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.
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.
have been? Perhaps
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.