Transport Aircraft for IAF

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 19 Jun 2011 09:58

nrshah wrote:with respect to spares problem from Russians, I would like to understand what would have been state of affairs if we asked for F104 spares from unkil...

The problem is not just with ancient equipment.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 19 Jun 2011 10:06

nrshah wrote:with respect to spares problem from Russians, I would like to understand what would have been state of affairs if we asked for F104 spares from unkil...

Well unkil & unkils companies are business men to the core, who go the extra mile for you. "They never forget who they work for", hence would have provided you with the required spare, even though they do not make the plane any more.

Its another matter that they would have asked for a "small premium" for doing so

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 19 Jun 2011 12:32

bmallick,

you summed it up quite nicely. also the fact that leh airbase was caught in floods and was inoperable is playing on the minds of the IAF. they want options.

a supporting video by newsx where VACM NAK Browne speaks of the need for the full fledged base at Nyoma and he also touches upon the reasons. he also puts it on record the IAF having submitted a proposal to the MOD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTt2cMWF7uM

PS : can somebody tell me how to link the youtube??

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jun 2011 13:07

here are approximate distances of typical {DDay minus five} missions when its apparent the shit is about to hit the fan and any means are to be used for bulking up.

jabalpur / nagpur / pune to Leh - 1200km (munitions, armour, arty)
jabalpur / nagpur / pune - tezpur - 1200-1400km (munitions, armour, arty)
bangalore/hyd to Leh - 1700km (radars and EW gear, drdo technicians for emergency mode work, missile & TELARs from beml/bdl)
bangalore/hyd to tezpur - 2000km (radars and EW gear, drdo technicians, missiles & TELARs from beml/bdl like akash)
jabalpur to indira point - 2200km ( munitions etc )
kolkata to tezpur (POL )
trivandrum to tezpur /to leh / to bagdogra / to car nicobar - the C17 and IL76MD should be able to carry a shitload of brahmos reload rounds. not sure if the huge brahmos TELAR will fit directly inside a C17 fuselage...it sure wont inside a IL76.

all these are within the range-with-max-payload figures quoted for c17 , c130j_30 , an32 and IL76md .... for the an32 is on the margins being 2500km per wiki...for the other three its comfortable and allowance can be made for blr and leh altitudes I suppose.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jun 2011 13:28

nrshah wrote:with respect to spares problem from Russians, I would like to understand what would have been state of affairs if we asked for F104 spares from unkil...

The interesting thing here is that there are F-104s still flying today in private hands. That is an indicato of the competence of private industries in the west. Small private workshops in India should be able to do this sort of stuff rather than depending on GoliatHAL

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 19 Jun 2011 14:14

Singha wrote:the C17 and IL76MD should be able to carry a shitload of brahmos reload rounds. not sure if the huge brahmos TELAR will fit directly inside a C17 fuselage...it sure wont inside a IL76.

C-17 Globemater IIIs has loadable dimension as follows
length is 68.2 feet (20.78 m)
width is 18 feet (5.49 m)
height is 12.3 feet (3.76m) or 14.8 feet (4.50m)
What version of the TATRA truck do we use for Brahmos? we can cross check the dimensions then.
I presume we need to transport the launchers without the missiles for better fitment.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 19 Jun 2011 16:00

shiv wrote:
nrshah wrote:with respect to spares problem from Russians, I would like to understand what would have been state of affairs if we asked for F104 spares from unkil...
The interesting thing here is that there are F-104s still flying today in private hands. That is an indicato of the competence of private industries in the west. Small private workshops in India should be able to do this sort of stuff rather than depending on GoliatHAL

Thanks Sir, But I understand you appreciate the difference of flying with private hands and with a professional air force like IAF, more so when over 100 of them are still the very back bone of its air power. However, i agree with you we should have many private workshop/manufacturing units which will take major task and HAL role will be more of development / assembly / support

bmallick wrote: Well unkil & unkils companies are business men to the core, who go the extra mile for you. "They never forget who they work for", hence would have provided you with the required spare, even though they do not make the plane any more.

Its another matter that they would have asked for a "small premium" for doing so

Perhaps we forget they don't work for us. Besides, it is just an assumption (WOULD HAVE) of going extra mile. What was the state of spare parts supply to TSP for their F16 (lines still open) before 9/9 or whatever it was.
Also, the extra premium is the very root cause we keep on cribbing over Russians... If they ask premium it is blackmail, if unkil ask it becomes facility fees (Small premium) for going extra mile

Besides, how about spare parts of helicopters that came with Trenton?

UBanerjee wrote: The problem is not just with ancient equipment.

And what latest equipment are we referring to...Tyres for MKI.. Do you really believe that? Do you really feel Russies are insane that they will hold tyres... My suggestion - Take the reports of western fed media with a pinch of salt.

Why don't these media ask IAF if they are so dissatisfied with spares of MKI, why increase the numbers to around 300 (which other force operates except US operates a type of MKI in such numbers?) More so when the entire world is competing to sell you their so called hi tech stuff... Boeing and LM were in fray, if they were ready for super bug, they will be happy to sell you eagles... Had they been so considerate in 1990s we would have perhaps had a fleet of eagles instead of MKI...and BTW what is the flyaway cost of eagle?

Oh i just remembered there so claimed objective of helping India develop indigenous MIC emerged only when India become the workhorse of Global economy and Indian middle class started demanding things as if there was no tomorrow. A coincidence, isnt it?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Jun 2011 19:18

bmallick wrote: Rohit, with all due respect, before jumping the gun and shooting a post, it would be prudent if you please take the time to read my posts prior to the one you have qouted<SNIP>

I'm fully aware of this segment of your post. And something that even I have said - a full airbase will be in position to host any a/c from IAF - the Leh AB is capable of hosting fighter aircraft but only now has IAF moved to establish infrastructure to base fighter aircrafts there. There was a pic posted on BR (from Ajai Shukla's blog) which showed Hardened Aircraft Shelter (HAS) in Leh.

My comment was on basing fighter a/c in Nyoma given the proximity to LAC and vulnerability to arty fire. And my post on this topic was not in reply to anyone, including you. Sir, it is you who quoted and replied to my post and the exchange subsequently followed.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 19 Jun 2011 21:26

nrshah wrote:
bmallick wrote: Well unkil & unkils companies are business men to the core, who go the extra mile for you. "They never forget who they work for", hence would have provided you with the required spare, even though they do not make the plane any more.

Its another matter that they would have asked for a "small premium" for doing so
Perhaps we forget they don't work for us. Besides, it is just an assumption (WOULD HAVE) of going extra mile. What was the state of spare parts supply to TSP for their F16 (lines still open) before 9/9 or whatever it was.
Also, the extra premium is the very root cause we keep on cribbing over Russians... If they ask premium it is blackmail, if unkil ask it becomes facility fees (Small premium) for going extra mile

Um, it is one thing to quote price X ahead of time and then deliver professionally on that price. It's another thing to say it will cost you price Y, then hem and haw, hold out for more, hold out for more again, deliver half of what was promised, and continually employ arm-twisting tactics etc. Do you see the difference in the two scenarios or is it merely "kya hua bhai yeh to chalta hai".

nrshah wrote:
UBanerjee wrote: The problem is not just with ancient equipment.
And what latest equipment are we referring to...Tyres for MKI.. Do you really believe that? Do you really feel Russies are insane that they will hold tyres... My suggestion - Take the reports of western fed media with a pinch of salt.

So desi media all becomes Western fed media and armed forces own reports become western fed media also?

So for the MKI story, I am supposed to choose the secret gut feeling of "nrshah"ji about this issue?

Remember the so-called "ambush" the IN laid for the Russians earlier this year? That was also western based media, that IN got so fed-up they publicly gave them a dressing-down?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 19 Jun 2011 22:11

UBanerjee wrote:So desi media all becomes Western fed media and armed forces own reports become western fed media also? So for the MKI story, I am supposed to choose the secret gut feeling of "nrshah"ji about this issue?
Remember the so-called "ambush" the IN laid for the Russians earlier this year? That was also western based media, that IN got so fed-up they publicly gave them a dressing-down?

This is definitely more than a "planted story in the desi media" case... IAF has been cribbing about this for quite some time, this is why they floated the global tender for spares and maintenance. Both IN and IAF seems to have blown a fuse but IA is ever loyal to the Bear... inspite all its issues with the "bear ka maal".. it is "Nataasha ka kamaal".

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 19 Jun 2011 22:16

I think Indian armed forces are fine with paying the premium to uncle for adequate spares and optimal uptime (remember they built in clauses in C130J Super Hercules deal for an 8X% uptime) because of the huge cost IAF incurs in ordering and holding 3 years worth of Russian spares across multiple bases to ensure timely availability. Factor in the lower availability, spares holding cost and obsolescence of some spares, the life cycle cost of Bear ka Maal starts going north.

Remember the T-90S cost saga brought out in "MULTICOLOR" by CAG where even rudimentary stuff were deliberately left out to bring down per-unit cost below Arjun and then ordered at exorbitant rates later? this is the norm for Russi deals. We have started to notice these stuff and act on this now... Bear is pissed for taking away it honey!!!

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 19 Jun 2011 22:28

^ Absolutely.... Russian maal is generally very cheap from the face value but has exorbitant lifecycle costs

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jun 2011 23:54

with respect to spares problem from Russians, I would like to understand what would have been state of affairs if we asked for F104 spares from unkil...

IMHO and what I know (too).

1) IF there was a contract, it would have been honored. If there was a sun-set to occur, adequate time would have been provided. At the end of the contract/sun-set the client would have had the option to find alternatives if need be

2) IF the issue was breaking some law, then the set of topic for discussion would be totally different. For sure they would not be in the realm of #1 above. They would be political in nature. Something the buyer would be aware of and ready to face I would imagine

The problem as I see it, with the Russian support, is that it HAS got to be so bad that the readiness of the Indian forces have already been impacted - this is from open source read. The fact that GoI has agreed to float a tender for spare to support Russian products should be clear enough how bad the situation is - clearly the GoI has evaluated the risk and opted to take that risk. The situation have to be very grave contrary to the popular belief among supports of USSR/Russian equipment used in Indian armed forces.

How most, if not all of this , has gone past supporters of Russian is beyond me. The tender floated by the GoI/MoD should suffice to clear any doubts on the Russian front. This has gone way beyond a dispute within a family.

Forget F-104, let us see how far the FGFA progresses. I was skeptical about it, but for a totally different reason. With the recent development I am even more so, however now with facts to back up my gut feels.

I for one would hate to be in the Russia show that has to select between allowing the lease of the Nerpa to move forward or shelving of the FGFA.

This Russian drama is getting to be too good to be true.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Jun 2011 00:18

The diff in price escalation is many atimes its after everyting is signed and then even after the additional payment nothng gets delivered

I would be very surprised to see the FGFA - there is just way too much rot for it materialise.
only hope is if somehow a large amount of it is moved to desh

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jun 2011 11:08

NR,the tender is for legacy Russian IL-76s which were built in Tashkent.Russia is now agglomerating and consolidating all its defence industries ,building all wares inside Russian territory unlike the Sov. days when they were scattered all around the USSR.Which is why legacy wares have been plagued with spares/support problems.Pl. read latest issues of AWST for the significant progress being made in the Russian aircraft industry including transport production.Funds are not a problem now due to huge petro-product revenue.Aircraft now being produced in large numbers include Su-34s,35s,30s,MIG-29Ks (planned even for Russian carriers),a variety of transports from IL-476s to smaller ones.A number of new helo designs are being dveloped,including the new KA-60/62 helo with French engines (6.5t),fiittting in between light-twins and the MI-8/17s (AWST 6/6/11).4 Borei class N-subs are also being built to carry the Bulava ICBM to be tested again shortly.The FGFA will not be outsourced to former SU states.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 20 Jun 2011 12:45

NRao wrote:
bmallick wrote: Well that can be said about all air bases with in range of chinese cruise and ballistic missiles.

IA & IAF both must have done there homework before deciding on creating a full fledged air base at Nyoma. With all due respect Rohit, it would be foolish to call IAF foolish without having full knowledge of all the aspects that IAF has considered. Hence it is better to accept there professional judgment.
True.

Looking at the map, ND itself is not that far from the border, when one considers all options. Army HQs too are equally vulnerable too.

There would be huge need for sanitizing certain areas.

Looking at the terrain and mountains surrounding the area, I have some doubts about efficacy of long range artillery against the base.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 20 Jun 2011 14:50

Philip wrote:NR,the tender is for legacy Russian IL-76s which were built in Tashkent.Russia is now agglomerating and consolidating all its defence industries ,building all wares inside Russian territory unlike the Sov. days when they were scattered all around the USSR.Which is why legacy wares have been plagued with spares/support problems.Pl. read latest issues of AWST for the significant progress being made in the Russian aircraft industry including transport production.Funds are not a problem now due to huge petro-product revenue...

I wonder why some people are ready to believe such BS. Here is a country that has about the same GDP size as India, which faces no real military threat, saddled with hundreds of transporters in its inventory yet promises not only to restart production lines of older aircraft but fund the development and acquisition of a bunch of newer designs!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jun 2011 14:53

UBanerjee wrote:^ Absolutely.... Russian maal is generally very cheap from the face value but has exorbitant lifecycle costs

They "used" to be for use and throw situations or for shorter usage. India used it for longer time. Hence, the cost shot up. India had no other option then. In 1980', India did not want options. From 2000 onwards there is a plethora of options.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2011 15:24

wiki says Rus has around 120 IL76MD. so assuming they want to keep around 40 in flying order, the rest are likely in boneyards and being cannibalized to keep the desired number flying. same for the Bears and Mays flown by their naval aviation perhaps.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jun 2011 15:53

India may buy 45 P&W F117-PW100 engines for powering C 17 transport aircraft

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Jun 2011 18:05

chackojoseph wrote:India may buy 45 P&W F117-PW100 engines for powering C 17 transport aircraft

Personally, If it is practically possible, I would prefer to go with GE as an added incentive for going with our LCA programme.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2011 18:15

unfortunately it seems there is no second source engine - only P&W, unlike the F16 and F15 programs.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 20 Jun 2011 21:25

Philip wrote:NR,the tender is for legacy Russian IL-76s which were built in Tashkent.Russia is now agglomerating and consolidating all its defence industries ,building all wares inside Russian territory unlike the Sov. days when they were scattered all around the USSR.Which is why legacy wares have been plagued with spares/support problems.

Soviet Union Broke up in 1991, I understand they had a period of extreme instability till around 2000, In the new millennium they have been relatively well off than before (inclusion in the BRIC list), How come they did not attempt this before and are trying to do only now. US and PRC were virtually grabbing everything they could and the Russian state just stood back. Even now their attempt to consolidate appears perfunctory. my 0.0002 cents.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Jun 2011 16:55

chackojoseph wrote:India may buy 45 P&W F117-PW100 engines for powering C 17 transport aircraft

Chacko,

The information WRT the purchase of 45 engines was posted in the last C 17, thread as it is a part of the FMS notification to the congress it self along with other assorted items to be used on the C 17.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 21 Jun 2011 17:40

[quote="Pratyush"Chacko,

The information WRT the purchase of 45 engines was posted in the last C 17, thread as it is a part of the FMS notification to the congress it self along with other assorted items to be used on the C 17.[/quote]

I went almost 5 pages back. Nothing there. Any idea why they are still using "Indian 'may' buy 45 engines" in their current press releases after the FMS order to Boeing? Even boeing says nothing about the engines, which is a major cost. I know abt the congress notification, but, thats bit old.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jun 2011 18:49

Cheenum,simple answer.Hard cash! With huge inncome from oil and gas sales over the last few years,Russia is now revamping its military R&D and production.Large orders of aircraft,helicopters,transports,warships and subs and ICBMs,ABMs ,and a variety of tactical missiles are in the pipeline.Russian exports to traditional "friends" like Vietnam,India,etc.,ASia/Africa/Americas are still continuing.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 21 Jun 2011 23:12

Singha wrote:wiki says Rus has around 120 IL76MD. so assuming they want to keep around 40 in flying order, the rest are likely in boneyards and being cannibalized to keep the desired number flying. same for the Bears and Mays flown by their naval aviation perhaps.

This website keeps tabs on all Russian aircraft by registration and serial number and speciifies those that crashed, that were broken up, that are stored and that are flying. The incomplete IL-76 list states that Russia still has about 140 flying IL-76 (of all series, meaning IL-76, IL-78, A-50, and IL82 (that includes EMERCOMS's) plus a number of stored airframes.

http://russianplanes.net/EN/REGISTR/Ilu ... 76/78/A-50

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jun 2011 02:06

Gilles wrote:This website keeps tabs on all Russian aircraft by registration and serial number and speciifies those that crashed, that were broken up, that are stored and that are flying.

Great WebSite... some interesting information.
Desh has Seven IL78-M (Mid Air Refuellers) and not Six (RK-3448 thru RK-3454). Also these are the newest Airframes made in 2004.

Indian has a total of 28 planes (3 A-50, 7 IL78-M and 18 IL-76MD)
a pooch, if Desh has ordered Two or Three more Phalcon AWACS on the A-50 platform, where are these frames going to come from?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jun 2011 08:47

pratyush,

It's a part of the c 17 deal. India To Acquire C-17s Exclusively Powered By Pratt & Whitney F117 Engines

There is something interesting here

Pratt & Whitney’s F117 team will support India’s C-17s through the C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership, a Performance-Based Logistics partnership between the U.S. Air Force, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney.

The USAF part is very dangerous. If parts are needed in war time, they can choke. In peacetimes, I see no problem. Cost's could be what USAF is incurring.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jun 2011 09:35

looks like the IL76 production line was basically dead from 1994 for a decade - until india/chinese/rus orders went in around 5 yrs ago.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 22 Jun 2011 10:43

I know it is unrelated but if America fines Infosys or bans Infosys for "violations" of immigration rules as reported here: Indian company under investigation, I hope that GoI has the balls to torpedo the C-17 deal as a message to America.

vivekmehta · Post by **vivekmehta** » 22 Jun 2011 11:32

can anyone guess where will be C-17’s will be based out. Agra seems to be too congested. Even if it is doubled in his size it still will get some 6 re-fulers . certainly 2 more awacs .

under Western Air Command I don’t find any base suitable to house them . all of them are too close to border and mainly fighter bases .

in eastern command Kalaikunda looks fine if you keep china in mind . otherwise there is no other base .

Central Air Command has two big candidate in Agra & Gwalior .
Southern Air Command all bases are quite deep inside . good for protection but don’t know if any of them will be able to host 10-16 C-17’s . Sulur could be developed further .
South Western Air Command has good bases but all in Gujarat and Rajasthan are on border. Nasik/Pune are again too deep.
order for additional c-130 is certain. They may remain to base out of Hindan.
Indigenous AWACS may share with Agra or will remain in Bangalore till fully fit.

Similarly 8-12 P8I needs to be accommodated by Navy . in near future .

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jun 2011 11:57

vivekmehta wrote:can anyone guess where will be C-17’s will be based out. Agra seems to be too congested. Even if it is doubled in his size it still will get some 6 re-fulers . certainly 2 more awacs .
Similarly 8-12 P8I needs to be accommodated by Navy . in near future .

I thought about this sometime back... let me answer both parts of your question.
IN P8Is would be predominantly based in INS Rajali in Arakkonam with couple of airframes performing missions from Cochin, Dabolim and Port Blair. Arakkonam is where the IN Bears are currently bases, there is plenty of room to grow. Also if Goa civilian airport and Vizag civilian airport are moved to dedicated sites, these Airfields would have more than adequate space for hosting our ever increasing Naval Aviation assets.

Coming to C-17s, our current fleet of IL-76s are based out of three locations, Chandigarh, Agra and Nagpur. These Air Bases / Air Ports have huge space. If we move our IL76s out of Agra to Nagpur and Chandigarh, then we can base our C17s in Agra. Apart from these we have multiple bases around the country which host our AN-32s.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jun 2011 12:00

Phalcon AWACS and Mid Air Refuellers would also need to be based some place other than Agra. Say Chandigarh or Allahabad. C130Js also need to have a second home from which we can easily move our Para SFs.

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Jun 2011 13:46

Philip wrote:Look guys.We've experienced delays,cost hikes with many nations,not just Russia.The Hawk,Scorpene deals for one.Trenton helos,etc.It is unfair to balme only Russia.We all know the problems faced with support for legacy Russian systems,as the SU collapsed and Russian restructuring of its military industry is udnerway.Saying dump the Akula is an asinine,immature thought.No one on the planet is helping us with critical weapon systems like N-sub tech for the ATV,Akula SSGNs,FGFAs,Brahmos,etc.

Keep track of latest deveopments.The Chinese are not getting frontline Russian wares anymore (Russia refused naval SU-33s,which they had to secretly buy one from Ukaine to reverse-engineer) and sales will drop to 15%-Russian stats,because of their illegal reverse-engineering,where they are becoming competitors with Russia for exports.What about other EU nations selling their wares to China and Pak like France? Now even Israel is running to China to sell it advanced weapons and systems! Should we punish the Israelis too?

I would prefer telling the US that unless they stop sales of advanced weaponry to Pak that is India-specific,they will not be given lucrative big ticket items from our services.We have a variety of options/nation to choose from.There are many wew supliers like Brazil,S.Africa,S'pore,Korea,etc.,from whom we can buy some advanced systems.I would also suggest that we make a study/list of those nations who are harming India the most by sales to our enemies,those helping us the most,and choose wisely and diversely from amongst the suppliers who "harm us least/help us the most".Germany should be rewarded for stopping the sale of U-214s to Pak because of its terror character.We need our U-209s upgraded and extra AIP U-214s to eventually replace them all would be an excellent buy.India must use the "carrot and stick" policy when needed after weighing the issue in the balance.This list/scale of support,etc.,would be an interesting study.I suggest a thread on it.

+1.

Also, wondering if our spare -woes are bigger for platforms that Russians don't operate now like the 21's and 27's ? In the fighter fleet, Mig 29's are the only common platform between RuAF and IAF, while the transport fleet has commonalities in IL's, MI 17's, 24's, and AN 32's, and we know IL is being fixed.

As regards SU30's, the Russians don't operate the type themselves, so India would certainly need to order all spares in advance and hold large qty's..unless MKI spares are the same spec as SU 27's....in which case I wonder if we can get RuAF inventories on loan for whatever is available.

May be its time to export some "Mayapuri" chaps to Russia/CIS to source spares. (For those not familiar, Mayapuri is a part of Delhi - next to Army Cantt - has the biggest scrap yard in Asia, with resourceful chappies known to find/source you anything mechanical you need)

The Russians are no fools, and could not be happy pushing us in Amrikhan arms because of idiotic spares/cost over run issues, and are sure to find work arounds quickly - now that we have pressed the panic bells. The MRCA contest sure would be a wake up call. IMO, good to still continue joint design and production with them with suppliers in both countries to avoid such issues in future - this is a learning for the MRCA planes as well - we need to make all spares in India/have spare guaranties.

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Jun 2011 13:49

[quote="vivekmehta"]can anyone guess where will be C-17’s will be based out.

Nagpur ? Isn't that's where Boeing is setting up a repair shop ?

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 22 Jun 2011 13:51

Hitesh wrote:I know it is unrelated but if America fines Infosys or bans Infosys for "violations" of immigration rules as reported here: Indian company under investigation, I hope that GoI has the balls to torpedo the C-17 deal as a message to America.

What do you mean, "bans" Infosys? You think that is an actual outcome in the real world for this type of investigation?

And sure, GoI can have "balls" to overreact for a criminal investigation into a company; the outcome of that certainly won't be pretty.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Jun 2011 14:47

chackojoseph wrote: I went almost 5 pages back. Nothing there. Any idea why they are still using "Indian 'may' buy 45 engines" in their current press releases after the FMS order to Boeing? Even boeing says nothing about the engines, which is a major cost. I know abt the congress notification, but, thats bit old.

I am unable to locate the specific post on the now dead C 17 thread. Nor am I able to locate the specific notification using google. However, I managed to laocate the Stratpost article dated 26 april 10 that listed the specific items to be included in this purchase.

Link C-17 sale to India steps forward

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jun 2011 15:01

if our spare -woes are bigger for platforms that Russians don't operate now like the 21's and 27's ?

Supplying spares is related to the contract of each individual client. If RuAF stops using a model that should not have any impact on what other air forces do.

Nagpur ? Isn't that's where Boeing is setting up a repair shop ?

Yes, Boeing is building a MRO in Nagpur. However, IAF maintenance has always been in Nagpur since 40-50s. Nagpur is not a base per se.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jun 2011 16:32

Jai,the only version of the Flanker I could think of that the IAF should consider is the single-seat SU-35,which is supposed ton incorporate some of the PAK-FA/FGFA technology.Both the SU-35 and SU_34 bomber version of the Flanker are on order for the Russian air force.However,there is supposed to be an India-speciific Super-Flanker upgrade of the SU-30MKI which will also be able to carry Brahmos.I do not think that Flanker spares/support should ever be a major problem with so many being built for export too.