Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Eurofighter Typhoon

Discussion in 'Europe & Russia' started by 500, Feb 27, 2011.

  1. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    Won't work. They seem to understand nothing of Indian tender rules. Negotiations can only be conducted with L1 (one with the lowest quote) and L2 or L3 don't get a look in. No one can allow L2 to quote a lower price after finalisation. That would open up everyone to inflate prices initially with the belief that they can always change it if they don't get marked as L1. Would result in utter chaos. This is simply journalistic day dreaming; I'm more than certain that BAE knows the rules. The only chance for the EF consortium is if the French badly mess this up which considering how important it is for them has little or no chance of happening.
     
  2. halloweene

    halloweene Major MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Well Camaeron lawyers said indian laws allow it...I would sincerely accept a last offer from EFA consortium, but not from a PM...
     
  3. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    I don't know that they said it but if they did, they are incompetent & he should fire them immediately. No last offers from EF will be accepted ; maybe the MoD will use the threat of the EF to get the French to buckle during negotiations but barring extreme stupidity from the French, this deal is history for the EF.
     
  4. halloweene

    halloweene Major MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    They said that indian law allow another bid after exclusive negociations selection. We'll see.
     
  5. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    Indian laws also allow for imposition of emergency but that's not very probable, right? India can scrap the deal & start afresh if it wants but generally the auditors would frown at any tender where L1 was bypassed & L2 given the contract. It can theoretically happen but it won't happen in real life unless, as I said the French mess it up (or the Ef consortium pretty much throws the kitchen sink by doing something extraordinarily outrageous). The chatter will reduce in a few days & things will get back to normal. EF can at best hope its renewed offer (if any) makes it to any short list for any increase in the MMRCA numbers; essentially splitting the MMRCA contract.
     
  6. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    India-UK relations are founded on more than the Eurofighter TyphoonNew Delhi's choice of France's Rafale jet over the part-BAE Systems Typhoon is disappointing, but the deal is not over yet


    Jo Johnson
    guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 February 2012 11.51 GMT Article history

    No country has been more assiduously targeted by the UK's ambitious new commercial diplomacy than India. David Cameron and five other cabinet ministers made New Delhi their first big overseas port of call within 10 weeks of taking office in 2010. New Delhi's decision last week to choose the Rafale (made by France's Dassault) over the Eurofighter Typhoon (part-made by BAE Systems) as the preferred supplier of 126 fighter planes for its fast-expanding air force is undoubtedly disappointing. Valued at $11bn, this was the biggest export opportunity for the industry for the foreseeable future. With the UK and France locked in a dogfight over each other's relative economic strength – Nicolas Sarkozy jeered that the UK had "no industry left" – India's choice of the Rafale has been a coup for the hard-pressed French leader.


    Look more closely however, and it is clear that the decision to make the Rafale the preferred bidder does nothing to undermine the thrust of UK commercial diplomacy. "This is not a verdict in any way on UK-India relations, which are going swimmingly," says Colonel Ajai Shukla, a Delhi-based defence analyst, pointing to New Delhi's recent purchase from BAE of an additional 57 Hawk advanced jet trainer aircraft. "Geopolitics has played a minimal role in this. If strategic considerations had been a factor, then the US or Russia were well placed to win the contract, but their planes were eliminated in the first round. Defence minister AK Antony had a conscious desire to go purely by technical requirements. Once the Eurofighter and Rafale had met the technical requirements, price became the only factor."


    Indeed, in April 2011, when Boeing's F/A-18 and Lockheed Martin's F-16IN crashed out of the six-plane contest, Washington was as disappointed as London is now. The US ambassador to New Delhi resigned from his post. This reflected the fact that the George W Bush administration had expended considerable diplomatic effort wooing India, with a civil nuclear deal that brought New Delhi's programme in from the cold. Yet its diplomatic heavy-lifting on India's behalf yielded few commercial contracts: France's Areva and Russia's Rosatom have picked up the lion's share of reactor sales. And when it came to arms deals, New Delhi made clear it did not want to be dragooned into any US-led containment of China.


    Shashank Joshi, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, points to a view that France is "reliable when push comes to shove" and "more willing to take an independent line". This was underlined by France's refusal to condemn India's nuclear tests in 1998 and collaborative approach during the 1999 Kargil war with Pakistan, when it allowed India to modify the Mirage 2000 jet. The result, Joshi says, is that France is "really remembered as a diplomatic anchor". The UK's relations with India, by contrast, suffered during the Labour years, sometimes appearing to be of secondary importance to the sizeable Pakistani diaspora vote in marginal seats in the West Midlands and north of England. David Miliband's visit as foreign secretary in 2009, although well-intentioned, left bilateral relations at a post-independence low. His lecture on the need to resolve the Kashmir dispute, bumptious mateyness in meetings with veteran politicians, and decision to highlight the marginalisation of low-caste groups with an overnight stay in a Dalit village left the BJP (Bharatiya Janata party) speaking for many in pronouncing that, "in recent years, there has been no bigger disaster than Miliband's visit".


    Visiting India as a leader of the opposition, Cameron identified that the UK was losing share of trade and foreign direct investment. Between 1999 and 2009, the UK had slipped down the ranks of India's trading partners, falling from second place to 22nd place. It was overtaken even by Belgium, reflecting difficulties in market access in sectors where British firms were competitive. Retail remained shut to the likes of Tesco, banks struggled to open up branches in any meaningful scale and foreign law firms were frozen out altogether. The Conservative leader also saw that the UK was losing share among opinion-formers in a country destined by its demography, nuclear weaponry and near-double-digit growth rates to be a pillar of a new world order. With the next generation of Indian leaders more culturally attuned to the US, Britishness risked becoming a currency of depreciating value.


    Although sceptical of the Heseltinian tradition of herding businessmen on to aeroplanes bound for faraway countries, Cameron used the July 2010 visit to underline his determination to revitalise a neglected bilateral relationship. The UK-India relationship is founded on a much broader range of mutual interests than just Typhoon – exports to India were up 45% last year. India is now the third largest investor in the UK, with Indian firms investing more here than in the rest of Europe combined, and UK companies announced £9bn of investment in India last year – 18 times more than the previous year. Beyond the commercial relationship, the two countries are now working more closely together on issues such as education, climate change and counter-terrorism.


    Finally, not all is lost on the Eurofighter itself. The Indians have not yet awarded the contract. There are precedents for preferred bidders not making it to signature. The Congress-led government is under pressure to avoid any whiff of scandal ahead of looming polls in Uttar Pradesh and a general election in 2014. The BJP opposition will lose no opportunity to turn this into another Bofors-type fiasco. With more advanced technology and weaponry, the Eurofighter was widely expected to lose to the Rafale on unit costs, but to win on lifecycle costs. The opposition party is pushing hard for full transparency. Let's wait to see this contract being signed.

    India-UK relations are founded on more than the Eurofighter Typhoon | Jo Johnson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Just take Raffy and Typhoo... Done
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2012
  7. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    WAHEY!!!!!!

    http://www.cobham.com/media/33476/cob_m04_mel_datasheet_uk_fa.pdf

    The Missile Eject Launcher (MEL) is a
    specialised unit designed for the carriage
    and release of air to air missiles from fast
    jet aircraft. Units have been developed and
    specifically tailored for the F-4 Phantom,
    Tornado GR4 and Eurofighter Typhoon, and
    offers long-stroke rapid ejection to ensure
    safe missile/aircraft separation on launch,
    even in the most extreme flight conditions.

    Selecting the MEL allows weapon carriage on
    store stations within bomb bays, conformal
    stations such as those on the underside of
    Eurofighter Typhoon which offer stealth
    through reduced radar signature, or
    traditional wing pylon stations.


    The latest development of MEL, the Dual Mode
    MEL (DMMEL), allows the interchangeable
    carriage and release of either Meteor or
    AMRAAM air to air missiles without role change.

    Key Features:
    • Long Stroke Ejection
    • High end of stroke velocity of 9m/s
    • Whole Cycle Completion within 300
    milliseconds
    • Variable Configuration (conformal fuselage
    station, bomb bay, under-wing pylon)
    • Interchangeable payload (DMMEL only:
    Meteor/AMRAAM)
    • Low Maintenance
     
  8. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  9. Wrecker1984

    Wrecker1984 FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    12
    What is going to be the expected service span of EFT?
    Is there any truth in the rumors that UK will phase it out after 2020-2025 with F-35?
     
  10. Rehan123

    Rehan123 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    60
    Wowzers!! I had imagined that the Eurofighter Typhoon programme was in less than ideal health especially given all the recent noises coming from Britain. This report though paints a far more damaging picture than I had imagined.

    Couple of things really stood out for me.
    1. Pricing of the aircraft & Business practices at BAE - 16 new EFT's cost the MoD £168.75million apeice! That's just plain insane. That figure puts the cost of an aircraft whose capabilities are yet to be fully developed within the same price bracket as the F 22 Raptor or the F 35 Lightning II. That figure is also greater than the estimated price for the Sukhoi PAK FA/ HAL FGFA.

    The Saudi Arabia deal also raises a lot of questions. EFT's were sold to the RSAF at a significant discount (~33-35%) over the RAF both in terms of acquisition price as well as in-service cost. This when taken along with later developments in the Saudi deal (offsets and in-country production not materializing, haggling over price for next group of EFT's etc) raises some uncomfortable questions about the business practices followed by BAE. Why were EFT's provided to an export country at an initial cost lower than one given to a development partner nation? Was it a deliberate attempt to land the deal knowing that they could & would raises prices midway through the programme after the export nation was irrevocably committed to the aircraft? Why has the price of the aircraft inflated to the levels of that of the F-22 when the EFT does not have anything resembling the same qualities, especially when the EFT enjoys significant economies of scale as compared to the F-22?

    2. The naval Typhoon is a practical impossibility - This study and the various reports it quotes including previous MoD studies have conclusively proven, at least to me, that a naval EFT cannot exist without extensively reworking the design to such an extent that it would be cheaper to just build a new aircraft from scratch than base it on the EFT.

    3. Lack of Spares and cannibalization of aircraft to keep fleet in air explained - One particular sentence stood out for me in this report though not for the reason that the authors indicated. Let me quote
    This indicates a very high level of complexity in maintaining adequate spares as the number of different minor and major parts required would be astronomical. If having to replace a single access panel requires 20 different kinds of screws then it is no wonder that air forces are being forced to cannibalize parts to keep planes in the air. This is even less of a surprise considering how production of parts for the EFT has been distributed widely across numerous manufacturers in at least 4 different nations. It reminds me of the numerous reports available regarding the F 35 JSF programme; about how the work was split up so wide in order to make the programme un-killable that the aircraft faced/faces numerous problems both with availability as well quality of parts so much so that the final assembly plant had to rework and hand-fit parts of the early F35's.
     
  11. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Typhoon 2020 « The Aviationist

    The Typhoon will fly beyond 2020. Work on the aircraft is slow, the older Tranche 1s will be probably be retired to make way for more Tranche 3s.

    Eurofighter is said to end its service in 2040:

    Eurofighter Typhoon - Airforce Technology
     
  12. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Welcome to the real world of actual jet prices. The Typhoons that were sold to Saudi Arabia had their price reducted for barrels of oil.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40567.pdf
    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

    UKIP solution to carrier aircraft - UK Independence Party

    It would be better than using that F-35. At least the Naval Typhoon would work and having a jet with a wing area of 50m2 still makes it manueverable when fully loaded. We relize the risks since the X-31 and what is said for the aircraft to do is not impossible.

    http://www.premium-aerotec.com/Binaries/Binary4070/_DSC5267.jpg

    [​IMG]

    Difference between F35 and Eurofighter, one is in service, the other is not. The Eurofighter is a bigger design but then it does have a large radar, wings and fuselage. It was inedible that the aircraft would be so heavy. Currently the Tranche3a have near 50% reduced lifecycle costs, hopfully with newer tech it will be a lighter aircraft aswell.
     
  13. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    BAE Systems: a manufacturer fighting for performance
    Doubt are growing that BAE Systems will be able to match the manufacturing success of rival Roll-Royce without a focused strategy from the Government and the company.

    [​IMG]

    The chief executive of Rolls-Royce, Britain’s biggest manufacturer by market value, looked concerned. “Clearly disappointed,” he confessed, when asked about the Indian government choosing a French fighter jet rather than the British-backed Eurofighter Typhoon for a £13bn contract.

    Delivering the British manufacturing giant’s full-year results last Thursday, John Rishton, having already expressed his fears for British manufacturing, issued a warning about what the loss of the contract could mean for the UK defence industry.

    “If a country has an inherent skill but can’t use it, then it will lose the skills,” he said.

    The Indian contract, in which Rolls-Royce would have played a vital role, was seen as essential to the future health of the British defence industry, given the need to fill the gaps created by the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

    Fortunately for Rishton, Rolls-Royce has been winning overseas contracts for years, as evidenced by the company’s underlying pre-tax profits clearing £1bn for the first time in 2011.

    The same cannot be said, however, for Rolls-Royce’s British partner in the Typhoon project – BAE Systems.

    While Rolls-Royce is Britain’s biggest manufacturer by market value, BAE is the biggest by workforce. The company employs 38,400 people across the UK at sites including Samlesbury in Lancashire, Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria and Brough in East Yorkshire.

    However, its workforce has suffered heavy cuts in the past few years. Last September, BAE announced it was axing 3,000 jobs across 15 sites. To make matters worse, in the past month, it emerged that BAE has hired L.E.K. Consulting to review the future of its historic dockyards in Glasgow and Portsmouth, and that the company had lost the Indian Typhoon contract – putting thousands more of its workers under threat.

    The UK’s biggest manufacturer appears to be showing worrying signs of decline just as the country tries to increase manufacturing to help it fight out of recession.

    Roger Johnston, a defence analyst at Edison Investment Research, argues that the company is now at a precarious cross-roads: “BAE finds itself in a position where there are question marks over land – following withdrawal form Iraq in particular – naval – look at how the surface fleet has shrunk in the UK – and increasingly so in air where if it loses India, having already lost several other significant export competitions, then the future of Eurofighter becomes increasingly uncertain.

    “What we risk is a shrinking UK defence industry with little home market that has a foothold in the US but struggles to compete on the international stage. Taking things to the extreme, we could see many of the UK hi-tech jobs simply moving abroad, providing further decline in UK industry,” he added.

    Howard Wheeldon, an in-dependent defence and manufacturing analyst, said BAE’s own annual results, due on Thursday, are likely to include a “stiff warning” for the Government. “The message will be all about the outlook,” he said. “It is going to be a stiff warning that it can’t finance the Government. It has

    to change and adapt. The Government has to decide whether it wants a defence manufacturing base or not.”

    But many in the defence industry and Whitehall believe the blame for BAE’s job losses lie not with Government policy, but with the company itself.

    According to Rishton, the secret to the success of Rolls is fairly simple. “Rolls-Royce is a long-term business. We invest in products, systems and services that take many years to develop but then have life cycles that last for decades,” he said after the results. “This consistent record of long-term investment has given Rolls-Royce a broad portfolio, a strong market position and access to world markets, creating a powerful platform for future growth.”

    This blueprint for manufacturing success was put in place by Rishton’s predecessors, Sir Ralph Robins and Sir John Rose. To turn the strategy into reality, both men had to withstand fierce pressure from the City for not delivering short-term returns during the 1990s and following September 11.

    Some critics believe that Britain’s other defence giant is not following this blueprint. While BAE’s annual results could include a warning to the Government, they are also likely to include a significant payout to shareholders and a robust set of financial figures.

    “They have derisked too far,” said one senior industry source. “I fear they are cutting research and development. The company is too sensitive to shareholders and not sensitive enough to the long-term.”

    Last year, BAE launched a £500m share buy-back and more could follow. The FTSE 100 company has £3bn of cash on its balance sheet.

    Jason Steen, of Steen Associates, the aerospace and defence mergers and acquisitions boutique, added: “It is not clear to the outside world what the long-term strategy is.”

    In a speech before Christmas, David Davis, the local Conservative MP for Brough, said BAE had been guilty of short-termism for years, calling its decision to sell a 20pc stake in Airbus in 2006 “an astonishing piece of strategic myopia”.

    However, Endre Lunde, an aerospace and defence consultant at IHS Jane’s, said BAE does have a long-term strategy: “The problem was never that BAE did not have a strong long term strategy – they had one, and it was pretty good. The problem is, it has not worked out quite as well as they had hoped, both due to the financial crisis and several other factors.

    “They had created a strategy where they had established themselves as one of the prime contractors in several 'home markets’ – UK, India, Australia, Saudi Arabia, US – around the world. Unfortunately the returns have not quite been what they had hoped,” he added.

    BAE sources believe the criticism is unfair. They claim the company has pursued a long-term strategy by pursuing deals with new overseas partners – such as selling £133m of ships to Brazil – and expanding into new spheres of security, such as cyber crime. The company also says its investment in research and development is constrained by the nature of its customers.

    So, while Rolls can drive technological revolutions in aerospace by developing fuel-efficient engines for prosperous and competitive commercial airlines, BAE sells defence products to a limited number of governments and is often driven by the requirements of the customer.

    In the present environment, this is a problem. The company’s main customer, the UK Government, has debts of more than £1 trillion.

    The company, for example, has invested in the design of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, but has yet to secure any firm orders, even from the Government. This means that the company’s docks have no committed work beyond the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, hence the launch of the L.E.K.-led strategic review.

    According to sources close to the company, that review is not yet complete. But the most likely outcome is that it leads to the closure of BAE’s manufacturing facilities at Portsmouth with the loss of 1,500 jobs. The company’s servicing arm at the dockyard, which also employs around 1,500 people, is likely to remain open, however. An announcement is expected within the next few months.

    The defence company appears to be caught between conflicting demands from the coalition Government. On the one hand, a £37bn cut to the British defence budget, pursuing a policy of “buying off the shelf” when it comes to defence contracts, and lambasting delayed and over-budget projects, is not helping BAE. But on the other hand the Government wants to create more jobs in manufacturing. So, while the Public Accounts Committee criticises the 15 largest defence projects for running £6.1bn over budget to £60bn, an 11.4pc increase, BAE sources say the delays have protected jobs and skills.

    For example, the spreading out of the construction of the Astute nuclear submarines – costing an extra £1.6bn – means BAE’s Barrow shipyards now have work secured until at least 2024. Last week, the company announced it is hiring 136 apprentices at the submarine yard, the highest intake for five years, ensuring BAE has the necessary skills to build Britain a successor to the Vanguard nuclear sub-marines in the future.

    The defence industry supports 300,000 jobs in the UK, provides £9.5bn of exports, and offers highly skilled jobs to young people. Britain remains the second-biggest exporter of defence products in the world, despite its diminished status in other industries.

    Yet trade body ADS warns that up to 30,000 jobs – 10pc of the aerospace sector – are at risk from the Government spending cuts.

    As one industry source said of the failure of the Typhoon to win the Indian contract: “Our defence industry is not working in tandem with the Government as much as the French worked with Dassault.”

    Without a more focused strategy, both from the Government and the company itself, BAE may lag further behind its British rival in the war for manufacturing supremacy.

    BAE Systems: a manufacturer fighting for performance - Telegraph
     
  14. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    A dogfight over Delhi

    The Financial Times : Mon Feb 13 2012, 00:07 hrs

    James Lamont & James Boxell

    Sir Stephen Dalton, the UK’s chief of air staff, hurtled down the runway behind the controls of a Russian-designed Sukhoi-30 at the Kalaikunda air base in West Bengal. The deafening roar of the engines of the mainstay of the Indian Air Force swept over a small band of observers gathered just over a year ago in the rising tropical heat.

    Minutes later, a Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon built by a British, German, Italian and Spanish consortium took to the skies as part of a staged dogfight with India's French Mirages and Russian aircraft, designed to impress officials seeking to modernise an ageing fleet. Its near-vertical take-off was met with awed admiration.

    Within the sights of Sir Stephen, a veteran of the first Gulf war - as well as his political masters and hundreds of aerospace executives - was one of the world’s most sought-after jet fighter contracts. London, Paris and Washington were all vying to re-equip the world’s largest democracy with 126 fighters — about one-10th of the force — seeing it as a chance to put a seal on a defining bilateral relationship of the 21st century.

    The deal to supply India — with its fast-growing economy and geopolitical status, and concern about the threat from Pakistan to the north and China to the east — offered a European defence establishment suffering shrinking military budgets back home the chance to reshape the industry landscape.

    But the mock battle was the closest the Typhoon came to the target. New Delhi chose Dassault’s Rafale over the Eurofighter at the end of an eight-year competition. The significance of the agreement is being compared to that of the UK’s record al-Yamama deal with with Saudi Arabia, signed in the 1980s. Optimists say it could be signed within eight months, joining a $9.3bn agreement for France to supply India with two nuclear plants and another to build it a modern conventional submarine fleet worth $4bn.

    “This is a major win for France, and a major loss for the UK... French political backing has been essential in strengthening the French bid and the Rafale win is therefore also a major victory for President Nicolas Sarkozy,â€￾ says Endre Lunde, an aerospace and defence consultant at IHS Jane’s, a defence consultancy.

    Rafale’s selection is a bitter disappointment for all four nations in the consortium, and highlights Indian doubts about a pan-European partnership at a time of financial and political strain on the continent.

    It has a particular sting for David Cameron. The UK prime minister identified the Indian market as one of the most important for Britain’s exporters — but this opening gambit to his premiership has shown scant return even though accompanied by £1bn of aid in the next four years.

    Eurofighter’s backers thought it the lead contender, bringing more advanced technology and strategic clout than the Rafale, which had not been sold outside France. Their confidence soared after US rivals — Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Super Viper — were knocked out of the highly secretive medium multi-role combat aircraft contest last year.

    In London and Berlin, contractors salivated at the idea of harnessing via industrial partnership a greater share of India’s $36bn annual defence budget. A big European purchase would shift India away from reliance on Russia and show the US was not the only alternative as Delhi sought to rearm itself in light of mounting concerns about a more assertive Beijing.

    The executives of the consortium partners were convinced Eurofighter offered a superior so-called “4th generationâ€￾ aircraft suited to aerial combat and able to strike targets on the ground. They were also confident they had priced it competitively, in spite of some analysts’ claims that the Rafale was up to 10 per cent cheaper.

    But they overlooked Indian misgivings about security of supply for an aircraft built by four countries across a continent in financial turmoil and amid worries about the aircraft’s radar capabilities. “The upside is that Eurofighter delivers you four countries as strategic partners,â€￾ says Douglas Barrie of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, but “the down side is they have to negotiate with each other before they negotiate with youâ€￾.

    Eurofighter executives want a “detailed explanationâ€￾ from India’s Ministry of Defence of how calculations were made. They doubt that Dassault, which conducted its campaign from within the grey concrete walls of the French embassy, can deliver on its promises in terms of price and schedule.

    Meantime, there is grim denial that the contest is over, and that India has overlooked a partnership that they say includes two of the more robust European economies, Germany and the UK, in favour of one with a country recently stripped of its triple A credit status. One veteran of the Eurofighter campaign vows not to give up until India makes the first down payment to the French, which might not be for years, claiming that arms deals of this magnitude are in play “until money is in the bankâ€￾. BAE, one of the Eurofighter group partners, signalled that it was prepared to drop the price.

    Delhi’s version of events is that, in an era of corruption scandals and an activist Supreme Court, it has played the selection process entirely by the book. Defence officials say that, once the two models passed technical trials, the deciding factor was always going to be which was offered at the lowest price. They say the choice of Rafale, which some say came in $5m cheaper per aircraft, was one of the cleanest decisions in India’s arms procurement history, with the minimum of political interference.

    Defence experts, however, say other factors came into play in the form of investment agreements, whereby they were required to invest half the value of the contract back into India, and technology transfer. “The deal is beyond the aircraft,â€￾ says Uday Bhaskar, a Delhi-based defence analyst. “If I was in the shoes of France looking at India, I would go beyond the fighter to the next big-ticket items of civil nuclear power and the [nuclear] submarine arena.â€￾

    Bharat Karnad, a defence expert at the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, says a likely bargaining chip was the prospect of the use of nuclear testing facilities in Bordeaux to shore up the thermonuclear shortcomings of India’s nuclear arsenal. “The Indian government can’t be blamed for misleading anyone. It was government-to-government from the very beginning.We wanted to know what things we would get with the fighter,â€￾ he says.

    Competitors suspect the nuclear element played a part in the decision. “Dassault got very aggressive on price and then Sarkozy rounded out the deal at the very end, possibly with some side-deal involving nuclear energy,â€￾ one German official says.

    Mr Sarkozy, months away from a presidential election that promises to be a bitter fight, and Dassault are quietly triumphant. He has underlined his determination by saying the final negotiations had “the full support of the French authoritiesâ€￾ and would include technology transfers “guaranteedâ€￾ by the state.

    “Sarko is willing to give them whatever [technology] they want,â€￾ says a French defence industry executive. “It’s fair to say the technology has been around a while now so is not quite leading-edge. Remember we were talking about selling the Rafale to Gaddafi in Libya, so there are no qualms really.â€￾

    Internal critiques on how the deal was lost will almost certainly heap blame on Germany — and, in some quarters, deepen existing regret that the UK, India’s former colonial master, did not take the lead role in a more dynamic bid.

    The German-led bid was excessively technical and lacked glossy display of what the Typhoon could do in conflicts, according to one critic. While Dassault’s bid was captured in 20 pages, Eurofighter’s ran to 150.

    “The German government was very German. It helped as best it thought it could,â€￾ explains one Berlin official. “But it was always trammelled by German public aversion to arms sales, and by the fact that it doesn’t pursue a statist industrial policy like Paris... The fact that some countries do packages and the Germans don’t is a fact you have to accept.â€￾

    © 2012 The Financial Times Limited

    A dogfight over Delhi - Indian Express
     
  15. Rehan123

    Rehan123 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    60
    Sorry for the late reply as I was busy for the last few days with work for my paper for an upcoming conference.

    W.r.t the point quoted above, the report you posted, which in turn was the basis of my post, seriously questions whether a naval EFT would be able to land on a carrier deck safely. The second part of the report provides a point-by-point breakdown of why exactly the method of landing proposed by BAE for a naval EFT would not work. Sorry to ask but what exactly in that peice of rhetoric on the UKIP website convinced you that the authors of that report had got it wrong?

    W.r.t the spares issue - your assertion that future aircraft should have lower life-cycle costs has some weight. Problem areas in the EFT programme will in all probability be streamlined as part of the development process thus ensuring lower life-cycle costs. It still leaves part of the original problem unsolved. BAE and it's partners have done everything feasible to the chassis to lower the weight already, hence the problem with lots of little individual bits with it's own particular specifications. Using composites and advanced material will help lower the weight of the EFT but I doubt whether BAE will standardize little things like screws etc. Doing so will incur a weight penalty as every screw/nut/bolt/ratchet etc. would then have to be built to the specification as the largest of those pieces - not something they would want....

    A saying goes that "for the want of a nail, the kingdom was lost". This is quite possibly the situation with EFT. All we hear are reports that RAF had to cannibalize EFT's to keep their fleet in the air - not what part was cannibalized. It may have just been something trivial like a screw for all we know. It maybe possible that given time enough statistical data can be collected and analyzed to guide the spares procurement programme to it's optimum performance levels but even these cannot fully account for unforeseen circumstances... The point I am trying to make is that if, God forbid, there is war then the air forces will face a tough task as there will be multitude of various different spares required to maintain the aircraft in airworthy state. The lack of commonality between the small parts in the aircraft could possibly hinder such efforts as spares of just one type of screw or nut running out would bring the whole effort to a halt. This sort of thinking could possibly hamper EFT's chances in export orders even more so with reports out of Europe showing that these fears are not totally unfounded.
     

Share This Page