Know Your 'Rafale'

[BON PLAN]

Of course there was a risk financially, the liability clauses! Dassault tried to avoid to be financially liable.

No. The risk was to pay for the late and bad quality HAL deliveries, without having nothing to say or no right to move some management rules inside HAL.
For 20 planes, it may be huge.
For 100+ planes, it's the health of Dassault that is involved.

 

[Sancho]

What 's the problem?

- 90 fighters below requirements
- no licence production
- no ToT
- no option clause
- single vendor deal
...
...
...

The PM gave Dassault and Reliance a present, contrary to what IAF and the industry needed.

 

[Sancho]

No. The risk was to pay for the late and bad quality HAL deliveries,

I have proven you wrong on this many times, because we have access to the DPP clauses. So repeating factually wrong things, doesn't change the facts, just because you don't like it.

 

[Sancho]

....................................................

 

[Sancho]

first flight of Indian rafale... tomorrow

Still no pics or reports on that.

 

[BON PLAN]

Of course there was a risk financially, the liability clauses! Dassault tried to avoid to be financially liable for their own mistakes!

https://www.business-standard.com/a...e-deal-likely-by-mid-2013-113020701260_1.html

"Senior MoD sources tell Business Standard that in discussions in the CNC, Dassault objects to being responsible for the on-time delivery of all the contracted 126 Rafale fighters, though HAL will assemble all but the first 18.

Dassault’s concern is rooted in the three-way contract that Delhi has mandated for the Rafale. The government will sign a contract with Dassault for 18 fully built fighters; and for 108 more fighters that must be built in HAL. Dassault will sign a parallel contract with HAL, laying down the terms for building 108 fighters in HAL and spelling out the responsibilities of either party.

This is a very different arrangement from the one that Delhi implemented with BAE Systems for building the Hawk trainer in India. In that, BAE Systems signed a contract with HAL for building the Hawk in Bangalore and HAL signed a contract with the Government of India for supplying the aircraft.

The French company fears that the new arrangement could hold Dassault responsible for delays actually caused by HAL. For that reason Dassault is arguing in the CNC for doing as much manufacturing as possible in its joint venture (JV) with Reliance."

In red : the risk, clearly explained.
In blue : the fact that the JV with Reliance was in the pipe until 2013....

 

[BON PLAN]

- 90 fighters below requirements
- no licence production
- no ToT
- no option clause
- single vendor deal
...
...
...

The PM gave Dassault and Reliance a present, contrary to what IAF and the industry needed.

- You can't give the same return when you sell 36 or 126 planes !
- ToT : you don't know. I think it's the main obstacle to a public release of the details of the deal is the the ToT. Not specially on the rafale itself.... (deterrence? nuclear sub? )
- Option clause : a rumor, here in France say that there is an option for 18 more. some say 36 more....
- Single vendor deal : at the end only one remain !

And don't forget you inked the deal. We are not so big so that you have to make us a present.

 

[BON PLAN]

I have proven you wrong on this many times, because we have access to the DPP clauses. So repeating factually wrong things, doesn't change the facts, just because you don't like it.

once again, NO.
https://www.business-standard.com/a...e-deal-likely-by-mid-2013-113020701260_1.html

 

[Sancho]

In red : the risk, clearly explained.

It doesn't matter what Dassault thinks, what matters is what the DPP clause says and no matter how many times you deny it, the facts remains the facts and Dassault tried to deviate from RFP rules to not be held financially liable for their own mistakes!

- ToT : you don't know.

Yes we do, because DM Sithraman confirmed last year, that such a small deal doesn't justify ToT

- Option clause : a rumor, here in France

No need for rumors, when DM Parrikar confirmed that there is no such clause.

- Single vendor deal : at the end only one remain

Wrong, because there were 2 shortlisted fighters as technically compliant, therfore the procurement should have included both fighters, if it had went to proper MoD procedures.

 

[Armand2REP]

And that's the point! HAL is contractor of orders requested by IAF and made by MoD, contrary to what you claimed earlier, that HAL ordered fighters on their own..

HAL is the one who fills the orders made by the MoD. It isn't the MoD's job to procure the things HAL needs to fill the order, it is HAL who does that. As such they are ordering knock down kits instead of forging the parts they are supposed to be making themselves which is exactly what I said.

 

[Sancho]

As such they are ordering knock down kits instead of forging the parts they are supposed to be making themselves which is exactly what I said.

And again nonsense! There is a huge difference in ordering raw materials for the license production, or entire fighters in knock down kits. HAL can't make orders of complete fighters.

 

[Prashant12]

Lol you can't even educate yourself on basics?


https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter...razilian/the-fighter/the-gripen-ng-programme/

Its better you educate yourself!

The Gripen was one of the aircraft that the IAF sent the Request for Information. The Gripen participated at Aero India 2007, where one JAS 39C (single seater) and two JAS 39D (two-seater) variants were brought.[57] Gripen International offered the Gripen IN, a version of the Gripen NG (Next Generation) for India's competition.[58] The Gripen NG has increased fuel capacity, more powerful powerplant, higher payload, upgraded avionics and other improvements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_competition#Saab_Gripen_NG

 

[Prashant12]

Wrong, because there were 2 shortlisted fighters as technically compliant, therfore the procurement should have included both fighters, if it had went to proper MoD procedures.

And again nonsense! Eurofighter typhoon is manufactured by consortium which includes of Leonardo. Leonardo is blacklisted company.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Yes we do, because DM Sithraman confirmed last year, that such a small deal doesn't justify ToT

Rafale has no ToT but is there no ToT for other things? Sitharaman only told that the rafale planes have no ToT but not that there is no ToT for anything at all in the deal. The deal was a G2G deal and not just a deal to buy rafales. So, branding it as just rafale deal will be quite wrong.

The deal was not just for rafale. Rafale costs only $100 million a piece. So, the deal for over $8.7 billion dollars, even with maintenance package, is still only 50% of the deal. The rest $4 billion is where the ToT comes in. About $1.5 billion is directly to DRDO itself. What else can be given to DRDO other than ToT?

 

[BON PLAN]

It doesn't matter what Dassault thinks, what matters is what the DPP clause says and no matter how many times you deny it, the facts remains the facts and Dassault tried to deviate from RFP rules to not be held financially liable for their own mistakes!

I'm afraid there was not such "detail" in the RFP.

 

[BON PLAN]

Wrong, because there were 2 shortlisted fighters as technically compliant, therfore the procurement should have included both fighters, if it had went to proper MoD procedures.

2 shortlisted fighters, but only one L1, and the last bargaining was only with the L1.

 

[BON PLAN]

And again nonsense! Eurofighter typhoon is manufactured by consortium which includes of Leonardo. Leonardo is blacklisted company.

So why dealing with Eurofighter ? The best would have been to scratch EF from the beginning.

 

[BON PLAN]

Rafale has no ToT but is there no ToT for other things? Sitharaman only told that the rafale planes have no ToT but not that there is no ToT for anything at all in the deal. The deal was a G2G deal and not just a deal to buy rafales. So, branding it as just rafale deal will be quite wrong.

The deal was not just for rafale. Rafale costs only $100 million a piece. So, the deal for over $8.7 billion dollars, even with maintenance package, is still only 50% of the deal. The rest $4 billion is where the ToT comes in. About $1.5 billion is directly to DRDO itself. What else can be given to DRDO other than ToT?

The deal "cover" some other things.... more sensitive... like deterrence simulation, tactical engine and SSN technology.

 

[cyclops]

From Rafale deal.................????

 

[Sancho]

2 shortlisted fighters, but only one L1, and the last bargaining was only with the L1.

L1 and L2 only relate to the MMRCA tender, not for a separate G2G deal. So that excuse doesn't hold its own either.