C-17s for the IAF?

[negi]

Since you want to keep at it, , let me just point out a crucial difference between your Scorpene and Goroshkov example and the C17 which you may have overlooked. And that is in both cases (Scorpene and Goroshkov) the contract involved building the product, the submarine in India, restarting a dead production line (for subs) and in the case of Gorshkov an extensive refit and rebuild almost as complicated an building a new ship. In both cases there was/is a lot of intangibles like tech transfer and what to fit on ship and what not.

You simply do not get it this was no barter trade in sabzi mandi, you think when deal for Gorshkov or Scorpene was signed factors like cost of renovation and offsets were not accounted for and if they were not what makes you think we won't goof up on other deals ? What about the HAWK purchase ? The point is there is a pattern to our procurement procedure i.e. we always end up paying more for the product than what was put in B&W that is what my first post intended to capture nothing more nothing less.

[Gilles]

You don't get it, do you?

Perhaps you are the one who did not understand my reasoning. In clear terms:

If there is a 6800 foot unpaved runway located at 10,000 MSL, why discuss parking issues since the C-17 cannot even land there in the first place? There must be a 10,000 foot + Hard-surfaced runway or no C-17 will be able to go. If they can turn your dirt 6800 foot runway into a 10,000 foot concrete one, I think they will find a little room for a parking ramp.

[svinayak]

In Canada, when the government announced 3.4 Billion for 4 aircraft it came out to $850 million dollars per aircraft but that included the aircraft, the engines, many bells and whistles, spare parts, a spare engine, training, a 20 year In Service support contract that probably includes most of the maintenance and it even included the construction of new ramps and hangars at Canadian Air Force bases (that money goes to Canadian construction companies).

What it did not include was the interests on the payments, the expendables which are not included in the In Service Contract etc.
I loved that Canada included all that in one lump amount for it made evaluating the cost of operating the C-17 quite easy.

This is good and thanks for the breakdown in the cost. We are talking about $850m per aircraft.

[Craig Alpert]

Perhaps you are the one who did not understand my reasoning. In clear terms:

If there is a 6800 foot unpaved runway located at 10,000 MSL, why discuss parking issues since the C-17 cannot even land there in the first place? There must be a 10,000 foot + Hard-surfaced runway or no C-17 will be able to go. If they can turn your dirt 6800 foot runway into a 10,000 foot concrete one, I think they will find a little room for a parking ramp.

You are a pilot so why don't you double check on your numbers, user your handbook for a reference perhaps

According to my service knowledge, a C-17 can land/take off at khandhar with enough room at around 6000 ft with max/min weight respectively. The airstrip in Kandhar is 3500 m (~ 10,500 ft long), with the pic GW posted, if you suggest that they expand the runway to 10,000 ft in length, obviously they'll have common sense to figure out where to dock an air-craft. That's why I said that they are "upgrading their FOB, so that they can operate ALL type of aircraft."

[Katare]

In Canada, when the government announced 3.4 Billion for 4 aircraft it came out to $850 million dollars per aircraft but that included the aircraft, the engines, many bells and whistles, spare parts, a spare engine, training, a 20 year In Service support contract that probably includes most of the maintenance and it even included the construction of new ramps and hangars at Canadian Air Force bases (that money goes to Canadian construction companies).

What it did not include was the interests on the payments, the expendables which are not included in the In Service Contract etc.
I loved that Canada included all that in one lump amount for it made evaluating the cost of operating the C-17 quite easy.

This is good and thanks for the breakdown in the cost. We are talking about $850m per aircraft.

For 20 years assured capital+operating cost (-consumable items) with 80+% guarnteed availability/uptime. I think it's not bad deal for Canada! They'll not have to hire and men so many depots and shops.

For India, with heaper labor, I am not sure if that kind of cost is justified. May be, we should buy the bare bone aircraft and do regular jugaad and fly them with 70% uptime. That will save a pretty penny that can be used to buy additional aircrafts, C17 or xyz.

