Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[Abingdonboy]

as i said il-76 is old and not worthy
i am only saying we must do jv and bring down the costs further

You're aware it's the IL-78 that we/I was talking about wrt the tanker competition. And why enter into a JV with Russia when the A330 MRTT is simply the best such system available on the planet?


It cracks me up to hear YOU talking about costs when you're the one advocating bringing in a brand new twin-engined platform into the IAF's fleet (Su-34)!

 

[he-man]

You're aware it's the IL-78 that we/I was talking about wrt the tanker competition. And why enter into a JV with Russia when the A330 MRTT is simply the best such system available on the planet?


It cracks me up to hear YOU talking about costs when you're the one advocating bringing in a brand new twin-engined platform into the IAF's fleet (Su-34)!

u can keep harping on the same shit but seeing the systems that went into upgrade i don't think it made sense to upgrade a 30 year old 3 rd generation plane upgraded into 4 th gen for a tune of 40 million per aircraft.

and its not justme,,,many ppl believe it was not a wise decision at all

 

[Abingdonboy]

and its not justme,,,many ppl believe it was not a wise decision at all

Many people believed the world was flat for the longest time- did that make them right?


The IAF argued its case and won, they made a logical decision, if you are simply unable to see this then what more can I say?


@sancho @Dillinger @janon anything more to add?

 

[he-man]

Many people believed the world was flat for the longest time- did that make them right?


The IAF argued its case and won, they made a logical decision, if you are simply unable to see this then what more can I say?


@sancho @Dillinger @janon anything more to add?

iaf is not above all that they will not be questioned for stupid decisions by anyone

this comes in one of those stupid decisions

 

[sancho]

Many people believed the world was flat for the longest time- did that make them right?


The IAF argued its case and won, they made a logical decision, if you are simply unable to see this then what more can I say?


@sancho @Dillinger @janon anything more to add?

Already done and we have talked about it in many threads before. He-man just don't get the importance of the M2Ks and is sticking to his superficial views, but there is more behind the upgrades of M2K, just like there are more cost behind the Mig 29 upgrade, or that there is more behind the MMRCA than just a fighter. There are people that are criticising the upgrade of the F22 as well, because they question the need of moderinising a fighter that never had seen a war, which doesn't make sense as well.

 

[Abingdonboy]

this comes in one of those stupid decisions

Says YOU.

 

[he-man]

Already done and we have talked about it in many threads before. He-man just don't get the importance of the M2Ks and is sticking to his superficial views, but there is more behind the upgrades of M2K, just like there are more cost behind the Mig 29 upgrade, or that there is more behind the MMRCA than just a fighter. There are people that are criticising the upgrade of the F22 as well, because they question the need of moderinising a fighter that never had seen a war, which doesn't make sense as well.

pls don'r equate india with usa first of all

second it will still fly for only 13-15 years more even after upgrades

third u are just assuming we will get something behind the scene

fourth this deal took seven years to ink and was only inked as a stop gap measure,,,,,we had no choice ....................not out of great value as u are quoting 

Says YOU.

yes,,,says me

unfortunately foreign agents like u will always praise such useless deals

 

[janon]

Many people believed the world was flat for the longest time- did that make them right?


The IAF argued its case and won, they made a logical decision, if you are simply unable to see this then what more can I say?


@sancho @Dillinger @janon anything more to add?

Nothing more than what we have already said N number of times in the past two days. There is already a multi-page thread on the sam subject, where we explored all the arguments and counter arguments. As I finally said in that thread, there comes a point in any topic where further back and forth is pointless.

I have repeated so many times that flyaway cost is only a small percentage of the life cycle costs and associated costs of a platform, so comparing the upgrade price to the price of a new platform doesn't really make sense. And that western stuff are pricier up front but far easier and cheaper to maintain than russian stuff. That the IAF would have taken all this into consideration and argued their case to the finance ministry, to get the green signal for the upgrade.

In India, the services by themselves don't get to spend taxpayers' money, at least two ministries (which are institutionally set up to counter each other) also have to agree to every nitty gritty.

But there is no point in repeating all this to people who have made up an opinion that it is all a scam, and nothing will persuade them to change their minds. If the intention is to unconstructively rant about everybody being idiots and assholes and f*ckers, and India being doomed and so on, and keep opening threads to keep repeating that, there is no point bringing sense and substance to the so called discussion. I am dignifying it by calling it a discussion.

The following is a good guideline on whether or not to discuss or debate something:

 

[he-man]

Nothing more than what we have already said N number of times in the past two days. There is already a multi-page thread on the sam subject, where we explored all the arguments and counter arguments. As I finally said in that thread, there comes a point in any topic where further back and forth is pointless.

I have repeated so many times that flyaway cost is only a small percentage of the life cycle costs and associated costs of a platform, so comparing the upgrade price to the price of a new platform doesn't really make sense. And that western stuff are pricier up front but far easier and cheaper to maintain than russian stuff. That the IAF would have taken all this into consideration and argued their case to the finance ministry, to get the green signal for the upgrade.

In India, the services by themselves don't get to spend taxpayers' money, at least two ministries (which are institutionally set up to counter each other) also have to agree to every nitty gritty.

But there is no point in repeating all this to people who have made up an opinion that it is all a scam, and nothing will persuade them to change their minds. If the intention is to unconstructively rant about everybody being idiots and assholes and f*ckers, and India being doomed and so on, and keep opening threads to keep repeating that, there is no point bringing sense and substance to the so called discussion. I am dignifying it by calling it a discussion.

The following is a good guideline on whether or not to discuss or debate something:

View attachment 10417

for the love of god its not only about 40 million

what are we getting and for how much time is also an issue here

if u are so confident,tell me what did we get for 40 million??

why did we take 7 years to sign the deal??
why didn't we go for engine upgrade?
why didn't we consider hal-iai joint bid to equip it for about 11 milion per aircraft with better stuff??

these questions need answr dude

 

[janon]

for the love of god its not only about 40 million

what are we getting and for how much time is also an issue here

if u are so confident,tell me what did we get for 40 million??

why did we take 7 years to sign the deal??
why didn't we go for engine upgrade?
why didn't we consider hal-iai joint bid to equip it for about 11 milion per aircraft with better stuff??

these questions need answr dude

What has any of this got to do with the point of the post you quoted, which is about when to stop a discussion?

 

[he-man]

What has any of this got to do with the point of the post you quoted, which is about when to stop a discussion?

was a mistake but there are number of gaping holes in this deal

maybe its like a tatra truck scam,,,who knows??

 

[he-man]

Jesus frikking christ, dude! Are you really reading the posts you are quoting?

i said it dosen't matter.

it was a mistake.........................i was still on deal

 

[sancho]

pls don'r equate india with usa first of all

First try to understand before jumping into conclusions, because I didn't compared India with the US, but your flawed logic about the M2K upgrades with those who criticise the F22 upgrade.

second it will still fly for only 13-15 years more even after upgrades

And that is exactly the time we need to field a new platform into specific roles, including the necessary tactics and strategies behind it, till we can effectively use it. It's not the time extention that makes the upgrade costly, but the addition of capabilities, ToT or constriction of new facilities. The first is necessary, the latter are not and why I criticise them as well.

third u are just assuming we will get something behind the scene

Not really, it was widely stated by tje defence minister and MoD officials throughout the competition how important ToT and offsets are in MMRCA and how Indias procurement policies in the last few years were changed to increase the benefits for our industries. Just like it was reported by IAF and IN officials that IAF wanted the M2K-5 in the first MRCA competition, which would had been the fast to induct stop gap, but the aims of MoD changed and M-MRCA was created.
Btw, MRCA was aimed at $10 billions and that for M2K-5s, Mig 29SMT, Gripen C/D, or F16 B52, which divided by 126 means $79 millions each. That M-MRCA would be costlier was clear the minute MoD went for it, which is why the estimates went up to $12 to 15 billions ($95 to 119 millions each fighter), depending on source. So MoD (unlike you) was aware about the costs of the deal, especially by shortlisting the 2 most expensive fighters, that however also offered the best industrial (ToT/offset) packages in return. So they don't have issues with the costs, nor with the delays, unless it gets us that in return what they hope to get.

 

[he-man]

First try to understand before jumping into conclusions, because I didn't compared India with the US, but your flawed logic about the M2K upgrades with those who criticise the F22 upgrade.



And that is exactly the time we need to field a new platform into specific roles, including the necessary tactics and strategies behind it, till we can effectively use it. It's not the time extention that makes the upgrade costly, but the addition of capabilities, ToT or constriction of new facilities. The first is necessary, the latter are not and why I criticise them as well.



Not really, it was widely stated by tje defence minister and MoD officials throughout the competition how important ToT and offsets are in MMRCA and how Indias procurement policies in the last few years were changed to increase the benefits for our industries. Just like it was reported by IAF and IN officials that IAF wanted the M2K-5 in the first MRCA competition, which would had been the fast to induct stop gap, but the aims of MoD changed and M-MRCA was created.
Btw, MRCA was aimed at $10 billions and that for M2K-5s, Mig 29SMT, Gripen C/D, or F16 B52, which divided by 126 means $79 millions each. That M-MRCA would be costlier was clear the minute MoD went for it, which is why the estimates went up to $12 to 15 billions ($95 to 119 millions each fighter), depending on source. So MoD (unlike you) was aware about the costs of the deal, especially by shortlisting the 2 most expensive fighters, that however also offered the best industrial (ToT/offset) packages in return. So they don't have issues with the costs, nor with the delays, unless it gets us that in return what they hope to get.

ur assumptions are valid but i am adressing a broader issue here

1)why was this deal not signed in 2000-2005 period,,,,,when the fighters had half lifeleft and were way way cheaper?

2)why was hal-iai consortium rejected instead of them offering an almost equal package for one forth th price?

3)why was there no engine upgrade even in this hefty deal??

these are valid points although i know we needed aircrafts urgently so hadno option.

 

[sancho]

ur assumptions are valid but i am adressing a broader issue here

1)why was this deal not signed in 2000-2005 period,,,,,when the fighters had half lifeleft and were way way cheaper?

2)why was hal-iai consortium rejected instead of them offering an almost equal package for one forth th price?

3)why was there no engine upgrade even in this hefty deal??

these are valid points although i know we needed aircrafts urgently so hadno option.

Why would the upgrade had been cheaper in 2005? Not the timeline but the required capability is important for the cost.

There was never a HAL-IAI consortium, nor a joint bid. Infact, most of the Israeli stuff that could be on offer are from Rafael, but that are only radar avionics and weapons, but doesn't include the overhaul of the airframe and other parts of the upgrades, which only Dassault could had been done. So instead of splitting the upgrade to 2 sources, they decided for one, which clearly is the better decision, while weapons and parts of the techs are procurued in competitions. We already have decided for the SPICE 2000 and not the French AASM 1000, the competition for LDPs is still going on, so we basically only rejected the possibility of an Israeli radar and AAMs, which was the better choice too, since Python and Derby missiles can't be carried at the rear fuselage stations.

Because the western engines have more life than Russian once, which needed to be upgraded, while the M2Ks didn't.

There are answers for questions, but normally one first states these questions and gathers infos, before complaining about things, based on personal conclusions.