C-17s for the IAF?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 01 Jun 2010 14:44

Sanku wrote: How has IAF made it known? I say Shukla statement is complete made up BS. He is taken to US and shown around a Boeing facility and comes back and says Il 76 has 25% serviceability rates in IAF?

Meanwhile the point about references by Gilles was simple -- all publicly available information shows that Il 76 are being operated easily and cheaply the world over -- but out of the blue Col Shukla says that it is not so?

Lets forget Shukla for the moment since you evidently distrust him:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/lockh ... e/597650/0

The IAF's two IL-76 squadrons and five AN-32 squadrons have been besieged with poor serviceability record of less than 50 per cent, meaning the fleet was available to the Air Force for less than half their intended utilisation and a huge shortfall in their assigned tasks and performance, mainly due to non-availability of spares and inadequate maintenance.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Ind ... ion-05391/

May 28/09: Pravda reports that India rejected the IL-78s because of they didn’t meet stated requisitions, but adds that Russia’s poor performance with spare parts supplies and after-sales service also played a role.

Note that this is a Russian source in case you dont agree with IE as well.

Meanwhile the IE report quoted above makes mentions to CAG reports as well:

"High levels of un-serviceability indicated that repair and maintenance capabilities at wings and repair depots were inadequate," the CAG report had said, adding that actual flying tasks fell significantly short of the task prescribed by the government, ranging between 49 and 59 per cent.

We would need to take a look at the CAG report to see what they say about Il 76 in particular. But the above does make it clear that IAF is not happy.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 14:47

Rahul,

Two points here:

1) $50 million is the price that's being quoted without question for Il76s that India may buy when comparing to the price of C-17s. If you do a quick calculation of the Chinese deal:

$1.5 billion + $400 million for 34 Il76 and 4 Il78 refuellers then you get $50 million per plane.

I hope you see why I think this point is relevant. The Russians signed a deal with the Chinese to sell the planes for $39 million a piece and then raised the price to $50 million. The deal was done sometime in 2005-06.

Now in 2010-11 if we sign a deal for a "new and improved" Il76 for $50 million, can we be sure that we won't be informed of "miscalculation" further down the road, especially given the cureent condition of Ilyushin?

2) Regarding the pizza analogy, maybe it was too flippant.

But the point remains that we are assuming that the Russians would do whatever customisation we would require for the Il76 and deliver within reasonable timelines and price. You've yourself said (and quite rightly) that whatever heavy lifter we buy should be able to ferry an Arjun or at least a T90.

For that we'd have to have a major redesign of the Il76. Yet we haven't even considered if Ilyushin can do that and at what cost and what timelines.

The pizza analogy was because it's something that you can order and be reasonably sure that it would arrive within a fixed time and at a fixed price. But apologies if you think that it was too strawmanish as an analogy - anyway I never really liked pizzas!

And finally if you don't like the way I post and think they are flame baits please just say the word and I'll withdraw from this debate and watch all the interesting balanced points that are being posted.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2010 14:50

>> 1) $50 million is the price that's being quoted without question for Il76s that India may buy when comparing to the price of C-17s. If you do a quick calculation of the Chinese deal:

being quoted by whom ?

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 14:52

Rahul M wrote:>> 1) $50 million is the price that's being quoted without question for Il76s that India may buy when comparing to the price of C-17s. If you do a quick calculation of the Chinese deal:

being quoted by whom ?

Please have a look at some of the posts on this thread. You'll see that's a figure that's being quoted.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 14:58

Thanks Tanaji; this is a point worth discussion on.

Tanaji wrote: The IAF's two IL-76 squadrons and five AN-32 squadrons have been besieged with poor serviceability record of less than 50 per cent, meaning the fleet was available to the Air Force for less than half their intended utilisation and a huge shortfall in their assigned tasks and performance, mainly due to non-availability of spares and inadequate maintenance.

Note the the fact that the all the transport squadrons are mentioned in one breath. So we dont know, what Il and An records are, neither does IE!!

Let me again quote from the IE report quoting CAG

In fact, India's government auditors have slammed the IAF in their 2007 report, observing that against a 75 per cent serviceability level when the AN-32 was procured in 1985, the actual rate ranged between 47 per cent and 51 per cent.

So clearly the An rate was a issue enough for CAG to rate it directly and mention 47 to 51 %.

1) It has NO QUOTES from CAG on Il 76
2) For AN 32 the numbers are 50%

So from wherefore comes the 25% for Il number from Col Shukla?

A 50% serviceability by An is issue enough for CAG to directly mention it but NO mentions of IL?

In fact the AN issue is well known and thats why the ANs are heading for a Mid life upgrade program, and so will ILs when their time comes.

As will be needed for the C 17s if IAF wants to use it for 40 years or so.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 01 Jun 2010 14:59

Rahul M wrote:>> 1) $50 million is the price that's being quoted without question for Il76s that India may buy when comparing to the price of C-17s. If you do a quick calculation of the Chinese deal:

being quoted by whom ?

Not to butt in but from

http://www.sinodefence.com/news/2008/news08-07-04-1.asp

A purchase deal involving 30 IL-76MD and 9 IL-78 worth US$1.045 billion was soon announced after the exercise.

That translates to $27M a pop?

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 15:13

Here's another reference the China-Russia deal for Il76s.

However, the mass production of IL-76 family at TAPO in early 2000s fell into serious problems. This is mainly due to reductions in the factory: If at the end of the 1980's in the TAPO employed 50 thousand people, by 2005 it was less than 10 thousand This has affected the performance of a number of contracts. In particular, for a year and a half was delayed assembly of three Il-76MD-90 for the manufacture on the basis of their long-range radar detection aircraft A-50EI for India. Only in January 2008 (instead of summer 2006), the first of three cars went to Israel to install its Phalcon radar and onward transmission to the Indian Air Force. According to a September 2005 contract between Rosoboronexport and China's Defense Ministry, worth $1.5 billion, Russia was supposed to deliver 34 Il-76 Candid medium-range military transport aircraft and four Il-78 Midas aerial refueling tankers. Delivery was planned for 2008-2012. The first deliveries under the contract were due to begin in 2007, but in March 2006, Uzbekistan's Tashkent Chkalov Aircraft Association, the manufacturer of the aircraft, refused to sign a production contract with Rosoboronexport at the contract price. The Tashkent plant had no large orders in the late 1990's and was without significant subsidies, and thus was unable to fulfill an agreement. According to TAPO, the real cost of assembling 38 aircraft was more than $ 400 million more than the contract price agreed with Beijing. As a result, the agreement was delayed, and Beijing suspended negotiations on this and several other military contracts with Russia.

That translates to $50 million per plane after "miscalculation" charges are added.

My point is, are we sure that Rosoboronexport wouldn't pull something similar on us, if we were to ask them to not only supply planes but make major modifications to convert them to wide-bodied transporters?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2010 15:14

amit sahab, you were sayng some here were arguing that ordering widebody IL-76 for $50 mn was as easy as ordering pizza, I'm asking who(as in which BR member) said that ?

Tanaji ji, (

) you misunderstood, please see above.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 15:31

Rahul, nice!

OK let me do a mea culpa and own up for my transgressions in order to take this interesting debate forward. I was wrong and my apologies to everyone who misunderstood what I wrote.

Now the question is, could somebody make an estimate at what could be an estimated price range for a widebodied IL76 that the Russians could derive from the Il76MD?

I think it would be only fair to get this estimate in order to determine just how costly the C-17 is in relation to an alternative?

Would you hazard to take a guess, boss?

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 15:34

^^^^^
To add to the above, we should note $220 million is the base price of the C17. I would certainly like the gurus to take a dig at what the base price of a modified Il76 could possibly be. Otherwise we really don't have any data points to conclude the C17 is horrendously expensive, na? The Il76 is the only comparable plane available.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2010 15:43

boss, I think I already did in my last round of posts here. ~ 150 mn was the figure I believe, based on the cost of the PS-90 engined MF. Gilles has since added info about the problems with PS-90 engine production, which is not a trivial point. IOW, the problems with IL-76 keep piling on and OTOH we have the daylight robbery from boink. not a nice place to be in.

p.s it is the after-sales and spares of the C-17 that is making it exorbitant, I don't doubt that this would have been MUCH lower for IL-76 (standard disclaimers about other things going smoothly applies here) not least because we already have much of the infrastructure in place.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 01 Jun 2010 16:05

The Canadian Air Force owns and operates 5 A-310-300 aircraft (late eighties and early nineties vintage, so similar to the IAF IL-76s). They each fly about 1000 hours a year and have a poor serviceability record although the Air Force Airframes are relatively low time (30 to 40,000 hours). This is despite the fact that Canada has 3000 soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.

Air Transat, also in Canada, operates a fleet of 13 Airbus 310-300s, which each fly about 4500 hours per year, although these aircraft mostly have between 60 and 70,000 hours of airframe time (double the flight time the Canadian Air Force aircraft have). What is the difference ? Their maintenance organization. And their attitude.

Air Transat even got a prize from Airbus for their reliability. http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/arch ... c8290.html

The Air Force people are happy to demonstrate to gullible taxpayers that their aircraft are old and inadequate. In Canada, the AF wanted new C-17s and they got them. They could not have done this if their fleet of A-310s had been doing an outstanding job of supplying the army in Afghanistan with troops and supplies. In the case of an airline, its the bottom line that counts. Will we make more money by investing in maintaining our old fleet or by scrapping it and buying new aircraft ?

I'm afraid that its the difference in philosophy between the Airline CEO and the Air Force General that makes the difference. There is not an Air Force in the World (even the US) that has a higher dispatch reliability than a well run third world airline. And it has NOTHING to do with the Aircraft.

I've mentioned it several times. India is about to sign a multi Billion dollar contract with Boeing for C-17 maintenance. Its about to buy huge stocks of parts for C-17. None of this was done for the Il-76.

So don't blame the aircraft. Give the IL-76 adequate maintenance and its dispatch reliability will rise. Afford your new C-17s as little maintenance as you provide your IL-76s with, and you will see them become as unreliable as IAF IL-76 are claimed to be.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 16:05

Rahul, true after sales and spares are a sticking point. But OTOH serviceability is also an issue. If we take what Ajai wrote at face value, and then look at the back of the envelop calculations that Arnab did on the last page, then we get some interesting figures don't we.

Add to this anecdotal evidence (that what we're ever like to get in open source) that IAF seems to be damn unhappy with the Il76 series of planes - Phalcon doesn't count because I don't think a Boeing body was on offer, and it was too risky anyway, for the AWACS platform - then we have an interesting picture.

I would assume that the folks who take these decisions are not duffers and the must have done some due diligence and concluded that a platform with much higher upfront costs was more desirable.

Do note this point is just not in the case of the C17 but also for the A330 refueller.

I don't think we can ignore these data points.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 16:09

Yes let us believe the outlandish and uncorroborated reports by one journo at face value, and ignore the very real and available data points for the moment.

Good discussion strategy...

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 16:10

Gilles wrote:I'm afraid that its the difference in philosophy between the Airline CEO and the Air Force General that makes the difference. There is not an Air Force in the World (even the US) that has a higher dispatch reliability than a well run third world airline. And it has NOTHING to do with the Aircraft.

Gilles,

While I take your point about Airlines CEOs being more cost concious than Air Force Generals, don't you think military transport is generally used in harsh conditions than civilian transport? For example C17 were used in Haiti from damaged airfields, could an civilian Airbus/Boeing operate with equal ease in such conditions?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 01 Jun 2010 16:11

I think its even more simple: there is no alternative currently to the C-17

An 124 is not in production (sure there are "plans"
IL 76 wide body is still on paper

IAF thinks it needs something in the C-17 lift class, not Il-76 class. So what remains? Had An 124 been available, I am sure it would have been a good alternative.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 16:12

Sanku wrote:Yes let us believe the outlandish and uncorroborated reports by one journo at face value, and ignore the very real and available data points for the moment.

Good discussion strategy...

Boss until and unless you can give an alternative figure or quote such a figure, then there's no point in such posts is there?

For example you haven't explained why we should consider the figures to be "outlandish" and "uncorroborated"?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 01 Jun 2010 16:12

Sanku wrote:Yes let us believe the outlandish and uncorroborated reports by one journo at face value, and ignore the very real and available data points for the moment.

Good discussion strategy...

Saar, even Pravda and IE are saying more or less the same thing. Add to that CAG. As I said, lets ignore Shiv since you dont like him.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 16:14

Tanaji wrote:I think its even more simple: there is no alternative currently to the C-17

An 124 is not in production (sure there are "plans"
IL 76 wide body is still on paper

IAF thinks it needs something in the C-17 lift class, not Il-76 class. So what remains? Had An 124 been available, I am sure it would have been a good alternative.

That's the point Tanaji. The same reason why we bought the Goroshkov despite all the arm twisting and at a cost almost equivalent to a new carrier - because there was no alternative.

I'm sure if there were alternatives, the price of the C17s would have been discounted dramatically by Boeing.

We can argue that the IAF does not need the capability that C17 provides. But we cannot say the IAF should have bought this or that instead of C17 to get the same capability.

That's a point I've been trying to state between transgressions involving pizzas and other interesting stuff.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 16:14

Tanaji wrote:I think its even more simple: there is no alternative currently to the C-17.

Correct, but only because adequate due diligence was never done before running helter skeltor at quick time into this mess.

Should a clearly defined role and a RFP followed by a global order was placed, surely options would have started popping up. Not like there is any hurry to get the transports anyway is there?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 16:16

Tanaji wrote:
Sanku wrote:Yes let us believe the outlandish and uncorroborated reports by one journo at face value, and ignore the very real and available data points for the moment.

Good discussion strategy...

Saar, even Pravda and IE are saying more or less the same thing. Add to that CAG. As I said, lets ignore Shiv since you dont like him.

Sorry NO. There is a difference between Airbus 330 tanker uptime being better w.r.t. Il 76 tanker and having a 25% up time for the cargo fleet.

A whole world of difference.

The difference between truth and lie.

The difference between real journalism and lifafa.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Jun 2010 16:18

Viv S wrote:What are the real figures then?

Ask the IAF , serviceability of any aircraft are operational matters something IAF will never disclose it.

Maybe, maybe not. The IAF's Il-76s are 25 years old, while Il-78 and Phalcon platform are seven and two years old respectively. However its an interesting fact that the IAF opted for a substantially more expensive A-330 over the (logistically sensible) Il-78 for its future aerial tanker.

Even if the IL-76 are 25 years old they must be well maintained and serviced bird , assuming it just gives 25 % of uptimes can at best be termed ridiculous Unless some one can quote that figure from MOD/IAF.

Well one has to look into cost/benefit ratio while looking into A-330 rejection by MOF viz a viz IL-78 , the MOF babus would have rejected it on good grounds.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 16:19

Sanku wrote:
I think its even more simple: there is no alternative currently to the C-17.
Correct, but only because adequate due diligence was never done before running helter skeltor at quick time into this mess.

Should a clearly defined role and a RFP followed by a global order was placed, surely options would have started popping up. Not like there is any hurry to get the transports anyway is there?

Sanku,

The plane makers capable of making such a transport are well known.

And they are two firms in the US, the Russians and Europeans.

Of the three, the Europeans are concentrating on a plane in the 37 ton class.

That leaves the C17 or the Il76.

Could enlighten us how an RFP would changed what is essentially a two-horse race?

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 16:20

Austin wrote:the MOF babus would have rejected it on good grounds.

And the IAF folks were rooting for the A330 on bad grounds?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 01 Jun 2010 16:21

amit wrote:Rahul, nice!

OK let me do a mea culpa and own up for my transgressions in order to take this interesting debate forward. I was wrong and my apologies to everyone who misunderstood what I wrote.

Now the question is, could somebody make an estimate at what could be an estimated price range for a widebodied IL76 that the Russians could derive from the Il76MD?

I think it would be only fair to get this estimate in order to determine just how costly the C-17 is in relation to an alternative?

Would you hazard to take a guess, boss?

I think that talking about wide-bodied IL-76 is ridiculous at this stage. We were all just speculating about that possibility. I have not heard that anything of the sort is even on the drawing boards. I do not think that widening the cargo bay is even planned in the upgraded and modernized IL-476 being built in Russia.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 16:25

I fine it funny that the Il 76 25% figure, plus all the cost can be lower for C 17, plus the wining and dining of journo's by Boeing etc happened soon after the C 17 acquisition inconsistencies were thoroughly exposed and trashed on BRF.

May be BRF has a impact after all.....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2010 16:27

re: amit

I can't vouch for the Col Shukla's numbers but it is known that IAF IL-76's have had poor uptimes in the recent past, I made that point last page. however, we don't know the reasons, is it a problem with the aircraft itself or a problem from the OEM side which can be resolved in the future(there are afterall freighter IL-76's still going strong all over the world.) it's not unheard of, the mig-21's spent the 90's with uptimes hovering around 50% or less. as OEM performance improved, the bisons, which are afterall old birds, had uptimes of >80% last I heard, couple of years back ! that was higher than what the M2k was managing at the time !

please do not think that I'm putting less weightage on serviceability, not at all. all I'm objecting to is the cost that one is supposed to pay, it's nowhere near reasonable.
>> IL 76 wide body is still on paper
actually it isn't anywhere else other than a few BRFite's fertile minds.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 16:28

Gilles wrote:I think that talking about wide-bodied IL-76 is ridiculous at this stage. We were all just speculating about that possibility. I have not heard that anything of the sort is even on the drawing boards. I do not think that widening the cargo bay is even planned in the upgraded and modernized IL-476 being built in Russia.

Well speculation is the mother of invention I guess. Unfortunately folks who have to take decisions which affect the nation's military preparedness can't depend on wishes and speculation.

On a more serious note, I would have loved it if the Il76 wide-body was a reality as I'm sure the price of the C17 would have dropped steeply. But the point is from a Russian POV they really don't have need for such a plane as they've got a supply of flyable An124s and as you mentioned there's even talk of developing the next gen An124 with the Americans. Then why would they need to invest in a wide-body IL76?

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 16:30

Rahul M wrote:please do not think that I'm putting less weightage on serviceability, not at all. all I'm objecting to is the cost that one is supposed to pay, it's nowhere near reasonable.

I agree with you 400 per cent on that. It's daylight robbery. However, I can't see an alternative, save for IAF shelving the idea of getting the capabilities (in terms of the ability to haul stuff) which a C17 brings to the table.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 16:39

There was always an alternative, of NOT going the FMS route, of first defining the role, sending the tender to as many corps as possible and then the usual method of selection.

The absence of this is the primary issue -- everything else is spin.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Jun 2010 16:40

Gilles wrote:
<SNIP>

The Air Force people are happy to demonstrate to gullible taxpayers that their aircraft are old and inadequate. In Canada, the AF wanted new C-17s and they got them. They could not have done this if their fleet of the A-310 had been doing an outstanding job of supplying the army in Afghanistan with troops and supplies. In the case of an airline, its the bottom line that counts. Will we make more money by investing in maintaining our old fleet or by scrapping it and buying new aircraft ?

I'm afraid that its the difference in philosophy between the Airline CEO and the Air Force General that makes the difference. There is not an Air Force in the World (even the US) that has a higher dispatch reliability than a well run third world airline. And it has NOTHING to do with the Aircraft.

<SNIP>

Gilles, this one actually takes the cake. You've no idea of what you're talking about. You've been requested before not to extrapolate the situation as might be obtained in other AFs or countries to India but in your blind hatred for the C-17, you simply fail to see reason.

You're actually accusing the IAF of deliberately sabotaging the serviceability of IL-76 to get C-17? That IAF is on purpose showing IL-76 in poor light? Please stop this nonsense and take this drivel somewhere else.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Jun 2010 16:41

amit wrote:
Austin wrote:the MOF babus would have rejected it on good grounds.
And the IAF folks were rooting for the A330 on bad grounds?

No not at all , much like any other defence procurement it is IAF right to put its preference to GOI and GOI right to accept or reject the same.

The IAF did their part by opting for an aircraft they think meets their need better but MOF thinks the high cost paid and cost/benefit gained is not worth.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 16:42

@Rohit -- He is talking of his Air Force, the Canadian one actually.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 01 Jun 2010 16:46

amit wrote:
Gilles wrote:I'm afraid that its the difference in philosophy between the Airline CEO and the Air Force General that makes the difference. There is not an Air Force in the World (even the US) that has a higher dispatch reliability than a well run third world airline. And it has NOTHING to do with the Aircraft.
Gilles,

While I take your point about Airlines CEOs being more cost conscious than Air Force Generals, don't you think military transport is generally used in harsh conditions than civilian transport? For example C17 were used in Haiti from damaged airfields, could an civilian Airbus/Boeing operate with equal ease in such conditions?

