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.
Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 06 May 2010 00:26

Antonov, Illyushin and Boeing. That you don't think the others are good enough will not deter them from trying. Just like the EF and the F16 for the MRCA competition. This way we got to evaluate and choose the best for us.

Even if its only Boeing that is good enough at-least an effort was made.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Katare » 06 May 2010 01:04

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote:Well the question is moot now, isn't it? .


Indeed it is moot. The lack of RFI/RFP and multi-vendor route has assured the question is moot.

If a multi-vendor RFI was sent, with the standard method advised for procurement and not the short cut, we would know the real deal.

As of now, the question is indeed moot.


Are you sure that there was lack of RFI? I remember IAF chief confirming as far back as in 2008 that an RFI for VHL aircrafts would be sent out shortly that would include C17.

I think after RFI when IAF decided that there is only one suiter it approached to goI for FMS route.

Samething happened in sub deal with the France because no one had a missile firing boat that met IN requirement........

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Katare » 06 May 2010 01:22

Viv S wrote:
Sanku wrote:Well the question is moot now, isn't it? .

Indeed it is moot. The lack of RFI/RFP and multi-vendor route has assured the question is moot.

If a multi-vendor RFI was sent, with the standard method advised for procurement and not the short cut, we would know the real deal.

As of now, the question is indeed moot.


Assuming a rider about the ability to airlift a tank is included, how many vendors do you see queuing up to to hawk their wares?


Regardless of tank carrying capability I think none except Boeing would respond/qualify because no one has an open assembly line for producing a heavy military transport aircraft. Although Russians would love to get an order to fund R&D and open up their mothballed factory to refurbish stored frames of Il76 for exports to India. However IAF might want to go for a tried, tested and proven product that is available for immediate delivery. The cost at $250Mil a pop appears very reasonable for capabilities and support offered. Although one can't brush aside unknowns and risks of doing business with USofA. In an unlikely but possible event of differences over nuclear disarmament issue could result in India finding itself in sticky situation. But in that case C17 would be least of our worries anyhow.

We signed first MKI contract with Russia in 1995, 15 year later we hardly have 100MKI in service. Going for unproven products/paperwares is very risky and eventually costs more than reliable alternatives that were looked over.

I am pretty sure IAF would upgrade and augment its IL76 fleet if reasonable avenues are available but it appears that brass has made up its mind to go for C17 as replacement aircraft for IL76.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 06 May 2010 01:45

Katare wrote:
We signed first MKI contract with Russia in 1995, 15 year later we hardly have 100MKI in service. Going for unproven products/paperwares is very risky and eventually costs more than reliable alternatives that were looked over.


And the requirement for competitive trials was introduced precisely to avoid these sort of "arbitrary" decisions. Now because this C17 brochure claims fit some sort of ideal reqs suddenly we want to give up competitive trials and go the FMS routs for sanction prone equipment? It doesn't make sense to me.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Katare » 06 May 2010 02:02

Shalav wrote:
Katare wrote:
We signed first MKI contract with Russia in 1995, 15 year later we hardly have 100MKI in service. Going for unproven products/paperwares is very risky and eventually costs more than reliable alternatives that were looked over.


And the requirement for competitive trials was introduced precisely to avoid these sort of "arbitrary" decisions. Now because this C17 brochure claims fit some sort of ideal reqs suddenly we want to give up competitive trials and go the FMS routs for sanction prone equipment? It doesn't make sense to me.


Shalav two problem with that statement.

First you need to have more than one product to have competitive bidding. As I see it there is only one supplier available for that product and hence the provisions specifically made in DPP for such products were used. While MRCA is being bid for competitively because there are multiple suppliers that can meet GSQR.

Second competitive bidding is about getting best price for a product which is available from multiple sources in world market, not for avoiding MKI type issues which are basically related to incompetence, bankruptcy, lack of capital and capabilities.


Also words like "arbitary" and "brochre claims" that you are using may not be true as there are ample evidance available and posted here that shows that IAF evaluated (and Boeing demonstrated in India) the plane against its GSQR for VHL aircraft and there may have been an RFI issued for this contract. At worst one could say that there are not enough information in open source about this deal but insinuating coruption and favoritism is stretch IMO.

Shalav two problems with that statement of yours.

First you need to have more than one product/supplier to have competitive bidding. As I see it there is only one supplier available for that product and hence the provisions specifically made in DPP for such products were used. While MRCA is being bid for competitively because there are multiple suppliers that can meet GSQR.

Second competitive bidding is about getting best price for a product which is available from multiple sources in world market, not for avoiding MKI/Gorshkov type issues which are basically related to incompetence, bankruptcy, lack of capital and capabilities.


Also words like "arbitrary decision" and "Meets brochure claims" that you are using may not be true as there are ample evidence available and posted here that shows that IAF evaluated (and Boeing demonstrated in India) the plane against its ASQR for VHL aircraft and there may have been an RFI issued for this contract. At worst one could say that there are not enough information in open source about this deal but insinuating corruption and favoritism is stretch IMO.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 06 May 2010 02:21

Ah but I am not the one 'complaining' about the MKI's - you are. I thought the way you wrote it you evaluated the MKI purchase to be arbitrary and we have been let down by the Russians. As I understand it; you are ok with the IAF evaluating the C17 "properly" and privately but provide the MKI as an example of how not to evaluate an aircraft "properly" and privately (even though it was a custom model that the IAF got in the end and the not the originally evaluated aircraft).

If there are no products for competitive bidding against the C17 - so be it - what then is the point of such a hurry for the FMS sale? Let there be competitive evaluations after all there is no tearing hurry for the acquisition of the C17 - It's not as if we are planning to invade Afghanistan tomorrow or even the next year or two are we?

If the C17 is going to win anyway - and per your reasoning it will be the only suitable product - then the C17 has nothing to worry about. Why dismiss competitive evaluations? It is not going to cost India much when compared to the Rs. 26,000 crore eventual cost - the bidders will be doing the spending just like for the MRCA.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Katare » 06 May 2010 02:26

All right here is some proof that an ASQR was written and an RFI may have been issued...

An update after the Chief of Air Staff's press conference

Hey people, thanks for all the questions here. Unfortunately, I was too busy breaking the news about the Ajai Vikram Singh Committee Part-II approval to ask any questions -- but most of it was covered by the ones who did manage to get questions in. I've got it all in fowlscratch in my notepad, so here's a general update of what the Chief said (I'm sticking to equipment modernisation, not the other stuff):

Technical evaluations of all six MMRCA proposals are complete -- flight evaluations will begin early next year (I'm hoping this means the turnout at Aero India is a godsmack!). The Air Force will shortly formalise an order for eight Agusta-Westland EH-101 helicopters for its VVIP squadron, and an additional four EH-101 cargo variants.

Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR) are almost complete for aircraft that will replace the IAF's Il-76 heavy-lift transports. A request for information (RFI) for very heavy lift (VHL) transports will be sent out soon -- the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III will be one of the contenders. The IAF has completed evaluations of two flight refuelling aircraft (FRA), the Airbus 330 and the Il-78. Price negotiations have begun.

Most of the rest of what he talked about, was the Pay Commission, the AV Singh-2 report approval, and manpower issues. Will post those tomorrow. I know -- nothing about the LCA. But the thing he's already said all that he has to say about it.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 06 May 2010 02:29

Reading that it seems there is going to be some sort of competitive bidding after all. :D

Let the best aircraft win I say. After all - we jingos all want the same thing.

...the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III will be one of the contenders....

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Katare » 06 May 2010 02:36

Shalav wrote:Ah but I am not the one 'complaining' about the MKI's - you are. I thought the way you wrote it you evaluated the MKI purchase to be arbitrary and we have been let down by the Russians. As I understand it; you are ok with the IAF evaluating the C17 "properly" and privately but provide the MKI as an example of how not to evaluate an aircraft "properly" and privately (even though it was a custom model that the IAF got in the end and the not the originally evaluated aircraft).

If there are no products for competitive bidding against the C17 - so be it - what then is the point of such a hurry for the FMS sale? Let there be competitive evaluations after all there is no tearing hurry for the acquisition of the C17 - It's not as if we are planning to invade Afghanistan tomorrow or even the next year or two are we?

If the C17 is going to win anyway - and per your reasoning it will be the only suitable product - then the C17 has nothing to worry about. Why dismiss competitive evaluations? It is not going to cost India much when compared to the Rs. 26,000 crore eventual cost - the bidders will be doing the spending just like for the MRCA.


Shalav,

I mentioned MKI deal because MKI's were bought when that product was not ready, ordering IL76's new model that exist only on paper could result in similar delays and massive cost escalations.

I don't understand how can you have competitive trial when there is no competing product that exists? New IL76 would be available for testing years after IAF funds and assures a production order. Unless you consider the mothballed frame of soviet era as viable replacemnt for existing IL76 in IAF.

I do not see where is the hurry? In 2008 they were evaluating the aircraft in 2010 we haven't even started price negotiations in 2010, a deal is far away.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Katare » 06 May 2010 02:38

Shalav wrote:Reading that it seems there is going to be some sort of competitive bidding after all. :D

Let the best aircraft win I say. After all - we jingos all want the same thing.

...the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III will be one of the contenders....


That report/interview is from 2008, Force had even more detailed interview explaining entire replacemnt lan. They already evaluated everything that was available and selected C17 as per their ASQR.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 06 May 2010 02:49

My error. So where is the follow on news of the RFI being issued and the IAF actually evaluating the aircraft other than the C17? Can you point me to reports of what other aircraft were evaluated against this ASQR

I am looking for some clarity regarding your thoughts on the competitive bidding bit. Most C17 supporters are adamant there is no need of competitive bidding because the C17 will win anyway.

My position is more reasonable, it is not going to cost anything, there is no tearing hurry to acquire the C17's. IF it is going to win anyway why avoid the competitive part of it? What has the C17 got to loose if it performs per the brochure? Unfortunately there is only silence on this question; instead we assured that no competitive bidding is required because we should trust the salesman! :rotfl:

Further there has been nothing but silence to the question of why we should be spending upto Rs. 26,000 crore on sanction prone equipment? Not one convincing explanation has been provided ever as to why the US can be trusted to service this equipment for the next 50 years. We are already seeing the change from the Bush admin. to the Obama admin as far as relations are concerned, who can guarantee what relations will be like over the the next 10-12 US presidential administrations? No one!

I can't spend Rs. 26,000 crore but if I was going to purchase an expensive fleet of cars, I would be very wary of the dealer who told me that he had a right to stop service to my cars anytime he wanted. And I would certainly look askance the the deal if the contract paperwork stated that I could not have the cars repaired anywhere else but at the dealers choice of place, and that every year for the next 50 years I would have to line up my cars so the dealer can inspect them! That basically is what we are agreeing to for the Rs. 26,000 crore.

Does anyone disagree these basic restrictions are not attached to every purchase of (very expensive) US equipment.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 06 May 2010 03:35

Shalav wrote:My position is more reasonable, it is not going to cost anything, there is no tearing hurry to acquire the C17's. IF it is going to win anyway why avoid the competitive part of it? What has the C17 got to loose if it performs per the brochure? Unfortunately there is only silence on this question; instead we assured that no competitive bidding is required because we should trust the salesman!


Depends on the ASQRs doesn't it? If only one aircraft meets the specified requirements, there's no point in having a competitive bidding process.

Further there has been nothing but silence to the question of why we should be spending upto Rs. 26,000 crore on sanction prone equipment? Not one convincing explanation has been provided ever as to why the US can be trusted to service this equipment for the next 50 years. We are already seeing the change from the Bush admin. to the Obama admin as far as relations are concerned, who can guarantee what relations will be like over the the next 10-12 US presidential administrations? No one!


As I see it, the only condition in which the US-India relations with India would be strained would be if we conducted nuclear tests. One, we wouldn't be conducting any nuclear testing since we have a working nuclear deterrent today. And two, even if we did test we'd probably be receive a 'this action has us very concerned' speech and that's about it. When you're on your way to being the third or fourth largest economy, you don't get sanctioned unless you're a threat. Do you think the US would sanction Japan or Brazil if either of them were to conduct nuclear tests?

Does anyone disagree these basic restrictions are not attached to every purchase of (very expensive) US equipment.


I do. AFAIK the Americans may opt to inspect the sold equipment, once a year(or something) at a time and place of the IAF's choosing. Not something we'd welcome but its not something we cannot live with. Its role operationally is not impeded.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 06 May 2010 04:43

Shalav wrote:

Does anyone disagree these basic restrictions are not attached to every purchase of (very expensive) US equipment.


I do too. First, as VivS pointed out the US 'may' choose to inspect the equipment (under the blue lantern or some such thing). And these are to check for any modifications to the equipment which violates IP.

Second, GOI is on record that the inspection would have to be notified well in advance and would be at a place of India's choosing.

Third, As a country which is highly dependent on imports for defence, we have to distinguish between 2 factors - 'Capability' and 'Intention'. The First considers the ability of the vendors (country) to maintain a continuous supply of spare parts, upgrades, servicing and qualitative improvements. The second considers the bonafide or malafide intents of the country of origin.

Wrt to US, we are focusing only on the second factor ('intention'), no one here doubts the 'capability' of their equipment. However, our experience with our traditional equipment supplier (Russia) has certainly not been good on the 'capability' front and as the T-90 episode, Groshkov, second hand Tungushkas, dud krasnopopl shells during kargil showed us - neither are their 'intentions' particularly sound.

So, why not diversify? (At least wrt to the Nuke agreement and the US agreeing to more reprocessing rights than we wanted, they are signalling that they want to do business with us).

So bottom line - we need indigenous systems. Let us see how the Arjuns pan out.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4359
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 06 May 2010 06:28

Viv S wrote:And two, even if we did test we'd probably be receive a 'this action has us very concerned' speech and that's about it.


:rotfl:

You can't possibly believe this Viv, not even the most diehard supporters of C 17 or other US eqpmnt can believe this!

:rotfl:

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

An-124 Offload in High-Definition

Postby VishalJ » 06 May 2010 07:16


Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 06 May 2010 09:16

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Viv S wrote:And two, even if we did test we'd probably be receive a 'this action has us very concerned' speech and that's about it.


:rotfl:

You can't possibly believe this Viv, not even the most diehard supporters of C 17 or other US eqpmnt can believe this!

:rotfl:



That we'd come away with a 'slap on the wrist' in the event of another nuclear test? You bet I do. Lots of things have changed in the last ten years. And far far more is going to change in the next ten. There's a reason why 45 member nations of the NSG voted unanimously to grant India an exemption from the nuclear trade ban, despite a clear statement that India reserves its right to conduct a nuclear test. Heck even in 98, had Pakistan not tested, sanctions would probably not have been passed.
Last edited by Viv S on 06 May 2010 22:12, edited 1 time in total.

JimmyJ
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:36
Location: Bangalore

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby JimmyJ » 06 May 2010 12:19

Sanku wrote:We are questioning the bona fides of the intents, not the methods.


May be the in powers might have resigned to the fact that it would be impossible to reconcile with China. Obama is realizing it already. These all what we see may a plan to gang up against the ultimate threat that both the nations are sure to face within 20 years from now. May be the PMO know something that we don't? Something they are expecting something to happen, a sort of mini world war in South Asia, East Asia and South East Asia. Otherwise what strategic compulsion do India have to have interoperability with US. We won't go into Central Asia, we won't go into West Asia any soon, but can influence a war in South East Asia and East Asia if we decide to just by controlling the gate.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 06 May 2010 16:02

JimmyJ wrote:
Sanku wrote:We are questioning the bona fides of the intents, not the methods.


. May be the PMO know something that we don't? Something they are expecting something to happen, a sort of mini world war in South Asia, East Asia and South East Asia. Otherwise what strategic compulsion do India have to have interoperability with US.


You know Jimmy, that kind of discussion comes as a breath of fresh air.

But you must understand, you have already moved to a level of understanding and discussion, which is not seen yet in many posters on this thread, which is more like "C 17 yeah yeah look at its picture, so pretty"

That is really a serious discussion, but we cant have that till we stop getting derailed by statements like Il 76 is same C 17 but for the name.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 06 May 2010 16:09

Boss talk of belief systems!!!

There may be tons of data that US approach to India and any other country is FUNDAMENTALLY different from approach of any other country.

Some trivial examples are

1) Does any one have EUMA, in ANY form?
2) Does any one need a nuclear liability bill?
3) Is MTCR born of US or other countries?
4) Who funds and props up Pakistan?
5) Who says "China should take charge of Asian security"
6) Who has ISRO on a ban list? Must be the french, must be the Russians CANT be the US.
7) And on and on an on.....

But hey those are NOT issues, you know WHY?

Because I believe!!

You dont believe? You heretic, you 70s mindset person, you war monger....

All you need is love, all you need is love
Love is all you need, love is all you need...

-----------------------------------------

And oh for the things we cant produce in house, buy from the most expensive, most unreliable, most unsuitable buyer.

Because if you are not making at home then buying from everyone else is same, roughly speaking.
:rotfl:

nishu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 19:49

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby nishu » 06 May 2010 16:23

sanku sir you have nailed it 8)

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 06 May 2010 18:06

you guys are wasting too much time worrying about the ill effects of buying 10 aircraft. The fact remains IAF wants it and is getting it, no amount of whine will stop it. :lol: US is a democracy and yes they could have presidents who have a tougher outlook on India but we too are a democracy, we could have really pro-Puki friendly govt or very pro-chini government etc. who knows with all the people we have in our country we could even put a nazi style fanatic leader in power in the future because we are overwhelmingly charmed with that person, a person who hates all pukis and chinis and unkils. so lets not go into what could happen 40 years from now when you cant even predict most of what will happen in two hours.

With all the smug, pollution and growing number of earthquakes, lets see if the world makes it past the next 15 years without loosing half its population to natural disasters, lack of food and water.

IAF will be the user of the aircraft, they seem to have no trouble wanting this aircraft. Secondly EUMA clearly states that they will check if we are using it for intended purpose in this case heavy lift transport, do they care what we transport? ahh no. How can a couple of days inspection become so threatning to our soverenity? They are going to look at some charts, enjoy some dal makhni, chole or Idly dosa, fart a bit and get out soon because that spicy Indian curry will set their asses on fire. :rotfl:

some of us here may look at the c-17 and say wow pretty pretty go on buy it and our level of understanding may be a bit low but guess what, IAF also looked at the aircraft and said wow pretty pretty even while knowing the strings it comes with. so thank goodness some discussions dont get too complicated and some explanations remain vague. some people think too high of themselves here and expect the IAF to come out and explain one by one why they find the c-17 so pretty, well keep waiting because such an explanations wont come. Its frankly none of our business, IAF is a professional organization and they have no time to waste explaining why they do what they do. They are actually busy safeguarding this nation while others have way too much free time here.
:mrgreen:

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 06 May 2010 19:22

Brahmananda wrote:The fact remains IAF wants it and is getting it, no amount of whine will stop it.


Precisely. The IAF has decided the aircraft is necessary and except for insinuating that money changed hands and/or some sort of inane argument about doctrinal change, there's been no solid argument against it.

US is a democracy and yes they could have presidents who have a tougher outlook on India but we too are a democracy, we could have really pro-Puki friendly govt or very pro-chini government etc. who knows with all the people we have in our country we could even put a nazi style fanatic leader in power in the future because we are overwhelmingly charmed with that person, a person who hates all pukis and chinis and unkils. so lets not go into what could happen 40 years from now when you cant even predict most of what will happen in two hours.


Tomorrow, what if a Scandinavian dominated EU decides to sanction India after nuke tests? Maybe we should stop buying from Europe too. What if in the next ten years, Russia and China decide to form a strategic alliance to counter the US? And to address Chinese 'concerns' Russia decides to go back on its contractual obligations?

But, who cares about those scenarios when you can have the great Satan?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 06 May 2010 19:28

Tomorrow, what if the a Scandinavia dominated EU decides to sanction us after nuke tests?


:rotfl:

Sure, that is so nice, the chances of a possibility that EU will be Scandinavia dominate tomorrow is roughly the same as US currently having sanctions against India today.

And it is roughly the same as the chances of Martians attacking tomorrow.

Roughly all they are all equally probable.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 06 May 2010 19:48

Sanku wrote:
Tomorrow, what if the a Scandinavia dominated EU decides to sanction us after nuke tests?


:rotfl:

Sure, that is so nice, the chances of a possibility that EU will be Scandinavia dominate tomorrow is roughly the same as US currently having sanctions against India today.

And it is roughly the same as the chances of Martians attacking tomorrow.


I see. My fault actually. I should pointed out, I've used the word 'tomorrow' in a figurative and not literal sense.

India has no strategic or even defence ties with 18 out of the 27 EU members. While they the EU isn't likely to sanction us, neither is the US.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 06 May 2010 20:32

Viv S wrote:Depends on the ASQRs doesn't it? If only one aircraft meets the specified requirements, there's no point in having a competitive bidding process.


Avoids answering the question of why not a competition, there is no rush to have heavy airlifters in the IAF tomorrow?

As I see it, the only condition in which the US-India relations with India would be strained would be if we conducted nuclear tests. One, we wouldn't be conducting any nuclear testing since we have a working nuclear deterrent today. And two, even if we did test we'd probably be receive a 'this action has us very concerned' speech and that's about it. When you're on your way to being the third or fourth largest economy, you don't get sanctioned unless you're a threat. Do you think the US would sanction Japan or Brazil if either of them were to conduct nuclear tests?


Your contention that India will never ever conduct tests is unsubstantiated and unconvincing. No one believes this to be true - we will test in the future - if only to validate the warheads. Even an uber dove like MMS has not committed to never testing.

In that case sanctions will automatically kick in. Its their law. That is a great thing about the US they are a nation of laws, and once the sanctions kick in automatically, there is no place for a wink-wink, nudge-nudge type of scenario you present.

It is not built into those laws for us as it is for certain countries like Israel, and because of this we will never get away with a 'slap on the wrist' as you think.

If you think is this still possible please show me one instance where the US president has acted contrary to their laws for the interests of India. If it has not been done in the past, why would you think it would be done in the future? What precedence are you hoping will save us that 26,000 crore from sanctions in case of a test?

Japan and Brazil will be sanctioned by the NSG for raw material and technology long before they test - its not only the US. ALL of their nuclear material is under IAEA safeguards and they do not have control over anything which is not accounted for.

All of this is just hopeful whimsy - not reality. Like the above "no tests in the furure" scenario this nude-nudge, wink-wink scenario is unsubstantiated and unconvincing.

I do. AFAIK the Americans may opt to inspect the sold equipment, once a year(or something) at a time and place of the IAF's choosing. Not something we'd welcome but its not something we cannot live with. Its role operationally is not impeded.

Why would you want to live with it - why do you think its ok for the rest of us to live with it? Its our equipment! Would you agree to the same if Russia asked to inspect our T90s or the MiG29s every year. No!

Every one here including you and the C17 supporters would be yelling about sovereignty and how the Russians are screwing us. Somehow all this talk about Indian sovereignty is becomes subdued when it comes to shiny, new, very expensive US equipment with a bad case of brochureitis.

Brahmananda,

Ignoring the rest of your rather long blather about whiners and cry-babies basically you have nothing more substantial to present other than "the IAF wants it and has looked at it, and we should trust them". Am I correct?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 06 May 2010 21:21

Viv S wrote:I see. My fault actually. I should pointed out, I've used the word 'tomorrow' in a figurative and not literal sense.


I understand, you meant roughly. A rough analogy which shows how the chances of various ill-steps by US is exactly same as EU.

Figures

India has no strategic or even defence ties with 18 out of the 27 EU members. While they the EU isn't likely to sanction us, neither is the US.


Ahem Ahem, US has sanctioned us in the past, and has our defense labs under sanction at present.

and that is but one of the MANY issues which are EXACTLY as following

1) What is the role for this aircraft.
2) Why is this being pushed through a FMS route and not a RFI/RFP route.
3) Why such a hurry for this a/c where no prior known need was felt as opposed to far more critical needs for artillery guns.
4) Why the pattern of helping Uncle Sam out by canceling tenders where Uncle Sam cant get a foot in to make money.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 06 May 2010 22:43

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote:I see. My fault actually. I should pointed out, I've used the word 'tomorrow' in a figurative and not literal sense.


I understand, you meant roughly. A rough analogy which shows how the chances of various ill-steps by US is exactly same as EU.

Figures


I'm simply pointing out, the Europeans or Russians aren't 'safe' options. 'Us is exactly same as EU' are your words not mine. When India was looking for a waiver from the NSG, while the US was pushing through a major diplomatic offensive to help India's case, plenty of European countries like Austria, Sweden, Netherlands were opposed to making any 'concessions'.

Ahem Ahem, US has sanctioned us in the past, and has our defense labs under sanction at present.

and that is but one of the MANY issues which are EXACTLY as following

1) What is the role for this aircraft.
2) Why is this being pushed through a FMS route and not a RFI/RFP route.
3) Why such a hurry for this a/c where no prior known need was felt as opposed to far more critical needs for artillery guns.
4) Why the pattern of helping Uncle Sam out by canceling tenders where Uncle Sam cant get a foot in to make money.


1) Strategic airlift. Same as what the Il-76 performs today.
2) Only one wide-body aircraft is available for strategic airlift today.
3) The order is independent of any other critical/minor need for other defence equipment.
4) Irrelevant to C-17 debate.
Last edited by Viv S on 06 May 2010 22:51, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8063
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Indranil » 06 May 2010 22:50

X-posting from Indian mil. aviation thread.

IAF’s C-130 Aircraft Trials Soon http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=12852
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Have to hand it to the Americans for the timeliness. Even the P8i-s seem to be on schedule. No cost escalations, nothing. Just a clean deal and timely supply! It is such a refreshing change from atleast a 3-4 years of delay in almost all defense acquisitions!

Brings me to another question, the C-130j s have other competitors, is in the same tonnage as the MTA, is not particularly cheap, was bought through the FMS and has the same strings attached as the C-17s. How come the C-17 decision is being left right and center? I will X-post this at the C-17 thread!

P.S. I hate the EUMA clause of then checking our aircrafts, immaterial of ours deciding when and where

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 07 May 2010 05:11

Sanku wrote:
-----------------------------------------

And oh for the things we cant produce in house, buy from the most expensive, most unreliable, most unsuitable buyer.

Because if you are not making at home then buying from everyone else is same, roughly speaking.
:rotfl:



Apart from your irrelevant rant about how bad the US is (they help pakis !!), can you prove to us that - if you can't make it from home, why buying from every one else is not the same (especially for high end equipment and given our experience with the reliability and ability of traditional suppliers)? Is this based on your belief system? When you identify a seller as 'most unreliable' and 'most expensive' - do you have data to prove it? ('unsuitable' - is probably your belief?)

I know it is easier for you to :rotfl: , rather than come up with indepth research and provide data to prove your point, but think of it as an exercise where you are trying to explain your position to people who actually know stuff, rather than writing fiction (Which is why you should not have strayed into the Military forum and remained in the hot air area) :)

Incidentally, have you read the bits I posted about the Inter Government Agreement from DPP 2006, in response to your query about why the FMS route was chosen, Or will you be able to answer a query as to why we are buying an old rust bucket like Groshkov (was this through RFI /RFP?) with ever increasing price demands, when critical artillery purchases remain undecided? Or do you think desperate spamming will help obfuscate issues?
Last edited by arnab on 07 May 2010 07:31, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 07 May 2010 06:12

About ITAR

http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/05/06/defence-export-rules-hinder-allied-nations-u-s-worries-some-countries-buy-non-american-weapons.aspx

This paragraph, without naming it, is about the C-17 procurement.

In addition, in 2006 a dispute erupted over U.S. government attempts to use ITAR to limit the type of Canadian citizens that were allowed to work on Canadian Defence Department procurements. The U.S. was insisting that Canadians born in certain countries or those who held dual citizenship with particular nations not be allowed access to information on American technology in defense systems Canada was purchasing.
Last edited by Gilles on 07 May 2010 17:00, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 07 May 2010 07:12



Going through the article it appears the issues are with American refusal to export classified sub-systems to allied countries and/or restricted the customer's ability to modify the system. Not something the IAF needs to be worried about, given that the details are usually spelled out in the proposal before any contract is awarded. The IAF will not accede to any purchase coming with restrictions that impair its operational role.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 07 May 2010 12:23

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:
-----------------------------------------

And oh for the things we cant produce in house, buy from the most expensive, most unreliable, most unsuitable buyer.

Because if you are not making at home then buying from everyone else is same, roughly speaking.
:rotfl:



Apart from your irrelevant rant about how bad the US is (they help pakis !!), can you prove to us that - if you can't make it from home, why buying from every one else is not the same (especially for high end equipment and given our experience with the reliability and ability of traditional suppliers)?



Yes Arnab the only point I raised in the following

1) Does any one have EUMA, in ANY form?
2) Does any one need a nuclear liability bill?
3) Is MTCR born of US or other countries?
4) Who funds and props up Pakistan?
5) Who says "China should take charge of Asian security"
6) Who has ISRO on a ban list? Must be the french, must be the Russians CANT be the US.
7) And on and on an on.....


was about how US helps Pakis.

For you exactly as expected on the line of honesty and correctness.

Man if it was me making such a blatantly incorrect and easily unprovable assertion, I would be so ashamed that I would crawl into a hole and die, but then there is a reason words like Machoism are coined is it not?

And you are right, buying from some one who has EUMA and some one who does not have EUMA are exactly the same since, hey it roughly does not matter.

Please carry on, we may not be able to do anything more than disagree with GoIs decision, but if it was not for supporters like you, it would really difficult to so thoroughly demonstrate how hollow the support position is.

Unlike your discomfit at my presence here, I welcome your presence, you do invaluable service. Thank you.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 07 May 2010 12:37

Sanku wrote:
-----------------------------------------



Yes Arnab the only point I raised in the following

1) Does any one have EUMA, in ANY form?
2) Does any one need a nuclear liability bill?
3) Is MTCR born of US or other countries?
4) Who funds and props up Pakistan?
5) Who says "China should take charge of Asian security"
6) Who has ISRO on a ban list? Must be the french, must be the Russians CANT be the US.
7) And on and on an on.....


was about how US helps Pakis.

For you exactly as expected on the line of honesty and correctness.



Unlike your discomfit at my presence here, I welcome your presence, you do invaluable service. Thank you.


Ok so so you have moved away from your 'psuedo technical' queries and have proved that basically you are a political hack :) I thought you were asking these EXACT questions, and the others were merely a side show :

and that is but one of the MANY issues which are EXACTLY as following

1) What is the role for this aircraft.
2) Why is this being pushed through a FMS route and not a RFI/RFP route.
3) Why such a hurry for this a/c where no prior known need was felt as opposed to far more critical needs for artillery guns.
4) Why the pattern of helping Uncle Sam out by canceling tenders where Uncle Sam cant get a foot in to make money.


Do tell us about Groshkov whether that purchase followed the RFI/RFP route? and if that that purchase impinged on critical artillery purchases? What was the hurry for Groshkov? considering neither Pakis or China have Aircraft Carriers? Was it to line the pockets of Rodina?

So tell me how does EUMA / support to China / support to pakis and your standard litany of complaints affect the operational readiness of the Indian forces? After all, in an operational sense what was the use of non-EUMA designated Krasnopol shells that were found to be 100 % duds?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 07 May 2010 12:43

Arnab I can understand your frustration now visible in low level personal attacks now that you have been exposed as a person how has no answers and attempts to get out of that my repeatedly misrepresenting the others PoV.

So whats your latest tanget and sidestep right now? Gorshkov?

Perhaps details escape your excellency such as Gorky was purchased BEFORE the new rules for DPP, DAC, LTIPP, offset etc etc were put in place.

BEFORE you see, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/before

Meanwhile WHEN Gorky was signed no one expected the current mess to happen 10 years hence.

So if you are comparing Gorky to C 17s, you agree that the BEST case defence you have is "torn shirt, open fly" debate about Gorky, expect that Gorky mess is known in hindsight and you are saying for C 17 thats the best case even before the purchase?

Thank you Arnab, I could not have put it better myself.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 07 May 2010 12:47

The Gorshkov deal was absolutely critical (because there was no other carrier available to replace the Viraat,even the Vikrant's retirement had gone without replacement) and even here let one remember that it took several years,more than 4 in fact before the deal was finalised,part of a package that included the lease of the nuclear SSGN Akula-2/3 arriving shortly.It was not made in indecent haste like the C-17s.Incidentally,I came across courtesy Flight this interesting snippet,that when the OZ got their fist NH-90 recently,4 have arrived 40+ on order,did it come in a C-17? No sir,the helo was flown out to Oz in an AN-124!

Furthermore,first hand assesssment from a former highly respected AM who was in charge of one of our IAF commands,is that there is no equivalent to the IL-76 and even the older Antonovs are v.good.The IL-76 can take off from Leh,etc.,in exceptionally cold weather conditions withou any problem.We have had (touch wood) absolutely no problems with the IL-76s.In fact reference was made about a Hercules crash in the Phillipines were the aircraft lacked power at take off and slammed into a hill.According to him,the Russian transports are v.rugged and can do "the business".

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 07 May 2010 12:54

Sanku wrote:Arnab I can understand your frustration now visible in low level personal attacks now that you have been exposed as a person how has no answers and attempts to get out of that my repeatedly misrepresenting the others PoV.

So whats your latest tanget and sidestep right now? Gorshkov?

Perhaps details escape your excellency such as Gorky was purchased BEFORE the new rules for DPP, DAC, LTIPP, offset etc etc were put in place.


So if you are comparing Gorky to C 17s, you agree that the BEST case defence you have is "torn shirt, open fly" debate about Gorky, expect that Gorky mess is known in hindsight and you are saying for C 17 thats the best case even before the purchase?



Gorky was purchased before the RFI /RFP procedure was in place? prove it. The contract was signed in 2004. DAC was set up in 2001. Once the Gorky mess was known, T-90 mess was known, Tungushka mess was known, krasnopol mess was known, talwar class ship mess was known, cryogenic mess was known - do you think it was time to look at other options?

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 07 May 2010 12:57

Ignoring the rest of your rather long blather about whiners and cry-babies basically you have nothing more substantial to present other than "the IAF wants it and has looked at it, and we should trust them". Am I correct?


excuse me but who the heck are we that IAF actually has to explain to us why its buying the c-17. why do you keep expecting something more substantial than IAF saying 'we want a heavy lifter, we have tested it, we like and we want it'. What more explanation can the IAF give beyond we can use it for heavy lift purposes. As far as i know you are arent doing any thing substantial by either going out there and guarding our nation. so you really think IAF will take time off from their job of defending this nation will come to us and give us a mindblowing full day presentation on how wonderful the c-17 is? As far i know they are the ones defending the nation, they are the ones who have flown and tested the aircraft, so no matter the blabber about strings, price or intended use, they on any given day know more about what they want and need, they are the ones betting their lives to go defend this nation not you, so yes i have no option but to trust them and their decision whether i like or not.

same way mig-35 isnt my fav for the mrca but if it wins, it wins and i have to accept their choice no matter my ideas of why its sucks, if they like it and buy it well they know much more than me. it would be a waste of time to wonder why mig-35 why mig-35 and whine about it. so c-17 will come, they know more than you could ever know. so we all need to just calm the down.

nishu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 19:49

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby nishu » 07 May 2010 13:30

we are the citizens of this country whom the indian airforce swore to protect . If my country calls me to fight any day i am ready to do so dont question others patriotism . Dont think that every body is a couch potato and know nothing about countrys defence .
if you know history of wars fought on this planet it was the people of those countrys that were attacked fought back against the invader after their army navy airforces were defeated , and they did that successfully .

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 07 May 2010 13:44

arnab wrote:Gorky was purchased before the RFI /RFP procedure was in place? prove it. The contract was signed in 2004. DAC was set up in 2001.


And when did the negotiations start for Gorky? And as I said if you think Gorky after purchase == C 17s before purchase; thanks.

Once the Gorky mess was known, T-90 mess was known, Tungushka mess was known, krasnopol mess was known, talwar class ship mess was known, cryogenic mess was known - do you think it was time to look at other options?


More open shirt torn fly debate. Trying to spin it away into other irrelevant directions..

We can take each of those and show how the situation was different (Cryo mess? Russia at fault and not US? :rotfl: tell us another one)

But we wont go into those -- WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN into all those.

We are talking C 17 here alright. :twisted: And obviously you have no answers other than personal insults and bringing up deliberately misleading examples.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 07 May 2010 14:01

indranilroy wrote:Brings me to another question, the C-130j s have other competitors, is in the same tonnage as the MTA, is not particularly cheap, was bought through the FMS and has the same strings attached as the C-17s. How come the C-17 decision is being left right and center? I will X-post this at the C-17 thread!


I had made a fairly innocuous reply to this, but it seems be lost, dont know what happened.

Basically I think thats a great question and I was wondering why it has not been asked before. The short answer is that C-130 J was discussed and it made sense.

Unlike in the current case where there are many open questions and also the amount of money involved is rather large, the C-130 J deal appeared to fit a specific sweet spot.

That also goes to show that there is no knee jerk anti-americanism in play here (as is gratuitously accused) there is Only India first PoV. In case it make sense, the trade off between the pro/con can be accepted.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests