L'Inde

[bubzy]

il y a 46 minutes, Henri K. a dit :

Un enfant pourri gâté... Cela fait des années que je le dis.

En fait il y a un chemin tout à fait plausible et gagnant-gagnant pour tout le monde.

on vend les 30% de contenu prévu dans le ToT aux Chinois, qui eux vont corriger les défauts, rétro-ingénier pour reconstituer le 100% et bonus sur le gâteau ils vont furtifier le tout en moins deux.

Ensuite les Chinois passent par la même île de je ne sais plus quel nom de DASSAULT pour revendre le ToT 100% aux Indiens, puis on leur exige 49% des gains récupérés.

En somme on récupère au total un certain montant pour la vente de 30%, puis le sang déjà sucé chez les Indiens, plus les 49% de royalties.

D'enfer les gars... Putain je suis un génie...

Henri K.

Dis... Tu ferais pas un peu d'optimisation fiscale toi ? Réfléchis y si c'est pas le cas, parce que t'es doué, très doué.

[zx]

Si DRAL commence à apprendre comment produire quelques pièces  Falcon  ou rafale, tout en développant le tissu d'entreprises sous traitantes autour, il n'est pas surprenant que ca doit commencer à gêner certains lobbies qui essayent de mettre  des bâtons dans les roues de la JV.

 

Modifié le 15 novembre 2017 par zx

[prof.566]

2 hours ago, bubzy said:

Dis... Tu ferais pas un peu d'optimisation fiscale toi ? Réfléchis y si c'est pas le cas, parce que t'es doué, très doué.

Et que l'on autrait fait 100% de ToT gratuite au passage vers la Chine...

[ARPA]

Il y a 9 heures, bubzy a dit :

On est d'accord qu'il n'y a rien de logique à ce qu'une nuée d'entreprises fassent le double de ce qui leur a été imposé ?

Forcer la main à l'Inde qui aura le choix entre un Rafale 100% indien et du F35 ou F16 100% importé voir même du tejas partiellement importé (radar, réacteur...) 

C'est une façon pour s'assurer une grosse partie du marché indien. On ne fera pas tourner les usines françaises, mais le but doit être d'equiper l'Inde pour faire ensuite des économies d'échelle. Même si on ne gagne (presque) rien à faire un transfert total du Rafale, si on pouvait afficher qu'il y a 500 Rafale B/C/M en service en Inde, ça devrait nous faciliter le travail pour une autre exportation et on aura un marché conséquents pour justifier le développement des prochains standard.

 

On parle beaucoup du Rafale sur ce sujet, mais pour l'instant ce n'est pas du tout l'avion de combat principal de l'Inde. 36 c'est à peine 5% des effectifs. Il reste encore un marché énorme à essayer d'obtenir. Il faut que le Rafale fasse mieux que le mirage 2000 en Inde, c'est probablement une des solutions pour garantir son avenir.

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Il y a 13 heures, bubzy a dit :

On est d'accord qu'il n'y a rien de logique à ce qu'une nuée d'entreprises fassent le double de ce qui leur a été imposé ?

Non on est pas d'accord. Ce qui a été imposé c'est pour le contrat en cours qui concerne les 36 premiers Rafale. Ce contrat comporte 50% d'offset qui seront satisfait avec 20% de ToT vers leur organisme DRDO et 30% sous forme de fabrication en Inde. Moi je ne parlais pas de ce contrat là mais du suivant et il a toujours été clair pour Dassault que la stratégie consistait à monter la part d'offset de façon à se rapprocher des conditions du contrat MMRCA qui prévoyait que 108 Rafale serait entièrement construit en Inde. La nouveauté c'est que Dassault a l'ambition de brûler les étapes et de remplir les conditions du MMRCA dès le prochain batch de 36 Rafale. L'information date de quelques jours donc si tu as eu Eric récemment il s'est moqué de toi, sinon il ne le savait pas encore.

Citation

 

De toute façon, ils ne sont pas prêts à produire un rafale 100% indien au moment où le second batch sera produit. Et ça, je le tiens d'une discussion avec m. Trappier directement. Ce sera progressif car tout ne peut pas être transféré/absorbé dans un délai aussi court.

Et puisque j'ai bossé pour une boîte qui fait certains composants sensibles, je sais également que le 100% de TOT ne sera jamais atteint parce que la DGA protège ses "bijoux de famille" dixit le PDG de la PME en question.

 

Le vrai MII, c’est forcément plus proche du MMRCA que du premier batch de 36 avions. Dans le contrat MMRCA, pour la partie électronique, il restait très très peu de production en France. Par exemple, je sais que pour les 36 prochain Rafale la JV fera produire des cartes électroniques et même quelques bandes hyperfréquences et surtout fera assembler tous les modules actifs.

Au delà des pourcentages, je pense que la vraie rupture concernera le flux financier qui rejoindra tout de suite le schéma des 108 MMRCA avec le MOD achetant avec sa monnaie à la JV et non à la France.

[Teenytoon]

Et donc il y a beaucoup de bruit pour rien ou il y a un vrai risque que le gouvernement indien lache la proie Rafale pour l’ombre F16/F35 ? 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

il y a 21 minutes, Teenytoon a dit :

Et donc il y a beaucoup de bruit pour rien ou il y a un vrai risque que le gouvernement indien lache la proie Rafale pour l’ombre F16/F35 ? 

Non ils veulent les deux mais comme l'argent est limité le bras de fer est sur la proportion de chaque type. L'IAF veut 150 Rafale et le MOD 36. L'IAF dit d'accord pour 36 maintenant mais engagez vous pour 150. Et le MOD se dit que si il s'engage pour 150, il ne pourra pas se payer 115 F-16 et 60 F-35.

[Teenytoon]

Tout ça non compris les 57 de la Navy ?

Tout ces chiffres viennent de Parikrama ou tu as recoupé avec d’autres sources ? 

Et merci encore de nous faire partager tes infos 

Modifié le 15 novembre 2017 par Teenytoon

[mgtstrategy]

14 hours ago, Picdelamirand-oil said:

Non ils veulent les deux mais comme l'argent est limité le bras de fer est sur la proportion de chaque type. L'IAF veut 150 Rafale et le MOD 36. L'IAF dit d'accord pour 36 maintenant mais engagez vous pour 150. Et le MOD se dit que si il s'engage pour 150, il ne pourra pas se payer 115 F-16 et 60 F-35.

36 rafale en plus de la 1ere commande de  36?

[Picdelamirand-oil]

C'est du message personnel "Parikrama" 36 mini en plus des 36 coutants.

[Bon Plan]

Le 15/11/2017 à 18:04, ARPA a dit :

Forcer la main à l'Inde qui aura le choix entre un Rafale 100% indien et du F35 ou F16 100% importé voir même du tejas partiellement importé (radar, réacteur...) 

C'est une façon pour s'assurer une grosse partie du marché indien. On ne fera pas tourner les usines françaises, mais le but doit être d'equiper l'Inde pour faire ensuite des économies d'échelle. Même si on ne gagne (presque) rien à faire un transfert total du Rafale, si on pouvait afficher qu'il y a 500 Rafale B/C/M en service en Inde, ça devrait nous faciliter le travail pour une autre exportation et on aura un marché conséquents pour justifier le développement des prochains standard.

 

On parle beaucoup du Rafale sur ce sujet, mais pour l'instant ce n'est pas du tout l'avion de combat principal de l'Inde. 36 c'est à peine 5% des effectifs. Il reste encore un marché énorme à essayer d'obtenir. Il faut que le Rafale fasse mieux que le mirage 2000 en Inde, c'est probablement une des solutions pour garantir son avenir.

Les indiens ne seront jamais capables de faire 100% d'un Rafale.

Ils n'ont pas les presses géantes pour forger des trains d’atterrissage, pas une métallurgie au niveau pour faire les aubes de réacteurs de la génération du M88, pas d'industrie électroniques au niveau de Thales (et je pense que de toute manière ils n'auront pas accès aux cartes elec les pus pointues)...

S'ils en font 75% ca sera le diable.   Donc il y aura toujours du travail induit pour les usines francaises, sur le très pointu.

[Bon Plan]

From Defense analyst and Journalist Mr. Nitin Gokhle who was most close to Mr. Parrikar.

https://nitinagokhale.blogspot.in/2017/11/the-tortuous-mmrca-saga-part-i.html

Saturday, November 18, 2017
THE TORTUOUS MMRCA SAGA: Part I

More than a year after the government signed the deal to buy 36 Rafale combat jets in September 2016, the contract is back in the news again, thanks to the allegations by the Opposition Congress that the government did not follow rules and procedures and that it overpaid for the fighters. The allegations have been denied by the government and rightly so. To begin with the previous UPA government had not finalised the price of the contract. So comparison of cost is incorrect. But there is more. the Mod under then Defence Minister AK Antony had convoluted the process to an extent where it had become impossible to go through with the deal in its original format. I have detailed the decade-long journey of what was once described as 'mother of all deals,' in my bookSecuring India The Modi way: Pathankot, Surgical Strikes and more.Here are the excerpts, in two parts which sheds light on whatexactly happened in the Rafale deal.

The competition to acquire 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force began in 2007 after the government agreed with the IAF that it needed to replace the aging fleet of MiG aircraft.

Six companies across the world were issued the tender papers. They were: EADS from Germany, manufacturers of the Eurofighter Typhoon; Lockheed Martin (who make the F-16s) and Boeing ((F-18 aircraft) from the USA, Sweden’s SAAB (makers of Gripen); Dassualt Aviation from France (the Rafale manufacturers) and Russia’s RosoboronExport (MiG-35).
India was looking for 18 aircraft to be bought off the shelf and 108 were to be manufactured in India (with a local partner, in this case, it was supposed to be the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd). Required maintenance, repair and overhaul facilities were to be set up. The MMRCA contract was variously described as ‘mother of all deals,’ ‘most complex defence contract,’ etc in the media reports. And it indeed was.

According to official documents that I have had a chance to read, the MoD had in 2011, bench marked the Total Cost of Acquisition at Rs 163,403 crores. This, it must be pointed out, was different from the total cost of deliverables in the 126 MMRCA contract, which was bench marked by the MoD at Rs 69,456 crores, excluding the offset loading cost, estimated to be anywhere between Rs 2530 crores to Rs 5060 crores.

All this came after the six companies submitted their techno-commercial bids in April 2008, followed by nearly 11 months of field evaluation trial (FET) held in the heat of Rajasthan desert during peak summer months and extreme cold conditions in the high altitude zone of Ladakh. The trials were completed in May 2010. The evaluation committee of the IAF shortlisted two aircraft—the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale aircraft fielded by the Dassault Aviation (DA)—and forwarded the recommendation to Defence Minister AK Antony. Antony took almost a year to accept the recommendation. It was already 2011. After prolonged internal discussions in two sub-committees (the Technical Oversight Committee-TOC, the Technical Offset Evaluation Committee-TOEC), a Contract Negotiations Committee (CNC) was formed in April 2011. By September that year, the CNC had arrived at the benchmarking cost after applying escalation rates by averaging simple year-on-year escalation.

But it was not beforeJuly 2012, that the CNC activated four Sub-Committees, the 'Maintenance', `Offset', and `ToT and `Contract' Sub-Committees.

For the next two years, negotiations on Transfer of Technology, Offset and Maintenance went on apace. However, certain aspects related to License Manufacture of 108 aircraft in India with HAL as the lead production agency could not be finalized. Major differences occurred on the aspect of Man Hours that would be required to produce the aircraft from kits in India and who would take the responsibility for entire lot of 126 aircraft. While DA maintained that 31 Million Man Hours that it has proposed should be sufficient to produce 108 Rafale aircraft in India, HAL was asking for mark up of this Man Hours by 2.7 times.
This point became the bone of contention between the government and the French manufacturer.

Moreover, in the understanding of the MoD, the company that had emerged as the winner in the bid—Dassault Aviation—would have to sign a single contract with the Indian government. The French Company would then need to have back to back contract(s) with HAL and other Indian Production Agencies. Dassault Aviation would also be responsible for the delivery of the complete 126 aircraft to IAF and the single point responsibility for this contract rested with Dassault Aviation because the RFP was issued to them. At that stage, the representatives of Dassault Aviation agreed do their best to meet all requirements of the project as envisaged in the RFP.

However, Dassault Aviation did not fulfil the commitment given in the first meeting and an impasse ensued on the responsibility of delivery of 108 aircraft to be manufactured in India. Another hurdle came up on the point of work share of HAL. Dassault Aviation was asked to submit a 'Responsibility Matrix', clearly defining the role and responsibility of Dassault Aviation and HAL. The `Responsibility Matrix' was to facilitate a back to back contract of Dassault Aviation with HAL. The CNC was however not able to move the negotiations forward since the interpretation of two fundamental aspects of the case by the French Company was not in line with the terms of the original terms in the tender.

The first aspect related to treating Dassault Aviation as the 'Seller' of 126 aircraft, including 108 to be manufactured in India and the corresponding contractual obligations and liabilities. The second point was about the ‘man hours for the aircraft to be manufactured in India. The UPA government, under the overly cautious AK Antony instead of imposing a deadline for the French manufacturer to comply with the terms of the RFP, dragged its feet and allowed Dassault Aviation to get away with obfuscation. Moreover, in an unusual move, Antony instructed MoD officials to bring the file back to him after concluding the CNC to re-examine the integrity of the process before proceeding to finalise the contract, creating confusion and doubt in the minds of the officials who were negotiating with the manufacturer.
Even as talks got deadlocked, the government changed in Delhi.

(Continued in Part II)

https://nitinagokhale.blogspot.in/2017/11/why-govt-was-forced-to-but-rafale-jets.html
Saturday, November 18, 2017

(www.nitinagokhale.blogspot.in),

Why govt was forced to but Rafale jets off the shelf

As the new political leadership was briefed about the impasse, MoD officials were told to try and break the deadlock as soon as possible since the IAF’s fleet of fighter aircraft was depleting alarmingly.

So, during a meeting of CNC on 25 September 2014, Dassault Aviation was told provide commitment on these two issues within 10 days. The Company demurred. As no response was received they were again requested vide letter dated 31 October 2014 that the requisite commitment may be provided within a week. In their response dated 7 November 2014, Dassault Aviation did not provide the confirmations sought by the CNC.

On 10 November 2014 meanwhile Parrikar took over as Defence Minister. While being briefed about the major pending projects and contracts, he realised that the MMRCA contract wasn’t going anywhere. Yet he wanted to give the French sufficient time to comply with the terms of the tender.

In December 2014, the French Defence Minister came visiting and as expected raised the issue of conclusion of contract negotiations in the MMRCA case with Parrikar who told him that conclusion of the contract was held up on account of the vendor not confirming compliance to the terms of the RFP. This was followed up by a formal letter from Parrikar to the French Defence Minister stating that it would be really useful for Dassault Aviation to confirm compliance to the terms of the RFP and the terms of the bid submitted by them at the earliest. It was further mentioned in the letter that the negotiations can be carried forward and concluded thereafter if Dassault Aviation could be asked to depute a fully empowered representative to discuss non-stop with CNC.

Another discussion with the delegation of Dassault Aviation was held on 12 February 2015. A clarification was sought from Dassault Aviation towards confirmation of compliance to the terms of the RFP and terms of the bid submitted by them specifically. The two crucial points, i.e. (i) the consolidated Man Hours (MH) based on which Dassault Aviation had been declared L-1 would be the same man hours required for license manufacture of 108 Rafale aircraft in India, and (ii) Dassault Aviation as the Seller under the contract for 126 aircraft for the IAF will undertake necessary contractual obligations as per RFP requirements.

The representatives of Dassault Aviation reiterated their stand on both issues and stated that while Dassault Aviation will be responsible only for delivery of 18 aircraft in a flyaway condition, they will not take ownership for the 108 aircraft to be manufactured by HAL as the Local Production Agency (LPA). On the issue regarding Man Hours , the Dassault Aviation representative stated that the company’s stand has always been consistent that the Man Hours indicated in their proposal correspond to the related tasks performed in French Industrial condition. He also mentioned that only HAL being the Lead Production Agency can talk about the factor of multiplication to be applied to these Man Hours to convert the same to the Man Hours required for license production of 108 aircraft in India. Clearly, Dassault Aviation was using the loophole in the original terms of the tender to get away with shirking its responsibility towards the quality of the 108 jets to be manufactured in India.

Exasperated at the obduracy shown by the French company,MoD issued an ultimatum in on 20 March 2015 asking it to fulfill the commitment and confirmation on the two aspects mentioned above, ‘failing which MoD may be constrained to withdraw theRFPissued.’

However, Dassault Aviation, in its response dated 24 March 2015, did not commit on the two aspects mentioned above. Instead, the French Company stated that the estimate of consolidated Man Hours given by them is to be used by HAL to prepare its own quotation with respect to the completion of its (HAL’s) tasks under the MMRCA. The MoD realised that applying a factor of 2.7 on the Man Hours quoted by both Dassault Aviation and EADS (the company that quoted the second lowest price), the Total Cost of Acquisition (TCA), as on November 2011, would undergo a material change to the extent that Dassault Aviation would have no longer remained L1 vendor and would have become L2 vendor.

As the CNC members took the matter to Parrikar he realised the process had been convoluted to such an extent that, it would have been impossible to take it forward. He however knew from the briefings given by the IAF, there was no time to lose in acquiring fighter jets. The number of effective squadrons was going down rapidly. The IAF leadership also told him that they were happy with Rafale’s performance and would rather have the fighter in its fleet than scout of other options. Parrikar realised that another round of MMRCA kind of competition would have taken enormous time and effort. So he took the matter to the Prime Minister and briefed him about the necessity of procuring the fighter. At the same time, Parrikar told Modi, it would be legally untenable to go through with the MMRCA contract since the process had got vitiated completely thanks to Antony’s indecisiveness and a crucial oversight in the original terms of the contract.

Under the circumstances, there was no alternative but to withdraw the original tender, Parrikar told Modi since the CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) guidelines provide that negotiations cannot be held with the competitor who has come second in the contract (L2 vendor in officialese). The only way, the defence minister suggested, was to scrap the tender and buy a minimum number of Rafale jets off the shelf to fill a critical gap in the IAF’s inventory. The Prime Minister agreed and decided to talk to the French President about such a possibility during his upcoming visit to Paris in April 2015.The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) also gave its approval to the new proposal before Modi left for Paris on 9 April 2015.

That evening, alerted by a source about the possibility India scrapping the MMRCA tender and going in for off-the-shelf purchase of Rafale jets, I scooped the story on my blog NewsWarrior (www.nitinagokhale.blogspot.in), 10 minutes to midnight on 9 April, almost 22 hours before Modi’s announcement of India deciding to buy Rafale jets off the shelf was in Paris. I however got the numbers wrong. My report said India would buy 63 Rafale directly from Dassault Aviation.

Eventually, Prime Minister Modi announced in Paris that India would purchase 36 aircraft. Shishir Gupta of theHindustan Timeswas closer (as far as numbers were concerned). But I had the satisfaction of having reported about such a possibility before anyone else in the world, a fact that gives reporters an unimaginable high. Once our stories (Gupta’s and mine) were out, other news outlets started confirming the possibility. Most reports on 10 April 2015, waiting for the announcement to be made by Modi and Hollande, quoted my blog post and Gupta’s report as the source of the initial information. 

India’s decision, announced at a joint Press Conference between Modi and then French President Francoise Hollande on 10 April 2015, took everyone by surprise but under the circumstances, the Prime Minister had chosen the best possible solution.

Once the in-principle decision was taken, it was left to Parrikar and his team in the MoD to negotiate the eventual price for buying the 36 jets. Their confidence bolstered by the PMO, the Parrikar-led MoD drove a hard bargain with the French. But it wasn’t until another 15 months later—in September 2016-- that India finally signed the contract and got the state-of-the-art fighters at a competitive price.

36 Rafale Vs 126 MMRCA Package Comparison

As the contract was signed, inevitable comparisons about the costs India was paying for the 36 jets and the 126 planes India was supposed to have bought under the MMRCA deal, began.

The final negotiated price for 36 Rafale package, along with initial consignment of weapons, Performance-based Logistics (PBL), simulators along with annual maintenance and associated equipment and services was fixed at 7890 million Euros. The average unit cost of Rafale aircraft thus turned out to be 91.7 million Euros (going by the Euro-to-rupee conversion rate at the time of signing the contract it meant each aircraft would cost Rs 688.30 crore and not Rs 1500 or Rs 1700 crore quoted by some analysts). In any case, officials involved in the nitty-gritty of the negotiations pointed out that the package cost of 126 MMRCA and 36 Rafale cannot be directly compared to work out per unit cost as the deliverables in the two cases were quiet divergent. Obviously, the CCS, briefed in detail about the absolute necessity of procuring the Rafale jets for the IAF and the cost comparisons, did not hesitate for a moment to clear the proposal, Parrikar remembers. “I must give full credit to the negotiating team for having diligently worked out all details to get a good bargain and the Prime Minister’s total trust in us” Parrikar told me.

What the former defence minister doesn’t mention however is his own steadfast belief that the cost had to be negotiated to India’s advantage. Recalls a senior IAF official involved in the hard bargain with the French: “It was Mr Parrikar who backed us to the hilt and even held firm in the face of tremendous pressure applied by the French when their President (Francois Hollande) was in Delhi as the Chief Guest for the Republic Day Parade in January 2016. Mr Hollande was keen to sign the MoU, inclusive of the finalised price, with our Prime Minister while in Delhi. We negotiated through the night until 4 am but the price Mr Parrikar thought was still high. So he took the matter to the PM and requested him to sign the MoU without mentioning the final price, which Modi promptly did. So on 26 January 2016, India and France signed a MoU for India to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets. Newspapers reports the next day said the 9 billion dollars deal would take some time to be finalised. It took another eight months for the contract to be signed. The team drove a hard bargain and obtained a hefty discount. As I wrote on my website,www.bharatshakti.in: “The MoD-IAF negotiating team extracted many concessions and discounts to arrive at a price that is almost 750 million less than what was being quoted by the French side in January 2016, when the commercial negotiations gathered pace, almost seven months after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced India’s intention to buy 36 Rafales off the shelf from France during his trip to Paris in April 2015.

“To bring down the cost, the Indian team asked French officials to calculate the deal on actual cost (Price as on today) plus European Inflation Indices (which varies like stock markets and is currently around 1 per cent per annum). The MoD has also capped the European Inflation Indices to maximum 3.5 per cent a year. In other words, if inflation Indices goes down (chances of it going down are more, looking at the current situation of European markets) India will have to pay less. Even if it goes up India will not pay more than 3.5 per cent increase.

“In the now scrapped process for buying 126 Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) floated the confusion reigned supreme in calculating the cost of the contract. After the French Dassault Aviation—makers of the Rafale Jet—emerged winners the UPA government had agreed with French officials to calculate the price on the fixed cost formula that allowed the company to include additional price of 3.9 per cent Inflation Indices from day 1 of the deal. So, had the India gone ahead with the UPA deal and the European Inflation Indices had fallen (as it indeed has), India would have ended up paying additional cost of inflation Indices (@3.9 per cent) which was already added at the initial negotiation itself.”

The lower price apart, the Rafales that IAF will operate will have a weapon suite much superior to the ones proposed in the earlier case. They will include Air to Air weapons METEOR Beyond Visual Range Missiles with ranges more than 150 Km, MICA-RF Beyond Visual Range Missiles with ranges more than 80 Km and MICA-IR Close Combat Missiles with ranges more than 60 Km. The Air-Ground weapons include SCALP missiles with range in excess of 300 Km. The induction of METEOR and SCALP missiles will provide a significant capability edge to the IAF over India’s adversaries.

The Rafale for IAF will have 13 India Specific Enhancement (ISE) capabilities which are not present in the Rafale aircraft being operated by other countries. Three capabilities pertain to Radar enhancements which will provide IAF with better long range capability. One of the specific capability being acquired is the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) through which the IAF pilots will be able counter many threats simultaneously. Another very significant capability enhancement sought is the ability to start and operate from 'High Altitude Airfields'. The 36 Rafale aircraft are to be delivered to the IAF within 67 months after signing of the Inter-Government Agreement. This delivery schedule is better than the delivery schedule proposed earlier by the French side by five months.

But buying the aircraft is only the first step. After the initial purchase, the effectiveness of any aircraft is in the speed with which it can be repaired and ‘turned around,’ that is readied for another mission the moment it returns to base. In that respect, the IAF could not have negotiated a better deal.

In MMRCA case, the initial PBL support was to be for five years for one squadron. In 36 Rafale case, the PBL is for five years for two squadrons with an additional contractual commitment for another two years with the base year prices kept intact. In the earlier proposed contract, the computation of PBL performance had considered cannibalisation of components from unserviceable aircraft. The Indian side was able to remove this clause without any additional cost. The PBL Agreement now stipulates that the company will ensures that a minimum 75 per cent of the fleet will always be available for operations. Moreover, Rafale has lesser turnaround time as compared to other fighter available. The Rafale aircraft can do five sorties in a day as compared to other two engine fighter aircraft available which have a sortie generation rate of three per day.

Rafale was the biggest of the complicated cases that the MoD resolved but there were other crucial pieces of equipment that India needed and needed as soon as possible. So all the hurdles in purchases of artillery guns (M-777 howitzers from the US), attack and medium lift helicopters for the Army (Chinook and Apache helicopters from the US); frigates and mine counter-measure vessels for the Navy and Akash missiles for the Air Force, were removed in double quick time.

http://indiandefence.com/threads/rafale-deal-signed.56201/page-493#post-608274

Modifié le 19 novembre 2017 par Bon Plan

[Patrick]

il y a 17 minutes, Bon Plan a dit :

The representatives of Dassault Aviation reiterated their stand on both issues and stated that while Dassault Aviation will be responsible only for delivery of 18 aircraft in a flyaway condition, they will not take ownership for the 108 aircraft to be manufactured by HAL as the Local Production Agency (LPA). On the issue regarding Man Hours , the Dassault Aviation representative stated that the company’s stand has always been consistent that the Man Hours indicated in their proposal correspond to the related tasks performed in French Industrial condition. He also mentioned that only HAL being the Lead Production Agency can talk about the factor of multiplication to be applied to these Man Hours to convert the same to the Man Hours required for license production of 108 aircraft in India. Clearly, Dassault Aviation was using the loophole in the original terms of the tender to get away with shirking its responsibility towards the quality of the 108 jets to be manufactured in India.

Oh mon dieu cette désillusion ! 

Sacré comique le journaliste.

[Boule75]

il y a 30 minutes, Bon Plan a dit :

. The Rafale aircraft can do five sorties in a day as compared to other two engine fighter aircraft available which have a sortie generation rate of three per day.

Sympa ça.

[Bon Plan]

il y a 37 minutes, Bon Plan a dit :

The Rafale for IAF will have 13 India Specific Enhancement (ISE) capabilities which are not present in the Rafale aircraft being operated by other countries. Three capabilities pertain to Radar enhancements which will provide IAF with better long range capability. One of the specific capability being acquired is the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) through which the IAF pilots will be able counter many threats simultaneously. Another very significant capability enhancement sought is the ability to start and operate from 'High Altitude Airfields'

13 améliorations :

3 pour le radar.  Ca serait interessant de savoir lesquelles.

1 c'est le viseur de casque.

1 c'est le démarrage et fonctionnement depuis un aéroport à haute altitude 

1 = intégration du SPICE ?  1 = intégration d'une nouvelle nacelle laser?  1 = intégration de l'ASTRA.

J'en compte au plus 8 là.   Quid des autres ?

 

[francois]

Irst, spectra bandes frequences élargies, il me semble leurres actifs, brahmos ng, satcom et autres liaisons au C2 indien

Modifié le 19 novembre 2017 par francois

[Teenytoon]

Il y a 2 heures, Boule75 a dit :

Sympa ça.

Quelqu’un peut m’expliquer le concept de limitation du nombre de sortie par jour ? Je veux dire par là, si l’avion fait de la PO et qu’il est scramblé pour cinq avions de tourisme perdus dans le ciel, mission « torchée » en trente minutes à chaque fois (timing totalement arbitraire de ma part), qu’est ce qui l’empêche d’en faire une sixième ? 

Pourquoi les autres ne sont limités qu’à trois (En excluant les arguments du type parce que St Rafale est omniscient) ?

Si c’est un problème de maintenance consécutive aux heures de vol, j’imaginerai plus une limitation d’heure de vol par jour qu’une limitation du nombre de sorties par jour.

Modifié le 19 novembre 2017 par Teenytoon

[ARPA]

Pour un avion, c'est bien plus contraignant de faire 5 vols de 2 heures qu'un seul de plus de 10 heures.

Ensuite tous les avions ne doivent pas avoir besoin d'autant de temps entre 2 vols. Pendant la guerre des 6 jours, les pays arabes ont cru qu'Israël avait beaucoup plus de mirage III qu'annoncé vu qu'ils faisaient jusqu'à 6 vols quotidiens.

Je ne peux pas comparer avec les autres avions, mais il est possible que les réacteurs ou d'autres équipements soient conçus pour être rapide à mettre en route. Vu de l'extérieur, il n'y a rien que fait le Rafale que ne pourrait pas faire un autre avion, mais le Rafale a quelques "astuces" qui pourraient permettre de gagner du temps. Rien que pour le démarrage du système d'arme, c'est un peu comme un ordinateur. Avec le Rafale qui pourrait techniquement doubler sa puissance de calcul (il y aurait une des deux baies vides), on ne devrait pas être ralenti par le temps de mise en route du système d'arme (ce qui n'est pas le cas de tous les avions) Le Rafale a ensuite l'avantage de ne pas avoir de réserve d'oxygène à remplir donc ça doit pouvoir faire gagner un peu de temps. Il a été prévu dès sa conception pour être facile à déployer et à entretenir (d'après Dassault, il est bien mieux conçu que le mirage 2000, donc ça doit être vrai par rapport aux avions de la génération précédente) c'est valable pour des maintenances plus rapide mais ça permet aussi d'envisager un dépannage et une remise en route plus rapide. On a aussi certains systèmes qui peuvent tolérer des pannes comme les radar à antennes actives qui pourrait accepter 5% (chiffre arbitraire) de modules en pannes en continuant de fonctionner. On a aussi vu quelques démonstration en vols du Rafale avec une des deux post combustion inutilisée. Cela peut vouloir dire que le Rafale est assez puissant et équilibré pour se permettre une panne partielle sur un réacteur.

[Teenytoon]

Il y a 1 heure, ARPA a dit :

Pour un avion, c'est bien plus contraignant de faire 5 vols de 2 heures qu'un seul de plus de 10 heures.

C’est ca qui m’intéresse. Pourquoi ? Les cycles décollage / atterrissage sont hyper contraignant pour la machine ? 

[DEFA550]

il y a une heure, Teenytoon a dit :

C’est ca qui m’intéresse. Pourquoi ? Les cycles décollage / atterrissage sont hyper contraignant pour la machine ? 

Un avion de combat n'est pas une voiture. Quand il rentre au parking il y a de nombreuses choses à faire avant qu'il puisse repartir. Ces choses-là prennent du temps et limitent de facto le nombre de sorties pouvant être réalisées en 24 heures.

[Teenytoon]

Ok. Et ces actions restent les mêmes après un vol d’1/2h ou un vol de 6h ? 

Question con de béotien, le pilote aurait la possibilité de garder tout allumé le temps de pisser un coup / faire un loto / taper la bise au nouveau Comanche et repartir aussi sec ou une fois posé les roues au sol c’est passage par les stands obligatoires avec de facto la limitation dont on parle ?

J’ai bien conscience que mon cas de figure de stop and go est peut être juste totalement inutile dans n’importe quel cas de figure et faut pas hésiter à me le dire. 

En fait je fais inconsciemment l’analogie avec nos Dragon qui font du pétrole moteur tournant et repartent aussitôt quand ils ont trois secours en montagne sous le coude. 

[bubzy]

Le 15/11/2017 à 21:35, Picdelamirand-oil a dit :

 La nouveauté c'est que Dassault a l'ambition de brûler les étapes et de remplir les conditions du MMRCA dès le prochain batch de 36 Rafale. L'information date de quelques jours donc si tu as eu Eric récemment il s'est moqué de toi, sinon il ne le savait pas encore.

je te confirme que mon information est bien plus ancienne que cela, elle date de 2015 ou 2016, je crois que c'était à l'époque du roll-out du 5x.

Sinon, et pour raccrocher au fil dédié aux news de Parrikrama, il semble bien qu'une partie des avions, si j'ai bien compris, seraient achetés directement à la France en parrallelle, ce qui justifie en partie le risque pris de transférer toutes les compétences pour fabriquer un rafale quasi 100% indien.

[DEFA550]

Il y a 12 heures, Teenytoon a dit :

Ok. Et ces actions restent les mêmes après un vol d’1/2h ou un vol de 6h ?

Visite après vol + pleins + réarmement et tests + visite pré-vol. C'est incompressible. Par ailleurs la comparaison porte vraisemblablement sur des missions type dont la durée moyenne est de l'ordre d'une poignée d'heures. Un avion qui se pose au bout d'1/2 heure est soit en panne, soit arrivé au terme d'une démonstration en meeting. Le décollage sur alerte d'une paire d'intercepteurs est une chose du passé ; Les missiles modernes font ça beaucoup mieux.

Maintenant un vol de 6 heures, tu ne pourras pas en faire plus de 4 par jour quoiqu'il arrive. Donc la durée moyenne envisagée est quelque part entre 1 heure et 5 heures de vol par mission 

En pratique, considère des vols effectifs de 3h30, et trois avions candidats qui passent respectivement 10, 20 et 30 minutes au sol moteur(s) tournant et dont la durée de remise en oeuvre entre chaque vol est de 1h, 1h30 et 2h15. Le premier peut faire 5 tours (5 x 4h40 / 24h), le second ne peut en faire que 4, et le troisième seulement 3.

[Boule75]

il y a 45 minutes, DEFA550 a dit :

Visite après vol + pleins + réarmement et tests + visite pré-vol. C'est incompressible. Par ailleurs la comparaison porte vraisemblablement sur des missions type dont la durée moyenne est de l'ordre d'une poignée d'heures. Un avion qui se pose au bout d'1/2 heure est soit en panne, soit arrivé au terme d'une démonstration en meeting. Le décollage sur alerte d'une paire d'intercepteurs est une chose du passé ; Les missiles modernes font ça beaucoup mieux.

Maintenant un vol de 6 heures, tu ne pourras pas en faire plus de 4 par jour quoiqu'il arrive. Donc la durée moyenne envisagée est quelque part entre 1 heure et 5 heures de vol par mission 

En pratique, considère des vols effectifs de 3h30, et trois avions candidats qui passent respectivement 10, 20 et 30 minutes au sol moteur(s) tournant et dont la durée de remise en oeuvre entre chaque vol est de 1h, 1h30 et 2h15. Le premier peut faire 5 tours (5 x 4h40 / 24h), le second ne peut en faire que 4, et le troisième seulement 3.

Ca dépend peut être des scénarios de conflit, et ce genre de métrique me fait penser à l'emploi des chasseurs russes en Syrie : connaît-on la durée moyenne des vols des appareils qui décollaient de Syrie même pour assurer les bombardements au profit des SAA ? Je parie que sur certains fronts, le cycle décollage - largage - retour au bercail - redécollage était aussi court que la distance à parcourir avant les frappes. En cas de conflit frontalier chaud, pour de l'appui sol et depuis une base avancée pas trop éloignée des combats, certains avions peuvent être amenés à enchaîner les rotations.

[DEFA550]

il y a 44 minutes, Boule75 a dit :

Ca dépend peut être des scénarios de conflit (...)

La durée moyenne d'un vol, certainement ! Mais quand il est dit qu'un avion peut faire 5 tours par jour contre 3 pour un concurrent, il va de soi qu'il s'agit du constat sanctionnant une capacité dans des circonstances précises.

Quoiqu'il en soit lorsqu'un avion passe 2h45 au sol entre chaque vol au lieu de 1h10, il n'y a pas besoin de sortir de St Cyr pour se rendre compte qu'il fera beaucoup moins de vols par jour que l'autre. Et ça, ce n'est pas lié au scénario.