Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions [Thread 2]

[cerberus]

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104506/f-22-raptor.aspx

Raptor F-22 cost 143 million.
Rafale price too high. Every country wants to fleece gullible Indians.

F-22 Operation Cost is close to 678 $ Million according to its Own Senate Report

 

[Tameem]

@PARIKRAMA
Since last couple of weeks and before starts of this Holland visits you are propagating on this very forum that the eventual deal will be little more than $100 million dollar per Aircraft ($110 Million at best) including all costs and that too from your super duper accurate sources......what would you say now on your sources? hannahh?
or we will guess out by ourselves about you and your sources Rightly!!

 

[Spectre]

I like the Rafales, It's a great platform, but yes the french are completely taking India for a ride with this.

This Product life cycle cost estimates submitted by mfg and evaluated by IAF has no relevance at all. A product's life cycle cost in france is very different from it's life cycle cost in India. and IAF by no means has the expertise or the experience to evaluate life cycle costs.

I have long said, that we should have gotten out of the MMRCA and just focused on additional MKI's and maybe bought two to three squadrons of Mig35 or even the Mig29K which really are the true successors to the Mig29M.
But this issue i think was complicated by lack of confidence on the PMF FGFA.

The costs presented almost makes me think, f18SH could have been a good choice for the MMRCA..

Cost is not the only factor. Following needs to be considered as well

1. Most accomplished of 4.5 Gen fighters and cheaper than EFT
2. IAF's preference considering positive experiences with Mirages
3. Coupling with other off the books stuff.
4. French goods are usually sanction proof
5. Off-sets and commonality with Rafales.
6. Damage to Indo-French ties if we back out.
7. Shornets will have strings attached. Russians are unreliable. EFT was too expensive. Gripen and F-16 didn't meet the criteria.

It would be fool-hardy to think that the arguments presented by you haven't already been had among the DM and IAF. The fact that both the UPA and NDA are going ahead with Rafales gives us a clue regarding the strategic and tactical benefits this deal bring us.

Regards

 

[Malik Alashter]

Waste?
How exactly?
Are you doubting rafale capabilities?

It's not about doubting or any.

See , India is a nuke state means no war on the door also with just the mki India's air force is one of the strongest in the east of asia.

with these money you can develop a match fighter to the rafale just like the Chinese they keep improving locally their flanker.

Plus with some of these money you can help improve your infrastructures to a better level.

 

[MilSpec]

Cost is not the only factor. Following needs to be considered as well

1. Most accomplished of 4.5 Gen fighters and cheaper than EFT
2. IAF's preference considering positive experiences with Mirages
3. Coupling with other off the books stuff.
4. French goods are usually sanction proof
5. Off-sets and commonality with Rafales.
6. Damage to Indo-French ties if we back out.
7. Shornets will have strings attached. Russians are unreliable. EFT was too expensive. Gripen and F-16 didn't meet the criteria.

It would be fool-hardy to think that the arguments presented by you haven't already been had among the DM and IAF. The fact that both the UPA and NDA are going ahead with Rafales gives us a clue regarding the strategic and tactical benefits this deal bring us.

Regards

There cannot be any substantial objective debate on MMMRCA- Rafale period. The simple fact remains that there isn't enough information available on the subject.

Objective
The objective of mmmrca project (not the original mrca - mig29mki vs mirage 2000-5) was a three pronged strategy.
1> To get a platform that satisfies minimum operational requirements of forces (multi role, aerodynamic performance, detection range, BVR probability, radar resolution and noise, SPS, Sortie rate Engine turnaround time).
2> To obtain comprehensive technology transfer with material to product capability within the Indian manufacturing sense.
3> To select a platform which has the optimal lifecycle cost to performance (both flying and service)


Let me disagree with supposed experts fielded in the Indian defense circles by saying all three objectives are ambiguous, amateurish and unrealistic. The reason being objectives need to be "S.M.A.R.T" - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and with a given Time .

Lets look at inherent issues with these objectives:

Minimum operational conformance:
All 6 aircraft went through field trials, from minimum requirements and availability Mig35 was a given deletion as the aircraft did not exist, and gripen deemed not mature enough. There is no transparency why these decisions were taken, Mig 35 was exactly as real as the Su30MKI was when decided to procure, high altitude trials was also an issue for the mig 35 which was a real ding, but still wont be a deal breaker as I am privy to information that it was an easy fix but not allowed by the evaluation committee. It was a russian mistake and a comedy of errors for which russian ground staff was to be blamed, same happened for hot weather trials for the F/A18 SH. From the complete package perspective except the Mig35 Zhuk AESA, F/A 18Sh and F16 IN none of the aircraft's fielded had an operational aesa radar so could be argued as grounds for disqualification, but were given a lifeline. But no such considerations were done for the Mig35 or the F/A 18 SH engine issue. (even though both the test aircraft's had different engines than were offered on the package). why?

Comprehensive technology transfer:
It is laughable that evaluation of technology transfer was done by the Indian Air Force and Ministry of defense, Which has zero knowledge of the matter. The most experienced entity in the country for technology transfer, HAL was never consulted for scope of technology transfer. Even Tata or Mahindra has comprehensive knowledge of technology transfer paradigms like Vave, PED, PG1-3, etc, when has Airforce done any tech transfer to evaluate the efficacy of the bids and their ToT offer. In a bid I can claim to share Design data, and with-hold any of the following like material properties, or standard part designation or DFMEA data, of level of detail, or drawing standard mismatchs, or comprehensive Jigs and Fixture setup process as undefined in the bid and the evaluation team wouldn't know.

The air chiefs of stratpost were having a field day taking digs at HAL, completely disregarding the fact that Material to product transformation transfer has never occurred except probably in the case of Mig21 in the history of modern aviation. Looking at what fokker or samsung or mitsubishi has done with F16 Subsystems, it is astounding what HAL has achieved in the same paradigm. But which Air chief marshal or Blogger would know that, when they can barely differentiate between a mill and a lathe.

Life Cycle Costs:

No verifiable data exists for lifecycle cost any of the aircrafts for the MMRCA. the simple fact remains is that US lifecycle costs of F16 CANNOT be applied to India. A Mil std rivet cutter costs $52 in US, the same costs $162 in India. Same applies to theAircraft grade Aluminium stampings, Steel billets, Titanium alloy, hardened bearing, so on and so forth. Also there is no transparency in the lifecycle costs submitted to the Airforce, especially for an aircraft like Mig35 which never existed in the first place. How did Airforce evaluate EFT and Rafale's cost when their respective radar and some of the key munitions did not exist in production? This raises a very big question in authenticity of the evaluation of Life cycle cost. Apart from that when did Air force become credible in evaluation life-cycle costs of capital equipment? I am extremely fascinated with the comparison with Mig29 debate when it comes to life cycle cost, especially when Indian airforce has done nothing to reduce it. Mig29's are a direct purchase from Russia, and maintenance was done by Base repair depot. The actual reason of serviceability of mig 29 is not the aircraft itself but gross incompetence of BRD's to maintain required spares and extremely poor skill level of BRD technicians. As a matter of fact if HAL nasik division stops supporting 11 BRD, it will close doors the next day, this is the real reason why Mig29 faced serviceability issues and in all reality the post UPG program all maintenance and overhaul will transfer to HAL.


We like to keep taking potshots at the LCA program and now I have started hearing this new turkey gobble that Funds have never been the issue, which is complete horse $hit. Revenue budget for ADA and HAL has been extremely poor, i wouldn't go into role of HAL in LCA program, as I have roared on and on about it in the past. But IAF and especially by the Ministry of Dufus have deliberately stifled the revenue budget for LCA program which hasn't allowed HAL or the ADA to hire the required numbers of engineers and technicians for all the phases of the LCA program. You do not provide any resources to the Indian agencies, and post useless retired airforce and army personnel to positions in manufacturing who cant read a simple drawing and then expect them to manage and expedite a manufacturing project with more than a million part assembly. What else can be expected from the program then.


regards

 

[cirr]

Indians on their knees begging the French for a few pieces of expensive yet obsolete flying machines

 

[ashok321]

F-22 Operation Cost is close to 678 $ Million according to its Own Senate Report

Trust the source, or produce your own.

 

[cerberus]

Trust the source, or produce your own.

http://www.wired.com/2011/12/f-22-real-cost/

 

[ashok321]

http://www.wired.com/2011/12/f-22-real-cost/

It says 137 million "flyaway cost"
Exactly the same way India wants its Rafales in "flyaway" conditions.

Why should India pay unit cost of Rafale which would be sold to other nations besides Franch Air force & Navy.
No production is involved here.

 

[cerberus]

It says 137 million "flyaway cost"
Exactly the same way India wants its Rafales in "flyaway" conditions.

Why should India pay unit cost of Rafale which would be sold to other nations besides Franch Air force & Navy.
No production is involved here.

did you read the Full report F-35
here is United States Government Accountability Office report Like CAG of india in 2010
Congressional Committees
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10382.pdf

here is for f-22
When Gates decided this spring to spend $785 million on four more planes and then end production of the F-22, he also kept alive an $8 billion improvement effort. It will, among other things, give F-22 pilots the ability to communicate with other types of warplanes; it currently is the only such warplane to lack that capability.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03020_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009071001019

As little as $137 million per jet and as much as $678 million, depending on how and what you count.
The thing is, the best way of calculating the F-22’s cost may be the most abstract. But any way you crunch the numbers, the world’s best dogfighter has also been one of the most expensive operational warplanes ever.

the Price you quoting is For Unit Production there amount available in its operational cost Over the years, the Raptor’s cost has been the subject of intense debate in the Pentagon, the White House, Congress and the media. But advocates and critics tend to quote different figures to serve their various agendas. Fans of the twin-engine fighter usually refer to the “flyaway cost” — that is, how much Lockheed charged the government to piece together each Raptor after all development has been paid for. In other words, just construction spending.

Haters cite “unit cost,” which includes development and production spending divided by the number of jets built. F-22 production and development, including currently approved upgrades, totals $74 billion, resulting in a unit cost of $377 million.
and that is only Unit Cost excluding other Packages

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Cross Posting from another forum keypub
@halloweene Fresh news from Dassault : issue is not about price, but financial building
As i said before contract will be signed and money released march end or april max

and here from another forum ID
Credit to CNL
"
4 weeks ago, discussions were on 36 Rafales F3-OT4 provided by France and more than XXX F3-R assembled in India.
Since then, things have changed about numbers and versions.
Today numbers, versions and price are finalized. The question to discuss before the final contract is signed is financing."

+++++++++++++
Anybody can say i am a fool and my sources are foolish.. True i cannot be right every time. In last year i had said when i had the financial report for Make in India project in India for 189 Rafales out of which certain details i had said including the productivity range..
The same OEMs have indicated that a french Rafale like Rafale B: Euro 74 million and Rafale C Euro 68.8 Mn or Rafale M Euro 79Mn all flyaway costs (at 2013 senate committee report) includes the 20% VAT charged which is not applicable for Export Customers.

Implying without VAT the flyaway costs is
Rafale B: Euro 61.67 Mn
Rafale C: Euro 57.33 Mn
Rafale M: Euro 65.83 Mn

Thats the actual price of the flyaway Rafale

In its own way even if India buys the Rafale at the same price as French AF, the price will be looked at devoid of VAT angle.

Thus the question to ask or wonder is what else is there in the deal. In broad contour terms other than the complete TCO package (Total Cost of Ownership) the simpler terms includes
Firstly upgrades, infrastructure, logistical support or training
Secondly Weapons
Thirdly a financial guarantee of availability at 90% all the time and associated spares and services for 5/10/15 years
etc etc

Thus the question of these terms in terms of price will add on to the above price + the offsets.


Rest i will wait now for some more information on public domain as i believe there seems to be a feeling that i am quoting here all garbage especially from sources and OEMs.

 

[cerberus]

French President Francois Hollande added that “ome financial issues remain that will be sorted out in the next coming days.” As I reported previously:

The current contract under negotiation includes an offset clause which stipulated that France will have to invest 50 percent of the contract value as offsets in India. The costs for the 36 Rafale fighters – excluding the maintenance contract and the weapons suite – are estimated at around $4.5 billion.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/french-aircraft-maker-expects-9-billion-rafale-deal-to-be-signed-within-a-month/

 

[Abingdonboy]

Anyone thinking that thw two leaders of two democracies sign a IGA without a firm commitment of all outstanding issues being rectified iminently is just being intentionally stupid.

Does anyone actually think there is a way back now? Can you imagine the amount of poltical capital both leaders have placed in this deal and the blowback they would get if the deal suddenyl collapsed. Hollande is already facing serious heat at home for a lack of economic vision and the stagnation of the French economy. I'm sorry, watched the joint press conference and the amount of references made to the Rafale make it clear how critical this deal is to both sides and it is NEVER going to be for just 36 jets- this would be insane.

 

[dadeechi]

Cross Posting from another forum keypub
@halloweene Fresh news from Dassault : issue is not about price, but financial building
As i said before contract will be signed and money released march end or april max

and here from another forum ID
Credit to CNL
"
4 weeks ago, discussions were on 36 Rafales F3-OT4 provided by France and more than XXX F3-R assembled in India.
Since then, things have changed about numbers and versions.
Today numbers, versions and price are finalized. The question to discuss before the final contract is signed is financing."

+++++++++++++
Anybody can say i am a fool and my sources are foolish.. True i cannot be right every time. In last year i had said when i had the financial report for Make in India project in India for 189 Rafales out of which certain details i had said including the productivity range..
The same OEMs have indicated that a french Rafale like Rafale B: Euro 74 million and Rafale C Euro 68.8 Mn or Rafale M Euro 79Mn all flyaway costs (at 2013 senate committee report) includes the 20% VAT charged which is not applicable for Export Customers.

Implying without VAT the flyaway costs is
Rafale B: Euro 61.67 Mn
Rafale C: Euro 57.33 Mn
Rafale M: Euro 65.83 Mn

Thats the actual price of the flyaway Rafale

In its own way even if India buys the Rafale at the same price as French AF, the price will be looked at devoid of VAT angle.

Thus the question to ask or wonder is what else is there in the deal. In broad contour terms other than the complete TCO package (Total Cost of Ownership) the simpler terms includes
Firstly upgrades, infrastructure, logistical support or training
Secondly Weapons
Thirdly a financial guarantee of availability at 90% all the time and associated spares and services for 5/10/15 years
etc etc

Thus the question of these terms in terms of price will add on to the above price + the offsets.


Rest i will wait now for some more information on public domain as i believe there seems to be a feeling that i am quoting here all garbage especially from sources and OEMs.

More than the Financing aspect, the deal is being delayed for the completion of the DPP-2016.

The final contract signature would happen after DPP-2016 is released to avoid legal issues.

With regards to the concern on the down payment & CAPEX, the terms generally should allow at least 90 days which would take it to the next fiscal year.



===================================================================================


Qatar makes delayed down payment on French fighter jets
December 19, 2015 by Victoria Scott




Qatar has made the first down payment on its order of 24 Rafale fighter jets, eight months after it agreed to the purchase with French manufacturer Dassault.

The move puts an end to speculation that Qatar might be having second thoughts about the deal, which is thought to be worth around €6.3 billion (QR25.7 billion).

French newspapers had speculated that a huge fall in global energy prices was behind the delay, with French financial newspaper Les Echos suggesting that Qatar’s government required a loan via US banks to help finance the deal.

Tightening belts
The news of the down payment came just before Qatar’s Emir approved a government budget for 2016 that significantly cuts expenditures.


The document shows that the country plans to spend 7.28 percent, or QR15.9 billion, less next year.

A growing hole in the country’s finances due to falling oil and gas prices has made the government make some tough choices.


The total deficit in next year’s budget is estimated at QR46.5 billion.

Instead of cutting expenditure further, however, Qatar’s Finance Minister Ali Shareef Al Emadi said that Qatar had decided to borrow money to make up the shortfall, rather than tapping into its vast savings.

Rafale deal
Qatar’s deal with Dassault was signed in April this year, ending a bidding war between the French manufacturer and rival aerospace firms in the US and UK.

The down payment means Dassault can now begin to build the 24 jets, the first of which are due for delivery in 2018.

The deal also includes the training of 36 pilots and 100 aircraft mechanics.

Qatar’s commitment to upgrading its air force with new fighters is part of a massive military buildup that has seen the government order some QR87 billion worth of new equipment in the last couple of years.

In a recent report, Jane’s Defence concluded that this trend was likely to continue “in the short term,” but that is was unclear whether Qatar’s focus would “shift elsewhere” in the longer term due to financial pressures.

Thoughts?


http://dohanews.co/qatar-makes-delayed-payment-french-fighter-jets/

 

[Genesis]

At this point India should just man up and pay for it. What's another year's cost to India. Buy it and move on, in the grand scheme of things, it hardly matters.

At least India's problems can be solved by money, China in the 90s can't even get deals done even with money. Don't even remember how many deals the West backed out of, even when we agreed to their escalating demands.

In another decade, who's going to remember this four billion, who's going to remember tomorrow...