BlackArcherHAL setting up a Dhruv support center in South America
With an eye on future sales in the region, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) plans to establish a Dhruv helicopter maintenance center in South America.
“HAL is in the process of setting up a regional maintenance center for Dhruv to cover after-sales service, technical and logistic support in the entire Latin American region,” M.M. Pallam Raju, deputy defense minister, told India’s parliament Aug. 8.
BlackArcherRight, but if none except EF and Dassault had a product which met performance expectations, the prices of other non-qualifying offerings are as irrelevant as the price of a Grob trainer is to an air-tanking competition. MoF isn´t competent to analyze military requirements, only financial considerations.
The point is this- if the benchmark price for the deal was arrived at around $11 billion for 126 airplanes including ToT and the lowest bidder had tendered say $12.5 billion as their price, then there will be negotiations carried out. If these negotiations don’t work out and the OEM doesn’t reduce it’s bid price, then the only option left is to increase the budget- and here the MoF’s permit is required by the MoD before any deal will be signed. Without the MoF’s sanction no such deal can go through, although I’m quite sure that tremendous political pressure will be exerted on the Indian Govt. by the respective EU govt’s and this will translate into pressure on the MoF to sanction a budget increase.
There is simply no question here about what any of the non-qualifying OEM’s offered since their commercial bids weren’t even opened.
However, if it so happens that the gap between the two parties (MoD and Dassault/EADS) is too wide for either to bridge, then its perfectly possible that the MoD may simply modify its short-list and include 2-3 more contenders into the finalists’ short list as a way to exert pressure on the finalists and if that doesn’t work then to find a fighter that fits the budget and meets the IAF’s requirements closest to the Typhoon and Rafale. There will be nothing illegal about that and the only question then will be whether or not the IAF will complain about such a situation where airplanes that didn’t make the cut were included in the finalist’s list simply due to price issues.
So what are the benchmark costs for a deal like this? Obviously, the planes of non-qualifying bidders did not meet performance requirements so those can´t be used as the compative basis, nor can the price of Grob trainers. Rafale doesn´t have any exports, though you could use the latest French purchases (though that is from the government which funded all R&D, which should reduce the price vs. a commercial sale to India, hypothetically). EF exports are a Tranche 1 with no multi-role capabilities to Austria, and a multi-role non-AESA Typhoon to Saudi Arabia… What India wants is more advanced (and thus should be more pricey), but I have a hard time believing that EF hasn´t offered India a better price than Saudi Arabia payed BAE. So I just don´t see much basis in the idea that the MoF will come up with some base-line cost that will strike out BOTH Eurfighter and Rafale. F-16 isn´t equivalently capable (that is why it was rejected) and can´t be a basis for any price comparison.
Saab is the only vendor who stook around to be played by the Norwegian Air Force tender, so the fact they are still sticking around and advertising in India doesn´t mean much to me.
As I’ve mentioned above, there is simply no question here about what any of the non-qualifying OEM’s offered since their commercial bids weren’t even opened. So the possible open-source data available on what the French themselves paid for the Rafale and what the French offered to the Brazilians will be used – my guess is that the MoD is competent enough to know how to arrive at the costs since they are not novices who haven’t dealt with these manufacturers in the past. So I’m guessing that they’d insert factors that take into account the additional capabilities requested by the IAF, the inflation for the prices, cost of ToT and also how much unit costs must (in their consideration) be reduced for such a large buy.
Saab is being optimistic- its their prerogative. If they feel that there is a chance and are willing to spend money on keep a fully staffed Gripen IN office then there must be some logic behind that. Otherwise why’d they sink good money on a lost cause?
BlackArcherIndia has stressed more than once that the proceedeings will be fair and won’t let interfere politics, or anything else not directly related to the advance of the competition as it was announced to go.
if they go back from their decision (shiortlist)and let companies come back in forever (what will prevent others to do the same?), the first thing it will mean is that they are unable to go through the process they defined as they defined it… not a very serious image they’d give there
TooCool_12F, the offices of all the vendors are still fully staffed in India, anticipating trouble when the commercial aspect begins. Saab was always the most proactive advertiser in the competition and apparently that hasn’t changed. And now that its being reported (by AW&ST) that the IAF wants the 63 MRCA options to be fully exercised at the time that the first contract is signed itself, the deal price and its lucrativeness has shot up in the eyes of all the OEMs.
Keep one thing in mind- the IAF’s shortlist ignored the price factor and only looked at its performance evaluation. the MoD will have to however keep price in mind otherwise the Ministry of Finance can throw a spanner in the works, as they did with the A-330MRTT tender. Funnily enough, Airbus’ revised commercial bids were reported to be lower than what they were during the first bid. And this isn’t politics- its simply to ensure that the entire process of short-listing doesn’t have to be repeated, which would make the entire process meaningless and may lead to scrapping of the MRCA requirement itself. Remember, India is famously (or infamously) bureaucratic and delays can derail all timelines that the IAF may hope for.
the Indian MoD has apparently arrived at a formula for cost benchmarking that will be based on what they believe is a reasonable cost, what they knew were the commercial terms offered in other countries and accounting for inflation. Now, if the Dassault and EADS bids are significantly higher than what the benchmarked costs are, then procedurally two things can be done (and these will likely be as per procedure only)- one is to either scrap the final shortlist and invite the rejected OEMs to also submit their bids or to just negotiate with Dassault/EADS and try to arrive at a mutually acceptable price.
As for the serious image, I don’t think the MoD or GoI would care what internet posters think about them. There is the example of Brazil that we can look at- after the President announced a winner for their competition in front of media, where did that go? And has Dassault, Boeing or Saab withdrawn from the tender because it was messed up and deadlines or commercial terms thrown out the window? They’ll look out for their own interests -in this case getting the best deal possible in cost terms, while keeping the IAF’s interests in mind. That is well within India’s rights to do, whether others like it or not. And there will be others gladly willing to step in to take up Dassault/EADS place if they get miffed and leave the competition.
BlackArcher@Blackarcher
he was in agreement with you………
yes I realised that when I re-read his post..:)
BlackArcherThat was a pun. Please read again: I wrote “as”, not “more”!
On several occasions here I did highlight the fact that people can spend good amounts of time discussing things they don’t really grasp, and can’t really grasp actually.
Secret things are secret. Behaving like they are not won’t suddenly reveal the big picture. But you’ll always find people trying to gain kudos from the gullible. (Talented ones are paid high wages for taking this at state level.)
sorry I didn’t see the “as” part of your statement. 🙂
the point I was making is that when the IAF says that the RD-33MK had issues and was one of the reasons why the MiG-35 was rejected, it has more to it than just thrust. There are plenty of other parameters where the RD-33MK may not compare so favourably with the Ej-200 or the M-88.
BlackArcherPlease stop making things look as complicated as they are. 😉
they actually are that complicated. I’m surprised that you thought that they were simpler. All these are parameters for evaluation of the engine..how else do you think that the IAF evaluated the fighters over 643 parameters ? 😉
BlackArchervery interesting configuration of twin drop tanks on a single pylon- are these twin-drop tanks supersonic?
BlackArcherand they said mig engines were inadequate :rolleyes:
inadequate doesn’t just refer to thrust- there are a hundred other parameters that the IAF would be interested in.
for e.g. How is the MTBO and MTBF for the engine? How easy is it to maintain? How much time does it take to change an engine and how many men are needed for that? How many man-hours of maintenance required for each flight hour? How automated are the systems on board? How responsive is the engine in flight to throttle changes? Can the throttle be pushed back and forth carefree and get good response from the engine (the quality of the FADEC may define that)..
How reliable are they overall? What is the possibility of thrust growth for the engine family without a very significant redesign?
BlackArcherTheres alot of things not operational on the Typhoon yet, AESA, Meteor, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Paveway IV, various avionics – defence sub-systems etc although a lot of them if not all are in the process of being integrated. Unlike the likes of Saab with their Gripen, Eurofighter have given the dates to which they’ll be operational on the Typhoon that satisfies India, i.e. before they start to be delivered to India & before India start producing them themselves.
I would have thought the Russian side would have understood this and to be honest, Russia seemed to be half-ar$ed about taking part in this competition anyway, not bother turning up for the likes of Aero India 2011 for example.
what matters also is that the Typhoon has a huge order backlog and a longer list of existing customers, at least some of whom would want the capabilities the IAF wanted. Neither the MiG-35 nor the Gripen NG had that and it put an element of risk on what either company claimed it would incorporate on their products. If they failed for any given reason, the IAF would be the only operator who would have to bear the risk.
Nevertheless, in the given scenario, the Rafale is the lower risk of the two finalists. Everything that the MRCA needs, the Rafale already has or has a development path already defined for.
I’m not so sure about the AI-11 appearance though- MiG appeared at every AI before that and in fact the Rafale didn’t show up at AI-09, which many speculated showed Dassault’s lack of interest in the MRCA competition thanks to their previous experience in competitions where the US shoved them out of the way. Turns out that what really mattered was the IAF’s perception of the fighter’s capability, and how it really performed during evaluations.
BlackArcherIIRC, India has the M53-5 while the French fleet consist mainly of M53-P2.
Years ago, India was a potential buyer for the M53-PX3 but I always heard that the discussion went nowhere.
for the PX3:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29188425/Snecma-M53
Glitter, the IAF’s initial Mirage-2000 batches were originally powered by the Snecma M53-5 variant (and these were called Mirage-2000H5/TH5) but later batches had the M53-P2 (and called Mirage-2000H/TH) and the earlier delivered Mirages were later retrofitted with the M53-P2 as well.
The first Indian Air Force Dassault Mirage 2000 conversion course is now under way at Dijon airbase in France. India will receive 40 Mirage 2000s, early aircraft having the Snecma M53-5 rated at 19,8401b thrust with afterburner, and later machines being powered by the 21,4001b-thrust M53-P2.
and from vectorsite
The first part of an initial batch of 26 single-seaters and 4 two-seaters was shipped to the Indian Air Force (IAF) beginning in 1985 with the older M53-5 engine since India didn’t want to wait on the M53-P2. These aircraft were given the designations of “Mirage 2000H5” and “Mirage 2000TH5”.
The second part of this initial batch consisted of ten more single-seaters with the M53-P2 engine, with these aircraft designated “Mirage 2000H”. All the first batch were reengined with the M53-P2 over time, with the single-seaters redesignated “Mirage 2000H” and the two-seaters redesignated “Mirage 2000TH”.
A second batch of six Mirage 2000H single-seaters and three Mirage 2000TH two-seaters was shipped in 1987:1988
BlackArcherIAF has finalised the number of squadrons it wants by 2020 to be 42.
IAF to have 42 combat aircraft squadrons
New Delhi, Aug 4 (PTI)The Indian Air Force (IAF) is mulling over increasing its sanctioned strength of combat aircraft from 39.5 squadrons to 42 squadrons, a Parliamentary panel report has said.
“The IAF Vice Chief has informed that target has been fixed to reach a level of 42 squadrons,” the report of the Standing Committee on Defence, said.
The Committee had laid its report in the Parliament yesterday. The current squadron strength of the force is 33. A squadron comprises around 18 to 20 aircraft. In view of increasing Chinese military deployment along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the IAF has been strengthening its presence in the northeastern sector and has plans of deploying four squadrons of the air superiority Su-30 MKI fighter aircraft there by 2015.
Under its modernisation plans, air bases on the western front are also being equipped with modern airfield infrastructure and new fighter planes. The IAF has plans of inducting more than 350 fighter jet aircraft by the end of this decade which includes the 126 multi-role combat planes (M-MRCA), over 160 new Su-30 MKIs and over 140 indigenously-built Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA).Over 140 new Su-30s will be inducted along with 126 M-MRCAs, the deal for which is expected to be finalised by the end of September. The IAF is also phasing out its old Russian-origin fleet of MiG aircraft — the 21, 23 and 27 series. The oldest MiG-21 Type-77 is likely to be decommissioned by the end of next year.
BlackArcherAt no point the Indians put pressure on the french for pakistani deal.The sole reason the JF-17 deal didnt go through was finances.The pakistani’s wanted a favorable financial deal which the french were not ready to offer. When the deal got cancelled the french did a media spin saying they did for indian deal and the pakistani’s put a spin that the chinese system were as capable.
IAF officer I spoke too, was involved in the Mirage 2000 negotiations with French said the once the Mirage deal was signed the french revealed more on the pakistani deal,why it not happened and PAF opinion of JF-17 avionics(radar etc). Also the deal involves more that what is openly stated.
so can you shed some light on what the deal involves which isn’t openly stated? for instance could you confirm whether the radar is the RDY-2 or 3?
BlackArcherCheck the numbers, the RSAF deal involved 72 Typhoons for 4,43 billion Pounds. On the other hand the Israeli JSF deal involves 19 fighters for 2,75 billion US$ being delivered in the same time frame that you have proposed.
this article claims that the deal was worth 8 billion pounds. and this article on FT claims that the deal was worth £4.43bn, part of a contract that defence sources said could exceed £20bn.
The announcement was made in a statement from the official Saudi Press Agency, which said the price of each aircraft – which works out at £61.5m ($122.5m, €88.4m) – was exactly the sum paid by the UK’s Royal Air Force for each Typhoon.
and another £5bn or so for weapons plus £10bn for support/maintenance. A very expensive deal without ToT and definitely way way over the $11 billion that is being quoted for the MRCA contract (for which weapons were to be bought separately as well).
I understand that the amount the Saudis paid for support and maintenance includes much more support than most other nations require, but just the fly-away cost per plane of €88.4m makes it a very expensive fighter.
Negotiations are continuing for the armaments systems to be carried by the aircraft, which could cost an estimated £5bn. A further contract – estimated by some sources at up to £10bn – for support and maintenance of the Typhoon envisages building a big defence infrastructure in the kingdom. That is expected to include the expansion of air bases and the eventual building of capacity that will allow aircraft components to be manufactured in Saudi Arabia.
Going by these prices, the Rafale will be comfortably L1.
BlackArcherQuoted 🙂
so what ? :rolleyes:
BlackArcherSo really your only response to my statement is to randomly bring Britain into this, when Britain is actually unrelated. So, we wonder, why did you attack the professionalism of the British forces? Perhaps it is because I am from Britain, and you thought perhaps you might be able to get some revenge for me daring to give an impartial, on-topic opinion, instead of a pro-Indian one that would be more suited to your own world view. Your desperate attempt to provoke me has certainly confirmed to me that my original statement is quite likely to be correct, and confirmatory feedback is always useful 😎
it is you who flamed- the response was actually very subtle and to the point. WIthout having interacted with any IN person you claim to know what level of professionalism they have. :rolleyes:
and then you expect others to take your biased and prejudiced posts as being anything but trolling. :rolleyes:
Sign In
