What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
ToT cannot be priceless. Free access to technology and documents is one thing, implementing processes and industrialze them is another thing.
Anw, none of us do know the real amount of the deal, and what will be included in.
Considering the extent of new MELBAA study plan for example, i'd say india should not worry about Rafale future ;)
 
.
ToT cannot be priceless. Free access to technology and documents is one thing, implementing processes and industrialze them is another thing.
Anw, none of us do know the real amount of the deal, and what will be included in.
Considering the extent of new MELBAA study plan for example, i'd say india should not worry about Rafale future ;)

So Dassault is demanding 9 Billion $ as consultancy charges for "implementing processes and helping HAL industrialize" ? :cheesy:

WOW. Congratulations on successfully Conning IAF and GOI. House of Lies (TV Series 2012– ) - IMDb

I am sure Rafale future is made secure by IAF generous gift. No worries there.
 
.
The whole deal is ROTTEN. France/ Dassault is taken India for a ride. A very expensive ride.

The 126 aircraft costs only 13 Billion $ !!!! ........they are demanding 9 Billion $ for ToT :tdown:

ToT was supposed to be FREE as an incentive for buying 126 Rafale. That is where they make their profit. By selling 126 Rafale to us, or do the IAF believe 103 million $ is the Bill of material (BOM) in making Rafale ? :cheesy:

In comparison the ENTIRE COST of R&D for LCA cost us only 1 Billion $ :sick:

IAF has no concept of money or the sweat and blood common Indians have to pay for their incompetence.

Shame on IAF and Shame on GoI.

all we can do is speculate.
 
.
So Dassault is demanding 9 Billion $ as consultancy charges for "implementing processes and helping HAL industrialize" ? :cheesy:

WOW. Congratulations on successfully Conning IAF and GOI.
House of Lies (TV Series 2012– ) - IMDb

I am sure Rafale future is made secure by IAF generous gift. No worries there.

"An egregious example is that Dassault, as part of the Rafale contract, has promised gallium nitride (GaN) technology to make semi-conductor chips utilised in high-powered avionics but refused to part with technology for the foundries to fabricate the chips! India will thus pay through its nose for technology that cannot be converted into a component, which will end up being imported for the lifetime of the aircraft"

:crazy:
 
. .
Better to speculate now and build public opinion for an open REVIEW of this deal than regret later.

that should happen no matter what unless it jeopardizes national security.
 
.
that should happen no matter what unless it jeopardizes national security.

It should, but its not happening under the "veil" of NATIONAL SECURITY :P ...... That is how the IAF operate, open blackmail.
 
. .
best bet is get a petition going.

This is off topic, so my last post on this particular matter. But in India "petition" does not really work. The working model in India is PIL. (Public Interest litigation)
 
.
"An egregious example is that Dassault, as part of the Rafale contract, has promised gallium nitride (GaN) technology to make semi-conductor chips utilised in high-powered avionics but refused to part with technology for the foundries to fabricate the chips! India will thus pay through its nose for technology that cannot be converted into a component, which will end up being imported for the lifetime of the aircraft"

:crazy:

I've read that ignorant part from an ignorant politician. Dassault DO NOT build any GaN modules. A joint venture from Thalès and Airbus aerospace and defence ccalled UMS do.
 
.
I've read that ignorant part from an ignorant politician. Dassault DO NOT build any GaN modules. A joint venture from Thalès and Airbus aerospace and defence ccalled UMS do.

Ya, that was part of the argument that Dassault is simply using Thales & other 3rd party arguments to not allow the offering of technology. How should it matter to the buyer?
 
.
Ya, that was part of the argument that Dassault is simply using Thales & other 3rd party arguments to not allow the offering of technology. How should it matter to the buyer?

LOL. Exactly. Why do we have to care who owns it, its Dassaults responsibility to make sure it happens. They are the main negotiators.
 
.
Ya, that was part of the argument that Dassault is simply using Thales & other 3rd party arguments to not allow the offering of technology. How should it matter to the buyer?

No it wasn't he made up the story that Dassault would provide ToT of the AESA, which itself is nonsense since Thales/Airbus does it, but also that they would provide GaN module ToT, which the AESA doesn't even use. So the whole point of not sharing techs was based on a lot of BS and the article itself had so many mistakes, that the route of the argumentation was pretty obvious.
Dassault is the developer of the fighter, not of the AESA or the engine, therefor any ToT contracts would be done with Thales / Airbus, or Safran, which (apart of Airbus) are part of the Rafale international consortium if you want. Just like Saab is the developer of the Gripen, but not of the Selex repositioner and IRST, or the GE engine of the Gripen E and can't provide ToT of them without approval and they are not part of the fighter development, which makes it even more difficult to get ToT of these critical techs.

It's basically a shame to see how cheap our media is, where anybody with a defence blog can write any nonsense and get even published, without even putting an effort into fact checking.
 
.
No it wasn't he made up the story that Dassault would provide ToT of the AESA, which itself is nonsense since Thales/Airbus does it, but also that they would provide GaN module ToT, which the AESA doesn't even use. So the whole point of not sharing techs was based on a lot of BS and the article itself had so many mistakes, that the route of the argumentation was pretty obvious.
Dassault is the developer of the fighter, not of the AESA or the engine, therefor any ToT contracts would be done with Thales / Airbus, or Safran, which (apart of Airbus) are part of the Rafale international consortium if you want. Just like Saab is the developer of the Gripen, but not of the Selex repositioner and IRST, or the GE engine of the Gripen E and can't provide ToT of them without approval and they are not part of the fighter development, which makes it even more difficult to get ToT of these critical techs.

It's basically a shame to see how cheap our media is, where anybody with a defence blog can write any nonsense and get even published, without even putting an effort into fact checking.


Who cares what Dassault's arguments are. This is about the deal and the ToT thereof . The deal is for the whole platform, not for individual parts. The point is not who is responsible for what part but whether we are able, in negotiations, to get what we think we would have. If some part of the "Rafale consortium" won't play ball, that should be a problem for the consortium, not for the buyer. If we are not able to get all the ToT we thought we would, then the deal should be seen as non-compliant & not proceeeded with. Not our place to tie the knots here.

Don't bother with the media, there are enough who have been acting as if the Rafale is the greatest gift to India. They get their say, only fair others do to. Not the business of the media to take sides.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom