Snow MonkeyHow is it possible if the commercial bids were never opened?
Many sources I`ve found for MMRCA have said the same thing, though realize that this was at a previous stage in the tender, i.e. when all 6 vendors were still in… Both Rafale and Eurofighter would have different offers now.
I can`t find it now, but a recent piece interviewing Dassault`s President said they were finding it difficult to meet offsets…???
This and this are some pieces corresponding to what I`m talking about, though I can`t find the exact source I had read before anymore. Here is also a piece (sorry about author) which has the IAF describing completing the tender when the off-set deadline hasn`t even passed yet (it was separate from commercial bids… i don`t know if both Raf/EF have already submitted offsets anyways), which is obviously minimizing the importance of offsets for determining the winner.
As before, I`ve asked for anybody to share specific clarifications, but I haven`t seen any recent affirmations of what is/will happen re: offsets.
Snow MonkeyI don`t think 50% offsets will actually be applied… ALL contestants were found to not meet those requirements at one point.
It doesn`t make sense why the latest modifications to offsets (civil aviation, internal security) wouldn`t be applied to MMRCA…
I wouldn`t take that article as confirmation that 50% still will be applied, that number isn`t attributed to anybody related to the process,
and so could very well simply be what the author looked up doing background on the article, not `the latest news` on top of mumblings of changes/adjustments.
It also doesn`t make sense to have offset requirements that are so heavy that most vendors can`t meet them…
If the 50% number conflicts with the aim of lowest bidder winning, there will be government interests against insisting on 50% if it has negative repurcussions on the application of other procurement standards.
The way off-sets are also allowed to be counted from sub-contractors, means that Rafale/ Eurofighter can/ will look at off-set contributions from local companies as a competitive determinant when selecting indigenous partners for local production… I.e., it doesn`t mean that X billion dollars (equal to 50% contract) will be invested into Indian defense and aerospace (that wouldn`t have otherwise), rather it just means that local companies who planned to invest in qualifying areas anyways are in the best position to become suppliers to a MMRCA OEM (rather than those offering the most competitive production capacities, etc).
Snow MonkeyI agree with Boom… (though by 2030 there could certainly be more than `a few` AMCA)
I think Victor may have mis-read / mis-remembered a quote the IAF was refurbishing the Mirages/MiGs for a TOTAL life-span of 30 years, i.e. adding 15 years or so, to mean they were adding 30 years to them. Even if IAF was planning on flying them for 30 more years, the current over-haul/upgrade would not be sufficient, they would need further upgrades and over-hauls. But if India will have a solidly 4.5 gen platform in Tejas Mk 3/4, that has better operating economics and compatability with the latest munitions and pods, why bother?
Snow MonkeyGan economics aren`t where GaA economics are currently, or in the immediate future.
Offering a GaN antennae for MMRCA would be more expensive, when price is the sole determinant at this point.
I don`t doubt that Captor-E will get GaN modules (or something better) at some point, but I doubt it is what India is being offered.
Snow MonkeyReally? What has changed since the allowance of civil aviation and internal security sectors for defense offsets:
Ajai Shukla link that came up first on Google
I still have never seen any source suggesting that off-sets are anything more than a requirement for the winning L1 bid to meet, i.e. that they don`t modify the effective cost of each bid, but are just a requirement that each side has to make. To say otherwise would be to say that there is a completely different off-set regime in place for MMRCA than for every other tender, which function on a percentage basis. I have seen talk of `weighting` investments in certain areas (I`m not sure if that is in place for MMRCA), which makes it easier to meet the requirement if you can invest in certain areas, but non-weighted investments are just as capable of meeting the proscribed off-set value as percentage of contract price. Again, I would love to see specific information stating otherwise, or clarifying the position off-sets occupy in the structure of the MMRCA tender.
Snow MonkeyRBE-2-AESA´s ´ultimate´ array is also planned to be with GaN, and possibly before the side-arrays and Spectra,
though time-schdules seem to sliding on introducing GaN on ALL features (but not on Spectra),No , it ‘s the other way around : SPECTRA first , then cheek arrays then RBE2 .
That´s what I was trying to write, that possibly the side-arrays would come first, along with Spectra. I don´t know if an extra comma would have made that clear or not :p
Snow MonkeyBesides pilots already planning to train in the US, I figured why not send the new carrier to the US to train with F-35 training squadron there, or deck and tower crews can be worked up with Rafales as an intermediary measure… (I believe CdG is going to have a re-fit shortly before PoW is scheduled to start service, so French crews could also maintain currency while doing the whole touchy-feely bilateral cooperation thing)
In any case, the ´if need be´ part I wrote was meant to reflect that such a schedule would certainly be cutting it tight, but given budget issues I don´t see a ´later´ order like that as being off the cards… Whatever the case, a F-35C order doesn´t need to be made for ´a few´ years 🙂 from now, at which point production and maintenance costs should be clearer than they are now… I feel that F-35C is all but assured of being procured, but the cost numbers will determine HOW MANY will be procured.
Snow MonkeyAnd the UK doesn´t need to order F-35C right away, but can hold off for 4 or 5 years if need be,
at which point it can make a better informed decision between the costs/benefits of F-35C or Rafale Block 4+.
Cost predictions for F-35 so far have been far off, but nobody knows how the current predictions will go.
Better to see how it goes and decide on that basis.
And BTW, Russia will certainly be exporting PAK-FA in the next 20 years, probably not to every country, but I could see Algeria buying for example…
Snow MonkeyI don´t see any date attached to introduction to service of that ´ultimate´ Captor-E array…
RBE-2-AESA´s ´ultimate´ array is also planned to be with GaN, and possibly before the side-arrays and Spectra,
though time-schdules seem to sliding on introducing GaN on ALL features (but not on Spectra),
which suggests a cost of production issue, and I suspect EADS is in the same boat there…
Snow MonkeyWhy do you think there is a competition over how much offsets can be provided?
Having such would be silly, because it simply further skews things to the largest conglomerates who´d likely invest a good amount of that ANYWAYS.
By all accounts I´m aware of, each bidder has to fulfill offsets as a percentage of contract price (thus lower price, lower offset requirement)
Incidentally AFAIK, civil aviation investment (airliner engine maintenance, simulators, etc) is now counted, which helps Snecma and Thales find off-set solutions.
So… off-sets are only a factor in determining if the low bid (as analyzed/extrapolated according to IAF formula) is dis-qualified for not meeting the off-set requirement.
Snow MonkeyAnyways, Dollar depreciation vs. Euro obviously doesn`t help the economic case compared to Lockheed after Greece`s M2k-5 purchase…
@Twinblade: That`s a good example of how things CAN work out perfectly, but I`m still not aware that Dassault specifically turned down such an offer from India at the time. Sukhoi was also not in the position of expensively developing a new platform and planning on selling it in the near future, India definitely got the deal of the Turn-of-the-Century with the original MKI deal, no doubt, and I`m not saying India or anybody else shouldn`t go for the best deal they can get (and is compatable with security needs, policy, etc), and if Dassault doesn`t offer that best deal perhaps they should be passed over… I`m just saying that just because somebody (D) doesn`t offer something equal to the BEST offer, doesn`t mean they are malevolent, etc, it just means they aren`t as optimally positioned a supplier as the other… Not everybody can be the optimal supplier.
Snow MonkeyCome to Souda Bay in Crete! De Gaulle can stay anchor there for as long as we don’t have money to buy new fighters. It may take a while… but… better than giving free Rafales to the British! They will keep making funny jokes about Trafalgar and frogs and all you will get from them will be fish and chips and poor attempts to speak french with London accent. Our deal is much better!
Sounds like a consolidation of the MoD and Tourism Promotion could be a good move for Greek budget consolidation… 😎
Snow MonkeyThe problem is, that when we upgraded our Mirage, the Dassault factory was still producing Mirage2000-5 (ours) and they still asked for about the same money as they do for India. Inflation today doesn’t come into the equation, as being out of production, the systems are the ones in french stock.
And India`s upgrade price was brought down thru massive indigenous production at Indian cost-base, along with the standard lower prices thru larger orders, etc, so asking about the same price as India gets now doesn`t suggest some malevolent scheme to me. Like India, I`m sure Greece COULD have gotten a better deal for an upgrade, possibly thru negotiating an upgrade on the BGMs, etc, at the same time as 2000-5 purchase, and it wasn`t Dassault`s fault that Greece didn`t take that approach. It`s just bizarre to expect a company to not behave in a rational commercial manner, and Dassault in fact does need to sell it`s current product it`s thrown all it`s eggs into… Contracting for M2K upgrade when that was the current product offering seems certain to have been a better buying strategy than waiting forever. Yes, it can suck for buyers, but Dassault isn`t realistically an EQUAL to Lockheed, who benefits from a US budget which can pursue both `last gen` upgrades (at least Block 50/52 if not 60) AND next-gen development (not to mention a high-lo mix), and thus isn`t going to match Lockheed 1:1 in everything they do.
Snow MonkeyTRafale need an export sale urgently. If they can’t sell it to Indians and Brazilians (both satisfied M2K users), then Rafale would be permanently branded as a lemon. They shouldn’t have closed the M2K line permanently, but instead should have come up with M2K-NG, with something like 120KN engine, improved aerodynamics and an AESA. If F-16 can sell till this day, a souped up M2K would have been selling too.
Well, Rafales chances now look pretty damn good between India and Brazil (eventually), and likewise UAE and Kuwait look to be quoing up quite nicely.
Your speculation on M2kNG just reveals the amount of investment needed, investment that would prevent other developments. France perhaps had the option to pursue that path, getting most of the benefits of Rafale avionics but with other compromises… and what? Buy Hornets as naval jets? Put up with those compromises until 2030? India HAD the option for M2K-9 production and they ****** it up themselves by dallying too long. A reasonable offer to pay for ToT could have resulted in co-development of an uprated engine for M2K-9/NG along with CFTs, etc, but India let that opportunity slide.
Snow MonkeyIf only there was a military version of “pimp my ride” :D, but seriously in order to not sabotage Rafale sales, the French did not invest much in newer blocks of M2K (as compared to f-16).
Do you think France really could fund full upgrade path of M2K AND fund Rafale development? No, obviously not. They needed to have a future, and Rafale was the path that fulfilled all their needs while pushing the edge of technology. Yes, it would have been convenient for many buyers, possibly including AdA itself, had M2K development proceeded, but in a limited budget decisions have to be made.
Your `sabotage` story would have more merit if India had offered to fund develpment program of M2K like UAE did with Block 60, but France/Dassault had refused in deference to their other new product (Rafale). I`m not aware that India ever considered doing this, thus it`s disingenuous to complain that OEM`s product offering doesn`t ideally correspond to your needs.
Sign In
