C-17s for the IAF?

[Indranil]

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

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 that India's for faster induction and higher numbers! For example what is so different in terms in the airframes/engines of the MKI and the MKM (primary parts from Russia)? Wasn't the Thrust vectoring and the triplane offered to them too. It was China's decision to induct the the 30s without much change (MKI was a high-risk/unproven product then), and also to keep their 30s lighter.

While, 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 to some more suitable thread? Please point me to the X-posting if the shift is made!

[Gilles]

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!
Can we take this

I know of one example. China ordered the 30 or so IL-76s a few years ago at dirt cheap price. Before any of them were delivered, in 2006, Ilyushin finally certified its upgraded IL-76MD-90. At that point, the Russians decided the Chinese IL-76s had been liquidated too cheap and wanted to re-negociate the deal using the upgraded and more expensive IL-76TD-90s. China refused. They wanted the old IL-76, the old engines, the old avionics and the old price. They are still waiting for their aircraft.

[ManuJ]

>>>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.

chetak didn't say that the PM is leaning towards America, he said explicitly that the C-17 decision is not IAF driven but driven by the PMO.

That's a pretty reckless statement to make, and if he has made it, he should furnish proof. He has not only made an accusation against the PM, but he has also directly negated the IAF chief who stated very clearly in an interview that the C-17 was chosen by the IAF.

[Katare]

A lot of people pretend to argue on technical merits and logics but in reality knowingly or unknowingly, most of the time people are arguing based on their political positions. So largely the same group that didn't like the nuclear deal, doesn't like nuclear liability bill now, wouldn't want F16/18 or C17 for IAF. Basically they don't like USofA and its politics and genuinely believe that having relationship with USA would hurt long term Indian interests. But they want to put there view on technical and logical grounds to appeal to the pro-dealers.

So listen to what other's have to say, write what you want to say but don't expect to win an argument or convert anyone to your view. See its simple only!

[geeth]

>>>chetak didn't say that the PM is leaning towards America, he said explicitly that the C-17 decision is not IAF driven but driven by the PMO.

>>>That's a pretty reckless statement to make, and if he has made it, he should furnish proof. He has not only made an accusation against the PM, but he has also directly negated the IAF chief who stated very clearly in an interview that the C-17 was chosen by the IAF.

Please don't juggle around with words. See the bolded parts of your post which are contradictory. On the one hand you say it is PM and not PMO, and the next sentence it is PM indeed. implying PMO is PM only.. I am not going to push this issue any further.

Carry on, smartly.

[ManuJ]

On the one hand you say it is PM and not PMO, and the next sentence it is PM indeed. implying PMO is PM only..

This is getting hilarious. So the Indian military is buying C-17s because a babu in PMO asked them to?!

[Philip]

Look,let's try and be fair (if poss!) to the PMO.As we well know,the N-deal did not come without backscratching.The US wanted "in" with our defence purchases,so let's assume that they asked us what we were going to buy in thr future and we gave them a broad list of items.MMRCA,heavy transports,LRMP aircraft,subs,warships,etc.They immediately saw that they could perhaps extend production of their F-16s/F-18s and C-17s if the IAF would buy them.We bought the Boeing P-8I as there was only the Airbus version in contention and the Boeing P-8 was already in the pipeline for the USN replacing the P-3 Orions.Russia did not have any jet LRMP equivalent apart from the Beriev amphibians which are only now being considered for the CG,etc.Hence the "heavy hitting" on a sympathetic PMO which has been trying to run both foreign and defence policies irrespective of their being two ministries for both with their respective ministers (specially chosen for the jobs) ! The C-17,like the P-8 has almost a monopoly in the market for its type and therefore easy to clinch a deal because there are no other immediate contenders,thus an easy deal to wrap up!

If the PMO is all for the deal in the interests of pleasing the US,and the IAF also has such an aircraft on its wish list (even though it may be low down on the list of priorities),why should it worry if it can get hold of a new toy? It takes years for its wants to be met and when fortune in the form of the PMO "gifts" such a toy to it ,"what me worry!?"

