Welcome to the club Goldust!

Ignore List

Abhimanyu
ADMK2
Bluewings
Dare2
Devils Advocate
DragonMaster
Erakis
F-18Growler
GlobalPress
GoldenPawn
Goldust
HAWX ace
Jaidyn24
JSR
JSTCVW09CD
Kapedani
mikoyan1991
nhampton
over G
palembang
plawolf
PParker
Rom_un
RPG type 7v
savion
Scooter
sferrin
Showtime 100
Squalls
SS-26
Tu 160
uss novice
zhengpao33

That’s what it says, as well as another lot (also 12 jets?) for their parts.

Not having the original doesn’t help, but I’m fairly certain that French source was mentioning workshops in the sense of production/fabrication.

I think you understand the logic in a normal division of liability in a contract, certainly putting all liability on Dassault may motivate them to succesfully empower HAL, but if that is truly a reasonable approach to things, why isn’t that the commercial norm? Why would any commercial company accept unlimited liability like that? Wouldn’t any corporate executive be opening themself to shareholder lawsuits for signing such a financially reckless document? The example of MKI is not that it is absolutely the worst case, but that failings can and do happen, so contracts should be written up with concrete responsibilities. The MOST accomplished companies can have issues with budget and schedule, see Boeing and KC-X or 787, that is why contracts lay out responsibilities. It’s quite possible to craft a solid contract that objectively enumerates Dassault’s obligations in ToT and getting HAL up to speed, without creating open-ended obligations for events beyond their normal responsibility in the process, this contract can even cover ‘unknown’ developments, i.e. at-cost (or whatever) consulting beyond what is forseen. The flip side of that is that India can expect contracts to be followed thru with.

Reliance don’t have to be world class accomplished integrators, they are accepting financial responsibility because they are ready to pay up to gain entry to this field. If they don’t get ToT out of it, then what exactly are they accomplishing? That’s a partner that Dassault can work with, ready and willing to learn. Exactly why can’t HAL come up with an arrangement that is as or more attractive to Dassault, if they’re so much more competent to boot? The sole issue from Dassault is about contract structure, so if there’s some problem with Reliant, either HAL, L&T, Mahindra can be written in to a rationally structured contract. Regardless, there is a huge amount of production and ToT that independent of Reliance/HAL will be conducted via other Indian entities and companies, BEL, etc. The idea that Dassault is not willing to do ToT when that has been advertised from the beginning, the prices include that (vs simple sale price), and if they can’t sign a contract with objective measures for ToT, then the deal will simply not go thru, so why bother?

Ignoring the contract structure/liability issue, or rather insisting that it means nothing except as a smokescreen for unwillingness to apply ToT is just sensationalism… Unjustified insistence on signing only one contract between MoD and Dassault/Rafale is simply not a requirement extrapolatable from the terms of the tender or law. The MoD’s leaked negotiating position/complaints are thus clearly motivated by HAL itself… Which undercuts the entire position that MoD can only sign one contract with Dassault: If HAL’s interests are directly influencing the position of MoD, then there is no reason that HAL itself should not be included on an equivalent level as Dassault and the MoD… If HAL is involved in negotiating the prime contract in that manner, then it IS centrally involved stakeholder, not just a minor subcontractor under Dassault’s responsibility.

Finally, if it’s just that Dassault won’t do real ToT even though that’s been the name of the game all along, what does that leave?
It would then go to Eurofighter, so do you think BAE/EADS/Alenia will just sign up to unlimited liability contracts just like that?

Dassault showed up just how ridiculous their argument on HAL’s ability was, when they actually argued that Reliance Aerospace (without having even set up a single facility, or having worked on a single project before this) would instead be their preferred partner.

The conflict isn’t about what HAL does, it’s about what contractual liability is applied to each party.
If the conflict was about whether HAL would do anything or not, contractual liability for what HAL’s task is would not be discussed.

So, Dassault was in effect saying that they could take responsibility for a total novice delivering a 4th generation Rafale

I missed when Dassault’s contract with Reliance was leaked, revealing their specific mutual liabilities, could you link that for me?

but not a state manufacturer that builds Su-30MKIs

…failing to meet scheduled guidelines for localized Sukhoi production, I believe… minorly relevant precedence, perhaps?

The aim was obvious- try to get back as much work as possible

How does saying “OK, Mr. Uber-Competent HAL, you want to be integrator and do X work? Great, so you will be liable for that work…”
achieve transferring work away from HAL? HAL just has to say “OK”, and then follow thru.
Modern aerospace is replete with partnerships, outsourcing, and JVs, the hallmark of which is “risk sharing”, i.e. each partner liable for their portion.
Dassault works with other companies, such as with Saab on the Neuron demonstrator, where each partner is liable for the work they do.
Airbus and Boeing contract much work out to third parties, who are liable for the work they do, whether design work or implementing existing designs.
If HAL doesn’t get this basic normal dynamic of cooperative aerospace ventures, doesn’t it suggest they are either just totally out of it, or indeed doubtful of their own capacities?
If they were extremely capable and confident, they should accept a full liability contract, and plan on exceeding the required performance, making more profit for themselves.
Not wanting to accept liability suggests fear or not meeting performance targets.
MoD states they want to only sign a contract with one entity… I haven’t seen any statement saying why this can’t be with HAL, who then sub-contracts with Dassault, etc.
I also haven’t seen anything suggesting the exact structure of the contractual relationship is a requirement of the tender, only that HAL is the lead integrator and assemblor.
So MoD is extending negotiations over something they are not legally required to do.

———————————————————————————————–

@F-18Growler: At this stage, there is no competitive dynamic between Rafale and Eurofighter, Rafale won the tender based on all information submitted by both parties and assessed by IAF and MoD. At this stage it is just exclusive negotiations between MoD and Rafale/Dassault. *IF* those do not succesfully proceed, then the MoD can at some point decide that they will not work out, at which point they have the choice to open discussions with Eurofighter, or scrap the tender and proceed from there. But at no point during all of that is there any competition, if negotiations with Rafale don’t work out then exclusive negotiations would be opened with EF. Only if the tender were scrapped would any competition renew.

Why would anybody assume it is Syrian Army/Air Force doing this? The only forces that have threatened to shoot down civilian airliners are the rebels.
That Russia is not impressed with the islamist rebels is not anything new…
They may not be married to Assad, backing non-violent alternatives to the Baath regime, but they have never been positively disposed to islamist rebels/terrorist forces in the middle east,
not the least because of their experience from afghanistan and current situation in central asia/southern russia, so this event would simply reinforce their position.

But I suppose this is par for course with reporting on Syria, where you get the reports of chemical weapons immediatley pinned on the regime,
even when there is only a handful of deaths of the regime’s own forces, i.e. NOT effective ‘WMD’s, and more in line with rebels using chemical weapons…
Which is entirely in-line with established behavior pattern of losing side in civil war trying to ‘play victim’ to draw in US/NATO forces,
similar things happened in Bosnia with cases of sides staging attacks on their own forces (if not consructing fact massacre sites) to establish a rationale for outside help.
And right after the most recent ‘chemical’ attack, you have tens if not more rebel battalions claiming chemical weapon attacks against themself/civilians… HMMM…
Like the cry wolf story, if one side’s PR is simply consistently shown to be lies, you just cant really assume it’s true anymore (unless you WANT to be deluded, of course…)

The response to the event seems silly, comentators doubting the ability of an airliner to avoid SAMs, inability of pilots to see missiles fired from behind, etc,
OF COURSE that is true, but if the missiles were fired from ahead of the flight path, that is how the pilots could have seen flashes as they reported,
and while the plane could not very well evade those missiles themselves, the normal reaction would be to raise flight level to avoid potential future shots,
and what has been reported doesn’t contradict that in any way, it was never claimed that the pilots were engaged in dog-fight maneuvers vs. missiles…

I wasn’t aware of the MICA NG program…
Seems a bit surprising to be extending the range when Meteor is coming online.
I assume it will also be applied to the MICA VL applications, though…

Demonstrator, like the similar NEURON project.
Production platform would be new, based on what is learned from demonstrators, but built to meet specifications of the customers.

If Russia wants to (more) widely export LMFS, it needs to be economically compelling, and I think a single engine layout is required for that. Not that performance wise there is a difference in thrust/weight (look at F135/GE414), but a single engine should simply have maintenance advantages. Variable bypass in particular should make allow substantial range/loiter, for both manned and unmanned applications. It seems fairly easy to have a variant with an even larger fan, if desired (for UAV).

I don’t know VVS plans (obviously), but IMHO LMFS and any Su-25 replacement would be candidates to share many components including engine, if a Su-25 successor were developed… But a 2-seat LMFS managing several UCAVs seems the better approach for modern CAS (vs. direct Su-25 replacement). It probably is worthwhile to re-engine Su-25 especially as that smaller engine could also find it’s way to other UAV platforms (single or double engined for redundancy), but I don’t see a true successor for Su-25 being developed from scratch.