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

Parthu said:
Flight testing in France, these pics real?

DtgD8gGU4AATrR5.jpg

DtgD-i8VsAAzHLO.jpg


@halloweene @Picdelamirand-oil
Click to expand...

Definitely not real. The earliest instance I can find of either picture dates back to 2009 and IDs them as an artists conception of what a Rafale would look like with IAF markings.

Without the "grain"effect, the aircraft is clearly fake. It looks very plastic.

10291.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: GuardianRED, Pundrick, Parthu and 1 other person
New capabilities demonstrated at ‘Point Blank’ exercise
Simon Michell, Kent - Jane's International Defence Review

11 December 2018

...For over an hour, RAF F-35B Lightning II and Typhoon combat aircraft, FAF Rafales, and USAF F-15E Strike Eagles attacked simulated targets along the coast of the North Sea while fending off aggressor aircraft, simulated surface missile threats, and concerted jamming.

The inclusion of the French was prompted by the cruise-missile attacks on Syrian chemical installations in April, which were jointly conducted by the three countries. Lessons learned from this raid encouraged the heads of the Trilateral Strategic Initiative (TSI), which was launched in 2011, to integrate the Rafale into the latest 'Point Blank' exercise.

"Obviously, within the real environment we have operated as a trilateral team already," Air Commodore Jez Attridge, the RAF's Joint Force Air Component Commander, told media at RAF Lakenheath. "This is about changing the threat to see how we deal with it."...
Click to expand...
New capabilities demonstrated at ‘Point Blank’ exercise | Jane's 360
 
Parthu said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1073446438569476096

https://twitter.com/x/status/1073445597057871872

https://twitter.com/x/status/1073445956547477504

@randomradio @Picdelamirand-oil @halloweene @Bon Plan @vstol Jockey @Hellfire @Milspec

Click to expand...

What a waste of time, they created the whole circus, just to state at the end, that they didn't looked into pricing, process offsets/cronyism, because they shouldn't interfere in defence matters. Lol.
But the remark on the CAG report was interesting if true.
 
They even admit that they didn't got all the price info's, because the government gave only highly reduced documents with the Base price (secrecy clause against the SC?) and that they didn't compared it to the earlier deal, because that's not their job. So we still don't know which deal was cheaper, or which claims were correct (Congress 526 crore flyaway, NDA up to 20% cheaper, Dassault 9% cheaper package cost).
The same goes for offsets and cronyism, they admit that government suggesting IOP would be against DPP, but don't want to investigate Hollandes allegations because it was "just" an interview.
 
Sancho said:
They even admit that they didn't got all the price info's, because the government gave only highly reduced documents with the Base price (secrecy clause against the SC?) and that they didn't compared it to the earlier deal, because that's not their job. So we still don't know which deal was cheaper, or which claims were correct (Congress 526 crore flyaway, NDA up to 20% cheaper, Dassault 9% cheaper package cost).
The same goes for offsets and cronyism, they admit that government suggesting IOP would be against DPP, but don't want to investigate Hollandes allegations because it was "just" an interview.
Click to expand...
I wish to ask you a few questions.
  • What was being contracted in MMRCA and which all were the specific points of that tender?
  • Who chooses offsets partner?
  • Why have LM signed on with TATA for F-16, Boing with Mahindra & HAL for F-18s and SAAB with Adani for Gripen-E?
  • Who are the other companies who are part of Offsets?
  • How many companies in India are part of global supply chain for Boeing/Airbus/LM as tier-2/3 vendors?
  • How is DRAL different from these companies when DRAL is producing parts for biz jets?
 
vstol Jockey said:
I wish to ask you a few questions.
  • What was being contracted in MMRCA and which all were the specific points of that tender?
Click to expand...
126 fighters + 50% optional + licence production under ToT + 50% offsets

vstol Jockey said:
  • Who chooses offsets partner?
Click to expand...
Whoever Dassault and Co chooses.
vstol Jockey said:
  • Why have LM signed on with TATA for F-16, Boing with Mahindra & HAL for F-18s and SAAB with Adani for Gripen-E?
Click to expand...
Because the NDA government introduced the strategic partnership model

vstol Jockey said:
  • Who are the other companies who are part of Offsets?
Click to expand...
See above
vstol Jockey said:
  • How many companies in India are part of global supply chain for Boeing/Airbus/LM as tier-2/3 vendors?
Click to expand...
Don't know how many.
vstol Jockey said:
  • How is DRAL different from these companies when DRAL is producing parts for biz jets?
Click to expand...

By the fact that DRAL only just started producing parts for the aviation field, has a questionable financial background and a poor history of failed or delayed projects.
All this however doesn't make their choice against the rules, just questionable especially on Dassaults part.
 
Sancho said:
What a waste of time, they created the whole circus, just to state at the end, that they didn't looked into pricing, process offsets/cronyism, because they shouldn't interfere in defence matters. Lol.
But the remark on the CAG report was interesting if true.
Click to expand...
Why not tell them to check your conspiracy theory also? :cry:

Last month you said you are looking forward to what the court thinks. Now its a circus !? Who is the clown here? The whole point the SC was looking was any prima facie to start an investigation and thats what they did. If you think anything more than that its your lack of understanding. Withstanding your 'theory', SC categorically said there is no 'procedural wrongdoing' which was my whole point !.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GuardianRED, STEPHEN COHEN and suryakiran
Sancho said:
126 fighters + 50% optional + licence production under ToT + 50% offsets
Whoever Dassault and Co chooses.
Because the NDA government introduced the strategic partnership model
See above
Don't know how many.
By the fact that DRAL only just started producing parts for the aviation field, has a questionable financial background and a poor history of failed or delayed projects.
All this however doesn't make their choice against the rules, just questionable especially on Dassaults part.
Click to expand...
Whole lot of lies are being spoken. Pappu just now again stated as to why HAL was denied the Offsets. Does the deal for 36 include manufacturing in India? The MMRCA was for the bare aircraft as per French standards and not as per the wish list of IAF. secondly, MMRCA did not include price of weapons. Thirdly MMRCA did not include maintenance for five years. Lastly it did not contain setting up two bases for Rafale.
Can we compare MMRCA with this deal?

I am bizman and I am free to do biz with anyone I want to even if he is bankrupt. Who is govt of India or any individual to ask me a question?
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil and suryakiran
Ashwin said:
The whole point the SC was looking was any prima facie to start an investigation and thats what they did.
Click to expand...

Read the transcript of the judgement and don't get into conclusions based on media jumping the gun. They didn't investigated a single issue, only read the documents/info's the government provided and then followed their arguments.

It would had been interesting if they actually did some work and at least compared the price, to prove Congress wrong, or the government to be right, but even here, they did nothing!

Screenshot_2018-12-14-13-27-39-1.png

Screenshot_2018-12-14-13-28-26-1.png


They accepted highly reducted and incomplete price figures and claimed, that it satisfied their conscience. Now you tell me, is this what you expected from the SC in such a high value case? And the same is the case for procedures and offsets/cronyism.

Not a single question that was raised in the hearing was answered, but as showed earlier, those who search for a justification will use it. 😆[/QUOTE]
 
Sancho said:
Read the transcript of the judgement and don't get into conclusions based on media jumping the gun. They didn't investigated a single issue, only read the documents/info's the government provided and then followed their arguments.

It would had been interesting if they actually did some work and at least compared the price, to prove Congress wrong, or the government to be right, but even here, they did nothing!

View attachment 3786
View attachment 3788

They accepted highly reducted and incomplete price figures and claimed, that it satisfied their conscience. Now you tell me, is this what you expected from the SC in such a high value case? And the same is the case for procedures and offsets/cronyism.

Not a single question that was raised in the hearing was answered, but as showed earlier, those who search for a justification will use it. 😆
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
The pricing details given to SC were not redacted at all. But some other clauses were.
 
vstol Jockey said:
Can we compare MMRCA with this deal?
Click to expand...
Yes, we can compare the flyaway unit cost and if we had more info's, we could also compare the system costs (including training, spares and logistics). All you need is to take the cost at equal basis and you can compare it.
Weapon deals are not combined with the fighter deal, but separate contract, in this case with MBDA, or Rafael for Spice, just as in the case of the Mirage upgrade.
But since the government didn't even wanted to give out the flyaway cost, which was accidentally made public, we know, that it was higher than the Congress claim. So what we need to know, is if the Congress figure is correct, but the government does not want to disclose that, make your own conclusions why.

The main problem however are not Congress claims on costs or HAL, but that the IAF requirement was cut down, without any logical statement on why and by whom. Just was why the prime requirement of licence production in India was cut too?
For both the government only provides contradictions, but no proper explanation and till date, there is not a single proof for an IAF requirement for less than the 126.

vstol Jockey said:
The pricing details given to SC were not redacted at all. But some other clauses were.
Click to expand...

Read the transcript, only a reduced version was made public and SC even admits, that it was a limitation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom