62 years ago, India has relied heavily on Russia to supply its fleet. Capt Bhatnagar identified its maritime priorities as energy security, protecting sea lanes, combating Islamic fundamentalism and responding to China's aggressive modernisation plans.
"China is developing its navy at a great rate. Its ambitions in the Indian Ocean are quite clear."

Admiral Sureesh Mehta, chief of naval staff, said the navy would spend more than Rs200bn ($4bn, €3bn, £2.5bn) a year on new capabilities, with about 60 per cent devoted to acquisitions of naval hardware. He stressed the need to develop the indigenous defence industry with a view to becoming an exporter of technology to Middle East and south-east Asian countries. He advocated the creation of a business framework that encouraged international defence companies to "set up shop" in locally-based shipyards.

India has partnered Italy's Fincantieri in the design of the aircraft carrier, and Thales, the French defence company, to build six Scorpene submarines in Mumbai. Larsen & Toubro, the listed Indian engineering company, is building a Rupees 30bn shipyard near Chennai and supplies weapons and steering systems.

A Mumbai-based defence contractor said the government was considering raising the foreign direct investment cap in the defence industry to 49 per cent from 26 per cent.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/16de2e94-7d22-11de-b8ee-00144feabdc0.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


US agrees sales of weapons to India
By James Lamont in New Delhi

Published: July 20 2009 09:40 | Last updated: July 20 2009 22:34

Hillary Clinton on Monday agreed a keenly awaited deal allowing the sale of sophisticated US defence technology to India in a sign of deepening ties between two of the world's largest democracies.

The agreement, which came alongside another deal to boost US co-operation in New Delhi's ambitious space programme, was made as the US secretary of state ended a five-day visit to India in which she demonstrated a firm resolve to support Asia's third largest economy as a global power.

The so-called "end-use monitoring" pact allows Washington to check up on sophisticated weapons systems that it will sell to New Delhi while the space co-operation agreement paves the way for US technology to be used in India's satellites.


A civil nuclear deal, agreed with the former Bush administration, transformed the ties between the two countries, which had a history of tension during the Cold War.

In a move that will advance this deal, Mrs Clinton said she had discussed with Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, sites where US power companies would build nuclear power plants to help the fast growing nation overcome an energy deficit. She encouraged India to proceed with legislation governing nuclear power that would free billions of dollars of investment and transform the lives of India's 1.2bn people.
Mrs Clinton did her best to dispel concerns that India has slipped down the priority list of the administration of US president Barack Obama, as it grapples with the global economic downturn and engages with China.

In a press conference on Monday night, Mrs Clinton emphasised the democratic traditions shared by the US and India, saying they were the foundations of one of the strongest international partnerships. She said she was seeking "a significant expansion of our bilateral relationship", calling the common ground of democratic freedoms "a much stronger base than any [other] in the world".

"We believe co-operation between our two countries will be a driver of progress in the 21st century. We will work not just to maintain our relations but to broaden and deepen them," she said.

In her visit, Mrs Clinton had identified combating the threat of terrorism as her top priority. But she was careful to draw to New Delhi's attention her view that Pakistan, India's arch rival, had stiffened its resolve over the past six months to confront extremism.

"I have seen a real commitment on the part of the Pakistani government to tackle terrorism. They are taking on the extremists that threatened them," she said at an address at Delhi university.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0...2340.html?nclick_check=1

 

[CougarKing]

Another update:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4229797&c=ASI&s=SEA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

India Not Trying To Match Chinese Force: Navy Chief
By vivek raghuvanshi
Published: 11 Aug 2009 11:30

NEW DELHI - Within a fortnight of launching an indigenous nuclear submarine, the chief of the Indian Navy, Adm. Sureesh Mehta, has said that India does not have the capability nor the intention to match China's military strength.

The launch of the homemade Advance Technology Vehicle and the acquisition of a Russian-made nuclear submarine have been read by defense analysts here as a move to counter the growing strength of the Chinese Navy, including nuclear submarines.

"In military terms, both conventional and nonconventional, we neither have the capability nor the intention to match China, force for force. These are indeed sobering thoughts and therefore our strategy to deal with China would need to be in consonance with these realities," Mehta said, delivering an address Aug. 11 on National Security Challenges organized by the National Maritime Foundation.

Mehta said, "Common sense dictates that cooperation with China would be preferable to competition or conflict, as it would be foolhardy to compare India and China as equals."

The latest report of the Indian Defence Ministry issued in early July says China's military modernization needs to be "monitored carefully" for implications to Indian security.

India has already begun raising infrastructure along its border with China and is building new roads. Special troops are being raised for deployment along the Chinese border and tenders have been floated to buy ultra light 155mm guns and a variety of helicopters.

In his address, Mehta spoke of increasing defense spending and said, "Let alone bridging the gap between us and our potential adversaries [China], without a substantial increase, the gap may widen further and dilute our operational edge."

 

 

[MarkOttawa]

As for the Air Force:

Trials begin on India jets order
Six of the world's top fighter aircraft makers have begun trials in India to compete for a $10bn order.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8211304.stm

The Indian air force is planning to buy 126 new combat planes to replace its ageing Soviet-built aircraft in one of the world's most lucrative contracts.

For the first time, the Americans are among the contenders.

Senior air force pilots are carrying out test flights on two American-built F-18 Super Hornets, one of the world's most advanced combat planes.

For 45 minutes the aircraft were put through tactical manoeuvres in a facility in the southern city of Bangalore earlier this week.

The aircraft will then be tested in the Rajasthan desert, to see how it performs in the heat and also in high altitude, in the Himalayan region of Ladakh.

The F-18 is one of two American planes which are hoping to win the lucrative contract.

Market opportunity

Its manufacturer, Boeing, is upbeat about its prospects, said the company's country head, Vivek Lall.

"As India looks to get more strategic platforms in its inventory, modernise its armed forces, we see a market opportunity of $31bn over 10 years and the pie is frankly growing for more players to compete," he said.

"We are really fortunate that we have an opportunity to compete and showcase our product."

Boeing is going head to head with it's US rival Lockheed Martin, which is offering the F-16, as well as France's Rafale, the Swedish-built Gripen, Russia's MiG-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The tests are expected to last eight months after which an order will be placed for 126 planes of which 108 will be built locally.

Vivek Lall of Boeing says his company is ready to co-produce the F-18 in India [emphasis added.]

"A transfer of technology is part of the requirement which is something we will comply with...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

A "second" Stealth Destroyer?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4284555&c=ASI&s=SEA

India Launches 2nd Stealthy Destroyer
By vivek raghuvanshi
Published: 21 Sep 2009 14:00 

NEW DELHI - The Indian Navy has launched the second of its three stealthy Project-15-A, or Kolkata-class, destroyers. The INS Kochi, launched Sept. 18, is expected to be delivered in May 2011 for induction into active service.

Built by Mazagon Dock, the state-owned shipyard, the Project-15-A destroyers will be fitted with the supersonic BrahMos cruise missile and long-range surface-to-air missiles.

The Kochi was launched via a pontoon-assisted launch procedure, with aerial support from two multirole helicopters, a senior Defence Ministry official said, the first time such a method has been used for a warship launched in India. Russian experts were on hand to assist with the pontoon launch, which helps heavier vessels avoid slipway constraints.

The Kochi will be equipped with a multifunction radar system for acquiring data on surface and air targets, the Defence Ministry official said, and four AK-630 rapid-fire guns and a medium-range gun for closer targets. The destroyer will also have indigenously developed twin-tube torpedo launchers and anti-submarine rocket launchers, and Humsa sonar, developed by the state owned Naval Physical Oceanographic Laboratory.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More, here, including this picture:

Can a sailor tell me why this is "stealthy?" Is it the right ship?


I thought a stealth warship was supposed to look more like this:

 

[CougarKing]

A practical move on India's part- that way they don't have to worry about being dependent anymore on a foreign supplier of carrier-borne aircraft like Russia, the UK or the US.

Indian Built Fighters On Indian Built Carriers

September 23, 2009: The Indian Navy is buying six of the new LCA (Light Combat Aircraft, or "Tejas") fighters to fly from the new carriers they will enter service in the next five years. This is an experiment to see how the LCA will do as a carrier aircraft. The navy has already bought navalized MiG-29s for these carriers. The navy LCAs will also be navalized (mainly stronger landing gear, a tail hook and different cockpit electronics.) The MiG-29K weighs 21 tons (16 percent weapons), while the navalized LCA weighs 13 tons, 34 percent of that weapons. The MiG-29 is a better fighter, but the LCA carries a little more (4 versus 3.5 tons) armament, making it a cheaper way to attack ships or land targets with missiles and bombs. A land based carrier deck is being built, so the naval LCA can begin tests, and training pilots, within two years.

The LCA is only now  preparing to enter mass production. Five prototypes already exist, and another ten pre-production models will be built next year. By 2012, mass production (at least 20 aircraft a year) is to begin, no matter what. Or at least that's the plan. For over two decades, India has been trying to design, develop and manufacture its own "lightweight fighter." India calls it the LCA, and the project has been a major disaster.

The U.S. F-16 is probably the premier "lightweight fighter" in service, and entered wide service about the time India began thinking about creating their own. Both the F-16 (at least the earlier models), and the LCA, weigh about 12-13 tons. But the F-16 is a high performance aircraft, with a proven combat record, while the LCA is sort of an improved Mirage/MiG-21 type design. Not too shabby, and cheap (about half the cost of an F-16). Also, for all this time, money and grief, India has made its aviation industry a bit more capable and mature.

When work began in the mid-1980s, it was believed that the aircraft would be ready for flight testing by 1990. A long list of technical delays resulted in that first flight not taking place until 2001. Corners had to be cut to make this happen, for the LCA was originally designed to use the Indian built Kaveri engine.

For a jet fighter, the engine is the most complex part of the aircraft, and the Kaveri has had its share of setbacks. Fortunately, there was an American engine, the GE 404, that fit the LCA, and could be used as a stop-gap. The Kaveri engine is not expected to be ready for flight tests until later this year, or thereabouts. The American engine has been used in the meantime.

For all this, India only plans to buy 200-300 LCAs, mainly to replace its aging MiG-21s, plus more if the navy finds the LCA works on carriers. Export prospects are dim, given all the competition out there (especially for cheap, second-hand F-16s). The delays have led the air force to look around for a hundred or so new aircraft (or even used F-16s) to fill the gap between elderly MiG-21s falling apart, and the arrival of the new LCAs. However, two decades down the road, the replacement for the LCA will probably be a more competitive, and timely, aircraft.

The LCA was not the first attempt to produce an Indian jet fighter. The HF-24 was an earlier attempt at developing a modern fighter. Designed by Kurt Tank (who also designed the FW-190 and Ta-152), the HF-24 was a failure because India could not develop a powerful enough engine. Thus the 147 HF-24s built, served from the 1960s, to the 1980s, as a ground attack aircraft.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/a...s/20090923.aspx

 

[CougarKing]

Another update, but one that deals with the Admiral Gorshkov's (future INS Vikramaditya?) possible air group:

India to buy more MiG-29Ks

NEW DELHI: Decks have now been cleared for India to order another batch of MiG-29Ks after the specially-designed maritime fighters underwent successful flight-deck trials from Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in the Barents Sea on September 28-29.

Defence ministry sources said the fresh order for 29 more MiG-29Ks from Russia for around Rs 5,380 crore (around $1.12 billion) will "soon'' be sent to the Cabinet Committee of Security for the final approval.

These jets will be in addition to 16 MiG-29Ks already contracted through the initial $1.5-billion Admiral Gorshkov package deal, which earmarked $974 million for the aircraft carrier's refit and the rest for the fighters, inked in January 2004.

While the military asymmetry with China is quite stark, aircraft carrier operations is one particular arena in which India is ahead of its much larger neighbour.

Grappling it may be with only 11 Sea Harrier jump-jets now, India's solitary aircraft carrier, the 28,000-tonne INS Viraat, has just undergone an 18-month life extension refit to ensure it can run smoothly for another five years.

China, in contrast, does not have an aircraft carrier. But it's furiously working to build them, apart from refurbishing the former Soviet Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag and seeking to buy Su-33 carrier-borne fighters from Russia.

India, of course, will get the fully-refurbished Gorshkov only by early-2013, with New Delhi and Moscow likely to agree to a revised refit cost of around $2.6 billion. The first four of the contracted 16 MiG-29Ks, however, will touch down in India in October-November this year.

Though the fresh order for 29 more MiG-29Ks was cleared by Defence Acquisitions Council, chaired by defence minister A K Antony, quite some time ago, it was hanging fire since the fighters developed for India were still to be tested for take-offs and landings on an aircraft carrier.

"India wanted the MiG-29Ks to be proven in carrier-deck operations before inking the follow-on order for 29 more fighters...it was critical. Now, only a few weapon trials of MiG-29Ks are left,'' said a source.

MiG-29Ks will operate from both 44,570-tonne Gorshkov -- rechristened INS Vikramaditya after India has already paid $602 million for its refit -- as well as the 40,000-tonne indigenous aircraft carrier being built at the Cochin Shipyard, which should roll out by 2014-2015.

Armed with eight types of air-to-air missiles, including extended range BVR (beyond visual range) missiles, as well as 25 air-to-surface weapons for land-attack missions, the MiG-29Ks will provide the Navy with a lethal punch on the high seas.

The jets will also be capable of mid-air refuelling from IL-78 tankers as well as other MiG-29Ks under `buddy-tanking'. While 12 of the first 16 fighters will be the single-seat `K' variants, the other four will be twin-seater `KUB' trainer versions. Similarly, four of the next 29 jets will be `KUB' trainer versions.

To prepare for MiG-29Ks, 10 Indian naval pilots have already undergone training on them, even as shore-based training facilities have been established at INS Hansa in Goa.

Moreover, some naval pilots have also trained on the MiG-29s flown by IAF, while a few others have done courses in the US on combat manoeuvres undertaken from aircraft carriers under a $26 million agreement.

All this is needed since Indian naval pilots do not have the experience of `conventional' fighters like MiG-29Ks, which land on ship decks with arrestor wires. The `unconventional' Sea Harrier jump-jets in use land vertically on INS Viraat. 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/n...ow/5084749.cms

 

[CougarKing]

Not that surprising.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4311433&c=ASI&s=AIR

India to Put Upgraded MiG-29s Near Pakistan Border
By vivek raghuvanshi
Published: 6 Oct 2009 12:42 

NEW DELHI - The Indian Air Force has decided to station its upgraded MiG-29 aircraft close to the Pakistan border.

The first lot of the 62 upgraded Russian-built aircraft will be deployed at Adampur air base in the border state of Punjab, a Defence Ministry official said.

The first six MiG-29s will be delivered by mid-2010 following upgrades in Russia, with the remaining aircraft to follow by 2013, the official said.

Under an $850 million contract signed with Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG in early 2008, the 62 MiGs are being upgraded from aerial interceptor and air dominance aircraft to fighter-bombers capable of striking mobile and stationary targets on the ground and at sea, in all weather conditions, with high-precision weapons.

Upgrades to the MiG-29s will include multifunctional Zhuk-ME radar, and new weapon control and avionics systems. The aircraft also will be capable of beyond-visual-range combat, armed with new-generation air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, and smart aerial bombs.

Additionally, the Air Force's remaining MiG-29 fleet will be retrofitted at the service's repair depot at Nashik, under transfer of technology from Russia, extending their service life to 40 years and turning the air-superiority fighters into more lethal multi-role jets.

 

[CougarKing]

Another reason for Pakistan to be wary?

India Tests Nuclear-Capable Prithvi-II Missile
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 12 Oct 2009 09:21 

BHUBANESWAR, India - The Indian military successfully test-fired two short-range nuclear-capable missiles from a site in the east of the country October 12, a defense source said.

The Prithvi-II ground-to-ground missiles were fired from a test range in Chandipur-on-sea in Orissa state, a source at the Defence Research and Development Organization said.

The 8.5-meter (28-foot) Prithvi-II missile has a range of 150-350 kilometers (90-220 miles) and can carry a one-ton conventional or nuclear payload.
The domestically developed and produced weapon was last tested April 15.

 

[CougarKing]

This is reportedly the fourth installment of Cope India:

U.S. Airmen Tackle Cope India

October 14, 2009
Air Force Print News|by Capt. Genieve David

HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE, Hawaii - Members of the U.S. and Indian air forces will train together during exercise Cope India through 24 at Air Force Station Agra in Uttar Predesh, India.

This year's Cope India will be an airlift exercise that focuses on the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief mission.

More than 150 American Airmen, along with four C-130 Hercules aircraft, one C-17 Globemaster III, will join Indian air force Airmen and one IL-76 Gajraj, four AN-32 Sutlejes, two MI-17 Prataps, and one Chetak Alouette III for the exercise.
"The U.S. Air Force looks forward to this opportunity to work with the Indian air force," said Raymond Bundschuh, the 13th Air Force lead planner for the exercise. "Exercises like Cope India strengthen solid military-to-military relationships with our air forces in the region as we train together."

