New Delhi / Washington: India and the United States formally signed the much-anticipated $3.5 billion (approximately ₹85,000 crore) deal for the procurement of 31 MQ-9B Predator armed drones on Thursday, marking one of the most significant defence acquisitions in India’s history and a milestone in the strategic partnership between the two countries.
The Letter of Acceptance (LoA) was signed by Defence Secretary Giridhar Aramane on behalf of India and the US Ambassador to India at a ceremony at South Block in New Delhi. The deal covers 15 Sea Guardian drones for the Indian Navy and 8 each for the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force, along with maintenance support, training, and associated equipment.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh described the signing as a “watershed moment” for India’s defence capabilities, particularly for maritime domain awareness in the Indian Ocean Region. The MQ-9B drones, capable of flying for over 40 hours without refuelling, will be used for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) missions, and can also be armed with Hellfire missiles and precision-guided bombs.
US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who was in New Delhi for consultations, said the deal reflected the “depth and durability” of the US-India Major Defence Partner relationship. He also announced that the two sides were working on an Industrial Cooperation Agreement to ensure that a significant portion of the drone components would be manufactured in India under the Make in India programme.
The deal had been in the pipeline since Prime Minister Modi’s state visit to Washington in 2023 and faced some delays due to price negotiations and offset requirements. India had pushed for technology transfer and local manufacturing provisions, which were partially accommodated by the US side.
China’s foreign ministry described the deal as “destabilising” and called on both countries to “act responsibly.” Pakistan’s foreign office also issued a statement expressing “deep concern.” India’s Ministry of External Affairs dismissed both responses as “unwarranted interference in bilateral matters.”
