Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
A Bar Brother
Junior Member
I don't know what you made of it, but what I have posted is what's happening with regards to the Su-30.
As far as the RFP is concerned, MoD/HAL call the shots, Dassault can only agree. And Dassault, along with all other companies have acceded to the demands of the requirements back in 2007, in writing.
The RFP terms are binding. Liability is most definitely a part of it. Dassault is not getting out of it, hence why they are interested in knowing the details of the arrangement between Sukhoi and HAL.
A Bar Brother
Junior Member
That is why Rafale deal is a bit ludicrous at this point . MMRCA supposed to be competition to replace aging Mig-21s (and Mig-27 and Mig-23 at that time) with something reasonable priced until Tejas is ready . Instead, they got low-end plane that is more expensive then high-end plane , and would probably cost more then 5th gen plane (FGFA)
Rafale won the bid with a cost of $85.5 Million as unit price.
Anyway, Rafale's avionics are at the same level as the F-35. There is no way IAF isn't interested in the bird. It is capable of nuclear strike too.
This argument is on very soft ground. India is under major threat from terrorism and has been for the last 25 years. In the last decade alone, we came close to a war twice and we fought one back in 1999.
As long as Pakistan exists, India is always under threat.
HMS Astute
Junior Member
Care to elaborate?
Brumby
Major
The link provided by aksha (post #1418) and in that article, contention no. 2 basically sums this up "The ball is apparently in HAL's court, with Dassault telling the Cost Negotiation Committee (CNC) that it still awaits figures from HAL on the financial specifics of the liability it is seeking to transfer to Dassault. Dassault has asked HAL to clarify the specifics of any similar liability parameters in comparable deals like HAL's Su-30 MKI production line on license from Russia."
The term "liability parameters" would suggest that there are exclusion, protection and limitation clauses that are being negotiated and this will depend on the final proposed structure of co-operation. It might or might not be similar to the Sukhoi arrangement.
If liability is binding then there is no point negotiating towards a final contract. That itself is self contradictory.
A Bar Brother
Junior Member
Which aspect?
HMS Astute
Junior Member
First off, F-35 is a stealth aircraft which is a generation ahead of Rafail. And, they are differently designed to do different tasks.
A Bar Brother
Junior Member
It is not necessary that the liability clauses should be the exact same as the one with Sukhoi, that doesn't make sense. The Sukhoi contract was much larger and over a longer period and doesn't include as much workshare as the Rafale deal.
The specifics can be up for negotiation, but the entire concept of liability will exist and is binding. As to what can be excluded or included depends on how much HAL has learned over the last 15 years manufacturing the MKI. Basically, HAL will want to throw in as many parameters as they possibly can into the mix while Dassault will want to throw out as many as they can. And MoDs of both sides will have to step in push the deal further, as is happening now.
I thought you were against liability from the start.
Brumby
Major
I see three reasons why the Rafale deal makes sense to India :
(i) The Rafale is a capable aircraft against India's immediate security concern (I am not talking about Pakistan)
(ii)There is a timing window issue for India to replace existing obsolete fleet and prior to the PAKFA coming on board (India needs to hedge slippage of this program and in all likelihood will happen)
(iii)The F 35 is not India's immediate concern and I think the French will disagree that the Rafale cannot compete against the F-35 in air dominance.