What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

Status
Not open for further replies.
1169899_n.jpg


326743_n.jpg


Pictures courtesy: Syed Farhat Nadeem

I assume that the 07 on the tail signifies the year of manufacturing or induction of the plane, but as far as I remember in the year 2007 we only had 2 JF-17s, No?
 
.
But it's vary difficult to found common ground for India , Pakistan and China. Equations are changing...........

China and India have border issue but due to Billions of $ are going on between this two country. and in future it will going to increase only and it will surpass trade between china and Pakistan by MANY TIMES, china could be good friend of india:rolleyes:

and if you think other way than China never help Pakistan in any war between india and Pak. whether it's 1962 or 1971 or 1999.:undecided:

IF you see the history then in 1971 USA tell China to help u and usa will take countermesure against Russia if any thing happen, but china didn't help u. At that time u required them Most.:what:

Russia is a great example of Friend, In 1971 when USA send his Carrier battle group then Russia send their Nuclear subs to chase them!!!!!!!!:)

And if you look other way then China's friendship is hearting you because other countrys don't want to Give any state of the art technology to pakistan because they fear that in few years china also start manufacturing same things:undecided:

So lets us see what happen in future:smitten:

Regards,

MR. Cool

TO: TaimiKhan

Sir, if you allow these kind of uneducated post exist in this thread. I see no reason why you delete my comment? Or you do think what he post here is not full of malicious lies?
 
.
his history is a bit mixed up. '62 is when China soundly defeated hindustan during the squirmish. He meant '65, and that was purely a stalemate; it wasn't really a single war, just a series of intense squirmishes and battles. For every gain we made, they'd attack somewhere else. For every gain they attempted, they lost. A good example of that is Battle of Chawinda --and we all know how gruesome that proved for enemy armoured columns. None of their objectives were even close to being met

Other than that, rest of the post is not really reply-worthy

this is a thread on JF-17 Thunder, not on war history. Irrelevant posts should be deleted.
 
. .
India have 100% TOT for SU-30mki.

Sukhoi Su-30MKI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HAL chairman said that "from next month onwards india will manufacture SU-30 mki from row M/T":smitten:

and i don't have to tell you the advantages of local manufacturing of military equpment, do i ?:undecided:

Just want to point out that india have 100% TOT of Su-30 Mki.

IN just 5 years in future india is going to have 100% TOT in PAKFA, MMRCA(F-18 or Tyfoon or Rafael) including Engine and Radar, while pakistan don't even have 100 % TOT of JF-17 !!!!!!!!

My Main point was, Get 100% TOT from China in JF-17, Give your own engineer,technical person and manufacturing sector work and more important experience in high tech equipments.

India and pakistan both were lacking in this field, but india have take many many serious steps.:smitten:

Knowledge is a vary powerfull weapon........ start useing it...:)
Basically you are clueless about the term TOT. Following is something from a countryman of yours who happens to be more informed. Please take some time and try to understand things before attempting to pretend as an expert.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer of Technology (TOT): Myth or reality?

Posted by vkthakur on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 (EST)
Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place.

Rafale_23_April_2009B.jpg

Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place. Photo Credit: Dassault

July 14, 2009, (Sawf News) - Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place.

I have heard the phrase being bandied by politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats, since my school days, nearly 40 years ago.

India has been manufacturing MiG-21 variants since the 70s. Let alone developing a new aircraft based on the MiG-21, HAL was never able to even improve the aircraft in any way - Adding a dorsal fuel tank, for example, as in the MiG-21 Bis.

India designed and developed the Marut HF-24 in the late 1960's with assistance from German designer Dr. Kurt Tank and a lot of British help. HAL could never come up with a follow up.

Jaguar_IAF.jpg

An Indian Air Force (IAF) 14th Squadron Jaguar during Exercise COOPERATIVE COPE THUNDER. Photo Credit: SSGT Mathew Hannen, USAF

We license produced the Jaguar? What good did that do? Where did the technology that was transferred go?

Whether transfer of technology works or not is linked to the technology base that a country has developed.

Talk to any DRDO official and they tell you the Russian never transfer technology.

At Aero India 2009 the DRDO chief publically termed Russian TOT as a farce.

What DRDO officials mean is that the Russians don't tell us how to build their products from scratch. The question is not only - Should they be telling you how to do so? - but also - Can they effectively tell how to do - considering that we do not have a technological base matching theirs?

A large amount of metal alloys and composites goes into an aircraft. The alloys used differ from each aircraft component. The strength of the metal varies with the manufacturing process used to produce it. When transferring technology should the manufacturer tell from where to source the metal or how to manufacture it? If your country hasn't mastered the manufacturing processes what good would that do?

Recently someone referred to the possible French and Swedish readiness to part with source code for their AESA radars. (I am not aware this is true.)

While getting the source code along with the radar helps, it cannot be construed as transfer of technology.

Anyone who has worked with software knows the complexities of imbibing code.

Any code is based on thousands and thousands of lines of library code. Is the library source also being offered? Even if it is being, you will need to spend months, possibly years, to understand its flow and logic.

How generic is the code? How much generic can it be? Hardware specific code tends to be less generic to facilitate faster development and processing. Reuse of code is also limited by continuous improvements in hardware and software.

Code that took 100 person years to develop cannot be mastered within one or two months, even if you deploy 2,000 people for hacking it, assuming the cost of deploying 2,000 top notch software professionals on the project makes economic sense.

The example, is applicable to most electronic components fitted on a fighter aircraft, each of which uses software.

No transfer of technology allows you to copy manufacture. You can only license produce the quantity negotiated. So the vendors hold back a lot of data, like wind tunnel and flight testing data that would make it easy to modify the aircraft.

Broadly speaking, with a TOT agreement in place, the manufacturer will share with you just enough information to allow sourcing non critical components from the domestic market, or certain acceptable foreign markets.

If we buy the Rafale, the French are not going to teach us how to build a fifth generation version of the Rafale.

Talking about French friendliness, here is a detail that I have mentioned elsewhere on this site. When they supplied us the Durandal runway denial bombs for use on the Jaguars, they missed out on a small detail that prevented the Jaguar from dropping it.

The IAF discovered the flaw years after acquiring the bombs, when Jaguars attempted to test fire them on a target runway in Pokharan for the first time.

Pre acquisition trials were conducted in France and since the bomb was so expensive IAF waited for the life of the first lot of bombs to nearly expire before testing them. Three Jaguars unsuccessfully attempted to release the bombs in front of the Defense minister, COAS and other top officials.

There were a lot of red faces that day, not just in the squadron tasked with the trials but right up the chain of command.

The software patch, when it arrived from France, took minutes.

Oh! Did I mention the squadron tasked was flying HAL manufactured Jaguars.

Source: Transfer of Technology (TOT): Myth or reality?
 
.
Guys, try to keep the discussion to JF-17, as the other topics basically derail the threads.

Thanks
 
. .
Guys leave French avionics & radar..
We already offered light weight Vixen 500E AESA Fire Control Radar......but after going through its specs I feel its more good for Advance trainer rather then 4.5th generation fighter.

I suggest PAF should go for Vixen 1000ES AESA Fire Control Radar.....
The Vixen 1000ES radar is a wide field of regard system optimised for multi-role/ swing role operations. The system features comprehensive mode suite for both A/A and A/G including interleaved operation, ensuring high availability and reliability. The Vixen 1000ES, a collaborative programme with SELEX Galileo, SAAB Microwave and SAAB Aerosystems, builds on established technology from the European leaders in AESA radars and has a clear route map to future capability.

It will also be compatible with SAAB 2000.



viewer.aspx


Its compareable to AN/APG-80 (AESA) radar used on F-16 Block 60

AESA
The Vixen 1000ES, a collaborative programme with SELEX Galileo, SAAB Microwave and SAAB Aerosystems, is based on the Vixen 500E.

The VIXEN 500E is being developed for use on small lightweight fighter aircraft. It has a range 35 nautical miles (65 km). The radar currently does not have any customers. It has approximately 500 T/R modules. There is also a variant with 750 T/R modules under development.

Saab has tied up with SELEX Galileo to co-develop an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar for the Gripen Next Generation (NG) based on the Vixen 500E.

The Vixen 1000E uses a swashplate mounting, which enables the active array to be rotated by +/-100°. This beats a fixed AESA that is limited to 60-70° during beyond visual-range and off-boresight missile firings, and while acquiring synthetic aperture radar imagery.

The higher scan volume of the Selex radar allows the attacking aircraft to perform a large turn away from the target after launching a missile while maintaining missile support.

A prototype will be delivered to SAAB by the end of 2009, and then Selex will will upgrade it over the next 18 months."

Its going to be used in JAS 39 Gripen NG and British Typhoon
 
Last edited:
.
I have suggested Vixen-1000E many times and yes there would be a success if we go through the deal properly.
 
.
I have suggested Vixen-1000E many times and yes there would be a success if we go through the deal properly.

But if we go through to the deal na......Mr Zardari is a problem.

Its compareable to AN/APG-80 (AESA) radar used on F-16 Block 60

AESA
The Vixen 1000ES, a collaborative programme with SELEX Galileo, SAAB Microwave and SAAB Aerosystems, is based on the Vixen 500E.

The VIXEN 500E is being developed for use on small lightweight fighter aircraft. It has a range 35 nautical miles (65 km). The radar currently does not have any customers. It has approximately 500 T/R modules. There is also a variant with 750 T/R modules under development.

Saab has tied up with SELEX Galileo to co-develop an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar for the Gripen Next Generation (NG) based on the Vixen 500E.

The Vixen 1000E uses a swashplate mounting, which enables the active array to be rotated by +/-100°. This beats a fixed AESA that is limited to 60-70° during beyond visual-range and off-boresight missile firings, and while acquiring synthetic aperture radar imagery.

The higher scan volume of the Selex radar allows the attacking aircraft to perform a large turn away from the target after launching a missile while maintaining missile support.

A prototype will be delivered to SAAB by the end of 2009, and then Selex will will upgrade it over the next 18 months."

Its going to be used in JAS 39 Gripen NG and British Typhoon
 
.
Basically you are clueless about the term TOT. Following is something from a countryman of yours who happens to be more informed. Please take some time and try to understand things before attempting to pretend as an expert.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer of Technology (TOT): Myth or reality?

Posted by vkthakur on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 (EST)
Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place.

Rafale_23_April_2009B.jpg

Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place. Photo Credit: Dassault

July 14, 2009, (Sawf News) - Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place.

I have heard the phrase being bandied by politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats, since my school days, nearly 40 years ago.

India has been manufacturing MiG-21 variants since the 70s. Let alone developing a new aircraft based on the MiG-21, HAL was never able to even improve the aircraft in any way - Adding a dorsal fuel tank, for example, as in the MiG-21 Bis.

India designed and developed the Marut HF-24 in the late 1960's with assistance from German designer Dr. Kurt Tank and a lot of British help. HAL could never come up with a follow up.

Jaguar_IAF.jpg

An Indian Air Force (IAF) 14th Squadron Jaguar during Exercise COOPERATIVE COPE THUNDER. Photo Credit: SSGT Mathew Hannen, USAF

We license produced the Jaguar? What good did that do? Where did the technology that was transferred go?

Whether transfer of technology works or not is linked to the technology base that a country has developed.

Talk to any DRDO official and they tell you the Russian never transfer technology.

At Aero India 2009 the DRDO chief publically termed Russian TOT as a farce.

What DRDO officials mean is that the Russians don't tell us how to build their products from scratch. The question is not only - Should they be telling you how to do so? - but also - Can they effectively tell how to do - considering that we do not have a technological base matching theirs?

A large amount of metal alloys and composites goes into an aircraft. The alloys used differ from each aircraft component. The strength of the metal varies with the manufacturing process used to produce it. When transferring technology should the manufacturer tell from where to source the metal or how to manufacture it? If your country hasn't mastered the manufacturing processes what good would that do?

Recently someone referred to the possible French and Swedish readiness to part with source code for their AESA radars. (I am not aware this is true.)

While getting the source code along with the radar helps, it cannot be construed as transfer of technology.

Anyone who has worked with software knows the complexities of imbibing code.

Any code is based on thousands and thousands of lines of library code. Is the library source also being offered? Even if it is being, you will need to spend months, possibly years, to understand its flow and logic.

How generic is the code? How much generic can it be? Hardware specific code tends to be less generic to facilitate faster development and processing. Reuse of code is also limited by continuous improvements in hardware and software.

Code that took 100 person years to develop cannot be mastered within one or two months, even if you deploy 2,000 people for hacking it, assuming the cost of deploying 2,000 top notch software professionals on the project makes economic sense.

The example, is applicable to most electronic components fitted on a fighter aircraft, each of which uses software.

No transfer of technology allows you to copy manufacture. You can only license produce the quantity negotiated. So the vendors hold back a lot of data, like wind tunnel and flight testing data that would make it easy to modify the aircraft.

Broadly speaking, with a TOT agreement in place, the manufacturer will share with you just enough information to allow sourcing non critical components from the domestic market, or certain acceptable foreign markets.

If we buy the Rafale, the French are not going to teach us how to build a fifth generation version of the Rafale.

Talking about French friendliness, here is a detail that I have mentioned elsewhere on this site. When they supplied us the Durandal runway denial bombs for use on the Jaguars, they missed out on a small detail that prevented the Jaguar from dropping it.

The IAF discovered the flaw years after acquiring the bombs, when Jaguars attempted to test fire them on a target runway in Pokharan for the first time.

Pre acquisition trials were conducted in France and since the bomb was so expensive IAF waited for the life of the first lot of bombs to nearly expire before testing them. Three Jaguars unsuccessfully attempted to release the bombs in front of the Defense minister, COAS and other top officials.

There were a lot of red faces that day, not just in the squadron tasked with the trials but right up the chain of command.

The software patch, when it arrived from France, took minutes.

Oh! Did I mention the squadron tasked was flying HAL manufactured Jaguars.

Source: Transfer of Technology (TOT): Myth or reality?

actually i want to thank you ...................................... about 100 or even infinite times but only allowed one time
 
.
Basically you are clueless about the term TOT. Following is something from a countryman of yours who happens to be more informed. Please take some time and try to understand things before attempting to pretend as an expert.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer of Technology (TOT): Myth or reality?

Posted by vkthakur on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 (EST)
Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place.

Rafale_23_April_2009B.jpg

Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place. Photo Credit: Dassault

July 14, 2009, (Sawf News) - Transfer of technology has been a buzz phrase in India for defense acquisitions since decades. So far India has little to show for all the technology transfers and license production that have taken place.

I have heard the phrase being bandied by politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats, since my school days, nearly 40 years ago.

India has been manufacturing MiG-21 variants since the 70s. Let alone developing a new aircraft based on the MiG-21, HAL was never able to even improve the aircraft in any way - Adding a dorsal fuel tank, for example, as in the MiG-21 Bis.

India designed and developed the Marut HF-24 in the late 1960's with assistance from German designer Dr. Kurt Tank and a lot of British help. HAL could never come up with a follow up.

Jaguar_IAF.jpg

An Indian Air Force (IAF) 14th Squadron Jaguar during Exercise COOPERATIVE COPE THUNDER. Photo Credit: SSGT Mathew Hannen, USAF

We license produced the Jaguar? What good did that do? Where did the technology that was transferred go?

Whether transfer of technology works or not is linked to the technology base that a country has developed.

Talk to any DRDO official and they tell you the Russian never transfer technology.

At Aero India 2009 the DRDO chief publically termed Russian TOT as a farce.

What DRDO officials mean is that the Russians don't tell us how to build their products from scratch. The question is not only - Should they be telling you how to do so? - but also - Can they effectively tell how to do - considering that we do not have a technological base matching theirs?

A large amount of metal alloys and composites goes into an aircraft. The alloys used differ from each aircraft component. The strength of the metal varies with the manufacturing process used to produce it. When transferring technology should the manufacturer tell from where to source the metal or how to manufacture it? If your country hasn't mastered the manufacturing processes what good would that do?

Recently someone referred to the possible French and Swedish readiness to part with source code for their AESA radars. (I am not aware this is true.)

While getting the source code along with the radar helps, it cannot be construed as transfer of technology.

Anyone who has worked with software knows the complexities of imbibing code.

Any code is based on thousands and thousands of lines of library code. Is the library source also being offered? Even if it is being, you will need to spend months, possibly years, to understand its flow and logic.

How generic is the code? How much generic can it be? Hardware specific code tends to be less generic to facilitate faster development and processing. Reuse of code is also limited by continuous improvements in hardware and software.

Code that took 100 person years to develop cannot be mastered within one or two months, even if you deploy 2,000 people for hacking it, assuming the cost of deploying 2,000 top notch software professionals on the project makes economic sense.

The example, is applicable to most electronic components fitted on a fighter aircraft, each of which uses software.

No transfer of technology allows you to copy manufacture. You can only license produce the quantity negotiated. So the vendors hold back a lot of data, like wind tunnel and flight testing data that would make it easy to modify the aircraft.

Broadly speaking, with a TOT agreement in place, the manufacturer will share with you just enough information to allow sourcing non critical components from the domestic market, or certain acceptable foreign markets.

If we buy the Rafale, the French are not going to teach us how to build a fifth generation version of the Rafale.

Talking about French friendliness, here is a detail that I have mentioned elsewhere on this site. When they supplied us the Durandal runway denial bombs for use on the Jaguars, they missed out on a small detail that prevented the Jaguar from dropping it.

The IAF discovered the flaw years after acquiring the bombs, when Jaguars attempted to test fire them on a target runway in Pokharan for the first time.

Pre acquisition trials were conducted in France and since the bomb was so expensive IAF waited for the life of the first lot of bombs to nearly expire before testing them. Three Jaguars unsuccessfully attempted to release the bombs in front of the Defense minister, COAS and other top officials.

There were a lot of red faces that day, not just in the squadron tasked with the trials but right up the chain of command.

The software patch, when it arrived from France, took minutes.

Oh! Did I mention the squadron tasked was flying HAL manufactured Jaguars.

Source: Transfer of Technology (TOT): Myth or reality?

Really Great post my friend qsaark:cheers: and i mean that by heart:angel:

Great examples shown by you, in which india made mistakes.....

but india is doing their best to avoid in future, so in MMRCA competition we wish 100% tot

in above examples like Jaguar and Mig-21 india is only assembling the parts provided by the manufacturer but from now on India want to Build it 100% from ROW m/t , even india want Source code of the software..............

Dear i am not Trolling :cry:........... Please understand it..:cry:

I just said that "IF PAKISTAN START MANUFACTURING RADARS AND ENGINE IN PAKISTAN, THEN PAKISTANI ENGG. AND THEIR MANUFACTURING SECTOR WILL GROW" And that's it...........................:toast_sign:
 
.
...but india is doing their best to avoid in future, so in MMRCA competition we wish 100% tot.
Sorry Mods, let me one more time...

Raytheon to transfer AESA radar technology to India up to the level permitted by US government

Dated 6/5/2008

American space and airborne systems company, Raytheon, has said that the Indian Air Force (IAF) will get access to cutting-edge radar technology in the form of the AESA radar, up to the level permitted by the US government, should it decide to opt for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet under its global tender for 126 medium-range multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender.

"We are willing to support Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar technology transfer up to the level the US government allows us," said Dave Goold from Raytheon's F-18 business development, Tactical Airborne Systems.

"The technology transfer, though likely to be limited, would meet the requirements of the IAF. Our proposal will be compliant with the request for proposal (RFP) issued by the IAF for the 126 combat aircraft," he said.

The AESA radar lends an edge to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet by increasing its air-to-air detection and tracking range, apart from enhancing its air-to-ground targeting capabilities. So far, the US government has allowed transfer of the cutting-edge AESA radar technology only to Australia.

Raytheon is a systems supplier for the Super Hornet Boeing's F-18 multi-role ground fighter which is one of the six contenders for the IAF's MMRCA contract along with Lockheed's F-16, Russia's MiG-35, the French Dassault's Rafale, the Swedish Saab Gripen JAS-39 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

According to Boeing Integrated Defence System (IDS) representative, John Salas, the company has plans to sell the anti-ship missile, Harpoon, as well as a long-range precision missile to India. Both the systems, he said, could be integrated with the F/A-18E/F fighters.

Source: Raytheon to transfer AESA radar technology to India up to the level permitted by US government | India Defence

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more here:

India in Transition

No Good Choices for the Indian Air Force


Bharat Karnad
10/12/2009

In the Medium-range Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) sweepstakes, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is confronted with many choices, all of them bad. Whatever the IAF’s reasons for wanting a new aircraft, the Indian government means to use the deal to make international political capital, gain leverage in bilateral relations, and cement a strategic partnership. The Air Staff Quality Requirements – insofar as these can be deduced – are opaque. Is the IAF in the market for an aircraft to carry a heavy weapon load over a long distance in extended regional operations, or for a warplane to augment its existing strength in localized air defense, strike, and similar short-legged, Pakistan-centric, missions? This fuzziness, deliberate or not, will help the government to make the final selection, based less on technological trends or performance parameters than on the basis of which purchase best serves the country’s larger strategic interests. Be that as it may, the candidate aircraft are currently undergoing flight tests in diverse Indian conditions – desert, high altitude, and high humidity – to determine their utility. If the aim is to get the maximum political bang for the buck for the $10.4 billion for a fleet of 126 MMRCA and the lucrative opportunity to sell other military hardware in the future and to enhance the supplier country’s political influence and its trade, technology, and military footprint in India, Delhi better secure a lot more than just some flying machines.

The irony is that India’s desire for a new fighter plane is in the context of even the cutting edge manned aircraft obsolescing so fast as to become expensive museum pieces before they serve out their 30 year life span with the IAF. Had the IAF been visionary in its approach, it would have foreseen the end of the “man in the loop.” Absent such an outlook, it might have taken the cue from, say, the U.S. Air Force, and opted to be ahead of the technology learning curve by investing in an armada of ballistic and cruise missiles and multi-purpose drones or remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs), while retaining a small but powerful residual strategic manned combat aircraft capability. As a habitual laggard, however, the IAF seems satisfied with equipping itself fully for yesterday’s war.

Worse, unlike the Indian Navy with its warship directorate, the IAF has no in-house expertise in designing aircraft and never acquired a stake in indigenous manufacture. Indeed, it took perverse pride in stifling Indian aircraft projects just so it could continue to avail of more sophisticated imported warplanes. Thus, for example, the follow-on aircraft to the HF-24 Marut fighter that the famous wartime German Focke-Wulfe designer Kurt Tank originally developed for the IAF in the 1960s, was not allowed to get off the drawing boards. India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had obtained the services of Tank a decade earlier in order to seed an aircraft industry in the country. India therefore made do with licensed production of the British Gnat and Jaguar and the Russian MiG-21, MiG-27, and MiG-29. However, because the supplier countries never provided source codes, etc., no real design-to-delivery capability evolved in the country. This is important because the MMRCA contract includes transfer of technology and local licensed manufacture which, other than hugely inflating the cost of the deal, will not benefit the country much. If the MMRCA has to be bought, it would be advisable to buy the whole lot of 126 aircraft off the shelf, resulting in heavily discounted unit cost and massive stockpile of spares. It will, moreover, prevent wasteful expenditure on establishing local production facilities which, in turn, will end up coupling the IAF to antique technology well into the future.

For the record, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Lockheed Martin F-16 IN (“Block 70”), Dassault’s Rafale, the European Consortium EADS’s Typhoon Eurofighter, Saab’s Gripen IN, and the Russian MiG-35, are in the running. Curiously, the most cost-effective solution – inducting more Sukhoi Su-30 MKI aircraft to meet the MMRCA demand – is not even on the table. Already in the Indian air order-of-battle, its development financed in the mid-90s by India, the Su-30, value for money-wise, is the best fighter-bomber in the business. Performance-wise, it can only be bettered by the F-22 Raptor. Dispassionate analyses suggest that it matches or surpasses either of the American aircraft in the race and, in its more advanced configuration, can outperform even the Joint Strike Fighter F-35, a plane Lockheed Martin have promised to replace the F-16 with on a “one for one” basis were India to buy the latter aircraft. Notwithstanding all these factors, the IAF believes the Su-30 MKI is “simply not good enough!”

Whatever the merits and demerits of the aircraft in the fray and the other allurements offered by the supplier states, the Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon are unlikely to make it to the shortlist. Transacting with Sweden, France, and the Western European countries will not fetch India the same political and strategic returns as engaging with the United States or Russia. Moreover, because the Indian Armed Services have a record of choosing equipment from a supplier country the government prefers, the suspicion that the MMRCA decision will be driven by considerations of international politics, gains credence. The test data available from putting the various aircraft through their paces will, in the event, be the means of winnowing the field without alienating anybody too much.

If political and geostrategic factors are important, then the decision becomes a lot trickier for Delhi to make. The upside of buying American is obvious: it will give teeth to the military cooperation arrangement, emphasizing, among other things, inter-operability of military systems envisaged by the 2005 Defense Framework Agreement that both countries see as central to containing an ambitious and fast-growing China. The Russian military cooperation with India has also been predicated on the joint need to deal with the common Chinese threat. Buying the F-16 or F-18 will upset Moscow, which perceives the MMRCA decision as something of a litmus test of its continued good standing with India. By way of raising the costs to India of making the wrong choice, the tourniquet of spares and servicing support could be applied across the board, resulting in a rapid degrading of the readiness aspects of the Indian military. Indian armed forces still depend on Russia for about 70 percent of their equipment needs. The souring of the Russian attitude towards India, moreover, may have other consequences as well, such as a cutback in the Russian involvement in many high value military technology collaboration projects, raising of the acquisition costs of other items, and delays in the contracted delivery of, say, the nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine Akula on lease, and the aircraft carrier Gorshkov. Additionally, depending on how seriously Moscow takes this “affront,” there is the possibility of Russia making common cause with China in denying India a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, a seat India craves.

Delhi will have to make a judgment call on two things: on the United States as a reliable strategic partner and military supplier, and on the implications of such a supplier relationship for India’s independent posture. In this equation, Russia is the “known devil,” a longstanding purveyor of goods that the Indian military and bureaucracy have become familiar with over the last four decades. The U.S., on the other hand, is an unknown commodity, insisting that its partners adhere to its policy guidelines and with a worrying record of violating contractual, even treaty, obligations and treating its military customers in a high-handed and arbitrary manner. India has experienced American willfulness in the supply of the low enriched uranium fuel for its Tarapur nuclear power plant. Should Delhi opt for an American aircraft, it will have to be perennially mindful of U.S. concerns. Even so, there are no guarantees that the U.S. Congress won’t retroactively amend laws preventing spares support for the F-16s or F-18s, thereby virtually instantly grounding the Indian MMRCA fleet. In a crisis, this could be devastating. India is on the horns of a dilemma, confronted by choices that are neither good nor easy.

Bharat Karnad is a Research Professor in National Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. He is a CASI Fall 2009 Visiting Scholar.

Source: No Good Choices for the Indian Air Force | Center for the Advanced Study of India
 
.
KhanJi, my apology, but I had to post this as many members are clueless as to what TOT offers and what not. I will delete it if you think it should not be here.

Agreed that this discussion is not directly related to Jf-17 but indirectly it is. I am not really concerned about India but only with Pakistan. TOT is also a favorite word in Pakistan.

Pakistan has so far claimed to have built or partially built Mashaaq under license fron Sweden, K-8 with Chinese cooperation, participated in JF-17 product, produced Al Khalid tanks and also built Augusta submarines.

What we gained out of these projects was only assembling skills such as welding etc and quality control. For a country with virtually zero industrial base this can be considered significant achievement but in reality it was no more than mere assembly. I remember some politicians touting that we would be building more Augusta’s for sale to other countries! Now we are jumping with joy that JC-20 will come with TOT. All this is only for beguiling the public and allows agents & politicians to fill their pockets with huge commissions.

In all the industrial countries products are designed ab initio. Tanks were designed and built by car manufactures. Wrights brothers were bicycle manufactures and UK Company English Electric were producers of electric motors and transformers but went on to build locomotives and airplanes such as Canberra and Lightening.

My point is that if Pakistan truly desires to build her own planes, helicopters, submarines, tanks etc.; we need to build up expertise in metallurgy in non ferrous metals, pumps, and electronics. The start should be to concentrate on manufacturing the spare parts such as turbine blades, parts of aircraft tail and landing gear.

Next we start designing and making cars and trucks for local use. Only then we would be in a position to build more sophisticated equipment such as planes or ships.

Until that time TOT will remain nothing more than mere assembly and saving us foreign exchange.
 
.
Dear Sir, Niaz with all due respect, i would like to bring in one missing aspect... which is design engineering.... point is the skills you desired falls under research & development, whereas product design falls under design engineering.
Whilst, design engineering is no monkey bussiness it self......other wise many states with overflowing capital would have done it before we did it.

New technologies are researched in universities around the world and all new inventions in material or component research are generally patented and are open for every one (excluding sanctioned states) to use under mutual agreements (again money and politics matters).

Design is equally unique and secret as is any new technology. In other words design is application of availabel technology in most efficient and desired/convinient form.

In practical world of R&D, we have private companies which identify the future applications, potential customers and than invest in material and component research (with some degree of time risk factor) and resulting product/rights is sold to all product manufacturers.

Point is with production of JF-17 we have moved way...... advance than liscence building which as you said is mere assembling.

Alas, no world bank is interested to invest in technology research in Pakistan as it would kill there bussines.
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom