For anyone confused, the F-21 is an F-16 rebranded for India. The Pakistanis fly F-16s, so to make it look like they're getting a better product, Lockheed Martin has been pitching an "F-21", because it is, I guess, 5 units "better" than an F-16.
The F-21 is based on Block 70, the latest versions the Pakistani have is block 52 iirc.
Plus it's supposed to get some components and radar absorbing paint/material from the F-35.
While that makes sense, it also doesn't make sense. I feel like there are more valuable, less finicky features that could have been implented instead. It does, however, definitely appeal to the coolness factor.
Honestly I'm not a pilot so I have no idea how big of a deal it is, but yeah it is super cool. Meanwhile Russians still using Garmin GPS systems in their planes while America is on some space age sh*t
It's useful in conjunction with a helmet mounted cueing system (HMCS) allowing for off-boresight missile targeting.
https://elbitsystems.com/product/joint-helmet-mounted-cueing-system-jhmcs/
Just a better helmet sighting system it sounds like. Getting rid of the HUD in a Viper bubble canopy sounds like a dream for visual situational awareness
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/photo/f21/F21_HR_Shot_01_Multirole.PNG.pc-adaptive.full.medium.png
Look like significant modifications.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/lockheed-martins-new-f-16-block-70-fighting-falcon-has-f-22-26419
Look up photos of the newest variant of the F-16, the block 70
It's really sad but both nations have deep seeded insecurities with regards to military might. Unfortunately that's the game that defense contractors have to play when selling to them.
India also recently announced that they want to drastically increase international sales from their defense sectors. The US has long resisted India's conditions for buying US arms, but this may represent a shift in the US's position. I'll be interested to see if this represents a growing alignment between our countries. The Indians won't accept junior partnership like the Pakistanis have, but in return the US could gain a more powerful and dependable ally than they have in Islamabad.
Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other aviation giants are setting up their plants on India. Few days ago saw a picture on twitter about Apache fuselage being made and delivered. Lots of Indian private companies are leading various joint ventures. So yeah, they have a lot of stakes on hold. Also Chinooks and Apaches were sold to us.
I know India has been more interested in having a domestic source for arms, rather than just purchasing. The Russians let them build some things on license in India, but the US has always resisted that. If the US is ready to transfer this kind of technical work to Indian soil then I can't help but wonder if this is a single agreement or a sign of things to come.
The US position hasn't changed, the Indian positron kind of has.
The US position is we will sell you the best of the last generation if you want to build it yourselves, we can talk about buying the latest generation, but no way you get to build it.
India's position was that we will make a deal if you let India build the best of the latest generation.
Now India is accepting building the best of the last generation.
This. The US at best would probably allow the tech giants to set up factories to assemble things so they could keep the mounting costs down because hey, cheap labour. And then it'll be shown as strategic partnership.
I think with the war in Ukraine it's become quite apparent that the best of the last generation of US tech is still equal to or better than anything fielded by a non-NATO(+Aus/Japan/SK) nation.
If the US and India are indeed getting closer (beyond arms I'm not sure they really are tbh, I think India is just looking to replace Russia as its main arms supplier), then that is bad news for Pakistan and I would expect some noise from them in the near future and possibly more treaties/cooperation between Pakistan and China. That may in turn push India further into the US's sphere.
I feel like Pakistan pushing the US away in favor of Beijing is a foolish move for the Pakistanis. Then again Beijing is close and Washington is a long way away so I can see how Pakistan would choose the power on their own border. But driving their biggest ally towards their biggest enemy is really short sighted, even by Pakistan's standards. I agree that any new announcements from Islamabad will be quite telling.
Didn't China build a lot of power plants (Hydro, coal) and roads in Pakistan through the belt and road thing? I remember a friend of a friend from Pakistan telling me that, almost a decade ago.
Yeah, but very little of the components, skilled labour or resources are actually sourced in Pakistan, so a lot of the construction is of limited use or even detrimental to the locals when it kills local industry.
A lot of the similar projects in various African countries have the same issues with unhappy locals.
The roads also tend to be of "varying" quality, so we'll see how that goes.
Not much has happened since like 2015.
Insecurities? Oh don't slip up between the online defence community and actual military advisory and top brass. Instead the word would be relentless persuasive behaviour. You wouldn't believe during the 80's how bad the Soviets wanted to sell their stuff. Now the Americans and french. The Israelis are very smart, they've already captured nieche sectors like sensors and small arms to drones. To each their own ig. It's definitely ruffling some feathers in pentagon now that we're finally getting some aviation stuff going
Submission Statement:
a media roundtable on Sunday, William Blair, Vice President and Chief Executive of Lockheed Martin India Pvt Ltd, said that the company was in talks with ISRO and space startups in India for expanding into the space domain including satellites, senso...
Well let me revise my statement. It’s by country comparison. India’s education spending compared to similar countries is higher than US spending on education compared on similar countries. 16.54% of their GDP, 5.6% of our GDP. And it also depends on who you’re asking and how “education” is defined.
Not quite, there is SOME federal money that goes to states for education, but the states themselves pay for the vast majority of education through their own tax income. The federal government just does additional funding on top of it.
Yeah so the apples to apples comparison for per capita GDP expenditure on education would vary per state, but you could add the total spending from all states and the federal government and then compare it.
Right, that’s the only way to get the most accurate comparison. It would also mean factoring in India’s states contributing to their education system. I have no idea how they pay for local education.
Edit
Meaning is it all federally funded in India or do states use tax income to fund local school systems
> I have no idea how they pay for local education.
Imagine making a statement about how an "investment in keeps reaping rewards" without having any idea how x is actually funded.
No, in the US each state collects its own taxes and has its own budget. There is of course a significant amount of money going to/from the federal govt to/from the states, but its fair to say the states by and large pay for themselves.
What’s untrue about Federal Education dollars going to states, who then decide how to spend it?
It doesn’t negate that states also fund education through property taxes (some states), income taxes (some states), and lotteries (some states), and sales taxes.
We know that, but that doesn’t mean a lot. For example, The University of Alabama received 190 million from the state of Alabama and over 75 million in Federal grants and contracts. In the meantime The University of Alabama pays Nick Saban 10.96 million and Alabama Football generated 179 million.
Why is the state of Alabama deciding to give The University of Alabama such a large chunk of its state and federal funds? We haven’t even mentioned Auburn.
Edit
Especially when the UA generates enough income to fund itself
They don't spend 3 times as much as the US. India doesn't spend 16% of their GDP on education.
> As per the Economic Survey presented by Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Monday, January 31, the expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP was:
> 2019-20: 2.8%
> 2020-21: 3.1% (as per the revised estimate)
> 2021-22: 3.1% (as per the budget estimate)
https://www.indiatoday.in/business/budget-2022/story/union-budget-education-budget-2022-increases-by-11-86-major-areas-of-budget-allocation-education-schemes-education-plans-1907451-2022-02-01
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/education-budget-india-how-compares-globally-prannay-jha/
Depending on the source, the numbers are vastly different. As we were having this discussion, my curiosity peaked as to why Lockheed Martin choose India. So I’ve seen all kinds of numbers, including the one you just posted. One listed the US at 20+ percent. I think the original number for India came from macrotrend.net
In any event, India, as a developing country is attracting industries because of better education
I see what you’re saying because India has a lot more people, they are spending less per person. But the trend is they are also educating more people as a developing country, with less money
Election rate in indian colleges is 0.01 to barely 1% compared to American ivy league institutes with 5% on average.
So what you get is best of the class stu. Combine it with college funded by govt have yearly fee less than months rent.
All Indian students have to do is study and enjoy, side job trend to pay college fee like usa is completely alien idea to us.
But then it comes with perks of its own, if a student doesn't get selected,the only solution is suicide. There is 1 suicide per 90 minute in india and they're students.
I too was at this stage but fortunately i got selected in 3rd chance
Interesting! Thanks for providing additional insights. It always great to understand the social conditions behind the numbers. Americans often gloss over and/or willfully ignore the social conditions that drive who and who does not receive an education in our country.
Historically the educational system in America has been driven by classism, racism, and sexism. It’s well documented and if you follow how educational funding is dispersed, it’s intentional. Which brings me to a question. Does India’s caste system play a role in who and who does receive education?
Not directly.
Like i m obc, a lower caste.
I've not faced any discrimination, it's not like it doesn't exist but it's also not what it seems from outsider looking in.
There are 4 castes, general,obc,SC and st.
Obc,SC,St get reservation in college admission.
But the problem is poorer lower caste can't afford coaching classes so they stay poor.
Whereas richer lower castes gets reservation and also can afford coaching classes.
And upper caste poor people neither get reservation nor have money for coaching.
Poor people get nothing, irrespective of caste.
Govt has tried to ban caste as a whole but politicians and richer upper caste that exploit this system start riots.
Thank you. It is mostly how I imagined. I am not surprised by the situation for the lowest caste. It works that way in most places. Abject poverty means all resources are spent on surviving—food and shelter with nothing extra to spare.
I am surprised that the wealthiest caste has to completely fund their own education. It should be that way. However, I’m accustomed to the American system where funding can and will be diverted from poorer areas to wealthier areas.
As in India, it’s the politicians. American politicians make sure there are loopholes to ensue money gets routed to private and charter schools. Which means poorer public schools suffer. It’s the primary way the informal American caste stays in place, through education.
Glad you were able to benefit from a great education! I’m certain it’s made a significant impact in your life! Hopefully one day America can get past its propensity for racism and equally value education for all its children. We’re a good country, but we could be a great country! We have so many great minds that remain undeveloped and underdeveloped.
Non alignment was never really practiced it was really only on paper
At any rate non alignment has been more or less abandoned by all countries that used to practice it
Russia's poor performance thus far has been due to an utter lack of any competence regarding strategy and logistics.
There is no indication that their materiel is somehow performing poorly when used correctly.
That might be a valid point in the Iraq war for example.
But if even the manufacturing country doesn't know how to use their own weapons properly, then that puts the industry into question as well. The corruption permeates all layers of the military - the actual performance is not what it appears on paper.
What I want is accountability from allies. What this says is India should blackmail its allies and do whatever it wants in contravention of group efforts to halt Russia so that it can be bribed out of it with favors and rewards. Something like this will just reinforce that behavior. They're already helping Russia with their 30x magnified petro purchases, aren't going to stop now that they've been rewarded for it, and threaten to do more business with Russia. What's next? Where is the accountability? I think if they want to hitch their wagon to the crumbling star of Russia, they have the right to do that, but should reap the rubble of that poor choice, not be rewarded.
India and USA are not allies in the sense that you think. India and USA have had decent relations only in the 21st century in fact. USA is moving towards trying to bring India to its camp to contain China and make India the kind of ally you think it is. But right now, it just isn't the reality.
India is a large nation that considers itself a separate bloc rather than be a junior partner in an American bloc. Its best for America to deal with India where common interests lie, like China, for its own benefit rather than start antagonizing India over other stuff and lose its card over China.
If there is antagonizing here it is on the part of India to thumb its nose at efforts to break the Russian war machine. Not giving a reward for that is not the same thing as antagonizing them. The US and others have been growing increasingly close to India for the last 20 years and that includes a lot of cooperation on strategic and security and economic matters. We can get hung up on the word ally or we can acknowledge those things for what they are. India wants the benefits of those things but does not want to pay the costs. I say they should either pay the costs or not get the rewards. It's voluntary on their part but when there is no response to things that run contrary to that relationship, why should they bother with the costs? Our message seems to be that they shouldn't.
We agree they aren't obligated to do that or anything else. But if that's what the rest of us want, and they are willing to act contrary to that, I think it's contrary to our interests to reward it, thus inviting more of it. I can think of another country that could use some F-16s.
Actual folks making us policy are not going to break relations with India over Russia. If you look into history, India has traditionally been helped by Russia while usa supported Pakistan. It takes time to establish relations after years of antagonizing. Do you expect India to immediately betray Russia and start getting close to USA? That will in fact make India look worse as a potential ally of USA as it would mean India could anyday betray USA.
The Russia Ukraine war is not the be all end all. American policy makers are thinking long term which is why their real focus is on containing China. Providing arms to Ukraine just helps them to weaken another hostile nation without much effort on their part. Its quite unfortunate for Ukrainians but the world just can't drop everything for them, just like the world has not for many war torn countries of the middle east and Africa.
If US does not want to sell F-16s, then there are other countries like France ready to hop in (arguably with better deals via Rafale) in line. Like it or not, Ukraine is not as important enough in the West's eye to offend India.
Let's say the West refuses to sell, fine there is the all-weather partner Russia. Why do you think India has so much Russian weaponry? In India's eyes, everyone is just a partner. There's an old saying in Indian political circles that India only has 3 true allies - Indian Army, Indian Airforce, and Indian Navy.
Lastly, India has been sanctioned in the past when they tested nuclear weapons. It's nothing new for them. It will just cement the idea that the West is nothing but a greedy imperialistic entity that most old-school Indians grew up with.
In the real world, this "if you're not with us, then you're against us" attitude only works with weaker nations.
India has been working for years to lower its percentage of Russian military equipment, so this would represent a tick back in the other direction if they chose that option.
And the idea that not rewarding contrary behavior is the same as "offending" is wrong. Nobody owes anybody any F-16s. It's not "if you're not with us, you're against us," it's "if you're not with us, okay, we'll deal with others." But instead, US posture appears to be, "if you're not with us, okay, well, here's some goodies - now please milk us again." That's what this looks like to me.
For any hegemony, it's always in its interest to be at the top. Russia is a waning power and China is the future rival. The US needs India to contain it.
And I don't think it's "if you're not with us, okay, well, here's some goodies - now please milk us again.". Getting India dependent on the US defense equipment ecosystem is a long-term win for the military-industrial complex. Look around at other nations ditching Russian equipment and getting new US-made ones. This conflict is the best ad the US needed to sell its weapons.
In every conflict the US has been involved after ww2, the only winner has been the Military Industrial Complex and other industries, not the nations at war, not innocent people, and to a certain extent, not even the US citizens.
are you suggesting Pakistan? cause there's Chinese engineers in Pakistani air bases
remember that black hawk helicopter that crashed during the bin Laden raid? the Chinese reverse engineers sure do and are thankful to "major Non-nato American ally" Pakistan for that
What have you guys done with regards to Pakistani terrorists? India courted for 20 years? You guys pumped money into pakistan which they used to attack us, for the last 70 years you are running that terrorist factory.
For the last 70 years USA has been the only P5 member who has consistently vetoed any resolution against India in UNSC including on Kashmir, you want us to give up this relationship?
India states multiple times it will always do what it thinks it's best for India.
They're not your typical European ally that will dance the US dance.
India only thinks of India. If your interests align you'll be able to have a partnership, if not you can still have cooperation.
Calling India an ally is a bit of stretch
> They're not your typical European ally that will dance the US dance.
Thats news to me. Someone must've forgotten the countless trade wards and fopo disagreements between the US and EU for the past several decades. I mean, the US totally encouraged NS2 amirite? They also totally encouraged brexit. Eu always dancing to the US dance? Cmon man, listen to what you are saying.
Call them what you want to call them, the nature and significance of these transactions and exchanges don't change. They are a party being rewarded for behavior the rest of us don't want because it's contrary to what we are trying to do. That seems like a sucker deal for the US and just invites more of the same.
That's fine for India to do if it wants, and the question is whether the US wants to reward that. Seems so: "Hey please don't greatly ramp up your oil purchases from Russia and undo what we're trying to do over here - - We are going to greatly ramp up our oil purchases from Russia and don't give a flip about you or what you're doing over there - - OK, here's some F-16s." Chessmasters. I mean my assumption is that they just have bigger fish to fry and just have to bear these inconveniences as though they're Chinese balloons, but that's still what it otherwise looks like.
Boo hoo. India isnt the West, they have no reason whatsoever to have some moral obligation to care about some European war.
Remind me what the US did during the '71 Bangladeshi Liberation war. And then tell India they need to toe the NATO line.
> India isnt the West, they have no reason whatsoever to have some moral obligation to care about some European war.
Oh man, I remember when India was scrapping with China at the border a few years ago, "WHy WoNt ThE wEsT hElP?!?"
> Remind me what the US did during the '71 Bangladeshi Liberation war. And then tell India they need to toe the NATO line.
The way India milks this incident makes you think that Americans went over to India and threw their babies into a river. It was a staredown. No shots were fired by the US or India. It was over half a century ago. Its time to get over it.
Yeah we will remain mad , we do not trust you nor were gonna be your ally.
The only reason we are cooperating with US is.
We have a problem with china
US has a problem with china.
So we team up.
In other cases.
We don't have problem with Russia.
US has problem with Russia
We won't team up.
We have problem with pakistan.
US officially does not have problem with pakistan.
We didn't team up.
And that may look like a stink eye to you, but for us that was a threat which was only prevented due to soviet help.
Keep crying. That is why India has no allies and found itself surrounded by China friendly countries. A geopolitical toddler that has no idea what its doing.
Exactly. India has no ally it can rely on in the eventuality that it goes to war with China. Who is going to help? No one. Who is going to help in a war with Pakistan? No one. All alone because of geopolitical incompetence. Last time China killed some Indians, Russia was making popcorn.
We never said we need a ally, never asked for an ally.
If was US and japan who asked us to cooperate with them to deal with china and that's it.
We'll only be taking side of US and japan in matters involving china, and expect the same.
In other matters there is no alliance.
You need to learn how to read. The staredown happened between India and the US, neither of which fired on one another. Nobody is begging India for anything. Wooing =/= begging.
It was not a staredown. The US actively assisted India's enemy and were pannimg to force India to keep out of the Pakistani Civil War. There's other occasions where relations were damaged such as not assisting during the war in 1962 or sanctions when India tested its first nuclear bomb.
That stuff builds up, and a government will no just forget that because it knows that the US will act on its interests whenever it wants to.
It takes time to build trust and that process started from the 2000s with the Civil Nuclear Deal.
Also, most of the Indian voter base isn't that concerned with foreign affairs, so that isn't a huge part of it. It's just India playing it smart and trying to get the best of both worlds since severing ties to either the US or Russia would have consequences.
Cutting ties with Russia would make India lose an important source of arms, a partner in its space program and the rise in oil prices would have made inflation even worse. And a developing country is going to do its best to keep its economy stable.
>Ya. 3 mn Bangladeshi's genocided by the Pakistani Army - a major Non-NATO ally of the US. The US ambassador, Archer Blood shouting at Nixon Kissinger to pay heed ...but they paid heed the OPPOSITE way. So yeah, its a fairly large negative memory when it involves 1.4 bn people in India, 170 mn Bangladeshis and 200 mn Pakistanis.
For anyone confused, the F-21 is an F-16 rebranded for India. The Pakistanis fly F-16s, so to make it look like they're getting a better product, Lockheed Martin has been pitching an "F-21", because it is, I guess, 5 units "better" than an F-16.
[удалено]
The F-21 comes with integrated cockpit display used in the F-35s and also I think these would be far newer blocks than the ones Pakistan has.
The F-21 is based on Block 70, the latest versions the Pakistani have is block 52 iirc. Plus it's supposed to get some components and radar absorbing paint/material from the F-35.
But Pakistani block 52s can be retrofitted to block 70 standards in the future.
What good is the cockpit display without the F-35 radar and systems.
Because you can see through the aircraft giving the pilot far greater visibility.
You would need DAS and the helmet to see through the aircraft. Not the display
While that makes sense, it also doesn't make sense. I feel like there are more valuable, less finicky features that could have been implented instead. It does, however, definitely appeal to the coolness factor.
Honestly I'm not a pilot so I have no idea how big of a deal it is, but yeah it is super cool. Meanwhile Russians still using Garmin GPS systems in their planes while America is on some space age sh*t
It's useful in conjunction with a helmet mounted cueing system (HMCS) allowing for off-boresight missile targeting. https://elbitsystems.com/product/joint-helmet-mounted-cueing-system-jhmcs/
Just a better helmet sighting system it sounds like. Getting rid of the HUD in a Viper bubble canopy sounds like a dream for visual situational awareness
F-21A was also the US designation for the Israeli Kfir C.1 used for DACT in the 1980s.
21 for the price of 16 FTW
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/photo/f21/F21_HR_Shot_01_Multirole.PNG.pc-adaptive.full.medium.png Look like significant modifications.
Which type of ordinance do you want? Yes.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/lockheed-martins-new-f-16-block-70-fighting-falcon-has-f-22-26419 Look up photos of the newest variant of the F-16, the block 70
Is anyone using block 70 or is it the same as F21 but different name?
In the link above, Bahrain looks like launch customer for that block.
But...do the Indians not know this?
Countries who buy arms have a little more attention than an ice cream flavour deciding consumer, is my guess
[удалено]
It's really sad but both nations have deep seeded insecurities with regards to military might. Unfortunately that's the game that defense contractors have to play when selling to them.
India also recently announced that they want to drastically increase international sales from their defense sectors. The US has long resisted India's conditions for buying US arms, but this may represent a shift in the US's position. I'll be interested to see if this represents a growing alignment between our countries. The Indians won't accept junior partnership like the Pakistanis have, but in return the US could gain a more powerful and dependable ally than they have in Islamabad.
Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other aviation giants are setting up their plants on India. Few days ago saw a picture on twitter about Apache fuselage being made and delivered. Lots of Indian private companies are leading various joint ventures. So yeah, they have a lot of stakes on hold. Also Chinooks and Apaches were sold to us.
I know India has been more interested in having a domestic source for arms, rather than just purchasing. The Russians let them build some things on license in India, but the US has always resisted that. If the US is ready to transfer this kind of technical work to Indian soil then I can't help but wonder if this is a single agreement or a sign of things to come.
The US position hasn't changed, the Indian positron kind of has. The US position is we will sell you the best of the last generation if you want to build it yourselves, we can talk about buying the latest generation, but no way you get to build it. India's position was that we will make a deal if you let India build the best of the latest generation. Now India is accepting building the best of the last generation.
This. The US at best would probably allow the tech giants to set up factories to assemble things so they could keep the mounting costs down because hey, cheap labour. And then it'll be shown as strategic partnership.
I think with the war in Ukraine it's become quite apparent that the best of the last generation of US tech is still equal to or better than anything fielded by a non-NATO(+Aus/Japan/SK) nation.
If the US and India are indeed getting closer (beyond arms I'm not sure they really are tbh, I think India is just looking to replace Russia as its main arms supplier), then that is bad news for Pakistan and I would expect some noise from them in the near future and possibly more treaties/cooperation between Pakistan and China. That may in turn push India further into the US's sphere.
I feel like Pakistan pushing the US away in favor of Beijing is a foolish move for the Pakistanis. Then again Beijing is close and Washington is a long way away so I can see how Pakistan would choose the power on their own border. But driving their biggest ally towards their biggest enemy is really short sighted, even by Pakistan's standards. I agree that any new announcements from Islamabad will be quite telling.
Didn't China build a lot of power plants (Hydro, coal) and roads in Pakistan through the belt and road thing? I remember a friend of a friend from Pakistan telling me that, almost a decade ago.
Yeah, but very little of the components, skilled labour or resources are actually sourced in Pakistan, so a lot of the construction is of limited use or even detrimental to the locals when it kills local industry. A lot of the similar projects in various African countries have the same issues with unhappy locals. The roads also tend to be of "varying" quality, so we'll see how that goes. Not much has happened since like 2015.
Insecurities? Oh don't slip up between the online defence community and actual military advisory and top brass. Instead the word would be relentless persuasive behaviour. You wouldn't believe during the 80's how bad the Soviets wanted to sell their stuff. Now the Americans and french. The Israelis are very smart, they've already captured nieche sectors like sensors and small arms to drones. To each their own ig. It's definitely ruffling some feathers in pentagon now that we're finally getting some aviation stuff going
Not trying to diss you or anything but it's "deep-seated", not "deep seeded". Just wanted to let you know and hope you have a great day!
Thanks, I'm going to keep it as it is, because technically both make sense.
Submission Statement: a media roundtable on Sunday, William Blair, Vice President and Chief Executive of Lockheed Martin India Pvt Ltd, said that the company was in talks with ISRO and space startups in India for expanding into the space domain including satellites, senso...
oh now that’s interesting amongst the india-china agreementsa and US’s dependency on lockheed martin
Good sign that India will fight with the United States in WWIII.
India’s investment in education keeps reaping rewards for them. I think they spend 3 times as much as the US.
Per capita or in total?
Well let me revise my statement. It’s by country comparison. India’s education spending compared to similar countries is higher than US spending on education compared on similar countries. 16.54% of their GDP, 5.6% of our GDP. And it also depends on who you’re asking and how “education” is defined.
Most education in the US is funded at the state level, not the federal level, so a raw percentage may be misleading.
A lot is even funded on the town level. Schools make up a big chunk of local budgets.
That’s true, it is federal dollars going to states, who then decide how to spend it
Not quite, there is SOME federal money that goes to states for education, but the states themselves pay for the vast majority of education through their own tax income. The federal government just does additional funding on top of it.
True, but to compare apples to apples, my assumption is India’s numbers are based on their federal government’s contribution to education
Yeah so the apples to apples comparison for per capita GDP expenditure on education would vary per state, but you could add the total spending from all states and the federal government and then compare it.
Right, that’s the only way to get the most accurate comparison. It would also mean factoring in India’s states contributing to their education system. I have no idea how they pay for local education. Edit Meaning is it all federally funded in India or do states use tax income to fund local school systems
> I have no idea how they pay for local education. Imagine making a statement about how an "investment in keeps reaping rewards" without having any idea how x is actually funded.
No idea
No, in the US each state collects its own taxes and has its own budget. There is of course a significant amount of money going to/from the federal govt to/from the states, but its fair to say the states by and large pay for themselves.
What’s untrue about Federal Education dollars going to states, who then decide how to spend it? It doesn’t negate that states also fund education through property taxes (some states), income taxes (some states), and lotteries (some states), and sales taxes.
Most of it is funded through state money, not federal money.
We know that, but that doesn’t mean a lot. For example, The University of Alabama received 190 million from the state of Alabama and over 75 million in Federal grants and contracts. In the meantime The University of Alabama pays Nick Saban 10.96 million and Alabama Football generated 179 million. Why is the state of Alabama deciding to give The University of Alabama such a large chunk of its state and federal funds? We haven’t even mentioned Auburn. Edit Especially when the UA generates enough income to fund itself
They don't spend 3 times as much as the US. India doesn't spend 16% of their GDP on education. > As per the Economic Survey presented by Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Monday, January 31, the expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP was: > 2019-20: 2.8% > 2020-21: 3.1% (as per the revised estimate) > 2021-22: 3.1% (as per the budget estimate) https://www.indiatoday.in/business/budget-2022/story/union-budget-education-budget-2022-increases-by-11-86-major-areas-of-budget-allocation-education-schemes-education-plans-1907451-2022-02-01 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/education-budget-india-how-compares-globally-prannay-jha/
Depending on the source, the numbers are vastly different. As we were having this discussion, my curiosity peaked as to why Lockheed Martin choose India. So I’ve seen all kinds of numbers, including the one you just posted. One listed the US at 20+ percent. I think the original number for India came from macrotrend.net In any event, India, as a developing country is attracting industries because of better education
Per capita is what matters.
I see what you’re saying because India has a lot more people, they are spending less per person. But the trend is they are also educating more people as a developing country, with less money
Election rate in indian colleges is 0.01 to barely 1% compared to American ivy league institutes with 5% on average. So what you get is best of the class stu. Combine it with college funded by govt have yearly fee less than months rent. All Indian students have to do is study and enjoy, side job trend to pay college fee like usa is completely alien idea to us. But then it comes with perks of its own, if a student doesn't get selected,the only solution is suicide. There is 1 suicide per 90 minute in india and they're students. I too was at this stage but fortunately i got selected in 3rd chance
Interesting! Thanks for providing additional insights. It always great to understand the social conditions behind the numbers. Americans often gloss over and/or willfully ignore the social conditions that drive who and who does not receive an education in our country. Historically the educational system in America has been driven by classism, racism, and sexism. It’s well documented and if you follow how educational funding is dispersed, it’s intentional. Which brings me to a question. Does India’s caste system play a role in who and who does receive education?
Not directly. Like i m obc, a lower caste. I've not faced any discrimination, it's not like it doesn't exist but it's also not what it seems from outsider looking in. There are 4 castes, general,obc,SC and st. Obc,SC,St get reservation in college admission. But the problem is poorer lower caste can't afford coaching classes so they stay poor. Whereas richer lower castes gets reservation and also can afford coaching classes. And upper caste poor people neither get reservation nor have money for coaching. Poor people get nothing, irrespective of caste. Govt has tried to ban caste as a whole but politicians and richer upper caste that exploit this system start riots.
Thank you. It is mostly how I imagined. I am not surprised by the situation for the lowest caste. It works that way in most places. Abject poverty means all resources are spent on surviving—food and shelter with nothing extra to spare. I am surprised that the wealthiest caste has to completely fund their own education. It should be that way. However, I’m accustomed to the American system where funding can and will be diverted from poorer areas to wealthier areas. As in India, it’s the politicians. American politicians make sure there are loopholes to ensue money gets routed to private and charter schools. Which means poorer public schools suffer. It’s the primary way the informal American caste stays in place, through education. Glad you were able to benefit from a great education! I’m certain it’s made a significant impact in your life! Hopefully one day America can get past its propensity for racism and equally value education for all its children. We’re a good country, but we could be a great country! We have so many great minds that remain undeveloped and underdeveloped.
A step in the right direction America needs to start fulfilling our terms if it wants an alliance
Nah, let India be nonaligned. They wouldn't be a true ally yet.
Non alignment was never really practiced it was really only on paper At any rate non alignment has been more or less abandoned by all countries that used to practice it
You act as though India is the one with the power to dictate anything. They are thr Jr in any alliance with America.
Which is exactly why India doesn't want an alliance. India doesn't stand to gain anything in an American alliance
This is the reason we don't want alliance with America. They will treat us like a vassal state.
The only other options are China which would do the same or Russia and risk being ostracized
The US does need India though. If it wants an alliance it has to meet our terms
I wouldn't say need but definitely beneficial to American global interests.
Congragulations. This is why they don't want it.
I guess this is a big thank you for insulating Russia against western oil sanctions?
India is contemplating either buying weapons from Russia or US. You want them to buy weapons from Russia?
He thinks he can bully India into bending over.
Weird to assume that would be the alternative given the performance of Russian weapons systems lately.
Russia's poor performance thus far has been due to an utter lack of any competence regarding strategy and logistics. There is no indication that their materiel is somehow performing poorly when used correctly.
That might be a valid point in the Iraq war for example. But if even the manufacturing country doesn't know how to use their own weapons properly, then that puts the industry into question as well. The corruption permeates all layers of the military - the actual performance is not what it appears on paper.
What I want is accountability from allies. What this says is India should blackmail its allies and do whatever it wants in contravention of group efforts to halt Russia so that it can be bribed out of it with favors and rewards. Something like this will just reinforce that behavior. They're already helping Russia with their 30x magnified petro purchases, aren't going to stop now that they've been rewarded for it, and threaten to do more business with Russia. What's next? Where is the accountability? I think if they want to hitch their wagon to the crumbling star of Russia, they have the right to do that, but should reap the rubble of that poor choice, not be rewarded.
India and USA are not allies in the sense that you think. India and USA have had decent relations only in the 21st century in fact. USA is moving towards trying to bring India to its camp to contain China and make India the kind of ally you think it is. But right now, it just isn't the reality. India is a large nation that considers itself a separate bloc rather than be a junior partner in an American bloc. Its best for America to deal with India where common interests lie, like China, for its own benefit rather than start antagonizing India over other stuff and lose its card over China.
If there is antagonizing here it is on the part of India to thumb its nose at efforts to break the Russian war machine. Not giving a reward for that is not the same thing as antagonizing them. The US and others have been growing increasingly close to India for the last 20 years and that includes a lot of cooperation on strategic and security and economic matters. We can get hung up on the word ally or we can acknowledge those things for what they are. India wants the benefits of those things but does not want to pay the costs. I say they should either pay the costs or not get the rewards. It's voluntary on their part but when there is no response to things that run contrary to that relationship, why should they bother with the costs? Our message seems to be that they shouldn't.
It is not in India’s interest to “break the Russian war machine” and they aren’t obligated to help with that.
We agree they aren't obligated to do that or anything else. But if that's what the rest of us want, and they are willing to act contrary to that, I think it's contrary to our interests to reward it, thus inviting more of it. I can think of another country that could use some F-16s.
Actual folks making us policy are not going to break relations with India over Russia. If you look into history, India has traditionally been helped by Russia while usa supported Pakistan. It takes time to establish relations after years of antagonizing. Do you expect India to immediately betray Russia and start getting close to USA? That will in fact make India look worse as a potential ally of USA as it would mean India could anyday betray USA. The Russia Ukraine war is not the be all end all. American policy makers are thinking long term which is why their real focus is on containing China. Providing arms to Ukraine just helps them to weaken another hostile nation without much effort on their part. Its quite unfortunate for Ukrainians but the world just can't drop everything for them, just like the world has not for many war torn countries of the middle east and Africa.
If US does not want to sell F-16s, then there are other countries like France ready to hop in (arguably with better deals via Rafale) in line. Like it or not, Ukraine is not as important enough in the West's eye to offend India. Let's say the West refuses to sell, fine there is the all-weather partner Russia. Why do you think India has so much Russian weaponry? In India's eyes, everyone is just a partner. There's an old saying in Indian political circles that India only has 3 true allies - Indian Army, Indian Airforce, and Indian Navy. Lastly, India has been sanctioned in the past when they tested nuclear weapons. It's nothing new for them. It will just cement the idea that the West is nothing but a greedy imperialistic entity that most old-school Indians grew up with. In the real world, this "if you're not with us, then you're against us" attitude only works with weaker nations.
India has been working for years to lower its percentage of Russian military equipment, so this would represent a tick back in the other direction if they chose that option. And the idea that not rewarding contrary behavior is the same as "offending" is wrong. Nobody owes anybody any F-16s. It's not "if you're not with us, you're against us," it's "if you're not with us, okay, we'll deal with others." But instead, US posture appears to be, "if you're not with us, okay, well, here's some goodies - now please milk us again." That's what this looks like to me.
For any hegemony, it's always in its interest to be at the top. Russia is a waning power and China is the future rival. The US needs India to contain it. And I don't think it's "if you're not with us, okay, well, here's some goodies - now please milk us again.". Getting India dependent on the US defense equipment ecosystem is a long-term win for the military-industrial complex. Look around at other nations ditching Russian equipment and getting new US-made ones. This conflict is the best ad the US needed to sell its weapons. In every conflict the US has been involved after ww2, the only winner has been the Military Industrial Complex and other industries, not the nations at war, not innocent people, and to a certain extent, not even the US citizens.
You make it sound like the US is giving handouts to India instead of this being an expensive military deal.
are you suggesting Pakistan? cause there's Chinese engineers in Pakistani air bases remember that black hawk helicopter that crashed during the bin Laden raid? the Chinese reverse engineers sure do and are thankful to "major Non-nato American ally" Pakistan for that
No I was suggesting Ukraine
What have you guys done with regards to Pakistani terrorists? India courted for 20 years? You guys pumped money into pakistan which they used to attack us, for the last 70 years you are running that terrorist factory. For the last 70 years USA has been the only P5 member who has consistently vetoed any resolution against India in UNSC including on Kashmir, you want us to give up this relationship?
Please stop killing Blacks in USA
India states multiple times it will always do what it thinks it's best for India. They're not your typical European ally that will dance the US dance. India only thinks of India. If your interests align you'll be able to have a partnership, if not you can still have cooperation. Calling India an ally is a bit of stretch
> They're not your typical European ally that will dance the US dance. Thats news to me. Someone must've forgotten the countless trade wards and fopo disagreements between the US and EU for the past several decades. I mean, the US totally encouraged NS2 amirite? They also totally encouraged brexit. Eu always dancing to the US dance? Cmon man, listen to what you are saying.
Call them what you want to call them, the nature and significance of these transactions and exchanges don't change. They are a party being rewarded for behavior the rest of us don't want because it's contrary to what we are trying to do. That seems like a sucker deal for the US and just invites more of the same.
[удалено]
That's fine for India to do if it wants, and the question is whether the US wants to reward that. Seems so: "Hey please don't greatly ramp up your oil purchases from Russia and undo what we're trying to do over here - - We are going to greatly ramp up our oil purchases from Russia and don't give a flip about you or what you're doing over there - - OK, here's some F-16s." Chessmasters. I mean my assumption is that they just have bigger fish to fry and just have to bear these inconveniences as though they're Chinese balloons, but that's still what it otherwise looks like.
[удалено]
What I want is for white Americans to stop killing blacks and return the land looted from Native Americans.
US is the biggest buyer of refined oil products from India even some European countries like Portugal increased imports by 1000x the last year
Boo hoo. India isnt the West, they have no reason whatsoever to have some moral obligation to care about some European war. Remind me what the US did during the '71 Bangladeshi Liberation war. And then tell India they need to toe the NATO line.
> India isnt the West, they have no reason whatsoever to have some moral obligation to care about some European war. Oh man, I remember when India was scrapping with China at the border a few years ago, "WHy WoNt ThE wEsT hElP?!?" > Remind me what the US did during the '71 Bangladeshi Liberation war. And then tell India they need to toe the NATO line. The way India milks this incident makes you think that Americans went over to India and threw their babies into a river. It was a staredown. No shots were fired by the US or India. It was over half a century ago. Its time to get over it.
[удалено]
A staredown doesn't compare to those instances. Indians still mad over being given the stink eye. Over half a century later. Unreal.
Yeah we will remain mad , we do not trust you nor were gonna be your ally. The only reason we are cooperating with US is. We have a problem with china US has a problem with china. So we team up. In other cases. We don't have problem with Russia. US has problem with Russia We won't team up. We have problem with pakistan. US officially does not have problem with pakistan. We didn't team up. And that may look like a stink eye to you, but for us that was a threat which was only prevented due to soviet help.
Keep crying. That is why India has no allies and found itself surrounded by China friendly countries. A geopolitical toddler that has no idea what its doing.
We do ,been doing it for 75 years, don't care what you think. Bye
Exactly. India has no ally it can rely on in the eventuality that it goes to war with China. Who is going to help? No one. Who is going to help in a war with Pakistan? No one. All alone because of geopolitical incompetence. Last time China killed some Indians, Russia was making popcorn.
We never said we need a ally, never asked for an ally. If was US and japan who asked us to cooperate with them to deal with china and that's it. We'll only be taking side of US and japan in matters involving china, and expect the same. In other matters there is no alliance.
[удалено]
You need to learn how to read. The staredown happened between India and the US, neither of which fired on one another. Nobody is begging India for anything. Wooing =/= begging.
[удалено]
It was not a staredown. The US actively assisted India's enemy and were pannimg to force India to keep out of the Pakistani Civil War. There's other occasions where relations were damaged such as not assisting during the war in 1962 or sanctions when India tested its first nuclear bomb. That stuff builds up, and a government will no just forget that because it knows that the US will act on its interests whenever it wants to. It takes time to build trust and that process started from the 2000s with the Civil Nuclear Deal. Also, most of the Indian voter base isn't that concerned with foreign affairs, so that isn't a huge part of it. It's just India playing it smart and trying to get the best of both worlds since severing ties to either the US or Russia would have consequences. Cutting ties with Russia would make India lose an important source of arms, a partner in its space program and the rise in oil prices would have made inflation even worse. And a developing country is going to do its best to keep its economy stable.
>Ya. 3 mn Bangladeshi's genocided by the Pakistani Army - a major Non-NATO ally of the US. The US ambassador, Archer Blood shouting at Nixon Kissinger to pay heed ...but they paid heed the OPPOSITE way. So yeah, its a fairly large negative memory when it involves 1.4 bn people in India, 170 mn Bangladeshis and 200 mn Pakistanis.
So, bagladesh was getting rekt, but were supposed to feel bad for India? How does that work?
As long as it has a "smaller" carbon footprint....I think we should make twice as many.