Here I thought no one have knowledge about the capabilities of Chinese KJ-2000 and KJ-200

right, because IAF know the exact performance of KJ-2000, lol

The IAF doesnt need to know the exact performance of the KJ-2000.
They can extrapolate the likely performance from both what they know of the platform itself (Il-76 based & maximum performance available), Chinese developments in the field (and which are tracked) vis a vis Israels abilities in the airborne radar arena, as well as the data/perception of certain third party developers who have worked with the PRC’s system development teams & have their opinions as well.

So these form the basis of their assessment that the Phalcon is better than the KJ-2000. You are free to disagree, of course, if you have any data to the contrary.

How does that help , without the source code , what we want to do and integrate with AESA will be subject to US approval , a GUI interface or source level of customization is no good because essentially you can work within a frame work and within the box (essentially it remains a black box for all practically purpose ) , how does that help ?

Of course it doesnt help. Which is why the Brits were crying bloody murder over the JSF, the Israelis are upset similarly & soon it will be our turn. 😉

Specially when EADS (Captor-E ) , Dassult (RBE2-AESA ) and Mig ( Zhuk-AE ) has no strings attached there ?

Dont believe everything you read even there. This TOT business from their side has become a huge media eyeballs kind of thing.

Basically, the only thing that will give us real insight into an AESA is a true joint effort of building our own system…which brings us to..

Why bring in LCA and MCA here what has that to do with MMRCA ?

Of course it has everything to do with it.

If the IAF & scientific community see that there is an alternate option to procure/develop certain technology ie via local programs, they will be more amenable to compromise on the MRCA demands. Thats how the bureucracy & GOI will pitch this.

Its that simple, really. In return, the MRCA winner will be told to part with some investment elsewhere.

Its all a balancing game.

In the mid-90’s the IN got especially fed up of the outrageous delays in supply of some long lead time items from Russia so they asked for TOT to make them locally. Russia refused but after some heavy negotiations, a compromise was worked out – the establishment of a privately owned firm, partly owned by Rosoboronexport which would both stock spares locally in India AND do immediate first level servicing of defective items/ replace them.

Whats the point in having strings attached ? Is there any restrictions on the way we will pay to the winner ?

There is no point really, but its all about politics. And yes, there will be further restrictions. I’d rather not speculate..

Thats like a easy statement to make , the GOI takes a very considerate view of such things , specially when players like Russia , France are open to total TOT without any restrictions.

Dont make me laugh about GOI and the rosy eyed view of the GOI and its so called considerations.

Fact#1: GOI is the Govt of the day.
Fact#2: Bureaucrats have historically changed on a dime when the Govt of the day makes a strategic (or what it considers strategy) decision.
Fact#3: After a decision is made, inertia & the issue of dont rake up skeletons ensures that things are done the way they are.

If you talk to folks about the reality now, the current joke is which is better – what the PAF operates (F-16) or what the Hornet can give..

That apart, the GOI’s idiotic brain machine has come to the conclusion that the recent electoral victory means that the Indian public have rejected “war mongering” & peace talks should resume..once some “action is taken” by Pak on 26/11..

And its been barely 5-6 months since 26/11. Dont have to take my word for it, go read Chinmaya Garekhan’s article in the Hindu. The voice, as it were, of the thinking in the establishment, and which shows why people will continue to be murdered while the great GOI continues to do “strategic biscuit tea” talks and asks the new “ally” US to do what the latter cant (And wont) do, ie do GOI’s job of protecting Indians.

Austin, the kind of thinking you demand is going to only occur when the so called decision making elite of this country grow up, out of their bizarre attempt to force Gandhian thought processes on situations which demand far more. Defence has & will continue to be treated as something “unavoidable” as compared to an investment for the future & which guarantees our economic security. The difference between these two thought processes is what makes Indian procurement so haphazard without any long term planning.

The only planning is from the services & R&D side, but its severely lacking in the so called MEA, MOD and MOF, which all run according to the whims of whichever political party is in power & the institutions themselves are held hostage by idealogy over pragmatism.

Whom are you referring to?

The Phalcon arrival is interesting.

Basically the IAF is very interested in 3 follow on’s to the Phalcons.

Reports have said that the next batch of Phalcons should be based on the Gulfstream as it is a more modern aircraft than the Il-76 – that is absolute rubbish.

The Gulfstream flies higher & has more endurance, and of course reduced operating costs but has its cons as well.

It has no spare seats for operator rest versus the Ilyushin, which has a whopping capacity (I’ll leave the details out for now) surplus in this regard. The Il-76 has more growth capacity as well. In terms of endurance, the Il has IFR which allows it to extend its endurance by many hours.
The S-Band forward/aft radars on the CAEW @ the Gulfstream have a reduced range versus the L Band ones on the sides. Space restrictions limit the crew carried and the number of interceptions controlled & aircraft managed.

All in all, if the IAF does choose to replace the Il-76 based Phalcon with a new airframe – its better to choose the A-330 or some Airbus airframe which can offer more or at least equal growth capacity & capability than the original airframe.

The CAEW will be a step down. True, it flies higher which has a tangible impact on the radar horizon, but its other disadvantages are also substantial.

And heres a datapoint, whether it be the Phalcon or the CAEW, both of them are substantially superior to the Erieye-340 to be operated by the PAF.

The Phalcon is stated by the IAF to be superior to the KJ-2000 even considering the best case (for the KJ-2000) scenario.

I wonder whether the new deal being negotiated for 3 additional Phalcons, includes improved equipment fits or just the original specifications.

Then comes the local AEW &C: 3 DRDO AEW &C are on order, with 1 as a testbed.

The DRDO refers to its system as AEW&C, as technically speaking, while it can monitor & direct airoperations in real time, it is not as capable as the Ilyushin Phalcon.

But plans are that a second batch of the DRDO system will also be sought to add upto equal numbers of Phalcons & local AEW&C in service. The basic issue is cost, its been realised that procuring AWACS “off the shelf” is simply too expensive & hence local capabilities need to be relied on.

Vikas,

Sometimes one just runs out of patience with the press, hence the term DDM- Desi Dork Media.

The Sukhoi numbers & the IAF view on the Sukhoi are again reiterated in this article which came out today. Controversial heading aside, lets focus on the relevant bits. A 4th squadron raising, and my estimate is that the IAF has around 80 MKIs in service (low estimate).

Personally, I prefer these articles which have names, and direct quotes. Even there, there are journalists who fib & make things up, but its not as usual as is done with unnamed sources etc.

The part in bold is what I am referring to in specific.

And Air Marshal Naik’s comment about 2017 & large scale orders is also relevant.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India-came-close-to-striking-Pak-after-2611-Air-chief/articleshow/4586233.cms

India came close to striking Pak after 26/11: Air chief
28 May 2009, 0004 hrs IST, TNN

NEW DELHI: India came close to striking Pakistan following the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack. This was stated by the IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal Fali H Major, on Wednesday.

“There were certain options, which were certainly discussed. Depending on the objective and the task given, IAF had enough intelligence to do what it wanted to do then,” ACM Major told reporters here during a joint press conference with his successor and IAF chief-designate Air Marshal P V Naik.

ACM Major, however, said at present the situation along the international border and the LoC was normal. In the eastern sector along the India-China border, ACM Major said the IAF is building landing infrastructure and will shortly move a Sukhoi-30 squadron to counter Chinese defence superiority in the region.

The newly-raised squadron of Su-30 will arrive at IAF’s Tezpur base in the next few weeks, he said. Commenting on the recent Sukhoi crash, the air chief said an inquiry is still on and the crash data recorder is yet to be analysed. The death of the pilot in the crash has raised questions on the ejection system and the inquiry has to look into this aspect along with the flight control system to analyse the cause of the crash.

ACM Major’s successor, Air Marshal Naik, said IAF is building up capacity and after 2017 it will be capable of handling threats coming from anywhere. To boost its combat capabilities, IAF will go in for large scale procurements.

India has already released two global tenders for the procurement of 22 attack and 15 heavy-lift helicopters for IAF.

“The Request for Proposals (RFP) for 15 heavy-lift helicopters is being issued today and the RFP for 22 combat helicopters was released yesterday,” ACM Major said.

The choppers participating in the combat attack contract include Bell’s AH-1 Super Cobra, Boeing’s AH-64 Apache, Eurocopter’s Tiger, Russian Mil for Mi-35 and Agusta Westland’s Mangusta.

The RFP for attack helicopters comes within two months of the previous tender being cancelled. The earlier tender was cancelled in March after the American vendors opted out of the race, citing the 50% offsets clause in the contract.

The heavy-lift helicopters will be used for transporting men and material in the high altitude regions, which can be accessed only by helicopters.

Yes, this may be right… Look at what South Africa achieved, under sanction, with their military development program… Some of the stuff SA developed was actually quite advanced. Iran can probably do the same.

L

South Africa was secretly assisted by the UK & US’s agencies who had no wish to see Africa fall to the communists and they engaged in quite some sanction busting and facilitated third party deals as well. So South Africa did have access to technology from various sources.

Not only that, in another example of sanction busting, South Africa ran a clandestine joint R&D setup with Israel, and Israel has long had access to the best of the United States technological setup.

South Africa also had a reasonable economic profile to match its arguably limited aims.

IMHO, Iran does not have any of these advantages. It does not have a sugar uncle in the form of China either, as China will demand cold hard cash for a lot of its cutting edge technology, which in any cases may be not equal to what its regional rivals already field, let alone will field.

Hence, Iran’s position seems tougher in some respects than what South Africa faced.

Begging your pardon, I dont know how the author compiled the story (IANS was the original source not TOI) and whether he/she did any research on MKI or not. But for some reason he/she did manage to mention many of the good points in this very article that you have mentioned in your above post, i.e. In a blot on its otherwise unblemished record and that The Su-30 has won universal acclaim and that it had more than held their own against the US’ F/A-18 and F-16 combat jets.. Nevertheless I do know what you mean by ‘moron journos’ in that region, but only because of the mention of one negative line, i.e. In the case of the Su-30, however, there have been “recurring complaints” by pilots about problems with the jet, it becomes DDM. Why?

Check the entire article, its full of mistakes. Not just that one line inserted by the journo to make it read well and sound more informative than those of rivals in other papers.

On another note, we know that SU-30 has had an accident-free record for the last 12 years. Although the news story mentions 55 fighters in the fleet, the most recent estimate is close to 80 or so (based on the number of squadrons already in place). Now accidents (even with twin engined fighters) happen all over the world, so the question is why did IAF decide to ground the entire fleet and that too for almost a month (if we are to believe this news story) in spite of an unblemished record for the past so many years? Some might say that I might be reading too much into, and by all accounts I might be doing so. But plese feel free to correct me where Im wrong.

You are aware of post accident practises…. Combat aviation being what it is, more risks are highly discouraged. Unless the IAF has a clear indication from the CoI that its possibly a case of pilot error, aircraft ARE normally grounded after an accident. This happened even after the MiG-21 Bison crashes & before that, with other types. Once a detailed assessment is available, and everything checks out, flying is resumed.
Sometimes its very clear that its a pilot error issue, other times, its not, and any AF would prefer to err on the side of caution.

Note that the IAF would conduct inspection on random samples, structural, airframe, avionics. They would clear their operative procedures with the Sukhoi reps now in India, check fuel quality (this can impact hydraulics)- in short it will be a painful month long audit.

Heh, manuals are available off the internet for a few hundred dollars. Many websites, many formats.

Didn’t someone translate and post the entire Su-27 user manual a couple of years back.