C-17s for the IAF?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 21 Mar 2010 04:32

Gaur wrote:I did not know of this. I have some doubt regarding the credibility of the source, but if true, this news is really shocking to me.


There is a Wikipedia article on them with plenty of references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossian

The UK did the dirty work for the Americans. In exchange for .... we will probably never know.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 21 Mar 2010 06:19

Gilles wrote:A senior US envoy has warned that ties with Japan could be "affected in many fields" if Tokyo missed a May deadline for solving a dispute over an American military base, Japanese lawmakers said Saturday.


That's standard diplo-speak.

No one is suggesting the US is suddenly going to yank all their weapons.


Gilles wrote:The Americans wont leave.....


Completely false.

Japan doesn't want the US to leave completely, they just want that particular land. BUT all the alternative locations they are proposing are running into domestic oppositions

If Japan's goal was to kick the US out, they could do that. Period.




Yes, way to bring up COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT situations.

Once again we have a foreign government (Britain) WILLINGLY letting the US use some place as a base.

Conspiracy not found.



Way to bring up a situation from over 100 years ago lololol.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby putnanja » 21 Mar 2010 06:40

GeorgeWelch wrote:Once again we have a foreign government (Britain) WILLINGLY letting the US use some place as a base.

Conspiracy not found.



Way to bring up a situation from over 100 years ago lololol.


Yup, if one doesn't want to hear the truth, no amount of facts will change that. The US knew that UK was kicking out those people, but hey, they are a different govt responsibility. Just like having the CIA interrorgate suspects in third countries, so that it can deny any responsibility. As for Japan, if the US cared so much for local consent, it would just walk away instead of threatening that ties will worsen.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 21 Mar 2010 06:44

GeorgeWelch wrote:Way to bring up a situation from over 100 years ago lololol.


This is not from 100 years ago. The US military occupies Cuban land today! And the Cubans want them out now.

The "treaty" allowing the US unlimited stay in Cuba was signed by a US installed puppet regime. You know it, everyone knows it. But because the US is the big superpower bully it is, no one can do anything about it.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 21 Mar 2010 07:51

putnanja wrote:The US knew that UK was kicking out those people, but hey, they are a different govt responsibility


So?

putnanja wrote:As for Japan, if the US cared so much for local consent, it would just walk away instead of threatening that ties will worsen.


I never said they cared about local consent, they care about the government's consent. You know, the government that supposedly represents those people.

Gilles wrote:This is not from 100 years ago. The US military occupies Cuban land today!


The situation that led to it is rather unique, occurred 100 years ago, and has zero relevance to India.

Unless you think the US is planning on installing a puppet regime in India anytime soon . . .

Many of the Indians need to wake up and realize that you are a global power. The constant paranoia of seeing a conspiracy in every single action is the behavior of tiny/weak nation. Maybe it was appropriate in the past, but India has grown greatly since then. Have more confidence in your own country!

India isn't going to let the US dictate its foreign policy no matter what deals are made.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 21 Mar 2010 20:50

My apologies. I moved my comment here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5415&p=842683#p842683
Last edited by Gilles on 22 Mar 2010 02:58, edited 3 times in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 21 Mar 2010 21:12

Gilles wrote:they manufacture a large nearby threat (Iraq first and then Iran) and impose whatever they want on them in exchange for "protection" against this threat.


Way to expose yourself as a conspiracy nutjob :rotfl:

Yes, Kuwait was never threatened by Iraq (say what?)

China would NEVER consider any sort of unilateral action against Taiwan if Taiwan would only disarm themselves.

South Korea has a peace-loving neighbor to the north.

Gilles wrote:Our people were against.


Way to speak for all Canadians.

I'm sure YOU were against, but plenty of Canadians were for it and wished they could do more. I check-in on some Canadian forums occasionally, and suffice it to say, most there didn't agree with you either.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16881
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 21:15

no politics in this thread please. if needed, please use the sundry diplomacy/international relations threads in the strat forum.
Rahul.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 21 Mar 2010 22:28

hey all, newbie here. lets not argue about 10 planes, i dont see the c-17 as a bad choice. Its cutting edge , has lots of nice avionics, reliability is good and can do the job, that is carry upto 70+ tons from A to B. It can prove very useful in disaster management, transportings lots of materials and people when needed to lots of areas within India. If people doubt the c-17 can land at Leh, you should be sure the an-124 can't. problem with il-76 and other Russian birds is poor after sales service. might be good and useful equipment but not very good when you have to cannabalize to keep them flying. An-124, c-5 are bigger but are also riskier, i wouldnt want to fly those in combat, heck no, because they are very big targets. I have seen the c-5, it looks an invitation for random air defence fire. The c-17 is big enough and has lots of neat equipment which can put the pilot's mind to rest. now whether dealing with the US will put the Govt. and BR member's minds at rest is another thing. we ordered the P-8, c-130J, we are looking to order 6 more c-130J and have an option for 10 more c-17s. We really aren't rushing into a cozy relationship with the US, we're taking it nice and slow. so relax, its just 10 planes, i really dont think by buying 10 planes from US, we're handing over India to the US. Besides FMS is virtually corrupt free unlike almost every single Russian deal in the past.

Nair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 13 Mar 2010 06:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Nair » 21 Mar 2010 22:44

I support George Welch...I don't understand how buying a few planes can allow America to control India's policy. India is not Pakistan or Iraq...

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 22 Mar 2010 03:25

Nair wrote:I support George Welch...I don't understand how buying a few planes can allow America to control India's policy. India is not Pakistan or Iraq...


You don't? An example. Canada and the US are good friends, allies, neighbours, the biggest commercial partners, members of NATO, members of NORAD, members of NAFTA etc. Canada is the US's biggest oil and gas supplier. Best friends.

On March 6 2006, a Canadian Airliner taking off from Cuba to Canada loses its rudder in flight shortly after take-off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_961

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/rudder-sep.htm

It returns for an uneventful landing in Cuba. Airbus, who manufactured the Airbus 310, after inspecting the aircraft, decides that its better to change the whole tail fin, since they don't know what kind of stress it was subjected to when the rudder separated.

The A-310 is no longer in production and there are no new tail fins in stock. No problem. Airbus owns several old Airbus 310s, and a used tail-fin can be removed from one of those and shipped to Cuba. The Airbus-owned A-310s were parked in the desert in the United States for conservation. Airbus goes to remove one of those tail-fins to ship it to Cuba.

The US refused. Why?. There is a US embargo against Cuba. Nothing can be shipped from the US to Cuba, especially not aircraft parts. That the Airbus was French-made, was Canadian-owned, that the old Airbuses parked in the US desert were Airbus-owned, all that didn't matter. No tail-fin was being shipped from the US to Cuba. To by-pass the restriction, some people considered removing the US-based tail fin and shipping it to Canada , and removing another tail fin from another Canadian-based Airbus 310 and shipping that one to Cuba. The the "US" tail-fin would be installed on the aircraft in Canada. Airbus considered but quickly refused: that was way too risky and too much was at stake. If the US frowned at that little shipment criss-cross, they could take severe punitive action, not only against Airbus, but also against the Canadian Airline......

So finally Airbus had to custom-build a new A-310 tail-fin in France which took months, during which the Canadian airliner stayed stuck in Cuba, and which cost millions of dollars more than removing one of the tail-fins located in the US desert.

All this because Canada does not support the US-imposed unilateral embargo against Cuba.

Now, go ahead and buy C-17s, give Boeing an exclusive maintenance contract for the maintenance of these aircraft (you will have no choice, thats a condition that will be imposed when you buy) and go ahead and break down or have a mishap in some place the US does not approve of, and see what happens when you need Boeing engineers to come and fix it.....
Last edited by Gilles on 22 Mar 2010 06:15, edited 1 time in total.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby svinayak » 22 Mar 2010 05:10

Gilles wrote:
Now go ahead and buy C-17s, give Boeing an exclusive maintenance contract for the maintenance of these aircraft and go ahead and break down or have a mishap in some place the US does not approve of, and see what happens when you need Boeing engineers to come and fix it.....

India has similar experience with Westlandhelicopters in 1999. Spare parts was refused since India was at war.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 22 Mar 2010 06:09

Augusta Westland is a British company right? Gilles: been reading this thread for a while give it a break man, it gets really annoying when you make it sound like the purchase of 10 aircraft is the worst thing that India could ever do.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Virupaksha » 22 Mar 2010 06:19

Brahmananda wrote:Augusta Westland is a British company right? Gilles: been reading this thread for a while give it a break man, it gets really annoying when you make it sound like the purchase of 10 aircraft is the worst thing that India could ever do.

<rant>
when people try to brush the threats off because it is their favored country, it also gets even more annoying especially when India itself has experienced most of them.

To ignore that US could and has in the past forced groundings of aircraft and equipment sold due to "sanctions" and thus make the 10 bought only 3-4 in use at the right time, what would you call it?

It all starts with 10 aircraft, 126 aircraft and by the end of day, you have everything from them.
</rant>

Brahmananda,
use facts, logic and historical precedents to talk sense into us lowly abduls. Dont please try to browbeat others. If it gets annoying to you, hard luck.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 22 Mar 2010 06:36

Brahmananda wrote:Augusta Westland is a British company right? Gilles: been reading this thread for a while give it a break man, it gets really annoying when you make it sound like the purchase of 10 aircraft is the worst thing that India could ever do.


For some countries, parts, and weapons are blocked when they are at war. It happened to Argentine when they were at war with the UK. It happened to Peru when they went to war with Equator in 1995 (At the time they had Mirage 2000s. The French refused to sell them missiles for the Mirages. As a consequence, in 1996, Peru purchased Mig-29s.....)

For other countries however, parts and weapons are rushed to them when they are at war and third countries bend backwards or turn a blind eye to facilitate such shipments (then claim they knew nothing about the shipments....)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5223444.stm

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 22 Mar 2010 22:45

ravi_ku wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:Augusta Westland is a British company right? Gilles: been reading this thread for a while give it a break man, it gets really annoying when you make it sound like the purchase of 10 aircraft is the worst thing that India could ever do.

<rant>
when people try to brush the threats off because it is their favored country, it also gets even more annoying especially when India itself has experienced most of them.

To ignore that US could and has in the past forced groundings of aircraft and equipment sold due to "sanctions" and thus make the 10 bought only 3-4 in use at the right time, what would you call it?

It all starts with 10 aircraft, 126 aircraft and by the end of day, you have everything from them.
</rant>

Brahmananda,
use facts, logic and historical precedents to talk sense into us lowly abduls. Dont please try to browbeat others. If it gets annoying to you, hard luck.


Well Ravi bhai i am not brushng off history or how US has behaved in the past, i am just saying its 10 aircraft, we should have really been worried of US before we ordered 8 P-8I and 6 C-130J and are negotiating the purchase of 6 more C-130Js.

We should have been really paranoid before we started dealing with the US. Now that we are dealing with them, well the way to go forward i think is how to manage this growing relationship. This doesnt mean we shouldnt be cautious but lets stop behaving so paranoid. Paranoia leads to unwanted tension. We know how the Pakis work but US has no clue, all they hear is constant begging and stories, so to me US donations to Pak are just pity based donations, you can only avoid the ardent begger for so long, beggars are noisy and committed to getting what they want. By acting paranoid all the time we for one can't negotiate with a position of power. yes US record is bad but Russian record isn't beautiful and rosy either. They practically gave all the blue prints to all their weapons to the Chinese and many of our own Il-76 have to canabalized to keep flying. There were many reports of how a majority of our Russian inventory of BVR A2A and A2G missiles malfunction way before their shelf life. Some of them malfunctioned 2 years into active service. Few years back our Mkis were grounded because of lack of tyres, c'mon man, simple tyres.

so nobody is innocent in this high stakes game. C-17 is cool buy and i for one dont think by buying them we're suddenly digging our own grave.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2010 02:09

Brahmananda wrote:
Well Ravi bhai i am not brushng off history or how US has behaved in the past, i am just saying its 10 aircraft, we should have really been worried of US before we ordered 8 P-8I and 6 C-130J and are negotiating the purchase of 6 more C-130Js.

We should have been really paranoid before we started dealing with the US. Now that we are dealing with them, well the way to go forward i think is how to manage this growing relationship.


This makes no sense? Since we may have made mistakes before, the right way to fix it is making more mistakes of the same type?

This doesnt mean we shouldnt be cautious but lets stop behaving so paranoid. Paranoia leads to unwanted tension.


And who decides what is caution and what is paranoia? You?

We know how the Pakis work but US has no clue, all they hear is constant begging and stories, so to me US donations to Pak are just pity based donations, you can only avoid the ardent begger for so long, beggars are noisy and committed to getting what they want.


Are you feeling quite all right?

Please visit the TSP thread to get your medicine please. Pakistan is a state created and used by US of A to achieve its strategic goals.

