Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

[kelesis]

EADS is not under full french control but under very strong french influence, the Headquarter of the new company will probably be in Toulouse :

EADS Said to Move Headquarters to Toulouse to Be Close to Airbus :

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-1 ... irbus.html

Toulouse to be EADS ‘centre of gravity’ :

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6d78a1f8 ... z26LKi2f7L

Regarding the share capital of EADS, Germany and France are at par with something like 45% of "voting rights" each.
But EADS has its biggest business with France and Eurocopter, Astrium and MBDA are all french companies with headquarters in France and most of their employees in France. Just check websites and registration documents. France has also a majority stake in Arianespace and the only rocket launcher site of european nations with Kourou. And not to mention Dassault aviation, Dassault systems, Thales, Safran, DCNS, Zodiac Aerospace etc...

It is obvious that the new company will be strongly linked to France and I don't see Tom Enders giving up his project to make Toulouse the "center of Gravity of EADS". The talks with BAE had already began when Anders made these statements.

But I doubt the merger/takeover will be authorized by France. BAE shareholders are mainly US, this is a real issue (a 60/40% is not acceptable for EADS giving the size of both company and the dark perspectives for BAE). The other point is that France will never give a green light to something good for Typhoon. That's why they may ask for EADS to sell Cassidian or Astrium or Eurocopter or MBDA to the Thales-Safran-Dassault-DCNS group france is building.

One thing is obvious : Germany is not in a good position to negociate with UK and France.

[member_20453]

Again the SH was thrown out not because of ITAR or TOT, but because it was "inferior" as an overall package. As things stand, the Rafale "won" and it did so hands down with the EF2K being a close second in terms of performance but a distant second in terms of the price we would've had to pay.

Seriously doubt that, the SH international on offer is far ahead of anything out there. It failed during the trails to due to lower climb rates, turn rates, acceleration and perhaps problems at Leh. Besides it was knonw from the beginning that Govt. and MOD would look at US fighters with caution. Ex-Chief claimed the Avionics and weapons on the US fighters were the best sampled during the competition, but F-18 in it's current form just doesn't match the aerial performance of the Rafale and EF. However, the SH international would be a whole different ball game, with 20% increase in thrust, SH would have had a much better aerial performance.

I doubt how advanced a Meteor Armed Rafale would be against a SH international since, the later has a longer range radars, already the deadliest EW capabilties, next gen jammers coming up and the Aim-120D. SH would still trump the Rafale any day in BVR. With a 5th gen cockpit, upgraded MAWS, stealth pods, increased range and lower rcs, Rafale with it's small radar won't even spot the SH before it is shot down.

[eklavya]

Again the SH was thrown out not because of ITAR or TOT, but because it was "inferior" as an overall package.

Seriously doubt that, the SH international on offer is far ahead of anything out there. It failed during the trails to due to lower climb rates, turn rates, acceleration and perhaps problems at Leh.

So F/A-18 E/F was "far ahead", except on the parameters that mattered. Great sales job!

[Viv S]

EADS is not under full french control but under very strong french influence, the Headquarter of the new company will probably be in Toulouse :

Regarding the share capital of EADS, Germany and France are at par with something like 45% of "voting rights" each.
But EADS has its biggest business with France and Eurocopter, Astrium and MBDA are all french companies with headquarters in France and most of their employees in France. Just check websites and registration documents.

France is EADS' biggest customer but that doesn't translate into ownership of the company. As you yourself have repeatedly stressed EADS is a political company and Germany has absolutely no incentive to relinquish its voting rights. Also MBDA is co-owned by BAE Systems, EADS and Finmeccanica, of which EADS' stake is only 37.5%.

France has also a majority stake in Arianespace and the only rocket launcher site of european nations with Kourou. And not to mention Dassault aviation, Dassault systems, Thales, Safran, DCNS, Zodiac Aerospace etc...

No relation to the BAE EADS merger.

It is obvious that the new company will be strongly linked to France and I don't see Tom Enders giving up his project to make Toulouse the "center of Gravity of EADS". The talks with BAE had already began when Anders made these statements.

'Strongly linked' is subjective phrase that can be interpreted as one likes.

But I doubt the merger/takeover will be authorized by France. BAE shareholders are mainly US, this is a real issue (a 60/40% is not acceptable for EADS giving the size of both company and the dark perspectives for BAE). The other point is that France will never give a green light to something good for Typhoon. That's why they may ask for EADS to sell Cassidian or Astrium or Eurocopter or MBDA to the Thales-Safran-Dassault-DCNS group france is building.

Over the long term, France doesn't have the financial resources to be both independent and be competitive with US and emerging countries. The German commitment towards maintaining its military capabilities has been waning since the end of the Cold War. The only sustainable way forward is for the UK and France to collaborate on military R&D and production, and while this deal would not by itself achieve that, it is a step in the right direction.

In addition, MBDA is not a subsidiary of EADS; France cannot demand that it be sold to Thales-Safran-Dassault-DCNS. Also, these would not impact the Eurofighter program, either positively as you conclude or negatively as Ravi Karumanchiri has concluded.

One thing is obvious : Germany is not in a good position to negociate with UK and France.

Its still got the strongest economy in Europe, not exactly an entity that can be pushed around.

[akimalik]

It failed during the trails to due to lower climb rates, turn rates, acceleration and perhaps problems at Leh

cosider this, ... if the issues that you casually mentioned were not important, LCA could have been FOCed in its Mk.1 form itself.

[kelesis]

Hi Viv!

How are you? We haven't talk since the selection of Rafale ... It's always a pleasure to have a discussion with you. First, I'm sorry for my poor english. I try to improve but do not hesitates to correct me.

Then,

EADS is not under full french control but under very strong french influence, the Headquarter of the new company will probably be in Toulouse :

Regarding the share capital of EADS, Germany and France are at par with something like 45% of "voting rights" each.
But EADS has its biggest business with France and Eurocopter, Astrium and MBDA are all french companies with headquarters in France and most of their employees in France. Just check websites and registration documents.

France is EADS' biggest customer but that doesn't translate into ownership of the company. As you yourself have repeatedly stressed EADS is a political company and Germany has absolutely no incentive to relinquish its voting rights. Also MBDA is co-owned by BAE Systems, EADS and Finmeccanica, of which EADS' stake is only 37.5%.

In case of merger/takeover the shareholder agreement between France and Germany will be broken and new political discussions will take place. And your are right saying that Germany will not accept a franco-british domination. France has given the most stragical assets of the group (far more than Germany) including its stake in MBDA, 80% of Astrium and Eurocopter. They will only tolerate a new company in wich it has the leading role. Again, Viv, MBDA is a french company with 60% of its employees in France...

Quote:
France has also a majority stake in Arianespace and the only rocket launcher site of european nations with Kourou. And not to mention Dassault aviation, Dassault systems, Thales, Safran, DCNS, Zodiac Aerospace etc...


No relation to the BAE EADS merger.

Ooo yes it has very strong relation with the merger, space dominance is a very strategic asset in defense industry. If EADS wants more independance from french state and continue to have commercial use of Kourou, it will have to cheer its relations with Thales and Arianespace. That's obvious and i've just heard on french radio the french mindef explaining this point.

It is obvious that the new company will be strongly linked to France and I don't see Tom Enders giving up his project to make Toulouse the "center of Gravity of EADS". The talks with BAE had already began when Anders made these statements.


'Strongly linked' is subjective phrase that can be interpreted as one likes.

I agree. But there is no doubt, the headquarter of the EADS/BAE company would be in Toulouse. You now, the south east of France is the biggest hub of aerospace industry in Europe.

But I doubt the merger/takeover will be authorized by France. BAE shareholders are mainly US, this is a real issue (a 60/40% is not acceptable for EADS giving the size of both company and the dark perspectives for BAE). The other point is that France will never give a green light to something good for Typhoon. That's why they may ask for EADS to sell Cassidian or Astrium or Eurocopter or MBDA to the Thales-Safran-Dassault-DCNS group france is building.


Over the long term, France doesn't have the financial resources to be both independent and be competitive with US and emerging countries.

Right.

The German commitment towards maintaining its military capabilities has been waning since the end of the Cold War. The only sustainable way forward is for the UK and France to collaborate on military R&D and production, and while this deal would not by itself achieve that, it is a step in the right direction.

Right. But as far as military cooperation is concern, it's better to keep the German out of the business. Just look at what they did to the Typhoon...

In addition, MBDA is not a subsidiary of EADS; France cannot demand that it be sold to Thales-Safran-Dassault-DCNS. Also, these would not impact the Eurofighter program, either positively as you conclude or negatively as Ravi Karumanchiri has concluded.

France can not demand but can negociate because they have the best cards in hand and less interest in the merger. EADS wants Thales, would like to keep their stake in Dassault and are working to buy Nexter... this is public available information. Will EADS and BAE let France built a second european giant with Dassault, Thales, Safran, DCNS and Nexter? What is the best interest of EADS?

The talks between EADS and BAE were first to merge Typhoon production assets to lower production costs. It will obviously impact positively the Typhoon. And this is a very good thing.

I'm not sure this merger/takeover will happen, there are too many issues to fix. And according to british regulations the two companies will have to agree within 28 days! That's quite impossible!

But Finally, and this time you may agree, we have here a very interesting move here.

[kelesis]

akimalik,

This quote is not from me! Please correct.

[member_20453]

Again the SH was thrown out not because of ITAR or TOT, but because it was "inferior" as an overall package.

Seriously doubt that, the SH international on offer is far ahead of anything out there. It failed during the trails to due to lower climb rates, turn rates, acceleration and perhaps problems at Leh.

So F/A-18 E/F was "far ahead", except on the parameters that mattered. Great sales job!

Indeed it did fail in certazin points but they could have downselected still since the pros of having the proposed SH international variant has far more than having the rafale.

[nakul]

^^^

FWIW a "proposed" plane is always better than the existing ones. Marketing 101. You seem to have fallen for it!!!

[Jaybhatt]

Seriously doubt that, the SH international on offer is far ahead of anything out there. It failed during the trails to due to lower climb rates, turn rates, acceleration and perhaps problems at Leh.

Ekalavya : So F/A-18 E/F was "far ahead", except on the parameters that mattered. Great sales job! [/quote]

Septimus P : Indeed it did fail in certazin points but they could have downselected still since the pros of having the proposed SH international variant has far more than having the rafale.[/quote]

My query to Septimus P : Do you ever face the truth? Never, it seems. You persist in seeing mirages (sic) even when the desert sands are engulfing you. Is a self-imposed reality check even a distant possibility in your case ?

Your favourite horse comes last in the race but you want the stewards to award it the Derby. This is what you are effectively saying : the SH "failed during the trails (sic) to(sic) due to lower climb rates, turn rates, acceleration and perhaps problems at Leh." But, despite this, you feel that the IAF should have "downselected" (whatever that means) to enable your filly to win the race.

You deserve a life membership of the Flat Earth Society.

[member_23360]

apart from EF and rafale, rest other failed to qualify evaluation test so there is no point discussing them.

I personally like EF more than rafale, but Decision to buy Rafale can't be made without approval of IAF and they knows lot better than any one of us.

[GeorgeWelch]

So F/A-18 E/F was "far ahead", except on the parameters that mattered. Great sales job!

Let us be honest, it was more 'the parameters the IAF decided to enforce', which may or may not have any relationship to those that matter.

apart from EF and rafale, rest other failed to qualify evaluation test so there is no point discussing them.

If they had been held to the same strict standard as the others, they likely would have failed too.

[nakul]

Let us be honest, it was more 'the parameters the IAF decided to enforce', which may or may not have any relationship to those that matter.

I thought the customer sets the requirements ?!! Is the new strategy of seller deciding requirements the reason behind huge sales of US aircraft?

If they had been held to the same strict standard as the others, they likely would have failed too.

Yes, they were. That's why they were able to perform better than their American counterparts.

[GeorgeWelch]

Let us be honest, it was more 'the parameters the IAF decided to enforce', which may or may not have any relationship to those that matter.

I thought the customer sets the requirements ?!! Is the new strategy of seller deciding requirements the reason behind huge sales of US aircraft?

'The customer' is not homogenous. One group was tasked with setting the requirements. Another group was tasked with determining whether the contenders met the requirements. If the second group desires to subvert the first group, does that really reflect the will of the customer?

If they had been held to the same strict standard as the others, they likely would have failed too.

Yes, they were. That's why they were able to perform better than their American counterparts.

We already know they were not in fact held to the same standard.

[arthuro]

Press: Algeria could buy 80 french Rafale fighter and Mirage 2000-9
El Khabar, Sept 13

The Algerian Ministry of Defence, has scheduled , in the next 5 years, the purchase of 80 fighter jets to replace their Russian-made Mig 21 and Mig 23 pending removal Service.

According to the Algerian daily El Khabar which reported this information in its Wednesday edition, Algerian military experts would have travelled to the UAE to examine the UAE's Mirage 2000-9 fleet. Algerian military would also incline toward the flagship of the french army, the Rafale , to the point that first contacts on the subject, would have been done in margin of an airshow, between the Algerian Army and the french manufacturer Dassault.

http://www.emarrakech.info/Presse-L-Alg ... 63492.html

[nakul]

'The customer' is not homogenous. One group was tasked with setting the requirements. Another group was tasked with determining whether the contenders met the requirements. If the second group desires to subvert the first group, does that really reflect the will of the customer?

They are all part of the IAF. You know the sales team is always different from the engineering team which is different from the management. I hope you are 18+ because even a child would know this.

We already know they were not in fact held to the same standard.

You are right. American aircraft are pre chosen but trials are held to show that the best aircraft is being selected. Dassault does not even bother to send their aircrafts for trials when they know this beforehand.

[eklavya]

Let us be honest, it was more 'the parameters the IAF decided to enforce', which may or may not have any relationship to those that matter.

If they had been held to the same strict standard as the others, they likely would have failed too.

Please could the honest salesman tell us (i) which parameters were enforced and which were not, (ii) which parameters were were enforced even though they do not matter, (iii) why would the technical evaluation end up recommending inferior but more expensive aircraft (two of them!).

[GeorgeWelch]

'The customer' is not homogenous. One group was tasked with setting the requirements. Another group was tasked with determining whether the contenders met the requirements. If the second group desires to subvert the first group, does that really reflect the will of the customer?

They are all part of the IAF. You know the sales team is always different from the engineering team which is different from the management. I hope you are 18+ because even a child would know this.

Um, wow. The group that defined the requirements was specifically tasked with setting policy. They took input from all the stakeholders, decided the relative importance of each item and generated a comprehensive requirements document. THAT reflects the will of the IAF and the GoI.

The technical evaluators have ZERO policy authority whatsoever, they are merely to judge how the contenders met the requirements.

If instead the technical evaluators said 'Screw it, we don't care about the requirements doc, lets get the Gripen because it looks pretty,' would you be ok with that?

Apparently you would since they are all part of the IAF.

[GeorgeWelch]

Let us be honest, it was more 'the parameters the IAF decided to enforce', which may or may not have any relationship to those that matter.

If they had been held to the same strict standard as the others, they likely would have failed too.

Please could the honest salesman tell us (i) which parameters were enforced and which were not

The EF radar did not meet all operational requirements, yet was given a pass because they felt those requirements would be met with additional development.

Ok, fair enough, but then the F-16 failed because the engine swap took too long . . . because the cart broke. Clearly an exceptional circumstance. They then refused to allow them to rerun the test and were simply marked as failed even though zero additional development or risk or cost was required.

(iii) why would the technical evaluation end up recommending inferior but more expensive aircraft (two of them!).

1. The (official) costs weren't know until the bids were unsealed after the downselect.
2. I never said they were inferior, I said they weren't held to the same standard (ie were shown favortism)

[nakul]

Um, wow. The group that defined the requirements was specifically tasked with setting policy. They took input from all the stakeholders, decided the relative importance of each item and generated a comprehensive requirements document. THAT reflects the will of the IAF and the GoI.

The technical evaluators have ZERO policy authority whatsoever, they are merely to judge how the contenders met the requirements.

If instead the technical evaluators said 'Screw it, we don't care about the requirements doc, lets get the Gripen because it looks pretty,' would you be ok with that?

Apparently you would since they are all part of the IAF.

So you mean to say that the technical evaluators should be same as the group that decides the requirements? In that case, we should throw away the procurement department and fill it up with pilots since they evaulate the planes. Whatever rocks your boat

[GeorgeWelch]

Um, wow. The group that defined the requirements was specifically tasked with setting policy. They took input from all the stakeholders, decided the relative importance of each item and generated a comprehensive requirements document. THAT reflects the will of the IAF and the GoI.

The technical evaluators have ZERO policy authority whatsoever, they are merely to judge how the contenders met the requirements.

If instead the technical evaluators said 'Screw it, we don't care about the requirements doc, lets get the Gripen because it looks pretty,' would you be ok with that?

Apparently you would since they are all part of the IAF.

So you mean to say that the technical evaluators should be same as the group that decides the requirements?

Where do you get that from? No, the technical evaluators should follow the will of the group that sets the requirements and not create their own requirements (even if they disagree with the given requirements). In other words: They should do their job.

[nakul]

Where do you get that from? No, the technical evaluators should follow the will of the group that sets the requirements and not create their own requirements (which they have no authority to do).

Who decides the delegation of authority?

[GeorgeWelch]

Where do you get that from? No, the technical evaluators should follow the will of the group that sets the requirements and not create their own requirements (which they have no authority to do).

Who decides the delegation of authority?

I'm sure you could look it up if you really care.

[nakul]

I'm sure you could look it up if you really care.

I was under the impression that you had far more knowledge. Sorry, I was wrong. No problem. We all run out of excuse. It is best to admit & move on.

[GeorgeWelch]

I was under the impression that you had far more knowledge. Sorry, I was wrong. No problem. We all run out of excuse. It is best to admit & move on.

You're a funny guy.

[nakul]

It is always nice having you here. Gives me an insight from an American perspective. We don't have too many americans on BR. Most of them don't stick around for long...

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

^^^^
I'm starting to wonder if GeorgeWelch is actually a state-of-the-art 'chatbot' that has been designed to waste the valuable time of Rakshaks who should really find more productive things to do than to counterpost against GeorgeWelch, the "SH-chatbot". (He's relentless, and there's no point in it. You're really better off playing slot machines.) This is especially true because the 'GeorgeWelch SH-chatbot' seems not to have been updated since the F-18 was dumped from the MMRCA on account of those stubby little wings and the meager control surfaces.

GeorgeWelch, if you're a real person, how many fingers am I holding up right now?

If he answers correctly, it proves he's a machine, because I'm alone at my desk right now, and he shouldn't be able to see me (though I'm guessing he can guess correctly).

If he answers incorrectly, it proves he's not that clever, and therefore not worth debating on why the F-18 should be reconsidered because it's so much better than modern aircraft like the Rafale.

[nachiket]

GeogeWelch, stop making baseless accusations just because American aircraft failed the trials. There was no "favoritism" displayed and your accusation that the evaluators ignored those who set the requirements is ridiculous as well, simply because you have no idea what those requirements might have been or their relative priorities.
You look at all things through an American lens. For e.g. the lack of an AESA radar on an aircraft might be a deal-breaker for the USAF but may not matter as much to the IAF as long as the current radar meets certain minimum performance parameters. Ability to takeoff with a meaningful payload from Leh on the other hand might be absolutely essential for the IAF while totally useless for the USAF or USN. So when someone says that the F-18 failed on parameters that counted, he/she is right because parameters that count for the IAF may not be the same ones that the USAF or USN thinks are important.

[SaiK]

what is the problem in accepting a decision based on policy rather technical alone? btw, a policy could cover two main aspects - 1. political 2. technical. (clearly it could be both in MMRCA case). So, if I say, there is a policy to get least dependent machine [not meaning zero dependency], a dependency that is 32% stands higher chance of winning the policy deal against the 30% dependency one.

EADS lost silly to Snecma on Kaveri deal.. and for the same, GE 414 would not compete at all, 'cause of accepting a < 30% dependency needs. Again, these policies could change as gov changes, and people mindset changes.. NATO and Germany and Euro could be all different in a decade from now. EADS and BEA could merge. JSF and Raptor could be delivered to pakistan, etc.. are all driven by business drivers, that more or less speaks policies.

[Manish_Sharma]

Friends we can't imagine how much Bharatvarsh has wounded US by rejecting their 'phat-panting teens'. Hnair jee had summed it up beautifully at the time and post was so good that I have kept the link in my records of good posts:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=200

hnair:

Acharayaji, the takleef is this - currently. Khan power is personified by two things amongst World public. Its aircraft carrier sailing ominously over a calm sea and the multi-role fighters that dash off to smote "God's righteous anger". Forget the fact that those 10s of bus-size satellites make it all possible. In fact no lowly tinpot cringes when these satellites silently flit over their heads. But the stock footage of roaring teen fighters and stock footage of a carrier with lots of conveniently parked craft in CNN makes them assume the worst......

So any number of orders for transports is not going to get khan to acknowledge that their wazikashi is blunt. Especially when said by an SDRE warrior with a barely straight face. There is going to be bitterness against India. Bitterness of a kind that would make a paki jihadi or Osamy-mama contemplate apostasy.....

Geez, I cant afford a 2$ meal, but boy am I laughing

[GeorgeWelch]

GeogeWelch, stop making baseless accusations just because American aircraft failed the trials.

Is your memory really that short?

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/ne ... 16-fa.html

The F-16IN’s failure to meet the IAF’s standard where engine change time was concerned was due largely to an idiosyncratic mishap during the field trials [ie the cart broke]. It is certain that if the trials were to involve multiple stochastic demontrations of engine change [ie if they let them do it again], the F-16IN would have easily made the mark. Unfortunately, second chances are sometimes not available [especially if you aren't one of the favored aircraft], and the IAF, for its own reasons, chose not to accept Lockheed Martin’s subsequent evidence of being able to meet the engine change
standards laid down in the ASQR.

So LockMart could prove it met the engine time standard, but the IAF evaluators put their hands over their ears and cried 'LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'

on the SH:

That the IAF was unwilling to accept the engineering test results of the F414 EPE where the F/A-18E/F was concerned, even as it accepted the
bench test results of the developmental AESA radars proposed by the Europeans, raises questions about whether the service may have interpreted compliance with some ASQRs a tad subjectively.

[GeorgeWelch]

what is the problem in accepting a decision based on policy rather technical alone?

There is no problem IF that is what you put forth as the requirements.

The problem is if you put forth a set of requirements and then have a second set of 'secret' requirements that you don't tell anyone about.

It basically makes the first document a lie and the entire process a farce.

Whatever you want to base your decision on, be upfront about it. Don't say "we will make a decision based on a, b, and c" when you are actually making a decision based on b, r and z.

[member_23370]

There is no secret requirement. The Rafale trumped the F-18/16 etc hands down Period. The F-18 failed miserably in the cold weather test at Leh and did not meet the requirements.

[krisna]

GeogeWelch, stop making baseless accusations just because American aircraft failed the trials.

Is your memory really that short?

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/ne ... 16-fa.html

The F-16IN’s failure to meet the IAF’s standard where engine change time was concerned was due largely to an idiosyncratic mishap during the field trials [ie the cart broke]. It is certain that if the trials were to involve multiple stochastic demontrations of engine change [ie if they let them do it again], the F-16IN would have easily made the mark. Unfortunately, second chances are sometimes not available [especially if you aren't one of the favored aircraft], and the IAF, for its own reasons, chose not to accept Lockheed Martin’s subsequent evidence of being able to meet the engine change
standards laid down in the ASQR.

So LockMart could prove it met the engine time standard, but the IAF evaluators put their hands over their ears and cried 'LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'

on the SH:

That the IAF was unwilling to accept the engineering test results of the F414 EPE where the F/A-18E/F was concerned, even as it accepted the
bench test results of the developmental AESA radars proposed by the Europeans, raises questions about whether the service may have interpreted compliance with some ASQRs a tad subjectively.

pretty lame. I am generally a noobie in this thread as I understand little about planes.

teens planes on their own are inferior realtive to other planes.
IAF selected the european planes based on technical aspects -- this is the first time teens were compared and the parameters (~600 odd) were the most comprehensive ever in its history of selection planes.
previously teens were offered to other countries on basis of being political considerations. Being a sooper duper poowel obviuosly helped.
Even Ashley Tellis mentions this.
Others obviously americans and other sour pouss ones blame everything other than the technical aspects.
surely the fox needs his grapes isnt it.

This is too much to bear. :((poor losers. nothing more to add.

[GeorgeWelch]

This is too much to bear. :((poor losers. nothing more to add.

The planes were clearly held to different standards. You can demean and belittle and mock all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

[GeorgeWelch]

There is no secret requirement. The Rafale trumped the F-18/16 etc hands down Period. The F-18 failed miserably in the cold weather test at Leh and did not meet the requirements.

The point is that NONE of the planes met the requirements if held to the strictest standards. YET certain planes were given a pass with the excuse that their deficiencies could be fixed. Other planes were given no such allowances.

Why were some planes given allowances and others weren't?

[member_22605]

^ That's because the teens performed miserably in the evaluations. For example if 2 students give an exam and both fail, the minimum marks being 35. One of the guys scores 34 and the other scores 15 and if you were to definitely pic one of them, whom would you pic? The IAF was faced with a similar situation and they did what any sensible person would've done. Now you may argue that both failed but there was pressing need to get one of them.
The only aircraft to comply with all the IAF's stringent requirement will be the Tejas when it enters service. Sorry George our user, unlike yours is very particular about its operational requirements and would not compromise and accept a "fat bucket" just because the A/C manufacturer says the product is the bestest, stealthiest, deadliest.... etc.
Lastly, welcome to the world of IAF "Nabhaḥ-Spṛśaṃ Dīptam"

[krisna]

US fighter companies satisfied after MMRCA downselect debrief

Both US bidders shut out of a competition for a major fighter contract still have no complaints after receiving a long-awaited debriefing from the Indian Air Force (IAF).

The debriefing was requested by the US government after the IAF down-selected to the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon in late April. The decision included four other bidders, including the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-16IN.

"The decision has been made by the IAF and throughout the competition [Lockheed Martin] has been extremely impressed with the IAF and the professional manner in which the competition was conducted," Lockheed said.

Boeing also released a statement re-iterating the company's acceptance of the IAF decision, but also suggested the Super Hornet could be proposed again to New Dehli.

goolge chacha shows that all the planes were evaluated on technical matters only-- no political considerations were done by IAF.
IAF submitted the bids to GOI. here GOI could have taken political decisions as done by govts all over towards amerikan firms. But it did not happen.
Ashley Tellis says clearly that IAF (and GOI not interfering)went for plane and not a realtionship.
This is as clear as day and night.
All the planes sold by americans have been through political arm twisting and not through proper evaluations. This si the first time and may be the only time americans received a proper evaluations of their plane worth in terms of capabilites.
They must be grateful to this despite the obvious loss of etch and dee. They will definitely (I hope) be better and worthy competitiors in future.
Also other countries evaluate products of americans as rigorously as we do.
No wonder sour losers.

[GeorgeWelch]

For example if 2 students give an exam and both fail, the minimum marks being 35. One of the guys scores 34 and the other scores 15 and if you were to definitely pic one of them, whom would you pic? The IAF was faced with a similar situation and they did what any sensible person would've done. The IAF was faced with a similar situation and they did what any sensible person would've done.

Did you see the evaluations? Do you have quotes from someone who did see them? Or did you just make that up?

[GeorgeWelch]

Both US bidders shut out of a competition for a major fighter contract still have no complaints after receiving a long-awaited debriefing from the Indian Air Force (IAF).

It's called politics and being diplomatic. They saw they were getting getting screwed, but there was nothing they could do, so they put a gracious smile on and went away so as not to cause any hard feelings and jeopardize any future contracts (Boeing especially).

"The decision has been made by the IAF and throughout the competition [Lockheed Martin] has been extremely impressed with the IAF and the professional manner in which the competition was conducted," Lockheed said.

Diplomatic speak for 'They screwed us badly but we're going to play nice anyways'

Ashley Tellis says clearly that IAF (and GOI not interfering)went for plane and not a realtionship.
This is as clear as day and night.

Tellis presented the facts about the competition and then tried to put his spin on it. He's trying to improve US/Indian ties so he's going to be diplomatic and he's never going to say India screwed the US. Unfortunately for him, the facts HE gave clearly contradict his spin. There is no way to say that it was solely a technical choice (at least by the technical criteria in the RFP)