TooCool_12fEven if I accept your line of argument, that India made illogical and stupid demands. Then why bothered to do all this circus by participating in the competition? Why they are wasting our time, I don’t care about their time. It costs lots of money, professional resources and time to organize it. It is like if I can’t win a competition, I also don’t let others win it.
the question is: was that liability clause present in the MRCA requirements?
my guess is that it was not, or else, India would most certainly have no bidders at all as no sane company director would engage his company in such a risky deal. That everybody tries to get the best deal out of it is logical (or else there would be no need for negotiations), but chances are that it was more a game of will. India needs these fighters AND their technology probably even more than Dassault needs to sell them (at least until the French orders aren’t completed, which gives a number of years of margin to Dassault). They will, in all probability, reach an agreement soon enough.
TooCool_12fwell, from reports posted even here it was said that India wanted that Dassault bears FULL liability over the Rafale production… “FULL” meaning, obviously they should bear the liability for any default in making or delivering aircraft. That’s visible through their will to have a single contractor signing with them (Dassault, as opposed to Dassault + HAL)
On the other side, what you describe is a pretty logical condition: each partner should be liable for fulfilling its own part of the contract, which, as Dassault claims, at least publicly, should be the case, but that’s not what has been reported as THE problem that blocked the negotiations
TooCool_12fthing is, if you’re just greedy and irresponsible, you accept anything for those 20 billion… but if things go wrong (quite possible) you’re out of business for good as your liability will probably bring you to bankruptcy… is it worth it? especially considering that Dassault makes its profits on bizjets, not fighters… for them, if it works out, great, if it doesn’t, they can live with it…
TooCool_12fDassault … is sticking to their guns, India will buy if its really really needed. Only Chinese can help them, by pulling few more boarder tricks. Otherwise Dassault has low chances but very informative quote
Dassault wants keep the technology and get all the money they need for developing next plane. It seems they never read the terms and conditions or they were thinking to br*be and bypass those.
Snow monkey, some of your comments I find arrogant. On a positive side, such comments helps others to do their best to prove you wrong. So I hope you keep repeating these now and then.
from what’s been said, it is the India’s officials that want Dassault to be responsible for any potential defect that may result from HAL’s production… even if it’s entirely HAL’s fault.. for as long as India asks for such silly engagement (from any manufacturer, not only Dassault), they’ll have to wait for any technology they may expect… you want technology, independence, and do it by yourself it’s fine, but you have to assume responsibility for what you do… it is, sort of: “you want to play with the big guys? grow up then!” 😉
TooCool_12fIf a nation were to follow your narrow view, they would follow the lead of Ireland and New Zealand and deactivate their fast jets and rely on some other country provide for their defense.
But in the real world, the diplomat’s mission is made easier if backed with military might, (even if that military might is flexed as part of a coalition). It is for each nation to decide if they want to play on the world stage, or meekly fade into the shadows and hope those with ill-intent do not notice them. And when those of ill-intent come for them, their recourse is to run crying to the UN…where they will be laughed at.
total rubbish… a nation can very well have an air force made for their defense, mind its own business without going to bomb some remote country which most of its citizens are totally unable to locate on a map and still be respectable…
TooCool_12fThis illustrates my point so perfectly. Thankyou and welcome to my the ignore list.
Finally we got there, just like any rubbish you posted until here, when some little thing, something insignificant like, say, reality for example doesn’t fit your liking, you just ignore it…
Keep dreaming pal…
TooCool_12fYou’re really doing a truly terrible job at rationalizing the need for Airforces not to ever again fly strike missions into enemy territory, and all because you know your favoured 4th gen fighters would struggle. The anti F-35 mindset sure does make people come out with the strangest things.
Well, unlike you, rather than blindly believing LM’s crap, I look at the use air forces have for their aircraft and you know what? there are basically two types of users:
the ones going around the planet “on their own” which may need a deep strike capability: USA and France, basically, and between these two there’s a big difference in numbers: one that can afford a specialized aircraft doing a single mission inside a package of lots of aircraft doing everything else (jamming, SEAD, recce etc…) and the other that has to rely on small numbers of aircraft able to operate on their own.. both feel confident about their capabilities, plan to use their latest aircraft for the next 30 years at least and both are made of professionals who do know their job. so, already you have a problem with your (LM’s in fact) claim that the F-35 is the only viable option for deep strike.
the ones (pretty much everybody else): that use their fighters for homeland jobs as a tool for their defense. For them, the deep strike is something that’s simply completely out of the scope of the uses they plan for their fighter aircraft. If they ever get into coalition to go to fight thousands of km from home, it will be following the US lead, on US decision and then, they can let the US organize and do the deep strike jobs with stealth assets if necessary, cruise missiles etc… while performing CAS, A2A, logistics, etc… basically, going offensive far from home is something most nations will eventually do once in 15-20 years, at most… it’s simply not part of their policies
Like it or not, the F-35, while fitting in the role the USAF plans for it is just an unnecessary spending for others
TooCool_12fthe price cap is also not supposed to be violated by more than 25% or the program should be scrapped… we all know how it turned out for the F-35 😉
TooCool_12fthe F-16 did not have the monopoly… there were other manufacturers with other fighters and it still aimed at other markets, which in itself was a motivation to remain competitive for LM… if the F-35 becomes the only fighter available in the west in, say, 15 years (around late 2020’s up to 2030), who can the potential customers turn to? what leverage will they have? not to say that, if they’re pretty much bankrupt operating it, without proper infrastructure to do more than the most basic maintenance, they’ll be just about completely dependent unlike in the previous decades
TooCool_12fAs you say, there’s a potential but the potential is something that can be realized… but won’t necessarily be that way..
another thing is that, through realizing a monopoly on fighters in western world, who can tell that Lockheed won’t use that to make huge profits by dictating indecent prices o,n upgrades, as customers won’t have much of a choice by then? There is also a potential for economical disaster for air forces operating the F*35 as their single jet as well, in the end…
only time will tell
TooCool_12fif it is so clear and reported how come you do not post it? where is it? you are just as bad as eeelightning. first you try ruin thread about pakistan by focusing on typhoon. then you cannot even support typhoon claim. where is the proof? pakistan, india, china none of them will use typhoon but they will see j10b in one or two of the country i mention.
you cannot name call people either. please read forum rule. i know maybe you get upset because you use only words not picture or number or other source to proove yourself, but you still need to follow rule. i follow them!
man, you’re a real joker…
the pic of your “chinese AESA” looks like a LEGO radar made of plastic.. so, unless you bring proof it is real, I’ll call it a plastic radar not more real than the Death Star (which is from star wars, not star trek, on a side note… but I guess you didn’t even get that information right back in China, not to speak about REAL fighter aircraft)
talking about following rules, proove your nonsense claims or stop trolling
TooCool_12ffrench weapons did quite well… the problem being, the french didn’t deliver all the weapons ordered when asked not to do so by the british… had argentina waited for the full delivery of exocets there would have been an entirely different war down there (Vulcans would have been retired – no surprise bombing of port stanley airport) and any fleet coming close would have suffered much heavier losses than what they experienced in 1982
TooCool_12fYep, they were what is known as a near-peer opponenet.
Very hairy stuff for all involved despite the seemingly fashionble talk from kiddies these days who make out it was a cake-walk, funny thing is most of those kids weren’t even alive back then!
near peer? that’s exactly what I posted before: “presenting the bad guy as a veery mean and powerful enemy” while in reality, even if there’s always danger in war, you pretty much bomb him to stoneage with impunity… near peer enemy for a coalition force like in GW1 would require a country of the size and power of India… peers being Russia or China
TooCool_12fit’s not just about “today’s planes are better” which would be quite simplistic, but simply to say that for countries that have limited budgets (pretty much everybody except the USA whose limits are way beyond anyone else (except maybe China… ) ) having a single type that costs so much to buy and operate that you can only afford a handful of these is simply not the way to go, as you could be much better served by cheaper types in sufficient numbers for 99% of the missions you have to perform like the air policing, intercept, training, etc… (the deep strike as in your drawing being the remaining 1% which can most certainly be done by other much cheaper means like cruise missiles for example)
TooCool_12fto my knowledge the F-14 had no stations underneath the pivoting parts of the wings, only on fixed parts which did not have to pivot. It is the F-111 that had plenty of things hanging underneath ^^
Sign In
