2+2: U.S. industry welcomes COMCASA
COMCASA opens the door to compatibility of coms between India & the U.S.

U.S. Secretary of Defence James Mattis, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, Indian Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman at the 2+2 Dialogue last week | Source: Ministry of External Affairs

Possibly one of the most consequential outcomes of the U.S.-India 2+2 dialogue between the foreign ministers and defence ministers of the two countries is the conclusion of the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) agreement. This agreement had been in the works for over a decade – earlier known as the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum Agreement (CISMOA) agreement.

As it stands, the intent of the COMCASA is to set up procedures and systems agreed by both sides to ensure the security of advanced communications and encryption systems with measures to secure them physically, as well as, manage the the security of the data within and flowing through them.

Dhruva Jaishankar, Foreign Policy Fellow at Brookings India, explained, “The discussions surrounding COMCASA in the public domain have become highly distorted and often politicised as some kind of concession to the United States. The U.S. Government and industry have not helped in this matter by describing this as a non-negotiable “foundational” agreement. What it does do is ensure encrypted communications between the militaries so that coordination does not need to happen over WhatsApp. While India has had very specific and legitimate concerns about the intrusiveness of such communications, attempts have been made to address these.”

One consequence of the absence of such an accord between the two countries since U.S. defence sales to India took off has been the denial of such equipment on U.S. platforms sold to India. In fact this type of equipment has not even been offered to India for consideration in the absence of a CISMOA-type agreement.

This is why U.S. manufacturers are pleased with the conclusion of the agreement because it allows them the opportunity to improve the offers they make to India – especially when seen in the light of their competition with Russian or European manufacturers.

Pratyush Kumar, president of Boeing India told StratPost, “We welcome the historic COMCASA agreement between India and the U.S. which will deepen a growing defence cooperation between the two countries. With G2G concurrence, this agreement also opens the door for U.S. OEMs like us to offer enhanced capabilities in the future.”

“Now, it will enable India to make full use of some of its defence imports from the United States and paves the way for further joint manufacturing and joint R&D. It will be of particular importance for maritime domain awareness and anti-submarine warfare,” said Jaishankar.

For example, the U.S. offer of the MQ-9 Guardian drone to the Indian Navy, still to be ordered, would be missing systems that give it the smartness so as to make the acquisition worthwhile. With COMCASA, industry experts privately predict the full range of the capabilities of the Guardian can be offered to India. This could also mean the possibility of upgrades to existing Indian Navy P-8I Long Range Maritime Reconnaissance (LRMR) aircraft, which could make their communications and encryption systems compatible with systems onboard platforms operated by U.S. and other allied forces.

But they also caution that this agreement will not necessarily lead to a windfall for U.S. manufacturers and that India will not suddenly show a greater preference for U.S. equipment. Other considerations will also come into play, they say. For example, India will have to make sure the communications systems of new aircraft it acquires are compatible with its existing fleet of aircraft, before making a decision on an acquisition.

“In one sense, it allows us to be better able to make an offer at par competitors from other countries which do not have such requirements as COMCASA,” said one U.S. industry representative who did not wish to be identified as he was not authorised to speak to the media.