C-17s for the IAF?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 10 Mar 2010 22:04

chetak wrote:If you see the kind of US equipment that is on offer, anyone would begin to wonder about what exactly was the underlying motive of the americans.


Money?

chetak wrote:This is true only for US sourced equipment. It's not usually applicable for sourcing from other countries.


Other countries don't want money?

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 10 Mar 2010 22:12

Gilles wrote:1) The Rhino surface CBR was measured at 72 by the Air Force Combat Controllers.
2) The C-17 performance manual indicated that a runway with a CBR of 72 can support hundreds of landings (there was a condition to that: rolling wheels, meaning no heavy braking after touch down. That is probably not what was actually happening in the actual landings)
3) Yet the controller had only "cautious optimism" that this was correct.


You answered your own question.

They knew that this only applied if the runway was long enough to avoid heavy braking.

They knew this runway was short enough that heavy braking would be needed.

What this meant as far as landing distance wasn't covered in the manual so they had to make a worst case assumption (that the runway was made of ice)

They decided they didn't want to have to make that assumption in the future, so they ran a series of tests so the manual could be filled in with realistic values.

Gilles wrote:They also need to know the runway length that is required when these runways are wet because there are just not many 10,000 foot unpaved runways in the world.


1. The landing distance is 5,370' in absolute worst case scenario.

2. Yes, they decided the information in the manual was incomplete so they did some tests to fill it in. Is there something wrong with that?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21460
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 11 Mar 2010 09:33

GeorgeWelch wrote:
chetak wrote:If you see the kind of US equipment that is on offer, anyone would begin to wonder about what exactly was the underlying motive of the americans.


Money?

chetak wrote:This is true only for US sourced equipment. It's not usually applicable for sourcing from other countries.


Other countries don't want money?


GeorgeWelch ji,


Money?

Not really, the US already has plenty of money.

It's their toxic political and cultural agenda that is being questioned. It's their venomous world view and their self appropriated pre eminent status in that view that places all other views as subservient to their own.

It is also the fact that the ( embraced ? ) others are not permitted much say in how their own affairs are to be conducted. It's the uncomfortable fact that the americans are willfully arming both adversaries in this neck of the woods that is also causing national disquiet in India. One is being armed for free and the other at a great cost that also comes with a cancerous and fettered agenda.

In short, this is how we see american policy. It's embrace, enmesh and enslave and Devil take the hindmost!! The tattered paki hindquarters have been on global display for decades.

And yet, here we are, chugging along peacefully, grappling with our "caste problems", the sheer daily grind of making a living and the untrammeled joy of dealing with recalcitrant and covetous neighbors.

Leave us to our fate. If you want to, sell us the weapons BUT let it end there. Would it be a case of Yankee go home and take your pakis with you?

Other countries don't want money?

They certainly do but THAT is all that they really want!!!

As regards military equipment, once such equipment is sold, the others do not interfere with the purchasers lives in any manner. They take their money and GO home. As good merchants should invariably do.
Not move into the customers house, comfortably ensconce themselves and raid the refrigerator.

ankit-s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Nov 2009 16:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby ankit-s » 11 Mar 2010 14:07

Minister Confirms India's Request To Buy U.S. C-17s



NEW DELHI - It is official now that India will buy American-made C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft on a government-to-government basis. The Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony told the Indian parliament on March 10 that a letter of request has been issued to Washington.

"The proposal to procure C-17 Globemaster III aircraft from the U.S. government to meet the strategic airlift requirement of the Indian Air Force was approved by the Defence Acquisition Council on Oct. 19, 2009," he said. "The letter of request was issued to the United States government on Jan. 1."


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=AIR

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21460
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 11 Mar 2010 15:31

ankit-s wrote:Minister Confirms India's Request To Buy U.S. C-17s



NEW DELHI - It is official now that India will buy American-made C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft on a government-to-government basis. The Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony told the Indian parliament on March 10 that a letter of request has been issued to Washington.

"The proposal to procure C-17 Globemaster III aircraft from the U.S. government to meet the strategic airlift requirement of the Indian Air Force was approved by the Defence Acquisition Council on Oct. 19, 2009," he said. "The letter of request was issued to the United States government on Jan. 1."


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=AIR


The government is acting like a deer frozen in the headlights :(

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20437
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 11 Mar 2010 15:50

I was spekaing on he phone not too ong ago with a BR oldtimer,who marvelled at the indecent haste with which the C-17 is being acquired,within months while it took the IAF 18 years to decide upon the Hawk! Secondly,there has been no contest for the C-17,which is astonishing, as there are alternatives in the form of more IL-76s or even AN-124s.This is an insidious deal showing that the GOI under MMS has sold its soul,lock,stock and barrel to Uncle Sam.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 11 Mar 2010 19:45

Philip wrote:I was spekaing on he phone not too ong ago with a BR oldtimer,who marvelled at the indecent haste with which the C-17 is being acquired,within months while it took the IAF 18 years to decide upon the Hawk! Secondly,there has been no contest for the C-17,which is astonishing, as there are alternatives in the form of more IL-76s or even AN-124s.This is an insidious deal showing that the GOI under MMS has sold its soul,lock,stock and barrel to Uncle Sam.


In 2006, it is precisely when Canada announced that it was about to purchase the Boeing C-17 without going through a tendering process, as is required by Canadian law, that I became suspicious and decided to begin my Blog opposing that highly questionable and expensive purchase. Under Canadian law, a purchase of that magnitude can only be made without a tendering process in two major cases: when national security is invoked or when there is only one supplier available in the World.

The Canadian Government invoked the second exception.

They tried to claim that the Il-76 was no longer in production, so in fact did not exist. Yet Ilyushin has since delivered at least 6 brand new IL-76s to customers, including one to India.

In order to try to keep the Ilyushin IL-76 out of the loop, they copied numbers right out of the Boeing C-17's manual and pasted them into their requirements, but they did a real bad and obvious job of it. They even increased the requirements in the very last days before the ACAN was published, on orders from high up. The goal post was being moved. They said it had to be certified by Canada (which the C-17 was not) and even included what kind of paint the aircraft needed to have (which of course happened to be the one the C-17 already had) This would never withstand any real audit, but no one ever audited. The Auditor General of Canada told Parliament in 2007 she would audit our Forces' acquisition process but hasn't so far. There are VERY powerful forces at play in these games. Yet they botched the process and this is why people from Public Works Canada, who know what they did was in violation of Canadian law, read my Blog every single day. I can see it in my Blog statistics.

Here is what I wrote back in 2006. You will see that what is going on in India today is very similar:

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-canadian-law-states-and-where-it.html

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 11 Mar 2010 21:52

chetak wrote:Not really, the US already has plenty of money.


:rotfl:

1. There is no such thing as 'plenty of money'. No matter how much you have, you always want more

2. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the US doesn't have 'plenty of money', we're running record deficits.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 11 Mar 2010 21:57

Gilles wrote:Secondly,there has been no contest for the C-17,which is astonishing, as there are alternatives in the form of more IL-76s or even AN-124s.


Give it up Gilles. The Il-76 was never going to be adequate and the An-124 was only available for 'lease'.

Too much Canadian equipment simply wouldn't fit in the tiny cargo box of the Il-76 whether it is Leopards or Chinooks.

And staking your national sovereignty on 'wet leases' of planes operated by foreign companies that may or may not be willing to go where you need to go was never going to be acceptable.

If Canada wanted to be able to move all of its equipment anywhere in the world, there truly was no alternative.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 11 Mar 2010 22:13

GeorgeWelch wrote:If Canada wanted to be able to move all of its equipment anywhere in the world, there truly was no alternative.


So why do all the the Governments in the world that want to buy the C-17 go even as far as violating their own laws, rules and purchasing practices to avoid having a tender where the C-17 would clearly and openly win against the competition ?

WHY?

Do you see a country such as India decide to execute the Mumbai terrorist without a trial since he is clearly guilty ? No. He is tried because it is the LAW.

Well even when the C-17 is clearly the best, there must be a tender. Sole sourcing leads to high prices, corruption, kickbacks, revolving door, and all the reasons why tenders were invented in the first place.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 11 Mar 2010 22:41

Gilles wrote:So why do all the the Governments in the world that want to buy the C-17 go even as far as violating their own laws, rules and purchasing practices to avoid having a tender where the C-17 would clearly and openly win against the competition ?


