Bharat Rakshak

Thanks Austin

Surya. No way. Hangar Queen meant that the M2K, as you have said, needed a clean environment. Not that it spent more time in the hangar! And I did feel that there was envy that the MiG pilots tried to hide.

Philip. Please let us work on hard facts.
How many IL 476 have been built till date ?
How many IL 476 can be built by Russia annually ?
How many IL 476 are in service in Russia ?
How many IL 476 have been ordered by Russia ? What is the delivery schedule ?
Which other AF has ordered IL 476 ?
Which other AF already uses IL 476 ?

IL 476 is considered as a "almost totally different" aircraft. Would it not require several hundred / thousand hours of testing before any certification ?

I am sure IAF must have considered the above issues, and many more, before opting for C 17.

I would not be surprised that IAF replaces IL 76 with IL 476 sometime in 2020s. It would be great, if IL 476 flies by that time

K

@kersiD

We have. (Dusts off the Vampire abandoned in a field outside Hakimpet AFB)

It helps that I have been on bases before and after BRF, perhaps?

As you know, I am one of the posters who rarely speaks of chaiwalla sources, that is because I normally don't talk about over beer conversations with them which are under 15 years old (the conversations that is)




Which is what I said as well. Thanks rajanb, it feels good to be backed up, frankly, though I know its not done as a favor to me or anything, but thanks anyway.

The IL-476 is not a new aircraft that requires extensive test and certification (B-777 for example). It's like when Boeing modified the original Boeing 737-100 into the stretched -200, then the -300 (improved wing, futher stretched, new generation engine, EFIS but electro-mechanical engine instruments, then into the -400 (further stretched full glass cockpit with ECAM), then the -500 which was a -400 with a -200 length fuselage. Then came the -600, -700 etc which had a new wing. There is very little in common between a Boeing 737-100 and a Boeing 737-900 but Boeing by upgrading little by little was able to keep the original name and and certification process and use just supplemental type certificates to certify what had been modified from the previous model for a quick certification process.

The IL-476 will be a modified IL-76-MD-90. So most of the aircraft is already certified. They will just need to test and certify whatever is new and different, like the center section, the wing box and the wing, as I've already posted. From what I can tell from the pictures of the IL-476 prototypes, it is NOT a stretched version like the IL-76MF. Maybe they will offer both short and long versions in the future I have no idea. The engine pylon shape also indicates that PS-90-76s engines will be mounted on it. Rumors are it will have an EFIS cockpit. It seems that the Maximum Take-off Weight will be 210 tonnes with a 60 tonne payload.
If this aircraft enters production, all parts and systems will be available from suppliers and probably old aircraft will be able to benefit from newly designed and certified improvements.

In 5 to 10 years, the IAF will likely be facing a closed C-17 production line (with whatever number of C-17s it will have purchased between now and then), and a new IL-76 production line. The choices and decisions will be taken then according to the situation that will exist then, according to the needs the IAF will have then, and according to the political situation that will exist then.

As far as the sustainment contract that the IAF was wanting to sign for new suppliers for its IL-76, the contract will NOT include nine upgraded IL-76s which will be upgraded in Russian. Why ?

Will they? You just got through explaining how there are plenty of parts available for legacy Il-76s, yet somehow Russia is withholding them from India.



Two big assumptions I wouldn't bank on



The situation will be that 20 C-17s takes care of the IAF's heavy lift for the foreseeable future and the MRTA (plus a handful of C-130Js) will take care of the rest

Sanku and Rajanb

So by the normal known definition of hangar queen - the M2K is not a hangar queen. If you heard it from someone then they got the meaning wrong.


Thats my point.

If anything it was the migs which were for some time hangar queens because of the lack of parts after SU collapsed - which of course is no fault of the aircraft.

Well hangar queen is not really a dictionary term, people use it in various ways, often to mean high maintenance. That's more often the colloquial usage in IAF based on my experience.



Fair enough, we have an agreement.



The serviceability rate NEVER dropped below 70% in worst of the times. It was tough but IAF made sure it had 70% uptime. Now its much better.

We covered this subject already. I just hate it when you feign amnesia. A little honesty wouldn't hurt in your posts you know? Or is there too much money at stake for you to risk honesty ?

