Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 01 Dec 2014 03:00

Viv S wrote: We can hardly ignore the question of why Dassault chose to partner up with Reliance. Not if fostering the capability of the domestic industry is a priority and to be achieved even partially out of the MMRCA corpus.

Unless there is valid reason to doubt Reliance's motives, as determined by GoI only, are anything but pro-India, it is not in our best interest to interfere with Dassault's choice. Otherwise we are simply handing them an excuse if anything goes wrong.

Why aren't we qualified to comment on Reliance's capabilities? They're hardly complex or secret. RIL has core competencies in the oil industry, interests in retail, infrastructure & telecom, a pile of cash and no shortage of political connections.

We aren't qualified to question Dassault's choice because they know better than anyone who is right for them. I personally wish they had chosen Tata but that's what we have. Their expertise in other businesses is irrelevant as are their political connections. They started out making cheap soap.

RAT Pvt Ltd was set up after JV was signed. Most other private players in the sector had defence subsidiaries registered long before.

And a google search Reliance Aerospace directs you to an aerospace management consultancy company based in France.

Irony.

Damn. I didn't realize their JV is called RAT! Anyway, when their JV was named is not an issue at all and neither is the fact that their 1 table, 2 chairs office is in France for now, probably in a Dassault hangar. If things begin to go their way, we will certainly see the main office in India.

But we are all jumping the gun aren't we. Let's see what happens today in Delhi.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 01 Dec 2014 03:21

srai wrote: Well if Dassault owns 23-49% stake in the Dassault-Reliance venture, India would be paying for TOT to Dassault to give itself the TOT in India!

The way I read it, the French part of RAT would be giving the Indian part of the JV the ToT and India (GoI) will own it.

Even if the new venture is 100% owned by Reliance, why should GoI use its public fund to pay for TOT to give it to a private entity. Shouldn't Reliance come up with that money if it is going to "own" it? Otherwise it should be the property of India.

Again, the way I read it Reliance will obviously come up with it's %age of seed money in the JV. But again, let's remember that the MMRCA deal is between the GoI and Dassault. Reliance does not "own" the ToT but GoI does. All it will be in a position to do (and demonstrate and be made accountable for) is make sure that ToT is absorbed by it. What GoI needs to focus on is how Reliance and its sub contractors intend to absorb the ToT and build on it down the road. Governments funding private companies to make fighters is not a new concept. We need to focus on what Reliance and GoI will do with the ToT after the Rafale.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Dec 2014 04:10

Victor wrote:
srai wrote: Well if Dassault owns 23-49% stake in the Dassault-Reliance venture, India would be paying for TOT to Dassault to give itself the TOT in India!
The way I read it, the French part of RAT would be giving the Indian part of the JV the ToT and India (GoI) will own it.

...

Would be interesting to see how that plays out--TOT being transferred within same private organisation but GoI owning it.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Dec 2014 04:16

Victor wrote:Unless there is valid reason to doubt Reliance's motives, as determined by GoI only, are anything but pro-India, it is not in our best interest to interfere with Dassault's choice. Otherwise we are simply handing them an excuse if anything goes wrong.

Reliance's motives may be pro-India, but that is not the issue. The issue is that Reliance showed no particular intention of investing in the defence sector, yet is set to garner more money through its connection to Dassault, than all other private Indian companies will have made to that date, put together.

With regard to excuses, Dassault's delivery schedule/quality control isn't the only factor here. If Reliance assembles the aircraft, as you (and Dassault) are proposing, how is the emergence of Reliance as a private sector counterpart to HAL going to be guaranteed? What if Dassault hand-holds Reliance through the whole thing and they wrap it up when the project concludes?

We aren't qualified to question Dassault's choice because they know better than anyone who is right for them. I personally wish they had chosen Tata but that's what we have. Their expertise in other businesses is irrelevant as are their political connections. They started out making cheap soap.

I have no doubt that Dassault believes Reliance is just right for it. Unfortunately, Dassault has no vested interest in the health of Indian aviation industry.

Four aviation majors (Sikorsky, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus) have aerospace tie-ups with TASL and it along with sister companies Tata Tech & TP-SED is involved in projects with DRDO, NAL, RUAG, Pilatus, General Dynamics, Elta, BAE, Northrop Grumman, Honeywell among others. The list also includes Thales and Dassault Systems (software division of DG).

Reliance Aerospace Technologies doesn't even have its own website yet and its the partner-of-choice for Dassault.

Damn. I didn't realize their JV is called RAT! Anyway, when their JV was named is not an issue at all and neither is the fact that their 1 table, 2 chairs office is in France for now, probably in a Dassault hangar. If things begin to go their way, we will certainly see the main office in India.

