Oh yes they did!

This is a (translated) excerpt from Parrikar’s speech in the Parliament in 2016 –

‘Their defence minister* had put it in writing.. their defence minister used to be very worried that ‘these people’ would ruin his clean image… so he said in his note that “L1 status** is to be assumed, to go ahead with the CNC***, negotiate the price, finalize it and then bring it back to me where it’ll be checked where the L1 status is genuine or not.” I’ve never seen an approach like this in my life. But he was taking care of his own insurance. That the CNC might be a ‘Corruption Negotiation Committee’ was a doubt he also must have had. That’s why he put all this down on paper.’

– Manohar Parrikar

* i.e. the previous govt’s defence minister AK Antony
** lowest bidder
*** Cost Negotiation Committee

So did they eventually found any irregularities ? It is easy to accuse your political rival in a political speech but if something was really wrong what would have prevent them from revising L1 ? They are in charge so they have all latitude to inquire the previous MMRCA deal. If corruption was involved then why AK Antony and Dassault are not put under scrutiny ? Instead they continued with Dassault. That’s the best testament of all : surviving to government change which mean they are in the end comfortable with the choice. Also Ethically you cannot take current Mindef words for granted, AK Antony should have a right of response and I am sure he would disagree. A political speech remain a political speech, it is not a proof of guilt. If he is convicted by an independent court, then yes but this is a bit light of an attack to prove anything. This is quite populistic approach you have here. So, no they didn’t acts, not just words.

1. According to the Swiss gent the Eurofighter’s manpower costs were higher but it was likely to have cheaper spares. Which would make the EF more competitive in a country like India where labour costs were much much lower than the West.

2. As the testimony posted above proves – the Rafale’s L1 status in India had been earmarked for re-examination by the MoD with the negotiations proceeding on an ad hoc basis.

Your are wrong on 1) you conveniently did not adress my previous point on skilled workforce brain drain, training etc. If you look at the bigger picture, relying on a larger rare/skilled worforce has plenty of inconvenience which translates into much higher costs. Spares were to be manufactured in India so your point is also irrelevant. selective answer from your part for 2) see my answer above. Act not words.

I disagree Sintra, it was on the whole “maintenance and training” parts where the Typhoon did not emerge well, he just gave a quick insight on one of the reason but overall it did not score well on that chapter of the competition – vs rafale and realisticaly gripen.

“Moreover, he added, the unpublished reports on maintenance and training did not rate the Eurofighter any better than the Rafale.”

If there is a significant difference on that specific part of the competition (which got dedicated reports), it is a very reasonable assumption that the Typhoon is more expensive to operate.

On a semantic note, if he specifically insists on that part of the competition it must say something “Moreover” he added. He was just as surprised by the rating on “training and maintenance” (implying he was not expecting that big of a gap) as he was surprised by the typhoon scoring lower in AtA which he clearly did not expect. That was clearly two points that obviously raised its attention…

I’m afraid the manufacturing argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

1. The Swiss weren’t going to build the aircraft locally; the reference was clearly to the operational manpower requirement. Nothing to do with manufacturing.

2. Skilled individuals are better paid than unskilled counterparts everywhere but the difference in manpower costs between Switzerland & India is still huge. In the ballpark of 5:1, on average, by my reckoning. Also, there’s no particular demand for aerospace experience in the private sector in India.

– The ‘skilled and rare work force’ argument isn’t helped by Dassault’s decision to partner Reliance instead of a company with real engineering experience and a work force that included skilled artisans & technicans.

– You cannot offer up Gygax’s opinions on manpower cost as conclusive evidence while simultaneously casting doubts on his (admittedly unenthusiastic) opinion with regard to spares cost.

– As far as the EF’s operational efficacy (including turnaround times) is concerned, it was judged technically compliant by the IAF after a very rigorous examination. Also, available public figures suggest that the RAF & AdlA fleets have roughly similar levels of overall as well as deployed fleet serviceability.

I intially talked about purchased costs indistinctly (“to buy and operate”), your answer is not entirely accurate. India looked at the total life cycle cost, so yes manufacturing costs was considered as well as cost of operations. The new government in place did not call into question the selection process which they could. I am pretty certain the new majority would have been pretty happy to point any irregularities from their rivals. Fact is that in two competitions the Typhoon was deemed more expensive, deals structure were vastly different but both came to the same result.

As far as skilled workforce is concerned, there is still the costs question whether you like it or not, but there is much more than that. It is much more of an operational burden to train the maintainers and spend time repairing an aircraft. You cannot put a blind eye on that. Fleet serviceability can be similar, but you conveniently forget that the amount of efforts and money can be vastly different to obtain the same result. An aircraft that requires less maintenance is simply easier and cheaper to operate. Secondly you are wrong about the risk of loosing workforce only to the aeronautic industry which is already a risk. When you qualify to maintain avionics, hydrolics, engines etc…This can be of interest not only to the aeronautic industry or an airline but far beyhond…

Loke, I think you are simply mistaken with the Danish evaluation interpretation and you are making apple to orange comparison;

Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (NTISR) is refferred to real time video transmission which is a different thing than what is performed with a dedicated heavy reconnaissance pod. On one side you are looking at the world through a pipe, but in real time (like a drone). For pods like Reco NG you are collecting a huge photography of a zone (a bit like google earth, you are some kind of sattelite inteligence substitute). Real time transmission is not possible due to the sheer amount of data but it can be downloaded in flight in the case of the reco NG thanks to a dedicated datalink to reduce treatment time.

Strike, Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR) in the Danish evaluation could perhaps encompass the more traditionnal reconnaissance role which would explain F35 lower score but it is mixed with strike and coordination wich have nothing to do with pure reconnaissance. For this part the scope of the evaluation is not clear.

As far as the rafale is concerned it has the brand new Talios pod for NTISR AND Reco NG for pure reconnaissance. One is more tactical while the other is more “strategic” involving intelligence officer and post treatment (like drone vs sattelite). The F35 simply lack an important spectrum of capability as its has nothing like a proper heavy duty reconnaissance pod. You have to understand that for the classic reconnaissance duty you absolutely need powerfull optics and size matters.

For the US with dozens of optical sattelites this capability is less important but for other countries that is another matter…Even for France which has its own very modern optical sattelites…But not enough in numbers to be reactive at a sub strategic scale, you don’t necessarly have the sattelite in the right place at the right moment so Reco Ng is a felxible addition.

Thing is EOTS or Recce light cannot be compared to a dedicated heavy duty pod. Size does matter for optics. Look at photography or telescopes…

When national interest is at stake it is preferable to close your eyes, thousands of high skill job at stake. To be fair, this is a more common practice than one would think, especially in the ME. The exception that confirms the rule is Dassault which was battling in the French parliament some years ago to soften the rules on intermediaries and “commissions” after the taiwanese frigate scandal in the 90s. It was not a random MP who made the case but Olivier Dassault himself, son of Serge Dassault and Grandson of Marcel Dassault the founder of the company. I remember having watched his speech on the TV at the time which steered a debate, arguing that France was loosing deals in the ME because of anti corruptions measures voted after the frigate scandal and that other competitors didn’t have. I don’t know if he made its case since then, that was some years ago now.

Gripen & Rafale share the same design philosophy (close couple canard). There is no wonder they can display similar capability in that regard, especially when rafale can also withstand higher sink rate due to its naval airframe compatibility which would be sensible explenation to explain the 50 m landing ground distance difference. Both the gripen and rafale display short take off and especially short landing during airshow, the latter being a greater difference with other designs. The only thing is that widespread operation using road is not in the French doctrine so this capability is not put forward, but it could well adapt in that role. Rafale landing ground is 450m according to Dassault (without parachute):
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/specifications-and-performance-data/

mfg at HAL was clearly spelled out in the RFP . Yes but not the actual setup nor the HAL views on how to fullfill this. ( contact to HAL were forbiden until L1 winner had been declared ) . Hence initial quote on manufacturing cost were based on projections ,backed up with own local manufacturing evidences from the manufacturer. Fact that HAL had a different views on how to produce items led indeed to explosion of labor cost , as reported by MOD. From HAL own communication , there was obviously a gap , as in their view Dassault was only to provide the blue prints and they will decide on how best to manufacture without regard to Dassault recommandations . This ended up being source of conflict as Dassault would not agree to taking responsability over their own product manufactured using other methods than those prescribed, especially by a partner on which there was no control possible. This even led to a last minute addition granting Dassault to perform quality Insurance and control over HAL output, which originally was not planned for and out of question . As mentionned in the end ,and as confirmed later , MMRCA was not abandonned due to any wrong doing from Dassault or any other competitors , but on the realization that with the considered setup and contractual restrictions , the manufacturing cost and lead time were un-sustenable.
Furthemore , from the follow up , one may conclude the governement nevertheless retain their trust to Dassault . Of course some other may chose to read rather a conspirency there and shout corruption or what not .

Spot on. At last some common sense and not those juvenile conspiracy theory from many above.