In my view, even if life-cycle costs of sub-systems of F-18 are much lesser than those on Su-30 MKI, it must be noted that this is ‘offset’ by the overall higher cost of the F-18 itself, because the F-18 costs $15-20 mn more than Su-30.

So? All competitors are equivalently expensive.

Again, no ToT will be provided as regards AESA radars and many other systems. This was confirmed by CEO of Boeing. India will be provided with the AESA equipment only, which is often misconstrued or misunderstood as “technology transfer”. Mere purchase of equipment does not imply “technology transfer”.

Unless you have the RFP submission, I wouldnt count on any of the above.

As an example, purchase of car or PC does not imply purchase of automobile technology or computer processor technology. Similarly, purchase of Harpoon missiles by Pakistan does not imply purchase of missile “technology”.

Huh? Absolutely zero relevance here.

In the same way, mere purchase, installation and use of AESA radars by IAF will not imply purchase of AESA “technology”. By “Technology Transfer”, it is meant in “lay” terms that the underlying “secrets” of the working and manufacturing the same equipment is acquired i.e. the engineering physics, the digital signaling formulae/laws, and the production mechanism.

Nice Ctrl+V, but again, relevance to the topic, namely when avionics TOT is being sought & this is known for sure.

It is very important to note that this also fully includes and subsets, the knowledge of the “machines-that make-the-machines” too, like CNC, precision fabricators, etc.

Look above.

Now Often, licence production is also mistaken to be ToT. It is hoped that upon repeated observation of the local production run, some trial/error ‘guesstimates’ can be made to reverse-engineer the “know-how” of the working and the production of the equipment. This happened in case of the Brahmos missile, where DRDO gained an insight into the “intricacies” of the working of the Ramjet engine, besides all aspects of it’s production mechanism — despite that contractually, the disclosure of the working of the ramjet engine to India was not stipulated (India is also not required to disclose the s/w of the guidance mechanism to Russia).

The new TOT procedure is clear about what it expects. Not licensed assembly.

However, if at all AESA radars will be sold to India under the MRCA contract, atmost only the peripheral assemblies of the same only may be locally manufactured. The entire technology of AESA radars will not be provided to India, because it is extremely sensitive technology that provides the militay “edge” to the select few nations who possess it. Besides, the fruition of AESA technology has consumed hundreds of thousands of man-hours and unestimated billions of dollars over the past few decades. Thus, were India to actually purchase AESA ‘technology’ the cost of the same would be multiples of times higher than the value of entire MRCA contract itself.

Look at your own Brahmos example and understand what is being sought and why.

Thus, the media and even IAF and Defence ministry must be clear about what actually constitutes ToT, and that acquiring AESA technology — or any other sensitive technology — through the MRCA contract is an impossibility.

I think they are clear & know the technology they are acquiring, the depth of what they desire, and what constitute redlines and et al. They have been operating technology for a long time, and dont need the “inturrnet” to tell them what key parameters in tech. and performance are “must haves” and what can be negotiated/compromised.

If Raytheon offers a top of the line radar without TOT, but access to some customizations, vs a downgraded one with extensive TOT, then the IAF is well within its rights to compare it to offers from Selex/EADS, Phazotron/MiG, Saab-Ericcsson/Saab, Thales/Dassault & decide what best meets its needs.

You otoh are confused about the MRCA contest to begin with, have little idea of the DPP procedure and the TOT process, including the MKI previously & now the MRCA, and are ranting about it, and trying to compare apples to oranges at every step.

You need to take a step back, stop posting for a while, think about the topic, and then come back and talk about it with a clear head.

All in all, I think more focused posts will help, rather than rambling, disjointed “I feel, so it must be true” expositions on the MRCA contest, TOT et al.

For one, we all know 4 F-22s can take on 50 Su-30/35s with no problem “

We do?

Whats the F-22 gonna do when it runs out of missiles, close in for gun kills on the hapless Su-30s?

When F-22 is outside your detection range, it is essentially invisible to you. But you will be fully visible to the F-22. How do you fight something if you do not know where it is? Or if its present at all?

Employ measures which make the Raptor visible. Whether it be VHF band radars, or bistatic systems to cue in interceptors from afar, or newer gen “super” IRSTs building upon PIRATE etc fielded by more and more fighters… I dont think any top notch aerospace complex has dedicated funding available yet, to fight stealth, as most customers are fixated on something else. But when the JSF’s, F-22’s, T-50’s and other systems become ubiquitous, we’ll see the next phase in systems development. And many of the building blocks are already in place.

BTW:

Thats why always thought that the Indra-II cannot be junk. IAF uses it in a vital gap filler role…

You said it.

India stopped importing LLLWRs thanks to the Indra-2. It works fine. The latest 2D “derivative” (see the antenna) is this. A man portable light weight system, a certain number have been already ordered by the IAF.

http://media.bharat-rakshak.com/AeroIndia2007/Display_Stalls/DRDO-Seetal/Bharani+Radar+3.jpg.html

http://media.bharat-rakshak.com/AeroIndia2007/Brochures/Bharani+Radar+2.jpg.html

While the 3D Low Level radar for (similar mount. terrain, easy deployment), is this, the Aslesha. Some 20 odd units have been ordered by the IAF, for gap filling.

http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=17022008087so3.jpg
http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=17022008088jg4.jpg
http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=17022008089fk3.jpg

Both radars have derived a lot of tech. from the same developers (DRDO) BFSR-SR (Battle Field Surveillence Rad. – Short Range):
http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=17022008093jc6.jpg

Over a thousand of these units have been delivered to the Indian Army, supplanting earlier Elta imports.

There is now a Medium range version in development.

Air surveillance/firecontrol radars include:

– 3D Multi function radar (FC/Surveillance)
-3D Medium power radar (surv.)
-LRTR(FC/Surveillance)

Plus, for battlefield apps/arty correction:
-Medium range BFSR

..and others.

Plus the Rohini is being delivered to the IAF as well. Its a 3D, 150-200 Km ranged system.

So SL could get more goodies in the future. 🙂

A fan boy is one who has little access to real operators, and relies on selectively quoted material alone to feed his (in)securities.

An engineer is one who knows the limitations of what he (or she) knows and wonders “how”, instead of “no way, waaaaaaah”.

I believe you should know what is the better option. 😉

I remember a set of exercises in the 1980s in which the F-15 beat the F-14 repeatedly… until the F-14 pilots violated the rules of the exercise and used their TCS to identify the targets while outside AIM-7 range and then fired up their radars in long-range mode and “launched” their AIM-54s… “wiping out” the F-15 force before they could “fire” a single missile. The rules banned them from simulating AIM-54 use… they were restricted to the same missiles as the F-15s had (AIM-7 & AIM-9).

Interesting how you brought this up. Tomcatsunset has a Joe S (Hoser) story where he “hoses” a F-5 twice, by repeatedly breaking the ROE, thereby reinforcing the fact that in the real world fight, victory is what counts. Simulations and ROE have a terrible way of constraining pilots and crew and often leading to subpar performance because folks get used to training per limited ROE and as they say, train as you fight and vice versa. After Cope India, the USAF went and enforced changes at its William Tell training exercise to make sure full training was available and not limited “Soviet tactics/ limitations” only. In the initial (1st) exercise against the French AF, the IAF founds it aircraft on the losing side in BVR as its ROE for Mirages were causing them to come out 2nd best. All in all, organizational inertia has a powerful way of creeping up and whacking everyone.

:rolleyes:

Ah the perfect fighter…

There are a multitude of ways depending on exercise parameters, ROE and real world situations that a JSF could find itself on the losing end of a WVR and BVR battle.

Only the F-22 can claim some sort of invulnerable status…in BVR.. for now.

Capabilities alone may not decide the purchase. There are politics to consider as well. The US just swung the nuclear deal for India, and the UPA Govt may try to hand the MMRCA deal to the US as a going away gift.

Once it is fixed, the next Govt wont scrap it, for both the IAF and the US will oppose it. The IAF will support the F/A-18E/F so that no more delays are incurred.

The CAS FH Major has said that the “most capable aircraft” will be chosen. Time will tell whether the Govt allows for that to happen.