What's new

If the F/A 18 Super Hornet Wins the MMRCA

i got a question ...will there be a full transfer software source codes so that we can program the radar according to our requirments????:what:

NO.

Till now only SAAB(Gripen) have agreed to transfer the source codes for the radar and not any other country (no idea about Russia).
 
NO.

Till now only SAAB(Gripen) have agreed to transfer the source codes for the radar and not any other country (no idea about Russia).

Not correct, actually it seems that all vendors except the US now offers radar source codes with Dassault beeing the first that offered this.

Edit:

France clears technology transfer for Rafale fighter: Dassault
Mittwoch, 5. November 2008


...Transfer of technology is a key clause in the Defence Policy-2006 (DPP-2006) that governs India’s purchases of military hardware. Two other companies in the fray - Boeing and European conglomerate Eurofighter - are also offering an AESA radar with their F/A-18 Super Hornet and Typhoon respectively but say the transfer of this technology would be dependent to the extent the American government permits as the radar’s manufacturer is US electronics giant Raytheon.

At least one of these two companies has said they would definitely not transfer the software source code that enables the programming of the radar. What this means is that the IAF would have to specify the mission parameters to enable the manufacturer configure the radar.

Defence analysts point out that this could seriously compromise India’s national security as the IAF would not be able to re-programme the radar should it wish to at a later stage.

“This is not an issue with us. We will not only fully transfer the technology for the AESA radar but also provide the software source code so that that the IAF can programme it in the way it wishes to,” Chabriol told IANS in response to a specific query...

France clears technology transfer for Rafale fighter: Dassault
 
Last edited:
since you will be ordering close to 200+ SuperHornets you guys could Also opt for Boing Sixth Generation Fighter.....:sniper:
 
Not correct, actually it seems that all vendors except the US now offers radar source codes with Dassault beeing the first that offered this.

Can you explain what this radar source codes mean, and what ability do we gain reprogramming the radar. What I want to know is that why US or any one would deny the software codes, as even knowing the codes, we cannot copy the radar (hardware) itself.
 
Buddy...don't get me wrong here...If you had read the whole post then in the first line i have expressed my dislikes to go for F-18...But since we are talking hypothetically then let me ask why would f-18 win the contest on mere techs??? There has to be a political angle if f-18 comes out to be winner...Mind it by no means i am challenging the tech of F-18 but then F-18 comes with a package which we will not like unless and until that package is sweeten up by some political goodies, no???? So if you look from that angle then mind it there is a possibility that F-18 being a winner is not going to be good news for PAF F-16's number

Apologies for the late reply, was researching something and i found your post unanswered.

The reason why i believe the SH would be the winner because it serves IAF's doctrine perfect and offers the most superior and mature technology. It has an operational AESA radar which other than the F16 none of the contenders offer. Most importantly it has excellent A2G capabilities, this is something the IAF desperately wants, a "Real Ground Pounder". In addition IAF also acquires the American weapons package which is simply the best in the world. AMRAAMS, AIM9X, JDAMS, LGBS cued with JHMCS makes it such a lethal airplane, none of the competitors i believe can field an HMS as advanced as the JHMCS. Any airplane winning this competition is bad news for the PAF regardless, IAF is raising the bar and thank God PAF has woken up finally.

For more pros and cons about MRCA contenders, please follow DBC's and Sanchos debate because obviously they are much more knowledgable than me. They both occasionally take jabs at each other :lol: which makes the debate much more entertaining :lol:, but i am sure at the end of the day they respect each other.

Sancho i have lot of respect for your knowledge however please think that why would PAF go for anymore F-16's if J10Bs are more advanced then F16 B52s especially when China will be more then happy to provide them the fighter??? As said they already have a plan for buying these birds and that too in significant number with first 35 expected to arrive by 2015......Now please suggest why would PAF would like to go for F-16's instead of a more potent fighter in the name of J-10Bs which is virtually sanction free??? Is it the time frame or is it the avionics or is it that F016 Block 52 as a package is better then J-10Bs.....

The infrastructure to support the F16's already exist and that is why PAF wants to raise the numbers. Initially PAF wanted to buy at least 100 brand new Block 52's; but after analyzing J10's, they were so impressed that they decided to reduce the numbers. The 18 brand new Block 52's were more like shoved down our throats; they were a pre requisite to buy AMRAAMS, AIM9M, JDAMS and the MLU package. Besides additional F16's are more likely going to be acquired through EDA stocks, USN are going to be releasing the 14 F16's that were embargoed which are in excellent condition and USAF will start to retire their F16's in a year or two i believe. Put these F16's through the MLU Tape 4 package and they come out almost as good as new, i believe PAF wants to increase the numbers to at least a 100 in the next five years. As far as J10B is concerned, i am going to quote Jabar1 an ex PAF pilot and the son of Muradk.

Our pilots have flown J-10 my course mate has flown 50 missions he is a graduate from USAFTPP
( United States Air Force Test Pilot Program )and has flown almost every fighter we have ever thought of buying and when I asked him he said its a cross between Rafale and F-16 but more powerful. Thats a strong statement its TPR is very high, It has more Hard points and very good for long range, Air-to-Air Air and Air-to-Ground both are very impressive So you could say that with our choice of Avionics and weapons J-10 is a BadAss fighter equal to J-11 in many ways.
 
What ? Is boeing building 6th generation fighter ?

Boeing Plans Sixth Generation Fighter With Block 3 Super Hornet

Jan 30, 2008




David A. Fulghum/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Boeing is touting an even newer version of its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that, paired with an advanced sixth-generation fighter in the works at the company, would give customers what Boeing deems a better package of capabilities than Lockheed Martin's combination of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The idea is that customers could buy 4.5 generation Super Hornets (perhaps 4.75 generation with the planned extra forward stealth and extra range of Block 3 aircraft) and then switch to a new, sixth generation faster than if they bought the fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter. To be available circa 2024, the sixth generation aircraft would feature a combat radius of more than 1,000 miles and stealth against a much wider spectrum of radars.

"The [Navy] C-version of the F-35 doesn't buy you a lot that the Super Hornet doesn't provide," says Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for F/A-18 and EA-18G programs. "Our strategy is to create a compelling reason for the services to go to the next [sixth] generation platform. How do you bridge F/A-18E/F to get us there? We want to convince customers to stay with [Super Hornet] a few years longer -- by adding advanced capabilities and lowering price -- so that they can get to the sixth generation faster. If you go to JSF first, it's going to be a long time."

Another part of Boeing's argument is that the "Navy is comfortable with the Super Hornet against the highest [enemy] threat through 2024, with the [improved] capabilities we have in the flight plan," Gower says. "The ability to counter the threat gets you to about the point that [Boeing's] sixth generation is available."

It's part of Boeing's counterattack on Lockheed Martin's claim that the decreasing price of the F-22, which is now at $140 million each, will make it so attractive that Australia may reconsider its buy -- already being paid for -- of 24 two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets. Until Australia's recent change in government, a number of U.S. officials said the government was considering a second lot of 24 Super Hornets and a six-plane squadron of EA-18G Growlers.

Boeing makes the argument that a sliding in-service date for the JSF is worrying both the Australians and the U.S. military.

"The U.S. Air Force and Navy are now talking a lot more about where they need to go with sixth generation to get beyond JSF," Gower says. "It could be unmanned, but I think you will see a combination of missions -- some manned, some unmanned."

For Boeing, the real discriminators are going to be extended range (1,000-1,500 miles), a small radar signature against low-frequency radars, expanded awareness through connections with the network, and the ability to carry a number of bombs internally.
 
List of USA equipment on order or on the table all ready

Trenton troop ship delivered
Fire locating radars delivered
C130J delivering ready
P8 POSIDEON MARTIME patrol planes ordered $2 billion
C17 GLOBEMASTERS on table $3.5 billion
F18 Super hornets on table $10 billion

orders are approaching $20 billion thats huge
 
List of USA equipment on order or on the table all ready

Trenton troop ship delivered
Fire locating radars delivered
C130J delivering ready
P8 POSIDEON MARTIME patrol planes ordered $2 billion
C17 GLOBEMASTERS on table $3.5 billion
F18 Super hornets on table $10 billion

orders are approaching $20 billion thats huge

You missed the GE414 engine, M777 etc. There are other things on the table.
 
Can you explain what this radar source codes mean, and what ability do we gain reprogramming the radar. What I want to know is that why US or any one would deny the software codes, as even knowing the codes, we cannot copy the radar (hardware) itself.


With the source code you can read and understand the whole program of any device (for which you have the source code). And in this case, you can use it, when you have your type of indegnuous hardware. If you know the readable program, that gives command to hardware through software language, its even easy to design the device than otherwise.

Suppose Indians have some add ons on any given device that they want to improve, they could not have done without reading the program (source code).

Source code is the only format that is readable by humans. When you purchase programs, you usually receive them in their machine-language format. This means that you can execute them directly, but you cannot read or modify them.
 
Can you explain what this radar source codes mean, and what ability do we gain reprogramming the radar. What I want to know is that why US or any one would deny the software codes, as even knowing the codes, we cannot copy the radar (hardware) itself.


But it gives us access to the radar technology and just like the US will limit the ToT of critical parts, they won't allow us the access to.
So what makes them important, wiki sums it up quit good:

Without the software source codes, the IAF would have to specify mission parameters to foreign manufacturers to enable configuration of their radar, seriously compromising security in the process.

Which means, if IAF is planing a strike mission with parameters that wasn't initially programmed, they had to ask the radar manufacturer first, to get these changes. That makes IAF dependent on them and depending on the politics of that country (wonder what the US says if IAF want to do a preemptive strike on a terrorist camp in Pakistan and need the radar changes, would they allow it?), maybe even not able to do their work.

LT. Prateek pointed it out well too:

Regarding the mode of radar operations ,
Every country's requirement of operation differs from US .
A f16/f18 radar or RWR will be calibrated according to say Texas or Langley air-base trials . APG79 might be programmed to reject an object at xxxx altitude and will have a ground-clutter mapping of say Colorado . But when it arrives in india it will have to be re programed to reject a xxxx+500 m altitude object and will need clutter map of say Gwalior air-base . Further jets will not be stationary at one air-base , its the policy of InAF to keep rotating the jets btw bases . F16 might not be configured for air-sea mapping or operation while InAF may just want to use them from Andman islands
Everytime systems need to be reconfigured .

- Who would do this ??? Will LM officials be called in everytime even at some sensitive air-force base to perform each recalibration . Or would US hand over those lines of codes that control mode of radar operation .
In addition I have my own concerns regarding that EUMA , until US hands over those API/codes only god knows what runs alongside those codes , and how much sensitive information can be extracted by access to those equipments on-board
 
What does this configuration exactly means for dummies like us.
 
But it gives us access to the radar technology and just like the US will limit the ToT of critical parts, they won't allow us the access to.

I don't remember when or where, I read in some post of DBC that that much ability (or required codes) are provided, such that programming required for the mission can be done.
 
List of USA equipment on order or on the table all ready

Trenton troop ship delivered
Fire locating radars delivered
C130J delivering ready
P8 POSIDEON MARTIME patrol planes ordered $2 billion
C17 GLOBEMASTERS on table $3.5 billion
F18 Super hornets on table $10 billion

orders are approaching $20 billion thats huge


Everything looks cool... but US now selling things to China ... all now lies in our ability and we will hold them.... F18 is good but Rafael or EF is better ... US doesnt know what to do now... and Mr Obama has been different to India from day 1 as he always thinks only about Anti India... At least for him we should not end up buying F18
 
arre yaar close this thread..
i have found nothing interesting and knowledgeable in this thread.

its all now political decision now. so wait for the decision.
 
But it gives us access to the radar technology and just like the US will limit the ToT of critical parts, they won't allow us the access to.
So what makes them important, wiki sums it up quit good:



Which means, if IAF is planing a strike mission with parameters that wasn't initially programmed, they had to ask the radar manufacturer first, to get these changes. That makes IAF dependent on them and depending on the politics of that country (wonder what the US says if IAF want to do a preemptive strike on a terrorist camp in Pakistan and need the radar changes, would they allow it?), maybe even not able to do their work.

LT. Prateek pointed it out well too:

This is ridiculous, radar programming is immensely complex it requires billions of dollars of research and a large team of experts. For instance, Hung Nguyen one member of a large team of programmers that worked on the APG-79 has a Ph.D in Mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley. You expect to hire a team of Doctorates for every F-18 deployment base just to bomb alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan. :no:

The APG-79 operating in SAR-4 mode can uniquely identify, isolate and target a specific aircraft from a group of identical aircrafts lined up on the tarmac. The same is true for any mobile or stationary object or structures in close proximity in a complex target environment - no programming or source code required - ever!!
 
Back
Top Bottom