Cope India participants will exchange airlift, airland and airdrop delivery techniques, participate in aeromedical and disaster management exercises, conduct cooperative flight operations, to include aircraft generation and recovery, low-level navigation, tactical airdrop, air-land missions, and conduct subject-matter-expert exchanges in the operations, maintenance and rigging disciplines.

This exercise continues to strengthen the bond between the U.S. and Indian air forces, and will be the fourth installment of Cope India.

 

[a_majoor]

Looking ahead:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/hypersonic-weapons-and-rockets.html

Hypersonic Weapons and Rockets

India and Russia have agreed to develop and induct a new hypersonic version of their joint venture 174 miles-range BrahMos cruise missile by 2015.
The new missile will be known as ‘BrahMos-2’ and will have a speed of over 6 Mach (around 3,600 miles per hour) with a striking-range of 174 miles.

NASA Hypersonic Project

NASA has selected a Williams International high-speed turbojet as the turbine element of its Turbine Based Combined Cycle (TBCC) engine test rig, which will be used to evaluate technologies for potential future two-stage to orbit launcher concepts.

The TBCC is designed to integrate a turbine and ramjet/scramjet into a unified propulsion system that could be used to power the first-stage of a two-stage launch vehicle from a standing start on a runway to speeds in excess of Mach 7. The concept also is being evaluated by Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne as the ongoing Mode Transition (MoTr) program, which aims to fill the void left by the DARPA HTV-3X/Blackswift hypersonic demonstrator canceled in 2008. Unlike the NASA effort, MoTr is aimed at a propulsion system for potential high-speed strike/reconnaissance vehicles, and will include a running scramjet.

Blackbird Replacement?

Pratt & Whitney Co.'s rocket-motor division has been hired to work on a prototype for a combo jet turbine-ramjet propulsion system capable of moving a low-orbit military vehicle at hypersonic speeds.

Aerospace and defense giant Lockheed Martin Corp. signed a 10-month contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne for preliminary design of a high speed accelerator for a turbine-based combined-cycle propulsion system, which could support flight up to Mach 6 -- six times the speed of sound.

Pratt said such a vehicle could be used for strike and reconnaissance missions. A vehicle such as this sounds like a replacement for the old Blackbird recon plane

 

[a_majoor]

India continues to increase its capabilities:

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/india-developing-kill-vehicle-knock-enemy-satellites-out-sky#

India Developing 'Kill Vehicle' to Knock Enemy Satellites Out of the Sky
By Clay Dillow Posted 01.11.2010 at 5:49 pm
 
Beware, enemies of India: Star Wars are back in fashion. With perennial (and nuclear armed) foe Pakistan always teetering on the brink of political collapse and neighboring regional superpower China taking greater strides into space technology, India has announced that it is developing an exo-atmospheric "kill vehicle" that will knock enemy satellites out of orbit.

The program was proudly announced as part of India's ballistic missile defense program, a division of India's Ministry of Defense. However, in a briefing last week defense officials admitted lots of work on the project is yet to be done. Like, almost all of it. The kill vehicle (read: missile of some kind) will be guided by a laser, which will lock onto the offending satellite and keep the kill vehicle on a solid interception course. Neither the laser nor the kill vehicle actually exists yet, but be forewarned: India will put a dent in your space capabilities at a time and place as yet undetermined.

Of course, India isn't the first state to dabble in space-based defenses or satellite-slaying technologies. Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative -- the now infamous "Star Wars" -- proposed to arm a series of ground- and space-based stations with interceptor missiles (for defensive purposes only, of course). In 2007 China brazenly launched a ground-based missile into the atmosphere to demonstrate its ability to destroy satellites, creating a mess of orbital debris when it blew apart an aging weather satellite. The U.S. also used a ship-based missile to incinerate one of its own spy satellites in 2008, as its decaying orbit was threatening to send it crashing down to Earth with toxic materials on board.

So exactly whose satellites might India be protecting herself from? Pakistan, India's most reliable nemesis, isn't exactly running a robust space program. More likely the world's largest democracy is a bit wary of the world's largest military-minded single-party ruled "republic" right across the Himalayan range. Whatever the reasoning, putting weapons in space has never been a popular topic in the international community; we likely haven't heard the last word on this.

 

[a_majoor]

More astronauts:

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=23347428

India plans 1st manned space flight for 2016

India has announced plans to put two astronauts into Earth orbit in 2016, which would make it the fourth country to put a manned mission to space.

The India Space Research Organization is seeking 124 billion rupees ($2.8 billion Cdn) for the seven-day mission.

"We are preparing for the manned space flight," ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan told reporters.

"We will design and develop the space module for the manned mission in the next four years."

ISRO spokesman S. Satish told The Associated Press that the government has already provided about four billion rupees ($92 million Cdn) for initial research on the mission.

ISRO said it will soon begin training of its astronauts for the space flight at a new facility in Bangalore.

Only Russia, the U.S. and China have their own independent human space-flight programs. The European Union, Iran and Japan have all announced plans for human space flight in the 2020s.

India's first unmanned mission to the moon, Chandrayaan-1, was launched in October 2008, and its instruments were used to find water in the lunar soil.

Chandrayaan-1 put India in an elite group of countries with mission to the moon, which includes the U.S., Russia, Japan, China and the countries of the European Space Agency.

The mission had to be abandoned in August because of a communications failure with the satellite.

In September, ISRO launched seven satellites on one rocket.

A second unmanned lunar mission, Chandrayaan-2, is scheduled for early 2013. India also has plans for a mission to Mars in 2030.

With files from The Associated Press.

 

[CougarKing]

Seems proposed bilateral talks with Pakistan will still go ahead in spite of a recent terror attack which killed 9 people in a bakery in the city of Pune, India:

Reuters link

India says investigating blast, Pakistan talks on
2 hours, 4 minutes ago


By Rituparna Bhowmik


PUNE, India (Reuters) - Security officials were investigating the possible involvement of Pakistan-based militants in a bomb blast in western India that killed nine people, but New Delhi said talks with Islamabad later this month would go ahead.

The bomb, left in a backpack at the popular German Bakery in the city of Pune on Saturday, wounded 60 and appeared to target Indian and foreign tourists.
Senior internal security sources, who declined to be named, said the focus had fallen on Pakistan-based separatist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which has been blamed for the Mumbai attacks, and a local militant group called Indian Mujahideen (IM) because both had been behind bombings in India in the past.


"As of now our line of investigation is toward the possible involvement of LeT ... a sleeper module of the Indian Mujahideen could also be involved," a senior interior security official overseeing the investigation told Reuters.


Both groups are fighting against Indian rule in Kashmir, the disputed Himalayan region.


"Nothing is ruled out, nothing is ruled in. The investigation is in progress," Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said.


On Friday, India and Pakistan agreed to high-level talks in New Delhi on February 25, suspended after Pakistani militants killed 166 people during a three-day rampage through the financial capital of Mumbai in November 2008.


Any sign of Pakistani involvement in the Pune attack would worsen relations between the two nuclear rivals and further destabilize a region overshadowed by war in Afghanistan.


The main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party said India must "seriously reconsider" going ahead with the talks, but a government official said the talks were on track.


"The talks are going to go on schedule. We realize there are complexities in engaging Pakistan, but we have to see things in their entirety. And at this moment, there is no reason for the talks to not go on," the official said.


SOFT TARGET


Police in Pune, about 160 km (100 miles) south of Mumbai, had been alerted to the possibility of attacks on Osho ashram and Chabad House, which had also been targeted during the Mumbai attacks, Chidambaram said.


The German Bakery restaurant, located close to a Jewish center and a religious retreat frequented by foreigners, was a soft target in an area that had been on the radar of intelligence officials, Chidambaram said, denying there was an intelligence failure.


The Pune ashram was one of the sites surveyed by David Headley, arrested in the United States last year and charged with scouting targets for the Mumbai attacks.
The Pune blast also appears similar to a wave of bombs that hit Indian cities in the year before the Mumbai attacks, killing more than 100 people. Police blamed most of those attacks on home-grown Muslim militants like the IM, but Hindu militants were also accused of masterminding some of the bombs.


"The bomb appears to have been not a sophisticated one that could have required any special training. The expertise involved could have been locally acquired," said B. Raman, director of the Chennai-based Institute For Topical Studies.


An Italian woman and an Iranian man were among those killed. The 12 foreigners injured included Iranians, Yemenis, Sudanese, Nepalis, a Taiwanese and a German, Police Commissioner Satyapal Singh told reporters.

"We are awaiting forensic and intelligence reports. It is too early to say anything now," Singh said.

Authorities have warned of renewed threats of attacks on Indian soil and stepped up security in recent months.

Airports and railway stations across the country have been put on high alert after the blast and extra security given to the South African and Indian cricket teams in India.

(Additional reporting by Bappa Majumdar and Krittivas Mukherjee; Writing by Rina Chandran; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

 

[a_majoor]

Not such good news. Even discounting the speculative aspects of this piece, India has far more common interests with the West and is a regional power, so ignoring or downgrading the relationship is just stupid.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/02/025612.php

What's Obama's beef with India?
 
February 16, 2010 Posted by Paul at 8:11 PM

It's easy to figure out why President Obama has little use for Israel and England. Israel is the bete noir of most contemporary left-liberals and England was the colonial overlord of Kenya.

But what has Obama got against India? I'll speculate about this question in a moment, but first let's look at the relationship itself.

Jim Hoagland, the Washington Post's veteran foreign policy writer, describes it this way:

    Indians detect an air of ambivalence blowing their way from Washington. . . .Romanced by the Bush administration to balance China's inexorable rise in military and economic power, India finds itself out of sync with the Obama administration on some key issues. There is no open conflict. But neither is there the air of excitement and innovation about the U.S. relationship that I found on my last trip here 18 months ago.

    Since then, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has explicitly rejected balance-of-power politics as a relic of the past. Yet India, Japan and other Asian states fear that without a supportive U.S. hand on the scales, they will be swamped by China's growing military capabilities and its increasingly aggressive, and effective, diplomacy. . . .

    Obama's emphasis on setting an initial date for withdrawal from Afghanistan in his Dec. 1 policy speech, even as he sent additional U.S. troops, stirred doubt here about U.S. strategic patience. So have the frequent U.S. military visits to and overblown praise for Pakistan's army leadership, despite credible evidence of high-level Pakistani involvement in cross-border terrorism directed at India.

Consequently, according to Hoagland, India is now "hedging its bets":

    India has recently moved troops away from the Pakistan frontier while increasing deployments into border areas that China is claiming in pugnacious and offensive rhetoric. In a break with its past opposition to foreign bases in the region, India has secured military transit and stationing rights at an airbase in Tajikistan. And Singh's government lavishly welcomed Japan's new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, on a recent three-day visit that included publicity about plans for joint military maneuvers in the Indian Ocean.

    These are clear signs of Indian hedging: seeking allies for worst-case scenarios while accommodating China on economic matters. The Obama administration's failure to reaffirm clearly that India's rise is in U.S. strategic interests has contributed to this hedging. That is a mistake the president should quickly correct, in the interests of his own vision of a new world order centered on the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Why the Obama administration ambivalence? A number of possibilities come to mind. One is reflexive distrust of any nation that is close to the U.S. (don't they understand how flawed we are?). Another is reflexive dislike of any policy President Bush developed, especially a signature Bush policy.

Related to this possibility, and perhaps closer to the mark, is Obama's self-image as a great strategic thinker. Any hack American president can form a strategic alliance with a pro-American powerhouse as a means of obtaining a regional balance of power in relation to a not so pro-American emerging super-power. But, as Hoagland implies, Obama sees himself a charismatic visionary who is above traditional balance of power politics, that "relic of the past." Stated differently, Obama has shown little stomach for alliances that might vex our adversaries and potential adversaries.

There are, to be sure, less damning explanations. Obama likely sees a need to stay on Pakistan's good sde for purposes of the war on terror. But I'm pretty sure that the roots of Obama's ambivalence towards India go deeper than Pakistan, whose dispute with India has cooled considerably in recent years.

JOHN adds: A strategic alliance with India is such a no-brainer that, considering this and other data, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that a hallmark of Obama's foreign policy is perversity.

 

[MarkOttawa]

IndoPak (usual copyright disclaimer):

U.S. Sells Arms to South Asian Rivals
Washington Increases Weapons Transfers to India and Pakistan to Maintain Neutrality, Aid Industry
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703510204575085771112111454.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESixthNews

The Obama administration is sharply expanding American weapons transfers to both India and Pakistan, longtime rivals about to sit down for peace talks Thursday...

The U.S. has made billions of dollars in weapons deals with India, which is in the midst of a five-year, $50 billion push to modernize its military.

At the same time, American military aid to Pakistan stands to nearly double next year, allowing Islamabad to acquire more U.S.-made helicopters, night-vision goggles and other military equipment. The aid has made it easier for Pakistan to ramp up its fight against militants on the Afghan border, as the U.S. tries to convince Islamabad that its biggest security threat is within the country, not in India.

During a late January trip to Islamabad, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. would for the first time give Pakistan a dozen surveillance drones, a longstanding Pakistani request...

Washington's relationships with the two nations are very different. India, which is wealthier and larger than its neighbor, pays for weapons purchases with its own funds. Pakistan, by contrast, uses American grants to fund most of its arms purchases. A new U.S. counterinsurgency assistance fund for Pakistan is slated to increase from $700 million in fiscal year 2010 to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2011.

"We do straight commercial deals with India, while Pakistan effectively uses the money we give them to buy our equipment," said a U.S. official who works with the two countries. "But we think that's ultimately in our national interest because it makes the Pakistanis more capable of dealing with their homegrown terrorists."

India is one of the largest buyers of foreign-made munitions, with a long shopping list which includes warships, fighter jets, tanks and other weapons. Its defense budget is $30 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, a 70% increase from five years ago. The country is preparing its military to deal with multiple potential threats, including conflict with Pakistan. Tensions have recently flared between India and China over territorial claims along their border. China defeated India in a short war in 1962.

"For 2010 and 2011, India could well be the most important market in the world for defense contractors looking to make foreign military sales," said Tom Captain, the vice chairman of Deloitte LLP's aerospace and defense practice.

Russia has been India's main source of military hardware for decades, supplying about 70% of equipment now in use. Moscow is working to keep that position, with talks ongoing to sell India 29 MiG-29K carrier-borne jet fighters, according to an Indian Defense Ministry spokesman.

The Obama administration is trying to persuade New Delhi to buy American jet fighters instead, a shift White House officials say would lead to closer military and political relations between India and the U.S. It would also be a bonanza for U.S. defense contractors, and has dispatched senior officials such as Mr. Gates to New Delhi to deliver the message that Washington hopes India will choose American defense firms for major purchases in the years ahead.

Shortly after a late January visit by Mr. Gates—on the same tour that took him to Islamabad—In late January, the administration signed off on India's request to purchase 145 U.S.-made howitzers, a $647 million deal.Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Mr. Gates's visit didn't affect the substance or timing of the howitzer purchase.

That came days after India formally expressed its intent to purchase 10 cargo transport aircraft from Boeing Co. in a deal analysts say could be worth more than $2 billion. Last year, India spent $2.1 billion on eight Boeing long-range Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft for the Indian navy.

Still in the pipeline is India's planned $10 billion purchase of 126 multirole combat aircraft for its air force. U.S. firms Boeing and Lockheed Martin Corp. are vying with Russia and European companies for that deal, which would be a near-record foreign sale for the firms. An agreement last summer allowing the U.S. to monitor the end-use of arms it sells to India is expected to facilitate such deals.

"That's the biggest deal in the world right now," said Mr. Captain. "If it goes to an American firm, that would be the final nail in the coffin in terms of India shifting its allegiance from Russia to the U.S."..

India and Pakistan hold first Kashmir peace talks since Mumbai attack
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7040030.ece

India accused Pakistani border guards of firing at one of its posts across the disputed frontier in Kashmir yesterday on the eve of the first formal peace talks between the South Asian rivals since the Mumbai attacks in November 2008.

The alleged shooting, which Pakistani officials denied took place, came after an Indian army officer and two soldiers were killed in a gun battle with suspected Islamic militants in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

The latest in a series of skirmishes on the de facto frontier is not expected to destabilise today’s talks in Delhi between Nirupama Rao, the head of the Indian Foreign Service, and Salman Bashir, her Pakistani counterpart.

The talks highlight the centrality of Kashmir in the troubled relationship between India and Pakistan. Both claim the Muslim majority region and have fought three wars over it since independence from Britain in 1947.

They also illustrate how hard it will be to make progress despite encouragement from the United States and its allies...

Letter sent to the Globe and Mail and not published:

Pakistan, the Taliban, and Kashmir?

Doug Saunders is rather confused about the geography of Pakistan and its dispute over Kashmir with India. He writes (Let's refocus: Kashmir, not Kabul, Feb. 20)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/Somnia/article1475138/
that Pakistan, with CIA help, "captured the Taliban's second-ranking Afghan leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, in northern Pakistan." In fact Mullah Baradar was captured in Karachi, the country's largest city and seaport (as reported by the Globe's Paul Koring on Feb. 17),
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/taliban-capture-points-to-greater-us-pakistani-co-operation/article1470704/
in southern Pakistan far away from the frontier area with Afghanistan that is the Taliban's stronghold.

Mr. Saunders also writes this about Kashmir: "For India, resolution is worth a loss of face. For Pakistan, it never will be." Hardly. India will accept no resolution of the dispute that lessens the sovereignty it claims over the part of Kashmir it now holds--the largest. Such a resolution on the other hand is the only type acceptable to Pakistan, but would involve a loss of face no Indian government could endure. It is moreover simply inaccurate to claim, as Mr. Saunders does, that "The two nuclear powers came very close to resolving their Kashmir conflict in 2008." Broad talks on several matters, including Kashmir, may have been making some minor progress; there were no signs of a breakthrough on the key Kashmir question.

The essence of the dispute is that Pakistan does not accept the legitimacy of the accession of the Muslim-majority Indian princely state of Kashmir to India, rather than Pakistan, upon the two countries' independence in 1947. Whatever one may think of the merits of each country's case, it is noteworthy that India refuses to accept that a plebiscite be held in Kashmir on the territory's status--as called for by the UN Security Council in 1948.

References:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2008/12/02/stories/2008120259951000.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/2.stm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun47.htm 

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

More on the changing state of India-US relations. If the US is determined to bypass India, there are certainly opportunities for us to move in...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-does-the-american-left-fear-the-rise-of-india/?singlepage=true

Why Does the American Left Fear the Rise of India?

Our Asian ally is a kindred spirit.
February 27, 2010 - by N.M. Guariglia

The American relationship with the republic of India is heading in the wrong direction. Given recent history, where strong and positive U.S.-Indo relations were in full bloom, this is especially disconcerting. President George W. Bush’s administration, long maligned as arrogantly unilateralist, solidified a close bilateral partnership — friendship, even — with the rising South Asian power. Bush saw India as a natural ally: the world’s largest multiethnic democracy, looking at its place in the world at the turn of this century through much the same prism our own ancestors looked through in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As Harvard historian Sugata Bose observed, the strengthening of ties between India and the United States “may turn out to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of the Bush administration.”

Under President Barack Obama, however, those ties are in moderate though steady and not insignificant decline. Since Obama’s inauguration, our relationship with India has begun to erode. To its credit, the Obama administration authorized a $2.1 billion arms sale with New Delhi last year. But there is more — there should be more — to the American-Indian friendship than signing off on a Boeing contract with the Indian defense ministry.

For instance, trends in trade are worrisome. Whereas in 2008 the United States exported $17.6 billion worth of goods to India, by 2009 that figure had dropped by more than $1 billion. Some of this is due to the recession, but consider: from 2001 through 2008, imports from India to the United States had gone up by $2 or $3 billion annually, culminating in $24 and $25.7 billion worth of goods imported in 2007 and 2008. That figure plummeted by $4.6 billion in 2009. During Bush’s tenure, protectionist economic policies were done away with. Outsourcing, that dirty word, was embraced. The United States became India’s largest investment partner; foreign direct investment in petroleum exploration, infrastructure, mining, telecommunications, and other good things accounted for much of all investment into India.

The free trade policies agreed upon by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh liberated markets and destroyed barriers in agriculture, textiles, iron, steel, coffee, tea, information technology, pharmaceuticals, and more — and as a consequence, helped develop the rise of India’s first genuine middle class in history. According to the National Council for Applied Economic Research, there are approximately 220 million “aspiring” Indians — a “consumer class” — living in households earning between $2,000 and $4,400 per year, who can now afford to buy niceties and luxuries. Some estimates have India’s middle class even larger. This was not the case fifteen or even ten years ago.

And when a caveat in this relationship deemed less beneficial to the United States arose, President Bush still kept things in long-term perspective so as not to denigrate our newfound camaraderie with India. When American food prices skyrocketed in 2008, Bush attributed it to India’s progress and implored Americans to place developments into a broader context: “Their middle class is larger than our entire population,” Bush said. “And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high and that causes the price to go up.”

Today, President Obama sounds markedly different about India. He has employed populist oratory, criticizing “a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York.” Such language has increased anxieties in New Delhi. “We are already witnessing signs of protectionism in the world’s biggest economy,” the Indian external affairs minister was quoted as saying, proclaiming that “we will need to argue against this trend at the international [forums].” Just one month into Obama’s presidency, India was prepared to present its grievances with the new administration’s protectionist policies to the World Trade Organization.

The Obama-Reid-Pelosi trio eagerly canceled the highly successful H-1B visa program, which was designed to encourage U.S. companies to hire Indian IT services (as well as tens of thousands of Indian engineers at a time of talent shortages). Congress barred U.S. corporations with bailout dollars from hiring foreign workers. This sparked largely overlooked outrage across India’s polity. “This is just irrational protectionism. … It makes no economic sense at all,” said the deputy chairman of India’s Planning Commission. Opposition leaders called for boycotts of U.S. companies. “If these policies hurt Indians abroad,” said heavyweight politician Praveen Togadia, “then we have to take steps to hurt American companies in India.” In just a few short weeks, during the Bush-to-Obama transition, U.S.-Indo relations had gone from having never been better to tense and laced with rhetorical rancor.

For those of us who view India as an invaluable future ally, these are disturbing developments. Not unsurprisingly, as trade between the two countries deteriorates, so too do other arenas. Our current disregard of India is risking nothing short of causing “great damage … to the foundations underlying the geostrategic partnership” itself, in the words of National Interest columnist J. Peter Pham. When President Obama seemed to blame India over the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan, India’s national security advisor promptly said Obama was “barking up the wrong tree.”

Additionally, Secretary of State Clinton skipped a visit to New Delhi during her maiden voyage to South Asia, stoking concerns that the new administration was putting India on the back burner (opting instead to prioritize relations with an ascendant China). As former U.S. ambassador to India Robert D. Blackwill phrased it, “China today appears … to be on a substantially higher plane in U.S. diplomacy than India, which seems to have been downgraded in the administration’s calculations.” Validating this view, India was not mentioned even once in the Obama administration’s official foreign policy agenda. The world’s largest democracy, more than one billion people — ignored.

This antagonism towards New Delhi is not merely an Obama phenomenon; the American left itself has expressed its unease with a powerful India for quite some time. It was in 1998, after all, when President Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on India for conducting underground nuclear tests — treating an ally and proud democracy as if it were a rogue enemy and brutal tyranny. President Bush, on the other hand, lifted those sanctions in 2001 and signed a historic civilian nuclear agreement with India in 2006, whereby the U.S. would share nuclear reactors and fuel with Prime Minister Singh’s government.

Why is there such a disparity of views on India between conservatives and liberals in these states united? Not all members of the left, of course, hold a hostile opinion of India (Christopher Hitchens comes to mind). But by and large, the American left seems to consider India the “biggest pain in Asia,” in the words of Barbara Crossette, a writer at Foreign Policy. Crossette criticizes India for not adhering to international accords which infringe upon a democracy’s sovereign right to control its nuclear destiny, as well as climate change treaties which would destroy India’s growth — some of the very reasons American conservatives respect India. The left is wary of India for the same reasons it remains wary of Israel: both democracies are fiercely nationalistic and unapologetically defend themselves against the “downtrodden” “other,” i.e., Islamic lunatics.

The American left simply prefers to play hardball with allies than with adversaries. Recall President Carter’s handling of Iran: the allied shah was condemned as an autocrat; the enemy Khomeini, a “holy man.” For Carter, our anticommunist allies were violators of human rights first, second, and third; the Soviets, murderers of tens of millions, were benign enough for Carter to proclaim Americans had an “inordinate fear of communism.”

Contemporaneously, the left’s is a world where dictatorial Venezuela is to be apologized for, democratic Colombia economically punished; where the fascists and racists and bus-bombers in Palestine are “misunderstood” and the democrats in Israel are Nazi brownshirts incarnate. Anti-American terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Lebanon are euphemized as “guerrillas,” whereas pro-American militiamen are castigated as “warlords” — and on and on it goes.

Embroiling the Indians in such amoral nonsense would threaten not only our present rapport with India, but also what could potentially become the most significant American alliance with another country this century — an alliance rooted in a commonality of values, genuine companionship and affection for one another, and solidarity against the totalitarian evils of the world. The United States should welcome India’s rise. We’re largely the reason it’s occurring.

N.M. Guariglia is a foreign policy analyst and columnist who writes on Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitics. He is a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and blogs at WorldThreats.com. He can be reached at nickguar@gmail.com.

 

[CougarKing]

Associated Press link

PATNA, India – Maoist rebels launched a series of devastating attacks Tuesday on government forces patrolling the forests of eastern India, killing at least 75 troops in the deadliest strike against the state in the 43-year insurgency.

The attack, which came amid a major Indian offensive aimed at crushing the Maoists, also known as Naxalites, fueled concerns the government is sending poorly trained forces to the front lines to battle the raging insurgency.

Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, the nation's top law enforcement official, said the troops were part of a joint operation involving state forces and paramilitary fighters.

"But something has gone very wrong. They seemed to have walked into a trap set by the Naxalites. Casualties are quite high and I am deeply shocked," he said.

At least 82 troops were in the patrol that had spent three or four days scouring forests in the rebel stronghold of Dantewada, in Chhattisgarh state, said R.K. Vij, the inspector general of state police.

Early Tuesday, rebels ambushed some of the troops, killing at least three of them, he said. Another 17 soldiers who went to recover the bodies were killed when their vehicle was blown up by a land mine, Vij said — although it was designed to withstand such explosives.

Rebel fighters occupying positions on nearby hilltops then began firing barrages of bullets down on the remaining troops, he said.

The bodies of 75 paramilitary troops were recovered by Tuesday afternoon in the remote and heavily forested area, he said.

(...)

 

 

[Yrys]

Indian Maoists Kill at Least 73 Officers, NY Times

NEW DELHI — India’s campaign against the country’s Maoist insurgency
suffered a major setback on Tuesday when rebel fighters ambushed a
paramilitary unit on patrol in an isolated forest region, killing at least 73
officers.

The authorities described a carefully executed surprise attack in which the
Maoists opened fire as the patrol entered an area seeded with booby-trap
bombs. When officers fell to the ground to take cover from gunfire, they
detonated the explosives.


Scores of Indian soldiers killed in Maoist ambushes, BBC News

Maoist rebels have killed at least 75 Indian soldiers in a series of attacks
on security convoys in the central state of Chhattisgarh, officials say.
A large patrol of federal paramilitary troops was ambushed at dawn by
hundreds of heavily armed insurgents in a remote part of Dantewada district.
Rescue teams were later ambushed in attacks using landmines and gunfire.
Correspondents say it is the worst attack on security forces by the rebels
since their insurgency began.