Transport Aircraft for IAF

[srin]

Both PAKFA and MRTA is going in same direction. All Indian money and no India participation in R&D. The only thing we can recover from these JVs is possible license manufacture of engines like PD-14. but I can bet Russians are going to ask for more money for that.

Much as it hurts, it is inevitable, I suppose. It is a difficult transition from an assembler/manufacturer/operator to being a designer. Sukhoi and Illyushin have decades of experience and dozens of planes designed and developed.

I think what India is hoping is to get its designers experience working with Russians and get some design experience so that it can be transferred to its own projects later.

[Singha]

is the AN32 capable of the STOL landing and takeoff the C130 demoed?

[abhik]

Update on An-70 program

An-70 : Back In the Air [Piotr Butowski/Air International]

Is the IAf seriously considering this plane (to be in this thread that is)?

Did'nt you get the memo?

...
On another note in the last month or one before cant remember both AFM and ACM monthly's had a para stating that the IAF has identified a new requirement for Heavy transport and the 476 is the likely candidate. It does also mention that this reqirement is beyond the C17 acquisition.

In addition to the already acquired C-17 which has a payload capacity of 70 tonnes, we need Il-476s to cover the 50-60 tonnes payload capacity(which is of course in a totally and completely different class than the "Imperial Intercontinental Strategic" C-17 airlifter). We have already brought in to the MTA and the c-130J for our 20 tonne lift requirement which can be augmented by buying the Embraer KC-390. Now to cover the gap from 50 to 20 we need the An-70 for the 40-50 tonne category and the A400 or the Kawasaki C-2 for 30-40 tonne range. So that leaves the 10 tonne category for either the C-27J or the C-295. But of course IAFs ageing An-32 like the Il-76 should be kept in flying state for sentimental reasons, after all they have served us so well (BTW B-52 bombers are going to keep going for 80 years so why should these tap-out at 40?). And what air force is complete with out beasts like the An-124(dozens of which I'm given to understand are rolling of a busy aircraft plant somewhere in the former soviet union away from the lime light, just like the Il-476).
/s

[Sanku]

Both PAKFA and MRTA is going in same direction. All Indian money and no India participation in R&D. The only thing we can recover from these JVs is possible license manufacture of engines like PD-14. but I can bet Russians are going to ask for more money for that.

Yeah just like Brahmos no doubt, and MKI. Absolutely backed by real world data.

Much better than buying a plane so that a plant in US can run for 5 years and paying 5 billion $ for 123 and even needing US standard screwdrivers directly imported to change a wheel.

[Sanku]

Russia has missed the bus itna senti hone ka zaroorat nahin hai; C-17s have been purchased after successful trials in Leh . Even on paper there was no doubt that C-17 has better lift capability than IL-76 in demanding conditions , IL-476 was never in contention as it was not ready and afaik RU cannot ramp up it's production at the same rate and within similar notice period as Boeing (RU has been struggling with meeting a lot of our orders in time).

It would easy to validate any of these points though a RFI. At most 6 months more.

[Sanku]

Another aircraft that was being touted by some here to be considered as an option instead of the C-17 was the Airbus A400M. Now the A400's payload capacity is 37 tonnes. That is less than that of even the vanilla Il-76 operated by the IAF right now. The C-17 carries more than twice the payload of the A400M.

There are some inherent assumptions that go into C 17 purchase

1) We need the C 17 last week if not earlier, unlike MRCA, Guns etc etc
2) A transporter must carry 70 tons. Anything other than this magic figure and the transporter is not a transporter.
3) We must spend a lot of money, if we do not spend a lot of money, we cant get a good transporter.

Basically take a C 17 broucher, say that THAT AND ONLY THAT is what you need and you just got that epiphany when you were handed the broucher.



C 17 went from being no where on the horizon to "the thing that we need now" is something like 6 months.

[Austin]

Most likely the quickness of C-17 deal has to do with political decision to compensate for MMRCA loss on the horizon and it was the only big ticket item on the table that US had and the issue of C-17 line closing and job loss made it more acute.

I dont remember in the past two decade such a big deal made so quickly from Requirement to CCSA giving the go ahead.

Wasnt there the admission from Condi in her book that support of US for 123 would be compensated by buy Defence equipment and Reactors by India.

Not that C-17 is a good or bad aircraft for our needs that is best left for the IAF to judge.

But look at MMRCA deal immediately after Kargil war where ACM Tipnis mentioned of urgent need for 124 aircraft and look a decade from now where it stands , it is an open secret that Fighter Squadron numbers have fallen down drastically and Migs cant be flogged any further then they have already so far. We know that even if 2013 Rafale is given go ahead it would take 3 years for the first aircraft to enter squadron service i.e 2015 which is like full 15 years after urgent need to buy an aircraft.

Never Mind its a done deal and if IAF wants more of C-17 it will buy more in the future.

[NRao]

The MKI deal was a lot more political and keep-the-line-alive than the C-17. far more.

Both were worth it.

[negi]

^ MKI is not same as C-17 ; you are making your own case weak by bringing MKI into this discussion.

You will never get a platform as capable like MKI in that price package without any strings attached; US will not sell a strike AC with so much payload, range and kind of flight envelope to anyone outside of it's chamcha gang. There a lot of Made in India stuff that goes into the MKI including the mission computer.

Truth is a lot of arms purchases under FMS are in fact a payback for 123 deal in the old version of this thread we had already mentioned how fast the otherwise lumbering GOI was when it came to closing Trenton and C-17 (remember the finance ministry had refused to sanction the payment for Airbus A330 MRTT because of the cost factor ?) it's an open secret however it's not like platform being imported are not required or are being bought for the heck of it.

There are kickbacks in most of these deals but then I thought we were only discussing about the platform and it's capability .

[NRao]

I did not mention "price" did I?

The points were about "politics" and "keeping a line alive". Both are true WRT to the MKI. (No one expected much out of that deal - no one expected the MKI to be what it is with the exception of the IAF guys I guess.)

I had made this statement long back (some 10+ years ago) - Sukhoi would not be where it is today if it were not for the investment India made then in them (and in a drunk President).

Also, I recall the heart breaks we had had on that investment too. A LOT of folks never thought the MKi would make it. Which led to "Der se aiye, doorust aiye".

Recall those 10s of pages per thread on the MKI around 1995 (on BR).

_____________________________________________


I have no issues with political angle. Which nation does not have a political angle.

I STILL feel that the Rafale "deal" is because France allowed India to conduct nuclear tests on some computer somewhere in France. Is the Rafale a good MMRCA choice - it sure is.

Arihant, Chakra, etc, will have (and should have) a political and a financial angle to them. Nothing wrong with that.

The upgrades of the M2Ks is another example. Bet there is a political angle to spend like there is no tomorrow.

_________________________________________________

ALL these, however, given everything, does not make the C-17 deal a bad deal. In fact IF it was a political deal with the US, then all the more that the Russians should understand and not grip about it.

Keeping the C-17 production open - again - Russia should not grip about that too.

India spreading the wealth around (it means that India may not buy the most cheap, etc item out there) - Russia should not grip about it.

I can accept all that. What I am finding hard to accept is some strange arguments - that there is a IL-476 to even consider (there is not one - it comes out in 2017-18 per Ilyushin themselves). If there was one and the IAF bought one - fine, nothing wrong with that (it assumes that it is not a tincan of course).

[NRao]

Negi Saheb,

Let me put it this way. It was not until one of our own visited Lohegoan (and yes, visited a MKI - he has pictures to prove) that the MKI got a chappa of approval on BR.

Till then we had some very, very interesting discussions for years.

[negi]

^ I don't think the two are related in any way. My point is simple on what basis are you comparing the MKI and C-17 ? Political angle ? That exists everywhere you cannot rule that out in case of arms deals. My point was MKI is a platform of different nature US has nothing on the table similar to it and even if it did have it will not sell it to India on similar terms leave alone the price. Heck even the C-130s , C-17s and Trenton some under EUMA terms . There is not much here to argue about .

[NRao]

My point is simple on what basis are you comparing the MKI and C-17 ?

Responding to:

Most likely the quickness of C-17 deal has to do with political decision to compensate for MMRCA loss on the horizon and it was the only big ticket item on the table that US had and the issue of C-17 line closing and job loss made it more acute.

I dont remember in the past two decade such a big deal made so quickly from Requirement to CCSA giving the go ahead.

Wasnt there the admission from Condi in her book that support of US for 123 would be compensated by buy Defence equipment and Reactors by India.

On a diff note...................

I think you are comparing the MKI of today. I am comparing the MKI of the mid90s, when it had no supporters, people were wondering why the GoI placed so much funds into it (for the sake of a drunk president was the right answer). It was real bad for the MKI THEN. Very bad.

These arguments we are making against the C-17 pale in front of the the -ve arguments that the MKI faced in the mid90s. AND, these -ve args against the MKI went on for some 2-3 YEARS. (Some old timer correct me - it was about 4-5 years IIRC now. 96-97ish to around 01?)

Like I said Indian bailed out Sukhoi IMVVHO.

Funny you say this:

My point was MKI is a platform of different nature US has nothing on the table similar to it

In 1990s, even the Russians did not. : ). Which is why everyone and their grandfathers were skeptical about the MKI (and rightly so for that era).

I do not think people realize how great of a risk the MKI was. A huge risk.

[Austin]

The GOI placed money on MKI ( which by the way is a customised Su-30K , much like MKM , MKK , MKA or SM is for their respective airforce ) because China by then had a fleet of 200 Flanker Su-27SK and growing and there was nothing in IAF fleet to counter and the economy situation was very bad in 90's , MKI was cost effective options.

So it was never a bad deal then as there was no option from others available and IAF compared the only option deemed vialble which was M2K-5 which was considered inferior to the Flanker, The IAF simply customised the Su-30K/27UB according it its needs.

Any ways you bringing Drunk Russian President or Putin into your discussion is like saying we are buying C-17 to bail out the Black President on the top or buying Rafale to bail out French president whose economy is not doing well atm ...... India does not do any favour on any body in buying Arms , it buys it because it cannot make it , it wants it and it pays for what it buys ..its a commerical transaction .

[Austin]

In 1990s, even the Russians did not. : ). Which is why everyone and their grandfathers were skeptical about the MKI (and rightly so for that era).

I do not think people realize how great of a risk the MKI was. A huge risk.

IAF took the risk because it thought it was worth taking one , No one forced the IAF to take that risk.

It like says IN took a big risk by opting for Barak-8 for P-15A when it was just on drawing board delaying the entire commissioning since the missile will take a long time to come even when you look at its state of development today , Well no one forced the IN to take such risk , it took it because it think its worth the customisation that it would bring say over proven and ready Aster.

[NRao]

This is going OT for this thread, so hopefully my last post on this matter.

The GoI was asked to invest in Russia, which it did. The IAF then re-did the Flanker completely. This was an IAF idea - not a Russian idea - to remove Russian components and replace them with Indian, French and Israeli ones. Even then Sukhoi people were not for it - they (and rightly so) thought it was too much of a risk to integrate so many components. Which is why it took so long to build a MKI - integration (of already available components).

Like I said, the discussion on BR were spread over yearS.

Putin into your discussion is like saying

It was one of the RussioPhile that brought him, not me. I use it to poke fun. Sorry.

And, "it is like saying"....................... If I have to say it I will.

bringing Drunk Russian President

I can go only by what we read and discussed on BR then.

[Katare]

^ MKI is not same as C-17 ; you are making your own case weak by bringing MKI into this discussion.

You will never get a platform as capable like MKI in that price package without any strings attached; US will not sell a strike AC with so much payload, range and kind of flight envelope to anyone outside of it's chamcha gang. There a lot of Made in India stuff that goes into the MKI including the mission computer.

Truth is a lot of arms purchases under FMS are in fact a payback for 123 deal in the old version of this thread we had already mentioned how fast the otherwise lumbering GOI was when it came to closing Trenton and C-17 (remember the finance ministry had refused to sanction the payment for Airbus A330 MRTT because of the cost factor ?) it's an open secret however it's not like platform being imported are not required or are being bought for the heck of it.

There are kickbacks in most of these deals but then I thought we were only discussing about the platform and it's capability .

Not specific to negi sahib but a rhetorical post....

I'll start with a disclaimer first -

We had a great and satisfying relationship with USSR for decades that all Indians have very fond memories. I wish, hope and demand that we keep that relationship growing to new heights. Russian hardware/weapons and support have provided the security to our nation for past 50 years and we all have a special place in our heart for Migs, T-series, Su, Il, Grad, Yak and so many other weapons we have owned and relied on. But USSR is no more, only a pale shadow remains with a small economy based on natural resource/raw-material export, ageing population and failed states as allies and friends.

My thesis is we need to treat Russia with the love and respect that we always have but we can't tie our destiny to theirs. World has changed and realigned and in this scenario we must use all the advantages that we have access too. We must get over the Russian Romance and see the reality, we must let go the fear and past grudges against west/USA and we must rely on domestic sources and leverage all to enhance domestic options.

Some facts -

MKI is not cheap, it costs ~$100 MM a pop, more capable aircrafts may be available in the market for better prices now but we would never know. We do not know the maintenance, mission failure rates, and fleet availability rates of MKI but can guess based on other Russian stuff we operate.

F-15 is available for sale to India which may compete/out compete MKI in its latest version on size, range and performance too. But it never got the RFI/RFQ

Americans allow customization and non USA components if customer is willing to pay for it. P8I carries multiple Indian parts. If we buy 272 F-15s, I am sure they'll bent over backwards to allow as much customization as we can handle, it's hard for us to do that for 6 or 10 pieces.

Brahmos is not the only JV model India is working on with foreigners. And don't forget Russians have not inducted Brahmos yet in their forces. India paid for all of the money, including Russian share (50%) for JV, from the USSR era debt settlement fund. We agreed to settle that debt at very favorable rates to Russians at the condition that they will invest that money back into India. Since Ruble had gone worthless we could have paid that debt with our pocket change but we agreed to settle it on friendly terms.

Russians got Brahmos JV because there was no RFQ/RFP was issued, now we have BARAK-8, Maitri, and AEW JV up and running. GTRE is going RFQ route for engine, let them compete and win

If C 17 order is for keeping a USA factory running for few more years than MKI order in 1995 by Mulayam Singh was for keeping entire Sukhoi company from going bankrupt

In the end it's Indian hard cash that gets what we get, we have multiple options and each one of them provides unique advantages, we should make 'em compete for our cash and choose what fits us best. Hard cash, hard realities and no emotions!

[negi]

^ Katare sir I am not talking about relationship with US and RU that is a another topic for another thread; I wish to limit the scope only to the platform available and at what terms. America has opened it's MIL shop to India only after the 123 deal thanks to POK-II before that they were wailing for even selling us elementary stuff like Intel i960 cip, they blocked sale of Sea-king spares and I can go on about it . You gotta be kidding me by bringing in the F-15 Eagle here , Su-30 deal dates back to the time when I was in high school and when it was inked the POK-II sanctions were in place.

Customisation on P8I are just like any other platform we import i.e. specific to our needs MKI is not just customized the 'I' there stands for Indiski and it is there for a reason , likewise Mirages and Mig-29s are also cutomized for us the Seaking was wired to fire the Sea-eagle (it is a different matter that it does not work ) but we never mention them in the same breath as the MKI .

I don't read too much into running someone's factory angle, that's not our business both RU and Israel have delayed the deliveries at some point due to their domestic programmes so too much dependence on them is not good however on a relative scale they have supplied us equipment at our terms . One can argue at length if CISMOA and EUMA are bad or not but the point is if there are others who are going to sell us stuff and forget about what we do with it why would we even bother with the former ?

Just because MKI was bought from RU does not mean that it needs to be brought here to make a case for C-17 .

[negi]

NRao sir I fail to get as to what are you trying to say by harping on we invested in RU industry etc etc . That is a given i.e. when we buy from someone that money will be used by the seller to fund their work , why do we care ?

[NRao]

Customisation on P8I are just like any other platform we import i.e. specific to our needs MKI is not just customized the 'I' there stands for Indiski and it is there for a reason , likewise Mirages and Mig-29s are also cutomized for us the Seaking was wired to fire the Sea-eagle (it is a different matter that it does not work ) but we never mention them in the same breath as the MKI .

What you post makes sense, but not in this context.

The two issues related to "C-17" and "MKI" were: politics and doing a favor for the vendor. that is it. It is not technical, it has nothing to do with Russia or the US being able to provide or not.

So, something like the above does not fit into this discussion.

_____________________________________________________________________


BTW, if the IAF is happy with a IL-476, so be it. More power to them.

But that does not make the C-17 a bad or a shady deal. Political deals for bad products are a bad deal. If the C-17 is a deal for 123 - good. Bet the French, Brits and Russians will get something out of that 123 deal. That is the way it goes. However, the C-17 is still a very good machine.

And, if we all believe that it was motivated by politics then the C-17 cost should not be an issue - the C-17 cost should be offset by the benefits of 123 - because it was political.

[NRao]

NRao sir I fail to get as to what are you trying to say by harping on we invested in RU industry etc etc . That is a given i.e. when we buy from someone that money will be used by the seller to fund their work , why do we care ?

Oh, that is easy. Just pointing out that it was done for both the MKI and the C-17. India treated both the same. (As far as I can see.)

Me have to run.

[negi]

^ Well I am not saying that India should have bought IL-476 instead. Coming to the shady deal part , I have reconciled myself to the fact that all arms deals in our country are shady so that too is not an issue imo. I only posted here when PAKFA and MKI were brought into the discussion . I have no point to make against the C-17 acquisition as such.

[nrshah]

yes, today eagle might be available but not a decade back

You see, India was a third world country then. World economy,
read american economy was doing well. IT revolution was a future.
indian economy was not doing great and just has missed
a bankruptcy.

But still the Indian rise does not buy us raptor or ohios even today.
But yes they will be available once IAF starts operating FGFA
or akulla 2 for some years and next series of american weapons starts
entering american services

[Katare]

MKI
P8I
Both have an I?

CISMOA and all other restrictions are there and they are painful but there are clear advantages too that can't be ignored. Also the issues of poor performance, huge operating cost, obsolete technology and spare support with Russian hardware can't be ignored.

I look at 123 from different angle, it was done by USA/India to resolve the most difficult issue between the two countries. Without 123 India would not have opened the defense market for USA. I don't believe GoI can be compelled to dole out defense deals to countries as quid pro quo.

[chetak]

is the AN32 capable of the STOL landing and takeoff the C130 demoed?

The AN 32 has not been built from ground up for a specific purpose like the C130. It may have limited STOL performance because of this

Done at the specific request of the IAF, it was basically an araldite job, off shoot of the AN26 slapped on with AI20 series engines which were/are available in plenty with the IAF with the ability to overhaul them incountry. Compromises may have been made with the re positioning of the wings from what I heard long ago.

It has a high power to weight ratio because of the engines and had a lot of issues initially when it came from the fatherland.

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/images1/Ind ... sports.pdf

[Katare]

yes, today eagle might be available but not a decade back

But still the Indian rise does not buy us raptor or ohios even today.
But yes they will be available once IAF starts operating FGFA
or akulla 2 for some years and next series of american weapons starts
entering american services

Raptor/ohio-class are not available to anyone now or in future. One must calibrate one's expectations by grounding into reality.

[negi]

MKI
P8I
Both have an I?

Boss I thought most of us here who have been here for a while know about the MKI and how it is different. What Indian components does P8I have apart form the DL-II and IFF (which we do by default on all imported AC for security reasons). MKI's MFDs, Mission computer, FCR firmware all is Indian.

CISMOA and all other restrictions are there and they are painful but there are clear advantages too that can't be ignored.

Painful ? They are not only painful but stuff like EUMA can render a platform useless ; even Unkil's poodle TSP cannot use the F-16s for carrying nukes to this day; they were relying on MirageIIIs all this while and now have the bundar for the job .

it's Also the issues of poor performance, huge operating cost, obsolete technology and spare support with Russian hardware can't be ignored.

This is a very wrong impression to have ; RU makes the world's most powerful liquid propulsion rocket engines even US and other countries buy rocket engines(RD-170) from RU. Yes they no longer are at the fore front of technology in a lot of areas but then it is not about us buying latest and greatest (we will never be able to for no one sells their best) , point was who was selling stuff which came nearest to our requirements. Until recently US was not ready to sell even elementary stuff to us in the name of dual use technology.

I look at 123 from different angle, it was done by USA/India to resolve the most difficult issue between the two countries. Without 123 India would not have opened the defense market for USA. I don't believe GoI can be compelled to dole out defense deals to countries as quid pro quo.

Well there again you miss the point , we are no longer dependent on others for our MIL needs as before yes we are yet to make a fighter engine on our own but we already have started making destroyers , aircraft carriers, Arjun and Tejas are on their way . US has opened their market too late and that is why we are only buying token items from them i.e. stuff like transport AC , Trenton only P8I can be considered a force multiplier but it is a primarily a reconnaissance AC . There is a reason why we still buy most of our offensive stuff from RU and Israel or even France.

[nachiket]

F-15 is available for sale to India which may compete/out compete MKI in its latest version on size, range and performance too. But it never got the RFI/RFQ

No, not in the 90's when the MKI deal happened. And we couldn't have afforded so many F-15's anyway. Buying the MKI was an excellent decision. No need to bring that into this debate.

[nachiket]

Another aircraft that was being touted by some here to be considered as an option instead of the C-17 was the Airbus A400M. Now the A400's payload capacity is 37 tonnes. That is less than that of even the vanilla Il-76 operated by the IAF right now. The C-17 carries more than twice the payload of the A400M.

There are some inherent assumptions that go into C 17 purchase

1) We need the C 17 last week if not earlier, unlike MRCA, Guns etc etc
2) A transporter must carry 70 tons. Anything other than this magic figure and the transporter is not a transporter.
3) We must spend a lot of money, if we do not spend a lot of money, we cant get a good transporter.

Basically take a C 17 broucher, say that THAT AND ONLY THAT is what you need and you just got that epiphany when you were handed the broucher.

C 17 went from being no where on the horizon to "the thing that we need now" is something like 6 months.

Are you seriously saying that a transport aircraft with a max payload of 37 tonnes can fulfill the same requirement as one which can carry 77 tonnes? Why does the IAF buy different sized transports then? Why even have categories like light-medium-heavy if everything is equal-equal?
You did suggest the A400M as an option and when it is pointed out how ridiculous that is, you respond with accusations of brochuritis and "assumptions" which no one besides you has actually made.

[Sanku]

Are you seriously saying that a transport aircraft with a max payload of 37 tonnes can fulfill the same requirement as one which can carry 77 tonnes? Why does the IAF buy different sized transports then? Why even have categories like light-medium-heavy if everything is equal-equal?

No it may not fulfill the exact same role, but that is the WHOLE point is it not. To define the roles in a generic enough manner to have multiple possible solutions. That is precisely the WHOLE aim of DPP to create a true multi-vendor scenario.

And yes, for IAF the role is fairly generic in terms of transporters in the payload range mentioned. These are overlapping segments between tactical and strategic (An 120s are clearly strategic) neither C 17 is pure strategic and neither is Airbus offering a so low to be a hopper flight.

In this segment the important thing is not the payload per se, but more in terms of airfields where they can operate out of and range and for IAF Airbus ranges are more than sufficient where it has traditionally operated and will operate in all foreseeable future.

You did suggest the A400M as an option and when it is pointed out how ridiculous that is, you respond with accusations of brochuritis and "assumptions" which no one besides you has actually made.

Well does it seem ridiculous to have Gripen and EF in the same competition? Then why roll eyes at this?

[Philip]

Some details on the AN-70,which is a little behind the Il-76-90A in dev./production status,which also needs some political issues sorted out .

21/12/12 was when the first production std. fuselage was taken out of stocks at Antonov's Kiev factory in the presence of Ukranian PM Nikola Azarov.This is the first of "2 production std." aircraft ordered in 2004 and laid down as far back as 2001.Wings for the two aircraft will coem from Uzbekistan (TAPC),which used to make the Il-76.The upgraded AN-70 made its first flight on 27/9/12 following a two-yr long upgrade.

The basic changes are more powerful engines,APU,FADEC,propfan control system,expanded operating conditions.The cockpit changes include 6 colour multi-function LCDs.El-OP ball for night landings,seen in accompanying pics just below the nose.Production will be from a pool of Russian and Ukranian companies.The earlier plan was fro a comletely new facility to be built in Russia at KNAPOs facility in Kazan,fuselage from Aviastar's Ulyanovsk plant ( which builds the IL-76-90A) and wings and empennage from Antonov in Kiev,engines from Motor Sich in Moscow.A production rate of 12 per yr was planned.

However,a reshuffle of leaders in the Russian Defence Ministry may cause a revision of the plans.While Russia will fund the trials and completion of the first production std. aircraft in Kiev,it might put on the back-burner the launching of the new plant in Kazan.two reasons,outcome of the trials,but what appears to be more importantly,the "intellectual property matters" relating to the programme.

Politically,one must reflect upon the last Ukranian pol. leadership who had some problems with Russia.The enw regime is more friendly,but as this is a joint programme,the above point about "intellectual prop. rights" is a major issue to be sorted out first before large scale production takes place.

BE-200 amphibian: Full scale production (assembly) is taking place at Taganrog.Several earlier aircraft were built at Irkutsk (IAP).Over a dozen have been delivered to Russian agencies,with 8 more on order.talks are going on with China and the french-for fire-fighting variants.Since the aircraft is Russian and EU certified,efforts are underway to get US certification for its Air Tanker Board.India and ASEAN nations are interested in maritime patrol and SAR appplications.The BE-200 can carry 43 passengers on med-haul lines,both at airfields and on water,obtaining its EU certificate in 2010.

This would be an excellent acquisition for its varied uses and ideal for support to our island territories,esp. remote islands where there are no airfields.Another important use of amphibians is support of the IN's fleet/task forces at sea.

[Katare]

Negi,

Nothing special/different about MKI, I saw it all unfold in front my eyes from 1995. We signed a deal, to help our feiend, to buy a product that existed only on paper and even than it was not good enough. We had to take the initiatives to get key electronics parts from EU and domestic sources to bring the product to acceptable performance levels to meet Indian requirements. Product took a decade to mature but end product was worth the wait and trouble.

US tech restrictions renders nothing useless, if they do than no one's going to buy them but they are the best selling products with majority of export markets. The weapons are available with specific safeguards and if buyer can't comply with them they don't have to buy. If our forces are willing to buy them they must be OK with the agreements/restrictions, I guess.

You can choose to ignore issues with Russian hardware but facts remains that their hardware looks super good until it's evaluated against other products in open market. They have lost all the contests in Indian market on either performance, cost or both (MMRCA, Attack Chooper, Heavy lift Chooper, VVIP, Tanker and even T-90 lost to Arjun).

[arnab]

2G had ZERO loss.

There you go.

Surprised you are still quoting 2G. What was the saga again? CAG claims a 'loss' of Rs 1.76 lakh crores. The Govt had in 2010 only raised Rs 36,000 crores through direct 2g spectrum sales presumably causing this huge 'loss'!! The Supreme Court cancels all 2G licenses based on CAG's 'valuation'. Auctions are held - it raises Rs 9,800 crores Now the govt will have to return around Rs 27,000 crores. Thanks a lot CAG

Always knew the Audit and Accounts services chappies are not the sharpest tools in the shed. But Vinod Rai did get his 15 min of fame.

So - hopefully you, Phillip et al will be able to provide numbers of the true cost of acquiring the C-17s

[NRao]

I dont remember in the past two decade such a big deal made so quickly from Requirement to CCSA giving the go ahead.

* First time Boeing brought the C-17 to India was at the Aero 2007:


* Next data point seems to be Aero 2009 and Paris Show 2009
* Indian interest in the C-17 appears in reports around Nov, 2009.
* June, 2010 :: C 17 Globemaster-III is in India for trials
* Deal signed in June, 2011

That is over a 4 year span!!!!

[arnab]

That is over a 4 year span!!!!

I wonder how much time we took to evaluate and sign the contract to buy (sorry 'jointly develop' ) the FGFA. How many are we getting exactly? 214? Wonder if these got IOC and FOC before we plunged down this route.

[negi]

Katare sir every time you get your facts wrong and I correct them you come up with a new claim; so MKI becomes a paper plane now ? Do you know when did the Flanker fly first and went into production ? Boss it is not even funny any more.

MKI has western avionics not because it is inferior but because it was NOT MADE FOR IAF it is as simple as that no one out there will make an AC for IAF's needs , how difficult is it to understand such simple fact ?

US products are best selling ; spoken like a true pamphlet reading fanboy; that is a claim where are the facts ?

As for issues if you look enough you will find them everywhere, by cleverly pulling in T-90, Arjun in this thread you are merely clutching at the straws.

You first began by claiming that MKI was not any different from other Indian acquisitions in terms of Indian inputs on the platform , when refuted you claimed P8I too was similar , then again proved wrong you say MKI was a paper plane .

Coming to your last point about issues with RU hardware did I say that it was not the case ? Didn't Trenton have an explosion sometime back ? Should I like you too claim how inferior US shipbuilding is ? As for MMRCA F-18SH was one of the first ones to fail tests in Leh. One can cherry pick on such tid bits and spin stories and easily miss the woods for the trees.

As for India helping a friend ; bah humbug such sense of self entitlement ; boss we needed something they had something we paid the price it's business all the time , helpa ? If going senti is the fad of the day how about then taking into consideration RU's assistance in Arihant, GSLV cryo engines and Brahmos ? Or say even helping with testing of the Kaveri ?

Why don't you step back and put forward a better defense of C-17 on it's own merits than trying to pull other stuff down and that too without any facts ?

[NRao]

First of all it (the FGFA) now has a russianisk name: Perspective multirole fighter!

(I was under the Impression a plane could be multirole. A fighter? Anyways.)

However, I think India has hedged on both the PMF and the MTA. If and when the PMF's engine comes it would then be accepted into the IAF.

I just hope that India retains all rights to manufacture and export whatever she signs with Ru.

And I am not too sure how to prevent Russia from exporting such techs to china and pakistan. Need to come out with vaccine for that itch.

[arnab]

MKI has western avionics not because it is inferior but because it was NOT MADE FOR IAF it is as simple as that no one out there will make an AC for IAF's needs , how difficult is it to understand such simple fact ?

US products are best selling ; spoken like a true pamphlet reading fanboy; that is a claim where are the facts ?

**

Negi ji, genuine curiosity. You are saying Russian avionics are 'not made for IAF' (wonder why given that previously all russian aircrafts we bought did have russian avionics); but are you claiming that 'western avionics' are made to IAF specifications? So how do they conform to IAF standards? qualitatively? or does it have something for which there is no corresponding (no matter how 'inferior') Russian avionics (because they do not need it - like something that will survive 50 deg temparatures on the ground for e.g)?

I think Katare meant that US products are 'best selling' in the context that they export more than Russia does.

[negi]

^ Wait a minute so what is the point you are trying to make , Su-30 has some western avionics on it, so ? I clearly see people here trying to twist and present facts to suit their pov.

You see first MKI was brought into the debate , when pointed out that analogy was wrong. It was said nothing special just like any other import, when again proven wrong claim same as P8I when again proven wrong, oh no paper plane. And now oh it has western avionics . This is amusing.

As for number of exports there are more AK-47s out there than sum total of all types of guns Amrika makes so does that mean Ak-47 is a better gun ? What kind of logic is this ? Number of T series tanks out there are more than twice the number of M1 Abrams and Leopards; does that make T series a better tank ?

[arnab]

^ Wait a minute so what is the point you are trying to make , Su-30 has some western avionics on it, so ? I clearly see people here trying to twist and present facts to suit their pov.

You see first MKI was brought into the debate , when pointed out that analogy was wrong. It was said nothing special just like any other import, when again proven wrong claim same as P8I when again proven wrong, oh no paper plane. And now oh it has western avionics . This is amusing.

As for number of exports there are more AK-47s out there than sum total of all types of guns Amrika makes so does that mean Ak-47 is a better gun ? What kind of logic is this ? Number of T series tanks out there are more than twice the number of M1 Abrams and Leopards; does that make T series a better tank ?

So..the point is that if IAF had a choice of both western and russian avionics and chose to go with western - it must mean someting (and clearly not the reasoning that you were providing, viz; russian avionics were 'not made' for IAF). (I hope you were not trying to twist facts to suit your POV here, that you so deplore in others )

And yes - as a mass produced weapon, certainly ak-47 is the best one there is. it needs very little TLC, even kids can fire it (literally ) and going by the russian philosophy (quantity over quality - specially for a 'peasant army' and no doubt based on their terrble experience of shortages in WW2) - yes T series are 'better'. But Indian resources are finite (so were Russian resources, which is why they bankrupted themselves) - so it is better to move up the chain so to speak.

And yes US exports to customers who (most of them anyway) have the option of buying from the open market and can evaluate and buy the best and the US still manages to outsell Russia. A while ago India did not have that luxury, hence our over reliance on Russia (purely business relations as you said- no favour shavour). Hence, in that context US arms are 'best sellers'.