Gripen E has flown on June 15.Gripen E is a non starter buddy ..The aircraft has yet to fly its still in prototype stage and not even completed taxi run test s ..
Nirbhay will succeed. It's only a matter of time. We can let it take its own sweet time thanks to Brahmos.Good news we can now dump this 200 Single engine fighter deal and put our weight behind Tejas ..we have enough reasons to dump this deal with F-16 what are we going to do without AESA technology transfer we are going to do another screw driver job for that we better do it for our own Tejas rather doing it for Amerikis ..if we want to please the amerikis for political purpose we can by Tomahawk Cruise missiles as our Nirbhay is totally non starter ...
Lets give life to Tejas
Technology like AESA is not f16 technology. It is a separate installation as addon. Lockheed sources it from the same vendor which supplies for F35, F22, FA18 etc. So, expecting AESA ToT for F16 is foolish. Only airframe, avionics or other highly related aspects can be expected ad ToT.Back after a hiatus,
I find the source article of dubious quality.
Especially because it's the only article claiming that the US has denied us tech transfer although that is quite possible.
Has anyone been able to find the footage of the session mentioned in the article, I'm searching for it as I type.
That being said, considering the nature of the demands, it is quite possible that the US may actually refuse, if we expect foreign nations to give us sensitive stuff like this then it's our own fault for expecting this.
If this is true then it looks like Gripen is about to move in and I'd rather have a less capable aircraft made in India like Tejas than a less capable aircraft made by a foreign company
This is good news. IAF and IN should accept the fact that LCA and AMCA are important and they will not have any other option.
It was congress that was causing problems and not IAF or IA. Blame the right peopleThis is good news. IAF and IN should accept the fact that LCA and AMCA are important and they will not have any other option.
My point exactly,Technology like AESA is not f16 technology. It is a separate installation as addon. Lockheed sources it from the same vendor which supplies for F35, F22, FA18 etc. So, expecting AESA ToT for F16 is foolish. Only airframe, avionics or other highly related aspects can be expected ad ToT.
Indians are Making ingenious GaN based AESA radars ..........that will be used in AMCA ...........as of Now Americans dont have GaN based AESA radars in any Fighter jet and they are still working on it and improving it's capabilities so how they will provide TOT to India ?My point exactly,
As far as I know the ToT of concern to us is the engine technology(For Tejas) whose joint development US linked with India's purchase of Vipers/Super Hornets and as far as I recall we did have a written assurance of ToT with the Pentagon although that was under the more predictable Obama administration.
That's very good for us, but we need the American help for the AMCA, 110-125kN thrust engines.Indians are Making ingenious GaN based AESA radars ..........that will be used in AMCA ...........as of Now Americans dont have GaN based AESA radars in any Fighter jet and they are still working on it and improving it's capabilities so how they will provide TOT to India ?
India is not far behind them ...........they are also making GaN foundry in IISC Bangalore and soon they will start making AESA radars , EW systems and other electronics based on GaN .
we need such kind of stealth technology ( Used in F-35 ) for AMCA .......That's very good for us, but we need the American help for the AMCA, 110-125kN thrust engines.
I hope if the tender isn't scrapped we go for the F-16 and jointly develop a good engine for Tejas/AMCA with the US,
SAAB can't give us Engine Tech because they depend on US for engine themselves and as you posted we already have a GaN AESA in the pipeline so SAAB doesn't seem to have much to offer
Those friends backing HAL Tejas forget a major hitch; HAL simply won't expedite the production of Mk.2. The government will have to declare war on somebody in order to get these slowpokes to expedite the development and testing of Mk.2.
Now you are pointing on right direction. They are the actual references behind every Indigenous effort either by developers or by Defense forces.It was congress that was causing problems and not IAF or IA. Blame the right people
Frankly speaking the private sector in the US has been always open to ToT,we need such kind of stealth technology ( Used in F-35 ) for AMCA .......
the RAM coating technologies used in F-22 & pak-fa are extremely costly ...after few hours of flight they have to apply RAM coatings on F-22 , this is why USA is not making more F-22 .
is lockheed martin ready to share this technology ?? that is very difficult .
maybe DRDO can develop such kind of technology themselves or they are getting such technology from France .
View attachment 18535
source = http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/feature128011/
we are working with France on Engine technologies .............we can develop rest of the technologies ourselves .
Saab dont have any significant GaN related technology ................American company Raytheon is making T/r modules for Saab ......................if they themselves are dependent on USA then how they will share any critical technology to India ??
They are just doing Propaganda to sell their Gripen .
France will have to build something for it's upcoming franco-german jet. That might be in the range of what Amca will require.Frankly speaking the private sector in the US has been always open to ToT,
It's the Arms Export Control laws which prevent them from doing so, even top NATO allies like Britain didn't get the ToT of sensitive F-35 tech
Our co-operation with France is regarding the Kaveri engine,which won't be able to power the AMCA which requires 110-125kN engines,France itself doesn't seem to have much experience with building such high thrust engines for their figthers
i just hope there be more people like you around....DFI would be better place for debate !!!When you are asking for sources from him and he gave it to you, you should consider it properly. If you disagree, the onus now lies on you to provide source yourself. Do you have sources to back your words?