[JimmyJ]

Look,let's try and be fair (if poss!) to the PMO.As we well know,the N-deal did not come without backscratching.The US wanted "in" with our defence purchases,so let's assume that they asked us what we were going to buy in thr future and we gave them a broad list of items.MMRCA,heavy transports,LRMP aircraft,subs,warships,etc.They immediately saw that they could perhaps extend production of their F-16s/F-18s and C-17s if the IAF would buy them.We bought the Boeing P-8I as there was only the Airbus version in contention and the Boeing P-8 was already in the pipeline for the USN replacing the P-3 Orions.Russia did not have any jet LRMP equivalent apart from the Beriev amphibians which are only now being considered for the CG,etc.Hence the "heavy hitting" on a sympathetic PMO which has been trying to run both foreign and defence policies irrespective of their being two ministries for both with their respective ministers (specially chosen for the jobs) ! The C-17,like the P-8 has almost a monopoly in the market for its type and therefore easy to clinch a deal because there are no other immediate contenders,thus an easy deal to wrap up!

If the PMO is all for the deal in the interests of pleasing the US,and the IAF also has such an aircraft on its wish list (even though it may be low down on the list of priorities),why should it worry if it can get hold of a new toy? It takes years for its wants to be met and when fortune in the form of the PMO "gifts" such a toy to it ,"what me worry!?"

But Philip, isn't all the international relationship about give and take. After the end of cold war there is no more any major subsidized weapons/business deals given to any nations by the so called powers, even Pakistan faced the music when it went to China to be rescued in the on going financial crisis. It is true that the give is more for weaker nations.

The most funniest is that now Pakistan is running after everyone saying that India got a lollipop, which it thinks is tasty, and that no one gave it one.

[Brahmananda]

For ardent beggars even a lollypop would, that lollypop for them is better than anything they can hope for.

[Kartik]

A lot of people pretend to argue on technical merits and logics but in reality knowingly or unknowingly, most of the time people are arguing based on their political positions. So largely the same group that didn't like the nuclear deal, doesn't like nuclear liability bill now, wouldn't want F16/18 or C17 for IAF. Basically they don't like USofA and its politics and genuinely believe that having relationship with USA would hurt long term Indian interests. But they want to put there view on technical and logical grounds to appeal to the pro-dealers.

So listen to what other's have to say, write what you want to say but don't expect to win an argument or convert anyone to your view. See its simple only!

absolutely true Katare. Everyone has some or the other prejudice that clouds their thinking, or at least influences which direction they think.

[putnanja]

A lot of people pretend to argue on technical merits and logics but in reality knowingly or unknowingly, most of the time people are arguing based on their political positions. So largely the same group that didn't like the nuclear deal, doesn't like nuclear liability bill now, wouldn't want F16/18 or C17 for IAF. Basically they don't like USofA and its politics and genuinely believe that having relationship with USA would hurt long term Indian interests. But they want to put there view on technical and logical grounds to appeal to the pro-dealers.

So listen to what other's have to say, write what you want to say but don't expect to win an argument or convert anyone to your view. See its simple only!

And it works the other way too. Not all who want American arms are dont it from the technical standpoint. So the bolded parts works for both camps

[Gilles]

I've been writing on this Forum that none of Canada's 4 C-17s had ever landed on unpaved or short runways since induction in summer of 2007. Well that has recently changed, sort of.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr- ... p?id=10443

On April 15, a Canadian Forces C-17 landed at Canadian Forces Station Alert, the World's most northern airport. It's a 5,500 foot gravel runway. Normally, such a runway could not sustain this aircraft without some damage (to the runway), but there were two things that allowed it. The first was that the temperature that day in Alert was -25 degrees Celsius, which turns the gravel runway into a very hard frozen surface. For the second factor, rumour has it that for this first flight, the payload consisted of ...... nothing. The aircraft reportedly landed and took off empty. I will wait to find out if it ever comes back, and if it does, will it come back with a payload greater than what a C-130 Hercules (the aircraft that normally lands there) can carry into that runway.

[Indranil]

I've been writing on this Forum that none of Canada's 4 C-17s had ever landed on unpaved or short runways since induction in summer of 2007. Well that has recently changed, sort of.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr- ... p?id=10443

On April 15, a Canadian Forces C-17 landed at Canadian Forces Station Alert, the World's most northern airport. It's a 5,500 foot gravel runway. Normally, such a runway could not sustain this aircraft without some damage (to the runway), but there were two things that allowed it. The first was that the temperature that day in Alert was -25 degrees Celsius, which turns the gravel runway into a very hard frozen surface. For the second factor, rumour has it that for this first flight, the payload consisted of ...... nothing. The aircraft reportedly landed and took off empty. I will wait to find out if it ever comes back, and if it does, will it come back with a payload greater than what a C-130 Hercules (the aircraft that normally lands there) can carry into that runway.

Gilles, your posts are always informative. I have learned a lot about what C-17 through your posts. I have a question. Could it be that this particular landing/take-off was just a feasibility test to validate whether the C-17 can do close to what is advertised. Then they can calculate and extrapolate somethings like maximum load that can be carried (if required). After all, which airforce would not like to preserve their airframes for as long as possible. No airforce would like to land their planes on an unpaved runways unless they absolutely need to. Because unlike Boeing who would like to advertise, the airforces operating the planes just want to get the job done with as few hassles as required?

[Gilles]

Could it be that this particular landing/take-off was just a feasibility test to validate whether the C-17 can do close to what is advertised. Then they can calculate and extrapolate somethings like maximum load that can be carried (if required). After all, which airforce would not like to preserve their airframes for as long as possible. No airforce would like to land their planes on an unpaved runways unless they absolutely need to. Because unlike Boeing who would like to advertise, the airforces operating the planes just want to get the job done with as few hassles as required?

It might be and the future will tell. This is why I asked the questions "will the aircraft be back" and "what payload will it carry, if it does". We will soon know and I will post it when anything happens on that front. But I think that in theory it should be no big deal to land an aircraft "capable of landing on 3,500 foot unpaved runways" on a runway 5,500 feet long, 2,000 feet longer than what is advertised, especially one located at sea level and at -25 C where perfmormance are at maximum......

[Indranil]

Could it be that this particular landing/take-off was just a feasibility test to validate whether the C-17 can do close to what is advertised. Then they can calculate and extrapolate somethings like maximum load that can be carried (if required). After all, which airforce would not like to preserve their airframes for as long as possible. No airforce would like to land their planes on an unpaved runways unless they absolutely need to. Because unlike Boeing who would like to advertise, the airforces operating the planes just want to get the job done with as few hassles as required?

It might be and the future will tell. This is why I asked the questions "will the aircraft be back" and "what payload will it carry, if it does". We will soon know and I will post it when anything happens on that front. But I think that in theory it should be no big deal to land an aircraft "capable of landing on 3,500 foot unpaved runways" on a runway 5,500 feet long, 2,000 feet longer than what is advertised, especially one located at sea level and at -25 C where perfmormance are at maximum......

agreed

[chetak]

On the one hand you say it is PM and not PMO, and the next sentence it is PM indeed. implying PMO is PM only..

This is getting hilarious. So the Indian military is buying C-17s because a babu in PMO asked them to?!

Guys,

The C-17 purchase proposal has a large element of Disaster management capability inherent in it. Armed Forces assets like helicopters, aircraft and ships are used for this purpose and actual funding done by the Home ministry during such use. Ration paani, medicines and and other relief materiel including paramilitary troops provided is done by the HM.

Floods, cyclones, tsunamis and earthquakes are to be managed by the NCMC. Also includes disaster assistance to friendly countries to project our power and generate goodwill.

I say again, the proposal is PMO driven.

http://nidm.gov.in/Chap2.htm

National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC) :

Under the chairmanship of the cabinet secretary the NCMC has been constituted in the cabinet secretariat. The other members of this committee include the Secretary to Prime Minister, Secretaries of Ministry of Home Affairs, Defence, Research & Analysis Wing

INSTRUCTION/DIRECTION FEED BACK—»-*->

IMD CWC NCMC AM. P.M. A.&C. N.DM.

India Meteorological Department, Central Water Commission, National Crisis Management Committee Agriculture Minister Prime Minister along with Director Intelligence Bureau and an officer of cabinet secretariat. The NCMC gives direction to the crises management group as deemed necessary.

[shukla]

X-post from Indian aviation thread.. (probably more appropriate thread to continue discussions for this news..)

US Congress notified on C-17 transport aircraft sale to India

The US Defence Security Cooperation Agency has notified the Congress of a potential sale of 10 Boeing C-17 transport aircraft to India. The notification of the sales of the aircraft to the Indian Air Force (IAF) was submitted to the US Congress on April 22, according to an official release here.

"This is an important step forward in the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process and is a necessary prerequisite to negotiations on the deal," the release from the US embassy said. After hearing of the notification, US Ambassador to India Timothy J Roemer said, "The potential sale of C-17s strengthens the growing partnership between our two countries demonstrates our enduring commitment to sharing the world's best technology with India.

Although the official notification to Congress lists the potential value as USD 5.8 billion, this represents the highest possible estimate for the sale, and includes all potential services offered.

The actual cost will be based on IAF's requirements and is yet to be negotiated. In addition to the C-17 airplanes themselves, if the IAF desires, it could purchase services that could include training for aircrew and maintenance personnel, spare parts, test and ground support equipment, technical assistance, engineering services, IAF-specific unique modifications, logistical and technical support.

$5.8bn for 10 C-17's.. The murmurs and support in favour of the Il-76 are about to get stronger.. (if we are made to fork out that amount, even with the extra's)

[rohitvats]

$5.8bn for 10 C-17's.. The murmurs and support in favour of the Il-76 are about to get stronger.. (if we are made to fork out that amount, even with the extra's)

Sir, of the part that you highlighted, you left out the fact that, "this represents the highest possible estimate for the sale, and includes all potential services offered".

Unless we know what those extraaaaaaa (and obsencenly extra) $$$ are getting us, let us not use the word "extra" in a light manner.

[Shalav]

Hmmm... @ Rs. 45 : $ 1

$3,000,0000,0000 to $5,800,000,000 = Rs. 13,500,00,00,000 to Rs. 26,100,00,00,000

Think of that number again - between Rs. 13,500 crore to Rs. 26,100 crore - all to be spent without competitive bidding or guarantees that these aircraft will never be sanctioned by the US or its allies. To put this in perspective depending on the spend this will be between 9% to 18% of the defense budget!

Additionally as long as we "own" these aircraft we will have to agree to line up these aircraft every year; so uncle can inspect them. We will have to agree to restrictive clauses as to end use as to where they can and cannot be used. We will be locked in to the boeing and US maintenance.

All in all a very very very expensive & restrictive lease of US equipment.

Where is CAG when you need it?

[NRao]

I understand the concern WRT the cost and competitive bidding, etc. But I have to suspect there are other considerations too that have gone into this (ridiculous?) decision. This from the howitzers sale: "will assist the Indian Army to develop and enhance standardization and to improve interoperability with U.S. ..................." (You can google and get more details.)

There seems to be a grander plan that we are not privy to perhaps. There certainly is a political plan (as evidenced WRT the M/MRCA), so that is a no brainer.

So, we need to gulp this one. While $5 billion can be spent better somewhere else, it is not a sum that will dent much.

[Shalav]

There seems to be a grander plan that we are not privy to perhaps.

I really hope so. But then we have always been dissapointed in this 'grand plan' regards too!

Every time we think its some Kautilyan strategy by the GoI we find out it differently. What to say?

[Surya]

Bah humbug

13600 crores is a scam and ahalf for Lallu.

And we have 100s of scam

[NRao]

All (modern) economics and all of politics is a scam. BUT, we have and continue to live with that fact in spite of the fact that we know it will get worse!!

I recall a conversation with someone very Sr. here who had just come back from India and his return had coincided with the announcement of the entry of the F-18 into the M/MRCA "competition". He stated that he was told that the US had stated that India was benefiting tremendously because of the US (H1 visa, software out-sourcing, etc had about become THE thing, etc) and therefore India needed to spend a good deal of that new found wealth in the US!!

Since then we have seen a tilt towards the US for sure, but I am not sure if there is a correlation.

The idea (to me) makes sense. The issue is where does India spend that money. If it worth it for the C-17, for instance.

[Gilles]

Sir, of the part that you highlighted, you left out the fact that, "this represents the highest possible estimate for the sale, and includes all potential services offered".

Canada spent 3.4 Billion for 4 aircraft.

He also left out this part of the article:

With a 75-tonne payload, the C-17 can take off from a 7,000-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles in one go, and land even on a small, austere airfield at 3,000 feet or less.

Say anything stupid enough times and people will think its true. It worked in this case:

Saddam, Iraq, 9/11, Weapons of Mass destruction, Terrorism........
Saddam, Iraq, 9/11, Weapons of Mass destruction, Terrorism........
Saddam, Iraq, 9/11, Weapons of Mass destruction, Terrorism........
Saddam, Iraq, 9/11, Weapons of Mass destruction, Terrorism........
Saddam, Iraq, 9/11, Weapons of Mass destruction, Terrorism........
Saddam, Iraq, 9/11, Weapons of Mass destruction, Terrorism........

[NRao]

He also left out this part of the article:

With a 75-tonne payload, the C-17 can take off from a 7,000-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles in one go, and land even on a small, austere airfield at 3,000 feet or less.

I recall watching a video (from Shiv? or Shiv posted the URL?) at AI2009 where it did land and stop, then reverse, in an extremely short distance. Googling indicates that the distance for stopping fully loaded is 2,700 feet.

That video, for all I know, is in one of the earlier pages of this very thread.

[putnanja]

The one at AI 2009 was probably an empty aircraft with little fuel in the tanks. I doubt that they would do demos at airshows with full load of payload and fuel.

[NRao]

The one at AI 2009 was probably an empty aircraft with little fuel in the tanks. I doubt that they would do demos at airshows with full load of payload and fuel.

Sure, but that is not the point. I do not know what was the length of that particular landing, but it was incredibly short.

On load + landing distance, google and let me know if the specs are different on diff sites.

[Shalav]

the IL76 can also land within (IIRC) 950 m or about 3000' on unpaved runways. I believe that landing distance may be with ferry load, with the light load the C17 demonstrated in AI2009 the landing distance for the IL76 is (IIRC) 450 m or about 1500' !

Let there be open competition - if the C17 is as good as they say it is - it should win easily enough! Let the better aircraft win I say.

[tejas]

I hope the GOI lists some tough demands on the GOTUS before approving this purchase. Namely when the US flys the C-17s to India, it can't deliver the 150 Harpoons ( to fight the Taliban navy) or the 2500 TOW2 ATGM ( to fight the Taliban mechanized forces) in these planes to their major non-NATO ally to our west. I know this would save them money on transport costs since they are donating these purely defensive weapons and would like to recoup some money but it just doesn't seem right.

Also maybe MMS can beg for a Rs. 400 crore discount off a bill of $5.8 billion for 10 aircraft. That way we could set up a high altitude test facility for the Kaveri which we obviously couldn't previously afford. Excuse me, I can't type anymore suddenly feel the urge to throw up.

[Manish_Sharma]

Hmmm... @ Rs. 45 : $ 1

$3,000,0000,0000 to $5,800,000,000 = Rs. 13,500,00,00,000 to Rs. 26,100,00,00,000

Think of that number again - between Rs. 13,500 crore to Rs. 26,100 crore - all to be spent without competitive bidding or guarantees that these aircraft will never be sanctioned by the US or its allies. To put this in perspective depending on the spend this will be between 9% to 18% of the defense budget!

Additionally as long as we "own" these aircraft we will have to agree to line up these aircraft every year; so uncle can inspect them. We will have to agree to restrictive clauses as to end use as to where they can and cannot be used. We will be locked in to the boeing and US maintenance.

All in all a very very very expensive & restrictive lease of US equipment.

Where is CAG when you need it?

And so much fuss for Gorshkov price increase, while media keeps totally quite about loot like this. Got to hand to Americans' they can get away with anything, even the defence ministry's secret MRCA file is found with Raytheon and americans manage to keeps the press quite.

[Manish_Sharma]

He stated that he was told that the US had stated that India was benefiting tremendously because of the US (H1 visa, software out-sourcing, etc had about become THE thing, etc) and therefore India needed to spend a good deal of that new found wealth in the US!!

The movie "Syriana" comes to mind!!! Exactly what happened to SA is beginning to happen to India. At the risk of getting a warning I want to say "MMS is the worst thing that has happened to India since independence".

[Nair]

the IL76 can also land within (IIRC) 950 m or about 3000' on unpaved runways. I believe that landing distance may be with ferry load, with the light load the C17 demonstrated in AI2009 the landing distance for the IL76 is (IIRC) 450 m or about 1500' !

Let there be open competition - if the C17 is as good as they say it is - it should win easily enough! Let the better aircraft win I say.

The C17 can carry a lot more than the IL76...a competition is not required for that. The IAF wants the bigger plane.

[Katare]

Congratulations to IAF for selecting a wonderful aircraft!

I would say the $2.2 Billion for 10 aircrafts and another $1 billion for training, spares and support would be a fair price for the product.

This is just the initial purchase, I expect IAF to buy couple of dozen additional aircraft in next decade.

[Anabhaya]

The IAF retains an option for 10 more.

I'm hoping they exercise the option - 20 C-17 aircraft's is serious airlift capability.

[negi]

My only beef with C-17 is it comes from Unkil i.e. comes with strings attached and we would have to bear with former's tantrums for the time it remains with IAF service. The way MoD goes about its business I feel it somehow manages to clinch the most obnoxiously expensive deal anyone on globe could muster , whether it be Scorpenes or even the Gorshkov there is always this 'drafting error' which OEMs exploit to shaft the GOI and the less we talk about the HAWK the better .

[Craig Alpert]

Congratulations to IAF for selecting a wonderful aircraft!

I would say the $2.2 Billion for 10 aircrafts and another $1 billion for training, spares and support would be a fair price for the product.

This is just the initial purchase, I expect IAF to buy couple of dozen additional aircraft in next decade.

Big buy: Stage set for $2.2bn jet deal with US

NEW DELHI: Moving closer to clinching what will be the largest-ever Indo-American defence deal till now, the US Congress has now been notified about the impending sale of 10 C-17 Globemaster-III giant strategic airlift aircraft to India.

US Defence Security Cooperation Agency notified its Congress last week about the possible Globemaster sale, which is "an important step forward" under the American Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme in a direct government-to-government deal.

Though the exact contract cost is yet to be worked out, each C-17 aircraft manufactured by Boeing comes for around $220 million, adding up to a total of $2.2 billion, as reported by TOI earlier. With the associated equipment, it could go upto $3 billion.

In fact, if India exercises all the available options of equipment, spares, support, training and services for the C-17s, the deal could be worth a whopping $5.8 billion, says the notification.

Either way, it will overtake the $2.1 billion contract for eight Boeing P-8I long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft inked last year and the $962 million one for six C-130J 'Super Hercules' planes clinched in 2007.

"The sale of C-17s strengthens the growing partnership between two countries, and demonstrates our enduring commitment to sharing the world's best technology with India," said US ambassador Timothy J Roemer.

[nachiket]

the IL76 can also land within (IIRC) 950 m or about 3000' on unpaved runways. I believe that landing distance may be with ferry load, with the light load the C17 demonstrated in AI2009 the landing distance for the IL76 is (IIRC) 450 m or about 1500' !

Let there be open competition - if the C17 is as good as they say it is - it should win easily enough! Let the better aircraft win I say.

If the hypothetical RFP had a >70 tonne lifting capacity + the ability to fit T-90 sized tanks, the Il-76 would be disqualified in the technical evaluations straightaway.

[NRao]

The deal with Iran, to potentially start a 2nd front, still stands if my memory serves me right.

Till then IAF can conduct war games with the USAF, check compatibility, improve communications and putter around helping during natural disasters.

On a side not, I would love to see a few of these, escorted by a few MKIs, fly directly to Afghanistan one of these days. When is the IAF supposed to get these planes?

[Sanku]

On a side not, I would love to see a few of these, escorted by a few MKIs, fly directly to Afghanistan one of these days. When is the IAF supposed to get these planes?

What a bloody waste of money, US is milking us by feeding Pakistan on one hand and taking toll taxes from India on the other.

I guess we still need to wait and watch, we are not strong enough not to be suckered yet.

[Philip]

Hooray! India saves Boeing! The $5 billion buy of C-17s by India,made in indecent hsate, saves Boeing's C-17 production bacon which was on the chopping block after Robert gates vehemently said "no more ever" as to buying more of these JUrassic age veterans for the US.PM Dr. MM Singh should now be given Boeing's Medal of Honour or whatever for extending the life of the C-17 aerosaurus.A noble deed indeed!

PS:The LCA's engine can wait,so too can the Army's desperate need for howitzers,the T-72s night fighting sensors,etc.,etc.The need of the hour is "Save Boeing"!