Boeing, India and Arms

What do you do if you want to watch 4,700 miles of coastline? If you're India, you buy $2.1 billion worth of maritime patrol aircraft.

That's according to the Wall Street Journal, which said the India's government signed the deal with the Chicago-based Boeing for eight P-8I aircraft.

Dana Hedgpeth, the Post defense contracting writer, says this is a big win at a good time for Boeing. Like other defense contractors, Boeing is jockeying for a bigger piece of India's defense spending budget. India wants to buy 126 fighter jets, a deal worth $12 billion. Lockheed Martin is among those going after the fighter jet contract.

Defense industry analysts say there is potentially a $60 billion market to sell India artillery, submarines, warships and other military equipment, as it tries to improve its aging equipment, much of which it bought from the former Soviet Union. Remember them?

By Robert O'Harrow |  January 7, 2009; 11:21 AM ET defense
Previous: Pay For Play? | Next: Dataveillance

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



India bought the P-8I not the P-81. The P-8A is under development to be the new US Navy maritime patrol craft, the P-8I is the Indian version of that.

While many news organization have misread the I as a 1, a quick check of Boeing site will reveal the I.

Posted by: kolbkl | January 7, 2009 1:59 PM

Not to mention the Indian Defense Ministry's announcement $10 billion in homeland security equipment over the next two years. Check out India looks to bulk up land systems, homeland security options

Posted by: jefferyrlsmith | January 8, 2009 10:51 AM

Why do you say "remember them?" The Russians are a very competent, potential military adversary. They build very formidable weapons systems in all dimensions of warfare. When we look deep into Vladimir Putin's eyes, are we sure he's a good guy? Hitler found, to his sorrow, that the Russians were anything but a pushover. But did the rest of the world know that, before the Nazis' debacle? We know it now. Read history or be doomed to repeat the errors of the past. Incidentally, take a look at the latest Russian fighter.

Posted by: CHForbesSr | January 9, 2009 6:29 AM

CHForbesSr wrote:

"Hitler found, to his sorrow, that the Russians were anything but a pushover. But did the rest of the world know that, before the Nazis' debacle? We know it now."

Well, I only know what I read, but it seems to me that there were two main reasons why Russia wasn't overrun by the German onslaught;
1. Stalin convinced the Allies to invade on the coast of France so Hitler had to divert some of his forces from the Russian front, and
2. Stalin was absolutely ruthless about sacrificing his own people.

The English and the French surely took Russia very seriously and were very worried about the spread of Communism from Russia.

However, it seems fair enough to me to speak of Russia today as a mere shadow of what they were when they were the Soviet Union.

Posted by: biggerjake | January 10, 2009 12:42 AM

Russia was a very formidable enemy to Hitler but please keep in mind that the Afgans beat the well equiped Russian army with limited arms and equipment. We should remember that and use diplomacy as our best weapon against Afganistan. We will not win with weapons. In Vietnam we did not know how to fight jungle war and in Afganistan we don't know how to fight mountain tribal war.

Posted by: sm98yth | January 12, 2009 1:52 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company