Transport Aircraft for IAF

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 06 Jan 2014 00:09

Philip wrote:I fail to understand NR's logic.His deep suspicion about Russia is his opinion,others like the Indian armed forces in general have theirs,a positive attitude which is why we have bought MKIs,BMos,etc. and are planning more in the future.There is no need to flog the long list!.No relationship however is perfect,even "old friends" like Russia have disappointed us in the recent past with shoddy delivery as contracted.These issues are being resolved and as I posted earlier,mil ties are being given a boost,with long term support agreements planned as of the Nov. jt. meeting between the def. mins of both nations.

However,the AN-124 and IL-476 issue is straightforward.During Soviet days the IL-76 was assembled in Uzbekistan.Its successor,the heavily upgraded IL-476 is now under series production totally in Russia which requires between 80-100 for both mil and civil use.AN-124s far more capable than the C-17s,are also to be produced in a JV with Ukraine.A production fig. of 80 is mentioned.Its cost,even when it was in earlier production is less than half of that of a C-17.This is no secret.These aircraft ar being built because they are needed by the RuAF.

The Ukranian eco situ has forced it to abandon joining the EU.According to economists,it would've resulted in a debt trap ,bankrupting the country.It is too closely tied to Russia for its energy supplies,etc. to reverse course and head for the EU. The two countries have recently agreed upon cheaper energy,etc.,plus a $15B aid package to help Ukraine.AN-124 production restarting is one aspect.Russia is not reviving aircraft production just for kicks! It is steadily modernising its entire armed forces under Putin.AWST not too long ago had a report on the healthy future of its transport aircraft development and production .

The IAF has bought 10 C-17s,making it the largest operator of the type after the US.We also have our whole fleet of Il-76s which have served us very well,supported the IAF in all its trans-continent exercises in the US,UK,etc.These are being upgraded as much as poss. to last another decade each.Once these aircraft start retiring,there will be only the IL-476 and AN-124 as replacements,as C-17 production is ending.

Do you think the US is getting out of the cargo airlift capacity business? Do you think maybe the US might have future developmet plans? Do you think we're going to sit still on developing lighter more powerful airlift planes? Do you think Russia is going to innovate or will they always be answering to US development?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 06 Jan 2014 00:13

TSJones wrote: Do you think the US is getting out of the cargo airlift capacity business? Do you think maybe the US might have future developmet plans? Do you think we're going to sit still on developing lighter more powerful airlift planes? Do you think Russia is going to innovate or will they always be answering to US development?

Who cares if the US is going to jump or die?

All we care is whether its interactions with Indian military industry and whether it will give tots and such kind of stuff. All I know right now, whatever comes C-17, US is not currently sharing its tech with India. So yes, C-99 it doesnt exist and since we are not MuNNA (like Pakistan), it is explicitly prohibited to share its latest tech with India.

member_28041 · Post by **member_28041** » 06 Jan 2014 00:22

Philip wrote: The IAF has bought 10 C-17s,making it the largest operator of the type after the US.We also have our whole fleet of Il-76s which have served us very well,supported the IAF in all its trans-continent exercises in the US,UK,etc.These are being upgraded as much as poss. to last another decade each.Once these aircraft start retiring,there will be only the IL-476 and AN-124 as replacements,as C-17 production is ending.

Why wait for the exact date of retirement of IL-76 to order its replacements? A total of around 13 C17 are being produced as the last lot.We should order an additional 6 at least to increase the fleet size to around 16. Thus we will be able to replace all our existing IL-76 with C17 gradually.
This will also help in standardizing the Heavy Lift transports with C17 and not spread it across two types with its associated maintenance headaches.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jan 2014 00:27

Phillip,

As I have said umpteen times, I read the tea leaves. I could be wrong, but the question is how many times have I been wrong? But, more than anything else, please feel free to disagree - I welcome it because that adds to my "data points" (tea leaves) - that is when one makes valid points.

Eric Leiderman wrote:Well the russians are getting repaid in the green stuff now , As they say bananas are for chimps but they are champs. they got their foot in the door and secured the market. They are being paid for their long range foresight.

Well............. There is really more to do all this. I do not post everything I see out there, but, there is some thing brewing. I do not know what exactly is happening, but somesup:

Sept, 2013 :: Russia dismayed over India's US tilt

Both Russian Ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin and Rosoboronexport chief Viktor Komardin have lashed out at the Indian political leadership and have called the Indian move to source arms from other countries “unfair” to the “only true strategic friend.”

Data point.

When was the last time *anyone* has seen that kind of a comment? That is one the Russian angle.

From an Indian PoV, the strategic landscape is changing - it is reflected here. Russia is having a very difficult time accepting it - as some here are having too.

My feel is that Russia has got to accept it - India cannot be expected to give up on her strategic goals at the cost of keeping Russia happy. Simple as that.

And, finally, strategy has no emotions. What Russia did - she did, BUT, did it yesterday. Strategy is about tomorrow. More l8r. If need be.

________________

There is a lot more out there.

BUT, that is not the complete story. IF you recall, in the Kaplan vid, he mentions *in 2010* that the USN and IN have a very, very close *working relation* (he calls it something else - "advanced ...."). The IN is very close, the IAF is getting closer and the IA will follow.

Let us see.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2014 00:31

From an Indian PoV, the strategic landscape is changing - it is reflected here. Russia is having a very difficult time accepting it - as some here are having too.

Fair enough, but with INS Chakra & other programs like the FGFA, Russia remains our numero uno strategic partner. Also, a new regime in Delhi means the huge pro US tilt of the past 8 years may also be reduced. (One hopes its replaced by a pro India tilt, not a Pro-other country).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jan 2014 00:37

Karan M wrote:
From an Indian PoV, the strategic landscape is changing - it is reflected here. Russia is having a very difficult time accepting it - as some here are having too.
Fair enough, but with INS Chakra & other programs like the FGFA, Russia remains our numero uno strategic partner. Also, a new regime in Delhi means the huge pro US tilt of the past 8 years may also be reduced. (One hopes its replaced by a pro India tilt, not a Pro-other country).

I *totally* disagree with this post.

Chakra or a FGFA assist India in HER strategic goals. India WILL find an alternative IF Russia were to deny her these technologies. India is NOT dependent on Russia or *any other* nation on any thing for her strategic positioning. India may struggle IF Russia were to decline, but God forbid if India is dependent on Russia.

Let me say this. It is great that the Soviets helped and so has Russia. BUT, in the strategic game Russia (as others) are nothing. They cannot be.

Also, right now, Russia does NOT appear in the strategic game India is in. Russia at best is a supplier - of whole or sub technologies. That is all.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 06 Jan 2014 02:17

It is the Russians who changed a strategic relationship into a commercial relationship. They are willing to sell anything. The strategic elements we need are sold at top-dollar. But with many of these projects suffering from 11th hour arm-twisting, it serves them right that India is not keen on buying the non-strategic stuff from them. If a restaurant cannot serve it's specials properly then it is unlikely à la carte choices would be any better.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 06 Jan 2014 09:02

Folks going on about INS Arihant, Chakra etc should consider that France had promised Brazil help with their nuclear sub programme (for buying the Rafale). In fact they are "helping" us too with the Arihant. Baap bada na Bhaia, sabse bada ....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jan 2014 09:22

OT for this thread, but, China is helping Brazil with her sub program (do not know if that means a nuclear sub) and Brazil in return is helping China with Carrier ops.

My understanding that the rafale died when the previous government left office and the F-18 died with the NSA scam. The only one left standing was what they seemed to have opted for.

koti · Post by **koti** » 06 Jan 2014 09:58

vivek_ahuja wrote:So what? We should keep giving them blank checks for it?

No.
And going by the same logic, India should not cry foul when they completely ignore India's concerns and start selling to Pak and China. Including the cruise missiles, N Subs and Cheap frigates.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 06 Jan 2014 10:08

OT

Since we are talking abt strategy : when US was the biggest bully in the neighbourhood, we aligned with the second biggest ie Soviet Union. Now China has become the biggest bully and we are aligning with the second biggest - ie US.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2014 10:44

NRao wrote: I *totally* disagree with this post.

Chakra or a FGFA assist India in HER strategic goals. India WILL find an alternative IF Russia were to deny her these technologies. India is NOT dependent on Russia or *any other* nation on any thing for her strategic positioning. India may struggle IF Russia were to decline, but God forbid if India is dependent on Russia.

Thats just not practical I am afraid. India is dependent on Russia as almost 50% of her equipment is sourced from Russia.
And dependence on imported arms means impact on strategic positioning. We have to move away from this, but we are not there yet.

Let me say this. It is great that the Soviets helped and so has Russia. BUT, in the strategic game Russia (as others) are nothing. They cannot be.

In an ideal world, perhaps. In the real world, they have a veto on the UN, have access to huge energy suppliers, are a supplier of military hardware which is not sanctioned, and last but not the least, are not at loggerheads with us over Pak.

Also, right now, Russia does NOT appear in the strategic game India is in. Russia at best is a supplier - of whole or sub technologies. That is all.

The same applies for the Khan then. You can't say whats sauce for the gander is not the same for the goose.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2014 10:47

abhik wrote:Folks going on about INS Arihant, Chakra etc should consider that France had promised Brazil help with their nuclear sub programme (for buying the Rafale). In fact they are "helping" us too with the Arihant. Baap bada na Bhaia, sabse bada ....

Where is that help and what is the quantum of that help? Like it or not, the Russians are already helping with Indian programs. As regards certain Euro nations, do remember during the Kandhamal episode the same set of countries were attacking India over minority issues etc and directly interfering in its internal policies. With such issues coming to the fore from time to time, expecting the relationship to be solid, perforce, is folly.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 06 Jan 2014 10:52

The AN transport aircraft is priced lower and has more capacity is a fact going by numbers in official deals.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jan 2014 13:55

For transport aircraft aficionados,there is a great story on how the Bofors guns were taken to Thoise airfield by IL-76s in '88,landing on an unpaved runway where even AN-12s hadn't.The guns were "driven" into the aircraft by an IA major,barrel elevated to 70 deg. so that other eqpt. could be loaded beneath ,tried out umpteen times at the Chandigarh base and then later on in the air at Agra,simulating the v. difficult landing approaches to the Shyok Vlley at Thoise.To be able to escape and overfly the runway,simulating a one-engine overpass,it reqd. that the cut off pt. was 6km from the runway,otherwise the aircraft would crash into the mountains,which narrowed to just 2km laterally. The IAF pulled it off in style and deposited the Bofors guns where they still fire away today.Though the runway has been lengthened and concreted,the same payload,etc. remains as the pioneering pilot who first landed there said,"the mountains haven't moved"!

AN-124 stats and price compare most favourably against the C-17 which can carry half its payload and costs almost 3 times as much! The huge hold of the AN-124 can also carry even locos and extra large machinery,mobile missiles on their launchers,etc. Evaluating them for the IAF would be worthwhile in the future once production restarts.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 06 Jan 2014 15:32

The AN-124 will never be able to match the C-17's ruggedness, hell the landings C-17s makes on a daily basis is hard to match. Makes no sense to acquire a bigger AN-124, already the C-17 is a big target when it flies and more so in combat. Best to acquire more C-17s and use them effectively, I would say an eventual fleet of 30-40 C-17s and more C-130Js will more than meet the IAF's heavy lift requirement.

By the way, the C-17 deal has well over 20 contracts. The contract for planes itself was 1.78 Billion i.e 178 million per aircraft and add a total of 380 million under another contract for 40 engines, the 4.1 Billion figure includes cost of offsets & maintenance through out a lifetime of service.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 7s-367749/

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 06 Jan 2014 15:56

Virupaksha wrote:Show me a country which will sell(ya I know lease) us a nuclear submarine and also give technical support for us to build one?

Oh by the way, which was the country which blocked India from getting cyrogenic tech?

if the difference in tech and cost is marginal, I believe we should go with Russians. In the next 10 years, when our spares run low during a war, guess which country will have sanctions and which country will be running planes to get us spares.

After all without spares during war, all the world "famous" heavy lifts are just garbage on ground and shooting practice.

1. U.S. financial aid to porkistan since the September 11, 2001 attacks:

Between 2002-2010, US Congress approved $18 billion in military and economic aid from the United States. However the Pakistan Treasury only received $8.647 billion in direct financial payments.

Western officials have claimed nearly 70% (roughly $3.4 billion) of Military aid given to the military has been misspent in 2002-2007 and used to cover civilian deficit.

2. Thanks to US that now porkis have 1000s of AMRAAMs to answer our Archer 12s in BVR capability. While denying THEC-800 engine for Dhruv and LCH.

3. The US looked otherside when porkis were rigging their Harpoon missiles against Bharat. WHILE FOR BHARAT ALL KINDS OF EULAs AND EUMAs

4. Upto now US has looked otherside while cheenis have been transferring nuke tech to porkis. WHILE EVEN IF TODAY OR 5 YEARS LATER WE CONDUCT NUCLEAR TESTS THERE WOULD BE HEAVY SANCTIONS.

God forbid but now sanctions are going to hit much harder before it was LCA program + Sea King Helicopters.

Today LM 2500 engines, C-130 parts and maintenance, C-17 parts and maintenance, P-8, LCA Mk-I (GE 404), LCA Mk-2 (GE 414), NLCA (GE 404 - 414) + in case these materialise : Apache, Chinook, M-777, MH-60 navy helicopters.

5. This $&*%*$ US wants to limit the number of Javelin missiles launchers for IA. The Reason? They think it'll turn the balance in IAs favour too much

6. Biggest snakeoil being sold by some on the forum is that US and Bharat are joined at hip till 2035-40. The flaky nature of amrikans has shown their mood swings too fast. Once this amrikan animal gets entrenched in our system completely, they'll kill all the indiginous programs with such great skill that we'll even know what hit us. Anyway C-17 are probably supposed to last even after 2040, what then? When US and Bharat get dis-joined from the hip?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jan 2014 17:00

20 x IL-76 (Plus 5 for AWACS)

75 x Su-27

100 x Su-30MKK (Plus 200 Su-30 derivatives)

12 x Kilo Class

4 x Sovremenny Class

30 x Ka-28/31

?? x S-300 (Negotiating for S-400)

All operated by the PLA. And those are just direct imports. The transfers in terms of engines, missiles, sensors and technology are far more substantial.

Where would the Chinese J-10, J-11, J-20, J-31 fighter programs be without Russian AL-31s and RD-33s to power them? Where would the JF-17 be without the RD-93?

Lets retain some perspective before we indulge in a 'higher than mountains, deeper than ocean, sweeter than honey' glorification of our strategic relationship.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jan 2014 17:06

Philip wrote:AN-124 stats and price compare most favourably against the C-17 which can carry half its payload and costs almost 3 times as much! The huge hold of the AN-124 can also carry even locos and extra large machinery,mobile missiles on their launchers,etc. Evaluating them for the IAF would be worthwhile in the future once production restarts.

The An-124's operating costs are massive. And unless they can be employed at near full capacity over long routes, its a completely uneconomical option. Unlike the former Soviet Union, we don't need to shuttle heavy equipment from the Ukraine to Siberia.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 06 Jan 2014 18:02

IMHO it is high time we extricate ourself out of the MTA mess. Explore if the C-27J design, production tools and technology can be acquired lock, stock and barrel. Given that Spartan has a bleak future, this might be possible. Engage a conglomerate like Tata/ Reliance to partner with HAL to manufacture and build. Over time entire assembly can be shifted to the private entity. Mean time, contract to manufacture C-130J vanilla by HAL.
Acquire 200 - C-27J class, 100 C-130J class over a 15-20 year period. Along with the C-17s we should aim to deploy and sustain a combined arms Para brigade, support a division size of special forces (West, East and out of area like in Far East) and help move 2 divisions from West to East or vice versa as situation demands.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 06 Jan 2014 19:18

how do we compare things churning out of an assembly line which is kept open just to keep jobs intact or those who are operational for several years producing standard product to a non standard customized product?
Dont thinks delivery or service issues in case of MI 17 helicopters or latest orders of Flankers?

I hope the timely delivery schedule is maintained during the war time. I remember a dialogue from border ' the more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war'

strategic relations dont happen because things converge naturally in which case it is business. They happen when the parties agree to make things converge. Khan track record is pathetic when it comes to operational freedom we wants with the big ticket purchases. It has no track of standing by us in adversity, rather it has excellent track of standing against us. only time will tell those globe masters are actually flying with loads when faced a war or are hanger queens waiting for spares that are meticulously delivered on schedule after the war is over. We have just entered few contract with US and none of tthem have completed their lifecycle nor even have seen a war. So lifetime support from Khan is not tested compared to Su/Ru where multiple products have completed life cycles, retired and even used in war slaying the Khanwares. A known devil is better than unknown. Atleast deficiencies can be planned and mitigated.

With multiple sanctions, some of which continue even today, sending nuke powered fleet againt us, confiscating indian developed codes of FBW after buddha smiling, lot of short to large accroynms that are asked for with each purchase, not to mention lot of technolgy being too sensitive to be shared, anfd that a simple bread butter Atgm might tilt balance in IA's favour attitude, things are converging naturally and not intentionally. It is just that we have increased our purchasing power and that they have product to sale - some which are in last legs and planned for retirals. where do we see intension of convergence?

Forget everything, just let the Buddha smile again with powerful megaton burst or test Agni 10 with range of 12000kms covering US mainlands and we will see how is our stratrgic partner in clear terms and consensus.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jan 2014 22:10

Thats just not practical I am afraid. India is dependent on Russia as almost 50% of her equipment is sourced from Russia.
And dependence on imported arms means impact on strategic positioning. We have to move away from this, but we are not there yet.

It is not the dependence that matters, it is the lack of a strategic convergence that then creates the dependency. Check out the US-Egypt drama., or the US-Irsael on that flares up now and then. The problem with Russia (from an Indian PoV) is that, with one exception, there is no strategic value (and that one - Indian base in some *stan was squashed by Russia).

In an ideal world, perhaps. In the real world, they have a veto on the UN, have access to huge energy suppliers, are a supplier of military hardware which is not sanctioned, and last but not the least, are not at loggerheads with us over Pak.

Does not matter. China too has a veto, does that bother India with her strategic leanings?

Push comes to shove, India (or any nation worth their salt) will move on with their strategic interests. Else ever so small portion of that nation will be lost.

The same applies for the Khan then. You can't say whats sauce for the gander is not the same for the goose.

Today, Indo-US strategic convergence is far more than Soviet/Russian-Indo strategic convergence at any time.

Russia is in a very unfamiliar position. She has no strategic topics with India to talk about, yet is the largest supplier of her arms. In addition India is not even close to the India of 2000-2005, forget 1970-80-90. On the strategic front India has a FAR more greater say today than ever before - for those that complain about this-that about the US check out the pressure-drag_feet with the US on the Iran issue, while the DK arrest was happening a Sujata Singh form MEA was reading the miranda rights in DC, followed by Indian FM stating in no uncertain terms that BD is well known to India and in Indian backyard (obviously somesup with the US not liking what India was doing with BD. DO not know what). YET, with a veto and all, it will not matter - because of strategic convergence.

Check out the very latest with Japan - one party wants to "accelerate" Indo_Japanese ties in nuclear fields!!!!! Why? Because of convergence on strategic matters. Neither the plane they want to sell nor the nuclear stuff is a threat to anyone on this earth, yet it is a big topic - since both would like to contain China.

Coming back to Russia: She is a provider of some strategic assets (to India) and a boat load of arms. At some cost all these can be very easily replaced and India would not miss a beat on the strategic front.

____________

On AN-124: Would suggest to compute the strategic lift requirements of the IAF and then fill in the air craft/s. May be I am totally wrong, but I just do not see a need for a AN-124. And, yes, the USAF does use the AN-124 whenever required - but that has no bearing on the IAF needs.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 06 Jan 2014 22:19

An-124 is very costly to operate. I was watching a documentary on the An-124 and on a flight from Russia to South America to carry some heavy machinery, it needed 5 refueling stops! Yes 5 refueling stops. It is not a numerical error. Based on this, I would rather that if India needs to use An-124, it just charter an An-124 flight and pay for that cost of the trip. It is far more cheaper and economical than buying An-124 outright. If India really does need An-124s, the best option is to form a private company and have it fly An-124s on a contract charter for IAF/IA when they need them and charter it for other flights when IAF does not need them.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jan 2014 22:41

We should not base our presumptions of the new AN-124 based on the old ones. Let's watch the space on price and performance, once the new planes roll out. Same goes for the IL-476.

Having said that, I don't see any requirement for carrying that kind of tonnage on a regular basis.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jan 2014 23:31

nrshah wrote:strategic relations dont happen because things converge naturally in which case it is business. They happen when the parties agree to make things converge.

The scale and nature of the relations between two countries are determined by their strategic interests.

Until 1991, most US foreign policy was formulated through the prism of the Cold War. If it meant arming the Contras against the Sandinistas, they went ahead and did it. If it required bolstering the Pakistanis against the Soviets, it was done. They went ahead and embraced a communist state (PRC under Mao) to put one over on the USSR.

In the 90s, an element of hubristic idealism set in (not unlike India's Nehruvian foreign policy), but circumstances have brought it back down to earth since then and now its mostly business as usual.

Coming to today's US and India, fact is both countries have the same mutual concern, namely the rise of China. The US wants to prevent being eclipsed, India wants prevented being overshadowed. Its that simple.

For the foreseeable future its in both countries' interest to prioritize strategic relations (which is also why ties with Japan and Vietnam are being vigorously strengthened). Everything else, be it history, sanctions, democracy or diplomatic issues, is secondary.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 07 Jan 2014 00:50

Virupaksha wrote:Oh come on, Vivek, take a balanced approach. Our whole IAF is right now around 80% of russian origin. The migs, MKIs. Exc

Russia if pressured will help us develop our own military equipment. I havent seen US doing that for a single equipment. Today we will buy c-17s and 30 years later we will buy c-38s, with no technical development. I havent seen a single large deal with US which has half decent tot. They are mostly winning deals through govt to govt deals, which skip the 30% offset clause. Where was it for F-414 engine which we had to buy for LCA.

I agree with the statement that most of our stuff is Russian in origin.

I also agree with the statement that the Russians have been helpful in areas where others have not.

No arguments there.

That said, I maintain the argument that Russia should not be awarded deals based on promises and imaginary price-tags. If they have a product available today (which in case of their Antonovs etc is not true, unlike the American products) then by all means I say we should consider their product. Many a times their product has indeed been considered and found less satisfactory than the western competition. So is the argument made then we should still award them these contracts?

Fact is that the argument is convenient that the Americans can apply sanctions etc to disable any equipment brought from them, and hence we are risking Indian lives. The reason its convenient is because I could very well say the same to those who argue to provide Russians with contracts for products that are less than satisfactory on their own merit.

A lot of this is based on pure economic argument from Indian standpoint and also from the actions of the Russians themselves. The latter have started seeing the improvement in the Indian economy as a sign to change the nature of the relationship from Cold-war era friendship to that of a fiscal one.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 07 Jan 2014 00:53

koti wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:So what? We should keep giving them blank checks for it?
No.
And going by the same logic, India should not cry foul when they completely ignore India's concerns and start selling to Pak and China. Including the cruise missiles, N Subs and Cheap frigates.

Aren't the Russians already been doing that with the Chinese on every major product? The S-300s, J-15s, SU-27s, Subs and Sovremenney Class Destroyers? And the nasty pipeline that provides Mi-17s to Pakistan via China without checks and balances? They have been doing this for decades.

So now its our fault for not paying them blackmail money to play nice?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 07 Jan 2014 01:08

So basically you agree that USA is a unreliable in crisis, money sucking pit without any chance of helping us to develop. (That damn second hand USS trenton of 1970 was 50million$ while a single C-17 was half a billion or around 450m$)

where as the russians are a money sucking pit with delays with whom we may have a chance of reliability in crisis and also help to develop. (total cost of Vikramaditya was around 2.3Billion $)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Jan 2014 01:29

Virupaksha wrote:So basically you agree that USA is a unreliable in crisis, money sucking pit without any chance of helping us to develop. (That damn second hand USS trenton of 1970 was 50million$ while a single C-17 was half a billion or around 450m$)

where as the russians are a money sucking pit with delays with whom we may have a chance of reliability in crisis and also help to develop. (total cost of Vikramaditya was around 2.3Billion $)

You've missed the point altogether. A country's 'reliability' will depend on what its interests are. The US will not place India under sanctions again in the foreseeable future, for the same reasons that it wouldn't sanction Japan, if Japan conducted nuclear tests tomorrow. It has larger interests that will be damaged by a confrontation with either country.

Strategic ties between India and US will endure if not flourish for the next two decades because they have common interest in checking China (also shared by Japan, Vietnam, South Korea and so on).

As for the cost effectiveness of the C-17, suffice to say it wasn't the only time the IAF has junked the IL-76 (with its hazy production status) in favor of a western platform (A-330MRTT). And for the record, it wasn't India's industry that developed when we forked over $2.3 billion to a Russian submarine builder to refurbish a heavy cruiser into a carrier.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Jan 2014 18:03

C-17 costs USD 450 Million while IL-76/Il-476 around 100million. The issue whether the benefits of C-17 worth four Il-76s or whether the spare part requirement of Il-76 is more than USD 300 million?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jan 2014 18:44

we do not know the cost of IL-476 when ordered in the small nos we need because none have come off the line yet. IL-476 will also come with its own support pkg incl engines. dont just look at flyway cost. the $4 billion contract for 39 IL-476 for the Rus AF may be just the flyaway cost not the support pkg as they are the home user.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jan 2014 18:57

NRao wrote:It is not the dependence that matters, it is the lack of a strategic convergence that then creates the dependency. Check out the US-Egypt drama., or the US-Irsael on that flares up now and then. The problem with Russia (from an Indian PoV) is that, with one exception, there is no strategic value (and that one - Indian base in some *stan was squashed by Russia).

So is India to be the next Israel or Egypt? Is that strategic convergence?
IMHO, better to have a relationship where one does not expect the other nation to comply with its whims every now and then.

Does not matter. China too has a veto, does that bother India with her strategic leanings?

Push comes to shove, India (or any nation worth their salt) will move on with their strategic interests. Else ever so small portion of that nation will be lost.

But what kind of strategy discounts the fact that other nations have a seat on the UNSC and we dont? Russia does and it helps us out. That matters.

Today, Indo-US strategic convergence is far more than Soviet/Russian-Indo strategic convergence at any time.

So when has the US sent military forces to support India. When has the US provided huge amounts of gear at friendship prices?

Russia is in a very unfamiliar position. She has no strategic topics with India to talk about, yet is the largest supplier of her arms. In addition India is not even close to the India of 2000-2005, forget 1970-80-90. On the strategic front India has a FAR more greater say today than ever before - for those that complain about this-that about the US check out the pressure-drag_feet with the US on the Iran issue, while the DK arrest was happening a Sujata Singh form MEA was reading the miranda rights in DC, followed by Indian FM stating in no uncertain terms that BD is well known to India and in Indian backyard (obviously somesup with the US not liking what India was doing with BD. DO not know what). YET, with a veto and all, it will not matter - because of strategic convergence.

Yet, the DK issue happened. Why is it that the US feels free to hold hearings on Indian issues (Russia doesnt), engage in controversies with Indian diplomats (Russia doesnt), or try to push India on topics in its immediate neighbourhood (didnt hear of Russia twisting us on BD).

Check out the very latest with Japan - one party wants to "accelerate" Indo_Japanese ties in nuclear fields!!!!! Why? Because of convergence on strategic matters. Neither the plane they want to sell nor the nuclear stuff is a threat to anyone on this earth, yet it is a big topic - since both would like to contain China.

That convergence (IMHO) is also driven by perception of India as a useful market.

Coming back to Russia: She is a provider of some strategic assets (to India) and a boat load of arms. At some cost all these can be very easily replaced and India would not miss a beat on the strategic front.

Disagree. No INS Chakra equivalent for example.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jan 2014 20:04

Massive OT. Propose this to be my last post on the topic in this thread. *Done*

So is India to be the next Israel or Egypt? Is that strategic convergence?
IMHO, better to have a relationship where one does not expect the other nation to comply with its whims every now and then.

The commonality with Egypt/Israel is that in spite of being a supplier (in their case actually they rely even more than India) AND a US having a veto in the UN, they BOTH act independently. If you keep your emotions aside you will see that both those nations do have very independent streaks.

So does India (Iran, and more recently BD - I do not know if you have been following, if the Devayani case was not there in the papers the BD issue should have been. The BD issue, that was a true "spat").

Strategic convergence does NOT mean friendship and buddy-buddy relations. It *also* does not mean that the two partners agree on everything. And, nor does it mean that a threat from one will make the other change his mind.

But what kind of strategy discounts the fact that other nations have a seat on the UNSC and we dont? Russia does and it helps us out. That matters.

Russia "helped" ONLY because it suited her TOO. There are plenty of time when it did not and she backed out - cryo engines? There are plenty of others.

Again, the problem is that (especially Indians) are too emotional. Russia (as the US or India or Pakistan) will ALWAYS do what is in their interest FIRST. *Nations* have no friends - they only have interests. Now, if people read emotions into a relationship and make a big deal out of it, so be it, it being a human reaction. But Russia will never support India (or anyone else) if by supporting it hurts Russia.

France supporting India for her nuclear tests - yes, BUT, only because it was to benefit France some time down the pike. France has *no* "love" for India. France has certain "interests" in India that she hoped to or hopes will fructify at some point in time and France will always work towards that.

But, when there is no threat to Russia and helps India then yes, as you say, it certainly matters. But Russia will *never* act in the interest of India and against her own self interest. That cannot happen.

But do not read that as a daan, or an act of friendship, from Russia. It is not. Russia very clearly - as you can see today - is *expecting* something in return - always.

So when has the US sent military forces to support India. When has the US provided huge amounts of gear at friendship prices?

Come the day when Russia sending anything hurts Russia, you can say bye-bye to Russia. Russia (again, or ANY other nation) will always act in her own self interest.

US not sending is in the interest of the US. US sending all that aid to Pakiland, is in the interest of the US.

Russia providing a Chakra is seen in China and Pakistan the way US aid to Pakistan is seen in India. HOWEVER, *ALL* nations are acting in their own interestS. Nothing to do with dosti or any such emotional factors. There could be a few minor exceptions.

Now strategic convergence (as opposed to "interests") is a wee bit different.

Yet, the DK issue happened. Why is it that the US feels free to hold hearings on Indian issues (Russia doesnt), engage in controversies with Indian diplomats (Russia doesnt), or try to push India on topics in its immediate neighbourhood (didnt hear of Russia twisting us on BD).

(DK issue is diff on many levels, so I will leave that out.)

The "US" is not monolithic. Which works both ways. There are those that hold hearings (for whatever reason/s) and then there is the DefDept that is annoyed with the way the DK issue has been handled - while the prior hurts Indian, the latter benefits India.

Why Russia does not hold? Because that is in the best interest of Mother Russia - simple. The day that changes they will too. Russians are simple humans like all of us, not some saints. Or it is not that Russians have some great love for India. (IIRC, Russians have acted "against" some ISKON groups? It happens, I do not read much into these things.)

That convergence (IMHO) is also driven by perception of India as a useful market.

The "market" has always been there and Japan has always behaved badly with India (from a Indian PoV) (10 years ago, in total anger I used to call them Yapan). So, what has changed in the past one year or less? No brownie points for the answer. It is rather simple.

Disagree. No INS Chakra equivalent for example.

BS. PLENTY. Diplomacy to start with. And, there are whole bunch more. Do you really think India relies *only* on a nuclear sub to make a statement? Crap. From an Indian strategic PoV, *everything* other than "Indian" is disposable. Everything. What kind of a nation would India be if it were to succumb to a "chakra"? Pathetic.

In fact I will submit that *today* Russia has very, very few options and India is in the driver's seat. It would be to the benefit of Russia if she were to behave properly. For a "Chakra" - as important as it is - is a very temporary asset. In the larger scheme of things it holds a very, vary valid spot/place, but push comes to shove she is disposable.

It would be a huge travesty if a "Chakra" were to define "India" or Indian strategy. A huge mistake.

More later. I think we are confusing friendship, interests and strategy. Three very different topics - but they *could* overlap - as in a Venn diagram - but can never be confused for the other. Also, in strategy the past hold very little sway (From another thread, the following: "My immediate reaction on reading the text was that "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.""), it could be very temporary and most likely will change on a dime. Interests and Friendships do not.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 Jan 2014 20:22

Karan M and NRao ^^^: Interesting points both of you make. This thread is not the one to make strategic points except tangentially. So only noting again 'strategic partnerships' are based on long term strategic convergences. Not the same as 'Bhai-bhai' stuff. US complaint is India has not clarified (in the dialogs) what it wants out of the relationship even WRT to TSP. Perhaps in the US India strategic thread we could continue this starting with Zelikow's speech.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jan 2014 20:43

NRao wrote:The commonality with Egypt/Israel is that in spite of being a supplier (in their case actually they rely even more than India) AND a US having a veto in the UN, they BOTH act independently. If you keep your emotions aside you will see that both those nations do have very independent streaks.

So does India (Iran, and more recently BD - I do not know if you have been following, if the Devayani case was not there in the papers the BD issue should have been. The BD issue, that was a true "spat").

Strategic convergence does NOT mean friendship and buddy-buddy relations. It *also* does not mean that the two partners agree on everything. And, nor does it mean that a threat from one will make the other change his mind.

You really think Egypt acts independently? If so, then there is nothing left to be said. You are comparing India to two rather miniscule nations and then state our relationship with the US is somehow equivalent.

And how exactly would the DK case have happened if the US was concerned about convergence? US groups intervene in Indian internal affairs, convenes HR panels etc & that is convergence? If it pleases you, I would point out the same issue plagues our relationship with many European nations as well, and their busybody behaviour.

AFAIK, we haven't had that problem with Russia. That does place them (IMHO) in a different league.

Plus, what many of us see is one issue where the US sees value for India, is to counter the PRC. Rest, we are often not in synch.

Russia "helped" ONLY because it suited her TOO. There are plenty of time when it did not and she backed out - cryo engines? There are plenty of others.

Thats a very interesting take on the story as I remember it. Russia had no issues in selling us cryo engines. Guess who forced it not to do so, at a time when Russia was in economic turmoil?

Again, the issue is not of Russia doing it out of altruism. You made the case that the strategic relationship between India and the US has surpassed that India ever had with Russia. But when I quoted two specific examples:

1. Sending Russian military to hold off intervention
2. Selling tons of gear at friendship prices

You havent been able to provide counter examples.

I submit to you, that you are letting your personal desires (India & US convergence) dictate your statements as versus the facts wherein the US establishment simply does not see such an important role for India or is willing to compromise to that degree either.

So far, we haven't seen anything that suggests that the US & India are in such a relationship as we once had with the SU.

Personally, I think that's ok. Better we remain independent than be forced into another unequal power play.

Again, the problem is that (especially Indians) are too emotional. Russia (as the US or India or Pakistan) will ALWAYS do what is in their interest FIRST. *Nations* have no friends - they only have interests. Now, if people read emotions into a relationship and make a big deal out of it, so be it, it being a human reaction. But Russia will never support India (or anyone else) if by supporting it hurts Russia.

So who says otherwise? This is not relevant is it? Since I neither claimed or insisted that US be friends with India etc.

France supporting India for her nuclear tests - yes, BUT, only because it was to benefit France some time down the pike. France has *no* "love" for India. France has certain "interests" in India that she hoped to or hopes will fructify at some point in time and France will always work towards that.

Agreed, but who claimed otherwise.

But, when there is no threat to Russia and helps India then yes, as you say, it certainly matters. But Russia will *never* act in the interest of India and against her own self interest. That cannot happen.

The point that you miss here, is that Russian interests and Indian interests are not at loggerheads most of the time, as Russia is not playing balance the world, sort of power game at the same level

But do not read that as a daan, or an act of friendship, from Russia. It is not. Russia very clearly - as you can see today - is *expecting* something in return - always.

And other's arent?

So when has the US sent military forces to support India. When has the US provided huge amounts of gear at friendship prices?

Come the day when Russia sending anything hurts Russia, you can say bye-bye to Russia. Russia (again, or ANY other nation) will always act in her own self interest.

US not sending is in the interest of the US. US sending all that aid to Pakiland, is in the interest of the US.

So you agree that the US has done nothing of the sort that Russia did, and our relationship is not at the same level. Please see the US-UK relationship for a similar sort of relationship in terms of providing strategic technology. And then see what all the UK does to maintain that special relationship (providing troops for expeditionary deployment). Please consider then if India will ever do so in the near future or even the coming decade & then consider whether our relationship will be equivalent.

Russia providing a Chakra is seen in China and Pakistan the way US aid to Pakistan is seen in India. HOWEVER, *ALL* nations are acting in their own interestS. Nothing to do with dosti or any such emotional factors. There could be a few minor exceptions.

I see in all this long soliloquy about how all nations act in their interests, you have a) not mentioned anything that US has done likewise and b) pointed out it is not in the US interest to do so either.

So whither the strategic convergence?

Now strategic convergence (as opposed to "interests") is a wee bit different.

How so? I just see this term used, no explanation of what it is, and how it actually matters to India.

(DK issue is diff on many levels, so I will leave that out.)

Its a manifestation of relatively shallow ties. Don't see UK diplomats being treated the same way.

The "US" is not monolithic. Which works both ways. There are those that hold hearings (for whatever reason/s) and then there is the DefDept that is annoyed with the way the DK issue has been handled - while the prior hurts Indian, the latter benefits India.

Why Russia does not hold? Because that is in the best interest of Mother Russia - simple. The day that changes they will too. Russians are simple humans like all of us, not some saints. Or it is not that Russians have some great love for India. (IIRC, Russians have acted "against" some ISKON groups? It happens, I do not read much into these things.)

My goodness, who says that Russia is altruistic and why do you dislike Russia that much that you have to keep beating this horse 10x over?

The issue is not whether Russia is A one as a nation. The fact remains that since there are relatively few areas where India & Russia dont see eye to eye, hence they are a more reliable supplier.

If the US is not monolithic & all sorts of special interest groups routinely hijack the Indo-US agenda, then thats one more thing that should make us wary.

The "market" has always been there and Japan has always behaved badly with India (from a Indian PoV) (10 years ago, in total anger I used to call them Yapan). So, what has changed in the past one year or less? No brownie points for the answer. It is rather simple.

No, that market has not always been there. It has taken two decades of somewhat haphazard economic growth before India can register as a proper geographical market for Japanese firms to take note of.

Disagree. No INS Chakra equivalent for example.

BS. PLENTY. Diplomacy to start with. And, there are whole bunch more. Do you really think India relies *only* on a nuclear sub to make a statement? Crap. From an Indian strategic PoV, *everything* other than "Indian" is disposable. Everything. What kind of a nation would India be if it were to succumb to a "chakra"? Pathetic.

Sorry, but your abuse here ("BS, crap, pathetic") does not constitute a rejoinder. Please be a tad more circumspect about this.

India does not rely on nuclear subs to make a "statement" as you put it (that incidentally happens to be a very US centric view propagated by western thinktanks).

India needs a strategic sub to complete its deterrent. The Russians for better or worse, did help us with INS Arihant & are providing a Chakra that can either train people for Arihant or accompany it as an escort (take your pick, depending on media reports).

Take a deep breath, think about this & let us know when the US (or any other nation) provides a similar level of assistance.

I am no fan of Russian arm twisting or price gouging but fair is fair, and the fact remains that the India-Russia military tech relationship is much deeper than that with the US as things stand (buyer-seller).

In fact I will submit that *today* Russia has very, very few options and India is in the driver's seat. It would be to the benefit of Russia if she were to behave properly. For a "Chakra" - as important as it is - is a very temporary asset. In the larger scheme of things it holds a very, vary valid spot/place, but push comes to shove she is disposable.

I see, so is INS Arihant disposable as well?
Long term issues apart, Russia is feeding off of energy supplies and is not exactly broke right now. So their military development is not as dependent on India as it once was.

Please see their capex in recent years in their MIC for instance. We could have done something similar, if not for votebank politics but that is a different topic.

It would be a huge travesty if a "Chakra" were to define "India" or Indian strategy. A huge mistake.

And what should define Indian strategy? So far you have not given one concrete answer on how exactly the US intends to actually provide anything strategic to India, bar tactical weapons R&D (and please don't quote the beaten to death Javelin report) or weapons sales (KSA has a more strategic relationship with the US then).

More later. I think we are confusing friendship, interests and strategy. Three very different topics - but they *could* overlap - as in a Venn diagram - but can never be confused for the other. Also, in strategy the past hold very little sway (From another thread, the following: "My immediate reaction on reading the text was that "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.""), it could be very temporary and most likely will change on a dime. Interests and Friendships do not.

Again, none of this answers any of the questions raised.

Simple things - as they say. India & Russia - points of disagreement? Few. Areas of cooperation in the military sphere? Many. Strategic partnership? Check.

Thing is you are saying that the US-India strategic relationship is deeper than the India-Russia one ever was.

That sir, is simply not factual.

You can make the point the national relationship is more multi-dimensional - trade, military, training, expats. That's not the same as a strategic relationship though, as it takes two hands to clap.

With the US, though the relationship is more wide ranging, there is no indication that India is seen as critical either. Hence the concern.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jan 2014 20:53

Cosmo_R wrote:Karan M and NRao ^^^: Interesting points both of you make. This thread is not the one to make strategic points except tangentially. So only noting again 'strategic partnerships' are based on long term strategic convergences. Not the same as 'Bhai-bhai' stuff. US complaint is India has not clarified (in the dialogs) what it wants out of the relationship even WRT to TSP. Perhaps in the US India strategic thread we could continue this starting with Zelikow's speech.

Cosmo_R saar, haven't we been begging the US enough as to what we want out of Pak? Namely peace, aman-ki-(h)ash-a, end to terror attacks, mutual respect yada yada.. I mean, GOI was led by the biggest pro-Pak peacenik since Shri IK Gujral, who also went out of his way to do everything the US wanted, and even he couldn't make a dent in how Pak perceives its strategic interests, even as he depended/leaned on the US to do all the stop, stop, bad boy stuff.. so either the US couldnt deliver or it wouldnt (the price was too high).

Our basic problem (esp. in the last 8 years) is that we have been mendicants at the court of the king, as versus being power brokers ourselves whom the king really really needs.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2014 22:45

Okay guys,

Let's return to talk on aircraft here. By the way, it was n interesting talk (that is why it is being retained

).

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 08 Jan 2014 03:02

IAF's C-17 Globemaster-III made its first trip to Thanjavur AFS on Jan 5 2014, this was a night landing to boot. Hindu has a picture....
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 547769.ece
an Interesting tit-bit...

In a couple of days a few more fighter planes are expected to arrive in Thanjavur Airforce station.

Is there some exercise planned in SAC?

anjan · Post by **anjan** » 08 Jan 2014 03:31

Shrinivasan wrote:IAF's C-17 Globemaster-III made its first trip to Thanjavur AFS on Jan 5 2014, this was a night landing to boot. Hindu has a picture....
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 547769.ece
an Interesting tit-bit...
In a couple of days a few more fighter planes are expected to arrive in Thanjavur Airforce station.
Is there some exercise planned in SAC?

AFS Thanjavur is eventually supposed to be the home of a Su-30 and I think an LCA sqn. That's probably what they're referring to. The base became operational earlier this year.

member_23364 · Post by **member_23364** » 08 Jan 2014 04:07

Been hanging around BR for nearly 8+ yrs now (just read) but strange how *most* of the long time posters here always push their country loyalty (Russia, US, France) in all topics they post in. Very Strange.

Mods-Please feel free to delete my post if it is OT.