What competition?

There was no other plane that could do what was needed.

So let me get this straight, your ONLY problem with the whole Canadian process was that they didn't stage a phony competition just so they could claim they held one?

:roll:

If the requirements are more than the Il-76, there was only one choice, and holding a competition isn't going to change the FACT that only a C-17 would do.

Your incessant whining about the Canadian C-17 purchase never was going to be productive unless you could offer a viable alternative, something you repeatedly fail to do.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7310
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby nachiket » 11 Mar 2010 23:33

Gilles wrote:
In 2006, it is precisely when Canada announced that it was about to purchase the Boeing C-17 without going through a tendering process, as is required by Canadian law, that I became suspicious and decided to begin my Blog opposing that highly questionable and expensive purchase. Under Canadian law, a purchase of that magnitude can only be made without a tendering process in two major cases: when national security is invoked or when there is only one supplier available in the World.

The Canadian Government invoked the second exception.

They tried to claim that the Il-76 was no longer in production, so in fact did not exist. Yet Ilyushin has since delivered at least 6 brand new IL-76s to customers, including one to India.


As far as Canada was concerned there was only one supplier. Can you seriously expect the Canadians to buy a Russian aircraft as their main heavy lifter? That's as ridiculous as expecting the British to buy Russian aircraft. What happens if relations between Russia and NATO go bad in the future. Where will the Canadians get their spares from?

Ofcourse the situation is different as far as the IAF is concerned. The IAF is caught between a rock and a hard place. The fickle Americans might slap sanctions and stop spares delivery any time they want and the Russians on the other hand might simply not have the spares even if they wanted to deliver them.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby RayC » 12 Mar 2010 07:43

I am told had the following requirement:

1. Short take off and landing.
2. Capable of landing on semi paved/ unpaved/ PSP runways.
3. Capable of landing/ air dropping minimum of one company of combat ready troops and equipment.
4. Capable of heavy lift cargo.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21460
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 12 Mar 2010 13:56

GeorgeWelch wrote:
chetak wrote:Not really, the US already has plenty of money.


:rotfl:

1. There is no such thing as 'plenty of money'. No matter how much you have, you always want more

2. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the US doesn't have 'plenty of money', we're running record deficits.


We are all going to hell in a C-17 onlee!!

Wrong aircraft & wrong country. :evil:

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby RayC » 12 Mar 2010 14:01

Wrong aircraft & wrong country.


Why so?

In an emergency, would like a cohesive organisation or a truncated one to regroup and waste time?

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 13 Mar 2010 21:06

nachiket wrote:As far as Canada was concerned there was only one supplier. Can you seriously expect the Canadians to buy a Russian aircraft as their main heavy lifter? That's as ridiculous as expecting the British to buy Russian aircraft. What happens if relations between Russia and NATO go bad in the future. Where will the Canadians get their spares from?

Ofcourse the situation is different as far as the IAF is concerned. The IAF is caught between a rock and a hard place. The fickle Americans might slap sanctions and stop spares delivery any time they want and the Russians on the other hand might simply not have the spares even if they wanted to deliver them.


How about Russia importing a French Assault ship ? Is that ridiculous ?

How about American Atlas Rockets powered by Russian engines ? Is that Ridiculous too ? (The Americans dont brag too much about that)

How about Canada importing more and more liquified gaz from Russia, how dangerous is that?

What do you think is more dangerous for Western Europe? Buying a few military aircraft from Russia or relying on Russia for two thirds of its Natural Gaz as it does now? You have to look at things in perspective.

If Western Europe had agreed to a joint venture with Ukraine's Antonov in 2000, as the Germans wanted, their An-70-based Future Large Airlifter would be operational and inducted by now and there would not be a bunch of C-17s and C-130Js being sold to Europe right now......while waiting for lame-duck A-400M...

How ridiculous is that ?

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Karan Dixit » 14 Mar 2010 11:29

RayC wrote:I am told had the following requirement:
...
3. Capable of landing/ air dropping minimum of one company of combat ready troops and equipment.
...


That is impressive. That is like four platoons ready for action. This kind of capability will be a lifesaver for some north east transit halts. We have discussed a lot about air lifting tanks but it is more important to be able to air lift a company in one go.

Just take a look at the terrain where Thoise is located:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... _Small.jpg

There is a very small flat land surrounded by mountains.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2274
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby VinodTK » 14 Mar 2010 23:59

Russian fighter jets Quality worse than those of USA and Europe?

According to Russian and foreign media sources, India refused to buy Russian Il-78 fuel tanker aircraft. Indian officials motivated this decision with the non-conformity of planes to the customer’s requisitions. The spare parts supply and the after-sales service were also mentioned.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 15 Mar 2010 00:23

SOLE-SOURCE Purchasing

Examples of what can happen with sole source purchases.

"In a controversial move, the Army’s Threat Systems Management Office in Huntsville, Ala., sole-sourced the contract to Arinc, rather than soliciting multiple bids. That raised questions about procurement cost. In 2001, the price of a newly refurbished Mi-17 was between $1.2 and 1.7 million, while a helicopter fresh off the production line went for around $3 million. The cost has since more than doubled, with vendors quoting new Mi-17s at around $7.5 million. But the Mi-17s for Iraq are sold for more than twice that price—between $13 and $16 million per helicopter (cost varies depending on the batch and whether spare parts and other equipment are included)."

Read on.......

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/IRAQ060109.xml

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/emails-reveal-u/

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 15 Mar 2010 00:46

Picture of India's second A-50 AWACS

Image
Last edited by Gilles on 15 Mar 2010 18:45, edited 1 time in total.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby VishalJ » 15 Mar 2010 01:00


The article - dated Today, goes on to say:

Fali Homi Major, the Commander-in-Chief of Indian Air Force told RIA Novosti. Instead of Russian planes India is likely to buy Airbus A330 MRTT manufactured by the European company EADS.

What in the **** :?: :?:

Gilles wrote:Picture of India's second A-50 AWACS

Some more recently shot High-Res Images of the IAF Beriev A-50EI at Tel-Aviv

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 15 Mar 2010 19:57

Because India is buying 10 new Strategic Aircraft, I decided to look at what it was upgrading or replacing. Looking at different sources, I kept finding different numbers when I looked at how many IL-76s the IAF actually operated, how many had been retired, grounded etc. The numbers varied between 17 and 30.

So I went though pictures that are available on the Internet and noted tail numbers.

IL-76
I found a total of 16, although I did not find any recent pictures of K2666 and K3000. They could be the two that were converted to other use that I read about somewhere. I also found documented evidence of a 17th, K3078, but found no picture of it. K3078 would be the youngest of the fleet according to serial numbers.

K2661, built in 1984, which is probably the oldest Il-76 on IAF inventory, is still very much active, I found recent pictures of it in the air. The youngest Il-76 was probably built around 1989 or 1990 (I am not talking here about the IL-78 or the A-50s which are of course younger).

On another subject, this article http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Siachen/1045-Bewoor.html by Gp Capt Anant Bewoor VM (Retd) informs us that IL-76 were used to land at Thoise back in 1988, when the runway length was 6050 feet at this 10,000 foot elevation runway, and they did this with 34 tonnes of cargo on board. The picture that accompanies the article shows an An-32 and an Il-76 parked side-by-side on what seems to be a gravel tarmac. The runway is now a 10,000 foot long paved runway. Does anyone know if in 1988, that runway was paved, or gravel ?

If it was, we have documented proof that the Il-76 can land on a 6000 foot long gravel runway, located at 10,000 MSL with a 34 tonne payload. Not bad at all if one asks me.
Last edited by Gilles on 16 Mar 2010 01:16, edited 6 times in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 15 Mar 2010 20:40

Gilles wrote:Because India is buying 10 new Strategic Aircraft, I decided to look at what it was upgrading or replacing.


AFAIK there is no plan to retire the Il-76

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 15 Mar 2010 21:17

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:Because India is buying 10 new Strategic Aircraft, I decided to look at what it was upgrading or replacing.


AFAIK there is no plan to retire the Il-76


I was thinking more in terms of worn out or damaged airframes.......

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21460
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 20 Mar 2010 09:52

GeorgeWelch wrote:
chetak wrote:If you see the kind of US equipment that is on offer, anyone would begin to wonder about what exactly was the underlying motive of the americans.


Money?

chetak wrote:This is true only for US sourced equipment. It's not usually applicable for sourcing from other countries.


Other countries don't want money?


GeorgeWelch ji,

This is what I was talking about. The US doesn't seem to have given up the quest to drag us into their shenanigans.

http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebat ... recno=1962


When Bush II's America intervened in Iraq, it tried and failed to get the A.B.Vajpayee government to deploy troops there. Vajpayee used the Left to create public and parliamentary opinion opposing Indian military involvement in Iraq. When the first Manmohan Singh government was elected, and the nuclear deal was offered, its signing was preceded by the defence framework agreement. Pranab Mukherjee, the then defence minister, was rushed to the US to sign the framework pact despite his acute discomfiture. The nuclear deal immediately followed the framework agreement. The agreement envisaged Iraq War-like scenarios where India would not hold out. Interoperability was specifically sought to tap on Indian military resources (soldierly and material) in any such future war. It is another thing that because of political opposition and India's commitment to strategic autonomy that prevents joining other countries' wars, the defence framework agreement with the US has not met American expectations. Which is why India's relations with the US are stagnating and going downhill. The compromises that the US seeks to extract from India's independent foreign policy and strategic autonomy cannot be accepted. This is as good as India's relations with the US will ever get without making them adversaries.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Mar 2010 12:13

chetak wrote:This is what I was talking about. The US doesn't seem to have given up the quest to drag us into their shenanigans.


Yes, all the US has to do is sell India 10 planes and suddenly India will become our slave and do everything we command. It's true, I read it on the intertubes. :rotfl:

You need to seriously start giving a little more critical thought to the paranoid BS rantings out there.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 20 Mar 2010 16:59

GeorgeWelch wrote:You need to seriously start giving a little more critical thought to the paranoid BS rantings out there.


Paranoia?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21460
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 20 Mar 2010 18:27

GeorgeWelch wrote:
chetak wrote:This is what I was talking about. The US doesn't seem to have given up the quest to drag us into their shenanigans.


Yes, all the US has to do is sell India 10 planes and suddenly India will become our slave and do everything we command. It's true, I read it on the intertubes. :rotfl:

You need to seriously start giving a little more critical thought to the paranoid BS rantings out there.


Yes sir.

We are paranoid.

Our deserving neighbor is being raped.

We would rather be paranoid than raped.

Ask the iraqis. They know a little more about such stuff. :)

If only some one in the US had given serious thought and perhaps a little more critical thought to the paranoid BS rantings out there.

Paranoid BS rantings about weapons of mass destruction, was it not?

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Mar 2010 21:15

Gilles wrote:Paranoia?:


What about it?

Germany has had bases in the US.

Singapore stations a squadron in the US.

There have been lots of foreign troops based in the US at one time or another.

Those bases can only be maintained with the cooperation and support of the local government. If they didn't want the troops there, they could kick them out. (yes, Iraq/Afghanistan are special situations)
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 20 Mar 2010 21:25, edited 1 time in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Mar 2010 21:22

chetak wrote:Our deserving neighbor is being raped.


Pakistan willingly cooperates because they want our weapons and our help against the 'bad' taliban

They are hardly being 'raped'

If Pakistan wanted us out, they could kick us out anytime they wanted

chetak wrote:Ask the iraqis. They know a little more about such stuff. :)


What about Iraq?

chetak wrote:Paranoid BS rantings about weapons of mass destruction, was it not?


When India is controlled by a dictator who oppresses 80% of the population and has invaded sovereign neighboring states (who happen to have oil) for no provocation, then you can be concerned.

Until then . . .

Are you seriously suggesting the US is going to invade India? :rotfl:

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby putnanja » 20 Mar 2010 21:30

GeorgeWelch wrote:Those bases can only be maintained with the cooperation and support of the local government. If they didn't want the troops there, they could kick them out. (yes, Iraq/Afghanistan are special situations)


Well, Okinawa residents don't agree with you :wink:

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Mar 2010 21:47

putnanja wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:Those bases can only be maintained with the cooperation and support of the local government. If they didn't want the troops there, they could kick them out. (yes, Iraq/Afghanistan are special situations)


Well, Okinawa residents don't agree with you :wink:


yes, such national issues are decided at a national level . . .

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby putnanja » 20 Mar 2010 22:27

GeorgeWelch wrote:
putnanja wrote:Well, Okinawa residents don't agree with you :wink:


yes, such national issues are decided at a national level . . .


Yup, whether the people want it or not, or even when people have elected a government which explicitly said during campaign that they will move the troops out. US can always arm-twist it. And the more leverage the US has, the better it is. And having large defence equipment which depends on keeping US in good mood is a big leverage.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Mar 2010 22:41

putnanja wrote:Yup, whether the people want it or not, or even when people have elected a government which explicitly said during campaign that they will move the troops out. US can always arm-twist it. And the more leverage the US has, the better it is. And having large defence equipment which depends on keeping US in good mood is a big leverage.


Nice theory, except the US has never done that

In fact, Venezuela proves how dead wrong you are.

more often, the arm-twisting works the other way

Kyrgyzstan is very happy with the US base there after all the concessions they were able to wring out of the US

Devesh Rao
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 12 Jan 2008 14:28
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Devesh Rao » 20 Mar 2010 22:48

GeorgeWelch wrote:
putnanja wrote:.............

there after all the concessions they were able to wring out of the US


Why do you folks think US of A is gods gift to mother earth, look at the other way without the Americans mother earth was blissfully tugging along for millions of years.

So whats the point? Stick to the place which you call home, visit other places sometimes (they are called tourists by the way), and leave when the money is spent.

Is that so hard to understand.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Mar 2010 23:01

Devesh Rao wrote:Why do you folks think US of A is gods gift to mother earth


I never said anything of the sort.

Try to keep the discussion half way on topic

Which was supposedly that by selling 10 planes, the US would be given full control over India's military

Devesh Rao
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 12 Jan 2008 14:28
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Devesh Rao » 20 Mar 2010 23:15

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Devesh Rao wrote:Why do you folks think US of A is gods gift to mother earth


.........



I never said anything of the sort. - You did not, the general attitude of USA does

Try to keep the discussion half way on topic - Apologies for the OT post but i was rebutting the concession part

Which was supposedly that by selling 10 planes, the US would be given full control over India's military - It is not what was meant, i do not think politics is as simple as buying 10 planes equates to full control. But we all know that currently with the state of Indian defense industry in a flux moving towards self reliance neither here, nor there state it can't afford to pick a side which is unreliable politically. It would be wise to rather prefer technologically unreliability over the strategic unreliability.

Technology can be fixed, it takes time. Strategy is a killer.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 21 Mar 2010 01:59

GeorgeWelch wrote:Those bases can only be maintained with the cooperation and support of the local government. If they didn't want the troops there, they could kick them out. (yes, Iraq/Afghanistan are special situations)


Really ?

Look what made World headlines this month:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jkjdJGvLQgaSDu-4EgiAlJ1I03rg

A senior US envoy has warned that ties with Japan could be "affected in many fields" if Tokyo missed a May deadline for solving a dispute over an American military base, Japanese lawmakers said Saturday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F2AT20100316

The Japanese want the US out of Okinawa. The Americans wont leave.....

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 21 Mar 2010 02:07

putnanja wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:Those bases can only be maintained with the cooperation and support of the local government. If they didn't want the troops there, they could kick them out. (yes, Iraq/Afghanistan are special situations)


Well, Okinawa residents don't agree with you :wink:


Nor do these people :

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/12158-us-forcibly-deported-islanders-and-gassed-their-dogs-to-make-way-for-diego-garcia-military-base-.html

Or these:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/22/MNGSLPAVUL1.DTL&type=politics

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gaur » 21 Mar 2010 03:51


From above post:
In order to convert the sleepy, Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia into a dominating military base, the U.S. forcibly transported its 2,000 Chagossian inhabitants into exile and gassed their dogs.
........
“The Chagossians were put on a boat and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,200 miles away, where they were left on the docks, with no money and no housing, to fend for themselves,” Vine said on the interview show “Books Of Our Time,” sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
.........
Their pet dogs were rounded up and gassed, and their bodies burned, before the very eyes of their traumatized owners, Vine said.

:shock:
I did not know of this. I have some doubt regarding the credibility of the source, but if true, this news is really shocking to me.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 28 guests