By acting paranoid all the time we for one can't negotiate with a position of power. yes US record is bad but Russian record isn't beautiful and rosy either. They practically gave all the blue prints to all their weapons to the Chinese and


Wrong thread again but compared to US? Very very very good since late 1960s, an order of magnitude different.

many of our own Il-76 have to canabalized to keep flying.


Not true.

so nobody is innocent in this high stakes game.


No one is, It is just that US intrests and Indian intrests do not ally, not unless US is ready to share space with India. While Russia and India can comfortably share space and live and have shown so.

C-17 is cool buy and i for one dont think by buying them we're suddenly digging our own grave.


Cool buy?

Nice metric for deciding weapon packages I am sure.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Karan M » 23 Mar 2010 02:13

Gilles, very interesting story about the Airbus and Cuba. Would you have any links?

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 23 Mar 2010 02:55

Sanku sahab seems like you've been here too long, may be your the one growing old and need your medicine. Well i dont decide what is paranoia and caution, its upto the final operator of the equipment to decide that and in this case its the IAF. Since they are the ones interested in the C-17, i trust they know what they are doing. I am saddened that you for one dont trust the IAF's judgement in such a purchase. Unless you think IAF has no clue what its doing and have no faith in their ability to make a well researched choice.

May be you need a lesson in history, how was Pakistan created by the US?

"In early 1946, new elections were called in India in which the Congress won electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Muhammad Ali Jinnah proclaimed August 16, 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India’s prime minister.

Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.

As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date for the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence. In June 1947, the nationalist leaders, including Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad on behalf of the Congress, Jinnah representing the Muslim League, B. R. Ambedkar representing the Untouchable community, and Master Tara Singh representing the Sikhs, agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines. The predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan; the plan included a partition of the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal."

This is how pakistan was formed, dont see where the US comes in. The Pakis soon after went sucking up to the US while India remained 'neutral'. Lets not blame our faults and mistakes on others. US had little to do with the formation of Pakistan. We are fully responsible for creating Pakistan.

I wonder what strategic goals could US be thinking about?? Is it giving billions in donations so that the same extremists may use these same weapons against them. I hardly think giving billions in US tax payer money is US strategic policy.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 23 Mar 2010 03:31

Mrinal wrote:Gilles, very interesting story about the Airbus and Cuba. Would you have any links?


I'm sorry to say I have no web links to this story (the part about the being unable to get the used tail-fin from the parked A-310 in the States). It was told to me by people closely involved in these events. As far as I know, they were never made public.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 23 Mar 2010 04:13

Brahmananda wrote: many of our own Il-76 have to canabalized to keep flying.


Like I wrote on a March 15 post on this thread, I have found recent pictures of 14 of the IAF 17 Il-76s, including the oldest one, K-2661. I also found recent pictures of 5 of the IL78s. In all Air Forces, parts are sometimes taken from one aircraft to keep another flying, especially when two separate aircraft break down at the same time in want of two different parts. Instead of grounding two aircraft, a part is moved from one of the grounded aircraft to the other, and we end up with only one grounded aircraft in need of two parts, instead of two grounded aircraft.

Some years ago, I read an article about the a high number of Russian-built IAF fighters that were grounded for lack of parts (cant remember if the subject was Mig-29 or Su-30). Some people were insinuating that this was because the parts were not available in Russia. Then a Russian official was quoted as saying that India had never ordered any large quantities of parts for that aircraft after the initial large stock of parts that had been originally purchased with the aircraft at the time of the initial induction.
Last edited by Gilles on 23 Mar 2010 05:00, edited 1 time in total.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby negi » 23 Mar 2010 05:00

^ I think this should be the case for most of the airforces which operate foreign aircraft specially when the said AC type is not licensed produced in the host country .

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Surya » 23 Mar 2010 06:42

Oh boy now we have another defender of Russian parts supply :mrgreen:

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby johnny_m » 23 Mar 2010 07:53

Things good with Americans.

1. If there are no sanctions parts supply is never an issue. It has never been to countries operating American hardware.

2. When a contract is signed they deliver on or before the promised time. IAF's C 130Js for example may arrive earlier than expected.

3. Some of you may mention the F 35 and its slippages, but thats a developmental project no partner nations have signed contracts for production aircraft.

4. I think it all depends on foreign policy, and there has been a continuity of that with respect to America from the last NDA government to the two UPA governments, If we are going to be on the American's good side U.S hardware offers more bang for the buck without much issues than the other options.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 23 Mar 2010 08:00

Surya wrote:Oh boy now we have another defender of Russian parts supply :mrgreen:


Do you mean me ? I am certain that dealing with Boeing is much easier than dealing with Russians. For one thing, if you send an email to Boeing, you get a reply. Try sending one to Ilyushin and you wont. I know that from experience. But when I hear something negative, I try to find out if its propaganda, based on prejudices, or both.

When Canada was purchasing C-17s and people were telling me that the IL-76 could not be considered because Russian equipment was crap and parts were hard to get (its at that time that I read articles about the Indian fighters I mentioned in my previous post). I wanted to get an honest and direct opinion from someone who knew first hand about it.

Here in Canada, there is only one company that operates Russian-built aircraft commercially, VIH helicopters (http://www.vih.com/). They own a few Kamov Ka-32 helicopters they purchased in the early nineties. I called the manager. He told me he loves the KA-32 which has great performance, is rugged and reliable. In the early days he had problems with suppliers for parts. Then he hired a buyer in Russia who takes his orders, buys them for VIH and ships them to Canada. Problem solved. Has not had a parts problem since.

Back in 2006, one anti-Russian Canadian poster gave me a specific example of a country that had a hard time maintaining Russian aircraft. I looked into that example. In that case, the country had not actually "purchased" the aircraft but had received them as payment for an old Russian debt. But then they wanted the Russian suppliers to also send spare parts in exchange for a further reduction of Russia's debt. It didn't work and the aircraft were often grounded for lack of parts. Perhaps if they had at least paid for the parts.....

Another example I have given previously: the An-124. There are only 25 civilians An-124s flying the world. The rest are Russian Air Force. Thats a very small fleet to maintain. Normally the smaller the pool of manufactured aircraft, the harder it is to maintain the fleet. Yet show me one An-124 that is grounded for lack of parts. I've never seen one that was grounded anywhere. They seem to have a handle on parts supply, somehow.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2010 12:55

Brahmananda wrote:Sanku sahab seems like you've been here too long, may be your the one growing old and need your medicine.


Oh yes, I have been around very long and am Old, but unfortunately for you and that jibe, I dont take being old as a negative fact, much better to be old and informed than johnny come lately whose knowledge and opinions are inversely proportional.

Unless you think IAF has no clue what its doing and have no faith in their ability to make a well researched choice.


Unfortunately that is not quite so simple as that. I can have full faith in their ability to make a well researched choice, on one level, and yet violently disagree on other level.

In fact this is not new, IAF routinely makes well researched choices for its options, which are then completely changed based on many other metrics by the MoD and MoF and other departments of GoI. The shift to Russian equipment when it first happened was determined by many such factors.

But I am expecting perhaps far too much from you when I make the above allusions :lol:

In any case, yes, let me be clear -- I think NO US weapon supplies should be procured IF there is a alternate available from else where. Not unless there is a massive shift in US strategic behavior towards us.

I dont care if C 17 is the best option in pure capability, it is also the costliest not only in simple monetary cost but many other factors. Simply put its a terrible RoI option. Simply terrible. EoS.

-----------

Meanwhile, spare me the four line post about Pakistan's history and spend some time instead in the strategic threads where the connection between Pakistan and its 3 1/2 friends and the mutual interdependent goals are explored.

You will also find the exploration of the manner in which Britian passed over the leadership baton to US over there.

----------

I also note that you have side stepped any and all inconvenient factual question in your quest for telling us your invaluable opinion (never mind that no real world facts back them up)

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2010 13:01

The spare part problem was primarily a 90s phenomena, caused by an disintegrating country with a drunkard and sell out at the helm. With Russia rapidly making up for the massively damaging 90s; a lot of those problems are now going away.

In fact Mig 29s; one of THE equipment which faced the burnt of such issues are now going back to Mother Ru for upgrades.

Things change.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20435
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 23 Mar 2010 13:07

How can India reward the US with fat contracts ONLY to keep production lines about to close (for the C-17,F-16 and F-18),not really what India requires,at huge costs that too when the US simply refuses to hand over to India one of the key conspirators behind the attacks of 26/11 because he is in fact a US double-agent? Would the US reward a nation which refused to extradite the perpetrators of 9/11? In fact,the US is arming Pak to the hilt with weaponry,releasing details in small doses,the last being the OH Perrh frigates.These ASW frigates have many years of life left in them and have been massively upgraded by the Oz navy.The same upgrade plan is proposed for the PN.These warships are being literally "gifted" to Pak so that it can fight the Taliban navy one presumes! It is only because we have some fifth-columnists in the GOI,traitors to the nation,that such sordid deals are taking place which have not even gone through the fig-leaf of a contest.When this govt. inevitably falls,the scandal surrounding these deals with the US will massively explode making "Bofors" in comparison look like a token donation to a public charity!

