We are not yet there to develop the sensor fusion and other techs that has gone into most of the MRCA contenders. The Gripen NG will have superior Avionics, AESA radar etc. The LCA is the first step I do not expect it to be better than the western competitors at this stage.

how did you assume that LCA Mk2 will not get AESA or better Avionics?
lets see LCA Mk1 avionics
1. Litening Targeting Pod
2. 3 MFDs, HUD and Dash HMDS
3. EW Suite being codeveloped with Israel.
4. MSA Radar codeveloped with Israel.
5. Navigation System from Thales
6. Likely to have operational data link (ODF), common for every single fighter in IAF.
this is for LCA Mk1.
Mk2 in operational configuration will likely have newer, updated avionics.
Gripen will have AESA but it hasn’t got it yet. IAF would obviously choose some foreign AESA like 2052 for LCA mk2 if indigenous AESA is not ready. the only one big problem with LCA mk2 is its not going to come out untill 2015.

and i see that as the only reason reason, IAF is going for MMRCA.

That it is a 50-50 venture is confirmed by both the Russians and Indians. The MCA meanwhile is going to be an advanced fourth gen fighter according to some reports and not a fifth gen. However I see the MRCA as the last outright fighter purchase from IAF. The IN may buy more Mig 29Ks/JSF etc in future.

Brahmos was also a JV, but it was neverthless based on Yakhont. we would probably see PAK-FA being something similar. But even that way India would have IP and own aircrafts technologies for which India invested or developed.

We don’t even know the specs of Tejas 2 yet. So anything you say like multiple launchers is speculation. Tejas is a fine indigenous project, but it will still have real technological gap compared to European and American platforms even in the MK2 form. The Tejas is a stepping stone to higher things.

You just said we don’t even knwo specs of Tejas 2. Then how are u saying it will have real gap even in Mk2 form. your contradicting yourself.

give me one reason from known facts that creates a GAP between Tejas Mk2 and Super western fighters. BTW the only fighter with which you can really compare is Gripen NG.
i can’t see any gap between them.

As repeatedly discussed earlier, the twin-engined contenders F-18, Rafale, and Typhoon can all carry 5 tons of weapons + 8 tons of fuel (internal + external). This is the same config. which Su-30 MKI typically undertakes i.e. 5tons of weapons + 8 tons internal fuel.

Hence, all the 4 twin-engined contenders are needless, as Su-30 MKI already executes their functionality. As regards the Gripen and F-16, their functionality is already met by future Tejas Mk.2.

Thus, MRCA is an exercise in “futility”, because between themselves, the Tejas and Su-30 MKI meet MRCA requirements.

the problem seems to be that Tejas Mk2 will not be ready till 2015. and as discussed many times Su-30MKI was said to be maintainence intensive, So IAF wants third fighter to not only offset the tejas delay but to complement Su-30MKI. our Govt & IAF stresses on combat squadrons availaible rather than their roles.

buying more flankers is the simple solution to offset tejas delay but IAF doesn’t seem be interested in that may due to difficult maintainence. they already ordered 40 more besides the 190.

Well, in what case do you believe the US would sanction India for the use of its Weapons??? Second, as I have said over and over again. It has not been a problem with the “vast” majority of the world. Because the UK, France, Germany, Australia, Poland, South Korea, etc. etc. etc. Are not going to attack there neighbor for profit or personal gain at the cost of Innocent Civilian Lives………

Here’s an example………Just for argument sake! Let’s say the US sell Arms to the peaceful Jordan Government. Then the rightful elected Government is overthrown by its Military. Then Jordan attacks peaceful Saudi Arabia to gain its wealth and oil. Should the US not try to restrict or scanction Jordan. No, according to you. We should say do what you want……….PLEASE

this is exactly the problem, Jordan might view Saudi as a threat for some XYZ reason, while US would not. just like Iran & Nkorea represents direct threat to US & Israel (in past Iraq etc) but not Russia, India or China. for India its more of Pakistan which big threat while US views Pakistan still as an ally.

India-Pakistan war would represent the best case. much of threat to India is from Pakistan. if India & Pakistan engaged in a short high intensity conflict, and if US simply doesn’t want more death n destruction, wants to end the war, they might refuse to supply India with spares simply to deter the country.

But in case of Russia or Israel. they were more than willing to offer their war-time spares, munitions stock to India during kargil.

Well, countries like the UK, Japan, Australia, Poland, etc. etc. etc. have not had a problem with such strings. As a matter of fact have you every heard the French complain??? (and when don’t they?) Trust me regardless what is said every nation has string to protect its intellectual property!

I definitely have a problem if some foreign country inspectors come and check out my countries military base and also have access to fighter aircraft every year.

if US has to Protect Intellectual Property. India also has to keep its Military Installations and Weapons classified. both equally precious for respective countries.

Also India has had no problems with buying Russian, European or Israeli weapons. they probably don’t have any strict agreements, intrusive checks, permissions.

India actually modified Jags, Mirages and many fighters to carry nuclear weapons. Still suppliers don’t have a problem. but if you see Pakistan, they faced problems with F-16s.

Some are trying to make a issue of something that happens almost on a daily bases with virtually no problems……..

no Scooter, it is quite difficult for India to accept such restrictions, India hasn’t yet signed EUM for P-8. we have been told that India is adamant on indepdenent foreign policy and sovereignity. even if we did sacrifice foreign policy for better relationship with US, its question of keeping arms, AF fleet classified and not give access to anybody.

Just like US would never feel comfortable to export F-22 like fighters or any senisitive tech to whichever country requesting, India also wouldn’t feel comfortable in giving access to Military bases, Weapons to anyone regularly. not just that, India would want use its weapon systems just like the way she wants, where ever, whenever in case of conflict with her enemies.

There will not be further sanctions. There will be a closer alliance with the United States. Why do you think the Armed Forces which were weary about the American equipment are embracing it now..

the very reason of US is offering these weapons with TOT is due to closer relationship. closer relationship doesn’t mean less risk of sanctions IMO. if US doesn’t like a conflict being fought and if it is hurting her interests, she will use all its influence to prevent the war including punishing countries with santions. its not that other countries like France & Russia would not nothing, but their track record was excellent regardless of whatever was the political situation in world or in Subcontinent, they simply don’t have interest in looking into our political relations, conflicts etc. ofcoz US may not do it everytime, but it always a risk considering the role US plays in subcontinent.

If we screw up with it we will only have ourselves to blame. Buy European if you are not ok with it, Buy American if we are ok with it. It is as simple as that.

I was not aware of these exact details of agreement. before that it was mainly the threat of sanctions or foreign policy issues. but now these agreements making things worse.

End-Use Monitoring Regime, Implications for India
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2008/03/end-use-monitoring-regime.html

For India, FMS route is ideal in respect of high-tech systems, which no other nation possesses or is ready to offer. This route is also better for complex weapon systems as India can get them duly integrated and configured. FMS route has the additional advantages of fixed prices, sovereign guarantees and after sale support.

However, while contracting US equipment through FMS route, India will do well to factor in a number of important aspects which have long term implications:-

One of the stated aims of EUM programme is to encourage foreign government support for US principles, laws, regulations and practices. It implies a certain degree of coercion. A nation getting US equipment is expected to fall in line with US policies and support them. It does affect a country’s freedom to pursue policies as perceived in its own national interests.

If equipment has been purchased for the Army, its transfer to, say Indian Navy or the Border Security Force can be done only after obtaining concurrence from the US Government. In other words, even after having fully paid for the equipment, its usage is dictated by the US – not a very comfortable arrangement.

The buyer nation has to intimate the location of the equipment as also open its bases (where the said equipment is located) for inspection to the US. The US can demand ground inspection to reassure itself. It certainly compromises national security plans as deployment details of equipment reveal operational plans.

EUM policy states that the US retains the right to verify ‘credible reports’ that such items have been used for purposes other than agreed upon. What are ‘credible reports’? Who vouches for their credibility? As has been repeatedly seen, governments the world over, exploit such phrases to justify a particular course of action. Much advertised ‘credible reports’ of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction is a case in point. It implies that the US Government can always demand additional probes quoting so-called ‘credible reports’.

A recipient nation has to consistently prove itself to be worthy of US trust. That is a contractual obligation. On the other hand, there is no such commitment by the US Government to honour all provisions of the sale deed and who can abrogate a sovereign assurance by citing US laws and sanctions.
Section 505 of the US Foreign Assistance Act 0f 1961 authorises US officials to attend military exercises to observe training. It is a significant provision as the observers get to learn recipient nation’s operational doctrine with regard to the exploitation of equipment and details of the formations assigned said equipment.

Conclusion

The US Government has put in place an elaborate system to ensure that their technologically-advanced equipment is not used in a manner detrimental to US interests. In the present milieu of distrust and confrontation, nations and even humanity can be held to ransom by a rogue organisation with clandestinely procured weapons.

The present US pre-eminence is due to its technology edge. The US wants to preserve this knowledge lead to ensure that its armed forces always enjoy the benefits of superior weaponry against their adversaries.

It is not that the US applies all stipulations across the board in all cases. These are empowering provisions which can be invoked, if the situation so necessitates. EUM programme is neither hostile in its intent nor is it India-centric. All export contracts, irrespective of recipient nations, contain these stipulations as standard terms of sale.

And finally, the US makes its statutory requirements known to every prospective buyer in explicit and unambiguous terms. It is for the buyer nation to consider all facets and take decision as per its perceived national interests. The same applies to India as well.

i am just not happy with US checking Indian bases and equipment every year or get permission to transfer it from one force to another. US weapons are no doubt very very good but not at the cost of all these intrusive checks.

IAF fighter squadrons to rise to 42 by 2022: Antony
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/iaf-fighter-squadrons-to-rise-to-42-by-2022-antony_100156775.html

New Delhi, Feb 18 (IANS) The Indian Air Force (IAF), struggling to maintain its operational capabilities with an ageing and depleting strength of combat aircraft, will see its fighter squadrons rising from the current 32 to 42 by 2022, parliament was informed Wednesday.

“With the planned induction of Su-30, Jaguar, medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) and the light combat aircraft (LCA) during 2007-22, the strength at the end of the 11th, 12th and 13th plan periods is expected to increase to 35.5, 35 and 42 squadrons respectively,” Defence Minister A.K. Antony said in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha.

“In addition, steps have been taken to upgrade the existing MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29, Jaguar and Mirage-2000 aircraft,” he added.

The IAF is set to begin field trials of the six combat jets in the running for its MMRCA order for 126 fighters, with the number likely to go up to 200.

The field trials are expected to last 18 months as the aircraft have to be tested in different environments like the deserts of Rajasthan, the icy heights of Leh in Jammu and Kashmir and the humid conditions of south India.