C-17s for the IAF?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Apr 2010 00:14

Kavu wrote:
How do you know that " I have not dedicated my life to military service " as you chose to put it ??
It is as clear as day

Kavu, if you had indeed lurked for a few years as you claim, you would have known that chetak himself is an ex-IN serviceman, so please spare him your condescending talk

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 00:16

putnanja wrote:Kavu, if you had indeed lurked for a few years as you claim, you would have known that chetak himself is an ex-IN serviceman, so please spare him your condescending talk

I must have missed that, my apologies. and my sincere thanks to his service. Nevertheless, He is wrong about the points in contention.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Apr 2010 00:21

Kavu wrote:I must have missed that, my apologies. and my sincere thanks to his service. Nevertheless, He is wrong about the points in contention.

Kavu, you have to prove he is wrong, which unfortunately you have failed to do. You can't say he is wrong just because you think it is wrong. Your ideas of strategic airlift to places like middle-east or even into pakistan is far-fetched . Please provide any links which says that Indian doctrine requires strategic airlift into India's extended neighbourhood.

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 00:58

putnanja wrote:
Kavu wrote:I must have missed that, my apologies. and my sincere thanks to his service. Nevertheless, He is wrong about the points in contention.
Kavu, you have to prove he is wrong, which unfortunately you have failed to do. You can't say he is wrong just because you think it is wrong. Your ideas of strategic airlift to places like middle-east or even into pakistan is far-fetched . Please provide any links which says that Indian doctrine requires strategic airlift into India's extended neighbourhood.

Strategic airlift to Pakistan?Where did I say that, Read the posts again. I did say Middle east, and that is also my opinion. Look above at Gurmeet Kanwal's posting. If you cant take his word for it, Then I cant do anything, again! If you think there is no reason or requirement behind Jalshwa and C-17's, lol!

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 12 Apr 2010 03:37

Kavu,

Like Chetak asked - provide proof or desist.

An opinion piece by a Brigadier about the IA's strategic airlift needs is hardly proof the "army has asked for the C17". You specifically stated the C17 purchase is because the army asked for it. Further more the article you quote does not mention the C17 anywhere. This is not proof the army asked for it. Certainly you still haven't proven the "army has asked for it" yet!

The rest of your comments are just ducking and dodging the request for proof, lack substantiation and are bombastic. Nothing in them but some fantasy about "boots on the ground" and "theatre commanders" and their "boys" who need the C17 instead of a cheaper alternative.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 12 Apr 2010 08:08

Shalav wrote:Kavu,

Like Chetak asked - provide proof or desist.

Great idea. I think everyone should provide proof for their statements made such as:

chetak wrote:The C-17 (wrong) decision is not IAF driven but PMO driven, as part of the Indo US pappi jappi.

Now this may be the poster's opinion, but is there any proof? Any link which substanties this and something which is more than some editor's personal opinion?

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 14:28

Shalav wrote:Kavu,

Like Chetak asked - provide proof or desist.

An opinion piece by a Brigadier about the IA's strategic airlift needs is hardly proof the "army has asked for the C17". You specifically stated the C17 purchase is because the army asked for it. Further more the article you quote does not mention the C17 anywhere. This is not proof the army asked for it. Certainly you still haven't proven the "army has asked for it" yet!

If you read the article carefully, he has laid out the Plans on which the said capability is desired by the Army and Airforce. He does quote the 11th Plan.
Whose Division along with combat service support, logistic support, firepower component, do you think the Airforce is flying? The CRPF? On whose requirement and standards do you think the Airforce buys Transports? This is an Army which battles bad logistics in their own country, they have no military standard roads, their bases are deep inside the Indian Territory, they take months to deploy, especially move their heavy combat assets. If at all there is an attack on North Eastern sector, bringing components from deep inside India by road is next to impossible, IL-76 cant carry what they want them to carry.

The rest of your comments are just ducking and dodging the request for proof, lack substantiation and are bombastic. Nothing in them but some fantasy about "boots on the ground" and "theatre commanders" and their "boys" who need the C17 instead of a cheaper alternative.

[/quote]

You dont get my point, as most in BR, you are in some Natasha camp and western imperalist hating camp, it seems like nobody is in the IA, IAF and IN camp. I really dont care where the damn aircraft comes from, The Forces need an aircraft that can do what the IL-76 cant, that is oversized cargo(tanks, tanks and tanks), with high sortie rate, fast deployment and availability and less future risk ie atleast 300 pieces in the air. They want something C-17 can do, you have a better alternative than C-17 which is ready now, by all means. Buy the damn AN-124, I really dont care, just make sure they dont become IAF's Mi-26's. We need the said piece to be in numbers, with a number of country's and R&D already paid up by others, with a running production line, and future orders. The only reason I dont call for AN-124 is that, nothing else. So what is the alternative for you, AN-124 is non existant according to IAF and IA conditions, and you dont like the C-17

If not, stop calling the military, government and people who battle their life's in the government, social and military sector poodles(aka traitors) to some other nation's interest and cause. I am appalled by the ease at which people call the Prime Minister of India, traitor in this board, for their whims and fancies.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 12 Apr 2010 15:02

Kavu wrote: You dont get my point, as most in BR, you are in some Natasha camp, and western imperalist hating camp.

I am converting to Western imperalist loving camp with you Kavu. Like our prime minister had sang praises in Oxford about the good things raj has done to our land.
Everyone in BR is free to see the light and join the western imperialist loving camp with me and Kavu.

