What's new

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

India, France discuss defence coop in backdrop of Rafale probs

Against the backdrop of difficulties in negotiations on Rafale fighter deal, top officials of India and France met in Paris during which the issue along with other subjects related to the defence cooperation were discussed.

At the meeting Indo-France High Defence Committee, the Indian side was headed by Defence Secretary R K Mathur while the French side was led by Secretary (International Relations) in Ministry of Defence.

"This is an annual meeting which discusses all issues and matters relating to the defence cooperation between the two sides," sources said here when asked if the Rafale deal was discussed.

India and France have been holding contract negotiations on supply of 126 Rafale planes since 2012 after the fighter aircraft was selected from among five contenders.

The negotiations have lately run into rough weather over a guarantee clause and a steep rise in price.

Making it clear that the ball is in France's court, India is insisting that Dassault Aviation, which manufactures Rafale, will have to meet the conditions of the Request for Proposal (RFP), which it had initially agreed to.

The situation has come to such a level that France has decided to send an empowered delegation later this month to "solve all remaining issues" to salvage the contract.

Recalling the last month's meeting between Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and his French counterpart, sources said the French side was "told categorically to stick to the RFP".

Sources said both Ministers have exchanged letters on the issue in December and an "empowered delegation" would be visiting New Delhi soon.

India, France discuss defence coop in backdrop of Rafale probs | Business Standard News

On The Side Note

Original terms have to be met in Rafale jet deal: Parrikar

NEW DELHI: India on Monday said France would have to adhere to the conditions specified in the original tender for the $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project, even as defence secretary R K Mathur left for Paris amid the deadlock over the mega deal for 126 Rafale fighters.

"The RFP (request for proposal) terms have to be met... they cannot be diluted," defence minister Manohar Parrikar told a television channel. Ruling out any comeback by the fighters which lost out in the MMRCA race, he added, "How can another plane be considered when the L-1 (lowest bidder, the Rafale) has been determined."

As reported by TOI earlier, finalization of the complex MMRCA project has been stuck for almost a year due to French aviation major Dassault's refusal to stand guarantee for the 108 Rafale fighters to be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in India with transfer of technology after the first 18 jets are delivered off-the-shelf to IAF.

Apart from this refusal to take responsibility in terms of liquidity damages and production timelines for the jets to be made in India, the MoD is also upset with Dassault's attempts to "change the price line" that had led to Rafale's selection over the Eurofighter Typhoon as the L-1 three years ago.

Sources said Mathur, on a two-day visit to France, will discuss a wide range of issues, including the need for Dassault to stick to the terms and conditions laid down in the original MMRCA tender or RFP floated in August 2007.

India wants to take a final call on the MMRCA project before Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits France and Germany in April. If Dassault does not honour its commitments made in its bids submitted to the RFP, India may be left with no option but to scrap the entire MMRCA project despite having invested almost a decade in the selection process.

Original terms have to be met in Rafale jet deal: Parrikar - The Times of India
 
NICE FIND!
I digged a bit around wrt the liquidity damages and responsibility issues of Dassault. Of course we won't have access to the RFP, but we can find Defence Procurement Manuals or Defence Procurement Procedures of the defence ministry on that.

Defence Procurement Manual 2006 - Liqudated Damages:
View attachment 183691


Defence Procurement Manual 2009 - Liqudated Damages:
View attachment 183687


Defence Procurement Procedures 2013 - Liqudated Damages:
View attachment 183688



In all these guidelines, it is pretty clear, that the supplier / OEM (Dassault) will only be held responsible for delays that was caused by themselfs. The 2013 version, is even pretty detailed in the delivery schedule, about what must be delivered (by Dassault and partners), for the manufacture and supply of the product (Rafale) by the production agency (HAL). There is nothing that hints about the Dassault being held responsible for delays caused by HAL, so these claims can't really hold any ground.
Great find!
 
NICE FIND!

Great find!

Not for Dassault, since they tried to shy away from any responsibility for the licence production part. The Liquidity damages however make clear, that the OEM / Dassault is responsible for any delay of the licence production, that is caused by Dassault, by not providing ToT, parts, tools, jigs... to HAL in time or the right manner. So Dassault can't claim responsibility only for the first 18 only and say the rest is up to HAL. So Dassault will be held responsible just as BAE was for the Hawk licence production.
 
That is exactly what they want. Be reponsible if (and only if ) they are faulty.
 
That is exactly what they want. Be reponsible if (and only if ) they are faulty.

That's not what they state, since Dassault insisted on seperate contracts for the first 18 with the MoD / IAF and one with HAL for the delivery of parts for the licence production. That however is not possible with the DDP's and as the Indian side constantly says since 2013, is a devation of the RFP. Dassault must be held responsible by the MoD / IAF, in case they cause problems during the licence production and that's obviously not possible, if there is no contract for the 108 between the 2.
 
That's not what they state, since Dassault insisted on seperate contracts for the first 18 with the MoD / IAF and one with HAL for the delivery of parts for the licence production. That however is not possible with the DDP's and as the Indian side constantly says since 2013, is a devation of the RFP. Dassault must be held responsible by the MoD / IAF, in case they cause problems during the licence production and that's obviously not possible, if there is no contract for the 108 between the 2.

How does the same policy apply or not apply to the Scorpene construction? There have been delays, i mean REAL delays there, but the French have not been penalised. So if the system is a fair one, what are the French apprehensions?
 
How does the same policy apply or not apply to the Scorpene construction? There have been delays, i mean REAL delays there, but the French have not been penalised. So if the system is a fair one, what are the French apprehensions?

The bad experience of Scorpene and the delays there in has helped in MMRCA too

Along with the contract for the upgradation of Mirage 2000

So MOD is trying to plug as many loop holes as possible

@halloweene

What are your sources telling you ?
Any hope left
 
Last edited:
How does the same policy apply or not apply to the Scorpene construction?

You can only hold the foreign vendors responsible for THEIR failures, not for the not existing know how of Indian ship yards with sub making after the last U209 was build and reportedly, that was the problem in the production of the scorpenes.
In case of the Hawk trainers for instance, it was BAE's fault, since they supplied HAL with faulty jigs, which then delayed the licence production.
 
Can anybody shed light on this rafale saga

Is it 50/50 or likely to cancel in favour of mki and tejas combo.
 
Can anybody shed light on this rafale saga

Is it 50/50 or likely to cancel in favour of mki and tejas combo.


MoD has no interest in cancelling the deal, but has no reason to bow down to Dassaults demands either, that's why the Indian official stand is constant for the last 2 years. Dassault has to comply to the RFP terms and therefor can't demand to divert workshare from HAL to Reliance, nor can avoid responsibility by demanding a contract only for 18 fighters. If they finally get real and accept these terms, which the deal will come true, but if not, MKIs are an option, although not the only one, since the DM confirmed that they are always an option and not necessarily an alternative to MMRCA.
 
Last edited:
You can only hold the foreign vendors responsible for THEIR failures, not for the not existing know how of Indian ship yards with sub making after the last U209 was build and reportedly, that was the problem in the production of the scorpenes.
In case of the Hawk trainers for instance, it was BAE's fault, since they supplied HAL with faulty jigs, which then delayed the licence production.

I understand. But it seems the system is fair, then what is Dassault's problem?

@halloweene
 
MoD has no interest in cancelling the deal, but has no reason to bow down to Dassaults demands either, that's why the Indian official stand is constant for the last 2 years. Dassault has to comply to the RFP terms and therefor can't demand to divert workshare from HAL to Reliance, nor can avoid responsibility by demanding a contract only for 18 fighters. If they finally get real and accept these terms, which the deal will come true, but if not, MKIs are an option, although not the only one, since the DM confirmed that they are always an option and not necessarily an alternative to MMRCA.

why we are even negotiating on the RFP terms and conditions ? Isn't that agreed at the time of participation ?
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom