VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17671
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 12 Oct 2018 16:34


Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 12 Oct 2018 20:31

chetak wrote:Rafale offsets



Image


Chetak,

Thanks for the info.
A document without it's author's name and other detail is of not much use. Please write a line or two about the doc and post the link also so people can find out info for themselves

Srutayus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 05:53

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Srutayus » 12 Oct 2018 22:05

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.timesofindia.com/india/offsets-with-reliance-defence-only-10-of-obligation-in-talks-with-100-other-indian-companies-dassault-aviation-ceo/amp_articleshow/66170388.cms
Offset with Reliance Defence only 10% of obligation, in talks with 100 other Indian companies: Dassault CEO on Rafale deal

Note that Dassault constitutes about half of this 10% due to the JV

From the official press release from Dassault on their website here:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/group/press/press-kits/rafale-contract-india/
Other partnerships have been signed with other companies such as BTSL, DEFSYS, Kinetic, Mahindra, Maini, SAMTEL,… Other negotiations are ongoing with a hundred-odd other potential partners.


This whole thing will have a severe impact on the effort to attract foreign investment into the Defence sector in India.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1460
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Kakarat » 13 Oct 2018 00:21

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1050807712924217344

And here’s defence minister @NSitharaman at the Rafale line in France. That’s an airframe for the Indian Air Force.


Image

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5853
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 13 Oct 2018 02:41

Very nice pictures Katare! Great find!

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 350
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pandyan » 13 Oct 2018 06:44

Katare wrote:Chetak,

Thanks for the info.
A document without it's author's name and other detail is of not much use. Please write a line or two about the doc and post the link also so people can find out info for themselves

It is from this article
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20181008-the-ambani-connection-1349998-2018-09-28
The NDA says it paid Rs 670 crore for the Rafales, though this price was, as MoS for defence Subhash Bhamre told the Lok Sabha on November 18, 2016, minus the 'associated equipment, weapons, India-specific enhancements, maintenance support and services'. The Congress alleges their price (for a deal that wasn't signed) included these India-specific enhancements, maintena-nce support and services. The government is unwilling to disclose the fully-loaded price of the jets, citing national security concerns as finance minister Arun Jaitley re-emphasised in a September 23 interview to news agency ANI. "If you take a weaponised aircraft as of 2007, add the same two things to it again and bring it to the 2016 level, it is 20 per cent cheaper," he said. This is an issue the CAG is going through, Jaitley pointed out- adding, perhaps more prophetically than he realised, "the truth will come out".
...
The deal's offsets of approximately Rs 30,000 crore were the largest since the policy was introduced in 2005. As such, a defence OEM (original equipment manufacturer) has to source between 30 and 50 per cent of the value of all contracts over Rs 2,000 crore from the customer's domestic industry. Under the Rafale deal, French aircraft-maker Dassault and its partners, engine-maker Safran and radar-maker Thales, are to source Rs 30,000 crore worth of purchases from India's local industry. The key objectives of offsets are to leverage capital acquisitions to develop Indian defence R&D and encourage the aerospace and internal security sectors.

....

However, it would be incorrect to suggest that HAL was completely bypassed in offset partner deals for the 36 Rafales. Snecma HAL Aerospace Pvt Ltd (SHAe), a JV between HAL and the French manufacturer of the Rafale's M88 jet engine, was signed in February 2015 in Bengaluru. The 50:50 JV was set up for the production of engine parts and components of the M88 engine and to facilitate their assembly. This JV will hence be eligible for offsets discharged by Safran in the Rafale deal.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17671
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 13 Oct 2018 10:21

pandyan wrote:
Katare wrote:Chetak,

Thanks for the info.
A document without it's author's name and other detail is of not much use. Please write a line or two about the doc and post the link also so people can find out info for themselves

It is from this article
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20181008-the-ambani-connection-1349998-2018-09-28
The NDA says it paid Rs 670 crore for the Rafales, though this price was, as MoS for defence Subhash Bhamre told the Lok Sabha on November 18, 2016, minus the 'associated equipment, weapons, India-specific enhancements, maintenance support and services'. The Congress alleges their price (for a deal that wasn't signed) included these India-specific enhancements, maintena-nce support and services. The government is unwilling to disclose the fully-loaded price of the jets, citing national security concerns as finance minister Arun Jaitley re-emphasised in a September 23 interview to news agency ANI. "If you take a weaponised aircraft as of 2007, add the same two things to it again and bring it to the 2016 level, it is 20 per cent cheaper," he said. This is an issue the CAG is going through, Jaitley pointed out- adding, perhaps more prophetically than he realised, "the truth will come out".
...
The deal's offsets of approximately Rs 30,000 crore were the largest since the policy was introduced in 2005. As such, a defence OEM (original equipment manufacturer) has to source between 30 and 50 per cent of the value of all contracts over Rs 2,000 crore from the customer's domestic industry. Under the Rafale deal, French aircraft-maker Dassault and its partners, engine-maker Safran and radar-maker Thales, are to source Rs 30,000 crore worth of purchases from India's local industry. The key objectives of offsets are to leverage capital acquisitions to develop Indian defence R&D and encourage the aerospace and internal security sectors.

....

However, it would be incorrect to suggest that HAL was completely bypassed in offset partner deals for the 36 Rafales. Snecma HAL Aerospace Pvt Ltd (SHAe), a JV between HAL and the French manufacturer of the Rafale's M88 jet engine, was signed in February 2015 in Bengaluru. The 50:50 JV was set up for the production of engine parts and components of the M88 engine and to facilitate their assembly. This JV will hence be eligible for offsets discharged by Safran in the Rafale deal.


I am hearing that it is a rafale generated document. It should have come out right in the beginning and used to put an end to this ugly mess.

However, the rafale war is being fought on two fronts in India and in france with very different dramatis personae and commie hollande's mistress julie gayet is deeply involved in this messy affair.

julie gayet is why hollande has jumped into the fray, so as to limit the damage to himself.

french politicians being corrupt, especially their presidents, is no big secret and in their vertically specialized knowledge of skimming off the top, they are second to none. They can teach our own politicians a thing or two or three or even four.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17671
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 13 Oct 2018 19:11

Image

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby viveks » 13 Oct 2018 21:31

d-salting #me 2 janab!

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1342
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Khalsa » 15 Oct 2018 01:07

Although I was not happy at the involvement and implications of Reliance and how they (govt) even allowed this deal to go from squeaky clean to a point where others doubt and too many coincidences seen,

the Politicalisation of HAL by Rahul Gandhi is a brand new low.

The irony of the meeting was ... that he did the talk in the shadow of the Tejas Model.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2236
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby abhik » 15 Oct 2018 08:38

Throwing HAL under the bus to CYA on Rafael by the government was a gift wrapped political opportunity for the congies, can't blame the congies taking full advantage of it.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3582
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Oct 2018 11:07

abhik wrote:Throwing HAL under the bus to CYA on Rafael by the government was a gift wrapped political opportunity for the congies, can't blame the congies taking full advantage of it.


How many previous offset deals HAL is part of, with any significant portion..?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2236
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby abhik » 15 Oct 2018 18:44

@JayS, not sure what you are getting at, HAL was supposed to assemble the 108 fighters.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16449
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rahul M » 15 Oct 2018 19:16

'supposed to' is very different from 'received an order'. simply put, dassault was not willing to undertake warranty for HAL made aircraft. GOI wasn't willing to shaft IAF to satisfy HAL unions. GOI did not throw HAL under the bus, it threw itself under the bus.

this is from 2015.
https://www.financialexpress.com/econom ... al/110345/

Boeing ends contract with HAL over ‘poor quality’ of production

Boeing’s decision came after repeated reminders to HAL about its “poor quality” of production, sources said, adding that the US company’s move underlined the need for better strategies by India’s policymakers in order to bolster the order books of defence PSUs.

Boeing has over the last few years shifted its component sourcing requirements in India to private companies — Tata Group, Dynamatic Technologies, Rossell Techsys and others.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17671
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 15 Oct 2018 19:21

HAL was supposed to assemble the 108 fighters. yes.

But the deal fell through because:-

the HAL built rafales cost more than the french built ones.

There was no clarity on delivery timelines.

HAL has quality issues and the french were not happy.

and finally rafale france was not willing to provide guarantees for the HAL built rafales. So which customer would have accepted the HAL built rafales and under whose guarantees??

I rather think that HAL is in a very similar predicament regarding the MKIs too.

The problem was not the HAL unions but the HAL management.

There was no mention of any kind of a bus during the entire discussions between rafale and HAL, but I think that someone managed to find a bus and then wilfully jumped under its wheels.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3582
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Oct 2018 19:37

Its not just quality issues. I remember Manohar Parrikar explaining a few things in 2015 in some interview. The key reason why the first deal with 126 jets fell through is because - HAL quoted 2.xx times more man hours for the same work. When the manufacturing cost was multiplied with this number and total cost was calculated, Rafale no more remained L1, it became costlier than L2. In this situation it was legally untenable to go ahead with the tendering procedure as it would have very easily fell flat on its face with even a slightest objection (Imagine the hue and cry the same people are making now for "allegedly" giving few hundred Cr worth of business to Reliance in the situation if Dassault was given contract without being L1). Simply put HAL was one of the key reason why the MMRCS contract fail through.

Of coarse the French were not the innocent ones here, they did pull a fast one on us with the tricky pricing (and perhaps the other OEMs did the same for all we know). Then again there was an issue of Dassault unwilling to take ownership of HAL produced jets. And one could always argue how Reliance was going to be any better than HAL in producing the jets. But thats past now. The moment MMRCA was cancelled, HAL went out of the picture. There is no question of throwing HAL under the bus or anything like that. There is simply no reason to keep HAL in for offset deals unless we are targeting some big and specific tech package. HAL has more than it can deal with on its plates. Giving business of 300-400Cr for HAL is not going to be of any real impact. While the same offset deals would prove very important for the survival of smaller defense companies who already have very bad time dealing with desi programs.

The people who are making noise about Reliance, would have made the same noise even if it was TASL or L&T or any other company. Its not like they care about HAL or the Nation. Its really really sad to see people fall for completely politically motivated propaganda which is rather bad for the National Security.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17671
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 15 Oct 2018 19:51

JayS wrote:Its not just quality issues. I remember Manohar Parrikar explaining a few things in 2015 in some interview. The key reason why the first deal with 126 jets fell through is because - HAL quoted 2.xx times more man hours for the same work. When the manufacturing cost was multiplied with this number and total cost was calculated, Rafale no more remained L1, it became costlier than L2. In this situation it was legally untenable to go ahead with the tendering procedure as it would have very easily fell flat on its face with even a slightest objection (Imagine the hue and cry the same people are making now for "allegedly" giving few hundred Cr worth of business to Reliance in the situation if Dassault was given contract without being L1). Simply put HAL was one of the key reason why the MMRCS contract fail through.

Of coarse the French were not the innocent ones here, they did pull a fast one on us with the tricky pricing (and perhaps the other OEMs did the same for all we know). Then again there was an issue of Dassault unwilling to take ownership of HAL produced jets. And one could always argue how Reliance was going to be any better than HAL in producing the jets. But thats past now. The moment MMRCA was cancelled, HAL went out of the picture. There is no question of throwing HAL under the bus or anything like that. There is simply no reason to keep HAL in for offset deals unless we are targeting some big and specific tech package. HAL has more than it can deal with on its plates. Giving business of 300-400Cr for HAL is not going to be of any real impact. While the same offset deals would prove very important for the survival of smaller defense companies who already have very bad time dealing with desi programs.

The people who are making noise about Reliance, would have made the same noise even if it was TASL or L&T or any other company. Its not like they care about HAL or the Nation. Its really really sad to see people fall for completely politically motivated propaganda which is rather bad for the National Security.


The reliance "offset" JV for the falcon parts is completely french dominated in so far as the tech issues are concerned. I suspect that reliance is providing just land, power, manpower at the lower end, housekeeping and landscaping services.

ALL the plant and machinery will be french and/or french sourced, as will training, quality, sourcing and delivery.

The french are not foolish to trust ambani or any Indian company to produce aircraft parts for them, ambani has been roped in for his other talents, especially his long proven talents in environmental engineering.

After the britshits, the french were the next biggest colonial power, so they very well know how things run in India.

No need to teach an old dog new tricks.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 15 Oct 2018 22:41

Posting here for continuity.

That bleddy Mudi does it AGAIN!

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/10 ... -firm.html
As Rafale Storm Rages, Offsets May Bring 2 Big Missile Lines To Indian Govt Firm
The fourth firm in the Rafale deal that also has major offsets commitments is European missile maker MBDA. Livefist learns that to complete offset obligations, the company is looking to transfer substantial manufacturing of missile parts to India, in addition to entire final assembly lines of certain missile systems. A major current proposal, sources say, is to build the rear portion of the MICA air-to-air missile in India at MBDA’s joint venture with Indian giant Larsen & Toubro. The MICA, currently built in Selles-Saint-Denis in France, is a weapon system that the Indian Air Force will receive both on its upgraded Mirage 2000 jets as well as on the new Rafales. Mechanical parts of the launcher of MBDA’s MICA missile are already built in India by L&T. A proposal currently exists for integration of the entire MICA at MBDA’s joint venture with L&T, formed last year.

See it meets all the criteria for #MeToo
1. What prior mizzile experience did L&T have BEFORE it formed the Missile JV with MBDA but specially wrt Air to Air missile?
2. Why why ... the JV with L&T was formed only last year?

The other major proposal, of even greater possible significance, is to transfer final assembly of the ASRAAM air-to-air missile from MBDA’s facility in Bolton in the United Kingdom to Indian state-owned Bharat Dynamic Ltd’s Hyderabad facilities. Coupled with a standing offer to conduct final assembly of the Mistral air-to-air/air defence missile in Hyderabad, MBDA believes it has a powerful pair of proposals to transfer skilled workforce jobs to India on two current weapon systems.

Lastly, why did that bleddy Mudi not force MBDA to go with ADAG instead with L&T and BDL?

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Oct 2018 23:03

JayS wrote:Its not just quality issues. I remember Manohar Parrikar explaining a few things in 2015 in some interview. The key reason why the first deal with 126 jets fell through is because - HAL quoted 2.xx times more man hours for the same work. When the manufacturing cost was multiplied with this number and total cost was calculated, Rafale no more remained L1, it became costlier than L2. In this situation it was legally untenable to go ahead with the tendering procedure as it would have very easily fell flat on its face with even a slightest objection (Imagine the hue and cry the same people are making now for "allegedly" giving few hundred Cr worth of business to Reliance in the situation if Dassault was given contract without being L1). Simply put HAL was one of the key reason why the MMRCS contract fail through.

Of coarse the French were not the innocent ones here, they did pull a fast one on us with the tricky pricing (and perhaps the other OEMs did the same for all we know). Then again there was an issue of Dassault unwilling to take ownership of HAL produced jets. And one could always argue how Reliance was going to be any better than HAL in producing the jets. But thats past now. The moment MMRCA was cancelled, HAL went out of the picture. There is no question of throwing HAL under the bus or anything like that. There is simply no reason to keep HAL in for offset deals unless we are targeting some big and specific tech package. HAL has more than it can deal with on its plates. Giving business of 300-400Cr for HAL is not going to be of any real impact. While the same offset deals would prove very important for the survival of smaller defense companies who already have very bad time dealing with desi programs.

The people who are making noise about Reliance, would have made the same noise even if it was TASL or L&T or any other company. Its not like they care about HAL or the Nation. Its really really sad to see people fall for completely politically motivated propaganda which is rather bad for the National Security.


Et tu Brutus! (the bolded sentence)

HAL was supposed to build the Rafale aircraft, Reliance is going to build a few parts for a business jet and later for Rafale aircrafts to meet the offset obligation. HAL was slotted to be prime integrator while Reliance would at best be a tire 2 component supplier. The Reliance deal would probably have happened even if the HAL was building the aircrafts in India under original 126 contract. Neither today nor even in a decade would reliance be anywhere near the capability to assemble and test certify an ultra modern aircraft like Rafale.

Also my understanding of the HAL labor hour issue is that it is a procedural/legal matter not a predominantly cost issue-

HAL's labor cost is probably 1/5th or lower than that of Dassault aviation's so from 1.7X to 2x or 2.5x should not have mattered that much anyhow.

For the MKI and Hawk, hours allowed were 2.2 to 2.4X of OEM. Some genius babu or Air marshal limited 1.7X of OEM hours for MRCA contract, which was clearly not achievable by the HAL with its workforce and small production line foot print. Money as such would not have been a major issue but allowing more than 1.7X manhours would have been considered a breach of DPP and unfair to L2. This would have opened the can of worms that no one wanted to deal with.

For warranty of HAL produced aircraft, Rafale said it will not take on that liability without charging additional money since it'll have to deploy additional resources at HAL for quality control and buy insurance from a third party to cover liabilities on its balance sheet(usual process). This was not specified clearly enough in the RFP, so Rafale has only included the warranty cost for the 18 aircrafts that they would manufacture in France and left out the rest for HAL. HAL was willing to warranty what it manufactured (for an additional cost) but IAF has suffered through this setup for long where OEM is off the hook for even the manufacturing defects. OEM in such a situation charges as it pleases for every little issue/problem since HAL obviously will not be in the position to fix anything without OEM assistance and validation. Accepting additional costs in this case too would have been violation of the DPP and may have put the Rafale's L1 status into question like you mentioned in your post.

Only option left was to cancel the deal.

When ACM Dhanoa say's we are wiser now and the new RFP will not have same issues as previous MRCA RFP, that is what he means. The new RFPs would have more clarity and more flexibility for CNC to solve issues like that. IAF would not go for and have never gone for in the past, for a large purchase without HAL manufacturing bulk of them. IAF knows it'll be too costly and too risky to go without HAL.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 15 Oct 2018 23:17

Katare wrote: HAL was supposed to build the Rafale aircraft, Reliance is going to build a few parts for a business jet and later for Rafale aircrafts to meet the offset obligation. HAL was slotted to be prime integrator while Reliance would at best be a tire 2 component supplier. The Reliance deal would probably have happened even if the HAL was building the aircrafts in India under original 126 contract. Neither today nor even in a decade would reliance be anywhere near the capability to assemble and test certify an ultra modern aircraft like Rafale.

I have to point out that while the highlighted part is true it does not throw adequate light on the ground reality. The manufacture of Falcon part will be a DRAL which is a 51:49 JV between Dassault and ADAG.

If the JV where to get additional business even including assembling and certifying Rafale it will not be lacking in capability or experience. The presence of Dassault as a 49% partner is a garuntee of both.

Similar is the case with the previously posted L&T's JV with MBDA for missiles where what is lacking in L&T's capability and experience will more than be made up by its 49% partner for the project i.e MBDA.

Neither ADAG nor L&T are expected to execute projects on their own.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15567
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 16 Oct 2018 02:52

Pankajs, I know you mean well, but L&T is hardly inexperienced in aerospace and defense. If it can make pressure hulls for nuclear submarines or nuclear reactors, design and develop all sorts of electro-mechanical systems along with DRDO, setting up a missile line is hardly a deal breaker for them. They are arguably Indias leading private sector defense firm and along with TATA SED, the only other firm the DRDO really trusts with complex programs across multiple services domains.


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15567
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 16 Oct 2018 03:03

Note while Godrej and Boyce manufactures precision parts and Brahmos airframe components, L&T is in a different category altogether because they do product development as well.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6941
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Indranil » 16 Oct 2018 04:33

L&T = ADAG is only true in make-believe world!


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36029
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby SaiK » 16 Oct 2018 07:31

Dassault to deliver Rafale fighter jets to India from 2019: CEO

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/dassau ... 227175.cms

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 966
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby yensoy » 16 Oct 2018 08:14

We should learn from the Chinese.

We should have asked Dassault to form a JV with HAL specifically to produce the Rafale jets for the next 8 years or so, supply parts till retirement and work on a future plan to stay relevant/afloat after the initial production phase.

That way Dassault would have skin in the game financially, and would not have wiggle room to get out of guarantees (it will be their JV after all), HAL would have been mollified, and if we were really smart we would be able to get some tech out of the venture.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3582
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 16 Oct 2018 08:28

yensoy wrote:We should learn from the Chinese.

We should have asked Dassault to form a JV with HAL specifically to produce the Rafale jets for the next 8 years or so, supply parts till retirement and work on a future plan to stay relevant/afloat after the initial production phase.

That way Dassault would have skin in the game financially, and would not have wiggle room to get out of guarantees (it will be their JV after all), HAL would have been mollified, and if we were really smart we would be able to get some tech out of the venture.


You are forgetting something, we never had (nor we have
It now) money to afford all those Rafale. Other than that its a good proposal. But we had no such model previously in DPP, as far as my understanding goes.

The Strategic Partner Model is precisely trying to do this now in new DPP. I am not quite sure MMRCA 2 RFI already has specified SP model, but we likely will see a JV with SP for MMRCA 2 IMO.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17671
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 16 Oct 2018 09:51

Rafale row: Caught in a chimera of political ambitions, Rahul Gandhi's hosanna on HAL ignores UPA's damning report on PSU





Rafale row: Caught in a chimera of political ambitions, Rahul Gandhi's hosanna on HAL ignores UPA's damning report on PSU
India Sreemoy Talukdar, Oct 15, 2018

In a recent blog on Rafale controversy, Arun Jaitley had criticised Rahul Gandhi for being economical with the truth. The Union finance minister called his strategy “simple”, which is to “concoct a lie and repeat it as many times”. Jaitley pointed out that Rahul had not answered his questions on the issue and posited that “in mature democracies those who rely on falsehood are considered unfit for public life.”

Rahul obviously hasn’t paid any attention to Jaitley’s criticism. The Congress president evidently believes that it is not his sacred duty to uphold the sanctity of political discourse. He perhaps detects in Jaitley’s reaction a touch of panic in failing to counter his narrative. Congress’ in-house ‘data scientists’ may have told him that ‘Rafale fire’ is catching on. Rahul sees an opportunity here and has widened the ambit of his disruptive politics to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) — the PSU at the centre of Rafale row — to seal his ‘advantage’.

Put in this context, Rahul’s gaslighting on HAL and his Saturday afternoon tamasha at Minsk Square in Bengaluru near the HAL headquarters becomes easier to understand. However, a larger question needs to be asked here. At what point, exactly, do we stop ignoring or justifying his falsehoods as ‘political ploy’ and demand some accountability from the dynast? This question assumes importance because Rahul has by and large escaped media scrutiny despite spreading relentless canards on Rafale. He enjoys a license denied to his peers.

There is no dearth of media attempts to fact-check prime minister’s speeches, as it should be in a democracy. (See here or here). Rahul is Congress president and the 'PM-designate'. He is angling for the post and hopes to succeed Modi in 2019. He and his words deserve to be taken in all seriousness.

We, therefore, note with worry Rahul’s callous disregard for facts during the “interaction” with a few current and retired HAL employees, his unstinting faith in a bloated socialist state and his mischievous attempts to sow seeds of discord within the PSU. What makes Rahul’s position even more untenable is that he isn’t heading an untested outfit but India’s oldest political party that has been in power for six decades since Independence and is chiefly responsible for the predicament of our public institutions.


Rahul described HAL as a “strategic asset in aerospace”, claimed that work done by it for the country was “tremendous”, and added that “the country owed debt to it for ‘protecting us’ and creating a scientific vision (whatever that means)”. The Gandhi scion also promised HAL employees (a few had turned up defying an official memo along with some retired workers) that “when we come to power, we will do it more aggressively.” By “it” he meant making HAL “more effective”, perhaps because Congress had never got the chance earlier to do so.

Among other things, Rahul said: “A senior government official claimed that HAL does not have the capacity to build Rafale Jets. I want to ask, what about the person who got the contract? What sort of experience does Anil Ambani have? If somebody thinks that they will build their future on your (HAL) graveyard, I will not allow it. I will stand with you all.”

Never one to hold back on rhetoric, the Congress president ranked HAL among “temples of modern India” which he claimed “are being attacked and destroyed” and thundered that “we cannot allow it to be done.” Addressing the workers, he said: “Rafale is your right."

Soon after Rahul’s “interaction”, HAL released a statement to the media denouncing the “politicization” of its employees. It pointed out that NDA government has extended “full-fledged support (to HAL), having placed supply orders of over Rs 27,340 crore during the 2014-18 period by recognising its premier position.”

HAL’s statement added that “towards improvement and upgradation of infrastructure, including ramping up of production facilities, funding to the tune of Rs 7,800 crore was sanctioned during the period… Today’s attempt at politicisation of the employees is a fad and regrettable development and will be detrimental to the interest of the organisation, its employees as well as national security.”

Before we delve into Rahul’s other inaccuracies, distortions and practical jokes that he sprang on us on Saturday, let us be clear on one aspect. HAL was never in contention to “produce Rafale”. Not in UPA’s time, not now. Amid all obfuscations scripted by the Congress, the fact remains that UPA never signed the deal with Dassault on Rafale. There was no deal on the table. UPA prevaricated, stalled, sat on negotiations and in February 2014, shortly before being voted out of office, then defence minister AK Antony had admitted that financial condition of the government was not good and “there is no money for this (deal).”

As far as the deal scripted by NDA is concerned, the agreement is simple. Dassault and Dassault alone will produce the fighter jets and India will take shipment of two squadrons of 36 fighter aircraft in ‘fly-away’ condition. Anil Ambani’s Reliance ADAG has entered into a joint venture with Dassault and DRAL (the JV) will serve only 10 percent of the total offset liability of Dassault. The French manufacturer is on talks with “hundred Indian companies” to meet its offset obligations.

So, as Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies fellow Abhijit Iyer-Mitra points out, “The final negotiated contract is for offsets of industrial defence goods, not an agreement to co-produce planes, which is HAL’s only competence (sic). The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) reportedly gets Rs 9,000 crore worth of offset work from Dassault, while Reliance is simply the biggest, not only, beneficiary of the remaining Rs 21,000 crore.” (See Sandeep Unnithan’s piece in India Today here for a complete break-up of the offset contract piece.

This nails Rahul’s falsehood about HAL being “denied” the chance to “build Rafale” by Reliance. As for why Reliance and not HAL, it has been repeatedly pointed out by the Indian government, French government and Dassault that the decision to choose Reliance as a JV partner for dealing a portion of offset contracts was Dassault’s alone.

The key question is, why did Dassault tie-up with Reliance ADAG instead of HAL to form a JV that will deal with offset obligations. We get a hint from Dassault CEO Eric Trappier’s comments when AFP asked him the question. He replied: “Dassault Aviation decided to establish a long-term presence in India through DRAL, a joint enterprise in which governance is provided by an Indian Chief Executive Officer and a French Chief Operating Officer. Dassault Aviation therefore exercises technical and industrial control over the operations, applying its standards and its flexibility.”

In other words, Dassault tied up with a private firm instead of HAL because it will be easier for it to “exercise technical and industrial control over the operations, applying its standards and its flexibility” which may not be possible in case of state-run HAL which is notorious for cost-overruns, poor quality control, slack work culture and lack of accountability — in short, all symptoms of a government monopoly.

This is as far as the French can go. But let’s assume that Dassault chief is bluffing, and Rahul is speaking the truth about HAL being a “strategic asset”. It is worth taking a look at the track record of India’s premier state-run aerospace company.

London-based Financial Times had reported in 2011 quoting a leaked cable from Timothy Roemer, US ambassador to Delhi, that “the potential for HAL to successfully partner with US firms on a truly advanced aircraft remains untested and suspect”, when Boeing and Lockheed Martin were in contention to supply New Delhi with 126 fighter jets. Leaked by Wikileaks, the cable quoted Roemer, who had just visited HAL’s Bangalore plant in February 2010, as saying, that India’s aviation industry is “two to three decades behind the United States and other western nations”.

In 2015, US aviation major Boeing severed a contract with HAL for component supplies after giving the state-run company “repeated reminders” on its “poor quality” of production. As the Financial Express report points out, “Boeing has over the last few years shifted its component sourcing requirements in India to private companies — Tata Group, Dynamatic Technologies, Rossell Techsys and others.” Strategic asset indeed.

HAL, which still enjoys a monopoly which entities like BSNL or MTNL did before the telecom sector was opened up, has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines much to IAF’s annoyance. It failed to produce the indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas on time and “delivered only six of these supersonic jets to the IAF, missing its target of supplying 20 aircraft by the end of the year’s first quarter”, according to a report in Hindustan Times. The report quoted a source as saying “We are not getting as many jets as we would like. By now the first Tejas squadron should have inducted 20 planes.”

Similar delays have been witnessed in HAL’s rolling out of Sukhoi which is running at least three years behind schedule, according to a report in Indian Express. It says HAL’s scheduled delivery of the last of a set of 140 Russian-origin fighters by March 2017 has now been pushed to March 2020. HAL was contracted to produce 140, is yet to produce 33 and apparently the PSU “has directly procured some aircraft from Russia and delivered them to the IAF to bridge the gap.” It is not known whether Rahul Gandhi is aware of, or cares for these facts.

Even when HAL has produced what it is mandated to do, questions have been raised on its production quality. In 2015, for instance, a Hawk advanced jet trainer went down in Odisha and focus shifted to HAL’s manufacturing of the engine. As Times of India points out in a report, “HAL is tasked with manufacturing 99 of the 123 Hawks ordered from BAE Systems, with transfer of technology, in the overall AJT project already worth well over Rs 16,000 crore till now. But the entire endeavor has been marred by politico-bureaucratic apathy, poor long-term planning, flawed multiple contracts and delayed delivery schedules.”

So why is HAL is in such a mess? As defence analyst Dinesh Kumar writes in Sunday Guardian, “HAL’s record has been one of long delays, unkept promises and enormous costs. It has been a story of so much effort, so little delivery and hardly any accountability, and that too at the cost of compromising, if not altogether endangering, the airpower dimension of national security.”

Its delays in delivery, poor quality control and resultant flaws in products have hampered IAF’s operational capability and forced it to continue operating antiquated equipment that should have been grounded. This inevitably results in frequent crashes. HAL has over the years faced some serious allegations such as alleged fitting of second-hand engines in Sukhois. A 2017 report in Deccan Chronicle points out that “fitment of Cat 2 (category B) or secondhand engines into brand new Sukhoi 30 MKIs was done at HAL facility at Nashik “without the knowledge and approval of the defence ministry.”

Was Rahul unaware of the truth about HAL? Writing in Firstpost, Yatish Yadav refers to the minutes of a meeting pertaining to the visit of then minister of state for defence Jitendra Singh to HAL’s Sukhoi engine division at Koraput in May 2013 when UPA was negotiating with France to purchase 126 Rafale fighter jets. According to the confidential UPA report, HAL’s Koraput unit could produce only four of 34 engines before 31 March, 2013, because of “Insufficient number of production lines, inadequate floor space and lack of a skilled/trained workforce at HAL (Koraput)…” The report goes on to say “there is also a shortage of adequate hangar space to keep engines and it was observed that the engines awaiting induction are kept in open space, which in the long run will have serious flight safety ramifications.”

In another report, Yatish also points out how the UPA ignored reforms in the PSU. In 2012, for instance, a joint quality audit revealed that the defence public sector undertaking was “in dire need of government support.” Why didn’t Rahul take care of the ‘temple’?


Responding to Rahul’s allegations, government sources have pointed out that NDA has given orders worth Rs 22,000 crore every year to HAL. During UPA regime from 2004-14, HAL received Rs 10,000 crore per year worth of orders. If Rahul is so concerned about HAL, why did his government fail to come to its aid, sort out its chronic issues and flood it with orders? Why couldn’t the Congress seal a deal with France to let HAL produce Rafale?

These are legitimate questions. These have been asked before and might be asked of Rahul again. That doesn’t mean the Gandhi scion will stop gaslighting on Rafale or HAL. While the Congress president is entitled to adopt a political strategy of his choice, the larger questions remain. Can a leader bluff his way to power? What price democracy?


Oct 15, 2018

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17671
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 16 Oct 2018 10:58

twitter

Fact check for ⁦@RahulGandhi⁩: Anil Ambani’s Reliance to get only 3% (Rs 900 crore) of Rs 30,000 crore offsets for Falcon biz jets that come as part of #RafaleDeal. DRDO to get the bulk. #HAL also part of dozens of vendors to get offset orders



Reliance Defence to get 3% of Rs 30,000 crore offset


By Manu Pubby, Oct 15, 2018

Reliance Defence to get 3% of Rs 30,000 crore offset


Reliance Defence could get just over 3% of the Rs 30,000-crore


The joint venture, Dassault Reliance Aviation Limited(DRAL), will see an investment capped at euro;100 million (Rs 850 crore) for setting up a plant to manufacture parts for Falcon executive jets, ET has learnt.

Additionally, a smaller investment would be made for a joint venture with avionics and radar manufacturer Thales, which is also setting up an assembly plant for radars adjacent to the DRAL complex in Nagpur, ET has been informed.

Officials pointed out that offsets for are divided into four parts between Dassault (the integrator), Thales (radars and avionics), Safran (engines and electronics) and MBDA (weapons). Out of the total commitment of Rs 30,000 crore, Dassault Aviation has to invest in offsets to the tune of Rs 6,500 crore, according to Air Marshal R Nambiar, deputy chief of air staff till last month.

Dassault Aviation chief Eric Trappier has now come on record to say that its joint venture with Reliance Defence is geared towards meeting about 10% of this offset obligation for the Rafale fighter jet deal.

Dassault Aviation decided to set up DRAL joint venture with Reliance and build a plant in Nagpur, which should enable us to meet about 10% of the offset obligations. We are in negotiations with about a hundred Indian companies and partnerships have already been concluded with about thirty of them,” the executive said in an interview to AFP.

ET has learnt that though the offset plans have not been formalised and presented to the government yet, there is still time as per the policy till October 2019 to share details with the ministry — the share of offsets for Reliance Defence in the deal could be capped at about 3% of the total offsets.



pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 16 Oct 2018 11:44

Karan M wrote:Pankajs, I know you mean well, but L&T is hardly inexperienced in aerospace and defense. If it can make pressure hulls for nuclear submarines or nuclear reactors, design and develop all sorts of electro-mechanical systems along with DRDO, setting up a missile line is hardly a deal breaker for them. They are arguably Indias leading private sector defense firm and along with TATA SED, the only other firm the DRDO really trusts with complex programs across multiple services domains.

There are 2 points that I would make on experience and inexperience.

1. First is a repeat of what I had written earlier. It is not ADAG that will be building the Air component or futures orders of Rafale but DRAL. What is DRAL? It is a 51:49 JV between ADAG and Dassault . This JV is not simply a TOT from Dassault to ADAG like in the case of Sukhoi to HAL but an almost equal partnership between Dassault and ADAG where Dassault is the OEM! The only better assurance would have been Dassault executing the project via its 100% subsidiary setup in India. This is as good an assurance of quality and experience as one can get.

The question of experience or inexperience rises ONLY when one is fixated on ADAG. So while ADAG has ZERO experience in building even a airworthy nut and bolt, the DRAL is uniquely qualified for the project at hand.

Same with the L&T MBDA JV. It is not L&T that will be executing the order but the JV.

2. Plan, Plant, Tooling, experience, etc can be bought at the right price if one has a willing partner and enough funding. This is apparent in the present case.

Here too ADAG has a willing partner which will supply the Plan, Plant, tooling, experience, etc.

While L&T has adequate experience is defense and aerospace in other areas, when it comes to core design/technology in Air to Air missile what is its expertise or experience? ZERO. It simply does not have the core design and technology competency in this segment. This is not to belittle L&T or their experience but facts are facts. For the Gun tender too they had to go to Korea to get up to speed.

To summarize,
a. L&T does not have the core technology or design just as ADAG does not. In both case the core design, technology, etc will be supplied by the partner.
b. L&T has substantial project management/process/execution/manufacturing experience in the defense sector that ADAG does not have at least not in the defense sector that comes with its own set of challenges. That will be taken care of by Dassault for DRAL and if ADAG is so inclined, it can hire talents of its own with prior "defense and aerospace" experience from very same L&T, Tata, Mahindra, etc.

If we can differentiate between "Core design/tech" and "management/process/execution/manufacturing" experience we will notice that both L&T and ADAG are on equal footing wrt the 1st while the 2nd can almost always be bought for a price in most fields including defense and aerospace.

BUT notice here even that is not required! The OEM is an almost equal partner in the project. The prior experience in "setting/executing" this "complex program" will come to the JV from the OEM!

Added Later: Think of this another way.

Scenario 1: If L&T or ADAG where handed over a project in defense sector to "develop and execute" on their own, I would bet on L&T vs ADAG 10:1. Prior "development and execution" experience matters 100%. There is simply no competition. L&T will win hands down.

Scenario 2: If L&T or ADAG where handed over the production of a foreign sources project within a framework similar to Su-30 MKI, my bet would be on L&T vs ADAG 2:1. Prior "development and execution" experience matters but not 100%. L&T will still win BUT the gap is not as wide as folks imagine. Execution is far less challenging than development and in many fields for "prior experience" firms routinely "hire or contract experience" from the market. I am not stating anything new or unique here. This is how capitalism works.

Scenario 3: If L&T or ADAG where to implement the current Rafale offset in the current JV structure, I wouldn't take any bet because the chances of success of the JV/project would be 1:1 i.e. No advantage to L&T or Tata over ADAG. Prior "development and execution" experience matters 100% BUT of the OEM's. Either JV's will get the job done without doubt with the OEM's being 49% stake holders.

The current setup mirrors the 3rd scenario. Don't fixate on ADAG or L&T but focus on the entity that has to deliver, in this case the respective JV's.

There is NO claim of ADAG == L&T BUT most definitely the claim being made of ADAG+Dassault [51:49] == L&T+Dassault [51:49] where L&T is the placeholder any entity.

Of course, that still leaves one last question but I will end this post here.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15567
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 16 Oct 2018 16:29

pankajs wrote:
Karan M wrote:Pankajs, I know you mean well, but L&T is hardly inexperienced in aerospace and defense. If it can make pressure hulls for nuclear submarines or nuclear reactors, design and develop all sorts of electro-mechanical systems along with DRDO, setting up a missile line is hardly a deal breaker for them. They are arguably Indias leading private sector defense firm and along with TATA SED, the only other firm the DRDO really trusts with complex programs across multiple services domains.

There are 2 points that I would make on experience and inexperience.

1. First is a repeat of what I had written earlier. It is not ADAG that will be building the Air component or futures orders of Rafale but DRAL. What is DRAL? It is a 51:49 JV between ADAG and Dassault . This JV is not simply a TOT from Dassault to ADAG like in the case of Sukhoi to HAL but an almost equal partnership between Dassault and ADAG where Dassault is the OEM! The only better assurance would have been Dassault executing the project via its 100% subsidiary setup in India. This is as good an assurance of quality and experience as one can get.

The question of experience or inexperience rises ONLY when one is fixated on ADAG. So while ADAG has ZERO experience in building even a airworthy nut and bolt, the DRAL is uniquely qualified for the project at hand.


What you are completely ignoring is that in ANY firm, the quality provided depends on the partners experience. Just Dassault providing some guarantee is paper talk at this point because DRAL has not done anything for Rafale. If DRAL has to provide stuff for Falcon, that's Dassaults headache, not ours.

But if its for Rafale or an Indian defence program, the GOI will and must and should put in strict rules and regulations to ensure that firms which work in the domain have a minimum threshold of capability.

This is how it is done for all programs with strict deadlines (not long in gestation R&D ones).

Same with the L&T MBDA JV. It is not L&T that will be executing the order but the JV.

2. Plan, Plant, Tooling, experience, etc can be bought at the right price if one has a willing partner and enough funding. This is apparent in the present case.

Here too ADAG has a willing partner which will supply the Plan, Plant, tooling, experience, etc.


I wonder whether you are even thinking your arguments through. Do you seriously think aerospace and defense is just a question of throwing some money around and getting plan, plant, tooling and experience? And that companies with a Heavy Engineering background dont have an advantage in delivering this?

What miracle can DRAL do, if its local partners are incompetent? In which case the risk they are taking is not merely theirs, but India is also held beholden if their risk assessment is not spot on.

First, companies which have worked on actual product development have a huge advantage vs those that have not.
Second, companies which have a history of product delivery and manufacturing have a huge advantage.

DRAL does not meet either of the above criteria, its a greenfield venture with one of the partners being completely a novice in the arena, and it will take time to demonstrate any spurs in the field.

While L&T has adequate experience is defense and aerospace in other areas, when it comes to core design/technology in Air to Air missile what is its expertise or experience? ZERO. It simply does not have the core design and technology competency in this segment. This is not to belittle L&T or their experience but facts are facts. For the Gun tender too they had to go to Korea to get up to speed.


Your statements are completely wrong and have no relation whatsoever to actual facts. Seriously, why don't you even read up on the topic at hand before making such claims and lowering the quality of discourse on local programs in BRF?

Can you tell us what core technology exists in Air to Air missiles which is NOT common to other missile programs like the Akash and its derivatives? Do you understand what the current generation AAMs have in terms of propulsion, airframes, sensors and how closely they are tied to other programs such as SAMs and even other kinds of missiles.

Here is a quick primer:

DRDO's Prithvi Missile systems FCS has been used in Brahmos. Akash's distributed C3I has been used in Brahmos. The technology which was developed for Akash including its onboard guidance and warhead technology, never mind all the algorithms used to develop its performance against various classes of targets were used to develop the Astra AAM. Yes, the same Astra which is undergoing current trials and is hopefully on the verge of induction.

L&T designed and developed several systems for the Akash. Do you think this means that their experience with regards to AAMs is zero? If so, congratulations, you have just negated the entire reason for the existence of BRF. The RCI and DRDL should drop everything they are doing, because clearly having used the very same partners and experience they gained via the Akash and Trishul, to develop the Astra and QRSAM, they have sold us all a fake bill of goods!

http://www.lntmbda.com/about-us/leadership/j-d-patil/
Mr. Patil has spearheaded the company’s foray in the Defence sector since the inception of this segment in L&T; about 15 years ahead of the opening up of Defence Production for participation by Private Companies in 2001 (licensing it in 2002). He led the development efforts for the first orders for weapon delivery systems from DRDO for missiles under IGMDP. His responsibilities & contribution included Conceptualization, Design, Development, Production, System Integration, Qualification & Firing trials, and Through Life Support ofground weapon delivery and Engineering Systems for missile programmes.

Amongst Mr. Patil’s most notable achievements, is the order for the K9 Tracked SP Artillery Gun system jointly developed by L&T with a foreign collaborator, the PINAKA Multi Barrel Rocket Launchers, Akash Missile propulsion airframes & Missile Launchers, and setting up the VLF communication facility for the Armed Forces.


Similarly, L&T claims 50% localization of the K-9 -do you think that happened in a vacuum and any other firm bar TATA SED could just jump into this level of indigenization as L&T has? Go look up what they did for the IGMDP launchers and correlate to the work required for large artillery. L&T is an electro-hydraulic specialist with a long history of manufacturing prowess. For them, the K-9 was but a natural extension, and FYI, they even developed and fielded Arjun based bridging equipment based on a DRDO proposal. The expertise has long since existed for them to take up on a K-9 level program and deliver quickly.

Lets be rational.

The handful of true product design and manufacturing firms like L&T have spent decades in working with DRDO to develop capabilities that make them far superior to any greenfield DRAL kind of set up.

To summarize,
a. L&T does not have the core technology or design just as ADAG does not. In both case the core design, technology, etc will be supplied by the partner.


Irrelevant because this is an assembly line which does not require L&T to put in its core design and technology. And where it counts i.e. production, L&T already has a rich history of successful contribution.

b. L&T has substantial project management/process/execution/manufacturing experience in the defense sector that ADAG does not have at least not in the defense sector that comes with its own set of challenges. That will be taken care of by Dassault for DRAL and if ADAG is so inclined, it can hire talents of its own with prior "defense and aerospace" experience from very same L&T, Tata, Mahindra, etc.


This is completely mistaken, as if all that's required to set up something successful is a handful of Dassault or "insert foreign name guys" to come to India, and hire a handful of folks and all will be well.
This is the sort of thinking that has led to babus in the MOD salivating over mythical TOT and how Dassault will kickstart Indian aerospace as versus the local LCA.

If we can differentiate between "Core design/tech" and "management/process/execution/manufacturing" experience we will notice that both L&T and ADAG are on equal footing wrt the 1st while the 2nd can almost always be bought for a price in most fields including defense and aerospace.


Completely wrong. There is no equivalence between L&T and ADAG in the former, as L&T is miles ahead in terms of having delivered on its own and not being cent-per-cent reliant on some foreign vendor for each and every aspect of development and design work. Which also means that L&T can expand on its own experience and ramp up fast. As regards the second, India is hardly a country where vast pools of trained manpower are rapidly available for high-specialization fields or can be rapidly acquired. Kindly spend some time talking to people in the actual domain to understand the differences between A&D and other domains.

BUT notice here even that is not required! The OEM is an almost equal partner in the project. The prior experience in "setting/executing" this "complex program" will come to the JV from the OEM!


I dont know whether to laugh and cry at the faith being displayed in some foreign OEM which will automatically make up for partner inexperience in the domain. All I can say is I am glad DRAL is only doing build to print and not actually assembling the Rafale!

Added Later: Think of this another way.

Scenario 1: If L&T or ADAG where handed over a project in defense sector to "develop and execute" on their own, I would bet on L&T vs ADAG 10:1. Prior "development and execution" experience matters 100%. There is simply no competition. L&T will win hands down.


Yes.

Scenario 2: If L&T or ADAG where handed over the production of a foreign sources project within a framework similar to Su-30 MKI, my bet would be on L&T vs ADAG 2:1. Prior "development and execution" experience matters but not 100%. L&T will still win BUT the gap is not as wide as folks imagine. Execution is far less challenging than development and in many fields for "prior experience" firms routinely "hire or contract experience" from the market. I am not stating anything new or unique here. This is how capitalism works.


Sorry, this is NOT true because India is not some magical developed nation wherein organizational culture and actual experience no longef matter.
The actual problems involved in actual manufacturing and delivering on complex programs with short timelines are an order of magnitude different from setting up an automotive assembly line.

Scenario 3: If L&T or ADAG where to implement the current Rafale offset in the current JV structure, I wouldn't take any bet because the chances of success of the JV/project would be 1:1 i.e. No advantage to L&T or Tata over ADAG. Prior "development and execution" experience matters 100% BUT of the OEM's. Either JV's will get the job done without doubt with the OEM's being 49% stake holders.

The current setup mirrors the 3rd scenario. Don't fixate on ADAG or L&T but focus on the entity that has to deliver, in this case the respective JV's.

There is NO claim of ADAG == L&T BUT most definitely the claim being made of ADAG+Dassault [51:49] == L&T+Dassault [51:49] where L&T is the placeholder any entity.

Of course, that still leaves one last question but I will end this post here.


The basic issue is that you think Dassault is some magic entity which can somehow swing anything even if the local partner is completely unaware or a new setup. Things are anything but that simple.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 16 Oct 2018 17:05

Karan M wrote:
pankajs wrote:There are 2 points that I would make on experience and inexperience.

1. First is a repeat of what I had written earlier. It is not ADAG that will be building the Air component or futures orders of Rafale but DRAL. What is DRAL? It is a 51:49 JV between ADAG and Dassault . This JV is not simply a TOT from Dassault to ADAG like in the case of Sukhoi to HAL but an almost equal partnership between Dassault and ADAG where Dassault is the OEM! The only better assurance would have been Dassault executing the project via its 100% subsidiary setup in India. This is as good an assurance of quality and experience as one can get.

The question of experience or inexperience rises ONLY when one is fixated on ADAG. So while ADAG has ZERO experience in building even a airworthy nut and bolt, the DRAL is uniquely qualified for the project at hand.


What you are completely ignoring is that in ANY firm, the quality provided depends on the partners experience. Just Dassault providing some guarantee is paper talk at this point because DRAL has not done anything for Rafale. If DRAL has to provide stuff for Falcon, that's Dassaults headache, not ours.

But if its for Rafale or an Indian defence program, the GOI will and must and should put in strict rules and regulations to ensure that firms which work in the domain have a minimum threshold of capability.

This is how it is done for all programs with strict deadlines (not long in gestation R&D ones).

Just to address this first point ...

I couldn't agree with you MORE on the Experience or more specifically a minimum experience but my POV is different. How does this DRAL JV work out on this criteria? The work, whether for falcon or future Rafale will be executed by DRAL JV and not ADAG.

This DRAL is a JV between ADAG and Dassault with a 51:49 ownership split. Dassault is the Original equipment manufactures i.e It is its design, it has more experience in building Rafale than any entity in the world. I dare stress that I haven't heard anyone else having built even a single Rafale fighter BUT Dassault.

Is a 49% partner, who also happens to the THE OEM not good enough or does it not meet any logical "minimum threshold of capability" to build Falcon parts for its own use or later Rafale for India? That would be truly astonishing!

Now if Rafale where to be manufactured in India under the JV.
1. No R&D involved.
2. Tech/Design > Dassault would bring in the technology, design and the related aspects.
3. Setup for execution > Dassault would design the plant, assembly line, the process, the quality assurance, the tooling and the training.
4. Execution > Dassault would execute along side ADAG.

So lets us replace ADAG with L&T just to check what extra L&T brings to the table that DRAL lacks with ADAG as 51% partner.
1. R&D - Not required.
2. Tech/Design - Dassault supplied.
3. Setup for execution - Dassault supplied.
4. Execution > Dassault would execute along side L&T instead of ADAG

Only at the execution stage will anything "possibly" change if we switch ADAG out in favor of L&T. Its prior experience in building ship and subs are of no use in this project. All the tech/design/assembly layout/tooling, etc will come courtesy the 49% partner to the project Dassault.

L&T will bring prior "execution experience" to the project in "complex assembly". That is the only "probable" advantage that a switch has in theory. To that I will posit the following.

1. ADAG can hire "execution" experience and my bet is from the same L&T and Tatas and Mahindras of the world. This happens all the time in corporate setups.

2. The 49% partner, which is the OEM, which has provided the tech/design and designed the assembly line, supplied the quality control knowledge, supplied the testing and validation know-how for bird is, which happens to the the ONLY entity in the whole world that has manufactured the bird till date, will be there for execution too.

This is not a ToT deal where the vendor is out of the loop after a TOT and a bit of hand holding.

3. L&T appointed personnel would require as much hand-holding as ADAG personnel on a process completely foreign to either.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 16 Oct 2018 17:34

Pardon my using several posts to address chunks of your post. I will address all points raised my you even ones where my lack of knowledge is on display.

Continuing the thread from my last post. This is not a TOT project but a Joint-Venture. That has to be foremost in our minds.
Karan M wrote:I wonder whether you are even thinking your arguments through. Do you seriously think aerospace and defense is just a question of throwing some money around and getting plan, plant, tooling and experience? And that companies with a Heavy Engineering background dont have an advantage in delivering this? {Not at all. Dassault, the OEM, will have all the advantage in delivering the bird. I don't doubt that for a second.}

What miracle can DRAL do, if its local partners are incompetent? In which case the risk they are taking is not merely theirs, but India is also held beholden if their risk assessment is not spot on.{No miracles. Dassault's commitment is all that is required. It can be seen in its 49% stake in DRAL. As detailed in my last post it will work on the project from assembly design, to tool supply, to quality control along side ADAG. Staff, whether ADAG or L&T will need training to pull their load.}

First, companies which have worked on actual product development have a huge advantage vs those that have not. {Dassult the OEM and 49% partner in the project. ADAG personnel will have to be trained just as L&T personnel will have to be trained.}
Second, companies which have a history of product delivery and manufacturing have a huge advantage.{Dassult the OEM and 49% partner in the project.}

DRAL does not meet either of the above criteria, its a greenfield venture with one of the partners being completely a novice in the arena, and it will take time to demonstrate any spurs in the field.{Dassault will have to hand hold any personnel that is to be inducted by its partners even if it is L&T with it varied and complex experience in other sub sectors of defense.}

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 16 Oct 2018 18:30

Karan M wrote:
While L&T has adequate experience is defense and aerospace in other areas, when it comes to core design/technology in Air to Air missile what is its expertise or experience? ZERO. It simply does not have the core design and technology competency in this segment. This is not to belittle L&T or their experience but facts are facts. For the Gun tender too they had to go to Korea to get up to speed.


Your statements are completely wrong and have no relation whatsoever to actual facts. Seriously, why don't you even read up on the topic at hand before making such claims and lowering the quality of discourse on local programs in BRF?

Can you tell us what core technology exists in Air to Air missiles which is NOT common to other missile programs like the Akash and its derivatives? Do you understand what the current generation AAMs have in terms of propulsion, airframes, sensors and how closely they are tied to other programs such as SAMs and even other kinds of missiles.

Here is a quick primer:

DRDO's Prithvi Missile systems FCS has been used in Brahmos. Akash's distributed C3I has been used in Brahmos. The technology which was developed for Akash including its onboard guidance and warhead technology, never mind all the algorithms used to develop its performance against various classes of targets were used to develop the Astra AAM. Yes, the same Astra which is undergoing current trials and is hopefully on the verge of induction.

L&T designed and developed several systems for the Akash. Do you think this means that their experience with regards to AAMs is zero? If so, congratulations, you have just negated the entire reason for the existence of BRF. The RCI and DRDL should drop everything they are doing, because clearly having used the very same partners and experience they gained via the Akash and Trishul, to develop the Astra and QRSAM, they have sold us all a fake bill of goods!

http://www.lntmbda.com/about-us/leadership/j-d-patil/
Mr. Patil has spearheaded the company’s foray in the Defence sector since the inception of this segment in L&T; about 15 years ahead of the opening up of Defence Production for participation by Private Companies in 2001 (licensing it in 2002). He led the development efforts for the first orders for weapon delivery systems from DRDO for missiles under IGMDP. His responsibilities & contribution included Conceptualization, Design, Development, Production, System Integration, Qualification & Firing trials, and Through Life Support ofground weapon delivery and Engineering Systems for missile programmes.

Amongst Mr. Patil’s most notable achievements, is the order for the K9 Tracked SP Artillery Gun system jointly developed by L&T with a foreign collaborator, the PINAKA Multi Barrel Rocket Launchers, Akash Missile propulsion airframes & Missile Launchers, and setting up the VLF communication facility for the Armed Forces.


Similarly, L&T claims 50% localization of the K-9 -do you think that happened in a vacuum and any other firm bar TATA SED could just jump into this level of indigenization as L&T has? Go look up what they did for the IGMDP launchers and correlate to the work required for large artillery. L&T is an electro-hydraulic specialist with a long history of manufacturing prowess. For them, the K-9 was but a natural extension, and FYI, they even developed and fielded Arjun based bridging equipment based on a DRDO proposal. The expertise has long since existed for them to take up on a K-9 level program and deliver quickly.

Lets be rational.

The handful of true product design and manufacturing firms like L&T have spent decades in working with DRDO to develop capabilities that make them far superior to any greenfield DRAL kind of set up.

Let me summarize my previous post quoted above.
1. On L&T, "core design/technology in Air to Air missile" it has "ZERO".
2. L&T "It simply does not have the core design and technology competency in this segment".

Now you stated in response.
1. L&T designed and developed several systems for the Akash. Do you think this means that their experience with regards to AAMs is zero?
2. The RCI and DRDL should drop everything they are doing, because clearly having used the very same partners and experience they gained via the Akash and Trishul, to develop the Astra and QRSAM, they have sold us all a fake bill of goods!
3. Mr. Patil has spearheaded the company’s foray in the Defence sector since the inception of this segment in L&T; about 15 years ahead of the opening up of Defence Production for participation by Private Companies in 2001 (licensing it in 2002). He led the development efforts for the first orders for weapon delivery systems from DRDO for missiles under IGMDP.
4. Amongst Mr. Patil’s most notable achievements, is the order for the K9 Tracked SP Artillery Gun system jointly developed by L&T with a foreign collaborator, the PINAKA Multi Barrel Rocket Launchers, Akash Missile propulsion airframes & Missile Launchers, and setting up the VLF communication facility for the Armed Forces.
5. Similarly, L&T claims 50% localization of the K-9 -do you think that happened in a vacuum and any other firm bar TATA SED could just jump into this level of indigenization as L&T has?

My comments.
1. My point was regards to "core design/technology" for "Air to Air" missile where "Core" from my pov was the "design" of the missile and the associated "technology" which I "presumed" was developed by DRDO labs and manufacturing was outsourced to vendors.

Now, after reading you post, I get the impression that while the "design" was DRDO labs the realization of the assemblies/sub-assemblies was a result of "co-development" with the vendor with multiple back and forth and multiple refinement.

In that case, I was clearly wrong and this wouldn't be the first.

2. Mr. Patils track record, per the blurb provided by you, both inside and outside DRDO supports my contention that experience is transferable and available for a committed and deep pocketed business.

3. On k-9, I don't explore more than what passes my feed unless compelled by circumstances like the present one.
https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... n/1159438/
Big boost for Make in India! L&T to start supply of K9 Vajra-T soon
The technology to develop the K-9 Vajra-T guns will be provided by the South Korean defence company, and out of the 100 that has been ordered, 90 will be completely developed by L&T in their Strategic Systems Complex at Talegaon near Pune in Maharashtra.
Note, Technology will be provided by SoKo and L&T will localize 50% of the guns.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/04 ... onths.html
India’s Fastest Deal: #MakeInIndia K-9 Guns To Start Deliveries In 11 Months
The deal envisages 50 per cent indigenous content. “(Of the 100 guns) 90 will be assembled in India. The first lot of 10 will be built in Korea with 80-to-90 per cent Korean content,” disclosed Hanwha Techwin CEO Shin Hyun-Woo at Friday’s signing ceremony with L&T.

<snip>

“We hope to deliver the first gun this financial year,” announced Jayant Patil, L&T’s head of Defence and Aerospace. His confidence stems from the “co-development” of a prototype for field trials within 18 months of the RFP being floated.

<snip>

The deal is being described as a “step higher than licensed production”. “It will be an Indian product made made in an Indian factory,” claimed the L&T executive.
Other details arr in the article.

K-9 was join-bid and "co-development" between L&T and SoKo firm. L&T claims that it is in a position to build the complete system in India but for the small lot size that does not make if feasible. There is no reason to doubt L&T on any of the above.

So far so good. But note the "co-development" along with the joint-bid. That pretty much means that L&T would be the best choice of K-9 even if it wasn't a joint bid.

In contrast, the Rafale was out and out Dassult bid without a local partner to start thus any decent partner is good enough for Dassault for a 49:51 partnership. L&T enjoys no special advantage over ADAG or Tatas or Mahindras in this specific instance except for it prior "experience" with "complex assembly" in other areas.

The DRAL JV would have sufficient experience in its 49% partner that is Dassault and the local partner would have to be trained even if it was L&T as per my thinking noted in the 1st post of the series.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 16 Oct 2018 19:04

Karan M wrote:The handful of true product design and manufacturing firms like L&T have spent decades in working with DRDO to develop capabilities that make them far superior to any greenfield DRAL kind of set up. {DRAL which has Dassult as a 49% partner is qualified to execute aerospace projects.}

To summarize,
a. L&T does not have the core technology or design just as ADAG does not. In both case the core design, technology, etc will be supplied by the partner.


Irrelevant because this is an assembly line which does not require L&T to put in its core design and technology. And where it counts i.e. production, L&T already has a rich history of successful contribution. {This is not a TOT or technology import but a Dassult anchored joint venture}

b. L&T has substantial project management/process/execution/manufacturing experience in the defense sector that ADAG does not have at least not in the defense sector that comes with its own set of challenges. That will be taken care of by Dassault for DRAL and if ADAG is so inclined, it can hire talents of its own with prior "defense and aerospace" experience from very same L&T, Tata, Mahindra, etc.


This is completely mistaken, as if all that's required to set up something successful is a handful of Dassault or "insert foreign name guys" to come to India, and hire a handful of folks and all will be well.
This is the sort of thinking that has led to babus in the MOD salivating over mythical TOT and how Dassault will kickstart Indian aerospace as versus the local LCA. {1. It is not just DRAL with ADAG but a list of vendors by some counts to be nearing 100 [Will change]. If this setup will not work with ADAG+100 others it will not work with L&T+100 others in kick starting Indian aerospace.}

If we can differentiate between "Core design/tech" and "management/process/execution/manufacturing" experience we will notice that both L&T and ADAG are on equal footing wrt the 1st while the 2nd can almost always be bought for a price in most fields including defense and aerospace.


Completely wrong. There is no equivalence between L&T and ADAG in the former, as L&T is miles ahead in terms of having delivered on its own and not being cent-per-cent reliant on some foreign vendor for each and every aspect of development and design work. Which also means that L&T can expand on its own experience and ramp up fast. As regards the second, India is hardly a country where vast pools of trained manpower are rapidly available for high-specialization fields or can be rapidly acquired. Kindly spend some time talking to people in the actual domain to understand the differences between A&D and other domains. {People with experience can be hired no matter how small a pool. Mr. Patil himself exemplified the same. I am not saying that he will migrate to ADAG just for this project but hires and contractors are available even if the pool is small and rest will be trained on the job.}

BUT notice here even that is not required! The OEM is an almost equal partner in the project. The prior experience in "setting/executing" this "complex program" will come to the JV from the OEM!


I dont know whether to laugh and cry at the faith being displayed in some foreign OEM which will automatically make up for partner inexperience in the domain. All I can say is I am glad DRAL is only doing build to print and not actually assembling the Rafale! {It is up to you if you want to laugh or cry but I don't believe any Indian has any experience working on Rafale and even "experienced" L&T folks will need to be re-trained by the Dassult. Why should t be different for ADAG people?

As far as faith in OEM is concerned, you can bet that 49% Dassult stake in DRAL gives me a lot of comfort.}

We have to think of DRAL and not ADAG. I have absolutely no confusion in my mind.

1. ADAG has ZERO in Aerospace. Have written it before will affirm this as many times as required.
2. DRAL, which is a 51:49 JV between ADAG and Dassult, does not lack experience so far as executing aerospace projects are concerned be it falcon parts, Rafale parts or Rafale assembly for that matter.

L&T has no experience working in Rafale and its manpower will have to be trained by Dassult. Same is the case with ADAG manpower very unlike K-9.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 16 Oct 2018 19:14

Karan M wrote:
Added Later: Think of this another way.

Scenario 1: If L&T or ADAG where handed over a project in defense sector to "develop and execute" on their own, I would bet on L&T vs ADAG 10:1. Prior "development and execution" experience matters 100%. There is simply no competition. L&T will win hands down.


Yes.

Scenario 2: If L&T or ADAG where handed over the production of a foreign sources project within a framework similar to Su-30 MKI, my bet would be on L&T vs ADAG 2:1. Prior "development and execution" experience matters but not 100%. L&T will still win BUT the gap is not as wide as folks imagine. Execution is far less challenging than development and in many fields for "prior experience" firms routinely "hire or contract experience" from the market. I am not stating anything new or unique here. This is how capitalism works.


Sorry, this is NOT true because India is not some magical developed nation wherein organizational culture and actual experience no longef matter.
The actual problems involved in actual manufacturing and delivering on complex programs with short timelines are an order of magnitude different from setting up an automotive assembly line.

Scenario 3: If L&T or ADAG where to implement the current Rafale offset in the current JV structure, I wouldn't take any bet because the chances of success of the JV/project would be 1:1 i.e. No advantage to L&T or Tata over ADAG. Prior "development and execution" experience matters 100% BUT of the OEM's. Either JV's will get the job done without doubt with the OEM's being 49% stake holders.

The current setup mirrors the 3rd scenario. Don't fixate on ADAG or L&T but focus on the entity that has to deliver, in this case the respective JV's.

There is NO claim of ADAG == L&T BUT most definitely the claim being made of ADAG+Dassault [51:49] == L&T+Dassault [51:49] where L&T is the placeholder any entity.

Of course, that still leaves one last question but I will end this post here.


The basic issue is that you think Dassault is some magic entity which can somehow swing anything even if the local partner is completely unaware or a new setup. Things are anything but that simple.

I don't think Dassult as an entity that has to work magic. It just has to deliver its part of the deal being a 49% partner in the JV.

Rest all points are covered in my first post of this series.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7266&p=2300417#p2300401

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3582
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 17 Oct 2018 00:32

You don't need a lot of experience to be a tier-II company making parts to print. All you need is a lot of money for Capex and for poaching good people from others. They can set-up a tier-2 company in short time. Especially when we are talking about Offset contracts which are served on silver platter, relatively speaking.

Its a different matter trying to set up a Tier-1 company. And there is no question of becoming an OEM even in couple of decades just from JVs and offset deals.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 17 Oct 2018 00:50

pankajs wrote:Just to address this first point ...

I couldn't agree with you MORE on the Experience or more specifically a minimum experience but my POV is different. How does this DRAL JV work out on this criteria? The work, whether for falcon or future Rafale will be executed by DRAL JV and not ADAG.

This DRAL is a JV between ADAG and Dassault with a 51:49 ownership split. Dassault is the Original equipment manufactures i.e It is its design, it has more experience in building Rafale than any entity in the world. I dare stress that I haven't heard anyone else having built even a single Rafale fighter BUT Dassault.

Is a 49% partner, who also happens to the THE OEM not good enough or does it not meet any logical "minimum threshold of capability" to build Falcon parts for its own use or later Rafale for India? That would be truly astonishing!

Now if Rafale where to be manufactured in India under the JV.
1. No R&D involved.
2. Tech/Design > Dassault would bring in the technology, design and the related aspects.
3. Setup for execution > Dassault would design the plant, assembly line, the process, the quality assurance, the tooling and the training.
4. Execution > Dassault would execute along side ADAG.

So lets us replace ADAG with L&T just to check what extra L&T brings to the table that DRAL lacks with ADAG as 51% partner.
1. R&D - Not required.
2. Tech/Design - Dassault supplied.
3. Setup for execution - Dassault supplied.
4. Execution > Dassault would execute along side L&T instead of ADAG

Only at the execution stage will anything "possibly" change if we switch ADAG out in favor of L&T. Its prior experience in building ship and subs are of no use in this project. All the tech/design/assembly layout/tooling, etc will come courtesy the 49% partner to the project Dassault.

L&T will bring prior "execution experience" to the project in "complex assembly". That is the only "probable" advantage that a switch has in theory. To that I will posit the following.

1. ADAG can hire "execution" experience and my bet is from the same L&T and Tatas and Mahindras of the world. This happens all the time in corporate setups.

2. The 49% partner, which is the OEM, which has provided the tech/design and designed the assembly line, supplied the quality control knowledge, supplied the testing and validation know-how for bird is, which happens to the the ONLY entity in the whole world that has manufactured the bird till date, will be there for execution too.

This is not a ToT deal where the vendor is out of the loop after a TOT and a bit of hand holding.

3. L&T appointed personnel would require as much hand-holding as ADAG personnel on a process completely foreign to either.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/gr ... ation-ceo/
AFP Dispatch “Rafale/India: JV with Reliance will deliver about 10% of overall offsets (Dassault Aviation CEO)”
In full compliance with this regulation, Dassault Aviation therefore decided to set up the DRAL joint venture with Reliance and build a plant in Nagpur, which should enable us to meet about 10% of these offset obligations. We are in negotiations with about a hundred Indian companies and partnerships have already been concluded with about thirty of them.
Points to note
1. DRAL will deliver about 10% of the overall offset.
2. Dassult will have ADAG and ~100 other partner vendors. I had pointed this out with regards DRAL/ADAG not being in the way of kick starting Aerospace eco-system.
2) Why did you choose Reliance over HAL as your Indian partner in the JV?

Eric Trappier: Dassault Aviation decided to establish a long-term presence in India through DRAL, a joint enterprise in which governance is provided by an Indian Chief Executive Officer and a French Chief Operating Officer. Dassault Aviation therefore exercises technical and industrial control over the operations, applying its standards and its flexibility. This JV will produce parts for the Falcon 2000 and Rafale. The choice of the Nagpur site, in central India, was dictated by the availability of land with direct access to an airport runway.
Again wrt my earlier posts note the following.
1. French [presumably a Dassault] Chief Operating Officer.
2. Dassault Aviation therefore exercises technical and industrial control over the operations, applying its standards and its flexibility.

When I wrote before how the Dassult would bootstrap and execute the project along side ADAG, I had not read this but just relied on the 49% state that Dassult has taken in the JV as an indicator of Dassult's commitment for the success of the project.

Here is the Dassult CEO confirming my speculation/deduction ... as clearly as could be stated "Dassault Aviation therefore exercises technical and industrial control over the operations, applying its standards and its flexibility."

Substitute "Execution" [my word] for "operation" [Dassult CEO's word].

Dassult would exercise "technical and industrial control over execution".

The first phase of the project involves building a temporary hangar to house the production tool and enable staff training to begin as rapidly as possible. This temporary hangar was completed in March 2018. Activities started on 18 April in the presence of senior executives from Dassault Aviation and the local authorities. We hired an Indian CEO, Mr. Sampathkumaran S. T., who has more than 20 years’ experience in the aeronautical industry. We have hired and trained Indian managers and workers. The first Falcon 2000 parts should roll off the line at the end of the year.
Note again ... Hired an Indian CEO with 20+ years of aeronautical industry.

As I have been saying nothing new here. This is how experience is acquired. A firm with a commitment and deep pocket will hire as much experience as it requires.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10435
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pankajs » 17 Oct 2018 01:10

JayS wrote:You don't need a lot of experience to be a tier-II company making parts to print. All you need is a lot of money for Capex and for poaching good people from others. They can set-up a tier-2 company in short time. Especially when we are talking about Offset contracts which are served on silver platter, relatively speaking.

Its a different matter trying to set up a Tier-1 company. And there is no question of becoming an OEM even in couple of decades just from JVs and offset deals.

This is what I was referring to in one of my previous post at the very end though I choose not to expand on it. My overall impression is that Karan M too is bothered for this very reason. If that is the case we are all in agreement on this point.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7266&p=2300489#p2300361
pankajs wrote:<snip>
Of course, that still leaves one last question but I will end this post here.
My concern from day one has been if ADAG sees this as just a way to rake in a few dollars then it does not make for a good partner on this project.

OTOH, ADAG can use this as a stepping stone to build a really strong foundation but I have my doubts. This is my only concern with the current setup.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat, mody and 33 guests