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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

KiranM wrote: Sanku ji, agree with guns being more sensible to deter or defend from amphibious invasion of A&N, but disagree that tanks will not play a role. They will play the role of theatre reserve to counter attack a beach or coastal feature captured by the enemy. And as such the reserve need to be held a little behind to respond to where the need is greatest (assuming attack is from multiple axes).
Kiran Sir; have you looked at the sizes of A&N islands? The majority are miniscule, the "larger" ones 10-20 are about 100-200 Sq Km, roughly that means 10 km deep and 10 km wide!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andaman_an ... ar_Islands

The largest islands (2) are 1000 sq km wide. Total of 6,496 km² in 572 islands.

There is no space to have something a little held back, the tanks if there will be no better than pill boxes, there is just no where to go.

But I guess this is really OT.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

Wow man I am impressed at the skills here.

IAF is not happy with Il 76 is proven by the statement
But as there is not much choice of military transport aircraft at the moment in the international market
Which in time becomes

"There is no option but to buy C 17 NOW NOW NOW. Hurry the end of the world is neigh. "

Also the intellectualy honest will observe that there are TWO statements there is one in quotes which is attributed to the Air Marshal.

"By the time the Soviet vintage aircraft are phased out, IAF should be well positioned with other - and more modern - aircraft."

and one which is NOT in quotes but paraphrased which is

But as there is not much choice of military transport aircraft at the moment in the international market, quick and timely decisions for both the C-17s and C-130Js needed to be taken.

So effectively "need new by the time aircraft are to be phased out" and "less choice" becomes

There is a dire need to buy C 17s immediately overriding the multi-vendor process as well as other more pressing needs even when we never talked of that large a aircraft before and no testing has been seen.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_4_1_akantony.pdf
At the same time it would also encourage the widest possible competition. It is only through competition that we can ensure the maximum value for our money. It is important to have broad based and realistic QRs that will lead to multi-vendor competition. When you are preparing QR, don't think of one country or one OEM in your mind. That will lead to lot of complications. QRs must lead to help the competition, QRs must lead to multi-vendor situations, you must try to avoid single vendor situation as far as possible. Then many of the problems can be solved
The Def Min stress no end on multi vendor process and the need to have a broad based specs.

But here we want a aircraft which can take 77 tonnes and fly 5400 kms.

"Na kam, Na jyada"

(exactly that no deviations)
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?

Post by amit »

There is a dire need to buy C 17s immediately overriding the multi-vendor process as well as other more pressing needs even when we never talked of that large a aircraft before and no testing has been seen.
Now lets see IAF likes the C17 - a 80 ton airlifter.

Multi-vendor is always preferable. But can you state which other vendors make a 80 ton and above air lifter? I know An124 is even bigger, but does have the ruggedness of a C17?

Of course I ask this question despite understanding that to you a 40 ton and 80 ton and now a 37 ton aircraft are one and the same. Does realistic QRs mean lumping one aircraft which has twice the tonnage capacity with the other?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

First and foremost I thank Gods that GeorgeWelch came and said C 17 and Il 76 will exists side by side, because if he had not, I would still be dealing with a whole bunch of "C 17 to replace Il 76, C 17 == Il 76, C 17 means no other aircraft are needed but C 17 etc etc"

Shiv ji complains that Indians dont buy a statement till an American has said it first, sometimes if I wonder if really speaking shouldn't we be thankful for that sometimes?

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

I dont have any issues with the statement that "Only C 17 can fit in the role of a C 17" that is a tautology of course.

The question has always been "Is strategic airlift from the Indian perspective ONLY done by a C 17, to such an obvious and telling extent that competition was not even attempted" (and when we have no issues comparing Gripen and EF)

Really?
KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by KiranM »

Sanku wrote:
KiranM wrote: Sanku ji, agree with guns being more sensible to deter or defend from amphibious invasion of A&N, but disagree that tanks will not play a role. They will play the role of theatre reserve to counter attack a beach or coastal feature captured by the enemy. And as such the reserve need to be held a little behind to respond to where the need is greatest (assuming attack is from multiple axes).
Kiran Sir; have you looked at the sizes of A&N islands? The majority are miniscule, the "larger" ones 10-20 are about 100-200 Sq Km, roughly that means 10 km deep and 10 km wide!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andaman_an ... ar_Islands

The largest islands (2) are 1000 sq km wide. Total of 6,496 km² in 572 islands.

There is no space to have something a little held back, the tanks if there will be no better than pill boxes, there is just no where to go.

But I guess this is really OT.
Guess then we need the Hover Tank. Paging Sgt. Bilko :P
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Viv S wrote: There are protocols to prevent this kind of BS from happening.
I would be grateful if you can find little time to explain this little bit for my education what are those backup measures or give a link for me to read maybe in (Naval?) thread.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Manish_Sharma »

GeorgeWelch wrote: Your BS meter seems to be broken.
:rotfl:

Stupid idiot me, bought it from US!

:rotfl:
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Manish_Sharma »

NRao wrote:I for one find that very hard to believe. It is possible. But is it probable?

Just BTW, India has JUST supplied the com link for the P-8I. Perhaps it was related to this incidence?
So the possibility is there! Thank you for your honest and sincere reply.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Viv S »

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote: Well atleast answer two points-

1) How come the USAF replaced the C-141 with the C-17 if they perform different roles? And why did India replace the An-12 with the Il-76, since they belong to different classes?
Who says An -12 were replaced with Il 76?

This was a gap which was there after An 12 retired and is being sought to be filled with HAL MTA

Il 76 and An 12 have no correspondence.
44 Squadron started converting from the An-12 to the Il-76 in 1985. 30 years is a rather long time for a 'gap' to persist.
As to why US of A lives with the loss of a C-141 class in its inventory? Well for one their airlift requirements are not like ours so it is for them to answer, but US also has tons of people using SUVs for personal transport. Does that make it right?
And its your opinion that the IAF doesn't need the C-17's airlift ability and that the USAF decision was based on extravagance. There is nothing to suggest that the IAF shares that opinion.
Even then as Gilles posted C 17 for C 141 was pushed through only by fraudulence in parts
Again that's Gilles opinion. He believes that the USAF should have persisted with either an aircraft which was almost thirty years old(and would be over 45 today) or with an aircraft that had no austere field capability and had a far far higher operating cost and a long turnaround time. Debatable, but bottom-line is the USAF did replace the C-141 with the C-17 and they both performed the same role. No fraudulence was suggested.

Do different questions, does IAF need something? If they did they have been VERY quite about it, compared to the hulla they regularly raise on other issues. (Awacs, trainers, mid-air refullers, ADGES etc etc)

No a chirp.
:mrgreen:
The process for acquisition started in 2008 with the first aircraft being delivered earliest by 2012. What sort of song and dance would you have felt necessary in order to justify the purchase. What sort of hulla was created before ... say the recent order for an additional three Phalcons.

Why is impossible that the IAF identified a requirement, identified an aircraft after a 'thorough study' (according to ACM PV Naik), pitched it to the MoD, which first sanctioned it and is negotiating with Boeing on the IAF's behalf. Where is the evidence of foul play?
Ok then here goes,
http://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTempl ... t7yVwgcuQ=
To keep this move secret,tank turrets were removed and transported by vehicles. While heavily camouflaged turretless armoured vehicles moved from one harbour to another under the cover of darkness.
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Image


^^^ You're offering the dismantling of this WWII era tank as an example of how the Il-76 can be used to ferry the turret and hull separately? I think a more contemporary example is in order.
I did not insinuate (look up the meaning of insinuate) I say CLEARLY that it makes sense to not have a off the shelf purchase but a partnership model.
And what is this partnership model that you propose?
Precedence? Precedence dictates relevance? Then we should not ever discuss if buy C 17. There is no precedence for it.
:lol:

That is truly irrelevant.

(in any case since its a point that you are harping on -- one word -- dorniers)
It seems to me(I don't know if others have gleaned a different meaning) you're saying the C-17 purchase is wrong because the HAL is not involved in its production. Is that correct?
1) The fact that its a wide-body aircraft is a huge advantage it has over the Il-76 beside its advantage in payload.
Its a bigger a/c, its designed that way An 124 has advantage over every other a/c, should we all and only buy An 124?
The An-124 has a much higher operational cost, no rough field capability and a long turnaround time. And ofcourse the kicker... its not in production.
2) It doesn't seem like the IAF is very happy with the Il-76 platform given its preference for a different tanker in addition to the C-17.
"It doesn't seem" eh? Now that is a insinuation, make a totally baseless remark and preface it by "It seems" "perhaps" "roughly" and other such words.

But in any case its nonsense and completely wrong IAF is VERY happy with Il 76.

There have been many statements. It is this precisely the kind of completely fraudulent statements that need to be trotted out to justify C 17.
I'm basing that 'fraudulent statement' simply on the fact that the IAF settled on the A-330 for its MRTT requirement instead of the Il-78 which is cheaper and has relatively new units already in service with the IAF. Didn't hear any outrage when that decision was made. Only MoF (and the US lobby I hear) seemed to have a problem.
Last edited by Viv S on 13 May 2010 17:15, edited 1 time in total.
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Kersi D »

Sanku wrote:
Maybe get on the A 400 program?
It may be like jumping form frying pan into the fire.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Viv S »

Sanku wrote:First and foremost I thank Gods that GeorgeWelch came and said C 17 and Il 76 will exists side by side, because if he had not, I would still be dealing with a whole bunch of "C 17 to replace Il 76, C 17 == Il 76, C 17 means no other aircraft are needed but C 17 etc etc"
Well perhaps GeorgeWelch isn't familiar with the fact that the C-17 did replace the American equivalent of the Il-76.

I dont have any issues with the statement that "Only C 17 can fit in the role of a C 17" that is a tautology of course.

The question has always been "Is strategic airlift from the Indian perspective ONLY done by a C 17, to such an obvious and telling extent that competition was not even attempted" (and when we have no issues comparing Gripen and EF)

Really?
Should the Indian Armed Forces regulate their requirements in order to facilitate competition between suppliers?
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Kersi D »

KiranM wrote:
Sanku ji, agree with guns being more sensible to deter or defend from amphibious invasion of A&N, but disagree that tanks will not play a role. Guess then we need the Hover Tank. Paging Sgt. Bilko :P
Why the IA has just discovered that the Russians have a superlative tank T XYZ proven on paper (made in China) which can run on land, water, air, plasma, kerosene, petrol, diesel, gas, water, p$%%, s&%@t etc.

This will be included as the required the parameters for the Arjun Mk W

K
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by NRao »

Manish_Sharma wrote:
NRao wrote:I for one find that very hard to believe. It is possible. But is it probable?

Just BTW, India has JUST supplied the com link for the P-8I. Perhaps it was related to this incidence?
So the possibility is there! Thank you for your honest and sincere reply.
Possible, yes. The issue is about probability, how probable is it. (Recall that an IN AND a PLAN sub supposedly surfaced a few 100 yards from a US carrier. Possible? Probable?)

It is only a matter of donkey work. Anyone can do it as long as one has enough donkeys. An institution with large enough resources will have enough donkeys. In fact, one can purchase some solutions on the open market!!!! They come in databases. I am sure the military versions are a lot more difficult to crack, but collect enough donkeys and the chances improve.

However, did such an incident happen? Hard for me to believe that under Op Parakram that it would have happened. Actually the source you quote goes on to say that India has bad encryption. That - to me at least - is a give away. On the contrary. Painting over paint is not a good thing IMHO.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

Viv S wrote: 44 Squadron started converting from the An-12 to the Il-76 in 1985. 30 years is a rather long time for a 'gap' to persist.
Viv S. Please dont do this. You are using one sq to speak for IAF?

First supersonics converted from Mig 21 to Mig 29. So IAF replaced Mig 21 with Mig 29.

I feel like banging my head on the wall here. My god.

An 12s were finally all retired in the 90s the last being June 93.

Ils were in by in 1985.

All this while MTA was supposed to come, but just like the AJT it has taken forever, I guess it was not blest by the right backing like C 17.
And its your opinion that the IAF doesn't need the C-17's airlift ability and that the USAF decision was based on extravagance. There is nothing to suggest that the IAF shares that opinion.
And I cant care a fig. US can do what ever it wants.

India does things a different way.

Again that's Gilles opinion.
For you everything is an opinion, maybe perhaps etc. What can anyone say. In any case I dont care.

The process for acquisition started in 2008 with the first aircraft being delivered earliest by 2012. What sort of song and dance would you have felt necessary in order to justify the purchase.
Yes Viv S, you expect us to believe that 5.8 billion $ in two years out of thin air is not fast.

Arnab wants us to believe 5.8 billion for 10 birds is cheap and wants proof.

Sorry boss live your own world. I live in the real India.

(Compare C 17s with MTA, C 17s materialized in two years when IAF was not talking about it, HAL MTA is plagued for 10 years now)


but no HAL MTA would not be fast tracked C 17 must be brought today.

Bah humbug ptachh....

If people want to buy this snake oil, their choice, I wont be buying it.
What sort of hulla was created before ... say the recent order for an additional three Phalcons.
That is because you were probably not around to notice. The AWACS make/purchase debate has been around for ever. And unlike the time of tanks I am not going to spoon feed you.

[quote[
Why is impossible that the IAF identified a requirement, identified an aircraft after a 'thorough study' (according to ACM PV Naik), pitched it to the MoD, which first sanctioned it and is negotiating with Boeing on the IAF's behalf. Where is the evidence of foul play?[/quote]

Because there is no trace, and in India there always is.

You want to believe in immaculate conception? I say there was sex involved.


^^^ You're offering the dismantling of this WWII era tank as an example of how the Il-76 can be used to ferry the turret and hull separately? I think a more contemporary example is in order.
No intelligent one. I am offering this as an example of how tanks can be dismantled and put back together. And this is but one example since you cant find even one.

This is not about Il 76 alone (stop obsessing)

In any case, YOU I know are "hum nahi manege" when it comes to clear cut data which flies in the face of your belief system. (such as two years for 5.8 billion $ is biz as usual)

:lol:

You just keep surprising me with your recalcitrance that all.

It seems to me(I don't know if others have gleaned a different meaning) you're saying the C-17 purchase is wrong because the HAL is not involved in its production. Is that correct?
Viv S, are you really capable of such comprehension of simple words?

This is NOT what I said what I said was CRYSTAL CLEAR and consisted of 4 points taken together, of which the above was not a point but half a point.

I'm basing that 'fraudulent statement' simply on the fact that the IAF settled on the A-330 for its MRTT requirement instead of the Il-78 which is cheaper and has relatively new units already in service with the IAF. Didn't hear any outrage when that decision was made. Only MoF (and the US lobby I hear) seemed to have a problem.
Wow, Viv S. Please give your "possibilities" a break. If you look (which you wont, and if you do you wont find, and if you find you will not agree with) you will find tons of Il 76 thumbs up statements by the IAF.

Please spare us statements like "IAF does not like Il 76 because it chose Airbus in a competitive tendor"

WOW!!

Viv S, for me it is truly impossible to discuss ANYTHING logical with a person who exhibits even one statement of that order.

And you have made three or four such insights so far

So I agree based on the same logic as
"IAF does not like Il 76 because it chose Airbus in a competitive tender"

C 17 is a right choice.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by NRao »

Sanku wrote: Not, lets look at open source material quoting senior officials and IDSA seminars and such likes. Some senior retired folks I know have wanted photon tarps since 1970s too.

2008 :: Air Commodore Arjun Subramaniam :: The Strategic Role of Airpower

Here is (way at the bottom) the comments of Air Marshal Ashok Goel (retd). However since he was the one who started the IL-76 effort in 1985 he, I would hope, be a representative commentator.

He starts with:
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has shortlisted the Boeing C 17 Globemaster III as its new Very Heavy Lift Transport Aircraft (VHTAC).
He also provides his email address, so perhaps we can contact him for more info?
So IAF stated and there is no other news of C 17s landing here and there are anywhere. I am sorry thats not enough by FAR!! This is just like Gorky was adequately tested.

The silence is deafening as the word goes.
Please check the comments of the Retd AM. They seem to be consistent across the board: ease of operations, load, num of people needed to operate and comforts (not in that order perhaps).
I did answer the question, to me, the first thing would be to actually identify what we need in a strategic airlift and why we need it. (I expect some public discussion on it) What payloads what ranges, what airstrips etc etc.
A 2009 article on what has been achieved and some history.

A nicely articulated article: Planning for Intervention? Decision time for India

1986s Op Falcon used "air lift".
I would then expect RFI/RFP to be sent to all those who are interested in supplying a platform for that.

Trials, evaluation and purchase.

Transparent visible and in a way Indian Industry participated in a big way as a partner (with however, Boeing, Airbus etc)

Maybe get on the A 400 program?
:). Too late. You should raised your voice in 2007 or earlier.

Sorry.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Manish_Sharma »

NRao wrote:Actually the source you quote goes on to say that India has bad encryption. That - to me at least - is a give away.
This was the thing troubling me. I already posted this twice questioning but couldn't get answer. Thanks for clarifying NRao, now I can sleep better. :D
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Sanku wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: Throughput
George dear, if you look at my elaborate answer to Viv S I have already talked about throughput so yes I am well aware that C 17 has higher throughput a fancy way to say it can carry more per sortie. :lol:
False

Throughput is a combination of tons/sortie AND how many aircraft you can fit on the ground. The C-17 is a very compact aircraft that carries a lot for its footprint.

As I mentioned, the C-17 has 3 times the throughput of the C-5, a plane that carries twice as much.
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 13 May 2010 20:05, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

NRao wrote:
He also provides his email address, so perhaps we can contact him for more info?
Sure, I hope one of us talk to him about how IAF has been speaking about the need of a strategic role before 2008 talk to him.

Yet, that would still be best case hindsight view (unless he can point us to some older open source material), to be truly representative and apple to apple comparison, information from publicly discussed parts of IAF should can be compared.
Please check the comments of the Retd AM. They seem to be consistent across the board: ease of operations, load, num of people needed to operate and comforts (not in that order perhaps).
NRao please excuse me, but other than "we have seen the bird and it flies well, what other info do we have? For MRCA we have reports of Leh exercises, and many other such data points, why dont we see that in case of C 17.

This is true for pretty much any recent (10 years or so ) acquisition -- there is just no information here -- that is not transparent to so the least.
A nicely articulated article:
Thanks for the articles NRao, but the date line of the one of the articles in 2009 (which is in the period that we agree that IAF started talking of airlift in a major manner) and the 2007 article by Gurmeet Kanwal is talking of force projection in general but does say that this is a idea which was put on the back burner and now perhaps needs to be revived. This is Nov end 2007 article.

So clearly while talking about the need for strategic airlift, both the articles
1) refer to as IAF having strategic airlift already :-? (does it mean they consider Il 76 to be enough?)
2) refer to a renewed recent interest.

:). Too late. You should raised your voice in 2007 or earlier.

Sorry.
[/quote]

Hey in 2007 we never were told that Il 76 + C 130 is not enough, this C 17 has literally came out of nowhere. Had this been a part of a long term vision articulated earlier, perhaps we could.
:cry: :cry:
Last edited by Sanku on 13 May 2010 19:40, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

GeorgeWelch wrote: False

Throughput is a combination of tons/per sortie AND how many aircraft you can fit on the ground. The C-17 is a very compact aircraft that carries a lot for its footprint.

As I mentioned, the C-17 has 3 times the throughput of the C-5, a plane that carries twice as much.
Umm okay, can you point to a single article etc mentioning that physical size was a issue in terms of number of aircrafts that could be accommodated? In a Mil airlift?

I would like to learn
1) Where the size has been a considerable issue.
2) Where this issue has been suggested as a important factor for C 17, prefereably from a Indian context but any would do.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by shiv »

I am just wondering why the IAF would go to such great lengths to buy an aircraft to transport tanks for the Army with zero army involvement in the process.

Maybe that is the real scam here.

I can imagine this flaming row between a gent from the CAG's office and an Air Force guy - at the end of a six hour discusion

"So what was that again? Why do you need these hugely expensive bugged, Trojanned and virus infected American aircraft when you could use 20 Avros to do the same job?"

"What would you know you stupid accountant. We have lots of stuff to carry.

"Now let's not get personal. What is it that you need to carry? Aeroplanes? Troops?"

"Not Aeroplanes dummy. We have a thing called logistics. We need to move stuff about. There are even people - families in way out villages to move. And relief supplies for disaster"

"Spare me the emotional crap. What do you mean "move families"? Do you think you are ordering a bloody Maruti Swift for yourself?"

"Please. I will be patient with you. Despite the fact that your are a friggin nincompoop and I feel like bashing your head in. The Air Force need a heavy lift aircraft to transport things. It's all there in the flie in front of you."

"This one?"

"No that one you blithering idiot. The one that is still in the sealed envelope that you have not yet looked at"

"Ah OK. I've been so busy. Entrance exams for the kids and all. Now let me see ..heavy lift.....C-17..requirements '' capabiities..blah blah blah. Heavy lift? I seem to recall that you air force guys already have a heavy lift aircraft. Let me recall - aaah yes - the Russian Tu 78 Gadharaj"

"Its Il 76 "Gajaraj" moron."

"Whatever - oh - and don't try and fool me. I distinctly recall it's the Il 78. Not Il 76. This is a matter of national security and I request you not to try and bluff your way around here. This may be normal for your vayusena-shayusena people. Not around here. Now you already have the Il 78 don't you"

"Well yes - but it's the Il 76 that is the heavy lift aircraft"

"There. See. Gotcha!. You are yourself admitting that you have a heavy lift aircraft. And it is the Il 78. Why do you want the hugely expensive bugged, Trojan filled C-17?"

"Boss. I am sure I am making up for bad deeds I have done in my last life - having to deal with a pea brain like you. The Il 78 is a tanker"

"Tanker? Where is the requirement for a tanker? Are you buying a tanker. Indianoil needs tankers. Why Indian Air Force?"

"Listen boss. You need to get this clear. We have a heavy lift aircraft called the Il 76. We have a tanker aircraft called he Il 78. What we are looking for is a "super heavy lift aircraft"

"Why. You have all those aircraft already no? You can use both of them no?

"What if we need to transport a tank to the frontline"

"Tank? Tank? Sir you already have a tanker. You just told me that. Does it not fly? Can you not fly it to the frontline? What is the use of all you Air Force fellows if you can't fly what you have"

"Not tanker buddhoo. Tank. Army tank"

"Army tank?"

"Yes"

"Then why is Air Force giving the request? How can the Air Force want to buy something for the Army?"

"Boss the Army and Air Force need to cooperate in war. They will need our help. This is for the defence of the country.

"War? What war is going on now? There is no war. There is surely some hera pheri here. I will have to speak to the finance minister. Please come tomorrow. Or after six months. Whichever is later."
ticky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 92
Joined: 06 Apr 2008 13:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by ticky »

^ :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Bl00dy Hell! Its too much.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by NRao »

Hey in 2007 we never were told that Il 76 + C 130 is not enough, this C 17 has literally came out of nowhere. Had this been a part of a long term vision articulated earlier, perhaps we could.
IF you are looking for a specific reference to C-17 rec, I am fairly confident that we will not find one. As India has acquired greater wealth so has her recs changed. I am confident that the "very heavy" lift is a rather new term within IAF circles. AND the "number of" air crafts have/will grow as more funds fill the MoD coffers.

IF Kanwal were to rewrite that article today he would have quite a few terms that would be new to us.

I understand what you are saying, but outside of the price I just do not see much that I can argue against. The "Leh" for these pups took place in some room in ND perhaps ............. I do not know, but that could be the worst case scenario, which I doubt. In most likelihood it has a deep political bend - and that is part of the game (I do not like it, but have to accept it).

.............................


Shiv,

"Strategic" air lift is more than just tanks. IF at all I would like to see which light tank India buys and take it from there.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

^^^^
Bingo Shiv, you know India works, and in all this a decision gets made in about a year?

Strange aint it? What happened to the finance guy, why did he turn uncharacteristically cooperative suddenly?

Did the IAF tell the IA at least that they were acquiring this ability to move tanks, they must be thrilled.

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

Sure NRao, as I said, I understand what you are saying and if I dare say, you and I are saying the same thing with different focus perspectives and different weight ages to different points.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:
"Strategic" air lift is more than just tanks. IF at all I would like to see which light tank India buys and take it from there.
Agreed Nraogaaru - that is why talking of tank transport alone is a self goal. It is possible - but probably the least and last requirement from the capabilities of the C 17.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Viv S »

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote: 44 Squadron started converting from the An-12 to the Il-76 in 1985. 30 years is a rather long time for a 'gap' to persist.
Viv S. Please dont do this. You are using one sq to speak for IAF?

First supersonics converted from Mig 21 to Mig 29. So IAF replaced Mig 21 with Mig 29.

I feel like banging my head on the wall here. My god.

An 12s were finally all retired in the 90s the last being June 93.

Ils were in by in 1985.
My assumption that the Il-76 replaced the An-12 is based on that fact, that the induction of the former happened to coincide with the beginning of the latter's retirement. In addition to 44 Squadron, the other An-12 equipped squadron, i.e. 25 Squadron also converted to the Il-76.
All this while MTA was supposed to come, but just like the AJT it has taken forever, I guess it was not blest by the right backing like C 17.
It was my understanding that the MTA was a recent undertaking initiated in 2006, unlike the AJT.
And its your opinion that the IAF doesn't need the C-17's airlift ability and that the USAF decision was based on extravagance. There is nothing to suggest that the IAF shares that opinion.
And I cant care a fig. US can do what ever it wants.

India does things a different way.
Point was the C-17 can replace the Il-76 and doesn't serve a separate role altogether unlike the C-130, An-32 or C-5.

Again that's Gilles opinion.
For you everything is an opinion, maybe perhaps etc. What can anyone say. In any case I dont care.
Its Gilles' opinion vs the USAF/DoD opinion.

(Compare C 17s with MTA, C 17s materialized in two years when IAF was not talking about it, HAL MTA is plagued for 10 years now)


but no HAL MTA would not be fast tracked C 17 must be brought today.

Bah humbug ptachh....

If people want to buy this snake oil, their choice, I wont be buying it.
That's an apples to oranges comparison. The MTA is in the development phase. The C-17's development was plagued with hurdles as well. Its acquisition today is faster simply because it doesn't have a competitor unless the IAF is willing to downgrade its requirements. Delays arise when there's a choice to made or when there's a problem on the financial side.
What sort of hulla was created before ... say the recent order for an additional three Phalcons.
That is because you were probably not around to notice. The AWACS make/purchase debate has been around for ever. And unlike the time of tanks I am not going to spoon feed you.
Until a year ago I was reading three newspapers everyday(HT,ToI,IE). Just HT nowadays. I didn't notice any big delay, dithering, argument or hulla in any form regarding the supplemental purchase of the Phalcons.
Why is impossible that the IAF identified a requirement, identified an aircraft after a 'thorough study' (according to ACM PV Naik), pitched it to the MoD, which first sanctioned it and is negotiating with Boeing on the IAF's behalf. Where is the evidence of foul play?
Because there is no trace, and in India there always is.

You want to believe in immaculate conception? I say there was sex involved.
^^ That would implicate the IAF in the 'dirt' behind the deal.

^^^ You're offering the dismantling of this WWII era tank as an example of how the Il-76 can be used to ferry the turret and hull separately? I think a more contemporary example is in order.
No intelligent one. I am offering this as an example of how tanks can be dismantled and put back together. And this is but one example since you cant find even one.
Back then they still had horse cavalry. You can't extrapolate an example involving the M3 Stuart to T-90s and Arjuns. Assembling a 50+ ton modern MBT in the field today is a very different proposition, from a performing the same with a 14 ton M3(which was 'Light' even in its day).

It seems to me(I don't know if others have gleaned a different meaning) you're saying the C-17 purchase is wrong because the HAL is not involved in its production. Is that correct?
Viv S, are you really capable of such comprehension of simple words?

This is NOT what I said what I said was CRYSTAL CLEAR and consisted of 4 points taken together, of which the above was not a point but half a point.
^^ Sure. What role would you have HAL play? Because AFAIK it didn't play any role in India's original acquisition of Il-76s or An-32s, or more recent acquisition of the Il-78, C-130J or Phalcon.
I'm basing that 'fraudulent statement' simply on the fact that the IAF settled on the A-330 for its MRTT requirement instead of the Il-78 which is cheaper and has relatively new units already in service with the IAF. Didn't hear any outrage when that decision was made. Only MoF (and the US lobby I hear) seemed to have a problem.
Wow, Viv S. Please give your "possibilities" a break. If you look (which you wont, and if you do you wont find, and if you find you will not agree with) you will find tons of Il 76 thumbs up statements by the IAF.

Please spare us statements like "IAF does not like Il 76 because it chose Airbus in a competitive tendor"

WOW!!

Viv S, for me it is truly impossible to discuss ANYTHING logical with a person who exhibits even one statement of that order.
And no point have I said the IAF dislikes the Il-76. Its one thing to be very satisfied with a system and another to believe its the best option for the IAF's future fleet.

And that's borne out by the IAF's preference for a more expensive A-330.

This is not about Il 76 alone (stop obsessing)

In any case, YOU I know are "hum nahi manege" when it comes to clear cut data which flies in the face of your belief system. (such as two years for 5.8 billion $ is biz as usual)

:lol:

You just keep surprising me with your recalcitrance that all.
The process for acquisition started in 2008 with the first aircraft being delivered earliest by 2012. What sort of song and dance would you have felt necessary in order to justify the purchase.
Yes Viv S, you expect us to believe that 5.8 billion $ in two years out of thin air is not fast.

Arnab wants us to believe 5.8 billion for 10 birds is cheap and wants proof.

Sorry boss live your own world. I live in the real India.
If you feel the $5.8 billion figure(yet to be finalized) is unjustified, it would seem you have an idea of the Il-76's acquisition cost including spare parts and maintenance. Lets hear it.







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


I tried to calculate the C-17's fuel consumption relative to the Il-76. For the same payload (45 tons), the C-17 has 2.3 times the range of the Il-76 with a fuel capacity that's 1.2 times that of the Il-76. That works out be 1.9 times higher fuel efficiency for the C-17. Even assuming the newer Il-76 variants are more fuel efficient, that's still a huge plus for the C-17. That's in addition to higher performance limits, wide-body and quicker turnaround time.

Informations probably not accurate but good enough for a rough estimate.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/ ... 40f993.png[y axis - 10 ton, x axis - 1000nm]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globe ... .28C-17.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_I ... 8Il-76D.29
http://www.azfreighters.com/planes/il76.pdf


(P.S. To All BRFites:- If I've made an error in the ^^^ analysis please point it out. I didn't find any explicit information available on the net and that's ^^^ my amateurish substitution)
Last edited by Viv S on 14 May 2010 12:51, edited 1 time in total.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Sanku wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: False

Throughput is a combination of tons/per sortie AND how many aircraft you can fit on the ground. The C-17 is a very compact aircraft that carries a lot for its footprint.

As I mentioned, the C-17 has 3 times the throughput of the C-5, a plane that carries twice as much.
Umm okay, can you point to a single article etc mentioning that physical size was a issue in terms of number of aircrafts that could be accommodated? In a Mil airlift?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 92/PBW.htm
Also, the C-17's superior ground maneuvering allows more aircraft to be on the ramp offloading supplies to our forces. Eight C-17s can park in the space required for 3 C-5s (C-17/C-5 payloads are about the same). In addition, the C-17 has a smaller turning radius than the C-141 and C-5, and backs up like a C-l30. This means that the C-17 offers a 3 to 1 advantage over C-5 in cargo throughput on a 500,000 square foot ramp.
Sanku wrote: 2) Where this issue has been suggested as a important factor for C 17, prefereably from a Indian context but any would do.
Logistics is a math problem that is applicable to any force.

More tons = more tons.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:I am just wondering why the IAF would go to such great lengths to buy an aircraft to transport tanks for the Army with zero army involvement in the process.

Maybe that is the real scam here.

I can imagine this flaming row between a gent from the CAG's office and an Air Force guy - at the end of a six hour discusion
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

On more serious note, a similar case could have been made in the 80s for ordering another 2 An-32s or 4 Avros instead of the Il-76.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

GeorgeWelch wrote: Ref to global strat.
Ok George, so theoretically since C 17 occupies lesser space than C 5s it can help in more aircrafts unloading at the same time.

Fine I agree that the C 17 has that capability over C 5s -- although I have not seen any articles mentioning whether that is actually been a issue in real life -- but you are right this could be one advantage that it has in addition to simple more per sortie.

I wonder C 17 would compare with other a/c's in this regard. But yes, in any contest this should be an advantage.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

Viv S wrote: On more serious note, a similar case could have been made in the 80s for ordering another 2 An-32s or 4 Avros instead of the Il-76.
As there should be, questions like what role is being filled in IAF by a particular a/c and whether some different approach does not suffice should have been made.

But in 80s the purchase method for any equipment was clear cut, the Soviets had the innate advantages of selling us top end equipment at throw away prices that too for ruppee-rouble trade (no hard currency) and that to in barter like system.

We didnt need DPP yada yada then...

We do now, since we dont have sweetheart deals for political quid pro quo.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

Viv S wrote:
My assumption...

It was my understanding that the MTA was a recent undertaking initiated in 2006, unlike the AJT.
Well Viv now that you do know better I hope you change some of opinions since you realize that the underlying assumptions were incorrect.

http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-th ... mdhy2mq/12#
The Multirole Medium Aircraft (MTA) project was initiated by Russia's Ilyushin in 1996. It is also referred to as Il-214 Ilyushin and "Indo-Russian Transport Aircraft (IRTA) or MRTA by its Indian partner HAL. Russia and India entered into negotiations for the co-development of the aircraft in 1999. A MOU was signed in June 2001 between Ilyushin, Irkut and HAL.
MTA has been languishing for 14 years now. :cry: :cry: It was started immediately post the retirement on An 12s
Point was the C-17 can replace the Il-76 and doesn't serve a separate role altogether unlike the C-130, An-32 or C-5.
But as you see, that was based on some flawed assumptions. There is a reason that everyone has airlifts in different ranges. US is exception on ONE point, but thats it.

That's an apples to oranges comparison. The MTA is in the development phase.
As you see above that incorrect too MTA is a acronym standing for a 20 tonne lifter wanted since 1996.

Until a year ago I was reading three newspapers everyday(HT,ToI,IE). Just HT nowadays. I didn't notice any big delay, dithering, argument or hulla in any form regarding the supplemental purchase of the Phalcons.
Because the Indian AWACS had failed, and a long standing demand had to be hurridly fulfiled, also a fall out of Kargil.

There is not long standing demand for a C 17.

Because there is no trace, and in India there always is.
Incorrect plain and simple. Always traces remain; chaiwalla reports, newspaper leaks yada yada.

^^ That would implicate the IAF in the 'dirt' behind the deal.
Again incorrect.

Not at all, Bofors was muck, without any wrong doing on part of IA.

And I am not alleging corruption anyway.

If PMO wants IAF to prepare for a role, it will thats what has happened. That's it.


^^^ You're offering the dismantling of this WWII era tank as an example of how the Il-76 can be used to ferry the turret and hull separately? I think a more contemporary example is in order.[/quote]

No intelligent one. I am offering this as an example of how tanks can be dismantled and put back together. And this is but one example since you cant find even one.[/quote]

Back then they still had horse cavalry. You can't extrapolate an example involving the M3 Stuart to T-90s and Arjuns. Assembling a 50+ ton modern MBT in the field today is a very different proposition, from a performing the same with a 14 ton M3(which was 'Light' even in its day).

It seems to me(I don't know if others have gleaned a different meaning) you're saying the C-17 purchase is wrong because the HAL is not involved in its production. Is that correct?
Viv S, are you really capable of such comprehension of simple words?

This is NOT what I said what I said was CRYSTAL CLEAR and consisted of 4 points taken together, of which the above was not a point but half a point.
^^ Sure. What role would you have HAL play? Because AFAIK it didn't play any role in India's original acquisition of Il-76s or An-32s, or more recent acquisition of the Il-78, C-130J or Phalcon.
I'm basing that 'fraudulent statement' simply on the fact that the IAF settled on the A-330 for its MRTT requirement instead of the Il-78 which is cheaper and has relatively new units already in service with the IAF. Didn't hear any outrage when that decision was made. Only MoF (and the US lobby I hear) seemed to have a problem.
Wow, Viv S. Please give your "possibilities" a break. If you look (which you wont, and if you do you wont find, and if you find you will not agree with) you will find tons of Il 76 thumbs up statements by the IAF.

Please spare us statements like "IAF does not like Il 76 because it chose Airbus in a competitive tendor"

WOW!!

Viv S, for me it is truly impossible to discuss ANYTHING logical with a person who exhibits even one statement of that order.
And no point have I said the IAF dislikes the Il-76. Its one thing to be very satisfied with a system and another to believe its the best option for the IAF's future fleet.

And that's borne out by the IAF's preference for a more expensive A-330.

This is not about Il 76 alone (stop obsessing)

In any case, YOU I know are "hum nahi manege" when it comes to clear cut data which flies in the face of your belief system. (such as two years for 5.8 billion $ is biz as usual)

:lol:

You just keep surprising me with your recalcitrance that all.
The process for acquisition started in 2008 with the first aircraft being delivered earliest by 2012. What sort of song and dance would you have felt necessary in order to justify the purchase.
Yes Viv S, you expect us to believe that 5.8 billion $ in two years out of thin air is not fast.

Arnab wants us to believe 5.8 billion for 10 birds is cheap and wants proof.

Sorry boss live your own world. I live in the real India.
If you feel the $5.8 billion figure(yet to be finalized) is unjustified, it would seem you have an idea of the Il-76's acquisition cost including spare parts and maintenance. Lets hear it.


I tried to calculate the C-17's fuel consumption relative to the Il-76. For the same payload (45 tons), the C-17 has 2.3 times the range of the Il-76 with a fuel capacity that's 1.2 times that of the Il-76. That works out be 1.9 times higher fuel efficiency for the C-17. Even assuming the newer Il-76 variants are more fuel efficient, that's still a huge plus for the C-17. That's in addition to higher performance limits, wide-body and quicker turnaround time.

Informations probably not accurate but good enough for a rough estimate.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/ ... 40f993.png[y axis - 10 ton, x axis - 1000nm]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globe ... .28C-17.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_I ... 8Il-76D.29
http://www.azfreighters.com/planes/il76.pdf


(P.S. To All BRFites:- If I've made an error in the ^^^ analysis please point it out. I didn't find any explicit information available on the net and that's ^^^ my amateurish substitution)[/quote]
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Cain Marko »

Leaving aside the political aspects, there are some valid concerns being raised by Sanku, Shalav, Gilles et al -

1) Re. performance - what is it that makes the C-17 suddenly so attractive that it

a) Doesn't have to go through the RFI/RFP process?

b) Needs to be bought in a hurry without due competition?

c) Needs to be bought without tests and evals? (Or did they do this sometime and I missed it?)

d) Needs to be bought without due consideration to offsets, local partnerships (or have they done this and I missed it as well?)

e) Needs to be bought at the cost of maintaining an entirely new supply chain, inventory type?

f) Needs to be bought quickly when other, perhaps more pressing, requirements are going through most of the above-mentioned rigmarole?

Thats a LOT of moolah they are talking about folks - $ 5.8 billion is no laughing matter. Of course, if there is a need, may they go ahead and get it pronto. I'd rather pay premiums than go through MRCA/LUH type circuses every now and again - no good for jingo's BP.

CM
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by rohitvats »

In this debate on the merit or otherwise of C-17, facts seem to be the first casualty. But why am I not surprised? No one wants to learn - everyone wants to defend their position, no matter what.

First things first -

(a) Viv S - C-17 is not replacing IL-76 anytime soon or later. The timely execution of acquisition plans (prepared by IAF) may mean that someday we may not replace IL-76 with another 40ton aircraft. But that does not mean that one replaces 40ton a/c with 65ton a/c. By the same argument, all I need is couple of C-5 Galaxy or equivalent. Right? Wrong. Based on your requirement of lifting tonnage and personnel- routine and operational/war time, one needs aircraft in different categories. Another factor is how the airstrips are spread and their size - which in our case means that AN-32 is not going out anytime soon. If IAF needs a workhorse for RTR and STR, it is C-130J. Something, IMHO can take care of bulk of it's needs. Is it a surprise that MTA is in 20ton category? There is a reason that C-130 is called Tactical Airlift Aircraft as was AN-12. And A-400M is in 40tonnes category (all right, 37tonnes)

Another point (related to above) - Do you see the gap in our airlift capability? After 7.5 tonnes of airlift capability on AN-32, we have a 40tonne machine. So, if I have a airlift a BMP-II or para drop it or anything above 7.5 tonnes over any considerable distance, what do I do? Use IL-76 and waste rest of it's airlift capability? See the graded requirement for airlift of varying tonnage? Consider another situation: As per AM Goel, IL-76 Cargo Hold volume fills out with 33tonnes of load - unless you load something like a T-72. Do we use IL-76 only when we have >30 tonnes of Cargo?

As for the AN-12 and IL-76 story, can you ask yourself what replacement options were available to the IAF? Did IAF ask for IL-76 as replacement or were thay handed down to it? One machine was retired as it's life was drawing to close while another was inducted.

And before anyone confuses roles of IL-76/C-17 and C-130/AN-12, please read what Strategic Airlift and Tactical Airlift means:
Strategic airlift is the use of cargo aircraft to transport materiel, weaponry, or personnel over long distances. Typically, this involves airlifting the required items between two airbases which are not in the same vicinity. This allows commanders to bring items into a combat theater from a point on the other side of the planet, if necessary. Aircraft which perform this role are considered strategic airlifters. This contrasts with tactical airlifters, such as the C-130 Hercules and Transall C-160, which can normally only move supplies within a given theater of operations.
Tactical airlift is a military term for the airborne transportation of supplies and equipment within a theatre of operations (in contrast to strategic airlift). Aircraft which perform this role are referred to as tactical airlifters. These are typically turboprop aircraft, and feature short landing and take-off distances and low-pressure tyres allowing operations from small or poorly-prepared airstrips. While they lack the speed and range of strategic airlifters (which are typically jet-powered), these capabilities are invaluable within war zones
BTW, I'm also of the opinion that C-17 is being handed down to IAF.

(b) Sanku - On the airlift requirement thing - just because there has been no sound byte or articles (that you know of) prior to 2008, does not mean that IA or IAF were not cognizant of the requirement for Strategic Airlift. General Sundarji had announced during an exercise in 1986 that 54th Infantry Division was to be converted to Air Assault Division. This was to be acheived by 2000. But, ofcourse, like other plans formulated by the good general, nothing came off it. Lt.General Vinay Shankar (retd.) writing in IDR in October 2003 had stated that IA had drawn up plans for two air-mobile divisions couple of years back. But nothing again hapened as there were no funds then - 2003-04 seemed to be a good time to start implementing the same. Similary, Lt.Gen. Pattabhiraman (former VCOAS) - while accepting that there was requirement for Rapid Reaction Division, said that there was lack of Strategic Airlift for any such formation.

As for the MBT example - I have maintained that if IA can forsee a situation requiring tanks in a given sector, it can pre-position them. However, given an emergency situation - how prudent is to carry a split tank? How easy is to take it apart and then put it together in war-zone? Or when the MBT needs to roll off the aircrat and go to battle? We did not do that in lift to Leh or Jaffna. But that is again moot - the T-90 width might not permit it to be loaded onto IL-76. Arjun definitely cannot be carried.

As for the Throughput parameter, it is an extremely important one from US perspective - just type C-17 and throughput in google. May or may not apply in our case.

About the C-17 trials - well, I have no answer. There seem to be none - as was with C-130J.

As for the Multi-Vendor situation and competition and SQR - is asking for 65tonne airlifter being too specific? And why? If I need to add a VHAL (very heavy airlift) aircraft at apex of my airlift capability, why will I ask for IL-76 or A-400M to come to competition? If I need A-400M or IL-76, why will I send invite to C-17? And how does this compare to Gripen NG and EF example? EF/F-16/Gripen are to fill the same requirement. Do IL-76 and C-17 fill the same requirement? In a graded structure, AN-32>C-130J>IL-76>C-17 will be the case.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by NRao »

CM Bhai, :roll: for you

How can you leave politics aside and ask why no RFI/RFP/eval? The absence is politics!!!
Cain Marko wrote: 1) Re. performance - what is it that makes the C-17 suddenly so attractive that it
Please check the Goel blog. He mentions 3 man crew, ease of handling, and few other things. Sounds bland, but coming from him it should mean something (he started the IL-76 effort is 85, so he should know.) Also, strategic now means entire IOR and these - per Goel - will fill the "heavy" part of the lift.
a) Doesn't have to go through the RFI/RFP process?

b) Needs to be bought in a hurry without due competition?

c) Needs to be bought without tests and evals? (Or did they do this sometime and I missed it?)
Politics, although they seem to have conducted evals under the radar and during exchanges (C-130Js also followed this path, when IA operated out of them to get a feel)
d) Needs to be bought without due consideration to offsets, local partnerships (or have they done this and I missed it as well?)
Seems like there is something - perhaps not spelt out well enough in the print arena.

[quote
e) Needs to be bought at the cost of maintaining an entirely new supply chain, inventory type?

f) Needs to be bought quickly when other, perhaps more pressing, requirements are going through most of the above-mentioned rigmarole?

Thats a LOT of moolah they are talking about folks - $ 5.8 billion is no laughing matter. Of course, if there is a need, may they go ahead and get it pronto. I'd rather pay premiums than go through MRCA/LUH type circuses every now and again - no good for jingo's BP.
[/quote]

Very true. A lot of dough for them. Quickly? Not sure - perhaps not quick enough. My feel is that India always wanted something like this but either did not have the funds or could not find a product to push that button. I feel this is a perfect storm - technically, need wise, politics and funds.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Viv S »

rohitvats wrote:In this debate on the merit or otherwise of C-17, facts seem to be the first casualty. But why am I not surprised? No one wants to learn - everyone wants to defend their position, no matter what.

First things first -

(a) Viv S - C-17 is not replacing IL-76 anytime soon or later. The timely execution of acquisition plans (prepared by IAF) may mean that someday we may not replace IL-76 with another 40ton aircraft. But that does not mean that one replaces 40ton a/c with 65ton a/c. By the same argument, all I need is couple of C-5 Galaxy or equivalent. Right? Wrong. Based on your requirement of lifting tonnage and personnel- routine and operational/war time, one needs aircraft in different categories. Another factor is how the airstrips are spread and their size - which in our case means that AN-32 is not going out anytime soon. If IAF needs a workhorse for RTR and STR, it is C-130J. Something, IMHO can take care of bulk of it's needs. Is it a surprise that MTA is in 20ton category? There is a reason that C-130 is called Tactical Airlift Aircraft as was AN-12. And A-400M is in 40tonnes category (all right, 37tonnes)
Ofcourse the Il-76 isn't going to be replaced anytime soon. Some aircraft will serve till 2020 and perhaps past it if the aircraft goes through a life extension program. But, its pretty clear the IAF's future strategic airlift will be performed by the C-17(I expect follow-on orders) unless some major realignment takes place. The higher tonnage doesn't place it in a different class - the newer variants of the Il-76 can reportedly lift over 50 tons. The C-5/An-124 on the other hand do belong to a different class with vastly higher operating cost, double-decker body, no austere field capability and capable of performing inter-continental missions.
Another point (related to above) - Do you see the gap in our airlift capability? After 7.5 tonnes of airlift capability on AN-32, we have a 40tonne machine. So, if I have a airlift a BMP-II or para drop it or anything above 7.5 tonnes over any considerable distance, what do I do? Use IL-76 and waste rest of it's airlift capability? See the graded requirement for airlift of varying tonnage? Consider another situation: As per AM Goel, IL-76 Cargo Hold volume fills out with 33tonnes of load - unless you load something like a T-72. Do we use IL-76 only when we have >30 tonnes of Cargo?
^^ The operative condition is cost of operation. The Il-76 has a much higher operational cost than the An-32, otherwise it would have been the aircraft of choice. The C-17 on the other hand has at the very least a comparable operational cost vis-a-vis the Il-76. From my 'back of notebook' calculation it seems to have half the fuel consumption of the Il-76(could be wrong though - I'd like it pointed out if I am).
As for the AN-12 and IL-76 story, can you ask yourself what replacement options were available to the IAF? Did IAF ask for IL-76 as replacement or were thay handed down to it? One machine was retired as it's life was drawing to close while another was inducted.
Fair enough. But, even though the IAF would have liked something to bridge the An-32, Il-76 gap they would still prefer to retain the Il-76's capability. The same applies to the C-17. Its been implied on the thread that the IAF had a role in mind for the Il-76 but one doesn't exist for the C-17, and that its only real utility is foreign operations which is plainly false.
Last edited by Viv S on 14 May 2010 01:59, edited 1 time in total.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Viv S »

Sanku,

Errr... I think something happened to the second half of your reply. Probably some inadvertent edit during the formatting.
Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

C-5Ms for the IAF?

Post by Gilles »

Perhaps the IAF should buy the 10 of the 20 retired C-5A Galaxys from the US Air Force for One symbolic dollar each, and have them sent to Lockheed-Martin for full upgrade to C-5M standards (2009 cost reported to be 90 million per aircraft)

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/asse ... GC-5PC.pdf

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/asse ... Output.wmv

They have a modern cockpit, a payload of 130 tonnes, and according to L-M:
The C-5M was designed to perform both strategic and tactical missions and has the ability to take off and land in distances as short as 5,000 feet, while operating under austere conditions.
Image

They are fitted with brand new GE engines, the same engines that can be found on aircraft such as the Airbus A-310 and the Boeings 767 and 747.

Image

[youtube]LvNwiczJ69k&feature=related[/youtube]

In this video, watch a C-5 Galaxy take-off in under 2500 feet! The take off roll begins at 1:46. Notice that the C-5 is on those large white touch down zone markers. These markers are located 500 feet from one another. At about 1:57 the C-5 has rolled 500 feet. At 2:02 he has rolled 1000 feet. At 2:05 he has rolled 1500 feet. At 2:08 he has passed the 2000 foot marker and has begun the rotation. At 2:11 he is clearly airborne before rolling over the 2,500 foot marker.

So India, what do you think? Almost double the payload as the C-17 for two and a half times less money. Its American. It will please Obama. It will please US Senators. It allows interoperability with US and NATO forces. It can now land on unsurfaced austere runways. It can carry twice as many tanks as the C-17. It can carry three times as many soldiers as the C-17.

The US Air Force is now getting over 50 of them. They already took delivery of three. If its good enough for the USA, why not India?

The US Air Force was going to upgrade all C-5As but because they now have too many C-17s, they are forced to retire these C-5As instead of upgrading them.

If India is serious about really upgrading its Strategic Lift capacity and enter the big leagues, why go for something that just carries 25 tonnes more than the IL-76 it already has. Go for the 130 tonne C-5M!
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-5Ms for the IAF?

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Gilles wrote:It allows interoperability with US and NATO forces.
Just like any other transport plane.
Gilles wrote:It can carry twice as many tanks as the C-17.
Maybe lighter tanks like the T-90, it's not clear.

But it can still only transfer one M1A1 because of center of gravity issues.
Gilles wrote:The US Air Force is now getting over 50 of them. They already took delivery of three. If its good enough for the USA, why not India?
Because that 50 happens to be all the C-5Bs there are.
Gilles wrote:The US Air Force was going to upgrade all C-5As but because they now have too many C-17s, they are forced to retire these C-5As instead of upgrading them.
More importantly, they found that after modifying one C-5A to the C-5M standard that it still sucked.

That was the real reason the C-5A upgrade plan got ditched.

If there are any C-5Bs that get retired, you may have a point, but I don't see that happening.

The C-5As aren't worth it at any price.
Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-5Ms for the IAF?

Post by Gilles »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:
It can carry twice as many tanks as the C-17.
Maybe lighter tanks like the T-90, it's not clear.

But it can still only transfer one M1A1 because of center of gravity issues.
Straight from the L-M brochure I referenced:
The C-5M carries twice the outsized and oversized cargo of any other U.S. Air Force airlifter, including:
• Thirty-six fully loaded 463L-type cargo pallets
Two M1A Abrams main battle tanks
• Four M2/M3 Bradley Infantry Vehicles
• Four multiple-launch rocket systems
• Two Patriot missile launchers
• Six Apache helicopters
• More than a quarter-million pounds of relief supplie
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-5Ms for the IAF?

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Gilles wrote: Straight from the L-M brochure I referenced:
Two M1A Abrams main battle tanks
I know what the brochure says, but multiple sources in the USAF have confirmed it only carries one.

It may be a difference in the risk tolerance in the two organizations, I don't know. But whatever the case, the USAF will only ever use it to transport one at a time.
Locked