Amit, I'm afraid you have not been reading this thread. 99.9999 per cent of C-17 flights take off from and land on long, hard surfaced runways. Port-au-Prince, Haiti, where I flew to a few days after the earthquake, had an intact 10,000 foot long concrete runway. Its only the terminal building that was damaged.

In Iraq the C-17s only land on long hard surfaced runways that any large passenger jet can use. In Afghanistan too, except for ONE runway which although made of gravel, was custom built by US Army Corp of engineers to accommodate the C-17 and could also accommodate any Boeing 727 and 737 that was fitted with a gravel kit.

Look at this contract offer:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=1

The US Government is taking bids to replace a 5000 foot gravel runway with a 6000 foot asphalt runway capable of all weather operations for C-17. Why would they be spending this money if the C-17 could land on a 3500 foot gravel runway, let alone this 5000 foot one.

Google "Camp Salerno" and "C-130" and you will find plenty of stories and pictures. Google "Camp Salerno" and "C-17" and you will find one story: the need to build a 6000 foot C-17 capable asphalt runway.

I've made it clear. I've provided plenty of evidence. Yet there are still people like journalist Ajai Shukla who although they know it is not true, write things like

Operating from short, mud-paved landing strips such as those on India’s borders, the C-17 can lift 75-tonne payloads to anywhere in China, Central Asia, the Gulf countries and much of south-east Asia, without refuelling. Capable of carrying 188 passengers, or 102 fully kitted paratroopers, Globemasters have brought out as many as 300 refugees during humanitarian missions from disaster zones like Haiti.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 01 Jun 2010 16:48

Sanku wrote:I fine it funny that the Il 76 25% figure, plus all the cost can be lower for C 17, plus the wining and dining of journo's by Boeing etc happened soon after the C 17 acquisition inconsistencies were thoroughly exposed and trashed on BRF.

May be BRF has a impact after all.....

I suspect you are correct.......and I've suggested it before.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Jun 2010 16:50

Sanku wrote:@Rohit -- He is talking of his Air Force, the Canadian one actually.

And I did make that reply after reading his entire post.

But what is the point in quoting the example of Canadian Air Force and C-17/A-310 when BRF was debating the serviceability of IL-76 in IAF?

Why even write something like this:

The Air Force people are happy to demonstrate to gullible taxpayers that their aircraft are old and inadequate.

What am I supposed to make of it?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 16:55

@Rohit, well the way I read it was two points

1) Canadian AF did a bit of hanky panky in projecting the service rates
2) Service rates depend on money spent.

I did not read it as you did.

Just offering my perspective -- Gilles can speak for himself.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2010 17:02

Austin wrote:
amit wrote:And the IAF folks were rooting for the A330 on bad grounds?
No not at all , much like any other defence procurement it is IAF right to put its preference to GOI and GOI right to accept or reject the same.

The IAF did their part by opting for an aircraft they think meets their need better but MOF thinks the high cost paid and cost/benefit gained is not worth.

MOF is justified if the total size of the deal was limited to six, as was reported, since it doesn't make much sense to have a fleet of 12 divided down the middle into two. all savings on low maintenance and fuel efficiency goes out of the window in maintaining two separate types.

however, if the eventual size of the deal was expected to be larger(IMHO the ideal size should be around 20 at least and IAF does tend to order in small batches rather than all in one go) it makes sense to standardise on a civilian airliner model.

although, it didn't necessarily have to be spanking new ones from airbus, there are many civilian airliners in good condition available from operators in India and even abroad which can be converted to MAR configuration by IAI's bedek. IAF does operate ex Air India aircrafts so this is not a new thing for them.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Jun 2010 17:16

Rahul you have the answer , AFAIK IAF plans to procure only 6 additional refuellers so prolly opting for IL-78 makes more sense , if one takes into account the transport fleet and the planned fleet of AWACS based on IL-76

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2010 17:24

Austin, all we know is that 6 was the initial number, we would be hard pressed to find one single case where the IAF ordered all in one single large order(the ones I do remember, M2k, deemed too costly, mig-29 the associated conditions were unacceptable). when even much smaller air forces have much larger tanker fleets, it seems very unlikely that IAF with its huge AOR would want to be stuck with just 12.