Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

[Ashwin]

And you think it's that easy to get confidential recordings of G2G talks? It's the government that has to release info's and the lack of transparency is the key problem.

So you got nothing. Even the conspiracy theory is so weak no one is following it. Its a joint agreement so you can still approach the french for details. If an EU country doesn't want to share it then no point discussing it.

I am not even saying that there was cronyism or corruption

Glad you got here !

When did I said that?

Dude!

Last page , your words >>

You can't refer to the DPP when the whole deal was done bypassing the DPP in the first place!

Don't take things out of context. L1/L2 rules according to DPP only applies to tenders, therfore have no relation to a separate G2G deal,

How many times do i have to correct this basic point: Refer 3

You know that how? Even SC is asking for these info's now?

Is that your argument?

You are yet to show me which procedure govt skipped. Hay, but SC is asking about things you know.

Wrong, I am saying we should have followed what IAF wanted and if MMRCA was not able to conclude, turn to a similar alternative under the same objectives (126 fighters + licence production + ToT). IAF never wanted 2 separate deals, nor the risk of getting 2 types of fighters and most importantly, IAF don't wanted to wait for an MMRCA contract after 2020. All this is the result of Dassaults blockade and a bad deal in between.

This argument is against your whole point of following the procedure. Can you show me how Govt can go back to the similar fighter alternative within the MMRCA tender constrains? In DPP there is no way to do it other than going back to starting a new tender procedure.

 

[Sancho]

you assume that an agreement will be finalized in April 2015

Eric Trappier stated in March 2015, that the deal is close to be signed and responsibility issue settled.

And the delay is not so great between April 2018 and September 2019 only 17 months,

Read again! 18 Rafales by April 2019 vs 1 Rafale by Sept 2019

There is no fast racking, in the Rafale deal, just as the explanation of emergency because of modernisation of enemies, that the government presented, makes no sense either.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Eric Trappier stated in March 2015, that the deal is close to be signed and responsibility issue settled.

That was regarding workshare only and not about guarantees. The final sticking point was the guarantees about the final product which HAL refused to give.

 

[randomradio]

Depends, if you are just spreading the usual misinformation, that's good enough. But of we talk about reality and facts...

- there is no order for LCA MK1A, stuck at MoD at the moment, because HAL and iAF can't agree on costs
- MMRCA and FGFA cancelled => loss off more than 300 fighters vs procurement of just 36 Rafales
- crucial force multipliers AWACS/tankers/transport aircrafts (2 x A50 Phalcon, 6 x A330MRTT, 45 x MTA, 56 x C295), either cancelled or delayed
- G2G deal for Kamov 226 was done in 2015, final contract still not signed
- additional Hawks not procured
- additional PC7 DAC cleared and then not procured
- no solution to the VIP helicopter requirement
- no solution for MMRCA requirements, delayed for 4 years now and counting

That's only the result of the last 4 years for IAF, it gets worse when we add other forces as well. Only IA got some useful additions, while they face the results of limited defence spending, the lack of a proper DM, too.

Except for the A330, every single thing you named have nothing to do with the govt.

Mk1A has time for signature until FOC of Mk1. A50, Hawk, PC7, C295 and Ka-226T are still under negotiations. Govt makes it a habit not to interfere when negotiations are ongoing.

The A50 in particular was hiked to a ridiculous $1.5B, and the govt seems to have managed to bring down the price to $800M. The Hawks, the price has increased by 60 or 70%, which is ridiculous. As for PC-7, we may be buying HTT-40s instead, whenever HAL gets around to finish it, but negotiations for 38 PC-7s is still ongoing.

C-295 is special. Apart from the fact that the tech negotiations alone were concluded only this year, the MoD plans to bring in other wings and other Ministries into the project.

MTA was cancelled on IAF's request, so was FGFA. Neither MMRCA nor FGFA were in our favour, while MTA came with inferior engines. The 36 Rafale deal followed by 36 more will take care of our needs until MMRCA 2.0 is ready for signature. FGFA decision will be taken up much later, after the aircraft is developed and the RuAF themselves have placed orders before us. It's stupid to commit before the Russians have done so, which even the Russians agree.

5 Mi-17s have been modified for VVIP duties.

So the only sticking point is the A330. Both times it was cancelled because of policies created under UPA. A new tender was released back in Jan which will allow much more flexibility. Plus, the IL-76 is out.

Out of all that you have named, we are expected to see signatures for A50, Ka-226T and Mk1A in this term.

The lack of a proper DM has not been a problem.

Basically, there are no real arguments against this govt.

 

[Sancho]

So you got nothing. Even the conspiracy theory is so weak

The only one that is talking about conspiracy is you, I am pointing to the same issues, that the SC is investigating too, due process and decision making that lead to the cut down of numbers.
The Hollande statement falls into the same field, because it's about due process and possible deviation during the talks in Paris as well, but thats not what was issued aa complaints. So don't try to undermine it, because your own source already confirmed what I said.

Last page , your words >>

That's about the Hollande statement and the press releases that you referred to. Which however doesn't matter wrt the allegations or the talks in Paris, as the government continue to show, the DPP "only" refers to the contract negotiations!

How many times do i have to correct this basic point

You can't correct me, because you ignore what the government itself is saying!

They took MMRCA evaluation reports as the basis for the Rafale deal. There was no new procedure ahead of the announcement in Paris "according to the government documents"!!!

"Their" whole point is, that an IGA doesn't need new procedures and therfore they only refer to following DPP after the announcement and from the IGA onwards. Even the DAC clearances came out only by accident and now they added suddenly, that the MMRCA cancellation started in March and not just in June, as stated before. The SC even asked about that and how a new deal could be made, when the old RFP was still on? To which the AG has no answer to.

Can you show me how Govt can go back to the similar fighter alternative within the MMRCA tender constrains?

The same way they did it with the LUH tender, cancelling it before they went to a G2G deal => cancelling MMRCA and asking the vendor of the 2nd qualified fighter for a G2G deal. So the government has even a precedent on how to do it the right way and without cutting down numbers or licence production in India, but they / the PM chose to do it differently this time and that's opens up the whole deal for valid questions!

The documents they released only confirmed how shady the whole procurement is (enemy 400 fighters, so we buy 36, MMRCA evaluation as the base, but only 1 of the qualified fighters will be considered, no explanation on how, when or by whom the cut down was decided...) and added a new note too, with the revalations on government guarantees and that the NDA law ministry even objected that point, that later was simply overruled by CCS.

What that the SC makes out of this and if there are enough legally binding issues, needs to be seen, but it's clear why the government has so much trouble to defend the deal, let alone find 1 common way to do it.

 

[randomradio]

That was regarding workshare only and not about guarantees. The final sticking point was the guarantees about the final product which HAL refused to give.

HAL was ready to give guarantee in lieu of Dassault.

The contract was cancelled because HAL's unit cost increased by 150Cr, nothing else. And this is without considering any post-production escalation in costs like we saw with HAL's MKIs.

 

[Sancho]

That was regarding workshare only and not about guarantees. The final sticking point was the guarantees about the final product which HAL refused to give.

That's wrong, the work share issue was settled in 2014, the final issue was Dassault agreeing to responsibility and liability clauses of the DPP/RFP.

 

[Sancho]

Except for the A330, every single thing you named have nothing to do with the govt.

Hard to deny facts and realities is it? But not unusual for you.

 

[randomradio]

Hard to deny facts and realities is it? But not unusual for you.

Ignorance is bliss. You obviously do not know how the process works, so it's obvious you harbour doubts over simple stuff.

That's also why you question the Rafale deal.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Eric Trappier stated in March 2015, that the deal is close to be signed and responsibility issue settled.



Read again! 18 Rafales by April 2019 vs 1 Rafale by Sept 2019

There is no fast racking, in the Rafale deal, just as the explanation of emergency because of modernisation of enemies, that the government presented, makes no sense either.

And you read April 18 and not April 19 in my answer!

 

[Sancho]

Ignorance is bliss. You obviously do not know how the process works

Lol, I know how your process works, making up stuff with no substance at all.

 

[Sancho]

And you read April 18 and not April 19 in my answer!

Which still doesn't make sense. The point is not the delay in months but the difference in numbers. We could have had a full squadron of Rafale instead of just 1, which shows that there is no fast tracking in the deal, rather the contrary.

 

[randomradio]

Lol, I know how your process works, making up stuff with no substance at all.

If that's the case argue to the point instead of making up your own stuff.

If you can make a case against my post, then go right ahead. Every time I post, all I see is you resorting to ad hominems and then slinking off into some hole.

 

[_Anonymous_]

If that's the case argue to the point instead of making up your own stuff.

If you can make a case against my post, then go right ahead. Every time I post, all I see is you resorting to ad hominems and then slinking off into some hole.

Such PDA's between @Sancho & @randomradio bring tears to my eyes & restores my faith in not only the future of this blog but also the milk of human kindness.

BTW, I always thought of you as unflappable and with more than your fair share of a thick hide. How come Sancho manages to get under your skin , consistently? More importantly, how does he, so consistently?

 

[Sancho]

If you can make a case against my post, then go right ahead.

That's exactly what I did, by showing the full picture and not just making up orders that doesn't exist, or hiding all the missed chances to improve IAF, just to suite your agenda.

 

[randomradio]

BTW, I always thought of you as unflappable and with more than your fair share of a thick hide. How come Sancho manages to get under your skin , consistently? More importantly, how does he, so consistently?

He reminds me of PDF. Has nothing to say but still types and types and types to no end.

And when challenged, he runs away.

 

[randomradio]

That's exactly what I did, by showing the full picture and not just making up orders that doesn't exist, or hiding all the missed chances to improve IAF, just to suite your agenda.

Um, you actually didn't. You are just running away, which is typical.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Which still doesn't make sense. The point is not the delay in months but the difference in numbers. We could have had a full squadron of Rafale instead of just 1, which shows that there is no fast tracking in the deal, rather the contrary.

But in April 18 you would have had 1 Rafale too and then it's apple to apple comparaison.

 

[Sancho]

But in April 18 you would have had 1 Rafale too and then it's apple to apple comparaison.

Not really, if the whole justification for the deal, is getting Rafales fast, but as you can see, that's not the case.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Not really, if the whole justification for the deal, is getting Rafales fast, but as you can see, that's not the case.

Yes, it's not very fast, but it's the fastest we've been able to do.