Know Your 'Rafale'

[Sancho]

Your problem is with deal or with politics? That's what confuses me.

No confusion here, because as I said, my priority is the best for IAF! You are bringing up politics in the issue and search for justifications for the NDA, while I show how bad this deal was for the national security and the aviation industry.

 

[Sancho]

It depends what you called MMRCA.

MMRCA was the tender for 126 fighters and the Kaveri / Snecma rejection he was talking about, was for the engine tender of LCA MK2. Two different things, which he tried to combine, to create political point.

 

[Sancho]

18 would be built by HAL right now, that and Dassault required HAL warranty their own work. HAL could neither meet the productivity schedule or the guarantee.

You still have no clue what the performance guarantee is about, or you purposely ignore it, to hide that Dassault rejected to stand guarantee "for their own mistakes", which they initially agreed to!

The performance guarantee clause, holds foreign OEMs accountable, in case they don't fully support the lead production agency, with the necessary know how, tooling or parts, to do the assembly or licence production in time. That's a lesson India learned from the MKI licence production, which got delayed in the initial stages, because the Russians lost interest in supporting India, after they delivered the fighters they produced.
Dassault simply wants the same irresponsibility and don't want to be financially liable for their mistakes, till the last Rafale would had been delivered.
That shows Dassaults cheap character and why their shortsightedness, because they prefered to risk the biggest export deal they ever could dream of, just to not be accountable for their own mistakes!

 

[Armand2REP]

You still have no clue what the performance guarantee is about, or you purposely ignore it, to hide that Dassault rejected to stand guarantee "for their own mistakes", which they initially agreed to!

If it was made by HAL it is not a mistake of Dassault. HAL would not stand by their production techniques and wanted Dassault to be held responsible if their product was substandard. It is nothing to do with the performance which is a separate guarantee of the consortium that has pledge to maintain 75% availability for the term of the support contract. This has more to do with Safran and Thales.

 

[Sancho]

If it was made by HAL it is not a mistake of Dassault.

Wrong, it depends on who is responsible for the mistake. If Dassault didn't provided HAL with the necessary tools to do the prodiction in time, it's logically Dassaults mistake and Dassaults should be held accountable!

It is nothing to do with the performance which is a separate guarantee Dassault has pledge to maintain 75% availability.

So you confirm to not know what you are talking about!

The performance guarantee clause was part of the DPP 2006, which as explained holds the OEM accountable for his mistakes, that leads to issues in the licence production of the lead integrator.

The performance based logistics, which requires the OEM to provide necessary support and spares to the customer, to meet a certain availability rate, was added only in the DPP 2016 and applies only to new deals.

Dassault agreed to the performance guarantee and liability clauses, when the replied to the MMRCA RFP and rejected them after Rafale was selected as the winner.
The performance based logistics however, had no relation to MMRCA and applied only to the 36 Rafale deal.

 

[vampyrbladez]

No confusion here, because as I said, my priority is the best for IAF! You are bringing up politics in the issue and search for justifications for the NDA, while I show how bad this deal was for the national security and the aviation industry.

This is deal is bad for national security?

You have an MKI - ised Rafale with minimum 36 + 18 confirmed and 90 more to be bought/locally manufactured in tranches. Aviation industry in India will be swimming in offsets and will be the ones producing it not HAL. The private industry. The one that actually values merit and creates jobs through economic benefit and not system bias (reservation).

P.S: Most people on this board love Modi not BJP in general. That guy has balls and a solid game plan. BJP means old Advani lot of dinosaurs. When people talk of Hindu Rashtra we mean Russian Orthodox dominated Russia not Saudi Arabia.

This ****** would have become a chaprasi if not for his family connection. UPA govt. tried to screw the country with a 20 - 30bn $ deal with HAL overseeing it.

 

[Sancho]

This is deal is bad for national security?

There is no doubt about that, because the deal provides 90 fighters below the minimum requirements of IAF! That's why several IAF official kept confirming that 36 fighters are not enough. Your political bias can't change that, because the minimum requirement is set by IAF and can't simply changed by the PM.

P.S. The deal has no option clause and the Indian industry lost billions of offset work and critical ToT with this deal, as suppose to what they would have got with an MMRCA Rafale deal.

 

[Sancho]

Wrong, it depends on who is responsible for the mistake. If Dassault didn't provided HAL with the necessary tools to do the prodiction in time, it's logically Dassaults mistake and Dassaults should be held accountable!



So you confirm to not know what you are talking about!

The performance guarantee clause was part of the DPP 2006, which as explained holds the OEM accountable for his mistakes, that leads to issues in the licence production of the lead integrator.

The performance based logistics, which requires the OEM to provide necessary support and spares to the customer, to meet a certain availability rate, was added only in the DPP 2016 and applies only to new deals.

Dassault agreed to the performance guarantee and liability clauses, when the replied to the MMRCA RFP and rejected them after Rafale was selected as the winner.
The performance based logistics however, had no relation to MMRCA and applied only to the 36 Rafale deal.

Practical example why these clauses are important for India =>

...India’s defence minister A.K. Antony had told Parliament earlier this week that BAE Systems had been fined for supplying defective components which in turn had caused a delay in the supply of the aircraft by HAL to the IAF. "In view of the delay in delivery of Hawk by HAL due to the receipt of defective components, jigs and fixtures from the foreign manufacturer, on whom liquidated damages have been levied, the original training plan by Hawk AJT for 2010-11 has been modified," he had said. A HAL source told defenseworld.net that damages were in the region of $10 million which was required to enable retooling and fixtures necessary for the assembly which had not been originally supplied by the manufacturer

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/5302/All_Hawk_trainer_issues_with_India_resolved__BAE_Systems

That shows the improvement Indian DPP made, by lessons learned from past licence productions and why IAF officials, UPA and NDA defence ministers insisted on Dassault complying to the RFP rules!

 

[vampyrbladez]

There is no doubt about that, because the deal provides 90 fighters below the minimum requirements of IAF! That's why several IAF official kept confirming that 36 fighters are not enough.

So 36 + 18 + is less? That is knowing 90 is coming along soon. You do realize that if we agree to the 126 Rafale deal we would have been fucked by 20 - 30 bn $ and that was during Obama era. Now Trump shook the entire currency market with his tweets and Rupee has touched 70. We would have been paying through our nose! And cherry on the cake is HAL managing it. A clusterfuck in the making.

P.S. The deal has no option clause and the Indian industry lost billions of offset work and critical ToT with this deal, as suppose to what they would have got with an MMRCA Rafale deal.

Some Citations here:

The deal comes with a 50 per cent offset clause which means that Indian companies, big and small, will get businesses worth over 3 billion euros. Defence sources said that one main point of the offset was that 74 per cent of it has to be imported from India.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...r-cent-offset-clause/articleshow/54487326.cms

"Let's be clear, this is a government to government arrangement. Offset has nothing to do with this contract. There are 100s of offsets in India.Government will purchase 36 fully-loaded aircrafts coming all the way from France, manufactured in France, no private party involved. Government of India's role ends there. Under a policy devised by the UPA, every defence supplier (original equipment manufacturer or OEM) has to undertake some offsets. Purchases have to be made from India equivalent to about 30 per cent of the total contract value. Who will he make purchases from? He selects his own partners. Those purchases have nothing to do with Rafale or these aircrafts. He could be buying guns, pistols, binoculars or some spare parts. For this purpose, not only Rafale but every defence manufacturer has to enter into offset contracts," Jaitley said.

https://www.business-standard.com/a...lated-to-contract-jaitley-118082900459_1.html

France’s Thales is confident of creating more than 3,500 high-end jobs in India over the next three years, as it executes $1 billion (Rs 6,850 crore) worth of offsets over the Rafalefighter jet deal in partnership with local companies Bharat Electronics and Reliance Defence.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...00-top-jobs-in-india/articleshow/64969265.cms

 

[vampyrbladez]

Practical example why these clauses are important for India =>

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/5302/All_Hawk_trainer_issues_with_India_resolved__BAE_Systems

That shows the improvement Indian DPP made, by lessons learned from past licence productions and why IAF officials, UPA and NDA defence ministers insisted on Dassault complying to the RFP rules!

So where is the fault then? Its a G2G deal. Offsets are decided by private company. This is not an example of offsets but of warranty. Any contractor/sub contractor who violates or fails it has to pay out of own pocket.

See example of German F 125 Frigate.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/print/WSJ_-A006-20180113.pdf

 

[Sancho]

Some Citations here:

You should look for statements of officials, not just mentions in reports.

Interview with defence minister Parrikar:

Q: But there is no optional clause as part of the Rafale agreement.
A: In this there is no optional clause.

Q: So, if we want more then we cannot get them at the same price?
A: No, this problem is we have not decided but the question you have asked me if you want more, no one stops us from going for more, but this decision is Prime Minister's decision in lieu of urgency of the requirement to equip Air Force with two squadrons that is 36, it ends there. Our quest for two engine additionality to the Air Force will be decided based on the merit of various issues in which Rafael may also figure.

Q: But you would not have liked to put in an optional clause that you could have gotten the same agreement pretty much if you chose to exercise the possibilities of bringing in more?
A: When you sign with government to government in later stage if something has to be decided you can always extent the agreements, there are no big problems in that. But since we have not taken any decision on this and this decision was restricted to 36, we have completed the negotiation and purchase for 36 now.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/t...alitypak-rafaleexport-bonanza-959919.html/amp

 

[Sancho]

So where is the fault then? Its a G2G deal. Offsets are decided by private company. This is not an example of offsets but of warranty.

That's not a reply to you, nor has it anything to do with the Rafale deal.

 

[vampyrbladez]

You should look for statements of officials, not just mentions in reports.

Interview with defence minister Parrikar:

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/t...alitypak-rafaleexport-bonanza-959919.html/amp

Doesn't always have to be that way. Option clause not being included doesn't mean more orders are not on the way. Only thing will happen is HAL will not be involved and a JV with a private entity will occur. Normally an offset clause is not involved in G2G deals but 50% clause plus 75 - 80 % serviceability rate was also assured plus a fully MKI - ised variant with weapon packages.

90 more will be manufactured but not by HAL. A private entity. In this case Bharat Electronics - Rafale - Reliance Defence. The argument that only HAL is experienced in a/c construction is invalid. Look at L&T and Kalyan in ATAGS program. Even K9 deal is progressing smoothly and way ahead of time. This is the power of DPP and a true MIC.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/rafale-deal-untying-the-knots/

 

[Sancho]

Doesn't always have to be that way. Option clause not being included doesn't mean more orders are not on the way.

- cutting down Rafale requirement to just 36
- deleting standard option clause from the contract
- asking IAF to take MKIs and LCAs instead of Rafale
- publicly stating that not more than 36 Rafales will be procured for strategic purposes only
- cancelling MMRCA Rafale tender
- issuing the SE MMRCA tender, specifically to keep Rafale out...

But yes, more Rafales can still come someday, although the government does anything against it.

Normally an offset clause is not involved in G2G deals

Wrong, offsets are implemented in all procurement deals, only the amount differs from standard 30% to 50% in major deals.

 

[vampyrbladez]

- cutting down Rafale requirement to just 36
- deleting standard option clause from the contract
- asking IAF to take MKIs and LCAs instead of Rafale
- publicly stating that not more than 36 Rafales will be procured for strategic purposes only
- cancelling MMRCA Rafale tender
- issuing the SE MMRCA tender, specifically to keep Rafale out...

But yes, more Rafales can still come someday, although the government does anything against it.



Wrong, offsets are implemented in all procurement deals, only the amount differs from standard 30% to 50% in major deals.

Wrong on all those points again.

• Requirement remains the same as 126 MMRCA aka Rafale.
• Option clause was deleted for 50% offset in deal. This doesn't happen in G2G deals where DPP (2013) allows for up to 30% offset.
• New offsets requires 74% of 50% sourced from India with another 30% as investments. Also for first time manufacturer faces steep penalties if 75 - 85% servicibility is not maintained.
• Single engine 90 fighter tender scrapped for 110 fighters under DPP 2016. With news of no field trials this is almost a shoo in for MKI - ised Rafale.
• IAF is buying 40 more Su 30 MKI in addition to this deal going by buzz.

 

[Sancho]

• Option clause was deleted for 50% offset in deal.

Hehe, first you claimed that G2G doesnt have offsets, but yes the clause most likely was deleted to gain more offsets in return.
That's a matter of negotiations, not a change in the DPP. MMRCA which came under DPP 2006, also included 50% offsets, while the standard amount is given with 30%.

• New offsets requires 74% of 50% sourced from India with another 30% as investments. Also for first time manufacturer faces steep penalties if 75 - 85% servicibility is not maintained.

Lol and another one who is confusing performance based logistics.

• Single engine 90 fighter tender scrapped for 110 fighters under DPP 2016.

The SE tender was for 114 fighters and already under the DPP 2016, because it was based on NDAs SP policy.

And all that doesn't take away the fact that the NDA did everything to not buy more Rafales as explained. Denial is not an argument!

 

[Prashant12]

And all that doesn't take away the fact that the NDA did everything to not buy more Rafales as explained. Denial is not an argument!

Two successive UPA governments failed to clinch the 126 MMRCA deal. Denial is not an argument!

NDA did buy more Rafales as explained.

Because it cannot afford 28-30 billion.Denial is not an argument!

Parrikar said India could not afford 126 Rafales. “We must remember that Rafale is a top-end, multi-role fighter… but it is quite expensive.

“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under “Make in India”, that is also possible. If we build another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21”, said Parrikar.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/04/india-could-also-buy-light-fighter-to.html


The fully weaponised Rafale air craft’s 2016 price is 20% cheaper than the 2007 offer. This is what the 2015 statement of the PM and the French President refers to as ‘on terms better than the 2007 offers’.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Hehe, first you claimed that G2G doesnt have offsets, but yes the clause most likely was deleted to gain more offsets in return.
That's a matter of negotiations, not a change in the DPP. MMRCA which came under DPP 2006, also included 50% offsets, while the standard amount is given with 30%.

Lol and another one who is confusing performance based logistics.

The SE tender was for 114 fighters and already under the DPP 2016, because it was based on NDAs SP policy.

And all that doesn't take away the fact that the NDA did everything to not buy more Rafales as explained. Denial is not an argument!

You got caught up in your argument. Performance and mission based requirements were factored in to the deal with Su 30 MKI yet to reach 75% availability. Rafale has been held to the contract on this point.

Main thing is GoI is not a Dubai level Gulf pimp to have money lying around. 20 - 30 bn $ defence commitment for 1 deal with fruits not seen until next decade is highly risky for our policy. To top it all off HAL babus will manage it!

It's like an 85 year old security guard with bolt action gun will guard the facility.

 

[BON PLAN]

MMRCA was the tender for 126 fighters and the Kaveri / Snecma rejection he was talking about, was for the engine tender of LCA MK2. Two different things, which he tried to combine, to create political point.

Indeed.
No link between MMRCA and Kaveri revival.
But a strong link between the 36 Rafale deal and Kaveri.

 

[BON PLAN]

You still have no clue what the performance guarantee is about, or you purposely ignore it, to hide that Dassault rejected to stand guarantee "for their own mistakes", which they initially agreed to!

The performance guarantee clause, holds foreign OEMs accountable, in case they don't fully support the lead production agency, with the necessary know how, tooling or parts, to do the assembly or licence production in time. That's a lesson India learned from the MKI licence production, which got delayed in the initial stages, because the Russians lost interest in supporting India, after they delivered the fighters they produced.
Dassault simply wants the same irresponsibility and don't want to be financially liable for their mistakes, till the last Rafale would had been delivered.
That shows Dassaults cheap character and why their shortsightedness, because they prefered to risk the biggest export deal they ever could dream of, just to not be accountable for their own mistakes!

When you see that Being stopped to agree HAL producing liner components, you understand perfectly the problem.