Chandigarh: Under President Donald Trump, the US has launched a blunt and tactless blitzkrieg to try and bully India into buying more of its military equipment, even if it does not operationally require it, or alternately can even afford it.
After Trump’s unilateral declaration last month that the US was facilitating the sale of costly F-35 Lightening II stealth fighters to the Indian Air Force (IAF), as part of enhancing material sales ‘worth many billions’ to New Delhi, his commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has raced several steps ahead.
Speaking virtually at the India Today Conclave in New Delhi on March 7, Lutnick directed India to stop buying Russian arms, and laughingly mocked Delhi’s defence equipment buys from France and the UK, which he derided as ‘silly’. Reliance upon them for materiel, the commerce secretary taunted, was tantamount to ‘mere noise’.
“India has historically bought significant amounts of military equipment from Russia and we (the US) think that is something that needs to stop,” Lutnick warned. In the same breath, he went on to belittle India’s military kit acquisitions from France and the UK in preference to US equipment, which he maintained was the world’s greatest.
The US official was obviously referring to India acquiring 36 French Dassault Rafale fighters in 2016 for the IAF and the imminent deal for 26 Rafale-M (Maritime) combat platforms for the Indian Navy (IN) for embarkation aboard INS Vikrant, its new aircraft carrier. US fighters were in contention for both buys, but were categorically bested in user trials by their French rivals.
Also read: Before Trump, Modi Can Agree on India Buying F-35s, the US Needs to Shed its S-400 Phobia
Lutnick went on to say that America, which headed the world’s ‘best’ military-industrial complex and was undoubtedly an unsurpassed weapon designer and builder, would never recommend India buying defence equipment from France and UK, let alone Russia. He concluded his harangue by instructing India to do itself a favour and simply source all its future defence needs exclusively from the US.
The US commerce secretary’s unsubtle urgings were harsher iterations of what previous US administrations, had in recent years, politely advised India about reducing its dependence on Russian materiel that comprises around 60-65% of all equipment presently in use with all its three services. The latest report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) revealed earlier this week that Russia provided India 36% of its defence requirements, France 33% and Israel 13%. The remaining 18% were sourced locally and from a handful of other overseas suppliers, including the US.
But delayed deliveries, poor after-sales service, expensive platform upgrades and above all enhanced domestic efforts at greater indigenisation in defence equipment needs had, however, led to India reducing its dependence on Russian materiel by around 33% between 2011-20. And to take up the slack it had, over the past two decades gradually acquired a rash of US military platforms and varied armaments worth some $22 billion.
These included 11 C-17 and 12 C-130J-30 transport aircraft, 12 Neptune maritime multi-mission platforms, 22 AH-64E Apache attack, 15 CH-47F Chinook and 24 MH-60R Seahawk helicopters. India had also acquired 145 M777 155mm/39 calibre light-weight howitzers from the US, and last October agreed on a deal for 31 MQ-9B unmanned aerial vehicles in addition to procuring additional assault rifles, and assorted missile systems. It was also awaiting delivery of six additional Apaches for the Indian Army in addition to negotiating for other sundry defence gear.
But all these purchases were seemingly inadequate for Trump, Lutnick and multiple US arms majors, all of who appeared determined to push the envelope and somehow coerce Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP-led federal coalition into appreciably augmenting its inventory of US materiel. A cross-section of senior IAF veterans were of the view that the F-35 sales pitch by Trump was merely ‘leverage’ to push the sale of another US fighter, three of which were potentially competing for the IAFs long-postponed Multi-role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) procurement that was likely to be soon revived to boost the Force’s flagging combat squadron numbers down to 30 from a mandated 42.5 squadrons.
Air chief marshal A.P. Singh had recently clarified that the IAF was not considering acquiring the F-35, as there was no formal proposal for it from the US. He stated that acquiring a combat aircraft was unlike buying a refrigerator of washing machine, simply because it looked good. We have not looked at the F-35, he declared last Saturday at the India Today Conclave.
Also read: It’s Time to Listen to Air Chief Marshal A.P. Singh, the First to Tackle Trump’s F-35 Dictum Bluntly
The US uses arms sales as an extension of its diplomacy and influence, but alongside it also imposes strict conditions on how and where the purchased materiel can be employed. Failure to comply can, and often does, result in withdrawal of technical support, spare parts or both for the concerned equipment and heavy financial penalties.
Technology transfers overseas by US armament companies too was limited, thereby curtailing the importee’s indigenous capabilities. Moreover, US equipment was also maintenance-intensive, resulting in hugely expensive maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) contracts, invariably to American contractors. This, in turn, only enhanced the importing country’s long-term revenue costs in operating the concerned US-origin equipment.
Furthermore, US protocols like the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA), agreed with Delhi in 2009 after much wrangling and extended negotiation, proscribes it from retrofitting and adapting US military equipment to its needs, without the Original Equipment Manufacturers consent and participation for the entire duration of its service. In the US’s case, this jugaad or innovation route has rarely ever been permitted for all its overseas clients, a restriction that, in many instances, restricted many platforms’ operational flexibility for India.
For decades, India’s military has creatively elevated jugaad to sophisticated operational levels, which have ensured that imported weapon systems performed well above their declared potential in extreme climates of freezing Himalayan regions and the searing hot That Desert in Rajasthan. In many instances Indian military jugaad has been known to render a range of platforms even more lethal than what their creators had originally designed them to be.
“Such cradle-to-grave restrictions on equipment provided the US a continuing hold over the recipient country,” said a one-star IAF officer “to achieve Washington’s strategic, political, diplomatic and intelligence-sharing goals.” However, this was not the case with defence equipment from countries like Russia, France and Israel, he said, declining to be named, as they adopted a relatively ‘laisse faire’ attitude to jugaad. All three countries also provided India easy access to source codes, or underlying software instructions that controlled the functioning of many of the various equipments systems, said the officer. The US, for its part, he added was ‘somewhat guarded and obstructive’ in this regard.
But, despite these challenges and handicaps, there was little doubt that a large proportion of US armaments were technologically unmatched globally, especially in sphere of stealth, avionics, and network-centric warfare. And, domestically for all US administrations and presidents, arms sales financed their country’s vast military-industrial complex, ensuring continued research and development of cutting-edge technologies and keeping production lines buzzing, thereby ensuring continued employment and overall economic growth.
That being said, it appears that commerce secretary Luntik’s breathlessly bullying outburst displayed complete ignorance of India’s immutable internal political dynamics, which make it impossible for any government, including the BJP-led coalition, to be so obviously browbeaten into buying US military equipment. And, if he, along with Trump persisted in such behaviour, its possible that they just might find themselves wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, woven by seasoned defence ministry bureaucrats.
