Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    thing is, you put HAL and Reliance on the same level, but they are not.. HAL is a national firm, Reliance a private one
    The idea of the SP model was create a national private sector counterparts to HAL & other SOEs. For example, Tata/TASL (aviation), L&T (submarines), Pipavav (naval vessels), Mahindra/Tata Motors (ground vehicles), Bharat Forge (artillery) and so on, i.e. firms with experience in a particular sector. All of that has been undone by watering down/ignoring that policy and letting the likes of Reliance into the market by allowing OEMs to handpick partners based on their own interests (and likely the political influence that such firms bring to the table) rather than that of the country.

    and, in any case, HAL was an impossible partner in Rafale deal as seen in MMRCA
    Which is why the L1 status was dodgy. The assumption/projections that went into those financial bid weren't standardized (whether based on ambiguity in the RFP or creativity on the OEM's part) leaving a huge amount of the cost left for 'negotiation' after the fact.

    Comment


      Originally posted by eagle1
      I am understanding your rationale but it is simply incorrect. X€ per hour of Indian manpower might not seem expensive from the swiss point of view but that is another story for India. Bringing the GDP per capita or the cost of life is perfactly relevant.
      No you certainly have not understood the concept, at all (or you're pretending not to). Nowhere in my post was the 'Swiss point of view' or any such positional perception mentioned.

      If the CPFH to India for aircraft B is lower than aircraft A because of lower labour costs, and we're talking in absolute figures (not whether it 'feels' less or more), then GDP per capita is obviously meaningless.

      You did not prove anything, the first L1 has not been called into question in the end. The new Gov had all latitude to put former indian Mindef or Dassault Under scrutiny if any wrongdoings were suspected. That would have been quite a political coup and I am sure they would have jumped on the opportunity if it was the case. When the new Gov took office, they must have had a closer look of the process, some points were raised, but not to the point that a fraud or error would have cancelled the deal.
      "In the end", the MMRCA contract was scrapped so the re-examination of the L1 status became a moot point.

      We've already established that the Dassault bid included a large "miscellaneous" uncosted component (which is what led to the L1 dispute). You can blame that on ambiguities in the RFP, but if so that means that there was no standardized method of comparison. And if there was no standardized method of comparison then the L1/L2 positions aren't genuine. That's just basic logic.

      The fact that the rafale choice has been confirmed by the new indian gov is the most important thing. Acts not just words.
      Oh that's perfectly fine then. But I trust you will not display a hypocritical streak when the same logic i.e. "it was chosen by the govt so it was clearly the best, 'acts not words'!" is used to justify the superiority of the F-35 over the Rafale.

      Incorrect, here is French AF chief of Staff in 2012 point of view in an Interview:
      An apt example of anecdotal evidence.

      Comment


        Which is why the L1 status was dodgy. The assumption/projections that went into those financial bid weren't standardized (whether based on ambiguity in the RFP or creativity on the OEM's part) leaving a huge amount of the cost left for 'negotiation' after the fact.
        You have to make assumptions, it is irrealistic to think that costs could be accuratly predicted, espcially when the actual manufacturing set up is negociated AFTER being declared L1. But this is not an issue in itself if assumptions applies to both competitor.

        Let's say that the assumption is to apply a +20% markup on both competitor costs in their home market to estimate the cost of being manufactured in India (perhaps oversimplified but you get the idea). However you can more accuratly measure the cost of ownership with manufacturer own data. You have to make simplification somewhere.
        Last edited by eagle1; 7th December 2017, 17:38.

        Comment


          Originally posted by eagle1
          You have to make assumptions, it is irrealistic to think that costs could be accuratly predicted, espcially when the actual manufacturing set up is negociated AFTER being declared L1. But this is not an issue in itself if assumptions applies to both competitor.

          Let's say that the assumption is to apply a +20% markup on both competitor costs in their home market to estimate the cost of being manufactured in India. However you can more accuratly measure the cost of ownership with manufacturer own data. You have to make simplification somewhere.
          And how do we know that your assumptions weren't much more liberal or conservative than your competitor's?

          How are you supposed to accurately calculate the costs in the home market? How do you authenticate the "manufacturer's own data"? And how can you make the exact same markup on the respective costs in India?

          For example, Dassault shares manpower between the Rafale & Falcon lines, the same efficiency may not be transferable to a Rafale-only line. Similarly, the allocating (say) 12 mechanics instead of just 8 mechanics per aircraft may increase the CPFH by 15% for a European air force but only 3% for the IAF.

          Comment


            No you certainly have not understood the concept, at all (or you're pretending not to). Nowhere in my post was the 'Swiss point of view' or any such positional perception mentioned.

            If the CPFH to India for aircraft B is lower than aircraft A because of lower labour costs, and we're talking in absolute figures (not whether it 'feels' less or more), then GDP per capita is obviously meaningless.
            No I get it, but it is just your own little intuitive concept, and there is nothing to actually demonstrate that the lower labour costs in India would make it bearable for the IAF. If you need nearly twice as much manpower to look after an aircraft, over 40 years of ownership and given the number of airframe in the MMRCA competition you can bet the differencial will be significative in absolute value as well for total cost of ownership. And bringing the GDP per capita is still perfectly valid as costs are relative to each country. Just like talking of the added complexity of managing a bigger workforce or the impact on fleet availability are relevant.

            "In the end", the MMRCA contract was scrapped so the re-examination of the L1 status became a moot point.

            We've already established that the Dassault bid included a large "miscellaneous" uncosted component (which is what led to the L1 dispute). You can blame that on ambiguities in the RFP, but if so that means that there was no standardized method of comparison. And if there was no standardized method of comparison then the L1/L2 positions aren't genuine. That's just basic logic.
            You did not establish anything, and saying that there was no standardized method of comparison is exagerated, unproven & very unlikely. Unless CNC are complete rookies, you have to come with a method to compare costs and they would use their critical sense to see if there is a distortion between manufacturer. Rafale was not declared L1 out of the hat after such a long process of evaluating costs. You will always be able to raise some questions in such a mamoth task, especially from those with an agenda, but in the end the L1 evaluation has not been invalidated, and nor Dassault nor former Indian defense minister were faces with any charge. MMRCA stalled at a latter stage during exclusive negociation due to the complexity of implementing the contractual frame.

            Oh that's perfectly fine then. But I trust you will not display a hypocritical streak when the same logic i.e. "it was chosen by the govt so it was clearly the best, 'acts not words'!" is used to justify the superiority of the F-35 over the Rafale.
            No that's different as the rafale was assessed during a comprehensive technical evaluation and was declared L1 after a long assessment. MMRCA was scrapped at a later stage and the final choice of the cancelled MMRCA has not been called into question both technically and on price. Because MMRCA contractual frame was so complex the new Indian authority decided to go the Gov to Gov route to speed up the process. If there were any wrongdoings, Dassault and former Mindef would have been faced with a probe and a fresh bid would have been relaunched. Because the New Indian government was comfortable with rafale selection (and they certainly had a closer look) they could proceed with a direct purchase with France, capitalizing on MMRCA selection.

            And how do we know that your assumptions weren't much more liberal or conservative than your competitor's?

            How are you supposed to accurately calculate the costs in the home market? How do you authenticate the "manufacturer's own data"? And how can you make the exact same markup on the respective costs in India?

            For example, Dassault shares manpower between the Rafale & Falcon lines, the same efficiency may not be transferable to a Rafale-only line. Similarly, the allocating (say) 12 mechanics instead of just 8 mechanics per aircraft may increase the CPFH by 15% for a European air force but only 3% for the IAF.
            And how do you know that assumptions would have been more liberal or conservative for one or another competitor and the the CNC would have been plain naive or corrupted ? It is the one who accuse which must bring the evidences, not the other way round. You are implying that Dassault would have cheated or quoted unfair prices but this has never been proven by a court/indian justice/inquiry. If there was something serious Dassault would currently be under scrutiny. There is this naive idea that Dassault would have played its game well within the RFP and that Typhoon Gmbh wouldn't have tried to do the same...This has never been demonstrated and is just in the mind of people who will never completely accept the outcome.

            An apt example of anecdotal evidence.
            You were proven wrong but cannot accept it, rafale ease of use was a design driver and is deeply rooted in Dassault's DNA of producing light, rugged and simple fighters that can be remotely operated and there is nothing anecdotical with it :

            France Soir: You have participated directly in the sales negotiations of the Rafale with the Indian authorities. What was your role alongside French engineers, salespeople and politicians?

            Gal Palomeros: I play my role as Chief of Staff. The partnership with the Indian army is old. For years, we have been doing exercises with the Indian Air Force (IAF) which uses Mirage 2000, a device very appreciated in its ranks. My role is that this relationship is maintained at the best level, highlighting the qualities of our equipment and those of the training of our pilots.

            France Soir: And for the Rafale, more precisely?


            Gal Palomeros: Show what are the operational qualities of the device, its advantages in terms of availability and maintenance. The availability of the air fleet is the responsibility of the Chief of Staff. It was 95% during Operation Harmattan. In this area, France has set a high bar. To maintain a Rafale permanently, we need seven or eight mechanics. For some of our competitors, it's almost twice as much. The maintenance cost of the aircraft is therefore reduced. This was one of the essential criteria used in the design of the aircraft.
            http://archive.francesoir.fr/actuali...de-179963.html

            which is consistent with what Swiss AF chief of staff found in their evaluation :

            As the clear winner of the flight evaluation, the Rafale won the battle, but lost the war in Switzerland. The Eurofighter did not emerge with much credit. Gygax told AIN that he did not expect the four-nation jet to score worse than the Rafale in air-to-air roles. Moreover, he added, the unpublished reports on maintenance and training did not rate the Eurofighter any better than the Rafale. “The spares are possibly cheaper because of the large number of aircraft, but it’s a very manpower-intensive aircraft,” he said.
            https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-turning-point

            With such a differential, over a 40 year period of ownership and for 126 jets, this must have had an impact in the Indian evaluation on price. It is not the full picture of price obviously, but this must have played an important role. Don't forget that the detail industrial set-up was discussed during the last phase during exclusive negociation, so to detrmine L1 this must have been a big factor.
            Last edited by eagle1; 8th December 2017, 11:45.

            Comment


              Regarding Dassault and Indian RFP for MMRCA here is the CEO's answer to critics :

              Confident of signing the much delayed $10 billion contract for Rafale fighter jets with India “soon”, French Defence major Dassault today said its pricing remains the same from day one and it has not wavered from the request for proposal (RPF).

              It also said an empowered team has already arrived in India and carried forward the talks as decided by the Defence Ministers of the two countries in December.

              “The pricing issue is very clear. Our pricing remains the same from day one of LI (Lowest bidder). So there has been no change on that front,” Dassault Aviation CEO Eric Trappier said.

              Asked about claims that Dassault is not willing to stand guarantee for the 108 jets to be made by state-run HAL here, Trappier denied there was any deviation from what the RFP said.

              “We are exactly in line with our answer to (Request for Proposal (RFP). This answer led the government of India to select L1 which was Rafale. And we have stuck to the same commitment which is totally in line and compliant with the RFP,” he told PTI here.
              http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/...cle6912230.ece

              Comment


                Qatar's Rafale deals:

                http://www.china.org.cn/world/Off_th...t_38137593.htm

                1st deal (2016/03/30): 7.5 billion USD.

                a. 24 Rafale F3-O4Ts (18 Rafale C and 6 Rafale B).

                b. Training for 36 Qatari pilots and some 100 mechanics.

                c. Weapons:
                * AM39 Block2 Mod 2 ASM *60
                * SCALP-EG cruise missile * 140
                * AASM * 300
                * MICA AAM * 300
                * Meteor BVRAAM * 160


                https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/qata...crisis-1784950

                2nd deal (2017/12/07): 1.3 billion USD for 12 more Rafale.


                So, it may be true that Dassault didn't lie to Indian government about the price of Rafale, and 10 billion USD may be enough for procuring 126 Rafale at the time of 2012 ~ Fighter only without any other training, supporting, base setting, domestic producing, or weapon procuring cost
                Last edited by toan; 9th December 2017, 17:32.

                Comment


                  what is pretty certain is that the price per aircraft for an extension order should be much lower than the initial order. One thing that inflates the price as well is the offsets requirement... if you sell it but have to reinvest half of the money received back into India, obviously, you need a higher price to start with as the half that you can keep won't pay price you need..

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by eagle1
                    No I get it, but it is just your own little intuitive concept, and there is nothing to actually demonstrate that the lower labour costs in India would make it bearable for the IAF. If you need nearly twice as much manpower to look after an aircraft, over 40 years of ownership and given the number of airframe in the MMRCA competition you can bet the differencial will be significative in absolute value as well for total cost of ownership. And bringing the GDP per capita is still perfectly valid as costs are relative to each country. Just like talking of the added complexity of managing a bigger workforce or the impact on fleet availability are relevant.
                    There is nothing to demonstrate that it wouldn't either. "If you need nearly twice as much manpower" but your manpower costs a fifth or sixth as much, the cost of spares will be a bigger factor (compared to Switzerland) leading to a more competitive CPFH if your spares are cheaper.

                    You did not establish anything, and saying that there was no standardized method of comparison is exagerated, unproven & very unlikely. Unless CNC are complete rookies, you have to come with a method to compare costs and they would use their critical sense to see if there is a distortion between manufacturer. Rafale was not declared L1 out of the hat after such a long process of evaluating costs. You will always be able to raise some questions in such a mamoth task, especially from those with an agenda, but in the end the L1 evaluation has not been invalidated, and nor Dassault nor former Indian defense minister were faces with any charge. MMRCA stalled at a latter stage during exclusive negociation due to the complexity of implementing the contractual frame.
                    Your belief in the L1 status appears borders on the religious, but I don't think others will be as blase about the facts.

                    - Dassault's bid included 50-60 unpriced 'misc' items, which distorted the LCC assessment.
                    - the defence minister put the L1 up for review after getting that (and possibly other) feedback
                    - the decision to proceed with the CNC before resolving the L1 problem, was made on an ad hoc basis (discretionary decision by the DM)
                    - "in the end" the MMRCA was scrapped, so the L1 review never happened, the selection was never validated and the issue was not resolved
                    - the idea of 'nobody faced any charges' so all must have been well, implies that there was no criminal conduct but ignores the possibility of gross incompetence on the MoD's part in drafting the RFP or in accepting Dassault's bid (in either case, since no contract was awarded under the MMRCA RFP, no subsequent investigation was deemed necessary).

                    In what appears to be a rerun of the Scorpene project, around 50-60 un-priced items are believed to have been listed as miscellaneous in Dassaults offer for the Rafale which emerged as L1 or the lowest bidder in the MMRCA tender ahead of the Eurofighter. MoD sources claim that it is these sundry articles that have emerged as the principal financial hurdle in negotiating the Rafale deal on the basis of its Life Cycle Cost based on keeping the fighter operational for four decades. It appears that subsequent pricing by Dassault of these so-called miscellaneous but critical items -- like in the Scorpene tender -- in its deliberations with the MoDs Cost Negotiation Committee, are responsible for significantly inflating the Rafale contract cost, jeopardising the vendors L1 status and delaying its closure.
                    .
                    .
                    what does prompt embarrassing questions for the MoD and the IAF is their failure or worse, possible collusion in categorically evaluating bids, leaving vendors to spring un-anticipated and hugely expensive surprises upon them once it was too late to pull back.
                    - Link

                    No that's different as the rafale was assessed during a comprehensive technical evaluation and was declared L1 after a long assessment. MMRCA was scrapped at a later stage and the final choice of the cancelled MMRCA has not been called into question both technically and on price. Because MMRCA contractual frame was so complex the new Indian authority decided to go the Gov to Gov route to speed up the process. If there were any wrongdoings, Dassault and former Mindef would have been faced with a probe and a fresh bid would have been relaunched. Because the New Indian government was comfortable with rafale selection (and they certainly had a closer look) they could proceed with a direct purchase with France, capitalizing on MMRCA selection.
                    The L1 decision was never validated as I showed above. The decision to proceed with a govt-to-govt sale was made by the PMO by bypassing the MoD. If the political factors are to be ignored, and this assumed to be proof of the Rafale's superiority, then it would be hypocritical to allege "politics" when it comes to the F-35's success.

                    And how do you know that assumptions would have been more liberal or conservative for one or another competitor and the the CNC would have been plain naive or corrupted ? You are implying that Dassault would have cheated or quoted unfair prices but this has never been proven by a court/indian justice/inquiry. If there was something serious Dassault would currently be under scrutiny. There is this naive idea that Dassault would have played its game well within the RFP and that Typhoon Gmbh wouldn't have tried to do the same...This has never been demonstrated and is just in the mind of people who will never completely accept the outcome.
                    I don't know that it would have been more liberal or conservative or exactly the same. Nobody does. Hence the dispute. The L1 decision should have reviewed in order to remove these ambiguities before proceeding with exclusive negotiations but the defence minister (presumably afraid of facing brickbats for a process that had already taken almost decade) decided, on his discretionary authority, to let it ride and leave the L1 problem to be sorted out later (maybe by his successor).

                    I'm not saying that Dassault provided "unfair prices" that is unproven. I am saying that it provided incomplete prices, and that IS proven. Did EF do the same? If so, did they do so to the same extent? Nobody knows.

                    You were proven wrong but cannot accept it, rafale ease of use was a design driver and is deeply rooted in Dassault's DNA of producing light, rugged and simple fighters that can be remotely operated and there is nothing anecdotical with it
                    Err.. I don't think you understand what 'anecdotal' means. I think you have it confused with 'believable'.
                    Last edited by Vnomad; 10th December 2017, 16:07.

                    Comment


                      Qatar deal Now confirmed:

                      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42302767

                      Comment


                        50 to 60 "un-priced" items are BELEIVED to have been listed as miscellaneous ...this from a media source .This is hardly proof of anything as you seem to think .
                        Beside, assuming the report to be somewhat accurate (with a big IF ). what items are we talking about , oil...lubricant...the radar...what was the relative amounts 0.0001% , 1% more ? of the deal . Where they nevertheless not included in the offer and or valued as miscellaneous without details. Did this resulted in an increase of the offer . Clearly not.
                        The MMRCA went on up to the time of assessing the concluded exclusive negotiation by the Indian Gov, The assessment concluded that the outcome under current setup was not sustainable notably due to a 2.7 factor increase on labor as per HAL estimation to produce in India.
                        If anybody, especially competitors or opposition had any good suspicions , you can bet that they will have engaged in legal actions, as opposed to attempting re-submitting their offer 20% discounted for some or else voicing more than rumors of suspicions.

                        It is a bit odd that for some ,there are no other alternatives that either Dassault has abused 2 governments , and or the system under 2 different governments was either corrupted or else incompetent.

                        Comment


                          From 12 M2000 to 60 fighters for a quiet small country ...that is really a stretch. I assume we can forget about their plan to acquire F15 , guess latest Trump rhetoric was too much.
                          They should probably consider buying top of the line AD systems to protect their few airbases . Would be kind of sad to see such fire power wiped out in a missile strike.

                          Any way 6.3 billion for 24 rafales and 6.7 billion for 24 typhoons, both inclusive aircrew and technicians training. What about the weapons package for typhoon ? would that include Meteor as for rafales and brimstone maybe ?.

                          Comment


                            They have a lot of money. I will not be surprised they sign contracts over $100b of arms. combined that with cheaper labor from Pakistan/Turkey and logistics to operate it.
                            .

                            http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1079507.shtml
                            What does it mean for the rest of the world?

                            For Japan and South Korea - the first and second largest importers of LNG in the world respectively - China's growing demand means hefty price hikes. On Thursday, Asian LNG prices broke 10 US dollars to finish at a three-year-high, with Reuters reporting that China is on course to overtake South Korea as the world's second largest LNG importer.
                            The question is whether India want to buy EU systems now since almost all top of line stuff will be in Qatar

                            Comment


                              From 12 M2000 to 60 fighters for a quiet small country ...that is really a stretch. I assume we can forget about their plan to acquire F15 , guess latest Trump rhetoric was too much.
                              They should probably consider buying top of the line AD systems to protect their few airbases . Would be kind of sad to see such fire power wiped out in a missile strike.

                              Any way 6.3 billion € for 24 rafales and 6.7 billion € for 24 typhoons, both inclusive aircrew and technicians training. What about the weapons package for typhoon ? would that include Meteor as for rafales and brimstone maybe ?.
                              You're a bit late.. Qatar has confirmed his option of 12 more

                              http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/artic...6053_3234.html

                              so that's 36 firm orders for the Rafale for a total price of $7.4 billion and has taken an option for 36 more. One could notice that the additional 12 costing "only" 1.1 billion, that would be $92 million per plane as the infrastructures and other "extras" are included in the initial contract...


                              as for the F-15, they signed for 36 aircraft as well, for $12 billion


                              https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ghters-438280/

                              that's already 96 fighters bought with 36 options for more Rafales
                              Last edited by TooCool_12f; 10th December 2017, 21:44.

                              Comment


                                50 to 60 "un-priced" items are BELEIVED to have been listed as miscellaneous ...this from a media source .This is hardly proof of anything as you seem to think .
                                While this report is the only one that mentions "50-60" number, there are others (at least one that I remember) that mentioned the inclusion of unpriced items in the bid. The dispute about life cycle cost (like an outcome of this) is quite well known and both defence ministers have alluded to it.

                                Beside, assuming the report to be somewhat accurate (with a big IF ). what items are we talking about , oil...lubricant...the radar...what was the relative amounts 0.0001% , 1% more ? of the deal . Where they nevertheless not included in the offer and or valued as miscellaneous without details. Did this resulted in an increase of the offer . Clearly not.
                                The unpriced components were marked as miscellaneous but were later determined to contain a 'substantial' cost element leading to an increase in the LCC estimate. Hence the dispute.

                                The exact figure is unknown, which is actually part of the problem. Wherever discretionary decisions are taken without transparency, the possibility of malfeasance will always be present.

                                The MMRCA went on up to the time of assessing the concluded exclusive negotiation by the Indian Gov, The assessment concluded that the outcome under current setup was not sustainable notably due to a 2.7 factor increase on labor as per HAL estimation to produce in India.
                                Given that labour costs in India about a fifth that of France (even less for unskilled labour), a 2.7 factor increase in labour allocation would still result in the net labour cost being about 50% of that in France (not including training costs). So I'm sceptical about this story.

                                If anybody, especially competitors or opposition had any good suspicions , you can bet that they will have engaged in legal actions, as opposed to attempting re-submitting their offer 20% discounted for some or else voicing more than rumors of suspicions.
                                Legal action on what grounds? The L1 assessment had been officially flagged for review, and no contract was actually awarded. No contract, no damages.

                                It is a bit odd that for some ,there are no other alternatives that either Dassault has abused 2 governments , and or the system under 2 different governments was either corrupted or else incompetent.
                                I think it is a bit odd that some would try to stick up for the efficacy of the MMRCA program that is pretty widely accepted as an example of incompetence/shortsightedness (the corruption angle is speculative), with the only real dispute being how blame is shared between the IAF, MoD and the govt. of the day.

                                Comment


                                  Did not knew they actually signed for the F15
                                  Then that makes it 24+12 Rafales+24 Typhoons=60+36 F15 =96 fighters.... for a country slightly bigger than Creta , whose AF is/was composed of 1500 personals top this far.

                                  Comment


                                    50 to 60 "un-priced" items are BELEIVED to have been listed as miscellaneous ...this from a media source .This is hardly proof of anything as you seem to think .
                                    Beside, assuming the report to be somewhat accurate (with a big IF ). what items are we talking about , oil...lubricant...the radar...what was the relative amounts 0.0001% , 1% more ? of the deal . Where they nevertheless not included in the offer and or valued as miscellaneous without details. Did this resulted in an increase of the offer . Clearly not.
                                    The MMRCA went on up to the time of assessing the concluded exclusive negotiation by the Indian Gov, The assessment concluded that the outcome under current setup was not sustainable notably due to a 2.7 factor increase on labor as per HAL estimation to produce in India.
                                    If anybody, especially competitors or opposition had any good suspicions , you can bet that they will have engaged in legal actions, as opposed to attempting re-submitting their offer 20% discounted for some or else voicing more than rumors of suspicions.

                                    It is a bit odd that for some ,there are no other alternatives that either Dassault has abused 2 governments , and or the system under 2 different governments was either corrupted or else incompetent.
                                    Spot on. First of all as you said the reliability of the report is doubtfull a single article is hardly a proof, and Dassault answered to critics saying that they didn't change their pricing and that they have strictly adhered to the RFP.

                                    It is doubtfull as it is hard to see how the people in charge of reviewing costs would have completely missed significant costs in the miscellaneous. I mean what were they supposed to do for the year and more they were searching the L1 bidder ? That's too big to be credible. And if there was a fraud that would not be very hard to spot and open an inquiry. The next Gov would have jumped on the opportunity as would have Eurofighter Gmbh. And even if you believe the report, there is no proof that only Dassault would have forgot these items and not EF Gmbh.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by xman
                                      Did not knew they actually signed for the F15
                                      Not sure if it's final yet. I saw that Pentagon cleared the sale about a month ago, but I think it also has to pass congress/senate. Bob Corker said earlier this fall that he would block all deals to sell arms to the gulf nations until the Qatar criss is resolved. That may be a reason why this old deal with the Typhoon came up again very quickly.
                                      Last edited by JakobS; 11th December 2017, 08:02.

                                      Comment


                                        As to weapons for Qatar, they are PWIV, Brimstone and Meteor (and I presume ASRAAM but haven't read that).

                                        Comment


                                          I wonder if they would fit the meteor on the eagle. Having a fleet wide installation might cut cost down and with Japan looking for its own version of the missile There might be something interresting to do.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X