C-17s for the IAF?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Mar 2010 16:40

The MRCA thread used to be an amusing place. The joy is being shared I see.

Devesh Rao · Post by **Devesh Rao** » 23 Mar 2010 18:14

Brahmananda wrote:
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.

Please do not misinterpret what i wrote.

Armaments are just tools as long as you do not have the will or/and strategy to use them.

I will appreciate it if you do not respond to my post and kindly put me in the ignore list. I have only so much patience and i have spent it.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 23 Mar 2010 19:23

Gilles wrote:
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.

Part of the quid pro quo was latest Trident SLBMs for UK's SSBNs.

Regards,
Kiran

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Mar 2010 20:15

Brahmananda wrote: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.

From the creation of the first large US strategic airlifter in the sixties, the C-141 Starlifter, no US-aligned (I hate the term "western" which has a racist connotation to me) country ever bought any. The US then made the C-5 Galaxy and no other country bought any. The US then came out with the C-17, and for the first 15 years of production, no country bought any. This is all through the Cold war, the Vietnam war, the first Gulf war, the NATO campaign in the Balkans, the current Afghan war and the second Gulf War.

Its only in 2000, that Great Britain leased 4 C-17s as a stop gap measure while waiting for the A-400M.

Then in 2006, when Boeing was about to shut down its plant because the US Air Force order (its only customer) was about to be completed (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/19 ... i-boeing19 and http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniont ... oeing.html), in a span of a few weeks, Mr Blair announced that the UK had not only decided to purchase the 4 C-17s it had been leasing, but had decided to buy one more, Mr Howard, in Australia, another good friend of Mr Bush, announced that Australia had a need for 4 C-17s, and, lo and behold, newly elected Mr Harper, who as opposition leader in 2003, wanted Canada to join Bush in Iraq, also ordered 4 C-17s. This all took place in the first months of 2006. Later that year, we discovered that a new NATO-based group called SAC made up mostly of newly joined eastern European nations (the list of countries closely resembling the "Coalition of the Willing" list) , decided to pool together and buy 3 C-17s (http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060912a.htm).

Later, Qatar suddenly needed a couple. Then the UAE needed 4 (Try even finding the UAE and Qatar on a Globe).

Then the White House starts to complain that the US Congress (not happy with shoving C-17s down the throats of other countries who have no use for it) is shoving C-17s down the throat of the US Air Force, who doesn't want or need any more but who is getting new ones anyway, just to keep those Boeing plants going.........

I wrote about it here with news links as reference http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2009/10/c-17-in-news.html

Then steps in India, already an operator of 17 Ils-76s, who now wants 10 C-17s. Mmmmm.

Is it a condition imposed by the US in exchange for the right to buy batteries of Patriot Missiles? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rfvBz9ojLo

People in India are of course in a better position than me to know, but I smell a big fish.........

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Mar 2010 21:52

Brahmananda wrote:
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.

Brahmananda ji,

Good going sir.

They urgently need cheerleaders at the PMO.

MMs's policies don't seem to be going down too well with the aam jantha.

A few C-17 should fix that pretty damn quick!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Mar 2010 21:55

Gilles wrote:
People in India are of course in a better position than me to know, but I smell a big fish.........

Specifically Amritsari Fish

bart · Post by **bart** » 23 Mar 2010 21:57

Brahmananda wrote:
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.

Whew, that is a relief, a huge load off our shoulders. Thank you Sir! If you are sure, then we need not debate this further.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 23 Mar 2010 22:49

IMO, US suddenly blocking spares and supplies to India in the event of war with PAk defies logic, why would they not support a paying customer and risk loosing billions in future business and support a beggar nation that is US tax payer burden? Why would they support a beggar nation in the event of a war when India has nearly 8 times more number of people and is the largest democracy?

Gilles why do you keeping comparing the IL-76 to the C-17, the C-17 can carry lot more and is in a different league all together? Why do you spend so much time ranting about the alleged conspiracy of c-17s being shoved down airforces's throats? Are you like a disgruntled ex-Boeing employee who has nothing better to do but to rant about that product? Are you even Indian? how does it matter to you what a sovereign democratic nation buys? we'll buy 10 and even order 10 more we hold in options, how does it matter to you? Why do you keep comparing India to other countries? none of the nations you mention are in the same league as India. Its certainly no canada. Why do you go around smelling for fish? who cares how and why other nations bought the c-17, all that matters here is c-17 for India and thats it. How will the deal be handled? What are its performance abilties and how is it relevant for India? What does the deal include? These i believe are much more important questions. IAF pilots have tested the aircraft and without IAF's go ahead why do you think India would buy the c-17?

armaments are indeed tools and when it comes to defending the nation, there is only one core strategy "give them hell". what will do you talk about, how does the case of will come in when some one attacks our nation, we just blindly defend it.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Mar 2010 23:12

Brahmananda wrote: Gilles why do you keeping comparing the IL-76 to the C-17, the C-17 can carry lot more and is in a different league all together? Why do you spend so much time ranting about the alleged conspiracy of c-17s being shoved down airforces's throats? Are you like a disgruntled ex-Boeing employee who has nothing better to do but to rant about that product? Are you even Indian? how does it matter to you what a sovereign democratic nation buys?

I am a civilian Canadian Airline pilot. I flew Boeings in the past, did not work for Boeing. Great Aircraft by the way. Great product. Great support. Reliable, simple, a pleasure to fly. Mechanics loved it too.

About my motivations. In 2005, we had a US ambassador in Canada telling us to buy C-17s:

One example is here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/02/ ... 50210.html

Another, has since been removed from the internet, but not before I copied it verbatim.

This is from a speech from US Ambassador Paul Cellucci, in front of the Conference of Defence Association of Canada on March 3, 2005.

“A third critical capability is strategic airlift. Canadian Forces know from deployments to Afghanistan and Ski Lanka that it takes big aircraft to move their troops and equipment. Responding effectively to international crisis requires the ability to get to the scene of the crisis quickly. In some cases, strategic airlift capability has been available for Canadian Forces for rent from outside Canada, but that capability has become more scares, older, and is in growing demand. To respond to future crisis, it is likely that Canadian Forces will require their own aircraft. I can think of nothing that could contribute more to Canada’s 3-D foreign policy approach than a steady flow of Canadian airlifters, with maple leafs on their side, delivery (sic) humanitarian aid, whether to Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, or elsewhere… Let me make a short speech for interoperability. There probably no two countries that are more interoperable than Canada and the United States, whether in terms of intelligence, equipment or personnel"

When those speeches were made we had a Liberal Government in Power. In January 2006, there was no talk of Buying C-17s in Canada. In Feb 2006 we changed governments. In March 2006 we were buying C-17s. Opposition Leader Harper had taken good note of the US Governments' wishes in Canada and promptly acted on it as soon as he came in power.

You will notice my dear Sir, that I do not attack you personally, nor do I ask you what your motives are. I only use arguments to make my points, arguments that I try as much as possible to document. You can take it or leave it. But please do not ask me to just shut up and mind my own business as others have done before you.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Mar 2010 23:15

Brahmananda wrote:IMO, US suddenly blocking spares and supplies to India in the event of war with PAk defies logic, why would they not support a paying customer and risk loosing billions in future business and support a beggar nation that is US tax payer burden? Why would they support a beggar nation in the event of a war when India has nearly 8 times more number of people and is the largest democracy?

Gilles why do you keeping comparing the IL-76 to the C-17, the C-17 can carry lot more and is in a different league all together? Why do you spend so much time ranting about the alleged conspiracy of c-17s being shoved down airforces's throats? Are you like a disgruntled ex-Boeing employee who has nothing better to do but to rant about that product? Are you even Indian? how does it matter to you what a sovereign democratic nation buys? we'll buy 10 and even order 10 more we hold in options, how does it matter to you? Why do you keep comparing India to other countries? none of the nations you mention are in the same league as India. Its certainly no canada. Why do you go around smelling for fish? who cares how and why other nations bought the c-17, all that matters here is c-17 for India and thats it. How will the deal be handled? What are its performance abilties and how is it relevant for India? What does the deal include? These i believe are much more important questions. IAF pilots have tested the aircraft and without IAF's go ahead why do you think India would buy the c-17?

armaments are indeed tools and when it comes to defending the nation, there is only one core strategy "give them hell". what will do you talk about, how does the case of will come in when some one attacks our nation, we just blindly defend it.

Brahmananda ji,

How does it matter which country Giles ji comes from?

His posts are intelligent, lucid and always supported by research and followed up with links AND welcome here!!

The whole american weapons thingie stinks to high heaven because we will have to outsource most of our deep maintenance efforts and supply chain management to them.

They sanctioned us on the IN Seakings just a few years ago. We had PAID for them and no mai ke lal had given them to us for free.
How and why did they do that? Just because we had a few nuclear explosions? Why should they give a rats because we develop a nuclear capability? Are these mai ke lals going to fight our wars?

ISRO and many PSUs are still under sanctions. Why is that?

Are YOU an american agent? Pray do tell. Why are you so hell bent on supporting the US??? Do you want India to end up like the pakis?

The Indian people do not trust the GOTUS and rightly so. Just because they have acquired a few rent boys in south block, does it mean that we cannot object? The C-17 is an expensive piece of unwanted shit. It comes with a whole lot of political ramifications.

The IAF sometimes will simply do what the GOI wants it to do so that they live to fight another day.

New Delhi has already demonstrated its inclination to crawl when merely asked to bend.

Added later.

Giles ji,

Mai ke lal meaning mother's beloved (son)

The meaning in it's true flavor, is lost in the translation.

Devesh Rao · Post by **Devesh Rao** » 23 Mar 2010 23:24

Brahmananda wrote:
armaments are indeed tools and when it comes to defending the nation, there is only one core strategy "give them hell". what will do you talk about, how does the case of will come in when some one attacks our nation, we just blindly defend it.

Giving them hell does not go with blindly defend, giving them hell means attacking back with vehemence and that is where the will comes in.

US of A takes its wars away from its shores, we don't. We do not have the will to attack and it is not an military thing, it is an political thing. And that is where the strategic will comes into picture.

US of A says be our allay coz it knows it can use its allies as and when required. It can get them into AF-Pak, it can get them to vote against Iran, it can get them to vet BMD's where none exist. How does the US of A get you in its fold, by selling you yesterday's cutting edge technology. You lose your sovereign foreign policy, you gain shiny knick knacks which are never going to be used. What does the US gain, a toehold in your decision making abilities. What does it lose. Zilch.

Again C-17 is not the issue, it may be a good plane and it may be what the IAF wants (presumption which i am going along with for the sake of it), but it comes with strings attached.

Russia sells us stuff, jacks up price but that is business. I do not recollect them ever trying to influence our policy decisions. America does and hence we need to stay away from it as long as they do not consider defense deals to be business where the only thing negotiated is price and not as a bargaining chip for acquiring stooges to do their dirty work.

and by the way the clarification was for others not you given that i see a unbridgeable communication gap between us.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Mar 2010 23:38

Devesh Rao wrote:You lose your sovereign foreign policy, you gain shiny knick knacks which are never going to be used. What does the US gain, a toehold in your decision making abilities.

India is a big boy that isn't going to allow itself to be bullied over a few planes.

You aren't some banana republic.

Your lack of confidence in your own country is somewhat disturbing.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Mar 2010 23:45

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Devesh Rao wrote:You lose your sovereign foreign policy, you gain shiny knick knacks which are never going to be used. What does the US gain, a toehold in your decision making abilities.
India is a big boy that isn't going to allow itself to be bullied over a few planes.

You aren't some banana republic.

Your lack of confidence in your own country is somewhat disturbing.

GeorgeWelch ji

How right you are.

The new generation however, is rapidly growing a pair that will be visibly from miles away.

And you know full well that we are not talking just about a few planes, right?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Mar 2010 23:51

chetak wrote:His posts are intelligent, lucid and always supported by research and followed up with links AND welcome here!!

Except when they're wrong (C-17s couldn't land at Camp Rhino if it had been raining), hugely distorting the situation (they had to build a special C-17 dirt runway in Australia because no existing dirt runways would work) or have no backing except his own word (Air Transat rudder incident)

Interesting thing about the Air Transat situation, even if it happened exactly as he said, it's a good illustration that the US does NOT control the foreign policy of countries that buy its weapons.

If the US has an embargo of Cuba, how in the world is Canada conducting trade with Cuba in direct opposition to that embargo?

Things that make you go 'Hmmmmm.'

Devesh Rao · Post by **Devesh Rao** » 23 Mar 2010 23:54

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Devesh Rao wrote:You lose your sovereign foreign policy, you gain shiny knick knacks which are never going to be used. What does the US gain, a toehold in your decision making abilities.
India is a big boy that isn't going to allow itself to be bullied over a few planes.

You aren't some banana republic.

Your lack of confidence in your own country is somewhat disturbing.

I have confidence in my country and countrymen, i do not have ~~confidence~~ trust in the current political establishment both in India and US of A.

And yes its only a few planes, why is there so much chagrin at being questioned. US of A is not going to get bankrupt if they are not able to sell the few planes so what the big deal in not buying from US.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Your lack of confidence in your own country is somewhat disturbing.

And please do not get sanctimonious on me.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Mar 2010 23:54

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Devesh Rao wrote:You lose your sovereign foreign policy, you gain shiny knick knacks which are never going to be used. What does the US gain, a toehold in your decision making abilities.
India is a big boy that isn't going to allow itself to be bullied over a few planes.

You aren't some banana republic.

Your lack of confidence in your own country is somewhat disturbing.

If that is a valid argument, GeorgeWelch, since the US is an even bigger boy and is even less of a Banana Republic, why doesn't the US allow Russians to bid for US Military hardware purchases?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Mar 2010 23:58

Gilles wrote:If that is a valid argument, GeorgeWelch, since the US is an even bigger boy and is even less of a Banana Republic, why doesn't the US allow Russians to bid for US Military hardware purchases?

Ok, I give up, which purchase are you thinking of?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Mar 2010 00:01

Devesh Rao wrote:US of A is not going to get bankrupt if they are not able to sell the few planes so what the big deal in not buying from US.

Nothing per se, except if your military decides it's the best equipment for the job, it would be silly to deny your armed forces the best tools simply because of some paranoid fears.

Devesh Rao · Post by **Devesh Rao** » 24 Mar 2010 00:05

GeorgeWelch wrote:
chetak wrote: it's a good illustration that the US does NOT control the foreign policy of countries that buy its weapons.

If the US has an embargo of Cuba, how in the world is Canada conducting trade with Cuba in direct opposition to that embargo?

Things that make you go 'Hmmmmm.'

Sorry to jump in, but business/trade and foreign policy is not the same thing.

Try something like if Cuba wanted some arms and Canada was remotely interested what would big brother say to a transaction of that sort.

Americans do not/did not sell arms to the Chinese but the Chinese have america's wallet all wrapped up in its back pocket. Argument does not count, No, Nada, Zilch, Nahi.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Mar 2010 00:11

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:If that is a valid argument, GeorgeWelch, since the US is an even bigger boy and is even less of a Banana Republic, why doesn't the US allow Russians to bid for US Military hardware purchases?
Ok, I give up, which purchase are you thinking of?

Hypothetical. Anything! Whatever. Do you picture the USA buying any kind of Russian military hardware for its armed forces ? (because they already buy some for Iraq and Afghanistan)

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Mar 2010 00:12

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Interesting thing about the Air Transat situation, even if it happened exactly as he said, it's a good illustration that the US does NOT control the foreign policy of countries that buy its weapons.

If the US has an embargo of Cuba, how in the world is Canada conducting trade with Cuba in direct opposition to that embargo?

GeorgeWelch ji,

The Air Transat thing can be checked. Any A-310 factory old time tech rep should be able to confirm or disprove, should one wish to take the trouble.

Canada and australia are white nations. The US dare not overtly do the manipulations. Where as the pakis and Indians are third world. It does not matter to anyone if they are overtly and covertly manipulated. That the US so soullessly uses other countries to further it's global ambitions is what we are objecting to. Your weapons are an integral part of that manipulation.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Mar 2010 00:14

Devesh Rao wrote: Sorry to jump in, but business/trade and foreign policy is not the same thing.

It is all inter-related

Devesh Rao wrote:Try something like if Cuba wanted some arms and Canada was remotely interested what would big brother say to a transaction of that sort.

It would depend on if they were sourced from the US.

Devesh Rao · Post by **Devesh Rao** » 24 Mar 2010 00:14

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Devesh Rao wrote:US of A is not going to get bankrupt if they are not able to sell the few planes so what the big deal in not buying from US.
Nothing per se, except if your military decides it's the best equipment for the job, it would be silly to deny your armed forces the best tools simply because of some paranoid fears.

As a previous poster said in the same thread a few pages back.

Paranoia or caution? Who decides. Once bitten twice shy.

Look lets face it, in foreign policy from early days, India and US of A face trust deficit. Our trade gets along well, people get along well. Establishments have a on mostly off record.

As for best equipment for the job, i guess if IAF decided its interested F-22 (no denying the best of the lot), would it be on the table? The answer to that is my answer to why India should stick to Russians even if it means compromising rather than ditching them for the Americans.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Mar 2010 00:18

Gilles wrote:

Hypothetical. Anything! Whatever. Do you picture the USA buying any kind of Russian military hardware for its armed forces ? (because they already buy some for Iraq and Afghanistan)

Giles ji,

There was some talk of the US buying some bare flanker airframes and doing it up with american engines and avionics!

They were also very interested in the zero-zero KD-36DM ejection seats.

Anyone know what finally happened to these proposals?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 24 Mar 2010 00:20

Devesh Rao wrote: As for best equipment for the job, i guess if IAF decided its interested F-22 (no denying the best of the lot), would it be on the table?

Seriously, what has that to do with anything?

...REST SELF EDITED OUT. On second thoughts, considered offensive.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Mar 2010 00:20

chetak wrote:Canada and australia are white nations. The US dare not overtly do the manipulations. Where as the pakis and Indians are third world. It does not matter to anyone if they are overtly and covertly manipulated. That the US so soullessly uses other countries to further it's global ambitions is what we are objecting to. Your weapons are an integral part of that manipulation.

Here is how the US deals with brown nations:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... photovideo

Or here, with Mexico:

http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impr ... abla=miami

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Mar 2010 00:20

Gilles wrote:Hypothetical. Anything! Whatever. Do you picture the USA buying any kind of Russian military hardware for its armed forces ? (because they already buy some for Iraq and Afghanistan)

If they went to the effort to put together a bid and meet the requirements, who knows?

When asked about the Russian Il-96 tanker bid (which turned out to be a hoax), the Pentagon spokescritter said "We welcome all qualified bidders."

Devesh Rao · Post by **Devesh Rao** » 24 Mar 2010 00:22

GeorgeWelch wrote:
It would depend on if they were sourced from the US.

Russia was blackmailed(when its economy was in doldrums) into not collaborating with India on the cryogenic engines for ISRO's by US even when there was nothing in it sourced from USA.

Its all subjective, as and when what suits america's interest. Nothing wrong in that. only thing we also follow the same pattern.

When in a fight, its better to have a weak friend by your side than a strong bystander.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Mar 2010 00:25

chetak wrote:The Air Transat thing can be checked. Any A-310 factory old time tech rep should be able to confirm or disprove, should one wish to take the trouble.

Then check it.

I already know that the entire incident took less than 90 days to resolve (when it was spotted back in Toronto) so I'm somewhat skeptical.

chetak wrote:Canada and australia are white nations.

You might not have noticed, but we have a brown President

chetak wrote:Where as the pakis and Indians are third world.

Is India third world?

chetak wrote:That the US so soullessly uses other countries to further it's global ambitions is what we are objecting to. Your weapons are an integral part of that manipulation.

Every country 'uses' other countries to further its goals. You just exaggerate the amount of influence such a deal gives.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Mar 2010 00:27

Devesh Rao wrote:As for best equipment for the job, i guess if IAF decided its interested F-22 (no denying the best of the lot), would it be on the table? The answer to that is my answer to why India should stick to Russians even if it means compromising rather than ditching them for the Americans.

I never said US equipment was best for everything.

F-22 isn't for sale to anyone, so PAK-FA is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

But sometimes US equipment is the best for the job.

My only point is that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Devesh Rao · Post by **Devesh Rao** » 24 Mar 2010 00:33

Gaur wrote:
Devesh Rao wrote: As for best equipment for the job, i guess if IAF decided its interested F-22 (no denying the best of the lot), would it be on the table?
<snip - edited>.

Gaur

GeorgeWelch said -
Nothing per se, except if your military decides it's the best equipment for the job, it would be silly to deny your armed forces the best tools simply because of some paranoid fears.

So i asked him, if theoretically IAF decided we are interested in F-22 would it be on the table for doing business. The point being if they are so keen to sell us the best of business in transport what stops them from selling us the best of business in other theaters of battle. And that is where the dichotomy about the trust deficit comes in.

Now can you (Gaur) kindly explain what was bloody absurd in my comments?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Mar 2010 00:35

Philip wrote: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!

And your point is?

Every company pushes hard for its 'own selfish interests'.

Saab pushes hard, Dassault pushes hard, MiG pushes hard, Boeing is no different

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

And you know this how?

There is a lot of equipment the C-17 can haul that the Il-76 can't.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Mar 2010 00:37

GeorgeWelch wrote:
quote="chetak"]Canada and australia are white nations.

You might not have noticed, but we have a brown President

quote="chetak"]Where as the pakis and Indians are third world.

Is India third world?

That guy is just a token brown and anti Indian to boot. He will not last a second term.

Yes, we are third world but just beginning to get out of there.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Mar 2010 00:45

Devesh Rao wrote:So i asked him, if theoretically IAF decided we are interested in F-22 would it be on the table for doing business.

Why do you keep trying to bring up the reverse situation? It isn't applicable.

US air superiority depends on having the most advanced equipment. The more that equipment is distributed, the more likely it is something vital will leak. The leak of a critical piece of info could compromise its entire fleet.

There is no such national security issue with leaking transport info

Devesh Rao wrote:The point being if they are so keen to sell us the best of business in transport what stops them from selling us the best of business in other theaters of battle. And that is where the dichotomy about the trust deficit comes in.

You're talking about 2 entirely different levels of trust. One is a trust to closely guard and not leak a secret (hard). The other is to meet the terms of a contract (not hard at all, unless you're Russia)

Buy your PAK-FA from Russia, but if you feel the C-17 is the best for the job, buy that from the US

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Mar 2010 00:58

Gilles wrote:From the creation of the first large US strategic airlifter in the sixties, the C-141 Starlifter, no US-aligned (I hate the term "western" which has a racist connotation to me) country ever bought any. The US then made the C-5 Galaxy and no other country bought any.

Shows just how successful the C-17 has been.

Gilles wrote:Its only in 2000, that Great Britain leased 4 C-17s as a stop gap measure while waiting for the A-400M.

And they were so pleased with them, they converted them to sales and have now bought 7 or 8.

Gilles wrote:Then the White House starts to complain that the US Congress, not happy with shoving C-17s down the throats of other countries who have no use for it

You start out so well, then you slip in your usual BIG FAT LIE

Gilles wrote:Is it a condition imposed by the US in exchange for the right to buy batteries of Patriot Missiles?

That would be silly when they could just buy the S-400 if the US tried to play hardball

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Mar 2010 01:01

GeorgeWelch wrote: I already know that the entire incident took less than 90 days to resolve (when it was spotted back in Toronto) so I'm somewhat skeptical.

It was fixed in less than three months (instead of one week)

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 24 Mar 2010 01:04

Devesh Rao,
Honestly, your statement regarding F-22 did not make sense to me. It still does'nt. It is their most sophisticated piece of military technology and they are not selling it to even their closest allies (nothing wrong with that IMO). So how does that situation relate to the present debate regarding C-17s is beyond me.
Anyhow, I did not mean to cause offense.The minute I read my post, I felt it could be rude so I edited it out. So peace.

Devesh Rao · Post by **Devesh Rao** » 24 Mar 2010 01:12

Gaur wrote:Devesh Rao,
Honestly, your statement regarding F-22 did not make sense to me. It still does'nt. It is their most sophisticated piece of military technology and they are not selling it to even their closest allies (nothing wrong with that IMO). So how does that situation relate to the present debate regarding C-17s is beyond me.
Anyhow, I did not mean to cause offense.The minute I read my post, I felt it could be rude so I edited it out. So peace.

We are going OT so i will stop with this post and no harm from my end as well.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Mar 2010 01:15

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:Then the White House starts to complain that the US Congress, not happy with shoving C-17s down the throats of other countries who have no use for it
You start out so well, then you slip in your usual BIG FAT LIE

Hear it from Mr Obama himself then. Call him a lier (although it kills me to use Fox news to press an argument)

http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-c-17-o ... 5273.story

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Mar 2010 01:17

chetak wrote:
Gilles wrote:

Hypothetical. Anything! Whatever. Do you picture the USA buying any kind of Russian military hardware for its armed forces ? (because they already buy some for Iraq and Afghanistan)
Giles ji,

There was some talk of the US buying some bare flanker airframes and doing it up with american engines and avionics!

They were also very interested in the zero-zero KD-36DM ejection seats.

Anyone know what finally happened to these proposals?

I never hear of all that although we all know how great Russian zero-zero ejection seats are.