[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

You've pretty much taken the words out of my mouth. I have reservations about a totally new domestic vendor being given a complex clean sheet initiative like this (wasn't there the sobering story of Anil Ambani's own defence outfit really screwing the pooch on some naval contract? I feel like an Adani involvement here would be highly dubious to say the least). Even if it were a domestic vendor with a track record in the military space (Tata Defence, Mahindra, or one of the PSUs), I concur, the MQ-9 is proven and it's available and widely tested. Crucially it's already compatible with many of the systems and subsystems on the IN's P-8I fleet. Should the Super Hornet be selected I wonder if the case to revisit a MQ-9 order gets stronger.

Yes, it was the contract for minesweepers IIRC before Anil Ambani went bust. The Indian Navy is tragically left with no minesweepers right now.

Anyway, based on this article, MQ-9s might still be inducted but in reduced numbers with a committee being formed under a third star general to decide on the revised numbers. However, my eyes popped when I saw the $4.5 billion price tag for the 30 units (earlier reports indicated $3 billion). I understand that it includes infrastructure, training etc. but that amount is probably enough to induct atleast 2 more squadrons of the Rafale or build 4 more Visakhapatnam class destroyers. I'm sure there is a mistake here because this sounds preposterous.

I tried freeze framing and I couldn't quite discern just how much stores were on the test airframe other than the two large drop tanks.

In this frame of the arrestor wire test, missiles are visible on the wingtips (sidewinder?) and under the wing but unsure what kind.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

In this frame of the arrestor wire test, missiles are visible on the wingtips (sidewinder?) and under the wing but unsure what kind.

Attachment 2336638

Clearer photo (courtesy Twitter)

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Clearer photo (courtesy Twitter)

2 X AIM-9X
2 X GBU-12 500-lb bombs( blue indicates dummy training round)
2 X AIM-120

Interestingly, the Super Hornet is from VFA-25 "Fist of the Fleet'" which was the U.S. Navy's first Legacy Hornet squadron.

The two Super Hornets that arrived in India were flown via Lajes to INS Hansa. The fighters were accompanied by Omega Air DC-10-40 N974VV. The following Super Hornets were used for the tests in Goa:

F/A-18E BuNo 165863/NH-411 of VFA-25 "Fist of the Fleet"
F/A-18E BuNo 165861/AD-103 of VFA-106 "Gladiators"

[.sushilkumar]

Amateur's question.

Will US allow us integration of Meteor / Astra BVR / R77 with FA18 should we choose to go with it. Looking at few articles, It involves sharing of source code etc for mission computer. I suspect US will ever share the source code.

Astra IMO is the future of IAF and Navy alike.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by .sushilkumar

Amateur's question.

Will US allow us integration of Meteor / Astra BVR / R77 with FA18 should we choose to go with it. Looking at few articles, It involves sharing of source code etc for mission computer. I suspect US will ever share the source code.

Astra IMO is the future of IAF and Navy alike.

Based on the info from a couple of articles, it indeed seems like the Americans are ready to share the source code. It would probably be impossible to integrate the R77 but there is a possibility that the Meteor and Astra can be integrated. It's likely that the integration of indigenous missile systems are pre-requisites of the contract itself and given that the F/A-18 isn't as state-of-the-art as say the F35, the Americans will probably be more comfortable sharing the course code.

According to many defense forums/blogs, the version of the Rafale M offered to the Indian Navy will have upto 95% commonality with the version operated by the Air Force. That will end up being the biggest factor for the winds to blow in the direction of the Rafale than the source code (IMHO) since the scope offered by Dassault and Boeing should be similar. It all depends on how the pricing works out - if the CAPEX and long-term OPEX of the F/A-18 is cheap enough to offset Dassault's cost-savings by sharing equipment with the Air Force, only a detailed feasibility study can answer this.

[Gansan]

^^ If they are exempting us from CAATSA, some carrots will have to be offered in return.

[aim120]

Americans will not share any source code, not going to happen.
I have talked with F18 pilots in aeroindia. They said a US "black box" can be a challenge in MFRA competition.

This was even before russia-ukraine conflict. So now for India to get a source code, just think of the things we must give up.

So the source code, F35 and leasing of the US nuclear submarine are all pipe dreams.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by aim120

Americans will not share any source code, not going to happen. I have talked with F18 pilots in aeroindia. They said a US "black box" can be a challenge in MFRA competition. This was even before russia-ukraine conflict. So now for India to get a source code, just think of the things we must give up. So the source code, F35 and leasing of the US nuclear submarine are all pipe dreams.

All of us here including you & me try to assess and predict on the basis of snippets of information. The F-18 pilots you spoke to are not decision makers or influencers. What else would one expect them to say? The MoD and MEA play on a wider canvas of options and time horizons. I would not say 'no this will never happen' to most possibilities in the defence arena. We can only wait and watch what unfolds in a decade. Any way we are all flying blind. On the nuclear submarine lease lets reconvene on the subject in 3 years time.

[dragracer567]

It also depends on how many strings you can pull as a country.

Saudi Arabia uses US-supplied fighter jets to bomb Yemeni civilians with impunity which has garnered them a bad repo with both parties in Congress. However, there's been nothing they could do about it (even if there were a blackbox) because the administrations (from either party) is forced to be pragmatic.

India in contrast has a very strong bipartisan support base enjoyed by very few non-Western countries, a far stronger pro-India lobby, high support among the general public (India is one the countries viewed most favorably by the US public) and being a democracy generally has a better human right record than Saudi Arabia & other non-Western US allies. This is not even taking into account the economic aspects, diaspora effect, China factor etc.

IMHO we should stop viewing US-India relations through the lens of the erstwhile US-Pakistan relations because the latter post-2001 was toxic where neither side trusted each other while their respective general public absolutely hated each other.

[ads11]

On the source code front, generally speaking the US is loathe to share access to it, and even if the Pentagon wanted to, there's the manufacturer too that wants to keep those cards close to their chest. In terms of their cutting edge F-35, only Israel managed to finagle their way into getting access to the source code, much to the irritation of close US allies (I mean the Brits have been part of the JSF from the beginning, they were incredulous they weren't offered access).
Speaking of the F35, conventional wisdom suggests it's highly unlikely India could field it. Same with leasing any US submarine or US submarine tech, prevailing wisdom suggests it won't happen.
But these are extremely changeable times geopolitically. Lots of long standing rules are being unwritten (eg, middle Eastern Arab states rapprochement with Israel would've been nigh on unbelievable till only 5 years ago). While the possibilities are slim, given how fluid the geopolitical arena is, it could just happen.

Going back to the Super Hornet and Rafale, what I want to see is how they fit on the deck of the Vikrant and it's elevators. They must've tested that at INS Hands?

On another note, the FC-31, now strangely dubbed the J-35 in a not so subtle nod to the F35C has been spotted in a much more detailed configuration. It's easy to imagine the PLAN testing the platform on one of its carriers in the next year or two at the pace they're going.

[thanixravindran]

Read few days ago about fire accident in INS Vikramaditya. Does it mean it will go for long refit much earlier before INS Vikrant joins the service?

[ads11]

Originally Posted by thanixravindran

Read few days ago about fire accident in INS Vikramaditya. Does it mean it will go for long refit much earlier before INS Vikrant joins the service?

Considering the fact it's due for a long refit next year anyway (see below), if the damage is severe enough you could very well see the ship enter refit earlier than planned. Would be less than ideal given INS Vikrant won't be fully up to speed so likely there'll be a gap in carrier availability in that case.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

To best of my knowledge the last refit was completed in 2018. So by 2023 it will be time for a long refit.

Looking at the reports, including the tweet from the IN spokesman, doesn't seem to be a major incident but I guess given how recent it is, they'll still be working out the extent of the damage. Above all the only bright side is no casualties.

[Jeroen]

This might be semantics, I don’t think the USA military would share source code, ever.

There is simply no need for the source code either. You can perfectly integrated all kinds of other systems without the source code.

What you need is access and details of the various interfaces. You might be able to set certain parameters in the source code too. But as soon as you touch the source code. All bets are off.

For all sorts of reasons you don’t want to mess with the source code. You could alter the flight characteristics! In fact, on most of the American export military kit, the capabilities of whatever you are buying tend to be slightly less then wat the American version does. E.g. all non USA F16s have slightly downgraded capabilities compared to US F16s.

Jeroen

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

In fact, on most of the American export military kit, the capabilities of whatever you are buying tend to be slightly less then wat the American version does. E.g. all non USA F16s have slightly downgraded capabilities compared to US F16s.

Jeroen

I am assuming you meant F16s of the same variant because the newer and most advanced variants of the F16 like the Block 60s (operated by the UAE) and the Block 70s (ordered by Taiwan, Slovakia and Bahrain) were never operated (or meant to be operated) by the US as they gradually replace their F16s with F35s.

And read the same somewhere about the Russian Mig-23s and Mig-29s sold in the 80s as well. But I'm quite curious in what way an F16 (same variant) of a closer NATO ally like Belgium, Netherlands or Denmark would be different from an American F16. Something subtle like EW capabilities or something more obvious like downgraded missiles & flight envelope limitations?

I gather that the Israelis (and India to some extent with Russian equipment) get around this by integrating their own sub-systems.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I am assuming you meant F16s of the same variant.

Yes, correct.
The difference can be subtle/small in many different systems. But certainly on the flight characteristics and in particular the edges of the flight envelope. Certain interaction between different systems etc. I am not sure how much of a factor it is in real life. But of course during combat small differences could give you the edge.

A family member of mine used to be the chief engineer on the Raytheon Sentinel, when that was developed. Most of what he did was classified obviously. So we could never discuss anything in too much detail. But these sort of planes are a huge collection of endless number of different systems that get integrated. Not by exchanging source code, but just at an interface level.

It is estimated that on an average plane you will find between 50 - 100 million lines of source codes across the various systems. You really don’t want to be messing with those! Stick to interface integration.

Jeroen