Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 71 of 77 FirstFirst ... 2161676869707172737475 ... LastLast
Results 2,101 to 2,130 of 2303

Thread: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015

  1. #2101
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,897
    CAN you stop with the anti-fr thingy stupido, I am fr. So go the hell please yourself on another criptic way away from me. thanks in advance.

  2. #2102
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,897
    On the contrary -

    1. According to the Swiss gent the Eurofighter's manpower costs were higher but it was likely to have cheaper spares. Which would make the EF more competitive in a country like India where labour costs were much much lower than the West.
    There is a slight problem here: downtime. Manpower hours are not something completely de-correlated with the planed activity. If you have more maintenance hours (man hour can not be solved all the time by adding ppl around the airplane - some of the work to be done is iterative and might need full completion of another task to be itself completed).
    So by being more labour incentive, the Typhoon might log more downtime, which in turn led to added airframe to complete the same job. Hence the added cost.

    But then it would be very difficult to make a rational comparison in the absence of info regarding the number for the Rafale .
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 6th December 2017 at 12:09.

  3. #2103
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    There is a slight problem here: downtime. Manpower hours are not something completely de-correlated with the planed activity. If you have more maintenance hours (man hour can not be solved all the time by adding ppl around the airplane - some of the work to be done is iterative and might need full completion of another task to be itself completed).
    So by being more labour incentive, the Typhoon might log more downtime, which in turn led to added airframe to complete the same job. Hence the added cost.

    But then it would be very difficult to make a rational comparison in the absence of info regarding the number for the Rafale.
    That's a good post from Tomcat ViP, I hope he is clearer than I was as you said you had the issue in understanding my English. The idea developed was similar.
    Last edited by eagle1; 6th December 2017 at 12:37.

  4. #2104
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,553
    If the Germans were to give their downtime data, would it not be different to RAF downtime and operational cost and maintenance intervals?

  5. #2105
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    Mrmalaya, I believe there must be a single source describing maintenance tasks written by the manufacturer. Just like there woud be one documentation for an airliner, let's say the 777...Recommendations & minimum requirements are the same for AF, Emirates etc...The same applies for your car.

    I believe that for any competition it is the data validated by the manufacturer that are taken into account rather than particular practice in a given Air Force.

  6. #2106
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,553
    Well I am thinking of this sort of thing:

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...atch-f-439514/

    So essentially things change and you would hope that in a project which lasts for decades, some improvements can be made. Given that this sort of effort involves 2 of the Typhoon partners in one form or another, it must be likely that that information is disseminated throughout the operators/manufacturers?

  7. #2107
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatVIP
    There is a slight problem here: downtime. Manpower hours are not something completely de-correlated with the planed activity. If you have more maintenance hours (man hour can not be solved all the time by adding ppl around the airplane - some of the work to be done is iterative and might need full completion of another task to be itself completed).
    So by being more labour incentive, the Typhoon might log more downtime, which in turn led to added airframe to complete the same job. Hence the added cost.

    But then it would be very difficult to make a rational comparison in the absence of info regarding the number for the Rafale .
    What you're describing is a long turnaround time leading to low operational availability, with the manpower bit being mostly an ancillary factor and NOT the root cause of the problem.

    I have not seen any evidence of this issue and serviceability/availability stats for the RAF are broadly comparable to the AdlA's. AFAIK the EF's availability has been excellent during overseas deployments whether in operational roles or in exercises.

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    That's a good post from Tomcat ViP, I hope he is clearer than I was as you said you had the issue in understanding my English. The idea developed was similar.
    He may have clarified one of arguments wrt to maintenance but there's still no evidence to support that contention. Also, it doesn't contradict my point about lower labour costs in India also applying to skilled manpower.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 6th December 2017 at 15:23.

  8. #2108
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    What you're describing is a long turnaround time leading to low operational availability, with the manpower bit being mostly an ancillary factor and NOT the root cause of the problem.

    I have not seen any evidence of this issue and serviceability/availability stats for the RAF are broadly comparable to the AdlA's. AFAIK the EF's availability has been excellent during overseas deployments whether in operational roles or in exercises.
    Availability rate does not mean much if you don't understand the effort and money involved. With 10 time the manpower you might reach the same availability rate but it is ten time less efficient. And usually most ressources are drained to support opperations which leads to impressive availability rate while at home the situation is often less rosy. In both cases it doesn't tell much about the maintainability of the aircraft but rather indicates where ressources are allocated.

    You should look at the number of man hour required to maintain the aircraft per hour of flight for instance, the number of flight hours after which you have to put the aircraft to the depot for extensive maintenance, the ease of change of each subsystems etc...That is the only single way to measure. Your rationale does not work.

    He may have clarified one of arguments wrt to maintenance but there's still no evidence to support that contention. Also, it doesn't contradict my point about lower labour costs in India also applying to skilled manpower.
    An aircraft that needs more (skilled) manpower to maintain is simply more difficult and expensive to operate, that is just plain logic.

    It is costlier because of the bigger workforce you have to hire, train, and pay with the risk of brain drain from the private sector and that is worth for India as well, even if the workforce is relatively cheaper in comparison. More expensive is more expensive.

    Just one example also that goes beyhond costs to show there is a greater stake at risk : I guess that an expert on optical sensor maintenance is a rare ressource in India (like in many other fields), I bet that the private sector would be happy to hire this expert which has gained valuable professional experience on top tier technology. Same goes for avionics, engine etc...You are assuming that this kind of skilled worforce can be quickly replaced while in real life that can be quite a headeache for the IAF. Less work force needed = peace of mind.

    Then if you need to perform more maintenance checks, your are anticipating more possible breakdown which will logically lead to higher spares consumption...Which is also logic given the rafale has fixed intakes, fixed fuel probe, fixed radar antenna, and no dedicated airbrake. Simplicity of design is in Dassault DNA as it sold many aircrafts to poorer countries and that the Armée de l'air deploys in remote location in Africa since ages. Light and simple has been one of Dassault's trademark. Tornado or Typhoon is not of the same design tradition.

    You can put it in anyway you want : if you need to put more ressource to get your aircraft airborn it will cause you more trouble in terms of costs and/or availability.
    Last edited by eagle1; 6th December 2017 at 17:58.

  9. #2109
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    Availability rate does not mean much if you don't understand the effort and money involved. With 10 time the manpower you might reach the same availability rate but it is ten time less efficient. And usually most ressources are drained to support opperations which leads to impressive availability rate while at home the situation is often less rosy. In both cases it doesn't tell much about the maintainability of the aircraft but rather indicates where ressources are allocated.

    You should look at the number of man hour required to maintain the aircraft per hour of flight for instance, the number of flight hours after which you have to put the aircraft to the depot for extensive maintenance, the ease of change of each subsystems etc...That is the only single way to measure. Your rationale does not work.
    I'm still not sure what all this extemporising is meant to prove.

    The Swiss gent said that the EF had higher manpower costs and likely lower spares costs in the Swiss environment. The cost of manpower is much lower in India than for the West for all levels of skill/education. So the labour component of the CPFH will be relatively much lower, and cost inputs will be dominant. That's all there is to the manpower argument.

    As for the argument about the EF having lower serviceability than its peers (and thus requiring a larger fleet), I still await actual evidence.

    An aircraft that needs more (skilled) manpower to maintain is simply more difficult and expensive to operate, that is just plain logic.

    It is costlier because of the bigger workforce you have to hire, train, and pay with the risk of brain drain from the private sector and that is worth for India as well, even if the workforce is relatively cheaper in comparison. More expensive is more expensive.
    More expensive only if everything else is the same. In a country, where labour is cheap, the cost of spares will be a bigger contributor to the CPFH, and vice versa for a country with higher labour costs.

    Just one example also that goes beyhond costs to show there is a greater stake at risk : I guess that an expert on optical sensor maintenance is a rare ressource in India (like in many other fields), I bet that the private sector would be happy to hire this expert which has gained valuable professional experience on top tier technology. Same goes for avionics, engine etc...You are assuming that this kind of skilled worforce can be quickly replaced while in real life that can be quite a headeache for the IAF. Less work force needed = peace of mind.
    Trouble is that you're 'betting' without any real knowledge of what the industries dominate the private sector in India and what their actual HR requirements are. There is, for example, unlikely to be a vacant position for an "optical sensor maintenance technician" in the classifieds.

    The underlying fact is that skilled workers/technicians with such experience, have greater opportunities in the private sector in Europe (than in India) by virtue of a large & mature aerospace & defence industry. Which further inflates their wage difference with their Indian peers. (The same may not be true for the IT or automobile industry.)

    Then if you need to perform more maintenance checks, your are anticipating more possible breakdown which will logically lead to higher spares consumption...Which is also logic given the rafale has fixed intakes, fixed fuel probe, fixed radar antenna, and no dedicated airbrake. Simplicity of design is in Dassault DNA as it sold many aircrafts to poorer countries and that the Armée de l'air deploys in remote location in Africa since ages. Light and simple has been one of Dassault's trademark. Tornado or Typhoon is not of the same design tradition.
    I'm yet to see any credible evidence let alone quantification of 'higher spares consumption'. Fuel probes, intake ramps, airbrakes & radar gimbal aren't typically associated with consumables or common points of failure AFAIK. The rest is anecdotal - has no evidentiary value.

  10. #2110
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,443
    Mrmalaya, I believe there must be a single source describing maintenance tasks written by the manufacturer. Just like there woud be one documentation for an airliner, let's say the 777...Recommendations & minimum requirements are the same for AF, Emirates etc...The same applies for your car.

    I believe that for any competition it is the data validated by the manufacturer that are taken into account rather than particular practice in a given Air Force.
    The answer to this is yes and no. There is a four-national maintenance task data base, which includes calculated times for performing these tasks. This data base is nonetheless somewhat theoretical and different operators have opted for different maintenance concepts, i.e. some operators perform tasks at level 2, that are level 3 or 4. The support arrangements and contracts between national airforces and their supporting EPC are very different as well. In export campaigns the EPC having the lead typically defines the maintenance concept, which might be based on that of its domestic or existing export customers. The way how different airforces maintain their aircraft is very different as well. There are a lot more things to consider than that and several variables may affect this or that aspect. Keep in mind that all offers in that field are cost estimates! No one can accurately predict LCC, because you can't predict the future and every LCC calculation has underlying assumptions, change these and the results will be different! You simply can't cover all possible scenarios, you cover maybe 2 or 3 at best, but there are literarily thousands.
    I know it's not what people want to hear as most want a definitive answer on questions raised, in this case it's near impossible as the figures available in the public domain often lack context and the underlying assumptions are to a large extant unknown.

  11. #2111
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    I'm still not sure what all this extemporising is meant to prove.

    The Swiss gent said that the EF had higher manpower costs and likely lower spares costs in the Swiss environment. The cost of manpower is much lower in India than for the West for all levels of skill/education. So the labour component of the CPFH will be relatively much lower, and cost inputs will be dominant. That's all there is to the manpower argument.

    As for the argument about the EF having lower serviceability than its peers (and thus requiring a larger fleet), I still await actual evidence.
    Indian Manpower costs is lower but India GDP per capita is nowhere near Switzeralnd. What would look inexpensive to the swiss (Indian workforce costs) is not for the Indian. And then a fighter jet that would need more (skilled) workforce to operate is simply more of a headeache.

    What is the amount of effort and money you need to achieve the desired result ? If you need 10 times the workforce compared to another aircraft you might have scored very well but that is much less efficient. The swiss rated the Typhoon lower than the rafale in two chapter of the evaluation : maintenance and training as a whole. The difference was noticeable enough to be raised by swiss air force chief of staff, he was just as surprised as the Typhoon scoring lower in AtA.

    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.
    Trouble is that you're 'betting' without any real knowledge of what the industries dominate the private sector in India and what their actual HR requirements are. There is, for example, unlikely to be a vacant position for an "optical sensor maintenance technician" in the classifieds.

    The underlying fact is that skilled workers/technicians with such experience, have greater opportunities in the private sector in Europe (than in India) by virtue of a large & mature aerospace & defence industry. Which further inflates their wage difference with their Indian peers. (The same may not be true for the IT or automobile industry.)
    I don't know about specifically optics, but what about engines, hydrolics, materials, avionics...This type of knwoledge can be of interest in many type of industries. Also generally if you don't have a big demand in the private sector you don't have many schools that will train you for that type of jobs so the issue remains. The point is that if you need a bigger workforce it will create other kind of issues beyhond costs.
    Last edited by eagle1; 7th December 2017 at 11:49.

  12. #2112
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    Indian Manpower costs is lower but India GDP per capita is nowhere near Switzeralnd. What would look inexpensive to the swiss (Indian workforce costs) is not for the Indian. And then a fighter jet that would need more (skilled) workforce to operate is simply more of a headeache.

    What is the amount of effort and money you need to achieve the desired result ? If you need 10 times the workforce compared to another aircraft you might have scored very well but that is much less efficient. The swiss rated the Typhoon lower than the rafale in two chapter of the evaluation : maintenance and training as a whole. The difference was noticeable enough to be raised by swiss air force chief of staff, he was just as surprised as the Typhoon scoring lower in AtA.
    How are you still not getting it? Its a very simple concept.

    Labour in India is cheaper than in Switzerland but other contributors to the CPFH still remain the same or similar (fuel, consumables, depreciation etc). So an aircraft with higher personnel costs but lower spares costs will be more competitive in the Indian market than in a European one. That's all.

    As far as technical side is concerned, the IAF rated both the EF & Rafale as technically compliant with its requirements. Its possible that its operational benchmarks differed from that of the Swiss (who curiously picked the F-18 over the more popular F-16) or that it tested a different configuration(its testing was conducted two years after the Swiss), but the bottom-line is that they both made the cut and were viable options for an off-the-shelf purchase as well.

    I don't know about specifically optics, but what about engines, hydrolics, materials, avionics...This type of knwoledge can be of interest in many type of industries. Also generally if you don't have a big demand in the private sector you don't have many schools that will train you for that type of jobs so the issue remains. The point is that if you need a bigger workforce it will create other kind of issues beyhond costs.
    Pick any segment related to aviation or defence and the opportunities in the private sector will still only be a fraction of what's available to someone doing the same job in Europe, further inflating the wage differential. The IAF has no issues at all with regard to retaining technical staff in the NCO cadre (movement to the pvt sector is usually to the pilots). As far as the industry is concerned, its not uncommon for tradesman in niche areas to be sent abroad (Europe or the Middle East, or sometimes SE Asia) to attend a training course or two.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 7th December 2017 at 13:25.

  13. #2113
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    CAN you stop with the anti-fr thingy stupido, I am fr. So go the hell please yourself on another criptic way away from me. thanks in advance.
    Well, you being french seems quite in line with the so frequent bashing of the Rafale one sees even here.. You spend your time posting against it no matter what, so what's your problem? You live in Corbeil and had problems with your ex-Maire and Senator?

    Man, I'm an immigrant here and look more "french" than you...

  14. #2114
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    How are you still not getting it? Its a very simple concept.

    Labour in India is cheaper than in Switzerland but other contributors to the CPFH still remain the same or similar (fuel, consumables, depreciation etc). So an aircraft with higher personnel costs but lower spares costs will be more competitive in the Indian market than in a European one. That's all.

    As far as technical side is concerned, the IAF rated both the EF & Rafale as technically compliant with its requirements. Its possible that its operational benchmarks differed from that of the Swiss (who curiously picked the F-18 over the more popular F-16) or that it tested a different configuration(its testing was conducted two years after the Swiss), but the bottom-line is that they both made the cut and were viable options for an off-the-shelf purchase as well.
    No you don't get it. First man power costs is relative. Like any cost is relative to a country. Indian skilled manpower might not be expensive from a swiss point of view, less so for the Indian taxpayer which is nowhere near the GDP per capita than Switzerland. Secondly spares were to be manufactured in India for MMRCA. India, consistently with the swiss evaluation pointed the rafale as L1/cheaper to operate. Evaluation structure was not the same but the result was similar. Given the difference of design philosophy of the two platforms this is not surprising. Rafale is a lighter, simpler and more rugged design than the Typhoon. Benefiting from Dassault's long experience of designing light and simple jets and AdlA deployement in remote locations + the ability to withstand the harsh naval environment.

    Pick any segment related to aviation or defence and the opportunities in the private sector will still only be a fraction of what's available to someone doing the same job in Europe, further inflating the wage differential. The IAF has no issues at all with regard to retaining technical staff in the NCO cadre (movement to the pvt sector is usually to the pilots). As far as the industry is concerned, its not uncommon for tradesman in niche areas to be sent abroad (Europe or the Middle East, or sometimes SE Asia) to attend a training course or two.
    No matter how you twist it, an aircraft that requires less workforce to maintain is easier to manage and can get airborn again faster as not every tasks can be executed in parallel, many would be itterative. You cannot fight against common sense.
    Last edited by eagle1; 7th December 2017 at 13:45.

  15. #2115
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f
    One more time: Europe as a country does not exist, period.
    Well.. I'd describe Airbus as a European company but maybe that's just me.

    While liners compete on global scale and uniting into a single big multinational company still avoided monopoly as there's Boeing to compete with, in defense, every country (UK, Germany, Belgium, Spain, France and so on, NOT Europe) has its own policy. The "would-be partnership" that gave the Typhoon, still can't compete with a "single national product" be it price wise or on the development as it was delayed by for internal political reasons of different partners (the "I want my share and don't want to pay for others" syndrome). Not to speak about countries that buy fighters from outside EU instead of buying "local". You want to compare to the USA? do you imagine one second Texas, or any other US state buying the Rafale or the Typhoon for their Air National Guard? The european countries operating fighters like the F-18 or F-16, and still buying some today are there to prove, if need be, that they are European only when they can pull some profit from it but otherwise couldn't give a damn about Europe
    Well like I said, the objective of the SP model was to create national champions like those in Europe with France being an apt example; there's relatively little overlap between Dassault, Thales, DCNS, Nexter, etc with most of the internal competition (like Breguet) having been merged into single entity.

    Fragmentation will simply lead to a diffusion of investment capital & lower levels of local value addition leaving the state perpetually beholden to foreign OEMs. In that sense, allowing the likes of Reliance & Adani into the fray has been a regressive move, though given the kind political influence wielded by them, perhaps not unsurprising.

  16. #2116
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    Airbus is a european, or one could say international company

    But their business is international... and most of all, it is in private sector.

    Defense is national by definition. While in France you have Dassault who has, pretty much, eaten all competition, you can't go much further as every country (because they all are separate countries) wants to protect its own "national defense sector industry" and has its own policy, thus, its own specific needs.

    Now, talking about Reliance, why regression? It's the answer to a need expressed by the GoI. They want Rafales, Dassault brings them Rafales. They want 51% offsets.. Dassault provides the offsets they asked for. It's not because others were there before that everything has to go through them... if they can win markets, good for them, if not, their problem. IF you want to move on, you need competition, without competition (with a monopoly of one actor), you only get stagnation or even regression as there's no stimulation that will make them move forward.

  17. #2117
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    No you don't get it. First man power costs is relative. Like any cost is relative to a country. Indian skilled manpower might not be expensive from a swiss point of view, less so for the Indian taxpayer which is nowhere near the GDP per capita than Switzerland. Secondly spares where to be manufactured in India for MMRCA.
    I've understood your point perfectly, you haven't understood mine or are choosing not to understand it.

    GDP per capita is immaterial as is the absolute cost. What matters is the composition of the CPFH. Eg, if labour costs in country Y are a fifth that of country X -

    Country X: CPFH - aircraft A: €110 per hour, aircraft B: €100 per hour; where labour costs €40/hr for A and €20/hr for B.

    Country Y; CPFH - aircraft A: € 78 per hour, aircraft B: € 84 per hour; where labour costs €8/hr for A and €4/hr for B.

    What the impact in terms of levelling the playing field, local production of spares would have had, is also debatable, since we don't know in what time-frame that indigenization would have taken place (e.g more than half the 126 aircraft were going to be delivered off-the-shelf or merely assembled locally) or what infrastructure would have been employed (the EF, for eg, had the option of relocating equipment to a local Indian partner to reduce capital costs).

    India, consistently with the swiss evaluation pointed the rafale as L1/cheaper to operate. Evaluation structure was not the same but the result was similar.
    As I've proved in previous posts the L1 declaration was dubious because of non-standard assumptions/projections and had been marked for re-examination by the defence minister with the negotiation proceeding on an ad hoc basis.

    Given the difference of design philosophy of the two platforms this is not surprising. Rafale is a lighter, simpler and more rugged design than the Typhoon.
    Anecdotal.

  18. #2118
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f
    Defense is national by definition. While in France you have Dassault who has, pretty much, eaten all competition, you can't go much further as every country (because they all are separate countries) wants to protect its own "national defense sector industry" and has its own policy, thus, its own specific needs.
    Well India needed to create its own version of Dassault (or BAE, if you like), so this argument that monopolies are bad of business is obviously questionable.

    Now, talking about Reliance, why regression? It's the answer to a need expressed by the GoI. They want Rafales, Dassault brings them Rafales. They want 51% offsets.. Dassault provides the offsets they asked for. It's not because others were there before that everything has to go through them... if they can win markets, good for them, if not, their problem. IF you want to move on, you need competition, without competition (with a monopoly of one actor), you only get stagnation or even regression as there's no stimulation that will make them move forward.
    The problem is that you're looking at this from the perspective of a Frenchman. So you're justifying a monopoly as good & fine for France but a duopoly (with HAL) as a source of stagnation for India.

    Reliance offering "competitive" terms to Dassault to secure a deal might be good for Reliance, good for Dassault, good for France (supports exports & jobs) but not so much for India. The actual delivery of the offset value is very difficult to audit and further fragmentation in the industry makes the emergence of private sector counterpart/counterweight to HAL much more distant.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 7th December 2017 at 14:32.

  19. #2119
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    thing is, you put HAL and Reliance on the same level, but they are not.. HAL is a national firm, Reliance a private one

    and, in any case, HAL was an impossible partner in Rafale deal as seen in MMRCA

  20. #2120
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    I've understood your point perfectly, you haven't understood mine or are choosing not to understand it.

    GDP per capita is immaterial as is the absolute cost. What matters is the composition of the CPFH. Eg, if labour costs in country Y are a fifth that of country X -

    Country X: CPFH - aircraft A: €110 per hour, aircraft B: €100 per hour; where labour costs €40/hr for A and €20/hr for B.

    Country Y; CPFH - aircraft A: € 78 per hour, aircraft B: € 84 per hour; where labour costs €8/hr for A and €4/hr for B.

    What the impact in terms of levelling the playing field, local production of spares would have had, is also debatable, since we don't know in what time-frame that indigenization would have taken place (e.g more than half the 126 aircraft were going to be delivered off-the-shelf or merely assembled locally) or what infrastructure would have been employed (the EF, for eg, had the option of relocating equipment to a local Indian partner to reduce capital costs).
    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.

    As I've proved in previous posts the L1 declaration was dubious because of non-standard assumptions/projections and had been marked for re-examination by the defence minister with the negotiation proceeding on an ad hoc basis.
    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. The fact that the rafale choice has been confirmed by the new indian gov is the most important thing. Acts not just words.

    Anecdotal.
    Incorrect, here is French AF chief of Staff in 2012 point of view in an Interview:

    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

    Coming from the Tornado, the Typhoon must have been a significant step forward in terms of serviceability. But Dassault was coming from mirage III, mirage F1, mirage 2000 or Super Etandard often sold to less wealthy countries and French AF having a long use of operating its fleet in remote location in Africa. Light, simple, rugged, deployable. Typhoon main focus was air defense from main land and partner nations did not have this habit of intervening far in Africa.
    Last edited by eagle1; 7th December 2017 at 15:41.

  21. #2121
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    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.

  22. #2122
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote 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.

  23. #2123
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    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 at 17:38.

  24. #2124
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote 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.

  25. #2125
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    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 at 11:45.

  26. #2126
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    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

  27. #2127
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    993
    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 at 17:32.

  28. #2128
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    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..

  29. #2129
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote 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 Dassault’s 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 MoD’s 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 at 16:07.

  30. #2130
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,553

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES