India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Jun 2011 14:03

mallikarjun wrote:
mallikarjun wrote:To add to it one green/left German MP Asked the Govt, not to offer typhoon to India to prevent "arms race" in the region.
RajeshA wrote:That was the President of the Green Party of Germany, Claudia Roth!

I wrote her a letter emphasizing her misreading of the situation and ethics.
Rajesh any luck getting reply from her?

I wrote her just yesterday, give it around three weeks time. She would be hard-pressed for time to give any long reply, or she may just delegate it to some body else. We will see. I'll let you know, what response she gives.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2011 21:19

Viv S wrote:
NRao wrote:Who knows, IAF may find that the conformal tank has degraded the performance of the EF!!!
It may marginally degrade performance but it will create less drag than a 1000L drop tank let alone a 2000L tank, while still carrying a considerable 1500L of fuel.

True. However, the drop-tanks can be dropped. The pilot has options.

The conformal tank is there for the entire flight. Not much option there.

Pros/cons????

I was under the impression that the F-16IN, for the MMRCA, had a point or two taken away because the conformal tank degraded the turning rate. ??????

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jun 2011 22:13

all depends on the mission and the kind of situation mrca would be put in an enemy deep strike zone.

we can reach target area, complete mission and return.. and when the surprise counter attack happen, it could be from any visual range.

sukhish · Post by **sukhish** » 26 Jun 2011 04:10

I think in the end EF will win. there are couple of reasons for this :

1) EF is very desperate and will go to a big length in full filling india's ToT requirements.
2) EF has a room to grow which good for india, since India itself wants to learn and grow for it's own aircrafts.
3) EF is just not a fighter, but rather a platform in which it will have a future stake
4) french wants to keep everything on its own. they would be very less flexible is transferring technologies.
5) since India aspires to be a permanent member of the UN, India having an aircraft from france won't bold well for india
having an frontnline aircraft from the consortium will bold well for india's independent status. just like india is doing joint production of
FGFA with russia. India won't blindly purchase aircrafts from now onwards. in future India wants to build its own aircrafts and sell them
as well. and india unlike the other big players will always keep some partners with whom it will like to hedge the costs. in future no single
country would be able to handle the callenges of developing an aircraft by itself. India realised this long back. even U.S has its own
limtations

think about it like buying a house for yourself. you can buy a good house with the features and upgrades or you can buy a not so stunning house but you will always have a room for improvement according to your needs and in the process you learn as well, so that in future you can build a house for yourself.

I have said on many time in this forum, this contract will go to a party who needs it the most.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jun 2011 04:43

With rise of the Indian economy and China offering Europe economic support, much of the old thinking on UNSC and the like will have to be revisited. In another 5-10 years Indians better start rebooting their mind set. Technically India will need help. Politically and economically she does not need to follow anyone.

mallikarjun · Post by **mallikarjun** » 26 Jun 2011 06:27

.I think in the end EF will win. there are couple of reasons for this :

1) EF is very desperate and will go to a big length in full filling india's ToT requirements.
2) EF has a room to grow which good for india, since India itself wants to learn and grow for it's own aircrafts.
3) EF is just not a fighter, but rather a platform in which it will have a future stake
4) french wants to keep everything on its own. they would be very less flexible is transferring technologies.
5) since India aspires to be a permanent member of the UN, India having an aircraft from france won't bold well for india
having an frontnline aircraft from the consortium will bold well for india's independent status. just like india is doing joint production of
FGFA with russia. India won't blindly purchase aircrafts from now onwards. in future India wants to build its own aircrafts and sell them
as well. and india unlike the other big players will always keep some partners with whom it will like to hedge the costs. in future no single
country would be able to handle the callenges of developing an aircraft by itself. India realised this long back. even U.S has its own

If the above analogy from Sukesh is right at the end, then it will be a remarkable shift in our strategic thinking. It will be break from cold war/sanction paranoia mentality. Mind u euro fighter program source tech and parts from US too. It has to be different level of thinking that has to done to give it to EADS if they r happen to be the cheaper. But for me, world has n't changed much look at latest IAEA guidelines on transfer of enrichment technology. At the same time we want to make sure either of them not take us for granted.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jun 2011 07:09

in future no single country would be able to handle the callenges of developing an aircraft by itself. India realised this long back. even U.S has its own

On "no single country .......".

One needs to be more specific, which type of an air craft? On one hand India did not want to touch designing/building a basic prop trainer, but on the other hand she is knee deep in the AMCA effort, which is expected to be a fly-by-light plane.

On "even US has ....."

Do not even begin to compare. India does not even come close - the US R&D is eons ahead. Then the requirements - US has a global presence and her needs are very, very different than those of India. For this reason alone I would not compare the two. What I would be interested in what are the overlap between the two.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 26 Jun 2011 08:49

sukhish wrote:I think in the end EF will win. there are couple of reasons for this :

1) EF is very desperate and will go to a big length in full filling india's ToT requirements. So are the French. This will be their first export order and in sales terms the french can drop their price, be more amenable to ToT,etc. This is termed as a "loss leader". The seller scrapes the barrel for best price and conditions because it opens up other markets for them.

2) EF has a room to grow which good for india, since India itself wants to learn and grow for it's own aircrafts. My experience is that even with the MiGs, India did a fabulous job of improving those a/c. Here, I would admit, that it was more in the realm of system integration of a Russian a/c with western avionics etc.

3) EF is just not a fighter, but rather a platform in which it will have a future stake. The Rafale is more omnirole than the EF. The technical evaluation wasn't ticked on future promises, otherwise the Khans may have got in. IAF would be taking note of the rumblings in the consortium countries about criticism levelled at the EF program

4) french wants to keep everything on its own. they would be very less flexible is transferring technologies. We really do not know the details of this, but their failures to export the Rafale may make them more amenable?

5) since India aspires to be a permanent member of the UN, India having an aircraft from france won't bold well for india. In a fast changing geopolitical scenario, lets not trust the west to deliver. especially when the west has discovered, to their dismay and irritation, that our DNA does not include the "poodle gene". having an frontnline aircraft from the consortium will bold well for india's independent status. just like india is doing joint production of FGFA with russia. India won't blindly purchase aircrafts from now onwards. in future India wants to build its own aircrafts and sell them as well. and india unlike the other big players will always keep some partners with whom it will like to hedge the costs. in future no single country would be able to handle the callenges of developing an aircraft by itself. India realised this long back. even U.S has its own limtations. Here a consortium of countries vs a single country has its pros/cons, especailly in crisis situations and no amount of voluminous legalese will protect us. Besides, you have to consider the L1 factor.

think about it like buying a house for yourself. you can buy a good house with the features and upgrades or you can buy a not so stunning house but you will always have a room for improvement according to your needs and in the process you learn as well, so that in future you can build a house for yourself.

I have said on many time in this forum, this contract will go to a party who needs it the most.

Repeating again what I have stated earlier that personally I do not care which of the two win as long as it dovetails well into our requirements necessitated by the IAF's doctrine, ToT so as to enhance our aeronautical abilities, maintainablity and lower political risk.

Hopefully, we will know by Sept 2011.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 26 Jun 2011 11:32

$10 bln fighter jet deal transparent: Air Chief

sukhish · Post by **sukhish** » 26 Jun 2011 11:54

rajanb,
I think your response has a lot of thought and weight in it as well. Also Britain and Germany being part of the consortium may make them
very susceptible to the U.S pressure. Britain is in the U.S camp by all means. one good thing about France is that they always take their own decisions. they did not participate in iraq war, even though Britain and Germany did. also rafale's performance has been proved to be second to none in the field trials. So france stands a very commanding chance to win this race in the end. I concur with your assessment.

nitish · Post by **nitish** » 26 Jun 2011 12:00

Paris 2011: Thales Brings Consistency to Rafale Radar
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-ne ... dar-30149/

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 26 Jun 2011 12:51

@ NRao . if i am not wrong , fly-by-light and fly-by-wire are not much in difference ,instead of electrical cables , optical fiber cables are used which are immune to electromagnetic interference. Transmission of data and reaction time of controller remains same in both , western scientist are working on Fly-by-wireless , which will help in reducing aircraft weight due to all round wiring required in the aircraft and will also reduce breakage of communication in case of failure in joints and breakage in wires ,leading to FBW failure

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 26 Jun 2011 13:13

karan_mc wrote:@ NRao . if i am not wrong , fly-by-light and fly-by-wire are not much in difference ,instead of electrical cables , optical fiber cables are used which are immune to electromagnetic interference. Transmission of data and reaction time of controller remains same in both , western scientist are working on Fly-by-wireless , which will help in reducing aircraft weight due to all round wiring required in the aircraft and will also reduce breakage of communication in case of failure in joints and breakage in wires ,leading to FBW failure

Karanji,

Wouldn't Fly-by-wireless be very susceptible to EMI and also jamming? Or even extraneous noise within the a/c's electronics due to malfunction or damage?

Optical cables would definitely reduce the weight of cables but any cable, and T/R module is susceptible to damage, due to a malfunction or during combat.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 26 Jun 2011 14:23

sukhish wrote:rajanb,
I think your response has a lot of thought and weight in it as well. Also Britain and Germany being part of the consortium may make them
very susceptible to the U.S pressure. Britain is in the U.S camp by all means. one good thing about France is that they always take their own decisions. they did not participate in iraq war, even though Britain and Germany did. also rafale's performance has been proved to be second to none in the field trials. So france stands a very commanding chance to win this race in the end. I concur with your assessment.

You may want to check your sources. It was the German Government that opposed the Iraq war, France then sided with Germany on the issue.

Both aircraft have their merits. And since we don't know the criteria for the decision (strictly L1 or are political/strategical considerations just as important ?) it's practically impossible the judge which aircraft is the better choice.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 26 Jun 2011 14:32

MarcH wrote:
sukhish wrote:rajanb,
I think your response has a lot of thought and weight in it as well. Also Britain and Germany being part of the consortium may make them
very susceptible to the U.S pressure. Britain is in the U.S camp by all means. one good thing about France is that they always take their own decisions. they did not participate in iraq war, even though Britain and Germany did. also rafale's performance has been proved to be second to none in the field trials. So france stands a very commanding chance to win this race in the end. I concur with your assessment.
You may want to check your sources. It was the German Government that opposed the Iraq war, France then sided with Germany on the issue.

Both aircraft have their merits. And since we don't know the criteria for the decision (strictly L1 or are political/strategical considerations just as important ?) it's practically impossible the judge which aircraft is the better choice.

I agree with you MarcH. There are pros and cons to both the a/c. And as I said in my earlier post, that these factors need to be balanced. factors, the details of which, we are not privy too. The Germans may have opposed the Iraq war. They also refused to give us arms for our paramilitary/police because of our poor "human rights" record.

Just trying to emphasise that it has to be a very well considered decision to choose one of the two a/c And that there are pros and cons on both sides.

Parakram · Post by **Parakram** » 26 Jun 2011 15:15

One thing comes to my mind. There is still some time for LCA MK2. Why not to bargain an AESA for Tejas MK II ?
The one who offers AESA for Tejas MK II, will be given preference. By that I mean, full TOT, no hidden things, just as full wish for us.

I hope this is read by someone in EADS or Dassault

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jun 2011 16:07

karan_mc wrote:@ NRao . if i am not wrong , fly-by-light and fly-by-wire are not much in difference ,instead of electrical cables , optical fiber cables are used which are immune to electromagnetic interference. Transmission of data and reaction time of controller remains same in both , western scientist are working on Fly-by-wireless , which will help in reducing aircraft weight due to all round wiring required in the aircraft and will also reduce breakage of communication in case of failure in joints and breakage in wires ,leading to FBW failure

True.

However, (NO expert here) there are a few things that do change enough to make a big difference.

To be sure current air crafts do have some fly-by-light capabilities. It is my understanding that the complete conversion to FbL has a couple of major impacts: weight and specially distribution of weight and therefore the CG (!!!) and the speed at which things need to act/react.

Considering that the modern plane is a flying brick kept flying by software, I am not too sure if the weight issue is a great deal - I bet they will replace the weight gained by FbL with either fuel or missiles. So, I do not see that as an issue.

It is the next item that intrigues me. For one the cut over to FbL is a binary one, in that I do nto think one can design/build a FbW and then slowly convert one-by-one components to FbL. So, my impression is that the plane has to be designed ground up for one or the other. IF that is true then the risks are that much more huge.

Fly-y-wireless, eh? Does wireless have the kind of bandwidth FbL has? Interesting, but it does increase complexities and therefore risk. I guess some have the luxury of trying it out.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 26 Jun 2011 16:37

US sulking over lost fighter contract
Hindustan Times

A top executive, who did not wish to be named, said questions about the criteria adopted to shortlist European fighters (Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale) had not been answered.

"We are awaiting responses to the clarifications sought by the US government," he said.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 26 Jun 2011 17:04

rajanb wrote: I agree with you MarcH. There are pros and cons to both the a/c. And as I said in my earlier post, that these factors need to be balanced. factors, the details of which, we are not privy too. The Germans may have opposed the Iraq war. They also refused to give us arms for our paramilitary/police because of our poor "human rights" record.

Just trying to emphasise that it has to be a very well considered decision to choose one of the two a/c And that there are pros and cons on both sides.

Sure, reliability of a supplier is important. Still the poster I quoted accused Germany to be a client state of the US, while portraying France as the independend choice. The given example of Iraq war was just plain wrong.

Even if it were true, I don't see any reason why "beeing in the US camp" is a bad thing. India itself has no objections to buy US made kit. Raytheon already started a PR campaign to supply weapons for the MMRCA winner and portrait itself as reliable supplier.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jun 2011 18:47

The main question for Ef at this stage is their cost., note it is L1. Other than that, from a techno-political point of view, Ef is a cake walk over Rf, since there are many countries lobbying including the khans whose weapon systems and perhaps even an AESA radar can put into Ef-mki.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Jun 2011 19:46

MarcH wrote:Both aircraft have their merits. And since we don't know the criteria for the decision (strictly L1 or are political/strategical considerations just as important ?) it's practically impossible the judge which aircraft is the better choice.

Well I'm fairly certain the EF comes up trumps on both counts - cost and political/strategic considerations.

Regarding cost - a licensed produced EF will in all probability be cheaper than corresponding Rafale, due to simple economies of scale.

And while we're on cost, one must also consider the offset requirements. If recent media reports are to be believed, Dassault is finding adherence to the offsets clause a major challenge. An issue that will trouble EF considerably less, simply because it involves much larger companies that are already expanding in India as a part of their future growth plans independent of the MRCA competition. The relative mismatch can be judged by the size of the companies involved -

Annual Revenues:

Dassault Aviation: €3.2 billion

BAE Systems: €25 billion
Cassidian: €6 billion

(EADS overall - €45.75 billion)

So one can see how generating $6 billion in offsets would be a tough proposition for Dassault.

BTW just for reference HAL's annual revenue is € 2.1 billion. By 2015-16 it will have overtaken Dassault.

Coming to the political aspect of the deal - first off anyone truly worried about sanctions is being naive. The Indian economy is heading towards a state where sanctions are bad news for western firms and will be hard to ratify given India growing diplomatic clout internationally (not least because of its influential diaspora). That said, its in business affairs where leverage will come into play and that's where hedging our bets with a large pan-European consortium is safer in the long run, with Indian companies gaining larger access to western collaborators. Also the MoD will welcome the experience of working within a multi-national consortium without having to endure the trials and tribulations that the EF members experienced in the '80s and late '00s.

Unless Dassault is downplaying its offer publicly, it does seem like EF Gmbh is the hungrier competitor here.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jun 2011 20:14

What are the possibilities of Dassault merging into EADS in the near future? let us assume they lose this deal.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jun 2011 20:21

I am busy learning french words these days as my kids ICSE curriculum needs 3 languages. so I put in french as one of them to extend my support to Le avion rafale .. very volcan power avion saar

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 26 Jun 2011 20:30

Viv - a very informative post.

As far as politics are concerned we have to remember that "there are no perpetual enemies or friends, only perpetual interests"

Both a/c fit the technical bill. A contract like this is signed, on and behalf, of the President of India, and both parties will have to back it with a guarantee from the state(s) of the supplier. Believe me when I say, that the time taken to finalise the contract, though inexplicable to us BRFites, is time being spent in evaluating all these various factors.

Assuming the French, are telling us the truth when they say the ToT is tough for them to comply with and therefore, compete with, which as an ex-salesman I would discount, then they are definitely losing. But, lot of devious strategies are played to fox competitor(s).

At the end of the day, I am looking forward to the day when one of these birds, take off from HAL Bangalore, and grace the skies with its potent power. And I can gleefully watch from my apartment.

To me the various statements by the EF consortium, with words to the effect that they scored over Dassault in the technical trials, their advertising of having been selected for the MMRCA shortlist etc., were targeted more at the domestic pressure in their home constituencies, where the heat as to the EF project has been mounting. Marketing can be a virulent form of propaganda!

Let the best one win!

After all, we are Indians first and Indians last as Sachin T said!

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 26 Jun 2011 20:31

Singha wrote:I am busy learning french words these days as my kids ICSE curriculum needs 3 languages. so I put in french as one of them to extend my support to Le avion rafale .. very volcan power avion saar

Singhaji, what a coincidence. My daughter is learning French and here I am brushing up on it to help her in her college. Bon Soir mon ami!

Even I am a Rafale fan.

You all may have the question, why?

Because from Rafale I have seen esoteric air warfare doctrines which has been minimal from the EF side. Doctrines which would stand us in good stead in the mountainous regions of the northwest and northeast.

But as I keep repesting, ad nauseam, let the IAF, our experts of the skies, take the call.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 26 Jun 2011 20:34

might be more useful to learn Mandarin

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jun 2011 20:55

well I am sure mandarin educashun will be free and compulsory for all upto age 108 after bangalore,kerala come under the chinese boot

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 26 Jun 2011 21:05

Ching chu feng chua Singhaji.

What are you saying, lah? (I don't know what I am saying in mandarin!)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jun 2011 21:31

IF and when Chinese boots trot in SIndia, it will be the tea growers that will be hit the hardest.

Anyways, kidding aside (BTW, have the French learned how to spell - after all these years? JK) on offsets. The winners gets some $11 billion. It is from this $11 billion he needs to figures out how to plow back $3 billion. The French finding the offset clause challenging is their national pass time to cry all the time. The crying is part of their game to extent the time and thus increase the cost.

IMHO, which ever company provides complete details and the hot section of the engine as part of the offsets needs to get the deal.

Altho' I prefer the Rafale, I have this feeling that the EF will sneak past at the finish line.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 26 Jun 2011 22:06

@ NRao , neither i am an expert on this matter , but i did read some materials on it , fly-by-wireless technology is work in progress technology . why i am saying fly-by-wire and fly-by-light are not much different then each other is because i couldn't find any reading material which says its superior to fly-by-wire ,one Aeronautic engineer told me its FBW Version 2.0 ,with little improvement over the older tech .while fly-by-wireless testing has been carried out on Gulfstream ,here is a read

Gulfstream says it will continue testing a fly-by-wireless system on its G550 advanced flight controls aircraft until mid-2009, but is optimistic that the control systems and architecture could become a "feasible" back-up control system. The company in September began testing wireless in parallel with other more traditional control methods for spoiler control, using fly-by-light for the inner spoilers and fly-by-wire for the outboard spoilers.

The fly-by-wireless architecture includes an internal wireless bus transmitter and external receiver at the interface for the GE Aviation-built electromechanical linear actuator for the mid-inboard flight spoilers on the aircraft. The units communicate using "direct sequence spread spectrum modulation and coding technology", says Gulfstream.The technology has its origins on the International Space Station. NASA is using the Invocon system to characterise the mechanical motion of the station while coupled to the Space Shuttle. The information, measured by external units and transmitted wirelessly to internal units, is to be used to develop orbit boosting and control manoeuvres for when the two are connected.

Gulfstream says US Federal Aviation Administration rules for using wireless control are likely to have to be developed in parallel with the new control system as no regulations exist.

link

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 26 Jun 2011 22:17

@rajanb ,when i first heard about this concept even i was wondering all the possibility which can go wrong , then i remembered a discovery documentary where it was shown that ,future aircraft's (civilian planes) ,will not have any glass cockpit and some new systems ,will allow pilot fly with out actually looking out ,so i just believe its concept in motion ,but will be a breakthrough in technology when achieved ,but as per my understanding Fly-by-light is not much a big buzz ,which ADA is trying it to make , all 5th gen fighter right from F-22, F-35 and even Pak-Fa will have Fly-by-wire control system no one is taking about Fly-by-light rather then ADA

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 26 Jun 2011 22:39

rajanb wrote: Ching chu feng chua Singhaji.

What are you saying, lah? (I don't know what I am saying in mandarin!)

ni bu hue shuo pu tong khua! wo hue shuo ee dyaar.

(I am just learning!

)

Danell · Post by **Danell** » 26 Jun 2011 23:08

SaiK wrote:What are the possibilities of Dassault merging into EADS in the near future? let us assume they lose this deal.

No chance; never forget Dassault is very rich group with an huge available cash (EUR 3,1 billion as of March 31, 2011 for Dassault Aviation only... ) that has been profitable ever since its creation in 1936 and whose activity is now based primarily on high end business jets and 3d/PLM software (Dassault Systemes is world leader).

Moreover the Rafale is marketed by Rafale International , not Dassault aviation and Rafale International includes Dassault, Thales and Safran/Snecma (3 groups with an overall revenue around 30 billions euros in 2010)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jun 2011 23:29

neither i am an expert on this matter

Then I am in excellent company.

OK, will have to get back to you (am in a hurry), but here are the benefits listed for a F18 FBL program, from 1992, under NASA (they actually flew - then - a F-18 with half the plane with FBW and the other half FBL. Seems to me that in 1992is the test did not convince the military brass that FBL was a good idea. Again, that was in 1992):

1. Weight
2. Volume reduction (fiber is thinner than copper)
3. Immunity from EME
4. Higher bandwidth, and
5. Freedom from electric short-circuits

I did a cursory google, which seems to have supported my assumption that the military would not be interested in the Fly-by-Wireless, specially in the case of fighters. Transports, may be. I am inclined to believe that the FbWireless MAY dominate the civilian arena and will have to prove its worth before it is applied in the military arena. My guess.

Also, just for kicks, I was not able to find any thing meaningful from the Russians in this area.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 27 Jun 2011 00:17

Viv S wrote:Well I'm fairly certain the EF comes up trumps on both counts - cost and political/strategic considerations.

Regarding cost - a licensed produced EF will in all probability be cheaper than corresponding Rafale, due to simple economies of scale.

And while we're on cost, one must also consider the offset requirements. If recent media reports are to be believed, Dassault is finding adherence to the offsets clause a major challenge. An issue that will trouble EF considerably less, simply because it involves much larger companies that are already expanding in India as a part of their future growth plans independent of the MRCA competition. The relative mismatch can be judged by the size of the companies involved -

Annual Revenues:

Dassault Aviation: €3.2 billion

BAE Systems: €25 billion
Cassidian: €6 billion

(EADS overall - €45.75 billion)

So one can see how generating $6 billion in offsets would be a tough proposition for Dassault.

BTW just for reference HAL's annual revenue is € 2.1 billion. By 2015-16 it will have overtaken Dassault.

Coming to the political aspect of the deal - first off anyone truly worried about sanctions is being naive. The Indian economy is heading towards a state where sanctions are bad news for western firms and will be hard to ratify given India growing diplomatic clout internationally (not least because of its influential diaspora). That said, its in business affairs where leverage will come into play and that's where hedging our bets with a large pan-European consortium is safer in the long run, with Indian companies gaining larger access to western collaborators. Also the MoD will welcome the experience of working within a multi-national consortium without having to endure the trials and tribulations that the EF members experienced in the '80s and late '00s.

Unless Dassault is downplaying its offer publicly, it does seem like EF Gmbh is the hungrier competitor here.

Dassaults CEO is on record for saying the Rafale offers as much as 60% lower lifecycle costs then EF. That alone is a huge arguement pro Rafale. (if true). But then again the French weapons package is probably multiple times more expansive, and in my opinion a "must have" if it gets selected. Remove f.e. the AASM from the deal, and suddenly Rafale looks far less impressive compared to EF.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2011 02:16

dhen raffle no fee-yaar sail tu shing wa land. huo hang mergerr yon dassault yan eads.

my share of chippanda OT.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 27 Jun 2011 02:23

At this stage, offsets are the key, whichever company offers the better offsets wins. Both have submitted a revised offset schedule this week, French are experts at underplaying, if they are crying about offsets, it means they have given an extremely competitive proposal.

As someone just mentioned, Engine Hot section is another thing Desh is lusting after and I dunno if MOD would have hinted this to the two groups. more later...

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 27 Jun 2011 02:26

What else can the 2 Groups Offer?
Rafale International: Missiles, Snecma Engine technology, Avionics, AESA Radar,
EADS: I am not sure...

With French we already have multiple JVs, with EADS nothing...

Khan Influence: this does not affect Rafale (either way)... for EF2K, it can help if Khan pushes the deal but the dependancy on Khan supplied components (engine Ityaadi) can work against it.. my 0.0002 paisa

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2011 03:28

I don't think we really hate khan components.. we hate only the khan regime and surrendering to its doctrine. So, look for offers where khan components are available without these over heads.. the same rule for Ef or Rf.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Jun 2011 04:02

SaiK wrote:What are the possibilities of Dassault merging into EADS in the near future? let us assume they lose this deal.

Not likely in the short term. Dassault Aviation is Dassault's Group's most prized possession. Over the longer term, it is possible - EADS is a minority stake holder in Dassault Aviation with 46% ownership.