SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
1- I am talking about cost escalation over a decade, not a month or two as you're implyingThe rupee has gained with the same pace it lost to the dollar in the last one month. Be my guest to check the news. It was writing on the wall that we would go for 200+ jets of the type. With 4 types of jets each targeted at between 150-250 jets, our idea is 100% replacement of old aircraft plus increase the fighter fleet to at least 1,200 jets in the coming 1-2 decades.
We naturally need this boost, you know.
There is more than one type of costs incurred mate. One is the flyaway cost aka the cost for available jet. Another one and that one is major, is the lifecycle and facilities cost that any nation has to incur in setting up facilities. Earlier while we had a zoo of fleet in 70s and 80s, all were sources from 90% from 1 country aka USSR. Today we have a very diverse fleet and getting Typhoons in would have meant two things:
1- retain existing facilities for those aircraft who don't require immediate replacements
2- build new facilities for maintenance, operation and other tertiaries for the totally unfamiliar and new Typhoons.
Dassault has a big presence in India and a very historic one. We already have facilities for Mirage 2000s all over the country which would need only some new enhancements and Rafales are good to go.
________________
The same reason why PAF went for JF-17s and FC-20s: apart from low fly-away costs and relative political independence, the life-cycle costs for both the jets would be best bang for the buck, since you have Chinese jets for a long time and existing facilities would only need limited facelift to get the new jets going for 'em.
---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------
Every country around the planet has a method that suits them man.
2- I think you got me wrong on the tendering point as well, why do firms tender? lets just say we have X as total costs including both life cycle and flyaway costs. The tendering is intended to yield the lowest price taking advantage of the competition and information asymmetry between the suppliers. with such minute difference in tendering bids, what i said between the lines was that 1)at least one of the manufacturer was able to make inroads in MoD or Evaluation team about other's price. And all it had to do was to just outbid the other 2) The costs spikes were genuine enough that both could not afford much lower prices than the tender. Take an example that you are DA and you dont know what EDAS is going to bid, you will certainly make a much lesser bid (say 70) to outbid the EDAS, but when you know that EDAS has made a bid of 95 you can easily outbid him at 93 which results in you winning the tender but no commercial benefit for the buyer (IAF).