But we are all jumping the gun aren't we. Let's see what happens today in Delhi.

RAT is a subsidiary of RIL. Dassault AFAIK owns no stake in it. Also, I was mistaken about its registration; it was set up just before Dassault received the L1 designation (not after).

And the website I mentioned belongs to a French company named Reliance Aerospace that does 'aerospace management consultancy' (I found that ironic). RIL's defence section doesn't have any website yet.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Dec 2014 04:24

So is there a risk of Dassault billing the $hit out of Reliance on account of "consultancy" and taking back the business that it accounted for as offsets?

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Dec 2014 04:30

^^^

That's an all-too-common practice.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Dec 2014 04:42

If Reliance is that bad, and Dassault insists, then the MMRCA deal should be scrapped.

Else, Dassault agrees to GoI terms and the deal goes forward with HAL as LI.

If things go wrong, Dassault cannot deliver regardless of fault, penalties are imposed, and it declares bankruptcy, we win on paper and lose in real world. That's what happened in the Viky deal with Russia.

We're asking the impossible: Dassault can and would agree to 100% liability:

1. For all planes produced in France
2. For all planes produced in India with it's partner Reliance

If GoI insists on HAL as LI, Dassault would simply up the price as an insurance premium because this is still the price negotiation stage. GoI would then turn to EF2K who would then triple its prices.

There is no alternative to rolling your own and if you can't, buy it off the shelf and reverse engineer.

This is the way deals are done. I think there is a lack of understanding of what contingent liabilities means to the vendor.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Dec 2014 05:00

^^^

Anyone know what the terms of the liability are? I doubt 100% liability are being proposed.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Dec 2014 05:49

srai wrote:^^^

Anyone know what the terms of the liability are? I doubt 100% liability are being proposed.

What is non 100% liability?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 01 Dec 2014 06:46

Cosmo_R wrote:
srai wrote:^^^

Anyone know what the terms of the liability are? I doubt 100% liability are being proposed.
What is non 100% liability?

Limited Liabilty.

member_26535 · Post by **member_26535** » 01 Dec 2014 07:32

Most trans national companies do not agree on any " unlimited liability " clauses. This would have to be "limited " . How much is left to both the negotiating parties to agree

With No idea on what this particular contract is asking for, Iam speculating that this could be the context where the buyer is insisting that the seller signs up for complete responsibility and ownership of delivery of the product and related services ( which is normally ok) but at the same time the seller is being asked to subcontract the work to the buyer's guy ( HAL ) who per se will not be fully accountable to the seller as a sub-con ( in Dassault's view ). There would be severe penalties and other clauses which is causing this static.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 01 Dec 2014 10:51

If we are going to oblige French then better pay them USD 10 Billion for assistance in AMCA and UCAV. We can ask them to give us technology for engines, AESA, Avionics, aerodynamics, material technology, machine tools, labs etc. The time gap can be plugged by additional Su-30MKIs and LCA by spending additional USD 10 Billion. In this way, we will get better long term benefits by spending the same USD 20 Billion.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 01 Dec 2014 10:58

Marten wrote:... What stops the IAF from giving the same leeway (FUNDING!) to Mahindra and saying, ok, go ahead and build a trainer. At that point, suddenly, posters will find ways to say "it is MoD onlee that is stopping this from happening." ...

Marten Saar, what exactly do you mean by this? IAF giving leeway in funding? Can IAF do that (Decide to fund a private entity from Government budgetary allocations without a tender)? Does the IAF have in its Charter such authority?

I am not sure on the rule position, but I think the IAF cannot without MOD nod and agreement of DefMin.

They may propose such an idea. Not sure if the current or future IAF top brass are that strong to take on MOD and DefMin on such issues even if they ever came up with a noble idea. Most who have the 'balls' are shown the exit route.

Will things change? The present dispensation is different in terms of policy or broader defence set ups but they have shown no understanding or inclination in changing whats inside. I hope top folks like Gen V. K. Singh and Gen Hassnain can guide the GOI here.

So, to counter to your thoughts, it is the MOD which controls such decisions in the Indian set up. What is sad that such ideas are not being put up by Services with sufficient force.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Dec 2014 11:41

France studies ASMP-A nuclear missile replacement

Just fyi, not necessarily directly related to any IAF requirement per se. Although I'd expect the IAF to be very interested in the nuclear platform aspect of the Rafale and possible integration of air launched Brahmos missile with the Rafale.

Which brings me to my question- could missile gurus shed light on whether an ALCM like the Brahmos be developed into a nuclear strike missile for the IAF? What changes would that entail? Warhead weight and size is what I can primarily think of, but what else?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 01 Dec 2014 14:09

deejay wrote:Will things change? The present dispensation is different in terms of policy or broader defence set ups but they have shown no understanding or inclination in changing whats inside. I hope top folks like Gen V. K. Singh and Gen Hassnain can guide the GOI here.

+1, but I frankly don't trust anybody who has already been part of the system (including Gen VKS, i dont see how he is any different). We need somebody from the outside who will question the current way of doing things at every step. IMO strategic foresight is missing at both the military and political levels, and the Rafale deal is a prime example of this. Instead of asking the question "How best can we deter the Chinese?", we are asking "How many(or What Quality of) Fighters do we need to counter the PLA-AF?". The answer to the first question may have anything to do with the answer to the second question at all. Its akin to asking what our strategy for food security to the farmer union, What their answer going to be?- "Increase the Minimum Support Price, write off loans, give free electricity" etc. Which, like importing expensive TFTA fighters, is a good way to ruin your self while possibly not getting any where near solving the original problem at all.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 01 Dec 2014 17:34

Kartik wrote:France studies ASMP-A nuclear missile replacement

Just fyi, not necessarily directly related to any IAF requirement per se. Although I'd expect the IAF to be very interested in the nuclear platform aspect of the Rafale and possible integration of air launched Brahmos missile with the Rafale.

Which brings me to my question- could missile gurus shed light on whether an ALCM like the Brahmos be developed into a nuclear strike missile for the IAF? What changes would that entail? Warhead weight and size is what I can primarily think of, but what else?

Is it legal .If we Put a Nuke warhead into an Missile which fell on MCTR

otherwise we can do this ..Just like French Rafale comes with ASMP-A ..Indian Rafales Comes with Brahmos-M

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Dec 2014 20:13

brar_w wrote:How is the SH the next logical choice when clearly it was the Typhoon that along with the Rafale that was shortlisted? The Super Hornet is a total dead end as far as the future of the strike aircraft is going. Only the Growler would be kept relevant, and it is quite likely that any future orders from the USN would be Growler specific.

The SH will receive more investment over the next 20 years than any of the other contenders.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Dec 2014 21:29

Almost all of that investment (that has been accounted for through the current projected spending) is for the Growler through primarily the Next Generation Jammer.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Dec 2014 22:28

brar_w wrote:Almost all of that investment (that has been accounted for through the current projected spending) is for the Growler through primarily the Next Generation Jammer.

The SH will form the bulk of the USN fleet for the next 20 years and thus will be kept up to date. That's all versions, not just the Growler (or Grizzly as it's called now)

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 01 Dec 2014 22:49

The Super Hornet with its new F414EPE engine would be phenomenal, have a lot of commonality with our LCA, specially if the LCA2 also got the EPE version. Would lead to millions in cost savings. SH for medium range with 2 engines, LCA2 for short range with one. Best AESA and weapons load available. Best price. Quickest route to operational service. But this makes too much sense so obviously it's out of the question.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Dec 2014 22:59

But this makes too much sense

Not yet.

Wrong thread, apologies. TVC is missing.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Dec 2014 23:22

MODERATOR: Gentlemen, we've already been through why X or Y fighter WOULD have been good choice for MMRCA. IAF has selected Rafale and that is where we stand. Rest is all history. So, no further discussion on this line. You're free to discuss merits of a fighter program in International Military Aviation Thread. This one is ONLY for Rafale and related news.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Dec 2014 00:30

GeorgeWelch wrote:
brar_w wrote:Almost all of that investment (that has been accounted for through the current projected spending) is for the Growler through primarily the Next Generation Jammer.
The SH will form the bulk of the USN fleet for the next 20 years and thus will be kept up to date. That's all versions, not just the Growler (or Grizzly as it's called now)

Replied in the International Military, thread.

VijayN · Post by **VijayN** » 02 Dec 2014 02:38

We know the French def. min is here, and not surprisingly the Rafale deal can be considered closed in favor of them. Don't see this changing at all like many of us have been saying.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/rafa ... 04688.html

The French and Indian defence ministers agreed on Monday to overcome any differences and finalise the sale of 126 fighter jets to India in a deal worth an estimated $15 billion, the Indian defence ministry said.

"Both sides agreed to take forward the strategic co-operation between the two countries. They discussed all issues including Rafale. It was decided that whatever differences still existed would be resolved in a fast-track manner," said Indian defence ministry spokesman Sitanshu Kar.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 02 Dec 2014 03:04

French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian meets Manohar Parrikar to push ahead with Rafale fighter jet deal

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Dec 2014 03:25

From the same article ^^^:

"...The cost of the project has increased to $30 billion (about Rs 1,860 crore) from the initial $10 billion. Some differences have cropped up over transfer of technology as well, officials said."

Forget ToT issues, that works out to some $238MM per plane.

If we want to crater the rest of our defense capability, this is the way to go.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2014 04:17

none of these dork media articles are correct. it is high time to invoke RTI if applies. this rafale saga has gone beyond any reasonable level of secrecy.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 02 Dec 2014 04:34

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... /312010014

India will fast-track the finalization of the US $12 billion plan to purchase 126 Dassault Rafale jets, according to a senior Indian Defense Ministry official

. . .

The Indian MoD official refused to give details on how the two sides will resolve differences holding back the finalization of the negotiations in the run up to the inking of the contract. He did say that the two defense ministers agreed that all issues that are irritants will be sorted out by the end of this year so the deal can be finalized by the end of the financial year ending March 31.

And this one claims $12 billion. End of the year is 30 days away, we'll know soon if that part of the prediction is true.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Dec 2014 05:31

^^^

As I have said many times, the initial deal will be signed at around $12 billion but then smaller deals (few billions each) will follow over the course of the decade that will cover things like additional TOTs, weapons, infrastructure, etc. But no one will remember what all those subsequent deals add up to; they will only remember the initial inking amount. This is what has occurred in the past deals.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Dec 2014 05:48

$12 billion, $15 billion, $30 billion.. do I hear $40 billion?

Economic Times is one of the worst offenders among the Paid Indian Media Pundits (P.I.M.Ps). Bloody mc/bcs.

According to the Defense News article, the issues are:

the insistence by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to give guarantee on the delivery schedule of the Rafales that will be license-produced at HAL
Maybe they will break down the problem in terms of who controls what in the cycle, making those in control responsible for those items.

bringing down the cost of Indian-made Rafales.
The cost of Indian-made Rafales will be much higher than French-made Rafales so any cost savings will ironically result only from getting more parts made in France and shipped to India. We could focus on only those parts we need to learn about and let the French supply everything else.

what currency will be used to purchase the 18 aircraft built by Dassault in France, and how HAL could be protected against currency fluctuations.
From the little I know about this, the Rupee is a bad currency to hedge with the Dollar being a better vehicle than the Euro in futures markets. Actually it's surprising if this really came up as a problem. Shouldn't it be international commerce 101?

It's been a long, strange trip but thank the Lord it is over with looks like. Regardless of what is given up by whom, one hopes the IAF is going to push for at least one squadron of loaners immediately with a couple of 2-seaters. I seem to remember the French were offering these back in the day.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 02 Dec 2014 08:52

.

Last time I heard The Cost Rafale insisting around $15 Billions . where India Negotiating from $12 Billions . and I thing the issue too Solved . They now talking about Liability of HAL produced Rafale's

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2014 14:29

Anything built in India will be more expensive than if built by the OEM! The only weapon systems that were/are being built fairly economically have been warships,but of late,even here there have been huge time and cost overruns.

The new DM has promised to fast track the Rafale deal in media reports today.But at what cost?!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2014 17:29

I'd be darn angry if the deal does not bring in any learning for our lab boys or screw driver boys after investing $15b approx.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 06 Dec 2014 06:26

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/world ... v=top-news

"PARIS — Two warships that France agreed to sell to Russia might never be delivered, the French defense minister said on Friday, drawing an angry response from Moscow, which said Paris must honor its contract in full.

The remarks by Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian came a week after President François Hollande said France would postpone the handover of the first of the ships to the Russian Navy “until further notice.”

“It is possible that we never deliver them,” Mr. Le Drian said in an interview on the news channel BFM TV. “The Russians must realize this situation.”

Well so much for US sanctions. The Frenchies are just unreliable

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 06 Dec 2014 12:14

Exporting the future Indian Rafale?

While the contract is under negotiation, the French Defense Minister told the Indian press that HAL could ,in turn, export the licensed product , "HAL will have the complete technology and the license to manufacture additionnal aircrafts which could be exported [...]

http://www.journal-aviation.com/actuali ... exportable

Interview : Le Drian optimistic on the sale of 126 aircraft to India

[...]
- Journalist : What's new with this 126 Rafale?
- LD : It took time because it is a very complicated issue.
- Journalist : "15,000 pages of technical and commercial details, is this true ?
- LD: Yes it's true. Since January 2012. With a period of stagnation because there were elections in India and before and after the elections, not much has happened. but during my visit, the new defense minister has said publicly he wants to accelerate procedures and remove the remaining disagreements.
- Journalist : the deal will be concluded quickly?
- LD : I think
- Journalist : Before the end of the year?
- LD : No , quickly , for a contract of this magnitude, it's not three weeks, it's a few months. I'm optimistic. Until now I said I could not be pessimistic , now i'm quite optimistic because there is an indian will to do so and the determination of the Indian gov. is very clear.

http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/vide ... 349915.php

http://issuu.com/spguide/docs/sp_s_aviation_11-2014

****************

Bonus : a new released video of French strategic forces on a simulated nuclear strike. Interesting to see many rafale symbology within the cockpit...(TF mode, engaging mig 29, spectra, SA-10 etc...In the end of the video 8'00)

[youtube]Acxj1DNBqe0#t=590[/youtube]

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Dec 2014 13:18

Cosmo_R wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/world ... v=top-news

"PARIS — Two warships that France agreed to sell to Russia might never be delivered, the French defense minister said on Friday, drawing an angry response from Moscow, which said Paris must honor its contract in full.

The remarks by Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian came a week after President François Hollande said France would postpone the handover of the first of the ships to the Russian Navy “until further notice.”

“It is possible that we never deliver them,” Mr. Le Drian said in an interview on the news channel BFM TV. “The Russians must realize this situation.”

Well so much for US sanctions. The Frenchies are just unreliable

Wrong conclusion. Nobody honours a military hardware contract with an active enemy. Since the contract was signed, Putin has (as far as France is concerned) annexed Crimea, invaded E Ukraine, and shot down a civilian airliner. Putin is going head-to-head with EU and NATO. It's ridiculous to expect that an EU/NATO member would supply weaponry to Russia in this situation.

If India militarily threatens the vital interests of Russia, US, France, Israel, UK, etc, we can expect the adversary to not supply India with weaponry. It's common sense.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Dec 2014 14:08

Marten wrote:This is a surprise. So you're saying Russia and France are in a state of war? LoL.

Doesn't have to be a state of war for them to have an adversarial relationship. China and India (or Vietnam, Japan, SK) aren't at war either but they still wouldn't trade in defence items. All this goes to show is how fast Russia's relations with the EU have devolved. Makes sense too; the Ukrainian crisis did after all originate with Russia torpedoing Ukraine's plan to sign an association agreement with the EU.

__________

Can't say I can question France's reliability as a result of current fracas. The leverage that the Chinese can bring to bear on the other hand is very real.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 06 Dec 2014 16:05

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618
Okay the French Defence Minister is on record saying that HAL could export Indian built Rafales. I think this deal is happening.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 06 Dec 2014 17:00

eklavya wrote:It's common sense.

Common people use common sense.

Uncommon people use, either special sense or nonsense.

If you find nonsense being peddled that you can safely presume that there are uncommon people behind it.

You can find successful use of special sense only later in time and only then does the trust factor builds up.

Mistral is a trade where rivals are involved. OTOH Rafale is a trade where arms-length transaction is involved with no possibility of the supplier and buyer ever going to war. There is no comparison.

The apology for US arming Pakistan is that France & Russia arm or will arm China. Thus US is friend. But they still have no explanation for why Pakistan gets armed by US.

NaMo should take a balanced and dispassionate look at Rafale. We don't need it because we have to export it or because we will use it to go deep into China. We need it only and only to bump up the numbers for some time, diversify the supplier base, challenge 70-80% of PLAAF for next 30 years, and perhaps learn a bit of this and that. Only real constraint that NaMo faces, is the cash down on the deal vis a vis the urgency voiced. Considering the near empty coffers, erosion of edge and absence of Plan-B, courtesy the UPA, these are real constraints. And he should ideally not think himself into a deeper corner than that.

Mig 29 upgrades + Mirage upgrades will bring up the numbers but in different time frames compared to Rafale.

I expect Mig 29 upgrades to get phased out faster than Mirage upgrades and only later does the Rafale begins to go out as the AMCA production peaks. Working backwards from that, AMCA is far into the future and till that time Rafale represent 50% of the cutting edge in this class. A class which will peak (quantity-wise and quality-wise) much after the Mig 29 upgrades + Mirage upgrades come in the inventory.

We have indigenized the light category while simultaneously learnt by Indian-izing, advanced level technology for MKIs. The long term works for the medium category comes in after some time and the heavy category may not even get made in India ever in an absolutely indigenized form.

Who knows, by that time even the world would have moved out of the heavy category as sensors improve and new kinds of sensors and tactics come into the scene.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 06 Dec 2014 17:34

dinesha wrote:
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618
Okay the French Defence Minister is on record saying that HAL could export Indian built Rafales. I think this deal is happening.

Can't find original quote by the French Defence Minister.