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.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby amit » 07 May 2010 14:15

Sanku, you make a statement:

Sanku wrote:Basically I think...


And then you qualify it with:

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.


Don't you think folks reading your posts should be judge of whether there is anti-americanism or not? :)

By the way did we sign a EUMA for the C-130J? Can't seem to recall but the deal was fixed last year right? I remember we signed a EUMA for the firefinder radars we bought way back during Jaswant's time and for the USS Trenton. If we did and EUMA was OK for C-130J, then I suppose there no reason to be against a EUMA (leaving all other consideration of equipment merit and cost aside) for C-17s, right?

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 07 May 2010 17:34

nishu wrote: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 .


i dont assume everyone is a couch potato but one has to trust the decision of our armed forces. i my self am in the reserve army. The country isnt going to send everyone an invitation to come and fight even in the most dire of circumstances; one has to volunteer, its easy to sit and feel patriotic. Its like saying i will help my mother when she calls for help, a real son will help without the need of a call. for the josh you have i salute you, you should join the army reserve.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 07 May 2010 18:23

Philip wrote: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!


Given the fact that the An-124 or C-5 are not in production, have a high operating cost and no stated rough field capacity, neither is an option for the IAF. Today, if the IAF is required to airlift any tracked or wheeled vehicle larger than a jeep, the C-17 remains the best and only viable option.

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".


That's the point, isn't it? While the AM praises the Il-76, he isn't comparing it with the C-17. The IAF's current brass/think-tank on the other hand has had an opportunity to analyse the C-17, with the benefit of the Il-76 experience, and is of the opinion that the IAF should go in for it.
Last edited by Viv S on 07 May 2010 18:50, edited 1 time in total.

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby sathyaC » 07 May 2010 18:48

Brahmananda wrote:you should join the army reserve .


how to join the army reserve
out of topic but pliz.......,,,,

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 07 May 2010 18:58

Guys,we aren't buying pao bhaji or alloo tikki,tandoori chicken,etc.These deals are massive,costing thousands of crores,billions of dollars of the TAXPAYERS' hard earned money.How many of our countrymen too pay taxes? In addition if these deals come with strings attached,when other options do not have them,we must ask questions.There is no harm in asking questions,it is one of the fundamentals of democracy enshrined in our constitution,the right too free speech.BR is part of the free media thanks to the Net in cyberspace and as valid and neccessary as any of the print media publications.What we are trying to do is to evaluate the decisions being made by the GOI/armed foces and seeing whether they are truly relevant,serve our interests best,"India first",and where on the list of priorities these systems being acquired are and for what price.Sadly in the case of the C-17,the primary interest is to serve Boeing and not India!

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 07 May 2010 20:15

sathyaC wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:you should join the army reserve .


how to join the army reserve
out of topic but pliz.......,,,,


I was in the NCC then i got into the Territorial army after following their recruitment procedure.

Send an application to TA Group Headquarters which group depends on the zone you live in.

Zone- I The state of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab and the Union
Territory of Delhi and Chandigarh .

Zone - II The state of Bihar , Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh
and Uttrakhand.

Zone - III The state of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Nagaland, Sikkim, West Bengal,
Mizoram, Arunanchal Pradesh and UT of Andanman & Nicobar Island.

Zone - IV The state of Andhra Pradesh, Gujrat, Kerla, Tamilandu, Rajasthan, Maharashtra,
Karnataka, Goa and Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Lakshdweep and
Pondicherry.

After processing of application, if you are eligible you will be called for Preliminary Interview Boards held at TA Group Headquarters based at Pune, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Lucknow. If you get through, you'll go through SSB Interview, Medical check & Police Verification. If successful you are granted commission by the President of India.

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/ ... n_form.pdf

The Territorial army is open to any one in the age group of 18-42 years of age. However, once you join be prepared to dedicate atleast a couple of months or more in a year to training.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Shalav » 07 May 2010 20:49

Brahmananda wrote: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 ...

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. ...


As I thought nothing more substantial than the IAF says it wants it and it has tested it.

If the MiG35 wins the competition it will be because it has beaten out other competition to win. There will be no reason to complain about why it was selected. The competition is clear for all to see. What competition has the C17 beaten? And thats all people are asking for - an open competition in addition to no EUMA and no sanctions guarantees.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby shukla » 07 May 2010 20:51

Ex-IAF officers give the C-17 a 'thumbs-up'!!

Drelling found support from Air Marshall (retd) Harish Masand who feels New Delhi could eventually need more than 10 C-17s to cover what he calls infrastructure deficiencies, especially in the country’s northeastern parts.

“It is a good replacement for the IL-76 with enhanced payload capabilities, advanced avionics and other systems,” says Masand. Agrees Air Vice-Marshal (retd) Kapil Kak, Additional Director, Centre for Airpower Studies: “By the time the fleet settles in, it will immediately fit in with the larger purpose. This was clearly evident from the experience of 26/11. One C-17 taking off from Delhi for Mumbai with about 350 men would have been enough.”

Adds Kak: “In 2010, the question we are faced with is: What are the IAF’s overall strategic heavy-lift needs going to be 30 years from now, and what kind of capacity do we need to build? Remember, the collective response within 48 hours by Australia, Japan, US and India during the 2004 tsunami — called for heavy airlift.”


http://www.tehelka.com/story_main44.asp ... losing.asp

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Hitesh » 07 May 2010 20:59

Shukla,

Thanks for that tidbit,
“In 2010, the question we are faced with is: What are the IAF’s overall strategic heavy-lift needs going to be 30 years from now, and what kind of capacity do we need to build? Remember, the collective response within 48 hours by Australia, Japan, US and India during the 2004 tsunami — called for heavy airlift.”


Now I know why the IAF needs the C-17s. I keep looking for a valid reason for the C-17s since India does not have any commitments overseas nor plan any such. But the disaster relief efforts of the 2004 tsunami and the Mumbai attacks does give a very good reason for the purchase of C-17s. Based on the above tidbits, I am changing my mind about the purchase of the C-17s and now supporting the purchase wholeheartedly.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby shukla » 07 May 2010 21:09

Hitesh wrote:Shukla,

Thanks for that tidbit,
“In 2010, the question we are faced with is: What are the IAF’s overall strategic heavy-lift needs going to be 30 years from now, and what kind of capacity do we need to build? Remember, the collective response within 48 hours by Australia, Japan, US and India during the 2004 tsunami — called for heavy airlift.”