[Aditya G]

IAF Gajraj fleet is ageing and needs replacement/augmentation.

IAF does not favour (suprisingly?) this platform - either for transport (IL-76), refueling (IL-78) or AEW (A-50). While there have not been catostrophic accidents in the fleet and information is not in public domain - it appears that the air force does not want more of these aircraft. Irrespective of the upgrades like PS-90 engines etc.

What 'value', or rather 'startegic value' can the world's most expensive aircraft bring to the IAF is debatable. But we can learn from own experience. In 1985 the largest cargo aircraft we were operating was the An-12. IL-76 was immediate force multiplier at the time - but did we envision that we would need that capacity?

Deployment of BMP-2s, T-72, 2 companies of troopers at a time was not possible before that.

Quoting Air Marshal Goel:

The Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal F H Major, has made a welcome announcement about the induction of Very Heavy Transport Aircraft of &0-plus tones capacity. Whatever aircraft we buy, the time is of essence now as the existing aircraft are ageing, and their replacements must come as soon as possible.

My own conclusion is that the capability that C-17 will bring will be useful, especially since it is a decision of the air force, and not a political decision.

The only other candidate A-400 carries <40 tons and costs half as much. Which is not cheap either. There was a comment on the production line closure - i would not worry about that given the service record of western military aircraft like B-52, C-160 etc. Though it will not be possible to obtain attrition replacement.

[amit]

The point is there is a pattern to our procurement procedure i.e. we always end up paying more for the product than what was put in B&W that is what my first post intended to capture nothing more nothing less.

Well Negi Bhai if you are 400% convinced that our Babus will screw up the negotiations even before they start what can I say. I really have no answer save to say that if we pay more it will be due to our fault than due to Boeing or Uncle Sam taking us for a ride.

Also, I hope this is not a backhanded justification of the arm twisting the Russians indulged in for Goroshkov since you seem to think it is our fault onlee that we are now paying more than twice the contract price for a 25 year old ship.

[shukla]

C-17 Globemaster III agreement signals more strategic sourcing from India

In the future, Boeing could also look at incorporating Indian companies in the C-17 Globemaster III program. The aircraft is manufactured by Boeing at its facility in Long Beach, California. So far Boeing and many of it's tier one suppliers have developed sources in India for various components and engineering services. However the 'made in India' content in these aircrafts is still very limited. Global tier one suppliers to Boeing, including those from Europe, Australia etc have already set up manufacturing facilities in India and are scouting for Indian companies to produce aerospace components and deliver engineering services.

"Earlier this year, I was proud to arrange a visit by Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar to Pratt to meet with Mr. Chênevert and UTC executives as well as an opportunity for her to speak to the machinists," added Congressman Larson. "Ambassador Shankar spoke to both groups about the great economic opportunity of trade between her nation and the United States.

[Tanaji]

A straight one which jumps from $580 million to $658 million and beyond even before negotiations started. I do believe, not only did I miss the flight, so did the wicketkeeper and everyone else and the ball landed on the boundary ropes for an unnecessary boundary. A lot of faces around as a result!

It is upto $850 million now.:

In Canada, when the government announced 3.4 Billion for 4 aircraft it came out to $850 million dollars per aircraft but that included the aircraft, the engines, many bells and whistles, spare parts, a spare engine, training, a 20 year In Service support contract that probably includes most of the maintenance and it even included the construction of new ramps and hangars at Canadian Air Force bases (that money goes to Canadian construction companies).

What it did not include was the interests on the payments, the expendables which are not included in the In Service Contract etc.
I loved that Canada included all that in one lump amount for it made evaluating the cost of operating the C-17 quite easy.

This is good and thanks for the breakdown in the cost. We are talking about $850m per aircraft.

A bit of cherry picking isnt this? Care to name an equivalent number for the An 124, and more importantly if the manufacturer can back it up ("20 year service contract")?

