Transport Aircraft for IAF

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 31 Mar 2011 09:31

NATO leased several An-124 under an agreement called SALIS, which they renewed several times. The contract is still in force, and was even renewed after they got the 3 C-17s. WIth SALIS's succes, the US bullied several mostly smaller NATO countries into joining NSAC, the unit that operates C-17s. After a couple years of lobbying and arm twisting, the US backers signed up barely enough members for 2 C-17s and provided a third C-17 out of US Air Force inventory. The NATO members were reluctant to sign on because one hour of the 75 tonne capacity C-17 under NSAC costs almost twice as much to operate as one hour of the 120 tonne capacity An-124 under SALIS. Then, they also use the An-124s to carry things the C-17s are unable to carry like those Canadian Leopard II tanks they flew to Afghanistan recently.

What NATO should do is lease or purchase a few IL-76s with new engines and operate those........

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Mar 2011 09:49

is the AN124 capable of operating in modest airfields like Leh at "hot n high" conditions ? can it get in and out of all the places our IL76 gets in and out of?

if so, it would appear to be the perfect soln to all of problems - if we can get a strong production line going. even in winter one could fly in vital pieces of eqpt like AD missile units to Leh using this platform...

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 31 Mar 2011 12:20

Gilles wrote:WIth SALIS's succes, the US bullied several mostly smaller NATO countries into joining NSAC, the unit that operates C-17s.

According to you, any US sale in the entire world is the result of bullying

amit · Post by **amit** » 31 Mar 2011 15:37

Sigh! It's amazing how this thread goes round and round in circles.

We discussed this "price differential" between the Aussie and Canadian planes way back in November last year. And here we are at it again.

I managed to dig up a post of mine from the archives which should, hopefully throw some light. So I'm adding it to the brew here to make it a bit more spicy!

Here you go.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 31 Mar 2011 17:36

Gilles wrote:WIth SALIS's succes, the US bullied several mostly smaller NATO countries into joining NSAC, the unit that operates C-17s. After a couple years of lobbying and arm twisting,

Not subtle, are you?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 31 Mar 2011 21:35

Marten wrote:George brought up two quotes from the "past" (yes, weren't they also discussed earlier). One naturally assumes he has more information on hand. Is it then wrong to ask if he indeed does?

You mean the quotes from DSCA documents? I provided the links to them.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 31 Mar 2011 21:42

Singha wrote:is the AN124 capable of operating in modest airfields like Leh at "hot n high" conditions? can it get in and out of all the places our IL76 gets in and out of?

if so, it would appear to be the perfect soln to all of problems - if we can get a strong production line going. even in winter one could fly in vital pieces of eqpt like AD missile units to Leh using this platform...

Not been tested in such an environment AFAIK. Vayu Sena has fallen in love with the Globemaster and rightfully so, as she is a fine aircraft. The AN-124 lost out to the C-17A in the UK's airlifter competition. The versitality of the Globemaster has been proven. And even if the AN-124 can do everything the C-17 can, it has never been tested or flown in the manner as the C-17 has. And that experience is worth its weight in gold for an aircraft manufacturer looking to sell its wares.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 31 Mar 2011 22:14

except the @#@%%#$ cost

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 31 Mar 2011 22:46

Marten wrote:Yup, those are the ones. But the point being made to Amit was that perhaps you might have a better understanding, given your statement about the second sale being only spares, etc. and not inclusive of the airframe cost. Wanted to figure out the cost differentials between the FMS and Commercial sales.

Well from the language it clearly does NOT include the C-17s

More confirmation here:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/can ... lub-02388/

Feb 1/07: Boeing and Canada Sign Deal for Four C-17s. The February 1, 2007 contract is for the direct commercial sale of 4 airframes, which avoids the need for Foreign Military Sale approvals. Amounts were not disclosed, but delivery of the first aircraft could take place as soon as fall-winter 2007.

Sept 14/06: – Canada Begins C-17 Buy With $1.3B for Equipment and Support. That’s US dollars. The items were announced by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) as a Foreign Military Sale.

Earlier in the article it says

The new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

That was the plan, no idea what the actual price was.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 31 Mar 2011 23:04

Surya wrote:except the @#@%%#$ cost

That @#@%%#$ cost, is the cost of doing business with Unkil. Don’t forget Unkil will come to our rescue the moment Chicom comes attacking

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 31 Mar 2011 23:29

Marten wrote:George, were you able to check on data for the two sales?

As far as I can tell, both show similar stats except for the price. It would help to dispel notions about the FMS route if we could collate the list and show a comparison between two or more purchases.

One cannot quote price unless we know the details of the deal, which are often kept secret because of propriety laws. Sometimes the price of the bare C-17 is quoted without even engines. Sometimes its quoted with engines, a large stock of spares, spare engines, a 20 year ISS contracts, and even pilot and maintenance training. When Canada published its price, it even included the construction of hangars and a new ramp at the military base, expenses that were going to be spent in Canada with local firms. That is why the apparent price can vary tremendously....

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 31 Mar 2011 23:55

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:WIth SALIS's succes, the US bullied several mostly smaller NATO countries into joining NSAC, the unit that operates C-17s.
According to you, any US sale in the entire world is the result of bullying

Well SALIS, the initiative for NATO to lease An-124s was a European initiative, a German initiative to be more specific. And no lobbying or pressure had to be made for anyone to join. Someone came up with a bright idea, others saw the light and signed on. Here are the SALIS members:

Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and two non NATO Partner nations, Finland and Sweden.

NSAC, the initiative for NATO to buy C-17s, was a purely US initiative, and no one thought it was a good idea. It took a lot of lobbying and effort on the part of the US for this project to see the light of day, and it was only made possible when the US, which does not need NSAC, for it already has 200 C-17s of its own, joined the group, signed on for the largest block of hours (1000) and provided, on its own, one third of the fleet. Without the US as a member, they would be no NSAC.

The participants are Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the United States, and two Partnership for Peace (PfP) nations, Finland and Sweden.

The US, although it is itself a large user of An-124s, did not join SALIS.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Apr 2011 00:24

Gilles wrote:no one thought it was a good idea.

Which is why 11 other countries joined it . . .

Here's the 'real story'.

Germany and France didn't want to give any money to the evil Americans so when they saw the utility and appeal of the C-17, they decided to come up with an alternative 'euro-transporter', which became the A400M.

Of course they had a problem, the A400M was years away and current transports all across Europe were wearing out. So they conceived SALIS as a way to appease the other Euro nations and keep them from getting any 'stopgap' C-17s like the UK. Because they knew once you go C-17, you don't go back

(Witness the UK from 4 lease to 4 buy to 5 to 6 to 7 to possibly 8 now.)

Naturally they were strongly opposed to the entire NSAC concept and strongly bullied other minor Euro countries to keep them out of it. But despite fierce Franco-German oppression, it still made enough sense for 11 other countries to courageously sign up.

See how easy it is to create a convenient narrative out of nothing?

It is important to note that SAC fulfills an important role. The An-124s are leased so ultimately they aren't controlled by NATO while the C-17s gives true native capability. And even leaving aside future concerns about the 'reliability' of the leasing companies (and the governments that control them), leased aircraft are limited in how you can use them. If there ever was a 'hot' war, the An-124s might be forbidden from going anywhere close.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Apr 2011 02:01

Aha

and I thought the excitement ends with Indo Pak games

Welcome to US Canadian games

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 01 Apr 2011 04:54

GeorgeWelch wrote: See how easy it is to create a convenient narrative out of nothing?

Out of nothing? Nothing has a name: the NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment, Marshall S. Billingslea.

He was the father of NSAC.

http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060912a.htm

His whole resume is right here:
http://www.nato.int/cv/is/asg-ds/billingslea-e.htm

A really charming gentleman.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Apr 2011 05:26

Gentlemen,

Why are we bothering with who did what in far away lands of Europe? Europeans could have purchased the IL-76 from Russians, for all I care as an Indian. What has that narrative got to do with Indian airlift requirement? Why are we even discussing leasing of airframes when in Indian context it is simply out of question? Will some civil frieghter risk getting a MANPAD or 23mm AA rounds up his wazoo? When the next time pakis come calling, will IAF HQ sit down and work out the details of leasing plan for a/c xyz or go about their business of fightig war(s)? Without checking, I'm sure IAF airlifts more in a year than entire airlift requirement of Europeans...we part air maintain an Infantry Division+++force level on 24*7 basis for God's sake and that too in extremely hostile environment......so, let us stop this war of semantics....it matters didly-squat as to what the Europeans or Russians or Americans are doing...we have our own game to play and we'll play with the best suitable system..period.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Apr 2011 06:14

rohit

++1

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 01 Apr 2011 10:14

Ha ha ha!

Well said Rohit.

I am not an expert but I have not been able to understand why India would want to lease Strategic Transport Aircraft given our situation. We are not really doing the kind of stuff Europeans or Canadians are doing - they, if at all i.e., go for operations like those in Afghanistan, where they have to bring in stuff in an environment where they are protected largely by Americans et al, and have to bring in troops, stuff, to relatively peaceful environments, not really the kind of war we are likely to have with Pakistan or China. They are largely taking up operations like in Libya where there is hardly any opposition to what they are doing! Target practice, which Germans in any case have refused to do, and there are also examples like Berloscuni Government coming up statements like "our fighter are doing nothing - types" while Italian air force guys seem to be doing bombing.

Further, with the defence budget situation being what it is, Europe and probably Canada as well, with no desire to fight in any case in the population of almost all European nations (they have probably fought enough in the 20th century), but for probably UK and France, it would probably make sense to them hire such aircrafts rather than invest in creating capital with sunk costs.

Neither of the above situation works for us, as far as I understand.

Best regards.

jai · Post by **jai** » 01 Apr 2011 10:42

Cross posted from Intelligence & National Security Discussion

VinodTK wrote:Border defence units don't know their job: Parliament panel
Taking exception to such lack of information, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, which was examining officials on the ‘construction of roads in border areas’, said the response of the MI and the Defence Ministry ‘speaks volumes of the casual attitude towards such an important matter concerning the security of the nation’.

The Defence Secretary and representatives of Border Roads Organisation (BRO) told the parliamentary committee that they would not be able to meet the deadline of 2012 to implement Long Term Perspective Plans (LTPP), which involve the construction of 277 roads of 13,100 km length at a cost of Rs 24,886 crore. Angered at the response, the panel reminded the BRO that it was a prestigious organisation that needed to adhere to international standards. Further, it said despite celebrating its golden jubilee in 2010, the BRO was yet to learn how to make tunnels.

This is a sad state of affairs, no wonder we need to spend billions on buying transporters and then billions more in operating them daily to provide basic rations to troops in forward areas. Forget about getting the required heavy firepower along mountainous/jungle borders.

St. Anthony needs to do a serious cleaning of his house, throw out the Babus and put retired servicemen in MOD.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 02 Apr 2011 17:03

‘No complications in the sale of Globemaster aircraft to IAF’

In an exclusive interview to ET on Friday, Chris Chadwick , president, Boeing Military Aircraft, said that he had seen no indication that the Indian government was looking to pull the plug on what is, so far, the biggest defence deal between the United States and India. "The offsets package relating to the deal has already been approved. Plus, the IAF has to go through numerous government gateways before a final seal of approval can be given. Defence deals of this magnitude do take some time to close, and I expect them to take a decision by mid-2011," Mr Chadwick said.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 02 Apr 2011 19:59

From Wikileaks

C O N F I D E N T I A L NEW DELHI 001409

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/23/2018
TAGS: PREL PARM TSPL KNNP ETTC ENRG TRGY IN
SUBJECT: NARAYANAN POINTS TO INSPECTIONS AS STICKING POINT IN VVIP AIRCRAFT

Classified By: Ambassador David Mulford for Reasons 1.4 (B and D)

¶1. (C) The Ambassador urged Indian National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan May 23 to use the May 28-29 visit by a delegation led by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Mitchell Shivers to resolve quickly the enhanced end-use monitoring (EEUM) issue related to the Low-Aircraft Infrared Counter Measures (LAIRCM) on the VVIP aircraft. The EEUM matter had high-level attention, the Ambassador underlined, and PDASD Shivers had instructions to preserve the sanctity of the sensitive components while respecting India's political sensitivities. The Ambassador outlined that resolution of the EEUM issue involves the negotiation of a security plan that details the parameters of the protective measures that the Indians will employ; validation that the Indian government has complied with the security plan; and periodic on-site inspections. ""You ought to have an interest in preserving the technology that protects your leaders and other leaders,"" the Ambassador encouraged.

¶2. (C) Narayanan agreed that the Indian government had a stake in protecting the LAIRCM's technology, and he recognized that if the U.S. and India prolong negotiations over the EEUM, ""our Prime Minister will not have a plane."" He welcomed the opportunity to work on a security plan, which, he realized, might help strengthen India's overall protective measures. However, he explained, the need for inspections poses the real problem. ""We need to work in a manner that provides comfort to both sides,"" he stressed. Upon learning of PDASD Shivers visit, Narayanan immediately turned to his aides to arrange separate meetings between Narayanan and officials from the Prime Minister's security staff and Ministry of Defense before May 28. He offered to coordinate a meeting with Defense Secretary Vijay Singh, Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and himself for the Shivers delegation.

¶3. (C) Comment: As Narayanan makes clear, on-site U.S. inspections of the prime minister's jet make the Indian government pause. While it appears that the government has few issues with the development and validation of a security plan, the risk that the UPA government's opponents might use the image of U.S. officials tramping around the Indian head of state's plane to garner votes in the upcoming general elections has made the Indians nervous. Such an image fits into the campaign messages already espoused by the opposition BJP, which accuses the government of an overriding weakness, and the Communists, who denounce the growing friendship with the U.S. But our willingness to resolve the issue in New Delhi at a high level could help alleviate the Indians' anxiety and point the way towards a middle ground that protects both the LAIRCM and the UPA government.

MULFORD "

Plus this:

http://m.thehindu.com/news/the-india-ca ... 65634.ece/

"Accepting without any changes the proposed text PDASD Shivers had provided, Narayanan said the Indian government is quite mindful of the need to protect the technology which protects several heads of state, and said India had no problem with the security requirements for the equipment. Narayanan did note that political sensitivities remain over the principle of on-site inspections, and expressed appreciation for the text's creative wording, such as using ""joint consultation to include an on-site review"" in lieu of ""on-site inspection."

So India already has LAIRCM on the Prime Minister's Aircraft. If they arrived at an agreement for those, I see no problem arriving at a similar agreement on installing LAIRCM on the fleet of C-17s and C-130Js. All it takes is for lawyers to come up with "creative wording".

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 05 Apr 2011 03:20

Boeing expects to close India C-17 deal by mid-2011

"The offsets package relating to the [C-17] deal has already been approved," Boeing Military Aircraft president Chris Chadwick told India's Economic Times newspaper. "The Indian air force has to go through numerous government gateways before a final seal of approval can be given. Defence deals of this magnitude do take some time to close, and I expect them to take a decision by mid-2011."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Apr 2011 08:02

So India already has LAIRCM on the Prime Minister's Aircraft. If they arrived at an agreement for those, I see no problem arriving at a similar agreement on installing LAIRCM on the fleet of C-17s and C-130Js. All it takes is for lawyers to come up with "creative wording".

Said that, without knowing how creative it could get. But one sees strategic play in these discussions and ultimate text.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 05 Apr 2011 08:25

C-17 Price Making even White Man @

Magazine Confused Onlee

Why Does DSCA Make Aircraft Prices So Confusing ?

$580 million--------> India
$300 million
$693 million
$700 million

Consider four recent sales announcements by the DSCA. If you go by these numbers, Australia is buying its latest C-17 ($300 million) for nearly half the price of India's deal ($580 million each) despite ordering superior equipment, such as the large aircraft infrared countermeasures system (LAIRCM). Similarly, NATO is buying two C-17s for nearly the same price ($700 million) that Kuwait is buying only one ($693 million).

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 05 Apr 2011 12:26

India Upset At Russian Military Parts Supply
Aviation Week

• It also needs Multiple Spares for its Il-76/-78 Transport Fleet, Mi-26 and Mi-17 Helicopters and

• The Issue goes beyond Cost and Poor Relations with its Supplier. For the IAF there is a very real day-in, day-out Operational Cost. For Example, Il-78 Refueling Tankers are suffering from a Lack of Major Parts, Hobbling Mission Rates.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 05 Apr 2011 19:06

Why Does DSCA Make Aircraft Prices So Confusing ?

Consider four recent sales announcements by the DSCA. If you go by these numbers, Australia is buying its latest C-17 ($300 million) for nearly half the price of India's deal ($580 million each) despite ordering superior equipment, such as the large aircraft infrared countermeasures system (LAIRCM). Similarly, NATO is buying two C-17s for nearly the same price ($700 million) that Kuwait is buying only one ($693 million).

Isn't LAIRCM going to be big help in wartime missions to Himalayas? Why is India buying without this feature, that too at almost the double price paid by Australia?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 06 Apr 2011 20:01

Juggi G wrote:India Upset At Russian Military Parts Supply
Aviation Week

• It also needs Multiple Spares for its Il-76/-78 Transport Fleet, Mi-26 and Mi-17 Helicopters.

• The Issue goes beyond Cost and Poor Relations with its Supplier. For the IAF there is a very real day-in, day-out Operational Cost. For Example, Il-78 Refueling Tankers are suffering from a Lack of Major Parts, Hobbling Mission Rates.

The Russians require that anyone buying "military" hardware or spares must buy them through State owned Rosoboronexport. This situation allows for an Indian Airline that would operate IL-76s (there are none) to go purchase spares directly from the parts manufacturers, but force the IAF to buy the same spares for the same IL-76 from Rosoboronexport. Same goes for all dual use equipment like the Mi-8/17, the MI-26.......

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Apr 2011 04:51

Boeing deals mixed bag for US

New Delhi, April 8: The government has decided to extend a contract with Boeing to order four P8I maritime patrol aircraft for the navy in addition to eight that were contracted in January 2009 for $2.1 billion.

But the negotiations for another military order from the US — the showpiece Boeing C-17 Globemaster III transport planes that President Barack Obama talked about during his visit to India in November — have been stalled.
...
..
Defence sources said the ministry had asked the Pentagon for the prices at which it was offering the C-17 Globemaster III airlifters to other international customers.

There was suspicion in the ministry that the Globemasters for India were overpriced. It was initially estimated that the 10 Globemasters would cost about $4.1 billion — making it the biggest military contract that India would give to the US.

Now, ministry sources said, they have found out that the US has sold the aircraft to Australia for about $300 million each. At that price, the Indian contract would be about $3 billion — a billion dollars less than what was estimated.

The US government has notified the US Congress that the sale could be worth more than $5 billion.

The Indian Air Force has decided to buy 10 of the huge aircraft. Asked if there was possibility of withdrawing from the order, defence sources said “these are negotiations but the decision (to buy) has already been taken”. During his visit here, Obama had cited the Globemaster deal as the kind of sale that would generate jobs for American
...
...

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Apr 2011 15:27

http://expressbuzz.com/nation/price-row ... 62417.html

The other contract the IAF was keen to finish by March 31 was for C-17 Globemaster super heavy transporters from the US company Boeing. The two sides were confident that commercial negotiations were completed and it was on the verge of being signed. But fresh questions raised by the ministry of defence has delayed the process. Defence Minister A K Antony has made it clear that his ministry would not compromise on the price aspect and has successfully resisted political pressure, particularly from the US.
The C-17 deal is being estimated to be the biggest one signed with the US till date. The US officials admit in private that dealing with Antony had become difficult as the minister wants to downplay any contact with Washington.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Apr 2011 15:40

http://www.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rmks/2011/160020.htm

One core facet of the U.S-India global strategic partnership – and one that will reap extraordinary dividends both in economic and security terms – is our increasing defense ties.

Our two militaries enjoy a robust series of exchanges, visits, and exercises that create critical linkages between personnel and further deepen habits of cooperation. From counter-piracy to disaster relief, our two militaries have much to gain from each other especially in light of the similar challenges we both face in the Indian Ocean and Asia Pacific region.

I also want to touch upon U.S. defense sales to India, which have skyrocketed over the last decade. The value of these sales is not just the dollar figure – they both represent and strengthen deeper levels of cooperation between our two militaries and facilitate building people-to-people ties. India has purchased more than $4 billion of U.S. defense hardware over the last decade.

The Indian government is also in the final stages of finalizing a $4.1 billion sale for ten C-17 Globemaster heavy-lift transport aircraft – a deal announced during the President’s recent visit. This deal will double U.S.-India defense trade and support more than 20,000 U.S. jobs. Once all these aircrafts have been delivered, India will have the second largest C-17 fleet in the world, behind that of the United States, providing the Indian Air Force with a strategic airlift and humanitarian response capability unique in the region.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 11 Apr 2011 17:47

rohitvats wrote:Gentlemen,

Why are we bothering with who did what in far away lands of Europe?...it matters didly-squat as to what the Europeans or Russians or Americans are doing...we have our own game to play and we'll play with the best suitable system..period.

Defence sources said the ministry had asked the Pentagon for the prices at which it was offering the C-17 Globemaster III airlifters to other international customers

Thats just one of the many reasons

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 11 Apr 2011 22:14

Gilles wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Gentlemen,

Why are we bothering with who did what in far away lands of Europe?...it matters didly-squat as to what the Europeans or Russians or Americans are doing...we have our own game to play and we'll play with the best suitable system..period.

Defence sources said the ministry had asked the Pentagon for the prices at which it was offering the C-17 Globemaster III airlifters to other international customers
Thats just one of the many reasons

Hmmm!

I would imagine every customer would indulge in price negotiations. And that is what Defence Ministry of India would do as well. The surprise would be if they didn't.

As for the interesting amount of time that has gone into analysing that India could rent this or that aircraft - I would rather there were more constructive debates than some esoteric debate on which aircraft India should take on rent when in need!

Best regards.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Apr 2011 06:59

Several people posted comments about India renting aircraft. I did not suggest that India should rent An-124s, although several people here seem to suggest I did. Perhaps they were not wearing their glasses.
What I said was that when Germany suggested that NATO rent An-124s, many NATO members and a couple others readily joined the scheme for it made sense and was cost effective.
Later, when the US suggested that NATO purchase C-17s in a program called SAC, most NATO nations balked at the cost, which was in excess of $40,000 an hour of flight. They then renewed SALIS (the An-124 rental agreement) and SAC (the C-17 purchase scheme) is now running in parallel to it instead of having replaced it.
In order for SAC to be formed, the US, which itself, had no need for SAC, had to join it (or else there would have been too little flying and the overhead of forming a wing for just 2 aircraft would have made the already cost prohibitive aircraft even more prohibitive). The US signed up for 1000 of the 3500 hours annual hours of SAC (the rest of the 11 nations signed up for 2500 hours per year) and the US unilaterally provided one of the 3 aircraft.

My only point was that the C-17 is very expensive to buy and very expensive to operate, even if operating this aircraft inside a pool of users.

rohitvats and Ashutosh Malik, if you read my post, I did not write, suggest or imply that India should imitate SALIS.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 13 Apr 2011 07:43

^

During Combat, wouldn't the price increase as well as the insurance? Also, if it is rented, who would fly the aircraft during combat and out of combat? if it is a foreigner, wouldn't insurance on the crew's be sky high?

Also, why don't we just buy some AN 124's and put Desi/Israeli avionics and such on them, since these Beasts can carry way more than the Globemasters plus cost $100 million less?

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Apr 2011 08:49

FMS prices are prone to manipulations. For instance a equipment “exactly” like US Govt sale would be USD 100 Million, but if India will ask for one bolt less or one bolt more (which is normal), then the nature of equipment has now changed and the price can be anything from US$ 101 to 200 million.

On other side of the coin, the cost of spare parts and stuff make a lot of difference. For instance in Brazilian fighter tender 36 F-18s were priced as US$ 7.6 Billion i.e. around US$ 210 million each as they included around 30 years of spares. Similarly Rafale was around US$ 270 million. The fly away unit price of F-18 is estimated to be around US$ 50 to 70 million only.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Apr 2011 10:04

Gilles wrote:What I said was that when Germany suggested that NATO rent An-124s, many NATO members and a couple others readily joined the scheme for it made sense and was cost effective.

When you say 'many NATO members', what you really mean is 'the A400M consortium'

SAC & SALIS: Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Finland (7)
SAC only: Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, United States (5)
SALIS only (non-A400M partner): Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Slovakia (6)
SALIS only (A400M partner): Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany, United Kingdom (5)

Of the non-aligned countries (not the US and not the A400M consortium), the largest group joined BOTH SAC and SALIS

Gilles wrote:They then renewed SALIS (the An-124 rental agreement) and SAC (the C-17 purchase scheme) is now running in parallel to it instead of having replaced it.

It was never intended to replace it. Especially considering the WHOLE POINT OF SALIS is to keep any other euro nation from buying/experiencing the C-17.

Gilles wrote:In order for SAC to be formed, the US, which itself, had no need for SAC, had to join it

In order for SALIS to be formed, the A400M consortium had to join it. Without them (especially the UK, Germany and France) doing the financial heavy lifting, it wouldn't be feasible.

And actually the US does have a need for SAC to exist, because it enables partner countries to have independent access to airlift that doesn't impact the US fleet.

Gilles wrote:My only point was that the C-17 is very expensive to buy and very expensive to operate, even if operating this aircraft inside a pool of users.

And yet the majority of non-aligned countries signed up for both.

If it was half as horrible as you keep trying to make it sound, this wouldn't be the case.

In any event, let us see what happens to SALIS once the A400M has been delivered. After the A400M consortium has native airlift capability, they won't feel the need to subsidize SALIS and the other countries won't be able to afford to keep it running so it will disappear.

Meanwhile, SAC will still be going strong and likely picking up the SALIS refugees.

What will you say then?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Apr 2011 10:21

they should ask the quote to be split clearly - flyaway unit cost and cost of support for X years with line item breakdowns.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 14 Apr 2011 04:15

GeorgeWelch wrote: When you say 'many NATO members', what you really mean is 'the A400M consortium'

SAC & SALIS: Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Finland (7)
SAC only: Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, United States (5)
SALIS only (non-A400M partner): Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Slovakia (6)
SALIS only (A400M partner): Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany, United Kingdom (5)

In any event, let us see what happens to SALIS once the A400M has been delivered. After the A400M consortium has native airlift capability, they won't feel the need to subsidize SALIS and the other countries won't be able to afford to keep it running so it will disappear.

Meanwhile, SAC will still be going strong and likely picking up the SALIS refugees.

What will you say then?

Also note that two SALIS members, one A400M partner and one non, are also C-17 operators: Canada (4 C-17) and the UK (7 C-17).

The Afghan war must also be factored into all of this: needs and requirements will change once all that winds down.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 14 Apr 2011 08:29

Singha wrote:they should ask the quote to be split clearly - flyaway unit cost and cost of support for X years with line item breakdowns.

Ha!

Amirkhan meets the frugal desi. If this deal was all set why the sudden price consciousness?

Can't think of a situation where the US has sold to a customer like India. They either gave it away or sold to customers who didn't have the choice to buy but American. India OTOH does not have to buy American, so can perhaps afford to be prudent when spending it's money. Let's just sit back and watch where this goes.

Whatever happens this will not enamour our babus to the US mil-ind complex.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Apr 2011 08:34

There is a new requirement in town: leak or cable proof.