@Joe Shearer
The Russians didn't give the IAF any English versions of the critical manuals. They had to be translated from the Russian, validated by test pilots familiar with the plane, and only THEN translated.
Some counties tend to prefer their own language instead of english (unlike ours). Even in bilateral exercises many time Russian officers use interpreter whether ours one speak english themselves.
Now, For the manuals they may not be available in english as SU didn't use that language as their primary or it may be case of ignorance. i am unable to comment because i don't have any data with me for this information.
Imagine a TOT scenario (the obvious real life examples can't be cited, so this one above was just a sampler); how do you know what you have been given until you start production? And what do you do if it turns out that you can't do the full production job, because of some seemingly minor factor? By withholding money until the first successful run?
That's why we keep Guarantee Money with parties involved in deal.( Leave Sukhoi out of it as it was foolish not to do so)
You've just seen what happened with the Rafale, and the deals earlier were all deals where the western powers were backing the Pakistanis to the hilt - the Sabre, the Starfighter, for starters - and were starving us of even the basic technology? Do you know that according to the Dept. of Commerce restrictions, we couldn't even import a Mac server without a special clearance? When we were struggling with one (or was it two) specialist design and drawing machines, the Singaporean equivalent had wall-to-wall O2s?
Because they were able to utilize Pakistan against USSR and it was in their interest to keep pakistan. Now after dissolution of SU you can see how much they back pakistan.
India was considered pro-SU country (even after being neutral) that is why restrictions were there.
Now see change in their stance toward India we can get many waivers that other countries can't.
You think they'll really level with us? The amount of technology involved is vast. Unless the vendor wants to, there is no way that the purchaser can be sure that he has got everything he paid for.
But it is upto buyer to select vendor that can offer the most they want.
I think i am.
We don't know each other but you are still formulating opinion about me thinking not in real conditions .
It's worse than that. There are some parts and composite panels on the existing pre-production models where the dimensions differ from one model to the next; there are, in short, unique dimensions for each existing aircraft.
Because these are pre-production aircrafts sometimes changes are done to remove any deficiency . Production models will not have same problem (in their batches, we can't expect 1st and last aircraft to be same for entire production run, there will be improvements) (In case if i didn't got your point Name some parts that will be different for every aircraft of same model and purpose)
You are running the support team for a squadron of 18 aircraft in a remote location. Which dimensions of parts will you use, considering that there might be one set of dimensions for each aircraft produced? Which 18 will you ask for, to keep in stock? I'm sorry, but clearly I am not getting through.
i think you will keep the parts that wears of regularly from all the aircrafts not the special problem ones.
Sorry, i either i didn't get it or you made it look like i have squadron contain 1 F22,1 F-35,1 F-16,1 F18,1 Rafale, 1 Typhoon like configuration.
Serious Note> Let's say i have squadron of Rafale after pre-production run i will be aware what parts of aircraft generally wear out faster, i will keep them & it will be same for all 18. For special problem you can't be sure you will have spare even in inventory as Air Bases like in case of explosion onboard many components may get damaged you can't keep everything close by..
First, you are right, we need a Model T. It was the MiG 21, and we need replacements. So now we've agreed on everything that we can agree on.
Second, after McDonnell Douglas threw out our people from their design centres, without their own notes, which were withheld, the entire flight control system was re-developed. It is one of the finest going today; a particular general-officer level person thought, after flying the Tejas, that the FCS might even have improved the functioning of his own favourite aircraft, the F 16. You can't do that with a design generated abroad. You can't do any foreign republication of the things that the LCA project generated.
Well but it took its time, if we want an aircraft in speedy manner to fill up our numbers , some compromise will be there.
You took my answer other way around i was talking about taking other company design teams to help us to speed up development in return they get cash (I know not going to work for everything).
We were talking about something like JFT to fill our numbers but now you say they will not give us much, we need to be clear what we actually want. In South Korea, T-50is designed by almost Lockheed martin but now RKAF can fill in numbers and local design can continue.
Thanks for your time, Good day