[Gilles]

A bit of cherry picking isnt this? Care to name an equivalent number for the An 124, and more importantly if the manufacturer can back it up ("20 year service contract")?

Yes, he cherry picked but we can compare nevertheless. With that figure in hand, I was able to determine that each hour of C-17 operation was going to cost the Canadian taxpayer between 40 and 45 thousand dollars.

At the time I checked, back around 2007, the Canadian military was renting civilian IL-76s for about $12,000 an hour, and An-124s for about $23,000 an hour, and those two figures included the aircraft, the crews, the maintenance, the fuel and the insurance.

So compared to renting An-124s, Canada was looking at spending twice as much per hour for an aircraft that could carry a little more than half an An-124 load. When compared to the Il-76, which is capped at 45 tonne for the IL-76TD, Canada paid close to 4 times more per hour for an aircraft that could carry 1.6 times the load..........

The pro C-17 people called it the price of Canada's Sovereignty (for no longer not having to rely on rentals). Which brings on a different subject.
The very people who mentioned "sovereignity" were those who thought it was OK to dish out billions of dollars to Boieng for maintaining the Canadian Air Forces's C-17s because US ITAR laws would have forced Canada to guarantee to the US that any Canadian firm that would be contracted to maintain C-17s would NOT employ or hire Canadians born in a certain number of countries, a provision that would be against Canadian law. So to go around that little problem, and remain legal, we simply handed over all C-17 maintenance to Boeing, an American firm, who can hire any US citizen they want. Any US citizen is automatically ITAR compliant regardless of country of birth. Why? Its the law in the US.

Although India, unlike Canada, does not have a large population of immigrants, India's government will still have to sign the same agreement in order to conform to US ITAR laws, for the C-17 is an item covered by ITAR.

If you read here:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/04/20/ ... rm-effort/

Finally, the current export-control regime impedes the effectiveness of our closest military allies, tests their patience and goodwill, and hinders their ability to coordinate with U.S. forces – this at a time when we count on allies and partners to fight with us in places like Afghanistan and potentially elsewhere. Not too long ago, a British C-17 spent hours disabled on the ground in Australia – not because the needed part wasn’t available, but because U.S. law required the Australians to seek U.S. permission before doing the repair. These are two of our very strongest allies for God’s sake! Similarly, close, long-standing allies and partners like South Korea have bought U.S. aircraft only to encounter difficulties and delays in getting spare parts – something that weakens our bilateral relationships, our credibility, and ultimately American security.

Can you imagine ? The Australian Air Force needed the permission of the US, before they could repair a Royal Air Force C-17, disabled at an Australian Air Force base in Australia. How often will the Indian MoD need to call the Pentagon to ask for "permission" to do things with their C-17s, their P-8s, their C-130Js ?

And some Canadians were cynical enough to invoke the word "Sovereignty" when referring to this purchase. As though being a slave was not considered slavery, as long as the slave master was the USA.

India is about to discover what Sovereignty used to be.

[svinayak]

A bit of cherry picking isnt this? Care to name an equivalent number for the An 124, and more importantly if the manufacturer can back it up ("20 year service contract")?

Just leave it ok. Each country package will be different but for country like India no matter it will be quite expensive and restrictive to operate. If there is no choice India will go for it but others cannot fool the peoples intelligence here.

[ramana]

I think Boeing is doing a trick knowing that the deal has GOTUS blessing, its jacking up the price. Lets see if the deal goes thru.

Nightwatch 11/11/10 comments are pertinent here.

Fallout from the President's Trip: Comment: In Asia the President's trip has dominated mainstream news reporting. Whenever the US asserts itself in this fashion, the rest of the world tends to duck. After the international spotlight moves on, the fallout begins.

For example, the Indian Air Force apparently has gagged, metaphorically, at the price Boeing is asking for the C-17 transports that the US is willing to sell. The Indians always balk at price and support packages, as the Russians know well. The Indian Air Force reaction suggests an invitation to other bids.

India also has pushed back on two important political issues. India today indicated it will make no change to its policy of supporting any country's right to peaceful nuclear programs, including Iran's. It also refused to support criticism of Burma over human rights abuses and lack of political freedoms. India said, in brief, it knows best how to handle its neighbors.

...

.....

There will be more.

[Tanaji]

A bit of cherry picking isnt this? Care to name an equivalent number for the An 124, and more importantly if the manufacturer can back it up ("20 year service contract")?

Just leave it ok. Each country package will be different but for country like India no matter it will be quite expensive and restrictive to operate. If there is no choice India will go for it but others cannot fool the peoples intelligence here.

Boss, no one has disagreed that the C17s are expensive. In fact all of us are saying $5.2B is scary stuff. But the point of my post was:

1. The actual amount is not known yet, and what it comprises of. To make statements like $850M is silly
2. Is there a realistic alternative to C-17 for the load class IAF wants, CTs and paper planes apart?

You may not agree or like it, but the IAF is not in favor of IL76 class haulers, so C17 remains, and if TINA, the manufacturer will always scr*w you.

[Lalmohan]

laalchix anyone?

[geeth]

1. The actual amount is not known yet, and what it comprises of. To make statements like $850M is silly
2. Is there a realistic alternative to C-17 for the load class IAF wants, CTs and paper planes apart?

What worries me more than the price is :

1. The question whether we will have the sovereign right over these planes that we purchase through our hard earned money, and do whatever we want with it
2. whether the repairs, as and when required, will be completed in time and the planes remain operational when we need them most.

If these are not assured, then we are buying few lemons, utility of which is at best questionable.

[merlin]

1. The actual amount is not known yet, and what it comprises of. To make statements like $850M is silly
2. Is there a realistic alternative to C-17 for the load class IAF wants, CTs and paper planes apart?

What worries me more than the price is :

1. The question whether we will have the sovereign right over these planes that we purchase through our hard earned money, and do whatever we want with it
2. whether the repairs, as and when required, will be completed in time and the planes remain operational when we need them most.

If these are not assured, then we are buying few lemons, utility of which is at best questionable.

1. No you won't be able to do whatever you want with it, that is not possible with purchases from the US.
2. Subject to US policies at the time of repair. Contract is one thing, Congress quite another.

[svinayak]

Boss, no one has disagreed that the C17s are expensive. In fact all of us are saying $5.2B is scary stuff. But the point of my post was:

1. The actual amount is not known yet, and what it comprises of. To make statements like $850M is silly
2. Is there a realistic alternative to C-17 for the load class IAF wants, CTs and paper planes apart?

You may not agree or like it, but the IAF is not in favor of IL76 class haulers, so C17 remains, and if TINA, the manufacturer will always scr*w you.

Nobody is opposing your points. The number $850 is a specific realistic number from a recent transaction. How can that be silly. It will be different for India is accepted but it gives the ballpark guesstimate.

[Indranil]

^^^ not really. It will depend on what we want to get along with the planes. The Canadians seem to have outsourced almost everything to the Americans. I don't think we will.

So that 8.5 billion for 10 C-17s is highly unlikely when the IAF is uncomfortable with even 4.1 billion.

[Gilles]

Boss, no one has disagreed that the C17s are expensive. In fact all of us are saying $5.2B is scary stuff. But the point of my post was:

1. The actual amount is not known yet, and what it comprises of. To make statements like $850M is silly
2. Is there a realistic alternative to C-17 for the load class IAF wants, CTs and paper planes apart?

You may not agree or like it, but the IAF is not in favor of IL76 class haulers, so C17 remains, and if TINA, the manufacturer will always scr*w you.

Nobody is opposing your points. The number $850 is a specific realistic number from a recent transaction. How can that be silly. It will be different for India is accepted but it gives the ballpark guesstimate.

The same year Canada spent 3 Billion US dollars (3.4 Billion Can) on their 4 C-17, Australia spent 2.1 Billion Aus. dollars on 4 identical C-17s, within weeks of Canada's transaction. The reason for the difference? I'd think its not so much of a price difference but what Canada decided to include in the original transaction vs what Australia decided to pay for later in separate contracts. The actual price they each paid for the aircraft are probably very similar.

[amit]

Nobody is opposing your points. The number $850 is a specific realistic number from a recent transaction. How can that be silly. It will be different for India is accepted but it gives the ballpark guesstimate.

There seems to be a lot of hullabaloo raised with this alleged US$850 million figure for the Canadian C17s.

Let’s examine this.

This report says:

Canada has traditionally resisted buying strategic airlift, choosing instead to participate in NATO’s SALIS consortium that leases ultra-heavy AN-124 aircraft for such roles. Other leased alternatives to the C-17s were available to Canada, including one based on Canadian soil – but in the end, the C-17 was the sole realistic competitor for this C$ 3.4 billion (USD$ 3 billion) program, and is entering service in Canada as the CC-177.

Now before going further, lets do a reality check. If we take Canadian dollars (valued in 2006) the cost per plane is indeed C$850 million. However, in US dollar terms (far more relevant for India even if we are Canadian residents, nah?) it comes to US$750 million. That is straight away US$100 million less than the figure (US$850 million) that is causing so much song and dance here minus Lal Mullah’s Lal Chicks.


What does this US$750 million figure include? According to this it includes:

Acquisition: The estimated total projectcost for the acquisition phase is $1.6 billion. An additional $1.6 billion has been estimated for 20 years of in-service support.

It seems to me that the dollar figures above are US denominated. Because in the first link I gave we have this, which is a direct quote of the above.

“Canada First Defence Procurement – New Strategic & Tactical Airlift Fleets” notes that in addition to the C$4.9 billion program to replace its decaying CC-130 Hercules fleet of tactical transport aircraft, the new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

So if we take away the fancy 20 years of in-service support, the cost comes to US$400 million per aircraft. However, I don’t think that’s the bare bones airframe plus engines cost. That’s because this Flight Global report says:

The order commitment should come in time to guarantee Canada a unit price of $220 million – an opportunity expected to expire for other potential buyers in late June, says C-17 programme manager Dave Bowman. The Canadian government’s treasury board was expected to last week approve the C-17 deal as part of a combined airlift acquisition also to include 17 Lockheed Martin C-130J tactical transports, say industry sources.

So the US$400 million presumably includes basic stuff like protection measures and some fundamental servicing packages.

Now if we come to the Australian purchase, this report says:

In March 2006, the Australian government announced that the Australian Defence Forces will acquire up to 4 new Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlift planes and associated equipment for A$ 2 billion ($1.49 billion then conversion). The first aircraft will be delivered to Australia later in 2006, with the balance of the fleet originally slated for to delivery by mid 2008.

That means the Aussies paid US$372 million per aircraft and that included associated equipment. So my premise that the US$400 million for the Canadian aircraft (minus the 20 year servicing deal) also included associated equipment seems to be correct.

So now we have two numbers, the Canadian US$400 million and the Aussie US$372 million.

Now we know the White House gave a statement that the Indian deal would be valued at US$4.1 billion for 10 aircraft. I’m sure you can do the math and see what the unit price would look like!

I personally still stick to my assertion that the White House statement was a faux pas of sorts as far as Boeing is concerned as their bargaining position was to start at US$5.8 billion, just as the IAF’s position is to start at US$3 billion. With the White House throwing a number into the ring, Boeing may be feeling that its position has been weakened. Let’s see how it all pans out.

However, even at US$3 billion it’s a horrendously expensive aircraft. But at the same time there are no alternatives around and it’s pretty clear that the IAF wants the capabilities that the aircraft can bring.

But let’s stop pulling out numbers left and right (I must confess I was tempted to use the word musharaff ) and wait for the chai biskoot to start. We should of course remain vigilant to “drafting errors” which Negi Bhai is convinced our Babus are adept at.

[negi]

I have made my point and it is backed by the way we have handled our deals in the past. List one deal where we paid the exactly the same amount as per the original agreement and I would back off. As for 'drafting errors' it is not something which Negi has pulled out of thin air it was in fact first used by the Gobermund itself.

[amit]

I have made my point and it is backed by the way we have handled our deals in the past. List one deal where we paid the exactly the same amount as per the original agreement and I would back off. As for 'drafting errors' it is not something which Negi has pulled out of thin air it was in fact first used by the Gobermund itself.

Peace Negi bhai! I accept your POV.

I'm sure we'll be paying 100 per cent more due to "drafting errors". We will be flying the most expensive plane in history of air transport, costing US$1 billion a pop!

[Austin]

I don't think price is a major issue since C-17 is a GOI backed deal ,couple of billion more if US Govt insists to pay the GOI has no choice but to do it as it is commited to it and US has already declared C-17 will generate jobs , The GOI/US will spin it saying this is the best C-17 any one got and the best deal.

[Viv S]

I have made my point and it is backed by the way we have handled our deals in the past. List one deal where we paid the exactly the same amount as per the original agreement and I would back off. As for 'drafting errors' it is not something which Negi has pulled out of thin air it was in fact first used by the Gobermund itself.

C-130J. Production is running ahead of schedule and without any cost escalation. Now one may argue that the 'original' price was unfair but I doubt if we'll see any escalation Moskva style.

[Viv S]

I don't think price is a major issue since C-17 is a GOI backed deal ,couple of billion more if US Govt insists to pay the GOI has no choice but to do it as it is commited to it and US has already declared C-17 will generate jobs , The GOI/US will spin it saying this is the best C-17 any one got and the best deal.

All defence imports are GoI backed. Unless the MoD and MoF give clearances, nothing can be acquired. GoI can very much ask the US Govt. to shove it or if that's too undiplomatic it can tie the deal up in red tape indefinitely.

What all the critics need to finally accept is that this is a IAF backed deal. You may disagree with the IAF's opinion(its hardly infallible) but it is what it is.

[Austin]

All defence imports are GoI backed. Unless the MoD and MoF give clearances, nothing can be acquired. GoI can very much ask the US Govt. to shove it or if that's too undiplomatic it can tie the deal up in red tape indefinitely.

Yes it is but most defence deals go through those RFI/RFP process which C-17 didn't , It is quite clear that the speed in procuring the C-17 ( over say even IAF urgent needs like rapidly depleting strength which is a 10 year saga plus going ) shows it has the nod from the highest level in GOI and hence priority.

So MOD ,MOF clearance are just trivial matter , the C-17 deal will go through no matter what the hurdle is price is smallest part , if the IAF likes the C-17 thats a good thing.

[amit]

I have made my point and it is backed by the way we have handled our deals in the past. List one deal where we paid the exactly the same amount as per the original agreement and I would back off. As for 'drafting errors' it is not something which Negi has pulled out of thin air it was in fact first used by the Gobermund itself.

C-130J. Production is running ahead of schedule and without any cost escalation. Now one may argue that the 'original' price was unfair but I doubt if we'll see any escalation Moskva style.

Viv,

Sometimes I think it's pointless to explain the obvious to folks who have already made up their minds. I tried to explain the difference here. Your example is also good and perhaps more appropriate. Apologies for quoting myself but here's what I wrote:

... let me just point out a crucial difference between your Scorpene and Goroshkov example and the C17 which you may have overlooked. And that is in both cases (Scorpene and Goroshkov) the contract involved building the product, the submarine in India, restarting a dead production line (for subs) and in the case of Gorshkov an extensive refit and rebuild almost as complicated an building a new ship. In both cases there was/is a lot of intangibles like tech transfer and what to fit on ship and what not.

In C17's case, however, we will be just buying off the shelf. Boeing says its upper limit price for the birds is $580 million with all bells and whistles on offer. The base plane cost around half as much.
<
<
<
In such a situation how can you say that the final price will be higher (100 per cent? That would make each plane cost more than $1 billion! ) than what Boeing itself is saying is the upper limit in the price?
<
<
<
If you insist on making a comparison I think you should compare with the Akula transfer. We pay $1 billion for 10 year lease and take the equipment (submarine) with what it comes with. Clean and clear-cut.

Philip made a very valid point here

Amit had made some clear distinctions between the above-mentioned deals, very relevant points. The Gorshkov deal (which took years to decide upon) is a repair and renovation/upgradation job, very complicated, volume and cost of work underestimated perhaps by taking into account costing of revamping the Viraat as a guide; the Scorpene deal abysmally contracted-one cannot understand how for new subs which are in production in France and Spain can the price was revised upwards thrice!

As to pricing for the P-8s and C-17s,if they aren't to come with key US eqpt. because we will not sign controversial agreements, then the aircraft must come in at base price or equiv.

However, if we still insist, then we can be comforted by the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes when you know that IAF is TFTA (or foolish) enough to fly US$1 billion (remember the Boeing asking price is US$580 million, and mark up the price by 100%) transport planes!

Regarding the price, or possible price, speculation has risen to such levels (or should I say fallen to such levels?) that Canadian $850 million was coolly passed off as US $850 million and touted as, "See I told ya, the US will jack us" argument.

I guess sit back and watch the entertainment!

[amit]

Yes it is but most defence deals go through those RFI/RFP process which C-17 didn't , It is quite clear that the speed in procuring the C-17 ( over say even IAF urgent needs like rapidly depleting strength which is a 10 year saga plus going ) shows it has the nod from the highest level in GOI and hence priority.

So MOD ,MOF clearance are just trivial matter , the C-17 deal will go through no matter what the hurdle is price is smallest part , if the IAF likes the C-17 thats a good thing.

Austin,

I know we've gone over this before but nevertheless who's the best judge of what the IAF needs urgently? Internet warriors or the IAF top brass?

It could be there's a threat perception that we don't know about since it hasn't yet got into the public realm (maybe the Panda is pushing in the north?) that makes the C17 acquisitions top priority?

It could also be the MRCA deal is as much about getting a technology infusion as it is about increasing numbers? Do note that we've been adding to our Su-30 MKI fleet aren't we?

[Austin]

I know we've gone over this before but nevertheless who's the best judge of what the IAF needs urgently? Internet warriors or the IAF top brass?

If the security situation is so deteriorating then the IAF should let the people know through Parliament and the justification for such speed , else its all a decision taken in closed doors that will raise many questions or just a deal to forward GOI interest ?

On the contrary every top brass has been pointing to rapidly depleting squadron strength and hence its a well known and document affair and the urgency to resolve it.

[amit]

I know we've gone over this before but nevertheless who's the best judge of what the IAF needs urgently? Internet warriors or the IAF top brass?

If the security situation is so deteriorating then the IAF should let the people know through Parliament and the justification for such speed , else its all a decision taken in closed doors that will raise many questions or just a deal to forward GOI interest ?

On the contrary every top brass has been pointing to rapidly depleting squadron strength and hence its a well known and document affair and the urgency to resolve it.

The counter question to that is, where's the hullabaloo over this acquisition or it's alleged price tag (alleged because everyone is pulling out a figure from somewhere) outside of BRF? Have the same top brass who have been pointing to rapidly depleting squadron strength been complaining that the C17 acquisition would further delay acquisition of fighter aircraft? Has the Opposition parties raised this issue? Or have the media ganged up on this? Remeber the Scorpene saga and the media bashing? IMO the storm in a tea cup is happenning only on this thread.

Austin, you're an astute observer of matters pertaining to the military and I value your posts a lot. You must surely be aware that an off the shelf acquisition like this one is much easier to do than to buy fighter aircraft with the intention of absorbing as much technology as possible? And one of the reasons for the MRCA delay was the specification changed didn't it? Originally it was just a straight forward idea of buying Mirages. Then it morphed into a much more complex ball game with the idea of absorbing new technology to ensure that our dollars are put to good use.

Let me ask you this question, how long did it take to take a decision and acquire the IL76s for our Awacs programme? That way also a off the shelf acquisition wasn't it since the Boeing alternative was not acceptable at that point of time?

In short I don't think the MRCA acquisition and its trials and tribulations can be used as a benchmark to subtly criticise this acquisition of C17s.

JMT

[negi]

^ There was no offering from Unkil for AWACS, in fact Unkil was at first not amused with the Phalcon deal as well.

C17s are not being criticized here my beef always has been about the hypocrites and bigots in the MoD these worthies stalled the Bofors acquisition as Antony claimed single vendor deals are not kosher and this despite the platform in question being recommended by IA itself after field trials (there were competing platforms from Israel and others) it is pretty obvious that FMS route is being used to return the favor to the Unkil for the nuke deal.

[Austin]

amit , hence I said its a GOI approved deal at the highest level , rarely have we seen big ticket items with big money climbing up the approval ladder so fast . unless there is a GOI nod for it , they may be furthering our national interest or their own interest by such direct procurement only time can answer.

I really do not see this deal getting delayed due to price ( more or less ) as many here tend to see it . its a done deal and Obama even went on to say it will generate x amount jobs.

I think we can't complain because its always GOI discretion on these matters

[Austin]

^There was no offering from Unkil for AWACS, in fact Unkil was at first not amused with the Phalcon deal as well.

Negi , the GP and Phalcon had tacit US approval , else we would have gone the China way

[negi]

kapitan that's why I said *at first* and mind you Israel unlike UK , Aus or even Japan is not exactly an Unkil's poodle it realized the potential of the Indian defense market long before US did .

[Indranil]

@Negi Sahab: agreed. But we all seem to have cried foul when Bofors did not get through for IA. Now we are crying foul the C-17s are getting through for the IAF.

Only one could be right. Which one? I think we did a mistake with the Bofors acquisition.

[negi]

Where/when did I say C-17s should not be procured (I presume the CISMoA and EUMA re not an issue ) ?

[Austin]

kapitan that's why I said *at first* and mind you Israel unlike UK , Aus or even Japan is not exactly an Unkil's poodle it realized the potential of the Indian defense market long before US did .

Negi Sir , I would think Israel is more dependent on US then any of the poodle both for its very survival and subsidising its economy/defence industry , had it not been US pressure on Israel and some Congress/Senator crying foul they would have got a big share in China defense modernization.

India is more neutral in that matter as it does not threaten US interest , hence US does not mind the ever growing Israel presence in India , generates good money for Israel defense industry.

[Indranil]

Where/when did I say C-17s should not be procured (I presume the CISMoA and EUMA re not an issue ) ?

I read a post by you which said

C17s are not being criticized here my beef always has been about the hypocrites and bigots in the MoD these worthies stalled the Bofors acquisition as Antony claimed single vendor deals are not kosher and this despite the platform in question being recommended by IA itself after field trials (there were competing platforms from Israel and others) it is pretty obvious that FMS route is being used to return the favor to the Unkil for the nuke deal.

It seemed to me that you were lamenting the stalled Bofors acquisition and the C-17 through the FMS in the same breath. Did I get you wrong?

[negi]

Austin things are more complicated than that , the point was there was no platform offering from US for our AWACS requirements. Israel's relations with India and our defense cooperation dates back to the time when we did not even see an eye to eye with US on even fundamental issues. Unkil has burnt it's hands dealing with China (Lora and Hughes case) and is wary of advanced technology items falling into the hands of PRC hence the pressure on Israel to block the Phalcon sales to PRC.

And why Sir ?

[negi]

Indranil lamenting our procurement procedures not the C-17 itself.