C-17s for the IAF?

[Pratyush]

Sanku,

If the IAF decided that they needed the C 17 type aircraft. So why send the RFI faor an aircraft that is not C 17 type. IIRC the USSR at the time of itc collapse was working on C 17 competitor. But that never left the drawing board. I would have replaced teh An 22 in USSR service. They called it the Il106

I would have unnderstood your point wrt the RFI / RFP if this aircraft was flying today. Since it does not, the issue of RFI/ RFP raised by you is meaning less.

JMT

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

You are saying that the Indian Air Force NEVER rents civilian An-124 or IL-76s to augments its capabilities ? The current fleet of 17 IL-76s always meet all their needs? Interesting.

The only time IAF has leased AN-124 is to ferry helicopters for UN Missions....IIRC, we did that fairly recently.

For domestic use - that is trasnportation of men and material with in India or for operational reasons, IAF does not lease foreign aircraft. But it is important to add that it does lease Air India (National Carrier) at times to ferry men from Indian Army - from forward locations like Leh and Srinagar in North and Guwahati in East to main rail heads in mainland.

As for meeting the requirements - you forget that Indian requirement is for movement of men and material within India - and we do have a very dense network of rail and road. Except for certain locations in North-East which are reachable only by air and maintained through Advanced Landing Ground (ALG) - most of the locations can be reached by road.

The main problem is with respect to force projections - we can't carry a brigade worth of Paratroopers into battle at one go.

[Sanku]

Sanku,

If the IAF decided that they needed the C 17 type aircraft. So why send the RFI faor an aircraft that is not C 17 type.

Because IAF CAN NOT decide that they need C 17 type of aircraft you see.

That seems to be the very fundamental point that you are missing.

They need to decide/define the doctrine and product use in a way that multiple products can achieve those goals and then chose the most cost effective (not the cheapest, most cost effective) of those.

Okay Sanku sir.

There is a requirement for very heavy lift. To who all should should IAF send RFI?

1. IAF doesnt seem to like the IL-476s for the future. They have made it amply clear on numerous other occasions (read refueller, AWACS). With only about 20 about of these heavy lifters, high availability is a grave concern.

1 -- Not true -- has been shown many times on this thread, preferring one a/c AFTER due trials FOR THAT CLASS of product is DIFFERENT from AB INITIO discarding of that product because they are not happy. NO NOT HAPPY quotes from IAF are seen till date.

X is not good, Y is not good, etc etc

Not for you or me to decide, or even IAF to decide AB INITIO --

Such statements of how things are good or not good can be made only when ROLES are well DEFINED and PUBLICLY SHARED (with vendors), RFIs sent, RFP responses compared, and products tested.

This is how it is being done for ALL other products anyway so I am not exactly talking new stuff here.

The issue is that this is the only (along with C 130) magical exception to the rule.

The possible implications of that are:-

Quite possibly CAG will find out what was the exact implication -- possibly they may find other pieces of information and hence other alternatives such as

1) IAF did not make all information about political directives public.

2) IAF did indeed carry out more tests and discussions with other vendors than that is currently available publicly.

You see, we can only discuss based on currently available information, there may be more to it, that to get there would be speculation.

[Pratyush]

Sanku,

Now you have completely lost me. How can it be said that the force did not need the C 17 type aircraft. Or it could not have developed the need for the aircraft. The airlift requiremet are always computed and the capabilities evaluated. Only then the aircraft chosen. Also, can you give a list of aircraft with the capability of the C 17. I have given you one that never left the drawing board.

Also, if I was to accept the totality of your logic. Then the IAF should never have selected the IL 76 to replace the An 12 in the 80s. As it could not have defined what it needed. As the doctrine to use then did not exist. Nor was a defined need for them. Prior to the purchase of the type.

Also, in the 80s the Il 76 was the only aircraft available (Politically / commercialy )to the IAF in its catagory. Today if the IAF needed something in this class they will have a choice of A400, AN 70, and the IL 76 it self. So the RFI/ RFP makes sense. But for the C 17 it dosenot.

The C 17 is in the same position today.
Please think about it.

[GeorgeWelch]

They need to decide/define the doctrine and product use in a way that multiple products can achieve those goals

Not to get totally sidetracked, but I very much disagree with your statement.

You formulate your doctrine and use that ALONE to determine your requirements.

If multiple products meet the requirement, fine.

But if only one product meets the requirement, you can't throw out your doctrine and lower your requirements just to allow a product to compete when it doesn't meet your needs.

I'm not talking about any of the other issues with the C-17 and Indian procurement, just the idea that requirements aren't really requirements, merely suggestions.

[amit]

George I suggest you let it be.

The RFI/RFP saga resurfaces every few pages. All the rational explanations are given, things quieten down and then wham its back!

That's what happens when the process becomes more important than the end result that the process is supposed to fulfill. To put it in more colorful English: The means becomes more important than the end result the means is supposed to fulfill.

So just sit back and enjoy!

[Sanku]

Now you have completely lost me. How can it be said that the force did not need the C 17 type aircraft.

C 17 type of aircraft by definition means that you are trying to massage your requirements such that only one product can make the shortlist. This per definition is wrong/unethical/bias.

This as opposed to generically forming requirements where many strategic/tactical air lifters qualify then choosing from one of those.

Also, if I was to accept the totality of your logic. Then the IAF should never have selected the IL 76 to replace the An 12 in the 80s.

No, the issue is not a new doctrine, the issue is how narrow your product selection is.

Yes in 80s it was very narrow, since no one else was about to give us a heavy lifter in exchange for Dabur products. IT WAS NOT because Il 76 was the only operational alternative.

The new system was created in 2000 after the old system ended and we were forced to purchase in open market using hard currency from all vendors and not get the preferred treatment from USSR.

The C 17 is in the same position today.

Now you are joking. The relationship with USSR was fundamentally different (including how we paid for those, ruppe-rouble trade etc) than with any one else.

Today we are buying from open market, and not making various vendors compete with each other is A SHEER WASTE of Indian taxpayer money

[Sanku]

You formulate your doctrine and use that ALONE to determine your requirements.

If multiple products meet the requirement, fine.

Great we agree

But if only one product meets the requirement, you can't throw out your doctrine and lower your requirements just to allow a product to compete when it doesn't meet your needs.

Sorry boss, talk to the Raksha Mantri and MoD, it is their thought, that unless something is so amazingly critical, make broad based operation requriements.

We are all very aware of first choosing a product and then evolving a doctrine around it and claim that only one can fit.

I'm not talking about any of the other issues with the C-17 and Indian procurement, just the idea that requirements aren't really requirements, merely suggestions.

Requirements are requirements, it is a question of whether you are looking at a broad based goal or you are trying to shoe horn your requirements around a particular product after its selection (for non operational reasons)

[Pratyush]

C 17 type of aircraft by definition means that you are trying to massage your requirements such that only one product can make the shortlist. This per definition is wrong/unethical/bias.

This as opposed to generically forming requirements where many strategic/tactical air lifters qualify then choosing from one of those.

Whats wrong with it?? Please tell me. I have asked you repeatedly which is the AC that can compete with the C 17 as is today. Unless you are able to answer this question. The question of issuing RFI / RFP dose not arise.

No, the issue is not a new doctrine, the issue is how narrow your product selection is.

Yes in 80s it was very narrow, since no one else was about to give us a heavy lifter in exchange for Dabur products. IT WAS NOT because Il 76 was the only operational alternative.

edited later; what is the issue with a narrow product selection. Time changes please move on

The new system was created in 2000 after the old system ended and we were forced to purchase in open market using hard currency from all vendors and not get the preferred treatment from USSR.

The results of this system are evident today are they not.

Now you are joking. The relationship with USSR was fundamentally different (including how we paid for those, ruppe-rouble trade etc) than with any one else.

Today we are buying from open market, and not making various vendors compete with each other is A SHEER WASTE of Indian taxpayer money

That relatioship has ended with the sucessor state as well. As for a waste of taxpayers money. I come to the point of the alternatives again. A military lifter exists to do a specific job. If the cheaper alternative (XYZ) cannot do the job as well as the current choice (C 17) in times of need. Then how has the taxpayer been better served and his money saved. Please educate.

I have said before and I repeat, you are more bothered with form of the deal. Rether then the function of the aircraft in the IAF service. That is clouding your views in this matter.

JMT

[amit]

Old wine in an even older bottle.

Let's see now.

1) The ACM should have sent an RFI to HAL for starters. [This has already been suggested ]

2) The ACM should have sent an RFI to Airbus for their 37 ton lift capacity plane which is still in developmental flight. [This has already been suggested].

3) The ACM should have sent an RFI to Iluyshin for a ILXXX which would have YYY ton lift capacity and would be tailormade for India's needs and could even be made in India. All for a grand total of 10, maybe 20 planes. [This has already been suggested]

4) The ACM should have sent an RFI to Antonov for the AN124, the last of which was made many years ago and now there is talk that Boeing may make them with Antonov. [This has already been suggested]

So you see while we shouldn't identify our requirements in such a narrow parameters so that only one plane fits the bill, we should define it in such a way that all aircraft, from a the 37 ton A400 all the way to 150 tons AN124 would fit.

I'm sure that is what the Defence Ministry had in mind when they formulated the guidelines. And Oh yes almost forgot, the non-existent plane from HAL.

By now I'm confused. What was our requirement according to the ACM? Was it for a medium lift transport plane, a heavy lift transport plane or a very heavy transport lift plane? God these things are so complicated.

[Pratyush]

Amit,

Please provide me with the address where I can send the RFI for the Lal chix. Perhaps I will have more luck with them.

[Sanku]

Whats wrong with it?? Please tell me.

I have told you, it appears you are unable to understand.

Currently we can say that C 17 was first chosen and then requirements ARTIFICIALLY framed to acquire it.

If the requirement was made FIRST and send to many and then C 17 shortlisted the above could not be said (even if an inherent bias was there)

Time changes move on.

Funny this coming from you after it was YOU who dragged in something fromm 1970s into a debate in 2010.

I know why you are changing tacks though, because you realized that the example you raked up flew right back in your face.

The results of this system are evident today are they not.

Sorry your opinion is irrelevant, if the forces feel that the system does not work for them, they can work with MoD to change it and then follow the new system.

As it happens, the system exists.

I have said before and I repeat, you are more bothered with form of the deal. Rether then the function of the aircraft in the IAF service. That is clouding your views in this matter.

I do not think that you understand even the very basics, which is "How to chose the most suitable a/c for your purposes in a cost effective manner"

There is no form nor function argument here.

It is how to meet your requirements in a good way vs paying Indian taxpayer money to US under the guise of some Mil Acquisition since MMS promised a quid pro quo for the Nuke deal.

[Sanku]

The whole issue with 2G is also on very similar lines (leaving aside corruption) -- just that the Minister said that he was competent to decide that he will make his own norms and bypass multi-party bid system.

The CAG (very naturally) threw a fit.

Perfect case here too.

[amit]

Amit,

Please provide me with the address where I can send the RFI for the Lal chix. Perhaps I will have more luck with them.

First Pratyush you must identify your requirements. Should it be 36-24-36, or 24-36-24, or 24-24-24, or 36-36-36?

Oh no I forgot, you need to send a RFI for all the above, then you must choose the one that best fits your requirements after a through evaluation and testing. I'm sure you'd support the multi-vendor RFI route on this one.

[amit]

The whole issue with 2G is also on very similar lines (leaving aside corruption) -- just that the Minister said that he was competent to decide that he will make his own norms and bypass multi-party bid system.

The CAG (very naturally) threw a fit.

Perfect case here too.

Sanku,

I would respectfully request you not to bring (yet another) Strawman into the discussion.

In the 2G case the GoI was selling something (spectrum) and the CAG's point was the Ministry sold cheap (for bribes).

In the C17 we are purchasing something off the shelf for a requirement that has been quite specifically pointed out by the Chief of the Air Force.

The CAG can't and won't come into the picture unless there's a clear case of a competitive (and cheaper) product is available and on offer which was not taken. Unless of course you are trying to imply that Boeing gave bribes to get this contract. If you are then you should be upfront with that.

If you take your line of logic then the CAG should also object to the CJ130 Hercules. But surprisingly you support that acquisition.

[Pratyush]

The 2g scam is a diffrent issue all together. Please do not mix the two.

Sanku, I have not seen you give me one example of an aircraft that can match the C 17. When you do we can carry on forward. Untill then this debate regarding the procedure and processs is meaningless.

Another thing. If the rule exists, exceptions are also made. FMS is an exception. If I am to follow you logic. Every FMS deal is liiegal (No multi vendors etc. )and ought to be questioned and scraped and multiple vendors be brought in. Never mind that the alternates dont exist.

[amit]

The 2g scam is a diffrent issue all together. Please do not mix the two.

Sanku, I have not seen you give me one example of an aircraft that can match the C 17. When you do we can carry on forward. Untill then this debate regarding the procedure and processs is meaningless.

Another thing. If the rule exists, exceptions are also made. FMS is an exception. If I am to follow you logic. Every FMS deal is liiegal (No multi vendors etc. )and ought to be questioned and scraped and multiple vendors be brought in. Never mind that the alternates dont exist.

Its quite interesting that Sanku supports the FMS route and single vendor approach with respect to the CJ130 but finds all manner of wrongdoing with respect to the C17.

[Sanku]

2G scam is inherently the same issue Pratyush. Can Indian tax payer get a fair deal without competition amongst vendors/purchasers.

Of course the root of the matter there seem to be linked to simple corruption. What matter is here remains to be seen (I dont expect to see corruption like issues, probably a political directive)

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

FMS deals are allowed "in case of critical national security requirements/rarest of rare cases" -- now if you can tell me what is the critical bit about air-trucks as opposed to Arty guns say I will eat my hat (which is fine since I dont wear one anyway)

[Nihat]

Whats wrong with it?? Please tell me.

I have told you, it appears you are unable to understand.

Currently we can say that C 17 was first chosen and then requirements ARTIFICIALLY framed to acquire it.

If the requirement was made FIRST and send to many and then C 17 shortlisted the above could not be said (even if an inherent bias was there)
.

So you 're saying that when the COAS says that "We have evaluated all available options and selected the C 17 as the best suited" , he is infact parroting the line given by his political masters basically putting into question the integrity of the COAS as well as his ability to hold national intrest and defence preparedness in prime order, subordinating it to pleasing corrupt politicos.

Also, last thing I would want is another MRCA or refueller type "compettition" whereby it'll be ages before we aquire a much needed capability.

[Pratyush]

First Pratyush you must identify your requirements. Should it be 36-24-36, or 24-36-24, or 24-24-24, or 36-36-36?

Oh no I forgot, you need to send a RFI for all the above, then you must choose the one that best fits your requirements after a through evaluation and testing. I'm sure you'd support the multi-vendor RFI route on this one.

Amit,

I want one of each. Now where do I send the RFI. Please tell me of a reputed vendor.

[Pratyush]

Sanku,

There is not == between the 2 g and the C 17. If there is then even the P8 and the C 130 and the proposed javalin and the M 777 have to be questioned.

Dont see you raising the issue on these proposed and completed deals. But it is only the C 17 is the one that is the object of your displeasure.

[abhik]

Old wine in an even older bottle.
Let's see now.
..
3) The ACM should have sent an RFI to Iluyshin for a ILXXX which would have YYY ton lift capacity and would be tailormade for India's needs and could even be made in India. All for a grand total of 10, maybe 20 planes. [This has already been suggested]

4) The ACM should have sent an RFI to Antonov for the AN124, the last of which was made many years ago and now there is talk that Boeing may make them with Antonov. [This has already been suggested]
..

What I find really sad is the propensity of some to believe such BS. For them it is perfectly plausible that Russia will invest billions of dollars on developing new airframes or enhancing old ones and tens of billions of dollars on ordering enough numbers of aircraft to justify starting or restarting an assembly line when its government dint even invest one ruble for the development of the PAK-FA, a marquee project of the Russian defense industry.

[shiv]

C-17s are cheaper than 2G scam

[Pratyush]

Shivji,

I must take an issue with you in this regard. The C 17 is not a scam. The 2g is. So please don't compare the two

Again please

[Lalmohan]

if i had a lalchick for everytime this thread spins around... wooo eee!

[Philip]

Amit ,I have never said that the IL-76 is the "equal"of the C-17.The big Q I've been asking all along is when we do not have a global interventionist role like the US or its NATO allies,why do we need an aicraft that is tailor made for the global super-heavywieght class and as Giles has pointed out,even with C-17s,these nations continue to lease extensively the hated lousy Russian AN-124s and IL-76s! As many have said,the Indian Railways are the best method of transportation of war material in the subcontinent and smaller medium sized aircraft like the AN-32s and heavylift/medium helos are more vital for suppling troops in the high Himalayas than C-17s.If we have NEVER leased a larger aircraft than Il-76s in the last few decades which we operate,then why are we going in for the C-17s? Even if it an absolute neccessity to possess such a capability,why hasn't the lease route been examined?Why is there this veil of secrecy about this acquisition which was never mentioned as critical in any JPC report or whatever! We are taking all the time in the world with artillery,jet trainers,submarines,etc.,but for an oversized transport aircraft for our immediate requirements,we are showing indecent haste.

Nowhere in Indian foreign/defence policy has it also been articulated that India is going to acquire a vast expeditionary force that will intervene anywhere on the gobe.While we have entered in recent times with some IOR island and littoral nations security agreements,these envisage a greater role for the IN rather thsn the IAF.This is why the IN is drawing up an ambitious amphibious warfare capability,with several amphibious ships to protect our 1000+ isalands and IOR interests.All heavy eqpt. will be transported by sea.

The answer as I've given time and time again is simple.This deal is an insidious "backscratch" by MMS for the N-deal,to save Boeing's goose/white elephant that flies.This fact is indisputable and so is the logistic string that comes with it.Will the GOI allow US/NATO C-17s embarked upon waging war in the region for example against Iran-our strategic antidote to Pak ,to obtain refeulling and repair and other support facilties from Indian bases?
Lastly,we are not buying the C-17 "off the shelf".Boeing themselves have stated that it will take 3-4 years to build a C-17.They want India to buy the lot asap,but we want it spread out,therefore we now want "16",a tailor made deal to suit Boeing's interests NOT India's!

PS:And if we don't sign on the dotted line,reg. the servile agreements that the US wants us to do for all def. deals,then the aircraft will come without key eqpt. as well.

[Pratyush]

Philip,

The IAF is not repalcing the IL 76 with the C 17. Is it?

[Philip]

Who knows? One day we read that the Il-76s are being upgraded,then someone says that the C-17s are to "replace" the Il-76s.I wish there was more transparency to justify the acquisition,but there seems to be a "fog of peace" about this one!

[Pratyush]

I think we can be sure that IL 76 will serve for another 10 to 15 years. Before getting the scrap. That in turn will give the IAF prety formidable capabilty in the theater facing the PRC.

[Lalmohan]

the C17 is an interim type till the new Il big bird is ready
now can i have a lalchick please?

[Pratyush]

which big IL bird please educate

[Lalmohan]

which big IL bird please educate

whichever, does it matter?

[Pratyush]

That you mention it. No.

[Singha]

even if we replace the IL76 engines with modern PS90 engine, and upg the cockpit, the rest of the 1000s of parts needed are probably fading away unless the RuAF puts in a big order and funds to ensure these suppliers survive and remain in decent health. If Ilyushin were a formidable commercial player like boeing it would have been easier to fund their military projects and retain the supply chain.

commercial charter operators might live with poorer quality of parts or delays, but IAF cannot.

[Austin]

There is no IL bird that can do a C-17 , much like there is no C-xx that can do a An-124.

The GOI bought the C-17 as thanks giving part of the deal , so lets be happy now

[Philip]

I'm trying to be fair and unbiased here.One unanswered Q of mine remains,that could be the reason for the deal.Do we have or plan to have a much wider sphere of military operations than just the IOR? Are there secret plans for the same which can't be spelt out,either because they involve military operations along with the US or independently by India in cooperation with nations such as Vietnam,Indonesia,etc.?
Upon closer examination,from a US perspective there very well could be as the US wants India and OZ to work together militarily,along with Japan,SoKo and other US allies.However,going by the reluctance shown by the establishment in signing the controversial appurtenent agreements on interoperability/logistics,from our side the need appears to be very minute.

The latest "F" Mag has an article in which it states,quoting from the CoAS' recent statements (about 50% of IAF eqpt. was "obsolete"),that the "most critical area for the IAF at the present moment is Air Defence"! In this case surely,the priority must then be immediate extra numbers of types in service,not by acquiring super-heavyweight transport aircraft in great numbers which will leisurely arrive in the fullness of time,while the "air defence" languishes?

[Austin]

Latest AW&ST says that with no sign of CISMO/LSA the equipment missing is some excellent "communication equipment" that IAF will do well to operate.IAF on its part has been in talks with France/Israel for a year to procure some of these equipment for them but these will be subject to US approval

Quoting some senior US officials it says Washington needs more time in "educating" indian government on the benefit of these two accords

[amit]

I think we've had our say and fun on this thread.

Let's discuss Lal Chixs in between RFIs and RFPs till we hit a 100 here and then the Mods can send the thread to its 72.

Thankfully this hard working thread won't need to do a RFI/RFP dance for its 72 raisins.

[Pratyush]

Amen to that. till the bradmins dont ban us. For derailing the thread

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

The latest "F" Mag has an article in which it states,quoting from the CoAS' recent statements (about 50% of IAF eqpt. was "obsolete"),that the "most critical area for the IAF at the present moment is Air Defence"! In this case surely,the priority must then be immediate extra numbers of types in service,not by acquiring super-heavyweight transport aircraft in great numbers which will leisurely arrive in the fullness of time,while the "air defence" languishes?

Philip, your ad infinitum repetition of assertions contrary to the facts on the ground and proclivity to see conspiracy theories everywhere if US equipment is involved is quite irritating, if not funny. It simply shows that your not willing to see facts and accordingly form opinion - you invent facts to support your opinions.

What has the purchase of AD equipment got to do with purchase of C-17? Is the AD equipment update held up due to funds being diverted for C-17? Last I checked IAF is in process of complete modernization of its radar network with systems being ordered from DPSU and foreign vendors. The SAM network upgradation has been initiated with purchase of Spyder and Akash SAM. Not to forget the LR-SAM. So, why the strawman? What is languishing in IAF requirement because of funds being used for C-17?

As for the AOR of IAF and C-17 - have you bothered to check the airlift capability of IAF vis-a-vis requirements of the Indian Army? Why don't you see the range and payload of C-17 in context of Indian requirement with in Indian borders? And once you manage to do that, please see if we can manage another Sri Lanka or Maldives? Are you aware that IA dropped the idea of airmobile infantry divisions after analyzing the airlift capacity of IAF?

The expeditionary force in IA is expected to consist of the nascent Amphib. Brigade in Trivandrum plus Para Brigade and later, an airmobile brigade - for effective out of area operations. And while IN is well on its way to provide infra for Amphib. Brigade with RFP for four LPDs, how is IAF going to support the Para and Airmobile Brigade?

Please answer the above questions objectively and then we can establish the requirement or otherwise of C-17 for IAF.