C-17s for the IAF?

[Gilles]

The C-5 Galaxy can very easily land at Kandahar. Why not? The An-124 fly there. So does the An-225. Boeing 747s land there, as well as RAF L-1011s. Any aircraft can land in Kabul and Kandahar or Bagram etc....

It was my understanding that C-5 operate out Kabul but not Kandahar. I was probably mistaken or maybe what I read referred to the early part of the campaign before the airbases were built up.

In any case, would you put the C-5's rough field capability at par with the C-17 for any sort of forward deployment(tanks in particular)?

The An-124 and the C-5 were both designed for unpaved runway operations.

Although the C-17 requires less runway length than a C-5, I cant compare the capability of either to deploy tanks to forward locations since I have yet to see either one of them do it. All I know is one claims it can do it and the other one does not.

It would be great if one could at least go on Youtube.com and find a video of a C-17 landing somewhere on some remote unpaved and short airfield and disgorge an M-1 Abrams tank. But you will find no such video on Youtube. I wonder why..........

[Sanku]

Viv S>>
That's all the interoperability you need to deploy the Indian military in Afghanistan.

Viv S, you are right of course. I am sorry I had no clue. Neither did AVM Pandey. Do send him a mail please.

AVM Pandey did not at any point in his article, advocate or insinuate that an American airlifter is a necessary, to provide logistical support to any campaign involving power projection in the region.

No he merely talked of interoperability because of partnership with USA and combined missions for force projection.

To say that requirement needs anything more than a Il 76 flying into Afg is, of course, ludicrous.

[Viv S]

The An-124 and the C-5 were both designed for unpaved runway operations.

Although the C-17 requires less runway length than a C-5, I cant compare the capability of either to deploy tanks to forward locations since I have yet to see either one of them do it. All I know is one claims it can do it and the other one does not.

Maybe we should've considered the C-5 as well. The An-124 OTOH has been out of production for a while, notwithstanding plans in Russia-Ukraine to restart production.

There is the question of the absence of any advertisement of the C-5's rough field landing capability.

It would be great if one could at least go on Youtube.com and find a video of a C-17 landing somewhere on some remote unpaved and short airfield and disgorge an M-1 Abrams tank. But you will find no such video on Youtube. I wonder why..........

Well the absence of a video on youtube is far from a conclusive word on the matter. Unlike the C-17, I can't recall seeing any videos of the C-5 making a dirt strip landing.

C-17 landing on dirt runway in Afghanistan- payload unknown

[Viv S]

AVM Pandey did not at any point in his article, advocate or insinuate that an American airlifter is a necessary, to provide logistical support to any campaign involving power projection in the region.

No he merely talked of interoperability because of partnership with USA and combined missions for force projection.

To say that requirement needs anything more than a Il 76 flying into Afg is, of course, ludicrous.

He doesn't talk about interoperability.

"India may be called upon to project power in the region which may involve airlift of large military forces to areas of interest of either of the partners in the region outside our borders and to provide sustained logistic support."

^^ And yes the IAF's Il-76 squadrons can do that comfortably, without the services of the C-17.

[Gilles]

Maybe we should've considered the C-5 as well. The An-124 OTOH has been out of production for a while, notwithstanding plans in Russia-Ukraine to restart production.

There is the question of the absence of any advertisement of the C-5's rough field landing capability.

Well the absence of a video on youtube is far from a conclusive word on the matter. Unlike the C-17, I can't recall seeing any videos of the C-5 making a dirt strip landing.

C-17 landing on dirt runway in Afghanistan- payload unknown

The C-5 has been out of production since 1989, so that is no longer an issue. Its just that at the time that the US was funding the new C-17, there was still a choice between going for more larger and cheaper C-5s or smaller more expensive C-17. Thats all water under the bridge now.

I just explained all this as historical background to explain how important the claimed C-17 unpaved runways capabilities are to Boeing.

Its not just on You tube they are non existent. Its everywhere in the world. There is no evidence a C-17 has ever landed anywhere on a short unpaved 3500 foot runway and disgorged an MI tank.

The runway in the video you provided, I've already covered. Its in Afghanistan, its long and was specifically built for C-17 operations by the US Army corp of engineers. Its not a real austere runway. Its presently the only unpaved runway in the world where C-17s get to land operationally.

The only other unpaved runways where C-17s land are specially built for the C-17 military training runways in the US and one in Australia. And then there now is Alert in Canada, when Canadians C-17s have landed with no payload, no passengers (well about 10) and minimal fuel.

They claims that the C-17 can take-off with a 160,000 pound payload from a 7,400 foot runway, fly 2400 nautical miles un-refuelled and land on an austere, unpaved runways as short as 3500 feet and 90 feet wide, and then take-off again and fly for another 500 miles.

I WANT TO SEE THAT DONE. IN INDIA. IN CANADA. ON YOUTUBE. ANYWHERE. BUT DEMONSTRATE IT. NOT ON A MAKE BELIEVE AUSTERE RUNWAY. ON A REAL ONE. THERE ARE MANY IN INDIA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, EVEN IN THE US.

[Gilles]

Published by Janes Defence today:

Rockwell Collins contracts ARINC for cockpit avionics upgrade
This is a revised version of an article published on 23 April. ARINC Engineering Services, LLC, has received a contract from Rockwell Collins to perform the initial installations of new digital avionics on the US Air Force's (USAF's) KC-135 Stratotanker fleet. The USAF awarded Rockwell Collins a USD 33.5 million contract for the Block 45 cockpit avionics upgrade in 2009 and the company has now out-sourced the work to ARINC

803 KC-135s were produced between 1954 and 1965. There still over 500 of them on inventory. They have been re-engined and upgraded over the years. The youngest of them is now 45 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker

Look at the cockpit:



It make the IL-76 look ancient doesn't it?

[Sanku]

He doesn't talk about interoperability.

"India may be called upon to project power in the region which may involve airlift of large military forces to areas of interest of either of the partners in the region outside our borders and to provide sustained logistic support."

^^ And yes the IAF's Il-76 squadrons can do that comfortably, without the services of the C-17.

You are absolutely right Sir. Nothing in the below, either needs interoperability or anything more than current Il 76s landing in Afg. Which we already have.

Given its emerging regional power status and the newly forged strategic partnership with the US if not abrogated by the incoming administration, India may be called upon to project power in the region which may involve airlift of large military forces to areas of interest of either of the partners in the region outside our borders and to provide sustained logistic support

Anyway an Il carrying max 45 T to 4000Km is roughly same as a C 17 carrying 78 tns to 5400 kms.

They will roughly need the same spare parts when they work together as a part of partnership.

They will roughly also have same data links and comm equipment, IFF etc.

I have seen the error of my ways mate, I am fullyroughly with you now.

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

Of course after Il 76 is replaced by C 17, India will have no airlift capacity between the ranges 15000 kg and 78000 kg

But so what? In america people use huge SUVs as personal individual car, we must do so too.

[Hitesh]

Gilles, you forgot one thing. C-5s are hellishly expensive to operate. You could fly a C-17 twice or three times for the price of flying a C-5 plane. Remember, US does a lot of airlift, in fact the most in the world by any military and that has a direct correlation to operating costs.

This is what I got from a website for comparison of C-5 vs. C-17.

Comparison Chart of C-5 vs. C-17

[Katare]

These are vendor certified capabilities of C17. Any buyer can ask for a demonstration of these capabilities before buying. Although like any advertised calims, I am sure, these claims will have certain limitations and conditions that will apply.

Capabilities and Functionality

The C-17's ability to fly long distances and land in remote airfields in rough, land-locked regions make it a premier transporter for military, humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. It can:

Take off from a 7,600-ft. airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight and land in 3,000 ft. or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield in day or night.
Carry a cargo of wheeled U.S. Army vehicles in two side-by-side rows, including the U.S. Army's main battle tank, the M-1. Three Bradley infantry-fighting vehicles comprise one load.
Drop a single 60,000-lb. payload, with sequential load drops of 110,000 lb.
Back up a two-percent slope.
Seat 54 on the sidewall and 48 in the centerline.

[Katare]

Globemaster III

April 14 -- The 418th Flight Test Squadron at Edwards AFB set a record for the heaviest single payload ever extracted out of a C-17. A 77,000 pound jumbo drop test vehicle was extracted out of a C-17A T-1 at 25,000 feet over the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona

.

March 12 -- The U.S. Air Force announced that next year it will begin replacing 10 C-5 Galaxy aircraft with eight C-17s at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

[Gilles]

March 12 -- The U.S. Air Force announced that next year it will begin replacing 10 C-5 Galaxy aircraft with eight C-17s at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Correct. Remember this?

http://vodpod.com/watch/2971169-msnbc-c ... s-of-c-17s

If you read here: http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/AL0 ... 042810.pdf

The US Congress keeps funding new C-17s that the Air Force did not need or request:

The Air Force is executing Congressional direction to procure 223 C-17s. As of 20 April, 196 of those 223 aircraft have been delivered, including the U.S. contribution to the Strategic Airlift Capability C-17 Program with 11 European partner nations. Final delivery is planned in February 2012.

Further down:

The Mobility and Capabilities Requirements Study (MCRS) confirms the Air Force has excess strategic airlift capability. The Air Force plans to reduce the 316 strategic airlift aircraft requirement of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 by retiring 22 C-5As. The Secretary of the Air Force will submit a report on the retirement of aircraft required by section 137 of the NDAA and a report on strategic airlift aircraft required by section 138 of the NDAA in early summer 2010. These reports will provide the justification for retirement of C-5A aircraft and anticipated impact of the retirements on force structure and basing.

They are retiring the oldest C-5A, to make room in their operating budget for the C-17s they didn't want.

Now I think the Congress has milked the US Air Force about as much as it could. The close friends, Canada, the UK and Australia have already stepped up to the plate. Now its time for other countries to subsidize US high tech and high paying jobs. Countries like the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and India.

You are going to need C-17 whether you like it or not. Just like Canada.

[Katare]

Maybe we should've considered the C-5 as well. The An-124 OTOH has been out of production for a while, notwithstanding plans in Russia-Ukraine to restart production.

There is the question of the absence of any advertisement of the C-5's rough field landing capability.

Well the absence of a video on youtube is far from a conclusive word on the matter. Unlike the C-17, I can't recall seeing any videos of the C-5 making a dirt strip landing.

C-17 landing on dirt runway in Afghanistan- payload unknown

The C-5 has been out of production since 1989, so that is no longer an issue. Its just that at the time that the US was funding the new C-17, there was still a choice between going for more larger and cheaper C-5s or smaller more expensive C-17. Thats all water under the bridge now.

I just explained all this as historical background to explain how important the claimed C-17 unpaved runways capabilities are to Boeing.

Its not just on You tube they are non existent. Its everywhere in the world. There is no evidence a C-17 has ever landed anywhere on a short unpaved 3500 foot runway and disgorged an MI tank.

The runway in the video you provided, I've already covered. Its in Afghanistan, its long and was specifically built for C-17 operations by the US Army corp of engineers. Its not a real austere runway. Its presently the only unpaved runway in the world where C-17s get to land operationally.

The only other unpaved runways where C-17s land are specially built for the C-17 military training runways in the US and one in Australia. And then there now is Alert in Canada, when Canadians C-17s have landed with no payload, no passengers (well about 10) and minimal fuel.

They claims that the C-17 can take-off with a 160,000 pound payload from a 7,400 foot runway, fly 2400 nautical miles un-refuelled and land on an austere, unpaved runways as short as 3500 feet and 90 feet wide, and then take-off again and fly for another 500 miles.

I WANT TO SEE THAT DONE. IN INDIA. IN CANADA. ON YOUTUBE. ANYWHERE. BUT DEMONSTRATE IT. NOT ON A MAKE BELIEVE AUSTERE RUNWAY. ON A REAL ONE. THERE ARE MANY IN INDIA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, EVEN IN THE US.

Gilles,

Is it possible that USA classifies airfields differently than you do? You might wanna check the definitions and terms to avoid confusion.

As I understand it and IIRC

An unpaved airfield is a prepared/strengthened airfield either by metal mesh or Portland cement or both. While an unprepared airfield is just a strip of compacted local soil.

C17s claims are about paved and unpaved airfields not unprepared airfields. So when Boeing says C17 can land on less than 3000ft of unpaved airfield they mean a specially prepared airfield for C17 which is not paved.

Usually the best performance parameters would be a stretch limit for ops and operators would need to operate well within those limits.

Also number of tons/landing wheel is only loosely related to ground pressure other things like size and width of tire, tire pressure and overall landing gear design would determine damage to airfield. Still low number of landing wheel is a compromise which would limit the landing performance on unprepared and even some unpaved airfields.

I think the choice of lower number of landing wheels ia design compromise to have better turning and backing performance on airfield. This must have been a requirement of USAF but might be an issue for IAF.

IMO based on history and requirements as I understand them, IAF would almost exclusively operate these aircrafts on long and paved airfields so a lot of these things may not matter to IAF even if Boeing claims them and you think they are incorrect.

[Kartik]

You read it black on white on a US Government publication that I reference and you call it rubbish? Are you the kind that reads in the manual that an IL-76 carry 45 tonnes but loads 60 tonnes in it because others have done it before? That kind of logic is Rubbish.

I said that your whole line of argument (that the C-17 is only cleared to carry M-1 Abrams) is purely based on semantics and not on engineering issues. All that matters is whether the dimensions of the Arjun match or are lower than that of the M-1 and whether its ground pressure is higher or lower. In both cases, the Arjun is fine. So as a structural engineer, I can tell you that there will be no issues. There will be no miraculous way in which a ramp will be damaged by a tank that has a ground pressure of 0.84 kg/cm2 while a tank with a ground pressure of 0.96 kg/cm2 will be ok.
If Boeing gives exceptions to M-1 Abrams based on tests that they conducted, and if it extends warranties and certifies such a practice, I can say for sure that if the IAF and IA ask for it to be done for the Arjun, they will do it. I've seen far more weird and stringent requirements being imposed on civilian variants that have required re-design and re-certification..for instance bulkhead and stringer redesign due to a particular customer requirement but its been done by Boeing. For instance when Emirates wanted marble to be installed in its first class cabins. Unheard of but it was done. I won't go into more details though.

I do not claim that India cannot obtain a similar waiver for the Arjun if it tries to obtain one. My argument, sir, is that IF carrying the Arjun is the point of buying the C-17, have Boeing prove Before buying it that the C-17 can carry one. Do not assume it can do it because it carries the M-1.

and Sir, what makes you think that the IAF and IA, who are the primary customers don't understand that fact or what makes you assume that Boeing is selling them a dummy by making them believe that the Arjun will fit in while it may not ?
The IAF has been bitten in the past when the Russians simply said that the Il-76 could transport T-72s. They never demonstrated it, never gave them operating manuals for how to fly an Il-76 with that kind of cargo, did not tell them what limits it would impose on the IL-76's performance at high altitudes, etc. the IAF learnt it on their own and found that it was an exceedingly painful task to transport tanks by the Il-76.
Forget Arjun, if the C-17 can transport the IA's T-72 CIA and T-90S tanks with relative ease, that itself will be enough to order the C-17s. Just read Gp Cpt. Bewoor's description of the skill and effort that it took to transport the T-72 to Ladakh and just how many operational restrictions were imposed on the Il-76 during that flight. The sheer effort that is required to transport tanks on the Il-76 means that for operational scenarios where armour needs to be inducted fast, the Il-76 is not a good platform. The article is there on BRF.

[Katare]

March 12 -- The U.S. Air Force announced that next year it will begin replacing 10 C-5 Galaxy aircraft with eight C-17s at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Correct. Remember this?

http://vodpod.com/watch/2971169-msnbc-c ... s-of-c-17s

If you read here: http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/AL0 ... 042810.pdf

The US Congress keeps funding new C-17s that the Air Force did not need or request:

The Air Force is executing Congressional direction to procure 223 C-17s. As of 20 April, 196 of those 223 aircraft have been delivered, including the U.S. contribution to the Strategic Airlift Capability C-17 Program with 11 European partner nations. Final delivery is planned in February 2012.

Further down:

The Mobility and Capabilities Requirements Study (MCRS) confirms the Air Force has excess strategic airlift capability. The Air Force plans to reduce the 316 strategic airlift aircraft requirement of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 by retiring 22 C-5As. The Secretary of the Air Force will submit a report on the retirement of aircraft required by section 137 of the NDAA and a report on strategic airlift aircraft required by section 138 of the NDAA in early summer 2010. These reports will provide the justification for retirement of C-5A aircraft and anticipated impact of the retirements on force structure and basing.

They are retiring the oldest C-5A, to make room in their operating budget for the C-17s they didn't want.

Now I think the Congress has milked the US Air Force about as much as it could. The close friends, Canada, the UK and Australia have already stepped up to the plate. Now its time for other countries to subsidize US high tech and high paying jobs. Countries like the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and India.

You are going to need C-17 whether you like it or not. Just like Canada.

Hehehe what do you expect from congress, still better than building a billion dollar bridge to nowhere I guess.

Although your last statement is not correct, we need C17 and we'll get it. US has got a lot of things that it wants to sell to us but so far we have bought only what we need or what makes sense to us.

We have said no to E2D, we have said no to PAC3 and so many other sales pitchs over the years. I guess Indian armed forces know what they need and only service headquarters have rights to devise GSQR and evaluate hardware.

[Kartik]

What does the number of current mil orders have to do with anything.

It has to do with the ability to sustain that type in service for decades. If you only have a few in service how the hell are you going to find spares for it for decades when the suppliers have absolutely no volume of orders to even bother to continue producing spares ? Or do you suggest that HAL start building An-70s in India and also look to get the entire An-70 supply chain moved to India by some miracle ?

[Katare]

I do not think Arjun carrying capacity has anything to do with purchase of C17 although there is no reason to believe that transporting Arjun MBT will be an issue for C17. I think following are the reasons in order of importance......

1) Next generation replacement aircraft for Il76. C17 is the only military transport aircraft in production with clear support/upgrade infrastructure for next 4 decades piggybacking on US/NATO demand. Like it or not IL76 as of today has no defined future with any amount of money behind it.
2) Wide body allows for easier MBT and other large vehicle transportation than existing IL76. Lower main deck (and wide body) allows for simple drive in drive out of large vehicles or tanks. IL 76 could hardly transport a T series MBT of IA at stretch of their spec limits.
3) Modern aircraft with better operating cost and handling enables new operational capabilities
4) 10 aircrafts is initial purchase eventually all of the IL76 will be replaced by C17 in phases.

[Gilles]

I do not think Arjun carrying capacity has anything to do with purchase of C17 although there is no reason to believe that transporting Arjun MBT will be an issue for C17. I think following are the reasons in order of importance......

1) Next generation replacement aircraft for Il76. C17 is the only military transport aircraft in production with clear support/upgrade infrastructure for next 4 decades piggybacking on US/NATO demand. Like it or not IL76 as of today has no defined future with any amount of money behind it.
2) Wide body allows for easier MBT and other large vehicle transportation than existing IL76. Lower main deck (and wide body) allows for simple drive in drive out of large vehicles or tanks. IL 76 could hardly transport a T series MBT of IA at stretch of their spec limits.
3) Modern aircraft with better operating cost and handling enables new operational capabilities
4) 10 aircrafts is initial purchase eventually all of the IL76 will be replaced by C17 in phases.

About the IL-76.

1) About 960 of all types were manufactured.
2) There are probably 500, 600 or 700 of them that are still in service, close to 200 of them being civilian Il-76s. They fly for the UN, for NATO, for Armed forces of many countries, including C-17 operators such as Canada, for the Red Cross, for relief organizations. In Haiti, from Jan to March, there were several IL-76s on the ground there every day. One cannot rent a C-17.
3) They went through a down period from 2001 to 2006 when they were banned from much of the first world's airspace because of noise regulations but in 2006, Perm engine manufacture certified the first Chapter IV compliant engine for it. Airlines and Air Forces have begun to order IL-76s with new engines. Re-Engining with 4 PS-90s probably costs around 20 million dollars. Saturn, another engine manufacturer is working on a cheaper Chapter IV engine which will be available in 2 years.
4) There is no civilian alternative to this aircraft in the World. Because of this, the IL-76 will be around for several decades.
5) The C-17 only exists as a transport. The IL-76 exists as a transport, a refueller, an AWACS plane, an ELINT plane, a waterbomber, and airborne command post, a zero gravity trainer for the space program.
6) An Il-76 carries as much troops as a C-17.
7) An Il-76 with Perm PS-90 engines burns less fuel than a C-17.

The 17 Il-76 that the IAF has have decades of life left in them. Of course, if India does not have the budget to fly both the IL-76 and the C-17 and the C-17 is imposed, like the US Air Force was forced to do with Airworthy C-5As, it will have no choice but to ground its older IL-76s.

[arnab]

So now it becomes unlikely is it?

Buddy, I am TELLING you how GoI works, please keep your unlikely/shunlikely out of this.

I know it is proving to be difficult to grasp the basic working of GoI but it as follows (once more in a fond hope)
1) GoI provides the overall policy framework
2) Forces execute that frame work
3) Forces request for equipment to execute that frame work is looked into by GoI.

At each step it will involve people from various forces and OTHER arms of Govt.

When did I ever say it would not involve IAF? Hain?

Similarly, with respect to acquisitions, MoD manages the contract subject to finance being made available. No more. No less.

WRONG. Totally hopelessly and incorrectly wrong. Written in black and white and posted about 1001 times here.

LOOK INTO THE ROLE OF ACQUISITION COMMITTEE -- it is what the MoD page says and NOT what you say.

It looks into whether
1) The request meets the overall goals
2) DRDOs inputs on the same in terms of technical data and in house procurement and which platforms serve it best.
3) The request meets the specific goals
4) How to obtain, RFI/RFP single vendor.

Sir, considering you have been flogging the MoD front page for a while now, which basically provides a broad mission and vision statement about how things are broadly supposed to work, and then extrapolating them hugely to pronounce grandiose statements, may I politely suggest that you have no idea how GOI works. What you have listed above are very general statements which no one has any issues with. But then you mix them up with fantastic statements like - 'What can IAF do if GOI asks them to build strategic airlift capability'. As if GOI suddenly woke up one fine day and decided that we needed strategic airlift capability.

Added later:

Incidentally the Defence Acquisition Council (not Acquisition Committee) is NOT MoD. The members in the DAC are provided below. :

Defence Acquisition Council

(a) Defence Minister, Chairperson
(b) Minister of State for Defence, Member
(c) Chief of Army Staff, Member
(d) Chief of Naval Staff, Member
(e) Chief of Air Staff, Member
(f) Defence Secretary, Member
(g) Secretary Defence Research & Development, Member
(h) Secretary Defence Production, Member
(i) Chief of Integrated Staff Committees HQ IDS, Member
(j) Director General (Acquisition), Member
(k) Dy. Chief of Integrated Defence Staff, Member Secretary

[amit]

Maybe the decision to go for C-17s is not a big GoI (read UPA here) inspired conspiracy to short change India and please Unkil?

Could it be that IAF is going for C-17s simply because they want to lessen their dependence on one supplier whose planes are used for heavy lift, mid air refueling and as the platform for the Phalcon?

Hasn't the IAF shown a preference for diversified supply of equipment, meaning they want to stop depending solely on Russia? (Note I'm not implying that Russia has not been a good friend all these years, but just maybe, India's needs have outgrown Russian ability to supply 100 per cent).

From what I gather reading this thread, the 15-17 Il76s we have will be around till 2020 at least and longer if IAF goes for upgrades. So during this decade IAF will have a mix of C17s (whose numbers will go up progressively) and high teens number of Il76s. Is it anyone's argument that a richer, more powerful India with wider geopolitical interests does not need so many strategic airlift planes, more so when it can easily afford them?

It comes back to the question: Why does it have to be a massive conspiracy, if the intention is to diversify?

Of course I understand that some folks here would sleep soundly at night only if every single piece of equipment/armaments used by our armed forces came from Mother Russia. However, maybe there are folks - many of them in Govt and the Armed Forces - who don't think the same, and that does not mean they are selling India's interests down the drain?

[Sanku]

What does the number of current mil orders have to do with anything.

It has to do with the ability to sustain that type in service for decades. If you only have a few in service how the hell are you going to find spares for it for decades when the suppliers have absolutely no volume of orders to even bother to continue producing spares ?

I really wish people would not take one statement out of the blue and speak on it.

There are many issues here in the context being talked about. First does the a/c have also a civvy counterpart, in which case the Mil order part is not a constraint.

There may be a condition that the a/c is just starting to come out of hibernation and is being resold again.

Cant just pull a line and speak in generics.

[Sanku]

So the latest argument is

India is rich we can throw around money on a/c whose operating costs are very high, even when we dont understand what we will do with it.

Wah wah

Meanwhile, the irriatiting bugger that I am I will revisit the main questions which have all been skipped over.

1) What is the role for this aircraft.
2) Why is this being pushed through a FMS route and not a RFI/RFP route.
3) Why such a hurry for this a/c where no prior known need was felt as opposed to far more critical needs for artillery guns.
4) Why the pattern of helping Uncle Sam out by canceling tenders where Uncle Sam cant get a foot in to make money.

Meanwhile carry on the love fest.

[Sanku]

Sir, considering you have been flogging the MoD front page for a while now, which basically provides a broad mission and vision statement about how things are broadly supposed to work, and then extrapolating them hugely to pronounce grandiose statements, may I politely suggest that you have no idea how GOI works.

He hee Arnab, so you have resorted to the line "MoD page is a rough indicator of how things are supposed to work"

Just as roughly speaking C17 == Il 76.

Yes I understand the need to be broad minded in this regard since the "specific working model is obvious and clearly listed and sticks in the gullet of all cluessless statements on MoD/GoI"

What you have listed above are very general statements which no one has any issues with.

Wow that god for small mercies.

But then you mix them up with fantastic statements like - 'What can IAF do if GOI asks them to build strategic airlift capability'. As if GOI suddenly woke up one fine day and decided that we needed strategic airlift capability.

Yes Sir, you finally got it. In this case based on all available data GoI woke up one fine morning and decided to buy these beasts.

In India for nearly every other purchase, you have years and years of back and forth before such a large decision.

For a person who has limped about for 60 years of his life, claiming polio effects, suddenly running the 100 m Olympic heat is a little suspicious dont you think.

At least thats what any one who is not closed with bias would think so.


Anyway, whats fantastic about the statement "GoI tasked IAF to prepare for interoperability with partners and long range force projection?"

Are you saying GoI does not give such mandates? (Please go ahead and say it Sir, we have some very entertaining comments made on BRF, we can add to them)

Incidentally the Defence Acquisition Council (not Acquisition Committee) is NOT MoD. [/quote

DAC != MOD? Really? Who would have thunk it?

I was under the impression that DAC and MoD are two different acronyms for the same body.

Now I wonder how I got the picture?

Sirjee Defence Acquisition Council is a body UNDER MoD with inputs from ALL its arms (finance, manufacturing, DRDO, Babus and forces) WHO jointly take a decision on acquisition.

Thank you Sir jee.

[arnab]

Umm so DAC is a body under MoD and therefore MoD rules and since MoD reports to PMO, therefore PMO rules. Since PM reports to Sonia therefore She rules This is the quality of the arguments that we are left with.

Now to get back to the point - DAC consists of 5 senior officers in the Service, 4 Babus and 2 politicians. The relationship is not adversarial - so the question of shoving something down the services throat does not arise. DAC would also take the decision whether to approach a single vendor or go through the RFP / RFI route. So the services are fully on board and it is on their recommendation that GOI takes its decision.

Next about GOI 'suddenly waking up to acquire these beasts' is patently speculative. First, GOI (civillians) wouldn't know what strategic airlift capability is, what it entails and what it can achieve. The need for strategic airlift capability would have been articulated in a position paper by the IAF a long time back. VivS has consistently shown that India had strategic airlift capability since the days of Operation cactus. Air Marshal Pandey also does not claim that 'strategic airlift' is a new doctrine for the IAF. He says that it is an important component for the future IAF and that it would have to be rebuilt from scratch because the current fleet is fast approaching end of its technical life.

So finally your objection to the deal rests on the claim that it has been done too quickly. Even this is incorrect as the evaluation occured in 2008-09 as the reports show.

Then you ask - 'we' do not know what the C-17s are going to be used for. who's 'we'? IAF ? Do you have any links to prove this? You say these are costly - how are you measuring costs? Is it based on the Russian / Gillette model - where they sell you the base at cheap prices and then you pay through your nose to maintain them or buy accessories?

Finally, you ask why spend on strategic airlift when more important stuff like artillery are pending. This is a strawman similar to there is hunger, poverty, choked drains, no public toilets so why spend money on space exploration and arms.

[amit]

India is rich we can throw around money on a/c whose operating costs are very high, even when we dont understand what we will do with it.

Just curious. If there indeed is a need for more strategic airlift and if big bad Uncle Sam's companies are blacklisted, whom should the IAF buy more planes from?

As regards the "we don't understand" bit, it's understandable - I mean the not understanding part. However, there is no source, document/link, quote etc which proves beyond doubt that the folks who run the IAF and MoD officials who work with them have this same malaise of "we don't understand" as regards IAF's needs both present and future - do note, that the planes are not going arrive tomorrow, even if we ink everything today. So this "we don't understand" is nothing to be worried about, save for what it does to overtaxed blood vessels.

I know economics is for dummies but it's useful to remember that during the period over which these planes will be delivered India is going to grow from its present size to be among the world's top four economies, if not the world's top three (assuming its top three it would be an illuminating exercise to figure out who the other two would be).

Most (military) requirement planning for this decade factors in this economic aspect and the consequent growth in global and regional influence, I would suspect. Our defence forces and aspirations should reflect that, na?

[Sanku]

Umm so DAC is a body under MoD and therefore MoD rules and since MoD reports to PMO, therefore PMO rules. Since PM reports to Sonia therefore She rules This is the quality of the arguments that we are left with.

That statement is factually correct, and if people are opting for oversimplification (as they are here) they can at least bear in mind that the forces are not some independent entity operating in vacuum. They are part of a system with well defined roles and responsibilities.

As it happens, people ascribe to them all sorts of roles to them that they dont have.

The relationship is not adversarial - so the question of shoving something down the services throat does not arise.

But who is arguing that? You are still bashing your favorite strawman I see, since of course there is nothing else you can say on the main questions.

DAC would also take the decision whether to approach a single vendor or go through the RFP / RFI route.

Yes obviously.

So the services are fully on board and it is on their recommendation that GOI takes its decision.

Ahem how does the above follow from the fact that there is service representation? Based on your logic DRDO scientist will also have feedback about conditions on the border.

The role of the services chiefs etc is to give inputs in the field that they are tasked with. Whether to go for RFI/RFP is not their role by far.

Yes Service chiefs could be a part of the process, they could have their opinion, which could be overriden as well, all without being adversarial.

The point is that Chiefs do not make these decisions, they only provide input. The decisions are by the CHAIRMAN (def sec)

Next about GOI 'suddenly waking up to acquire these beasts' is patently speculative

Yeah so show I am speculating by a single OLD reference from IAF about its need 4-5 years back.

First, GOI (civillians) wouldn't know what strategic airlift capability is, what it enatils and what it can achieve.

Not all civilians especially in GoI are at your level Sir. They know or make their buisness to find out.

The need for strategic airlift capability would have been articulated in a position paper by the IAF a long time back.

Would have been? Perhaps, roughly speaking. Maybe under some circumstances?


That statement is NOT at all speculative where as the statement "There is nothing in the open source which shows IAF intrest in such birds" is purely speculative. The statement that IAF often and always does talk about the "future" (such as the article by AVM Pandy) is of course also speculative, BUT

What IAF would have perhaps done, but not told any one, is of course solid, especially in comparison with that.

VivS has consistently shown that India had strategic airlift capability since the days of Operation cactus.

Yes and to Viv everything from 45 to 350 tonnes is also same and similarly strategic as well.

Air Marshal Pandey also does not claim that 'strategic airlift' is a new doctrine for the IAF. He says that it is an important component for the future IAF and that it would have to be rebuilt from scratch because the current fleet is fast approaching end of its technical life.

Again left with no answers for the real question state the obvious!!

Who is disagreeing with the fact that AVM Pandey said that. What I am remarking on is the remarkable propensity of clinging on that single statement while ignoring a whole host of questions and factors, including the statement just above it.

So finally your objection to the deal rests on the claim that it has been done too quickly. Even this is incorrect as the evaluation occured in 2008-09 as the reports show.

I was hoping by now you would give up this disgusting tendency of claming that I have said Aam when I said Imli.

Can you display a modicum of intellectual honesty?

Then you ask - 'we' do not know what the C-17s are going to be used for. who's 'we'? IAF ?

Sirjee, you are great? Why on earth would I mean We == IAF? We means we in the current context. Which is?

You guessed it -- the folks on the board here.

Rant against Russians camouflaged as cost discussion

Sir jee, cost discussion already discussed thanks to Gilles, who is Canadian.

Finally, you ask why spend on strategic airlift when more important stuff like artillery are pending. This is a strawman similar to there is hunger, poverty, choked drains, no public toilets so why spend money on space exploration and arms.

Wow you guys really out do yourself.

Buying airlift when artillery is not brought is same as ISRO and toilets is it.



Arnab and Viv S, I thank you from the bottom of my heart, if you guys had actually been a little circumspect and more rational the onus would be on me to show what I was saying.

As it happens you guys are consistently my best buddies when it comes to proving my points. Since I dont even have to try reductio et absurdum, you guys are falling all over each other to provide that.

Ok you have convinced me, you and Viv S are pretty close in your position.

Both of you think that anything from 20 Tonnes to 250 tonnes is equally strategic.

[arnab]

Oh no Sir, we don't believe you will ever have the gumption to provide sources for your opinions (or accept the onus to actually defend your opnions with sources). Why start something totally alien to your nature at this late stage? I think it was described somewhere else as being 'google challenged'

But again - do explain if DAC takes a collective decision to go to a single vendor, why would you absolve the Service Chiefs from this decision? Just like senior GOI civillians apparently have a revelation about the virtue of strategic airlift in their dreams (and if they want to find out what strategic airlift is? do they google for it? or do they ask the services?), don't you think Service chiefs like to get an idea of what equipment they would be likely to get? And have a say in whether it meets their requirement?

I do know costs were discussed but it was a pointless discussion as people were throwing about dollar values with no knowledge of what those dollar values were getting us. Since you have an opinion that C-17's are costly (as they would be, being superior to IL-76) - perhaps you can show us how you define your 'costs'.

[Sanku]

Arnab, more strawmen? Asking me to defend the statement I have not made when ignoring the statements I have made.

As intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Not that I was under any illusions.

Meanwhile open questions.
1) What is the role for this aircraft.
2) Why is this being pushed through a FMS route and not a RFI/RFP route.
3) Why such a hurry for this a/c where no prior known need was felt as opposed to far more critical needs for artillery guns.
4) Why the pattern of helping Uncle Sam out by canceling tenders where Uncle Sam cant get a foot in to make money.

[arnab]

The FMS type of route (called as IGA) as described in Defence Procurement Policy 2006

Inter Government Agreement (IGA)
71. There may be occasions when procurements would have to be done from friendly
foreign countries which may be necessitated due to geo-strategic advantages that are likely to
accrue to our country. Such procurements would not classically follow the Standard
Procurement Procedure and the Standard Contract Document but would be based on mutually
agreed provisions by the Governments of both the countries. Such procurements will be done
based on an Inter Governmental Agreement after clearance from CFA. The following cases
would fall under the preview of this provision.

(a) There are occasions when equipment of proven technology and capabilities
belonging to a friendly foreign country is identified by our Armed Forces while
participating in joint international exercises. Such equipment can be procured from that
country which may provide the same, ex their stocks or by using Standard Contracting
Procedure as existing in that country. In case of multiple choices, a delegation may be
deputed to select the ones, which best meets the operational requirements. [i](e.g. C-17)[/i]

(b) There may be cases where a very large value weapon system / platform, which
was in service in a friendly foreign country, is available for transfer or sale. Such
procurements would normally be at a much lesser cost than the cost of the original
platform/ weapon system mainly due to its present condition. In such cases, a
composite delegation would be deputed to ascertain its acceptability in its present
condition. The cost of its acquisition and its repairs / modifications would be negotiated
based on Inter-Governmental Agreement. (e.g Groshkov)

(c) In certain cases, there may be a requirement of procuring a specific state-of-theart
equipment/platform, however; the Government of the OEM’s country might have
imposed restriction on its sale and thus the equipment can not be evaluated on ‘No Cost
No Commitment’ basis. Such equipment may be obtained on lease for a specific period
by signing an Inter-Governmental Agreement before a decision is taken for its
purchase. [i](e.g Akula II)[/i]

72. In cases of large value acquisition and especially that requiring product support over a
long period of time it may be advisable to enter into a separate Inter Government Agreement
(if not already covered under an umbrella agreement covering all cases) with the Govt of the
country from which the equipment is proposed to be procured after the requisite inter
ministerial consultation. Such an Inter Governmental Agreement is expected to safeguard the
interests of the Govt of India and should also provide for assistance of the foreign Govt in case
the contract(s) runs into an unforeseen problem. (e.g EUMA / FMS)

[JimmyJ]

Sanku, may I try to create one straw man for you.

If the pressure is from the current PMO or current MOD, would it take too much for a future Government under the current opposition to figure that out? Don't you think its is politically naive from the current Government to ignore the impact of one Bofors and would go ahead to create another one this soon when they are wrestling to be the one party with simple majority.

And unless the DM is unaware of all this, who happens to follow a socialist attitude and have a reputation to have resigned his minister post because someone accused him of a scam, I truly fail to get the meaning of this PMO or MOD pressure.

Pressure can always happen two way not just one way especially as there may be personal political implications too. It won't take too many men in IAF to blow of the lid. After all what they would do will be protecting the country.

[amit]

This is to follow up on Jimmy's post above:

I find it interesting that in one thread (Military Acquisition and Parnterships)
this article:

Political Rivalries in India Stunt Defense Spending

Has been categorised as being very insightful as to how the this government works. In short the (allegedly) correct picture of the (sorry) state of affairs of how "callous" the UPA govt is on defence prepardness.

In effect, without going into the merits and demerits of this article, it says the Finance Ministry is shooting down most purchase requests of MoD just to spite the PMO.

Insiders say Mukherjee's ministry has vetoed virtually every defense acquisition proposal on one pretext or another. India imports 70 percent of its defense armaments.

However, I find it surprising that when it comes to a really big ticket purchase such as this C-17, with no competitive tendering etc, it seems that all the so-called differences between the MoF on the one hand and MoD and (supposedly) PMO on the other seemed to have disappeared? I mean if the MoF was dead set to teach the PMO (and MoD) a lesson by not authorising defence purchases, isn't the C-17 deal a juicy one to latch on to?

Yet the argument in the C17 case is that the MoD, PMO and supposedly MoF (since there seems to be no objections) have run roughshod over the poor IAF chaps and pushed them to accept that:
1) India has "suddenly" developed the need for strategic lift; and
2) C17 is the only option for the IAF.

Taken together, that is the "insightful" nature of that Asia Sentinel article and the position on C17s, I'm afraid this looks, to me at least, a horses for courses policy as far as debating is concerned.

Either the Asia Sentinel article is crap or the idea the MoD is ramming the C-17 requirement down IAF's throat (with no opposition from the MoF!) is not a correct picture. IMHO both POVs cannot be "insightful"!

[Philip]

What is 10% of 10 billion? Especially when a production line is about to end where the manufacturer has made his whack a long time ago.Extra orders like a possible sale to India is a big fat bonus for him and perhaps others?

[amit]

What is 10% of 10 billion? Especially when a production line is about to end where the manufacturer has made his whack a long time ago.Extra orders like a possible sale to India is a big fat bonus for him and perhaps others?

It sure is Philip.

But if that's the POV - that is money changing hands - then it should be said so upfront instead of this "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach with outlandish claims like MoD babus are the "experts" who craft requirement for IAF like how much "strategic lift" capacity it needs and force the IAF chiefs to accept that. Or that the poor Chinese were "forced" to aid the Paki nuclear programme because they were "justifiably" upset with India's "unjust" cosiness with the US of A.

If anyone thinks that powers that be took money to OK the C17 deal then IMHO they should say so upfront instead of playing footsie with the idea that some political neta took money from Boeing.

JMT

[Gilles]

You guys should check this Forum out:

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php? ... 1492&st=20

Posted 30 April 2010 - 1133 AM

View PostDawes, on 30 April 2010 - 1725 PM, said:
Back on topic, isn't India also in line to receive some of the new P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft?


On those you don't just get an aircraft, you get the system. There would be too many restrictions for the Indians to accept.

Addendum:

Well, I stand corrected. Wiki says thusly:

On 4 January 2009, the Ministry of Defence of India signed an agreement with Boeing for the supply of eight P-8I Poseidons at a total cost of US$2.1 billion.

I am shocked I tell you, shocked. Seriously. That's premier gear they are buying.

This post has been edited by TSJ: 30 April 2010 - 1147 AM

This poster that goes by the Nick "TSJ" first claims that the US would never sell the P-8 to India, then expresses shock at learning the sale was already made.

Then he writes about me:

"I think the hater is another NRI who is posting on the BRF forum under the name of Giles. He lives in Canada and I believe is a 757 pilot or something like that. Just hates the US, it's what turns him on. The US is responsible for Pakistan etc., etc. The thought of this guy making flights into the US chills me. "

I am a Non Resident Indian, flying 757s over the US, I hate the US and I think the US is responsible for Pakistan etc and that frightens him.

If it was up to this guys, some goons would come and grab me in the streets, and would "render" me shackled, hooded and gagged to some black interrogation site in Waziristan or Bagram where I would be forced to admit that I was really a paid Ilyushin lobbyist working for the Pakistani secret police....

[amit]

Hmm, TSJ.

That moniker should ring a bell among some old timers here.

But Giles I see, from your link one poster by the name of Dawes says this:

As far as non-US operators of the C-17, as near as I can tell, the RAF seems reasonably satisfied with the aircraft's overall capabilities and reliability/maintainability. The Indian ones would presumably incorporate any newer enhancements/improvements and should be quite useful in their role.

Any comments?

[Gilles]

Hmm, TSJ.

That moniker should ring a bell among some old timers here.

But Giles I see, from your link one poster by the name of Dawes says this:

As far as non-US operators of the C-17, as near as I can tell, the RAF seems reasonably satisfied with the aircraft's overall capabilities and reliability/maintainability. The Indian ones would presumably incorporate any newer enhancements/improvements and should be quite useful in their role.

Any comments?

He is correct and I agree. The C-17 is an excellent, reliable aircraft. Go over all I wrote and you will never read anything that contradicts what I am stating now. I am not writing this because I fear TSJ's goons

But all these operators seem to know they have to stay clear of any unpaved 3500 foot runways. These are capabilities are always vaunted before the aircraft are purchased and never heard about once the aircraft are inducted.

[Katare]

As per Boeing C17 made a world record by taking off and landing on a 1400 Feet runway with 44,000 lb payload.

It can certainly land on less than 3000feet with its load of 160K lb, even if the runway is not paved as long as Boeing get to choose what it means by unpaved/auster runway.

[Viv S]

The C-5 has been out of production since 1989, so that is no longer an issue. Its just that at the time that the US was funding the new C-17, there was still a choice between going for more larger and cheaper C-5s or smaller more expensive C-17. Thats all water under the bridge now.

I just explained all this as historical background to explain how important the claimed C-17 unpaved runways capabilities are to Boeing.

Its not just on You tube they are non existent. Its everywhere in the world. There is no evidence a C-17 has ever landed anywhere on a short unpaved 3500 foot runway and disgorged an MI tank.

The runway in the video you provided, I've already covered. Its in Afghanistan, its long and was specifically built for C-17 operations by the US Army corp of engineers. Its not a real austere runway. Its presently the only unpaved runway in the world where C-17s get to land operationally.

The only other unpaved runways where C-17s land are specially built for the C-17 military training runways in the US and one in Australia. And then there now is Alert in Canada, when Canadians C-17s have landed with no payload, no passengers (well about 10) and minimal fuel.

They claims that the C-17 can take-off with a 160,000 pound payload from a 7,400 foot runway, fly 2400 nautical miles un-refuelled and land on an austere, unpaved runways as short as 3500 feet and 90 feet wide, and then take-off again and fly for another 500 miles.

I WANT TO SEE THAT DONE. IN INDIA. IN CANADA. ON YOUTUBE. ANYWHERE. BUT DEMONSTRATE IT. NOT ON A MAKE BELIEVE AUSTERE RUNWAY. ON A REAL ONE. THERE ARE MANY IN INDIA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, EVEN IN THE US.

Well the question is moot now, isn't it? The C-5 and the An-124 are not in production. Now if one were to say that the C-17 cannot land on a 3500ft unpaved runway with a 140,000 pound load while the Il-76 can, it would be a different matter. Given the options available to India, the C-17 appears to be the one that best satisfies the IAF's heavy lift requirement.

[Sanku]

Sanku, may I try to create one straw man for you.

Why do you want to create a straw man? A straw man by definition, is a fake argument created for the sake of demolishing.

I assume you actually meant thought experiment.

If the pressure is from the current PMO or current MOD, would it take too much for a future Government under the current opposition to figure that out? Don't you think its is politically naive from the current Government to ignore the impact of one Bofors and would go ahead to create another one this soon when they are wrestling to be the one party with simple majority.

Firstly, what does Bofors show? The people in question have gotten scot free despite everything. So that is not really a good example of a deterrent.

Anyway, assuming that Bofors is a issue that weighs on the mind of parties in question -- this scenario is not like Bofors at all. In the sense that Bofors was a clearcut kickback case. Here we are not saying anything like that. No charges of kickbacks.

In fact, if the CCS has asked MoD to prepare for a power projection and interoperability etc, what is wrong per se in MoD going by the advice given? I do not say that it is not the prerogative of GoI to make the decision.

All we are saying is that THIS GoI has a penchant for taking decisions which seem to have only one intrest in mind, which is of US of A since none of its decision fits in Indian interest by any logical yardstick (nuclear liability bill yada yada)

Now the question of why does GoI seem to take steps which meet US interests more than Indian ones? There are many theories, for example Shiv seems to suggest we are trying to buy our way into the system. Some are less charitable.

Anyway that is the real issues. Why is GoI taking steps which seem to be designed first for US and then if any crumbs left over maybe help India too as a side effect in some cases.

And unless the DM is unaware of all this, who happens to follow a socialist attitude and have a reputation to have resigned his minister post because someone accused him of a scam, I truly fail to get the meaning of this PMO or MOD pressure.

Well Sir, MoD was making strong noises against EUMA, The EUMA was signed when Antony was not even in Delhi.


That should tell us a few things I think.

Pressure can always happen two way not just one way especially as there may be personal political implications too. It won't take too many men in IAF to blow of the lid. After all what they would do will be protecting the country.

There is no lid to blow, everything is fine. There is no murky deals. It is GoIs prerogative to opt for a role and guide the purchase of a system.

If PMO wants that MoD wont stand up to it unless there is obvious corruption or something. Why should it? That is how the system is supposed to work.

We are questioning the bona fides of the intents, not the methods.

[Sanku]

Well the question is moot now, isn't it? .

Indeed it is moot. The lack of RFI/RFP and multi-vendor route has assured the question is moot.

If a multi-vendor RFI was sent, with the standard method advised for procurement and not the short cut, we would know the real deal.

As of now, the question is indeed moot.

[Viv S]

Well the question is moot now, isn't it? .

Indeed it is moot. The lack of RFI/RFP and multi-vendor route has assured the question is moot.

If a multi-vendor RFI was sent, with the standard method advised for procurement and not the short cut, we would know the real deal.

As of now, the question is indeed moot.

Assuming a rider about the ability to airlift a tank is included, how many vendors do you see queuing up to to hawk their wares?