India opens bids in $10.4-bn combat plane tender.

[p2prada]

I don't think the second phase includes MRCA deal. This could be for PAKFA, the IAC-2 along with future subs. No big deal. This kinda stuff is routine.

 

[nitesh]

As of now US has got most of the deals, C 17 and C 130J, with both getting/in the process of getting repeat orders. The LCA engine contract went to them. The Heli deal which is awaited (transport).

The Russian took the cream in terms of future deals, as the PAK FA.

Now comes to Europe, the only way to divide the things is either Germans get orders for new subs or French get orders for Scorpene (which is done) and the Mirage deal is done.

Going by the trends it seems EF is leading the race.

 

[p2prada]

^^None of that has anything to do with MRCA deal. The French will win if Rafale is cheaper, that's about it. UK and Germany can get a carrot instead.

There are hundreds of other deals waiting to happen. MRCA is just one of the many.

 

[sukhish]

^^None of that has anything to do with MRCA deal. The French will win if Rafale is cheaper, that's about it. UK and Germany can get a carrot instead.

There are hundreds of other deals waiting to happen. MRCA is just one of the many.

rafale is a side show, MMRCA is not meant for Rafale.

 

[noob101]

rafale is a side show, MMRCA is not meant for Rafale.

I dont know that i would say that as it is at the present moment Rafale is the only fighter in the MMRCA that is fully capable, Typhoon still has yet to have ASEA radar and complete A2G capabilities. I am a Typhoon supporter but I still have my reservations... MMRCA will eventually replace the Mig 27 and Jaguars, if the Typhoon doesn't pan out to be a good A2G there is almost no alternative in the future....

A lot of people seem to be comparing the MMRCA to the PAF and the PLAF and how the 2 eurocanards are better than anything that those 2 have. While that is true, I think that many are missing the point as the MMRCA will be the premier and sole ground attack aircraft in the IAF after 2025.... we will have the MKI, FGFA for air superiority and the LCA as a second line interceptor.

Typhoon seems to be promising as a swing role fighter, but one has to keep in mind that it has still not proven itself as much as the Rafale. IMHO this deal was the Rafale's to loose from the start, F-16, F-18, Grippen, Mig 35 have nothing on the Rafale. The only one that could beat them out was the Typhoon if they offered a much much better package than Rafale. And thats what seems to be happening.

 

[p2prada]

rafale is a side show, MMRCA is not meant for Rafale.

The top brass's views differs from your view. IAF's first preference is Rafale. Plenty of initial reports saying the same. IN Admirals are on record saying they want Rafale. MoF's preference is the cheaper aircraft. So there is nothing much IAF can do there. Looking at current economic conditions, the cheaper one will be the obvious choice.

 

[noob101]

The top brass's views differs from your view. IAF's first preference is Rafale. Plenty of initial reports saying the same. IN Admirals are on record saying they want Rafale. MoF's preference is the cheaper aircraft. So there is nothing much IAF can do there. Looking at current economic conditions, the cheaper one will be the obvious choice.

I agree, if one looks at the tender process from the beginning Rafale seemed to be the one, but as things unfolded Eurofighter people seemed like they were doing everything they could to get the deal while Dassult was doing the exact opposite. This clearly refelcts in the price of the aircraft, out sourcing of spares, extending of partnership, weapons package etc. There really was no reason for the Rafale to be more costly.

and again there seems to be little difference from the 2 in technical terms and I think the GOI was just waiting to see if the Dassult people will make significant concessions to meet the Eurofighters deal.

 

[p2prada]

I agree, if one looks at the tender process from the beginning Rafale seemed to be the one, but as things unfolded Eurofighter people seemed like they were doing everything they could to get the deal while Dassult was doing the exact opposite. This clearly refelcts in the price of the aircraft, out sourcing of spares, extending of partnership, weapons package etc. There really was no reason for the Rafale to be more costly.

It would be Dassault's fault if Rafale loses. Anyway the Brit air chief pointed out a long time back that the Typhoon is cheap. It was the media which was quoting EF's program unit price to fly away prices of Rafale. Unit price is quite similar, but Rafale is a little cheaper. If media reports are to be believed the difference is 5% with Rafale being cheaper.

As for the size of the programs, Rafale has 180 concrete orders as of today as compared to 700+ for EF. When it comes to building frames, EF consortium are doing 50+/year compared to Rafale's 8/year. So, it is obvious the EF will end up being cheaper. Also the fact that the EF is backed by 4 big European economies vs 1 French economy.

 

[noob101]

the fly away cost of the Rafale is cheaper but the spares and other costs are much higher than the Typhoon, so the overall cost of the Rafale is higher.

 

[SpArK]

the fly away cost of the Rafale is cheaper but the spares and other costs are much higher than the Typhoon, so the overall cost of the Rafale is higher.

Any specific links to validate that claim?

 

[weg]

Any specific links to validate that claim?

Its a fundamental principle in economics and manufacturing and has been since before the start of the industrial revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

 

[arundo]

I agree, if one looks at the tender process from the beginning Rafale seemed to be the one, but as things unfolded Eurofighter people seemed like they were doing everything they could to get the deal while Dassult was doing the exact opposite. This clearly refelcts in the price of the aircraft, out sourcing of spares, extending of partnership, weapons package etc. There really was no reason for the Rafale to be more costly.

and again there seems to be little difference from the 2 in technical terms and I think the GOI was just waiting to see if the Dassult people will make significant concessions to meet the Eurofighters deal.

full ack!
It really seems that EF has made more efforts to get the contract, apart from the greater possibilities of co-operation and ToT the 4 countries can offer. And It seems to confirm the rumors in France, that Dassault is not trying everything to sell Rafale and therefore there are tensions with the French government. They have a full order bank until 2030 and are more and more focusing on the more profitable civil air crafts (more than 2/3 of turnover and even much more in net income) In the UAE officials said that Dassault people were quite arrogant during the negotiations while French officials have tried everything. Some people say that communication is not really working between Dassault, SNECMA, Thales and Safran..
What ever is the reason, the Rafale consortium should have offered better terms to India and even dropped its trousers (if necessary).

 

[arundo]

It would be Dassault's fault if Rafale loses. Anyway the Brit air chief pointed out a long time back that the Typhoon is cheap. It was the media which was quoting EF's program unit price to fly away prices of Rafale. Unit price is quite similar, but Rafale is a little cheaper. If media reports are to be believed the difference is 5% with Rafale being cheaper.

As for the size of the programs, Rafale has 180 concrete orders as of today as compared to 700+ for EF. When it comes to building frames, EF consortium are doing 50+/year compared to Rafale's 8/year. So, it is obvious the EF will end up being cheaper. Also the fact that the EF is backed by 4 big European economies vs 1 French economy.

Yes, but the EF program has been much more expensive so far. The program of 286 Rafale cost about 44 billion € to the French while the 160 EF cost as much to the UK (37 billion Pound Sterling)...
It is a big advantage to have a larger "domestic" market (4 countries) as it allows economies of scale, but it seems that the costs to develop the jets have been much higher. The reason is, that such a co-operation is always related to compromises to please each partner country, even if they are not always the most economically viable ones for the program.
So I do not understand how the French didn't manage to be cheaper.

 

[weg]

Yes, but the EF program has been much more expensive so far. The program of 286 Rafale cost about 44 billion € to the French while the 160 EF cost as much to the UK (37 billion Pound Sterling)...

What does those two figure include? the 37Billion is the eventual cost and probably includes operating and weapons - definitely it includes R&D. The 44Billion could be the cost to date of procurement. Even getting a straightforward of the cost to fly of an American aircraft is almost impossible.

This is why the MRCA competition is illuminating becuase its going to set precise costs on all aspects of ownership

 

[anoop_mig25]

The top brass's views differs from your view. IAF's first preference is Rafale. Plenty of initial reports saying the same. IN Admirals are on record saying they want Rafale. MoF's preference is the cheaper aircraft. So there is nothing much IAF can do there. Looking at current economic conditions, the cheaper one will be the obvious choice.

i think the babus at fiannce department should not play ploticis when question is of national secqurity. allready there was news that in morning that fiance department is playing spolier in armys modernastion plan . indian economy is in this state because of their populist schemes and due to which indian armed forces has to suffer.

another question if typhoon is supposed to get ASEA radar and complete A2G capabilities in 2015 what if that didn`t perform upto the potential target. i is iaf that would losse not gemany/england after all we are going to pay for it so why not go for rafale which atleast has asead radar and may get a2a capbalities

 

[noob101]

i think the babus at fiannce department should not play ploticis when question is of national secqurity. allready there was news that in morning that fiance department is playing spolier in armys modernastion plan . indian economy is in this state because of their populist schemes and due to which indian armed forces has to suffer.

another question if typhoon is supposed to get ASEA radar and complete A2G capabilities in 2015 what if that didn`t perform upto the potential target. i is iaf that would losse not gemany/england after all we are going to pay for it so why not go for rafale which atleast has asead radar and may get a2a capbalities

Just a matter of greasing hands at the finance ministry as well

on your second point, I too made the same point I really want to know what the experts that are neutral think?

 

[p2prada]

Yes, but the EF program has been much more expensive so far. The program of 286 Rafale cost about 44 billion € to the French while the 160 EF cost as much to the UK (37 billion Pound Sterling)...
It is a big advantage to have a larger "domestic" market (4 countries) as it allows economies of scale, but it seems that the costs to develop the jets have been much higher. The reason is, that such a co-operation is always related to compromises to please each partner country, even if they are not always the most economically viable ones for the program.
So I do not understand how the French didn't manage to be cheaper.

Lucky for us we aren't involved in development costs. IAF's main interest is to get an aircraft that will be cheaper to build and maintain for over 40 years. However we will have to pay costs for ToT and industrial technology and get back half that value back through offsets. So, HAL's interested in getting hold of this technology which can be also be used in some form or the other in AMCA. But we won't be expected to pay 37Billion Pounds for the same number of aircraft. This applies to both France and the Consortium.

Anyway, the current program costs for 180 Rafale seems to be 40Billion Euros. If Rafale is chosen we will end up paying half this amount for 200 aircraft.

EF is much more expensive than the 37Billion mentioned in the Auditing report. AFAIK, the 37Billion is for UK(37%) alone and does not include a similar amount for Germany(33%) and Italy+Spain(30%), more or less. That would push the entire EF program over 100Billion. Assuming this cost of 100Billion is for 600 EFs we can say the unit cost is 166million(program). It is lesser though. Assuming 40Billion for 180 Rafale we can say each Rafale costs 222million. Add any currency to these figures, Dollars, Euros, it does not matter. So, overall the EF is a cheaper program. However this does not mean Rafale is more expensive in fly away costs.

It's funny how other countries struggle to build state of the art stuff over decades and we buy the technology, when it is mature, in just a few years by paying half the amount. Even then we have critics who scream and shout over being ripped off when we are actually benefiting from the business.

 

[weg]

It's funny how other countries struggle to build state of the art stuff over decades and we buy the technology, when it is mature, in just a few years by paying half the amount. Even then we have critics who scream and shout over being ripped off when we are actually benefiting from the business.

Yes. I wish more people would appreciate that. Defence development is a oppertunity to waste money. EF, Rafale, F-35 and every other project (bar one or two notable exceptions). Moneypits.

 

[arundo]

What does those two figure include? the 37Billion is the eventual cost and probably includes operating and weapons - definitely it includes R&D. The 44Billion could be the cost to date of procurement. Even getting a straightforward of the cost to fly of an American aircraft is almost impossible.

They both include the total costs of the whole program: R&D, aircrafts, weapons, spares, maintenance..... => total costs of ownership... But we should know, that the EF unit costs have risen by 75% vs. budget. The reasons: delays and reductions in quantity by some airforces due to military budget cuts (for ex. Germany from 177 to 140)
Of course we never will know which plane is less expensive to operate in the case of India, because we do not know the impact of other elements like ToT or economic and political benefits for India.

 

[arundo]

Lucky for us we aren't involved in development costs. IAF's main interest is to get an aircraft that will be cheaper to build and maintain for over 40 years. However we will have to pay costs for ToT and industrial technology and get back half that value back through offsets. So, HAL's interested in getting hold of this technology which can be also be used in some form or the other in AMCA. But we won't be expected to pay 37Billion Pounds for the same number of aircraft. This applies to both France and the Consortium.

Anyway, the current program costs for 180 Rafale seems to be 40Billion Euros. If Rafale is chosen we will end up paying half this amount for 200 aircraft.

EF is much more expensive than the 37Billion mentioned in the Auditing report. AFAIK, the 37Billion is for UK(37%) alone and does not include a similar amount for Germany(33%) and Italy+Spain(30%), more or less. That would push the entire EF program over 100Billion. Assuming this cost of 100Billion is for 600 EFs we can say the unit cost is 166million(program). It is lesser though. Assuming 40Billion for 180 Rafale we can say each Rafale costs 222million. Add any currency to these figures, Dollars, Euros, it does not matter. So, overall the EF is a cheaper program. However this does not mean Rafale is more expensive in fly away costs.

It's funny how other countries struggle to build state of the art stuff over decades and we buy the technology, when it is mature, in just a few years by paying half the amount. Even then we have critics who scream and shout over being ripped off when we are actually benefiting from the business.

Of course, the 37 billion are only for the RAF.