S’il fallait n’en gagner qu’un, c’était bien celui-ci. La victoire du Rafale sur le gigantesque contrat indien (126 appareils, pour un montant estimé à 12 milliards de dollars, soit 9,2 milliards d'euros) est de celles qui relancent totalement une compétition mondiale des avions de combat qui semblait bien mal embarquée pour Dassault, face au monstre Lockheed Martin et aux autres concurrents type Eurofighter, Boeing, Saab, ou Sukhoi.

"C’est un contrat unique dans l’histoire de l’aviation de combat, probablement le plus important de tous les temps, pointe Richard Aboulafia, vice-président du cabinet de conseil américain Teal Group, spécialiste de la défense. Si cette victoire se confirme, c’est une victoire formidable pour le Rafale, et une validation totale des performances de l’appareil".

Une magnifique victoire pour Dassault

Il convient bien sûr de rester prudent : les exégètes de l’histoire du Rafale gardent encore les épisodes marocain, sud-coréen ou singapourien, et surtout la vraie-fausse annonce du Brésil, en travers de la gorge. Et Eurocopter, qui avait gagné une compétition pour 197 hélicoptères en Inde (600 millions d’euros), avait vu son contrat cassé en décembre 2007, sous l’intense pression américaine. La prudence invite donc à attendre une signature définitive du contrat pour tirer les conclusions de cette victoire annoncée. N’empêche : le Rafale a été sélectionné par l’Inde, et il serait stupide de ne pas y voir une magnifique victoire pour Dassault.

Comment le Rafale a-t-il fait la différence ? Il faut d’abord rappeler que Dassault est une vieille connaissance pour l’Inde, qui avait déjà acheté des MD-450 Ouragan dans les années 50 et des Mirage 2000 dont Dassault et Thales viennent d’obtenir un énorme marché de retrofit. Les performances du Rafale dans le ciel libyen lors du conflit contre le régime Kadhafi ont aussi joué en sa faveur.

Reste que le duel face au Typhoon du consortium européen Eurofighter s'est joué avant tout sur le prix, le critère décisif des appels d’offres indiens. "En prix unitaire, le Rafale est réputé moins cher que l’Eurofighter Typhoon", rappelle Richard Aboulafia.

Mais la diversité des modes de calcul (coût de développement inclus ou pas, influence des baisses de commandes sur le prix unitaire…) rend toute comparaison sur les prix unitaires, au mieux malaisée, au pire absconse. Il n’y a qu’à voir la controverse sur les coûts respectifs du Rafale et du Typhoon pour s’en rendre compte. "Le coût unitaire du Rafale est de 89 millions d'euros, alors que celui de l'Eurofighter s'élève à 146 millions d'euros", assurait carrément Charles Edelstenne, PDG de Dassault Aviation devant la commission défense du Sénat en 2008.

Une différence de prix néanmoins très limitée

La différence de coûts semble, dans les faits, être plus ténue : le coût unitaire du Rafale était estimé à 142,3 millions d’euros par la Cour des comptes en 2010. Le coût unitaire du Typhoon était estimé à 126 millions de livres, soit 150 millions d’euros, par le comité des comptes publics de la Chambre des Communes britannique en avril 2011. Avec des coûts de revient plus faibles, Dassault semble donc avoir un peu plus de marge de manœuvre pour proposer des prix agressifs que le consortium Eurofighter (46% EADS, 33% BAE Systems, 21% Alenia). L’élimination de la compétition au tour précédent des F-18 Super Hornet de Boeing, F-16 de Lockheed-Martin, MiG-35 russe et du Gripen de Saab a aussi balayé d’un coup des candidats qui auraient pu casser les prix avec des programmes souvent déjà largement amortis.

Mais plus que sur le prix unitaire de base, la différence avec le Typhoon s’est sûrement faite sur le coût total sur le cycle de vie de l’appareil, intégrant le maintien en condition opérationnelle (MCO), c’est-à-dire son entretien sur plusieurs dizaines d’années. Dassault était réputé très cher sur ce plan, il vient de prouver qu’il pouvait proposer un prix compétitif, sans lequel il n’aurait eu aucune chance en Inde.

Delhi souhaitait surtout bénéficier d'un vrai transfert de technologie

L’autre critère essentiel pour les Indiens était le transfert de technologies. "L’Inde était extrêmement exigeante sur ce point, et a fait monter les enchères", rappelle Richard Aboulafia. Dassault a donc probablement dû consentir de gros efforts sur ce point pour l’emporter. Le contrat tel qu’il est prévu envisage la construction de 108 appareils en Inde, seuls les 18 premiers étant produits en France.

Dans les faits, c’est évidemment plus compliqué : une grande majorité des pièces viendrait toujours des fournisseurs français (Thales, Snecma, et 500 PME), et la valeur ajoutée indienne pourrait durablement se limiter à l’assemblage final de l’appareil, un peu à l’image de la ligne d’assemblage finale d’A320 d’Airbus à Tianjin (Chine). Dans tous les cas, la victoire du Rafale en Inde reste donc une excellente nouvelle pour l’export français.

You sure are nationalistic Simp.

Like Hitler.

It is known.

New Delhi, here I come!

Dans quelques temps on découvrira que l'on s'est bien fait enculer par les "proto Roms" de la plaque indo-australienne pour "sauver" le produit du passé du Joos Bloch; FranZe of the Dwarf, you are a "Wh..e" !

Armon; prépare ton carnet de chéques pour compenser la descente de froc nationale .

WilyB wrote:

New Delhi, here I come!

New deal hi! (fixed)

k;uhfddv i:lmhiu sd`p^p)orb8=73898*-ezeg

À cause du revêtement Louis Vuitton du siège-pilote… La classe !

mamud wrote:

À cause du revêtement Louis Vuitton du siège-pilote… La classe !

Tu n'as pas honte ?, toi qui a "visité" le Gudjarat en Rickshaw !

mamud wrote:

k;uhfddv i:lmhiu sd`p^p)orb8=73898*-ezeg

Tiens voilà mon zob-zob-zob, tiens voilà mon zob-zobi !

Once again "Simple" is very simple.
It's all about CORRUPTION
Both French & Indian governments are corrupt.
Look in the archives if you don't believe me.

poz_2000 wrote:

Once again "Simple" is very simple.
It's all about CORRUPTION
Both French & Indian governments are corrupt.
Look in the archives if you don't believe me.

Serious Fraud Office investigation
The Serious Fraud Office was reported to be considering opening an investigation in to an alleged £20 million slush fund on 12 September 2003, the day after The Guardian had published its slush fund story.[32] The SFO also investigated BAE's relationship with Travellers World Limited.[33]
In November 2004 the SFO made two arrests as part of the investigation.[34] BAE Systems stated that they welcomed the investigation and "believe[d] that it would put these matters to rest once and for all."[35]
In late 2005, BAE refused to comply with compulsory production notices for details of its secret offshore payments to the Middle East.[36] The terms of the investigation was for a prosecution under Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
[edit]Threats by the Saudi government
At the end of November 2006, when the long-running investigation was threatening to go on for two more years,[37] BAE Systems was negotiating a multi-billion pound sale of Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia. According to the BBC the contract was worth £6billion with 5,000 people directly employed in the manufacture of the Eurofighter,[38] while other reports put the value at £10billion with 50,000 jobs at stake.[39]
On 1 December The Daily Telegraph ran a front page headline suggesting that Saudi Arabia had given the UK ten days to suspend the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE/Saudi Arabian transactions or they would take the deal to France,[39] but this threat was played down in other quarters. A French official had said "the situation was complex and difficult... and there was no indication to suggest the Saudis planned to drop the Eurofighter." This analysis was confirmed by Andrew Brookes, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, who said "there could be an element here of trying to scare the SFO off. Will it mean they do not buy the Eurofighter? I doubt it."[40]
There were reports of a systematic PR campaign operated by Tim Bell through newspaper scare stories, letters from business owners and MPs in whose constituencies the factories were located to get the case closed.[36]
Robert Wardle, head of the SFO, also stated (in a later High Court challenge, see below) that he had received a direct threat of a cessation of counterterrorist cooperation from the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the UK, in the first of three meetings held to assess the seriousness of the threat: “as he put it to me, British lives on British streets were at risk”.
Article 5 of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery prohibits the decision to drop investigations into corruption from being influenced by considerations of the national economic interest or the potential effect upon relations with another state. This does not however explicitly exclude grounds of national security.[41]
This prompted the investigation team to consider striking an early guilty plea deal with BAE that would minimise the intrusiveness to Saudi Arabia and mitigate damage. The Attorney General signed off on the strategy, but briefed Prime Minister Blair, who in a reply dated 5 December 2006, urged that the case to be dropped. Despite affirming his government's commitment to bribery prosecution, he stressed the financial and counter-terrorism implications. That same day, Prince Bandar met with Foreign Office officials, after spending a week with Jacques Chirac to negotiate a French alternative to the BAE deal.[42]
A week later, after consultation with the SFO, the Attorney General met with Blair to argue against dropping the case. It was Blair's opinion that "Any proposal that the investigation be resolved by parties pleading guilty to certain charges would be unlikely to reduce the offence caused to the Saudi Royal Family, even if the deal were accepted, and the process would still drag out for a considerable period".
On 13 December, the Director of the SFO wrote to the Attorney General to inform him that the SFO was dropping the investigation and would not be looking into the Swiss bank accounts, citing “real and imminent damage to the UK's national and international security and would endanger the lives of UK citizens and service personnel.”[43]
[edit]Investigation discontinued
On 14 December 2006, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced that the investigation was being discontinued on grounds of the public interest.[44] The 15-strong team had been ordered to turn in their files two days before.[36] The statement in the House of Lords read:
The Director of the Serious Fraud Office has decided to discontinue the investigation into the affairs of BAE Systems plc as far as they relate to the Al Yamamah defence contract. This decision has been taken following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the Director concerning the need to safeguard national and international security. It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest.[45]
The Prime Minister justified the decision by saying "Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first."[46]
Jonathan Aitken, a former Tory government minister and convicted perjurer, who was connected with the deals in the 1980s, said that even if the allegations against BAE were true, it was correct to end the investigation in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia.[47]
Mark Pieth, director of anti-fraud section at the OECD, on behalf of the United States, Japan, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Greece, addressed a formal complaint letter before Christmas 2006 to the Foreign Office, seeking explanation as to why the investigation had been discontinued.[48] Transparency International and Labour MP Roger Berry, chairman of the Commons Quadripartite Committee, urged the government to reopen the corruption investigation.[49]
In a newspaper interview, Robert Wardle, head of the Serious Fraud Office, acknowledged that the decision to terminate the investigation may have damaged "the reputation of the UK as a place which is determined to stamp out corruption".[50]
Delivery of the first two Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft (of 72 purchased by the Saudi Air Force) took place in June 2009.[51]
[edit]Judicial review
A judicial review of the decision by the SFO to drop the investigation was granted on 9 November 2007.[52] On 10 April 2008 the High Court of Justice ruled that the SFO "acted unlawfully" by dropping its investigation.[53] The Times described the ruling as "one of the most strongly worded judicial attacks on government action" which condemned how "ministers 'buckled' to 'blatant threats' that Saudi cooperation in the fight against terror would end unless the ...investigation was dropped."[54]
On 24 April the SFO was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the ruling.[55] There was a two-day hearing before the Lords on 7 and 8 July 2008.[56] On 30 July the House of Lords unanimously overturned the High Court ruling, stating that the decision to discontinue the investigation was lawful.[57]
[edit]U.S. Department of Justice investigation
On 26 June 2007 BAE announced that the United States Department of Justice had launched its own investigation into Al Yamamah. It was looking into allegations that a U.S. bank had been used to funnel payments to Prince Bandar.[58] On 19 May 2008 BAE confirmed that its CEO Mike Turner and non-executive director Nigel Rudd had been detained "for about 20 minutes" at George Bush Intercontinental and Newark airports respectively the previous week and that the DOJ had issued "a number of additional subpoenas in the US to employees of BAE Systems plc and BAE Systems Inc as part of its ongoing investigation".[59] The Times suggests that, according to Alexandra Wrage of Trace International, such "humiliating behaviour by the DOJ" is unusual toward a company that is co-operating fully.[59]
Under a plea bargain with the US Department of Justice BAE was sentenced in March 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates to pay a $400 million fine, one of the largest fines in the history of the DOJ. U.S. District Judge John Bates said the company's conduct involved "deception, duplicity and knowing violations of law, I think it's fair to say, on an enormous scale".[60] BAE was not convicted of bribery, and is thus not internationally blacklisted from future contracts.

Come again Poz?

mamud wrote:

Panic in Manila
Hundreds of children are running for a shelter in Manila. ]According to a rumor, the executives of Boeing were in town - which usually represents hundreds of rapes and murders for the children of the streets of the Phillipino capital city.

Bon, mets toi au calcul mental et "tu nous ponds" la réponse crédible pour demain matin !

Graduation d'une jauge de profondeur:

Comment se fait la graduation d'une jauge de profondeur pour une citerne horizontale à fonds bombés de 10.000 litres ? D=1.850 mm


Tout dépend de la densité volumique de la charge électrique de la jauge au point k à l'instant t. En effet, la permittivité diélectrique du vide vous indiquera de manière fiable le pseudo-vecteur d'induction magnétique. Il suffit alors de vous procurer une surface fermée arbitraire, une surface de Gauss par exemple, et avec l'équation de Maxwell-Quality-Filter, couplée à l'existence locale d'un potentiel-vecteur, de mesurer simplement (au moins localement) le potentiel de votre citerne en termes scalaires.

Ta gueule, vache de réforme !

Pourquoi les Indiens ont préféré le Rafale de Dassault au Typhoon d'Eurofighter

Parce qu'il est chuif ! C'est complot ischraélito-chioniste (bin quoi ? Bestinzi_ass se fait soigner une fracture de l'os iliaque, faut bien que quelqu'un prenne la relève non ?!)

Pourquoi ils ont pas pris l'EF, les Indiens ?

Passke



Et pi c'est tout.

Aérospatial : la solution viendra d' Afrique , c' est sûr.

www.youtube.com . . .

Bestinzi_ass se fait soigner une fracture de l'os iliaque, faut bien que quelqu'un prenne la relève non ?

C'est inexact. Fist (ici de dos) est en train de tester le Rafale en soufflerie ; car il est patriote.

mamud wrote:

Bestinzi_ass se fait soigner une fracture de l'os iliaque, faut bien que quelqu'un prenne la relève non ?

C'est inexact. Fist (ici de dos) est en train de tester le Rafale en soufflerie ; car il est patriote.

Ca te manque, protozoaire des sables du Gobi !

Oye!



Simple garçon!


Un agua sin gas, por favor.

the subject oldslime,the subject.