I don't know what are you talking about. I can tell you a story that come directly from one person who was personally present during the négociation in India.
During one meeting, the question about Dassault to take in charge the warranty of the aircraft built in France came. Indian counterpart ask how it will be setup according to the MMRCA contest.
It was a bluff, nothing has been planned in the contract regarding that point and one french guy took the entire contract in paper in his hands, give it to his Indian counter parts and said :"ok, show me in the contract where this is written because we didn't see it.".
It wasn't written. It was a bluff and this is how it worked.
I think I was very clear in what I wrote. Not sure if you're using some translation app to understand what I've written or your understanding of the English language is inadequate.
This is what I wrote in the post before what you've quoted . Emphasis & colour coding added for better understanding.
On the contrary the CNC team prepared such a watertight agreement with some impossible clauses as far as the MMRCA went that Dassault had no choice but to play dirty.
They agreed to all the clauses & once they were declared the winner of the contest reneged from agreeing to stand guarantee to HAL's workmanship & time taken to deliver each FA & there's nothing we could do
And why didn't you quote the full post of mine when you did quote me.
Once again , I've written about this before but in tenders especially international tenders if there are deviations from the original agreement the bidder is expected to provide a list of exceptions at the time of bidding.
DA did no such thing. They played along & after they were declared the winner of the contest showed their true colours.
So where's the list of deviations when DA signed on to agree to the T&C of the MMRCA tender without which no bid is considered complete & therefore liable to be rejected .
And if DA submitted the tender with their stamp & seal duly attested WITHOUT any list of deviations / exceptions it's understood they've none whatsoever. This is standard international business practice.
I know you love tells that French are like this or that, but the reality is also that it is very hard to negotiate with India. There are many steps, all leads by people who has their own will and political agenda.
I've written about precisely this phenomenon in the preceding posts. Every other major tender used to see some form of corruption or the other with the result the succeeding tender tended to have even more watertight clauses which makes negotiations & implementation next to impossible.
The options are stark . Either don't participate in such tenders which is what SAAB Kockums , the Japanese & the Koreans did in the IN tender for the Project 75 I or indulge in sleight of hand like what Naval Group did in Project 75 pissing off the IN to the extent that they deliberately designed the tender for Project 75 I to keep NG out .
Incidentally Naval Group enjoys such a splendid reputation all around from Malaysia to Australia to Norway to India . Perhaps you should look into the reasons for their world wide popularity.
I think this article pretty much sums up NG's approach to business. If you think there's nothing wrong with it & NG is completely justified in protecting its interests what makes you think other countries aren't justified in protecting theirs.
Naval Group’s head of strategy, Guillaume Rochard said the French firm takes a more cautious approach to technology sharing to avoid fostering competition, unlike TKMS.
theprint.in
I know companies which initially refused to propose anything to India, because they know they might spend outrageous amount of time (so, and in money) to negotiate and then get lost in the acquisition procedures. For some, the french government pushed them. So the price they propose include and extra margin.
Yes . So ? We get what we want . If not we develop it. I'm of the school of opinion it's better to starve the armed forces of imports altogether so that they start focusing on internal development & mfg. In short - indigenization.
Like in so many other fields we're getting there after a lot of hemming & hawing , zig zag movements , two steps forward & 1 backwards & so on. Trust you get the drift. If not do not hesitate to state you inability to comprehend what I've written . I'd have it translated in French & post it here.
"French this, french that..." But don't forget that Rafale and other stuff are sold all over the world and french is the second arms dealer behind the US, despite the fact that they do not possess their geopolitical power and leverage.
And what's that got to do with the subject at hand ? The US has always been the largest exporter of FAs the world over since the end of WW-2 till date. How many FAs have they exported to China & India ? Zero. How has it affected their market value or the defence preparedness of either nation ?
So, at one moment, please, consider to look at yourself as well.
Business is a two way transaction where both parties benefit after mutual agreement . Where there's no agreement or unilateral interpretation of it , it leads to conflict. I'm surprised I've had to inform you of it .
LIke for the previous off topic, you wrote a story telling based on assumptions, not fact. It's an opinion based on nothing. Like for the ISE.
What about the ISE ?
why it took so long to apply the ISE? Don't know. There where payment issues from India. Also, a lot of hardware did not came from France. As a journalist, I will tell that we don't have enough facts to understand what happened and I will stay at this position. I won't build a story.
I did write the ISE was to be implemented on the last of the Rafales to be delivered. Subsequently all the previously delivered Rafales were to be flown to France for these ISE related modifications .
I further wrote it was inconceivable why these modifications took 3+ years to be implemented . And that there was chatter on SM that there was a shortage of finances at our end which can't be confirmed & likely won't be for a long time.
Which part of it didn't you understand ?
