C-17s for the IAF?

[Philip]

Nachi,criticism accepted.Shall let of safety valve elsewhere next time and stick to basics!

[KiranM]

Viv S, bringing in irrelevant strawmen and digressing from the main topic may be useful strategy when there is no meaningful answer to be given.

So as I am wont, let me summarize to get the real issues in forefront once again

1) IAF has NEVER talked about the need for a large Airlifter like C 17 ever.
2) No one has been able to make a case for use of C 17 in India at all.
3) ALL large military purchases in India are not the result of the forces decision, but a result of forces acquiring a capability in response to what its tasked for by GoI.
4) Even in cases which are straightforward one is one swap of systems like MRCA, GoI is involved in deciding what the needs of forces are in larger contexts.
5) All defence purchases take far longer, esp as large as this. This is being practically rushed through.

Everything I have said above can be easily verified by spending some time at MoD website. This has also been corroborated by ex officers of forces here, in addition my own personal experiences vouch for that.

Finally, what is your personal semantic interpretation of words is irrelevant to the matter at hand. If you have anything remotely meaningful to say on the above points, lets hear it with specific examples backed up by links.

If not (and I suspect not otherwise you would have already put up some data) please stop bringing in irrelevant and unconnected matters.

Asking others to substantiate their position while asking for your position to be researched smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

[Brahmananda]

10 c-17s imo is a good deal agree with Rao ji the price will go down once the offsets and local sourcing aspects of the deal comes in. Lots of spares etc will end up being made in India, so the final deal price will be lower. Besides we have an option for more and chances are they'll order another 10 at a later stage, eitherway i am ok. 10 C-17s thats more than 1 battalion SF units deployable very quickly and more in quick successions, such rapid mobility into theater is no doubt welcome. i hope they order 20 more. 30 C-17s would be a good number to have. That translates to 3 battalions of SF units deployable very quickly that is awesome fire power when you have guys like Para SF or Garuds or SFF or even Marcos being deployed. With careful planning such large amount of SF units early into theater can end the war very quickly with the enemy sustaining heavy damage and casualities. I hope they order upto 30 C-130J as well. A few of them c-130J as gunships as the US is now working on an armed version of the c-130J.

[Sanku]

This would simply mean that we are not yet aware of what is going through GOIs & IAFs mind rather than the scenario not existing.

Actually that post Arnab made later, does clear it up totally. C 17s are to help US with a interoperable support force in their missions.

Good/bad? That would be a discussion for strat forum.

[Sanku]

Retd. Air Marshal Ashok Goel (who incidentally had brought in the first IL-76 aircraft to India), comments on the C-17 deal & favourably so..

I think that does it. If a retired Air Marshal is supporting it then that is enough for me. I think then this is a good decision. Changing my vote.

There are others who will say not good enough, all retired senior Air force people. I expect some hard questions in public space soon.

[Sanku]

Asking others to substantiate their position while asking for your position to be researched smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

When the points can not be countered and there is bankruptcy of ideas personal attacks are expected.

[Shalav]

There are no offsets in this deal - this is an FMS deal - ie we are delivered the entire aircraft - just like the C130Js with all the strings and restrictions on end use attached.

Can someone who is really for this deal please tell us why the threat of sanctions are not a big deal? This is upto TWENTY SIX THOUSAND CROREs of Indian money which can be grounded if ever sanctions are applied.

If we are going to give them upto $5.8 billion instead of to the Russians - shouldn't we at-least be saying eff you and your EULAs and yearly inspections? You give us the same "no strings attached" deal the Russians give us or we go to them!

Instead I just see the Indian govt. and the IAF meekly bowing down to something with ropes attached - not strings.

doubleyouteeeff!

----added later----

The Amrikans and the Roosi have never really sold military stuff to customers who can both pay good money(ie full prices) AND have the ability and mind-set to purchase from both sides.

Its time we taught both of them what a buyers market really is!

[Manish_Sharma]

Cross posting from Tank Dhagaa:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 34#p864034

Well it is best left for IA and GOI to decide who should be our development partner East or West

[Austin]

manish saaar what is the idea of posting my views on another thread and without my knowledge ?

[Shalav]

Anyway 10 or 15 years from now we will see whether the opponents or the proponents of this deal were right.

Hopefully I will still be around this board to either accept the 'rightness' of this purchase or say 'I told you so'!

[Manish_Sharma]

manish saaar what is the idea of posting my views on another thread and without my knowledge?

Austinjee just wanted to see if pro T90 and anti C17 group accept the decision of GOI/IAF regarding C17 too also the same way as T90. I was about to put this point to you in Arjun thread that a guest came and I had to get up in the middle............ please understand I had no intentions of hiding it from you.

[Sid]

Like NRao ji has been shouting at the top of his voice here, $5.8 billion is NOT the final price. That is just the maximum price possible if the IAF buys every bell and whistle available along with the aircraft plus spares, training costs etc.. (Read This post again) Let's see what the final price looks like after the price negotiations have been concluded. If the negotiations fail to bring the price down to something we can afford, the deal could be scrapped.

Fine, but how many FMS deals have actually gone through price negotiations and prices have been lowered. Am not against such cute babies, but that doesn't mean we should allow yanks to sell equipment at such exuberant prices.

Point I tried to made was C-17 have been offered to other nations on lower prices. Are we paying more then we should?

- Australia - 4 C-17 and associated equipment -> 1.4 Billion. (new user) + 33 Million on Aircrew Training System + 200+ Million in infrastructure upgrades.

- Canada - 4 C-17 and associated equipment -> 1.6 Billion. (new user) + 1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

- Indian - 10 C-17 and associated equipment-> 5.8 Billion. (new user) + all hidden price (infrastructure upgrade, ATS etc) which were not detailed by DSCA.

- US - 10 C-17 -> 2.5 Billion. (existing user)

[Kersi D]

Its time we taught both of them what a buyers market really is !

Some hope Shalave, with our political system!!!!!!

K

PS BTW who is this we ? GOI ? MOD ? IAF ? BR Members ?

[Austin]

Indeed $5.8 billion for 10 puppies is quite high , have they included TOT cost and Lic manuf for more C-17 in India ?

[putnanja]

Indeed $5.8 billion for 10 puppies is quite high , have they included TOT cost and Lic manuf for more C-17 in India ?

I seriously doubt about ToT and license production. The max that India can afford may be around 10 more, so no license production for just 10-20 aircraft. And there doesn't appear to be any other big customer on the horizon.

Unfortunately, none of the FMS with US so far ( C-130J, C-17, M177 etc) have any offset clause or ToT associated with them.

[Sid]

Indeed $5.8 billion for 10 puppies is quite high , have they included TOT cost and Lic manuf for more C-17 in India ?

That is the fun part. AFAIK, deals through FMS are exempt from Offset clause. Hence they are not liable for any local production or anything.

[Shalav]

Kersi,

I meant the individuals who have really been passionately debating this issue on this board, but in a sense with upto 26,000 crore spent it really must be about how we will benefit or loose as Indians.

[Kersi D]

Kersi,

I meant the individuals who have really been passionately debating this issue on this board, but in a sense with upto 26,000 crore spent it really must be about how we will benefit or loose as Indians.

After all this Rs 26,000 crores belongs to us 1 billion Indians

K

[Viv S]

1) IAF has NEVER talked about the need for a large Airlifter like C 17 ever.

I haven't ever heard the IL-76 described as a small tactical airlifter.

2) No one has been able to make a case for use of C 17 in India at all.

One could (incorrectly) claim that for BR, but in the IAF's context? There is no evidence to suggest, this decision bypassed the IAF.

3) ALL large military purchases in India are not the result of the forces decision, but a result of forces acquiring a capability in response to what its tasked for by GoI.
4) Even in cases which are straightforward one is one swap of systems like MRCA, GoI is involved in deciding what the needs of forces are in larger contexts.

Recommendations for specific weapon systems are made by the forces. At best the MoD may require competitive bidding or may instruct the forces to opt for a domestic alternative, but it cannot compel the IAF to accept an aircraft that doesn't suit it.

5) All defence purchases take far longer, esp as large as this. This is being practically rushed through.

The absence of a long drawn out acquisition doesn't imply, that something has to be amiss. And no all defence purchases don't take far longer. The Phalcon for example was ordered within the same timeline, despite it being a far more complex proposal. The C-17 proposal was tabled a while back and they're still working on it.

Finally, what is your personal semantic interpretation of words is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

As is yours.

If you have anything remotely meaningful to say on the above points, lets hear it with specific examples backed up by links. If not (and I suspect not otherwise you would have already put up some data) please stop bringing in irrelevant and unconnected matters.

Well you have a remarkable propensity to demand data and examples without ever presenting any data of your own.

[NRao]

Are we paying more then we should?

- Australia - 4 C-17 and associated equipment -> 1.4 Billion. (new user) + 33 Million on Aircrew Training System + 200+ Million in infrastructure upgrades.

- Canada - 4 C-17 and associated equipment -> 1.6 Billion. (new user) + 1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

- Indian - 10 C-17 and associated equipment-> 5.8 Billion. (new user) + all hidden price (infrastructure upgrade, ATS etc) which were not detailed by DSCA.

- US - 10 C-17 -> 2.5 Billion. (existing user)

that question is very valid.

Do we have the year in which these deals were made by any chance? TIA.

No ToT. But I would expect offsets (at 30%). Not sure tho'. Assuming offsets, vendors typically like to up the cost just because of such offsets. How much they tend to up I do not know.

[Viv S]

It is so obvious that good Dr.Singh,who learnt all his values in the UK and US from Oxford/Foxford or wherever,as he has openly and publicly stated,is desirous of saving those cherished values by supporting the west to the hilt.Therefore,Boeing which is desperate for more orders of the C-17,which the US's very own Def.Sec. Robert Gates has said "no more",is being saved by "Super-Singh"!

He would assume he has more important things to do than micro-manage the IAF's acquisition of transport aircraft. Also, while they may have had to shut down the plant had an order not being forthcoming from either UAE or India, its a misconception that Boeing is desperate for an Indian order a la Mikoyan(not too long ago). Its annual revenues are over $60 billion and its got a finger in most American defence pies from the JSF to the KC-767.

Why do we need these Jurassic Park monsters too you might ask?Well,in order to save the west ,we have to fight for the stars and stripes and in his vision for India,the good doctor and peddlar of snake-oil,wants Indian jawans to fight Uncle Sam's (aka Obama) wars anywhere upon the globe.So globetrotter Indian "grunts" have to be transported to far off places and so must their equipemnt also be carried.What better manner than buying a US warbird that can carry our gallant troops ,existing eqpt. AND US eqpt. to be bought,like artillery,armoured vehicles (in the future),Patriot missiles,etc.,etc.

We didn't send troops to Iraq and haven't committed troops to Afghanistan(which is strategically important to India). Fact is India isn't going to be a part of any future NATO campaigns. US equipment is being bought for the same reason European or Russian equipment is bought i.e. on the merits of the proposal.

It defies logic why the C-17 is being acquired in such large number ,ten of them,when we could've instead leased out such aircraft in time of need,just as the west is doing with ex-Soviet AN-124s!

Surely in wartime, we can't be going around leasing and hiring aircraft. Unlike the west we don't have any bases in remote inaccessible regions like Afghanistan.

Moerover,the canard that the IL-76 is not in production is bogus,because our AWACS aircraft are based on the very same platform and so too our our tankers (IL-78s)! These aircraft are being upgraded in Russia and it is not impossible for us to order/upgrade
another new lot,plus ugrades of existing aircraft.

The IAF in its wisdom believes the C-17s are a good option.

The current dispensation in Delhi has sold the country down the Swanee river.It has disgraced itself with these non-sensical purchases when urgent requirements are being deliberately stalled so as to favour US manufacturers.

It has been guilty of being over-cautious in its approach to defence purchases, wary of any accusation of wrong-doing.

We have seen this time and time again with the Light Helo contest,where the winner was disqualified because oif US protest and the IA is years away from meeting its most urgent need,the P-8 I order,where an order was placed for an aircraft that had yet to fly and where the only equivalent was an earlier civilian aircraft,not an earlier version of the same,the attack helo contest where US manufacturers first did not tender and later on the tender was revised so as to bring them along,the naval ASW replacement for the Sea Kings,still undecided after a decade of delay,the medium helo requirement where the Chinook is about to be bought in similar manner as the order for P-8s,C-17s,etc.,light artillery,LCA engine,the list is extending by the day.

The P-8I is probably the most important defence purchase India has made in the last few years and its one that the IN has been extremely optimistic about. Its much superior to the P-3C and a generation ahead of the IL-38.

All this favouritism towards the US when that country keeps on arming Pakistan to India's detriment and cares a hoot about our concerns,and we're not even talking about Headley! The US can extradite ex-Panamanian stroongman Gen.Noriega at will to France to face trial,but cammot extradite Headley/Gilani another confessed criminal.What duplicity!
(See the article from the Diplomat in the Indo-US thread).

The US requires Pakistani cooperation while its deployed in Afghanistan and its forced to make concessions to keep them happy(or atleast happy as they're likely to get). Also, all military assistance from the US notwithstanding, Pakistan has definitely been badly hit by the fallout from the American campaign(I'm not complaining).

Access to Headley is an irritant. I can't see the rationale behind the American position. All the same, the issue isn't something that can define the course of future relations between India and the US.

We are now discussing the scandal of the Mata-Hari in our Pak mission.It is absolutely nothing in comparison with the current dispensation where the entire administration seems to be in service to Uncle Sam!

As opposed to? The Russians proudly flipped off India during the Gorshkov saga(and will also deliver the AC atleast five years behind schedule). They allowed the re-export of the RD-93, a neit from them wouldn't have led to any appreciable financial loss, but would have hobbled the JF-17 project all the same. And they've been plenty of issues with the equipment they've sold us, from the T-90's ToT, TI, supply, spares and delivery issues with Su-30MKIs, variety of malfunctioning missiles etc. The French too have no qualms about exploiting any leverage which is evident from their inflated upgrade quotes for the Mirage-2000 upgrade. Why should the Americans be held to a higher standard of expectation.

[Viv S]

Anyone going through the last few pages on the thread, would be assume two things-

1. The C-17 order has been signed.
2. Its going to cost $5.8 billion.


AFAIK neither is a confirmed fact. While the first seems likely, the cost of the C-17 acquisition OTOH will probably be substantially lower.

[Cain Marko]

BUT, Indian armed force purchases have always had political leanings. The most famous one: the Su-30 MKI. Just that it turned out a dynamite decision.

Raosaab,

The MKI was hardly a result of political manouvering -there was a desperate need for a fighter, the original requirement was the M2k-5, which was however, quite out of INdia's budget, hence the MKI. And thank goodness for that.

The problem with this deal as is being pointed out by others is where is the operational requirement for such an a/c? And if there is such a requirement - why has competitive bidding process not been started?

It seems like there are umpteen other requirements (MRCA, subs, artillery etc) that are more desperately needed (or at least equally so), which are going through the so called transparent competitive process required by the DPP.

Still, if this is the price to pay for the NSG waiver - so be it. I can't help but think that these deals with the US or even the EUros seem inordinately expensive. What does all of this mean for the mother of all deals - the MRCA, which has a budget that seems increasingly inadequate in light of such prices?

[Sanku]

Viv S can you please stick to the topic, instead of answering a straight question, you keep shifting all over the place, questions which have no rhyme or reason.

1) IAF has NEVER talked about the need for a large Airlifter like C 17 ever.

I haven't ever heard the IL-76 described as a small tactical airlifter.

What you have or have not heard about Il-76 is not germane to the matter, the question is when did IAF first talk about a large aircraft like C 17. Best case 2008/2009.

2) No one has been able to make a case for use of C 17 in India at all.

One could (incorrectly) claim that for BR, but in the IAF's context? There is no evidence to suggest, this decision bypassed the IAF.

That is not the question. The question is is that in public space the IAF officials do put out their views, for example Air Chiefs call for large aircraft for power projection in 2009.

Heck even the Arihant was supposedly a "secret" as was Akula, but eveyone had heard of it, you expect no one to talk about the needs and policies of IAF for this product at all? When it does so for all others?

No, it has talked about it and has said it wants to use it for force projection. (which I found thanks to Arnab)

Recommendations for specific weapon systems are made by the forces. At best the MoD may require competitive bidding or may instruct the forces to opt for a domestic alternative, but it cannot compel the IAF to accept an aircraft that doesn't suit it.

It can, it has. many times (T 72 for one?) any way the case here is not a straightforward ram it down.

Well it clearly did not allow competitive bidding and RFI/RFP route in this case didnt it?

More over when you say "suit the IAF", the question is "suit for what" the reason why a weapon system is provided is given by GoI not IAF.

IAF does not decide that it wants to be ready to go to Afg, GoI does. Once GoI makes the decision, IAF decides how to do it.

The absence of a long drawn out acquisition doesn't imply, that something has to be amiss.

No it does not imply, merely raises questions.

And no all defence purchases don't take far longer. The Phalcon for example was ordered within the same timeline, despite it being a far more complex proposal.

Please India was trying for a AWACs since 80s, its the failure of Indian effort which resulted in Phalcon.

What is the similarity here.

Finally, what is your personal semantic interpretation of words is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

As is yours.

I have no interpretation. I have merely stated how the forces+civilian interaction works. This is all captured in various websites so you dont have to take my word for it.

Well you have a remarkable propensity to demand data and examples without ever presenting any data of your own.

You cant google and find the MoD site on your own?

http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/welcome.html

Care to tell us which LTIPP laid out the requirements for a C 17 class? When?

Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP): A LTIPP focusing on the Joint Conventional Edge, capabilities to be achieved, aspects of commonality of equipment; inter-Service prioritization and indigenization has been prepared to cover the 11th, 12th and 13th Plan periods.

[Sid]

Are we paying more then we should?

- Australia - 4 C-17 and associated equipment -> 1.4 Billion. (new user) + 33 Million on Aircrew Training System + 200+ Million in infrastructure upgrades.

- Canada - 4 C-17 and associated equipment -> 1.6 Billion. (new user) + 1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

- Indian - 10 C-17 and associated equipment-> 5.8 Billion. (new user) + all hidden price (infrastructure upgrade, ATS etc) which were not detailed by DSCA.

- US - 10 C-17 -> 2.5 Billion. (existing user)

that question is very valid.

Do we have the year in which these deals were made by any chance? TIA.

No ToT. But I would expect offsets (at 30%). Not sure tho'. Assuming offsets, vendors typically like to up the cost just because of such offsets. How much they tend to up I do not know.

Details of Canadian and Australian deals can be found at. Year was 2006 and 2008 respectively.

Canadian
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/can ... lub-02388/
Australia
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... ted-01971/

[Shalav]

...the cost of the C-17 acquisition OTOH will probably be substantially lower.

That statement has as much value as stating the cost of the C17s will be $5.8 billion.

I think it should be stated properly as the cost of the C17s can be upto $5.8 billion or upto Rs. 26,000 crore.

I think it is proper to quote the cost in Rs. - 26,000 crore is what most Indian easily understand and can put a value to. $5.8 billion has no context in the Indian environment.

[Viv S]

...the cost of the C-17 acquisition OTOH will probably be substantially lower.

That statement has as much value as stating the cost of the C17s will be $5.8 billion.

I think it should be stated properly as the cost of the C17s can be upto $5.8 billion or upto Rs. 26,000 crore.

Absolutely. Lets say the cost will be upto $5.8 billion.

I think it is proper to quote the cost in Rs. - 26,000 crore is what most Indian easily understand and can put a value to. $5.8 billion has no context in the Indian environment.

Maybe most Indians find it so. I personally find, talking in dollar terms more convenient. In this particular case it allows one to evaluate the cost of acquisition vis a vis other countries who've ordered it.

[Shalav]

Personally it makes more sense to me to calculate it in Rs.

This purchase price is not a competition for who paid the least, this is an evaluation of value for money we are receiving in rupees.

In that sense - as an Indian I have no idea what a 1 billion dollars buys me in India? what about a $100,000? Again most of us will not be able to instantly compare its value.

OTOH when I say 1 crore Rs. I know it can build 1 x 5 room primary school (~ Rs. 25 lakhs) and fund salaries for 5 teachers for the next 10 years (@ ~1.5 lakhs pa each) - India has 593 districts with 26,000 crore we can build 44 primary schools in each district and fund them all for 10 years! That's a lot of education. I can weigh that spend against an 'unnecessary' transport purchase by the IAF (my perception) and arrive at a decision as to what is greater value for our money.

Take another example - when I first started work my offer letter stated a starting salary of Rs. 2,500 (yes I am that old!) If I was earning the same salary today I would be thinking it would take 40 lakh people working for 26 years (almost their working life) to earn that much money at that same salary. That's a context any Indian can relate to.

Once this is in context for me I see there is no guarantee those aircraft will never ever be sanctioned is when I start to become upset about this sort of spending without competition. This is just the govt. and IAF not being careful with our money and shortsighted about the very real downside of sanctions!

[Viv S]

Viv S can you please stick to the topic, instead of answering a straight question, you keep shifting all over the place, questions which have no rhyme or reason.

Well I'd like you to state clearly what you believe the IAF's role in the ongoing acquisition was/is, rather than resorting to rhetoric.

What you have or have not heard about Il-76 is not germane to the matter, the question is when did IAF first talk about a large aircraft like C 17. Best case 2008/2009.

The C-17 while having a higher payload(among other advantages) has roughly the same dimensions as the IL-76. So the IAF has been operating a 'large aircraft' in squadron strength since the 80s. The transition from IL-76 to C-17 isn't a doctrinal one and certainly not something that the MoD or PMO would spell out.

That is not the question. The question is is that in public space the IAF officials do put out their views, for example Air Chiefs call for large aircraft for power projection in 2009.

That is the question. The acquisition wouldn't have and will not go through, unless its been vetted by the IAF at the highest levels.

It can, it has. many times (T 72 for one?) any way the case here is not a straightforward ram it down.

I'm not familiar with the T-72 case and I'm referring to the situation as it stands today and not the murky middle-man facilitated acquisitions of yesteryear.

Well it clearly did not allow competitive bidding and RFI/RFP route in this case didnt it?

Its the service that sets out the technical parameters on which the RFP is issued. If the aircraft doesn't make the cut, the manufacturer is not issued RFPs. Which is why the F-15 and Su-35BM aren't contending for the MRCA contract with the others.

More over when you say "suit the IAF", the question is "suit for what" the reason why a weapon system is provided is given by GoI not IAF.
IAF does not decide that it wants to be ready to go to Afg, GoI does. Once GoI makes the decision, IAF decides how to do it.

The C-17 is a heavy lift aircraft that's probably intended to replace the IL-76 fleet. Its not a ticket to Afghanistan(or elsewhere).

No it does not imply, merely raises questions.

Futile questions. Why did this go right? Why wasn't it delayed? Why were our long standing traditions of deferral and delay ignored? An investigation is necessary.

Please India was trying for a AWACs since 80s, its the failure of Indian effort which resulted in Phalcon.

From the point when India started scouting for AWACS (evaluating the A-50, Erieye and Phalcon), it was a short period till the Phalcon being ordered.

And the IAF never committed itself to an Airawat purchase. It was for all practical purposes a technology demonstrator.

I have no interpretation. I have merely stated how the forces+civilian interaction works. This is all captured in various websites so you dont have to take my word for it.

You're mistaken and no your word isn't borne out by various websites.

You cant google and find the MoD site on your own?

http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/welcome.html

Care to tell us which LTIPP laid out the requirements for a C 17 class? When?

For one thing, if a link to the MoD site is your version of data ,then I should indeed start posting more data of my own.

The LTIPP is still in the works, and therefore not relevant for the purposes of this debate.

[Indranil]

Personally it makes more sense to me to calculate it in Rs.

This purchase price is not a competition for who paid the least, this is an evaluation of value for money we are receiving in rupees.

In that sense - as an Indian I have no idea what a 1 billion dollars buys me in India? what about a $100,000? Again most of us will not be able to instantly compare its value.

OTOH when I say 1 crore Rs. I know it can build 1 x 5 room primary school (~ Rs. 25 lakhs) and fund salaries for 5 teachers for the next 10 years (@ ~1.5 lakhs pa each) - India has 593 districts with 26,000 crore we can build 44 primary schools in each district and fund them all for 10 years! That's a lot of education. I can weigh that spend against an 'unnecessary' transport purchase by the IAF (my perception) and arrive at a decision as to what is greater value for our money.

Take another example - when I first started work my offer letter stated a starting salary of Rs. 2,500 (yes I am that old!) If I was earning the same salary today I would be thinking it would take 40 lakh people working for 26 years (almost their working life) to earn that much money at that same salary. That's a context any Indian can relate to.

Once this is in context for me I see there is no guarantee those aircraft will never ever be sanctioned is when I start to become upset about this sort of spending without competition. This is just the govt. and IAF not being careful with our money and shortsighted about the very real downside of sanctions!

You are going into that evergreen discussion of "if only this world did not spend on defense, then all poverty could be eliminated almost immediately". While it is true, that will never happen!

This way why go for the MMRCA? what about the other billions that we are spending for new defense acquisitions!

[Viv S]

Personally it makes more sense to me to calculate it in Rs.

This purchase price is not a competition for who paid the least, this is an evaluation of value for money we are receiving in rupees.

In that sense - as an Indian I have no idea what a 1 billion dollars buys me in India? what about a $100,000? Again most of us will not be able to instantly compare its value.

Maybe you're right. I must admit I find it hard to visualize what Rs 26,000 crore buys me in India, either.

I'd continue but I think this debate belongs to a different forum. I don't think the moderators would take a very liberal view of the thread being derailed. Cheerio.

[Shalav]

Indranil Roy,

The MMRCA is not central to this discussion, and I do not state we should be Gandhian.

I believe this particular purchase is unnecessary and short-sighted without proper competition and comparison against alternatives.

To put to rest your suspicion I am a jholawala lefty, please look up my postings on other boards.



Viv S,

Discussion of purchase price and value for money paid is not derailment - I don't speak for the moderators, but I believe VFM should be an important part of this discussion.

[Viv S]

Viv S,

Discussion of purchase price and value for money paid is not derailment - I don't speak for the moderators, but I believe VFM should be an important part of this discussion.

I was accusing you of derailing the thread.

Thing is, the Rs vs $ debate is rather generic and another venue would probably be more appropriate for it.

[Sanku]

Viv S can you please stick to the topic, instead of answering a straight question, you keep shifting all over the place, questions which have no rhyme or reason.

Well I'd like you to state clearly what you believe the IAF's role in the ongoing acquisition was/is, rather than resorting to rhetoric.

Actually I did but it seems to have met Admin scissor hands, so this time, a little safer.


http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009 ... uture.html

Power Projection Capability

A major responsibility of the IAF in the future would be in the area of strategic airlift. Internal security compulsions will place growing demand for the movement of quick reaction as also regular security forces within the country on short notice. Given its emerging regional power status and the newly forged strategic partnership with the US if not abrogated by the incoming administration, India may be called upon to project power in the region which may involve airlift of large military forces to areas of interest of either of the partners in the region outside our borders and to provide sustained logistic support. Strategic airlift capability of the IAF would therefore need to be built up practically from scratch as the existing fleet is fast approaching the end of its total technical life. At the tactical level, the IAF should be equipped with a fleet of medium tactical transport aircraft and helicopters capable of speedy response with special forces over shorter ranges.

What you have or have not heard about Il-76 is not germane to the matter, the question is when did IAF first talk about a large aircraft like C 17. Best case 2008/2009.

The C-17 while having a higher payload(among other advantages) has roughly the same dimensions as the IL-76. So the IAF has been operating a 'large aircraft' in squadron strength since the 80s. The transition from IL-76 to C-17 isn't a doctrinal one and certainly not something that the MoD or PMO would spell out.

Roughly same dimensions?

With that sort of slight of hand you can skip any question.

The question is still not answered.

That is not the question. The question is is that in public space the IAF officials do put out their views, for example Air Chiefs call for large aircraft for power projection in 2009.

That is the question. The acquisition wouldn't have and will not go through, unless its been vetted by the IAF at the highest levels.

Firstly its not the question. You are just sidestepping again.

The IAF is the executor, if the GoI says, build strategic airlift and no RFI and RFP this is what will happen. Its quite simple.

It can, it has. many times (T 72 for one?) any way the case here is not a straightforward ram it down.

I'm not familiar with the T-72 case and I'm referring to the situation as it stands today and not the murky middle-man facilitated acquisitions of yesteryear.

Indeed you are not, with many things clearly. But they can all be dismissed as "murky middle-man facilitated acquisitions of yesteryear"


So simple.

Well it clearly did not allow competitive bidding and RFI/RFP route in this case didnt it?

Its the service that sets out the technical parameters on which the RFP is issued. If the aircraft doesn't make the cut, the manufacturer is not issued RFPs. Which is why the F-15 and Su-35BM aren't contending for the MRCA contract with the others.

Dear Sir, the RFI/RFP route means that, RFI is DONE FIRST, then RFP. You have clearly sidestepped that question. Along with many others.

And RFI/RFP decision is not IAF. Its MoD, specifically the procurement committee.

The C-17 is a heavy lift aircraft that's probably intended to replace the IL-76 fleet. Its not a ticket to Afghanistan(or elsewhere).

Probably eh. Probably the martians will use it.

How can a C 17 class replace a Il 76 class? Shouldnt it be replaced by a similar cargo capacity? A Mig 21 is replaced by a Tejas not a Su 30.

No it does not imply, merely raises questions.

Futile questions. Why did this go right? Why wasn't it delayed? Why were our long standing traditions of deferral and delay ignored? An investigation is necessary.

Again side stepping the REAL questions and creating straw men are you?

The real question is, is it worth spending so much money for a aircraft whose role is questionable, which is exteremly expensive in such a hurry when the more pressing needs languish.

Please India was trying for a AWACs since 80s, its the failure of Indian effort which resulted in Phalcon.

From the point when India started scouting for AWACS (evaluating the A-50, Erieye and Phalcon), it was a short period till the Phalcon being ordered.

Again side stepping the question. The question is when did IAF first say that they needed AWACS capability.

And the IAF never committed itself to an Airawat purchase. It was for all practical purposes a technology demonstrator.

I have no interpretation. I have merely stated how the forces+civilian interaction works. This is all captured in various websites so you dont have to take my word for it.

You're mistaken and no your word isn't borne out by various websites.

Actually as I have shown the only resort you have is to deny the truth, repeatedly.

Sad.

Anyway there is no point debating with you, anything can be justified by using words like
roughly same (for C 17 and Il 76)
Probably
I dont think so.

That sort of thing can go on forever, you just wont accept what the blatant truth, because it could maybe wrong if seen from your perspective

What can any one say to that?

[Sanku]

BUT, Indian armed force purchases have always had political leanings. The most famous one: the Su-30 MKI. Just that it turned out a dynamite decision.

Raosaab,

The MKI was hardly a result of political manouvering -there was a desperate need for a fighter, the original requirement was the M2k-5, which was however, quite out of INdia's budget, hence the MKI. And thank goodness for that.

The problem with this deal as is being pointed out by others is where is the operational requirement for such an a/c? And if there is such a requirement - why has competitive bidding process not been started?

It seems like there are umpteen other requirements (MRCA, subs, artillery etc) that are more desperately needed (or at least equally so), which are going through the so called transparent competitive process required by the DPP.

Still, if this is the price to pay for the NSG waiver - so be it. I can't help but think that these deals with the US or even the EUros seem inordinately expensive. What does all of this mean for the mother of all deals - the MRCA, which has a budget that seems increasingly inadequate in light of such prices?

Purrfect!!!

These are the real questions which are just being side stepped. I hope a JPC or something asks why there was no RFI etc?

[Indranil]

Purrfect!!!

These are the real questions which are just being side stepped. I hope a JPC or something asks why there was no RFI etc?

Sanku, RFI to whom?!! What are the alternatives?

Other projects which are of pressing need! can you name a critical project which is being stopped due to lack of money!

I dont know whether 5.8 billion is justified or not. But I dont understand some other things too. We keep blaming the IAF, how come they didnt seem prepared for a shortfall of this and that? why don't they still have a trainer? Why are they still flying those aging fighters? This is the first time that IAF/MOD or whover is at the healm is showing proactivity. Is there so much of a problem with the proactivity because it is a US product?

[Gilles]

I've been writing on this Forum that none of Canada's 4 C-17s had ever landed on unpaved or short runways since induction in summer of 2007. Well that has recently changed, sort of.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr- ... p?id=10443

On April 15, a Canadian Forces C-17 landed at Canadian Forces Station Alert, the World's most northern airport. It's a 5,500 foot gravel runway. Normally, such a runway could not sustain this aircraft without some damage (to the runway), but there were two things that allowed it. The first was that the temperature that day in Alert was -25 degrees Celsius, which turns the gravel runway into a very hard frozen surface. For the second factor, rumour has it that for this first flight, the payload consisted of ...... nothing. The aircraft reportedly landed and took off empty. I will wait to find out if it ever comes back, and if it does, will it come back with a payload greater than what a C-130 Hercules (the aircraft that normally lands there) can carry into that runway.

It seems I was mis-informed when I posted this article. The C-17 that landed in Alert's 5,500 foot gravel runway had cargo on board. A video of landing and take-off as well as the unloading of the cargo can be viewed here:

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/co ... _Alert.mov

[Sanku]

Purrfect!!!

These are the real questions which are just being side stepped. I hope a JPC or something asks why there was no RFI etc?

Sanku, RFI to whom?!! What are the alternatives?

Depends on the role first and foremost. What is the role? Unless we know the role for sure we can never say who the RFI should go out too.

However given that MRCA RFI went out to such diverse birds such as Gripen and Shornet. (which no one claims are in same league)

It makes sense that such a large monetary value, RFI went to Airbus, Il, An and Boeing.

After all its not that C 17s are needed yesterday (like MRCA) if such easy going attitude can be displayed with MRCA, at least the same is expected for something which is far less critical. (ALL IAF chiefs have been crying regularly for lack of birds, no one has ever cribbed about lack of airlift)

Other projects which are of pressing need! can you name a critical project which is being stopped due to lack of money!

Sir this is India you are talking about, what stops for lack of money? Only that the decisions are not taken in time, never money (on the face of it), ever.


There are two different issues
1) C 17 is hugely expensive per tonne it lifts
2) Overall a huge amount of money is being spent is a massive hurry when more critical smaller items languish.

Please dont mix up the two.

I dont know whether 5.8 billion is justified or not. But I dont understand some other things too. We keep blaming the IAF, how come they didnt seem prepared for a shortfall of this and that? why don't they still have a trainer? Why are they still flying those aging fighters? This is the first time that IAF/MOD or whover is at the healm is showing proactivity. Is there so much of a problem with the proactivity because it is a US product?

Personally, I think we blame the IAF and IA unfairly when the acquisition decisions are not driven by them, but by others in MoD (a very simple point which most posters seem to not understand) however yes even if we take GoI to criticize instead of IA/IAF, there are some special things here

1) This deal makes no sense in other cases even the f ups, made sense, how what why. This is totally out of the blue. Too many questions.
2) US is deeply distrusted for its policies past and present. They have all been listed out

[Brahmananda]

too much whine for 5.8 billion and here i am talking about another 20 aircraft and please lets not talk about what India can or cant afford, you think we cant afford it in reality doesnt mean India cant. Threat of sanctions 0 and as time goes on, no way. Here he goes with questions again, listen Sanku why dont you go bug the IAF about it because none of us here can give you straight answer dude. Why are they buying its frankly their reason so ask them stop with the constant rant, coz its such entropy waste of your time and ours too. only IAF can clear your doubts and chances are you even wont be satisfied with their explanation. You asking too many questions that frankly dont need answering. Constantly mentioning threat of sanctions makes all you look like cowards...oooo what is the big bad wolf unkil gonna do...oooo sanctions...ooo we cant use them oooo...damn even the Iranians are still using their f-14s, you mean to say we cant operate the c-17 even during sanctions?

[putnanja]

too much whine for 5.8 billion and here i am talking about another 20 aircraft and please lets not talk about what India can or cant afford, you cant afford it doesnt mean India cant. Threat of sanctions 0 and as time goes on, no way.

I don't know why you always post "if you can't afford it" etc. I mean who will buy a tank, combat aircraft or a ship for personal use? And when you say "India can afford it", it means the "tax payers of India can afford it". And people have a right to question their government on the money spent. This is not pakistan!

Many people have questioned the haste with which this deal is going through, when many other more pressing deals like artillery etc are languishing even after decades.

Threat of sanctions will be there as long as India retains the option to test nuclear weapons. Also, if India does go to war against Pakistan, US might sanction both countries under the pretext of preventing use of nuclear arms.