Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

aksha

Captain
You made reference to a blogger that Dassault in using Reliance was trying to rip the IAF by double dipping. The blogger made a bunch of assertions on how that was going to happen but I really need you to explain how the double dipping actually works by using Reliance instead of HAL. I was trained professionally as a CPA and in my life time I have structured a lot of business transactions around the world and I have no clue what that blogger was talking about. Maybe you do and can explain it to me before I comment further.



I have no idea about the Scorpene deal and I would rather talked about each case on its own merits to keep it simple.

while bharat karnad is not a trustable source, it is possible
that dassault can just import the the parts and assemble it in india,reliance being the assembler.
but HAL would force them them to make the parts in india.
if the parts are made by dassault more profit to them.

and any way we know very well taht Dassault is trying to divert the tender.from what the defence minister himself says,see posthttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/indian-military-news-ii.t5934/page-88#post-322922
 

aksha

Captain
some cross posting
and heres the liquidity damages that india wants dassault to be responsible for
Defence Procurement Manual 2006 - Liqudated Damages:

liqudated-damages-dpm2006-png.183691



Defence Procurement Manual 2009 - Liqudated Damages:
liqudated-damages-dpm2009-png.183687



Defence Procurement Procedures 2013 - Liqudated Damages:
liqudated-damages-dpp2013-png.183688



In all these guidelines, it is pretty clear, that the supplier / OEM (Dassault) will only be held responsible for delays that was caused by themselfs. The 2013 version, is even pretty detailed in the delivery schedule, about what must be delivered (by Dassault and partners), for the manufacture and supply of the product (Rafale) by the production agency (HAL). There is nothing that hints about the Dassault being held responsible for delays caused by HAL, so these claims can't really hold any ground.
 

Brumby

Major
while bharat karnad is not a trustable source, it is possible
that dassault can just import the the parts and assemble it in india,reliance being the assembler.
but HAL would force them them to make the parts in india.
if the parts are made by dassault more profit to them.

and any way we know very well taht Dassault is trying to divert the tender.from what the defence minister himself says,see posthttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/indian-military-news-ii.t5934/page-88#post-322922

Indian Defence Secretary in France this week to expedite negotiations. The article quote one of the gridlock item as "HAL is insisting that Dassault guarantee the delivery schedule because hundreds of spares and subsystems will be supplied by the French."

In the above post the news article stated that Dassault was responsible for the spares and subsystems which means regardless of whether the local partner is Reliance or HAL, Dassault was responsible for sourcing and so the allegation on double dipping effectively falls apart.
 

Brumby

Major
some cross posting
and heres the liquidity damages that india wants dassault to be responsible for
Defence Procurement Manual 2006 - Liqudated Damages:

liqudated-damages-dpm2006-png.183691



Defence Procurement Manual 2009 - Liqudated Damages:
liqudated-damages-dpm2009-png.183687



Defence Procurement Procedures 2013 - Liqudated Damages:
liqudated-damages-dpp2013-png.183688



In all these guidelines, it is pretty clear, that the supplier / OEM (Dassault) will only be held responsible for delays that was caused by themselfs. The 2013 version, is even pretty detailed in the delivery schedule, about what must be delivered (by Dassault and partners), for the manufacture and supply of the product (Rafale) by the production agency (HAL). There is nothing that hints about the Dassault being held responsible for delays caused by HAL, so these claims can't really hold any ground.

I concur that reading of the different clauses only attribute liability to Dassault if any delay is a result of their direct non performance. As I understand the issue currently and the source of the gridlock is that HAL is insisting that Dassault is held responsible for HAL's non performance and which is contrary to original terms. Specifically this is the quote "HAL is insisting that Dassault guarantee the delivery schedule because hundreds of spares and subsystems will be supplied by the French.". A delivery schedule is a result of completion of assembly of parts (supplied by Dassault) but assembled by HAL. If HAL fails to assemble on time, why is Dassault made responsible for HAL's non performance and contrary to original terms as you and I concluded?
 

aksha

Captain
Indian Army to Break up Future Soldier Program into Two Parts
The Indian Army has decided to junk the Future Infantry Soldier As a System (F-INSAS) program in favor of two separate projects. The new program will have two components: one arming the modern infantry soldier with the best available assault rifle and personal equipment such as the helmet and bulletproof vests and the second component is the Battlefield Management Systems (BMS), In the BMS category goes all the communication and optical equipment of a modern soldier which includes palm-top communication equipment and the helmet mounted cameras. The assault weapon is likely to be the Israeli Tavor assault rifle that has been chosen for Indian Special Forces. The chief of army staff, General Dalbir Singh, mentioned this in his 67 Army Day-eve press conference on Tuesday. Vice chief of Army staff, Lt General Philip Campose, told our correspondent at the end of the media interaction, “there is no F-INSAS program any more”. He detailed how the army adopted the program in a way that keeps the infantry soldier less burdened by technology, and more agile to carry out his tasks.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

aksha

Captain
LCA Tejas Technology (from the tejas website)
muJL5qT.jpg

T

he Tejas employs CFC materials for up to 45% of its airframe, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, air brakes and landing gear doors. Composites are used to make an aircraft both lighter and stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the LCA's percentage employment of CFCs is one of the highest among contemporary aircraft of its class. Apart from making the plane much lighter, there are also fewer joints or rivets, which increases the aircraft's reliability and lowers its susceptibility to structural fatigue cracks.

The use of composites in the LCA resulted in a 40% reduction in the total number of parts compared to using a metallic frame. Furthermore, the number of fasteners has been reduced by half in the composite structure from the 10,000 that would have been required in a metallic frame design. The composite design also helped to avoid about 2,000 holes being drilled into the airframe. Overall, the aircraft's weight is lowered by 21%. While each of these factors can reduce production costs, an additional benefit — and significant cost savings — is realised in the shorter time required to assemble the aircraft — seven months for the LCA as opposed to 11 months using an all-metal airframe.

cockpit.jpg

T

he term Glass Cockpit refers to a modern cockpit in which all the round dialed electro-mechanical instruments have been replaced with Multi-Function Displays (MFDs) and a Head Up Display (HUD). A glass cockpit uses several displays driven by flight management systems, which can be adjusted to display flight information as needed. This simplifies aircraft operation and navigation and allows pilots to focus only on the most pertinent information. The MFDs are colour Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCDs) Information required by the pilot to take-off, navigate, perform his operational mission, deliver his weapons, cope with enemy threats, return to base and land is gathered by sensors on board the aircraft, processed by a mission computer and then displayed on the MFDs and HUD.

 
Top