Viv S wrote:What about the An-12s that the Il-76s replaced?
Huh!! what about them?
And its still an assumption on your part that the IAF would want to go for a life extension program for the Il-76. And no it does not have 10-15 years left in any case.
Hello When will you learn to put something more on the table than "I think so"
1) Gilles has clearly shown an estimate of a 60 year life for Il 76, when means even if we take a conservative figure it has 10-15 years left.
2) Every platform in IAF service has SLP upgrade but you dont think Il 76s will have one?
Why? What have they told you that they didnt tell the others?
Yes, I think the assumption that the Ils will have SLP is valid, as we speak An 32s are undergoing that.
These are not suitable candidates. The An-70 is an expensive turboprop with (AFAIK) confirmed military orders for only five aircraft. The Tu-330 is a step down from the the Il-76. Why would the IAF want to replace the Il-76 with a less capable aircraft?
Hain jee, because you say so? An-70 is a expensive turboprop? Can you put the numbers on how expensive it is compared to what? What does the number of current mil orders have to do with anything.
Tu-300 is a little lighter than Il by 33%, but hey LOOK at the open source literature, they talk about Il-76, An-70 and Tu-330 being in contention of similar roles.
As usual you are opinionated without knowledge.
I reposted my first post, because you're missing the point(again). I already stated in my very first post, I was unsure why the IAF wasn't opting for new Il-76s instead. But, either way the choice of aircraft replacing the Il-76, was an IAF decision.
Hee, hee see the strawman, you want to discuss the Il-76 replacement by sayings it IAFs decision, when there is ZERO evidence on the ground that Il-76s will be replaced.
And its evident from the decision, that the IAF wants something that can airlift a tank comfortably.
Which discussion? Your say so on BRF?
I know that ALL publicly available information is diametrically opposite of what you say.
It says the capability will have to be built from scratch because the current fleet is rapidly approaching the end of its service life.
Tcchh, picking up a statement in isolation of the context always as these problems. Put the statement back in the paragraph where it was taken from and THEN read it.
And if there is a replacement, so let there be RFI and RFP route, whats the problem? If that is indeed the core objective.
And not power projection and interoperability. Words you are constantly sidestepping.
Hey if you tell IAF that it should get big babies to go to Afg efficiently and the cheque book is open, why would they say no? They would say yeah sure and this is the big baby (since its the only one) that you make the cheque for.
The IAF didn't need the C-17, while operating 12000 miles away from home at Red Flag. The Canadian forces in Afghanistan today are primarily supplied through Il-76s. The entire Soviet campaign in Afghanistan was supported by Il-76s. Its a fallacious argument that C-17s are necessary for an Indian deployment to Afghanistan.
Hey even the greatest fans of Il-76 are first to acknowledge that C -17 is a much larger bird, with larger foot prints and much better meshed into US grid.
Whether or not it is fallacious argument or not, it is the IAF which has put on record NEW roles include force projection and interoperability. No amount of looking the other way changes that. Hard luck.
The C-17 is a 'really huge' aircraft? Compared to what?
What do you think we were talking of? Cessana of course.
And after all the references quoted here.
And the recommendation for the C-17 came from the IAF not the MoD. They weren't 'asked to get' it, they asked for it.
Tchh... Of course they went for it. If I ask the IAF today to go for a strategic airlift with large aircraft and at the same time also develop interoperability with friend nations. What aircraft will they pick?
Have you ever heard of requirements being written such that ONLY one product fits the requirement? Happens quite often you know.
They're both strategic airlift aircraft with rough field capabilities. They're both used in the same role. And unless it involves airlifting a tank, there is no place the C-17 can be deployed and the Il-76s can't.
Bunch a claims not backed up by a single open source statement or comparison.Where as I clearly put forth a chart showing how every large nation has a distinct air lifter in various weight bands.
I can repeat whatever I what I posted about the defence acquisition process from the MoD site. Bottom-line: the service identifies and evaluates the defence acquisition, the MoD's job is vetting that request and conducting the purchase.
As usual "Ashwatthama hatho type techniques" take a small part out of the over all context and claim that all there is.
Any way you have regressed
. You CLEARLY agreed when I showed you the overall picture of acquisition with a pointed question.
You just dont want to ACCEPT.
To justify your absolutely untenable claim you have inane logic such as
1) Il 76 is roughly the same as C -17s, yes and roughly the same as HAL MTA and roughly the same as An 120. They are all roughly
2) Il 76s are being replaced. No SLPs will be done so what if IAF has done SLPs for EVERY other platform.
3) GoI has NO role, IAF wants a goody, GoI bends over back wards to hand it to them.
Sure buddy if you are determined to keep your eyes shut and keep repeating completely unsubstantiated statements. Who am I to stop you.
Keep at it. There are many who believe a lie when told a 1000 times becomes a truth. Maybe you can convince them.