Its a sarcastic one...
Boeing ends contract with HAL over ‘poor quality’ of production
US firm’s decision comes over HAL’s ‘poor quality’ of productionwww.financialexpress.com
"US defence major Boeing has terminated a contract with state-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) for component supplies to the former’s war and commercial planes being inducted into the Indian Navy.
Boeing’s decision came after repeated reminders to HAL about its “poor quality” of production, sources said"
Because for the MMRCA it was asked to Dassault to guarantee the HAL quality. Only possible if HAL use the Dassault quality management and tools.
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
Pls check out the date of the article I've appended vis a vis yours .Boeing ends contract with HAL over ‘poor quality’ of production
US firm’s decision comes over HAL’s ‘poor quality’ of production
"US defence major Boeing has terminated a contract with state-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) for component supplies to the former’s war and commercial planes being inducted into the Indian Navy.
Boeing’s decision came after repeated reminders to HAL about its “poor quality” of production, sources said"
You think that because you are not aware of the weaknesses of your industry. Dassault simply does not want to put itself in a position of not fulfilling its contractual obligations. If HAL is so often late it is for reasons that Dassault is able to diagnose and propose to correct, but HAL does not want to reform.
Dassault has therefore created a joint venture from scratch, and is building the eco-system around this joint venture, working mainly on the civil market where it is free to do what it wants, but taking care to implement the same model as in France where employees are able to switch from civil to military and vice versa in a very short time. Dassault has even set up universities to ensure that the training of its employees in India is suitable.
This also concerns subcontractors: when Dassault developed relations with Indian subcontractors, they thought they were doing themselves a favour by bringing in experienced employees, but I was received in India by Dassault's head of technology transfer and he told me that Dassault had refused these people because they had generally worked with HAL and had acquired bad habits and that Dassault therefore preferred junior employees.
It is clear that Dassault only takes responsibility on its own terms, and if the other party does not agree, Dassault does not sign the contract. This is also what it does for the NGF contract in the SCAF programme, so it is not unique to India.
2015. Not so far.
And don't forget MMRCA 1 failed in the 2010-2015 region.... So this news is relevant.
So why did Dassault participate in the tender when from the very first day it was clearly known that ToT would have to be effected to HAL , that they would be the sole manufacturing agency & that Dassault would have to stand guarantee for the workmanship & man hours ?
There's no JV . Reliance has zero experience or expertise in aviation. In fact they had zero experience in anything related to defence . Dassault might as well team up with me . The only reason Reliance was chosen was that they were financially secure then , chose to diversify in the defence business & probably a nudge by Modi to the French government to ask Dassault to consider partnering Reliance.
Since then much water has flown under the Seine & Reliance's broke as of today.
Bad Habits like what ? 6 working hours a day like in France ? It's because of these excuses you got kicked out of Australia & Norway submarine projects . Yet you guys never learn .
That should've been made clear by Dassault right in the beginning when after filling in the tender they sent a letter of exceptions along with the signed & sealed tender documents where they detail where how & why are they choosing to deviate from the tender norms .
Pls produce such a letter from Dassault out here .
What do you mean not so far ? I just linked an article from 2021 where HAL had just executed supplies of a total of 200 gun bay doors to the Hornets / Super Hornets .
Pls refer to what I've posted above in this very same post.
Dassault agreed to work with HAL and to make the necessary technology transfer to them, but in this technology transfer there was the reform of their production method which HAL refused during the negotiations between Dassault and HAL which was planned inside the tender's conditions.
Dassault would rather prefer to deal with a 0 experience partner than a bad experience one. Reliance was willing to invest in this kind of business, which is not usually the case as the benefits are long term and it could offer an attractive location near an airport runway to establish the joint venture factories.
But not DRAL.
We will not change It is the customers who should learn, we are ready to take the consequences of our positioning.
Yes it was clear that there had to be a negotiation, it was foreseen in the tender, what is the point?
If there was reform of the production methods suggested that would either be internal or something recommended by Dassault during due diligence. I've yet to come across either. I also fail to see why HAL would refuse to upgrade it's infrastructure upon which production quality depended as well as adherence to the time lines & then insisted Dassault stand guarantee for both. It just doesn't make sense. Perhaps you have sources you can link here to justify such claims.
Yes, it suits Dassault more than anyone else. In the event it's not happening now.
It's Dassault & only Dassault which is financially solvent . DRAL is a JV with a partner which is financially insolvent .
Although I'm not sure if GoI can permit a 100% subsidiary of Dassault assuming Dassault is interested in buying out Reliance & establishing such a venture.
No you will not as you shouldn't. Just as you have the freedom to interpret rules as per your convenience so does Australia & Norway & India too. It's just the timing of it which is important.
As far as the consequences of such positions are concerned perhaps you ought to look at the tantrums France threw when the Australians unceremoniously ejected the French from their contract. I recall members from the Anglosphere here having a hearty laugh.
Says who? What exactly was to be " negotiated " post a tender which you signed & sealed without a letter of deviation / exception which means you were in compliance with all the T&Cs & only started raising objections later on. What you're providing is post facto explanations not facts.
But we'll be the last to laugh when the Australians will see the consequences of their choice.
Yes Dassault was in compliance with all the terms and conditions, if that had not been the case I don't think India would have bought 36 Rafales from us. There was simply a negotiation planned, because a call for tender cannot foresee all the particular cases and this negotiation failed because both parties had the same rigidity.
I am not entitled to provide evidence, I am only a forumer.
AUKUS : US, UK and Australia forge military alliance to counter China
What a waste of good click bait headlines..The agreement to transfer nuke tech has already been signed in Nov last year. AUKUS States Sign Information Exchange Deal | Arms Control Association...
www.strategicfront.org
GoI followed IAFs recommendations which strongly plumbed for the Rafale. Of course Dassault was in compliance with the T&C of the tender . It's only when they were asked to guarantee performance of the Rafales & the timeline for manufacturing , they started to back off .
Without being in charge of a project , it's next to impossible to guarantee quality or timelines on delivery. I agree to this part. The issue arises when they started to point out to Manufacturing techniques & production methodology followed . I mean were they high on cheap French wine when they did their due diligence ?
To which you'd point out that France raised objections to the manufacturing processes followed by HAL to which I'd ask for evidence to which you'd answer you have none & we'd enter the infinity loop of which I'd warned in my first post itself.
Moreover , as you've pointed out it was a case of breakdown of negotiations . Nothing more nor less. Since there was no case of impropriety to be made out , the GoI concluded an IGA with the GoF to proceed with the sale of Rafales.
Kindly do not make claims on issues whose information is not in the public domain then .
I don't think anyone can stop me from making the statements I want to make.
No , nobody can except if you honour the credentials you like to parade here , you ought to live up to a higher standard of ethics than others here .
I don't parade any credentials, and I'm not here to compete with others on ethics.
I think we both know what I'm referring to . Have a good day .
Sorry, was replying to a message. Don't know why it appeared here.
Since this is about MMRCA 2.0, do people view this as a possible Rafale versus Tejas Mk2 affair? Delay Mk2 enough and lots of MMRCA 2.0 Rafales will be needed, accelerate Mk2 and a small Rafale purchase to plug the MiG-21 retirements will be all that is required?
These are two separate procurements to meet two different requirements. They're mutually exclusive.
The MiG 21s are being replaced by the Tejas LCA Mk-1a .
No relation. The IAF has a requirement of 200 jets each in SE and TE configurations, performing pretty much the same roles, a bit more for TE. LCA Mk2 will fulfill the need for SE and MRFA will meet TE requirements. The SE/TE division is primarily due to the need to cut procurement and operation costs. A richer country would have bought only MRFA.
Mk1A is a stopgap purchase to replace the fast-retiring Mig-21s due to the delays in the development of the original version of the LCA Mk2. Had the original Mk2 been ready today, the IAF would have skipped out on Mk1A, which was the initial plan. It's a necessary evil. But there have been some other advantages, like opening up export prospects in a few countries.