C-17s for the IAF?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23598
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 06 Apr 2010 11:55

Gilles wrote:
Vishal Jolapara wrote:USAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III lifting-off aggressively enroute its STOL Demo, Yelahanka.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/1679489/L/


Did you read the comment below that picture?

To put things in perspective, this sharp ROC (Rate-of-Climb) is largely aided by the fact that the airplane is completely empty & has just enough fuel for the 15 min demo + reserve


The short take off and landings are aided by the same factor.



Very true!

Don't believe everything you see at air shows. :)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 06 Apr 2010 13:57

Brando,if it was needed at all,but Robert Gates has just come out most forcefully saying to Congressmen,that under NO circumstances will he allow C-17 production to continue as well as another alternative engine for the delayed and cost-overrunning JSF.Gates' declaration of "war" against the C-17 is as said many times before the real reason why it is being pushed down India's throats.We do not require the aircraft at all.It is a strategic inter-continental transoport meant fror the US's expeditionary wars across the globe,where massive logistic operations are required bringing in the enormous tons of heavy eqpt. required for such wars.With the Paki route thriough the Khyber so compromised,the US is now airlifting its supplies for Afghanistan through the northern Central Asian states,stupidly refusing to use the land route through Iran,shortest and safest,because of spite for the Iranian regime!

Boeing is virtually "bribing" the GOI and fooling the public through this insidious deal,where even the fig-leaf of a contest has been absent! We are beig suckere to the tune of several billions when what is more urgently needed are thousands of artillery pieces for the troops,ground troops modrenised uniforms and eqpt.-sorely needed,light helos,attack helos,transport helos,which will all make a difference on the ground on both eastern and western borders.The C-17 will fatten the pockets of US defence manufacturers and beggar the Indian jawan.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 07 Apr 2010 04:07

^^Truer words weren't spoken :cry:

Artillery, Jet trainers delayed for decades, and these c 17 kind of deals are sneaking through at lightening speed.

Got to hand it to US the way they have silenced the press that not a whiff of scandal comes out even with MRCA secret file reaching LM in US, while previously any scandal[Bofors, HDW] used to run for years. The US gets full marks for being a real businessman's country while full marks to GOI for selling out the country.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Indranil » 07 Apr 2010 06:52

^^^ I have a question. I agree that the other acquisitions that you speak off are important and some may be of more pressing need. But which one of those acquisitions are being held back because of want of money? So much of our defense allocations are being returned to the finance department at the end of the year!

With C-17 if we are adding the capability to transport strategic loads, what is wrong with that? Every armed force in the world would love to increase their capability to as much as they can! I believe we have plenty to transport. I don't see the connection between the C-17 deal and that of the others not going through. If for anything I would love to see the companies in the other competition to lobby hard, or do whatever they can to push the deals faster!

One could debate endlessly for what India should go for, a C-17 or an AN-124. That's another topic! But if acquiring the AN-124 is going to take a long uncertain bidding process (8 years or so going by Indian tendering and acquiring history), I would rather stay away from it, as our mainstay of force increment! I believe everybody here would love to see numbers in our airforce, and fast! Our eastern neighbour is not going to wait for us to develop our capabilities!

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 07 Apr 2010 14:51

It becomes suspicious because only US platforms are being cleared at lightening speed be it P-8, Amphibious ship, c-130s and now c-17s. While CAG, IN everyone else is worrying about the depleting strength of Subs, Artillery etc. The funny thing is how the press is also so silent about the whole bunch of deals.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2010 16:12

Let's be very clear.Ford,GM,etc. aren't here for charity purposes,they're out to make moolah from 1 billion+ Indians.So too is Big mac,KFC and other US MNCs.Now we've opened up the economoy and any MNC from any country can enter into India under current rules of investment.Many companies from Europe,Japan (Suzuki) are also here.However,they compete with Indain companies too and take their profits away.When it comes to the defence industry,the stated goal by govt. after govt. in parliament,is to make India at least 70% self-reliant in defence eqpt.The figure is supposed to be hovering around 30-35% and even this figure is for the bulk/filler material like steel for ships,etc.while indigenous crucial weapon system technology and sensors are lagging far behind.

Reg. the C-17,we do NOT have an international expeditionary warfighting role (thank goodness for that!),but require closer at home the infrastructure and logistic capability to meet threats "tous azimuth".Instead of buying the C-17,a lease of AN-124s is far cheaper,if such large aircraft is required for ceratin missions,while the large fleet of IL-76s can be upgraded just as is being done by the Russians.The MTA requirement is actually more urgently needed as our small forward airstrips at high altitudes are the lifeleine for the trops stationed there.

As many have said,the indecent haste with which US defnce items are ordered without even a contest is highly suspicious,especially whn crucial decision regarding the LCA MK-2 engine are hanging fire,where there are only two in the running and where the EJ is the better bet as it requires little or no fuselage redesign and comes with a TVC option.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Indranil » 07 Apr 2010 19:47

Philip wrote:Let's be very clear.Ford,GM,etc. aren't here for charity purposes,they're out to make moolah from 1 billion+ Indians.So too is Big mac,KFC and other US MNCs.Now we've opened up the economoy and any MNC from any country can enter into India under current rules of investment.Many companies from Europe,Japan (Suzuki) are also here.However,they compete with Indain companies too and take their profits away.When it comes to the defence industry,the stated goal by govt. after govt. in parliament,is to make India at least 70% self-reliant in defence eqpt.The figure is supposed to be hovering around 30-35% and even this figure is for the bulk/filler material like steel for ships,etc.while indigenous crucial weapon system technology and sensors are lagging far behind.

Reg. the C-17,we do NOT have an international expeditionary warfighting role (thank goodness for that!),but require closer at home the infrastructure and logistic capability to meet threats "tous azimuth".Instead of buying the C-17,a lease of AN-124s is far cheaper,if such large aircraft is required for ceratin missions,while the large fleet of IL-76s can be upgraded just as is being done by the Russians.The MTA requirement is actually more urgently needed as our small forward airstrips at high altitudes are the lifeleine for the trops stationed there.

As many have said,the indecent haste with which US defnce items are ordered without even a contest is highly suspicious,especially whn crucial decision regarding the LCA MK-2 engine are hanging fire,where there are only two in the running and where the EJ is the better bet as it requires little or no fuselage redesign and comes with a TVC option.



Again, which company is in the market just for goodwill? In such mega deals which company will not push for the deal to go through?

As for the An-124, leasing an AN-124 can be a solution for 10 years! What after that? by that time we would would have larger loads to carry and no planes to do that! Are there any other planes on the drawing board of this class which we can look into after 10 years?

Of course we should push for the the MTA! But I don't see the C-17 eating into the share of the MTA!

Lastly, we have a problem when procurement takes a long time. We now (with the C-17) have a problem with a short procurement procedure. What is the way out of this perennial cribbing?

One last question. Many have pointed out that the procurement of the C-17 s manifold expensive than the Il-76. The prices qouted for the Il-76 has been from eons back. What are the Il-76 prices now? Is the cost of operation of say 2 il-76 throughout their lifetime the same as the cost of operating one C-17? Please consider the logistics, like hangars etc and fuel while answering!

I am all for trials of the C-17 before it is inducted, like that of the MRCA! But just to say that we shouldnt buy an aircraft which can go longer distances than we need, well that doesn't ring the bell for me!

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3305
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 08 Apr 2010 00:29

1. There are no new build AN 124 available *currently*.
2. There are plans to build AN 124-100, but that is not definite yet / or IAF does not trust the supplier enough
3. For whatever reason IAF wants a higher load capacity than Il 76. That decision may be debatable, but we cant crib with IAF requirements.

If the above 3 is true, then there is no option to the C 17.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 08 Apr 2010 06:04

indranilroy wrote:Many have pointed out that the procurement of the C-17 s manifold expensive than the Il-76. The prices qouted for the Il-76 has been from eons back. What are the Il-76 prices now? Is the cost of operation of say 2 il-76 throughout their lifetime the same as the cost of operating one C-17? Please consider the logistics, like hangars etc and fuel while answering!


Excellent question!

Industry reported that the four civilian Il-76-90s that were delivered to Volga-Dnepr and Silk Way airlines between 2006 and 2008 cost these airlines in the area of 50 million USD.

The Airlines that operate these aircraft charter them out for about $18,000 an hour. That includes the cost of the investment, the maintenance, the insurance, the crew, the fuel, landing and navigation fees and their PROFIT. We can then safely assume that these aircraft cost less to operate than $20,000 an hour. Older IL-76s charter for about 12,000 an hour.

Canada purchased 4 C-17s for 3.4 Billions dollars. That amount included 4 aircraft, many spares, training, a spare engine, a couple hangars and a 20 year in service surpport contract with Boeing. They have a usefull life of 30,000 hours.

Divide 3.4 Billion dollars by four aircraft and then by 30,000 hours and you come up with $28,000 and some. To that you have to add out 5600 dollars an hour of fuel, crews cost and expenses, other maintenance costs not includd in the contract. We can safely assume that the hourly cost of C-17 operation is around 40,000 USD an hour.

By the way, that is approximatly the cost the NATO Nations who are part of SAC were charged as their share of C-17 operation.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ad2ab34a8-0be8-4926-bb21-359b5cd4d5c1

This requires The Hague to make an up-front contribution of 130 million euros ($200 million) of which 84 million euros is to be paid this year, and an annual operating cost of 15 million euros.

for 500 hours of C-17 operations

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3305
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 09 Apr 2010 16:11

Excellent post above Gilles..

But if it takes 2 ferries for the IL76 to deliver a load that the C-17 can do in one, wont the cost work out to be comparable? I agree that the C17 load is not 2x the IL76, but a lot of times the load itself to be carried will be say 1.5x a Il76 load which may require 2 trips anyway...

So it may turn out to be not as bad as $20K vs $40K as you say, rather averaged around to be more in the regions of $30-$35K in favor of the IL76. The IAF may prefer to spend the extra $5K to get all load in one go....

Not saying the above is right or wrong, but it is the IAF thinking looks like.

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 09 Apr 2010 19:59

The importance of C-17 is its wide body, unless and until a similar aircraft with similar features, and has firm orders from other countries in the hundreds, there is no other choice. India has to hedge its bet, and let me do say IAF does know better. And, Unlike Canada we are not a poodle country, India is many things corrupt, impressionable but poodle it is not. If Soviet Union didnt succeed, then nor will any others.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23598
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 09 Apr 2010 22:48

Kavu wrote:The importance of C-17 is its wide body, unless and until a similar aircraft with similar features, and has firm orders from other countries in the hundreds, there is no other choice. India has to hedge its bet, and let me do say IAF does know better. And, Unlike Canada we are not a poodle country, India is many things corrupt, impressionable but poodle it is not. If Soviet Union didnt succeed, then nor will any others.


Kavu ji,

Your sentiments are commendable but what if our own make us all poodles?

Like just a few goras ruled with all help from native Indians, a similar situation obtains today.

I repeat what I said before. India has no strategic ambitions. No point in importing a very fancy Mack truck, when all you have are pot holed country roads.

The C-17 (wrong) decision is not IAF driven but PMO driven, as part of the Indo US pappi jappi.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 09 Apr 2010 23:15

Most of us are not opposing C 17 on merits. Of course if army wants them they must have some reason. Just the coincident of all the orders placed with US: C130, P8mma & C 17 are going through at such phenomenal speeds and they are being bought from US.

While other urgent needs like Submarines, Tejas MkII Engines, artillery and AJT taken 25 years are being delayed like anything.

So the question is where is the priority of GOI
1. Needs of Armed forces
or
2. Needs of the particular seller country: US

I suspect that howitzers are more urgently needed then C 17 and MMS govt. is buying keeping in the mind needs of US companies. :((

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 09 Apr 2010 23:17

chetak wrote:Kavu ji,

Your sentiments are commendable but what if our own make us all poodles?


Sorry for being harsh.
You are not the only patriot in India. Certainly people who have dedicated their lives to social as well as military service, one can argue are better placed than you.

Like just a few goras ruled with all help from native Indians, a similar situation obtains today.


You have absolutely no proof of that, absolutely none. To be honest, if put specifically by Indian law, what you do is Slander, a punishable offence. If there are stances where India has caved in, there are enough instances where India has stood stead fast. One can look at things from any perspective, and will give you a different answer, depending on what you are looking and where your political afflictions are. I could argue that it is the higher caste who benefited the most by colluding with the British, the muslims could say it was the Hindus. Anyways all those are redundant, and not important.

I repeat what I said before. India has no strategic ambitions. No point in importing a very fancy Mack truck, when all you have are pot holed country roads.


You have absloutely no idea nor information on what India's strategic ambitions for the next year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years and her peak is. None. You are not privy to any government documents, nor does your several post here reflect that capability. I see it is imperative for India to transport tanks faster and efficiently in a global scale, I dont care about C-17, a care about a similar capability. If An-124 had more than 250 copies, and was in production for outright buy, I would have supported that. Not that support counts for anything. Like Rohit has said before Indian Armed Forces buy equipment in small numbers to evaluate, IN in the Jalashawa case, that singular piece of equipment is very important to India's doctrine, now I await the increase of the Marine Forces to 50,000 and above. Look Su-30 in IAF
The C-17 (wrong) decision is not IAF driven but PMO driven, as part of the Indo US pappi jappi.


Furnish Proof, or desist.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 10 Apr 2010 02:34

Kavu wrote:The importance of C-17 is its wide body, unless and until a similar aircraft with similar features, and has firm orders from other countries in the hundreds, there is no other choice. India has to hedge its bet, and let me do say IAF does know better. And, Unlike Canada we are not a poodle country, India is many things corrupt, impressionable but poodle it is not. If Soviet Union didnt succeed, then nor will any others.


To what purpose. What does the IAF intend to carry in that wide-body? Other than the Arjun, IA MBTs can be carried on the IL76's. In any country the air-force is not the last word on what is purchased. They should have a say (a large say), but we as citizens have every right to ask what is the purpose of such an acquisition?

As far as all PD information is concerned, the IAF has never stated why the C17 is better than alternatives. What specific advantage overcomes the persistent threat of sanctions over this 13,500 crore purchase.

Unlike you I am unconvinced of the IAF infallibility in making purchase decisions. After all when India purchased the M2Ks in the 80s the IAF insisted on having the a2a systems removed and we paid extra money to Dassault to have their refuelling systems removed. Then 20 years later we paid more money to Dassault to reinstall their a2a refuelling once the IAF decided a2a was a good thing after all! In this case the IAF did not know better!

If you believe C17s can be used to carry tanks to the NE in case of emergencies - there is a far more cost effective sanction proof solution : purchase another 500 T90s (@ 8000 crore) and emplace them permanently in the NE / Ladhak area, thus saving the country Rs. 5500 crore. Use the balance 5500 crore to purchase 500 NAMICA's with 100s more Nag reloads to reinforce the T90s. This a far more efficient way to utilize those 13,500 crores.

Furthermore I am not so certain of this China bogey that keeps getting raised. If we say we can't resupply the NE with IL76's as the reason for purchase of the C17s why would the Chinese fare any better? They face greater geographic constraints than us on the other side, and they have the same equipment. That is just illogical.

Moreover why would the Pakistani's be any better at logistics than us in the J&K area. They have a horrible logistics chain which can be broken by the IAF at any time at multiple points in case of war. We don't need to pay 13,500 crores to guard against pakistani incursions in J&K, and we don't need to pay 13,500 core to buy 10 glorified tank transporters for the NE, when a cheaper solution would be to simply buy more tanks and emplace them permanently in areas one considers vulnerable.

We do not have expeditionary forces, and we as a country do not want any. I am completely against any sort of foreign interference and adventurism by India, other than Pakistan, and most Indians will say the same. So what use are these C17s to us? There are better ways to utilize that 13,500 crore.
Last edited by Shalav on 10 Apr 2010 02:58, edited 1 time in total.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 10 Apr 2010 02:49

A thought comes to mind. There has been nothing from the IAF in the past about having such strategic airlift capability. All of a sudden a decision was made to purchase something from the Khan. So is this a QPQ for the nuclear deal? Was there an understanding with the Bush admin about returning the favour?

If so, get it over with and move on. If not the IAF MUST justify the advantage of these sanction-prone aircraft in more concrete terms other than vague threats about the Chinese in the NE.

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 10 Apr 2010 03:08

Why search for conspiracies, when India has grown, and is looking for Strategic Reach;isnt it quite evident, India of past is not India of today, with or without the Nuclear Deal.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 10 Apr 2010 03:19

ok - it also does not mean its not QPQ? Anyway this is probably OT for this thread.

Look forward to hearing from you why the IAF decisions are infallible according to you, and what use will the C17s be put to?

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 10 Apr 2010 03:24

Shalav wrote:To what purpose. What does the IAF intend to carry in that wide-body? Other than the Arjun, IA MBTs can be carried on the IL76's. In any country the air-force is not the last word on what is purchased. They should have a say (a large say), but we as citizens have every right to ask what is the purpose of such an acquisition?


The T-72/90 barely fits in the IL-76. No Military purchase isnt up for debate,we have enough and more debate happening for years in the PArliment for development projects. Military isnt a wing that can afford to have complete dot heads talk against each other, and getting tied up in red tape of monumental proportions.

As far as all PD information is concerned, the IAF has never stated why the C17 is better than alternatives. What specific advantage overcomes the persistent threat of sanctions over this 13,500 crore purchase.


It might classified, ever thought of that. IAF isnt here to answer, because it doesnt have to. We all could speculate.

Unlike you I am unconvinced of the IAF infallibility in making purchase decisions. After all when India purchased the M2Ks in the 80s the IAF insisted on having the a2a systems removed and we paid extra money to Dassault to have their refuelling systems removed. Then 20 years later we paid more money to Dassault to reinstall their a2a refuelling once the IAF decided a2a was a good thing after all! In this case the IAF did not know better!


The Mirage Purchase during the time extreme poverty that was 1980, That was nearly 30 years ago. Priorities, Realities and everything was different. I am not going to judge IAF of today with that.

If you believe C17s can be used to carry tanks to the NE in case of emergencies - there is a far more cost effective sanction proof solution : purchase another 500 T90s (@ 8000 crore) and emplace them permanently in the NE / Ladhak area, thus saving the country Rs. 5500 crore. Use the balance 5500 crore to purchase 500 NAMICA's with 100s more Nag reloads to reinforce the T90s. This a far more efficient way to utilize those 13,500 crores.


You are thinking NE, I am thinking Middle East. Anywhere in the Indian Ocean Periphery.

Furthermore I am not so certain of this China bogey that keeps getting raised. If we say we can't resupply the NE with IL76's as the reason for purchase of the C17s why would the Chinese fare any better? They face greater geographic constraints than us on the other side, and they have the same equipment. That is just illogical.


You are looking it wrong.

Moreover why would the Pakistani's be any better at logistics than us in the J&K area. They have a horrible logistics chain which can be broken by the IAF at any time at multiple points in case of war. We don't need to pay 13,500 crores to guard against pakistani incursions in J&K, and we don't need to pay 13,500 core to buy 10 glorified tank transporters for the NE, when a cheaper solution would be to simply buy more tanks and emplace them permanently in areas one considers vulnerable.


They dont. They dont mobilze from the Center of India, or 1400 Kilometers deep. Who told you 10 is the end of it?

We do not have expeditionary forces, and we as a country do not want any. I am completely against any sort of foreign interference and adventurism by India, other than Pakistan, and most Indians will say the same. So what use are these C17s to us? There are better ways to utilize that 13,500 crore.


Who told you, we dont want it. If weapons purchases are any indicator, The Jalshawa purchase has already indicated. Rs.13,500 is bringing you capability you never had before.

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 10 Apr 2010 03:27

Shalav wrote:ok - it also does not mean its not QPQ? Anyway this is probably OT for this thread.

Look forward to hearing from you why the IAF decisions are infallible according to you, and what use will the C17s be put to?


You and I dont know, what they know, and what are their intentions for the future. Regional Hegemony in the Indian Ocean Region is certain, so is slow move towards Middle East and Central Asia.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby putnanja » 10 Apr 2010 03:47

When we are not ready to punish pakistan even after multiple attacks, dreaming of indian strategic deployments outside of India to protect Indian interests is a poor joke!!

And given the recent articles in US media about the pentagon wanting to pressurize India more ( including Admiral Mullen), do we really need to provide US with additional leverage over India? Not to mention the huge cost too??

T-72s were transported in IL-76s to Sri Lanka. For those who don't know about it, please read the articles in BR!

There were also articles on whether the current infrastructure supports having tanks in the hilly terrain of NE

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 10 Apr 2010 03:58

Kavu wrote:The T-72/90 barely fits in the IL-76. No Military purchase isnt up for debate,we have enough and more debate happening for years in the PArliment for development projects. Military isnt a wing that can afford to have complete dot heads talk against each other, and getting tied up in red tape of monumental proportions.


There you go again with the infallibility thing. Every purchase should be up to debate, that is the reason there are procedures inplace for competitive evaluations for military purchases. BTW the T72 and the T90 do fit in the IL76. This fitting thing is not a grey area. It is binary - they either fit in or they do not fit in. We know they fit in, "barely" is ir-relevant.

It might classified, ever thought of that. IAF isnt here to answer, because it doesnt have to. We all could speculate.


No; actually it does have to answer for everything it does. That is reality and that is the reason it reports to the RM and through him to Parliament and to the citizens it defends. It is a constitutional safeguard. I believe you are confused as to what the armed forces have to report. Strategy and Tactics are their bailiwick and they have no need to report this to everyone. There may be instance where classified missions are being carried out, and everyone is ok with them remaining classified. The advantages of the C17 over alternatives is not classified and they must be spelled out.

The Mirage Purchase during the time extreme poverty that was 1980, That was nearly 30 years ago. Priorities, Realities and everything was different. I am not going to judge IAF of today with that.


Why not? You cannot pick and choose what instances to evaluate the IAF decision making capability with. If they insisted on an expensively wrong decision in the time of poverty it is imperative their decisions be questioned in the time of a more fatter purse. India's money is not only for defence, it can be used for other things.

You are thinking NE, I am thinking Middle East. Anywhere in the Indian Ocean Periphery.


Why? For what? What alternative cannot accomplish what the C17 can in these areas?

You are looking it wrong.


Why?

They dont. They dont mobilze from the Center of India, or 1400 Kilometers deep. Who told you 10 is the end of it?


Who told you 10 isn't the end of it?

Who told you, we dont want it. If weapons purchases are any indicator, The Jalshawa purchase has already indicated. Rs.13,500 is bringing you capability you never had before.


Who told you we do want it? You accuse others of not knowing anything, but you indulge in fantastic jingoistic speculation without being in the know either. At-least on my side I have the present and future reality - this reality is clearly defensive and not expeditionary - not presently and not in the near future. Furthermore what capability does that 13,500 crore bring, the alternative spend of 8,000-10,000 crore can't?

If you are talking of the medium term future, say 15-20 years, there will be other more suitable aircraft. There is no need to hasten to spend Rs. 13,500 crore simply because we can.

You and I dont know, what they know, and what are their intentions for the future. Regional Hegemony in the Indian Ocean Region is certain, so is slow move towards Middle East and Central Asia.


Neither do you. I can however make a reasonably accurate guess that a measly 10 C17's will never do that for us it too little and its too expensive and its too vulnerable to sanctions.

Furthermore that's why the Navy got the supply ships. You don't control the oceans and its periphery from the air you can only deny space. You control oceans with gunboats. Hulking big carriers, cruisers and destroyers are for sea-control. You've got your facts about how India can control the IOR completely wrong.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kartik » 10 Apr 2010 05:25

Shalav wrote:To what purpose. What does the IAF intend to carry in that wide-body? Other than the Arjun, IA MBTs can be carried on the IL76's. In any country the air-force is not the last word on what is purchased. They should have a say (a large say), but we as citizens have every right to ask what is the purpose of such an acquisition?


Shalav, have you read Gp Cpt. Kapil Bhargava's description of the nightmare that was the transport of the T-72 on board an Il-76 ?

Read that article and you'll realise that unless there is more than adequate time for a build up, for all intents and purposes, the IAF cannot transport T-72s or T-90s in a hurry in any meaningful number unless the entire Il-76 and 78 fleet are devoted to that role leaving aside all the other roles that a heavy transport needs to perform.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 10 Apr 2010 11:40

Look,merits of the C-17 vs IL-76 is not the issue here.The issue is do we need such a large transport,are there alternatives (leasing/An-124,etc.) and what are the priorities of the IAF?

This latter priority list for the IAF is what should be debated.As we see it now,and from statements made by several chiefs in recent times,the MMRCA,AJT/IJT,basic trainer,AWACS and indigenous/JV AEW aircraft,MTA are the top priorities.I can't remember any former chief having said that a strategic air-lifetr of size of the C-17 was at the top! That's why the "decision" made in such speed to spend billions on the transport is highloy suspicious.I've posted enough info that the real reason is the imminent closure of the C-17 production line which even US Def.Sec, Robert Gates is clamouring for with an absolute "NO" to keeping it open.India is the sucker,let's come clean on this issue.Today's Ind Exp. has in an article about PC,etc.,the strange manner in which MMS pushes for pro-US deals while obfuscating on other critical ones.

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 10 Apr 2010 12:30

Shalav wrote:There you go again with the infallibility thing. Every purchase should be up to debate, that is the reason there are procedures inplace for competitive evaluations for military purchases. BTW the T72 and the T90 do fit in the IL76. This fitting thing is not a grey area. It is binary - they either fit in or they do not fit in. We know they fit in, "barely" is ir-relevant


Read Karthik's reply..



No; actually it does have to answer for everything it does. That is reality and that is the reason it reports to the RM and through him to Parliament and to the citizens it defends. It is a constitutional safeguard. I believe you are confused as to what the armed forces have to report. Strategy and Tactics are their bailiwick and they have no need to report this to everyone. There may be instance where classified missions are being carried out, and everyone is ok with them remaining classified. The advantages of the C17 over alternatives is not classified and they must be spelled out.


I am not confused rather it is you inability to understand what IAF envisions itself as in the not so distant future, the IAF has already made its stand clear on why it needs the C-17, it is the requirement of carrying out sized cargo's and higher up times. The availability of IL-76 today is less than 60%, an unacceptable number. That is the basic requirement of IAF. Now, what is out sized cargo, The biggest threat to Pakistan other than our Su-30MKI is our capacity in terms of them on tactical and strategic airlift. There is a reason why IAF is insistent on A-330 MRTT, the ability to Refuel and Transport at the same time.


Why not? You cannot pick and choose what instances to evaluate the IAF decision making capability with. If they insisted on an expensively wrong decision in the time of poverty it is imperative their decisions be questioned in the time of a more fatter purse. India's money is not only for defence, it can be used for other thing


Yes, I can. Mirage was bought at time, when Ruskies sold us a lemon in the terms of MiG-29A, the less said about its available uptimes the better. It is not even valid to talk about India's purchase pre-2000, as all of them where adhoc and not in terms of India's vision as Regional Superpower. Every purchase from now, would be based on that.


Why? For what? What alternative cannot accomplish what the C17 can in these areas?


Read Karthik's post again and again.

Who told you 10 isn't the end of it?


I dont, but looking at India's purchase in the recent years, this seems to be the trend, buy a little evaluate and create doctrine and order for more.


Who told you we do want it? You accuse others of not knowing anything, but you indulge in fantastic jingoistic speculation without being in the know either. At-least on my side I have the present and future reality - this reality is clearly defensive and not expeditionary - not presently and not in the near future. Furthermore what capability does that 13,500 crore bring, the alternative spend of 8,000-10,000 crore can't?

If you are talking of the medium term future, say 15-20 years, there will be other more suitable aircraft. There is no need to hasten to spend Rs. 13,500 crore simply because we can.


There are some serious capability gaps for the IAF, and what you lot in BR wants India and IAF to achieve, but when it comes to equipment, you are not ready give'em because it doesnt please the Ivans'?


Neither do you. I can however make a reasonably accurate guess that a measly 10 C17's will never do that for us it too little and its too expensive and its too vulnerable to sanctions.


Those 10 will be in the addition to 41 transportable IL-76/76MD variants. It is in this view you have to take it. It is augmentation of the Strategic fleet, we are buying that 10 just for outsized cargo, it simply means Tanks and more Tanks. Just like Jalshawa is about creating a new capability,our new LPD's/LHD's will give us a complete different capability, the Navy does envision landing in Karachi or anyother area of interest, Otherwise what is use of all those landing crafts, Marine Brigade's and now the purchase of LPD Trenton, it is all about creating a new doctrine and capability. India is slowly turning away from land based military, and into Navy/Airforce power.

Furthermore that's why the Navy got the supply ships. You don't control the oceans and its periphery from the air you can only deny space. You control oceans with gunboats. Hulking big carriers, cruisers and destroyers are for sea-control. You've got your facts about how India can control the IOR completely wrong.


You are confusing my example of what Navy intends to do with Jalshawa, and somehow assuming IAF seems to want to do the same with C-17, How you came to that conclusion, is surprising.

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 10 Apr 2010 12:37

Philip wrote:Look,merits of the C-17 vs IL-76 is not the issue here.The issue is do we need such a large transport,are there alternatives (leasing/An-124,etc.) and what are the priorities of the IAF?


Exactly, C-17 in India is not going to replace the IL-76.
Leasing is an option when you are considering a low threat enemy like Taliban, we are talking about China and Pakistan here. I am all for the An-124, as long as they are ready to buy now, used by various countries, and has orders for more than 200.
This latter priority list for the IAF is what should be debated.As we see it now,and from statements made by several chiefs in recent times,the MMRCA,AJT/IJT,basic trainer,AWACS and indigenous/JV AEW aircraft,MTA are the top priorities.I can't remember any former chief having said that a strategic air-lifetr of size of the C-17 was at the top!


For a Land based Armed Forces, Nothing and I mean Nothing is as important as a Strategic Airlift. It is India's trump card especially in terms Pakistan, and that capability is far more important than even the AWACS or Su-30MKI.


That's why the "decision" made in such speed to spend billions on the transport is highloy suspicious.I've posted enough info that the real reason is the imminent closure of the C-17 production line which even US Def.Sec, Robert Gates is clamouring for with an absolute "NO" to keeping it open.India is the sucker,let's come clean on this issue.Today's Ind Exp. has in an article about PC,etc.,the strange manner in which MMS pushes for pro-US deals while obfuscating on other critical ones.


Do you know, the primary mover behind the C-17 purchase is the Indian Army! C-17 isnt about IAF, it never was. Why would the Army require C-17 is quite specific, if I am the Theater Commander, I want my boys to have anything they want, if it is tanks they want, then that is what they will get.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23598
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 10 Apr 2010 22:26

Kavu wrote:Do you know, the primary mover behind the C-17 purchase is the Indian Army! C-17 isnt about IAF, it never was. Why would the Army require C-17 is quite specific, if I am the Theater Commander, I want my boys to have anything they want, if it is tanks they want, then that is what they will get.


KAvu ji,

You are coming out with one bombastic statement after another with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

Army, Navy and IAF doctrines have been selectively recast in your arguments.

Pray provide us with some of the proof your self that you so stridently ask of others.

vivekmehta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 18:19
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby vivekmehta » 10 Apr 2010 23:07

well today if news is true for buying 3 more AWACS ,

then i have few questions . will they be based on same IL platform? if yes then are these new ones or any older airframe ? again if they are new air frames .that would mean decision to buy C-17 is just not taken because of non availability of newer airframes or any supply/ support issues from Russian side .
IAF really knows what they are doing . it may not be just political pressure to go for the deal .i believe they are creating a new segment of lifters which are more advanced fitting in there doctrine & have to perform role that current category of lifters cant.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Indranil » 11 Apr 2010 00:57

vivekmehta wrote:well today if news is true for buying 3 more AWACS ,

then i have few questions . will they be based on same IL platform? if yes then are these new ones or any older airframe ? again if they are new air frames .that would mean decision to buy C-17 is just not taken because of non availability of newer airframes or any supply/ support issues from Russian side .
IAF really knows what they are doing . it may not be just political pressure to go for the deal .i believe they are creating a new segment of lifters which are more advanced fitting in there doctrine & have to perform role that current category of lifters cant.


excellent point IMHO

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 835
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Raveen » 11 Apr 2010 02:31

indranilroy wrote:
vivekmehta wrote:well today if news is true for buying 3 more AWACS ,

then i have few questions . will they be based on same IL platform? if yes then are these new ones or any older airframe ? again if they are new air frames .that would mean decision to buy C-17 is just not taken because of non availability of newer airframes or any supply/ support issues from Russian side .
IAF really knows what they are doing . it may not be just political pressure to go for the deal .i believe they are creating a new segment of lifters which are more advanced fitting in there doctrine & have to perform role that current category of lifters cant.


excellent point IMHO


Agreed!

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 11 Apr 2010 05:12

chetak wrote:
KAvu ji,

You are coming out with one bombastic statement after another with absolutely no proof whatsoever.


I never equated the Navy with the C-17 purchase, I just gave an example of why Navy went for the old LPD Trenton, it never had an equivalent class in IN, nor was it truely fit for combat. Yet, There is a reason behind that purchase. Figure that out, and apply that same analogy to IAF.

Army, Navy and IAF doctrines have been selectively recast in your arguments.


If Strategic Airlift isnt about Army then I dont know what is it about.

Pray provide us with some of the proof your self that you so stridently ask of others


I could say that I do have a paanwallah, which I do and is a family relative although not IAF nor IA,rather IN.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby putnanja » 11 Apr 2010 05:19

chetak too knows quite a few panwallahs ;)

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 11 Apr 2010 09:23

Kavu wrote: And, Unlike Canada we are not a poodle country.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

I wish my Prime Minister would read this post......

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23598
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 11 Apr 2010 09:35

Kavu wrote:
I could say that I do have a paanwallah, which I do and is a family relative although not IAF nor IA,rather IN.



Kavu ji,

A world of difference in knowing and being the panwalla!!

If we ever put boots on the ground in the gulf we will be someone's poodle big time. :evil:


In the meantime we are sill awaiting your " PROOF ".

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23598
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 11 Apr 2010 09:41

Gilles wrote:
Kavu wrote: And, Unlike Canada we are not a poodle country.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

I wish my Prime Minister would read this post......


Like wise, I hope that my Prime Minister would read the post about India not being a poodle. :) May be he would quit trying so hard. :)

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 11 Apr 2010 11:39

putnanja wrote:chetak too knows quite a few panwallahs ;)

You dont need to be a paanwallah or know one to understand why a widebodied is being selected.

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 11 Apr 2010 11:42

chetak wrote:
Kavu wrote:
I could say that I do have a paanwallah, which I do and is a family relative although not IAF nor IA,rather IN.



Kavu ji,

A world of difference in knowing and being the panwalla!!

If we ever put boots on the ground in the gulf we will be someone's poodle big time. :evil:


In the meantime we are sill awaiting your " PROOF ".



Chetak,

I have only been advised of C-17 being an Army led purchase, not anything else.
About boots in gulf, that is my assumption and what I believe will be our slow expansion of sphere of influence. One cannot help you, if you cannot see what India is trying to achieve with 41 Il-76+ 10(maybe more) C-17's. Rohit, might be able to give you a better idea how that will be boost our airlift capacity, especially in the Mechanized variety.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23598
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 11 Apr 2010 13:14

Kavu wrote:
Chetak,

I have only been advised of C-17 being an Army led purchase, not anything else.
About boots in gulf, that is my assumption and what I believe will be our slow expansion of sphere of influence. One cannot help you, if you cannot see what India is trying to achieve with 41 Il-76+ 10(maybe more) C-17's. Rohit, might be able to give you a better idea how that will be boost our airlift capacity, especially in the Mechanized variety.


Kavu ji,

Your assumptions are as good or as bad as the next guy.

I do NOT believe that we are going to or even capable of such an expansion of our sphere of influence where we are competing directly with the US and China and the EU.

Much of the current thought does not support your wishful thinking.

Your theories on the actual use of Jalashawa, in these days of suicide boats and mobile launchers is also fanciful. To protect her in coastal waters in a war zone will require a great deal of expensive air and sea domination.



http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=853706#p853706

Sorry for being harsh.
You are not the only patriot in India. Certainly people who have dedicated their lives to social as well as military service, one can argue are better placed than you.

How do you know that " I have not dedicated my life to military service " as you chose to put it ??


None. You are not privy to any government documents, nor does your several post here reflect that capability.

Are you privy to "government documents" ?

And kindly avoid personal comments.

People with that kind of access will not post info related to " government documents" on forums such as this.



Take some of your own advice that you seem to dispense so freely

"Furnish Proof, or desist."

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 11 Apr 2010 23:21

chetak wrote:
I do NOT believe that we are going to or even capable of such an expansion of our sphere of influence where we are competing directly with the US and China and the EU.


Your belief doesn't correspond with our Defense acqusitions nor our diplomatic initiatives.

Much of the current thought does not support your wishful thinking.

Your theories on the actual use of Jalashawa, in these days of suicide boats and mobile launchers is also fanciful. To protect her in coastal waters in a war zone will require a great deal of expensive air and sea domination.


So there is never going to be conventional warfare. lol, So the navy must be really stupid doing the bellow, Heck why have carriers or LPD/LHD's at all. Lets all go in skiff's like the Somali's.

So the raising of the new marine brigade, along with existant one is all just hot air, somebody should tell that to Indian Army, whose 340 Independent Brigade must be only on paper then. Ah!
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... ps/553560/


How do you know that " I have not dedicated my life to military service " as you chose to put it ??


It is as clear as day.



Are you privy to "government documents" ?



No, but atleast I know how to comprehend and analyse, completely lacking in you.
And kindly avoid personal comments.

People with that kind of access will not post info related to " government documents" on forums such as this.


Nor have I, but it shows your utter lack of intelligence if you cant understand who is the primary customer of Strategic airlift. Last time I checked, IAF is not transporting any of their personnel, nor do they have their own Army.


Take some of your own advice that you seem to dispense so freely


I will do something better, I will leave you in your own little la la la land.

"Furnish Proof, or desist." [/quote][/quote]

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kavu » 11 Apr 2010 23:36

Brig, Gurmeet Kanwal writes on the Indian Army's requirement for Strategic Airlift and Indian Navy's requirement for Expeditionary Force. He talks about how Indian Armed Forces wanted this from early 1990.

http://www.ipcs.org/article/military/in ... -2084.html
MILITARY - ARTICLES
Print Bookmark Email Post Comment
#2084, 1 August 2006
INDIA: NEED FOR AN AIR ASSAULT BRIGADE AND RAPID REACTION FORCE

Gurmeet Kanwal
Senior Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi
e-mail: gurmeetkanwal@gmail.com



India will need to raise and maintain small expeditionary forces in a state of readiness to further its national security and foreign policy objectives. When the Taliban came to power, a perplexing question was what India would do if it became necessary to rescue the Indian ambassador or his staff. Would India seek external help? That contingency did not arise but another arose when Indian Airlines' flight IC-814 was hijacked to Kandahar. No military options were available. The ignominious surrender to the Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists appears to have prompted some thinking; hopefully, some air assault capabilities will be put in place.

The need to join future international coalitions to carry out the UN Security Council's directions is always there. General K Sundarji often spoke of converting an infantry division into an air assault division by 2000, but the inadequate budgets of the 1990s did not allow him to implement this concept. Now, air assault capability is a significant force multiplier in conventional conflict apart from out-of-area contingencies. A substantial air assault capability is not only essential for furthering India's national interests but rather, it is now inescapable.

Air Assault Brigade

The present requirement is for one air assault brigade group with an integral heli-lift capability for employment on India's periphery. The brigade should be capable of short-notice deployment in India's extended neighbourhood by air and sea. Comprising three specially trained air assault battalions, an integral firepower component, combat service support and logistics support units, it should be based on MI-17 equivalent transport helicopters. It should have the guaranteed firepower and support of two to three flights of attack and reconnaissance helicopters. The air assault brigade group should be armed, equipped and trained to secure threatened islands, seize an air head and capture a value objective like a bridge to undertake operations in depth. It should also be equipped and trained to operate as part of international coalition forces for quick military interventions. It will have to be provided with air and sealift capability and a high volume of close air support till its deployment area comes within reach of the artillery component of ground forces. Since the raising of such a potent brigade group will be a highly expensive proposition, its components need to be carefully structured to get value for money. It must be emphasised that a brigade group of this nature will provide immense strategic reach and flexibility to military planners and the Cabinet Committee on Security. This capability should be available by the end of the 11th Plan period 2007-12.

Rapid Reaction Division (RRD)

Efforts should also commence to raise a division-size rapid reaction force, of which the first air assault brigade group is a part, by the end of the 12th Plan period 2012-17. The second brigade group of the RRD should have an amphibious capability with the necessary transportation assets being held by the Indian Navy, including landing and logistics ships. The brigade group in Southern Command is designated as an amphibious brigade but it has inadequate amphibious capabilities, and should be suitably upgraded. It should be capable of sustained intervention operations for 30 days. The third brigade of the RRD should be lightly equipped for offensive and defensive employment in the plains and mountains, as well as jungle and desert terrain. All the brigade groups and their support elements should be capable of transportation by land, sea and air.

With the exception of the amphibious brigade, the division should be logistically self-contained for an initial deployment period of 15 to 20 days with limited daily replenishment. Establishing and maintaining infrastructure for this division, especially its strategic air lift, attack helicopters, heli-lift and landing ship requirements, will entail heavy capital expenditure. However, it is an inescapable requirement, and funds will need to be found for this force by innovative management of the defence budget and additional budgetary support. The second RRD should be raised over the 13th and 14th Defence Plans by about 2027, by which time India's responsibilities towards maintaining peace and stability in the Southern Asian and Indian Ocean region would have grown. Unless planning for the creation of such capabilities begins now, the formations will not be available when they are required.

The only airborne force projection capability India possesses at present is an independent Parachute Brigade. Its organisational structure is more suited for conventional operations. This brigade should be retained as an Army HQ reserve for strategic employment behind enemy lines to support the operations of ground forces that are expected to link up with it. However, whenever necessary, the brigade could be allotted to the RRD for short periods to carry out specific tasks.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests