C-17s for the IAF?

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

This was a point which itself is being desperately papered over in a sense.

Yours Truly had built a scenario of Force Projection to show the usefulness of C-17.

However, it needs to be borne in mind that in terms of number of Paratroopers and Troops airlift capability, IL-76, by virtue of it's longer fuselage has more capacity. However, in terms of tonnage required to support and sustain the troops, there is no comparison.

[Karan Dixit]

The military forums in Europe and North America are full of facists and jerks like the one I mentionned earlier.

I have to agree with you. I clicked on the link posted by you and quickly browsed through that 'Tank Nuts' forum. That forum is the largest collection of racist rednecks I have ever seen. They are questioning the citizenship of Indian Americans because Indian Americans want to hang on to their Indian culture. How come no one questions the citizenship of Irish Americans who proudly participate in St Patrick's Day parade?

No credible person will bother to post on that stupid 'Tank Nuts' forum. They are uncivilized idiots. It is one thing to disagree with someone and it entirely another thing to engage in personal attacks.

Opposing views should always be encouraged; they serve as a tool to cross-examine the logic that is being used to support a particular viewpoint.

[arnab]

Sigh. It is not frustrating, its plain boring. The DPP 2006 also lays down the scheduled time lines within which acquisitions have to occur (20 - 30 months). The process started in early 2008 (see NRao's post). So the '8 month ultra fast' is plain wrong. Besides, if the process is smooth it usually means a better streamlining and understanding of requirements, and not vague unproven conspiracy theories. (This is akin to arguing that the Court found Kasab guilty in 11 months, whreas criminal cases usually take years - so there must be something wrong in Kasab's conviction).

Second, it has been stated from post 1 that C-17 is for strategic airlift, intended to eventually replace the IL-76 which are fast approaching end of life (VivS has always said they were similar, Gilles has recently corroborated this and this is not a conspiracy against Ilusyin). Others (e.g Rohitvats) have put up a number of links informing what sort of airlift strength India needs (needs to at least triple existing capacity). Shiv has put up information of what airlifts mean and how to calculate costs under different scenarios. So we are not sure what answers are you hoping to find - unless it is a deeply philosophical one.

I don't see why the IAF needs to tell us which airfields the C-17s will be operating from before purchasing them and why is this germane to the discussion. The IAF has thoroughly evaluated the aircraft (NRao's post) and by 'evaluation' it would mean that it has been benchmarked against India's current airlift fleet (IL-76) and has exceeded expectations (so no need to send RFI for IL-76 since the IAF already knows what the aircraft is capable of).

The fact that C-17s may have overseas use is just one of its many uses. It does not mean what you are suggesting (it is for overseas role). It is not dedicated for overseas role, unlike C-130s which are dedicated for the special forces.

The FMS route is not for a single vendor. Infact the FMS route is used to bypass having to approach individual component manufacturers for individual quotes (airframe, engines, self protection suite, radar etc). This is a better way to deal with the US because it saves you a lot of money and DSCA does all the procurement related legwork.

[Sanku]

This is akin to arguing that the Court found Kasab guilty in 11 months, whreas criminal cases usually take years - so there must be something wrong in Kasab's conviction

You are finally beginning to understand, C 17 is to defence procurement as Kasab is to Indian legal system.

An outlier.

One in 1000 event.

Why?

For Kasab we understand why!


As I said Arnab, you are my best ally in making the point.

[arnab]

This is akin to arguing that the Court found Kasab guilty in 11 months, whreas criminal cases usually take years - so there must be something wrong in Kasab's conviction

You are finally beginning to understand, C 17 is to defence procurement as Kasab is to Indian legal system.

An outlier.

One in 1000 event.

Why?

For Kasab we understand why!


As I said Arnab, you are my best ally in making the point.

ok - let us agree that it was 1/1000 chance that the IAF knew exactly what it wanted. Unlike IA's Tank acquisition process If it helps you

[Sanku]

arnab>>This is akin to arguing that the Court found Kasab guilty in 11 months, whreas criminal cases usually take years - so there must be something wrong in Kasab's conviction

You are finally beginning to understand, C 17 is to defence procurement as Kasab is to Indian legal system.

An outlier.

One in 1000 event.

Why?

For Kasab we understand why!


As I said Arnab, you are my best ally in making the point.

ok - let us agree that it was 1/1000 chance that the IAF knew exactly what it wanted. Unlike IA's Tank acquisition process If it helps you

Dear Arnab, I am still waiting for the day the statement "this is a mango" will not be restated by you as "Ye ek imli hai"

When we talked of speed of Kasab's sentencing being the same as C 17 purchase, we were not talking of what the IAF wanted, but merely how a system which works in a particular manner worked in a drastically different manner in other cases.

Meanwhile having no answers to the real questions you are left to your usual devices
1) Torn shirt open fly
2) Why do you want to know -- are you IAF?

As I said, this goes to beautifully exhibit the fact that you have a belief system which you cant support.

Thank you for being a outstanding example of the "C 17 in a hurry? Huh, why?".

[Brahmananda]

the whole process of c-17 interest began in feb 2007 aero india when Boeing first showcased it, RFI sent in 2008, trials in 2009 and purchase should be done by end of this year or next year so 4 years in the making. by the way 4 years is a lot of time.

[Sanku]

However, in terms of tonnage required to support and sustain the troops, there is no comparison.

Rohit I agree, Il 76 and C 17 as they stand today are in different classes (however if you see there are some trying to deny this even )

I also agree with you prior PoV, hey Indian armed forces need a whole list of things, and they needed it yesterday, they wont look a gift horse (from political picture) in the mouth.

However with you I can debate or discuss these points and agree to disagree because at least we agree on the fundamentals.(Such as Il 76 == C 17)

I would however like to state that even for strategic purposes (which I agree with you that we need) the route chosen should have been different -- there should also be visible inputs to the Indian lift aircraft's like MTA and Saras et al.

I am okay with India giving tons of moneys to people outside if needed for Defence, but It MUST be done in better ways and CAN be (examples are MKI in Su 30, partnerships, deep ToT etc getting the best price through competition etc.)

Those are my real cribs (to which level I cant even go to since people cant get over "IAF wanted it so we got it end of story")

[Sanku]

the whole process of c-17 interest began in feb 2007 aero india when Boeing first showcased it,

Hardly all manner of junk gets show cases in the various shows year over year. That is a useless data point. Unless you mean that they really *showed* in 2007.

And that *showing* created a need out of thin air.

[arnab]

[
]


Dear Arnab, I am still waiting for the day the statement "this is a mango" will not be restated by you as "Ye ek imli hai"

When we talked of speed of Kasab's sentencing being the same as C 17 purchase, we were not talking of what the IAF wanted, but merely how a system which works in a particular manner worked in a drastically different manner in other cases.

Meanwhile having no answers to the real questions you are left to your usual devices
1) Torn shirt open fly
2) Why do you want to know -- are you IAF?

As I said, this goes to beautifully exhibit the fact that you have a belief system which you cant support.

Thank you for being a outstanding example of the "C 17 in a hurry? Huh, why?".

You are still rabbitting on about the the 'hurry' in C-17 purchases when it has been established there was no 'hurry' (began in 2008 and followed due process vide DPP 2006). I'm not sure why you think Kasab proves your point. He was convicted in a 'hurry' (actually due process were followed, cases take time when there are bribes and middlemen involved) - but was the conviction wrong? (You seem to be suggesting ineffectively that there is some deep dark conspiracy behind C-17 purchases, without being able to give out a shred of evidence that that has been the case.)

So you think repeatedly asking vague questions about the 'role' of the aircraft and the alleged lack of RFI / RFP will magically give you some proof of wrong doing. Just isn't the case unfortunately

[Sanku]

You are still rabbitting on about the the 'hurry' in C-17 purchases when it has been established there was no 'hurry' (began in 2008 and followed due process vide DPP 2006).

No hurry?

Everyone in India agrees that 2008-2010 timeframe for transport purchases of 5.8 billion $ or so is perfectly par for the course in India?

I'm not sure why you think Kasab proves your point.

I am not surprised why you dont see that.

Kasab is to Indian justice system
C 17 is to Indian mil aquisition.

You said that and I merely agreed. Now its causing you lot of trouble.

Hey I agree.

(You seem to be suggesting ineffectively that there is some deep dark conspiracy behind C-17 purchases, without being able to give out a shred of evidence that that has been the case.)

Hmm, I am not talking of deep dark conspiracy. I (along with everyone else who has said this) merely am trying to say its a political decision, and a acquisition which has strong political backing.

Meanwhile as far as evidence is concerned there are already many. Which I list again
1) Speed
2) No competition
3) No clarity on role

So you think repeatedly asking vague questions about the 'role' of the aircraft and the alleged lack of RFI / RFP will magically give you some proof of wrong doing. Just isn't the case unfortunately

Yes, because the questions are not vague, and the irritation and frustration in your various posts (and those of others) on the tune of

"Shut up why do you want to discuss this IAF know, IAF knows, IAF knows..."

Is tantamount to the fact that the questions are hitting home. They touch a raw nerve.

So your denials notwithstanding. The questions are answering themselves and you dont want to see what it says.

Sorry about that, hard luck.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

I would however like to state that even for strategic purposes (which I agree with you that we need) the route chosen should have been different -- there should also be visible inputs to the Indian lift aircraft's like MTA and Saras et al.

I am okay with India giving tons of moneys to people outside if needed for Defence, but It MUST be done in better ways and CAN be (examples are MKI in Su 30, partnerships, deep ToT etc getting the best price through competition etc.)

Those are my real cribs (to which level I cant even go to since people cant get over "IAF wanted it so we got it end of story")

Sir, you're talking about an ideal world scenario. Even in today's day and age, the acqusition process is not smooth nor is there any long term plan and perspective in place - from MOD and GOI side. IA or other Defense Services may know what they want and put forth their requirement - the MOD and Indian Babucracy is on different plane all together. This is the main reason that, inspite of the way IA inducted T-90 (ajai shukla report), I don't blame IA for it. IMHO, that is the only way those purchases could have mustered pass the bean counters.

Take another example - Do you think IA will mind if GOI+MOD tomorrow sanction Tracked and Wheeled SP from Germany and Bofors from BAE? If politicians and Babu's make money but get the system in double quick time, so be it. They will as it is make money. IMHO, the C-17 deal is a windfall for the IAF - generated by virtue of marriage of interest in MFA+PMO. MOD and MOF would dare not raise objections to it.

[arnab]

[
So as I see it, as per the Kasab example, if the Indian 'system' wants it - it can do something in a 'hurry' and get it right I'm not sure I would see this as a conspiracy or proof of your ..er.. points.

Yes - if the DPP 2006 says a 20-30 month timeframe is adequate for acquisition - who is this 'everyone' to disagree? You seem to be under this impression that you are asking 'pointed' questions that nobody is able to respond. But questions to 'speed', 'need' and 'competition' have already been resolved based on public information available.

Your arguments seem to be along the lines of 'this has never happenned so fast before' and 'I don't understand the role of the aircraft'. Now we can only take the horse to the water, not make it drink

[Sanku]

Sir, you're talking about an ideal world scenario.

To an extent, but not completely. Despite all the problems there is method in madness, and despite all the failings, there is a "ideal" which is at least tried for. When such complete short shrift to larger issues at hand is done (as it appear to have been done) then we set ourselves back.

We see frustated howls, (including be me etc) when Artillery tenders dont happen in time, when Arjun induction is delayed, when LCA suffers from sanctions. Yet we do not decry such ad hoc moves enough -- when it is basically these very acts which lay the ground for later frustrations.

My basic issue with this specific purchase is that a large amount of money is pretty much being given away (probably for a larger political aim) and in turn it takes away from the very goals that India needs to work towards for the military strength that we so badly need to develop.

[Sanku]

But questions to 'speed', 'need' and 'competition' have already been resolved based on public information available.

Look Arnab, those answer fascinating, but I have no issues with those answers. As I have said those *answers* are what really proved the point that C 17 is strongly being pushed from top level GoI.

[amit]

With all this wailing about cost and how the "cheaper" Il76 was not considered due to a great conspiracy hatched by politicians and the general rhona dhona, it's perhaps useful have a look at some quotes on this cost issue from the actual guys who are going to use these toys (as opposed to Internet jingos), even though they are a bit dated.

Centre cancels contract for midair refuellers for fighter aircraft

The air force is upset at the cancellation. When it comes to the military, technological capabilities and sophistication make a huge difference, “but that is immaterial if the finance ministry is to be trusted”, a source in the force said. “For every bit of sophistication, we have to pay a price, and that makes a huge difference in the battlefield,” he said.“It would take us a few years now to select a tanker, unless they force us to buy the Russian tanker,” an IAF officer said.

“We need to break the logjam” on opting for the cheapest, another air force officer said. He pointed out that the contract for the purchase of 12 helicopters for transporting VVIPs, such as the president and the prime minister, was also facing resistance from the finance ministry. The ministry has argued that the deal is far more expensive than what was projected. However, since there is no “L1 trouble” in the chopper deal, it may “finally go through”, the officer said.

And here's another interesting point, even though it's about the Airbus tanker vs IL78 tanker:

But, sources said, the force justified the buy in a detailed written reply, saying Airbus was technologically superior than Ilyushin-78 and that the overall cost of the European product would be competitive. IAF pointed out that Airbus was fuel efficient and most of its civilian parts could be serviced in India.

We've seen a lot of = signs all over the thread. However, I think we need to disabuse ourselves of the Socialist era logic of cheaper=good, especially for a strategic purchase.

Also some folks have expressed surprise that India could or should prepare a strategic lift capability for overseas deployment. I think these folks have either forgotten Operation Cactus or were too young to have read about it.

By the way if there was a need to do a quick strategic deployment in the Andamans due to some emergency, would it be considered a "overseas" deployment? I think there's not much difference in the distance from Maldives and the Andamans from the mainland, is there?

[arnab]

But questions to 'speed', 'need' and 'competition' have already been resolved based on public information available.

Look Arnab, those answer fascinating, but I have no issues with those answers. As I have said those *answers* are what really proved the point that C 17 is strongly being pushed from top level GoI.

And sir, that is where I disagree (because this is not proof, this is just an insinuation). Because each of your 'questions' have a very logical publicly available response. So the burden of the proof that it is indeed a GOI led decision rather than an IAF / DAC evaluated one, falls on you. I'll be happy to change my mind - but you have to provide proof that this is an equipment which was not wanted by the IAF and was pushed by GOI.

IOW,

(1) You have to prove that the acqusition was faster than mandated by Policy.
(2) You have to prove that there was no competition in acquisition (given that DAC decides the mode of acquisition based on evaluation of the equipment by the services).
(3) You have to prove that C-17 serves no role in IAF's strategic policy or that the IAF is unclear about what to do with the aircraft.

[amit]

My basic issue with this specific purchase is that a large amount of money is pretty much being given away (probably for a larger political aim) and in turn it takes away from the very goals that India needs to work towards for the military strength that we so badly need to develop.

Sanku,

I'm curious, why do you say large amounts of money are being given away?

Is it because you think that the C-17s are duds?

Or is it because you think that technology and capability wise the Il-76s are better than the C-17s?

Or is it because you think India does not need the enhanced capabilities (both in terms of extra lift capability and technological edge) which the C17s bring to the table?

It would be useful if you could clarify on this, as that would give a better perspective on why you think the purchase of the C17s is equivalent to giving away large sums of money.

Thanks!

[nelson]

if we were to decide what the iaf or the armed forces require to fulfill their mandate as set by the govt we would like to go for c-17 in as many Nos or even double that, because we are jingos. we would like to have much more without any concern of the resources that are available but for the fact that resorces are finite and the decision makers need to prioritise the fulfillment of the requirement. in that case the requirement of c-17 ranks far behind in terms of emergent necessity (for strategic airlift) and non availability in the present inventory (il-76) compared to pressing requirements such as artillery pieces of varied nature, air defence systems, a 30% shortfall in combat aircraft, an imminent shortfall in submarine fleet and many more. sure theyy are in the pipeline, but for how long?

the question that has been risen is that with apparent low priority of requirement and the invisible political/ diplomatic gains that the procurement of c-17 would give to the nation, the speed at which it is being pushed seems to indicate a scam? and the question needs to be answered by the govt of the day.

[Sanku]

And sir, that is where I disagree (because this is not proof, this is just an insinuation). Because each of your 'questions' have a very logical publicly available response.

I will just say that our standards of logic are different then.

You may think that C 17 deserved the "Kasab treatment" in terms of making it the MOST pressing issue before the justice system and similarly C 17 needed to obviously made the most pressing issue and completed before other such projects like deciding an engine for LCA.

You may think its absolutely logical, I will think its bizarre (to say the least).

Meanwhile, I truly love your Kasab analogy, it truly fleshes out the sides in the debate, so once again thank you.

[arnab]

I will just say that our standards of logic are different then.

You may think that C 17 deserved the "Kasab treatment" in terms of making it the MOST pressing issue before the justice system and similarly C 17 needed to obviously made the most pressing issue and completed before other such projects like deciding an engine for LCA.

You may think its absolutely logical, I will think its bizarre (to say the least).

Meanwhile, I truly love your Kasab analogy, it truly fleshes out the sides in the debate, so once again thank you.

Again you have to prove that the C-17 acquisition was faster than mandated by policy , rather than insinuating a 'fast-track' treatment designed specifically to serve GOI interests.

[nelson]

c-17 acquisition may or may not be faster than what is mandated by policy. however it is difficult and wrong to set a tight time frame for procurement of items which are not required in priority. there are many more purchases that are required urgently but not being given the same fast track treatment as the likely c-17 deal.

[Viv S]

What is so special about C 17 which precluded competition even?

3) What is the blooming hurry? Shouldnt the money be spent a little more "wisely" maybe on a project where we also partner and get IP which can leverage for MTA?

It is a HUGE amount of money after all.

It was a challenge for the IAF and IA to get the Il-76 to airlift a 41 ton T-72 to Sri Lanka and Leh. What happens the next time round when its asked to airlift a 47 ton T-90 that's over eight inches wider to those areas or A&N or NE areas like Sikkim, Bhutan or AP, or indeed to support a foreign deployment for that matter? And that's without bringing the Arjun or the IA's FMBT into the equation.

[Sanku]

I think Shiv already mentioned the basics that tank transport is like 1% of the requirement. Max.

In any case...

It was a challenge for the IAF and IA to get the Il-76 to airlift a 41 ton T-72 to Sri Lanka and Leh. What happens the next time round when its asked to airlift a 47 ton T-90 that's over eight inches wider to those areas or A&N

T 90 in A&N?


You have been watching the "letters of Iowa Jima" once too many times?

Well then, use a a ship. I dont see the need for a desperate need to send T 90s by air anywhere. In any case in Afg they were done mostly by An-124s so.....

or NE areas like Sikkim, Bhutan or AP,

Why do you need to send it by Air? Last moment panic? With Silguri corridor also cut off? And no trains? Nothing?

In any case, dismantle the tank and send it by twos (it has been done)

or indeed to support a foreign deployment for that matter?

A VERY different matter.

And that's without bringing the Arjun or the IA's FMBT into the equation.

Which is just as well since they are no where on the scene. It makes no sense to buy aircrafts today to transport tanks which will come after 5 years (best case)

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

In short one requirement which in best case is 1% of the regular use, and special uses only seen in really far fetched cases.

Even US transports most of the heavy stuff into Afg on a regular basis by Ships through Pakistan (remember all the pretty picture of Nato yards in shambles with 100s of burning humvees and what not) Yummy!!

Tanks are sent by An 124 when they fly in.

So sorry no dice, nothing special for C 17, just a large expensive transport. One which can take 80 tonnes 5400 Km.

Thats it. A big expensive truck with no special uses than other trucks. Just bigger.

[Sanku]

Again you have to prove that the C-17 acquisition was faster than mandated by policy , rather than insinuating a 'fast-track' treatment designed specifically to serve GOI interests.

I have to prove no such thing, I have to only ask people who can read, to look up the newspaper and compare the time of this purchase with other purchases, forget any so expensive as this, forget something with as fuzzy and unclear need as this.

I think it will be obvious to an average poster/visitor to BRF (like me) why C 17 purchase decisions is unusual just like you pointed out Kasab's trial was.

However for Kasab's trial the reason for it being unusual are well known.

BTW, arent you getting bored of this exchange? It consists of me reraising some open questions and you going "no no not not"

Fine I see your point, everyone does, I think its ridiculous (to say the least). The questions I raised are still open.

Lets cut out the chat, shall we, till either of us has anything new to say to the other at least?

[vardhank]

@ Sanku

No hurry?

Everyone in India agrees that 2008-2010 timeframe for transport purchases of 5.8 billion $ or so is perfectly par for the course in India?

So what you're saying is that even if a process CAN be short and still effective, it SHOULD be delayed just because that's what we've been doing all this while? Sorry, but what sense does that make? If I go to buy ice cream and think, "Hey, the chocolate suits me just fine, and I'm in the mood for chocolate anyway", you recommend that I try strawberry, mint, vanilla and butterscotch as well, or else I'm conspiring to eat only chocolate?
If the C-17 fits, why not?
As a disclaimer, I'm NOT a C-17 fanboy. I DON'T trust the US much, but not every deal with the US has to involve people in black cloaks meeting on bridges at midnight.
Had this been an order for some Russian plane, would there have been such an issue? I think not. Would've been lovely if we could've bought planes from a reliable Western partner (France springs to mind), but oh well.

[Sanku]

@ Sanku

No hurry?

Everyone in India agrees that 2008-2010 timeframe for transport purchases of 5.8 billion $ or so is perfectly par for the course in India?

So what you're saying is that even if a process CAN be short and still effective, it SHOULD be delayed just because that's what we've been doing all this while? .

Am I?

And discussion on ice creams?

When there is nothing to say, dont say it.

[vardhank]

@ bhavani

Does it 5.8 billion for PR and muscle-flex, quite a costly affair.

I'm not talking about PR in the sense of taking journalists out for a free lunch
I'm talking in the sense of:
A) Very visible relief operations. Sending a whacking huge plane like that with pictures of starving earthquake/tsunami/Yanni-concert-hit people in the background? Very powerful message about India's military-strategic capabilities and willingness to help smaller nations. This smaller-nations thing IS important, especially in terms of UN votes etc - India already has a good name in Africa, and would like to extend that, I should think.
Joining peacekeeping operations, especially Afghanistan. We haven't sent any troops there - we've developed some goodwill (soft power) through our development efforts, but India DOES need to shoulder her way into the 'Allies', and this means military participation (hard power). A combination of these will make a big difference. And again here, airlift will be important, but VISIBLE airlift even more so. As someone said earlier on this thread, we've been participating in (and leading) relief operations for a while, but these don't get publicity - and if we use C-17s, publicity is much more likely.
So perhaps that $5.8 billion isn't a complete waste.

Going to my original point: would the IAF have selected the C-17 by itself? Probably not - my guess is the government WAS partly arm-twisted by the US into accepting it, but upon reflection decided it wasn't such a bad deal after all.
My comment on the F-18s was more jocular than anything else, aimed at certain fanboys (hello, Brahmananda ) but I stand by my point. We DO have to make friends with the US, and since making friends with the US involves giving them money and some control over our armed forces, I'd rather it was done in an area where we're not completely dependent on Uncle.

[vardhank]

@ Sanku

Yup, that IS what you're saying, isn't it? That breaking a bad habit can only be done if some skulduggery's involved? That there's something wrong with the deal because:
A) The IAF's selected a particular plane without going through an MMRCA-like circus.
B ) Horror of horrors, we've actually come to a decision without going back and forth 10,000 times and hemming and hawing and needing the CBI to get involved and banning and re-allowing and re-banning etc etc of various vendors and asking for proposals to be reissued and wasting the next 10 years.
Sorry, but do point out in your posts where what you're saying contradicts this.

Tell me, if a Russian plane of the SAME abilities as the C-17 had been selected in the same way, in the same time-frame, for the same price, would you, specifically, have gone around looking for the dirt behind the deal?

If you have nothing to say, don't argue for the sake of it.

[Sanku]

@ Sanku

Yup, that IS what you're saying, isn't it? That breaking a bad habit can only be done if some skulduggery's involved?

You know after saying exactly what I have wanted to say in a very exact manner, if you can come along and tell me what "I am" really saying, I think I must submit to your analysis.

After all, you can always tell me what I am really saying irrespective of what I am saying, so why bother?

See?

[vardhank]

Actually, you're right.
Maybe I shouldn't try to understand what you're saying. What you say would have to make sense for me to get it.
Shall we go on with the discussion? You had an opinion. I countered it. Do you wish to reinforce your point, point out a flaw in what I've said or raise a new point? If yes, go ahead. That's what we're here for. If not, stop acting injured every time someone has a different point of view.

[Sanku]

Shall we go on with the discussion? You had an opinion. I countered it. Do you wish to reinforce your point, point out a flaw in what I've said or raise a new point? If yes, go ahead. That's what we're here for. If not, stop acting injured every time someone has a different point of view.

Injured? No mildly amused. I have actually countered your point. You have not understood either the previous point or its counter.

Now what are my choices? Repeat the same? But you obviously did not understand that, so I need to repeat the same in a different manner, so here goes (a crude analogy)

Suppose the elephant runs at 10 kmph, in all the observations ever it ran at 10-15 kmph. Except one -- in one day over the entire last year, it was seen running at 25 kmph, just one instance in last one year Jan-dec, this was noted in June.

Would you think that there was something to it? Or just that the elephant has upgraded its speed to 25 kmph?

Hopefully, the above Panchtantra type thingy makes more sense hmm?

Also in the future, when you dont understand, please dont hesitate in asking, it can be clarified, what is irritating though is the need to ascribe what has not been said to me. I see some people who do that consistently and it really reduces the value in discussion. Ok?

[Viv S]

I think Shiv already mentioned the basics that tank transport is like 1% of the requirement. Max.

War is a rare event as well. Should the military therefore not be prepared for it? I've already posted on the last page a pressing requirement not long back to airlift large speedboats to Leh.

In any case...

It was a challenge for the IAF and IA to get the Il-76 to airlift a 41 ton T-72 to Sri Lanka and Leh. What happens the next time round when its asked to airlift a 47 ton T-90 that's over eight inches wider to those areas or A&N

T 90 in A&N?


You have been watching the "letters of Iowa Jima" once too many times?

I haven't seen 'Letters from Iwo Jima' as yet. Plan to.

And yes, the IA may want to airlift T-90s to A&N for the same reason the IA is deployed there in the first place. To deter an amphibious invasion onto the place or to use it as a launching point for the same.

Well then, use a a ship. I dont see the need for a desperate need to send T 90s by air anywhere. In any case in Afg they were done mostly by An-124s so.....

We could have used ships during Operation Cactus as well. But often(and especially during or nearing wartime) speed is of the essence. And the An-124 isn't in production, so that's not really an alternative.

Why do you need to send it by Air? Last moment panic? With Silguri corridor also cut off? And no trains? Nothing?

In any case, dismantle the tank and send it by twos (it has been done)

Like I stated before, for the same reason troops are airlifted to forward areas. In the event that a rapid mobilization is in order or armored support is urgently required, the IAF needs to have the option of airlifting tanks.

^^^ And the IAF has had to carry it out in the past. So yes, the ability to do so has to be retained.

Dismantle the tank? Defeats the purpose of airlifting it doesn't it. How do we know the destination will have the resources to assemble it in the field?

A VERY different matter.

And not one that's necessarily linked to the US. Operation Cactus was a foreign deployment and one which preempted American intervention rather than supporting it.

Which is just as well since they are no where on the scene. It makes no sense to buy aircrafts today to transport tanks which will come after 5 years (best case)

The aircraft wouldn't enter IAF service until a few years from now and will continue to serve the IAF till atleast 2040. The C-17 unlike the Il-76 will be able to airlift the IA's current and future MBTs.

In short one requirement which in best case is 1% of the regular use, and special uses only seen in really far fetched cases.

Even US transports most of the heavy stuff into Afg on a regular basis by Ships through Pakistan (remember all the pretty picture of Nato yards in shambles with 100s of burning humvees and what not) Yummy!!

The IAF can scarcely start issuing RFIs and RFPs in the unusual event of a request to airlift tanks, IFVs or APCs is actually made by the IA.

Tanks are sent by An 124 when they fly in.

An-124's can't operate from rough airstrips, have a very high operating cost, and aren't in production.

[vardhank]

@ Sanku

No, I'd think... Hey! This elephant's capable of running at 25kph - nice! Why hasn't it done so before? Maybe it's been lazy or tying itself in knots and therefore not exploring its potential so far. If it can run at 25, I'd say, let it run, good for everyone concerned. I wouldn't think, "Hmm. We must slow it back down to 10, because so far we've seen it run at 10, and since this is what we're comfortable with, let's wonder what magic potion it's been given to make it run at 25, because clearly 25 is wrong and against all laws of nature." Is the Panchatantra easier to handle than ice cream? I can come up with a hundred different analogies here - the point remains.

And no, you didn't, in fact, answer my question: if this had been a Russian plane (or, to avoid accusation, a French one), with the same abilities, and selected via the same process, would you have raised the same objections? Would this conspiracy theory have come up?

I've said this before, I'm wary of the US too, and ALSO believe it might have been a political decision - I just don't like the thinking that the C-17 is totally unnecessary and the IAF are either ignorant about the mess they've been landed in (because I don't think it's a mess), or that the IAF hates the aircraft and are being handicapped for political reasons.

[shiv]

Shivji-is this a trick question? answer is A330 MRTT . also refuels mkis on the way if needed.

[bhavani]

First things first the cost of C-17 including spares is listed in these links.

http://www.defencetalk.com/india-reques ... aft-25970/

http://www.stratpost.com/c-17-sale-to-i ... ps-forward

The estimated cost of sale is 5.8 billion and not 2 odd billion.

Regarding the process being too fast, i may be wrong regarding the 8 months. But it was un duly fast and BTW is C-17 a national emergency and like Kasab

Shiv saar, the discussion about waistlines was done in BR over a length of 40 pages.

See my final point is cant we wait for something like C-X or A400 to show up? Cant we use a bit cheaper option and spend the rest of dollars on some good stuff from KHan himself like some Artillery or an LHD etc.

[NRao]

Strategic has to mean a lot more than what thinking we have been used to. Start another front from Iran (India has an agreement from late 90s to use bases in Iran), leap behind Chicom in Tibet, take Lhasa, perhaps start a front from the Burmese border with China. I could even think of intervention in Somalia and Yemen is very rare cases. And, in the worst case take PoK from the other side.

NRao, needing strategic airlift, and from that going to the statement that

C 17s are the only option which it needs to be acquired in ultra-fast fashion, making sure no competition happens etc etc..

Are two different things.

First and foremost, ONLY now, are people in the forum even beginning to say that C 17s are for roles outside India.

This was a point which itself is being desperately papered over in a sense.

I have never argued that the C-17 is THE best solution, for the simple reason that I do not know. What I have argued is that there has been a NEED for India to have a strategic airlift capability - and that I have argued since about 1998ish (pre agreement with Iran for bases in Iran).

On "outside India" - I cannot talk about others, but certainly since Op Falcon (1986?) and the agreement with Iran (1998ish?) I have always felt a NEED for a strategic airlift.

In My books the ONLY component of strategic airlift that applies to intra-India is between Paki-China fronts. (IA, IMHO, has enough mobility within a front - IA does not NEED IAF help for a "lift".)

On C-17 capability, it is the statement of the IAF that I quoted. However, it does seem good to me. I do see some politics in this equation, but that is OK.

The way I see things is where will India be in 2020. IF the C-17 fits a 2020 view, then I do not mind it. IMHO, in 2020 Russia will not be in the same position she has been in the past, important as a country no doubt, but relative to India she will not have the same power/influence/etc she has held all these decades. In short, the Russia-India ratio will tilt heavily in favor of India. Again, IMHO, the same will be true of the Indo-US ratio. So, the question to me is, what is good for India? Go for that without fear. And, then the issue of whom does India tie with (IF at all it has to be done), I would prefer the US - just the way it is. (I understand that these statements will generate more questions that provide answers for, but no time to get into details right now.)

[NRao]

First and foremost, ONLY now, are people in the forum even beginning to say that C 17s are for roles outside India.

Just to put one thing in perspective - where I am coming from - I know of an ex-IA here who in late 80s made the statement that the IA can start another front from the Iranian side "and we will land with cooks and toothpicks" he would say. (The topic came up about a year or so after Op Falcon and he was talking about how Gen S had transformed the mentality within the IA.)

That - around 1988.

So, on BR it may be a recent topic of discussion. But WRT to the IA it is rather ancient. That IA needs "strategic airlift" was a known fact for decades I would say.

[GeorgeWelch]

See my final point is cant we wait for something like C-X or A400 to show up?

1. Neither the C-X nor the A400M has the capability of the C-17
2. The A400M is rapidly approaching the C-17's price
3. It is not clear Japan can sell the C-X (C-2) internationally.

[Surya]

A 400?????

We do not even know if it will be made

Leave alone it is not in the same category