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.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3286
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 06 Aug 2010 19:41

I still say we should go for the Pushpak vimaana over the Il 476.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8270
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 06 Aug 2010 20:00

Tanaji 8)

Anthony Hines
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 16 Jul 2009 22:09
Location: West of Greenwich

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Anthony Hines » 06 Aug 2010 20:11

lot of harping on rough field ability - armies achieve better turnarounds when airdrops are used whereever and whenever feasible. Better question would be to ask what are the obvious breakout points on in case of a war with China and plug them using all weather roads and railheads. for the less obvious points use the C17s to airdrop troops and equipment. I guess the strategy is not to match the Chinese 1-1 but to make it very painful for them to sustain any misadventure in a very cost effective way - I say C17s (around 100) complemented by a bunch of C5's.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby nishu » 06 Aug 2010 20:17

Surya wrote:after all the Ramanyan we are back to who is Ram and who is sita :(


I Dont Know Any Thing About Ram But Sure Thing About Sita

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3286
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 06 Aug 2010 20:27

Speaking of airdrops:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 17-sba.htm

By late 2000 the Air Force Air Mobility Command's (AMC's) C-17 Globemaster transporters were able to meet the Army's goal of airdropping a brigade's worth of troops and equipment within 30 minutes.


No idea how this compares with the Il 76/476/An 124/A400/<insert your choice here>

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Cybaru » 06 Aug 2010 20:35

Tanaji,

Sure sure.. Go right ahead. It's free money anyways, spend it on pushpak vimana or C-17. 380 Million a pop is a lot of money. Why do we need more heavy lift transport anyways ? For 380 million you can buy enough cheap used boeing 737 cargo and use them for most transport duties for IA and IAF, while preserving the Il-76 for wartime and flying them for important heavylift operations. If you really have to spend, put down 500 million, give them a new cockpit, structural and engine refresh and these can go on for another 25 years.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3286
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 06 Aug 2010 20:44

Cybaru,

The best argument against the C-17 is that its too expensive, and the quoted (not final) $5.2B is a lot of money. That argument stands on its own merit and I can go with that.

However, the moment someone starts pitching alternatives to the C-17 which they claim are in the same class and available *now* is when the fun starts. Reality is, C-17 is the only game in town in its class right now.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Cybaru » 06 Aug 2010 20:57

Tanaji,

The other argument (alternatives) shows up when a case is made that "hey, we do need to revamp the heavy lift line we currently have". I don't think we do. If we do absolutely must have new transports then this seems like a uber expensive route to take.

The alternatives seem like we already have a large fleet of Il-76 and it does not make any sense to add a new type. A il-76MF costs 50 million. There is possibility of perhaps working our requirements into Il-476 since it's still being worked and that may make a good option for us. A C-17 costs 380 million. I possibly cannot see fuel costs and operating lifecycle costs of an IL-76 ever crossing the life cycle costs of C-17.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3286
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 06 Aug 2010 21:15

I dont know anything of the life cycle cost comparison or reliability or availability of the two platforms. But the question is, should we be putting up money upfront to support the development of a platform (IL 476) of which we will end up buying 20 or so? For a PAK FA or Su 30 MKI, definitely, but for this? Add to that, how long before this development actually takes fruit and the first plane actually rolls off the line? There is a significant risk that the IAF probably does not want to take.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby geeth » 06 Aug 2010 21:58

>>>However, the moment someone starts pitching alternatives to the C-17 which they claim are in the same class and available *now* is when the fun starts. Reality is, C-17 is the only game in town in its class right now.

That may or may not be the reality, but the questions are,

a) Is this the class that we need?
b) Did we explore the alternatives?
c) Will it really give the bang for the bucks spent?
d) is there a pressing need for it?

Unfortunately there is no answer to any of it...General comments like Air Force knows best what it wants, it can carry Arjun etc., are made. It may not be always true that Armed Forces makes the best decisions always. in fact they may not be the ones making the decisions at all. All they may be doing is to vet the decision someone else is making, so that scape goats could be found in future, should something go wrong... Or else, Army may not be conducting trials of the field guns for the past 20 years or so.

It appears that purchasing this a/c is a political decision in favour of Unkeel...so that they can use the money to arm the Pakistanis. Ofcourse, after having the aircraft, IAF may find ways to use it. Thats another matter..

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Cybaru » 06 Aug 2010 22:47

Tanaji wrote:I dont know anything of the life cycle cost comparison or reliability or availability of the two platforms. But the question is, should we be putting up money upfront to support the development of a platform (IL 476) of which we will end up buying 20 or so? For a PAK FA or Su 30 MKI, definitely, but for this? Add to that, how long before this development actually takes fruit and the first plane actually rolls off the line? There is a significant risk that the IAF probably does not want to take.


Well, Unlike PAK-FA this won't be something from scratch. the 476 is a modification of the 76 platform. Larger Engines, enlarged and strengthened structure and glass cockpit from all the noise on the web/reports. NK-12 engines or the PS-90A engines certainly reduce consumption and increase range and payload. It's not too far out either.

Anthony Hines
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 16 Jul 2009 22:09
Location: West of Greenwich

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Anthony Hines » 06 Aug 2010 23:47

When there are no benchmarks to determine life cycle costs, how can a comparison be made between A/cs sourced from different countries. The only reasonable comparison should be on basis of capabilities.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 07 Aug 2010 15:05

You know what gets me is the excuse trotted out,"we need the C-17 to transport Arjuns...".The poor tank is being resisted so much by the IA,which has in all truth plumped for the T-90 despite whatever shortfalls it has, and so few Arjuns are being built,126 + a second batch thus far,making the numbers so small and insufficient.The tank will actually do far better in the plains of the Punjab and the deserts of Rajasthan than in the high Himalayas,where a lighter tank as I've said with the same sized gun could be inducted much easier and in larger numbers,costing far less.

Just take a look at the Leh disaster.The way in which man is denuding the Himalayas and forest cover of the globe,resulting in global warming,glaciers retreating causing huge damage through floods,landslides,etc.,is now a major cause for concern especially in the Himalayas in recent times.It is very clear that we need the kind of airstrips,helipads,etc., that can be used by smaller METAC sized aircraft and helos that can carry larger payloads and troops.Every kind of aircraft can be pressed into service for airdrops etc.We've used out IA aircraft as far back as in '71 for logistic support.If we really need to immediately bolster up the transport inventory,all we have to do is look to the thousands of aircraft mothballed around the world,especially in the US.There are transport variations of Jumbos and other passenger aircraft too if the need is so immediate and urgent.

I think that enough good reasons have been made why this deal should be on the "slow-burner",where other options can be examined in the light of competing priorities both in the IAF and other services.Let uis therefore "hasten cautiously" as the Chinese would say and not acquire this in a knee-jerk exercise just because the Boeing procution line is being shut down soon!

I have one deep worry though.Are there some adventurists in our fair land who think that we need this aircraft for a future campaign in Afghanistan once the US/NATO leave? That line of thinking would destroy whatever economic gains we have made in the last decade and beggar us just as the US is being beggared and b*ggered by the Af-Pak War and the machinations of the Paki military/ISI and the ranks of the ungodly.We do not need to compete with the US,Russia and the NATO nations and engage ourselves in our won version of Vietnam.There are enough alternatives of Kautilyan cunning to keep the Pakis engaged in Af-Pak for decades,without us getting militarily entangled if we plot and plan well.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3286
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 07 Aug 2010 15:19

Cybaru wrote:
Well, Unlike PAK-FA this won't be something from scratch. the 476 is a modification of the 76 platform. Larger Engines, enlarged and strengthened structure and glass cockpit from all the noise on the web/reports. NK-12 engines or the PS-90A engines certainly reduce consumption and increase range and payload. It's not too far out either.


In theory, yes. But the issue is of the Russian industry to deliver. Take a look at Mi 171 fiasco where Russians had orders but couldnt deliver because they could not source parts. A similar situation exists with the IL 76 manufacture: the wings are somewhere, the engines from another place etc. There have been issues with this in the past IIRC.

There is definitely a risk with such an approach. But the key really is how soon the IAF wants the planes and why. That, we dont know.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 07 Aug 2010 16:25

Philip wrote:You know what gets me is the excuse trotted out,"we need the C-17 to transport Arjuns...".The poor tank is being resisted so much by the IA,which has in all truth plumped for the T-90 despite whatever shortfalls it has, and so few Arjuns are being built,126 + a second batch thus far,making the numbers so small and insufficient.The tank will actually do far better in the plains of the Punjab and the deserts of Rajasthan than in the high Himalayas,where a lighter tank as I've said with the same sized gun could be inducted much easier and in larger numbers,costing far less.


Speaks volumes about double standards of IA and Russki fanboys:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5573&start=160

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has pointed out defective import of the Russian SMERCH MBRLs (Multi Barrel Rocket launcher) system, failure in its launch vehicles and its sub-systems, failure in data transmission system and deficiencies in communication systems. The CAG today pulled up the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in its report tabled in Parliament, saying that the import of the systems in two different contracts, amounting to Rs 2633 crore, was delayed resulting in non-operationalization of the system.

Two contracts were signed by the MoD in 2005 and 2007 with Russia's Rosoboronexport for 42 SMERCH systems, worth Rs 2633 crore. The entire system comprises a launch vehicle, transloader vehicle, command and staff vehicle, meteorological support complex vehicle and workshop repair vehicle. The systems under the first contract were supplied in 2008 and against the second contract in 2009.

The first contract consignment was inducted in 2007 July and underwent practice firing, when it was revealed that the system had critical defects in its sub-systems.

Other failures, points out CAG, were in the launch vehicles, which act as a lifting and balancing mechanisms. This was reported out within the warranty period. The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) was asked to replace the used up spare parts, which were taken up to attend to the deficiency.
The systems underwent trials in three phases, where seven out of 13 times the self orienting coarse roll indicating gyroscopic system (SOCRIG) failed, which was reported to Rosoboronexport, who promised to make an improvement on the system. One sub-system costs around Rs 50 lakh and is critical for the accuracy of the system.

Eleven data transmission equipment, each costing Rs 25 lakh, failed during trials, which was brought to the notice of the manufacturer. Similary the radio sets in the communication system were found defective.

The MoD assured CAG in November 2009 that the defects and failures have been taken up with the manufacturer and an assurance has been given to them that a solution would be found soon.

The defects in the sub-systems have delayed the operational induction of the weapon system and have also delayed the procurement of logistics support equipment and subsequent formulation of war establishment. It also led to damage of four rockets leading to a loss of 2.36 crore.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby svinayak » 07 Aug 2010 18:28

Anthony Hines wrote:It appears that 50 years of Russian arms .. oops poodlegiri does not seem enough for the gentleman who loves the IL-476. :rotfl:

Sigh, 200 years of anglo poodle is not sufficient and now again one wants to be their slave. What a state of affairs.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Katare » 07 Aug 2010 20:16

wow! Even global warming and Leh flash flood's been used as a reason why IAF should not buy a hevy transporter from USA.

Just a couple of post back global warming and cutting trees was not an issue when suggestion was to build roads and railway all the way to borders. I guess those roads and railways were being planned 100m above ground held there by green lavitation technology imported from an non American source.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Karan Dixit » 08 Aug 2010 02:59

It is just a weapons purchase. The country will buy it from Russia or US as needed. That is it. Nothing more. Nothing less. This much passion is simply misplaced. My humble opinion.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 08 Aug 2010 12:41

Look,almost every foreign supplier of weapons to India has failed at some time or the other.The Hawk,Israeli LUSH upgrades of Sea Harriers with the Derby missile only reching 50% of its advertised range,French thernmal imaging sights for MBTs,Trenton LPG gas mishap,the above mentioned SMERCH failures,etc.,etc.Wherever a foreign supplier has failed we MUST demand compensation.It is stated that we obtained $40 million from Russia as penalty for the delay in pefecting the SHTIL SAM system aboard the Talwars,so foreign suppliers including Russia have been penalised and do pay up.

Please keep the meat of the thread firmly in focus with posts.This thread is about the C-17,not a pro-Russia/US thread.Do we need the C-17 or not,is it top priority and are there other alternatives? Many of us feel that there are far more urgent priorities and alternatives to buying the C-17.As is being seen in the Leh disaster,AN-32s are ferrying relief supplies.Smaller transports are the lifeline with which our troops in the mountains of north are kept alive and kicking.We need more of them and more helos,as every disaster teaches us.

Pratik_S
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 11 Feb 2010 21:19
Location: In the Lion's Den
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratik_S » 08 Aug 2010 14:56

Philip wrote:Look,almost every foreign supplier of weapons to India has failed at some time or the other.The Hawk,Israeli LUSH upgrades of Sea Harriers with the Derby missile only reching 50% of its advertised range,French thernmal imaging sights for MBTs,Trenton LPG gas mishap,the above mentioned SMERCH failures,etc.,etc.Wherever a foreign supplier has failed we MUST demand compensation.It is stated that we obtained $40 million from Russia as penalty for the delay in pefecting the SHTIL SAM system aboard the Talwars,so foreign suppliers including Russia have been penalised and do pay up.

Please keep the meat of the thread firmly in focus with posts.This thread is about the C-17,not a pro-Russia/US thread.Do we need the C-17 or not,is it top priority and are there other alternatives? Many of us feel that there are far more urgent priorities and alternatives to buying the C-17.As is being seen in the Leh disaster,AN-32s are ferrying relief supplies.Smaller transports are the lifeline with which our troops in the mountains of north are kept alive and kicking.We need more of them and more helos,as every disaster teaches us.


Very well said sir, small transporters like the An-32 are India's life line and we need them. But lets not forget its peace time, we don't have to transport troops, tanks and heavy supplies in fast track mode. Hence they are transported by trucks, trains and kg by kg via helos. We can't continue this in war times. Secondly I don't know why people here and only here are putting forward a name which is "An-124" !!?? Seriously you want this flying cargo-ship to do the job of troop-insertion and rough landing ??? C-17 is the only aircraft which meets the requirement of IAF and hence IAF just sent a RFP to Boeing. Its simple, you don't need a 79 page forum to discuss this.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby svinayak » 08 Aug 2010 21:57

Philip wrote:
Please keep the meat of the thread firmly in focus with posts.This thread is about the C-17,not a pro-Russia/US thread.Do we need the C-17 or not,is it top priority and are there other alternatives? Many of us feel that there are far more urgent priorities and alternatives to buying the C-17.As is being seen in the Leh disaster,AN-32s are ferrying relief supplies.Smaller transports are the lifeline with which our troops in the mountains of north are kept alive and kicking.We need more of them and more helos,as every disaster teaches us.

How is C-130 capable for disaster relief in India

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby rohitvats » 09 Aug 2010 14:09

Manish_Sharma wrote:
<SNIP>

Speaks volumes about double standards of IA and Russki fanboys:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5573&start=160

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has pointed out defective import of the Russian SMERCH MBRLs (Multi Barrel Rocket launcher) system, failure in its launch vehicles and its sub-systems, failure in data transmission system and deficiencies in communication systems. The CAG today pulled up the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in its report tabled in Parliament, saying that the import of the systems in two different contracts, amounting to Rs 2633 crore, was delayed resulting in non-operationalization of the system.


Rather than throwing mud at the IA for every thing wrong with the Indian procurement process and basing your judgement on a report by some two-bit DDM, it would be great to do some reading up on your own, especially when the same report from CAG is available online - This is what it says about testing:

The trials of the system were conducted in three phases between June and August 2002 prior to conclusion of contract in December 2005. In the General Staff Evaluation (GSE) of the trials, the Director General Quality Assurance (DGQA) (L) observed that electronic components should be able to function in operating environment specification of minus 40ºC to plus 50ºC. However, the maximum temperature recorded during trials was stated to be up to 36ºC only when the trials were conducted. The need for verification of these aspects before finalization of contract was emphasized in the GSE.


So, IA was not blind to the problems. Two, these problems came out during exploitation that is, field exercises by the IA Rocket Regiments - which basically means that defective products were supplied by the vendor. Thirdly, while IA does have testing teams before inducting the weapon, they were not allowed to inspect the actual system. Why? Because of the way contract has been designed and signed. Of all the things, I hope we don't start blaming the IA for the way contract are drawn up.

Critize IA for all you want - but please back up the same with some reasoning and logic.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3286
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 09 Aug 2010 16:54

So, IA was not blind to the problems. Two, these problems came out during exploitation that is, field exercises by the IA Rocket Regiments - which basically means that defective products were supplied by the vendor. Thirdly, while IA does have testing teams before inducting the weapon, they were not allowed to inspect the actual system. Why? Because of the way contract has been designed and signed. Of all the things, I hope we don't start blaming the IA for the way contract are drawn up


Just trying to understand here or more accurately, the process:

The systems underwent trials in three phases, where seven out of 13 times the self orienting coarse roll indicating gyroscopic system (SOCRIG) failed, which was reported to Rosoboronexport, who promised to make an improvement on the system. One sub-system costs around Rs 50 lakh and is critical for the accuracy of the system.


So when they say "trials" , is this actually after the system is bought?

Secondly, how does the IA give acceptance or go ahead for purchase even before it has not been "allowed to inspect the actual system"? Or probably I don't understand your comment: how does it carry out an evaluation without inspecting the system?

Thirdly, how come magically , for foreign (Russian) vendors, in spite of not fully evaluating the system in the full range of operating parameters, systems are readily bought and paid for. But when it comes the time for indigenous systems such as the Arjun, Nag etc. the IA comes up with a exhaustive suite of tests, where the slightest non conformance is grounds for non acceptance?

Perhaps this is OT, you may wish to reply in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3757&start=2040

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Surya » 09 Aug 2010 17:52

But isn't this the problem with most systems. Even the T 90 was not allowed to be inspected closely by the russians.

This is why it is advantageous to go with indigenous products

But Tanaji's fundamental question remains - how come the 'exhausitve trials' all work out for these foreign equipment which then have issues while desi stuff gets sent back to the lab.

Oh just realised this was the C 17 thread - :oops:

sorry mods

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby rohitvats » 09 Aug 2010 17:52

Tanaji wrote:
Just trying to understand here or more accurately, the process:

The systems underwent trials in three phases, where seven out of 13 times the self orienting coarse roll indicating gyroscopic system (SOCRIG) failed, which was reported to Rosoboronexport, who promised to make an improvement on the system. One sub-system costs around Rs 50 lakh and is critical for the accuracy of the system.


So when they say "trials" , is this actually after the system is bought?

Secondly, how does the IA give acceptance or go ahead for purchase even before it has not been "allowed to inspect the actual system"? Or probably I don't understand your comment: how does it carry out an evaluation without inspecting the system?

Thirdly, how come magically , for foreign (Russian) vendors, in spite of not fully evaluating the system in the full range of operating parameters, systems are readily bought and paid for. But when it comes the time for indigenous systems such as the Arjun, Nag etc. the IA comes up with a exhaustive suite of tests, where the slightest non conformance is grounds for non acceptance?

Perhaps this is OT, you may wish to reply in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3757&start=2040


The fact that there was variation between operating temperature requirement and actual temprature range at which the system was tested was highlighted by the GSE. Why the tests were not done in Indian conditions or in said tempratures, is open question. Yes, we do have an instance of IA saying OK to T-90 purchase after testing them in Serbia - but we know that for a fact. Here, we don't know.

Two - as for testing is concerned - this is with respect to taking delivery of the system from the vendor. The way contract was drawn up, IA Team could not have detected the problem with system and sub-system - as they were not allowed to trial the same before taking delivery. Nothing like JRI in case of domestic products.

Comparisons between Arjun is not relevant. That is case of one rotten apple.....it serves no purpose to generalize the issue. As for Nag - I'd be interested to learn what loops it has been put through.

It is fashionale on BR to assume every thing rotten as far IA and foreign purchases are concerned. Let us bring facts to the table, whereever possibel

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby rohitvats » 09 Aug 2010 21:24

Surya wrote:<SNIP>

But Tanaji's fundamental question remains - how come the 'exhausitve trials' all work out for these foreign equipment which then have issues while desi stuff gets sent back to the lab.

Oh just realised this was the C 17 thread - :oops:

sorry mods


MODS - Last OT post - Surya, I'm not disputing the point raised by you..all I' saying is that in case one must draw an analogy, the example should at least be correct. Why throw mud at the IA at the drop of hat? Why not check-up the facts at least?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3902
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby hnair » 10 Aug 2010 00:14

Philip wrote:You know what gets me is the excuse trotted out,"we need the C-17 to transport Arjuns...".The poor tank is being resisted so much by the IA,which has in all truth plumped for the T-90 despite whatever shortfalls it has, and so few Arjuns are being built,126 + a second batch thus far,making the numbers so small and insufficient.
....
....
I have one deep worry though.Are there some adventurists in our fair land who think that we need this aircraft for a future campaign in Afghanistan once the US/NATO leave?.


Philip-saar, somewhere in between these two requirements you have listed, come the need for transporting "large tubular objects" and flower petals to far flung areas amongst the hills. We dont have a good story around that need at this point. Roads and rail can be easily kept under watch. As I keep repeating, khan's history of Trojan equipment makes one apprehensive of this deal, but you have to stroke a gorilla's wrist to calm it down and then deal with that chimp throwing feces at us from behind his back.

And all the time, you have to keep looking at your feet so the gorilla is not spooked into doing something stupid.... not fun I agree.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby shukla » 10 Aug 2010 20:17

Boeing Narrows the C-17, but Widens the Search for Exports
Boeing has revealed its latest thinking on how the C-17 heavy airlifter could meet the joint future theater lift (JFTL) requirement that is emerging in the U.S. The “Advanced Tactical C-17” would retain the basic wings and tail of the current C-17A, but feature a new fuselage that is four feet narrower and consists of more composite structure. The four P&W F117 turbofans would be upgraded to provide 13 percent more thrust.

The design would also feature a new advanced flap design; blended winglets; a tire deflation and inflation system for soft-field landings; and various avionics improvements to allow autonomous and precision landings, and enhanced self-protection. This “narrowbody” C-17 could fly into 1,500-foot airstrips carrying two Stryker combat vehicles, according to Boeing.

It would be 15 percent more fuel-efficient than the C-17A, but retain the ability to cruise in commercial airspace at Mach 0.80. Meanwhile, Boeing is “aggressively pursuing export sales,” according to Tommy Dunehew, Boeing vice president of C-17 business development. In addition to the 10-aircraft Indian requirement, Qatar has two options and the NATO fleet of three might be expanded if more European countries join the pooled scheme

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 17 Aug 2010 20:36

An example of claims I made earlier in this thread:

From Janes
Report criticises Indian Air Force for mismanaging Mi-series helicopters
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has severely criticised the Indian Air Force (IAF) for mismanaging the operations and maintenance of its predominantly Soviet and Russian Mi-series helicopters, which has adversely impinged on operational preparedness. In its report tabled in parliament on 3 August, the CAG also reprimanded the Indian Navy (IN) for "weak planning, asset management, operation and repair and maintenance" of its aviation arm, which holds the key to achieving its declared 'Blue Water' aspirations


IAF which will pay billions for the purchase of C-17 is also willing to spend billions in C-17 maintenance. Because the IL-76 were purchased for very little money, the maintenance is underfunded and the aircraft is labeled as unreliable and is said to have poor dispatch reliability.

I claim that if the IAF were to invest in IL-76 maintenance just 25% of the money it is about to invest in C-17 maintenance, that its fleet of IL-76s and IL-78s would achieve dispatch reliabilities similar to those expected of the C-17.

Airlines such as Volga-Dnepr and Silk Way achieve very high dispatch reliabilities with their IL-76, which by the way, fly way more hours than any military IL-76s in the world.
Last edited by Gilles on 18 Aug 2010 08:42, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Surya » 17 Aug 2010 20:43

Can we get the full CAG report before we can comment?

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Juggi G » 18 Aug 2010 13:53

Cross-Posting
Russia Continues to Dominate Indian Skies
Image

IL-76
Notably, as the Phalcon Radars are Heavy, the IL 76 Airlifters have been Upgraded with more Powerful PS-90 Engines,
the Cost though for them is Quite High and Not Considered Appropriate for UpGrading the IAF’s Fleet of Less than 20 old Soviet-Vintage Il 76 aircraft.

Air Chief Marshal Naik disclosed that the IL 76s, first acquired in April 1985, are also under Life Extension Under a Contract with Russia.

“The Life Extension of IL-76 aircraft would Involve Complete Overhaul of Airframe at the Vendor’s Premises in Russia…

The First Aircraft has already been Positioned and the Servicing has Commenced.

Various other Upgrades would be Executed in India.

Post-Servicing, the Aircraft would be Available to us for More than 10 Years,” he said.

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 » 18 Aug 2010 14:07

Juggi G wrote:Cross-Posting
Russia Continues to Dominate Indian Skies

IL-76

Air Chief Marshal Naik disclosed...

Post-Servicing, the Aircraft would be Available to us for More than 10 Years,” he said.



So the C17 and the Il76 will operate side by side serving different requirements and IAF has not capitulated totally to Uncle Sam. :-)

Now waiting for Philip saar's observations.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 18 Aug 2010 14:20

The latest AWST carries eyewitness reports on the C-17 crash,with the first fatalities for the type.From the reports it appears that the aircraft was trying after a short take off a high rate of climb and turn.Pilots do try and "show off" during shows and there are heaps of previous crashes both east and west well known.However if the reason ws as mentioned,it should be of particular interest and worry to the IAF as it plans to use these birds in the high Himalayas where our airtsrips are short and at high alt.

Another report said that greater Russian-Ukraine cooperation in aircraft manufacture was on the cards with the new pro-Russian govt, in power in Ukraine.This would help restart production of a variety of transport aircraft,heavy and medium,both in the Ukraine and in Russia.Talks were underway as to how to achieve this,as Russia has also announced plans to acquire a large number of transports of all sizes including AN-124s,IL-76/476,AN-70s ,etc.

PS:It is commonsense to upgrade our existing aircraft which can easily serve for another decade+.Just look at how US B-52s,Russian TU-142s are still being used as frontline LR bombers.It also makes sense to buy more of the same (476s) which are to be manufactured too for Russian requirements to add to the heavy-lift capability if required.Even if the IAF can convince sceptics that we do need a larger bird,10+ is just too much,as said before,we have no trans-continental theatre expeditionary role at all unlike the US or NATO,which I've said before has only 25 C-17s.3 would be more than sufficient.Look,the length of the border in the north and east is massive.During a crisis we might need massive logistic ops right from Aksai Chin to Arunachal P.IL-76s are perfect for the task and nother 30-40 extra METACs and the same amount of extra med/heavy helos,like the MI-26/MI-17s would be able to carry out the required number of sorties sorties at places where the C-17 cannot operate from.If the need is just air-dropping,then even vintage aircraft/second hand aircraft/converted passenger aircraft can do the needful!
Last edited by Philip on 18 Aug 2010 16:42, 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 » 18 Aug 2010 15:05

Well well well, a few pages back I was forced into arguing that Il 76s wont be replaced but almost certainly undergo life extension, a fact to me akin to saying "sun rises in the east". I am glad that the obvious has happened soon enough after the discussion saving me from further pains to support a position which was obviously obvious.

Thank god for small mercies....

So its clear C 17 is not to do X Y or Z but to specifically add the > 60 tons airlift to IAF air truck capabilities.

Which again hark back to the original issue -- Do we really need 10 60 tons airlift in such a post haste manner that we go for it without sending RFPs to all manufacturers even for just good form of following your own laid down procedures?

I just hope that C 17s are a lollipop to keep Unkil from getting fidgety at being removed from trying to sell overpriced under performing toys in the more critical sector(s) (read MRCA) by letting them get away with such in less critical ones.

Manishw
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 21 Jul 2010 02:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manishw » 18 Aug 2010 17:39

Sanku wrote:I just hope that C 17s are a lollipop to keep Unkil from getting fidgety at being removed from trying to sell overpriced under performing toys in the more critical sector(s) (read MRCA) by letting them get away with such in less critical ones.


Exactly hoping for the same.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Surya » 18 Aug 2010 17:40

err as rohitvats has been screaming from the rooftops the IAF and India has a huge need and we need all the IL 76s and C 130s and C 17s and AN 32s we can afford to keep running safely

Manishw
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 21 Jul 2010 02:46

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manishw » 18 Aug 2010 17:44

^ So we leave them out of the more critical ones and give them orders for less critical.
JMT

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1257
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Nihat » 18 Aug 2010 18:24

IAF and GoI should and arguably are going with whats best for the forces and in allignment with the needs. Money is lesser and lesser of an object as the economy booms and prospsects look positive. If C-17 offers better payload, servicibality, on time delivery , water tight spares schedule and ability to land on shorter runways compared to the IL 76 then we should opt for C-17 , no questions asked.

The same goes for IL 76, if thats a technically better platform then go for those.

Playing geo-political games with defence is risky business, earlier we had only one option - now we have plenty.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3286
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Tanaji » 18 Aug 2010 18:54

Ah, Sanku saab is back and so is Philip

Lets start all over again!

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Aug 2010 21:47

Sanku wrote:Well well well, a few pages back I was forced into arguing that Il 76s wont be replaced but almost certainly undergo life extension, a fact to me akin to saying "sun rises in the east". I am glad that the obvious has happened soon enough after the discussion saving me from further pains to support a position which was obviously obvious.

Thank god for small mercies....

So its clear C 17 is not to do X Y or Z but to specifically add the > 60 tons airlift to IAF air truck capabilities.

Which again hark back to the original issue -- Do we really need 10 60 tons airlift in such a post haste manner that we go for it without sending RFPs to all manufacturers even for just good form of following your own laid down procedures?

I just hope that C 17s are a lollipop to keep Unkil from getting fidgety at being removed from trying to sell overpriced under performing toys in the more critical sector(s) (read MRCA) by letting them get away with such in less critical ones.


Sankuuuuuuuuuu !!! Welcome back, I missed you. I heard from Gopaniya but not vishwasniya sutras that during this banwas you worked on another story which you may share with us soon.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests