sekantNirav,
Competition rules don’t allow dumping or illegal subsidies, or selling below cost price.
!
Again, I challenge you to come up with the legal basis that makes dumping/subsidies in the arms industry illegal and therefore to back up your claims.
There are no limits placed on the subsidies for the military sector (production and export), at the EU level (for your information, this is article 346 of the European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, production and trade in arms exception) or on the global/WTO scale (Article XXI, GATT, Security Exceptions)).
Fact is, both the Rafale and the EF have been subsidised, governments picking up the r&d tab (although less so for the Rafale, Dassault forking 25% of that amount). And there is nothing illegal here.
But I am certainly not holding my breath, this entire thread and its very title are only one additional wind up on your part. That goes with your insulting several persons in this thread (calling them halfwits et al). I suppose that since you are english, that is fine for the mods.
I am waiting.
sekantThere have been whispers that EU competition authorities have been looking into MMRCA.
Can you please enlighten us and explain how a subsidy can be illegal in the defense sector.
The defense sector is one of the few domains where WTO trade rules do not apply (as well as EU competition rule). As per WTO/GATT agreement:
“… nothing in this Agreement shall be construed … to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests
(i) relating to fissionable materials or the materials from which they are derived; (ii) relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment;(iii) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations; … (Article XXI, GATT, Security Exceptions).”
A very large number of military ware exported are subsidised in a direct (US wares to Israel, German Uboats to Israel) or indirect way (i.e. recipient not paying for r&d costs), for political and/or security reasons. But there is nothing illegal here.
So please explain in what way a subsidised Rafale export would be illegal. Otherwise, you are trolling (again).
sekantNo? I thought most criticism was based on this assumption.
You are wrong and I suggest you read this and the other thread.
I’m not sure the selection process is dysfunctional at all. A leaked report saying that Gripen C would not meet the needs of the Swiss has made people think that Gripen E would not meet the needs of the Swiss. Since SAAB was not offering the Gripen C, so what if it were judged inadequate. There seems to be a lot of hysteria about how big a mistake it would be for Switzerland to buy an aircraft that was not offered to Switzerland.
The technical evaluation assessed the Gripen both in the C/D version and in the E/F version, and the E/F version still fell short.
It is also a political decision whether Switzerland needs the capability offered by a twin-engined ultra high performance fighter or whether a less capable fighter will suffice. Maurer has made it clear that he has opted for the latter.
Of course, if Dassault can demonstrate that a reduced number of Rafale will provide an equal capability at a lower price than Gripen…
Except that the Air Force asked to asses whether 16 Rafales would provide an equal and superior capability to 22 Gripens but the Minister refused to let them do that.
And you are wrong, Dassault saying that a reduced number of Rafale will provide an equal capability at a lowere price than Gripen will be taken as PR. It has to be assessed by the AF.
I think Maurer could be accused of misleading through incompetence if he had made a decision based on the performance of the 3 aircraft 3+ years ago, especially as one of the aircraft tested was not what was offered to Switzerland.
See above, the evolution of the Gripen was taken into account in the technical evaluation and the three aircrafts have since then evolved, not only one.
sekantIf Gripen was found to meet all requirements and was the lowest cost, why would he not choose it?
How do you know that there was no interaction with Eurofighter and Dassault since 2009, can you please document that?
You are referring to “the one and only technical evaluation”; however what Gygax is saying is that they did not close their eyes for what happened after 2009. Would you have preferred that they have ignored the development since 2009? Would that have been a better process in your opinion? I disagree with that; What the different manufacturers can deliver after the contract has been signed should be the most important thing, not what was written in a report some years back.
No, it is not possible to prove a negative as you know full well.
And yes, there has been only one full-fledged technical evaluation that compared in depth the three platforms.
And the problem is that following that full fledged technical evaluation of 2009 the follow-on evaluations seem to have focused on one option only, the further developments of the Gripen. Developments of the other platforms seems not to have been taken into account. That is what comes out of the press conference.
So, taking into account the developments after the technical evaluation is not dysfunctional but when it does so for only one platform and when the military is prevented from looking into some possible options (such as whether 16 Rafales can do the same or a better job than 22 Gripens), it certainly is.
Note that you are being manipulated; it is no coincidence that these two reports have been leaked and not some of the others, and it is no coincidence that some materials has been left out. A large number of reports have been produced, some of them probably after 2009. Since you have not seen any of them how can you draw conclusions that the process has been “dysfunctional”?
Firstly, the material that has been left out of the technical evaluation is because it includes classified data (pertaining to the F18). What we have is comprehensive in the sense that it includes the summaries of the different sections.
Secondly, I could adopt the same approach you have taken above in challenging you to prove a negative: since you have not seen the follow-on evaluation, how do you know the process is not dysfunctional? And, again, it does look dysfunctional to me as when you listen to the press conference the only option that seems to have been furthered hinged on the developments of the Gripen (and I am not only entering into the fact that these developments to come where assessed in the 2009 technical report and that even with them, the Gripen was falling short).
sekantAnd for the umpteenth time, no one has thrashed the Gripen and said that it could not meet the needs of the Swiss.
The issue is of a dysfunctional selection process, whereby the one and only technical evaluation comes to the conclusion that product A and B are up to par but product C certainly not, and on this basis talks seem to have been furthered with only the manufacturer of product C.
With to me would seem to show that the entire process has been nearly solely of a political nature from the start (Maurer, from the hard core patriotic right, not wanting to buy a French or German product since they upped the pressure in 2009 on fiscal issues/bank secrecy). Which raises several issues, notably whether Maurer sold the thing has a political decision to the rest of the executive (out of the 7 members of the executive, Maurer is the only from the hard core right, the rest being made of two socialists (PS), two centres (PDC) and two centre-right (PR)) that approved it or whether he misled them.
sekantThe military had a given budget for that buy. As the former procurements showed it was not kept in most military buys. All the extra cost came along afterwards. With the Gripen NG they will have still the option to lower the number to that of the Rafale if further cost will show up and with that still with the minimum number in need. All the weaponary and the engines will fit with ease into the Swiss inventory. Contrary to some posters here the Swiss politicans are at least as smart as their military. 😉
What do you mean by “lowering the number to that of the Rafale if further cost” show up? If I am not mistaken, the request is for 22 planes and that was not lowered for the EF or the Rafale.
Quite the contrary, the AF asked the Ministry to let them assessed whether 16 Rafales could fulfil the role of 22 Gripens, which he refused to let them do.
sekantUnless my German is dangerously defective, the following came out of the meeting –
André Blattmann, head of the army: the decision of the Bundesrat is right. He says the leadership of the army backs the Gripen. He makes the point that procurement of new fighters should not be a financial burden for other parts of Swiss defence.
Markus Gygax, head of the air force: Gripen fulfils air force requirements.
Ulrich Appenzeller, head of procurement: the evaluation was conducted professionally.
What would suit Switzerland best?
Please reread the thread to understand what I meant. I posted in reaction to Distiller who was saying that the political level selected the Gripen on a cost basis but that the military per se (below the political level, within the Air Force) wanted the EF. And my point was that if he is correct regarding the Gripen dimension, it would seem to me that the rank and file wanted the Rafale (as shown by how it ranked in the evaluation and how the ranks, the leaking of the report, the fact that other info have been leaked by the AF to Parliament to stress the value of the Rafale).
sekantSekant the report from 2009 has been invalidated by further Gripen development. This was explained in the press conference today.
Unlike the leaked 2008/2009 reports, those other reports have not been leaked, and most likely never will be. THey will not be leaked because it does not fit the agenda of the person(s) that leaked the two first reports.
So either you trust Gygax and his people or you insist that they are lying and that Gripen has not been developed since 2009… It’s up to you.
What happened at the Press Conference was that Maurer changed its tune and said he indeed saw the technical reports but forgot about it because he judged them insignficant.
Which is now leading to new questions by Parliamentarians as to what is the use of the AF making an evaluation then and that this new line does not make sense since the developments of the Gripen from CD to EF were taken into account in the evaluation (i.e. in the second part).
First reaction by Parliamentarians is that the matter has certainly not been clarified. The way the Gripen has been selected remains non transparent and Maurer will have to come and explain itself before a sub-committee of parliament next week (and this is to start with).
You may wish that thing to go away as your last sentence seem to suggest but it won’t.
I certainly dont trust Maurer (and saying that this linked to the reality or absence of progress in the development of the Gripen is ludicrous) but then you would need to understand Swiss politics to understand why.
sekantPoint 1
The second report (->second part of the leaked pdf) of the year 2009 was eventually not the newest report so the person who leaked it played a stupid game.
Could expand on this? Are you saying that there was an updated report made by the Air Force? If this is the case, can you provide your source because I have not heard this from anywhere so far.
And as the Gripen was the airplane which was (relatively) the most improved, its score would rise the most and come much closer the the Rafale and Eurofighter. And in the end the statement that the Gripen received as well more than 6 points becomes much more realistic.
Again, where do you draw this from? The only report that we have so far says indeed that the Gripen would be the most improved aircraft among the three tested with the planned improvements but that it started from so far back that this would still not enable it to reach the grade of 6
sekantPointing out that Rafale fans are noted for moaning and whining about competitions that didn’t go Rafale’s way, and for labelling such decisions as unfair is fair comment, surely?
And it’s not bashing Rafale, which you accused me of ‘needing to bash every day’.
I still haven’t bashed Rafale on this thread – quite the reverse.
The Swiss have selected a great fighter, which meets their needs well, and which is affordable, which neither Rafale nor Typhoon would have been. The selection process seems to have come up with the right result. That’s the real issue.
It’s time for some to move on and stop whining, I suggest.
1. The real issue is that the Swiss have made a hash of the selection process and that will make the acquisition untenable politically (and btw they have not selected a fighter that meets their needs because they have no needs).
2. You can play on words between bashing rafale or bashing rafale fans but you understood my gist well enough.
3. I would suggest that you are the one whining here. Discussing the fact that the Swiss have botched the selection process is a legitimate issue of discussion. As is a report by an AF that has assessed the three eurocanards and even if the results of this assessment does not suit your liking.
sekantSekant,
I didn’t call you a fool, my dear chap!
I’m sure that you wouldn’t claim that Gripen can’t actually perform the tasks that the Swiss Air Force needs to undertake, even though you may believe that it doesn’t technically meet the Requirement.
Nor have I ‘bashed’ Rafale on this thread.
Unless suggesting that Rafale (just like Typhoon) may not have been affordable to the Swiss counts as bashing the Rafale?
Macouille (that is for your patronizing me),
Either you are so used to it that you are no longer aware of it or you are merely misleading, but yes you bring everything back to these awful Rafale fans, such as “Crying about how ‘unfair’ you think the result of a competition was may fit the pattern for Rafale fans but it is not going to change anything.”
When the issue here is not the Rafale or its fans but the Swiss making a hash of the selection process.
sekant1. I suggest you read the links I offered above, where you see what Gygax (NOT Maurer) says about the Gripen.
2. Also, we may want to wait until after the press conference. Do you really think that this latest leak will change the recommendation of Gygax? Keep in mind the leaks were known already some time ago; the only new thing is that the actual documents have been leaked. Gygax knows those documents and therefore knows what was leaked to the press, several weeks ago. Think about that…
This Gygax thing is nothing new (you are right, he signed the reports). The issue is not whether he will change his mind (he will not), the problem is a PR one. The entire project was already severely challenged in Switzerland (I reside there) and with this it is now done and over with.
The problem has nothing to do with the capacities of the Gripen but with the fact that the Swiss military have not clearly defined why they would need such planes, for what missions precisely. Their only mantra has been we had F-5s, they are becoming too old so we are entitled to new ones.
The fact is that if they had not botched the selection process they may have pull that through. But not now, with the renewed politicisation of this issue they will not be able to get through parliament the acquisition of gripens when they already have 33 F-18 whose only mission is policy the air space of a tiny country.
sekantGripen is hardly a Twingo, and only a fool would suggest that Gripen NG won’t fulfil the actual Swiss requirement pretty well.
Not as well as Rafale. Not as well as Typhoon. Perhaps even failing to meet some of what were stated as METs.
But well enough, and affordably, which Rafale clearly could not.
You seem to get blinded by your need to bash out the Rafale day in day out.
With the evaluation report out and what it says, the parliamentarians and the wider public (which will have to both pronounce themselves on this purchase) are presented with a situation whereby their own armed forces are telling them that we are about to spend 3 billions to buy something that we believe is unable to fulfil its most basic mission (air policing). In PR terms, that thing is done with as that acquisition was already seriously challenged without this.
And, as I already stressed, this is sad for SAAB because this makes the procurement untenable whatever Maurer comes up with now when Gripen is clearly the plane best suited to Swiss needs.
Now, call me once more a fool and I will start using the same language towards you.
sekant@Not Cool 12F,
Maurer didn’t need to read the whole report, he has people telling him what it contained (and what it didn’t).
Switzerland’s requirement (as opposed to the formal NFA Requirement) is for an aircraft that meets military, economic and political needs.
If Rafale and Typhoon are judged unaffordable, then Gripen has to win, by default.
And Gripen NG in 2012 looks a lot more compelling than it did in 2008-9, in my view, and our view of what it will be in 2015 has also shifted.
The problem being that Maurer has not said that it did not read the report, but that he said he was not aware of its existence (and that no one told him what was in it for that matter).
And no, the Gripen cannot win by default if the only technical evaluation carried out (there has been no complementary evaluation as you seem to suggest) says that it cannot carry out the mission for which it is going to be bought. If the police forces said: we assessed different car for high speed interception on the high way but since the bmw et al were too expensive, we bought a renault twingo, everyone would called them crazy – better not buy anything if it can not fulfil the mission, and that is what is happening now.
Another element as to why the Air Force is pissed off and Maurer will have additional issues to deal with is that when it appeared that they could not procure 22 Rafales because of the unit costs, Maurer refused that the AF carry out an assessment to figure out whether 16 rafales could do the job of 22 gripens.
sekantBudgetary and political requirements are always vital. Industrial requirements are often important.
Dassault and Eurofighter failed to meet these requirements while Saab did, and their aircraft was chosen as a result.
In Switzerland, the technical report was only ever going to account for 60% of the score.
And yes Maurer stated late last year that “all three contenders meet the requirements.” That report said, TWO YEARS EARLIER that the Gripen did not THEN meet the requirements. The Swiss have had another look, have obviously reassessed the importance of price, and may or may not have reassessed Gripen’s capabilities. Whatever the case, Gripen obviously does meet the requirement now!
Crying about how ‘unfair’ you think the result of a competition was may fit the pattern for Rafale fans but it is not going to change anything.
1. Again, what are you on about? It is now the Rafale fans that cry about anything. It is the Swiss crying foul because there is a major hicup with their selection process because the Defence Minister is either misleading when he says that he has not seen the technical evaluation or he has indeed not seen it and that is mind boggling.
2. “Whatever the case, Gripen obviously does meet the requirements now”. Precisely, this is far from clear. There has been no complementary evaluation carried out by the Air Force and this is why the ranks and files are up in arms and why the technical report has been released. Even within the air force, no one understands how the Gripen has suddenly been deemed fit at the political level. And this is why the Defence minister has been called upon to explain himself by Parliament.
3. Unless you have a problem going through the report, the evaluation assessed the different fighters as currently developped and with planned development. Even taking into account the many planned developments of the Grippen, this particular aircraft was assessed as unfit.
4. The sad thing for SAAB is that the Gripen is certainly the fighter that best responds to the limited needs of the Swiss air force. But because the selection has been botched, there is no way now that the deal will go through.
Sign In