Now I know why the IAF needs the C-17s. I keep looking for a valid reason for the C-17s since India does not have any commitments overseas nor plan any such. But the disaster relief efforts of the 2004 tsunami and the Mumbai attacks does give a very good reason for the purchase of C-17s. Based on the above tidbits, I am changing my mind about the purchase of the C-17s and now supporting the purchase wholeheartedly.


And this in addition to Retd. Air Marshal Ashok Goel (with extensive experience with the IL-76- incidentally had brought in the first IL-76 aircraft to India) spoke in favour of the C-17. So we have about 3 ex-officers now openly supporting the C-17..

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8064
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Indranil » 07 May 2010 22:04

Shalav wrote:If the MiG35 wins the competition it will be because it has beaten out other competition to win. There will be no reason to complain about why it was selected. The competition is clear for all to see. What competition has the C17 beaten?


Man-o-man,
COMPETITION AGAINST WHOM?!! Do some research and come up with a viable alternative in +/-15 tons category which can be obtained within the next (say) 5 years, and will have a considerable number of planes with relative same age flying around 20 years from now. Ask for evaluations, that would at least make sense

whichever plane the IAF selects in the MMRCA, do you think that we will get the reasons for it?!! We will have to take the IAFs word for it. Is it not? Even then, if a US plane is chosen, we will hear a lot of music here, inspite of what the airmen of our country have to say! However, if a non-US plane wins the fans of the F-16s and F-18s will accept it more quietly. So don't bring in such discussions. It is worthless!

Anyways, I have decided not to dedicate any more post counts on this. The torn shirts have been swirling on both sides, its just that we chose to see only the opponents swirling. Please come back to the merits and demerits of the C-17 (the plane) for its price! Provide information and facts, not your opinions. Reading through so many opinionated posts with absolutely zero additions in info, and the same rants .... not very helpful

Just my thoughts as a reader!

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby sathyaC » 07 May 2010 22:52

Brahmananda wrote: how to join the army reserve
out of topic but pliz.......,,,,
I was in the NCC then i got into the Territorial army after following their recruitment procedure.

Send an application to TA Group Headquarters which group depends on the zone you live in.

Zone- I The state of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab and the Union
Territory of Delhi and Chandigarh .

Zone - II The state of Bihar , Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh
and Uttrakhand.

Zone - III The state of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Nagaland, Sikkim, West Bengal,
Mizoram, Arunanchal Pradesh and UT of Andanman & Nicobar Island.

Zone - IV The state of Andhra Pradesh, Gujrat, Kerla, Tamilandu, Rajasthan, Maharashtra,
Karnataka, Goa and Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Lakshdweep and
Pondicherry.

After processing of application, if you are eligible you will be called for Preliminary Interview Boards held at TA Group Headquarters based at Pune, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Lucknow. If you get through, you'll go through SSB Interview, Medical check & Police Verification. If successful you are granted commission by the President of India.

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/ ... n_form.pdf

The Territorial army is open to any one in the age group of 18-42 years of age. However, once you join be prepared to dedicate atleast a couple of months or more in a year to training..






thnx a lot for the info

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 07 May 2010 23:09

Brahmananda wrote: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.


Reading your many interventions, I notice that you are very much opposed to any public debate about military procurement. Do you not know that such debates go on in all real democracies? The countries where such debates do not exist are in non democratic states.

In Canada, there is the armed forces, the people who wear uniforms.
http://www.cds-cemd.forces.gc.ca/index-eng.asp

Then there is the civilian oversight, the Ministry of Defence. Our Minister of Defence and his staff are in great part civilians.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/minister-ministre/index-eng.asp?WT.svl=ministerLeft

Then the Senate has a Committee that oversees military matters.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenHome.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=76

Our House of Commons has such a Committee also

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/committeebusiness/AboutCommittees.aspx?Cmte=NDDN&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1

The Auditor General can then audit things like military procurement, and does so. Here is an example:

[url] http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Engli ... 33206.html [url]



Then there are a series of Think Tanks, many of which are associated with Canadian Universities, and some of which receive public money for their activities

[url]http://thinktanks.fpri.org/list?country_op=or&country[0]=Canada&view_name=list&view_display_id=page&view_args=a&view_path=index&view_base_path=index&view_dom_id=2&pager_element=0[/url]

Then there are Blogs which specialize on the military where military related issues are raised and discussed.

http://www.casr.ca or http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/default.aspx or http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

Finally there are press articles that are critical of certain defence related issues when warranted:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canadas-CH-148-Cyclones-Better-Late-Than-Never-05223/

Everyone is free to give their opinion and discus a wide range of issues regarding defence policy and defence procurement.

Yet you spend your time telling everyone that Indian Military procurement issues are not to be discussed here because the IAF knows best, knows what it wants, has already decided, and who are these posters who think they can second-guess these all-knowing semi-gods who decided that the C-17 was what they needed?

The only countries where such an attitude exists is in non-democratic societies where one dictates and the others obey. Is India such a country? If it was, this very Forum where all of us are free to express our opinions would not even exist. There is none in the UAE that just purchased 6 C-17s! For what ? Asking that question there can land you in jail,

And believe it or not, when opinions are frely published, they are taken into account by those in power. You cannot believe how many times in Canada that something that was published in the press one day is discussed on the parliament floor the next. It does make a difference! Maybe that is why you are against it after all.
Last edited by Gilles on 08 May 2010 09:17, edited 4 times in total.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 08 May 2010 04:39

Gilles wrote:Reading your many interventions, I notice that you are very much opposed to any public debate about military procurement. Do you not know that such debates go on in all real democracies? The countries where such debates do not exist are in non democratic states.


Debate about military affairs is a good thing for a democracy. The problem begins when someone starts calling such procurements 'sell-outs' to the US. That's why the point is made, that this purchase was recommended and advocated for, by the IAF. Most people will have no qualms questioning the government's loyalty, but even they'd balk at questioning the IAF's priorities. In the armoured forum, the posts are by and large critical of the IA's recent orders for the T-90, but very few blame it on Russian 'influenced' elements in the government.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 08 May 2010 19:31

Viv S wrote:Debate about military affairs is a good thing for a democracy. The problem begins when someone starts calling such procurements 'sell-outs' to the US. That's why the point is made, that this purchase was recommended and advocated for, by the IAF. Most people will have no qualms questioning the government's loyalty, but even they'd balk at questioning the IAF's priorities. In the armoured forum, the posts are by and large critical of the IA's recent orders for the T-90, but very few blame it on Russian 'influenced' elements in the government.


India's C-17 interest has to be taken in context.

India already operates 17 large IL-76 heavy airlifters which easlily have another 20 or 30 years left in them if they are upgraded. There have been unsubstantiated claims here that the IL-76 are at the end of their service life which I do not think is true. If that is true of India, what about the hundreds of Il-76s on Russian Air Force inventory many of which are older then the 1986-1988 era IL-76s in India?

The Il-76 is no small aircraft. It has about the same take-off weight as the Boeing 767-400ER, a 375 passenger aircraft if operated in single class. The 767-400ER is called a HEAVY WIDE-BODY aircraft.

A C-17 on the other hand, is about the same weight as a B-777-200ER, an aircraft that can haul 440 passengers in single class configuration. It is a bit larger than the B-767-400ER, but not by a large margin.

Also, the Indian interest in C-17s comes in the wake of ridiculous C-17 "purchases" elsewhere.

The US Congress is imposing C-17s on the US Air Force which no longer wants any.
Tiny Qatar which buys 2 of them. Does anyone here really think Qatar NEEDS C-17s?
Tiny UAE, which barely even has an Air Force, which orders 6 C-17s! Can anyone on this Forum claim with a straight face that the UAE Air Force needs those 6 C-17s? If not, why are they being purchased?

What are these countries going to do with Strategic Airlifters?

In late 2003, the Canadian Minister of National Defence of the time John McCallum made a speech in which he said the following:

In terms of demonstrating responsible management, I have made it crystal clear that Canada will not be unilaterally purchasing strategic airlift for the Canadian Forces.

Only two NATO nations, the US and UK, have this capability. For a country of Canada's size, it is simply not an efficient use of resources. Over the past six fiscal years, Canada has spent approximately $107 million on strategic airlift, an average of $18 million per year.

This is but a mere fraction of the annual interest on the cost of our own strategic airlift – let alone the capital cost. And no one has yet been able to give me a single instance where the absence of this capability stopped us or significantly delayed us moving people or equipment from point A to point B.

I note with pleasure that the department has already signed a contract to airlift armoured vehicles to Kabul – just two working days after the decision to send those vehicles was taken.

By removing strategic airlift from the SCIP, we free up money measured in the billions of dollars for more important investments.


In February 2006, the Liberal government to which John McCallum belonged was replaced with the more pro-American Conservative government of Stephen Harper (who as opposition leader wanted Canada to join the US in the war in Iraq) and five months later Canada had placed an order for 4 C-17s.

Its in such a context that some people claim that the Indian interest in C-17s is politically motivated.

As for the military, regardless of what country they are from, if they are offered bigger, more modern toys to play with, that they do not have to pay for out of their own budget, they never refuse. What head of the Air Force will refuse free F-22 fighters? What head of the Navy will refuse free nuclear powered attack subs or nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

But tell that same head of the Air Force "we are about to give you 5.8 Billion dollars of new C-17s, but in exchange you have to cancel 5.8 Billion dollars of previously agreed fighter purchases" and you will hear a bunch of objections.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby rohitvats » 08 May 2010 23:15

Gilles wrote:
India's C-17 interest has to be taken in context.


A context, that is being created by you and others and does not exist.

India already operates 17 large IL-76 heavy airlifters which easlily have another 20 or 30 years left in them if they are upgraded. There have been unsubstantiated claims here that the IL-76 are at the end of their service life which I do not think is true. If that is true of India, what about the hundreds of Il-76s on Russian Air Force inventory many of which are older then the 1986-1988 era IL-76s in India?


What has the presence or otherwise of IL-76 in Indian arsenal got to do with C-17 purchase? What should IAF do to supplement the airlift capacity? Supplement with more IL-76? What should IAF do if it needs more airlift per aircraft? Should IAF shoulder on with Il-76 for the sake of it and look for replacement at the fag end of their life?

OK, here is an open question. IAF needs to add same airlift capability as given by the planned purchase of 10 C-17? What are the options? And please, don't give me if and buts. Options as available as we speak.

The Il-76 is no small aircraft. It has about the same take-off weight as the Boeing 767-400ER, a 375 passenger aircraft if operated in single class. The 767-400ER is called a HEAVY WIDE-BODY aircraft.

A C-17 on the other hand, is about the same weight as a B-777-200ER, an aircraft that can haul 440 passengers in single class configuration. It is a bit larger than the B-767-400ER, but not by a large margin.


And the point being?

Also, the Indian interest in C-17s comes in the wake of ridiculous C-17 "purchases" elsewhere.

The US Congress is imposing C-17s on the US Air Force which no longer wants any.
Tiny Qatar which buys 2 of them. Does anyone here really think Qatar NEEDS C-17s?
Tiny UAE, which barely even has an Air Force, which orders 6 C-17s! Can anyone on this Forum claim with a straight face that the UAE Air Force needs those 6 C-17s? If not, why are they being purchased?

What are these countries going to do with Strategic Airlifters?


And can you, similarly, say that India and IAF do not need strategic air-lift? Why these irrelevant arguments?

In late 2003, the Canadian Minister of National Defence of the time John McCallum made a speech in which he said the following:

In terms of demonstrating responsible management, I have made it crystal clear that Canada will not be unilaterally purchasing strategic airlift for the Canadian Forces.

Only two NATO nations, the US and UK, have this capability. For a country of Canada's size, it is simply not an efficient use of resources. Over the past six fiscal years, Canada has spent approximately $107 million on strategic airlift, an average of $18 million per year.

This is but a mere fraction of the annual interest on the cost of our own strategic airlift – let alone the capital cost. And no one has yet been able to give me a single instance where the absence of this capability stopped us or significantly delayed us moving people or equipment from point A to point B.

I note with pleasure that the department has already signed a contract to airlift armoured vehicles to Kabul – just two working days after the decision to send those vehicles was taken.

By removing strategic airlift from the SCIP, we free up money measured in the billions of dollars for more important investments.


In February 2006, the Liberal government to which John McCallum belonged was replaced with the more pro-American Conservative government of Stephen Harper (who as opposition leader wanted Canada to join the US in the war in Iraq) and five months later Canada had placed an order for 4 C-17s.

Its in such a context that some people claim that the Indian interest in C-17s is politically motivated.


How can you compare the air-lift requirement of Canada and politics that went beind the purchase of C-17 with Indian scenario? If wikipedia is correct, Canadian Land Forces have grand total of 19,500 regular and 16,000 reserve soldiers. The tonnage required to be lifted, even when deployed operationaly, for such an active force is going to be insignificant as compared to India. Tell me, how much tonnage is required to be airlifted for the Canadian forces in Afganistan (~3,000 soldiers)? Or their deployment in the northern extermities of Canada? And, except for Afg., is the deployment of CLF operational in nature? Something on the lines for Indian Army?

So, if the Canadian minister questions the purchase of C-17, I can understand. But why extend the same argument to IAF and India? A single Indian Infantry Division and it's support structure has more troops than the Canadian Land Forces. And we have 30 of them. So, neither is the Canadian or UK or tin pot Gulf Sheikdoms buying C-17 example relevant to us.

As for the military, regardless of what country they are from, if they are offered bigger, more modern toys to play with, that they do not have to pay for out of their own budget, they never refuse. What head of the Air Force will refuse free F-22 fighters? What head of the Navy will refuse free nuclear powered attack subs or nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

But tell that same head of the Air Force "we are about to give you 5.8 Billion dollars of new C-17s, but in exchange you have to cancel 5.8 Billion dollars of previously agreed fighter purchases" and you will hear a bunch of objections.


And where do you tink, this money comeing from?

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 09 May 2010 01:57

rohitvats wrote:A context, that is being created by you and others and does not exist.


The C-17 plant is at the end of its production and has been since late 2005. Thousands of US high paid jobs in 44 States are at stake. C-17s are being shoved down the throats of the US Air Force and every friendly Air Force that has the budget for it except for India which has a legitimate need for this aircraft at this time ? Is that what you are claiming ?


rohitvats wrote: What has the presence or otherwise of IL-76 in Indian arsenal got to do with C-17 purchase? What should IAF do to supplement the airlift capacity? Supplement with more IL-76? What should IAF do if it needs more airlift per aircraft? Should IAF shoulder on with Il-76 for the sake of it and look for replacement at the fag end of their life?

OK, here is an open question. IAF needs to add same airlift capability as given by the planned purchase of 10 C-17? What are the options? And please, don't give me if and buts. Options as available as we speak.


India already has a formidable Airlift capacity. China has only 14 Il-76s and I'm not certain they are all airworthy (all 17 of India's are). Countries like France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Saudi Arabia which have larger military budgets than India, have no Strategic Airlift aircraft whatsoever. The UK which has a budget military budget more twice that of India has but 6. Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Spain, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico, Chili, Argentina, all have none.

And the point being?


India has a formidable airlift capacity as it is.

And can you, similarly, say that India and IAF do not need strategic air-lift? Why these irrelevant arguments?


I do not say India does not need one. India now probably has the fourth largest Strategic Fleet in the world behind Russia, the USA and Ukraine (and much of Ukraine's is not airworthy). All I'm saying is that India already had a formidable fleet as it is.

So you seem to admit that Canada is a a tiny country that probably did not need this capacity and that these C-17s were shoved down our throats. The reason I began participating on this Forum is when I realized that India was going to go the down the same path as Canada went down. I was offended as a Canadian Taxpayer. I was trying to raise the alarm to the Indian taxpayer. Indian money should be spent on what India needs, not to save the jobs of the highest paid workers of the planet.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Surya » 09 May 2010 02:57

Considering India's needs 17 IL 76s is not a formidable air lift capacity.

It is frankly silly to compare military budgets to determine someones airlift needs especially the Japs and Saudis. :eek:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby NRao » 09 May 2010 03:03

India already has a formidable Airlift capacity. China has only 14 Il-76s and I'm not certain they are all airworthy (all 17 of India's are). Countries like France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Saudi Arabia which have larger military budgets than India, have no Strategic Airlift aircraft whatsoever. The UK which has a budget military budget more twice that of India has but 6. Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Spain, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico, Chili, Argentina, all have none.


Does not make much sense to me.

What has the size of budgets to do with how many planes are there for strategic lift?

I would expect each AF/Army to figure out what their needs are.

BTW, Japan did look at the C-17, among others, and decided on their own C-X. Brazil similarly seems to have decided on one that compares with the C-130 class. SK I would expect the US to provide a lift capability, if their is a need for one. The UK too - it could get help from the US, so perhaps their 6 are good enough for puttering around.

I am not sure that the C-17 is the best for India, but for sure this comparing with other nations or with budgets really does not make any sense.

BTW, the C-130Js India is getting are configured for special ops!!!!!

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 09 May 2010 05:24

Gilles wrote:C-17s are being shoved down the throats of the US Air Force and every friendly Air Force that has the budget for it except for India which has a legitimate need for this aircraft at this time ? Is that what you are claiming ?


Are you claiming the C-17 is being shoved down India's throat? Please provide supporting documentation.

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby bhavani » 09 May 2010 06:34

C-17's being shoved down the throat or Some other sinister thing, but C-17 is definintely way too expensive. The brits leased initially 4 C-17's and then Another one and will be buying them at the contract expiration. Let us see how many countries acquired C-17 is what numbers

RAF - 7 C-17's
Australian Air force - 4
Canada - 4
NATO SAC program - 3
Qatar - 2
UAE - 4

Even these Khan's So called allied states bought less than 10. RAF infact leased them first. The purchases by qatar and UAE were really doubtful. Egypy which has boat load of M-1's abrams and did not buy C-17. EAF would be a nice candidate.

Our DOD and Generals find the Missiles to equip Fighters and Ships too expensive (like SS-N-22 was pulled out of delhi class), and persist with old SA-3's and old artillery? but are ready to shell billions for a Mercedes benz class transport.

Buy a few additional C-130J and IL-76 and then wait for some Planes to show up like the C-X or the A400 or whatever.

If we can wait for important systems like SAM's (like Barak-8 to come and mean while we live with SA-3) and Army Artillery, or radars, i think we can definetly wait for a cheaper cargo lifter.

Meanwhile they can spend these 2.2 billion on some E-2C's for navy and AF and some SIgnificant number of M777's and M109's. Khan is happy as he still gets the dollars and we can be happy too and we get some decent parity with pukes in Self propelled arty.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4364
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 09 May 2010 06:58

Are Indian C 17s also going to have DIRCM?
That would be good protection to have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_Infrared_Counter_Measures
AN/AAQ-24 Nemesis
The AN/AAQ-24 system is a directed infrared countermeasure (DIRCM) system. It consists of a missile warning system (AN/AAR-54), an integration unit, a processor, and laser turrets (Small Laser Targeting Assembly, SLTA). Early versions used an arc lamp to generate the jamming signal. Newer versions produced by NGC use diode based pump systems are known by the GUARDIAN name, and will likely be fitted to many commercial carriers in the near future pending the completion of many tests on the viability of such options.

It will be installed on C-17 Globemaster III, MC-130, CV-22, and the CH-53E Super Stallion. The system is also the basis for the Northrop Grumman Guardian system marketed for commercial aircraft.

Large Aircraft Infrared Counter-Measure system (LAIRCM) was a requirement for protecting Large Aircraft from infrared guided missiles. The solution for this requirement is the AN/ALQ-24 Nemesis system. Also, LAIRCM-Lite is a C-17 program that uses a combination of laser jammers and flares due to the limited availability of LAIRCM components.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 09 May 2010 07:13

http://www.defensestudies.org/?p=2323

The current export-control regime impedes the effectiveness of our closest military allies, tests their patience and goodwill, and hinders their ability to cooperate with U.S. forces – this at a time when we count on allies and partners to fight with us in places like Afghanistan and potentially elsewhere. Not too long ago, a British C-17 spent hours disabled on the ground in Australia – not because the needed part wasn’t available, but because U.S. law required the Australians to seek U.S. permission before doing the repair. These are two of our very strongest allies for God’s sake! Similarly, close, long-standing allies and partners like South Korea have bought U.S. aircraft only to encounter difficulties and delays in getting spare parts – something that weakens our bilateral relationships, our credibility, and ultimately American security.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 09 May 2010 07:16

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:C-17s are being shoved down the throats of the US Air Force and every friendly Air Force that has the budget for it except for India which has a legitimate need for this aircraft at this time ? Is that what you are claiming ?


Are you claiming the C-17 is being shoved down India's throat? Please provide supporting documentation.


Its circumstantial evidence only, sorry. But even so, my evidence is a bit more solid than the one supporting the C-17 being able to land on unpaved runways of 3500 feet with a 160,000 pound payload in the hold.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 09 May 2010 09:27

Gilles wrote:India's C-17 interest has to be taken in context.

India already operates 17 large IL-76 heavy airlifters which easlily have another 20 or 30 years left in them if they are upgraded. There have been unsubstantiated claims here that the IL-76 are at the end of their service life which I do not think is true. If that is true of India, what about the hundreds of Il-76s on Russian Air Force inventory many of which are older then the 1986-1988 era IL-76s in India?


They are not at the end of their service lives, but nearing it and I don't think anybody has said claimed so.

The Il-76 is no small aircraft. It has about the same take-off weight as the Boeing 767-400ER, a 375 passenger aircraft if operated in single class. The 767-400ER is called a HEAVY WIDE-BODY aircraft.

A C-17 on the other hand, is about the same weight as a B-777-200ER, an aircraft that can haul 440 passengers in single class configuration. It is a bit larger than the B-767-400ER, but not by a large margin.


^^ I suggest you inform Sanku of that. He still thinks the two aircraft belong to different classes, with the C-17 being 'really huge' compared to the Il-76.

Also, the Indian interest in C-17s comes in the wake of ridiculous C-17 "purchases" elsewhere.

The US Congress is imposing C-17s on the US Air Force which no longer wants any.
Tiny Qatar which buys 2 of them. Does anyone here really think Qatar NEEDS C-17s?
Tiny UAE, which barely even has an Air Force, which orders 6 C-17s! Can anyone on this Forum claim with a straight face that the UAE Air Force needs those 6 C-17s? If not, why are they being purchased?

What are these countries going to do with Strategic Airlifters?


How is that related to the IAF's order? Unless you're saying by extension - 'what is India going to do with Strategic Airlifters'.

In late 2003, the Canadian Minister of National Defence of the time John McCallum made a speech in which he said the following:

In February 2006, the Liberal government to which John McCallum belonged was replaced with the more pro-American Conservative government of Stephen Harper (who as opposition leader wanted Canada to join the US in the war in Iraq) and five months later Canada had placed an order for 4 C-17s.

Its in such a context that some people claim that the Indian interest in C-17s is politically motivated.


With a total fighter strength of a hundred odd Hornets and no significant airlift capacity, the Canadian Air Force can scarcely be equated with the IAF. Nor does it have to cater to the support required by a million man army.

I suggest you refer to the IAF's requirements and actions if you wish to prove that the C-17 purchase is politically motivated.

As for the military, regardless of what country they are from, if they are offered bigger, more modern toys to play with, that they do not have to pay for out of their own budget, they never refuse. What head of the Air Force will refuse free F-22 fighters? What head of the Navy will refuse free nuclear powered attack subs or nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

But tell that same head of the Air Force "we are about to give you 5.8 Billion dollars of new C-17s, but in exchange you have to cancel 5.8 Billion dollars of previously agreed fighter purchases" and you will hear a bunch of objections.


Once again - the C-17 wasn't offered to the IAF, its the IAF that recommended their acquisition to the MoD. The IAF doesn't regard it as a free purchase.
Last edited by Viv S on 09 May 2010 09:55, 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 » 09 May 2010 09:46

Gilles wrote: The C-17 plant is at the end of its production and has been since late 2005. Thousands of US high paid jobs in 44 States are at stake. C-17s are being shoved down the throats of the US Air Force and every friendly Air Force that has the budget for it except for India which has a legitimate need for this aircraft at this time ? Is that what you are claiming ?


If the US Air Force doesn't need any C-17s, its their business. The IAF is concerned only with its requirements and not with concerns of workers in the US. And yes, the IAF believes it needs the aircraft as a part of its current and future modernization plans.

How many wide-body aircraft capable of strategic airlift are in production in the world today?

India already has a formidable Airlift capacity. China has only 14 Il-76s and I'm not certain they are all airworthy (all 17 of India's are). Countries like France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Saudi Arabia which have larger military budgets than India, have no Strategic Airlift aircraft whatsoever. The UK which has a budget military budget more twice that of India has but 6. Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Spain, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico, Chili, Argentina, all have none.


How many of those countries have a 1.1 million strong army? How many of them have to guard 3000 km long borders against the world's second and sixth largest armies?

With regard to China, would you say they're going overboard with this:-

China's 200-ton aircraft to be unveiled soon

So you seem to admit that Canada is a a tiny country that probably did not need this capacity and that these C-17s were shoved down our throats. The reason I began participating on this Forum is when I realized that India was going to go the down the same path as Canada went down. I was offended as a Canadian Taxpayer. I was trying to raise the alarm to the Indian taxpayer. Indian money should be spent on what India needs, not to save the jobs of the highest paid workers of the planet.


Lets assume it was a bad purchase for Canada. It does not imply that it will be a bad purchase for India.

Anantz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 13:33
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Anantz » 09 May 2010 10:26

Gilles wrote: India already has a formidable Airlift capacity.


Gilles, considering the highly technical info that you normally post on BRF, would you care to elaborate how having 17 IL 76 bestows India with a formidable Airlift Capacity considering we have a 1.4 million strong army?

U surely are using this argument because it sounds convenient to you. Please if you really mean what you say why don't you calculate the tonnage required for airlifting of a single division and then extrapolate that data to the 30 + divisions we have and come back with results supporting your argument.

Clearly even if take the case of atleast 3 divisions to be airlifted within a short period of 96 hours as envisaged by the Cold Start Doctrine how many aircrafts would be required? And also how many sorties? With the serviceability rate of the current fleet of IL 76 will we be able to achieve the same?

Only after analyzing all these data can you claim that India has a formidable airlift capacity. Oh and if you want to honestly answer this then all you need to do is to go back a couple of pages and search for Rohit Vat's post where he has done a thorough analysis of IAF's tonnage requirement and where the C - 17 fills in the IAF's requirement! Please read the post and then you will get the answer to whether IAF currently has a formidable Airlift Capability proportional to Indian Army's size. And please dont compare India's requirement with China, coz that is the exact reason why we are purchasing the C-17 to have an edge over our foes!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Singha » 09 May 2010 11:32

where are we looking at airlifting 3-4 divisions and their equipment at short notice to build up local superiority?

I think at present, apart from Leh and main conventional airports in Assam and WB , none of the smaller airstrips or AGL
have any form of infra to permit so many flights and offloading even if we were to comandeer civilian planes and fly them
there.

Leh/Assam/WB are fully paved and all can take IL76/737 while GAU does A330/767 types too.

if we are thinking of replicating the chinese "fist unit" concept, I suggest massive civil works to convert AGLs/fwd bases
to proper logistical bases, road infra to connect them to border are all necessary not just getting more heavy transport
a/c which is the easiest task compared to the others.

without supplies , vehicles and materials, just flying in people from plains in 737 wont help at all.

the road/bridge infra in leh , sikkim and arunachal can expect serious attacks by chinese planes and missiles to stop
reinforcements from other regions from reaching. there is not even any point in landing 4 divisions in assam if they cannot
quickly drive to the border and deploy with all necessary materials.

chinese first built the road and rail infra and now they are showing their rapid deployment teeth and rolling out new a/c.
we as usual, are trying to "work smart but not hard" and doing it backwards.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 09 May 2010 11:58

Reading your many interventions, I notice that you are very much opposed to any public debate about military procurement. Do you not know that such debates go on in all real democracies? The countries where such debates do not exist are in non democratic states.


India is the world's largest democracy so lets not talk about democratic principles. No other democracy in the world can match the size and complexity of Indian democracy which in a way is a pure democracy.

With only 19500 soldiers and 16,000 in reserve, Canadians were just too high when they ordered the C-17, you guys should have simply orderd the c-130J, thats more than you ever need. :rotfl: man this is ridiculous decision making. Dude we have more soldiers in a single division and much more in a full scale Regiment. We have nearly 30 regiments, huge cores, world's second largest active army and just as many in the reserve, we also have the secdon largest paramilitary force. Every single PM force like BSF, CRPF have more forces than populations of very small countries. Due to the recession, many more are joining and by 2050 we'll have more people than in China, we will have the largest army in the world. lets not compare Canada and India on the same scale. With about 30000 canadian soldiers, we have roughly 4 to 5 times more police in a single state. All estimates point a 1.6 billion population by 2050 about 200 million more than chinese pop. ests. By then we'll have atleast 3 active army and millions more in reserve, i wont be surprised if they order 10 to 20 more C-17s keeping the future in mind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3575994.stm

$5.8 billion is not bad because we'll get roughly $1.8 billion in local work and we will have local maintenance and support, most of the spares and ground operational service mainetanance parts will be sourced locally. Why do we compare current abilities when the c-17 wont even arrive till late 2013 or 2014 once we order it, by then most of the infrastruture upgrade works will be done on all airfields and they will be upgraded to fit the c-17, c-130J, MRCA, PAKFA, MCA, LCA, MTA, F-35 and all future aircraft.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby merlin » 09 May 2010 12:11

Singha wrote:where are we looking at airlifting 3-4 divisions and their equipment at short notice to build up local superiority?

I think at present, apart from Leh and main conventional airports in Assam and WB , none of the smaller airstrips or AGL
have any form of infra to permit so many flights and offloading even if we were to comandeer civilian planes and fly them
there.

Leh/Assam/WB are fully paved and all can take IL76/737 while GAU does A330/767 types too.

if we are thinking of replicating the chinese "fist unit" concept, I suggest massive civil works to convert AGLs/fwd bases
to proper logistical bases, road infra to connect them to border are all necessary not just getting more heavy transport
a/c which is the easiest task compared to the others.

without supplies , vehicles and materials, just flying in people from plains in 737 wont help at all.

the road/bridge infra in leh , sikkim and arunachal can expect serious attacks by chinese planes and missiles to stop
reinforcements from other regions from reaching. there is not even any point in landing 4 divisions in assam if they cannot
quickly drive to the border and deploy with all necessary materials.

chinese first built the road and rail infra and now they are showing their rapid deployment teeth and rolling out new a/c.
we as usual, are trying to "work smart but not hard" and doing it backwards.


Singha, don't spoil the super jingos ka fun. Let them continue to dream of 30+ divisions airlift capability :((

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby rohitvats » 09 May 2010 12:54

Good Sir, as long as you were arguing about the de-merits or lack of performance of C-17 wrt short field performance, I was with you. But, by bringing in the points as you've made in this post, you've shot your bolt, sir. And let me explain why.

Gilles wrote:The C-17 plant is at the end of its production and has been since late 2005. Thousands of US high paid jobs in 44 States are at stake. C-17s are being shoved down the throats of the US Air Force and every friendly Air Force that has the budget for it except for India which has a legitimate need for this aircraft at this time ? Is that what you are claiming ?


Sir, what I'm saying is that to compare the purchase of C-17 by nations which might not require it with India and extrapolate the dynamics, is gross error of judgement. There is politics involved in every major defence deal and might as well be in India's case but, that does not take away the requirement for Strategic Airlift. As for shoving down the throat thing - you actually think India has same kind of relation with US as the sheikhdoms and UK? Why is it being completely ruled out that this is a marriage of convinience between US (read Boeing) and India? Boeing gets a customer and IAF gets Strategic Airlift.

As for the factory and production line getting closed - were not you and others arguing for the induction of IL-76 (one with PS-90) and AN-124 by re-opening the lines? How come the closure of factories in that case did not come into question? And what would have happened to those lines after Indian order had been fulfilled?

India already has a formidable Airlift capacity. China has only 14 Il-76s and I'm not certain they are all airworthy (all 17 of India's are). Countries like France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Saudi Arabia which have larger military budgets than India, have no Strategic Airlift aircraft whatsoever. The UK which has a budget military budget more twice that of India has but 6. Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Spain, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico, Chili, Argentina, all have none.


Sir, you've posted very detailed arguments on the technical merits or otherwise of C-17. How about extending the same courtsey to understanding the lift requirement of IAF and IA? And as for the budget and size of armies of the countries mentioned above - Why bring in these nonsensical arguments? Don't insult your intelligence and that of others by posting such inane arguments.

At the expense of repeating myself, I'd tried to do some analysis of airlift requirement for the Parachute Brigade and here are the numbers (I've modified them to correct some error):

Now comes the other part of the Airlift Capability Spectrum: Force Projection. The situation we’re looking at is something like Operation Cactus (but on bigger scale) or what if we needed to intervene in Bangladesh to prevent the Pilkhana massacre destabilizing a friendly regime. The formation of choice for these kind of tasks in 50(I) Para Bde. Do we have the airlift strength to support this kind of operations? Lets look at a scenario:

Force:

50(I) Para Bde
Troop Strength: 3,000 (approximate)
Tonnage:1,500 (An airborne bde in US Army has 3,450 tonnes. I’ve assumed <50% of the same for SDRE Army)

Mode of Deployment

Para Drop – 1 Parachute Battalion/650 troops: To secure the airport and perimeter
Air land – 2 Parachute Battalions plus support elements (2,350 troops): Follow on forces

***Let us assume for the sake of simiplicity that SF would have been/will be inserted using the C-130J.

Here we need to understand that the follow on Para Battalions will need to be landed on priority basis and will need aircraft dedicated for this role. In case of support troops and equipment, we can assume that the same will come in two waves -after the Para Battalions have secured the airbase and surrounding areas. The aircraft used in para drop + air landing of para battalions and 1st wave of support troops and equipment will have time to go around and carry troops/equipment on second trip. We're assuming C+24 hours to land the full complement of troops

Aircraft Capability

Aircraft Type------Airlift ability(tonnes)------Airlift ability(troops)-------Paratroopers
IL-76--------------------33-----------------------140--------------------125

Aircraft Required

Aircraft Type-----Aircraft required(paradrop)----Aircraft required(follow-on para battalions)-----Aircraft required (tonnage)
IL-76----------------------6----------------------------------10---------------------------------------20

Aircraft Required (tonnage) has been adjusted for assumption that it will be transported in 2 waves. These aircraft will also carry the support troops. Therefore, 20 aircraft in two shifts will be required from tonnage and support troop perspective.

Total aircraft required:

First wave - 6+10 - 16
2nd wave - 16(^^^)+ 4 additional

Total - 20


I hope that answers the question with respect to airlift requirement. An important thing to note here is that the scene of operations is close to India - hence, AN-32 will also come into operations. However, in case of any out of area deployment -something like Op Cactus, you need long legs.

And we've not yet analyzed the requirement for deployment for a Division sized force.

India has a formidable airlift capacity as it is.


I think I've answered that above.

I do not say India does not need one. India now probably has the fourth largest Strategic Fleet in the world behind Russia, the USA and Ukraine (and much of Ukraine's is not airworthy). All I'm saying is that India already had a formidable fleet as it is.


