IAF Shows reservation in operating American fighter Jets

[Agnostic_Indian]

Going back to
the air strike scenario, if laser
guided bombs are employed, the
Indian ground troops may require
a laser designator. It’s not just
point and the aircraft shoots as
the press and media will have you
believe. That laser designator
must be set to a specific agreed
upon frequency of invisible laser
light. The laser guided bombs
loaded on the aircraft will also be
set to accept that specific
frequency. You can ’t have the
enemy using a similar frequency
of laser light to direct our bombs
back on us (unlikely). If the
frequencies do not match, the
bombs won ’t register a signal.
i guess it's from same article.

 

[Dash]

Sorry, but you both seem to be wrong. CISMOA has nothing to do with GPS or GPS guided munitions, or even overall fighter aircrafts for IAF.

There happens to be much misconception about CISMOA due to erroneous reporting, either due to ignorance or due to special interests..

Read this:
What is CISMOA?

"The Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement or “CISMoA” is another facet of bureaucratic and sometimes political attributes of doing business and allying with the United States. The CISMoA should not be confused with the EULA which is a totally different agreement covering the use of systems purchased. The CISMoA provides guidance on how the systems will function with other systems. "

The CISMoA attempts to facilitate agreements on how each nation’s radios will communicate with each other effectively. For example, India troops may want to call in an air strike with U.S. air assets, this will require Indian ground radios to be compatible with U.S. strike aircraft radios to include encryption. Likewise, U.S. Special Ops may want to call in Indian long range artillery. The U.S. SpecOps on the ground will need their radios to communicate with Indian ground based artillery batteries.

This article explains what CISMOA is all about. Inshort, IAF needs to have the special equipment which US forces/aircraft have to be able to work with US forces. That kind of equipment should be present not only in fighter aircraft but also other types of aircraft like P8I or C-17 or C-130s to be able to work effectively with US forces.

IAF thinktanks have concluded that IAF does NOT need to work or integrate comm equipment with US forces, so IAF doesnt need such equipment from US. That is why IAF & MoD is not willing to sign CISMOA. Hope this clears the confusion about CISMOA.

As for articles such as these, pay no heed.

Gubbi, sorry to say that You are wrong here...

look at the below link..

Air force gets US planes minus security net

U.S. Dilutes Defence Technology to India | India Defence Online

Where it clearly states that due to CISMOA, military grade GPS was denied to us...

and look at your article, that uses a perticular word "encryption", so that means anything that is encrypted needs a CISMOA and anything that is encrypted coz its for special use for US airforce or other forces and its of top grade. So if you dont sign it then you wont get top grade material. Be it GPS, be it radio coms, be it anything...

 

[KS]

Then forget about the Apache gunship! Nobody is forcing us to buy stripped down versions from the Americans. If we are buying American platforms, then it must follow that we see some benefit in such an action. Strip a P8I & what do you get? Nothing! India could buy any aircraft then. This is just just some uninformed blogging. For reasons that I have stated earlier, i think that F-18 stands a very good chance in the competition, not least because of the engine commonalities with the LCA. Do you think the LCA engine contract was handed out in a vacuum? If either EF or Rafale win, then we would have just added to our engine inventory. The choice of the American engine says quite a bit of where this competition is heading.

Though there is a bit of truth into the Engine selection -- it could also be the case of we,internet warriors, reading too much between the lines.

The F 414 is clearly the better of the two competing engines with better thrust (fully satisfying the IAF specification) and more scope for upgradation (EPE) and then there is the huge commonality with the F404 used in the Mk I . These could have been the deciding factors and not necessarily the MRCA selection.

Rafale FTW

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Gubbi, sorry to say that You are wrong here...

look at the below link..

Air force gets US planes minus security net

U.S. Dilutes Defence Technology to India | India Defence Online

Where it clearly states that due to CISMOA, military grade GPS was denied to us...

and look at your article, that uses a perticular word "encryption", so that means anything that is encrypted needs a CISMOA and anything that is encrypted coz its for special use for US airforce or other forces and its of top grade. So if you dont sign it then you wont get top grade material. Be it GPS, be it radio coms, be it anything...

Appreciate your POV. It is quite relevant vis-a-vis the Comm. eqpt. or GPS and maybe even IFF. As far as the Comms., it actually translates into a reality that these aircraft will not be able to communicate with other USAF aircraft (at least on secure channels). But does that mean that they will be unable to communicate with IAF aircraft? Or that existing IAF comms. are un-secured?

Next, GPS - do you believe that other GPS eqpt. does not exist? And if you are able to explain what military grade GPS is precisely, that will help.

About IFF, do these aircraft have to be IFF compatible with USAF aircraft or IAF aircraft and sensors? And do you think existing IAF aircraft are lacking IFF?
While some of the notified Rockwell Collins stuff is undoubtedly good, there are airplanes flying safely and effectively without them all over the world.

Finally, re:be it anything... Would appreciate some amplification/clarification on this. Will the C-130s e.g. come with one propeller blade missing or the C-17s come without thrust reversers?

This CISMOA business has become a bit of a bogeyman. Actually if the logic of some of the esteemed journalists are to be taken seriously, these aircraft without CISMOA eqpt. are only as good as paper planes OR the existing IAF aircraft are worthless, after all they are not fitted with these goodies.

What would you like to believe?

 

[sancho]

what difference it make if DRDO developed these systems of their own or with partnership...

does such arguments makes Rafale or EF superior ?

A big one, because it shows that we alone are not able develop comparable techs at the moment! That's why I often say we should go for more of these parterships, because we will get high techs and more know how like that, while indigenous developments needs way more time till we get to a comparable level. The whole LCA development proves this!

LCA is a low cost, low end addition for Indian forces, while the MMRCAs (especially Rafale and EF) belongs to the best 4.5 fighters in the world. That's why I said, the MK2 might have the potential to compete with Gripen E/F someday, but not with EF, or Rafale.

 

[sancho]

Though there is a bit of truth into the Engine selection -- it could also be the case of we,internet warriors, reading too much between the lines.

The F 414 is clearly the better of the two competing engines with better thrust (fully satisfying the IAF specification) and more scope for upgradation (EPE) and then there is the huge commonality with the F404 used in the Mk I . These could have been the deciding factors and not necessarily the MRCA selection.

Rafale FTW

Not really, the EJ 200 has the better dry thrust and is often said to offer even more thrust right now, but that was not needed for the EF, which already has a very good T/W ratio. The EJ engine is also more modern and has more future potential too, reports says 120kN shouldn't be a problem, not to mention that it was lighter and could have come with 3D TVC. The only real advantage I see for the GE is that it already is proven for carrier fighters. The size issue was obviously never a point, because now we also see fuselage changes to fit the 414 into LCA, although it has the same diameter as the 404. If Kaveri engine is really decoupled from LCA and only the foreign engine will be available for it, the EJ 200 clearly has offered more future potential to LCA!
I even find it hard to believe that IAF/MoD wanted the heavier engine, although they are complaining about LCAs overweight and now even add more weight with more fuselage parts and even bigger wings.

 

[luckyyy]

A big one, because it shows that we alone are not able develop comparable techs at the moment! That's why I often say we should go for more of these parterships, because we will get high techs and more know how like that, while indigenous developments needs way more time till we get to a comparable level. The whole LCA development proves this!

LCA is a low cost, low end addition for Indian forces, while the MMRCAs (especially Rafale and EF) belongs to the best 4.5 fighters in the world. That's why I said, the MK2 might have the potential to compete with Gripen E/F someday, but not with EF, or Rafale.

to me partnership is order of the day , everyone doing this, why you so negative on indians for this...

and you has not given any logical reason to buy a 3-4 time costly Rafale or EF over LCA...

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

to me partnership is order of the day , everyone doing this, why you so negative on indians for this...

and you has not given any logical reason to buy a 3-4 time costly Rafale or EF over LCA...

What makes you think that lca is as good as typhoon or rafale when iaf itself is not happy with lca performance.

 

[luckyyy]

What makes you think that lca is as good as typhoon or rafale when iaf itself is not happy with lca performance.

there is every reason to belive that LCA is good enough....

coz i don't make my view soly on the bases of one unrelable/bloggers post.....

you need to read what the test pilots have to say about it....

and i never says that lca is as good as typhoon or rafale , it's for you people to prove/show that typhoon or rafale are good enough to cost 3-4 times the LCA....

 

[sancho]

to me partnership is order of the day , everyone doing this, why you so negative on indians for this...

and you has not given any logical reason to buy a 3-4 time costly Rafale or EF over LCA...

Read my post again please, I am for partnerships and against limiting on indigenous developments only!
Because they are more capable in any fields, more capable techs, weapons, flight performance..., let alone that they are operational now and not only by 2016 like LCA MK2 (hopefully).

I am pro LCA, but realistic enough to see where we really stand and how big the difference to EF, or Rafale is.

there is every reason to belive that LCA is good enough....

coz i don't make my view soly on the bases of one unrelable/bloggers post.....

you need to read what the test pilots have to say about it....

and i never says that lca is as good as typhoon or rafale , it's for you people to prove/show that typhoon or rafale are good enough to cost 3-4 times the LCA....

Last time I read an article about it from an ADA official who said it is better than the Mig 21s, so good that it achieved that development goal, but it should tell you something about the difference to MMRCA. LCA MK1 in fact will be less capable as an multi role fighter than the upgraded M2Ks, that doesn't mean it's bad, but gives you a realistic yardstick to compare it.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

there is every reason to belive that LCA is good enough....

coz i don't make my view soly on the bases of one unrelable/bloggers post.....

you need to read what the test pilots have to say about it....

and i never says that lca is as good as typhoon or rafale , it's for you people to prove/show that typhoon or rafale are good enough to cost 3-4 times the LCA....

ok..so you accept lca is inferior to them and your question is are they worth the money ?
i guess pro's can answer you in detail. I can only say that in a competition nobody will quote the price unrealisticaly.

 

[luckyyy]

Last time I read an article about it from an ADA official who said it is better than the Mig 21s, so good that it achieved that development goal, but it should tell you something about the difference to MMRCA. LCA MK1 in fact will be less capable as an multi role fighter than the upgraded M2Ks, that doesn't mean it's bad, but gives you a realistic yardstick to compare it.

they also said as good as Mirage...how you miss that.

 

[Spitfighter]

At this point I honestly couldn't care less about what/who they pick. All those planes are better than anything we have in our inventory, our planes have been used decades beyond their service life and we've lost something like 30 pilots in the last 5 years.

Any other sane airforce would've picked a modern fighter and gotten over with it 4 years ago.

 

[Spitfighter]

At this point I honestly couldn't care less about what/who they pick. All those planes are better than anything we have in our inventory, our planes have been used decades beyond their service life and we've lost something like 30 pilots in the last 5 years.

Any other sane airforce would've picked a modern fighter and gotten over with it 4 years ago.

 

[sancho]

they also said as good as Mirage...how you miss that.

I didn't but again check my post, I said:

less capable as an multi role fighter than the upgraded M2Ks