India-U.S. defence technology ties — big ambitions, little delivery

The India-U.S. defence partnership has transitioned from non-existent to a central pillar of their strategic relationship, driven by mutual concerns over China's rise. However, this article highlights a fundamental divergence in objectives. India views defence ties through the prism of strategic autonomy and indigenization (Aatmanirbhar Bharat), seeking technology transfers to build a domestic military-industrial complex. Conversely, the U.S. treats advanced defence technology as a highly regulated strategic asset, primarily seeking a lucrative market for its defence contractors and enhancing interoperability for joint operations. This structural mismatch explains why initiatives like the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) and the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET) struggle to deliver on co-production promises. UPSC candidates should analyze this relationship not just in terms of political alignment, but the friction between India's quest for self-reliance and U.S. commercial and security imperatives.

The article uses the General Electric F414 engine negotiation as a case study in the complexities of defence procurement and technology transfer (ToT). While India has become a major buyer of U.S. equipment through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route (e.g., Apache helicopters, P-8I aircraft), transitioning to co-development is hindered by U.S. export control regimes, particularly the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR severely restricts the sharing of technical data and manufacturing know-how, often prioritizing U.S. national security over bilateral industrial collaboration. This creates a bottleneck for India's indigenous programs, such as the Tejas Mk-II and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), which rely on foreign propulsion technology. The proposed Reciprocal Defence Procurement Agreement (RDPA) aims to ease trade, but raises concerns about exposing India's nascent defence industry to unequal competition from established U.S. defence giants.

Building a robust domestic defence manufacturing sector requires more than just capital; it necessitates access to cutting-edge technology and intellectual property (IP). The article underscores that India-U.S. defence ties have largely resulted in a 'buyer-seller' dynamic, failing to foster a meaningful defence-industrial base in India. The reluctance of U.S. firms to share deep manufacturing expertise or establish substantial local supply chains (as seen in the MQ-9B drone acquisition) limits the development of a domestic Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) ecosystem. This impacts India's balance of payments and perpetuates reliance on foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). For UPSC Mains, discuss how policies like Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) and the push for 'Make in India' in defence must navigate the complexities of foreign technology regimes and the commercial realities of global arms trade.