Transferring technology is telling how to design and build an AESA, but not how to design its chips.

Are people here wondering whether or not Motorola will agree to transfer its know-how ?

For once i agree with Tmor 😀
Why draw the line there? Motorola needs its supplier of materials and industrial equipment, maybe even the mining know-how ;).

Draw this line in like this on all components and you get 50% of all the worlds know-how in one deal. What a deal! :rolleyes:

its not about the capability to do the design. Brazil may be able to do it thanks to Embraer’s experience, but as first timers for a fast-jet it may be risky.

India designed and developed its own landing gear for the Tejas Mk1 and the N-LCA as well. But we know that on the N-LCA they believe that its landing gear is slightly overweight (stronger due to higher sink rates) and have sought consultancy from EADS (earlier LM won the deal but failed to honour it) to try and bring the weight down. By the time it is re-engined with the F414 and by the time IAC-1 arrives, the N-LCA might be ready, but the landing gear still proved to be a risky item.

Gripen has its gears, the new ones installed on the DEMO A/C.
Maybe only the assembly or some enhancments of some kind?

Yes of course it would irk China and no our leaders do not have the balls. And LCA MK2s first priority is to meet IAF needs. If they deliver what they promises they will have to expand production to even meet IAF needs.

By the time HAL would be making, LCA,Su 30,MRCA,T-50 and various upgrade programs.

to bad anyone got the balls..

How can one be sure that the Gripen NG isn’t as big a risk as a Super Hornet or F-16 Super Viper ? I mean the US could end up withholding key items on the Gripen NG that are sourced in the US and instead put pressure on India to select one of the US birds themselves, simply out of spite or to simply make it that much harder for the Swedes to implement the deal fully. And these Wikileaks really blow holes through the arguments many Swedes have made about their being water-tight agreements to allow sale and technology transfers of products that are being sourced from the US. It certainly appears that behind the scenes, things are a lot more competitive.

I also wonder how Saab feels about its decision to go with the F-414 on the Gripen NG instead of the EJ-200 (despite the involvement of Volvo Aero on the F414), now that they know that the US has actually sabotaged a potentially huge contract in Norway.

I cannot though but wonder if the IAF and the MoD are actually even taking any note of these happenings..About whether they will consider this aspect during the down-select and choose the contenders least likely to impinge on India’s sovereignty.

As i said gripen is all about integration, one supplier can be cut of for another.
Gripen NG is more Eurosourced and less ECCN/Itar than gripen C/D.
The reason for that is that Gripen A/B/C/D was only ment for Sweden, and not the export market. The choise of engine was made due to the fact GE is a risksharer in the project and countries like Norway, Danmark and Sweden like the US engine for its great performance and price.
A new engine is possible with that kind of TOT that is in offer.
And SAAB wont mind helping out ither, maybe using its demo program by doing so.
But still it must be a Customer incentive for such a project.

@Sign,
and what major components on the Rafale and Typhoon are supplied by the US to be affected that way?

i cant get into that.

[QUOTE=Otaku;1670889]Have you guys heard of something called COTS? Are you aware that the commercial civilian electronics & computing sectors are leagues ahead in R&D, than any military-only suppliers (if the latter exist at all anymore).

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/12/01/14.xml&headline=AFRL Builds Supercomputer With PlayStations&channel=defense

I’m sure India’s software industry will have invaluable input in the PAK-FA/FGFA 😉

So you got a “big” playstation and indias programing industry. Well, its a start!

Not debating that man. What matters at the end of the day is the performance of radar sets delivered with the aircrfat in question, and further performance as an equation of size. Latest Russian sets (not even latest, ones for the past decade) are completely competitive.

in the end russia use bigger devices with more power in, bigger antennas and less efficiences in biggers space and bigger cooling devices.
its like comparing a 100w light bulb and a 50w lightdiod.
Which one has the highest candela?

and dont let me start on the software..

I dont say russian radars are bad, but in the digital age they are behind. thats all. Russians are normaly very good in the science of radio/HF but not in the digital area.