Know Your 'Rafale'

[Kay]

Here is Manu Pubby' article

https://theprint.in/2017/12/01/rafale-deal-govt-passed-option-buy-e59-mln-unit-cheaper-eurofighter/

"In fairness, the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was for the larger order of 126 jets involving better economies of scale. The price for 36 flyaway jets was not discussed as India did not engage in detailed talks with the consortium."

It seems GOI and IAF favored Rafale for many reasons - they were familiar and happy with French aircraft. GOI wanted negotiations to end, support for Kaveri and as per process Rafale was the lowest bidder.
I have doubts as Eurofighter's last minute bid was process compliant - but not sure if that. If it was compliant, there had been the possibility of another round of bidding - but India was probably already talking to France on offsets then.
I never understood how Reliance came into picture replacing HAL though.

 

[Kay]

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/rafale-deal-dassault-us-envoy-unhappy-hal-quality-control
Rafale Deal: Dassault, US Ex-Envoy Flagged HAL’s Quality Control

I think the whole controversy could have been avoided if Ambani was not in picture. GOI is losing a perception battle only because Ambani is in picture.

 

[mayfair]

As explained, it was shortlisted, therefore passed IAF requirements. We never even rejected it officially, but selected Rafale for exclusive negotiations, because it was cheaper and not because it was more capable.
So if you make a separate deal, it's nothing but logical to get an offer from BOTH shortlisted fighters, to follow MoD rules of avoiding a single vendor situation.

MoD rules under DPP forbid from simultaneously engaging with L1 and L2. Rafale was declared L1 in the MRCA contest. Of course, should these rules be amended? Yes, because it's to our benefit to get the best deal out of it.

But then, it will open a whole new can of worms, because the party that won the right to negotiate the contract will cry foul. A limit could be included such that is the difference is less than 1-2% of the project cost, both maybe engaged..

Parrikar distracted from the fact that neither DM Jaitley, nor himself were able to finish the negotiations with Dassault, for the same reason Antony couldn't, none compliance to the RFP from Dassault!

As Subramanyam Swamy pointed out, MRCA had turned into a mess and had to be scrapped.

I find it quite interesting that all these hit jobs on Rafale started appearing soon after there were reports that GoI was scrapping the SEF procurement programme.

Arms lobbies are in full flow.

 

[WolfPack86]

Euro Fighter Typhoon is the biggest head ache recently many Euro Fighter Typhoon have been crashed. So there is no questioning purchase of Euro Fighter Typhoon. Rafale is the best option for Govt of India. Only thing that Govt involved ambani so it is big problem for BJP. It is better to bring in Tata or Mahindra.

 

[mayfair]

Euro Fighter Typhoon is the biggest head ache recently many Euro Fighter Typhoon have been crashed. So there is no questioning purchase of Euro Fighter Typhoon. Rafale is the best option for Govt of India. Only thing that Govt involved ambani so it is big problem for BJP. It is better to bring in Tata or Mahindra.

TATA are partnered with Boeing and also with Lockheed for the proposed F-16 as the SEF tie up. The partners were chosen by the foreign firms themselves.

The issue to me appears clear as crystal- the deal was agreed in 2015, signed in 2016. Nary a peep from the "doubters", though all the data was available. Why? Because the SEF programme was likely.

Once it became obvious that SEF was unlikely to materialise anytime soon, GoI decided to go for Tejas and probably a follow up order for Rafale, that all the lackeys were activated.

Everyone has gotten involved in the mix- Amreekis, Russians, French and the Euros...

 

[Sancho]

How was Rafale non-compliance?

The fighter was, Dassault wasn't, since they rejected RFP rules, that they initially accepted, when they replied to the RFP. They tried to change things after they were selected as the winner, while they didn't complained about HAL or the performance guarantee and liquidated damages clauses of the RFP before.

MoD rules under DPP forbid from simultaneously engaging with L1 and L2. Rafale was declared L1 in the MRCA contest.

"Simultaneously" is the key here, because nobody says the government should had done that.
But if Dassault is found not to comply to the RFP, their offer logically must be rejected and the L2 should be asked for an offer. I haven't seen any source or official so far, that can prove or state the section of the DPP, that prevents the MoD from talking to the L2, if the L1 is rejected.

Also, since the PM went ahead and made a separate deal for 36 fighters, the L2 rule doesn't apply anymore and he should had asked both shortlisted candidates for a new offer, in a changed tender.

But then, it will open a whole new can of worms, because the party that won the right to negotiate the contract will cry foul.

That's not possible, if it's Dassault themselves that are responsible for the deadlock, by not following the Indian rules. So there was no issue if we had rejected them, the question is why didn't we?

As Subramanyam Swamy pointed out, MRCA had turned into a mess and had to be scrapped.

Let's not talk about him please, he even tried to get the NDA government to court for the Rafale deal, for absolutely bogus reasons, that only showed that he had no clue of the fighter.

I find it quite interesting that all these hit jobs on Rafale started appearing soon after there were reports that GoI was scrapping the SEF procurement programme.

Arms lobbies are in full flow.

That had not much to do with the SE tender, but with the Congress being in election mode. They point was to show crony capitalism of the NDA government and they mainly aimed at cost issues and benefits for Reliance, while the real issue is, that there is that Dassault was not compliant and that the PM made a bad deal for 90 fighters below IAF requirements, without licence production, ToT and as we now know, without following MoD procedures. So ignore Congress and you still have plenty reasons to question the deal (not the fighter).

 

[Kay]

The fighter was, Dassault wasn't, since they rejected RFP rules, that they initially accepted, when they replied to the RFP. They tried to change things after they were selected as the winner, while they didn't complained about HAL or the performance guarantee and liquidated damages clauses of the RFP before.



"Simultaneously" is the key here, because nobody says the government should had done that.
But if Dassault is found not to comply to the RFP, their offer logically must be rejected and the L2 should be asked for an offer. I haven't seen any source or official so far, that can prove or state the section of the DPP, that prevents the MoD from talking to the L2, if the L1 is rejected.

Also, since the PM went ahead and made a separate deal for 36 fighters, the L2 rule doesn't apply anymore and he should had asked both shortlisted candidates for a new offer, in a changed tender.


That's not possible, if it's Dassault themselves that are responsible for the deadlock, by not following the Indian rules. So there was no issue if we had rejected them, the question is why didn't we?



Let's not talk about him please, he even tried to get the NDA government to court for the Rafale deal, for absolutely bogus reasons, that only showed that he had no clue of the fighter.



That had not much to do with the SE tender, but with the Congress being in election mode. They point was to show crony capitalism of the NDA government and they mainly aimed at cost issues and benefits for Reliance, while the real issue is, that there is that Dassault was not compliant and that the PM made a bad deal for 90 fighters below IAF requirements, without licence production, ToT and as we now know, without following MoD procedures. So ignore Congress and you still have plenty reasons to question the deal (not the fighter).

I think what Modi did was the prudent thing to do but difficult to justify.
Dassault did not want to tie up with HAL saying HAL's quality control was inadequate and that their reputation might be tarnished. To me it seems more a ruse to avoid technology sharing.
Consequently rules were made for 49 % foreign ownership of indian defence companies. Dassault chose Reliance as partner instead of HAL. Reliance did not break any rules but rules were tailor-made for private companies like Reliance, Tatas (partnering with Boeing/Lockheed Martin) and Adanis Aerospace (partnering with SAAB).
The foreign companies got to choose the Indian partner and hence they could avoid HAL and possibly TOT.
I think Modi understood that ToT would not be received, hence he cut the deal to minimum 36 necessary to revive Kaveri, cater to dwindling numbers and start private aerospace industry.
It is difficult to state that Dassault deviated from RFP by refusing to partner with HAL. The RFP stated about an Indian partner - not HAL - AFAIK.
HAL was the implied partner - but not stated in RFP. Dassault used that loophole without violating RFP.
This is why Anthony did not sign the deal and kept delaying.

 

[mayfair]

The fighter was, Dassault wasn't, since they rejected RFP rules, that they initially accepted, when they replied to the RFP. They tried to change things after they were selected as the winner, while they didn't complained about HAL or the performance guarantee and liquidated damages clauses of the RFP before.

Do read this excellent article by Nitin Gokhale to understand the full thing.

https://swarajyamag.com/defence/eve...t-the-rafale-deal-but-didnt-know-where-to-ask

"Simultaneously" is the key here, because nobody says the government should had done that.

That is exactly what the likes of Manu Pubby are claiming with Typhoon claims. But as I said above, this policy can be amended if necessary.

But if Dassault is found not to comply to the RFP, their offer logically must be rejected and the L2 should be asked for an offer. I haven't seen any source or official so far, that can prove or state the section of the DPP, that prevents the MoD from talking to the L2, if the L1 is rejected. .

Read this carefully

Parrikar told Modi since the CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) guidelines provide that negotiations cannot be held with the competitor who has come second in the contract (L2 vendor in officialese). The only way, the defence minister suggested, was to scrap the tender and buy a minimum number of Rafale jets off the shelf to fill a critical gap in the IAF’s inventory. The Prime Minister agreed and decided to talk to the French President about such a possibility during his upcoming visit to Paris in April 2015. The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) also gave its approval to the new proposal before Modi left for Paris on 9 April 2015.

The suggestion came from Parrikar, to scrap MRCA and negotiate directly with French on G2G basis

Also, since the PM went ahead and made a separate deal for 36 fighters, the L2 rule doesn't apply anymore and he should had asked both shortlisted candidates for a new offer, in a changed tender. .

Read above. The decision came from MoD.

That's not possible, if it's Dassault themselves that are responsible for the deadlock, by not following the Indian rules. So there was no issue if we had rejected them, the question is why didn't we?

Once again

[Parrikar] knew from the briefings given by the IAF, there was no time to lose in acquiring fighter jets. The number of effective squadrons was going down rapidly. The IAF leadership also told him that they were happy with Rafale’s performance and would rather have the fighter in its fleet than scout of other options.

The choice came from IAF. They asked for Rafale and nothing else.

And also this

The final negotiated price for 36 Rafale package, along with initial consignment of weapons, Performance-based Logistics (PBL), simulators along with annual maintenance and associated equipment and services was fixed at 7890 million Euros. The average unit cost of Rafale aircraft thus turned out to be 91.7 million Euros (going by the Euro-to-rupee conversion rate at the time of signing the contract it meant each aircraft would cost Rs 688.30 crore and not Rs 1500 or Rs 1700 crore quoted by some analysts).

Also Nitin Gokhale says

“The MoD-IAF negotiating team extracted many concessions and discounts to arrive at a price that is almost 750 million less than what was being quoted by the French side in January 2016,..
To bring down the cost, the Indian team asked French officials to calculate the deal on actual cost (Price as on today) plus European Inflation Indices (which varies like stock markets and is currently around 1 per cent per annum). The MoD has also capped the European Inflation Indices to maximum 3.5 per cent a year. In other words, if inflation Indices goes down (chances of it going down are more, looking at the current situation of European markets) India will have to pay less. Even if it goes up India will not pay more than 3.5 per cent increase.

As to why MRCA was scrapped, take a look at this buggery

In MMRCA, the UPA government had agreed with French officials to calculate the price on the fixed cost formula that allowed the company to include additional price of 3.9 per cent Inflation Indices from day 1 of the deal. So, had the India gone ahead with the UPA deal and the European Inflation Indices had fallen (as it indeed has), India would have ended up paying additional cost of inflation Indices (@3.9 per cent) which was already added at the initial negotiation itself.”

Mind boggling. One can only guess if this was incompetence or something far more sinister.

And the best part

The lower price apart, the Rafales that IAF will operate will have a weapon suite much superior to the ones proposed in the earlier case. They will include Air to Air weapons METEOR Beyond Visual Range Missiles with ranges more than 150 Km, MICA-RF Beyond Visual Range Missiles with ranges more than 80 Km and MICA-IR Close Combat Missiles with ranges more than 60 Km. The Air-Ground weapons include SCALP missiles with range in excess of 300 Km.

So not only would have be paying more, but paying more for less!!

That had not much to do with the SE tender, but with the Congress being in election mode. They point was to show crony capitalism of the NDA government and they mainly aimed at cost issues and benefits for Reliance, while the real issue is, that there is that Dassault was not compliant and that the PM made a bad deal for 90 fighters below IAF requirements, without licence production, ToT and as we now know, without following MoD procedures. So ignore Congress and you still have plenty reasons to question the deal (not the fighter).

Reliance was chosen by Dassault. Please show me the evidence that NDA government forced Dassault to choose Reliance.

According to this, Dassault was looking for partners in 2015

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...uild-rafale-aircraft/articleshow/47155153.cms

Among the local firms being considered, sources on the French side say, are Tata Advanced Systems Limited, Dynamatics, Taneja Aerospace, L&T and Reliance Defence Systems. Some of these firms were already partners for the old Rafale deal that was announced during the UPA era but has since been scrapped by the Modi government.

Read the operative part. Foreign firms were free to choose their partners (in addition to HAL).

Once again, calling it a bad deal does not make it so, unless your prove it otherwise. No ToT? What ToT were you expecting? Safran-GTRE work on Kaveri does not count? Nor does Dassault consultancy on LCA?

As I pointed above, Congis can first explain why they were willing to pay more for less...

 

[Sancho]

Dassault did not want to tie up with HAL

It's not India's concern what any foreign OEM wants, we haven to set the rules and get them either complying to them, or reject them. These clauses were implemented into the DPP, to protect the country, from OEMs that doesn't provide proper support or ToT, to have leverage and ask for penalties. Giving Dassault a free check on that was a major mistake and any foreign OEM will point to that as am example in future too.

Dassault chose Reliance as partner instead of HAL.

That's not correct, the rules of the tender left it up to the OEM to team up with any Indian industry partner, to divert production parts. So there is nothing wrong with choosing Reliance (except that they have no experience, were in deep debth and have a track record of being unsuccessful), but the final assembly was meant to be at HAL. Both UPA and NDA governments, just as IAF insisted on that, but Dassault tried to move more work to Reliance and that's where the issue started, while it ended in the deadlock, about not accepting guarantees and penalty clauses of the RFP.

Mr. Antony clarified that the criteria in the request for proposal for the MMRCAs were final and non-negotiable, setting at rest speculation that their licensed production may be curtailed or taken out of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...fecting-defence-priorities/article4385882.ece

In response to a question about reported “discomfort” in workshare negotiations, Browe said there were “no issues” from the IAF’s side. “Our interest is with the direct supply of 18 aircraft. The other 108 will be license produced by HAL. Dassault is free to choose production partners in India and abroad for kits. But these kits finally have to go to HAL for license production. We don’t get into that. That isn’t our concern.”

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/02/hope-to-sign-m-mrca-deal-by-year-end.html

In December 2014, the French Defence Minister came visiting and as expected raised the issue of conclusion of contract negotiations in the MMRCA case with Parrikar who told him that conclusion of the contract was held up on account of the vendor not confirming compliance to the terms of the RFP. This was followed up by a formal letter from Parrikar to the French Defence Minister stating that it would be really useful for Dassault Aviation to confirm compliance to the terms of the RFP and the terms of the bid submitted by them at the earliest.

http://nitinagokhale.blogspot.de/2017/11/?m=1

So the non compliance was more than evident and still we awarded Dassault with a billion dollar contract, that didn't got IAF or the Indian industry any of the benefits, the MMRCA was about.

 

[Sancho]

Do read this excellent article by Nitin Gokhale to understand the full thing.

He was trying to justify the costs and the deal as such, but had no answer when Saurabh Joshi pressed him on Twitter in the last few days, on the fact that the EF was shortlisted too and why it wasn't considered. While he confirmed, that Parrikar pointed towards Dassaults non compliance as the main reasons for the deadlock.

That is exactly what the likes of Manu Pubby are claiming with Typhoon claims. But as I said above, this policy can be amended if necessary.

If necessary, but where was the necessity? IAF wanted 126 fighters, not just 36 and the deal was done without MoD clearing it before the announcement and 1 of the 2 shortlisted. These are exactly the issues that makes the deal questionable and to which DM Sitharaman had no answers either. She confirmed that no ToT was part of the deal and that MoD was involved only after the deal was announced and the cost negotiations started.

The suggestion came from Parrikar, to scrap MRCA and negotiate directly with French on G2G basis

That's what Gokhale claims, but Ajay Shukla and other reports pointed out, that Parrikar had no clue of the deal, he neither had details about it and contradicted himself several times, while mainly pointing to it as the PMs deal:

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.de/2017/11/rafael-deal-faces-turbulent-weather.html?m=0

And as said before, the L2 issue was limited to the MMRCA tender alone, but had no importance for a separate flyaway order of 36 fighters. So you can justify not considering EF only for that tender, but not why it wasn't considered in the PMs deal.

 

[Kay]

It's not India's concern what any foreign OEM wants, we haven to set the rules and get them either complying to them, or reject them. These clauses were implemented into the DPP, to protect the country, from OEMs that doesn't provide proper support or ToT, to have leverage and ask for penalties. Giving Dassault a free check on that was a major mistake and any foreign OEM will point to that as am example in future too.



That's not correct, the rules of the tender left it up to the OEM to team up with any Indian industry partner, to divert production parts. So there is nothing wrong with choosing Reliance (except that they have no experience, were in deep debth and have a track record of being unsuccessful), but the final assembly was meant to be at HAL. Both UPA and NDA governments, just as IAF insisted on that, but Dassault tried to move more work to Reliance and that's where the issue started, while it ended in the deadlock, about not accepting guarantees and penalty clauses of the RFP.


http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...fecting-defence-priorities/article4385882.ece


https://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/02/hope-to-sign-m-mrca-deal-by-year-end.html


http://nitinagokhale.blogspot.de/2017/11/?m=1

So the non compliance was more than evident and still we awarded Dassault with a billion dollar contract, that didn't got IAF or the Indian industry any of the benefits, the MMRCA was about.

Why was the Kaveri engine partnership delinked from original MMRCA during UPA? What ToT can you talk about when you are giving up engine technology. Thankfully Modi got that back in the revised deal. No other ToT is worth the salt compared to engine technology.

Also, Dassault took benefit of loopholes in the deal. Why were there loopholes? Why wasn't it properly analysed. Dragging feet and inordinate delays raised costs of the deal for the tax payers - all a price of sheer incompetence. You can't select a lowest bidder after 10 years of bidding and then ask them to prove that they are indeed the lowest bidder. That raises doubts on the entire process.

After 10 years of indecision , now the question is why Midi did not keep tendering for eternity. Good thing he didn't. He made the best of a bad situation and taxpayers have to be thankful that they don't have to pay even more for fourth generation planes.

 

[IndiaRising]

it is well known that ajai shukla is doing dalaali for eurofighter. his reports are questionable at best

 

[Wisemarko]

What a ridiculous discussion! Rafale deal is similar to (one can say even better than) what Dassault offered to Egypt, Brazil and Qatar. Brazil did not go for it but read a detailed article on the offer and pricing on defenseindustrydaily.com.

People who question this deal, I hope also question every G2G deals made with US through FMS route. Because in essence that is what Rafale deal is- a G2G deal for 1. a preferred product 2. for best available price for THAT item. 3. Decent offsets 4. Quick acquisition.

Modi's deal was not about whether to get L1 or L2 from MMRCA tender but how to get a small fleet of Rafales as soon as possible and get some bargains in return. He definitely succeeded in achieving that.

India could never afford 126 Rafales: it was a daydream sold to everyone by vested interests. Nor it could get any meaningful ToT- because no one gives away such trade secrets. 126 Rafales for $18 billion is the most laughable aspect. How could it ever be possible to get 126 Rafale with ToT and local manufacturing for that price?!

Each Rafale with weapons and a 10 year maintenance costs almost $250 million. ($6 billion for 24 Rafales for Egypt for example) Adding 10% for local manufacturing would increase that by few more millions per plane. Some of these were fixed initial costs but there are many recurring costs that would not make this airplane cheap. Just see how expensive it is going to be to manage 36.

Therefore, 126 plane deal was always a $30-35 billion plus affair that no one in MoD would have cleared for another decade.

Eurofighter option is also not cheaper. Look at how much much EF cost to Kuwait, Saudis and Qatar! Kuwait signed a deal worth more than $9bn when it purchased 28 Typhoon jets! That is around $320 a plane. Not to mention, Leonardo is a part of EF consortium: isn't that a parent of a blacklisted company?!

The point is that importing any defense items is a big loss to a taxpayers but singling out this deal as a bad deal is pretty silly. Hopefully, private players will benefit from this and develop into global defense players.

 

[mayfair]

I wish I could respond to @Sancho here, but then I came across pearls of wisdom articulated by the peerless and irrepressible @bennedose at one of his regular haunts

It has been said that the amount if effort that is needed to rebut bullshit is an order of magnitude higher than the rffort to produce bullshit. I canot quanitfy the effort I have put in but it has taken me 400% more words to rebut 50 odd words of bullshit.

Rhetoric, when used for criticism is worth 4 times its volume in bullshit

But I will say this...The Ajay Shukla article makes so many twists and turns that I wonder if he set out trying to make a jalebi from the onset or did he fashion himself one after running himself around in circles.

Sample this

IAF paid Euro 1.7 billion for “India-specific enhancements”, Euro 700 million for weaponry like Meteor and SCALP missiles, Euro 1.8 billion for spare parts and engines, and Euro 350 million for “performance based logistics”, to ensure that at least 75 per cent of the Rafale fleet remains operationally available. All this added up to another Euro 4.5 billion, taking the cost of the contract up to 7.85 billion.

A key question is: how much of the “additional costs” are actually part of the aircraft? Most aerospace industry executives agree the “India-specific enhancements” are a part of the Rafale operational platform and should be included in its price.

Who are these aerospace industry executives? Any quotes, any names? Any comparable fighter deals where such have been included in the fly-away price at the onset?

Then he claims that IAF is paying more than French Airforce.

The French Senate periodically issues authoritative figures for Rafale pricing. The most recent figures, from 2013-14, put the acquisition cost per Rafale at Euro 74 million (Rs 566 crore) for the Rafale B (twin-seat version); Euro 68.8 million (Rs 527 crore) for the Rafale C (single-seat version); and Euro 79 million (Rs 605 crore) for the Rafale M (aircraft carrier version). These prices are significantly lower than what the IAF is paying for the Rafale.

Then in another twist of jalebi he says

Loading design and development costs onto the manufacturing cost of the aircraft, the French cost per Rafale rises to an average of about Euro 160 million (Rs 1,225 crore). In paying close to Euro 138.9 million (Rs 1,063 crore) per fighter, the IAF is obtaining only a Euro 21 million (Rs 161 crore) discount on the Rafale’s fully discounted price. The IAF, therefore, is effectively subsidising French aerospace R&D and industry.

So you see actually IAF is paying less than FrAF, but still we are paying more!!!

Let's not get into subsidising the French Aerospace R&D. That would be like paying high prices for iPhone to subsidise Apple's R&D....oh wait...

Finally, the magnum opus twist that finally tops off the jalebi. Comparison with other customers who are NOT France

Can the price the IAF has paid for the Rafale be compared with the price the other two buyers – Egypt and Qatar – have paid? While such a comparison would face the same pitfall of not knowing what each of those contracts includes, on the face of it, both those buyers are paying prices similar to, or higher than, the IAF.
Anyone else confused by this? I thought were were paying more!!
The Egyptian Air Force has paid Euro 5.2 billion for 24 fighters and is reportedly considering buying 12 more, a “fully loaded cost” of Euro 217 million per Rafale. Similarly, the Qatar Air Force has paid out Euro 6.3 billion for a similar number of aircraft, with a “fully loaded cost” of Euro 262 million per fighter.

So bugger me!! IAF is paying 138.9 million Euros for a "fully loaded" fighter compared to Euro 160 million by France, Eur 217 million by Egypt and Euro 262 million by Qatar.

As per Shukla it is a travesty that we are paying far less.. How dare Modi!!

There is goes. I am too lazy to calculate how much effort I put in responding.. Must be 400% or thereabouts.

 

[hit&run]

it is well known that ajai shukla is doing dalaali for eurofighter. his reports are questionable at best

He will add worms into anything that make sense to Modi government. His game is bigger than taking Dallali from foreign vendors but to serve the Cabal that is subservient to Sonia Gandhi.

 

[Sancho]

Why was the Kaveri engine partnership delinked from original MMRCA during UPA? What ToT can you talk about when you are giving up engine technology. Thankfully Modi got that back in the revised deal. No other ToT is worth the salt compared to engine technology.

Kaveri engine had no relation to the MMRCA tender, the team up with Snecma was offered when we searched for a suitable engine for LCA MK2 and was rejected by IAF, which wanted DRDO to complete the engine development on their own, because they feared just using a foreign core won't get India much. Wrt to the PM, we should not forget that the Kaveri development got scrapped under his term.
When you compare the ToT, we have fixing Kaveri now, as suppose to building RBE 2, FSO, M88 and SPECTRA under the initial MMRCA deal. Not to mention that apart from DRDO, only DRAL gets most of the offset work today, while under MMRCA, we would have seen wide spread benefits for Indian industry (DRDO, HAL, BEL, Samtel...).
We might get Kaveri fixed, which is good, but it needs to be seen if the required thrust of 95kN for LCA MK2, or 110+ kN for AMCA can be achieved. But other than that, we have lost a huge chance to get an important push for our industrial capability!

Also, Dassault took benefit of loopholes in the deal.

No they didn't, they outright rejected the terms of the tender and the RFP it was based on. They even agreed to HAL as the lead integrator later and the work share later, which also shows that they just made up issues for their own benefits, but till the end, they rejected the guarantee clauses in the RFP, which is something India can't or shouldn't support.

now the question is why Midi did not keep tendering for eternity.

No, one question is, why did he made such a bad deal, instead of doing what he did in the LUH tender?

He cancelled it in favour for a G2G deal with Russia for Ka226, which however includes the same number of helicopters required by IA and IAF, includes as licence production in India and ToT.
So if he cancelled the MMRCA, went to France to make a G2G deal for 126 x Rafales, with a licence production and ToT, only Congress would question him, but everyone else would understand, that we got what we wanted. That sadly didn't happend and he came back with just 36 fighters and no other benefits at all.
That's why it's valid to question the outcome, the procedures, or possible alternatives.

 

[Tactical Frog]

So if he cancelled the MMRCA, went to France to make a G2G deal for 126 x Rafales, with a licence production and ToT, only Congress would question him, but everyone else would understand, that we got what we wanted. That sadly didn't happend and he came back with just 36 fighters and no other benefits at all.
That's why it's valid to question the outcome, the procedures, or possible alternatives.

That would have been a strategic blunder to dump Rafale for Typhoon. Rafale road map is known, French cherished bird will get major technology boost with standard F4 in 2025. While Germans already think of buying F35s to replace their old Typhoons instead of upgrading them (or buying Rafale, so much for french friendship).

 

[Sancho]

That would have been a strategic blunder to dump Rafale for Typhoon. Rafale road map is known, French cherished bird will get major technology boost with standard F4 in 2025. While Germans already think of buying F35s to replace their old Typhoons instead of upgrading them (or buying Rafale, so much for french friendship).

It's not about dumping Rafale, but an OEM that is not following Indian rules and getting the numbers and industrial advantage we always wanted.
Hehe, French forumers keep pointing to the F4, even though it's not planned yet and 8 years away, because nobody wants to talk about the meager upgrades the F3R brings.
And no, Germany is not planing to replace EFs with F35, but if at all Tornados. The EF is likely to be replaced by the Airbus stealth fighter, just as Rafale.

 

[srutayus]

The 7.1 billion quoted for the price of the Rafale aircraft in that article includes the price of the weapons, India specific enhancements, base infrastructure etc. The price of the aircraft itself is about half of that amount and comes down to 100 million or less.
The Eurofighter cost is the price of the aircraft as can be seen by reading their offer letter. At no time was the weapons and logistics packages negotiated with Eurofighter as they were the more expensive of the 2 downselects.
This is not surprising as the Eurofighter has consistently been significantly more expensive than the Rafale in all procurements thus far.
In short the article is not a honest presentation of the facts and this can be easily verified by the looking at the constituent parts of the deal that are easily accessed in the public domain.

 

[Sancho]

The 7.1 billion quoted for the price of the Rafale aircraft in that article includes the price of the weapons, India specific enhancements, base infrastructure etc. The price of the aircraft itself is sbout half of that amount and comes down to 100 million or less.
The Eurofighter cost is the price of the aircraft as can be seen by reading their offer letter. At no time was the weapons and logistics packages negotiated with Eurofighter as they were the more expensive of the 2 downselects.
This is not surprising as the Eurofighter has consistently been significantly more expensive than the Rafale in all procurements thus far.
In short the article is not a honest presentation of the facts and this can be easily verified by the looking at the constituent parts of the deal that are easily accessed in the public domain.

Comparing costs is always difficult, since it can include different things. The EF offer as the the print correctly explained was for the 126 x fighter MMRCA tender, which only included 18 in flyaway condition but also 108 under licence production with ToT.
The Rafale deal was for lower numbers, which always increases the unit cost and was completely in flyaway condition, so even if you take out the weapons, it should had been higher.
The customization cost is a hyped issue, since it includes upgrades of the Rafale, that would not had been needed for the EF. HMS, Litening LDP and possibly even the costs to get IRST for the Rafale, could had been saved with the EF.
You are right that the EF in general is more costly than the Rafale, but an important point on the EF offer back than was, that the EF partners were able to reduce the price, by diverting their T3B (last batch of EF orders for the partner countries) orders to India. All 4 EF partners had cancelled T3B orders and would have to pay penalties to the industry, unless they can sell them off to other nations. So it was possible to offer a lower price, to not pay the large penalties.

Either way, the main point of the article was the question, why the offer was not at least considered for the separate deal for 36 fighters?