Quoting from that, the need for C-17s is apparent.
'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
Roughly same dimensions?
With that sort of slight of hand you can skip any question.
The question is still not answered.
Well I'm all ears. Please explain, aside from its higher payload, how the C-17 fundamentally differs from the IL-76. AFAIK broadly speaking there were three classes of airlifters - An-12/C-130, IL-76/C-17, An-124/C-5. The An-12 has mostly been replaced either with the larger Il-76 or smaller An-32. There were other aircraft, but by and large these are the relevant ones.
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.
in fact the question. The IAF has had a strategic airlift capability for decades now. That's the reason why two battalions could be airlifted to the Maldives during Op. Cactus with the first elements touching down within 12 hours of the assistance call.
Indeed you are not, with many things clearly. But they can all be dismissed as "murky middle-man facilitated acquisitions of yesteryear"
All your rhetoric and sarcasm aside, the point still stands. Unless you think India's defence acquisitions during the 80s were the ideal model to be followed.
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.
So, who do you expect the
MoD, to send an RFI to? I would assume since the IAF already operates two dozen IL-76s, Illyushin is not whom you had in mind.
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.
The MiG-21 can do Mach 2, shouldn't it be replaced by something that can do Mach 2. Reject the Tejas as well.
Again side stepping the REAL questions and creating straw men are you?
If you were to ask a pertinent question
, I'd give it a shot. The speed of the C-17 acquisition(its been signed as yet) is neither improper nor unprecedented.
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.
The question on which this debate centred was, 'does the IAF believe it needs the C-17'.
Again side stepping the question. The question is when did IAF first say that they needed AWACS capability.
Extrapolating that to the C-17 debate; the IAF first inducted a strategic airlift aircraft in 1984/85, so it presumably started looking for one during the early eighties.
Actually as I have shown the only resort you have is to deny the truth, repeatedly.
Anyway there is no point debating with you, anything can be justified by using words like
roughly same (for C 17 and Il 76)
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?
Tell you lets condense these long posts to two points of disagreement -
1. Is the C-17 fundamentally very different from the Il-76, i.e can it replace the Il-76?
2. Is the acquisition because of a change in doctrine spelled out by the MoD? Or was its requirement identified by the IAF?