geeth wrote:>>>Of course, we can have many more IL 76 for one C 17. However, be gracious enough to read what I wrote about how one lift adds to the combat efficiency rather than many lifts? Please read . If it is faulty, please educate.
You talk as though I haven't read what you wrote and is oblivious about the advantages of having a bigger aircraft. I would request that you too be gracious and read my post..You will notice what I have said is that, having this aircraft at any cost is not worth it, and I believe so.
Comparing a Dakota with IL-76 is different from comparing it with C-17. Both are huge aircrafts - One is from a reliable supplier and is cheap and other from an unreliable supplier and costly - it is as simple as that. If you are not sure whether you can use it to its maximum potential in a crisis, then why have such a thing in the first place? Added to that is low number (due to cost)-if half of them are down, your (specialist) airlift capacity from them also comes down by that much - this is the flip side of it.
Even in the case of Arihant, it is done selectively on need base. Take the case of S-300/400 air defence units? That is a weapon more urgently needed by India than the transport planes. And it is offered by none other than Russia. Still India is not inclined to buy it, and instead, decided to develop our own ..why? It is costly, and moreover, we do not want to take the risk of such a crucial thing as air/missile defence using foreign maal. However, if the same thing was offered cheap, we still would have considered buying few units as stop gap arrangement.
Here the need is not stop gap, it is going to affect the heavy lift capacity over a long period. Hence we need to be more careful in selecting the aircraft for the purpose. Conspiracy theory or not, U.S.A is not in favour of India getting strong militarily. So we need to be doubly careful, that is all.
I did read your post interesting that they maybe.
The nub of your contention, as I can fathom are three, if I have understood your post correctly:
1. C 17 is too expensive.
2. It is better to have more aircraft than one, given the costs.
3. The deal is being forced down our gullet.
I have quite categorically enunciated the advantages of having a larger aircraft that can deliver a greater payload, not only from the economics point of view, but also from the military point of view.
I was not comparing Dakota to IL 76. I was merely mentioning that the IAF graduated from Dakota to aircraft of higher payload successively till it came to the IL 76. My point was to indicate that if lower payloads met the bill, we should have stuck to the smaller aircraft which were much cheaper and as per your argument, we would have many for the cost of one IL 76.
It is Alchemists Gold to believe that Russia will be friends forever. They manner in which they are increasing the cost of Groshkov should indicate that they have graduated from the days of selling armament to India for bananas! They have to survive and they realise their national interest comes first before everything else. Geopolitics and geostrategy will dictate Russia and not the mush of the Cold War days! It is time for us to smell the coffee.
On your contention that if half of the C17 were down, then there would be problems. What is half of the IL 76 are down? At least, half of the serviceable C 17 would still deliver more than the IL 76 half or three quarter down. The C 17 carries double the payload of IL 76.
Now, let me once again reiterate the issues that I have discussed over so many posts.
Economics.
1. One aircraft delivering the same payload that many aircraft requires to deliver is obviously cheaper. Why do the low cost carriers prove to be more profit making than the higher priced airlines (Indigo vs Kingfisher)? Because the low fare ensures optimum load.
2. It costs more to have adequate staff (air crew, service and maintenance staff) for more aircraft in terms of pay and allowances.
3. These staff would require housing and other facilities And that would cost more than having less staff.
4. Russian aircraft are good, but they are fuel guzzlers. In the line of my duty, I have done a study on the logistics support of a certain area and hence I am aware of the same, though I cannot divulge the details in an open forum or even otherwise unless cleared to do so.
5. Every time an aircraft takes off or lands, there is wear and tear on the runway. More the aircraft operating, greater the cost.
6. ATC will have to have greater number of personnel since more aircraft would be operating, if there were smaller aircraft carrying the same payload that fewer C 17s would carry.
7. The greater the number of aircraft, the larger would be the number of loaders. More money in pay and allowance and accommodation and food.
There are many more issues, but let this suffice.
Combat Environment
1. The more the number of aircraft in the combat Zone where the dropping is being done or air landing is being done, the greater is the threat to the aircrafts. (In Kargil, the last helicopter taking on Tiger Hill was shot down. If one could have done the job (which it could not) then the situation would be different). However, to be correct, airlanding is done when the threat is relatively less and the risks can be taken.
2. If there is a critical requirement of equipment, supplies or troops, one aircraft can land/ air drop faster than many aircraft doing the task. For instance, if you are meeting your family at Point A and you have to reach point X quickly with your own family, would it not be easier for you if they came as one group and not in various forms of transport and at different times?
3. For paradrops, it is critical that the drop is as close to the DZ. The dispersion is the biggest bugbear for any Para Commander. If the paratroopers are dropped from the same aircraft, then the dispersion is less than their being dropped from many aircraft. It must be remembered that the paradrop is being done in enemy territory. If you have seen the film Longest Day, it would highlight the issue.
Lastly, what makes you feel that Patriot missiles are a crying need and not heavy airlift capability? I presume you are not aware of what was taking place when the Chinese were posturing along the LAC. Patriots or equivalents are for missiles that carrying nukes. What are the odds that the adversaries will use it. Now check the odds of intrusion/ incursions that may change the LC/ LAC. Which is the priority?
Checked the economics of the airlift to Siachen with a plethora of aircraft vs one with greater lift? Is the IL 76 cheaper or a huge number of AN 32 or even Mis?
It does not concern India what the US feels about not allowing India to be strong. The dictum is - Have Money, Will Buy the best! From anyone who will sell. And we have the Money!
Napoleon had said England is a country of shopkeepers, the US believes 'In Green Bucks We Trust'! Note how China has exploited this issue and we are acting coy with all moral claptrap!
In protecting our Nation, there is no question of Gandhian morality!
I would rather go by Patrick Henry - Give me Liberty or Give me Death!
More later.
)
