So you think buying Russian will protect you from US hacks? Think again:Philip wrote:Therefore,the risk of acquiring and operating key weapon systems of US origin,remains very high,particularly when the US will enforce its right of "inspection",after-sales servicing,et al.When it is the chief provider of high-tech arms to our mortal enemy Pak,the danger is obvious even to the three proverbial monkeys.
indranilroy wrote:^^^ That article has been posted before. It adds nothing new to the discussion. Here's a case which I have already discussed where you tap in the data before the encryption or decryption. This can be done. But how do you do it selectively without a communication method.
The question is not on the backdoor/kill switch. The question is how to activate it no visible (atleast) change in hardware.
I think I will stop posting till somebody gives me a valid answer on that. It seems to be revolving around kill switches/backdoors exist. And I ask how will you use it without the user detecting it. And I get embedded antennas and AESA modules as answers. So I will wait
Sandeep_ghosh wrote:Dear Friends ,
F/A 18 SH is a YF 17 LWF on Steroids to start with. With a design load of 7.8G and 1.8 Mach speed I am not really sure if it can keep up with EF rafale or even the "super duper fulcrum" (Which apparently has been discredited for every other non-combat issues ),
anyways if IAF doesn't choose F/A 18SH, i am pretty sure it wont be because of its "kill switch", it will be on its merit.
I feel if we had straight away done a MIG35ovt MKI style deal in 2006 we would have raised 3 squadrons by now.
Ashok sir I am making an example of your post here. Please don't mind. This is not a personal attack. I just want to make a point about such posts.ashokpachori wrote: They (Americans) use tiny winy ultra modern bugs operated by satellites. Something they did to China several years ago.
Hmmm...indranilroy wrote:Ashok sir I am making an example of your post here. Please don't mind. This is not a personal attack. I just want to make a point about such posts.ashokpachori wrote: They (Americans) use tiny winy ultra modern bugs operated by satellites. Something they did to China several years ago.
What exactly did you add by this post?. Generic thoughts, perceptions, speculations which are not supported!
Give me a good reason why I shouldn't blast this post?! I implore to the posters to post substantiated thoughts which have some data points or can counter a data point based on facts.
More than 20 bugging devices have been discovered by Chinese intelligence officers in a Boeing 767 delivered from the US and due to serve as the official aircraft of Jiang Zemin, China's president, according to Chinese officials.
http://lkcn.net/bbs/lofiversion/index.php/t5393.htmlThe bugs, hidden in upholstery, were detected after the aircraft emitted a strange static whine during test flights in China in September, shortly after it was delivered. They were said to be tiny and operated by satellite. Military experts in Beijing said the devices were far more sophisticated than those available in retail outlets.
indranilroy wrote:^^^ I have mentioned about this many times in my last few posts. In fact there is mention of it just above your post.
It only proves my point that you can't hide something so easily to a trained eye. The plane had an established satellite communication links. All that was needed were really miniature microphones. But again they are special devices.
Kudos to the Chinese to inspect the plane thoroughly. If we inspect ours as well, we should be able to find any specialized hardware!
indranilroy wrote:Are you even reading what I wrote!
ashokpachori wrote: They (Americans) use tiny winy ultra modern bugs operated by satellites. Something they did to China several years ago
Ashok sir I am making an example of your post here. Please don't mind. This is not a personal attack. I just want to make a point about such posts.
What exactly did you add by this post?. Generic thoughts, perceptions, speculations which are not supported!
Give me a good reason why I shouldn't blast this post?! I implore to the posters to post substantiated thoughts which have some data points or can counter a data point based on facts.
Hmmm...
This is something that actually happened and is a world renowned incident. But it seems that it was away from your radar antenna!
Anyway.
More than 20 bugging devices have been discovered by Chinese intelligence officers in a Boeing 767 delivered from the US and due to serve as the official aircraft of Jiang Zemin, China's president, according to Chinese officials.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/888374/The bugs, hidden in upholstery, were detected after the aircraft emitted a strange static whine during test flights in China in September, shortly after it was delivered. They were said to be tiny and operated by satellite. Military experts in Beijing said the devices were far more sophisticated than those available in retail outlets.
Saik, controls are required irrespective of the country of origin; controls are something we need to have in place...paranoia and cold war mindset are a few things we need to get rid of!SaiK wrote:We must be really dumb to accept khan planes without any controls at all. BTW if that is the thought with our BRight minded people, then we are expecting this from any contract with total ba-booze value onlee. Question is not that is allowed (well it is babu freedom), but are we willing to allow such whimsical aspects in our security domain?
Raveen, you are absolutely right here. This seems discussion seems to be going round in circles.Raveen wrote:What we end up with is noise and circular discussions.
*facepalm*putnanja wrote:... MoD has to be quite strict with the Americans. Fudging numbers is nothing new for American companies, and there is nothing to suggest Boeing won't do likewise.
I join you indranilroy...this is futile indeed!indranilroy wrote:Raveen, you are absolutely right here. This seems discussion seems to be going round in circles.Raveen wrote:What we end up with is noise and circular discussions.
Very early in my posting days an oldie had advised me. Almost literally "Just say what you want to, don't try to change anybody's opinion. It doesn't happen even when faced with facts". I had respected his opinion so much then. Somehow, I had forgotten its value in the last few months.
If somebody says,
1. We shouldn't take the hassle of checking the planes we get. Just don't trust US. the EF/Rafale/Mig-35/Gripen are not made is US, hence we can trust that no regulatory software/hardware can't be planted - I will say, yes sir.
2. One can communicate from the satellite through the AESA - I will say, yes sir.
3. You say the antenna can be so miniaturized that the Indian Mil-Ind can't make it out on the PCB - I will say, yes sir.
4. And this miniaturized antenna (used generally in LOS/RFID kind of applications) can listen to satellite communication - I will say, yes sir.
I rest my case.
Putnanja ji, without dwelling into the personal motivations, I have one simple ask.putnanja wrote:Will the GoI sign the CISMOA with the US to get all the required communications equipment for the MRCA? In fact, the C130j negotitations for installing user supplied equipments would start soon, and that would decide how the equipment for MRCA would be decided.
The other issue is that of offsets. The Eurofighter consortium has said that they will take India on board as a partner. However, the way Lockheed martin is going ahead with its offset obligations for C-130J shows that the MoD has to be quite strict with the Americans. Fudging numbers is nothing new for American companies, and there is nothing to suggest Boeing won't do likewise. The EF consortium and Saab have shown willingness to share technology with India, something that the US companies haven't done, and have only said it will "be oblige be all contractual terms". And LM's recent fudging is a precursor to the US intentions.
Anyway, MRCA is a political decision, and it would most probably go to the US irrespective of the suitability of the aircraft to IAF's requirements. The only question is for what will that be quid pro quo. Is it for the earlier nuclear agreement or something different.
There are some who genuinely want the best for India, irrespective of origin. Some want to avoid US companies, given the US attitude post cold-war too. And then there are some for whom US interests are supreme(nothing wrong if they are US citizens) and want to India to accomodate US to the full extent possible even if it hurts Indian interests in the long term, for they have some soft corner for India, but not at the expense of US.
The Rafale/Mig-35/Gripen haven't had much success in their sales. It is easier to wrest more concessions from them as they are desperate for sales. EF too is ending up in the same boat with many countries reducing their orders. These companies are struggling to break even given the huge development costs.indranilroy wrote:Putnanja ji, without dwelling into the personal motivations, I have one simple ask.
What do you think the ToT for the EF/Rafale/Gripen/Mig-35 will be? Will they give us their engine tech? What about radars? What about avionics? Weapons? Any stealth design tech?
Albeit they will give us the production tech. What are we planning to do with that beyond the 126 (may be 200) planes that we build?
That is a very valid point. There is no denying that the US is more restrictive. but then what have we gained through these decades of license manufacturing? What have our allies given to us? So why would the MMRCA ToT be any different? Also What did France do to Argentina? What is it doing with us (with Scorpene/Safran)? What is Britain doing with the Hawks?putnanja wrote:The Rafale/Mig-35/Gripen haven't had much success in their sales. It is easier to wrest more concessions from them as they are desperate for sales. EF too is ending up in the same boat with many countries reducing their orders. These companies are struggling to break even given the huge development costs.indranilroy wrote:Putnanja ji, without dwelling into the personal motivations, I have one simple ask.
What do you think the ToT for the EF/Rafale/Gripen/Mig-35 will be? Will they give us their engine tech? What about radars? What about avionics? Weapons? Any stealth design tech?
Albeit they will give us the production tech. What are we planning to do with that beyond the 126 (may be 200) planes that we build?
For the Americans, most of their investments have already been recouped by the US orders itself. It will be much difficult to get major concessions out of them. Plus for major technologies, they still have to get go ahead from the DoS. The US doesn't share much of its advanced tech with allies like Japan, UK and Israel. Why will they offer it to India? Did you forget that US DoS refused permission to Boeing to help out with LCA testing less than a year back? That contract later went to the Europeans.
India hasn't aligned itself to anyone to call anyone its alliesindranilroy wrote:That is a very valid point. There is no denying that the US is more restrictive. but then what have we gained through these decades of license manufacturing? What have our allies given to us? So why would the MMRCA ToT be any different? Also What did France do to Argentina? What is it doing with us (with Scorpene/Safran)? What is Britain doing with the Hawks?
Also pricewise, there is a counter point.The Americans have recovered there development costs. With the Europeans we have to pay for it.(part of the reason why the EF/Rafale are so expensive).
but it is a very valid point that the desperations might be higher amongst the Europeans.
Anyway, the MoD has realized that the license manufacturing route hasn't got us anywhere, and hence the offsets policy. While giving a much bigger role to the private sector, if the offset policy is implemented properly, it will also allow these companies to improvise and help in our indigenization policy going forward. The Hawk issue has now been resolved, and the scorpene issue was a blunder by MoD to show upfront costs as less and negotiate other items separately. Regarding what France did to Argentina, I doubt Pakistan or China have similar clout with France/UK/Russia etc. 
Same Old Same Old
Tech Transfer Issues Could Hold Up Indian Fighter Buy
Dec 16, 2010
By Neelam Mathews
NEW DELHI
Evidence is Growing that the Downselect Decision for India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) May not be Announced Until the Fourth Quarter of 2011, with the HoldUp Centered on Terms for Technology Transfer.
India requires that any aircraft or weapons system introduced into service successfully clear all tests, trials and evaluations. All the MMRCA candidates have completed user trials, including weapons validations, technical and maintenance evaluations. They are currently being evaluated on their proposals for industrial offsets, with technology transfer next up. Only when this process produces a short list will their commercial offers be evaluated.
Technology transfer terms must be completed with the main contract, a defense official explained. India requires that licensed production of the aircraft, including engines, accessories, radars, systems and tooling, be covered by the tech transfer proposal. The ministry holds refusal rights on any specific item and suppliers must provide full life-cycle product support.
The MMRCA contract will provide for 126 aircraft and is the largest military procurement pending in India. It has drawn bids based on the MiG-35, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter, the Saab Gripen, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F and Lockheed Martin’s F-16.
Vendors, who were supposed to have their evaluations completed last April, have already been required to extend or revise their bids through next April because the selection process became bogged down. If the defense ministry is not able to complete its downselect process by then, vendors will have to resubmit their bids and another year’s delay will ensue.
That raises the prospect that swings in currency rates could significantly change the value of the bids, given that rates are determined not when bids are received but when the commercial evaluation begins.
Juggi G wrote:Same Old Same Old
The Never Ending Delays
Tech Transfer Issues Could Hold Up Indian Fighter Buy
Tech Transfer Issues Could Hold Up Indian Fighter Buy
Dec 16, 2010
By Neelam Mathews
NEW DELHI
Evidence is Growing that the Downselect Decision for India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) May not be Announced Until the Fourth Quarter of 2011, with the HoldUp Centered on Terms for Technology Transfer.
India requires that any aircraft or weapons system introduced into service successfully clear all tests, trials and evaluations. All the MMRCA candidates have completed user trials, including weapons validations, technical and maintenance evaluations. They are currently being evaluated on their proposals for industrial offsets, with technology transfer next up. Only when this process produces a short list will their commercial offers be evaluated.
Technology transfer terms must be completed with the main contract, a defense official explained. India requires that licensed production of the aircraft, including engines, accessories, radars, systems and tooling, be covered by the tech transfer proposal. The ministry holds refusal rights on any specific item and suppliers must provide full life-cycle product support.
The MMRCA contract will provide for 126 aircraft and is the largest military procurement pending in India. It has drawn bids based on the MiG-35, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter, the Saab Gripen, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F and Lockheed Martin’s F-16.
Vendors, who were supposed to have their evaluations completed last April, have already been required to extend or revise their bids through next April because the selection process became bogged down. If the defense ministry is not able to complete its downselect process by then, vendors will have to resubmit their bids and another year’s delay will ensue.
That raises the prospect that swings in currency rates could significantly change the value of the bids, given that rates are determined not when bids are received but when the commercial evaluation begins.
No, I said that the EF has no other A2G weapon except of LGB (which is a fact, not a claim!) and that restricts it from beeing a real multi role aircraft.Viv S wrote:
Now three questions here - you've claimed that since the Storm Shadow has not been integrated the EF is NOT truly multi-role and can only perform CAS. AFAIK no aircraft in the IAF inventory is equipped with a cruise missile for ground strike (Jags have the Harpoon though).
The German Luftwaffe is not integrating Storm Shadow, because they don't use it, they have Taurus and that's why I said that they will have to integrate it on their own and that's why they can delay the integration till Tornados are going to be phased out.Viv S wrote:That's the point isn't it. Have you read that the Luftwaffe is looking to shift integration of the Storm Shadow and Brimstone to the Tranche 3B or are you assuming it?
Strange, then why didn't the French reduced Rafale orders, or A400 like Britan and Germany did? Why did they agreed to buy 12 KC390 in the Brazilian competition?Viv S wrote:You do realise that France hasn't weathered the economic crisis much better than the UK, and its economic revival is no where as robust as Germany's (who's posted the best growth rates among the major developed economies). While while they aren't very eager to purchase new aircraft, the RAF and Luftwaffe are both committed to upgrade plans.
Again think logically please! The order T3 EFs was done in 2009, but the commitment to AESA was cleared (from the EF consortium companies) only this year during the Farnborough airshow and is only pre-funded, so how can the order cost a year ago include R&D costs that are not even cleared now?Viv S wrote:You're right about the Rafale being delivered in 2012 (interestingly with another 54 aircraft unordered, it puts the delivery schedule at par with the EF). The Tranche 3 order will include all the R&D costs for all upgrades including the AESA.
The important part should be this:Kartik wrote:[
The simple question is- where did Neelam Matthews explain WHAT technology transfer issues could delay the down-select? She wrote the headline as if there was some issue that had cropped up, whereas all one can infer from the article is that the technology transfer proposals were going to be evaluated before a down-select was carried out. The only new thing that comes out of this article is that they will also take into account technology transfer before going in for a down-select. Really, it seems like some of these news articles are being created just because they have news to fill in.
While the Russians and Europeans are ready to offer ToT of critical parts, like the radar, the US are still refusing it and the licence production of APG 79 AESA radar for example should be very unlikely. They might offer the assembly of the radars in India, but the radar will be produced in the US, which gets obvious also through the wikileaks about Boeings offer to produce parts for all F18SH. They get some airframe parts, like the wings, or tain fins, but key parts like radar, avionics will not be shared and that's even what the F35 partners are complaining about too.Technology transfer terms must be completed with the main contract, a defense official explained. India requires that licensed production of the aircraft, including engines, accessories, radars, systems and tooling, be covered by the tech transfer proposal.
The biggest problem is money!SaiK wrote:It has been quite years (2-3 years?) since Mig 35 started flying. Given established tech base in Russia, it should have been easier for them to do these -
1. Increased the composite content Mig 35 to 70% or greater.
2. Improved AESA radar or perhaps offer to integrate Israeli ones.
3. Engine - change to have Saturn AL version - high thrust to weight and reduced emission on a 117 variant, with a future support to change to Kaveri variant.
4. Weapons integration support for extending to Metor, Pythons and home grown.
5. Perhaps have the pak-fa inlet technology transferred from sukhoi for reduced RCS.
This puppy would win if all these were done.
The Saint running the show at MOD is clearly unable to get things done.Juggi G wrote:IAF’s MMRCA Tender Stuck in Offset Limbo
StratPost
I would not worry too much Karan. It is not advisable to believe anything that Stratpost says. IIRC, it is one of the forbidden sources on BRF.Karan M wrote:The Saint running the show at MOD is clearly unable to get things done.Juggi G wrote:IAF’s MMRCA Tender Stuck in Offset Limbo
StratPost
Please follow and continue this discussion on the LCA thread to avoid side tracking form the thread.V_Raman wrote:we keep talking about LCA Mk-1 orders. i dont know if we have the capacity to produce them if ordered as suggested here in the timeframe we would need them.