"in hindsight, they should've bought this instead" thread

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

How can the terms have suddenly changed? Honeywell had been in the competition from the start and its offer did not include a modification to the existing engines. If the terms were tailor-made to ensure RR was the sole bidder, why would Honeywell have stuck with it that long?

The terms were never tailor-made to ensure RR was the sole bidder. You just made that up. The original terms allowed both the RR & the Honeywell bid. They were then changed to exclude the RR bid. I explained that.

If RR had a product that matched the competition on cost and beat it on price, there is zero reason for it to drop out. Its the exact opposite of the examples you've quoted - the competition here was arguably 'rigged' to provide a level playing field. RR may have preferred a non-competitive contract where it cheaply upgraded the existing Adour engines, but that in no way prevented it from winning a contract for a replacement engine. Especially since it would have had lower integration costs.

You've completely ignored what I wrote, & again.you're making things up. There was no rigging to level the playing field, & nor was there any possibility of a non-competitive contract for RR. As I said, the terms were changed suddenly to exclude the RR bid, & this behaviour is symptomatic of rigging the competition against the bidder whose bid has been excluded. In those circumstances, there's no point in re-bidding under the new terms, however good a bid you can put forward. Why did you ignore my explanation of that?

The Mirages have a robust airframe, a quarter of the fleet is just 10 years old, and no life extension to the airframe is being done.

The proposal is to upgrade all 51 aircraft to extend their operational life and update their capability. The ‘cardinal points’ of the proposal include: no airframe modifications, no changes to major aircraft systems, no modification to equipment bays, limited cockpit modifications, minimum retrofit line modification facilities/activities, and, most significantly, it does not cover the cost of supply of weapons. - The Tribune


So . . . . they're going to upgrade 30 year old airframes to keep them in service without any re-lifing? Good luck with that. I'm damn sure it isn't true, any more than 'no changes to major aircraft systems' is true. Radar isn't a major system? Note that some of your other quotes contradict this one, e.g.
"Among the upgrades planned for Mirage-2000 are a night vision goggle-compatible glass cockpit, advanced navigational systems, advanced Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, advanced multi-mode multi-layered radar, fully integrated electronic warfare suite and advanced beyond visual range (BVR) capability."
and -
"by the former Indian defence minister - [I]However, this (Mirage) upgrade programme also includes fitment of advanced multi-mode target radar, reconfigured glass cockpit and advance avionics, state-of-the-art electronic warfare system and capability to launch advanced missiles"
Sounds like a new cockpit, not 'limited modifications', & a hell of a lot of changes to 'major aircraft systems'

^ No mention of any modifications to the airframe anywhere.

^ Again, only mentions the avionics upgrade. Airframe strengthening is a fairly significant and expensive activity, its extremely unlikely that it slipped through the cracks in reporting.


Really? Considering the contradictions between the reports, & the fact that re-lifing is pretty humdrum, & not a modification as generally understood (you end with an airframe pretty much the same as before it was used hard, not really modified), I find it very easy to believe that it slipped through the cracks.

In 2012-13, the MoD/IAF spent Rs 487 crore in R&M for the Mirage fleet and Rs 870 crore on the (three and a half times larger) Su-30MKI fleet.

Even if we tilt towards the Mirage it still ends up costing at least twice as much in repair and maintenance, as the Sukhoi does.

Actually, if I count aircraft which haven't been built the Mirage 2000 will end up costing over 3.5 times more than the Su-30 in maintenance. (The quoted figure is higher when spread over a 180 strong fleet rather than a 270 strong fleet.)


No, it's just over twice as much per aircraft with absolutely no tilting at all: 9.9 vs 4.8 crore per aircraft, from your figures. Can't you do simple arithmetic? Adjust for availability, & most of that difference disappears.

Your previous figure, of over 3 times as much per Mirage, included pretty much the full order of Sukhois, including the third or so which have not yet been built. That is obviously a false figure.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

The terms were never tailor-made to ensure RR was the sole bidder. You just made that up. The original terms allowed both the RR & the Honeywell bid. They were then changed to exclude the RR bid. I explained that.

You've completely ignored what I wrote, & again.you're making things up. There was no rigging to level the playing field, & nor was there any possibility of a non-competitive contract for RR. As I said, the terms were changed suddenly to exclude the RR bid, & this behaviour is symptomatic of rigging the competition against the bidder whose bid has been excluded. In those circumstances, there's no point in re-bidding under the new terms, however good a bid you can put forward. Why did you ignore my explanation of that?


I did not say the terms were tailor-made to ensure RR was the sole bidder. I said accepting a proposal to modify the existing engines would have required a contract tailor-made for RR. I'll put this in as plain terms as I can -

CASE 1: Modification/upgrade of existing engines; only one bidder i.e. RR.

CASE 2: Integration of new build engines : two bidders i.e. RR & Honeywell.

There is no conceivable way to change the RFP to exclude RR. While the MoD went with the second option, the Adour 811 was never declared non-compliant and nothing at all prevented RR from contesting and winning the contract in its current shape.

So . . . . they're going to upgrade 30 year old airframes to keep them in service without any re-lifing? Good luck with that.

They've assessed the state of the airframes and are comfortable using it without any re-lifing. Assuming they've been flown an average of 150 hours over the last 30 years, they'll still have another 1,500 hours left in the airframe, or another 10 years at the same rate of usage. With some time off for the upgrade, an additional overhaul and by scheduling the 2004 batch to be the last to retire, that'll easily take the fleet past 2030.

I'm damn sure it isn't true, any more than 'no changes to major aircraft systems' is true. Radar isn't a major system? Note that some of your other quotes contradict this one, e.g.
"Among the upgrades planned for Mirage-2000 are a night vision goggle-compatible glass cockpit, advanced navigational systems, advanced Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, advanced multi-mode multi-layered radar, fully integrated electronic warfare suite and advanced beyond visual range (BVR) capability."

There are over several dozen articles on the Mirage upgrade on the internet. None of them mention any significant modifications to the airframe. From a 2009 article by Ajai Shukla -

The reason is a breakdown in India’s long negotiations with Dassault Aviation, the French aircraft manufacturer, for upgrading 51 Indian Air Force Mirage-2000 fighters. According to senior IAF sources, Dassault has refused to reduce its quota of Rs 10,000 crore ($2.1 billion) for extending the service life of the IAF’s Mirage-2000 fleet by fitting new radars and avionics. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) considers this price — Rs 196 crore ($41 million) per aircraft — unacceptably high, given that the airframes and engines will not be changed.

Really? Considering the contradictions between the reports, & the fact that re-lifing is pretty humdrum, & not a modification as generally understood (you end with an airframe pretty much the same as before it was used hard, not really modified), I find it very easy to believe that it slipped through the cracks.

The vast majority of news reports on the MiG-29 upgrade includes information about the extension of the service life.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2012-12-21/first-three-upgraded-mig-29upgs-delivered-india
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2012/12/iafs-first-upgraded-mig-29s-arrive.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Fighters/MiG29UPG/
http://www.defencenow.com/news/450/mig-29s-jaguars-and-mirages-upgrades-within-this-decade.html
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/russia-delivers-3-upgraded-mig29s-to-india/article4185028.ece

No, it's just over twice as much per aircraft with absolutely no tilting at all: 9.9 vs 4.8 crore per aircraft, from your figures. Can't you do simple arithmetic? Adjust for availability, & most of that difference disappears.

Your previous figure, of over 3 times as much per Mirage, included pretty much the full order of Sukhois, including the third or so which have not yet been built. That is obviously a false figure.


Its not the number of Su-30s, I didn't use the same/correct exchange rate for both figures, so yes the Mirage costs twice as much in terms maintenance as the Su-30MKI, not thrice.

The Su-30MKI's operational availability has moved up past 55% (from 48%) and will improve further as the overhaul issue (13-14% aircraft queued for MRO) is sorted out and spares management improved. Even if takes a third more aircraft to have the same availability, its still a better option than the Mirage given its performance and payload. Also higher endurance for the Su-30MKI means it'll still exceed the Mirage in terms of flight hours generated.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

This is getting weird.

Its not the number of Su-30s, I didn't use the same/correct exchange rate for both figures, so yes the Mirage costs twice as much in terms maintenance as the Su-30MKI, not thrice.

Why use an exchange rate at all? That doesn't make sense. Both Mirage & Su-30 costs were given in rupees. The obvious, & only sensible, thing to do was to leave them in rupees.


I said accepting a proposal to modify the existing engines would have required a contract tailor-made for RR. I'll put this in as plain terms as I can -

CASE 1: Modification/upgrade of existing engines; only one bidder i.e. RR.

CASE 2: Integration of new build engines : two bidders i.e. RR & Honeywell.

There is no conceivable way to change the RFP to exclude RR. While the MoD went with the second option, the Adour 811 was never declared non-compliant and nothing at all prevented RR from contesting and winning the contract in its current shape.


Again, this doesn't make sense. There is no need for your case 1 & 2 to be mutually exclusive. Both could have been considered. An RFP which permitted either new or upgraded engines would not have required the acceptance of the RR offer, any more than it would have required the acceptance of the Honeywell offer. Either you have a major problem in understanding basic logic (as well as arithmetic), or you're trolling.

As I've said before, TWICE, RR had been offering upgraded engines from the start. It had been in discussions in which this had always been treated by the Indians as a viable, acceptable, option. All the preparatory work RR had done had been on that basis - & the Indians knew that. Therefore, excluding that option in the RFP excluded the RR offer, & RR would have had to start from scratch with a new proposal, which would, of necessity, have been put together rather hastily, putting RR at a disadvantage. The Indians knew that. Therefore, the logical conclusion to be drawn from the terms of the RFP is that it was drawn up to favour Honeywell. When you are aware that there is such a gross bias in favour of your competitor that the RFP has been drawn up to favour their offer, there's no point in continuing. Why do you refuse to admit this? It's obvious.

RR didn't give up immediately, BTW. It engaged in talks with the Indian side for some time, trying to get at least an explanation for the sudden change in the terms.

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 224

Russia should´ve choose to develop the Il-112 instead buying the An-140 from Ukraine.
Russia should´ve left the An-70 program very early, refurbished old Il-76 airframes and developed the Tu-330 instead of Il-476.
Russia should´ve bought the Mi-38 and Ka-60 for the military even if in small numbers.
Russia shouldn't have killed the Sukhoi S-80 transport aircraft. It should´ve replaced An-24/26 and 28 in the military. The lack os state orders killed the program.

Brazil shouldn´t have bought the basic version of the EC-725 Caracal for more than 50 million dollar each even with alleged tech transfer.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

Brazil should have bought Panavia Tornado ADV in a Italio-Brasilia partnership to augment their AMX partnership. Italy could have operated them on lease until the cost of ownership dropped to an affordable level for the Brasilian Air Force.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 96

Portugal:
I think that all, maybe almost all, acquisitions up to this day were very good given the country's needs and its financial and operational means. However...

Portugal should had purchased C-130J-30s to replace its aging fleet of C-130H/H-30 instead of modernizing them and waiting around for the KC-390 development. (The C-130s replacement was postponed this month until next four years - when the LPM can be reviewed - or until 2025/30 - when it ends.)

Portugal should have never bought the NH-90 or any medium transport helicopters for the Army. It was a giant wet dream of the Army to even think that they would have the financial means to deploy such aircraft outside the country.

If they really wanted their own helicopters then we should have created something along the lines of the British Joint Helicopter Command and created an Army unit the same way that the Navy reestablished its aviation by working closely with the Air Force and using the AF's infrastructure and assets in the beginning. At most, if the Army really wanted medium transport helicopters, it should have bought second-hand Blackhawks from the US or bought a cheaper Cougar/Super Puma without all those advanced avionics and systems that the NH-90 brings by default.

Alternatively, Portugal should have never canceled its NH-90 acquisition after investing so much money into the development program. Instead, it should had bought the NH-90, even if the TTH version, for the Portuguese Navy since they already had a helicopter unit set up and with all the support and logistics knowledge required. These NH-90s in the Navy's unit could had been operated by both Navy and Army crews in support of both Army and Navy/Marines' operations. They could also have had been used instead of the more expensive (but excellent) EH-101 CSAR on any amphibious ship that Portugal could acquire by miracle in the future.

Best regards,