Full ToT in the context refers to we are not part of the design and there will be clauses where and how the software and hardware can be tweaked or not. They will give traning to work on tools and software but there wont be any knowledge on tweaking.. so we are bound only to the boundaries.. So the design of the new system will be base lined from here.. All the new system will be having the roots from here.. So if there are some intelligent people we can come out with better products with less investment
Where as in MKI we designed by putting in drawing board .. we have to sit with Russian , Israel and French to understand there design, interfaces and API, but the problem is we have spent more time and money to draft a part of the sub system in other words we had only that kind of man power at that part of time. I doubt we got ToT from French or Israel except Russia where we got the manufacturing process documented. So we spent time in developing the manufacturing process to manufacture the aircraft fully while the software's come in compiled form and license will be fed directly without knowing what is written and how it is working...
This issue was closed in MMRCA... where the supplier has to give the full ToT.. they are responsible to give code and train people... but the boundaries will be like a framework... we cannot get something outside.. Still we need Intelligent people to brake the boundaries and customize for future
Lets unpack what you've written.
What you got right- we will have access to sensitive back end codes, everything from the software running the back-end signal processing of the RBE radar to the digital library of the SPECTRA, we will have operational sovereignty, we will be able to integrate 3rd party non-OEM munitions etc.
What you got wrong- "Full ToT", no there is nothing called full ToT, not the way you are imagining it, or for that matter all the jingos on EVERY defence forum.
There is no fundamental difference between the MKI deal and the MMRCA deal in terms of know how accrued, none, nada.
It does not matter where we sourced certain components from for the MKI. At the end of the day, like the Rafale, we inked it so that we would build the MKIs in country. What "ToT" refers to is the transfer of MRO essentials, of the rotables, and on the extreme end of the "codes" (in most cases the OEM dithers on the latter, like the Russians did). What one accrues is know how, which is patently useless unless you are dealing with the "production is in itself technology" problem. That is to say that the production process, even if one were to build the SNECMA engine from scratch (as in even the raw materials were sourced from within country, all sub-components fabricated in country, i.e. the super nickle alloys for the MKI engine which did not trans-migrate into the Kaveri program- for good reason) it would not help you design a similar engine.
The fundamental reason is quite simple. People conflate know how with know why, and even the MMRCA contract does not specify the transfer of the latter, it does not because the MoD and the forces know full well that the Know Why will never be transferred.
People who think that the Rafale deal will spin off an indigenous AESA FCR or aid in the Kaveri program need to reevaluate their knowledge of the deal and the processes involved.
