Transport Aircraft for IAF

[alexis]

No one can make this claim without sending a RFP to the manufacturer. Period. Just can not. Not sending the RFP itself was a criminal act. In the past there have been RFPs where people chose to opt out making it a one horse race, even then specs were changed to get more options in.

In the given time frame, it stands to reason -- Il would have easily patched together an airframe like Gripen and Mig 35 did for MRCA trials, and if they could not, time should have been given. There was no hurry?

In any case the whole "today or bust" for C 17 was done precisely to make sure that Boeing had not closed its line and Il did not have a chance to react.

One week (well not one week, maybe 6 months, but the point is same) and the picture would have changed.

This is precisely like "VIP must stand up to use the loo" type of critical requirements that were added to turn the VIP helo into one Heli show.

A country which cant get Arty guns and combat a/cs for decades cant wait for a week to buy trucks. Wah ji wah.

The whole claim that "C 17 was the only a/c is bogus because "C 17 was the only a/c which was considered by RFPs" obviously C 17 was the only a/c is a tautologically true.

C 17 came first in a competition where only C 17 was invited. Amazing achievement I say.

Was RFP sent to DRDO when India acquired T-90?
C-17 price is too steep, i agree; but to say there was a credible alternative at that time is not correct. The purchase could have been deferred till an alternative was available - but IAF thought otherwise.

[Sanku]

So what? Sukhoi makes other aircraft too, like the Su-35BM. And the whole point is that the IAF can't tell without RFPs whether or not Sukhoi has anything to sell us for the MRCA. As per your logic of course.

Agree, IAF can not know about Su 35 without RFP. Fortunately, 6 contenders is a good number, the idea is to have a large field to chose from which is representative, which was the case with MRCA.

Although yes, there would be value is also adding Su 35 to the mix. Why not.


Although it is important to note that Sukhoi is already involved through both Su 30 and FGFA, which is unlike the case with this scam.

The important thing is that there was a open competition to determine the best RoI.

Uh, no. Specs were changed in the AW scam to keep one vendor from being disqualified. If the IAF had changed specs or timeline requirements to include an imaginary aircraft, then the IL-476 deal would have been a real scam.

First, the imaginary part is purely your imagination, second, in the AW scam, the spec changes were to narrow to AW, this included
VIP can pee standing up
Three engines are critical
etc.

Similar to "If we dont have a truck by the eod the IAF will fall apart, OMG OMG" type of argument for C 17.

[Sanku]

C-17 price is too steep, i agree; but to say there was a credible alternative at that time is not correct. The purchase could have been deferred till an alternative was available - but IAF thought otherwise.

MoD (not IAF) should not have thought otherwise, in a number of cases, far more critical ones and less critical ones, IAF through MoD was told to think in alignment with DPP and have a multivendor test.

[Sanku]

Those looking for the root causes in corruption should note

1) There has been corruption in single vendor deals (Tatra)
2) There has been corruption in multi vendor deals (Bofors/Helos)
3) There has been corruption in FMS deals. (C 17)
4) There has been corruption in non-FMS deals. (Bofors/Helos)

Also there have been cases where no corruption has been seen in any of the above types.

So what is common to all the corrupt purchases? Yups, that is right -- the people at the helm. If you put some one who is intent on looting, they will loot no matter what the methodology. The methodology can slow one down, but nothing can override the supreme political will.

[alexis]

C-17 price is too steep, i agree; but to say there was a credible alternative at that time is not correct. The purchase could have been deferred till an alternative was available - but IAF thought otherwise.

MoD (not IAF) should not have thought otherwise, in a number of cases, far more critical ones and less critical ones, IAF through MoD was told to think in alignment with DPP and have a multivendor test.

It is upto IAF to decide whether the item is critical or not! it is your opinion the item is critical. T-90 was also viewed as critical by IA/MoD while many on this forum do not. You supported MoD then; why change the stance?

[Sanku]

"alexis">>
C-17 price is too steep, i agree; but to say there was a credible alternative at that time is not correct. The purchase could have been deferred till an alternative was available - but IAF thought otherwise.

MoD (not IAF) should not have thought otherwise, in a number of cases, far more critical ones and less critical ones, IAF through MoD was told to think in alignment with DPP and have a multivendor test.

It is upto IAF to decide whether the item is critical or not! it is your opinion the item is critical. T-90 was also viewed as critical by IA/MoD while many on this forum do not. You supported MoD then; why change the stance?

Unfortunately it is NOT upto IAF to decide, it is upto MoD to decide, in consultation with FM and CCS. That is the case for even AW case today, raising the question that Tyagi's were merely the smallest of the small fry in the matter. Also we are fully empowered to raise questions on GoIs functioning, which we do all the time on the forum.

Coming to my own stands, I believe there is nothing wrong in supporting or not supporting GoIs decision on case to case basis, all posters do that. Very few posters have a uniform view of "GoI is always right" or "GoI is always wrong", although there are some "UPA is always right" types here.

The rationale for my different stance on two mentioned are as following --
1) Because of 2004. The new policy guidelines came into place in 2004. T 90 is a pre-cursor to 2004 plan. So is Mirage 2000, so are Jags, so are Su 30 etc etc etc. The pre-2004 era was not the same as now, different reasons were in play, including different arms purchase and geo-political situation. A different time. People forget, T 90 purchase started in 1998 and was done deal by 2004.

What applies for purchases in 2008 can not be pushed back in distant past.

2) I have said before and will say again, is that the best way to acquire EVEN tanks was through multi-vendor situation. If the deal is being made today, I will strongly ask for a multi-vendor/multi-tank scenario.

So there is no conflict between my stand for multi-vendor purchases for large items keeping in view of current realities vs a different standard for past purchases.

[member_20453]

Those looking for the root causes in corruption should note

1) There has been corruption in single vendor deals (Tatra)
2) There has been corruption in multi vendor deals (Bofors/Helos)
3) There has been corruption in FMS deals. (C 17)
4) There has been corruption in non-FMS deals. (Bofors/Helos)

Also there have been cases where no corruption has been seen in any of the above types.

So what is common to all the corrupt purchases? Yups, that is right -- the people at the helm. If you put some one who is intent on looting, they will loot no matter what the methodology. The methodology can slow one down, but nothing can override the supreme political will.

In such a case even the MKI deal is corrupt to the core along with the T-90, Tank ammo, every single Israeli deal so far for UAVS, Tavor etc. Hogwash, FMS deals are so far the cleanest deals ever signed in the country, they ensure fast delivery of cutting edge platforms often far more proven by a long shot than other alternatives. FMS deals are expensive no doubt but they are cleaner and the users are usually happy with the final product. Let all this bickering about he C-17 rest it will be here in a few months, I would personally like it if we order another 40 of these.

[vic]

The Problem is that we do not know the exact price of aircraft in FMS deals as lot of options & extras are bundled together in the intimation. Such information is only available from CAG reports or Indian Parliament reports.

[Sanku]

In such a case even the MKI deal is corrupt to the core

Please read the post again, if you can not still understand, ask shall be happy to explain.

No reason to read what was not written.

[NRao]

On another note in the last month or one before cant remember both AFM and ACM monthly's had a para stating that the IAF has identified a new requirement for Heavy transport and the 476 is the likely candidate. It does also mention that this reqirement is beyond the C17 acquisition. Not sure how true it is but if this materialises IAF will end up with a effing huge strategic airlift capability onlee me thinks

That is the most relevant data point I have seen WRT a IL-476 and IAF.

Thx.

[NRao]

Another data point:

Jan 29, 2013 :: Modernization of the Indian Air Force

Lockheed Martin’s success in bagging the first major IAF order was then replicated by the Boeing when Indian signed another LOA in June 2011 for procurement of 10 C-17 Globemaster III heavy lift aircraft at the cost of $4.116 billion. The delivery of the aircraft is scheduled for completion between June 2013 and June 2015. Like in the case of C-130J, IAF also plans to increase its C-17 fleet by 10 more of such planes.

[Singha]

that will make one camp very unhappy.

[NRao]

That - "camp" - is precisely the problem. It should be IAF. And nothing else. Granted there is a dimension of politics that none have a control over.

My feeling has not changed. I think when the C-17s arrive the IAF will evaluate them and then IF after that the IAF exercises the options for the other six, then I feel that the 476 will have no place other than an arm twisting deal.

But let us see.

[Sanku]

More C 17s are going to be linked to UPAs continuance in power. I do not see anyone else upholding the promises made to US by man mohan.

In any case, I dont think UPA will have the time after the AW scandal for further deal making in this tenure.

In any case it would be nice if it was IAF which was be all and end all in decision making, it is not, therefore harping on "what IAFs wants" is not too meaningful. IAF would be happy with pretty much any decent a/c, the cost and other considerations are less of a IAF issue, but a GoI issue.

A procurement decision can not be a IAF issue or a MoD/GoI issue as convenient. It is a GoI issue and that is how it must be tackled.

[arnab]

Should the RFPs be send to Su? Wrong analogy
1) They already had 6 contenders
2) Su 30s are already being inducted (unlike Il 476 or Airbus XXX)

So what? Sukhoi makes other aircraft too, like the Su-35BM. And the whole point is that the IAF can't tell without RFPs whether or not Sukhoi has anything to sell us for the MRCA. As per your logic of course.

Yes the C 17 and AW scams are almost exact.

Uh, no. Specs were changed in the AW scam to keep one vendor from being disqualified. If the IAF had changed specs or timeline requirements to include an imaginary aircraft, then the IL-476 deal would have been a real scam.

I remember in the earlier iteration of the C17 saga, Sanku ji had suggested that an RFP for transport aircrafts should also have gone out to HAL to see if they could offer a proposal to make transport aircrafts And he keeps bleating about DPP processes not being followed despite the DPP specifically allowing for single vendor contracts (a la PAK-FA)

[Surya]

by now one learns that certain topics cause otherwise normal people (yea yea I am pushing the limit with Sanku ) to go in an uncontrolled spin

C 17 causes that Sanku

any US maal causes that to Fowler saab

[nachiket]

Agree, IAF can not know about Su 35 without RFP. Fortunately, 6 contenders is a good number, the idea is to have a large field to chose from which is representative, which was the case with MRCA.

That sounds very arbitrary.

Although it is important to note that Sukhoi is already involved through both Su 30 and FGFA, which is unlike the case with this scam.

Again, so what? That argument works, only if we are trying to mollify multiple suppliers, so we could safely ignore Sukhoi since they already had a contract.
The point I'm trying to make is that the IAF does make judgement calls without sending RFPs. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of fighter jets could tell that Su-35 wasn't suitable because of its size and similarity to the Su-30. Just like they could easily say in 2009 (when the C-17 was originally selected) that there was no competing modern aircraft from Ilyushin available, at the time.

First, the imaginary part is purely your imagination, second, in the AW scam, the spec changes were to narrow to AW, this included
VIP can pee standing up
Three engines are critical
etc.

My imagination? Can you show me any news clipping that says the IL-476 was flying and ready for evaluation by the IAF when it was testing the C-17? I'll save you some time. You can't. Because back then, the IL-476 was imaginary.

Similar to "If we dont have a truck by the eod the IAF will fall apart, OMG OMG" type of argument for C 17.

Nobody made such an argument. The IAF found they had a requirement for more heavy lifters, and they bought the only aircraft then available which provided an improvement over their Il-76s (A400M carries less than even the IL-76 ) and which passed all their tests

[nachiket]

And he keeps bleating about DPP processes not being followed despite the DPP specifically allowing for single vendor contracts (a la PAK-FA)

Why wasn't an RFP sent to LockMart for the F-35 I ask? How can the IAF determine that the PAK_FA is more suitable than the F-35 without an RFP?

[Philip]

Why the "Illusion"? Well,if Gates and Obama say that the aircraft is too large,too expensive for their foreign wars winding down,why on earth should we acquire so many of them when we have NO intercon. strategic requirement,other than taking part in Red Flag once in 3 or 4 years? The last time we went,the Illys did the business too! So my argument is that for the same price of one C-17 you can get 4-5 Illys.For the same price you can lift 250+ tons instead of 70-t,have more aircraft available to fly to different locations in any crisis,more aircraft will also be available when routine maintenance is on,and some are not in flying condition.The only plus point acquiring the C-17 is that is has a larger hold which can accommodate/transport larger weapon systems.But frankly,I do not see the need to transport Arjuns into the high Himalayas,where the problems of support and terrain call for smaller sized MBTs which also eigh less,where they can be transported and moved with greater ease.The Illy is now and available,if we want it.

I would also like a "spread" of various transports of various sizes to suit the IAF/IAs requirements.We always don't have to use heavylifters.Since we have operated the IL-76 for a long time,buying /replacing the current fleet with new upgraded versions where we will (hopefully) not have the problem of spares and support from Uzbekistan is an option that should be pursued.

Straightforward commonsense.But sharing a secret with you,why? Don't you guys just luv Natasha,Olga,Irina,Tanya,katarina,Sharapova...oops!

PS:One important reason why and where the C-17 can play a major role.In the invasion and liberation of Tibet.If that be the case,then I'm all for acquiring more of the same,in addition to any Tillys that might be needed.This requires the creation of a far greater number of mountain divisions-in fact a whole new mountain army with 9-10 divisions,for the same purpose.

PPS:Lockmart's products like Chinese goods come in three quality classes.1st,2nd and turd! Even chief bum-chum Britain gets only 2nd class Lockmart,most of the rest ,EU allies get turd.It also costs 1.5 time as much ,is single-engined and cannot perform better than the F-16-is in fact inferior say some,in a dogfight.Limited size of internal weapons bay.FGFA/PAK-FA,full partnership,plus the IAF has also gone on record saying that they do NOT want the JSF/Lockmart.

[nachiket]

Wwhy on earth should we acquire so many of them when we have NO intercon. strategic requirement,other than taking part in Red Flag once in 3 or 4 years?

OK you keep harping on this "intercontinental strategic" business without there being any substance in your argument. The C-17's range isn't that much greater than the IL-76. What is much greater is the payload capacity and internal volume, and greater width of the cabin which will allow carriage of T-90s and Arjuns.

Rohitvats has explained earlier how the extra capacity will help the IA. The posts are in this thread. Dig them up if you want.

[NRao]

Rohitvats? Putin, Putin. Talk Putin.

And do you have a RFP to suggest looking at older posts?

[member_23455]

Wwhy on earth should we acquire so many of them when we have NO intercon. strategic requirement,other than taking part in Red Flag once in 3 or 4 years?

OK you keep harping on this "intercontinental strategic" business without there being any substance in your argument. The C-17's range isn't that much greater than the IL-76. What is much greater is the payload capacity and internal volume, and greater width of the cabin which will allow carriage of T-90s and Arjuns.

Rohitvats has explained earlier how the extra capacity will help the IA. The posts are in this thread. Dig them up if you want.

This "intercontinental strategic" thing is an excellent example of creating a strawman argument and then painstakingly demolishing it.

Unfortunately there is a widely circulated video of a USAF pilot from the C17 Demo team at Aero India extolling this aircraft's virtue in the swing tactical and strategic airlift role. What is not that widely circulated but out there on the Internetz are serving USAF pilots on their professional forums who praise the aircraft's ability to operate from short/unprepared strips. Maybe all the ALGs that the IAF is activating in a certain part of India made them connect some dots...

[Philip]

There is substance,hard substance.$5.8 Billion for just 10 C-17 aircraft,which works out to $580 Million per unit,when compared with $115 Million per Il-476-90A.That's 5 IL-476's for the price of just one C-17.And how much greater is the payload? 70t for the C-17 when compared with the 60t for the IL-476.The only advantage is a larger size of hold for carrying larger sized cargo.OK<buy a few like some of the NATO allies have done,but 10,plus another 10 as many are hinting at? That's profligacy.With the money saved on the extra C-17s,buy sorely needed artillery for the IA,a far greater priority.10 IL-476s swill cost around $1.25 Billion only.That will give the IAF 20 new heavy transports,C-17s and IL-476s.You will still have over $4.5 billion of hard earned tax payer's money to spend on other sorely needed equipment and weapon systems for the three services.

As for the strategic inter-con role,when the US itself with open comments from Gates and co. that the aircraft is "too large,too costly" for their requirements and that smaller less expensive aircraft would suffice,we have to go the whole hog,just like the 12 VVIP helos when just 3 AW-101s were found too costly by Obama and the deal was scrapped! Are we the richest country on earth with overflowing resources like the oil sheikdoms,or a nation of a Billion+ where 75% of the country are at or below the poverty line? Face facts.India has NO declared intercontinental strategic role to play as a globocop or whatever.If we do need a strat. heavyweight the size of the C-17 to accommodate some oversized eqpt. then buy a few,not go overboard.

PS:When the MI-17Vs and other helos in use are good enough to transport our officers and jawans,then they should be good enough for our heavweight politicos too! Just add on the bells and whistles for EW/AAM protection,etc.Indira never used any extra special helos or aircraft for her travel.She even used All-3s/Chetaks.

[Surya]

India has NO declared intercontinental strategic role to play as a globocop or whatever

since we are entering alice in wonderland

would you also agree we should not bother about ICBMs after all we no declared intercontinental role - right??

we should go for many more agni 1s

[Victor]

The substance is not that hard. The C-17s are $178 million fly away (without GSP etc) compared to $115 million for the Il-476. Factor in 77 tons vs 50 tons and we are dead even on $$/ton. Further factor in operating costs and the C-17 begins to pull ahead because of its much superior engines and engineering. Add in the GSP that we are paying for and based on our experience with the Il-76 so far, the Il-476 would be far more expensive and provide far fewer flying hours. Time to stop flogging a dead horse.

[Sanku]

The substance is not that hard. The C-17s are $178 million fly away (without GSP etc) compared to $115 million for the Il-476. Factor in 77 tons vs 50 tons and we are dead even on $$/ton. Further factor in operating costs and the C-17 begins to pull ahead because of its much superior engines and engineering. Add in the GSP that we are paying for and based on our experience with the Il-76 so far, the Il-476 would be far more expensive and provide far fewer flying hours. Time to stop flogging a dead horse.

The arm chair specialists had declared Rafael to be a very expensive bird compared to others.

Funny enough Rafael got the L1 tender.

These internet numbers are useful to only a point, beyond this, the real bargaining which happens when companies enter their products into service determines the final costs.

Of course C 17 was saved from any such embarrassment by making sure no one else got a shot.

[Sanku]

Agree, IAF can not know about Su 35 without RFP. Fortunately, 6 contenders is a good number, the idea is to have a large field to chose from which is representative, which was the case with MRCA.

That sounds very arbitrary.

Nothing arbitrary, anything over 2 to 3 is a good number. The idea is to have enough bargaining leverage to get the best RoI, can happen with 2-3 vendors.

In trying to make a 6 contender contest same as a single by invitation purchase same through the device of "oh it could be 7" you are just being rehtorical.

If you really think a contest with 6 contenders is same as a special invite to 1. Let me know, then there is really no point discussing anything further.

If not we can discuss the rest, but you must stop the pointless 7 could be better.

You are basically refusing to look at the obvious truth.

[Sanku]

I remember in the earlier iteration of the C17 saga, Sanku ji had suggested that an RFP for transport aircrafts should also have gone out to HAL to see if they could offer a proposal to make transport aircrafts And he keeps bleating about DPP processes not being followed despite the DPP specifically allowing for single vendor contracts (a la PAK-FA)

You obviously do not understand the difference between a JV development and a purchase.

And feel free to miss my bleats, unfortunately what I am saying is so loud and clear based on its obvious inherent merit, only personal attacks and deliberate obfuscation can be used as a disagreement device.

[amit]

The substance is not that hard. The C-17s are $178 million fly away (without GSP etc) compared to $115 million for the Il-476. Factor in 77 tons vs 50 tons and we are dead even on $$/ton. Further factor in operating costs and the C-17 begins to pull ahead because of its much superior engines and engineering. Add in the GSP that we are paying for and based on our experience with the Il-76 so far, the Il-476 would be far more expensive and provide far fewer flying hours. Time to stop flogging a dead horse.

So some ghosts never go away!

Well I guess as long as we have folks willing to flog dead horses.

Victor I agree with all the points you make. I just want to add to this point:

Factor in 77 tons vs 50 tons and we are dead even on $$/ton. Further factor in operating costs and the C-17 begins to pull ahead because of its much superior engines and engineering.

Your right about the $$/ton cost price. However, consider this: Suppose IAF has to move 150 tons of maal from, say Punjab to the Andamans. How many flights would be required for C17 and how many for the IL? If we translate that into dollar terms...

This is something Sanku ji never got (and probably will never get) and Philip ji studiously avoids this discussion.

Another thing. When was the C17 deal signed? At that time the IL476 was a mythical beast. Heck it's still a mythical beast which is yet to prove itself - in terms of cost effectiveness (with greater weight capacity, new engines etc). Should the IAF have waited till the Russians finished testing and inducting (large) number of these planes and finding out if they were good?

You know what? I think the Army did an even greater blunder in buying the T90 without waiting to see if the Arjun really proved itself or asking the Americans if they would sell their Abrams. After all there should be more than one tender and to heck with immediate requirements and what the Services think. That's why naughty people who can't hold their vodka talk about Natashas.

PS: I'm glad to know that the PAK-FA is a JV between India and Russia. This should be constantly reiterated in case some folks start to think that the plane that India will get is just a MKI version of the one being developed for the RuAF. Repeated sufficient number of times...

One final point. There must be some corruption involved, otherwise how the heck did we get the C17s on time and without any cost escalations? After all look at how proper deals are made - look at that aircraft carrier, look at the upgrades to T90, that's how real deals are done in terms of timelines and cost escalations.

And can anyone recall how many companies were sent a tender when we bought the Hercules class transports? I'm sure there was corruption involved if the number is less than 6 and certainly if the number was less than 2!

[Aditya_V]

The only question where do we get the $178 Mil per C-17, as per the deal signed the fly away cost is $350 mil plus engines separately.

[Sanku]

Well people will justify AW purchase too. Kapil Sibal said there was zero loss in 2G. St Antony was till a year back saying nothing wrong with AW deal. Man mohan claims there was no cash for votes.

Either one can look at real data, or be in deliberate denial. The real data shows that C 17 was overpriced purchase made in a hurry only to make sure that Boeing line did not die and was quid pro quo for US help in setting up parliament to win the trust votes.

This has been seen by data points
1) Tearing hurry for a product which was hardly even on horizon compared to far more critical defence equipment
2) Earlier discussion to send RFIs out to a number of folks was suddenly changed to only Boeing.
3) Boeing was kicked out of MRCA at the same time because when the rubber met the road, Boeing was found wanting in comparison.

The matter is open and shut, of course one cant help Kapil Sibals of the world.

[Sanku]

The only question where do we get the $178 Mil per C-17, as per the deal signed the fly away cost is $350 mil plus engines separately.

There was also ZERO loss in 2G case.

[Aditya_V]

The substance is not that hard. The C-17s are $178 million fly away (without GSP etc) compared to $115 million for the Il-476. Factor in 77 tons vs 50 tons and we are dead even on $$/ton. Further factor in operating costs and the C-17 begins to pull ahead because of its much superior engines and engineering. Add in the GSP that we are paying for and based on our experience with the Il-76 so far, the Il-476 would be far more expensive and provide far fewer flying hours. Time to stop flogging a dead horse.

Where did you get this price, our FMS price without Engines was USD 4.116 Billion, we did not opt for communication extras covered CISMOSA. Its hard to believe fly away condition including engines is USD 178 mil per aircraft.

Purchase of Transport Aircraft

The Lack of clarity with Breakup and lack of scrutiny in Media unlike the other deals what is causing unnecessary debate and GSP will have to be paid every year at USD 25 mil per aircraft.

I agree IL-476 was not on the table. That doesnt MOD is not paying more than it should and there were no Kick Backs involved. Compared to prices all over the world our prices seem to be the Highest for C-17 and C-130J by a long margin.

[amit]

I don't know the current state of this as I haven't been really following this news.

However, at when reporting the deal Deccan Herald had this to say:

Boeing would also meet an offset obligation comprising 30 percent of the basic cost of the 10 aircraft, which would work out to about $1 billion, the officials added. The basic cost, without the associated equipment and training costs for IAF personnel, would work out to about $3 billion, they added.

The offset obligation arises out of the Indian defence offsets guidelines that mandate the ploughing back of a part of every deal amount in India's defence industry.

"In addition to the purchase of products and services from public and private Indian defence industries, Boeing will establish a high-altitude engine test facility at the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO)," India's premier military technology developer, the officials said.

This facility is not available in India and will enable aeroengines to be tested within the country.

"Boeing will also establish a trisonic wind tunnel facility at DRDO to enable testing, research and development of various aerodynamic bodies," the officials added.

If the two points that bolded are still on track (like I said, I haven't been following this news), I think they should be factored into the $4.1 billion contract price.

[Aditya_V]

Well, if that can be priced seperately then it would clear a lot of doubts that we are paying USD 1 Billion for the 2 DRDO facilities and what are Delivery dates for the 2 schedules. Whether delivery is done on time and Satisfactory to DRDO requirements.

[Sanku]

Well, if that can be priced seperately then it would clear a lot of doubts that we are paying USD 1 Billion for the 2 DRDO facilities and what are Delivery dates for the 2 schedules. Whether delivery is done on time and Satisfactory to DRDO requirements.

Also it does not say that whether or not Boeing will need to be paid extra for this facility. Unless the terms of contract, as you said are made clear that whether this is a adjunct offer which will need separate fleshing out, or part of deliverable for the same contract.

As of now nothing says that this offer is anything more than a vague promise of help.

[amit]

Sometimes I wonder how/why comprehension difficulties crop up among folks with, an otherwise, excellent command over the language.

The report clearly states that these facilities - again I'm just going by what the report says - are part of the 30 per cent offset clause.

If that's the case where does the need for separate agreements arise?

Note: You know the proper way to trash this piece of news is to go and find out if these projects are on schedule and coming up - as part of the 30 per cent clause.

[Sanku]

Sometimes I wonder how/why comprehension difficulties crop up among folks with, an otherwise, excellent command over the language.

Super comprehension men strike again.

[amit]

I agree IL-476 was not on the table. That doesnt MOD is not paying more than it should and there were no Kick Backs involved. Compared to prices all over the world our prices seem to be the Highest for C-17 and C-130J by a long margin.

I wonder if you've read the previous avatars of this thread. The price comparisons were done.

Anyway let me post a few links (they are available within two seconds of asking Gogal chacha):

Link 1 says this (Feb 2012 report):

Boeing in Long Beach, CA receives a $1.78 billion firm-fixed-price contract for 10 C-17s, as a Foreign Military Sales requirement for the Indian Air Force. Work will be performed in Long Beach, CA, and is expected to be complete by July 28/14. The ASC/WLMK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH acts as India’s FMS agent (FA8614-06-D-2006, DO 0009).

The wide difference between Antony’s Dec 12/11 statement and this contract is a good reminder that the purchase contract doesn’t cover everything. As one example, India can expect to pay another $380 million or so for the 40 F117 engines that will equip these planes. They will be installed under this contract, but are not bought under it. Other “Government Furnished Equipment” from both India and the USA also factors into the total program cost, as do initial support contracts in many cases. Based on USAF total costs, Antony’s $4+ billion figure also includes support contracts – a Sept 27/11 C-17 support contract totaled up to $469 million, for an undisclosed period.

Incidentally for the IL76s or the mythical IL476, servicing and support are outside the list price that India pays.

Link 2

In March 2006, the Australian government announced that the Australian Defence Forces would 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). {Note: If you are going to do a 1:1 comparison with the India price then you'll have to standardise currency values to take into account the 6-year gap between the two sales.} In April 2011, Australia upped their order to 5 aircraft, and will soon add a 6th plane to their fleet.

June 19/12: #6. Boeing in Long Beach, CA wins a $171.5 million firm-fixed-price contract to buy 1 base C-17A aircraft. Boeing has confirmed to DID that this order is for Australia, though it’s executed under the USAF’s framework contract for FY 2010, which also covered India’s 10 C-17s.

So according to the Defence Industry Daily, the Aussie paid $171.5 million for their sixth aircraft (without support contract/engines), while India is paying $178 million (without support contract/engines) for their 10 planes.

Yes I suppose you're right India is being overcharged.

[amit]

Sometimes I wonder how/why comprehension difficulties crop up among folks with, an otherwise, excellent command over the language.

Super comprehension men strike again.

Just too irresistible!