The error we all make when thinking of MMRCA is we look at the birds flying and think of the proposal submitted to be on the same lines. The truth is that what will be provided (through MMRCA) depends on what was asked for in the RFP! Thus there is no stopping the americans from providing a "trimmed down" AESA if it meets all the RFP requirements. They have the added advantage of mature systems which provides them the necessary room for "downgrading" (i.e. even after downgrading, they could come out as better than the european or russian radars!)
PS: It is important to note that some companies might provide so called "full ToT" but that has no use for IAF!!! It might help DRDO but why should IAF care about DRDO? Shouldn't they go for the best platform of the lot?!
Frankly, I don't think IAF requires technology for AESA. DRDO is already working on a domestic fighter AESA system (with modules being imported ofcourse as we do not have a fab for the same - RFI has been sent). What IAF requires is the source codes for future integration of weapons independent of the americans. That's where the problem (and maybe the solution) lies! So I am afraid, "full" ToT may not be interpreted here in the right context!
We doo need the advantage of TOT
Look what all sort of problems we faced when Mig29 arrived firstly.
Our engines got down after every 2-3 sortie bcoz FOD foreign object damage and guess what they had to be sent back to russia .
Bcoz we didnt have related tot to take up engine repair or manufacturing in india itself.
Similar thing we faced in earlier su30k also ,
do you remember same thing said by US col after Red flag interview , video which created controversy and was removed later on.
He said same thing abt engine problems and being sent to russia, bcoz till then su30 were not 100% built in india. FOD ws the factor envolved
Suppose US dosent provide us tot of Engines - what will happen then ;whole fleet will be under danger once any problem erupts and we would have to sent parts to either Australia/US for repair. It dosent matter what was said in req/or Boeing is meeting all req as per Rfp
IAF dosent want that situation thats why req in RFP on first priority will be full TOT.
Regarding Radar - Just bcoz Aesa dont have Moving Antenae dosent mean they wont get damaged and what then???????.
For just changing LRU-replacable units which is a matter of hours sending to US will consume weeks.
And i dont buy the fact that Europens wont be able to build Radar upto US level,
I personally oppose Europe bcoz they wont get in time and price is a question otherwise if given money and time till 2013-2014 they would definately deliver Aesa Equivalent to US level.
I mean a 1200 micro array AESA not a 600 mmic what Russia / Us is offering.
I said the level of ToT is defined by the RFP. The RFP typically involves local engine mfg./ maintainance (as was the case with Su-30). Afterall, IAF has also learned a lot from its past mistakes or rather experience. The issue has been the traditionally sad state of affairs when it comes to Russian engines. That has nothing to do with the "requirement of ToT".