Don't you see how many evil things Natasha country is doing to us giving us their best Nuke subs, helping out with building our own nuke sub, while Tejas got delayed because of US sanctions[actually it was good for us, as Kavu would explain in next posts]. Kavu and my other Western imperialist camp lovers would also explain how secretly US is on its knees begging us to take their Nuke subs on lease and accept cutting edge tot for next Arihants.
Also Kavu can explain how come despite army chief kapoor's statement in press about the shortage of artillery is not being moved by GoI.
Amazing isn't it this very PC/MMS team delayed the scorpene sub project, isn't deciding fast on new engine for Tejas.
By the way its just a coincident that all the US specific deals are being pushed through while others stagnate.
Lets all on BR convert to being Western Imperialist lovers, delete all the threads and start new ones on working out the strategy to entice Brits back to rule us.
Great Kavu dear fellow Western Imperialist lover, just Great!

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 15:14

Manish_Sharma wrote: I am converting to Western imperalist loving camp with you Kavu. Like our prime minister had sang praises in Oxford about the good things raj has done to our land.

To be honest, There is no western camp in BR, Just some people who like Western equipment, while there is a western hating camp in BR.

You are still talking about the Raj, what are you 90? Oxford is a fine institution and my Prime Minister is not A-jad or Erdogan to insult and dont give due credit.

Everyone in BR is free to see the light and join the western imperialist loving camp with me and Kavu.

Who said I am in the western camp, give me a ready alternative C-17, I am sure the forces and me will jump at it.

Don't you see how many evil things Natasha country is doing to us giving us their best Nuke subs, helping out with building our own nuke sub,

Guess whose tax dollars are paying for that, Russians need money and they will sell anything for that. Soviets needed powerful friends they did everything for that, NATO doesnt. You are an idiot, if you think it is friendship.

while Tejas got delayed because of US sanctions[actually it was good for us, as Kavu would explain in next posts].

Their Engine, their rules.
Have you seen what I think of US policies with respect to Pakistan and NPT. Especially the current Admin.

Kavu and my other Western imperialist camp lovers would also explain how secretly US is on its knees begging us to take their Nuke subs on lease and accept cutting edge tot for next Arihants

US wont sell you sqwat, why because their citizens are not prostituting in Dubai or it is not their women being transported in the hordes as white slaves to all around the world, US dont need the money nor do they want the current status quo as the numero uno hyper power to change.

Also Kavu can explain how come despite army chief kapoor's statement in press about the shortage of artillery is not being moved by GoI.

Because GoI is ultimately filled with politicans, because opposition which includes the BJP will bring up the Bofors guns, and the army doesnt want anything else than the Bofors. They have bought 145 M777, if I am not mistaken,.

Amazing isn't it this very PC/MMS team delayed the scorpene sub project, isn't deciding fast on new engine for Tejas.
By the way its just a coincident that all the US specific deals are being pushed through while others stagnate.

One can say the same about Russia, Talwars, more Mig-29K's etc. Scorpene subs go back a long way , all the way to BJP government, and corruption in the MoD.

Lets all on BR convert to being Western Imperialist lovers, delete all the threads and start new ones on working out the strategy to entice Brits back to rule us.

It would do nice if you can convert to an Indian first. And, the Brits left some years ago, you sure have some problem letting go dont you.

Great Kavu dear fellow Western Imperialist lover, just Great!

Isnt so nice to be cocky in front of a computer screen, Semper Fi.

[/quote]

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Apr 2010 15:16

I've just had some serious talk with two IA friends,officers who have rich on-the-spot experience of the Chinese border.They say that to a large exent the threat has been magnified by the media.Yes,we are worse off infrastructure wise against the Chinese,but the situ is not that alarming.As for the so-called revolutionary outfits in the N-East,"they have lapsed into becoming extortion machines".In fact in one state where one officer currently resides,there is an unofficial agreement between the outfits not to conduct attacks there because the best schools are located there and their children are studying in those schools!

No doubt it would be "nice" to have C-17s and other toys for the flying boys to ferry even more toys for the boys on the ground,but what are the immediate priorities and why are they not being pursued in what seems to me a lopsided order? As some have suggested,there are other more toothsome ways in which the borders on the Chinese front can be beefed up,with scores of tanks located there (I've even suggsted a new Russian light tank/AFV in the artillery thread which has a 125mm gun and weighs about 40t only),units with anti-tank missiles,light-weight artillery,a large number of medium and heavy helos,tactical SSMs and ground forces armed with a variety of MANPADs and SAMs to deal with the PLAF.Last night the COAS was on a TV channel with a blurb about "not being happy with the LCA".The circumstantial evidence suggsts that the C-17 decision is being made to benefit US aerospace industry primarily and not India's.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Apr 2010 15:26

Kavu, when you cant answer questions, and in reply repeat the same assertion along with personal insults, you know that you have nothing to answer.

The good and the graceful thing is to then cut the rhetoric and provide actual answers.

1) Where we will use C 17s really.
2) Why are arms deal with US for gold plated junk proceeding much faster than far more critical equipment which are delayed.
3) Why do arms purchases where US equipment fails to make the grade mysteriously called for retest
4) Given that US has been totally unreliable and continues to be so, isnt just this point enough to not buy any US made defense equipment?

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 15:41

Sanku wrote:Kavu, when you cant answer questions, and in reply repeat the same assertion along with personal insults, you know that you have nothing to answer

I havent insulted anyone, my response always has been and always will be equal to what is given to me. You will have to deal with it.

The good and the graceful thing is to then cut the rhetoric and provide actual answers.

If my answers arent to what you want them to be, it will be always rehtoric to you. I have read this forum for enough time to know that.

1) Where we will use C 17s really.

Read the Brigadier's article.. C-17's can also be boon to our Reserves and Cold Start Doctrine.

2) Why are arms deal with US for gold plated junk proceeding much faster than far more critical equipment which are delayed.

None of the items bought from the US had any equal and 'viable' alternative. Western Equipment are traditionally more expensive. No critical items have been ever bought from the US, P-8I, C-130J, Jalshawa,M-777, the C-17 is a game changer.

3) Why do arms purchases where US equipment fails to make the grade mysteriously called for retest

I have a theory for A-330MRTT scandal, the moment EADS lost the US Airforce tender, our MoD cancelled, as it will be costilier to hold on it in the future, they have called up boeing for the next series of tender, but boeing has refused. If it was American game, why should Boeing refuse? The reason is simple, it is our MoD being Chanakyan, they want EADS to reduce price, we want the A-330MRTT, but at our terms. Boeing cant do what the EADS bird can.

4) Given that US has been totally unreliable and continues to be so, isnt just this point enough to not buy any US made defense equipment?

[/quote]

You mean like the RD-93 to Pakistan, the Su-30MKK and SU-27, S-300PMU, Sovernemmy, Kilos etc to China and their refusal to proscute China on their IPR.. Like Sweden, Like France who has refused Dassault and Thales because of Mirage upgrade but has allowed the DCNS. Welcome to the world of Defense contractors. You want complete control and freedom, build them yourself.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Apr 2010 15:47

I see you still dont have any answers but are trying to change topic once again. Well figures.

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 15:51

Sanku wrote:I see you still dont have any answers but are trying to change topic once again. Well figures.

Goodbye, then

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 12 Apr 2010 16:00

Kavu wrote: Guess whose tax dollars are paying for that, Russians need money and they will sell anything for that. Soviets needed powerful friends they did everything for that, NATO doesnt. You are an idiot, if you think it is friendship.
Their Engine, their rules.
US wont sell you sqwat, why because their citizens are not prostituting in Dubai or it is not their women being transported in the hordes as white slaves to all around the world, US dont need the money nor do they want the current status quo as the numero uno hyper power to change.

And I think you are a traitor and wester a@@k*^*$ if you put down the nuke sub help by russians as need for money while justifying sanctions by the whore US as "their engine their rule". As for US not needing the money

of course they go on borrowing from China. I remember reading the statement of a Chinese general "We don't need to explain our actions to a country which owes us trillions of dollars"

No american women don't go to whore in Dubai you see its a rich country their women come to Mumbai to save the Enrone and give bl@wj^*s to indian politicians.

I correct myself you are not a traitor to India, just a patriotic american trying to promote you defence industry so they don't go bankrupt like you companies are going!
*** Moderator note: you report offensive posts, not call another user traitor or any other expletive. Warning issued***

Nair · Post by **Nair** » 12 Apr 2010 16:21

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Kavu wrote: Guess whose tax dollars are paying for that, Russians need money and they will sell anything for that. Soviets needed powerful friends they did everything for that, NATO doesnt. You are an idiot, if you think it is friendship.
Their Engine, their rules.
US wont sell you sqwat, why because their citizens are not prostituting in Dubai or it is not their women being transported in the hordes as white slaves to all around the world, US dont need the money nor do they want the current status quo as the numero uno hyper power to change.
And I think you are a traitor and wester a@@k*^*$ if you put down the nuke sub help by russians as need for money while justifying sanctions by the whore US as "their engine their rule". As for US not needing the money
of course they go on borrowing from China. I remember reading the statement of a Chinese general "We don't need to explain our actions to a country which owes us trillions of dollars"
No american women don't go to whore in Dubai you see its a rich country their women come to Mumbai to save the Enrone and give bl@wj^*s to indian politicians.
I correct myself you are not a traitor to India, just a patriotic american trying to promote you defence industry so they don't go bankrupt like you companies are going!

Russians have helped the Chinese who are an existential threat to India...a lot more than anything America has ever given Pakistan. How come there is no outrage over that?

As for China and the US....what can China do with the US bonds with her.Dump it on the market?...it will destroy the PRC economy while merely hurting the American one.America remains China's main market and the main reason that China buys the dollar bonds is to keep the dollar in certain value above that of the Yuan.Same thing Japan who is the largest holder of American bonds today does too.

Russians need money a lot more than Americans do...they will sell anything to anyone.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 12 Apr 2010 16:28

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 04806.html

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik is quoted by the India Strategic defence magazine as saying that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study because of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, long range, and ease of operation.

IAF was looking at acquiring ten C-17s initially through the US government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, and a proposal in this regard was being considered by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), he said adding that the aircraft should come in about three years after a contract is signed.

The requirement today is for technologically better, easier to maintain, and a larger number of combat and other aircraft, including helicopters, due to the strategic scenario around India and the need to ferry troops, men and material even within India in times of contingency and natural disasters.

More at : IAF chooses Boeing’s latest C-17 for heavy-lift transport aircraft http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... z0ksl8MWWg

The IAF air chief says they are going for c-17 after studying it abilties so. That to me in justification enough, look at the wording carefully, IAF wants to acquire it through FMS and the proposal has been sent to the MOD. so i dont see ample proof that C-17 is actually being shoved down our throats. secondly, he says shortlisted which means they seemed to have considered alternatives whatever they were. so 1 point for c-17 supporters who say there is a need for it, middle finger for those who keep ranting that this whole buy is a full blown conspiracy. wait here is an another

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4442

"The C-17s have been shortlisted after IAF carried out a thorough study on its capability to take-off and land on short runways with heavy loads," IAF sources said here today. IAF would place an initial order for 10 of the C-17s through the US government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, and may later go in for a follow-on order, sources said.

"The Defence Ministry is at present considering the proposal. If accepted, the aircraft should be inducted in about three years after signing of the contract," sources added. In fact, most of IAF's transport aircraft were acquired in the 1980s and the air force is keen to acquire new generation aircraft to replace and augment its fleet.

Again look at the wording, the MOD is considering the proposal guess who submitted it...hello the IAF. so if the IAF needs it, once again middle finger to conspiracy lovers out here. wait one more time..

http://expressbuzz.com/news/iaf-to-mode ... 37762.html

The IAF wants to augment its transporter fleet as it does not have any Super Heavy Lifter. It only operates Light Lift AN-32s and Medium Lift IL-76s. After hunting the international market, the IAF found that C-17 Globemaster was suitable for its requirements as it is the only aircraft available in the category.

The letter of intent was issued after the IAF had a close look at the aircraft which was displayed by the US armed forces in India on different occasions. It was brought in the Aero India held in Bangalore last year. The aircraft also took part in Indo-US air exercises held in Agra last year.

ample proof that IAF hunted for aircraft, evaluated c-17 and issues a proposal to buy to the MOD. The Mod sends the letter of intent to the US. so yet again one more middle finger. so many pages of drivel for no reason. There is a need, it has been evaluated and they will buy. Russia is good friend no doubt but they have given more crucial tot in almost everything to China, i mean everything, no wait china stole it while Russia had a alcohol problem was too intoxicated and forgot what they sold to whom. We now are paying for their rehab, so it justifies our closeness.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Apr 2010 16:36

Brahmananda wrote: After hunting the international market, the IAF found that C-17 Globemaster was suitable for its requirements as it is the only aircraft available in the category.

ample proof that IAF hunted for aircraft, evaluated c-17 and issues a proposal to buy to the MOD. .

IAF did not need to hunt for a/c, it is fairly common knowledge that in the weight class C-17 is the only current option off the shelf.

The question that needs to be asked and is being asked is why does IAF feel the need for a heavy lift aircraft?

No meaningful answers have been seen yet, either by GoI or by discussions in public fora of various sorts.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 12 Apr 2010 16:55

Hey man, read the articles if you can, they considered other aircraft, they dont mention which ones but i am sure they looked at bigger ones as well. You wont get any answers from GOI. The GOI won't operate those aircraft the IAF will, the IAF doesnt have to explain everything it buys, certainly not to you or me. What they do with them is no one else's business but IAF's. They can use them during diasaters, carrying material or sending troops or just keep them in hangers and shine them once in a while. We just have to trust that IAF will use it, how and where is frankly no one else's business. C-130J same thing, we wont know where, why and how IAF'll use them, they could use them for transporting troops, supplies, weapons, nukes or food packges during disasters, what else could a transport be used for.

I dont understand why people wonder so much about how, where and why we want to buy a airlift transport aircraft. Gosh guys its a transport aircraft for heavy lift, i guess they'll use it for exactly that. What meaningful answer do you want? They aren't going to use them to transport whores during war time to the frontline to distract the pukis or chinese from fighting or may be they will, who knows and who cares.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Apr 2010 17:06

Brahmananda wrote:Hey man, read the articles if you can, they considered other aircraft, they dont mention which ones but i am sure they looked at bigger ones as well

What meaningful answer do you want? They aren't going to use them to transport whores during war time to the frontline to distract the pukis or chinese from fighting or may be they will, who knows and who cares.

I think this sums up both your understanding of the situation and the extent of your contribution.

So meanwhile can you please not litter the thread and distract from the discussion for people who care and perhaps want to know as much as they can?

Does that seem like a reasonable request?

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 17:15

Nair wrote:

Russians have helped the Chinese who are an existential threat to India...a lot more than anything America has ever given Pakistan. How come there is no outrage over that?

As for China and the US....what can China do with the US bonds with her.Dump it on the market?...it will destroy the PRC economy while merely hurting the American one.America remains China's main market and the main reason that China buys the dollar bonds is to keep the dollar in certain value above that of the Yuan.Same thing Japan who is the largest holder of American bonds today does too.

Russians need money a lot more than Americans do...they will sell anything to anyone.

Nair Saab (Hail Mamooty ekka)

Indian are overly emotional and dramatic, and they cannot pull off something the Chinese did with Nixon. Most Indians are idiotic fools who keeps harping on 200/1000(according pukis)/ 5000 years of whatever it maybe problems, but unlike the Chinese dont have the spine to divert those emotions into ruthless drive to be the best. Indians hate Pakistani's more, most members in this board hate Islam more than communism therefore Paki's are a bigger threat than Chinese and Communism. While Reality is, China not US/has-been Britain is the threat.

** Moderator note** See the boldfaced part above? now go figure out a better way to express whatever it is you want to. I have issued a formal warning to you for the above "idiotic, foolish" statement. Take that attitude elsewhere, it won't survive long here ***

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 12 Apr 2010 17:40

Sanku wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:Hey man, read the articles if you can, they considered other aircraft, they dont mention which ones but i am sure they looked at bigger ones as well

What meaningful answer do you want? They aren't going to use them to transport whores during war time to the frontline to distract the pukis or chinese from fighting or may be they will, who knows and who cares.
I think this sums up both your understanding of the situation and the extent of your contribution.

So meanwhile can you please not litter the thread and distract from the discussion for people who care and perhaps want to know as much as they can?

Does that seem like a reasonable request?

you seem to have no life wondering what the IAF will do with a heavy transport aircraft, like i said its usage is in the type of aircraft and its called a Heavy lift transport aircraft. check the pictures, gives you an idea of what transport aircraft can do. in short, you use it to transport men, material and all kinds of supplies. not so hard to understand is it. here is an another simple fact, the bigger the transport aircraft the more it can carry. wow, we're getting there, i know you can do it, i never let go of mentally weak people. This one we're buying can carry upto 78 tons, wow, lots pretty good isnt it. but why? offcourse because we are a huge nation with a massive military. wow, nice logic isnt it, it must hurt to use your head once in a while but with commitment you'll get used to it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 8T-003.jpg

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 12 Apr 2010 18:12

Brahmananda wrote: you seem to have no life wondering what the IAF will do with a heavy transport aircraft, like i said its usage is in the type of aircraft and its called a Heavy lift transport aircraft. check the pictures, gives you an idea of what transport aircraft can do. in short, you use it to transport men, material and all kinds of supplies. not so hard to understand is it. here is an another simple fact, the bigger the transport aircraft the more it can carry. wow, we're getting there, i know you can do it, i never let go of mentally weak people. This one we're buying can carry upto 78 tons, wow, lots pretty good isnt it. but why? offcourse because we are a huge nation with a massive military. wow, nice logic isnt it, it must hurt to use your head once in a while but with commitment you'll get used to it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 8T-003.jpg

Brahmananda-ji

What Sanku is saying (and what I have been saying as well) is:

* For the lift requirements that IAF is looking at, the only aircraft that fits is the C-17.
* Other alternative is An 124, but that is not available *right now* .
* Can you please let us know what "bigger aircraft" than the C-17 are available *right now*? The C-5 and An 224 are not available as well.
* IAF is not telling why they need C-17, so its pointless to discuss any more.

Why so upset?

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 18:20

Archan wrote: ** Moderator note** See the boldfaced part above? now go figure out a better way to express whatever it is you want to. I have issued a formal warning to you for the above "idiotic, foolish" statement. Take that attitude elsewhere, it won't survive long here ***

Dear Archan,

I am using the main board since for some reason I am not privy to send messages, People over here say the PM of this country is a traitor on a regular basis,or calling Jesus and Mohammed whatever names is all good, but say something about Ram or castism or Russia; you are in for it. and a passing comment on my fellow countrymen being idiotic and over emotional fools is a problem. I cannot say a general statement like most Indian are fools,
Why you dont like a new boy showing similar attitude as dished out by the old gaurds. You have also previously warned me for saying something general, and I am sure this message would be another offense or more likely a ban, and for people who have been here long, will get away with anything. And, moreover you sure can see my IP as well as the origin of my personal email as well as my full name, you would know I am an Indian. I think I have every right, to say what I did. But you are a moderator, therefore in this world of BR, you can do what you can, and I am sure you are not quite fond of me here. Therefore do whatever you want. I stick by my statement, as any normal human being can understand the spirit of the statement I made.

archan · Post by **archan** » 12 Apr 2010 22:03

Kavu,
If you have any issues with moderation, please feel free to raise them in the feedback thread or through personal emails to the webmasters but please do not post OT here. I will move the above post to the trash as it does not belong here. You can find it in the trash 4545 thread later if you need to.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 12 Apr 2010 22:10

Tanaji wrote:
Brahmananda wrote: you seem to have no life wondering what the IAF will do with a heavy transport aircraft, like i said its usage is in the type of aircraft and its called a Heavy lift transport aircraft. check the pictures, gives you an idea of what transport aircraft can do. in short, you use it to transport men, material and all kinds of supplies. not so hard to understand is it. here is an another simple fact, the bigger the transport aircraft the more it can carry. wow, we're getting there, i know you can do it, i never let go of mentally weak people. This one we're buying can carry upto 78 tons, wow, lots pretty good isnt it. but why? offcourse because we are a huge nation with a massive military. wow, nice logic isnt it, it must hurt to use your head once in a while but with commitment you'll get used to it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 8T-003.jpg
Brahmananda-ji

What Sanku is saying (and what I have been saying as well) is:

* For the lift requirements that IAF is looking at, the only aircraft that fits is the C-17.
* Other alternative is An 124, but that is not available *right now* .
* Can you please let us know what "bigger aircraft" than the C-17 are available *right now*? The C-5 and An 224 are not available as well.
* IAF is not telling why they need C-17, so its pointless to discuss any more.

Why so upset?

well not upset just sad when people keep asking why we're buying 78 ton capable transport aircraft. The answer to why is simple, they need it for heavy lift transport. the same repeated question over and over is useless because IAF cant give a better explanation. Ask them for a detailed expalanation they'll say the same why else would you buy a large transport aircraft if there wasn't a need for transporting large amounts. I dont know if c-5 or An-224 are available, if they aren't available well c-17 seems to fit the bill. heavy lift transport aircraft is for lifting and transport heavy loads, troops, equipment and supplies whenever needed and possible. Our lack of good infrastructure in the north eastern corridor can be a reason, it doesnt have to land over there just para drop supplies during afie fight. For a large military like ours c-17 could be very useful.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Apr 2010 22:41

Brahmananda wrote:well not upset just sad when people keep asking why we're buying 78 ton capable transport aircraft. The answer to why is simple, they need it for heavy lift transport.

I strongly urge you to lurk a bit more and go beyond the obvious statements such as heavy lift aircraft are to lift heavy weights.

Really? Who would have guessed it if you didn't tell us?

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 12 Apr 2010 22:42

chetak wrote:The C-17 (wrong) decision is not IAF driven but PMO driven, as part of the Indo US pappi jappi.

Moderators, can you please be consistent with your warnings, or if the rules of the board have changes, could you please update me? Since when has it become OK to directly slander the PM without any proof? Or are their different rules for ex-servicemen?

chetak, you should either furnish proof or apologize. This is not a scenario thread.

Nair · Post by **Nair** » 13 Apr 2010 04:30

Kavu wrote:
Nair wrote:

Russians have helped the Chinese who are an existential threat to India...a lot more than anything America has ever given Pakistan. How come there is no outrage over that?

As for China and the US....what can China do with the US bonds with her.Dump it on the market?...it will destroy the PRC economy while merely hurting the American one.America remains China's main market and the main reason that China buys the dollar bonds is to keep the dollar in certain value above that of the Yuan.Same thing Japan who is the largest holder of American bonds today does too.

Russians need money a lot more than Americans do...they will sell anything to anyone.
Nair Saab (Hail Mamooty ekka)

Indian are overly emotional and dramatic, and they cannot pull off something the Chinese did with Nixon. Most Indians are idiotic fools who keeps harping on 200/1000(according pukis)/ 5000 years of whatever it maybe problems, but unlike the Chinese dont have the spine to divert those emotions into ruthless drive to be the best. Indians hate Pakistani's more, most members in this board hate Islam more than communism therefore Paki's are a bigger threat than Chinese and Communism. While Reality is, China not US/has-been Britain is the threat.

** Moderator note** See the boldfaced part above? now go figure out a better way to express whatever it is you want to. I have issued a formal warning to you for the above "idiotic, foolish" statement. Take that attitude elsewhere, it won't survive long here ***

America has not given Pakistan anything close to what Russia has given China..who is an existential threat to India. Not to mention who also gave the Pakis the nuclear bombs and missiles on top of it. But somehow America is the bad guy here.

To keep the gap from the Chinese from growing further,India will need the tech from America.Anyone not agreement with that is deluding themselves. The Russians will sell nearly anything they sell to India to China and anyway within a decade and a half,Chinese tech will be the equivalent of the Russians.

India is much bigger than Pakistan..to worry only about Pakistan is below stature.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 13 Apr 2010 09:18

>>>chetak, you should either furnish proof or apologize. This is not a scenario thread.

What proof do you want? and what for he should apologize? for saying that the present PM is leaning towards Americans? The PM himself had made it clear with his words and deeds that it is in fact the case. If you need apologies, then you have to ask a whole lot of people on BR including me..and I don't feel apologetic about it.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 13 Apr 2010 09:48

>>>America has not given Pakistan anything close to what Russia has given China..who is an existential threat to India. Not to mention who also gave the Pakis the nuclear bombs and missiles on top of it.

1. America has colluded with Britain for the creation of Pakistan and is the very reason for the existence Pakistan today. Russia has not harmed India politically or militarily - in fact there were occasions when they had used their muscle to block moves against India by America.

2. America supplies Pakistan Weapons FREE OF COST (in fact they give money for their daily meal also). Russia SELLS weapons to China. In fact China buys weapons from almost all countries that sells weapons to India. In that case what logic would you like to apply?

3. Russia has given weapons to a country (China) which had attacked it..not only that, they had even shared information on Nucleat bomb. How would you like to justify this foolhardiness of Russia with respect to dealings with China?

4. Russia has always supplied weapons which are inferior in technology compared to that supplied to India, Where as Americans had always supplied weapons to Pakistan to have parity with India in terms of conventional weapons.

5. America has covertly supported in Pakistan's quest for Nuclear weapons, and is actively protecting them (in collusion with China) to maintain that status.

>>>But somehow America is the bad guy here.

At the end of the day, do you want people to believe that America is a friend of India and Russia an enemy..?

>>>To keep the gap from the Chinese from growing further,India will need the tech from America. Anyone not agreement with that is deluding themselves.

If you believe America will part with their technology, that too to bridge the "gap" with Chinese, then you are living in wonderful massa land.

>>>The Russians will sell nearly anything they sell to India to China and anyway within a decade and a half,Chinese tech will be the equivalent of the Russians.

Can you list a few that Russians have sold to China that are superior to that given to India? You can find yourself that MANY weapon platforms that Russia supplied to India are far better than that given to China. One reason is that Russia has a long border with China and they want to ensure that China doesn't turn out to be a modern day "Bhasmasura"! Good for India.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 13 Apr 2010 12:00

Can you list a few that Russians have sold to China that are superior to that given to India? You can find yourself that MANY weapon platforms that Russia supplied to India are far better than that given to China. One reason is that Russia has a long border with China and they want to ensure that China doesn't turn out to be a modern day "Bhasmasura"! Good for India.

This is conveniently forgotten by people, when bashing Indo-Russian relationship. Massa has no such "attachments" so it can do a 180 on any relationship at its pleasure. Anyhow this discussion is getting OT.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 13 Apr 2010 13:24

Sanku wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:well not upset just sad when people keep asking why we're buying 78 ton capable transport aircraft. The answer to why is simple, they need it for heavy lift transport.
I strongly urge you to lurk a bit more and go beyond the obvious statements such as heavy lift aircraft are to lift heavy weights.

Really? Who would have guessed it if you didn't tell us?

you seem to have problem guessing it as well or you wont be asking the same why over and over again, how and when it will use the c-17 is the IAF's choice and not yours, where and when is also their choice, when IAF has clearly stted they need for many reasons, why bother waste time scrutinizing those reason. There are many of situations where its heavy lift ability will be extremly useful. I strongly urge you to get a life and stop worrying about how heavy lift aircraft will be used and looking for beyond the obvious reasons of heavy lifting.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Apr 2010 14:16

The issue is not the choice of aircraft,but where does it lie in the list of priorities? Do we have money in the defence kitty for ALL the weapon systems that we are evaluating or lusting after? The COAS in another telly interview a couple of days ago expressed his unhappiness with the LCA project (delay).That project is perhaps the highest profile defence project in the country barring the ATV.Its success is an absolute must if we are to leapfrog decades of stagnation in indigenous aircraft design.The MK-2 version must succeed and be built in reasonable numbers before the MCA project supplants it.The MMRCA acquisition is also vital to meet falling force numbers,at their lowest for decades.That is a more important need to me.I reiterate,it is only because the production line for C-17s is about to close with even Gates against it,a desperate attempt is being made by Boeing for India to buy it.Yes,we do need in the fulness of time a heavy transport,a stealth bomber,a stealth UCAV,a reusable shuttle,etc.,but in what order of priority?The air chief should've been asked what the priorities of the IAF were in the current context.Perhaps in the next interview a smart scribe can ask the big Q.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 13 Apr 2010 14:36

well philip, again the blah blah about lines closing. How the heck does it matter when we wanted them and we approached the US govt. for the intent of purchase. Every company will try to promote it products at air shows, be it the 777, a-380 or the even the a-400M, just because they at air shows dont mean that they are shoving it down our throats. I repeat IAF came up with proposal to buy it and sent it to the MOD and the MOD sent a letter of intent to the US government. so no point blaming Boeing, if there is any one to blame or respect for the choice its IAF. If the lines had closed we'd probably be buying the a-400M or some other aircraft with a good pay load ability. They've been saying the f-16 lines are closing for years but they still have about 200 orders in back logs. luckily the c-17 lines are open, we get good a good aircraft more battle proven than other aircraft in its category matter of fact it is the category. Boeing will do what any company does market its aircraft, its our decision to buy so trust the IAF's choice unless you think IAF is run by people who have no clue what they're doing. If you cant trust them, dig yourself a grave and rid us of this mistrust.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Apr 2010 14:42

Philip wrote:...Yes,we do need in the fulness of time a heavy transport,a stealth bomber,a stealth UCAV,a reusable shuttle,etc.,but in what order of priority?The air chief should've been asked what the priorities of the IAF were in the current context.Perhaps in the next interview a smart scribe can ask the big Q.

Philip, are there any indications that an order for 10 C-17s (which hasn't been given yet BTW) has or is going to adversely impact some other project/purchase? If not, then this line of argument is moot.

Nair · Post by **Nair** » 13 Apr 2010 16:14

geeth wrote:>>>America has not given Pakistan anything close to what Russia has given China..who is an existential threat to India. Not to mention who also gave the Pakis the nuclear bombs and missiles on top of it.

1. America has colluded with Britain for the creation of Pakistan and is the very reason for the existence Pakistan today. Russia has not harmed India politically or militarily - in fact there were occasions when they had used their muscle to block moves against India by America.

Huh...America had a marginal role in the creation of Pakistan. Anyway did you really need Pakistan and their loony population in India?

2. America supplies Pakistan Weapons FREE OF COST (in fact they give money for their daily meal also). Russia SELLS weapons to China. In fact China buys weapons from almost all countries that sells weapons to India. In that case what logic would you like to apply?

Free weapons kill as much as paid ones..and NOTHING America has given Pakistan gives Pakistan the edge over India. Not the same scenario between Russia and China where everything from missiles,to jets,to nukes has been sold.China is an existential threat if you forgot.
China does not buy from every country. They are under a EU and Americans arms embargo. They buy exclusively from Russia and buy so much that they imported the most amount of weapons last year in the world nearly all of it from good buddy Russia.

3. Russia has given weapons to a country (China) which had attacked it..not only that, they had even shared information on Nucleat bomb. How would you like to justify this foolhardiness of Russia with respect to dealings with China?

Desperate to sell to anyone...if they were India's friend,they will not sell to her biggest enemy.

4. Russia has always supplied weapons which are inferior in technology compared to that supplied to India, Where as Americans had always supplied weapons to Pakistan to have parity with India in terms of conventional weapons.

Like what?..Russia has supplied China with everything.Please don't bring up the MKM. They offered them the Su 35 and if reports are right the first chance on the Pak-Fa. America has never given anything to Pakistan to maintain parity with India. Pakistan cannot maintain parity with India.Everyone other then the crazy Pakistanis understand that.

5. America has covertly supported in Pakistan's quest for Nuclear weapons, and is actively protecting them (in collusion with China) to maintain that status.

India's great friend Russia is helping China who gave them her nukes. America did not give her the nukes,China did...

>>>But somehow America is the bad guy here.

At the end of the day, do you want people to believe that America is a friend of India and Russia an enemy..?

You are sadly mistaken if you think Russia is a friend of India. No one is anyone's friend. Russia needs India as market for her weapons. The only thing of any consequence she makes today(caviar and vodka aside). And in the past her interests coincided with India. Nations have interests not friends.

>>>To keep the gap from the Chinese from growing further,India will need the tech from America. Anyone not agreement with that is deluding themselves.

If you believe America will part with their technology, that too to bridge the "gap" with Chinese, then you are living in wonderful massa land.

They will because today it is in America's interests to prevent China from getting too strong. Again it is about interests not friendships.

>>>The Russians will sell nearly anything they sell to India to China and anyway within a decade and a half,Chinese tech will be the equivalent of the Russians.

Can you list a few that Russians have sold to China that are superior to that given to India? You can find yourself that MANY weapon platforms that Russia supplied to India are far better than that given to China. One reason is that Russia has a long border with China and they want to ensure that China doesn't turn out to be a modern day "Bhasmasura"! Good for India

What has Russia sold India that she has not sold China or offered to sell to her. The only thing I can think of in the recent past is the Pak-Fa...something the Chinese are not interested in as they have their own program.Anyway within a decade and a half China will zoom away from Russia in weapons development.

Russia arms both sides equally both China and India but Russia is buddy No 1...when America gives inferior weapons to Pakistan when compared to the ones offered to India,she becomes enemy No 1....curious logic when China is a many magnitude times danger to India compared to Pakistan

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Apr 2010 16:48

All is now what it appears.Please read this insightful paper carefully to understand what Russia has sold China and why China now "snubs Russian arms".

http://the-diplomat.com/2010/04/05/why- ... dium=email

Excerpt:

"Last week’s shipment underscores two key features of the current Russia-China arms transfer relationship. First, Russia is presently sending China only weapons systems based on Soviet-era technology, most of which were manufactured during the Soviet era. Second, China purchased these items several years ago. In recent years, in contrast, China has largely stopped buying complete weapons systems from Russia, primarily because the Chinese defence industry can now match Soviet-era technologies, while Russia refuses to sell China its most advanced weapons."

The Russian military establishment is very wary about Chinese ambitions and the threat to Russia from a resurgent militarised China.China is still ruled by the military and is a one party state.A latest report says that for the first time a large PLAN naval task force is approaching Okinawa (2 subs and 8 warships) where the US has important bases there.China is flexing its military muscles more and more each day and the Russians have noted it with concern.

In the past,Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union desperately needed arms exports to simply keep its industry from collapsing.China quickly saw an opportunity and employed scores of Russian engineers so that it could leapfrog into the 21st century military-industry wise.However,as far as the kind of weaponry that Russia has sold to India when compared with that sold to China,one always sees that India has an edge in weapon systems sold.Take for example Sunburn SSMs.The Brahmos/Yakhont is far superior.Our SU-30MKIs are also superior to Chinese Flankers and the ABM system ,S-300s being sold to China date as the excerpt says,from Cold War days.Russia has cleverly sold its second best eqpt. to China without compromising on its latest developments,some of which India has acquired,Flankers and now in the Pak-FA 5th-gen fighter programme.We are also being leased an Akula-2/3,which is the best Russian attack sub in service,other than the latest Severodvinsk class of which the first has just arrived.We've also been gvien the T-90 and have been offered a JV on the next FMBT too.Russia has also allowed us to mix a variety of western tech with its weapon systems,unheard of even in the west,with French,Israeli and Indian avionics for our SU-30s.As for the ATV,enough has been said on the Forum about Russian assitance in the programme which allowed it to see the light of day,which is why a few hundred Russian engineers,etc. where priviliged guests at the ATV's launch.

So let's not belittle Russian assistance to India which has been invaluable.Let's compare the efforts of other nations in assisting India's defence objectively.The US is trying to break out of the mold of yesteryear,but still hasn't managed to remove the strings attached from such deals,because of its long-term military relationship with Pak.Let's face it.The US can almost always depend upon the Paki uniformed tribes to perform "tricks" for it,but it cannot expect the same from the Indian armed forces.Therein lies the difference.As long as we remain independent in our foreign policy,a mature,smooth military relationship with the US will be very difficult to accomplish unlike one with Russia.We are not yet a "Non-NATO" ally unlike Pak and will have to manage the realtionship carefully.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Apr 2010 00:02

Nair wrote: >>>America has not given Pakistan anything close to what Russia has given China..who is an existential threat to India. Not to mention who also gave the Pakis the nuclear bombs and missiles on top of it.

1. America has colluded with Britain for the creation of Pakistan and is the very reason for the existence Pakistan today. Russia has not harmed India politically or militarily - in fact there were occasions when they had used their muscle to block moves against India by America.

Huh...America had a marginal role in the creation of Pakistan. Anyway did you really need Pakistan and their loony population in India?

From a money stand point of view this is true. Truman Doctrine was used to help Pakistan as part of the containment of Soviet Union.

The Truman Doctrine was a proclamation by U.S. President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947. It stated that the U.S. would support Greece and Turkey economically and militarily to prevent their falling under Soviet control. Truman called upon the U.S. to "support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures,"[1] which generalized his hopes for Greece and Turkey into a doctrine applicable throughout the world. The Soviet Union was clearly at the heart of Truman's thoughts,[original research?] but the nation was never directly mentioned in his speech.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Apr 2010 01:43

Philip wrote:All is now what it appears.Please read this insightful paper carefully to understand what Russia has sold China and why China now "snubs Russian arms".

http://the-diplomat.com/2010/04/05/why- ... dium=email

Excerpt:
"Last week’s shipment underscores two key features of the current Russia-China arms transfer relationship. First, Russia is presently sending China only weapons systems based on Soviet-era technology, most of which were manufactured during the Soviet era. Second, China purchased these items several years ago. In recent years, in contrast, China has largely stopped buying complete weapons systems from Russia, primarily because the Chinese defence industry can now match Soviet-era technologies, while Russia refuses to sell China its most advanced weapons."
The Russian military establishment is very wary about Chinese ambitions and the threat to Russia from a resurgent militarised China.China is still ruled by the military and is a one party state.A latest report says that for the first time a large PLAN naval task force is approaching Okinawa (2 subs and 8 warships) where the US has important bases there.China is flexing its military muscles more and more each day and the Russians have noted it with concern.

In the past,Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union desperately needed arms exports to simply keep its industry from collapsing.China quickly saw an opportunity and employed scores of Russian engineers so that it could leapfrog into the 21st century military-industry wise.However,as far as the kind of weaponry that Russia has sold to India when compared with that sold to China,one always sees that India has an edge in weapon systems sold.Take for example Sunburn SSMs.The Brahmos/Yakhont is far superior.Our SU-30MKIs are also superior to Chinese Flankers and the ABM system ,S-300s being sold to China date as the excerpt says,from Cold War days.Russia has cleverly sold its second best eqpt. to China without compromising on its latest developments,some of which India has acquired,Flankers and now in the Pak-FA 5th-gen fighter programme.We are also being leased an Akula-2/3,which is the best Russian attack sub in service,other than the latest Severodvinsk class of which the first has just arrived.We've also been gvien the T-90 and have been offered a JV on the next FMBT too.Russia has also allowed us to mix a variety of western tech with its weapon systems,unheard of even in the west,with French,Israeli and Indian avionics for our SU-30s.As for the ATV,enough has been said on the Forum about Russian assitance in the programme which allowed it to see the light of day,which is why a few hundred Russian engineers,etc. where priviliged guests at the ATV's launch.

So let's not belittle Russian assistance to India which has been invaluable.Let's compare the efforts of other nations in assisting India's defence objectively.The US is trying to break out of the mold of yesteryear,but still hasn't managed to remove the strings attached from such deals,because of its long-term military relationship with Pak.Let's face it.The US can almost always depend upon the Paki uniformed tribes to perform "tricks" for it,but it cannot expect the same from the Indian armed forces.Therein lies the difference.As long as we remain independent in our foreign policy,a mature,smooth military relationship with the US will be very difficult to accomplish unlike one with Russia.We are not yet a "Non-NATO" ally unlike Pak and will have to manage the realtionship carefully.

Can't agree with you more on the last paragraph.

But is it true that Russia always offered inferior weapons to China? Or is it that they offered the same things and China chose configurations which where inferior to what India chose for faster induction and higher numbers! It is also true the Russia is wary of selling China its state-of-art weapons now, but is it out of good intent towards India or is it the perception of a threatening and powerful neighbour of their east?

Can we X-post this discussion some more suitable thread? Please point me to the X-posting if the shift is made!

Can we take this