India in talks with US to buy combat vehicles, seal fighter jet engine deal
The world's biggest arms importer, India traditionally relies mainly on Russia. Last month, Trump asked Modi, who heads to Washington on Wednesday for a two-day visit, to buy more U.S.-made security equipment and move "toward a fair trading relationship".
India and the United States have been in protracted talks over the co-production of Stryker combat vehicles made by General Dynamics and also used by the US Army.
They are also working to wrap up contract talks on co-production of fighter jet engines in India for the Indian Air Force, a deal agreed in 2023, said two sources who sought anonymity as they were not authorised to tall to the media.
"We certainly wish to expedite the transaction which we would like to have with the United States," Defence Production Secretary Sanjeev Kumar told reporters on Sunday, adding that such efforts were underway. But he did not elaborate.
Officials of India's state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) are set to meet in coming weeks with U.S. officials and the aerospace unit of General Electric, maker of GE-414 engines, for talks to finalise the deal by March, the sources said.
GE, HAL, General Dynamics, the US embassy in New Delhi and Indian defence and foreign ministries did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
New Delhi has started talks with the Trump administration on a plan to buy Stryker vehicles after they were demonstrated late last year for the Indian Army, two other sources said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.
The plan envisages that India will acquire a few hundred Strykers with a mounted anti-tank guided missile system, they added, and later co-produce them through a state-run firm, the sources said.
It was not immediately clear if the two potential deals would feature in talks between Modi and Trump. India's foreign ministry has said trade, defence cooperation and technology are among the issues to be discussed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Etihad
40 minutes ago
- Al Etihad
US says tariff deadline of Aug 1 is firm, no extensions
27 July 2025 18:50 WASHINGTON (AFP)The US deadline of August 1 for imposing tariffs on its trading partners is firm and there will be no extensions, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Sunday."So no extensions, no more grace periods. August 1, the tariffs are set. They'll go into place. Customs will start collecting the money, and off we go," Lutnick told "Fox News Sunday."After the levies kick in, President Donald Trump -- who was negotiating Sunday in Scotland with European Union officials -- is still willing to keep talking, Lutnick the Europeans, Lutnick said, "You know they're hoping they make a deal, and it's up to President Trump, who's the leader of this negotiating table. We set the table."So far, five countries have struck deals with the Trump administration ahead of the Friday deadline as it tries to overhaul the global system of largely free trade by slapping tariffs on countries that the United States deems as engaging in 'unfair' five are Britain, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan. The levies they accepted are often higher than the new base rate of 10 percent that the United States has applied to most countries since April. But they are far below the levels the Trump administration threatened to impose if no deal were reached.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Why the world is treating the new Syria differently from the new Lebanon, and what Beirut can learn from that
The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are pressing ahead to encourage Syria to become a model for much of the Middle East. That involves co-existence with Israel, the containment of extremist movements and engagement with minorities, all within the framework of the state. The issue of the state's monopoly on the possession of arms remains a major hurdle. Some of Syria's minority groups insist on retaining their weapons until it becomes clear how the new government will handle their rights and to what extent it will rein in extremist militants. There is also the issue of federalism and decentralisation, which the state opposes. But despite the massacres and atrocities committed in Sweida and on the coast, those investing in President Ahmed Al Shara's project and the new Syrian model are forging ahead. When it comes to the future of Lebanon, however, western countries – namely the 'European three' (E3, which comprises the UK, France and Germany) and the US – are wavering on several fronts. In dealing with Lebanon itself, the E3 has chosen to take a backseat to US diplomacy, led by Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Lebanon and Syria Thomas Barrack. But Iran is a hugely important part of what happens in Lebanon, and the E3 limited recent discussions with representatives from Tehran solely to nuclear issues. Iran's nuclear programme must be addressed, but that should not prevent Europe from raising other concerns, like Tehran's proxy network. Succumbing to Iran's traditional insistence that neither the US nor Europe discuss its regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, is a strategic error. It fails to prevent Iran's ongoing erosion of Lebanese sovereignty its use of Lebanon as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the West. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms instead of handing them over to the Lebanese state. This is dangerous, especially given how confused and contradictory US positions have become towards both Iran and Lebanon. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms Mr Barrack's three visits to Lebanon have drawn criticism because at times he wielded the stick and at others, he expressed understanding of the 'complexity' of disarming Hezbollah. One moment, he described Hezbollah as a political party and the next a terrorist organisation. He appears to have emerged from meetings with Lebanese officials more influenced by their appeasement tactics than persuasive in moving them towards sovereign decision-making. The contradictions in the American position in Lebanon may be intentional, as part of a strategy to alarm Lebanese officials and the public, or unintentional, the result of Mr Barrack's frequent gaffes, only to be followed by retractions. Mr Barrack says he understands the 'difficulties', and that 'everyone is doing their part and trying to settle things in Lebanon, but the situation is complex, both for Lebanese leaders and for all of us'. Such statements devalue American prestige and seriousness. They are not so much the words of a serious emissary carrying US President Donald Trump's demand that Lebanon's leaders enforce a monopoly on arms as they are those of a local-style politician who 'understands' the difficulties but cannot guarantee how Israel might react to Hezbollah's outright refusal to disarm. Nor has Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's envoy to the Iran negotiations, insisted that Iran cease using its grip over Lebanon through Hezbollah as a negotiation card with Washington. All of this will cost Lebanon dearly when Israel inevitably destroys its infrastructure in response to Hezbollah's rebuilding of its military capabilities, including Iranian missiles on Lebanese soil. The Trump administration does not want Israel to open multiple fronts. But it also cannot restrain Israel in Lebanon if Israel deems Hezbollah's refusal to disarm a security threat. Yet in Syria, Mr Trump wants Israel to act with restraint. Iran has lost its staging ground there, a devastating blow to its regional axis. And while Washington recognises the persistence of extremism and the survival of ISIS, it believes that containment of these factions is possible through co-optation, offering them a slice of the cake instead of a bloody conflict. In return, Israel gains a buffer zone and security guarantees along its border with Syria. The message to Israel is that even if ISIS remains dominant in some areas, security arrangements can contain its threat as long as it remains within isolated pockets that pose no danger to the Syrian state structure. In other words, Syria will not be a threat to Israel. Gulf states have quickly moved to encourage Syria's re-integration into the Arab fold. Despite all the challenges, the Gulf is a key partner in backing Mr Al Shara and rebuilding Syria. This was reflected last week in the Saudi-Syrian Investment Forum, a watershed moment that signalled a long-term strategic partnership between Riyadh and Damascus. Forty-seven agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed, worth about $6.4 billion. They included the construction of a medical city as well as deals in agriculture, industry, transport, gas, water, electricity, infrastructure and real estate development. Syria is being placed on a new track, and should indeed be congratulated for this strategic leap towards realism that embraces investment as the basis of policy. One hopes Lebanon's leaders take a lesson from their new counterparts in Damascus and abandon their arrogance towards eager assistance from fellow Arab states, hiding behind the excuse of being unable to rein in Hezbollah. They ought to demand the US, Europe and the Arab world also pressure Iran and not just offer security guarantees via Israel, because the two issues are inseparable. One hopes they also cease dodging political accountability under the guise of protecting Lebanon's safety. Perhaps Arab states will consider taking a calculated risk in supporting Lebanon, as they did in Syria. Both countries suffer from instability. Just as Hezbollah and Israel are playing havoc with Lebanon, extremist fundamentalism continues to trouble Syria. May the international partnership playing a constructive role in Syria inspire those involved to think outside the box in order to rescue Lebanon from regional war and ruin. Lebanon, too, deserves to be rebuilt and invested in to defy those who want it destroyed.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Mediators resume contact with negotiators despite angry US and Israeli reaction to Hamas's response
Mediators have resumed contact with Israeli and Hamas negotiators on a Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal, rekindling hopes for a breakthrough after Israel and the US angrily rejected Hamas's response to the latest proposals, sources told The National on Sunday. They said remote discussions intensified in the past 48 hours between the Egyptian and Qatari mediators on one side and US and Israeli officials on the other. The US offered assurances that full-blown negotiations will resume, they added. Israel's announcement on Sunday of a daily pause in military operations in three parts of Gaza and the opening of new aid corridors was in effect the implementation of the humanitarian segment of the latest proposals to pause the Gaza war, said the sources. The parties involved have also reportedly touched upon the possibility of an enduring settlement of the Gaza war, including the governing of the devastated enclave, reconstruction and the fate of Hamas's arsenal and leaders. Hamas has already given its unconditional agreement to a 60-day truce and signalled it was open to suggestions to lay down its arms and the departure of its leaders from Gaza to live in exile with their families. The sources said those issues will be discussed in more detail during the proposed 60-day truce. The United States has given assurances that the truce would continue as long as negotiations did not break down, they added. Since giving its response last week, the sources said Hamas informed mediators it has dropped the "small amendments" it wanted introduced to the deal and which provoked an angry response from the US and Israel. The changes, said the sources, dealt with Israel's redeployment of its forces in Gaza, plus the number and identity of Palestinians it wants freed from Israeli prisons as part of the agreement. "We believe the Trump administration and Israel, through their hard-line and ominous public response to Hamas's position, wanted to turn up the pressure on the group to accept the deal as is," said one source. "Mostly, the Hamas amendments were secondary. In some cases, they were to do with 100 metres here and 200 metres there when it comes to the redeployment of Israeli troops in Gaza." The sources said the continuing contacts between mediators, Israel and Hamas to finalise a deal were being mostly conducted remotely, with the Palestinian group showing flexibility on all contentious issues. They also pointed out that technical teams from Egypt, Israel, the US and Qatar were staffing an operations centre in Cairo to oversee the delivery of aid to Gaza and iron out relevant security issues. "The only route now open to a deal is for Hamas to accept what it's being presented with," said another source who has directly participated in the months-long negotiations over Gaza. "If Hamas does that, then we will all know whether Israel really wants a deal or not. That said, Hamas's response could have been dealt with through further negotiations. I don't understand why Israel and the US acted in public like they were slamming the door shut on the entire process." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ominously said Israel and the US were "considering alternative options" to bring home the remaining 49 hostages and end Hamas's rule of Gaza. The two close allies on Friday withdrew their negotiators from Qatar, where the latest round of Gaza talks began on July 6. The Gaza war began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led fighters stormed southern Israel, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking another 250 hostages back to Gaza. Since then, Israel's military response has killed nearly 60,000 Palestinians and wounded more than twice that number, according to Gaza health officials. It has also reduced much of the enclave to ruins and displaced nearly all the 2.3 million population.
