Perhaps? Thats it? Wow I am impressed.
I have no doubt you are. Unfortunately the IAF doesn't particular care about how awed you are.
Good, so you at least agree that it is not clear to anyone what the requirement is.
You've missed the point again. This debate isn't about the pros and cons of the C-17. Its about whether this is being unilaterally purchased by the MoD and shoved down the IAF's throat or has the MoD signed off on an IAF recommendation.
Sir you are a genius. IAF was working with DRDO to make a AWACS but that does not mean they were interested because otherwise they should have bought.
Sir I don't particularly care. I'm not debating they were interested in the project.They were interested. The MoD was also interested. The IN was interested. I was also interested.
If the IAF required an AWACS to maintain the balance of forces it deemed necessary, it would like always have gotten the MoD and MoF to sanction a A-50 purchase from the USSR.
Long live lets import everything yesterday lobby.
Ofcourse not lets only the import the mighty T-90s.
Really Il 76 now becomes a strategic airlift, like C 17.
Yes as it happens, the IL-76 is a strategic airlifter. Its got a lower payload than the C-17, but they're both designed for cross-theatre operations.
So ask, and you shall get answers lots of them. In fact already discussed.
There are no 'lots of answers' for that question. Alternatives are available for higher or lower lifting requirements, but not within its segment. Why its wants an aircraft in that segment is question for the IAF to answer.
You are the only one who is touchy about this question for C 17 because there is no answer.
Except that the debate is not about this question(whatever it is) but about whether the decision was made by the IAF or not.
There is a thread for that you know. Even there no one is saying that it was IAs decision.
On the contrary, everyone there is saying it was an IA decision that the MoD went along with.