C-17s for the IAF?

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 27 Apr 2010 12:15

Any deal costing more than 200 million USD per C-17 is a utter Rip off IMO.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2010 12:18

Philip wrote:Hooray! India saves Boeing! The $5 billion buy of C-17s by India,made in indecent hsate, saves Boeing's C-17 production bacon which was on the chopping block after Robert gates vehemently said "no more ever" as to buying more of these JUrassic age veterans for the US.PM Dr. MM Singh should now be given Boeing's Medal of Honour or whatever for extending the life of the C-17 aerosaurus.A noble deed indeed!

Why blame Dr. M. Singh for it? This was an IAF decision. Personally, I can't figure out why they would want to acquire it(or the Airbus refueller for that matter) considering the fact we already operate a fleet of IL-76s and IL-78s and will be operating 6 Phalcons, again on the IL-76 platform. Maybe the C-17's higher payload capacity was the decisive requirement.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Apr 2010 12:24

JUrassic age veterans for the US

Aha the entertainment value of such statements

as opposed to the spanking newly designed IL 76???

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 12:27

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:Hooray! India saves Boeing! The $5 billion buy of C-17s by India,made in indecent hsate, saves Boeing's C-17 production bacon which was on the chopping block after Robert gates vehemently said "no more ever" as to buying more of these JUrassic age veterans for the US.PM Dr. MM Singh should now be given Boeing's Medal of Honour or whatever for extending the life of the C-17 aerosaurus.A noble deed indeed!
Why blame Dr. M. Singh for it? This was an IAF decision.

Look, like I kept saying in the other threads, in India, Forces DO NOT make such large ticket based out of their own thinking.

Their doctrine is in response to what GoI wants it to do. They are first given a task and then they look for alternatives.

Many examples exist, including MRCA, T 72 and T 90.

C 17 type of Aircraft was NEVER on IAF radar of 60 years. Yet suddenly it not only became a requirement but such a critical requirement that we are going for the same superseding tons of long standing CRITICAL demands.

Really?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 27 Apr 2010 12:54

Gilles wrote:He also left out this part of the article:

With a 75-tonne payload, the C-17 can take off from a 7,000-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles in one go, and land even on a small, austere airfield at 3,000 feet or less.

Mate I don't think it would have been appropriate to paste the entire articlce in the post. The link to the original article (or the source for the news) was for one and all to see. I can assure you that the omission in the post wasn't an intentional attempt to bias views. I have no favourite. Apologies if you felt misled..

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2010 12:56

Sanku wrote:Look, like I kept saying in the other threads, in India, Forces DO NOT make such large ticket based out of their own thinking.

Their doctrine is in response to what GoI wants it to do. They are first given a task and then they look for alternatives.

The forces' mandate isn't a secret. They're to defend India's territorial integrity and to create a small scale expeditionary capability. Any shortfall in equipment, replacement, modernization requirements etc. is identified by the concerned service and forwarded to the MoD. If the IAF did indeed require more IL-76s, it would have got them.

C 17 type of Aircraft was NEVER on IAF radar of 60 years.

What's a C-17 type aircraft? And for that matter fifth generation aircraft or AWACS were never on the IAF's radar either in last 60 years. Yet they are available today and the funds are available too and therefore they're to be acquired.

Yet suddenly it not only became a requirement but such a critical requirement that we are going for the same superseding tons of long standing CRITICAL demands.

Every year the MoD has underspent its allocated budget. So, this purchase isn't coming at the cost of other 'long standing critical demands'. The time taken was relatively less simply because it followed the FMS route.

But, I guess its simpler to assume the DM or PM have been bought over by the American arms lobby.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 27 Apr 2010 12:56

rohitvats wrote:Unless we know what those extraaaaaaa (and obsencenly extra) $$$ are getting us, let us not use the word "extra" in a light manner.

Point taken mate... We'll just have to wait and see what 'extras' our babus are able to negotiate and at what price?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 27 Apr 2010 13:09

pure wasteage of money ....

5.8 billion $

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 27 Apr 2010 13:30

Is it fair to speculate that along with the Russians (MiG 35), The French (Rafale), the Americans are also being appeased for the eventual non-selection in MMRCA?

For the Russians, we ordered 40 more Su 30MKI, more MiG 29K and Finally agreed to the 'reasonable' cost of the Vikramaditya

For the French, the exorbitant upgrade package for our Mirage 2K

For the Americans, this latest disaster....

Will it be a choice between Eurofighter and Gripen now?

Nothing else makes sense, to me anyway.....

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 27 Apr 2010 13:32

5.8 is more then half the price proposed for MMRCA. They could have spent this money on LCA/MMRCA to strengthen air wing or buy AWACs or god knows what. Should have bought more IL 76.

Pure wastage. biggest scandal after bofors.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 14:22

Viv S wrote:
Sanku wrote:Look, like I kept saying in the other threads, in India, Forces DO NOT make such large ticket based out of their own thinking.

Their doctrine is in response to what GoI wants it to do. They are first given a task and then they look for alternatives.
The forces' mandate isn't a secret. They're to defend India's territorial integrity and to create a small scale expeditionary capability.

Wow I am impressed. Along with the war fighting doctrine, this is usually the most secret part of MoD. What does GoI want Indian forces to do?

1 front war? 2 Front? 2 1/2? 2 1/2 with expeditionary forces?

When where how.

Care to tell us how you found what the forces mandate was?

What's a C-17 type aircraft? And for that matter fifth generation aircraft or AWACS were never on the IAF's radar either in last 60 years. Yet they are available today and the funds are available too and therefore they're to be acquired.

AWACS was not on IAF radar for 60 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_S ... e_Platform

Yes with a knowledge base like that I can see why you would not think C 17 is not a big deal.

Every year the MoD has underspent its allocated budget. So, this purchase isn't coming at the cost of other 'long standing critical demands'. The time taken was relatively less simply because it followed the FMS route.

Hmm I wonder why that magical FMS route does not work for other cases.

And when was IAF first interested in C 17?

But, I guess its simpler to assume the DM or PM have been bought over by the American arms lobby.

Actually GoTUS is nothing but a giant arms lobby, but I didnt say what the above, you did.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Apr 2010 14:27

Indeed this deal seems to be a GOI decision ( like all deals are ) , the IAF certainly wont mind operating C-17. At ~ $5.8 billion its mind boggling , Perhaps 2nd biggest one shot deal after MMRCA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Apr 2010 14:33

Sanku wrote:What a bloody waste of money, US is milking us by feeding Pakistan on one hand and taking toll taxes from India on the other.

I guess we still need to wait and watch, we are not strong enough not to be suckered yet.

Well no one in the circles that matters is unknown to this fact , it is a Strategic Decision of GOI to go for such a big deal , what kind of quid pro quo arrangement GOI made would be interesting to know.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Apr 2010 14:35

I have it! I have it! Perhaps the reason for this unseemly race to acquire C-17s has another twist to the tale.Can any of you remember the front page story,that was buried with extreme haste never to reappear at all in the media many moons ago about two IL-76s on their delivery run into India? Well,let me refresh you with details.

It happened if memory serves me right during the '80s.Two brand new IL-76s on their delivery run from Russia,via a stop-over in the Gulf,Kuwait it was I think,landed at Madras airport.Local Customs made a sensational discovery.The two aircraft were abslutely full of contraband,filled to the last sq. inch with expensive electronics,etc.,etc.The value of the loot was in those days a staggering figure in several crores.That was the first and only news item of the seizure.Nothing was ever heard about it afterwards.Sources at that time alleged that the "airlift" of contraband was done on orders from the highest level and that the local Customs were pissed off with the service for reasons best known to them.There were similar allegations when the IPKF was in Lanka,about gold jewellery and other items being flown into Indian airports in IAF transports and helos.With these large-bellied C-17s,larger even than the IL-76s, going to fly into India in the future,one can expect from past track records that they will not fly in empty!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2010 15:36

Sanku wrote:
Wow I am impressed. Along with the war fighting doctrine, this is usually the most secret part of MoD. What does GoI want Indian forces to do?

1 front war? 2 Front? 2 1/2? 2 1/2 with expeditionary forces?

When where how.

The threat perception and war fighting doctrine is formulated by the armed forces. They make the recommendations that the MoD either sanctions and forwards to the MoF or rejects. The ministry can't unilaterally buy C-17s as a new year's gift for the IAF.

AWACS was not on IAF radar for 60 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_S ... e_Platform

Yes with a knowledge base like that I can see why you would not think C 17 is not a big deal.

If the IAF felt an AWACS was essential, the Beriev A-50 Mainstay would have been purchased from the USSR.

Seeing as you've again lost track of the argument - point wasn't whether the C-17 was a big deal or not. It was whether the MoD was responsible for the order cutting the IAF out of the loop. Also, what are the C-17 type aircraft that have never been on the IAF's radar?

Hmm I wonder why that magical FMS route does not work for other cases.

Its pretty obvious. Its a govt. to govt. sale, no competitive bidding involved.

And when was IAF first interested in C 17?

Shortlisted for the IAF's VHTAC requirement last year.

Actually GoTUS is nothing but a giant arms lobby, but I didnt say what the above, you did.

Russians and Europeans on the other hand, lobby for their products only because they deeply care about India's security and sovereignty.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 27 Apr 2010 15:49

Sid wrote:5.8 is more then half the price proposed for MMRCA. They could have spent this money on LCA/MMRCA to strengthen air wing or buy AWACs or god knows what. Should have bought more IL 76.

Pure wastage. biggest scandal after bofors.

Couldn't have put in better words........

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 15:59

Viv S wrote: The threat perception and war fighting doctrine is formulated by the armed forces. They make the recommendations that the MoD either sanctions and forwards to the MoF or rejects. The ministry can't unilaterally buy C-17s as a new year's gift for the IAF.

Viv S. Threat perception is determined AFTER the geo-political brief to forces by MoD (who are our friends and enemies etc) and who also decides what their role should be.

Defensive offensive etc etc.

For example Cold Start was in response to GoIs leadership task to the Armed forces to have a quicker response than in Parakaram.

Who is saying that GoI does it without involving the forces?

We are saying that GoI makes the policy decision and implements it through forces?

Can you PLEASE get that? Choice of weaponry size of army etc all follow from there.

If the IAF felt an AWACS was essential, the Beriev A-50 Mainstay would have been purchased from the USSR.

Hello? Hello? Hello?

Did you even READ the info thats being spoon fed to you?

IAF was interested, very!! And working to get it.

And that is hardly a statement same as "AWACS was not on Indian radars"

Ignorance is not a pov. Since you dont know IAF was interested it was not?

Seeing as you've again lost track of the argument - point wasn't whether the C-17 was a big deal or not. It was whether the MoD was responsible for the order cutting the IAF out of the loop. Also, what are the C-17 type aircraft that have never been on the IAF's radar?

Who ever said IAF was out of the loop?

The point was "The fact that GoI has asked IAF to acquire the capablity provided by C 17s can clearly be seen by the fact that it was never interested in that till date and suddenly that hyper expensive and secondary requirement is pushed through superseding all other older and more important requirements (such as depleting fighter fleet strength)"

GOT THAT?

Or should I repeat that in different words for like 400th time?

Hmm I wonder why that magical FMS route does not work for other cases.
Its pretty obvious. Its a govt. to govt. sale, no competitive bidding involved.

Wow that was obvious.

No dear, it is not the definition of FMS that I am asking?

Why is FMS not tried for many more serious requirements more often is the question.

And when was IAF first interested in C 17?
Shortlisted for the IAF's VHTAC requirement last year.

And when does MRCA first come in the picture? Hawk? LCA engine? (and these are IAF only)

Actually GoTUS is nothing but a giant arms lobby, but I didnt say what the above, you did.
Russians and Europeans on the other hand, lobby for their products only because they deeply care about India's security and sovereignty.

Hello ji, spare us this "open shirt torn fly" type of tactics!!

YOU brought up the lobby, I just said that you are right GotUS is a arms lobby, and bringing up other lobbies is not germane. But since you must, let me point you to the obvious strength of US lobby compared to say french lobby?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 27 Apr 2010 16:28

Viv S wrote:The time taken was relatively less simply because it followed the FMS route.

How about taking the same route for French Refuellers which IAF prefers........... and how about the same route for LCA engine. Such bean counting happens when taking help french for Kaveri core. Why not apply it there too ?
I guess its a mere convinient coincident that this FMS route is taken only for khan deals

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2010 16:50

Sanku wrote:
Viv S. Threat perception is determined AFTER the geo-political brief to forces by MoD (who are our friends and enemies etc) and who also decides what their role should be.

Sanku. Shooting in the dark here, but I'm inclined to think threat comes from Pakistan and China. The requirement for specific systems is in relation to the balance of forces in the region, not general trends in geopolitics.

Who is saying that GoI does it without involving the forces?

We are saying that GoI makes the policy decision and implements it through forces?

Can you PLEASE get that? Choice of weaponry size of army etc all follow from there.

I've been stressing on something different. The requirement for a particular system is spelled out by the concerned service NOT the MoD.

Hello? Hello? Hello?

IAF was interested, very!! And working to get it.

And that is hardly a statement same as "AWACS was not on Indian radars"

Ignorance is not a pov. Since you dont know IAF was interested it was not?

We can continue to debate the semantics of 'on the radar' till kingdom come.

Who ever said IAF was out of the loop? The point was "The fact that GoI has asked IAF to acquire the capablity provided by C 17s can clearly be seen by the fact that it was never interested in that till date and suddenly that hyper expensive and secondary requirement is pushed through superseding all other older and more important requirements (such as depleting fighter fleet strength)"

When its claimed that this was a sell-out by Dr. M Singh, then implication obviously is that the IAF was out of the decision making chain (unless the IAF sold out in bargain too). And there is nothing to suggest that placing this order is to the detriment of the IAF's replacement/modernization plans.

Why is FMS not tried for many more serious requirements more often is the question.

Don't beat around the bush, make your point. To answer your question its a cheaper process. And direct acquisitions have been made before; most Russian purchases including the T-90.

And when does MRCA first come in the picture? Hawk? LCA engine? (and these are IAF only)

Why should the MRCA come in the picture? Or Hawk? Or LCA engine?

YOU brought up the lobby, I just said that you are right GotUS is a arms lobby, and bringing up other lobbies is not germane. But since you must, let me point you to the obvious strength of US lobby compared to say french lobby?

I see the context of that reference evaded you. Its was the implication of PMO, MoD being sellouts that was being referenced, not an invitation to discuss the lobbies themselves.

And yes the obvious strength of the US lobby is noted. But, given their massive domestic sales, Indian orders aren't as important to US defence companies as they are to Russian or French companies.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2010 16:53

Manish_Sharma wrote: How about taking the same route for French Refuellers which IAF prefers........... and how about the same route for LCA engine. Such bean counting happens when taking help french for Kaveri core. Why not apply it there too ?
I guess its a mere convinient coincident that this FMS route is taken only for khan deals

Do deals with Russia typically go through a competitive bidding process? As a matter of fact, take a look at the IAF's entire fleet and tell me how many types of aircraft were acquired after a competitive tender.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 Apr 2010 17:05

NRao wrote:I recall watching a video (from Shiv? or Shiv posted the URL?) at AI2009 where it did land and stop, then reverse, in an extremely short distance. Googling indicates that the distance for stopping fully loaded is 2,700 feet.

That video, for all I know, is in one of the earlier pages of this very thread.

The video is real. What was not real was the "fully loaded" part. When they do these demos:

1) The aircraft carries nothing.
2) The aircraft barely has any fuel
3) The runway is always dry.
4) The runway is always hard surfaced
5) Its flown by a gentlemen who spent hours and hours practising these landings at great cost

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 17:08

Viv S wrote: Sanku. Shooting in the dark here, but I'm inclined to think threat comes from Pakistan and China. The requirement for specific systems is in relation to the balance of forces in the region, not general trends in geopolitics.

Well you have to be more precise. Just how and why will we use C 17 strategic airlifter which are designed to lift huge quantities over large distances.

No one has been able to make a case that C 17s are better than Il 76s cost wise and pretty much in every way if you want to stay within Indian land mass.

No ROI justification. Unless you are going to Afg or something.

I've been stressing on something different. The requirement for a particular system is spelled out by the concerned service NOT the MoD.

You MISS the point. WHY the requirement -- suddenly.

Given that C 17 is pretty much the only system that fits a requirement, when the requirement itself is not clear.

We can continue to debate the semantics of 'on the radar' till kingdom come.

Surrender accepted on AWACS issue.

With good grace.

When its claimed that this was a sell-out by Dr. M Singh, then implication obviously is that the IAF was out of the decision making chain (unless the IAF sold out in bargain too). And there is nothing to suggest that placing this order is to the detriment of the IAF's replacement/modernization plans.

I didnt use the Sell out word, no one did. All they are saying is that MM Singh has called the shots at the highest level by telling IAF that they should develop the capacity for strageic airlift (a requirement not seen so far)

Don't beat around the bush, make your point. To answer your question its a cheaper process. And direct acquisitions have been made before; most Russian purchases including the T-90.

Why should the MRCA come in the picture? Or Hawk? Or LCA engine?

The point is simple. There are many other dire needs being ignored. How come this gets special treatment?

And yes the obvious strength of the US lobby is noted. But, given their massive domestic sales, Indian orders aren't as important to US defence companies as they are to Russian or French companies.

Irrelevant. This decisions seems to be dictated by a policy choice (and not a long standing IAF requirement) and pushed through very very quickly by Indian standards -- there is a PMO hand. The question is just whats happening.

With T 90 it was pretty similar, but the justification was provided. Clearly there is a full thread discussing it

What is the justification? No one knows -- and in the absence of a justification -- it appears to be a waste of money.

Any other interpretations are not mine.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 Apr 2010 17:14

shukla wrote: Mate I don't think it would have been appropriate to paste the entire articlce in the post. The link to the original article (or the source for the news) was for one and all to see. I can assure you that the omission in the post wasn't an intentional attempt to bias views. I have no favourite. Apologies if you felt misled..

Not at all, I just used your post to make my point. These people never fail to mention the 3000 feet or 3500 feet landing capacity with a full payload in EVERY ONE OF THEIR PRESS RELEASES, yet you never see it done in real life. And no one questions it.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 27 Apr 2010 17:28

Viv S wrote: Sanku. Shooting in the dark here, but I'm inclined to think threat comes from Pakistan and China. The requirement for specific systems is in relation to the balance of forces in the region, not general trends in geopolitics.

Viv I truly believe that there are at least some good enough people to analyze the threat perception that India have. It may not be just a war with China or Pakistan as we are inclined to think.

1. A war in the gulf, skirmish between Japan and China or China and any of the South east Asian nation etc can have its impact, both economic and military. There can be scenarios where India may have to get in. Do any of us know if there may be an agreement with Vietnam/Singapore offering our support in case of a bloody war. I won't dismiss it as an impossibility

2. A war situation where Indian citizens in another country may need to be evacuated due to any war/calamity.

3. A choice to get into the Afghan cauldron.

There can be a number of scenarios that we can come up with than the usual war with China and Pakistan which any countries armed force will look at. And there may be scenarios where a larger payload delivery capacity may be useful. What if the IAF has some view like that. If we focused our attention to such possible scenarios we probably could have come up with IAF view of the security scenarios. May be the kind of 'out of the box' than the typical South Asia.

And yes the obvious strength of the US lobby is noted. But, given their massive domestic sales, Indian orders aren't as important to US defence companies as they are to Russian or French companies.

As it has been stated in this forum, the C-17 lines were about to close and could probably involve job cuts in US at a very wrong time of the economy, so it may be important to some senators.

I am not sure whether to say the C-17 purchase would be good for us, anything other than Researched, Developed and Made In India would never be good for us in the long term. But if we do not view the world objectively we would miss out a lot and probably end up with the wrong stuff in hand.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 Apr 2010 17:34

$220 million per aircraft, if thats what India pays, will just be for the aircraft. Then there will be a 20 year in service contract with Boeing, which every C-17 buyer so far was forced to sign. India will be no exception. Then there will be spare parts, spare engines, training costs, software costs, licence costs, simulator costs, hangar and infrastructure costs.......

The final tab will be several times greater than the 2.2 Billion dollars that the 10 aircraft alone will cost. Five to 6 billion US dollars is realistic, can even be more.

This is just as certain as the fact that Boeing C-17s cannot land on a routine basis on unsurfaced runways of 3500 feet in length with a full payload.

Saddam, Iraq, 9/11, Weapons of Mass destruction, Terrorism........
Saddam, Iraq, 9/11, Weapons of Mass destruction, Terrorism........

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2010 17:48

Sanku wrote: Well you have to be more precise. Just how and why will we use C 17 strategic airlifter which are designed to lift huge quantities over large distances.

No one has been able to make a case that C 17s are better than Il 76s cost wise and pretty much in every way if you want to stay within Indian land mass.

No ROI justification. Unless you are going to Afg or something.

I can't say. Airlifting a tank to Leh or AP perhaps.

You MISS the point. WHY the requirement -- suddenly.

Given that C 17 is pretty much the only system that fits a requirement, when the requirement itself is not clear.

Point is, that question is one that ought to be posed to the IAF.

Surrender accepted on AWACS issue. With good grace.

Fine. We'll debate semantics, since you obviously want to. First off, yes I did know about DRDO's Airawat project(everyone does). And yes, the IAF was 'very interested'. Point still stands, if the IAF felt an AWACS was a necessary, it would have inducted the Mainstay earlier, like it did the Phalcon recently.

I didnt use the Sell out word, no one did. All they are saying is that MM Singh has called the shots at the highest level by telling IAF that they should develop the capacity for strageic airlift (a requirement not seen so far)

The IAF has had strategic airlift capability for a long time. That comes from operating two dozen IL-76s and a hundred AN-32s. There wasn't any policy decision made by MMS that prompted the purchase of C-17s in particular.

The point is simple. There are many other dire needs being ignored. How come this gets special treatment?

Well I can't think of any other system that could be fielded in comparative trials with the C-17. Also the same question could be asked of a lot of acquisitions, from the Tavor to the T-90.

Irrelevant. This decisions seems to be dictated by a policy choice (and not a long standing IAF requirement) and pushed through very very quickly by Indian standards -- there is a PMO hand. The question is just whats happening.

Well the IAF's acquisitions of additional Su-30MKIs were pretty fast. With regard to this sale, the FMS route has always been a quick option even in the case of C-130J.

With T 90 it was pretty similar, but the justification was provided. Clearly there is a full thread discussing it

What is the justification? No one knows -- and in the absence of a justification -- it appears to be a waste of money.

Why was the justification for buying T-90s instead of say...the Leopard 2?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Apr 2010 18:18

Gilles wrote:
NRao wrote:I recall watching a video (from Shiv? or Shiv posted the URL?) at AI2009 where it did land and stop, then reverse, in an extremely short distance. Googling indicates that the distance for stopping fully loaded is 2,700 feet.

That video, for all I know, is in one of the earlier pages of this very thread.
The video is real. What was not real was the "fully loaded" part. When they do these demos:

1) The aircraft carries nothing.
2) The aircraft barely has any fuel
3) The runway is always dry.
4) The runway is always hard surfaced
5) Its flown by a gentlemen who spent hours and hours practising these landings at great cost

A loaded C-17 is supposed to take 3000 feet, perhaps in those circumstances.

An "aircraft carries nothing" will do it in much less. With a less trained pilot it may not. So, I am not sure what your point is, I for one know the IAF will train pilots to do the best that there is.

The C-17 is supposed to be about 175 feet long. So, take a look at youtube landings and tell me how much distance does it take for an empty plane to come to an halt in terms of its length. (BTW, i took a look at a landing at an airfield I am somewhat familiar with - Oshkosh.) As a thumb rule: 5 lengths :: 875 feet, etc.

It is impressive. (I am not saying that it is a good buy for the IAF, but that feature is impressive.)

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 Apr 2010 18:18

Viv S wrote:Why was the justification for buying T-90s instead of say...the Leopard 2?

Maybe the price? I googled 2.2 million USD per tank versus of 3.5 million

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 27 Apr 2010 18:31

It is useless discussion .... going in circles ....

C-17 direct sale is justified because we bought T-90 and Su-30 MKI.... etc.

The big question is do we really need to invest 5.8 billion $ for C-17 (Do not forget adding another type of plane in the inventory and making IAF run a circus). When il-76/78 and An's can do the same job. For me it make sense to buy more of these planes then a totally new type. Some will argue that we should get the better systems then buy in large quantity and discard old systems so IAF is not running a show but a professional service. Decide what GoI want to do, pls do not make our servcies j****r

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 27 Apr 2010 18:48

If IAF exercises the option for 10 more airframes that would imply the C-17's are going to replace the Il-76. Excepting the refuellers and Phalcons other Il-76 doing transport duties will be decommissioned. Come to think of it - there are a mere 17 or so Il-76 in transport duties - the C-17 can easily replace them.

As to who 'chose' to buy these plans it appears it was the IAF that made the choice.

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik is quoted by the India Strategic defence magazine as saying that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study because of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, long range, and ease of operation.

IAF chooses Boeing’s latest C-17 for heavy-lift transport aircraft

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 27 Apr 2010 18:57

In the Latest Step towards the Final Sale of 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster-III Heavy Transports to the Indian Air Force, the Pentagon has Notified US Congress of the Prospective Sale.

According to the Notification, "The Government of India (GOI) requests a Possible Sale of 10 Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III Aircraft,

• 45 F117-PW-100 Engines (40 Installed and 5 Spare Engines),
• 10 AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems,
• 10 AN/AAR-47Missile Warning Systems,
• Spare and Repairs Parts,
• Repair and Return,
• Warranty,
• Pyrotechnics,
• Flares,
• Other Explosives,
• Aircraft Ferry and Refueling Support,
• Crew Armor,
• Mission Planning System Software,
• Communication Equipment and Support,
• Personnel Training
• Training Equipment,
• Publications and Technical Data,
• U.S. Government and Contractor Technical, Engineering, & Logistics Support Services,
• & Other Related Elements of Logistics Support.

The estimated cost is $5.8 Billion."

Source : $5.8-Billion C-17s For India Deal Progresses

Does the above List of Additional Stuff justify the Cost of Acquisition to jump from 2.2 Billion $, or 2.5 Billion $, or 3 Billion $ to Straight Away God-Damn 5.8 Billion $

If the GOI is Hell Bent Upon Burning $6 Billion on Just 10 C-17s, Then It Might as well Go For The " C-17B Proposed Tactical Airlifter Version "

C-17 Globemaster III - Variants

C-17B : Proposed Tactical Airlifter Version.

• The Design includes Double-Slotted Flaps,
• An Additional Main Landing Gear on Center Fuselage,
• More Powerful Engines
• and Other Systems for Shorter Landing and Take-Off Distances.

Boeing offered the C-17B to the US military in 2007 for carrying the Army's Future Combat System (FCS) vehicles and other equipment.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 Apr 2010 18:58

NRao wrote:

A loaded C-17 is supposed to take 3000 feet, perhaps in those circumstances.

An "aircraft carries nothing" will do it in much less. With a less trained pilot it may not. So, I am not sure what your point is, I for one know the IAF will train pilots to do the best that there is.

Sir, a C-17 at Max take Off Gross Weight needs a 7400 foot runway to take off, as per Boeing figures, at sea level, standard condition, paved, level runway.

They claim they can land a C-17 with a 160,000 pound payload on a 3500 foot unpaved runway but never demonstrated that in public. NEVER. When they demonstrate short landings, its always on long, paved and dry runways, and the aircraft never has any payload in the cabin and the fuel tanks are nearly empty.

They have also had landing gear issues. You'll notice that IL-76 landing gear doors all close when landing gears are extended, preventing rocks and mud from entering the wheel well area. For good reason. On the C-17, they are wide open and many C-17s had problems or were unable to raise their landing gears after landing on muddy runways. And after several incidents, Kevlar pads had to be added inside the wheel wells to protect vulnerable systems in those areas.

See for yourself:

There are other issues too:

https://www.dodmantech.com/successes/Ai ... GDoors.pdf

This was not built as a real all-terrain vehicle but as a Miami Beach SUV, made to cruise up and down I-95.

As far as the pilot: Yes India or any country can train pilots to such proficiency. Like any man can learn to walk a tight rope. But all large aircraft such as the C-17 are limited in the number of cycles (a take off and a landing) they are allowed to make in their lifetime. In order to achieve the proficiency that these pilots need to achieve, they must perform dozens of STOL maximum performance landings on a regular basis. This puts a lot of wear and tear on the aircraft and shortens its service life. Out of the more than 1600 C-17 pilots in the US Air Force, only a about 50 pilots have that proficiency (called SOLL II pilots) . And in order to save the aircraft from destruction, the aircraft they use to achieve landing proficiency are rotated through the 205 units the USAF possess. India will have just 10. If it decides to train its pilots to make such precises landings, one or several of the aircraft will have to be sacrificed in the training process. A hard call, considering there might be no replacements (factory due to close soon).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Apr 2010 19:15

FT :: Apr 27, 2010 :: Boeing in talks over (C-17) Indian deal

Cannot quote. There is quote within the article by C. Uday Bhaskar. And a sentence that the air craft was demoed in India for the IAF, which should mean that the IAF is happy with it (even if they really are not).

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 22:43

Viv S wrote:
Sanku wrote: Well you have to be more precise. Just how and why will we use C 17 strategic airlifter which are designed to lift huge quantities over large distances.

No one has been able to make a case that C 17s are better than Il 76s cost wise and pretty much in every way if you want to stay within Indian land mass.

No ROI justification. Unless you are going to Afg or something.
I can't say. Airlifting a tank to Leh or AP perhaps.

Perhaps? Thats it? Wow I am impressed.

You MISS the point. WHY the requirement -- suddenly.

Given that C 17 is pretty much the only system that fits a requirement, when the requirement itself is not clear.
Point is, that question is one that ought to be posed to the IAF.

Good, so you at least agree that it is not clear to anyone what the requirement is.

Fine. We'll debate semantics, since you obviously want to. First off, yes I did know about DRDO's Airawat project(everyone does). And yes, the IAF was 'very interested'. Point still stands, if the IAF felt an AWACS was a necessary, it would have inducted the Mainstay earlier, like it did the Phalcon recently.

Sir you are a genius. IAF was working with DRDO to make a AWACS but that does not mean they were interested because otherwise they should have bought.

Long live lets import everything yesterday lobby.

The IAF has had strategic airlift capability for a long time. That comes from operating two dozen IL-76s and a hundred AN-32s. There wasn't any policy decision made by MMS that prompted the purchase of C-17s in particular.

Really Il 76 now becomes a strategic airlift, like C 17.

Well I can't think of any other system that could be fielded in comparative trials with the C-17. Also the same question could be asked of a lot of acquisitions, from the Tavor to the T-90.

So ask, and you shall get answers lots of them. In fact already discussed. You are the only one who is touchy about this question for C 17 because there is no answer.

Why was the justification for buying T-90s instead of say...the Leopard 2?

There is a thread for that you know.

Even there no one is saying that it was IAs decision.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 22:44

Anabhaya wrote:If IAF exercises the option for 10 more airframes that would imply the C-17's are going to replace the Il-76.

No its not, you are grossly misinformed. Please spend some time reading up the prior thread.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 27 Apr 2010 22:54

with 5.8 billion I can buy 10 indigenous kick ass warships.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Apr 2010 23:00

D Roy wrote:with 5.8 billion I can buy 10 indigenous kick ass warships.

And, hopefully, alleviate some poverty.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 27 Apr 2010 23:20

well at least spread some more disposable income around through first and second order effects by giving a boost to domestic shipbuilding.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Apr 2010 00:17

Gilles wrote:
Viv S wrote:Why was the justification for buying T-90s instead of say...the Leopard 2?
Maybe the price? I googled 2.2 million USD per tank versus of 3.5 million

Sure and for the latter price you get arguably the best MBT in the world. In any case, point is the T-90 was a direct acquisition from Russia like the C-17 from the US. No competitive bidding involved.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Apr 2010 00:19

RKumar wrote: C-17 direct sale is justified because we bought T-90 and Su-30 MKI.... etc.

No, the speed of its order and lack of competition is justified because the we bought the T-90 and follow-on Su-30MKIs in the same manner.