,
11 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
1n Sigh!!! Yet another #Rafale thread, restating what I have Ad Nauseam. N Ram's piece in the Hindu is very well written, but absolutely NOTHING NEW and a regurgitation of old tropes. 1 the "non recurring costs" are a fixed block. They remain the same if thehindu.com/news/national/…
2n you buy 36, 126 or 226, R&D + integration costs being platform neutral. As for the report Ram cites to quote having "exclusive" access to them in 2018 thehindu.com/news/national/… I had reported about it far greater detail 2 years before in 2016 livemint.com/Opinion/YwaJdB…
3n curiously, the same NH piece everyone was citing 3 days back ttps://www.nationalheraldindia.com/investigation/french-order-for-rafale-suggests-modi-govt-paid-a-lot-more-for-a-lot-less only proves the point. The same way that the Qatari repeat order for Rafale was cheaper than
4n the initial tranche which also included Non Recurring Costs. defensenews.com/industry/2018/… Initial price for 24 jets 7.8 billion USD. Price of second tranche of 12 a mere 1.3 billion USD
ndtv.com/world-news/qat…
ndtv.com/world-news/qat…
5n Moreover the total cost of ISR modification is not 1.4 billion but 1.9 billion. So again factually wrong. This brings us to unit cost, which the Hindu has got badly wrong on 2 counts. Per unit price AND the cost escalation timetable. Like I had pointed out in my 2016 piece...
6n the per unit price was 105 million USD not 91.75 see here livemint.com/Opinion/YwaJdB…
also based on classified documents. This was in line with the escalation timetable I had tweeted about here
also based on classified documents. This was in line with the escalation timetable I had tweeted about here
7n Now the question is why should you trust me over N Ram? Simple, because we see Mr Ram hasnt read or has wilfully misrepresented the Defence Procurement Procedure. I challenge Ram to show me the DPP clause that allows for competitive bidding between L1 & L2. He won't because
8n there is none. The only clause covering this is 51a in the 2013 DPP (under which this contract was concluded) pic below. This means L2 has to supply L1s product (yeah I kid you not) at L1s advertised price with L1 gamely agreeing to share proprietary technology with L2 
9n Now you ask me "Abhijit all the figures you quoted are above the figures Ram is quoting, so hes right and there was no price saving" WRONG, He conveniently uses different dates to benchmark different prices. There was savings and mostly that came from the useless >3% currency
10n fluctuation protection clause built into contracts by India, which in this case was reduced to a more realistic 1.something percent. So nothing untoward, no scam, no process violation, just a well written regurgitation of old tropes, that remains a regurgitation nevertheless
11n so to sum up what's new in The Hindu's article. To quote Edwin Starr "𝗔𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴". So folks chillax and enjoy your day & avoid panic calls to me. My handsomeness sleep is very important, else I get dark circles under my eyes
