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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 16 Jun 2010 09:54

Sanku wrote:
Yes, but ANY new air truck you buy will not have 25% serviceability anyway.

:roll:

And no Air truck in India has 25% serviceability, the worst is AN 32 today, which is at 50%. Which is also heading for mid life upgrade for that reason.


Yes but the C-17 sustainability program will give a > 80 % servicability through out its life. We can't get chinese vaccum cleaners for the forces - which falls apart the moment the warranty expires.

The 25% servicability of IL 76 has been provided in the media and IAF has not contradicted.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 09:54

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote: :rotfl:

You really want to serve Assam? Get An 70 which CAN land anywhere a An 32 can including ALGs


er..yes, though the first requirement would be their ability to stay in the air more than 25 % of the time? That is a critical wouldn't you say? Or get an Arjun to a place where your adversary has T-Xx? Would that be critical? Can an An 70 oblige?


In your world it wont. In real world it will.

And yes neither will C 17 move a Arjun to a ALG.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 09:58

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Yes, but ANY new air truck you buy will not have 25% serviceability anyway.

:roll:

And no Air truck in India has 25% serviceability, the worst is AN 32 today, which is at 50%. Which is also heading for mid life upgrade for that reason.


Yes but the C-17 sustainability program will give a > 80 % servicability through out its life. We can't get chinese vaccum cleaners for the forces - which falls apart the moment the warranty expires.

The 25% servicability of IL 76 has been provided in the media and IAF has not contradicted.


Oh the media has also said that MMS is agent of the west. Subramanium Swamy no less on his blog, and not been contradicted either.

:rotfl:

Anyway the standards of honesty that you display are so clear...

25 year Old Ils without a 2.5 billion $ support contract is being compared to a brand new plane with a support contract.

Bravo, bravo.. Satyamev Jayate Indeed.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 16 Jun 2010 10:06

Sanku wrote:


Oh the media has also said that MMS is agent of the west. Subramanium Swamy no less on his blog, and not been contradicted either.

:rotfl:

Anyway the standards of honesty that you display are so clear...

25 year Old Ils without a 2.5 billion $ support contract is being compared to a brand new plane with a support contract.

Bravo, bravo.. Satyamev Jayate Indeed.


Whether MMS is an 'alleged agent' or not is a matter of opinion. One can choose to ignore it. 25% servicability is a factual number put out by the media. It is either correct or wrong.

Sir, all air crafts come with after sales and support contracts. You just don't have to pay for it upfront. IAF has seen the quality of after sales support over the past 25 years for the IL 76s. C-17s are asking for the money upfront (a sort of extended warranty)

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 10:15

arnab wrote:
Whether MMS is an 'alleged agent' or not is a matter of opinion. One can choose to ignore it. 25% servicability is a factual number put out by the media. It is either correct or wrong.


:rotfl: No both are either true or not.

And without proof both are equally true for equal reasons.

Sir, all air crafts come with after sales and support contracts. You just don't have to pay for it upfront.


Sir in your world the upfront payment of 2.5 billion may be same as a contract where payment is done as per need.


IAF has seen the quality of after sales support over the past 25 years for the IL 76s. C-17s are asking for the money upfront (a sort of extended warranty)


Yes, C 17s want the money now deliver later. Nice after sale contract model.

And IAF has NEVER made a claim about Il 76 being an issue -- of course now that C 17s have to be sold, Col Shukla will suddenly discover on his Boeing trip that IAF has issues.

Of course no official validation is needed, he said it on location from a Boeing factory, the MECCA of uprightness honesty and Timeliness.

C 17 is clearly superior, why is IAF even testing it. We already know by demos that Boeing gave.
:rotfl:

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 16 Jun 2010 10:25

Sanku wrote: :rotfl: No both are either true or not.

And without proof both are equally true for equal reasons.

Sir, all air crafts come with after sales and support contracts. You just don't have to pay for it upfront.


Sir in your world the upfront payment of 2.5 billion may be same as a contract where payment is done as per need.


IAF has seen the quality of after sales support over the past 25 years for the IL 76s. C-17s are asking for the money upfront (a sort of extended warranty)


Yes, C 17s want the money now deliver later. Nice after sale contract model.



Why are both true? Why don't you put up the exact quote by Swamy to see if they both meet the factual vs. opinion criteria?

In any world - successful contracts are defined in terms of outcomes achieved. IAF must have seen the IL-76 payment per need model and its outcomes over the past 25 years. Whats the point in getting cheap products up front that don't work adequately when critically required? Or you have to pay through your nose to upgrade them to current standards?

Again you start your insinuations against Col Shukla without a shred of evidence. Please put up a report which contradicts him.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 10:29

arnab wrote:Again you start your insinuations against Col Shukla without a shred of evidence. Please put up a report which contradicts him.


Well C 17s leaks water from the cabin and needs 30 tonnes of water for every mile. Please put a report which contradicts it.

:rotfl:

Col Shukla goes to Boeing factory and disses Il 76, out of the blue, first reference in 25 years and we are supposed to believe him because....?

Sorry Arnab, let us just say we have different standards of what passes for honesty and truth.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 16 Jun 2010 10:31

Sanku wrote:
Sorry Arnab, let us just say we have different standards of what passes for honesty and truth.


Yes I think we can both agree to that :)

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Karan Dixit » 16 Jun 2010 11:05

Thorough study, even before the aircraft arrived for test.


I would have ignored this quote if it were not used to mock the Chief of Air Staff. Because usually I am too tired to respond to posts on BRF. So here it is.

You can study something without actually conducting experiments. For example in my high school I studied Neils Bohr's model without actually doing any tests (or rather experiments). To this date, I am not sure if it true or not because I have never conducted the necessary experiments to validate the model. But I hope it is true. :)

So what the chief is saying is IAF has studied the C17's capabilities and will do its own trials (experiments or tests) to validate the claims and accepted norms by others (other air forces who are using the C17s currently). It was a very reasonable remark. I fail to see the necessity for expressed mockery.

This is just the humble opinion of a mango man.

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Karan Dixit » 16 Jun 2010 11:22

Can a C17 land on much shorter runway than IL76 or AN124? If the answer is yes, then it is going to be C17 because long runways are the luxuries we cannot afford on the mountain range with peaks as high as 28K feet.

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 » 16 Jun 2010 11:36

Sanku wrote:In your world it wont. In real world it will.

And yes neither will C 17 move a Arjun to a ALG.


And pray can you say why the C17 will not move a Arjun to a ALG?

Because Sanku ji says so?

But weren't you the one arguing that the Army can easily transport tanks in an Il76 by dismantling the turret? If that can be done for Il76 is there any reason why it can't be done with the C17, assuming that the full tank won't fit into the bigger and wide-bodied C17.

Sanku ji, I would dearly love to visit your world. It seems to be an even crazier place than the one deal little Alice visited. And I think I know who's the Mad Hatter in your world!

:lol: :rotfl: :rotfl: :lol:

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 » 16 Jun 2010 11:37

Karan Dixit wrote:Can a C17 land on much shorter runway than IL76 or AN124? If the answer is yes, then it is going to be C17 because long runways are the luxuries we cannot afford on the mountain range with peaks as high as 28K feet.


Boss as per reports the IAF is going to test the C17 in Leh. That will be interesting.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 11:38

Karan Dixit wrote:
Thorough study, even before the aircraft arrived for test.


I would have ignored this quote if it were not used to mock the Chief of Air Staff. Because usually I am too tired to respond to posts on BRF. So here it is.


Problem in comprehension again. I am not mocking the CAS, not by a long chalk and I clarified the same.

The fact is, the aircraft is not comprehensively tested, it will be once it is in India, it is YET to happen.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 11:40

Because C 17s have not landed on any ALGs ever with a 50 tonne load.

Zimble....

But of course, absence of information is not a reason to hold back claims. At least for people for whom 25% is just a number between 0 and 100%.

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 » 16 Jun 2010 11:47

Sanku wrote:We keep complaining that PSUs are not treated like Foreign vendors in terms of opportunity. Well this was the best case, give HAL a chance to quickly sew up a partnership and apply, they dont even need money or anything, to begin with they just need to keep some management time to have a joint venture to apply. If they win, then they can manufacture both in India and at their partner location to keep the costs down etc. Maybe HAL could do nothing but add a name plate to a set of goods designed, with outsourced components and manufacturing. It would just buy IP use rights.

Perfect seed to HAL to have a Bombardier like offshoot

I think it can be done.


I think this post is a keeper. So MoD has to issue a Request for Information to a department which is already under it to find out if it can build/license manufacture or even steal an very heavy lift transport aircraft. And the MoD has no clue whether HAL can do it? Wonderful!

And a 10 plane order would magically give HAL a Bombardier-like offshoot!

What does one make of this kind of logic? :eek:

Just to give a sense of perspective, here's what the Bombardier website says about the company

Our 62,900 employees design, manufacture, sell and support the widest range of world-class products in these two sectors. This includes commercial and business jets, as well as rail transportation equipment, systems and services.

Bombardier is headquartered in Montréal, Canada, and its shares (BBD) are traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. In the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010, we posted revenues of $19.4 billion US.


Folks you read it here first from our very own Sanku ji. A 10 plane order to HAL can give birth to a $19billion company with 62,900 employees!

Please take a bow! :roll:

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 » 16 Jun 2010 11:48

Sanku wrote:Because C 17s have not landed on any ALGs ever with a 50 tonne load.


And you got this information from? Remember apply your own standard. Direct quotations marks and no paraphrasing.

Will that be too hard for you to post a link for a change?

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Karan Dixit » 16 Jun 2010 11:50

Sanku,

There is difference between "testing" and "study". The first lesson in comprehension.

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Karan Dixit » 16 Jun 2010 11:55

amit wrote:
Karan Dixit wrote:Can a C17 land on much shorter runway than IL76 or AN124? If the answer is yes, then it is going to be C17 because long runways are the luxuries we cannot afford on the mountain range with peaks as high as 28K feet.


Boss as per reports the IAF is going to test the C17 in Leh. That will be interesting.


I was thinking the same thing. The C17 has seen nothing yet till it tries to land on one of the Indian transit halts. I would love to see the expression on the US pilot's face when he sees the runway surrounded by peaks on three sides and a cliff on the one side. He better stop before the runway gives way to the cliff. :)

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 16 Jun 2010 12:00

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Because C 17s have not landed on any ALGs ever with a 50 tonne load.


And you got this information from? Remember apply your own standard. Direct quotations marks and no paraphrasing.

Will that be too hard for you to post a link for a change?


What are the properties of an ALG? As in what is the length of runway? I understand that they are unpaved.

This says that the Daulat Beg Oldi AGL is 2.1 km long
http://kuku.sawf.org/articles/50911.aspx

The IAF reactivated its 2.1km airstrip at Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) in North Eastern Ladakh after 43 years when an Antonov-32 transport aircraft, carrying Western Air Command Chief, Air Marshal PK Barbora, landed at the unpaved strip at 6:30 am on Saturday, May 31.


And this says:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t/c-17.htm

Technologically, the heart of the C­17 is its propulsive lift system, which uses engine exhaust to augment lift generation. By directing engine exhaust onto large flaps extended into the exhaust stream, the C­17 is capable of flying steep approaches at remarkably slow landing speeds. This equates to the aircraft's ability to land pay loads as large as 160,000 pounds on runways as short as 3000 feet.


3000 ft = 0.9 km per this

http://www.metric-conversions.org/lengt ... meters.htm

So I suppose a C 17 could land on an ALG (theoretically)
Last edited by arnab on 16 Jun 2010 12:02, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 12:02

Amit you have a penchant for deliberately twisting others words and making really weired statements, why dont you stick to saying what you have to say yourself?

Oh I forgot, you dont have any, and if you open your mouth it is make statements like

25% is a number between 0 and 100% the exact number is not important.


:rotfl:

To nail your misrepresentation once again let me quote so that those who are honest and can also comprehend can do so for themselves


Sanku wrote:Perfect seed to HAL to have a Bombardier like offshoot


Of course those who understand English are honest would know that the word "seed" does not mean

And a 10 plane order would magically give HAL a Bombardier-like offshoot!


But then, that would require honesty and understanding of English. Both.
:(

And a Bombardier like company on day ONE does not have whatever today -- Bombardier company.

And hey actually HAL today is a Bombardier like company anyway!!

To prove me wrong you want to compare the whole of Bombardier today (including rail transport) with the nascent company?

"Theek hai", what about a off short which can eventually become Embraer. How about that. Can we compete with other people who are non TFTAs? Please?

--------------------------
This is so silly, things you have to do to make sure the basics are not blatantly misrepresented.
Last edited by Sanku on 16 Jun 2010 12:03, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 16 Jun 2010 12:03

Karan Dixit wrote:I was thinking the same thing. The C17 has seen nothing yet till it tries to land on one of the Indian transit halts. I would love to see the expression on the US pilot's face when he sees the runway surrounded by peaks on three sides and a cliff on the one side. He better stop before the runway gives way to the cliff. :)


I fully agree with you it would be interesting. And perhaps even a landing on one of the Andaman airstrips.

If at all we buy this terribly expensive aircraft it should be able to fulfil all the criteria. And I hope that includes transporting an Arjun tank.

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 » 16 Jun 2010 12:07

Sanku ji,

I let others judge who's blatantly (you see I don't need to bold this word and use a bigger font as you've done all the spadework) misrepresenting facts.

But can you tell me why, if the MoD indeed wanted to involve HAL in this procurement it would need to send it a RFI? Isn't MoD the owner of HAL with management control?

Has any RFI/RFP ever been sent by MoD to HAL for the various products that it already makes for the IAF/IA?

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 12:11

Karan Dixit wrote:Sanku,

There is difference between "testing" and "study". The first lesson in comprehension.


Actually the first study in comprehension is to read.

The actual statement was "chosen after thorough study to replace Il 76"

I merely found it amusing that the article claimed on the behalf of ACM that the choice is already made,

before testing
before price negotiation.

And the ACM of the air force which will later engage in Price negotiation is already telling the world "this is such a critical requirement that we cant do without it immediately, this is a great product"

What Negotiations will happen from that position? Does it not weaken it substantially? Will any ACM do that? Have they ever?

No the ACM did not say anything, the magazine chose to paraphrase his words. We have great people on this thread who paraphrase "critical technology as critical requirement" and claim its the same. If ACM did say that, it could get a quote, but it didn't because then it cant hide behind paraphrasing.

Actually these stunts happen all the time in such high value purchases, arm twisting and psy-ops courtesy lifafas to magazines, it would not be the first time.

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 » 16 Jun 2010 12:12

I hope you realise Sanku, how many posters you have to allege has either a problem of comprehension, blatantly misrepresents facts, are lying, don't understand english and etc?

And on practically every page on this thread? Why? Is it a problem with all these posters or is it a problem of how you express and what is your POV? Have you ever made this introspection?

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 16 Jun 2010 12:16

Sanku wrote:

No the ACM did not say anything, the magazine chose to paraphrase his words. We have great people on this thread who paraphrase "critical technology as critical requirement" and claim its the same. If ACM did say that, it could get a quote, but it didn't because then it cant hide behind paraphrasing.

Actually these stunts happen all the time in such high value purchases, arm twisting and psy-ops courtesy lifafas to magazines, it would not be the first time.


And I'm sure Sanku ji does not realise how much critical technology goes into the making of the C 17. For him an 'air-truck is an air truck is an air truck' (roughly speaking) :)

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 12:17

amit wrote:Has any RFI/RFP ever been sent by MoD to HAL for the various products that it already makes for the IAF/IA?


If you actually ever read, these words proceeded the statement to send a request to HAL

We keep complaining that PSUs are not treated like Foreign vendors in terms of opportunity. Well this was the best case, give HAL a chance to quickly sew up a partnership and apply


If you pick up one word and dance about it, you are likely to have it fall back in your face like claiming that a seed means Bombardier today. :lol:

This is however not the standard that we expect from you so I fully expect you to keep dishing out total misinformation by picking up random statements from different posts mixing them up liberally and interpreting them.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 12:18

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:

No the ACM did not say anything, the magazine chose to paraphrase his words. We have great people on this thread who paraphrase "critical technology as critical requirement" and claim its the same. If ACM did say that, it could get a quote, but it didn't because then it cant hide behind paraphrasing.

Actually these stunts happen all the time in such high value purchases, arm twisting and psy-ops courtesy lifafas to magazines, it would not be the first time.


And I'm sure Sanku ji does not realise how much critical technology goes into the making of the C 17. For him an 'air-truck is an air truck is an air truck' (roughly speaking) :)


Yes please, point out to me what critical technology went into C 17 which is not in An 70, Il 476, An 120, Airbus 400?

A differentiating factor technologically?

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 16 Jun 2010 12:20

Sanku wrote:Yes please, point out to me what critical technology went into C 17 which is not in An 70, Il 476, An 120, Airbus 400?

A differentiating factor technologically?


Are all these aircrafts in the same 'band'? :) Does the IL 476 exist?

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 12:22

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:Yes please, point out to me what critical technology went into C 17 which is not in An 70, Il 476, An 120, Airbus 400?

A differentiating factor technologically?


Are all these aircrafts in the same 'band'? :) Does the IL 476 exist?


Use google, read.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 16 Jun 2010 12:25

Sanku wrote:
Use google, read.


I do - That is why I ask. Please point out a link of an airforce that is currently using IL 476

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 12:29

Immaterial.

(reams have been written why it is so -- please feel free to revisit)

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby arnab » 16 Jun 2010 12:30

Sanku wrote:Immaterial.

(reams have been written why it is so -- please feel free to revisit)


Right. So failed the 'source test'. Yet again :)

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 12:32

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:Immaterial.

(reams have been written why it is so -- please feel free to revisit)


Right. So failed the 'source test'. Yet again :)


No just failed the "how many times you spoon feed before you lose patience" test.

The answers are all there, if anyone wants to see them they can, if some one is a new comer to a thread they can be guided. but not those who willfully dont look at the data.

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 » 16 Jun 2010 12:42

Sanku wrote:
amit wrote:Has any RFI/RFP ever been sent by MoD to HAL for the various products that it already makes for the IAF/IA?


If you actually ever read, these words proceeded the statement to send a request to HAL

We keep complaining that PSUs are not treated like Foreign vendors in terms of opportunity. Well this was the best case, give HAL a chance to quickly sew up a partnership and apply


If you pick up one word and dance about it, you are likely to have it fall back in your face like claiming that a seed means Bombardier today. :lol:

This is however not the standard that we expect from you so I fully expect you to keep dishing out total misinformation by picking up random statements from different posts mixing them up liberally and interpreting them.


Sanku,

You really feel the urge to get into the Mud and rake it up do you?

Now let me see you allege that I pick up random statements from different posts mixing them up liberally and interpreting them..

Do you want me to requote your post where you took something which VivS wrote at random and mixed it with something entirely different which I wrote and attributed the whole thing to me and then said I have low level of understanding?

But what the heck I don't even need to do that. You take my post and then pick up this

Has any RFI/RFP ever been sent by MoD to HAL for the various products that it already makes for the IAF/IA?


While conveniently ignoring the context of that comment, which was in the previous para:

But can you tell me why, if the MoD indeed wanted to involve HAL in this procurement it would need to send it a RFI? Isn't MoD the owner of HAL with management control?


Perhaps you may care to ponder on this point before rushing in to type.

But anyway, I'm not going to respond to further posts from you. It's obvious where you are coming from and as I and others, I think, have found out, no amount of logic and facts will work. You can bring a horse to the water but you can't make it drink. I not going to waste any more time on you.

Cheers!

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 12:51

Amit, more of the same. Just to let you know the post has no bearing on what I really said. I am not responsible for your repeated lack of being unable to communicate with me but persisting never the less.

I had given up, but you keep taking snipes at me, thats why I am forced to issue disclaimers.

My mistake that I went in details.

From Now a standard disclaimer. Nothing that Amit has ever said about my posts has any bearing on it.

Every time you chose to reply to my post you will get this one line answer.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 16 Jun 2010 14:00

DELETED.
Last edited by Rahul M on 16 Jun 2010 16:11, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: if that's your idea of a joke BR is not for you. banned.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3277
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 16 Jun 2010 15:37

Brahmananda wrote:Why so much whine for something that will be tested soon, we'll see exactly how the c-17 performs once it goes to LEH and other areas.

Ignore Sanku i think he hasn't got laid in ages, so all his frustrations show here in this particular thread, may be his partner is too big to handle just like the c-17. :rotfl:


Out of order, personal attacks not allowed sir.

I hear the bredator engines soon...

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 16 Jun 2010 18:06

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:

No such case for a air truck.

A air truck is a air truck is a air truck.


Nope an air-truck with a 25% servicability is not the same as a bigger air truck with more than 80 % servicability


Are you telling us that the IAF's 3 AWACS will only be serviceable 25% of the time ? Between the 3 of them, India should be able to have about 18 hours of coverage on any given day......

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 16 Jun 2010 18:10

Surya wrote:60 pages and all you can show is a forlorn shell sitting in some abandoned factory :)

sure have a lot of arguments going for you


Yep, a forlorn shell from an abandoned factory that provided India with this:

Image
Last edited by Gilles on 16 Jun 2010 18:37, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 16 Jun 2010 18:27

amit wrote:
Karan Dixit wrote:Can a C17 land on much shorter runway than IL76 or AN124? If the answer is yes, then it is going to be C17 because long runways are the luxuries we cannot afford on the mountain range with peaks as high as 28K feet.


Boss as per reports the IAF is going to test the C17 in Leh. That will be interesting.


That should be easy enough, Leh is hard surfaced.......


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests