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

[Taygibay]

I say lets settle for less and wait to seeto which dirextion my mind allows to hold the umbrella when the wind starts blowing, when it blows.

You too seem to hold the same opinion as Abingdonboy but yout numbers are 114.

I would like to see some mathbhind it. 50% buying for 50% offset need to to be validatrd with data. And as far as my information goes French have gone on records to say that they will abide to 50% offset only for 36.

OK, got that! Your position makes excellent sense in general, cautious, wary even, no problemo!
The problem with small series being as you know that price goes up as numbers plummet!
I surmise this reasoning to be behind all those incredible cost claims by everyone and their sister.

So 36 not 126, same offsets, no ToT save operational but guaranteed 90% fleet availability?
I'd venture a tad over 4 B€ for that. Add 50% offsets = 6B€.
and then, ... add weapons / foreign integrations / unobtainium fur dangling dice et al and you
get a vertical take-off to the sky to test if it really has no limits say a quintillion billion $* ...

( *dollar sign cuz that would be the F-35 ).​

But there is in this context you mentioned of past weights that still burden the beast, a lesson if
we remember the original full lot pricing. Time ( elapsed ) and change(s /as in new demands ) add to cost.
To correct this, the proper breakdown would imply a sliding rule pricing established ab initio.
In other words, you negotiate in the first deal the returns each additional tranche will get you.
36 = 30% offsets as is international norm / 36 more get you 38% over the 72 and two last increments
of 20 bring you 6% + 6% for a total of 50% offsets over 112 machines compared to the MMRCA's 108.

That way, your future investment is edged even if you don't use the prerogative and buy less?
You can assess each segment in light of returns of experience with goal reached if it goes well.

Reaching the half total production at large that I gave earlier makes that single client in a virtual
partnership relation with the maker. That's the level at which you can ask for the moon and for a rebate!

Good convo, later guys, Tay.

 

[Bratva]

To make it economically viable the numbers have to be 100+. To meet the IAF's requirements in the immediate to medium term their orginal 189 figure remains unfulfilled. Any thing less than 100 is a complete waste of time and the MoD/GoI would be foolish to pursue such a limited deal.

It didnt make any sense to me. Previous deal of 126 aircraft was was speculated to be at 20-21 Billion dollar. In coming years after you purchase 36 aircraft, price of Rafael would go even more higher. So how it is economically feasible for you guys to Buy more rafael after 36 aircrafts at a more steep price which in end will turn out to be 25-30 Billion dollar ?

 

[Taygibay]

Your being there statement didn't help the argument apart fromasking me to accept the whole post from face value.

That was in fact not meant to help the argument as you shrewdly noticed but rather as a fair play
warning that if you disputed the linearity of the facts, I'd slap you with the glove of facts_quotes_and_citations
and proceed to win the laugh-in-your-face duel to which you'd have thus been called!
It is so comforting that your being a sane person exempt of trolling avoided us the indignity, thanks!


Just for fun, if the only criterion was usefulness, how many Rafales would you get for the IAF?

5 squadrons? How many planes is that exactly? With attrition spares!

Maybe that number should be the basis for negos?

Cheers, Tay.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

It didnt make any sense to me. Previous deal of 126 aircraft was was speculated to be at 20-21 Billion dollar. In coming years after you purchase 36 aircraft, price of Rafael would go even more higher. So how it is economically feasible for you stat Buy more rafael after 36 aircrafts at a more steep price which in end will turn out to be 25-30 Billion dollar ?

Bhaijaan 2 things.
1. You see , we still have 5.4 Billion US dollars unused this financial year, and same has been the story for some two decades. So, money, whatever the media says.... if something is a necessity, we will get it.

2. I am not claiming it. But you see that the French side has stated one thing quite a few times, I.e, " This( present deal) would lead to a bigger cooperation in India and France wherein Dassault and other companies involved will get to play a big role in " MII". " Now what it seems, at least to me, that we are trying to negotiate for not only these 36, but for a deal with French wherein they get a big pie of future (not so long term ) projects ( You see Boeing and SAAB have hinted that they are ready to assemble in India 200 aircrafts). In short, the present deal takes care, at least partly that if it goes through, more Rafales ( at least 3 More squadrons) will surely come and also put a cap at their price too.

 

[ultron]

Rafale is a medium sized plane like F-16. It's not a big plane like F-15, F-22, Su-35, PAK FA.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

The LRIP block of 2015 of F35s costed 5.37 Billion dollars for 55 aircrafts excluding engines. Can someone shed some light on the amount spent on operating the F35s and compare it to that of Rafales?

 

[Taygibay]

It's pretty hard to shed light on the F-35 because of delays compounding concurrency ...
which of course wasn't planned that way. The services did not expect slow development
nor did anyone envision sequestration and assorted dumb GOP behaviour that cut money.

That LRIP price is unnaturally burdened by these. At the same time, some parts of the
program are less advanced than either desired or planned for and their true cost as those
of a couple other necessary technological ... huh, let's call 'em fixes are yet unknown?
The same goes for the operating costs as a direct consequence.

There is a reason my poor Ankit why so few analysis on how the F-35 will fare in respect
to the existing fighters, good ones I mean, are to be found. Few bright folks conjecture
about prospective when faced with too many uncertainties.

For now, we can suppose equivalent servicing costs as maintenance process is similar on
both, I.E. in-use monitoring and fast sub-assemblies replacement. The difference should
come from added gizmos and mostly stealth which is darn costly to maintain in a combat
environment.
So somewhat higher operating cost for the JSF, max. on the B, with the value to be reported
over capacities for real advantage in usefulness in a couple years when both are active
over their full-spectrum.

Great day to you, Tay.

 

[ralphleo]

I fail to understand what IAF wants from Rafale when neither Rusdia nor China have any interest in this nonsense concept if medium category. Their Sukhois are enough to do everything.

 

[doublemaster]

What is Combat Payload LCA Its Light Weight Category Fighter with Combat Payload of 3700 KG.Still Not Suitable For Deep Strike Missions

Which Still in LALA Land DRDO Babus still Not Able to Deliver SP-2 Since Last year Come to Real World
Dear


Sir ji what is offset 50 % Actually Do you Know

So u pay double to get 50% offset?

 

[cerberus]

So u pay double to get 50% offset?

Double 9 billion $ seems fair for 36
With complete life cycle cost

Eurofighter is even costlier

 

[rockstarIN]

I fail to understand what IAF wants from Rafale when neither Rusdia nor China have any interest in this nonsense concept if medium category. Their Sukhois are enough to do everything.

Now they do not have light fighters either..! Their low tyre will be Mig-29 & J-10, which is medium.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Credit to original poster Loke

http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/files/fiche-rafale-le-bourget-2011.jpg


@Taygibay @Vauban @Abingdonboy
From June 2011... Look at green underlined portions
emergency 11g's
canard reduced landing speed to 115 knots ~213 kmph
can operate from 1300 feet or 400m runway
Supercruise at 1.4Mach with 6 MICA - Rafale M
Supercruise at 1.4 M with 4 Mica and 1250L belly drop tank

All this when it had RBE2 PESA and M88-2 model implying older Rafale of 2011...

I am waiting eagerly to see next phase of data with say M88-4 of present models and perhaps the next engine variant based changes..

 

[Taygibay]

Yes, Parik my friend, I was aware of those metrics.
I'm glad that finally someone is interested in them!

All the best to you and yours, Tay.

 

[doublemaster]

Double 9 billion $ seems fair for 36
With complete life cycle cost

Eurofighter is even costlier

Thats different story. But they did a propaganda that it was 4b$, and many bhakth kept arguing me that its way cheap. But now?

 

[cerberus]

Thats different story. But they did a propaganda that it was 4b$, and many bhakth kept arguing me that its way cheap. But now?

First Learn to Comprehend Secondly If Don't Know Facts of the Deal Don't Quote Me Next time