Devesh Rao
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 12 Jan 2008 14:28
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Devesh Rao » 23 Mar 2010 13:21

Sanku wrote:..............
C-17 is cool buy and i for one dont think by buying them we're suddenly digging our own grave.


Cool buy?

Nice metric for deciding weapon packages I am sure.


Sanku sahab, at least you had the patience to reply.. i guess, maturity comes with age.. a definite plus point :D

As for the C-17 buy is concerned, it is not a good buy not because of anything to do with the aircraft. It is not a good buy because the seller cannot be trusted. Period. and the same applies to any other defense equipment as well.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 23 Mar 2010 13:34

well Sanku enlighten me. secondly why do people here worry so much about Pak. IAF, IA, IN togther can level PAk in less than 10 minutes no matter what kind of weapons US gives PAK. By 2012 our air space will be impregnable and nothing the PAkis can throw at us can actually get through. China is the bigger worry. Secondly C-17 isn't a weapon Mr. Sanku, its a platform and name one aircraft that can compete that still has a reliable logistic chain, is available today and has a large enough foot print across the world to be supported on the long run. What can a little Perry class ship do when its faced directly with the Brahmos, there is nothing on the Perry or any other ship around the world besides the super carriers themselves that could possibly stop the Brahmos or even the terminal stage supersonic Club missile.

The bigger worry i think should be the Chinese relentless copying of all Russian weapons which by the way are pointed at us. Well i dont care if the IL-76 or the An-224 are better options strategically. The IL-76 is not big enough and An-224 is too big, C-17 falls right where the IAF can find a good need so they're going for it and your ranting here isnt going to stop that.

The issue here is not to deal with the US but how to? Because well we are already buying from them and they will win many deals because of availability, good production scales, good enough quality and good technology. Whether you like them or not they'll bid in a lot of deals, they might not win all, but they're sure to win a few of them.

Lots of people here keep going back whether to deal with them or not, well its too late to think about that, we have begun dealing with them and now we have to engaged in relationship managment.

The IAF thinks the C-17 is a a good buy, they defend our nation and not you Mr. Sanku, you with your old age wont be able to throw a stone at the PAkis while the IAF will bomb them back to stone age. They defend our naton, not you, you with your talk of experience just bore all the young folk here into oblivion, thats the only damage you could do. But we young folk can volunteer to go face the enemy.

Kudos, all the problems we have in the world today are because of the work of the old folk and their choices over decades while the youth today suffer.

Devesh Rao
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 12 Jan 2008 14:28
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Devesh Rao » 23 Mar 2010 13:56

Brahmananda wrote:
Kudos, all the problems we have in the world today are because of the work of the old folk and their choices over decades while the youth today suffer.


I guess your old man could have saved us all one little problem, by being a bit more pragmatic when he thought of begetting you.

Mods snip off my comment if it is offensive, ban me if you think so but the above poster has no class or brains.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2010 14:11

Brahmananda wrote:
Kudos, all the problems we have in the world today are because of the work of the old folk and their choices over decades while the youth today suffer.


Well Brahmanada, the mods were definitely did not have Lakshmi on their lips when they replaced your moniker.

Perhaps you will consider that the world will indeed go on (at least I hope and pray it will) and the same will be repeated by the youth (of the vacuous types who will seek to find assign blame to make up for their lack of ability) of that time for the Old men then, which I hope you might have figured out (despite the brilliance on display so far) would be the youth of today.

Apart from that bit of advice for introspection there is nothing much that I can offer you if, you hold the opinion

well Sanku enlighten me. secondly why do people here worry so much about Pak. IAF, IA, IN togther can level PAk in less than 10 minutes no matter what kind of weapons US gives PAK


I am indeed enlightened; as I am by the following

Secondly C-17 isn't a weapon Mr. Sanku, its a platform


I shall remain in your eternal debt, thankoo saar.

JimmyJ
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:36
Location: Bangalore

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby JimmyJ » 23 Mar 2010 14:19

Brahmananda wrote:well Sanku enlighten me. secondly why do people here worry so much about Pak. IAF, IA, IN togther can level PAk in less than 10 minutes no matter what kind of weapons US gives PAK.


I am not sure which prism you are using to view an India-Pak conflict, any way it is not as simple as you seem to make it. With nukes in picture, friendly neighbors, opportunist world powers, and India's own economic growth at risk I am not sure whether we may ever have a scenario like that any time soon. If interested I could put bet on it, are you interested.

Also the base difference between Russia and USA is

Russia may jack up the price but still gives you what you want.

USA will make you pay much heavier price but won't let you have what you need nor let you use what you have.

Paranodism is slightly the better than blind optimism.
Last edited by JimmyJ on 23 Mar 2010 14:31, edited 2 times in total.

Avik
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Avik » 23 Mar 2010 14:30

""IAF, IA, IN togther can level PAk in less than 10 minutes no matter what kind of weapons US gives PAK. By 2012 our air space will be impregnable and nothing the PAkis can throw at us can actually get through. ""

Brahmananda : Would you be kind enough to pls enlighten us how you made the above statements?

rkirankr
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 11:05

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby rkirankr » 23 Mar 2010 14:40

Avik wrote:""IAF, IA, IN togther can level PAk in less than 10 minutes no matter what kind of weapons US gives PAK. By 2012 our air space will be impregnable and nothing the PAkis can throw at us can actually get through. ""

Brahmananda : Would you be kind enough to pls enlighten us how you made the above statements?

And you expect an answer from a person who made that statement :shock: :lol:

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 23 Mar 2010 14:42

Mr. Devesh, yes i have no brains or class but have a very large penis that works just fine. May be thats the problem with you? Old age getting to you sir? Wait let me guess; you have grown up kids who dont care about you, a wife who grumbles at the sight of you and hence your here releasing your frustrations? I just completed my eductaion and i am looking for work. I love and respect my parents regardless of what they think of me and i know they love me too. Are you sad that you have failed as a parent sir? or just sad that you failed as a man? or the meds getting to you? side effects: grumpy old man? Why don't you do what other old men do, relax and enjoy your retirement sir, take a walk, sip some wine, relax some more, watch TV, watch your grand kids grow up, take part in their growth? Why do you want to waste your time talking to people like me, all penis no brains right?

why dont you counter my points with some valid arguments? Whats up with the personal attacks? This is the welcome a newbie gets for stating his opinion. I wasnt being rude to anyone, i justed stated what i thought was pretty annoying when over 25 pages of this thread talks exclusively about why not to deal with the US when we already are. The relevant topic here is the c-17 and its imminent acquisition. Putting aside US bahaviour in the past the IAF still wants the C-17 so its obvious they like something or know something we dont. Why cant people just trust the choice of our forces?

I never said that US is a saint but i am not blindly optimist either. With systems like Spyders, PAD and AAD, Akash, Mki, mig-29s, ample mig-21 bisons etc that small fleet of Paki Falcon and their little nukes wont even make it pass 5 km into our territory.

Our layered BMD-1 will take care of all kinda of ballistic threats while adequate number of Akash and Spyder will make sure cruise missiles can be destroyed. The sheer fire power of the MKI, mig -29s, mirages, mig-21 bisons is enough to counter any fighter based threat. I am not saying we should underestimate our enemy but i trust our forces to do their job very well.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20435
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 23 Mar 2010 14:55

Look,the C-17 deal must be viewed in the light of the fact that production is about to close and the company is openly saying that they're pushing v.hard for India to buy it in their own selfish interests! There really is no great immediate requirement for the IAF to acquire an aircraft of C-17 size.The IL-76s we have do very well,requiring upgradation admittedly,which is what is happening in Russia.More urgent is the need for the LCA MK-2 engine which is being endlessly delayed, while with indecent haste ,like PC Sorcar,the C-17 deal is magically approved without even the fig-leaf of a contest! Whom is the GOI/MOD/IAF kidding? India is not about to embark upon a huge UN peacekeeping role,or join the US in the coming attack against Iran,or for that matter get involved in Afghanistan ,where the US actually wants us banned from ,on behalf of their Paki loverboy! It's all about doing Uncle Sam and his arms military-industry complex a huge favour,as loyal serf Dr.Singh,ex-IMF lackey, can be relied upon to "bring home the bacon" for Uncle Sam.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7310
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby nachiket » 23 Mar 2010 15:10

Philip wrote: There really is no great immediate requirement for the IAF to acquire an aircraft of C-17 size.


There is no requirement to increase the IAF's airlift capability? The IAF doesn't seem to think so. You do realize that the government wouldn't be buying the aircraft if the IAF hadn't asked for it right?

Devesh Rao
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 12 Jan 2008 14:28
Contact:

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Devesh Rao » 23 Mar 2010 15:16

Brahmananda wrote:
I never said that US is a saint but i am not blindly optimist either. With systems like Spyders, PAD and AAD, Akash, Mki, mig-29s, ample mig-21 bisons etc that small fleet of Paki Falcon and their little nukes wont even make it pass 5 km into our territory.

Our layered BMD-1 will take care of all kinda of ballistic threats while adequate number of Akash and Spyder will make sure cruise missiles can be destroyed. The sheer fire power of the MKI, mig -29s, mirages, mig-21 bisons is enough to counter any fighter based threat. I am not saying we should underestimate our enemy but i trust our forces to do their job very well.


Beta, I will ignore the earlier part of the post because i do not want to indulge you in your 2 minutes of self time on the internet.

As for the later part of the post

Pakistan is not going to get into a conventional war with India till the time it feels it does not have enough back up political, strategic as well as from a armament perspective, and india is not going to get into a conventional war with pakistan because the current leadership is so beholden to a pacifist image, the strongest that they are going to hit pakistan with would be a 1 Megaton dossier.

So all the weapons which you list is not going to work. It is similar to the analogy which you gave. Its like having an tool but no brains. No use, its still counted as impotent.

The question is also not just are arms purchases just that or they also act as bargaining chips in political gamesmanship. By buying US defense products what are the advantages
1. Cutting edge
2. Support structure
2. Spare parts availability

Now consider, if India choses to test a nuc bum ever what happens to point 1,2,3.

Disadvantages
1. EULA is restrictive
2. Cannot be trusted to be available when needed (Shiny armaments are just that when you cannot use them when needed, migs even if they fall of the skies can fly when needed)

C-17's for IAF is like just one small question in the overall picture. it cannot be India keeps buying from US when they keep screwing us in politically, and by that i do not mean the gone by decades. I am talking about the current scene.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Brahmananda » 23 Mar 2010 16:35

well isnt that better when we leave out personal attacks. India has voluntarily gone for a moratorium on testing so there is no question of testing a nuke bum. Pakistan has always been less poweful than India but history has shown us they dont really care if they dont have the support structure to conduct a worthy war with India, they continue to fight us neverthless. India has always been on the defensive side which is why we hold more respect and credibility around in the world for not being offensive and seeking diplomacy. And US alone doesnt represent the wider international community. The geo pilotics of the world are changing, India will soon become member of the permanant security council and hence we'll have more responsibility.

Just because India is a pacifist, we spend more time and money on defensive abilities. Just because you think Pakistan wont conduct a war deosnt mean India should stop defending it self. Our BMD is not just a tool but a game changer and will protect over a billion people from lots of threats especially from Paki ballistic and cruise missiles. To call it that just a tool and not brains well would be very disrespectful on the good work our people are doing. So all the weapons i list are going to work when they need to and since Pakistan has always been offsenisve and have a habit of starting conflitcs we will defend ourselves when they do want a war. To call our defensive abilities impotent is also sad, they are meant for defending our nation and its people, hope you realise its not a just some tool. Those same tool can stop Puki and some chinese missiles well in their tracks.

Why do you think that US is suddenly going to block us from operating US platforms during a war? Matter of fact if a war starts with Pak, i am sure the US supplies will keep coming because hey guess what we are paying for them. secondly if there is a war the whole world will know that Pakistan started it and Indian reaction is more than justified. Why should US support Pak by donating and wasting their own resources when they already know that even without US equipment India is in a good position to whipe out PAk many times over in an all out war? Atleast with India there is a huge monetary interest.

C-17 is being acquired beause the IAF wants it period. no body is trying to shove the C-17 down their throats. They need it and hence we're buying it. Its not like we're buying everything from them as long as we stick to transport, ELINT, tankers, some guns, and SIGNIT platforms i think we should be more than ok. As long we avoid putting too many eggs in the US basket as well. Hence i'd rather we get the Ef tranche 3 for the MRCA.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests