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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5846
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 17 Oct 2018 03:03

From Finance Minister Arun Jaitley...

https://twitter.com/arunjaitley/status/ ... 4510406662 ---> THE TRUTH: Rafale aircraft and its weaponry is not being manufactured in India at all, neither by Dassault or by any other private company. All 36 aircrafts and their weapons in a fully fly away and usable form will arrive in India. There are over 120 offset suppliers & not one.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5846
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 17 Oct 2018 03:09

So much for Rafale deal being 95% done by the UPA...video is from Feb 2014. BJP took power in May 2014.


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15562
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 17 Oct 2018 03:32

pankajs wrote:
Karan M wrote:
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,

I am getting the impression that you think that knowledge & production manufacturing experience is plug-and-play and can be transferred at a moments notice & with some money transfer, agreements signed etc.

It is ANYTHING but.

When you have a deal of this magnitude, the partner organizations capabilities come into play.

You are completely mistaken if you think that organizational culture is the same across firms & the quality of experience is easily transferable. It is NOT.

This is the reason a L&T delivers whereas a PSU can't. Why a PSU shipyard STILL delivers albeit at cost & time impact, whereas a smooth talking private shipyard can't forcing the IN to become skeptical of private players!

So, your point 1 completely ignores the fact that merely HIRING people is not enough, getting them to work as a team, in a setup that manages to pull everything together is completely different. Point 2 ignores the fact that the signing partner has NOT done anything of this scale elsewhere either (how many Rafale are being assembled elsewhere, if the DRAL set up had ultimately supplanted HAL) or HAS to stay restricted to basic stuff (e.g. airframe machining of low complexity, as versus making wing components and assembling them) which defeats the purpose of offsets creating a viable competitor or even supplier to HAL.
And point 3 is completely wrong because L&T has managers and workers who have been working on far more complex programs, have decades of organizational experience and FURTHERMORE, belong to a core engineering setup, where engineering is not an adjunct money making venture but the CORE business.
If DRAL fails, the US exec hired to run the show will go back, shaking his head about Indian workers & unsat conditions in our setup. L&T et al need GOI contracts to thrive & go out of their way to make things work!

You really really need to spend more time on the mil-forum to understand that merely signing agreements does diddly squat for actual capability. For instance, do you think Alpha's successful production run with IAI supplied kits for the Indian Armed Forces is the same as the manner in which Delhi based firms "set up" assembly for the WZT-3 or whatever ARV kits we got from Poland?

Former is set up by ex-head BEL R&D, whereas latter were set up by all sorts of "businessmen" looking at "opportunities in the thriving Indian military business". Now you can figure out who did what and what kind of job was amenable to each. Former has become a partner to DRDO, a mini-BEL, assembling & manufacturing complex pieces & kits from foreign OEMs without QA issues. Latter were importing ex-Warsaw pact junk, refurbishing it & supplying it to IA as new. Both were "assembling". But was it really the same?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15562
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 17 Oct 2018 03:42

pankajs wrote: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.


What is this JOINT VENTURE but a display of TOT wherein the more experienced side which has the complete design & production knowledge has to hand-hold a completely new set up, which has hitherto NEVER even manufactured a single product of its own? The "NEW manager of the BU" has but new workers, new staff, an entirely new line & a boss from an org which is bleeding red and wants quick results. Do you seriously think this is a great setup to deliver complex items over the short term?

I wouldn't even be surprised if the DRAL venture is given a quiet burial post this offsets business and Dassault goes scouting for new partners to handle more complex work , once they discover that IAF wants more & more needs to be done in a shorter timeframe.


Not at all. Dassault, the OEM, will have all the advantage in delivering the bird. I don't doubt that for a second.


Really? Did DCNS the OEM with so much experience magically deliver our localized Scorpenes double quick? What happened there?
If that's not what the DRAL venture was headed towards, why did we allow them to waste the offsets on some build-to-print facility with no future?

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.


What history does ADAG have of any load pulling whatsoever in whatever program they have done so far? Please explain how the ADAG organization has delivered on any complex program. Forget A&D, I am still awaiting any example which people trot out for the regular Reliance group stating "at least they have managerial competence" ..

Dassult the OEM and 49% partner in the project.


And the 51% is with an organization with no history of being involved in any defence program or delivery. Its a recipe for delay, and basically Dassault will have to do the heavy lifting. To what end?

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.


Err... the "hand holding" that will have to be done by Dassault with L&T will be a magnitude lesser than that with a DRAL.
There are people in L&T who can teach the Dassault program managers a thing or two about even more complex programs. The Arihant is no child's play for instance, that kind of experience is what L&T can draw on for its premier programs as it requires. DRAL has no options but to "scout" for talent, and so far, please look at ADAGs stellar business success rate and tell me, what does that tell you about what a smash up job has been done with investor capital so far.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15562
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 17 Oct 2018 03:59

pankajs wrote: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.


Please understand this, A&D in India is not a simple topic which anyone can grasp from news reports. Many of our GOI folks don't have the time or interest to parse the details, so blaming you for this would be pointless. But its important to understand how the R&D process works.

DRDO works with assorted partners in the private and public space. Depending on the nature & complexity of the tech, DRDO either develops it completely or thereabouts inhouse and transfers the tech or depends on the partners to pick up a portion or even do most of the work. It all depends on the nature of the system involved, the expenses (private partners will only spend so much) and the partners experience.

Now, take a look at the first generation of our missile computers. Most were completely designed by DRDO, programmed by DRDO, even built by DRDO. Over time, the hardware started getting assembled at PSUs, then private sector. Now a bunch of firms design computers to DRDO's specifications, using a mix of DRDO supplied & commercially available tech., with DRDO developing the software that goes into these systems, portions of which are again developed by partners.

So as you can see there is an evolution. Companies like L&T are PART of that evolution across multiple domains. They are truly PRIZED by DRDO because they put up with all the myriad delays and lack of profitability in partnering with Govt orgs at a time, when they could have just walked away.

Now, take a look at the L&T website. See that huge stabilization system for radars, all the way upto several tons. L&T is proud of doing that, and justifiably so, because as DRDO does the radar, the antenna mechanism & the complex trailer kit is from L&T. And they have helped DRDO with subsystems for other radars. Now, do you see how easy it is for L&T to actually segue into becoming a BEL type assembler and tomorrow a BEL equivalent, for radars by tieing up with European radar houses whilst ALSO working with DRDO.

So tell me, do you think this technology cross-pollination is as simple as you made it out to be. ZERO experience in missile A, while discounting MISSILE B and C etc, whereas the technologies and learning involved in B and C, lead to A.

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.


The point is decades of experience working in a setup which TOO is committed to working on these kind of products across the board.
http://www.lntmbda.com/about-us/leadership/j-d-patil/

This guy is a L&T insider, he grew from WITHIN the org, he was not parachuted into it.

Tell me, if L&T gets a large order tomorrow, who does it better, a guy who knows his org inside out, has handled similar programs or somebody hired from HAL and who has to poach workers from HAL, ISRO, BEL, Tata Motors etc?

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.


I am not sure what you are intending to convey via the above excerpts because its a repeat of what I noted which is, that L&T will localize 50% of these guns for such a small production run! And that given its prior experience in the complex heavy engineering products domain (e.g. making AAFL launchers, Pinaka MBRLs etc), is likely to run relatively smoothly with the invariable teething troubles not breaking the organization or sending it to panic, as there are many grizzled veterans around who have handled such challenging assignments.

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.


Again sir, what you are not getting is what was the point of this so called DRAL offset? I can only think of money (ADAG offering commercial terms which were positive) to have swung this because the point is beyond the current Falcon airframe component manufacture what real value add would this venture add?

If any decent manufacturer was good enough, why not take an automotive parts supplier, why not take ANY manufacturer.. rather than some completely untested org set up with zero experience in the domain or parallel ones?

Unfortunately, the French side did something stupid and short sighted for its own selfish interests and landed us in a PR mess.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36001
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 17 Oct 2018 04:30

What Reliance should focus is production engineering (concurrent) and precision jig & robotics.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10433
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 17 Oct 2018 09:20

Karan M wrote:Pankajs,

I am getting the impression that you think that knowledge & production manufacturing experience is plug-and-play and can be transferred at a moments notice & with some money transfer, agreements signed etc.

It is ANYTHING but.

When you have a deal of this magnitude, the partner organizations capabilities come into play.

You are completely mistaken if you think that organizational culture is the same across firms & the quality of experience is easily transferable. It is NOT.

This is the reason a L&T delivers whereas a PSU can't. Why a PSU shipyard STILL delivers albeit at cost & time impact, whereas a smooth talking private shipyard can't forcing the IN to become skeptical of private players!

First lets start with the basics.
1. 36 Rafale will be supplied by Dassult from its manufacturing facilities in France.
2. The current DRAL JV is to manufacture Falcon 2000 parts initially and perhaps parts for Rafale later.

pankajs wrote:<snip>
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)”
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"
You are stuck on ADAG where as I am focused on DRAL. This project was never about Dassult doing ToT to ADAG and then ADAG running it on its own like in the Sukhoi-HAL deal. This is about co-production as is clear by the JV structure.

