Surya wrote:Obviously, since the facts are so clear that only denial or diversion works.
You mean like standardsing armor with a 125 mm gun
No like the comment you just made on this thread.
Philip wrote:Viv,There are two key issues here which I've been trying to throw light upon.To me,this is not just a "one-off" deal.There are larger issues at stake.
One, the priority list for the Indian defence forces as a whole and the priority list of the IAF.At the "macro" level of the services,there have been several well debated issues I repeat,of eqpt. desperately reqd. by the services where inordinate delays are being experienced.I say this in context of the speed with which this deal is being concluded and the exact opposite as far as the other systems are concerned.I've listed some of them several times.Why is this so? As far as the IAF is concerned at the "micro" level,the "shrinking" IAF, the subject of many media reports and angst from the CoAS himself,indicates that this shortage of frontline combat aircraft should be top priority.In the last several years,we have NEVER heard of a critical requirement of heavylift transport aircraft being above combat aircraft,unlike subs,trainer aircraft,attack helos,transport helos,fighter aircraft,etc.,etc.
The requirement for C-17s appeared only after we signed the N-deal and if any intelligent person joins the dots will see that Boeing is desperate for new orders and India is obliging it.Both the political and economic aspects of this deal are well understood in the US,where 40 states employ workers for the same.We are doing the US a big favour.So if we are,let's be honest about it and say that political/foreign policy compulsions are primarily behind the deal.
The second aspect is that if we do require such large transports,what are they for? It is not as if the IL-76s are in the same situation as the MIG-21s were at one time.
The AN-32s long in the tooth are also being upgraded,indicating their value to the IAF even after decades of operating them.16 C-17s is the equivalent of almost the entire IL-76 fleet and unless the IAF is replacing the Il-76s-not going to happen according to reports,as they are also being upgraded,then where is this huge extra logistic support taking place? If it is only/mainly within the Indian subcontinent,on the Chinese borders,then extra IL-76s could easily be ordered as IL-476s are to be produced in the future.
Easier to induct,especially when even the C-17s are coming without key eqpt. which we will have to procure from elsewhere.
Russia has also said that if there are new orders even AN-124 production will be restarted soon.I'm only giving the alternatives/options as for the new tankers,the IAF/MOD's earlier decision to buy only French tankers was rejected and we now have a face off with the Airbus tanker vs the IL-78 which we operate.There appears to me to be a none too subtle attempt to badmouth the IL-76/78s by vested interests.
Let there be a competition so that they can be evaluated and may the best win.I know of a most distinguished,upright recently retd.AM,who held command of two of our IAF commands,a transport expert,VVIP sqd. pilot,who swears by the excellence of the IL-76.We have not seen in all the years of operating the aircraft any major criticism of it.
While saying this I do acknowledge that as a type gets older,accessibility to spares etc. becomes problematic,but this is not unique to any weapon system or aircraft.
There is no disrespect to the CoAS.Transports are also on his list and if the GOI feels that it is the most important,being a "political" requirement,takes a decision,then there is little that he can do about it but smile and accept it as he is at least getting one decision taken by an MOD that is poerhaps the world's worst for lethargy in decision-making.Here,remember,only the "decision" to acquire the C-17 is coming faster as you will see later on.
In all my criticism of the deal it has never been about the capabilities of the C-17,but whether we need it that desperately,while delaying decisions in other critical areas.Now,from the timeframe that the IAF wants,a long drawn out acquisition,not acquiring the lot asap,along with Boeing's assretion that it takes 3-4 years to build one,does this it indicate that we really aren't all that desperate for it,so why the indecent haste?
Why can't a lease at least be examined,and here Viv I'm talking about a long-term lease not just a stop-gap lease in a crisis.Airlines regularly wet-lease or dry-lease aircraft in their inventory,use then for years,making it incumbent upon the owner to keep the aircraft well maintained,so why can't the IAF do the same thing? We are after all "leasing" perhaps our most potent wespon system in the services,an Akula-2 SSGN from Russia with at least another to follow!
So let's look at the issue holistically,in all its aspects and ruminate as to what is really driving this deal forward.As for the member who asked why we bought the T-90 in the past,I think this issue has been dealt with years ago in other threads.Just for the record,Arjun's arrival was nowhere on the horizon,Pak suddenly acquired T-80UDs from Ukraine at bargain prices and in a knee-jerk reaction,we bought equivalent numbers of T-90s,the successor to the the T-72 which was and is the mainstay of the armoured corps.Western tanks were not offered and were far more expensive.Also remember that the Indian economy was not what it is now then.
But here again the last shoot-out between the refined Arjun MK-1 and the T-90 saw the Arjun come out on top and a further 124 ordered,proving that competition gives us the best.I wish that this was increased to a total of 500 which would then make the effort cost-effective.Here one must also remember that 58% of Arjun's content is imported.
Just for the record of single purchases,what about the P-8s? This aircraft was only on the drawing board,unlike the Airbus alyternative which was rejected and dspite all the touting about the superior capability of the P-8,the IN will get what will be the equivalent of an empty 737,with key components/eqpt. removed if we do not sign the controversial logistic/commn. agreements.
With the British massively cutting their budget and drastically reducing numbers of JSFs to be bought-preferring Typhoons for the RAF as well as abandoning the STOVL version,thereby escalating the cost of the aircraft, we suddenly have the JSF being offered to the IN in like manner as the C-17! Watch this space and the IN thread.
PS:The unanswered Q remains whether we have secret agreements in principle with the US or anyone else, that demands the extra logistic "footprint" that an aircraft that C-17 will bring with it,being a strategic superheavweight.If we do have such agreements,or plan for the same but cannot say so publically for obvious reasons (no need to put a blowtorch up the Dragon's backside, what?!),then the acquisition for such a type and increasing the numbers of heavy transports is entirely justified,though we could've examined all options for the same.
I do not know what the (real) IAF requirements are.
Sanku wrote:Obviously, since the facts are so clear that only denial or diversion works.
Pratyush wrote:To the detracters of the deal. I have a simple question. Please answer it.
Is there an aircraft in the market current or projected that has the capabilities of the C 17?
I have been asking for the answer but have not seen it any ne try to take a shot at it.
Now, how are the professionals of the IAF who have seen the various Airlifters and the present and proposed capabilities thereof. Unable to determine that the C 17 offers the best capability for the job they are expected to do.
Pratyush wrote:Is there an aircraft in the market current or projected that has the capabilities of the C 17?
Pratyush wrote:That is precisly the point of my post. The IAF has a need. It knows what meets it. Goes ahead and meets it through a Govt to govt transaction end of discussion.
Sanku wrote:Pratyush wrote:That is precisly the point of my post. The IAF has a need. It knows what meets it. Goes ahead and meets it through a Govt to govt transaction end of discussion.
Dear Pratyush, IAF CAN NOT do the above. IT IS WRONG.
It has, NO SUCH, decision making powers of arbitrary choice.
It is ALSO answerable to Indian public through MoD and GoI.
Sorry but this is how it is India. They very basics of India.
Start getting used to it.
Sanku wrote:Wrong question.
The right question is "What are the requirements of IAF towards Airlift, what time frames, what costs and what possible long term and short term approaches"
The above question is then followed by, "What is the best methodology to meet such requirements" (rhetorical question since the answer is in DPP)
The above question is just a attempt to rationalize the decision to acquire C 17 post facto the decision.
In fact there is no aircraft in the market which is exactly like <put the name of your fav aircraft here>, ONCE you decide to chose A aircraft you can always ask for ANY GIVEN AIRCRAFT "is there any other aircraft like it"
The answer is always NO -- for ANY GIVEN A/C -- trivially truly.
This is such a MAJORLY pointless question in addition to being a WRONG one.
Could rephrase your argument, as it seems from the above that you are questioning the soverign right of the GOI to enter into a contract with another govt and describing it as wrong. Cause the IAF is an extention of the Indian Government.
nihat wrote:So basically babugiri and un-necessary delays are the "Indian way" of doing things.
Also, it's news to me that Govt. of India cannot enter into direct transactions with Govt. of other sovereign nations. Very surprising !!
Lalmohan wrote:stop! lalchix time!
Since you have not chosen to rephrase your statement in question. I take it that you are questioning the GOI s ability to enter into the a govt to govt transaction.
I case the lal and white chiks are in short supply. Are you open to the Idea of leasing them in times of need .
If yes, then what would your terms be.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 29 guests