India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Aug 2011 13:35

Yes,the JSF is being touted at "Unbelievable" prices.That great mag "Mad magazine" used to have a strip of cars for sale at "unbelievable" prices.Just $10 for a brand new car,but the tag was only for the wing mirror,the cost of the rest of the car was another thing.Each item had its own price.So will it be with our JSF.Of course the US wants India to "loosen its purse strings",as the JSF is in such sh*t shape project wise,that even the US's closest allies are deserting the project! I posted a little while ago the comments of the chairman of Boeing himself,that the JSF would merely be a "niche" fighter! Even US senior execs associated with the project do not know what the final cost of the JSF will be for their allies as numbers are decling fast.Since we've just saved Boeing's ass with the exorbitantly priced, buy of C-17s in indecent haste,the US is trying once again to see if its agent in India,the peddlar of snake-oil,Dr. Singh,can pull another turkey out of the hat for Uncle Sam.

ACM Browne,resist with all your might the attempts of the insidious to sell to the IAF this "turkey". This is going to be perhaps the first of the major battles that you will have to deal with,as the sell-by-date of the UPA and the reputation of its mendicant-in-charge is crumbling by the day!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Aug 2011 13:54

>> Any thoughts on F-35 at $65 million apiece (if true)?

the radar, engines, avionics, weapons, ejection seat , landing gear and HUD will be sold as accessories billed separately.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Aug 2011 14:00

Singha wrote:>> Any thoughts on F-35 at $65 million apiece (if true)?

the radar, engines, avionics, weapons, ejection seat , landing gear and HUD will be sold as accessories billed separately.

I recently bought an airline ticket at the bargain price of 1 Rupee. Taxes etc were extra and charged at the usual rates - so I got the ticket for about Rs. 4500.

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Aug 2011 14:01

The big worry with F-35 is that it is expected to cost a lot higher then what it is supposed to be costing and its performance on several fronts has been already closed in by other 4+ generation competitors.
During the time of conceiving the JSF around 1994, the only super fighter with capabilities far greater than the rest of the crowd was the Raptor. It is an essentially multi role platform with classified (at that time) capabilities. The industry IMO saw a very potential chance to capture a very large chunk of the aviation business by offering a platform that is only next to the mystic Raptor.

The US economy at that time was very strong (still very much is) and I don’t think they needed anything like the F-35 to build up the numbers. If cost saving was the primary concern, then stealth is never the option. Imagine the costs associated with using F-35 for something like the Iraq or the Afghan operations.
The other side of the worry is that the Russian, Chinese and Indian (:mrgreen: ) 5th generation experiments are going pretty good then expected.

If the Russian or the Chinese planes are anywhere near what they were intended to be, the F-35 is a lost cause for the US. So they are trying pretty hard to contain the competition by trying to restrict the market to it.

Regarding the cost, the nearest example I can see is the Tatas selling the Indica for no profit(losses in some versions).
A marketing strategy.

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 02 Aug 2011 14:06

Philip wrote:I posted a little while ago the comments of the chairman of Boeing himself,that the JSF would merely be a "niche" fighter! Even US senior execs associated with the project do not know what the final cost of the JSF will be for their allies as numbers are decling fast.

Dissing the JSF is in his interest - Boeing's F15 and F18 are obvious replacements for reduced/cancelled JSF orders. The final per unit cost of the JSF will be irrelevant for us if we have indeed received a fixed price offer (for the 'basic model' - would be nice to know what that means)?

Singha wrote:the radar, engines, avionics, weapons, ejection seat , landing gear and HUD will be sold as accessories billed separately.

I get your point about hidden costs but why be so reflexively skeptical? Yes, the JSF is not perfect, but I feel we'll do worse by paying ~$100 million apiece for developmental 4th gen aircraft - lets take a risk on a 5th gen plane OR invest in a 4th gen plane that actually works.

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Aug 2011 14:11

How hard is it to believe if we will be offered the AESA with 100KM range for xxx cost and 150KM for xxx+yy 250KM for...

Singha wrote:the radar, engines, avionics, weapons, ejection seat , landing gear and HUD will be sold as accessories billed separately
I get your point about hidden costs but why be so reflexively skeptical?

Have you used the Windows 7 starter my friend?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Aug 2011 17:40

Sohels,apart from costs,the JSF is so delayed (two years officially,also mentioned as "the costliest defence acquisition in US history"),that the delays and inevitable price hikes are seeing US allies "abandon ship",preferring to buy existign upgraded versions alreay in their inventory like the F-15SE,F-18SH,or newer aircraft like the Rafale and EF.The problem with US allies is that they are so enmeshed with the US military,that they cannot,or are not allowd to think for themselves and make up their minds due to the US military vetoing their attempts to buy non-US wetsern aircraft.This is one key reason why the IAF have not chosen a US aircraft as its MMRCA,as once the US military establishment gain a foothold within the MOD/services,they will turn the entire defence and security of the nation upside down to suit US interests first and India's second.

Just before the deal ws signed with Russia for the FGFA JV,the JSF was touted by vested interests,only to be snubbed openly by the IAF which said that it was "not interested".As it has done before and not just in India,the US tries to sabotage defence deals in other countries too.One remembers how the tanker award to to Airbus,who defeated Boeing,was shot down by the US establishment and its overt pressure on Japan and SoKo,not to mention pet kangaroo, Oz.By the way,did anyone see the latest derogatory remarks made by Oz about India and the holy Ganga? It is beneath contempt to repeat the words here.

If Hillary Clinton truly means business,then she should send a JSF to India this month to be tested by the IAF in our environment and meet the stringent IAF requirements,the "full Monty",just as did all the other contestants did just recently!

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 02 Aug 2011 18:27

I agree fully with Philip. Engagement with US should be based on case-by-case basis only. They tend to implant themselves into the system and start influencing it in ways that can go against our interests. India is not a follower state and has to have independent engagements with every major power as per its own interests.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 02 Aug 2011 18:29

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 Aug 2011 18:37

sohels wrote: Any thoughts on F-35 at $65 million apiece (if true)? Also, why the extreme urgency to induct these fighters? Yes, depleting fleet strength is a concern, but ties with China are stable and are normalizing with Pakistan. I just don't see a full scale war breaking out with either country in the next decade, given the nuclear angle.

Boss the moment any of these adverseries especially Pakis see a miltary advantage war will break out. Further war like scenarios will not be announced years in advance, we will at best have a few months to prepare, hardly enough time to acquire aircraft.

In case of Pakistan, a war like scenario might develop overnight with a major terror attack or Operation Gibraltor/Grand slam operation.

Remember our ties with Pakistan were at thier peak in March 1999 when the Kargil inflitration was taking place.

So no way can anyone guarantee that if we drop our guard our neighbours will not be upto mischeif infact they will most probably act otherwise.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Aug 2011 18:49

jsf..that may be a closed policy within IAF and a mandatory strategic dealing, it is important that we achieve our strategic interests are safe guarded first. Hence, openly IAF taking a sword for sword strategic attitude will not end in the desired results within the desired time.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Aug 2011 18:54

shiv wrote:
Neshant wrote:what's there to test in Libya if the country has no airforce and non-existance air defence.
I guess that if you look at it this way the F/A 18 was definitely the most capable fighter in terms of a fully integrated AESA and air to ar and air to surface capabilities. No wonder the US was surprised at its elimination. But the IAF was clearly looking for something different and not what was on offer from the US or what was not not offer from the Eurocanards.

The LM explanation was very clear. DPP 6 was very clear on the conditions of use. No CISMOA etc. What is the point of having best aircraft which cannot be used?

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 02 Aug 2011 19:07

Clearly LM has launched a publicity blitz. Col.Shukla on their payrolls spreading (mis?) information:

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110802.htm

What a load of BS and non-sense!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Aug 2011 19:34

yantra wrote:Clearly LM has launched a publicity blitz. Col.Shukla on their payrolls spreading (mis?) information:

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110802.htm

What a load of BS and non-sense!

So $ 65 mil for non stealth version. Stealth would add up to 100 mil extra.

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 02 Aug 2011 19:38

chackojoseph wrote:
yantra wrote:Clearly LM has launched a publicity blitz. Col.Shukla on their payrolls spreading (mis?) information:

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110802.htm

What a load of BS and non-sense!
So $ 65 mil for non stealth version. Stealth would add up to 100 mil extra.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? From the link above:

Asked for the cost of the F-35, Lockheed Martin estimates it "in the mid-60s", i.e. somewhere between $60-70 million for the conventional version of the fighter.

This would be the cost of a full-up, operational configuration with all the high-tech sensors that are integrated internally in a 5th generation, stealthy aircraft. Added to this cost would be the added expenses of training, technology transfer (ToT), manufacturing infrastructure, etc, which would significantly raise the overall cost of buying 126 F-35s.

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 02 Aug 2011 19:40

Philip wrote:the delays and inevitable price hikes are seeing US allies "abandon ship",preferring to buy existign upgraded versions alreay in their inventory like the F-15SE,F-18SH,or newer aircraft like the Rafale and EF.

^ contradicts:

The problem with US allies is that they are so enmeshed with the US military,that they cannot,or are not allowd to think for themselves and make up their minds due to the US military vetoing their attempts to buy non-US wetsern aircraft.

If they can abandon ship and purchase Rafale/Typhoon, then they're not immensely constrained?

This is one key reason why the IAF have not chosen a US aircraft as its MMRCA,as once the US military establishment gain a foothold within the MOD/services,they will turn the entire defence and security of the nation upside down to suit US interests first and India's second.

The last bit is to be expected, no one is doing us any favors. But I don't see why dealing with the US should be any different from the other nations. When push comes to shove, neither France, nor UK etc would be able to resist US pressure to cut off supplies etc. With respect to China though, US and Indian interests are aligned to a great degree.

As it has done before and not just in India,the US tries to sabotage defence deals in other countries too.

The US is no saint, but I have no illusions about what other nations would do in similar situations if they had the power to do so.

By the way,did anyone see the latest derogatory remarks made by Oz about India and the holy Ganga? It is beneath contempt to repeat the words here.

Condemnable, but I would attribute the remarks to a small fry radio jockey, not the Australian nation.

If Hillary Clinton truly means business,then she should send a JSF to India this month to be tested by the IAF in our environment and meet the stringent IAF requirements,the "full Monty",just as did all the other contestants did just recently!

With this I agree, if only it were ready. To be fair, the F16 and F18 were made available for testing, no US tantrums there.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Aug 2011 19:44

sohels wrote:How did you arrive at that conclusion? From the link above:

Asked for the cost of the F-35, Lockheed Martin estimates it "in the mid-60s", i.e. somewhere between $60-70 million for the conventional version of the fighter.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Aug 2011 19:45

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=14991
benchmarking against what a/cs for fair pricing? JSF? or Mig 35?

If all the vendors' bids emerge significantly higher than the benchmark, the tender is cancelled and the process begun afresh.

wtf!

hail amca!

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 02 Aug 2011 20:08

Sohels - How did you arrive at that conclusion? From the link above:

Asked for the cost of the F-35, Lockheed Martin estimates it "in the mid-60s", i.e. somewhere between $60-70 million for the conventional version of the fighter.

This would be the cost of a full-up, operational configuration with all the high-tech sensors that are integrated internally in a 5th generation, stealthy aircraft. Added to this cost would be the added expenses of training, technology transfer (ToT), manufacturing infrastructure, etc, which would significantly raise the overall cost of buying 126 F-35s.

Read Shiv's post on getting a Rs.1 air-line ticket. This is akin to that.

Two of those vendors have told Business Standard that they believe that Eurofighter's and Dassault's quotes will be far higher than the benchmark.

BTW, which two? LM and Boeing?

One eliminated contestant sources the Rafale's price from the Brazilian media, which has keenly followed the contest between Dassault, Saab and Boeing to sell 36 fighters to the Brazilian Air Force.

Obviously LM/Boeing, right?

Asked for the cost of the F-35, Lockheed Martin estimates it "in the mid-60s", i.e. somewhere between $60-70 million for the conventional version of the fighter.

How come F-16s were also in the same price range? Now that they have lost, they are trying to sell F-35s "in the same price range"? If this is not BS, what is?

This would be the cost of a full-up, operational configuration with all the high-tech sensors that are integrated internally in a 5th generation, stealthy aircraft. Added to this cost would be the added expenses of training, technology transfer (ToT), manufacturing infrastructure, etc, which would significantly raise the overall cost of buying 126 F-35s.

[/quote]

And what would this all add to? Pray tell? What would be the total cost per-fighter? >> $100 mn?

The article draws upon facts, but is a skewed presentation to suit the lost-out contenders. It is like saying, I will sell you Taj Mahal for Rs.1, but you will have to pay me extra for the access roads, its upkeep and maintenance (sorry, it is a few billion dollars, BTW).

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 02 Aug 2011 20:10

Pratyush wrote:
shukla wrote:India given choice to pioneer naval Typhoon jet
EconomicmTimes

The surest way of killing the NLCA. On a secondary note when the Naval Rafeal already exists then what is the need of considering the Naval Typhoon, which is on the drawing board and will require more work thne the NLCA in terms of structural modifications.

So that India pays for developing the Naval Typhoon for the RN.

Kersi

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 02 Aug 2011 20:17

SaiK wrote:http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=14991
benchmarking against what a/cs for fair pricing? JSF? or Mig 35?
If all the vendors' bids emerge significantly higher than the benchmark, the tender is cancelled and the process begun afresh.
wtf! hail amca!

that might be the official policy, but it won't have any affect on MMRCA. and if price does become an issue, GoI has enough leverage to ask for more production in India. they will find some way or the other, b/c it is the need of the hour. AMCA is far down the lane. most of the technologies required for that are still in the Lab/design stage. it will take several years for those techs to come out into production stage.

bottom line is that India really needs to keep up the fighter strength or PRC and Pak will be emboldened. this cannot be allowed to happen. IAF, MOD, GoI all know this. they will get MMRCA to the satisfaction of the IAF, b/c they must.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Aug 2011 20:18

By Conventional they mean Non VSTOL F-35?

nits · Post by **nits** » 02 Aug 2011 20:23

yantra wrote:http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 10802.html

Article from above link Quotes:-

For years, India's proposed purchase of 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) -- the world's largest overseas fighter buy for which the Typhoon, built by Eurofighter GmbH; and the Rafale, developed by French vendor Dassault, remain in contention --- has been valued at Rs 42,000 crore, almost US $10 billion.

Now that valuation is set to rise dramatically, as the Ministry of Defence carries out a process called benchmarking.

Benchmarking is the crucial process of estimating the fair price for any purchase, and is completed before the MoD opens the price bids for any tender.

This is done by an MoD committee which scrutinises similar tenders worldwide, especially recent sales, to arrive at a comparable --- or as the name suggests, a benchmark --- price.

If all the vendors' bids emerge significantly higher than the benchmark, the tender is cancelled and the process begun afresh.

Bolded part was NEWS for me...

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 02 Aug 2011 20:30

SaiK wrote:http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=14991
benchmarking against what a/cs for fair pricing? JSF? or Mig 35?
If all the vendors' bids emerge significantly higher than the benchmark, the tender is cancelled and the process begun afresh.
wtf! hail amca!

Benchmarking means to know what is the maximum kickback that can be receievd.

k

BrijeshB · Post by **BrijeshB** » 02 Aug 2011 20:37

nits wrote:
yantra wrote:http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 10802.html
Article from above link Quotes:-
For years, India's proposed purchase of 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) -- the world's largest overseas fighter buy for which the Typhoon, built by Eurofighter GmbH; and the Rafale, developed by French vendor Dassault, remain in contention --- has been valued at Rs 42,000 crore, almost US $10 billion.

Now that valuation is set to rise dramatically, as the Ministry of Defence carries out a process called benchmarking.

Benchmarking is the crucial process of estimating the fair price for any purchase, and is completed before the MoD opens the price bids for any tender.

This is done by an MoD committee which scrutinises similar tenders worldwide, especially recent sales, to arrive at a comparable --- or as the name suggests, a benchmark --- price.

If all the vendors' bids emerge significantly higher than the benchmark, the tender is cancelled and the process begun afresh.
Bolded part was NEWS for me...

Yes!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XnZXQYG ... dded#at=11

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 02 Aug 2011 21:03

yantra wrote:Sohels - How did you arrive at that conclusion? From the link above:
Asked for the cost of the F-35, Lockheed Martin estimates it "in the mid-60s", i.e. somewhere between $60-70 million for the conventional version of the fighter.

This would be the cost of a full-up, operational configuration with all the high-tech sensors that are integrated internally in a 5th generation, stealthy aircraft. Added to this cost would be the added expenses of training, technology transfer (ToT), manufacturing infrastructure, etc, which would significantly raise the overall cost of buying 126 F-35s.

I was referring to chackojoseph's statement: 'So $ 65 mil for non stealth version. Stealth would add up to 100 mil extra.'

$65 million does get you a stealthy aircraft - the overall cost is indeed higher but we are not required to pay extra for stealth. Why are we so hostile and dismissive of American offers? What would change this?

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 02 Aug 2011 21:06

yantra wrote:Clearly LM has launched a publicity blitz. Col.Shukla on their payrolls spreading (mis?) information:

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110802.htm

What a load of BS and non-sense!

F-35 Program is all sham. Looks like DoD Project Office is spreading wrong cost info, through Ajay the $40-65 million rate was in 2002. Now we are stepping into 2012. US closest ally - Australia is paying $228 million per aircraft for 14 of them. Now they will say as production rate goes up cost goes down logic, India should just say, "Thanks, But Sorry!"

manum · Post by **manum** » 02 Aug 2011 21:19

MMRCA is so much a painful exercise...If it would have gone under the media radar, less insecurity it would have caused in establishment. I am sure some of the officials must be cursing it by saying who's idea it was to go through all this, in midst of some tedious paperwork.

buying made in USA or Russia would have been lot more easier and convenient...but idealism always makes you pay, and sometimes makes you wonder, why, why all this? but then you gotta let the time pass by...

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 02 Aug 2011 21:23

chackojoseph wrote:By Conventional they mean Non VSTOL F-35?

And with a GE F404 engine, sold separately

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 02 Aug 2011 21:30

sohels wrote: I was referring to chackojoseph's statement: 'So $ 65 mil for non stealth version. Stealth would add up to 100 mil extra.'

$65 million does get you a stealthy aircraft - the overall cost is indeed higher but we are not required to pay extra for stealth. Why are we so hostile and dismissive of American offers? What would change this?

Sohels, we are not dismissive of any American offer that is logical/pragmatic. But, please do not try to think we are naive enough to think an F-35 would cost $65mn/aircraft. As per Thomas above, Aussies are paying close to $228mn/aircraft. Why would & how can the US sell it to us at ~$65mn apiece?

Do you get it?!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Aug 2011 21:31

k. so they kicked unkill off, so that kickbacks doesn't kick back on them?

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 02 Aug 2011 22:16

yantra wrote:Sohels, we are not dismissive of any American offer that is logical/pragmatic. But, please do not try to think we are naive enough to think an F-35 would cost $65mn/aircraft. As per Thomas above, Aussies are paying close to $228mn/aircraft. Why would & how can the US sell it to us at ~$65mn apiece?

Do you get it?!

I'd go easy on the condescension if I were you. The Aussie deal is for just 14 planes, which means the costs of training, setting up supporting infrastructure etc is getting divided by a very small number, leading to a higher per unit cost. I get that the $65 million figure will rise - the question is by how much? Besides, I don't think its a stretch to imagine that the US offers an attractive price to seal a huge deal, as well as a strategic relationship that it considers vital.

To be frank, I'm not convinced that the F35 is the one to go for, but it seems shortcomings in the Eurocanards are somehow more palatable. For instance, I wonder why shiv's post earlier which describes how the Rafale is still very dependent on an accompanying Etendard doesn't invite the same level of skepticism about its developmental delays or combat readiness, to say nothing of the Typhoon. There's also been no new significant news about the AESA on either aircraft. Yes, the F35 could turn out to be a white elephant, but we've seen several reports recently from the UK which indicate that the Typhoon already fits this description.

manum · Post by **manum** » 02 Aug 2011 22:27

Its just the amount of information we are getting, we were not used to...
The time we bought Mirage, jaguar, migs and even Sukhoi's...who told you they were complete platforms, they were not, it took them time to really find their own niche where they were supposed to settle down, and till they are being upgraded....

This is why IAF upgrades what is upgradable rather than just replacing them with newer breed, like many suggested...F35 can not go cheaper below a benchmark simply because of so many tags they hook to a single plane. Its a common sense, but if you'll challenge it, then I'll try to reason it.

Its still better to go with Rafale or Typhoon than others, and we will have to still inherit some pains with them even after paying. Because this the choice we made, from start of MMRCA bid, We intended to go radical with some economics sense.

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 02 Aug 2011 22:39

Hmm.. Does it mean that the Aussies paid $1bn for the 14 planes (~$71 mn each) and $2.2bn for the training and support infrastructure? What is the break-up do we know?

"condescension"? - that is exactly what I am NOT doing.

Irrespective of the shortcomings of Rafale and Typhoon, they chose to contend and demonstrated the products to the IAF - through the bidding process. Both Rafale and Typhoon have participated in combat and we know some of their capabilities/lack of them.

What LM is trying to do here is to take a back door entry to 'somehow' steal the show without doing the hard-paces, and circumventing the MMRCA process. This is loud and clear. As someone suggested before, why do they not bring F-35 to India and ask IAF to try it out?

Besides, I don't think its a stretch to imagine that the US offers an attractive price to seal a huge deal, as well as a strategic relationship that it considers vital.

Huh? Similar size deals on Transport Aircrafts and Poseidons- how much did the price reduce? Do you call it 'attractive' for this 'vital' relationship? The only thing that is vital in this relationship is money and their strategic interest.

manum · Post by **manum** » 02 Aug 2011 23:18

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-26/s ... rs/2811034

The cost of each aircraft in the US has ballooned from $US69 million each to $US103 million and the project has been dogged by ongoing design and development flaws.

Australia is paying $3.2 billion for the first 14 at $228 million per aircraft - an initial cost to buy early-build units so pilots can be trained on the advanced fighter-bomber.

The balance of the $16 billion order will be from aircraft made later in the production cycle when prices are expected to be lower.

However a report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says delays in the F-35 are a bigger concern than the cost.

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 02 Aug 2011 23:27

^^^

Quote from the report:

Aussie Def. Min -

He said Australia built into the project "capacity for slippage" in terms of cost and delay but "we are starting to rub up against that".

...
However a report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says delays in the F-35 are a bigger concern than the cost.

The defence and security think-tank says the RAAF may have to wait a further seven years before the joint strike fighter enters service - six years after delivery was originally scheduled.

Clearly US is looking to reduce the cost of development for them/their allies and are in a soup with F-35. Hence the offer to "vital" and "strategic partner" India.

Shukla quotes LM executive saying:

Prins now points out that, with Lockheed Martin set to build 20 fighters per month, i.e. 240 per year, "we could be in a position to supply India with its first F-35s by 2016, contingent upon many additional factors, including US governmental approval that would affect this timing."

Now, do you agree this is BS?

Their strategic ally Aussies has paid the money and ordered 100 aircraft and is likely to get it in 2017-18. How can India expect to have a squadron immediately and induct the rest in the next 3-4 years, after scrapping MMRCA?

Aussie Def. Min has been lobbying to speed up deliveries now and LM better take care of their existing customers by producing 20 fighters per month

manum · Post by **manum** » 02 Aug 2011 23:36

Australians never had a fighter industry, so they don't have much options than building into the program and sticking to it. More interesting you'll find that though Rafale is quiet a potent design, no-one really bought it, though typhoon is already with few, in numbers...This is very peculiar, and will explain what is the meaning of building into the program.

Price is never the issue with caucasians, till the money stays in between them...Its the delay, with us price is an issue.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Aug 2011 05:47

Oh no!!!!!

Mother of all weapon deals is set to get costlier

Shukla ji:

Now that valuation is set to rise dramatically, as the Ministry of Defence carries out a process called benchmarking.

Benchmarking is the crucial process of estimating the fair price for any purchase, and is completed before the MoD opens the price bids for any tender.

This is done by an MoD committee which scrutinises similar tenders worldwide, especially recent sales, to arrive at a comparable --- or as the name suggests, a benchmark --- price.

If all the vendors' bids emerge significantly higher than the benchmark, the tender is cancelled and the process begun afresh.

A detailed story in the Sao Paulo-based daily, Folha de S Paulo, pegs the Rafale bid at US $6.2 billion (plus another US $4 billion for maintenance over the next 30 years, according to the terms of the Brazilian tender).

Quoting French sources, the daily reports that the $6.2 billion bid is a discounted price, brought down from $8.2 billion after intense Brazilian pressure on Paris. Extrapolating these figures onto the Indian contract, Dassault's quote for 126 MMRCAs could be as much as $20 billion, twice the initially estimated figure.

Aerospace industry estimations put the cost of the Eurofighter Typhoon about 25 per cent higher than the Rafale. That would put the cost of 126 Typhoons at about $25 billion.

Hmmmmmm........

How much does a F-35 cost?

Bids are broken down into seven heads --- M-1 to M-7 --- and include the fly-away cost of the fighter; cost of spare parts; operating costs; cost of inspections and maintenance; transfer of technology; and training expenses. The final figure, M-8, is the overall cost, reached by adding up M-1 to M-7.

Executives from Rafale and Eurofighter agree that Rs 42,000 crore is an outdated price and that the survival of the MMRCA contract now depends upon how much higher the MoD is willing to raise the benchmark.

"Rs 42,000 crore was a price estimated a decade ago, and that was for a smaller, single-engine fighter. When you factor inflation, and the fact that India is now buying a heavy, twin-engine fighter, naturally the price will be much higher," says a senior executive from one of the vendor companies.

A keen watcher of these developments is Lockheed Martin, whose F-16IN Super Viper was rejected by the IAF. A visiting Lockheed Martin executive told Business Standard that the fifth-generation F-35 Lightening II would become a real option for India if the MMRCA procurement was scrapped.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Aug 2011 05:58

So, this benchmark business was triggered by Madame Hillary?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Aug 2011 06:19

I find it very hard to believe that none of these was unknown to anyone and everyone out there in the MoD/IAF. That the figure would balloon based on a bunch of factors.

To make matters worse the MMRCA is gold standard - FGFA and LCA can fail, MMRCA cannot!!!!!! Yikes. That does not sound good at all.

God .......... they should have gone with the M2K.