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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 18 Nov 2010 00:35

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 :mrgreen:


No like the comment you just made on this thread.
:mrgreen:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53006
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby ramana » 18 Nov 2010 01:01

can we stick to the topic?

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Viv S » 18 Nov 2010 04:00

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.


Lets assume a heavy lifter isn't as critical a requirement as bolstering the number of fighters in the IAF inventory. Does that imply that it should be overlooked until we've got 39.5 squadrons active? Has the induction of the MKI or Tejas or MRCA been held up because funds had been diverted to the C-17 acquisition? If not, then where's the connection?

We didn't hear about any crucial pressing need for airlifters for the special forces yet we've got the C-130Js on order. We didn't hear any angst about the lack of rotary airlift yet we've got 130+ new Mi-17s on order (no RFI/RFP style competition for them incidently).

Its been three years since the induction of the C-17 was studied. This purchase while not typically slow (since it followed the FMS route) was hardly superfast.

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.


You've made this statement repeatedly and every time received the same response, which you have thereafter ignored. Boeing has already delivered the number of C-17s it was originally contracted to produce and still has enough orders to keep the assembly line functioning through to the end of 2012 (DID article already posted). How are the dead (claimed dormant) Illyushin and Antonov lines in a better shape? How are they any less 'desperate' for Indian orders?

Also given the US' $700 billion annual expenditure, how big a favour is giving them a $4 billion order for C-17s (spread over at least three years).

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.


How do you know that?

1. Numerous articles have emerged recently citing maintenance and serviceability problems for the IL-76.
2. Despite a much cheaper IL-78 offer, the IAF still preferred to go for the Airbus MRTT.
3. Despite the fact that it already operates three Phalcon systems on the IL-76, the IAF wants to use a different platform for the follow on order.

To use your words - 'join the dots'.

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.


I asked this in my last post (and you've ignored this ... again). How is the C-17 this super heavy cross-continental lifter? Its range is not all that much higher than the IL-76. The IL-76s regularly fly to US and Europe for joint exercises, how come you think they have a limited range vis-a-vis the C-17 when it comes to force projection? Why is that IL-76 is okay for the Indian subcontinent while the C-17 can only be for out-of-theatre operations.

Also how do you know 17 IL-76s is the 'ideal' figure for the IAF? How do you know its not 34 IL-76s or instead 34 C-17s? The IAF has better funding today than it had in the 80s when the IL-76s were ordered. Where are you getting your figures from?

Easier to induct,especially when even the C-17s are coming without key eqpt. which we will have to procure from elsewhere.


Its a transport aircraft. How are comm. suites key equipment?

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.


I wouldn't be so eager to buy into Russian promises. Its not the Antonov that's problem, its subcontractors who supply the spares for the aircraft that'll end up stinging. I suggest you see ACM Naik's entire interview on NDTV. Boeing in contrast will give a spares chain servicing well over 200 military operated C-17s.

'Vested interests'? Come now Philip, you're starting to sound like a politician. :wink: The decision to buy the French tankers was made AFTER a face off between the Airbus tanker and the IL-78. Clearly there's something about the IL-76 that the IAF has trouble digesting.

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.


Given the options available to us, I'm sure it was an excellent choice. The current crop of IAF decision makers (who undoubtedly include some 'transport experts'), have decided the C-17 is still a better option than the IL-76.

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.


And yet the Mirage-2000 remained a far more serviceable aircraft than the MiG-29. Perhaps you should acknowledge that the aircraft itself is a factor in addition to its service life.

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.


The CoAS said that the C-17 was chosen after a thorough study of all present and future alternatives. He said it was found to be the best aircraft for the IAF's requirements.

Philip, you're going to have to come out and say it mate - ACM Naik was lying through his teeth and this is a political purchase. You can't respect his opinion and trash it at the same time.

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?


Again... where is the indecent haste? Now if you were to say that there has been an indecent delay in other acquisitions, it would be a different thing (and I'd agree).

What do you think is the ideal pace at which it should have purchased in terms of months/years? Give us a figure.

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!


How do we know a lease wasn't examined? But on the question of leases -

1. Are aircraft available for lease that can be operated during wartime without some insurance company kicking up a fuss?
2. If so, how old are the aircraft available?
3. What sort mission availability will they be able to achieve compared to new aircraft?

The Indian Railways are very cheap mode of conveyance in India. But, if you have an appointment you better leave plenty of cushion time (though to be fair there's been a remarkable improvement over the last few years).

But unlike you and me, the IAF cannot afford to sacrifice efficiency for cost, especially in wartime.

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.


The first T-90 order yes. But what about the next two? Avadi rolled out its first batch of domestically built T-90s barely a month AFTER the first Arjun regiment was inducted.

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.


This can be taken up in the Armored Vehicles thread, but for the record the actual cost of the Arjun is still less than the T-90S(after all the omitted components are added).

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.


The final aircraft was still in development but the 737 was in service and the sensors itself may well have been available for testing.

How does the absence of a few comm. suites - radio and sat links mostly, equal an empty 737? Why wouldn't BEL supplied equipment suffice as a replacement? For the record, Indian data-links are being integrated into the P-8I.

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.


The British have cut numbers for both types. British orders remain a fraction of those intended to be made by the USN and USMC.

With regard to your assertion - would the F-35B/C not have been offered if the British hadn't switched their orders?

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 must ask in this context - if the C-17 is a strategic superheavyweight what is the IL-76? You seem to giving the impression that it doesn't have the range to operate outside the Indian subcontinent and is therefore better suited to Indian needs. Would you care to justify that?

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 Nov 2010 06:02

Viv, your last para captures the dual standards (Lahori logic, anyone?) very nicely. On the one hand we hear how great the IL plane is with it being the darling of charter companies worldwide and how this demand would generate the mythical 476 variant. Then at the same time we hear that IL does not have a global footprint. This takes the phrase "Horses for Courses" to a new level. :-)

Actually you are right. If there is going to be any credibility given to the anti C17 arguments being heard here (apart from the very valid point about cost) then someone will have to show the gumption and guts (and of course intellectual honesty) to stand up and say that the ACM was lying when he said that the IAF had looked at all options before deciding on the C17.

Till that happens all these stale arguments (including the hilarious RFI/RFP tamasha) which have been rubbished so many times with counter arguments and links are nothing but good entertainment. Fun to read but zero in terms of value add.

The Lal Chixs have far more credibility!
Last edited by amit on 18 Nov 2010 09:54, edited 1 time in total.

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Div » 18 Nov 2010 07:25

I do not know what the (real) IAF requirements are.


At the end of the day, this ends up being the key point. This puts a wrinkle in the 99 pages of monday morning quarterbacking, but its worth a ponder.

Are the all the decision makers corrupt baffons, or is there a rational process that determined this purchase?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 09:08

Sanku wrote:Obviously, since the facts are so clear that only denial or diversion works.



In the absence to the alternatives on is left with no choice but to play with the lal chix unlinke some who are playing with the RFI / RFP. :twisted: :P

Ramana,

I say that this thread will not generate anything new till the time the deal is actually signed. All the issues have been beaten to death. Since it is nearly an accomplised fact. I request you to close this thread. The deal when signed can be discussed in the Mil avaiation thread.

JMT.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 09:22

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.

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 Nov 2010 10:16

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,

You have asked this questions a number of times over the past few pages. :-)

Let me assure you that this has been asked several dozen times over the past 98 pages, mainly to Sanku who's the torch bearer of the RFI/RFP brigade. I must confess, alternatives have also been suggested. Allow me to selectively quote a post I made a few pages ago here

The alternatives suggested were:

1) Send an RFI to HAL! :-) I kid you not. We were told that this could lead to the development of a super dooper aerospace company (never mind that the order would be at the most for 20 planes and we've never built any flying machine bigger than a small fighter plane).

2) Send an RFI to IL who would then customize and build a plane tailormade to the needs of IAF (wider body to hold big pieces of equipment and more lift capacity). Not only that they could also be asked/told to do the manufacturing in India. Again all that for a production run of maybe 20 aircraft. And mind you at a price far lesser than what we'd likely pay for each C17. Also never mind the fact that the Russian aren't yet able to sort everything out and move the production line into Russia.

3) Send an RFI to Airbus for the A400. Again nevermind the fact that its load capacity is around 37-39 ton and is actually less than what our IL76MD can carry today.

4) Send an RFI to Antonov for the AN124. The production line would then be (presumably) magically reopened for our order for 10 planes (BTW we need to ask Philip if these planes are strategic airlifters with global reach like the C17s?). Also more importantly, that may just scupper the deal that's been in the works for Boeing to build a new and improved AN124 in the US. It would be riot if we bought a AN124 from the same Boeing, right! :-)

So you see alternative exit to the C17. All the way from a mythical plane made by HAL to a 37-39 ton A400 right up to the 150 ton AN124.

Of course the IAF was pressured by the PMO to draft its requirements in a very narrow way by saying that they needed a very heavy lift category in excess of what they have today.

If honesty and proper procedures were followed - and the PMO did not interfere - the IAF should have said we need a transport aircraft so that the RFI/RFP rules could have been followed and everybody who makes a plane or dreams of making one, could have bid for the contract. I'm sure around 5-10 years down the line we'd have been able to settle on some candidates and then again spend a few years to fix which plane to buy. Indian tax payers money could have been saved.

Jai Ho!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 10:57

Amit,

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.

NO...........

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2010 12:13

A few facts.One,the extra MI-17 acquisition has been taken because there has been a serious shortfall of helos .In an earlier post some months ago, I gave details of an offical report with regard to the situ on the Himalayan front,where the BRO couldn't meet the time schedules because of the non-avaialability of heavy eqpt. reqd.,which could only be lifted by med. and heavy helos.Moreover,we operate the same type in large numbers,upgrades are being planned as well.

Reg the IL-76s,please don't condemn the aircraft,it is not correct.They haven't been dropping out of the sky like the MIG-21s a few years ago,which were mainly due to sub-std. spares bought after the SU's collapse.As for C-130-Js,our special forces' needs are immediate.If another 26/11 takes place,any govt. in power will have to respond militarily and using special forces to take out terrorist hideouts will be one key option. AS of now they have no aircraft with capabilities required and the Hercules is perhaps one of the most successful transports ever built (Gen.Zia would disagree though!).Had we required extra transports-that is if the IL-76 is considered an "equal" of the C-17,which I disagree with,we could've asked Ilyushin to build more,as they plan to do so with the upgraded Il-476.WE obtained IL-78 tankers not too long ago,plus 3 IL-78s for the Phalcon AWACS,so the argument that these cannot be obtained is fallacious! In fact Pak is also planning to get IL-78s from Ukraine ,complicating our air defence.Several Intl. journals have also reported about the restarting and high priority being given by Russia to building new transports,IL-476s and AN-124s.If the IAF's need was that desperate for a C-17 class of aircraft it has emerged very suddenly.If it is a thank you for the N-deal then let's be honest as I've said and say so? Why is there so little transparency on the deal,when others far more important are being flogged in the media spotlight like the MMRCA day and night?

As one member has said above,if the "window of opportunity" for acquiring C-17s is closing (no criticism of the aircraft's capabilities),which it is,and such a need arises because of our future unspelt inter-continental military ops plans,being kept secret,than as I've said it is a legitimate acquisition,but at what cost and have other options such as long-leasing as commercial airlines do been examined? When we are going to buy 16 C-17s,a virtual replacement of the entire fleet of IL-76s (which are supposedly also going to be upgraded and not dumped) at such a massive cost,we need to be transparent about the deal.The issue about automatic logistic support by India for other C-17 users,making us aprt of the US's "allies" through the back door is also an issue in the light of India's hesitation and reluctance in signing on the controversial agrements for the same.Other nations have far more transparency in defence acquisitions.Look at the way in which Britain has debated intensively the budget cuts which have also included sreving chiefs giving their viewpoints in the media.I wish that the CoAS had been more open and informative in greater detail on this deal,it would've cleared the air.The CNS has openly criticised the FMS route as I've posted earlier.

As for the timeframe in reaching a decision and the"indecent haste",a huge bonus for Boeing,it is a fact.In comparison,the FGFA deal has taken several years,at least 5, before we agreed to co-develop/modify the Russian PAK-FA,with the agreement expected to be signed when Medvedev visits.If other far more important def. acquisitions are also taken with the same speed it would be great,espcially that of combat aircraft for the IAF.In 4-5 years time,Pak would have more than 75% of the IAF's strength,which leaves us teribly exposed to joint Sino-Pak adventurism.In the IT article by Sandeep,a danger period of "7 years" from now has been mentioned by one expert,until the IAF's future acquisition plans bear fruit.I think that there have been offers from the French to transfer a couple of Rafale sqds. immediately ,perhaps from other manufacturers too (Gripen?).We need at least 40+ new aircraft every year to replace obsolete aircraft being pensioned off.

There is no slur on the CoAS.Every service chief has given the MOD/GOI a list of what it requires and we are told that the IAF have said that 45-50 sqds. of combat aircraft are req. to deal with Pak and China.What can any chief do if the Govt. takes a political decision that he cannot object to,there being-as of now only the C-17 in production and if asked "what else is immediately available" can only vouch for the C-17.
It is a fact that in recent times,deals involving US weapon systems have moved faster than those from other nations,indicating the "tilt" by the MMS regime.Now that the Mess-iah has come,the deal has been "done",he's promised much and has to deliver,let's see in the fullness of time how wise the decision has been.
Last edited by Philip on 18 Nov 2010 12:21, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7661
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby rohitvats » 18 Nov 2010 12:19

^^^We get the drift, Philip.

Unless the requirement is being met by Russian equipment, it is all conspirary theory onleee....

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 18 Nov 2010 12:34

Pratyush wrote:Is there an aircraft in the market current or projected that has the capabilities of the C 17?


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.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 18 Nov 2010 12:37

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.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 12:48

Sanku,

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.

If that is what you are doing. Then I need not get usent to it. It is you who needs to get used to the GOIs ability to enter into a contract with another govt.

regardless of how annoyed you and I are.

Also,

Please if you are going to take an issue. Please answer the question I have reised in the Post you have quoted. I have not seen you even attempt it in the past few days.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1173
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Nihat » 18 Nov 2010 12:55

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.


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 !!

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 Nov 2010 13:08

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.


Aha, now at last we are getting somewhere.

If I read him right (apologies if not) then what Sanku ji is saying is that the IAF (actually the ACM) first chose the C17 and then gave out the requirement of a very heavy lift capacity aircraft.

Now my pea brain thinks that implies malafide intention on the part of IAF and/or ACM. Doesn't it?

Which implies that the true patriots are busy posting on BRF while the looters and backbone-less folks are manning the top jobs in IAF.

Of course the other way to look at it is, that there's no difference between a 37tons lift capacity aircraft and a 43 ton and a 60 ton and a 150 ton aircraft! :wink:

Really Jai Ho!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2010 13:22

C'mon Rohit,I'm merely being objective,I have quite a cosmopolitan taste as far as fillies go! My attitude is "horses for the courses",provided they haven't been doped.Sanku has outlined the proper method in acquiring a transport aircraft or any other weapon system which could've been followed.But you've inadvertently hit upon an important point.With Russian European,Israeli eqpt.,there are no intrusive clauses such as regular "inspections",etc.,that one sees with US eqpt.Perhaps the US is right to insist upon these if you see how the PRC has reverse engineered illegally Russian eqpt. sold to it,but in the Indian context,especially as Pak is the eternal "rent-boy" of Uncle Sam,signing on and giving the US access to Indian bases,etc.,runs the risk of it providing Pak with sensitive eqpt.There have already been complaints of the US surreptitiously providing Pak with military info obtained by their activities in India,say some.In 2009,it is well known that a Brahmos test was unsuccessful because at the "crucial moment in flight",the US GPS system (deliberately) "blinked",sending the missile 2km off course.This revealed and exposed the missile's vulnerability if it relied upon the US GPS system alone.Since then the missile's software has reportedly been altered to use the Russian Glonass system as well.

PS:Prat,I think that Sanku is spot on as to the correct method of def. acquisitions.No one questions the GOI's sovereignity when it comes ot taking decisions,but nevertheless,it is the taxpayer's money and as we've seen in the CWG scandals,Spectrum scam,Adarsh,etc.,billions of dollars of the taxpayer's money is at stake.Here the entire country is in uproar on these issues.In Adarsh especially,the role of some of the most senior serving and retd. def. officers ,including former chiefs is a real shocker.We therefore have a fundamental right to question any decision and receive answers as to why certain decisions have been taken.If some of them are sensitive and cannot be revealed in the open,for ex. if the C-17s are a pay-off for the N-deal,then the Standing Committe on Def. of Parliament can be taken into confidence.The CAG has several times commented upon def. acquisitions,lack of timely decision-making,delays and cost-overruns on the LCA,Kaveri,etc.,I'm sure that on defence and security,whichever govt. is in power,many policies converge in the country's interests,though different approaches are taken.For ex. the Left is anti-US in the extreme,while others are less so and the MMS regime is pro-active.As long as one is given (in confidence if need be) the reasons for such decisions,in a transparent manner,no one will object.

To show you how far the country has descended into disregard for the ordinary Indian by our political masters and scamsters,let me tell you that I have in my possession,a letter from Pandit Nehru in reply to a close relative (who questioned him on his actions ) explaining why he had to "invade" Goa! Do you think that the good constable of India Dr.Singh will do likewise on any sensitive subject?

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 Nov 2010 13:30


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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 18 Nov 2010 13:59

Pratyush wrote:Sanku,

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.

.


You can not rephrase my argument, I have not given you that leeway, and that is primarily because you have till date shown a terribly poor understanding of it (the second reasons is that some people make a art of Paraphrasing to mean "aam" from "imli")

Please try and first understand what I have said, then we can discuss it.

To help -- what you said is compelelty WRONG once again.

What I have said, IS -- GoI's rights and duties are not boundless, ill defined or fuzzy. They are clearly defined though a set of working protocols and rules etc. GoI itself choose to be bound by those and all those talking about any Govt agency MUST understand that -- other wise the discussion has NO SENSE.

Currently you are making statements about how things work which are TOTALLY divorced from reality.

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 !!


Sorry boss, two things
1) Stick to discussing what is said, paraphrasing is a art best left to those who have no substance, so your statement about what you thought I said, is wrong. As I posted above.

2) Yes there is A Indian way of doing things, this is also called the rule of law, checks and balances, institutions and what not. Sorry if that troubles you. I am quite happy with the INDIAN WAY.
Last edited by Sanku on 18 Nov 2010 14:02, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 18 Nov 2010 13:59

It appears that some people need to go back to the school and civics class to revisit the basics of "India as a nation and its organs" class.

:lol:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 15:10

Sanku,

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. Because as per you it is wrong. If it is, I request you to guide me to an aricle in the constitution of India. Which can be intrepreted to say. That a policy framed by the GOI will override the GOIs ability to enter into a transaction with a forigen government. As I seem to have missed in its entirety.

If you cannot then please STFU regarding the rights and wrongs of the GOIS action. (I seem to have forgotten typing the above para that the questions addressed to sanku remain unanswered and the questioner gets a lecture regarding comprehension ):P

I will not have any more exchange with you.

Admins: The language may be a bit harsh, apologies for it.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Nov 2010 15:27

stop! lalchix 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 » 18 Nov 2010 15:38

Lalmohan wrote:stop! lalchix time!


Respected Mr Lal Mullah,

I hereby am sending you a Request for Proposal (RFI) for the supply of two Lal Chix and one White Chix. Please reply within 15 days. If your information is approved then we shall send you a Request for Proposal (RFP). We then want to trail out the items under consideration. Then we will request you to submit your pricing in a sealed bid which will be opened after our evaluations are over.

Please note none of the above is applicable if you happen to be able to source the requested items from Russia. In that case we can go through the fast track route since there will THEN BE an urgent need for the items under consideration.

Please reply in return post.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully


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

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Nov 2010 15:54

once you see the promo video, your desire for urgent field trials will become very urgent indeed
at that time i shall reveal the price ladder
please be advised, at this time of year, there is considerable demand for our lal and white chix, therefore we are in a supply constrained market and the price ladder will reflect this
should you care to move to a lifecycle costing model, we can consider a number of options
we are not averse to ToT, but unless you are paquistani, we do not recommend making more of your own

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5395
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby niran » 18 Nov 2010 15:55

^^^ seems it is IB4TL time here. will be me first in a regular thread.
me is security manager (IA) me needs transporter to transfer me assets
me select 18 wheeler truck, duly notified me maibaap(GOI) or sugar daddy in Anglais
he buys me one of latest and hot model, should i start cribbing?
IB4TL

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 16:01

Lal mullah,

You also have another customer for the Lalchix in me. No RFi business. Just state the price and the deal will be done in a man to man transaction.

Please quote your price for suppling two lan and two white chix.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Nov 2010 16:03

Pratyush
lalmullahaerospace corp does not do man to man business due to our high ethical standards. we request you send a suitcase full of dollar bills to show your interest in this deal
LM
CEO Lalcorp

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 16:04

Please provide the location and the time for the exchange. So that we can conclude our business ASAP.

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

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 18 Nov 2010 16:08

Pratyush wrote:Sanku,

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.


No I am questioning your ability to understand plainly written English in any form.

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 Nov 2010 16:13

No I am questioning your ability to understand plainly written English in any form.


Here we go down the same path again.

Personal attacks.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 16:23

Amit,

I case the lal and white chiks are in short supply. Are you open to the Idea of leasing them in times of need :D .

If yes, then what would your terms be.

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 Nov 2010 16:30

Pratyush wrote:Amit,

I case the lal and white chiks are in short supply. Are you open to the Idea of leasing them in times of need :D .

If yes, then what would your terms be.


But first I need to get them. If its Russian then can procure direct from Lal Mullah. However, non-Russian needs lengthy process of RFI/RFP and extensive trials. Which will it be?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 16:38

I will take which ever one is available. Have asked him (LM)to provide me with location where the suitcase full of $$ can be deposited. If he provides it that way. Will really not need to share. But considering his wish to maintain the good name of his organisation. :P I feel he will not do so.

So the need to share :((

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Nov 2010 16:45

i can offer a timeshare deal also
less dollars up front
however i do warn you - they are high maintenance

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 16:49

it is up to amitullah to decide. We prefer complete ownership on our maal. But the discussion begain subsequesnt to your comment regarding the shortage of the chix. :(( .

So if you can meet both our needs no sharing will take place.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Nov 2010 16:56

like i said, sellers market
yu bring suitcase of dollars
i make you happy

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 17:00

Hears your suitcase full of dollars :twisted:

Image

Please provide the chix. :rotfl:

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Nov 2010 17:03

actually... the prototype will be ready next year... in the meantime i need to hang on to your bag...

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8088
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Pratyush » 18 Nov 2010 17:05

WTF !@#$#%^&.

Ok but no price escalation prior to dilivery. If you do escalate the price I will meekly give you more money.

:(( :rotfl:

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Nov 2010 17:08

anyway, i have to outsource to juggi


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 29 guests