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

[Bang Galore]

Eurofighter is also not true L1 ! because the LCC assessment method was all wrong in the first place.
To make it right EF LCC should be evaluated like we did for last 3 years with Rafale,which isn't happening.
Both fighters are perfect for IAF needs and there is a visible gap in capability.And a fighter of this class is necessity.
So,Rafale is still only the viable option.

No fan of the EF proposal either but if Rafale is not L1, it would normally mean EF is. However this deal has been structured so badly as to be unbelievable. We should have asked for the best offers at a fixed price point - 10,12, 15 billion dollars. How the heck can one calculate value between an F16 & Gripen which might be around $10 billion or a SH around $12-13 billion with a Rafale or EF which probably cost around $18-20 billion at the very least? Saying that EF & Rafale are the most technically equipped is silly because at that cost difference, they better be. There is no way to put a value on the advantages that each aircraft brings versus the cost of that particular advantage. Selecting between EF & Rafale was always going to be between tweedledum & tweedledee.

If this deals falls through, we might just be lucky.

 

[Abingdonboy]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If these reports are true,
only solution without hurting IAFs operational needs is to decrease the number to an extend to which enough ToT and industrial experience can be absorbed.
my bet would be minus two sqd. 126 - 36 =90
@sancho @Abingdonboy

This is all conjecture, before I get into full rant and impair mode as these reports with little credibility have got me in the past I'm going to wait until the end of March/early April. I'm not buying anything the Indian media is trying to sell when we have seen their cr@ppy standard of journalism in the past and I don't think its too cynical to think that some of these guys writing on the MMRCA are being paid by certain vested intreats to do so and they expect us to believe it by citing "unnamed sources"??

It's funny how the closer it looks like we are getting to the signing of this deal the more noise these clowns make (the same was true last year when there seemed to be forward movement on this deal, then we started to hear about the enormous $22-30+ Billion USD cost of this deal, that was subsequently refuted by both sides, remember that?



One thing is for sure, if the Rafale is not ordered there are no easy options, the Rafale was by far the best plane and the best deal, the F-18,MiG-35, EFT or more MKIs and LCAs all come with significant drawbacks and would not be as preferable as this Rafale deal.


But like I said, let's wait for the officials from both sides to comment, f*ck these Indian "journalists".

Rafale or EF which probably cost around $18-20 billion

Both sides have pegged the Rafale deal around the $13-16 Billion mark in the past 8 months so I'd refute this.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/x/status/567243833709056000

 

[sancho]

If these reports are true,
only solution without hurting IAFs operational needs is to decrease the number to an extend to which enough ToT and industrial experience can be absorbed.
my bet would be minus two sqd. 126 - 36 =90

First of all, it's just another Ajay Shukla report based on unnamed sources and a lot of speculations. Secondly, why should we reduce the number of fighters? It would increase the costs of MMRCAs, would reduce the industrial advantage and would require to add 2 squads of another fighter, since the requirement still is 126 fighters.

 

[kaykay]

First of all, it's just another Ajay Shukla report based on unnamed sources and a lot of speculations. Secondly, why should we reduce the number of fighters? It would increase the costs of MMRCAs, would reduce the industrial advantage and would require to add 2 squads of another fighter, since the requirement still is 126 fighters.

What options do you see if Rafale deal falls flat? I mean realistic options.

 

[sancho]

What options do you see if Rafale deal falls flat? I mean realistic options.

1) EF - the only MMRCA that fulfills the requirements of the tender and the only choice to get the industrial advantages we want
2) additional upgraded MKIs directly from IRKUT, fast to induct and to operate, but no technical or industrial advantages similar to MMRCA
3) Early Pak Fa's, directly from Russia (similar to the Su30K orders back in 1998), adds crucial capabilities and counters the falling squad number on paper, but will take time till IAF can operate it with confidence, doesn't offer industrial advantages similar to MMRCA and would be too costly to operate in basic roles, envisioned for LCA / MMRCA
4) additional LCA MK1 FOC, no technical or industrial advantages similar to MMRCA and only possible if MK2 development is delayed, otherwise the production timelines of MK1 and MK2 would interfere

 

[Bang Galore]

-
Both sides have pegged the Rafale deal around the $13-16 Billion mark in the past 8 months so I'd refute this.

Where?

 

[Abingdonboy]

Where?

Eric Trappier's remarks last year and this was the (reported) figure ($15-15 Billion) that the MoD told, then, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley last year to which he was satisfied.

 

[Bang Galore]

Eric Trappier's remarks last year and this was the (reported) figure ($15-15 Billion) that the MoD told, then, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley last year to which he was satisfied.

Any link? Would be interested.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Any link? Would be interested.

I've dug these links up a few times in the past 7-8 months sir but I'll surely do so for you a little later on, first I have to go to a lecture

 

[Agent_47]

why should we reduce the number of fighters? It would increase the costs of MMRCAs, would reduce the industrial advantage and would require to add 2 squads of another fighter, since the requirement still is 126 fighters.

If Brazil can buy 30 odd Gripen and make industrial advantages, im sure we can do with 90.
This is a huge order and way above to get numbers play significant role in the per cost ratio.
What i am saying is to find a balance b/w ToT,Industrial advantage,numbers and cost without messing up with rules and costs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is all conjecture, before I get into full rant and impair mode as these reports with little credibility have got me in the past I'm going to wait until the end of March/early April. I'm not buying anything the Indian media is trying to sell when we have seen their cr@ppy standard of journalism in the past and I don't think its too cynical to think that some of these guys writing on the MMRCA are being paid by certain vested intreats to do so and they expect us to believe it by citing "unnamed sources"??

It's funny how the closer it looks like we are getting to the signing of this deal the more noise these clowns make (the same was true last year when there seemed to be forward movement on this deal, then we started to hear about the enormous $22-30+ Billion USD cost of this deal, that was subsequently refuted by both sides, remember that?



One thing is for sure, if the Rafale is not ordered there are no easy options, the Rafale was by far the best plane and the best deal, the F-18,MiG-35, EFT or more MKIs and LCAs all come with significant drawbacks and would not be as preferable as this Rafale deal.


But like I said, let's wait for the officials from both sides to comment, f*ck these Indian "journalists".

Yes it is conjecture, the whole report is conjecture.
When considering DM earlier statements,reports on PC-7 BT,earlier admissions of problems with LCC,New government There is a possibility that it can be true and the whole deal could be trashed.

On cost,Take a look at Egypt and Brazil deals (gripen).Per A/c cost would be around $120 million.
So,Total cost would be definitely above $16 billion.
On top of that IAF have so many backlog of orders to fullfill.

No fan of the EF proposal either but if Rafale is not L1, it would normally mean EF is. However this deal has been structured so badly as to be unbelievable. We should have asked for the best offers at a fixed price point - 10,12, 15 billion dollars. How the heck can one calculate value between an F16 & Gripen which might be around $10 billion or a SH around $12-13 billion with a Rafale or EF which probably cost around $18-20 billion at the very least? Saying that EF & Rafale are the most technically equipped is silly because at that cost difference, they better be. There is no way to put a value on the advantages that each aircraft brings versus the cost of that particular advantage. Selecting between EF & Rafale was always going to be between tweedledum & tweedledee.

If this deals falls through, we might just be lucky.

Western planes are costly, but they are best money can buy. American are less costly because they have huge advantage on numbers.

 

[Abingdonboy]

On cost,Take a look at Egypt and Brazil deals (gripen).Per A/c cost would be around $120 million.
So,Total cost would be definitely above $16 billion.

The Egypt deal is not representative because the unit costs have not been announced and the deal was tied to the FREMM frigates alongside training,spares, weapons and such.

When considering DM earlier statements,reports on PC-7 BT,earlier admissions of problems with LCC,New government There is a possibility that it can be true and the whole deal could be trashed.

Nothing has come of the PC-7 BTT issue, in fact the IAF is pushing for a follow on 100+ units so let's hold off on that also. The Indian media love to muddy the waters but NEVER clarify nor follow up on their slanderous reports preventing a clear picture from emerging.

 

[sancho]

If Brazil can buy 30 odd Gripen and make industrial advantages, im sure we can do with 90.

First of all, the Brazilan order was always based on the fact that they have up to 120 fighters to replace and is not limited to the initial order of 36. Secondly, the industrial advantages Saab promised, needs to be seen, the first reports after the deal was fixed already showed something different, with only 8 Gripens or so be fully produced in Brazil. Not to mention that the biggest industrial advantage for Brazil comes by the fact that they can invest into the Gripen development, since they not only upgrade it with own displays, avionics and weapons, but also jointly develop the twin seater and the naval version (same industrial parts as we have in FGFA development!), while the ToT of critical techs is highly limited, since radar, IRST, larger parts of the EW and the engine are not of Swedish origin and therefor can only be shared with foreign government approval.
In MMRCA we aimed on more critical techs, than just the ammount of ToT, that's why US vendors complied to ToT requirements by providing 50% ToT of airframe and partially engine parts, while European or Russian vendors could provide AESA radar, avionics, TVC or critical engine techs. However, us demanding so much, is based on the minimum order of 126 fighters, if we go back from that, we also have to reduce our demands on ToT and offsets and that would be counter productive, especially at this stage. It's either take one of the 2 MMRCAs, or go for a fast alternative, in the worst case scenario.

 

[Abingdonboy]

i post anyway

INTERVIEW OF CEO Eric TRAPPIER, Les ECHOS, Feb 16

What diffence does this contract make for Dassault ?
It makes big differences. There was a great expectation among employees, the general public and the media to understand why this plane was not sold for export. Is it too expensive? other reasons? Are we handling it badly ? Since we did the first time, these questions are tossed out the door. But we had confidence because we know that the Rafale is excellent and cheaper than most of its competitors, contrary to some misconceptions.

Does it help you to keep one foot in the military [business]?
That is undeniable. If we stop the military, then we will be only in civil aviation, and would be forced to go to the other side of the Atlantic[1]. It is very difficult to be competitive with our US competitors while remaining in France. When we can rely on a dual activity of civil-military type, we can optimize our investment in infrastructure, tools and industrial processes. We can keep a correct industrial equation. Thus, the Rafale is entirely made in France and our Falcon are 80% made in france. This contract export with Egypt in addition to the French contract means the perpetuation of the dual model of Dassault and its implementation in France. For us and our major partners, Safran and Thales, and 500 companies of the Rafale program.


Did the Egyptians evaluated other options?
When I saw President Al Sissi, I wanted to explain the qualities of the Rafale, he stopped me right away. He said, "I know this is a great airplane. I want to buy it, let's negotiate".[...]


In what extent can this help you to sign other contracts?
Having recorded a first reference will not trigger other contracts in the sense that countries were waiting this , but there is a psychological barrier that is now crossed. Concerning our image, it'll help to overcome some hurdles in other countries.


As in India?
India is not necessarily looking at what is happening in Egypt , but she hear and sees it.


There is a problem about industrial liability with HAL, the local partner for the manufacture of aircraft, it is soluble?
We have no problem. There is a tender in which we complied. We were asked to agree with HAL, we agreed with HAL. We were asked to share the work with HAL, we shared the work with HAL. We were asked to have a single contract, while the tender did not require it. We have provided a single contract. We believe we are in compliance in all areas. Now the ball is in the Indian camp.

The dividing line is clear?
Everyone is responsible for what he does. We are responsible for organizing the program, that is to say, to provide the license and as such, to provide the tools, documentation, technical assistance, training, we check quality standards . After ... the one who takes the hammer and taps on the sheet metal will be Indian. If he fails, he will be responsible, it' normal.


So no lock, as claimed by the Indian media?
Not seen from our window. There were questions and discussions. This is an ongoing discussion. We solved what is the responsibility of the Air Force. We solved what is the responsibility of HAL. Now, we are reviewing the contract with the Indian Ministry of Defence. For each clause, everyone looks at who is responsible for what. In India, the timing is still a bit long. We are not particularly worried.


Does Qatar really need the Rafale?
Yes, Qatar needs to buy fighter jets like other countries of the region. It is a volatile region in which it is necessary to have air defense , ground attack and reconnaissance capabilities to be able to act autonomously in a coalition. Qatar has launched a call for proposals. We made good progress. It is now up to them to decide.


Approximately 300 Mirage 2000 were exported. Is it the same potential for the Rafale ?
It's less if we take into account the capabilities of the Rafale compared to the Mirage 2000. Now, if we sell 126 Rafale in India with 63 options, we ll be close close to 200 copies. India will be a strong sizing of the success of the Rafale export . The Egyptian contract serves as a primer, as it was the case for the Mirage 2000.

From:
http://www.lesechos.fr/journal201502...ce-1093506.php

Courtesy olybrius at MP.net



@sancho @SpArK @janon

Now this is some interview. It doesn't seem like there is a whole lot holding back this deal now.....

 

[Abingdonboy]

Couple that with what MoS for Defence Inderjit Singh has said:

Default
Services on board on Chief of Defence Staff, says MoS Defence

[...]
Responding to a question on the multi-billion dollar Rafale fighter jet contract with France, Singh* said: "....out of 126 odd aircraft, 18 are to be delivered by them and the balances are to be manufactured here."
"The ones that are made here, it has to be with the help from original equipment manufacturer -- Dassault. Dassault must ensure that what is being produced in India is also of standard and as good as theirs."
He said "Now that it is some thing, I think that we would expect them to help out in; ...they are working it out, there are no issues, the logistics of the problem are being worked out, that's all."
Singh said "they have to help us in producing the same product of the same standard as the one they supplied to us when we imported... there should be no compromise on this..."
As per the RFP issued in 2007, the first 18 jets are to be imported and the rest 108 manufactured under licence by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL).

From:
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...nce-staff.html

Again, curtesy olybrius


Broadly in line with what we have been hearing BUT that he points out there are no major deadlocks simply the need to work out the "logistics" is key.

Two people in the know (unlike ANY indian defence journo claiming to have the "inside scoop").


It's funny @janon how these officials consistently contradict these defence journalists and then you wonder why we have trouble taking them at their word.

 

[sancho]

Now, we are reviewing the contract with the Indian Ministry of Defence.

It doesn't seem like there is a whole lot holding back this deal now.....

Well he is just stating his point of view, but the above point is the critical one, where Dassault is not agreeing to the performance clause.

Couple that with what MoS for Defence Inderjit Singh has said:

Link doesn't work, can you correct that please?