JayS wrote:srai wrote:Setting aside motivated part for the time being, GoI lost a second chance to make L1 and L2 compete for the reduce order of 36 units. First, they didn't do it for 126 units and then for the reduced order.
In any case, the deal is already done.
There was quite an effort made in 2015-16 by Germany/GB. What makes one think GOI didn't even listen to them..?
Second, when its G2G, there is no meaning to L1 and L1.
Third, the intangible strategic reasoning doesn't show up in such comparisons - namely N-delivery. French are known to be mendable on this one factor. In my opinion this was one big reason for Rafale being considered with no uncertainty in GOI/IAF's mind.
Forth, as per DPP, you cannot negotiate with L2 and L1 at the same time. IN fact the whole reason why MMRCA was scrapped, if you read Nitin Gokhale's article, was because Dassualt didn't put all costs upfront and considering the factor that HAL wanted for no of man-hours for MII 108 jets, Dassault was becoming L2 while EF would have been L1. Once their is this confusion, the tender was all set for cancellation. Because in MP's words, this was going against guidelines given by CVC. Another nail in the coffin was Dassault refused to stand by their contractual obligation of taking responsibility of MII jets, which they agreed while submitting bids, but later reneged. Dassault is as much responsible for fall out of the deal as anyone else.
Just saw Nitin Gokhale's tweet. He says exactly what I was saying about talking to L1 and L2 both.
https://twitter.com/nitingokhale/status ... 7122720768
In the contrived controversy over the Rafale deal, every one is forgetting that under the DPP, MoD cannot negotiate with L-2 vendor even if L-1 was found to be non-complaint. The contract has to be scrapped and the process has to begin anew. Digest that