RichC wrote:Also DefenceNews states that Rafale was running in the competition at 25% cheaper than the Typhoon, which for the plane itself which is on par with the Typhoon, is a big nodding point.
I saw that claim too and was unsure what to make of it. If it can be taken at face value, then with two broadly comparable options, one 25% cheaper, it's the kind of 'no-brainer' decision that even politicians can make. We'd all do the same if making a personal purchase.
What was not so clear, is how the 25% was arrived at. Is it in upfront capital costs or lifetime operation costs, and work-sharing arrangements? If the former it's a straight shoot-out; if either of the latter then it can depend upon the assumptions behind the calculations. Frankly my initial reaction was that it did not ring true.
Who leaked this information and why? As far as I know, this was not an official news release. It's the sort of difference that says to the losers that you've made your mind up and anyway the cost differential is so great that it's not worth the effort - but it may not be true of course. My opinion is that this is now a dead horse as far as Eurofighter is concerned. The Indians prefer Rafale, and I doubt there is anything Cassidian could now do to change their minds absent an enormous discount which could make the contract a hollow victory. There is also a potential resentment from the purchaser that you were prepared to overcharge them in the first place: if you can do it cheaper now, why couldn't you do it in the first place? Perhaps you weren't trying hard enough?
Or perhaps the French determined they had to win the business at any cost to keep Rafale afloat, and took it at a short-term loss for a long-term gain with potential repeat orders, support contracts, weapons sales and so on. They had already admitted that without exports, the production line would have to close once they had completed their own order.
Intriguing stuff, to which we are only ever likely to be able to guess the answers for now.
hertsman