When people were claiming here to have a picture of a T-90 inside an IL-76, I was the one who revealed the aircraft to be an AN-22. When I was wrong about the Arjun weight, I admitted it. When I assumed the IAF IL-76s flew 1000 hours a year, and you said they did not, I researched it and not only did I correct myself, but I posted my source. I am honest, up front and straight. I am sometimes wrong and sometimes make mistakes but am here to to learn as much as to share my experience and knowledge. You, on the other hand, often act like a weasel on this board. You even let people believe you are right when you are wrong, like this claim you made not too long ago about C-17s air-dropping bulldozers from the ramp, in Afghanistan, having the bulldozer bulldoze an un-improved runway and have the C-17s land on that runway. Such a thing never happened and you know it, you never provided proof, or references, but some people read your claim here and take it as the Gospel without further research. And that seems to suit your purposes very well.

Back to the subject:

According to Russian law, all exported Russian military hardware needs to be sold through state owned Rosoboronexport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosoboronexport) So when the IAF needs Russian parts or support for its IL-76s, it has to go through that company. However, a commercial IL-76 operator that needs parts for its IL-76, does not and can deal directly with Russian parts suppliers.

So if the IAF has trouble getting parts for its IL-76s but airlines, even foreign ones, do not, the problem is certainly not a problem of parts supply but a problem between Rosoboronexport and the Indian Government. It could be a conflict between the Indian Government and Rosoboronexport over a sub deal or other....

I suspect that many foreign governments and Air Forces that operated IL-76s, also had government owned "civilian" companies that operated the same aircraft to by-pass having to deal with Rosoboronexport. Since 2005, all press accounts about the Jordandian IL-76MF order talked about a Jordanian Air Force order, and lo and behold, when they aircraft were finally delivered this year, they were painted in the colors of Jordan International Air Cargo. There may be another reason for this, for it is much simpler to get overflight permits for civilian cargo aircraft than for military ones. The down side is that civilian aircraft need to comply with civilian regulations such as noise while military aircraft do not (like noise regulations etc)

So India is attempting to sign a contract with a third party so service its IL-76s. This of course cannot be with any Russian company for Russian law forbids it. But it could be with Ukrainian company, or even an Indian one, as long as that company is directly supported by Ilyushin.

Now this article http://www.defencenow.com/news/206/iaf-ignores-russia-floats-global-tender-for-maintenance-of-ilyushin-aircraft.html states



(Its not clear if the 6 IL-78MKI and the 3 A-50s are included in this or not)

Now why would the IAF need to sign a contract with a non Russian company to maintain just 8 of its 17 IL-76 and not the other 9 ? Are they perhaps satisfied that these 9 will be adequately covered under some other RUSSIAN contract ? Or maybe there are parts available for those 9, but not for the 8 to be covered under a new contract ?

Explain this to us, please Mr GeorgeWelch. In a straight manner. Not like a politician deflecting an embarrassing question on the floor of Parliament.

I'm not feigning amnesia, I don't recall you ever addressing this point before. Of course you've posted a lot, perhaps I've missed it. Perhaps a link back your original post on this would be helpful?



From the person who went on an on about how Australia HAD to build special dirt runways for the C-17 because none accomodated it (A gross and blatant mischaracterization of what happened there), the person who claimed that the C-17s wouldn't have been able to use Camp Rhino if it rained (false), and the person who CONTINUALLY confuses "hasn't yet" with "can't" ("The C-17 can't land at Alert" oops "The C-17 can't land at Alert with a useful load" oops).

I really don't think you want to get into a historical comparison.



So your theory is that once India gets this deal worked out, it will be all smooth sailing? You have a tremendous amount of faith. So far as I know, nothing has been signed with anybody and it would be interesting to see what if any retaliatory steps Russia takes if such a contract was signed. Too many unknowns yet.

The point that does remain is that Russia (Rosoboronexport) is an extreme pain to deal with. Why? Why does Russia make it so hard to keep the spares flowing? Any explanation you can come up with looks bad.



Perhaps the upgrade contract forbids them from sourcing spares outside of Russia

But I have no idea, you'll have to ask the IAF.

Umm nobody is making it an either / or case saar but clearly one of the strategies of the IAF is to buy C-17s as the ILs are approaching end of service life. So your assertion that C-17s are NOT replacing IL-76s is clearly incorrect. Nor does it mean that IL-76 are bad aircrafts because the CAS has clearly mentioned that they have served us well.

See - over reliance on 'shruti' makes it difficult to parse direct quotes

Instead of spending all your time on the forum, it would be nice if you actually read some of the articles put up on the BR site once in a while

This is from the BRM
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... hatto.html






Mig 29s were unable to get in the air half the time - stayed in the hangar - a hangar queen

^^^"Mig 29s were unable to get in the air half the time - stayed in the hangar - a hangar queen"

Yeah but we showed them Yankees right? Next up TU-22M3s that can grace hangars but they are cheap and robust (vacuum tubes) . .

Some on BRF seem to be positively annoyed that the C-17s will arrive on or before time and actually do the things required of them by the IAF.

This Il-76/476 thing reminds me of the Iranians we used to meet in LA during the 1980s who would put on their Mercedes (in gold paint) on the trunk lid 1000S or 1000SL

The auto industry used to have a term "Badge Engineering"

Here we go again!



Page 7, Posted: 06 Apr 2011 20:01



1) About the Australians. They have HUNDREDS of unpaved runways in Australia. Why didn't they simply use a few of those to try out their new C-17 instead of building a "C-17 capable unpaved runway" ?

https://jrac.erdc.usace.army.mil/documents/tripreport.pdf

These people visited a bunch of unpaved airfields in Australia and detailed what would be necessary to UPGRADE these landing fields to make them "C-17 capable". And it was not always a problem of length.

Why did they just not go and land somewhere ? A wild guess, anyone ?

The only other unsurfaced runway where the Australians landed their C-17s was in Afghanistan, at another airfield specially upgraded to C-17 standard.

2) Camp Rhino. I did not claim the C-17 couldn't not land there if it rained. Major Erik W. Hansen, a USAF pilot wrote that, in a published document that I referenced and quoted, and I will do it again here:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada430864.pdf&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf









3) Alert.
Alert has a 5500 gravel runway, more than enough for a C-17. I was making fun of the Canadian Air Force, who, several years after buying the C-17 (and claiming in Parliament they needed it among other things for supplying Alert), had never landed there in a C-17. They finally went there in 2010, 3 years after the induction, but with only limited 45 tonne payload, and only after having sent a team to inspect the soil strength and test the runway braking coefficient. This is despite the fact that the Military had previously been chartering civilian B-737-200 to fly into the same runway they would not fly into with their "STOL" and unpaved capable C-17.

Here is a picture of a First Air B737-200 on the ground in Alert.

http://www.tripadvisor.fr/LocationPhotos-g670329-w3-Alert_Nunavut.html#23005575

Now they even fly CP-140 Auroras (Canadian P-3 Maritime Patrol Aircraft)





I don't claim any such thing. What I claim is that civilian airlines have no trouble maintaining their IL-76s. They find parts, servicing etc. Why does the IAF have trouble getting parts ? If that at all true. Why do they only want to find a new contract for those aircraft that have not been upgraded ? It seems that they have resolved the problem for those aircraft that are to be upgraded ? Right ?

Does anyone have any figures on cost per hour of operating the C-17 versus the Il-76? The difference in payload capacity needs to be taken into account here.

I get the impression that the last 20 years have seen a marked improvement in fuel efficiency, aircraft reliability and pilot workload. I am not sure if all these are either upgradeable on the Il-76 or on par among Russian and US aircraft.

Off my head if i remember well the problem as i was told by Prasun Sengupta is not about trouble in getting spares from Russia but about the Indian subsidary ( a JV between India-Russia ) not able to forecast and procure spares months in advance in able to stock it ,so every time IAF needs spares it forwards its request to this subsidary and then they place order and it takes months to get spares, if its not done in advance or stocked adequately it leads to lack of spares being available affecting fleet reliability. The problem is more Indian specific and more like IAF specific , there are different agency that procures spares for Navy and IA and the spares issue with these sister service is not problematic..

Ok this is what Prasun wrote on his blog regarding spares issue with IAF and why not the IN faces the same problem ( i am aware PSG is a no no at BRF but its worth looking at it since the spare problem is quite serious and no one yet knows why it is so )

link

^^ Prasun is a clown. A K Antony raised the matter with the Russians who were in furious agreement with him and were involved at the 'highest levels' to work out a solution.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 68351.html

“

Note: delayed export clearences from Russia. WTF does it have to do with when the indents were raised by MoD?

Gilles had posted the figures before, a civilian Il 76 figures vs mil C 17, while that might be a little off, it already showed that operating Il 76s was much cheaper.

I am sure he will repost it, but I thought I will get in a post anyway.

Okay let me try and say this once more, and slowly, the service of life of Il 76 + midlife upgrade means that Ils will be around for AT LEAST 15 years more.

Now if in your vocabulary, "Is being replaced" refers to a process refers to a event that will "potentially happen after 15 years" ???

Jai ho.

Meanwhile I am willing to take a bet that Il 76s will quite certainly be around and will never be replaced by C 17s but some other a/c (may be newer Ils) in 40-50 ton carrying class.

The C 17s will very soon be seen to be white elephants, expensive to operate and maintain, painful to use, with many options that are easier.

Dear Arnab, as far as you are concerned, these both figures are hearsay, since GoI does not release these figures, So R Chattopadhaya who wrote that, and I both are speaking on behalf of your sources.

While you might have the onerous task of choosing which source to believe in (actually in your case I know what you will believe anyway regardless of any facts etc) --

I know what my sources are, and therefore do not need to get into a pissing contest -- the worst uptime was 70%, and its pretty serious, for front line fighters (which they were then) -- so "deal" with it.

Also your own source says



So the fact of Mig 29 uptime was not a issue of the aircraft, or its vendors mal-intent, but the political situation, something which is repeatedly, deliberately and maliciously distorted.

Mig 29s are one of the easiest and most reliable a/cs -- its uptimes are better than all other comparable western types with MUCH less effort.

Mig 29s supply chain issues have since then been solved with HALs and BRDs weighing in heavily with both replacements with locally made/procured items and better political situation in Russia.

OTOH -- the western types continue to be substantially dependent on tender loving care, since that is the design philosphy of the a/c and not a fact of current political situation (of course when they sanction us, these tender a/c just stop working, totally they have uptimes of like 0%)

Replacement is an iterative process. If there is life in the IL air frames flog-them - sure, but as the CAS has said that they are approaching the end of their life cycle. By the time the C-17s start coming the ILs will have another 10 years of life left. That is when the transition will occur with the Transport suadrons learning to operate and train on these air crafts. The C-17s will be the mainstay of our heavy lift capability. That is the replacement that the CAS is mentioning.

We do not know anything at all about whether the IAF is indeed interested in a new improved 'cheap & best' IL76 or other 'numerous' alternatives . What we do know is that the IAF will probably exercise its options to buy more than 10 C-17s.

Yeah, iterative process.

Wake me up when the first Il 76 is retired and your iteration begins.

Till then, try and get used to reality -- and learn the difference between "is being replaced" will "potentially look at replacement in 15 years time"


Let me make one more prediction, this quid pro quo approach for acquisition of mil hardware is not sustainable.

Buying overpriced white elephants to make your friends in US happy may be great politics, just like managing the voting in parliament was, but poor operational strategy going forward.

When your choices are dictated by "other things" and you leave it for IAF to "manage a use" post facto -- the cheerful statements from IAF will not last very long -- perhaps not even till next CAG report.

I'm sure Rupak the author (one of the owners of BR I believe) has greater access and knowledge about IAF and wouldn't need to do subtle downhill skiing from 'servicability never below 72 per cent' to 'servicability of frontline aircraft never below 72 per cent'. But here is the rub sir - sources are only as good as your personal level of knowledge. So just like marching in a convoy to Kheotali will not give you knowledge about yileds in fission / fusion / boosted fission, similarly a visit to an IAF base will not give you any indication about servicability

So when do you think IAF should start forward planning in terms of replacing aircrafts that have outlived their useful lives? Or should we do knee jerk buying like T-90s

Kindly do not spin, I categorically state that I am aware that the serviceability of Mig 29s never went down below 70%. There are many things that were done which were not "publicly shared"

I will differ with Rupak on this -- period.

There is no "subtle" climbdown or anything, this habit of interesting interpretations of simple sentences must be eschewed, it is becoming a far too common malady in certain quarters.



That statement boss, again only goes to show that you have zero clue on how things are you must understand that others are not like you, and when they go to Khetolai or a airbase, they are not marching about.

Kick off this habit of projecting yourself on others.

In any event your main points are all shown to be wrong, by any which source -- all you have is "interpretation" of English to make X mean Y.

I think it would be fair to say the days of rough and ready nokia 1100 torch phones are gone. the new smartphone demands good handling , lots of power and upgrades but in return gives quantum leaps in what you can do.

any new kit is intensive in electronics and software and needs TLC. this would go for the new kit like Irbis or Mig29K as well....Rus itself will change their philosophy now that they have to live with few 100 airframes not the tens of 1000s of 'disposable' kit their factories churned out in cold war. stuff has got to last and be upgradeable.

some would say the days of 'real men' flying fighters and 1-vs-1 'come on lets dance' machogiri are gone. you could do that but a small, cowardly yindu flying at mach1.6 @ 70000ft stealth airframe could unleash a mach6 dart aam and knock you down with no warning.


Mig29 cockpit http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/ ... ockpit.jpg
Rafale cockpit http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... fale_7.jpg

Why saar? do share (with a source please, these word of mouth whisperings as a cover up for lack of data is plainly boring. This must be the new age BRF - earlier, words had to be backed by source) - it was 20 years ago - were they hanging the mig-29s from an IL-76 and flying about with the pilot making vroom vroom noise with his mouth?

Actually IAF had started the process before the IUCNA was signed by talking about how they would do go the whole 9 yards, RFI, RFP test negotiations etc.

Suddenly the entire process was scrapped and a knee jerk purchase of C 17s was made.

For T 90s we know what the reason which made the knee jerk (Pakistan's acquisition of T 80 and Kargil) -- in this case there is no fig leaf even to explain what caused the knee to jerk was.

You need to grow up child.

I never thought I will hear Darth Singha say this.

Whats happening to the world!!

------------------

More seriously, I am not sure if indeed the days of rough and ready are gone. Hi-tech which is "delicate" is usually a short-term option at best -- what we need (we as in all of us including US) -- is hi-tech which is also rough and ready.

"I am not sure if spend 100 hours gluing a panel in a/c room to get optimum stealth" -- is a valid workable solution. These things are fine as long as things dont get really hot, but after they do, the more robust solution even if at slightly lower tech levels will win.

I believe we are seeing this in many places -- there is a need to have electronics which take a lot of s*** and dont pack up in heat and dust. Airframes which can be turned around quickly, modular designs etc etc.

A pack of wolves may be infra-dig, but a wolf pack or heyna pack often survives when the Lion does not.

Yes indeed! I will once again continue to point out your hypocritical spin, lies and evasions



here is your post from then:


Which just states what we already knew from articles. It does ZERO to address how India could resolve the situation or why we should trust them in the future. If India has to deal with Rosoboronexport and Rosoboronexport is being a problem, how does that give any confidence of supply in the future?

You did NOT provide any hypothetical solution until your most recent post saying that a proxy company could bypass Rosoboronexport.



Now who is feigning amnesia?

viewtopic.php?p=771792#p771792



They weren't testing the C-17, they were testing their ability to rapidly construct a runway. A point that is obvious to anyone who spent 15 seconds browsing the document.





You quoted their goal and you STILL can't figure it out, unbelievable!

Let me repeat it again, in bold, in caps so maybe you will get it:

THEY WERE TESTING THEIR ABILITY TO RAPIDLY CONSTRUCT A RUNWAY

Landing a C-17 on an existing airfield does NOT test your ability to RAPIDLY CONSTRUCT A RUNWAY

Again, the test was NOT about the C-17, it was about their ability to RAPIDLY CONSTRUCT A RUNWAY

It even says in the title "Joint Rapid Airfield Construction (JRAC)"




No he didn't. Stop misinterpreting people



He said it was MORE THAN ADEQUATE 'especially since' and 'solely because'. Notice the difference in terminology? Even if it had been wet, it still would have been adequate, but being dry gave them super-large margins of safety.

let's continue the quote from above:



In other words, Rhino was long enough to be ok, but shorter fields will be problematic until we can get real data

Now let's examine some of the details you ignored/glossed over:



Since they didn't have actual data for wet SPR ops, they based the calculation off a worst-case scenario: ice.

We already know it isn't nearly that bad, both from common sense and the actual tests done later. In other words, using the current calculations, Rhino would WELL within safety margins.



5,370 landing distance is well under the nearly 7,000-foot length of the runway.



And Rhino was nearly 7,000 feet, so even going by the absolute worst case calculation (ice) and max landing weight, it was probably fine.

BUT let's say the commander is a stickler for details and doesn't want to 'risk' it even though the RCR is obviously higher than that of ice? Simply land the planes a little lighter and Rhino will accomodate even worst-case assumptions. Thus rain would not have shut down Rhino and no one claimed that. At worst it would have slightly reduced the load of each plane.




No, you said it COULD NOT go there



Not that the government was being overly cautious, not that they were gradually working up to a full capability, but that it flat-out could not do it.



I don't know. But it apparently has been extremely frustrating for the IAF. What is your explanation?

What I do know is that they're going to be hesitant to invest any more in the planes until the situation is resolved.



Not necessarily. Just because they aren't asking for those aircraft to be covered doesn't mean they're satisfied. They may be contractually prohibited from doing so on those aircraft. Until we know more, it would be unwise to make any assumptions about satisfaction with spares.

You just do not know that. Its pure speculation on your part. Maybe there is am unresolved conflict which may not even involve aircraft (subs or tanks, or AK-47s) which is causing the problem. Venezuela is not getting F-16 parts from the US, it's not because the parts aren't available.

Some years ago, I remember one country that was claiming it could not get spares from Russia for maintaining its Russian Fighters. Then Russia put out a statement. The State of Russia owed that country money, a debt inherited from the USSR. Well that country, instead of buying spares for its fighters, wanted the Russian State to pay for the spares to the Russian suppliers, and deduct the money from the debt. Russia was unwilling or unable to accept such an arrangement at the time so the other country's fighters remained mostly grounded as a result. It didn't mean the parts were not available. It's because the buyer country did not want to pay for them, because of an unrelated commercial conflict.

I do not know the nature of the problem between India and Rosoboronexport, but neither do you! The fact is that IL-76 parts are available to others, but the IAF has a procurement problem to get them. Unless someone here who has the inside story decides to enlighten us over it, you cannot speculate that Rosoboronexport is a problem and that the Russians are unreliable.

If that were true, George, they could have built and used that specially built runway, while at the same time landing their C-17s any of the numerous other Australian unpaved runways. But they didn't! The ONLY Australian unpaved runway that ever got to see the C-17 was the one they built for it. Why ? Isn't that a little fishy to you ?

Also, if you read the report, the project was was not about "constructing" runways out of the bush, but about upgrading existing runways so that a C-17 could use it. So we start with an aircraft that can land on unpaved runway, but we first need to upgrade the existing unpaved runways so that the C-17 can land.

In Canada: After 3 years of no unpaved runway operation, Canada has finally landed its C-17 on two unpaved runway in the high arctic, Resolute and Alert, (and the only reason you know about it by the way, is because I POSTED IT HERE), but only because these runways (6500 feet and 5500 feet long) are built on perma frost ground that is as hard as concrete. The two unpaved runways where they landed the C-17 also saw the landings of Boeing 737s, Lockheed P-3s and Bombardier Challenger jets. Come on! See the light!

"Could not" in the sense that they were not allowed to go there.

By the way, after making much PR around the fact that they had finally used the C-17 to re-supply CFS Alert in 2010 (hauling around 45 tonnes per flight), I Googled all over the internet and was unable to find any trace of a C-17 in Alert in the 2011 Boxtop operation, which took place between August and September 2011. I found a few pictures of C-130s on the ground in Alert, but no articles, no C-17 pictures, nothing.......

To show you how landing in gravel CFS Alert was a non event, a couple pictures:

B-737 on the ground in Alert in 2009:

http://www.tripadvisor.fr/LocationPhotos-g670329-w3-Alert_Nunavut.html#23005575

CP-140 Aurora (Canadian version pf P3) in Alert

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/14w-14e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=11739#photos

Wow, observe the Gilles reality distortion field in effect everyone!

What do you mean IF?

Right there in the document:



They had spent money developing the JRAC team and wanted a suitable demonstration of its capability. Do you deny that? How can you deny that?



Your 'proof' that there were no suitable runways in Australia is that they didn't use other ones? Really? Gilles, Gilles, Gilles, have you learned nothing from your Alert foot-in-mouth debacle?

Just because they don't choose to do something to satisfy your demands doesn't mean they can't.

They didn't fly to Alert for years, which proved they can't. Until they did.

They didn't use other fields in Australia, which proves they can't. Do you see the problem with your 'logic' yet?




No more 'fishy' than not flying to Alert for years.

What I find really hilarious is your desire to find problem where there are none (Australian dirt fields, Alert, etc) while pretending that real problems that the Air Force actually complains about (Il-76 spares) aren't an issue.




They were hard as concrete well before the C-17 came, so why the delay? Who knows? What we do know is that it is NOT because the aircraft wasn't capable of it (which is what you repeatedly try claim).

So is that a limitation of the plane or the government?

It's clearly not a limitation of the plane, so what's your point here?

If it's not a limitation of the plane, it's not relevant on an INDIAN forum.

If you want to complain about CANADA's policies, go to a CANADIAN forum.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the CC-177s were a little bit busy elsewhere? Like, maybe HELPING WITH THE CANADIAN WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN?

Dumb and un-educated people fall for demagogy, the intelligent and the educated see right through it.
Are we posting here for the dumb and the un-educated, or for the intelligent and the educated ? I know who I write for GeorgeWelch. You..... we'll I'm not too certain.