Again, it does not.

So you seem to admit that Canada is a a tiny country that probably did not need this capacity and that these C-17s were shoved down our throats. The reason I began participating on this Forum is when I realized that India was going to go the down the same path as Canada went down. I was offended as a Canadian Taxpayer. I was trying to raise the alarm to the Indian taxpayer. Indian money should be spent on what India needs, not to save the jobs of the highest paid workers of the planet.


Indian taxpayer saving jobs in US is incidental. Same as we did to Sukhoi and are doing to MiG - the MiG-29K. The analogy of Canada or anyother country does not apply to India.

Anantz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 13:33
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Anantz » 09 May 2010 15:38

Singha wrote:where are we looking at airlifting 3-4 divisions and their equipment at short notice to build up local superiority?


Well we did airlift a division worth troops in 1987 over a short period of time didnt we? And that was over 2 decades ago, when things were much more different. Today with Cold start and all, things have changed. And the requirement is even more stringent. Who would have thought 20 years ago that Armies of countries like Netherlands would be operating in such far away part of the world such as Afghanistan and yet there are there. For a country like India with its size, and quest for super power status who knows what future may hold 2 decades later. The force's need to be prepared for the future. Not for the past.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Kersi D » 09 May 2010 17:57

Manish_Sharma wrote:Are Indian C 17s also going to have DIRCM?
That would be good protection to have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_Infrared_Counter_Measures


It is likely that our C 130J would have it

K

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby NRao » 09 May 2010 18:05

DefSec Gates, yesterday or the day before, gave a speech in which he stated that his budget was too large (google for more info). ABC News used the C-17 as an example of a program gone wild. With some 48 states supporting the C-17 program, it has become politically very difficult to cut the damn stuff. They showed my Senator making ridiculous statements in support of it!!!!!!!!!!!!! (That Senator is toast in the up coming elections, but the new guy may follow his footsteps on this vote.)

Even if there is a need for the IAF, which I think there is, the C-17 is more than likely a political purchase. In one swipe, may be, India has bought some 96 US Senators?

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby PratikDas » 09 May 2010 18:12

NRao wrote:...
Even if there is a need for the IAF, which I think there is, the C-17 is more than likely a political purchase. In one swipe, may be, India has bought some 96 US Senators?

... and got Obama to tone down his rhetoric on job losses to Bangalore?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby NRao » 09 May 2010 18:28

PratikDas wrote:
NRao wrote:...
Even if there is a need for the IAF, which I think there is, the C-17 is more than likely a political purchase. In one swipe, may be, India has bought some 96 US Senators?

... and got Obama to tone down his rhetoric on job losses to Bangalore?


Which has been my point for some time now. With an Indian economy that is supposed to rival that of the US in 2/3 decades, why do Indians fear sanctions, Pak/China attacking India, etc? Indians should prepare for an internal social upheaval, etc - that for sure are coming.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4364
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 09 May 2010 20:58

Singha wrote:where are we looking at airlifting....

Apologies beforehand if the question is too stupid:

1.)During the war C 17 takes lots of armoured vehicles, missiles and other ammos drops them at Leh/Assam and from their Mi 26/an 32s take to smaller fields. I read somewhere on BR that Mi 26 costs 12 lakhs per hour while An 32 only 2 lakh. This way the large ammount of rasad gets near the border during war.

2.) C 17 helps take large amount of bulldozers and other heavy equipment to make tunnels/roads/bridges in NE drops on the main airport and from their Mi 26/an 32 haul them to smaller destinations.

Is it possible that IAF may have thought on these lines to face the himalayan situation?

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 09 May 2010 21:45

All right gentlemen, I'm being broadsided here. But I can take it.

C-17 first flew in 1991. (19 years ago). It has been available for sale for 19 years. Initially only the US Air Force bought any and even then, almost cancelled the program. Boeing even tried unsuccessfully to market a civilian version, the BC-17, but found no takers and dropped the idea. Even 9/11 and the Afghan and Iraq military deployments didn't generate any immediate overseas sales. For 15 years there were no foreign orders. Then, suddenly in 2006, when the factory announced it was going to shut down production for lack of orders, certain countries showed urgent interest. All of them were (let me be politically correct) US...."close friends": Harper (Canada), Brown (Australia) and Blair (UK). A DID article called it the Anglosphere. Then the US created and promoted the NATO-based SAC, a pool of Europe-based C-17s and signed up to it by providing one C-17 from its inventory. It then aggressively lobbied mostly new eastern Europe NATO members to sign up, and was able to secure 2 more C-17 orders from that venture (SAC operates a ridiculous number of 3 C-17s. Most large European countries did not join). Next it was Qatar who ordered 2. Then the UAE announced an order for 6 (not yet delivered). Finally, the US Senators began to impose that the US Air Force take delivery of dozens more C-17 than the original order which had been for 180 aircraft and which now stands at 220 and some....I showed you a US Air Force Document here in this forum where the US Air Force claims to have an overcapacity in Strategic airlift. But I can show you a Boeing document presently on the Boeing web site that explains why Boeing thinks the US Air Force still needs more C-17s.

And then there is India. And India's interest in the C-17 has to be looked at in a vacuum?

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 09 May 2010 21:48

http://www.hciottawa.ca/Tsunami.htm

India's Tsunami Relief efforts went un-noticed in the international Press. 57 IL-76 sorties weren't even talked about. Do the same in C-17s and you are sure to make CNN Headline News.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Katare » 09 May 2010 22:19

Gilles,
Instead of some conspiracy theory it can be explained simply. Boeing didn't need to small sales to internation customers because its capacity was fully sold to USAF. Now it sees opportunity to sell it to outsiders before eventual clouser of the assembly line. Anyhow this size of expansibe plane can only have very limited market outside major countries like USA, Russia, China and India. Only innovative marketing can win orders from other smaller markets like Canada and Australia.

Indian market is an unexpected windfall for Boeing's C17 business and C17 also opens new doors of capabilities for IAF that were not even on their radars until few years back.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests