Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 29 Nov 2014 21:53

Viv S wrote:According to your link, the RFP spelled out at the onset that the lead integrator was to be HAL.

My apologies for the wrong link. However even that points to the fact (and my contention remains) that HAL's being the lead integrator was/is either absent or not explicit in the original aggreement and was only "clarified" for the first time in 2013. Only if it stated that the supplier was free to select an Indian partner would Dassault set up a joint venture with Relaince. Was that done only to move tools to India, make parts and ship them to HAL? Does that make any sense?

If the Indian side saw a clear and fundamental disagreement right from the get go, why did they not break off negotiations immediately? Further, it would be incomprehensible and extremely stupid for the French to knowingly insert a dealbreaker right in the beginning and stick doggedly to it for so long when by all accounts they desperately wanted the Rafale sale to happen.

Now with HAL doing only 70% of the work with SKD/KD kits (less then Su30mki) and Dassault doing 30% in France, we know who has already given ground on the "100% full ToT" but it is still going to be impossible, IMO, to get French agreement on responsibility for even that 70%. We clearly don't know the full story. The rest is paid media hype.

We need to drop the whole idea of making Rafale in India and just buy it off the shelf. Has the Mirage 2000 not worked out OK for the IAF? If I may say so, it is the best damn plane in our inventory from all angles which is why we are going in for upgrades at such huge cost.

This whole drunken monkey dance is being undertaken just to buy expensive diapers for HAL.

arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby arthuro » 29 Nov 2014 21:56

Brar_w,

The F35 has limited EW coverage as it will use its radar for the job which limits its operational use. I can't say about the T-50.

Your understanding of EW is a bit outdated. Raw power is much less relevant for lattest generation defensive EW jammers like Spectra: modifying (or canceling) the returning echo of an hostile radar requires high precision rather than brute force.

More precisely you are mixing offensive jamming (like the growler) which aims to disrupt coms and radars on large areas to allow other aircrafts to survive, with defensive systems like spectra which only aims to protect the fighter jet its embedded with.

>>Jamming a large areas to allow other fighter jets to fly safely in a combat area requires high power (Prowler, Growler). You need to jam all azimuth which is not very discreet.
>>For defensive jamming for a single aircraft like the rafale you need scalpel precision jamming to generate false returns (speed, location...). Jamming is not all azimuth but focused on the threat (pencil beam jamming) which is more discreet.

******

MACE XIII EW exercise was discussed in specialized press. You can read discussions on some results here:
http://www.russiadefence.net/t2447-mace ... s300#29136

On SPECTRA:

The upgrade will also see a series of improvements to Spectra. Developed by Thales and MBDA, Spectra is a fully automated system that provides electromagnetic detection, laser and missile warning, jamming and four chaff/flare dispensers.

French industry sources say that during operations over Libya in 2011, Rafale literally disappeared from the radar screens of the Libyan air force, performing “soft kills” on enemy radar systems [already related in one of the lastest issue of FOX3].

Bruno Carrara, director of the Rafale program at Thales, says the F3-R upgrade will involve a more advanced electromagnetic detection capability based on new digital wide-band-receiver technologies, improving the suite’s spectrum analysis as well as its instantaneous interception capability.

Thales will also update Spectra’s solid-state jamming subsystem, which was one of the first to use electronically steered phased-array antennas. Carrara says for F3R, Spectra will include more powerful antennas, while further increasing the power supply so that more threats can be jammed simultaneously. Like Saab, Thales will use GaN technology because of its power and efficiency.

Since the late 1990s, Spectra’s designers have dropped hints that the system can perform “active cancellation”—receiving a radar signal and mimicking the aircraft’s echo exactly one-half wavelength out of phase so the radar sees nothing.

Carrara again implies that such a capability is in use: “There are other strategies, such as generating signals that will encompass or be higher than the echo from the aircraft, so that the radar threat will receive a signal that will mask the echo from the aircraft,” Carrara says.

“Instead of creating a false echo and drawing the radar to the wrong place, the idea is to produce a signal that will mask the echo of the aircraft, so the radar will be unable to detect the aircraft Spectra is protecting.”
[...]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avi ... and-rafale
Last edited by arthuro on 29 Nov 2014 22:19, edited 9 times in total.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 29 Nov 2014 21:58

Liu wrote:..had J20/J31 not rolled out..

Keep rolling friend. What engines are those planes using again?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9500
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 29 Nov 2014 22:13

arthuro wrote:Brar_w,

The F35 has limited EW coverage as it will use its radar for the job which limits its operational use. I can't say about the T-50.

Your understanding of EW is a bit outdated. Raw power is much less relevant for lattest generation defensive EW jammers like Spectra: modifying (or canceling) the returning echo of an hostile radar requires high precision rather than brute force.

More precisely you are mixing offensive jamming (like the growler) which aims to disrupt coms and radars on large areas to allow other aircrafts to survive, with defensive systems like spectra which only aims to protect the fighter jet its embedded with.

>>Jamming a large areas to allow other fighter jets to fly safely in a combat area requires high power (Prowler, Growler). You need to jam all azimuth which is not very discreet.
>>For defensive jamming for a single aircraft like the rafale you need scalpel precision jamming to generate false returns (speed, location...). Jamming is not all azimuth but focused on the threat (pencil beam jamming) which is more discreet.

MACE XIII EW exercise was discussed in specialized press. You can read discussions on some results here:
http://www.russiadefence.net/t2447-mace ... s300#29136



Since this involves the F-35, I will move that aspect of my response to the JSF Turkey thread in line with the moderator's wishes.

On the subject matter of "brute" vs "precise", both have their place and role in Electronic Warfare. If you look at the current trend of IAD development you are seeing an enormous development in sensors and sensor link up. From what the early Patriots or S-300's fielded even in the late 90's early 2000's to what you have now looks a world apart. Look at where the Patriot_system of the Gulf War and compare it to MEADS of 2020. Multiple sensors linked up covering an exponentially higher and ever increasing band_sphere. This is further compounded by an addition of Passive elements that add another dimension and limit your degree of freedom when it comes to "active" jamming. At the Old Crows annual get together just last year they were discussing about Decoys now being fielded (of course they didn't get into where and how many given the unclassified level) with strong electronic signatures. How do you deal with such a threat? What a brute force jammer such as the NGJ enables you to do is go after every component of the IAD and not just trying to mask yourself, or trying to focus on a few things. NGJ is there to deal with everything from radars, Data links, Communications to RF weapon frequencies etc and for this it requires high agility, high power (60KW per pod) and very large cutting edge sensors. Of course this does not in any way limit the importance of precise jamming but the point is that modern IAD's have considerably evolved with the increased computing and the general access to technology.

I have little doubt that modern electronic warfare systems do employ some sort of spoofing, masking or active cancellation. Most of the top end systems on most of the cutting edge fighters or bombers are mostly/largely classified. Its an area of interest few nations would like to share through the media. Till this day the F-22's EW system is largely classified and most reporters that have made pointed inquiries have been turned away. Same goes for systems on the F-35 and projected systems on the T-50. Yet, few are naive to think that any one nation has such a technological superiority that it can develop active cancellation for a huge/wide threat index that itself is evolving at a rapid pace. That will simply not happen. One indication comes from the fact that both DARPA and the Pentagon recently spelled out that in the future they do not expect to hold onto tactical advantage in electronics for a very long time. Chinese are moving ahead with interlinking some very sophisticated AESA radars that are not as easily fooled as those of the past. Moreover they have AESA's that are employing similar techniques, have strong computing power and are linked. Those designing aircraft to defeat this IAD net are looking at the entire spectrum of the response, from lowering fleet wide signature and RCS, to penetrative precise jamming (this is your fancy masking or active cancellation stuff that few would talk about in public - and what the USAF "secretly" refers to as the P-AEA or penetrating stand-in electronic attack) to stand off brute jamming (something spoken off more freely but still little to nothing is known about the Next generation Jammer or about the now dead CCJ). It would be naive to think that you can go into a modern post 2020 IAD with having precise jamming ability and masking when the threat you are required to defeat to do so has multiple sensors all integrated with much more computing then what you have on your fighter. Hence you need to develop a mix of stealth, SA and Electronic warfare , and this requires a synergy because you cannot overly rely on emissions (active EW) as that negatively affects your stealth component. Moreover, it takes a lot more effort to deal with EW in the VHF domain. Even for penetrative precise jamming the wider your threat base the more power you need, hence you will see an addition of more powerful jammers integrated into the Rafale whenever the spectra gets an upgrade next. I expect the UAE to do the same on its Falcon Edge when it gets a major upgrade. A fighter would always be limited by power, whereas your IAD systems grow every decade and as things stand they are growing at a pace which is causing those confronting these systems to consider an approach to penetration much beyond simply employing a "killer" integrated EW solution.

Swinging from offensive to defensive is possible on the Growler using NGJ. The Spectra is Power limited, the Growler is not. If you want to send a sizable strike package to operate in A2AD or even contested environments (leave alone DENIED environment) you would want a safety blanket such as one provided by the Growler. Otherwise, most will do what is being done with pretty much everyone that is investing in this capability. That is develop 5th generation fighters with stealth, sensors, EA and other advantages.

To conclude, I would like to point to the designs that would be appearing in the coming years from South Korea, Japan, India and those of the 6th generation fighters emerging post 2015 from the USN. All would employ a mix of advanced sensors, EA and stealth. The AMCA would do the same. I expect the T-50 to be Russia's best attempt at stealth and integrated electronic attack. All those that have to confront the growing challenge of an IAD and A2AD elements that exist on land, in the air and indeed in space are coming to the same conclusion and adding multiple elements to survivability and A2AD penetration.

This is just the "active" portion of the threat..
Image
Last edited by brar_w on 30 Nov 2014 08:36, edited 11 times in total.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 29 Nov 2014 22:39

@Rohitvats ^^: "Why will a company (Dassault in this case) agree to provide guarantees on work done by third party? Especially, when the company has no control over the third party in any possible manner. I can understand buyer making Dassault liable for delay(s) by HAL because of issue(s) at Dassault's end but why should Dassault be accountable for fvck-ups by HAL? Purely from a business perspective, that is an open ended liability which can sink biggest of companies.

What are we trying to achieve by asking for this clause? If MOD does not feel confident of ensuring compliance in terms of production schedule, quality, maintenance and other factors, how is Dassault in any way going to achieve the same? And hence, why should it be liable?"

It is a consistent pattern. We're asking the same open ended liability for nuke component suppliers that are installed and maintained by NPCIL. There are few takers .

You're not alone in being baffled, most people are. One one hand it can be said that it is political CYA for any Bhopal 2.0, on the other it can be seen as unworkable.

This offloading of responsibility while retaining authority is peerless. The same issue dogs both the nuke issue and the MMRCA.

BTW, Dassault can simply refuse to go along and it automatically kills the whole tender. Why? because apparently the 'responsibility' clauses for HAL screw ups were introduced after the L1/L2 negotiations started. IOW, Dassault can sue because it acted in good faith to meet the original tender terms and then demonstrated further good faith by saying it would assume responsibility if Reliance were LI instead of HAL when the new clauses were brought up as part of the price negotiations.

The only escape now for GoI is to say the price is unacceptable for both L1/L2. It can't actually even agree to Reliance since that would invalidate the tender.

War is too important to be left to the generals and contract negations are too important to be left to the lawyers.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 29 Nov 2014 23:50

Cosmo_R wrote:@Rohitvats ^^: "Why will a company (Dassault in this case) agree to provide guarantees on work done by third party? Especially, when the company has no control over the third party in any possible manner. I can understand buyer making Dassault liable for delay(s) by HAL because of issue(s) at Dassault's end but why should Dassault be accountable for fvck-ups by HAL? Purely from a business perspective, that is an open ended liability which can sink biggest of companies.

What are we trying to achieve by asking for this clause? If MOD does not feel confident of ensuring compliance in terms of production schedule, quality, maintenance and other factors, how is Dassault in any way going to achieve the same? And hence, why should it be liable?"

It is a consistent pattern. We're asking the same open ended liability for nuke component suppliers that are installed and maintained by NPCIL. There are few takers .

You're not alone in being baffled, most people are. One one hand it can be said that it is political CYA for any Bhopal 2.0, on the other it can be seen as unworkable.

This offloading of responsibility while retaining authority is peerless. The same issue dogs both the nuke issue and the MMRCA.

BTW, Dassault can simply refuse to go along and it automatically kills the whole tender. Why? because apparently the 'responsibility' clauses for HAL screw ups were introduced after the L1/L2 negotiations started. IOW, Dassault can sue because it acted in good faith to meet the original tender terms and then demonstrated further good faith by saying it would assume responsibility if Reliance were LI instead of HAL when the new clauses were brought up as part of the price negotiations.




The whole thing is being done to avoid the BAE Hawk like situation, where the lapses in deliveries for the spares and their assembly line lead to cannibalisation from the deliveries of material for new build hawks just to keep the fleet operational. So while BAE did not make a lapse in deliveries for new build Hawks, the overall act put a delay in the delivery schedule of Hawks. BAE was infact leveled with liquidated damages by the MoD, however every two bit MUTU will do an ack-thoo on HAL repeating only the first half of the story as quoted by the US Ambassador's visit to HAL factory while being completely oblivious to the second half.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby rohitvats » 30 Nov 2014 00:11

Thakur_B wrote: The whole thing is being done to avoid the BAE Hawk like situation, where the lapses in deliveries for the spares and their assembly line lead to cannibalisation from the deliveries of material for new build hawks just to keep the fleet operational. So while BAE did not make a lapse in deliveries for new build Hawks, the overall act put a delay in the delivery schedule of Hawks. BAE was infact leveled with liquidated damages by the MoD, however every two bit MUTU will do an ack-thoo on HAL repeating only the first half of the story as quoted by the US Ambassador's visit to HAL factory while being completely oblivious to the second half.


Legally tying up OEM to ensure timely delivery of supplies and any other material/information as covered in contract in timely manner is one thing. And as should have happened in case of BAE and Hawk.

But rather than insert a clause to cover all such responsibilities by OEM, how can you make them accountable for conduct of lead assembler (HAL in this case)? Because what I've understood from information appearing in media so far is that Dassault shall be accountable for any and all delays by HAL or other such issues. What if there is a delay by HAL even when OEM has delivered on it's part? Will Dassault be held accountable for even such issues?

Apportioning of liability cannot be open ended.

PS: With respect to bold part of your post quoted above, you see any such slant in present conversation? And anyone in particular you'd like to label MUTU here?

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 30 Nov 2014 00:14

Everybody knows that the MMRCA is going to be India's last big purchase in weapons and they are going to "khurao" (shave in Assamese) us every which way they can. It is accepted practice and our people know it. Our weakness is our complete failure to develop our own aircraft. And no, I don't buy the "oh but we were sanctioned onlee" aria. It is getting stale and is nothing but a fig leaf to cover what we don't have. The problem is staring us in the face and yet we can't seem to see it. Tragic.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 30 Nov 2014 00:48

rohitvats wrote:
Legally tying up OEM to ensure timely delivery of supplies and any other material/information as covered in contract in timely manner is one thing. And as should have happened in case of BAE and Hawk.

But rather than insert a clause to cover all such responsibilities by OEM, how can you make them accountable for conduct of lead assembler (HAL in this case)? Because what I've understood from information appearing in media so far is that Dassault shall be accountable for any and all delays by HAL or other such issues. What if there is a delay by HAL even when OEM has delivered on it's part? Will Dassault be held accountable for even such issues?

Apportioning of liability cannot be open ended.




All this rona dhona on Dassault's accountability has come on behalf of Dassault and its unnamed officials and nearly none from MoD or HAL. Tying up upstream vendor with accountability on product delivery by the downstream vendor is neither a novel concept nor something that is unheard of.

From my understanding, had MMRCA been done as per old system:
Delay/impropriety in delivery -> IAF recommends collection of LD -> MoD imposes LD on HAL for the entire plane/batch -> HAL imposes LD on Dassault for the shortcomings for the defective components (only a fraction of cost of the entire order), HAL and Dassault slug it out in the courts on whose fault was it. Given the speed and 'flexibility' of Indian legal system, it would be several years before a settlement is reached. The upstream vendor has near zero accountability in final deliveries and may try to get away by providing incomplete technology/documentation.

New System:
Delay/impropriety in delivery -> IAF recommends collection of LD -> MoD imposes LD for entire plane/batch on HAL if shortcomings at their end (i.e. no made up to specifications/delayed), or on Dassault if shortcomings at their end (if HAL followed proper specifications/schedules). The upstream vendor now has a stake in final deliveries and lower incentive in cutting short on technology/documentation.

PS: With respect to bold part of your post quoted above, you see any such slant in present conversation? And anyone in particular you'd like to label MUTU here?


Just a general observation.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby rohitvats » 30 Nov 2014 01:06

Thakur_B wrote: All this rona dhona on Dassault's accountability has come on behalf of Dassault and its unnamed officials and nearly none from MoD or HAL. Tying up upstream vendor with accountability on product delivery by the downstream vendor is neither a novel concept nor something that is unheard of.


With respect to first part of your statement above, an effort is being made to understand the situation. And not take what is being printed in media at face value. If you know anything which might shed light on the subject, please feel free to add.

As for latter part - I'd love to see a company which takes up open ended liability for action of a third party it has no control over! Unless, the liability is pretty small as compared to overall business proposition and I've some control on the dynamics in third party.

Had MMRCA been done as per old system:
Delay/impropriety in delivery -> IAF recommends collection of LD -> MoD imposes LD on HAL for the entire plane/batch -> HAL imposes LD on Dassault for the shortcomings for the defective components (only a fraction of cost of the entire order), HAL and Dassault slug it out in the courts on whose fault was it. Given the speed and 'flexibility' of Indian legal system, it would be several years before a settlement is reached. The upstream vendor has near zero accountability in final deliveries and may try to get away by providing incomplete technology/documentation.

New System:
Delay/impropriety in delivery -> IAF recommends collection of LD -> MoD imposes LD for entire plane/batch on HAL if shortcomings at their end (i.e. no made up to specifications/delayed), or on Dassault if shortcomings at their end (if HAL followed proper specifications/schedules). The upstream vendor now has a stake in final deliveries and lower incentive in cutting short on technology/documentation.


Case 1 above is example of bad contract negotiation. And Case 2 is simply ensuring liability is properly apportioned. It is still not open ended as is being portrayed in the media because Dassault in Case 2 will still be penalized for short-comings at their end. And not because of something which HAL did not do.

And it exactly this point we're trying to resolve here. Whether we're (that is Indian MOD) asking for unobtanium or is the press reporting the matter in a distorted fashion?

Just a general observation.


The post still made perfect sense w/o the 'observation' part.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 30 Nov 2014 02:24

Thakur_B wrote:
"All this rona dhona on Dassault's accountability has come on behalf of Dassault and its unnamed officials and nearly none from MoD or HAL. Tying up upstream vendor with accountability on product delivery by the downstream vendor is neither a novel concept nor something that is unheard of."

Accountability is not unheard of—agreed. But it is tightly defined and there is standard boilerplate in commercials deals to cover the BAE/Hawk stuff.

Where it seems to have gone off the rails is learning' from the BAE Hawk issues, to completely absolve HAL and place the onus on Dassault. The latter's response was "OK we'll even do that to get the deal but we want Reliance as LI because even though they've never built anything like a fighter a/c, we're still more comfortable with them because they will listen and change their ways if we alert them."

So, Dassault is not doing rona dhona there is nothing for HAL to say because it thinks it either gets the deal as LI or the deal does not happen.

To sum up, what Dassault is saying is that the full guarantees it provides WRT to planes it builds in France will apply if Reliance is the LI, but not if HAL is. This I think is pretty fair.

Added later: See this article on the nuke liability law:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 91627.aspx

Even the domestic players are refusing the liability.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2014 02:30

Rohit, It's been common practise for many OEMs to delay transfer of tech to India or components, and then use that delay as a method to get more fully furnished orders from the armed forces. The Dassault being held responsible part aims to mitigate against this. Typically our complex heavily negotiated SKD,CKD, raw material production deals go completely haywire because of this. Another sword held over our head is one project gets delayed using these methods if India plays tough elsewhere on other projects. Of late, India seems to be waking up and applying strict common sense laws modelled on international standards. Three I am aware of, what gets sold to India must not be sold to its rivals in terms of variants, derivative tech. Second, offsets. Third, this attempt to hold the OEMS responsible for its commitments.

As regards MUTUs, one of the other posters on this page, was widely deriding HAL, and claiming Dassault was seeking Reliance input not to dictate its terms, but because HAL was of course third rate, and any attempt by GOI/HAL to safeguard its interest could not be conceived of. His prior posts all have the same theme. Others latch on and pretend its GOI incompetence for it to even attempt to safeguard its twenty billion investment. How dare GOI/HAL do something like this? Of course, if the US or anyone else did it, it would be hailed as a model for us to follow.

So sadly, Thakurs general observation does ring true in that HAL is darned if it does, darned if it doesn't.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 30 Nov 2014 04:08

So far, the UPA GoI had been defending HAL by insisting that it be the the lead integrator in spite of its not-so-stellar record, and Dassault is defending itself from potential bankruptcy in a worst case. If it is that important to spoon feed HAL with freaking technology they can't/won't work to develop themselves then let's forget about Rafale because I don't see Dassault bending.

I still don't see what's so wrong about a private party handling Rafale assembly. Is Reliance not a 100% Indian company that we can and should be proud of? Is it somehow less Indian because it is private and aam janta holds shares in it and not a pampered PSU? What exactly is so sacrosanct about HAL? Should GoI be in the business of dictating who Dassault can work with? The whole thing stinks and one only hopes that the BJP govt is serious about being "business minded" about their "make in India" slogan.

To me, a Dassault joint-venture plant in India run by Indians with Dassault input in management and processes, sourcing from as many qualified Indian companies as possible, is a better Make in India model than assembling knock-down kits at HAL like we have always done, aka screwdrivergiri. If a lot of Indians can be employed by such a company, maybe even some current and ex-HAL, should we care if it happens to be called Reliance Aerospace? Let's see what the two defense ministers come up with on Monday.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4738
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby srai » 30 Nov 2014 04:20

^^^

IMO, the issue comes down to TOT. If India is paying huge sums for TOT, then it would need a way to "own" those. I am not sure how Dassault-Reliance achieves that. Yes, "Make in India" is achieved with Reliance but how is the TOT "transferred" to India in that setup?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9500
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 30 Nov 2014 04:24

Not to overlook the fact that the strategic importance of having X number of fighters by so and so date. HAL has experience while Reliance has none. What will happen if the JV between reliance and Dassault leads to delays. I guess Dassault would be more than willing to make up for lost time by extending the French production line ;) Of course at no added cost :)

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 30 Nov 2014 04:48

Srai, if a company like Reliance gets the go ahead, it will immediately hire some of India's best engineering talent, including in aeronautics, stemming their outflow to the West. It will even hire some foreigners just as Boeing does. With that in place, Reliance itself will make sure that it "owns" the ToT or rap Dassault on the knuckles. They are not babus but ruthless businessmen used to fighting in the open markets and can deal with Dassault far better than HAL or MoD since they speak the same lingo. If Reliance (or Tata or Mahindra...) owns the ToT, then India owns it since it was paid for by Indians' taxes. In the end, they are answerable to GoI, just as Boeing is to USG when making military aircraft.

braw_w wrote:HAL has experience while Reliance has none.

With due respect, this is a worn out line of argument and should be thrown out pronto. Did Reliance have any experience in building oil refineries before it built one of the world's largest in record time which is run with world-beating efficiency? We need to stop underestimating our private companies because it is they who will build the new India, not the PSUs.
Last edited by Victor on 30 Nov 2014 04:50, edited 2 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9500
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 30 Nov 2014 04:49

With due respect, this is a worn out line of argument and should be thrown out pronto. Did Reliance have any experience in building oil refineries before it built one of the world's largest in record time which is run with world-beating efficiency? We need to stop underestimating our private companies because it is they who will build the new India, not the PSUs


I am not judging the validity of the argument, just pointing to a potential concern the authorities may have. It is a rather large leap of faith.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 30 Nov 2014 04:51

brar_w wrote: It is a rather large leap of faith.

Large enough for Dassault to stake their reputation on?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9500
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 30 Nov 2014 05:16

^^ Appears so although we can never be sure until we have a 100% understanding of what each side is claiming and what the counterclaims are. What we hear in the media may not be 100% accurate.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 30 Nov 2014 07:03

if people (included are the rafale club) think they can chuck HAL off in a jiffy, dream on! might as well think about abandoning this deal.

a joint program is vital here.. we have to see the merits where it applies, and not just go by names or politics.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 30 Nov 2014 07:13

Victor wrote:Did Reliance have any experience in building oil refineries before it built one of the world's largest in record time which is run with world-beating efficiency? We need to stop underestimating our private companies because it is they who will build the new India, not the PSUs.

1. I can create a realistic real-time system to guarantee and proving all requirements. Will you give it to me? not totally unrelated though.
2. PSUs work methodology is different, but that does not mean the men behind the units are incapable. Give them pvt management, they can work (well for the same pay packet though). one can't ignore capabilities and expertise so far gained.

- now you have to forget the screw drivers here.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby abhik » 30 Nov 2014 07:49

Cosmo_R wrote:...
2. Set the PSU unions ablaze.

Of course the Private sector labour unions are super sanguine. Of course we need only to turn a blind eye to the constant lockouts and violent incidents where the union mob lynches a senior executive.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 30 Nov 2014 07:53

rohitvats wrote:And it exactly this point we're trying to resolve here. Whether we're (that is Indian MOD) asking for unobtanium or is the press reporting the matter in a distorted fashion?



Distorted might be an understatement. Transference (transferring liability and impact of risk to another party), is a well established concept. It's not unobtanium, it's just being projected that way. Usually a contract is framed clearly indicating at what point does the liability and the risk passes on from one party to the another and who shall be coughing up the liquidated damages further downstream.

I'd love to see a company which takes up open ended liability for action of a third party it has no control over!


Look no further than your insurance company ;)

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 30 Nov 2014 10:07

The insurance business is called "risk management" for good reason, it is all calculated according to their actuarial experience and it is no accident that they have the biggest buildings in town. Rafale, like all big companies, also has insurance built into its risk calculations but apparently what we are asking goes beyond their capacity.

I get the feeling that with the Defense Minister coming today, we will know whether its a go or no-go by tomorrow. Fingers crossed.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2014 14:45

pandyan wrote:may be scorpene fiasco is guiding the decisions on how to deal with googlies from the french.


Exactly. The powers that be in the MOD/GOI/HAL etc have clearly seen the pattern. Negotiate hard on Mirage 2000s, and Scorpene issues crop up. T-90 challenges are detailed and there is talk of how Smerch TOT will similarly not be provided etc etc.

Its not merely the French everyone has been twisting us every which way till Sunday, using somewhat liberal TOT agreements to extract every ounce of dinero from the Indian taxpayer. High time we stopped playing that game.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby geeth » 30 Nov 2014 18:43

With due respect, this is a worn out line of argument and should be thrown out pronto. Did Reliance have any experience in building oil refineries before it built one of the world's largest in record time which is run with world-beating efficiency?


DRDO can also set up even bigger refinery in record.time by employing Bechtel..and they can supply any number of figher planes in record time by giving order to foreign companies..C-17, C-130, P8I are.examples..What is your point?

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby geeth » 30 Nov 2014 19:07

Why will a company (Dassault in this case) agree to provide guarantees on work done by third party? Especially, when the company has no control over the third party in any possible manner. I can understand buyer making Dassault liable for delay(s) by HAL because of issue(s) at Dassault's end but why should Dassault be accountable for fvck-ups by HAL? Purely from a business perspective, that is an open ended liability which can sink biggest of companies.


Answer for the first line - because the manufacturing process will be theirs, work will be supervised them, machinery and equipments will be set up according to their wish and quality control will be in their hands.

Answer for the rest - the HAL personnel will undergo training imparted by Dassault before production starts. And they will be asked to fully involve themselves in the manufacturing till Indians can stand on their own.

Now the answer the question about why Dassault prefers Reliance over HAL.
1. Reliance is powerful enough to manipulate the Govt and twist the contract according to their convenience.
2. They can hire and fire personnel at will so that no serious skill can be developed, and any skills developed remains with mota bhai, which may not be of any.strategic use to GOI.
3. They can loot the country further by taking a.50% stake in the joint venture and also charging heftyfees and charges for their visiting personnel and so on..
there are more and I am tired of repeating it.

All these are points which can be deducted with a little common sense...but nobody bothers.

As someone said before, that is one of the reason why this thread is so boring

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 30 Nov 2014 19:26

Thakur_B wrote:..

Look no further than your insurance company ;)


My insurance company does not take open ended liability. In fact, it's darn hard to sue an insurance company. They have very highly paid lawyers to wear down a litigant. Besides, it's an oversimplification: they use actuarial tables.

In jest only, maybe we should get an insurance company to build the Rafale.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 30 Nov 2014 19:31

@Geeth ^^^: similar arguments can be made about HAL. Just depends on your POV.

I am not arguing for Rafale. In fact, I would be very happy to see this unaffordable deal crater. It does absolutely nothing to alter the strategic balance.

We can argue forever about why the liability is manageable but in the end, just like the nuke deal, nothing will happen. For my part, LCA+ LCA MK2 and work on an engine with 30K+ Lbs thrust for the AMCA.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Christopher Sidor » 30 Nov 2014 19:50

Rafale on its own may not be able to tilt the balance. But in conjunction with Su-30, PAK-FA and possible AMCA it will definitely do that especially if get sufficient numbers to deploy against PRC.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby rohitvats » 30 Nov 2014 20:00

Karan M wrote:Rohit, It's been common practise for many OEMs to delay transfer of tech to India or components, and then use that delay as a method to get more fully furnished orders from the armed forces. The Dassault being held responsible part aims to mitigate against this. Typically our complex heavily negotiated SKD,CKD, raw material production deals go completely haywire because of this. Another sword held over our head is one project gets delayed using these methods if India plays tough elsewhere on other projects. Of late, India seems to be waking up and applying strict common sense laws modelled on international standards. Three I am aware of, what gets sold to India must not be sold to its rivals in terms of variants, derivative tech. Second, offsets. Third, this attempt to hold the OEMS responsible for its commitments.


Karan - this part I understand. And it is a welcome step.

To me, it has always seemed that civilian bureaucracy sitting in MOD does not serve Indian interests. I know this is a very expansive statement but that is a feel I get after witnessing the repeated screw-ups on contracts with OEM and dubious JV being foisted on India.

Hence, I asked the question - but your reply and by others still does not answer my question about Dassault and HAL. Tying up Dassault to ensure proper deliverable on it's part is OK and is in line with what you're saying but making them accountable for HAL is completely different.

But I'll park the issue here till more information comes to light. Because it quite probable that media is presenting distorted picture painting GOI as unreasonable in their stand and all that.

As regards MUTUs, one of the other posters on this page, was widely deriding HAL, and claiming Dassault was seeking Reliance input not to dictate its terms, but because HAL was of course third rate, and any attempt by GOI/HAL to safeguard its interest could not be conceived of. His prior posts all have the same theme. Others latch on and pretend its GOI incompetence for it to even attempt to safeguard its twenty billion investment. How dare GOI/HAL do something like this? Of course, if the US or anyone else did it, it would be hailed as a model for us to follow.


Dassault asking for Reliance as partner is pure BS. Simply hiring technical staff and investing in CAPEX does not a company make! Look no further than Bharat Forge - who inspite of all the right credentials and having bought GN-45 production line lokc-stock and barrel is till some time away from fielding a proper howitzer.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2014 21:26

RV, its entirely feasible to make them responsible for specific actions tied to getting HALs output on time. For instance, if TOT/documentation/jigs are not provided on time, and that leads to a delay on HALs side, then thats the vendors fault. Clearly, they want to avoid this loophole from being closed since its been used so well in the past. We are holding them to guarantee all their airy fairy claims of meeting the MMRCA bid TOT %s. Not pull the usual, we cant guarantee our system suppliers onlee shtick they pull after the deal is done and dusted and IAF/GOI cannot cancel it.

We are trying to close a critical loop hole here.

These folks are experts at gaming our leaky system, they ensure they land the "too big to fail" deal and then make merry. Jaguar, Scorpene, T-90, Smerch, Vikramaditya, T-72, MiG-21/27, the list goes on and on and on. In each case, the Indian side has been forced to undertake ab-initio modifications, and either plough in more funds or even add own design/components to compensate for vendor intransigence after the deal gets signed.

As regards MOD not being on "India's side", jiski laathi, uski bhains. When the mater familias of India's biggest "family" sits at a dinner table, with both of her sons representing rival arms manufacturers, and this is the state of affairs all the way back to the Jag deal, what kind of decisions do you think the MOD would take? Then CBI head approvingly notes Shri Shri "India's dimpled politician" onlee wanted Bofors money for party but not to party. Such is the state of affairs.

The kind who rise to the top and stay there are the kinds who ensure that Tatras are imported as SKD kits and supplied to Army for decades under the farce of TOT. The same ones who leak reports of how "Arjun has failed so and so trials", delaying its approval and follow on variants including tank recovery vehicles while looking the other way when defect prone tank RVs are imported from Poland, with cursory trials.

The one maverick who bucks the system is quickly eased out with ample heapings of scorn from compromised media and civilian institutions which are to be otherwise seen as "beyond reproach".

Its actually a miracle of sorts, that there are enough patriots in the system who still stuck by and got the DRDO/ISRO/CSIR combine funded in bits and pieces to the extent that we have what we have. Otherwise, thanks to the graces of the INC system, we would be completely reliant on whosoever landed up with the fattest commission.

Our new generation bhakts just want us to exchange our erstwhile politically favored big boss for their country of residence. India's interests are secondary to their own interest and feel good factor about how as Indian-XYZ both countries are now "tied together", India's own interests be darned. Ask honest questions about aid to TSP and how pretty much TSP has got a free Army/AF/Navy to enable it to punch 10x above its weight, and the dissembling begins.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 30 Nov 2014 21:43

geeth wrote:
With due respect, this is a worn out line of argument and should be thrown out pronto. Did Reliance have any experience in building oil refineries before it built one of the world's largest in record time which is run with world-beating efficiency?


DRDO can also set up even bigger refinery in record.time by employing Bechtel..and they can supply any number of figher planes in record time by giving order to foreign companies..C-17, C-130, P8I are.examples..What is your point?

My point is that Reliance will use Dassault just like it used Bechtel to give India a world-class asset. Of course DRDO could build a bigger port using Bechtel but did they?

And my contention is that precisely because of this business sense based on cutthroat global competition, Reliance will learn and absorb the technology far better and far quicker than HAL has been able to after decades of assembling knocked-down kits.

It's not rocket science--there is a clear reason why the PSUs are ineffective money pits.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby abhik » 30 Nov 2014 22:18

Yeah right, its the Reliances of the world who are lobbying to continue the flood of chinese telecom, power equipment, metro trains etc imports.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 30 Nov 2014 23:33

relying on reliance eh!~ please throw some metrics before talking. HAL can,.. and the vengeance I think is all media hype and unnecessary. HAL has issues, but that needs correction and not conceit for having achieved little. Without DRDO, NAL there would have been no ADA, or HAL. There are lot of synergies and missing gaps.. especially for advancing, concurrent engineering process and production engineering gig setup. We have to fill gaps, and not expose those weakness to some nothing at all done reliance in this market.

private participation is important, but that has to come via collaboration under the regulation of gov controls (remember this is a defence purchase). private taking over 100% here is impossible. dream on!

okay: hello reliance people: here is the challenge -> take over GTRE/buy that kaveri base design and produce something fantastic in 5 years flat! I will vote for it!.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 01 Dec 2014 00:05

Victor wrote:And my contention is that precisely because of this business sense based on cutthroat global competition, Reliance will learn and absorb the technology far better and far quicker than HAL has been able to after decades of assembling knocked-down kits.


Thing is, companies like Mahindra, Tata, L&T, Pipavav, Bharat Forge, etc. have all been fighting to break into the Indian defence market while hobbled by an MoD more interesting in coddling our PSUs. They've made a sincere effort and backed it up with solid cash.

But for partnering up on a contract mandating $10bn+ in domestic offsets, Dassault decides to partner up with... Reliance? I don't recall a major footprint of Reliance at any DefExpos or at Aero India. Nor have I heard any news about any significant R&D investments or tech acquisitions they've made. The fact that 'Reliance Aerospace Technologies Pvt Ltd' was set up after the RIL signed the JV with Dassault is indicative of the motivations behind the tie-up.
Last edited by Viv S on 01 Dec 2014 00:07, edited 1 time in total.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 01 Dec 2014 00:05

Hey, calm down. I'm not a Reliance bhakt per se but am using them as a case in point merely because Dassault chose to work with them. What I'm saying would definitely apply to any of our top business houses, including (maybe specially) Tata and Mahindra. Let's not encourage GoI to pick and choose who Dassault can work with. That's where all the problems begin. If we chose Dassault's product to be our MMRCA, let them figure out who they want to work with.

But I totally agree that GoI should sit down with all stakeholders, private and public, and chalk out a course for our aeronautical industry. The private sector represents our manufacturing muscle and they have proved their mettle in today's global markets. The public sector represents government funding and nurturing of strategically important areas that may not necessarily be economically feasible in these markets. We need to find a way to mix all of these assets to get what we need. What we are doing is relying entirely on an inefficient public system to do both. This also is not very difficult to figure out--just look at the US which has the best MIC.

Fareed Zakaria's GPS today had to do with innovation and explores the reasons why the US leads the world by such a large margin and not just in information technology. The most important reason was the fact that the government, academia and industry work together to move the country forward. I have seen this first hand not just in the US but in Taiwan also. BTW, the program had its share of Indians.
Last edited by Victor on 01 Dec 2014 00:16, edited 1 time in total.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 01 Dec 2014 00:12

Viv S wrote:But for partnering up on a $20bn+ contract with a 50% offset requirement, Dassault decides to partner up with... Reliance? I don't recall a major footprint of Reliance at any DefExpos or at Aero India.

We're back to deciding who Dassault should choose to partner with? I'm pretty sure none of us here are as qualified to comment on Reliance's capabilities or lack thereof. Specially when it's not our butts on the line.

Nor have I heard any news about any significant R&D investments or tech acquisitions they've made.

Whose technology are we talking about for the MMRCA, Reliance's or Dassault's?

The fact that 'Reliance Aerospace Technologies Pvt Ltd' was set up after the RIL signed the JV with Dassault is indicative of the motivations behind the tie-up.

Geez. And here I was thinking that a JV is set up only after the parent companies come to an agreement. :(

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 01 Dec 2014 00:41

Victor wrote:Hey, calm down. I'm not a Reliance bhakt per se but am using them as a case in point merely because Dassault chose to work with them. What I'm saying would definitely apply to any of our top business houses, including (maybe specially) Tata and Mahindra. Let's not encourage GoI to pick and choose who Dassault can work with. That's where all the problems begin. If we chose Dassault's product to be our MMRCA, let them figure out who they want to work with.


Given enough leeway, Dassault will choose to partner up with an investment bank (and probably an Indian branch of BNP Paribas at that). It'll simplify the routing of that offset money back to Dassault and its contractors, and provide a bevy of contract lawyers to fudge the paperwork and pad the bills.

We can hardly ignore the question of why Dassault chose to partner up with Reliance. Not if fostering the capability of the domestic industry is a priority and to be achieved even partially out of the MMRCA corpus.

We're back to deciding who Dassault should choose to partner with? I'm pretty sure none of us here are as qualified to comment on Reliance's capabilities or lack thereof. Specially when it's not our butts on the line.

Why aren't we qualified to comment on Reliance's capabilities? They're hardly complex or secret. RIL has core competencies in the oil industry, interests in retail, infrastructure & telecom, a pile of cash and no shortage of political connections.

Whose technology are we talking about for the MMRCA, Reliance's or Dassault's?

We're talking about Reliance's involvement in the defence sector prior to 'bagging' a share of the MMRCA pie.

Geez. And here I was thinking that a JV is set up only after the parent companies come to an agreement. :(

RAT Pvt Ltd was set up after JV was signed. Most other private players in the sector had defence subsidiaries registered long before.

And a google search Reliance Aerospace directs you to an aerospace management consultancy company based in France.

Irony.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4738
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby srai » 01 Dec 2014 02:25

Victor wrote:Srai, if a company like Reliance gets the go ahead, it will immediately hire some of India's best engineering talent, including in aeronautics, stemming their outflow to the West. It will even hire some foreigners just as Boeing does. With that in place, Reliance itself will make sure that it "owns" the ToT or rap Dassault on the knuckles. They are not babus but ruthless businessmen used to fighting in the open markets and can deal with Dassault far better than HAL or MoD since they speak the same lingo. If Reliance (or Tata or Mahindra...) owns the ToT, then India owns it since it was paid for by Indians' taxes. In the end, they are answerable to GoI, just as Boeing is to USG when making military aircraft.

...


Well if Dassault owns 23-49% stake in the Dassault-Reliance venture, India would be paying for TOT to Dassault to give itself the TOT in India!

Even if the new venture is 100% owned by Reliance, why should GoI use its public fund to pay for TOT to give it to a private entity. Shouldn't Reliance come up with that money if it is going to "own" it? Otherwise it should be the property of India.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests