Know Your 'Rafale'

[Armand2REP]

So they will reject a bid that is cheaper for a better aircraft becuase of pride? They aren't French you know.

And a cheaper bid will be offered, so if nothing else, prepare for another hair cut.

We all know Eurofighter is the inferior aircraft. No AESA, lower payload, inferior weapons, inferior SC, inferior ECM and a faulty flight control system. There is no way the 4 partner nations can agree to underbid by lowering costs over 10,000 crore rupees. India already decided with the M2000 and Mica deals France was the way to go. If India can reject free money over pride, they can easily reject an unauthorised bid.

 

[vanadium]

We all know Eurofighter is the inferior aircraft. No AESA, lower payload, inferior weapons, inferior SC, inferior ECM and a faulty flight control system. There is no way the 4 partner nations can agree to underbid by lowering costs over 10,000 crore rupees. India already decided with the M2000 and Mica deals France was the way to go. If India can reject free money over pride, they can easily reject an unauthorised bid.

Typhoon was judged as suitable as Rafale by IAF. Full stop.

Do you think the IAF would have down-selected an aircraft with a faulty FCS? That six Air Forces have been flying this machine (with one of the lowest attrition rates in existence...and lower than Rafale!) for years without noticing what our local Rafale fanboy claims to be nothing less than a faulty flight control system?

About the impossibility of a consortium to concoct a revised offer improving on Dassault´s terms I would not be so sure. Let us wait and see...

 

[utubekhiladi]

Dassault offering brings to the Federal dilemma


http://translate.google.at/translate...ory/14784098



Sancho`s post at Mp.net:



:cool2:

i told you all long before; french lobby was won by june last year; all this bidding and other stuffs were just dramas.

 

[utubekhiladi]

We all know Eurofighter is the inferior aircraft. No AESA, lower payload, inferior weapons, inferior SC, inferior ECM and a faulty flight control system. There is no way the 4 partner nations can agree to underbid by lowering costs over 10,000 crore rupees. India already decided with the M2000 and Mica deals France was the way to go. If India can reject free money over pride, they can easily reject an unauthorised bid.

you don't get emotional french man.. we are buying rafale. no matter what...

 

[weg]

If India can reject free money over pride, they can easily reject an unauthorised bid.

LOL, good luck with your optimism. The Indians are playing hard game, that money is literally peoples lives, be it on the battlefield or the hospitals they could build with the saving. GoI will listen and the consortium will find a way of winning the contract back.

 

[pmaitra]

So they will reject a bid that is cheaper for a better aircraft becuase of pride? They aren't French you know.

And a cheaper bid will be offered, so if nothing else, prepare for another hair cut.

You are forgetting one thing. The French do not declare sanctions on India at the drop of the hat like the US and UK have shown in the past. French are surely more reliable, just like the Israelis and Russians are. They have stood by us when we needed help the most. A mediocre fighter with assured supplies of spare parts in time of war is worth more than the best fighter that could be grounded for lack of spares and sanctions.

Hope that injects some sense into why India did what it did.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Hope that injects some sense into why India did what it did.

............. gudone..

 

[Armand2REP]

Rafale does not drop out the sky going super sonic unless we want it to. This issue still has not been resolved by BAe. Every Rafale crash has been pilot error. Every Typhoon crash has been mechanical failure. Three crashes due to landing system failures, one crash to total engine failure and the one dropping suddenly into the ground killing a pilot because the ejection seat failed. The systems of Rafale work beautifully and reliably. Typhoon has major issues.

India doesn't revisit something unless they cancel it first.

 

[weg]

You are forgetting one thing. The French do not declare sanctions on India at the drop of the hat like the US and UK have shown in the past. French are surely more reliable, just like the Israelis and Russians are. They have stood by us when we needed help the most. A mediocre fighter with assured supplies of spare parts in time of war is worth more than the best fighter that could be grounded for lack of spares and sanctions.

Hope that injects some sense into why India did what it did.

The UK didn't impose sanction at the drop of the hat, that was the US. US and UK have completely different policies for India and Pakistan. The UK hasn't supplied aircraft to Pakistan since the 1950's. Unlike France and the USA.

The French are better I suppose, they only stopped supplying Mirages to Pakistan for six months after the Kargil War. So you can rest easy knowing they will supply your enemies - officially or not.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

The UK didn't impose sanction at the drop of the hat, that was the US. US and UK have completely different policies for India and Pakistan. The UK hasn't supplied aircraft to Pakistan since the 1950's. Unlike France and the USA.

The French are better I suppose, they only stopped supplying Mirages to Pakistan for six months after the Kargil War. So you can rest easy knowing they will supply your enemies - officially or not.

Its has nothing to do with foreign policy, its just left to the amount of ToT and price.

 

[weg]

duplicate post

 

[weg]

Its has nothing to do with foreign policy, its just left to the amount of ToT and price.

In that case the game is still on.

Can someone point out a link explaining what sanction the UK is supposed to have imposed on India, I can't find anything about military or economic sanctions.

This for instance says it was only the US who imposed sanctions.
The national Balance sheet after Pokharan - By S.Gurumurthy

 

[pmaitra]

The UK didn't impose sanction at the drop of the hat, that was the US. US and UK have completely different policies for India and Pakistan. The UK hasn't supplied aircraft to Pakistan since the 1950's. Unlike France and the USA.

The French are better I suppose, they only stopped supplying Mirages to Pakistan for six months after the Kargil War. So you can rest easy knowing they will supply your enemies - officially or not.

Perhaps this report could help?

British Clarify Eased Indian Nuclear Sanctions | Global Security Newswire | NTI

 

[Zebra]

In that case the game is still on.

Can someone point out a link explaining what sanction the UK is supposed to have imposed on India, I can't find anything about military or economic sanctions.

This for instance says it was only the US who imposed sanctions.
The national Balance sheet after Pokharan - By S.Gurumurthy

INDIA'S STRATEGIC DEFENSE
TRANSFORMATION:
EXPANDING GLOBAL RELATIONSHIPS
Brian K. Hedrick
November 2009

European Union



The relationship between India and the European
Union (EU) is as new as the EU itself and is a descendent
of past bilateral relationships between individual EU
countries and India. The EU does not get extensively
involved in defense matters, but because defense
sales make up a large share of the relationship due
to the European defense consortiums such as Airbus,
Eurofighter, and Eurocopter, we need to consider the
collective relationship as well as the individual bilateral
relationships of individual states.
Of all the EU member states, France has the most
robust and long-standing bilateral relationship with
India, and the EU relationship derives much of its
strength from this relationship. France began selling
defense equipment to India in 1949, and despite
early Indian skepticism due to earlier French colonial
policies that limited the defense relationship, France
was and is considered a "reliable supplier." The IndoFrench relationship did not really take off until 1962
when France finally relinquished its possessions in
India, clearing away the colonial issues, and India
was attacked by China as previously discussed. While
France joined with the United States and UK sanctioning India in 1965 during the war with Pakistan, France
was the first to lift sanctions and resume defense
trade a year later.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub950.pdf

 

[weg]

Perhaps this report could help?

British Clarify Eased Indian Nuclear Sanctions | Global Security Newswire | NTI

I saw that. But that's NPT items isn't it? You are not supposed to supply nuclear bomb making materials to non signatories of the NPT, like India. the UK isn't in a habit of breaking international agreements or laws.

More to the point, has Britain ever applied military or economic sanctions?

 

[Armand2REP]

UK is lapdog of US foreign policy, if you are worried about the US doing it then you have to be worried about the UK.

 

[trackwhack]

The UK didn't impose sanction at the drop of the hat, that was the US. US and UK have completely different policies for India and Pakistan. The UK hasn't supplied aircraft to Pakistan since the 1950's. Unlike France and the USA.

The French are better I suppose, they only stopped supplying Mirages to Pakistan for six months after the Kargil War. So you can rest easy knowing they will supply your enemies - officially or not.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

In that case the game is still on.

Can someone point out a link explaining what sanction the UK is supposed to have imposed on India, I can't find anything about military or economic sanctions.

This for instance says it was only the US who imposed sanctions.
The national Balance sheet after Pokharan - By S.Gurumurthy

Britian came under EU sanctions against India, either way they never took us seriously enough to do any serious ToT. They where always stiff when it came to us getting ToT unlike the French who built nuclear power stations back in the day.

IAF tender is purely based on merit.

 

[weg]

Britian came under EU sanctions against India, either way they never took us seriously enough to do any serious ToT.

IAF tender is purely based on merit.

France is a founding memeber of the EU, what sanctions did the EU impose?

While
France joined with the United States and UK sanctioning India in 1965 during the war with Pakistan,[/B]

So France is hardly much different.

UK is lapdog of US foreign policy, if you are worried about the US doing it then you have to be worried about the UK.

Bullshit. When it comes to India, the US went alone with sanctions last time. The EU countries, France included, made it quite clear they wouldn't impose sanctions on India.

The French are whores who will sell weapons to both sides of a conflict.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

France is a founding memeber of the EU, what sanctions did the EU impose?



So France is hardly much different.



Bullshit. When it comes to India, the US went alone with sanctions last time. The EU countries, France included, made it quite clear they wouldn't impose sanctions on India.

The French are whores who will sell weapons to both sides of a conflict.

I guess it is based purely on technology, ToT, age of the model and cost. The IAF did rigorous testing on 642 parameters on 5 MRCAs for almost 7years and Dassult and EF meet most of them while Dassult played the cost part better.