The price quoted by OFB officials was for a single rifle. The same price for SIG was much higher. Because of assured bulk orders SIG could offer lower prices. OFB could do the same and the OFB rifles would be much cheaper than SIG.
There's no such thing as a 'single rifle price' in OFB. This is not a retail product. Rs. 80k per IS the price of bulk order - as it's clear the GM is comparing that price to the deal price of the Fast Track deal value. But unfortunately, he forgets to state that the 700 crore includes accessories, support contracts, armorer training etc.
Apparently, he believes (or wants us to believe) that stuff like magazines, grips, etc. from OFB come free of cost. They don't.
There is a huge difference in rifles used by national armies and what an individual buys for personal use. Top tier countries (members of security council) all use rifles built in the country. Second tier countries fight with foreign rifles.
Top tier countries use
good rifles, if the domestically made options are not up to mark, they're not shy for importing. That's why French Army buys HK416 from Germany to replace their home-made FAMAS as standard issue. That's why when Royal Ordnance Factories made a piss-poor rifle in the original SA-80/L85, the UK wasn't shy for asking the Germans to come and redesign their rifle, the result being the much-improved SA-80A2.
That's why US Marines buy German-origin M27 IAR (based on HK416) in large numbers. That's why pretty much all American Special Forces use German & Belgian guns in large numbers (HK416 and SCAR-H).
If industrialized first-world countries (and yes, security council permanent members) are not shy for buying foreign guns, what's our issue?
Why doesn't Ghatak have full rails & adjustable stock "from Day 1"? ...did the army not bother to ask for those?
As far as I know, the Ghaatak was not developed against any Army GSQR, it was an Ishapore pet project, which they later pitched to various services.
Even if not, the Army's requirements are always changing. Plus, it's not up to Army officers to stay ahead of the firearms technology curve - that's upto the industry to figure out and implement, so they can ahead of potential emerging requirements.
Do you ask your car maker to implement ABS, or does the maker implement it and tell you it's uses?
Did SIG wait for Army to issue requirement for full-length P-rails before implementing them on their guns?
Its performance was superior to Galil apparently.
Yeah, yeah. Pre-production Range test examples. Even the INSAS is good there.
It's once you move to large scale batch orders, that QC falls drastically.
:
Is this 7.65×51 at full auto? Mag looks too straight & muzzle brake looks too big...
That's the INSAS-1C. Magazine has a slight curve, definitely not 7.62x51. Besides, no one can handle 7.62 Nato full auto being that steady.
The point is every great nation and army uses their own guns - not all of them are cheapest and best because by definition there is only one "best".
Also, guns sourced from the country keep the money in the country and circulates that in our economy. This does not apply for foreign guns and should be considered as a part of costing.
So that justifies buying a Tata Nano for 25 lakhs? Sending capital expenditure down the drain, and all for a pretty mediocre rifle (INSAS), with no modern features?
Then why do they cost more in OFB? Old machinery?
Why do they cost more? Simple - OFB is not forced to enter a
competitive bidding process unlike these foreign guns.
If R2 has to compete with these guns in competitive bidding, then even OFB will be forced to offer lower quotes. It's only because guns like INSAS had to be bought from OFB with the Army having no other choice (as I said, a
CAPTIVE MARKET), that OFB is able to demand $770 per gun for INSAS, or $1120 for R2.
...all the while US Army buys the much more advanced & reliable M4A1 for only $640 per piece.
If the INSAS is pitted today against other modern 5.56 rifles (AR-15s) in a competitive bidding, there is no way in HELL the Ordnance Factories can demand $770 quote.
