This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 05 NEW DELHI 001783 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/09/2015 
TAGS: KSTC MARR MASS PGOV PREL IN NSSP
SUBJECT: INDIA SEEKS TECHNICAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT ON 
MISSILE DEFENSE 
 
Classified By: DCM Robert O. Blake Jr, for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) 
 
¶1.  (S) Summary:  During a highly-anticipated February 22 
briefing on the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) missile 
defense system, GOI and USG representatives cited the 
exchange as evidence of the transformed Indo-US relationship. 
 Throughout the session, GOI statements and questions 
indicated a keen interest not only in procurement, but 
opportunities for technology sharing to include collaboration 
and joint-production.  Questions from the Indian delegation 
focused on PAC-2 performance parameters, shelf life, 
capabilities compared to Israel's Arrow system, US missile 
defense deployment plans, and possibilities for technology 
transfer and co-production.  The GOI delegation was well 
aware that the briefing was limited to PAC-2 and posed few 
questions beyond that scope, although some specific technical 
questions will require follow-up.  In separate follow-on 
conversations with MEA Additional Secretary (International 
Security) Meera Shankar and MEA Joint Secretary (Americas) S. 
Jaishankar on February 23, US representatives expressed their 
willingness to keep the PAC-2 dialogue open if the GOI has a 
continued interest.  Shankar clarified the status of India's 
missile defense planning and specifically requested a MD 
technical collaboration agreement with the US.  End Summary. 
 
Partnership Delivers PAC-2 Briefing 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) In his opening remarks, head of the Indian 
delegation MOD Joint Secretary Gautam Mukhopadhaya heralded 
the PAC-2 briefing as the result of achievements in the 
Indo-US political relationship.  He welcomed the briefing as 
an indication of both countries, willingness to "step into 
more advanced areas of defense technology; not limited to 
procurement, but also including joint development."  While 
missile defense (MD) has "a certain cachet" in the press, 
Mukhopadhaya hoped this briefing would address the GOI's 
technical questions about such a system.  Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency (DSCA) Director for Middle East, Asia and 
North Africa Ed Ross expressed appreciation for the "active 
and progressive" defense relationship that was developing 
between the two countries, and underscored that a briefing on 
"cutting edge technology" such as the PAC-2 is given only to 
"our closest friends." 
 
US Policy and Planning for Missile Defense 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶3.  (C) Phil Jamison, OSD/ISP Assistant for Missile Defense 
Policy, outlined the US approach to MD:  field modest 
capabilities in 2004-05; add capabilities through research 
and development; and seek cooperation with allies.  He noted 
that the addition of MD to the US defense posture has 
lessened dependence on nuclear forces for protection.  In 
STRATCOM's plan for 2005, ten ground-based interceptors and 
up to 20 sea-based interceptors will be added, and other 
radars and laser systems added or upgraded.  Another defense 
layer will be developed in 2006-08 by the addition of more 
ground- and sea-based interceptors and radars.  US Combatant 
Commanders are currently undertaking operational planning for 
MD in their AORs and the services have begun to man and train 
for MD missions.  David Kiefer of the Missile Defense Agency 
gave an overview of the US missile defense program,s goals, 
major components, current status and future plans. 
 
Patriot System Overview for India 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (S) Major John Eggert, US Army Staff, briefed the Patriot 
Configuration-3 Ground system and the PAC-2 Guidance Enhanced 
Missile Plus (GEM ) missile.  He enumerated improvements to 
Ground Configuration-3 over previous versions, to include 
upgraded radar and software, and remote launch capability. 
He gave a detailed depiction of system components and how 
they function and work together using "Track Via Missile" 
technology, and described a typical US Patriot battery.  He 
also praised the long shelf-life and minimal maintenance 
requirements for the PAC-2 GEM  missile.  Eggert reported the 
perfect record of the Patriot system during OIF -- all nine 
theater ballistic missiles defined as a threat to protected 
assets were successfully intercepted.  Finally, he displayed 
multiple diagrams showing PAC-2 GEM  performance against 
missiles launched from different distances. In addition, the 
presentation also included GEM  performance against fixed 
wing and cruise missile threats.  (Note:  Per standard 
guidance for such briefings, the Indian delegation was shown 
classified slides, but were not given hard copies of the 
briefing.) 
 
¶5.  (S) Questions from the Indian side included the following: 
 
-- What special waveforms does the system use to discriminate 
between decoys and warheads/re-entry vehicles? 
-- What is the maximum detection range and altitude? 
-- What is the maximum detection range and altitude in cued 
mode (i.e. when prompted by an outside detection system)? 
-- What is the minimum time and distance in which a missile 
threat can be engaged? 
-- What is the total area one Patriot battery defends? 
-- Has protection envelope data been verified by actual 
missile firings? 
-- What is the maximum range to hit a C-130 flying at an 
altitude of 5000-6000 meters? 
-- What is a PAC-2 GEM  missile's time/range to 
self-destruction? 
-- How does Patriot handle multiple missiles launched at the 
same target? 
-- How does the missile complete its end game intercept, and 
can it do so without radar updates? 
-- What redundancies exist in case of radar failure? 
-- Can control of missile launchers be transferred if one 
battery goes down? 
-- How much time is required to pack up a Patriot battery, 
move it, and set it back up again? 
-- What is the "dead zone," or minimum range for the PAC-2 to 
detect/engage a threat? 
-- What Aegis radar upgrades are taking place (in relation to 
integration with Patriot)? 
-- What is the weight of the PAC-2 GEM  warhead? 
-- How does Patriot compare to Israel's Arrow missile defense 
system? 
-- At this stage of the NSSP (Next Steps in Strategic 
Partnership), what kinds of information are you authorized to 
share? 
-- Has transfer of technology occurred with other countries 
buying Patriot? 
-- Has there been collaboration with other countries on 
PAC-3? 
-- Does the US have overarching missile cooperation 
arrangements with major partners, and does it involve 
technology sharing? 
-- Are other countries acquiring components of an overarching 
missile defense system? 
-- How effective is Patriot as a stand-alone system (i.e. 
without space-based cueing)? 
-- What is being developed beyond PAC-3? 
-- What is the status of MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense 
System)? 
-- Will MEADS have a sea-based component? 
-- What is the time frame for MEADS to be deployed? 
 
¶6.  (S) An open-ended question and answer period allowed the 
Indian delegation to ask questions.  They seemed satisfied 
with most of the answers, but did ask a few questions that 
were beyond the scope of the briefing, such as Patriot 
operation in "cued mode," Aegis integration, and a request 
for more information on "special wave forms" for target 
discrimination.  The briefer did not have information to 
respond to a question about the weight of the PAC-2 GEM 
warhead, but offered to get the answer for the Indian side. 
 
FMS Process 
----------- 
 
¶7.  (C) Following the briefing on PAC-2 capabilities, DSCA 
Director Ross highlighted differences and advantages of the 
FMS process over direct commercial sales, namely, that FMS 
includes USG engagement from the earliest stages of an 
acquisition.  Not only does an FMS sale normally guarantee 
lifetime system support and a purchase price negotiated by, 
and at the same cost available to, the USG, but also, more 
importantly, it fosters a strong working relationship, which 
can facilitate acquisition of other sensitive technologies. 
He briefly outlined the initial steps in a successful FMS 
deal: 1) Notify DSCA early regarding requirements; 2) Submit 
requirements in a Letter of Request; then 3) USG reviews and 
responds in a Letter of Offer and Acceptance with pricing and 
availability data. 
 
Follow-on MEA Dialogue 
---------------------- 
 
¶8.  (C) In a follow-on meeting with MEA Americas Joint 
Secretary S. Jaishankar on February 23, Ross commented that 
 
SIPDIS 
the PAC-2 exchange was very forthcoming, and asked if 
Jaishankar had any feedback from the Indian side.  Jaishankar 
responded that it will take a little time for him to receive 
feedback, but said he did gather that on some questions, it 
was not possible for the US side to provide a response at 
this time.  Jaishankar thought the briefing was helpful for 
the GOI, and said that at this stage of India,s effort to 
determine its missile defense needs; &every bit (of 
information) we get8 is useful for India,s thought process. 
 He noted a tendency in this type of meeting for Indian 
questioners to keep pressing, "Until you hit a wall." 
Jaishankar noted that conceptually, India is at a very early 
stage in its thought process on missile defense. 
 
¶9.  (C) Jaishankar asserted that, as a recent nuclear power, 
India brings few Cold War prejudices to its missile defense 
consideration.  As a point of reference, he said the GOI is 
looking very closely at what Japan and Taiwan are doing with 
missile defense.  Remarking on recent MD debate in the Indian 
press, Jaishankar observed that some commentators argue in 
favor of MD as a means of "adding to the uncertainties" of 
those who might launch nuclear weapons. 
 
¶10.  (C) Ross commented that while many believe the US is 
making missile defense available as part of its own 
overarching MD program, a future PAC-2 sale to India would be 
strictly for India's own use.  In reference to India's 
interest in the PAC-3 system, Ross explained that even US 
Patriot batteries use a mix of PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles. 
 
¶11.  (C) Jaishankar asked if the US now considers its NSSP 
obligation to provide a classified PAC-2 brief as having been 
fully discharged, and what the next step is.  Jim Alverson, 
OSD/ISA-NESA India Country Director, responded that the US 
has completed the PAC-2 briefing, but that future missile 
defense dialogue and briefings would continue in accordance 
with NSSP.  Alverson said that if India is interested in 
purchasing PAC-2, the USG and India would proceed along the 
same Foreign Military Sales process used for other major 
defense transactions. 
 
¶12.  (C) In a separate meeting on February 23, AC/RSS 
Director Robert Gromoll, SA/RA Director John Schlosser, and 
PolCouns met with MEA Additional Secretary for International 
Security, Meera Shankar.  Shankar expressed appreciation for 
the "new depth" in the US-India bilateral relationship, 
reminding the US delegation that India was among the first 
countries to welcome the US vision of a missile defense 
shield.  India's desires go well beyond MD acquisition, 
Shankar continued.  The GOI is most interested in a 
technology partnership similar to MOUs the US has with other 
allies, including full collaboration and industrial 
participation.  According to Shankar, since India's strategic 
MD framework is still being formed, the GOI has not reached 
consensus on whether they need a MD system or what elements 
it should have.  As a result, New Delhi seeks more 
information about the future direction of the US MD network. 
Gromoll responded that he will follow-up on the possibilities 
of technical cooperation with Washington, and that the next 
step would be a formal letter of interest from the GOI. 
 
¶13.  (C) During a separate meeting that same day with Ed 
Ross, Shankar expressed appreciation for the PAC-2 briefing 
and the technical question-and-answer exchange that followed. 
 She said India is at a very preliminary stage and is still 
conceptualizing whether it will pursue missile defense, and 
if so, what type and what elements it would seek.  Beyond 
acquisition, Shankar expressed interest in areas of possible 
MD technological collaboration with the US.  She inquired 
about PAC-2 and PAC-3 performance parameters in the Persian 
Gulf War (Note:  The PAC-2 classified briefing contained 
PAC-2 performance information).  Shankar stated that India 
has an interest in PAC-3.  Ross explained that Ground 
Configuration-3, included in the brief, is the heart of the 
Patriot system with either the PAC-2 GEM  or PAC-3 
interceptors.  He also expressed appreciation for the GOI's 
desire for industrial participation in MD.  Shankar stressed 
that the GOI is very interested in MD "as a concept" that can 
strengthen India's nuclear posture of "No First Use." 
Shankar expressed strong interest in US-India technology 
collaboration on MD, and in pursuing a U.S-India Memorandum 
of Understanding on missile defense cooperation similar to 
that which the U.S. has with other countries.  She further 
offered that India was looking forward to the March 3-4 
command post exercise planning meeting with the U.S. Missile 
Defense Agency as an opportunity to build another dimension 
of our MD dialogue, and welcomed the invitation to send 
observers to the Roving Sands MD exercise at the end of 
March.  She asked that the U.S. provide a written letter of 
invitation for India to send observers to the exercise (Note: 
 MDA has since sent the letter to the GOI through Embassy New 
Delhi). 
 
PAC-2 Briefing Participant List 
------------------------------- 
 
¶14.  (C) Delegation members for the 22 February classified 
PAC-2 briefing are listed below. 
 
India Delegation: 
-- Gautam Mukhopadhaya, Joint Secretary, MoD 
-- Maj Gen K. Mukherjee, Army HQ 
-- Brig Gen K.S. Sethi, Army HQ 
-- Brigadier P.C. Bakshi, Army HQ 
-- Lt Col P. Sharma, Army HQ 
-- Col R.K. Bhutani, Army HQ 
-- Col Vivekanandan, Army HQ 
-- Col K.J. Singh, Army HQ 
-- Rear Adm Nirmal Verma, Naval HQ 
-- Cmde T. Hari Ram, Naval HQ 
-- Cmde R. Bhatnagar, Naval HQ 
-- Air Cmde Matheswaran, Air HQ 
-- Air Cmde Pratap, Air HQ 
-- Air Marshal F.H. Major, DCIDS (OPS), HQ IDS 
-- AVM V.K. Verma 
-- Dr. V.K. Saraswat, Director RCI, DRDO 
-- A.S. Sharma, Project Director (WS), DRDO 
-- N. Prabhakar, Project Director (Mission), DRDO 
-- Santosh Jha, Deputy Secretary, Americas, MEA 
-- Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Under Secretary, DISA, MEA 
 
US Delegation: 
-- Ed Ross, Director DSCA/MEAN 
-- John K. Schlosser, SA/RA Director, DoS 
-- Robert Gromoll, AC/RSS Director, DoS 
-- Tom McIlvain, AC/RSS Foreign Affairs Officer, DoS 
-- Anne Smoot, DSCA India Program Director 
-- Jim Alverson, OSD/ISA-NESA India Country Director 
-- Phil Jamison, OSD/ISP Assistant for MD Policy 
-- Dave Kiefer, MDA 
-- Col Israel McReynolds, Army Director of Intl. Programs 
-- George Martinez, Army Security Assistance Command 
-- Major John Eggert, Army Patriot Program 
-- Lt Col Scott Denney, Chief, ODC India 
-- Maj Greg Winston, Deputy Chief, ODC India 
-- Maj Steve Hedden, Defense Coop. in Armaments, ODC India 
-- Maj Rick Bairett, US Embassy New Delhi, POL (notetaker) 
-- Stacy Gilbert, US Embassy New Delhi, PolMil (notetaker) 
 
¶15.  (U) DSCA/MEA Director Ross, SA/RA Director Schlosser, 
AC/RSS Director Gromoll, and OSD/ISA-NESA Country Director 
Alverson cleared this cable. 
MULFORD