I am only restating what I have been writing all along and confirmed by the Dassult CEO. Now all doubts can be addressed when thinking of ADAG and Dassult as co-producers.

1. Is "production manufacturing experience is plug-and-play"?

Some experiences more than others, especially when the original OEM is co-producer. Similar to what Dassult would do for an "additional" new factory in France except that it has a partner in India in ADAG. What would it take to bootstrap a :additional" new factory in France will be done in India but in partnership with ADAG.

OTOH, L&T's "experienced" hands would need to be retrained for Dassult work so would ADAG's "experienced" recruits. New hires of both L&T and ADAG would need full on the job training.

2. "You are completely mistaken if you think that organizational culture is the same across firms & the quality of experience is easily transferable. It is NOT."

While culture and experience is not the same across firms, both are absolutely transferable when Dassult, the OEM, is involved to the extent of being the controlling operating partner in the JV. This was stated by the Dassult CEO himself. Dassult will shape the culture and in the words of its CEO "applying its standards". Do you have a reason to disbelieve him?

The advantage starting with a clean slate is that its culture can be shaped. In private sector, you will either confirm to the culture or be fired. DRAL is not a JV with HAL where the employees can play games of their own with unions, etc.

3. This is the reason a L&T delivers whereas a PSU can't. Why a PSU shipyard STILL delivers albeit at cost & time impact, whereas a smooth talking private shipyard can't forcing the IN to become skeptical of private players!

Absolutely agree on L&T but why do you doubt Dassult even if you don't believe ADAG? After all the Dassult CEO has confirmed its operational control of the JV.

So, your point 1 completely ignores the fact that merely HIRING people is not enough, getting them to work as a team, in a setup that manages to pull everything together is completely different. Point 2 ignores the fact that the signing partner has NOT done anything of this scale elsewhere either (how many Rafale are being assembled elsewhere, if the DRAL set up had ultimately supplanted HAL) or HAS to stay restricted to basic stuff (e.g. airframe machining of low complexity, as versus making wing components and assembling them) which defeats the purpose of offsets creating a viable competitor or even supplier to HAL.
And point 3 is completely wrong because L&T has managers and workers who have been working on far more complex programs, have decades of organizational experience and FURTHERMORE, belong to a core engineering setup, where engineering is not an adjunct money making venture but the CORE business.
If DRAL fails, the US exec hired to run the show will go back, shaking his head about Indian workers & unsat conditions in our setup. L&T et al need GOI contracts to thrive & go out of their way to make things work!
When you think of the partner in control of operation all the above is resolved.

a. Hiring - Dassult will inducts enough of its own experienced employees to bootstrap the JV in India just as it would for an "additional" new plant back in France. All the new hires, experienced and fresh, it would have got from the market in France will be supplied here by ADAG for the Indian project. This is how every "extension" is bootstrapped. Experienced employees are "sprinkled" across the the ranks while most of the hires, experienced and fresh, are from outside.

BTW, experience pool for DRAL will extend to include all former Dassult employees in France and not just limited to Tatas and L&Ts of India. They only have to be able and willing to work at DRAL on ADAG's payroll. Nothing new or unique.

b. [Point 2] The current staffing is not for Rafale but some part of Falcon. For the present the scope is limited. This iteration of DRAL is not supposed to build up a private alternative to HAL but a mere fabricator for some part of Falcon business jet.

IF, ... and that is a big IF, at a later stage some fabrication work for Rafale was to be taken up by DRAL, its workers would by then be acquainted with demands of Aerospace manufacturer in terms of quality, timelines, etc. The current Falcon work would serve as on the job training.

By then all your previous worries about experience, culture and delivery will have been sorted while working on Falcon parts.

c. [Point 3] L&T has "decades of organizational experience" and Dassult does not? Which is the partner in operational control? Is it not Dassult as confirmed by its CEO? I can only say that you are consistently ignoring Dassult and its employees that will be deployed at DRAL.

d. DRAL will fail with some of the very same Dassult employee that deliver from it French plant? That would be an astonishing spectacle to watch! I don't believe that is possible, not with a fully committed Dassult that has operational control of the project as confirmed by its CEO.

You really really need to spend more time on the mil-forum to understand that merely signing agreements does diddly squat for actual capability. For instance, do you think Alpha's successful production run with IAI supplied kits for the Indian Armed Forces is the same as the manner in which Delhi based firms "set up" assembly for the WZT-3 or whatever ARV kits we got from Poland?

Former is set up by ex-head BEL R&D, whereas latter were set up by all sorts of "businessmen" looking at "opportunities in the thriving Indian military business". Now you can figure out who did what and what kind of job was amenable to each. Former has become a partner to DRDO, a mini-BEL, assembling & manufacturing complex pieces & kits from foreign OEMs without QA issues. Latter were importing ex-Warsaw pact junk, refurbishing it & supplying it to IA as new. Both were "assembling". But was it really the same?
I am sorry but I have to keep pointing out that this is not ADAG that is setting up a factory but DRAL that is a JV between ADAG and Dassult in the ration 51:49. and where Dassult will have effective operational control.

1. So while "merely signing agreements does diddly squat for actual capability" the JV has moved beyond.
2. So while "Alpha's successful production run with IAI supplied kits for the Indian Armed Forces" we expect DRAL that is anchored by the OEM to fail to manufacture Falcon parts?
3. So lets slot ADAG as "Businessmen" looking for an opportunity ... BUT where will you slot the other 49% partner in the DRAL JV? Is Dassult, THE OEM, better or equal or worse than the Alpha and the "former ex-head BEL R&D" for its own product i.e. the Falcon parts?
4. So while "Former[Alpha] has become a partner to DRDO" we expect DRAL not to scale to Dassult standard even while anchored and shepherded by Dassult itself?

I am sorry but you are stretching it too far for arguments sake. Are you are suggesting that Dassult, being the designer, the technology creator, the original manufacture and with operational control at DRAL will be unable to deliver at DRAL? That is beyond belief.

PS: Multiple edits for clarity

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15562
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 17 Oct 2018 14:34

"I am sorry but you are stretching it too far for arguments sake. Are you are suggesting that Dassult, being the designer, the technology creator, the original manufacture and with operational control at DRAL will be unable to deliver at DRAL? That is beyond belief."


The belief that you are showing in some OEM magically pulling out some great answers has nothing to do with reality. I suggest you spend some time looking through all the myriad "TOT" deals signed between foreign entities and Indian ones and see what occurred.

DCNS with MDL + Indian vendors for Scorpene. Delays.
IMI with OFB for APFSDS. Failure.
Sukhoi with HAL. Delays.

There are literally a 100 examples where some magical foreign vendor could do nothing above and beyond the bare basics. TASL is a rare exception wherein the TATA groups expertise in manufacturing, management support, and consistent policy worked to get things going.
Alpha another. L&T, and K-9.

You know what's common to these successful programs? A private vendor/partner with significant domain experience and financial stability.

The only saving grace is this so called deal to manufacture Falcon parts is not our headache, but Dassaults. For now. But it brings to mind the other questions.

Go back at DRAL and see the Indian partner, and let us know what exactly is DRAL intended to solve?

Does it provide India a superior alternative to HAL over time?
Is it well placed to become a complex Rafale supplier? If so, whom would you prefer, TASL or L&T or ADAG as the Indian partner?

If all it is doing is license assembling or manufacturing less complex airframe parts for the Falcon, why was this offset deal cleared and what exactly will it bring to Indian aerospace as versus investing the offset money in some DRDO program?

These are the big questions which you are completely ignoring in the 49:51 litany, in response to all concerns.

Unfortunately, these concerns wont disappear and have given an unethical opposition just enough ammunition to hit the Govt over the head with. These concerns happened because, the foreign partner in the deal, played fast and loose with intent and did three things.

Successfully wriggled out of transferring its core tech to HAL by citing HALs internal issues.
HAL itself added fuel to the fire by treating the Rafale as a money spinner & got greedy by citing 2.7x the labor man hours.
Then the partner created this "JV" to lend a fig leaf to the offsets including a manufacturing component and some "tangible gain" to the Indian industry, as its a good hedge if the DRDO getting assistance in the form of offsets part would break down.

Its just cynical business back and forth, nothing we should haven't been used to, but its the NDA Govt which was caught staring wide-eyed like the proverbial deer in the highlights.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15562
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 17 Oct 2018 14:38

And all this because the Govt of the day didn't even appoint a full time RM and set up the offsets dept with proper support. File pushing was the order of the day till MP got involved.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10433
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 17 Oct 2018 14:45

Karan M wrote:
pankajs wrote: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.


What is this JOINT VENTURE but a display of TOT wherein the more experienced side which has the complete design & production knowledge has to hand-hold a completely new set up, which has hitherto NEVER even manufactured a single product of its own? The "NEW manager of the BU" has but new workers, new staff, an entirely new line & a boss from an org which is bleeding red and wants quick results. Do you seriously think this is a great setup to deliver complex items over the short term? {Do you mean to say L&T did not get any hand holding even for first project that it executed in the defense sector? Alpha did not get any hand holding from DRDO when it began? If we where to go back in history the hand holding will be apparent. Happens all the time for all sorts of projects. That should not be an issue at all.}

I wouldn't even be surprised if the DRAL venture is given a quiet burial post this offsets business and Dassault goes scouting for new partners to handle more complex work , once they discover that IAF wants more & more needs to be done in a shorter timeframe.


Not at all. Dassault, the OEM, will have all the advantage in delivering the bird. I don't doubt that for a second.


Really? Did DCNS the OEM with so much experience magically deliver our localized Scorpenes double quick? What happened there? {Really? This is all you got for comparison? Was the project executed under a JV between MDL and DCNS where DCNS was in charge of operations, like in the present case? If the French are so unreliable why not scrap the Rafale deal all together. How do you know they will even deliver the 36 from France?}

If that's not what the DRAL venture was headed towards, why did we allow them to waste the offsets on some build-to-print facility with no future? {I don't know if you trust the GOI or Rahul Gandi. If you believe GOI, DRAL JV is per policy where it has no role in the selection of the Indian partner. OTOH, if you believe Rahul Gandhi, ADAG was foisted on Dassult by the GOI.}

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.


What history does ADAG have of any load pulling whatsoever in whatever program they have done so far? Please explain how the ADAG organization has delivered on any complex program. Forget A&D, I am still awaiting any example which people trot out for the regular Reliance group stating "at least they have managerial competence" ..DRAL will deliver Falcon parts with Dassult having operations control. The quality of the partner experience is what will pull the JV through. What more assurance is required on the delivery by the DRAL where ADAG is but one partner?

I hope I read you right on "Reliance Group" because if that is the case this is a full toss. When Reliance group was quite small in comparison to its current heft, it did a greenfield Refinery project. It is now supposed to be the biggest single location refinery complex in the world. IIRC, That project was executed in record time and under budget all overseen by Reliance managers even while execution was oursourced.
https://www.bechtel.com/projects/jamnagar-oil-refinery/
When Bechtel completed the Reliance Jamnagar complex in 2000, it was the largest refinery and petrochemicals complex ever built from the ground up. Now it's even bigger, and lays claim to being the world's largest oil-refining hub. It is the largest industrial project ever implemented by the Indian corporate sector.


On how to acquire "skill/knowledge/experience" the Ambani way. Read it for yourself....
http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/jan/18inter.htm
When our competitors were buying licences for half a million and one million dollars, we agreed to pay DuPont $5 million, because we wanted to work with the best in the world. We had limited capital but our approach was different. We got a few experts from DuPont and put some 25-year-olds with them to learn how to manage operations and sustain chemical processes.
}


Dassult the OEM and 49% partner in the project.


And the 51% is with an organization with no history of being involved in any defence program or delivery. Its a recipe for delay, and basically Dassault will have to do the heavy lifting. To what end? {Why recipe for delay when the operational control is with Dassult?

ADAG will supply the bulk of the hands. Operational control will be exercised by Dassult by embedding adequate of its own experienced staff into the mix. This is not a R&D project, not even a co-development. In its current avatar it is a fabrication project of some Falcon parts.}


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.


Err... the "hand holding" that will have to be done by Dassault with L&T will be a magnitude lesser than that with a DRAL.
There are people in L&T who can teach the Dassault program managers a thing or two about even more complex programs. The Arihant is no child's play for instance, that kind of experience is what L&T can draw on for its premier programs as it requires. DRAL has no options but to "scout" for talent, and so far, please look at ADAGs stellar business success rate and tell me, what does that tell you about what a smash up job has been done with investor capital so far.
{1. Sorry but a program manager of L&T with work experience on Air to Air missile or Subs or Guns will need as much hand holding as a similarly experienced ADAG program manage "hired" by ADAG for the job.
2. I am sure that some L&T managers can teach Dassult managers a thing or two on "some" complex programs on which they have worked. I am equally sure a "hired" but equally competent ADAG manager will again be able to teach Dassult managers a thing or two on "some other" complex programs on which they have worked. BUT the Dassult manager will be able to teach both the L&T and the ADAG managers a whole lot more on Dassult processes.

The above 3 things can all be true at the same time.

3. You can keep harping on ADAG's while I will keep touting Dassult's experience with Dassult CEO explicitly stating that it is in operation control of the JV. The JV will deliver on the Falcon parts.}

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17650
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 17 Oct 2018 14:49

Karan M wrote:
"I am sorry but you are stretching it too far for arguments sake. Are you are suggesting that Dassult, being the designer, the technology creator, the original manufacture and with operational control at DRAL will be unable to deliver at DRAL? That is beyond belief."


The belief that you are showing in some OEM magically pulling out some great answers has nothing to do with reality. I suggest you spend some time looking through all the myriad "TOT" deals signed between foreign entities and Indian ones and see what occurred.

DCNS with MDL + Indian vendors for Scorpene. Delays.
IMI with OFB for APFSDS. Failure.
Sukhoi with HAL. Delays.

There are literally a 100 examples where some magical foreign vendor could do nothing above and beyond the bare basics. TASL is a rare exception wherein the TATA groups expertise in manufacturing, management support, and consistent policy worked to get things going.
Alpha another. L&T, and K-9.

You know what's common to these successful programs? A private vendor/partner with significant domain experience and financial stability.

The only saving grace is this so called deal to manufacture Falcon parts is not our headache, but Dassaults. For now. But it brings to mind the other questions.

Go back at DRAL and see the Indian partner, and let us know what exactly is DRAL intended to solve?

Does it provide India a superior alternative to HAL over time?
Is it well placed to become a complex Rafale supplier? If so, whom would you prefer, TASL or L&T or ADAG as the Indian partner?

If all it is doing is license assembling or manufacturing less complex airframe parts for the Falcon, why was this offset deal cleared and what exactly will it bring to Indian aerospace as versus investing the offset money in some DRDO program?

These are the big questions which you are completely ignoring in the 49:51 litany, in response to all concerns.

Unfortunately, these concerns wont disappear and have given an unethical opposition just enough ammunition to hit the Govt over the head with. These concerns happened because, the foreign partner in the deal, played fast and loose with intent and did three things.

Successfully wriggled out of transferring its core tech to HAL by citing HALs internal issues.
HAL itself added fuel to the fire by treating the Rafale as a money spinner & got greedy by citing 2.7x the labor man hours.
Then the partner created this "JV" to lend a fig leaf to the offsets including a manufacturing component and some "tangible gain" to the Indian industry, as its a good hedge if the DRDO getting assistance in the form of offsets part would break down.

Its just cynical business back and forth, nothing we should haven't been used to, but its the NDA Govt which was caught staring wide-eyed like the proverbial deer in the highlights.



All offset deals are careful NOT to transfer any technology. The deal is stage managed by venal baboo(n)s who are told exactly what not to push for, for a price, of course, maybe a job for the wifey and the kiddos, long term visa, whatnot or the the very latest thing these days is the CSR obligation is offloaded to a very convenient NGO start up, purpose built by the baboo(n)'s family to manage the CSR program for a bunch of offset deal companies after front loading a whole shitload lot of "administrative expenses".

Earlier, the offset deals were ONLY sheet metal products, like making racks and LRU boxes for the P8I and now it is making low grade, semi finished composite products, to be shipped off to the mother country for value addition and finishing to enable actual fitment on some aircraft.

Everyone knows it is a complete farce but all parties simply and innocently play along. :mrgreen:

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10433
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 17 Oct 2018 14:57

Karan M wrote:
"I am sorry but you are stretching it too far for arguments sake. Are you are suggesting that Dassult, being the designer, the technology creator, the original manufacture and with operational control at DRAL will be unable to deliver at DRAL? That is beyond belief."


The belief that you are showing in some OEM magically pulling out some great answers has nothing to do with reality. I suggest you spend some time looking through all the myriad "TOT" deals signed between foreign entities and Indian ones and see what occurred.

DCNS with MDL + Indian vendors for Scorpene. Delays.
IMI with OFB for APFSDS. Failure.
Sukhoi with HAL. Delays.

{This is not a Tot but a JV, quite a different beast and not to deliver Rafale but Falcon parts. Which ones of the above is a JV where the vendor has taken operational control of the project?}

There are literally a 100 examples where some magical foreign vendor could do nothing above and beyond the bare basics. TASL is a rare exception wherein the TATA groups expertise in manufacturing, management support, and consistent policy worked to get things going.
Alpha another. L&T, and K-9.

You know what's common to these successful programs? A private vendor/partner with significant domain experience and financial stability.

The only saving grace is this so called deal to manufacture Falcon parts is not our headache, but Dassaults. For now. But it brings to mind the other questions.

Go back at DRAL and see the Indian partner, and let us know what exactly is DRAL intended to solve?

Does it provide India a superior alternative to HAL over time?
Is it well placed to become a complex Rafale supplier? If so, whom would you prefer, TASL or L&T or ADAG as the Indian partner?

If all it is doing is license assembling or manufacturing less complex airframe parts for the Falcon, why was this offset deal cleared and what exactly will it bring to Indian aerospace as versus investing the offset money in some DRDO program?

These are the big questions which you are completely ignoring in the 49:51 litany, in response to all concerns.

Unfortunately, these concerns wont disappear and have given an unethical opposition just enough ammunition to hit the Govt over the head with. These concerns happened because, the foreign partner in the deal, played fast and loose with intent and did three things.

Successfully wriggled out of transferring its core tech to HAL by citing HALs internal issues.
HAL itself added fuel to the fire by treating the Rafale as a money spinner & got greedy by citing 2.7x the labor man hours.
Then the partner created this "JV" to lend a fig leaf to the offsets including a manufacturing component and some "tangible gain" to the Indian industry, as its a good hedge if the DRDO getting assistance in the form of offsets part would break down.

Its just cynical business back and forth, nothing we should haven't been used to, but its the NDA Govt which was caught staring wide-eyed like the proverbial deer in the highlights.

DRAl is intended to execute offset contracts. That it will do and in the process build a first class "fabrication" facility. This phase is not about R&D or co-development.

ADAG can build on it if it wants to but that is definitely not the objective of the this phase of the offset. Plus DRAl is 1 amongst about 100 offset contracts and I think most of them will go the same way except for what DRDO gets in terms of technology if any.

Rest of you post is your thoughts and I certainly respect your views on ADAG or GOI's action or HAL's gambit. I have put out my though and see that we disagree on most/all of it. Each to his own opinion.

peace.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15562
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 18 Oct 2018 02:07

pankajs wrote:Do you mean to say L&T did not get any hand holding even for first project that it executed in the defense sector? Alpha did not get any hand holding from DRDO when it began? If we where to go back in history the hand holding will be apparent. Happens all the time for all sorts of projects. That should not be an issue at all.}


Err... L&T did not require "hand holding" as they were joint developers! They worked with DRDO! Alpha's crew are ex-BEL and head is ex-head R&D BEL, with R&D of their own, do you seriously think they are at the same level as a completely new setup with no prior history in A&D as this DRAL venture is?
Seriously, do yourself a favor so you understand what the topic is, since you are clearly passionate & interested in it, and read up about some of these orgs and the capabilities that existed without the need for a DRAL to be set up.
http://www.alphatocol.com/index.html
Consider Alpha is even assembling TISAS kits for the Indian Army & is the designated manufacturer for Elettronica's EW modules for the IAF. Magnitude of quality difference between sheet metal parts.
So why were they not chosen as versus some unknown DRAL?
Why was TASL not chosen?
The questions are obvious and the answers even more so.


Really? This is all you got for comparison? Was the project executed under a JV between MDL and DCNS where DCNS was in charge of operations, like in the present case? If the French are so unreliable why not scrap the Rafale deal all together. How do you know they will even deliver the 36 from France?


I'd suggest you lay off the aggression and keep the discussion civil.
Next, yes, what I stated is very germaine because guess what, the vendors chosen for the Scorpene were also chosen often for extraneous reasons. Please google up OIS and the linkages therein to the Scorpene deal. If you think that didn't have anything to do with the delays at MDL in sourcing items from unestablished vendors, you are clearly missing the point.
The French and ALL foreign vendors are unreliable to a degree as they have little commercial benefit in transferring critical technology to India, until and unless we pay them heavily for it.
The differences between the Scorpene and the Rafale are that the 36R are completely from a French line, whereas the Scorpene were partly from an Indian one, but what should make you think is that the same French establishment which you think could commit no such blunders, did do so for vendor selection.

I don't know if you trust the GOI or Rahul Gandi. If you believe GOI, DRAL JV is per policy where it has no role in the selection of the Indian partner. OTOH, if you believe Rahul Gandhi, ADAG was foisted on Dassult by the GOI.


Has it struck you that it is possible for an individual who supports the GOI to occasionally criticize their missteps and chalta hain culture and then watch in dismay as they get hoist upon their own petard? This would be one such case.
Yes, DRAL JV is one such case where the GOI had no say in the selection of the partner per policy. What I am suggesting is it would have been better if the GOI didn't allow the foreign OEM to get away with such missteps especially given the policy ramifications or provide an upfront indemnity stating the reason for their choices absolving the Govt of any culpability.


DRAL will deliver Falcon parts with Dassult having operations control. The quality of the partner experience is what will pull the JV through. What more assurance is required on the delivery by the DRAL where ADAG is but one partner?


What partner experience when ADAG has no experience? Where is this belief that somehow Dassault will magically convert the DRAL complex into one that is capable of delivering +'s for the Indian aerospace ecosystem? Could not the GOI have insisted upon the same, and tied it to existing agencies or shortlisted companies with tangible LCA or AMCA links to receive a manufacturing boost as versus a greenfield line assembling low value add structures for the Falcon by an inexperienced setup?

I hope I read you right on "Reliance Group" because if that is the case this is a full toss. When Reliance group was quite small in comparison to its current heft, it did a greenfield Refinery project. It is now supposed to be the biggest single location refinery complex in the world. IIRC, That project was executed in record time and under budget all overseen by Reliance managers even while execution was oursourced.
https://www.bechtel.com/projects/jamnagar-oil-refinery/


Err.. I was referring to the fact that despite its obvious lack of technological knowledge in A&D, the Reliance Group has a long history of effective project management. Thank you for proving my point. At least the above counts. Can you show me an equivalent example for the ADAG?


On how to acquire "skill/knowledge/experience" the Ambani way. Read it for yourself....
http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/jan/18inter.htm


Not all A's are created equal as we all know.

Why recipe for delay when the operational control is with Dassult?
ADAG will supply the bulk of the hands. Operational control will be exercised by Dassult by embedding adequate of its own experienced staff into the mix. This is not a R&D project, not even a co-development. In its current avatar it is a fabrication project of some Falcon parts.


If as you admit, its merely a fabrication project for Falcon parts, then why was this offset amount wasted on such low value add?

1. Sorry but a program manager of L&T with work experience on Air to Air missile or Subs or Guns will need as much hand holding as a similarly experienced ADAG program manage "hired" by ADAG for the job.


That is your mistaken assumption, because clearly you don't understand that its very common for program managers in heavy engineering programs in L&T to be shuttled between programs and they have delivered even so. Take a look at some DRDO press releases so far. You'll see program managers who have worked across IGMDP, Arjun and several other programs. BEL's Shankar is currently handling an org which deals with EW suites, Su-30 assembly, Tank FCS.. do you think his stint as the head of BEL R&D was not substantial enough?

2. I am sure that some L&T managers can teach Dassult managers a thing or two on "some" complex programs on which they have worked. I am equally sure a "hired" but equally competent ADAG manager will again be able to teach Dassult managers a thing or two on "some other" complex programs on which they have worked. BUT the Dassult manager will be able to teach both the L&T and the ADAG managers a whole lot more on Dassult processes.


The assumption being some ADAG manager can easily be hired and a BU setup, and it is anyways as easy as a dedicated line in already existing TASL, L&T, Alpha- let alone the PSUs.

Don't you see the obvious fallacies in your post?

The above 3 things can all be true at the same time.


Difference being you need them to be true.

3. You can keep harping on ADAG's while I will keep touting Dassult's experience with Dassult CEO explicitly stating that it is in operation control of the JV. The JV will deliver on the Falcon parts.


Only for Falcon parts now, apparently. So tell me why work on this new setup only for Falcon parts and start from scratch when much better experienced players with a track record of competent delivery already existed?

Now can you see the lack of rationale in D choosing a completely in-experienced partner to make low value add parts and components in a greenfield line, wherein the offsets could have been used much more rationally for Indian benefit.

jpremnath
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

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

Postby jpremnath » 18 Oct 2018 09:00

For any other government program, any private player who wants to partner should show a solid balance sheet, prior experience and sufficient staff strength. I am talking about simple stuff like construction and consulting services. You need to pass through this gate before even competing on tenders. For some strange reason govt left out similar clause for private players in defense. Anil Ambani is an embarrassment to the Ambani family name. His ventures are complete failures and all awash with debt. He is a walking NPA...it was a grand failure of govt policy drafting that someone like him could easily walk in and get such a lucrative offset deal. Where all he would bring is some land and debt..and add zero value to the whole exercise.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
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 » 18 Oct 2018 09:20

the asinineness of posts here sometimes defies belief !

for the nth time, the govt. has NOT awarded any 'program' to ADAG, in case it was going to, GOI already has all kinds of eligibility conditions in place for defence projects as well. GOI's deal is with dassault and they are free to deal with *any* company they want to, as long as they do not run afoul of any extant law of the land.

if dassault wants to source parts from my local kabadiwala, so be it, GOI has no say on how a pvt. co conducts its business. at the end of the day dassault takes responsibility for the parts it provides, that's all that matters, both to the IAF & GOI. if dassault is confident of ADAG who are we to say otherwise, as long as it bears full responsibility for quality ?

jpremnath
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

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

Postby jpremnath » 18 Oct 2018 12:48

Alright.. can understand your frustrations.. I don't insinuate that govt did some hanky panky..I am just trying to understand why such a well thought out, well bargained purchase ended up being dragged through the muck..
Let me explain why some of us are frustrated...The whole Rafale purchase is paid by taxpayers money. The govt made the offsets clause so that desi companies can use the opportunity to link with defense tech biggies and absorb their tech, work culture and use them to build themselves up for bigger responsibilities...so isnt it in taxpayers/govt's interest that these limited opportunities be utilised by companies which are in good health and have reasonable engineering experience,?...so shouldn't govt set such requirements before any major defence purchase.. so that Rafale or any company have the freedom to choose any Indian company for their offset obligation as long they meet such requirements...Because that's how even municipal contracts work...

Here anil Ambani run companies are famous for turning turtle at any moment in their run for running neck deep in debt. Fund diversions, contract manipulations..you ask for it, he will give it..he brings the worst of Ambani culture and has nothing from their best...No self respecting Investors touch their stock..his companies are known for poor management and execution. But here everyone gives him a blanket reprieve and believe he will work for the country's and industries' interest. Leopards don't change their spot sir..a small mistake in drafting the offset policy meant he has managed to worm into the nation's most important defence procurement. And managed to give the scamgress the biggest stick to hit the govt for next year's elections..all for what? 3% of total offsets..

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3573
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 18 Oct 2018 13:18

jpremnath wrote:I am just trying to understand why such a well thought out, well bargained purchase ended up being dragged through the muck..


Isn't that obvious..? The current discourse raised by a certain political party is completely motivated out of politics and they don't care about technicalities or improving anything. Remember the "Coffin Scam"..? One of the best DM's we ever had, had his political career wrapped up due to false propaganda. This is no innocuous thing and it has some serious repercussions if people don't see through their lies. Anyhow the hue and cry raised is completely out of proportion to the realities. Whatever GOI did in this, the opposition would have found out some thing or the other to make noise about. I mean their party leader go around throwing random figures on prices, offset contract worth and still people take their talk seriously. Doesn't is give you any hint on the seriousness of the discussions we are having on this so called #RafaleScam..?? Remember, had they not started this propaganda, hardly anyone would have really questioned whatever is happening (let me make differentiation here between Ambani as Rafale assembly partner as was proposed under MMRCA vs them being small time make to print partner, I am completely against the first one, I don't care so much about the second). And there are thousand other far more important things than this that GOI should have dealt with like yesterday, but all those talking about the #RafaleScam are not even caring to see to all those things. What does this tell you..? To me, this whole non-sense needs to be put down. Yes, there might be some valid points, improvements to be done for offset contracts. But it needs to be discussed under different context, not under #RafaleScam. There is a huge difference what is the context and it does matters.

jpremnath
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

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

Postby jpremnath » 18 Oct 2018 13:46

I understand the whole ruckus from scamgress is just to put the govt on defensive ahead of key elections..or probably to prevent the govt from calling for an early elections.. it seems to have worked..the common man doesn't go into the nitty gritty of complex deals..we need to see how they have taken the whole allegations until we see the results for state elections..
My posts on the issue has only been on the misstep /lack of foresight which I believe happened from the govt on setting offset policy..the thread has been derailed enough...I won't post anymore on this topic..

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10433
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 18 Oct 2018 15:47

Karan M wrote:
pankajs wrote:Do you mean to say L&T did not get any hand holding even for first project that it executed in the defense sector? Alpha did not get any hand holding from DRDO when it began? If we where to go back in history the hand holding will be apparent. Happens all the time for all sorts of projects. That should not be an issue at all.}

Err... L&T did not require "hand holding" as they were joint developers! They worked with DRDO! Alpha's crew are ex-BEL and head is ex-head R&D BEL, with R&D of their own, do you seriously think they are at the same level as a completely new setup with no prior history in A&D as this DRAL venture is?
Seriously, do yourself a favor so you understand what the topic is, since you are clearly passionate & interested in it, and read up about some of these orgs and the capabilities that existed without the need for a DRAL to be set up.
http://www.alphatocol.com/index.html
Consider Alpha is even assembling TISAS kits for the Indian Army & is the designated manufacturer for Elettronica's EW modules for the IAF. Magnitude of quality difference between sheet metal parts.
So why were they not chosen as versus some unknown DRAL?
Why was TASL not chosen?
The questions are obvious and the answers even more so.

1. First highlight > In every field, even when highly experienced people cross organizational/domain boundaries they receive Knowledge Transfer and hand holding to get them up to speed with the working of the new organization/group/project they have joined. I am just stating my opinion and not asking you to change yours. We can agree to disagree on this.

However, anyone interested on K-9 "co-development" by L&T should read this article in full with the focus on the quoted parts and the highlight.
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 487_1.html
The K9 VAJRA-T gun is an enhanced version of HTW's K9 Thunder which is known as one of the best performing self- propelled howitzers in the world.

<snip>

Jayant Patil, Head of Defence and Aerospace at L&T, said the programme has set a new benchmark in co-development and co-production of defence systems by Indian private sector defence players and foreign majors.
These kind of deals are very difficult to judge because whatever is in public domain is via press releases by the firms themselves as PR pieces. One has to be able to spot the right keywords, weight then carefully and draw conclusions based on very little and imperfect data.

I only urge other members to contemplate on a "co-development" where a "enhanced" version of HTW's K9 was involved. Decide for yourself if ANY ..a tiny bit of "hand holding" was perhaps needed by L&T on the "original" HTW's K9 before they started on the "joint development".

This is my attempt to form an opinion based on ONE news report and NO other information. While I claim no competency in this very imprecise art but I will still attempt it to the best of my abilities.

My theory is that anyone seeking to "enhance" an existing products would at least need to understand the "Original" before any "enhancement" can be proposed or implemented, especially if it is their 1st involvement with such a system/domain or a model that they have never worked on before. If one agrees with that assumption, then Can one safely make the next assumption that some "hand holding" was needed by L&T from the OEM, in this case the Korean firm in question? With those 2 data points, a few assumption and my thinking, I leave it to you to work it out to your own satisfaction. I am not expecting an answer am just sharing my process and thinking on this topic.

2. Alpha's crew is Ex-BEL but DRAL crew with Dassult as 49% partner and with operational control of DRAL is not qualified enough to deliver its own design? You are focused on ADAG I am on DRAL.

3. I have considered Alpha's skills but you are ignoring Dassult's experience as part of DRAL overall profile.

To summarize,
A. Who is to deliver the offset? DRAL
B. Does it have enough experience? or at least a "basic minimum experience"? Yes
C. How come? Via Dassult that is 49% partner and it own CEO has confirmed that Dassult will have operational control.

4. The Offset policy is clear that the vendor get to choose its offset partner. I had posted the relevant portion on this very thread before in reply to Viv's post. I don't expect you or anyone else to have read the entire thread so am willing to link back to that post of mine if required.

Karan M wrote:
pankajs wrote:Really? This is all you got for comparison? Was the project executed under a JV between MDL and DCNS where DCNS was in charge of operations, like in the present case? If the French are so unreliable why not scrap the Rafale deal all together. How do you know they will even deliver the 36 from France?

I'd suggest you lay off the aggression and keep the discussion civil.
Next, yes, what I stated is very germaine because guess what, the vendors chosen for the Scorpene were also chosen often for extraneous reasons. Please google up OIS and the linkages therein to the Scorpene deal. If you think that didn't have anything to do with the delays at MDL in sourcing items from unestablished vendors, you are clearly missing the point.
The French and ALL foreign vendors are unreliable to a degree as they have little commercial benefit in transferring critical technology to India, until and unless we pay them heavily for it.
The differences between the Scorpene and the Rafale are that the 36R are completely from a French line, whereas the Scorpene were partly from an Indian one, but what should make you think is that the same French establishment which you think could commit no such blunders, did do so for vendor selection.

1. First highlight, Good point but I wish it was followed by every one including you. When you used that phrase/style on me I was tickled and decided to use it on you to gauge its acceptability. I generally try to refrain from words/formats that is likely to tickle people unless it is first used on me. If you consider that as aggression then you must re-read some of you own posts. Start with portion/style that I quote below. Sarcasm can cut both ways.
Karan M wrote:Really? Did DCNS the OEM with so much experience magically deliver our localized Scorpenes double quick? What happened there?

The more serious the discussion the more aware I am on trigger words/phrases. I fully understand that in such passionate discussions one misplaced word/phrase will simply derail the thread.

2. On the scropene/Sukhoi/others I was simply trying to point out that the deal structure was different hence not comparable to to DRAL.

While 36R will be delivered from France and not DRAL but lets consider a hypothetical situation which has certainly been floated by interested parties. There was this talk either by Dassult or ADAG that any order over and above the 36R will be delivered from DRAL.

Lets assume that additional order for Rafales are indeed placed and will be delivered from DRAL and not France. Who will get the contract for the new jets ADAG, DRAL or Dassult?

I am "thinking" the lead contractor here per the official agreement will not be ADAG or DRAL but Dassult but with a few riders like "India build", etc. That way the buck stops at Dassult's doorsteps on quality and timelines and be first in line for penalty if it is part of the contract.

A similar responsibility was sought to be put on Dassult while specifying the Indian partner, in this case HAL and Dassult refused to garuntee the delivery. That lead to the current state of affairs where the Dassult was allowed to tie up with a partner of its choice for the India build, right now restricted to offsets, and that ONE of MANY partner of choice for Dassults happens to be ADAG in this instance.

Now contrast that with Sukhio-HAL deal where HAL was mandated to the partner for Sukhoi for the "India build". With GOI forcing that tie-up the responsibility for deliver passed on from Sukhoi to HAL.
https://www.thehindu.com/2000/12/30/sto ... 302511.htm
The Sukhoi deal and after
Apart from the outright purchase of a fleet, India has contracted for the licensed production of about 140 Sukhoi-30 aircraft by the public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL).


If the present template represents any qualitative shift from the past only time will tell though we can already see some drawbacks like ADAG getting a free ride on the deal with ZERO experience, as you and others have pointed out and I have agreed many time.

3. On foreign vendors, I am in agreement with you. Everyone tries to extract the maximum from a desperate party and in our case this pattern keeps repeating. Long-term there is no alternative to local development and production.

Karan M wrote:
I don't know if you trust the GOI or Rahul Gandi. If you believe GOI, DRAL JV is per policy where it has no role in the selection of the Indian partner. OTOH, if you believe Rahul Gandhi, ADAG was foisted on Dassult by the GOI.

Has it struck you that it is possible for an individual who supports the GOI to occasionally criticize their missteps and chalta hain culture and then watch in dismay as they get hoist upon their own petard? This would be one such case.
Yes, DRAL JV is one such case where the GOI had no say in the selection of the partner per policy. What I am suggesting is it would have been better if the GOI didn't allow the foreign OEM to get away with such missteps especially given the policy ramifications or provide an upfront indemnity stating the reason for their choices absolving the Govt of any culpability.

1. Absolutely, and if you notice I did not assign a judgement for you or put words in your mouth. Even the two options was stated in a neutral manner without attaching value judgement to either pov.

2. Commented in response to the previous quote in this very post.

Karan M wrote:
DRAL will deliver Falcon parts with Dassult having operations control. The quality of the partner experience is what will pull the JV through. What more assurance is required on the delivery by the DRAL where ADAG is but one partner?

What partner experience when ADAG has no experience? Where is this belief that somehow Dassault will magically convert the DRAL complex into one that is capable of delivering +'s for the Indian aerospace ecosystem? Could not the GOI have insisted upon the same, and tied it to existing agencies or shortlisted companies with tangible LCA or AMCA links to receive a manufacturing boost as versus a greenfield line assembling low value add structures for the Falcon by an inexperienced setup?
First things first ...
ADAG has ZERO experience but its 49% partner in the DRAL JV is the OEM. I had written "DRAL will deliver Falcon parts with Dassult having operations control" and not ADAG will deliver. You can keep referring to ADAG and I will keep referring to DRAL.

Lets go back to basic again ...
a. The 36R deal is to be delivered from France.
b. A big chunk of Offsets to be delivered as ToT and in this instance will mostly be absorbed by DRDO and its affiliates. That portion does not touch DRAL.
c. DRAL is but 1 in approx. 100 other offset partner with approx.
d. DRAL will deliver Falcon part.

The ecosystem, as I understand, is built as a hub and spoke model where the hub acts the integrator while sourcing all/most of the assemblies/sub-assemblies/components from vendors at the spoke end of the model.

With the 36R and the offsets where is the Hub and where are spokes?
a. The Hub is in France and the spokes spread around France and India to the extent the ~100 Indian vendors are also integrated as spokes.
d. DRAL will manufacture Falcon parts. No connection with the Rafale ecosystem.

That leads me to conclude the following while accounting for all the above and not looking at any ONE bit in isolation.
1. DRAL is NOT on the Hub/Spoke model for the 36R to be delivered from France while other Indian partners of Dassult/Thales/etc might be.
2. DRAL is not even a spoke for Rafale forget it being the Hub!
3. DRAL is a spoke in the Faclon ecosystem.
4. To the extent the other Indian vendors are part of the chain, it will boost the "Indian aerospace ecosystem" depending on what they get from Dassult. Now ADAG cannot be praised or blamed for that can it?
5. DRAL to will add to the "India aerospace" to the extent it localizes good quality manufacturing assembly, rigs, tools, process, quality control, management practices, etc all downloads from Dassult.

If one examines the information out in the public domain, the 36R order will add to the "Indian aerospace ecosystem" to a limited extent in the private sector. DRAL by its success will neither add nor by its failure subtract substantially from whatever local gains are planned for this phase. Majority of the gains from this phase will accrue to mainly DRDO and to some extent to the other ~100 vendors that are part of the offset deals.

Now, If the order was to expand beyond the initial 36R and with a commitment by Dassult/DRAL/ADAG to built all additional jets in India, the "Indian aerospace ecosystem" will get a substantially boost by creating a parallel integrator in DRAL. The present 36R order has no such scope for DRAL if one examines the data objectively.

Karan M wrote:
I hope I read you right on "Reliance Group" because if that is the case this is a full toss. When Reliance group was quite small in comparison to its current heft, it did a greenfield Refinery project. It is now supposed to be the biggest single location refinery complex in the world. IIRC, That project was executed in record time and under budget all overseen by Reliance managers even while execution was oursourced.
https://www.bechtel.com/projects/jamnagar-oil-refinery/

Err.. I was referring to the fact that despite its obvious lack of technological knowledge in A&D, the Reliance Group has a long history of effective project management. Thank you for proving my point. At least the above counts. Can you show me an equivalent example for the ADAG?
Dassult will appoint the COO and exercise operational control of the DRAL. ADAG role is limited.

That raises a very very valid question. What exactly does ADAG bring to DRAL?
1. Dassult CEO talked of readily available land and an attached airport or somethings on that line ...
2. Its expertise in handling the politics in India.
3. Its expertise in handling babudom and red tape.
and other such non-quantifiable but India specific skills.

Karan M wrote:
On how to acquire "skill/knowledge/experience" the Ambani way. Read it for yourself....
http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/jan/18inter.htm

Not all A's are created equal as we all know.

No doubt but execution skills for defense sector is not as restrictive as say in Nuclear research or Missile research especially if you have the OEM with you.
1. Dassult will provide the skeleton staff to bootstrap the JV starting with the COO.
2. DRAL will hire as needed from India and across the world. CEO is a hire with 20+ years of experience as claimed by Dassult CEO.
3. The biggest pool with Dassult experience would be in France among the retired folks. They can be contracted for a couple of years to help start the work and train staff.

Karan M wrote:
Why recipe for delay when the operational control is with Dassult?
ADAG will supply the bulk of the hands. Operational control will be exercised by Dassult by embedding adequate of its own experienced staff into the mix. This is not a R&D project, not even a co-development. In its current avatar it is a fabrication project of some Falcon parts.

If as you admit, its merely a fabrication project for Falcon parts, then why was this offset amount wasted on such low value add?

That has been know to this forum for a long time and per the latest offset criteria. TOT portion has been allocated to DRDO. What is there to admit or be surprised?

Karan M wrote:
1. Sorry but a program manager of L&T with work experience on Air to Air missile or Subs or Guns will need as much hand holding as a similarly experienced ADAG program manage "hired" by ADAG for the job.

That is your mistaken assumption, because clearly you don't understand that its very common for program managers in heavy engineering programs in L&T to be shuttled between programs and they have delivered even so. Take a look at some DRDO press releases so far. You'll see program managers who have worked across IGMDP, Arjun and several other programs. BEL's Shankar is currently handling an org which deals with EW suites, Su-30 assembly, Tank FCS.. do you think his stint as the head of BEL R&D was not substantial enough?
I was simply pointing out that some "hand holding" is need when an transitioning from one project to the next if a different domain and setup. Here the context was DRAL and I was speaking of L&T folks transitioning from Missile or Sub or Guns into a different organization, culture, setup and way of getting working when compared to an equally competent DRAL "hire".

Moreover, my point was in a response to your
Err... the "hand holding" that will have to be done by Dassault with L&T will be a magnitude lesser than that with a DRAL. There are people in L&T who can teach the Dassault program managers a thing or two about even more complex programs.
And my response was "will need as much hand holding".

1. You > No hand holding for L&T
Me > Same for an equivalent DRAL "hire"

2. You > A little hand holding for L&T
Me > Same for an equivalent DRAL "hire"

Karan M wrote:
2. I am sure that some L&T managers can teach Dassult managers a thing or two on "some" complex programs on which they have worked. I am equally sure a "hired" but equally competent ADAG manager will again be able to teach Dassult managers a thing or two on "some other" complex programs on which they have worked. BUT the Dassult manager will be able to teach both the L&T and the ADAG managers a whole lot more on Dassult processes.

The assumption being some ADAG manager can easily be hired and a BU setup, and it is anyways as easy as a dedicated line in already existing TASL, L&T, Alpha- let alone the PSUs.

Don't you see the obvious fallacies in your post? {Same as my last comment. No point in repeating}

The above 3 things can all be true at the same time.

Difference being you need them to be true. {Same as my last comment. No point in repeating}

3. You can keep harping on ADAG's while I will keep touting Dassult's experience with Dassult CEO explicitly stating that it is in operation control of the JV. The JV will deliver on the Falcon parts.

Only for Falcon parts now, apparently. So tell me why work on this new setup only for Falcon parts and start from scratch when much better experienced players with a track record of competent delivery already existed?

Now can you see the lack of rationale in D choosing a completely in-experienced partner to make low value add parts and components in a greenfield line, wherein the offsets could have been used much more rationally for Indian benefit.

To close off this reply ..
In my last post it should have been DRAL hires and not ADAG hire.

DRAL experienced hires will not need the experience of designing the new shop. It will be done by Dassult but these folks will work on getting it up and executing. To that extent the demands on their ingenuity will be much less than say L&T folks setting up the whole stuff by themselves.

L&T has done that time and again and is by a wide margin the best engineering firm in India across domains. I have no doubt on that at all. I am in no way questioning the competency of L&T or any other desi firm.

Would L&T or TASL have made a better partner? That is without doubt.

My simple point all along has been that DRAL will deliver on its mandate in spite of ADAG. DRAL is just a glorified fabricator for the present but one that has to deliver in the Aerospace domain. To that extent some local fabrication capability will be built via this facility.

What use this facility will be put to after the offset is over is quite another question.
1. Will more Rafale be ordered which in turn will turn this facility into a new hub for assembling Rafale?
2. Will Dassult move some more of its legacy business to DRAL?
3. Will DRAL bid for some desi fabrication job in the future? Say for AMCA perhaps?
4. Or will the little capacity acquired at DRAL be allowed to atrophy?

Takes quite a bit of energy to think through each reply. I am tired ....

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3573
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 18 Oct 2018 20:44

pankajs, Karan, perhaps its time to say what you got to say one last time and agree to disagree.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 19 Oct 2018 00:37

I bow to the forum contributors and mods for the work in the last two pages of this thread.
Well done guys, keep contributing but also remember the opportunity to show your brilliance was provided by a disagreement on the other side.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2750
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 19 Oct 2018 00:43

Yaar, can someone teach something new to RG. He learns by Rot, one time he learned answers to all questions as Women empowerment, now it is Rafale me chori, when repeatedly being proven otherwise. I know he is slow ...how long did the women empowerment thing last till he learned something new?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17650
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 19 Oct 2018 13:31

looks like swarna raju, ex chairman of HAL was not only named swarna but his name was the corporate mission statement as well, swarnam eva jayate.


HAL’s jets costlier than foreign ones, says defence ministry audit




HAL’s jets costlier than foreign ones, says defence ministry audit

Su-30MKI – the mainstay fighters of the Indian Air Force (IAF) which is manufactured by HAL under licence from Russia – is about Rs 150 crore costlier than the ones made in Russia, according to the document, a copy of which has been reviewed by Hindustan Times.

Oct 19, 2018

Sudhi Ranjan Sen New Delhi

Fighter jets made by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) – the Bengaluru-based defence public sector unit – cost more than the same jets produced abroad by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), a recent review of the state-owned company by the ministry of defence (MoD) has found.

The department of defence production is studying the document, said an officer aware of the development who did not want to be identified.

Su-30MKI – the mainstay fighters of the Indian Air Force (IAF) which is manufactured by HAL under licence from Russia – is about Rs 150 crore costlier than the ones made in Russia, according to the document, a copy of which has been reviewed by Hindustan Times.

“The aircraft produced at HAL comes at a significantly higher cost when compared to direct purchase from the OEM,” the document added.

A Su-30MKI made in Russia cost Rs 269.77 crore whereas one made by HAL in India costs Rs 417.69 crore, almost “Rs 150 crore” more per aircraft, the review said.

Similarly, there is a huge cost difference between the cost of the Hawk trainer aircraft manufactured by British Aerospace and those made HAL.

After long and torturous negotiations, India bought British made Hawk jets to train pilots in 2004. Of the initial 62 Hawk jets, 24 were to be bought in a fly-away condition and the remaining were to be manufactured under licence by HAL. Each Hawk aircraft manufactured Britain in 2004 cost Rs 78 Crore. Those manufactured at HAL would have cost Rs 88 crore that year. The cost Hawk aircraft produced by HAL continued to increase. In 2010, the cost shot-up to Rs 98 crore and in 2016, Rs 153 crore. The difference in price “is primarily due to lesser efficiency and exorbitant man hour rates,” the review has found.

Interestingly, the purchase of 126 Medium Multi-Role Rafale fighters from French Defence manufacturing giant Dassault that was negotiated by the previous government (108 would have been assembled in India by HAL) was scrapped because of high man hour cost at the Indian state-owned company. HAL would have needed 2.7 times more man-hours than the French company for each aircraft.


HAL disagrees with the interpretation of the report. Responding to queries, a spokesperson said “Cost escalation from 2005 (for the Hawk jet) is normal. We also need to take into account the life-cycle cost of each product against off the shelf purchase from overseas. The indigenous benefits, the ecosystem HAL creates for the larger benefit of the country should be factored in also. Importantly, staggered or small orders deny economies of scale to HAL.” HAL also pointed to supply chain issues adding to cost. “Given that multiple agencies get involved in our manufacturing process, kit cost from OEMs and other delays like raw material and spare part supply issues, which are also endemic to the aerospace industry in India, the increase in cost must be evaluated in the right spirit,” the spokesperson added.

The National Democratic Alliance’s decision to enter a $8.7-billion government-to-government deal with France to buy 36 Rafale warplanes made by Dassault was announced in April 2015, with an agreement signed a little over a year later. This replaced the previous United Progressive Alliance regime’s decision to buy 126 Rafale aircraft, 108 of which were to be made in India by the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

The deal has become controversial with the Opposition, led by the Congress, claiming that the price at which India is buying Rafale aircraft now is Rs 1,670 crore for each, three times the Rs 526 crore, the initial bid by the company when the UPA was trying to buy the aircraft. It has also claimed the previous deal included a technology transfer agreement with HAL.

The NDA has not disclosed details of the price, but the UPA deal, struck in 2012, was not a viable one, former defence minister Manohar Parrikar has previously said, implying that it would have never been closed and that, therefore, any comparison is moot. Indeed, the UPA was not able to close the deal till 2014, largely over discussions related to pricing of items not included in the initial bid.

The NDA has said that the current deal also includes customised weaponry.

The deal has also become controversial on account of the fact that one of the offset deals signed by Dassault is with the Reliance Group of Anil Ambani. The Congress claims the earlier deal was scrapped and a new one signed just to provide Ambani this opportunity for an offset deal. Both the government and Reliance have repeatedly denied this.

First Published: Oct 19, 2018

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5846
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 19 Oct 2018 23:36

chetak wrote:looks like swarna raju, ex chairman of HAL was not only named swarna but his name was the corporate mission statement as well, swarnam eva jayate.

:rotfl:

And RaGa calls Rafale HAL's right! :roll: Wow, what a bloated PSU, HAL is. Pathetic.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17650
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 20 Oct 2018 02:07

Rakesh wrote:
chetak wrote:looks like swarna raju, ex chairman of HAL was not only named swarna but his name was the corporate mission statement as well, swarnam eva jayate.

:rotfl:

And RaGa calls Rafale HAL's right! :roll: Wow, what a bloated PSU, HAL is. Pathetic.


Some PSUs have grown too fast, too fat and too arrogantly confident of assured business constantly coming their way.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21980
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 20 Oct 2018 14:34

chetak wrote:HAL disagrees with the interpretation of the report. Responding to queries, a spokesperson said “Cost escalation from 2005 (for the Hawk jet) is normal. We also need to take into account the life-cycle cost of each product against off the shelf purchase from overseas. The indigenous benefits, the ecosystem HAL creates for the larger benefit of the country should be factored in also. Importantly, staggered or small orders deny economies of scale to HAL.” HAL also pointed to supply chain issues adding to cost. “Given that multiple agencies get involved in our manufacturing process, kit cost from OEMs and other delays like raw material and spare part supply issues, which are also endemic to the aerospace industry in India, the increase in cost must be evaluated in the right spirit,” the spokesperson added.


If the MKI , Hawk deal is costing extra due to Life Cycle Cost arrangement and SME is getting benefitted by offsets then the cost is more than justified.

GOI is paying through its nose for just 5 years life cycle cost for Rafale to maintain an availability of 70 % for just a fleet of 36 aircraft.

Looks like GOI and IAF is ganging up against HAL to make Rafale deal look good and HAL is left hapless to defend itself when MOD should be the spokeperson defending HAL

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17650
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 20 Oct 2018 14:44

Austin wrote:
chetak wrote:HAL disagrees with the interpretation of the report. Responding to queries, a spokesperson said “Cost escalation from 2005 (for the Hawk jet) is normal. We also need to take into account the life-cycle cost of each product against off the shelf purchase from overseas. The indigenous benefits, the ecosystem HAL creates for the larger benefit of the country should be factored in also. Importantly, staggered or small orders deny economies of scale to HAL.” HAL also pointed to supply chain issues adding to cost. “Given that multiple agencies get involved in our manufacturing process, kit cost from OEMs and other delays like raw material and spare part supply issues, which are also endemic to the aerospace industry in India, the increase in cost must be evaluated in the right spirit,” the spokesperson added.


If the MKI , Hawk deal is costing extra due to Life Cycle Cost arrangement and SME is getting benefitted by offsets then the cost is more than justified.

GOI is paying through its nose for just 5 years life cycle cost for Rafale to maintain an availability of 70 % for just a fleet of 36 aircraft.

Looks like GOI and IAF is ganging up against HAL to make Rafale deal look good and HAL is left hapless to defend itself when MOD should be the spokeperson defending HAL


A 150 crores price differential??

like I said, swarnam eva jayate.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.

Let us agree to disagree.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21980
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 20 Oct 2018 16:59

chetak wrote: 150 crores price differential??

like I said, swarnam eva jayate.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.

Let us agree to disagree.


Yes , If you count in Rs it looks huge but if you count in USD the difference would be around $15 million.

Check the Rafale Base price , Life Cycle cost variation for a period of 5 years , this does not even count the local industry benefits , TOT cost etc that MKI/Hawk bring into the picture.

HAL is a badly managed organisation but thats been the case for entire 50 years , the current gang up by GOI/IAF is a Hit job against HAL to justify Rafale

Why was MOD happily accepting Cheques for all these years from HAL and did not raise any concern about the cost and why was IAF not raising its voice and refusing to accept such high cost and complaining to MOD ?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17650
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 20 Oct 2018 17:38

Austin wrote:
chetak wrote: 150 crores price differential??

like I said, swarnam eva jayate.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.

Let us agree to disagree.


Yes , If you count in Rs it looks huge but if you count in USD the difference would be around $15 million.

Check the Rafale Base price , Life Cycle cost variation for a period of 5 years , this does not even count the local industry benefits , TOT cost etc that MKI/Hawk bring into the picture.

HAL is a badly managed organisation but thats been the case for entire 50 years , the current gang up by GOI/IAF is a Hit job against HAL to justify Rafale

Why was MOD happily accepting Cheques for all these years from HAL and did not raise any concern about the cost and why was IAF not raising its voice and refusing to accept such high cost and complaining to MOD ?



No.

The current scenario is reminiscent of the conspiracy of not allowing the IA to procure artillery guns after bofors and the decades that passed keeping the IA under armed and vulnerable. It finally took this govt to get the new guns.

The amerikis are pushing the teens very very strongly. This can happen ONLY if the rafale deal is scuttled.

We just cannot afford the rafales as well as the teens.

The french and the amerikis are well aware of this as are the Indians, especially the congis and the commies. The amerikis and the brits are pushing this cancel rafale project.

This matter being highlighted at this time, during the run up to the 2019 elections is most certainly not a coincidence.

That moron hollande has also been paid off to yap in public and thereafter because he cannot dare damage french interests, he has quietly disappeared from the scene.

We should come out of this SME nonsense. The MIC is not built by SMEs.

The MIC requires big and rich companies with financial and political muscle and not just technical malum, which incidentally has always, at least in India, has come from the PSUs and the Forces.

Ex chairmen of anything are ALWAYS political animals with new masters and often on a very short leash. They get PAID big bucks to speak.

If any of them had big brown hairy testimonials, they would have spoken whilst in service.

Incidentally, all countries able to supply fighters to India (fighters that India is actually willing to buy) are just not willing to work with HAL. Go figure.

Its time we wake up and smell the coffee.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15562
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 20 Oct 2018 18:42

Why 2.7x the labor hours vs the French? Even given the learning curve, that is outrageous.
IAFs complaints about HAL QA, HALs reluctance to invest in its own products - LCA, spares etc are also well known.
I have to agree time is overdue to fix HAL because if we don't, we will rapidly make indigenization unaffordable.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21980
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 20 Oct 2018 19:16

I am not against the Rafale Deal , I hope they go full length and buy 126 of these but I am against making HAL as the scapegoat when the going is getting tough politically for MOD and IAF is just getting or being used to fire at HAL.

If HAL is that bad these years what did MOD do about it and why IAF did not complain alll these years about the cost escalations.

Dont bite the hands that feed you over decades rather work positively and bring the change

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2232
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 20 Oct 2018 19:51

What is the government doing to "fix" HAL? It is perfectly happy to vacuum out it's "profits" as dividend and getting it to open factories in influential politicos constituencies.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17650
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 20 Oct 2018 20:23

Karan M wrote:Why 2.7x the labor hours vs the French? Even given the learning curve, that is outrageous.
IAFs complaints about HAL QA, HALs reluctance to invest in its own products - LCA, spares etc are also well known.
I have to agree time is overdue to fix HAL because if we don't, we will rapidly make indigenization unaffordable.


All these guys manage the defence environment in such a way that they know exactly to whom post retirement benefits in the form of jobs are to be given so that their interests are well protected and indeed advanced.

That all it takes to undermine the system, get lucrative orders where bills are not properly scrutinised and huge add on charges are speedily passed with a wink and a nudge and its all done on a single tender basis.


that's also how the 150 crores per aircraft differential gets passed.

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing anywhere in the world??

It is a legalized ripoff to support and perpetuate gross mismanagement and monumental inefficiencies.

It's 6000 crores extra for a mere 40 MKIs and it goes from our pockets.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 647
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

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

Postby Suresh S » 20 Oct 2018 20:33

I do like your analysis chetak. India,s best export should be traitors which all generations of Indians have produced in plenty. Sigh.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 229
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

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

Postby souravB » 20 Oct 2018 20:50

For 6000 Cr We would've procured atleast 400K new assault rifles for our army. That what it does to our preparedness.
Just pointing out while it seems the money just changes hand with HAL, it stays at wrong hand while needed elsewhere.
JMT

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15562
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 21 Oct 2018 01:21

Austin, money is not infinite. It cannot be used to prop up PSU unions when the whole economy is crying out for funds. IAF has been complaining for years against HALs price gouging nobody listened. And its pointless to blame the current Govt for being anti-HAL when it is the current Govt that has got HAL Tejas business and it was HAL's decision to quote 2.7x the labor hours for Rafale.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3573
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 21 Oct 2018 02:11

Do we have any specific info on why 2.7x factor was quoted..? What was x in this case...? And what 2.7 included over and above x. Say Dassualt quoted 1man year to make one Rafale, obviously HAL would have had to do a lot of background work to get upto speed where they can even start doing this work. Was that part included in 2.7x or was that accounted for separately..?if someone has specific info from public source please share.

If this number is what I think it is, then its not so outrageous, based on my personal experience in much menial transfer of knowledge and processes (our gora counterparts still complain that Indian office takes 2x time for what they believe they can do it in x. It might be bit exaggeration but not completely untrue. Yes we can do certain things much faster than they can but overall as a fully functional engineering unit we are still way behind even after 10 plus years. And what we do is no where close in complexity that building a complete jet has). Even after a few years the factor never becomes 1x. This is nothing to do with Indians being stupid compared to Goras or HAL being particularly inefficient. Arguably some pvt co could be better than HAL, but even they will never have the depth of product knowledge that enables Dassualts to deal with daily issues and work as fast. Even if Dassualt has honest intentions of giving every bit of knowledge about Rafale to HAL to enable them to be as good and themselves, they couldn't do it. Its practically impossible. Thats why one can never fully become expert only through ToT or being spoon fed. In fact we would never understand Su30 or Rafale even if we build them in 100s and opererate them for decades. A Tejas or an AMCA can teach us far more. In fact let me go on to say this, I believe, even if you give Rafale to a seasoned OEM like LM or Boeing, they will not be able to reach the same efficiency that Dassault has wrt Rafale MFG in quite a long time. And vice versa if F18 is given to Dassault.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 897
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

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

Postby nits » 24 Oct 2018 13:09

Didn't saw that coming: - France unveils model of the Next Generation Fighter that will replace Rafale


:P Tail less

Image

The well-known French company Dassault used this year’s Euronaval 2018 exhibition to display a model of the New Generation Fighter (NGF) that will eventually replace the current generation of Dassault’s Rafales and Germany’s Eurofighter Typhoons aircraft by around 2035-2040.

The Dassault ‘s next-generation aircraft has no tail fin and a swept W-shaped wing design and incorporates highly advanced stealth technologies and integration with information systems. The new aircraft will have tricycle-type landing gear for runway take-off and landing.

The air vehicle is expected will be adapt to contemporary air threats and exploiting the potential of artificial intelligence.

It is likely that the new fighter jet project is developing as part of Europe’s Future Air Combat System (FCAS) and will eventually replace the current generation of Eurofighter and Rafale fighter aircraft by around 2035-2040.

According to a news release put out in April 2018, Germany and France have agreed on the central requirements for a new fighter jet to replace Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale warplanes beginning in 2040.

The CEO of Dassault Aviation, Eric Trappier early said the Airbus and Dassault decided to team up to ensure that Europe retains control over its future weapons systems.

Airbus and Dassault said it was important for France and Germany to launch an initial joint study this year so they could get demonstrators of the technology done for 2025.

Trappier said the fighter jet would not be a copy of the U.S. F-35 fighter, but would be more ambitious.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17650
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 03 Nov 2018 14:04

Manu Pubby Verified account @manupubby

At all key decisions and differences during the #Rafale deal negotiations, a nod came from the top - through the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 469933.cms



Image
11:15 PM - 1 Nov 2018

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36001
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 04 Nov 2018 03:42

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 9378566145 ---> RB-004, the 4th Rafale for the Indian Air Force on the jig in France.

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, ParGha, VickyAvinash, Yagnasri and 37 guests