So when they say Spectra, is the emitter library not central to how it works? Or will the threat library have to be built from scratch by the IAF?
Probably not from scratch but yes, the library will have to be built anew by IAF.
The reasons for this are numerous and you won't like
all of them as a client but the way things are done is
there to fit them best.
First, the library may contain friendly profiles. You know that there is an exercise
called Atlantic Trident bring concluded at JBLE with our closest friends during which
it is certain that we got all the EM library info on Raptors, Typhoons and Lighting IIs.
We just can't share those so let's make it a rule ... which would protect you about
dissemination of similar data say extracted by the OEM during a refit. Not for sale.
Second, the library may contain profiles you have no need for. Remember that plane
downed by a Rafale in Lybia? Do you even want its profile? How many Soko Galeb
G-2s are poised within strike range of India's borders? So rule2 : no sharing of ...
let's call it extraneous data which may anyway incidentally fall within the other rules.
Third, the library may contain potential enemy profiles including those of a third party
to the deal that is not in conflict with the seller or buyer or both at time of sale. The
simple example here is Pakistan : France has a normal relationship with Islamabad
even though you guys don't quite. Why would we sell their profiles and sour things up
when you guys will have every opportunity to get those "for free" with practice runs?
*
Rule 3 : share only common enemies' sigs.
* Which ties in with the most important strategic reason : quality of the libraries.
Fourth, the libraries may not include what you need most anyhow. Do we have a good read
on the J-10? I'm not sure! Will you guys be able to get one with your Raffys? Pretty certain!
Finally, all data libraries are not of equal value. The work that goes behind acquiring them
can vary in professionalism or expertise and so on. Let's examine the extreme cases of it.
Scenario 1: France is the best at cataloging EM signatures, better at all levels : acquisition,
signal treatment, analysis, you name it, the resulting data is twice as good as next player's.
Do we want to share that? And supposing we do, will we find a buyer? If India thinks it can
build a better library by itself or one just as good why would it pay the premium price that
we're certain to ask for it as world's best product? It's a face value deal too as in order to
convince the buyer of the work's worth, you'd have to disclose it along with its processes.
Scenario 2: France is so so at using its own SPECTRA tool and India will get much more
out of building the libraries itself than paying for shitty signatures with A-380s locked on
more often than J-20s. And this is where rules fly off as logic lands.
The work of building signature libraries is part of knowing how to use them. With the
excessive number of types in the iAF, the whole chain from pilots to data analysts can
be trained and honed with face-offs. The data itself is tactic until treatment makes it
strategic. Both are enabled by doing the work yourself.
But in passing, let me add this strange fact that if the strategic partnership between us
is serious, we may forget signatures of your own aircrafts as the MKI
possibly diluted . . .
as you'd then have a benchmark of what can be had to refine your acquisition process.
There you go mate, have a great day, Tay.
all lies i am telling you
