C-17s for the IAF?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Apr 2010 00:54

Sanku wrote:
Perhaps? Thats it? Wow I am impressed.

I have no doubt you are. Unfortunately the IAF doesn't particular care about how awed you are.

Good, so you at least agree that it is not clear to anyone what the requirement is.

You've missed the point again. This debate isn't about the pros and cons of the C-17. Its about whether this is being unilaterally purchased by the MoD and shoved down the IAF's throat or has the MoD signed off on an IAF recommendation.

Sir you are a genius. IAF was working with DRDO to make a AWACS but that does not mean they were interested because otherwise they should have bought.

Sir I don't particularly care. I'm not debating they were interested in the project.They were interested. The MoD was also interested. The IN was interested. I was also interested.

If the IAF required an AWACS to maintain the balance of forces it deemed necessary, it would like always have gotten the MoD and MoF to sanction a A-50 purchase from the USSR.

Long live lets import everything yesterday lobby.

Ofcourse not lets only the import the mighty T-90s.

Really Il 76 now becomes a strategic airlift, like C 17.

Yes as it happens, the IL-76 is a strategic airlifter. Its got a lower payload than the C-17, but they're both designed for cross-theatre operations.

So ask, and you shall get answers lots of them. In fact already discussed.

There are no 'lots of answers' for that question. Alternatives are available for higher or lower lifting requirements, but not within its segment. Why its wants an aircraft in that segment is question for the IAF to answer.

You are the only one who is touchy about this question for C 17 because there is no answer.

Except that the debate is not about this question(whatever it is) but about whether the decision was made by the IAF or not.

There is a thread for that you know. Even there no one is saying that it was IAs decision.

On the contrary, everyone there is saying it was an IA decision that the MoD went along with.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 28 Apr 2010 02:00

nachiket wrote: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.

There should be no problem with a competition then, should there? Go for it I say. At-least we will then know the IAF has committed itself fully to the concept of getting value for our money, instead of throwing throwing it away like they did with the M2K A2A refuelling fiasco!

This deal if it goes through will always be suspect because the C17 never proved itself better than any competition.

BTW IL76MF has a proven lift capacity of 60+t already. The IL76 has proven capacity to carry the T72 - the T90 has the SAME dimensions as the T72 which is 3.4m across the tracks. So that is not a problem either.

So why is there a problem in conducting competitive evaluations? Let go for it. I don't think we should pay 5,000 crore to 10,000 crore extra for "1st class seating" for the T90 if "janata category seating" is enough.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Apr 2010 02:19

Shalav wrote: There should be no problem with a competition then, should there? Go for it I say. At-least we will then know the IAF has committed itself fully to the concept of getting value for our money, instead of throwing throwing it away like they did with the M2K A2A refuelling fiasco!
This deal if it goes through will always be suspect because the C17 never proved itself better than any competition.

BTW IL76MF has a proven lift capacity of 60+t already.

I don't want to comment on whether the IAF needs the C-17 or not since I'm in no position determine if it does or does not. All I'm saying that the Il-76 has been out of production since 1997. Anyway, let's consider that the factories and the supply chain were to become miraculously operational again and start churning out IL-76MFs with 60 tonne payload capacity. That is still 17 tonnes less than the C-17. So if the RFP mentioned a 70-75 tonne requirement only one vendor, Boeing would have responded, and the tender would have become invalid. In other words a waste of time. Apparently the IAF/MoD figured that the FMS route would be better, and I don't blame them.

The IL76 has proven capacity to carry the T72 - the T90 has the SAME dimensions as the T72 which is 3.4m across the tracks. So that is not a problem either.

The T-90 AFAIK is 8 inches wider than the T-72.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 28 Apr 2010 02:37

Not really - they have the same hull - which is 3.4 m across the width of the tracks. They also changed the T72 designation to T90 after modifying the T72 M1 with better armaments and protection. 8 "= 20 cm (lets keep to metric - I don't want to confuse anyone) wider - thats simply incorrect.

I am not sure where you got this 1997 year for the IL76 - our IL78's were new build airframes!

That 17 t more is brochure weight for the C17 and is for @ ISA @ SL conditions (which means the temperature is 15 C) - which is not the daytime temperature average in Agra the base of the transport squadrons! So lets not quote numbers from shiny brochures without having evaluated it ourselves.

Like I said if the IAF is so sure the C17 is going to win anyway, there should be no problem conducting competitive evaluations. Reasons for not conducting them only sound like excuses to avoid them.

No tender becomes invalid because only one party responded, that's just the rules of the game. Even if only Boeing submits to the tender, we will have to carry out the evaluations, and we will know FOR SURE how much weight those brochure claims actually carry.

This is not an unreasonable request at all. Why is the IAF not conducting a competitive evaluation for this category of transports?

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Apr 2010 02:44

State of the art, 70 ton payload, wide body military transport aircraft at $220mil a pop is a steal for IAF. FMS route insures that IAF would get it super fast while question of competitive tendering doesn't even arrive as C17 is the only in-production 60+ton military transport aircraft in the world.

I am pretty sure IAF would love to buy a few more IL76 aircrafts if spare parts and support improves. But it is time to standardize on a solution for next 40-50 years and C17 is the only logical option.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 28 Apr 2010 02:47

They are not a logical choice if they are subject to sanctions at anytime for any reason by the US for the next 40-50 years. At this point they then become 26,000 crore hangar queens - not a logical choice of transport for the next 40-50 years as we would want!

They are not a logical choice if we have to line them up next to each other every year for the next 40-50 years in order for some US bureaucrat to come to India and count them.

They are not a logical choice if we have to read the rules about where we can or cannot use them everytime we have to use them for the next 40-50 years.

They are not a logical choice given the fact we can get similar capability from the IL76 - we did it for the MKI we can do it for the IL76's too.

I don't think the IAF needs very very expensive gold-plated 1st class transports when there are other urgent needs for it and the IL76's are good enough.

Nair · Post by **Nair** » 28 Apr 2010 03:15

Shalav wrote:They are not a logical choice if they are subject to sanctions at anytime for any reason by the US for the next 40-50 years. At this point they then become 26,000 crore hangar queens - not a logical choice of transport for the next 40-50 years as we would want!

-------->Sanctions means they cannot work?...does not the IAF like other forces have spares. There will be no long term sanctions against India. The Indian market is too important for American companies today.

They are not a logical choice if we have to line them up next to each other every year for the next 40-50 years in order for some US bureaucrat to come to India and count them.

They are not a logical choice if we have to read the rules about where we can or cannot use them everytime we have to use them for the next 40-50 years.

-------->Where in the rules does it say where and what you can use them for?

They are not a logical choice given the fact we can get similar capability from the IL76 - we did it for the MKI we can do it for the IL76's too.

-------->The IL76 does not give the same capability..saying so does not make it the same.

I don't think the IAF needs very very expensive gold-plated 1st class transports when there are other urgent needs for it and the IL76's are good enough.

-------->The IAF thinks the IL76 is not good enough.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Apr 2010 03:37

Whether the C-17s are worth the 5.6 billion is a worthwhile question? Whether the C-17 can do what is advertised is a very question? It is nice to read posts from protesters like Gilles, who get new points (most of which are facts), which can be discussed. We could also be discussing things like we whether should/could get new IL-76s! Cost evaluations etc are good discussions. Whether FMS is the right route? Whether there could have been comparative trials? New points on this would increase knowledge.

But this monotonic discussions of IL-76s can carry the T-90s brings nothing to the table. I dont know how many times seniors have cleared out how difficult it is to fit them in, even it was possible and yet (I will not be surprised if this part of my post is quoted and a picture showing a T-72 rolling out of the IL-76 attached)!!

Also, such statements like C-17 = hangar queens. Isnt this over-speculation? If we are so scared of the sanctions, why go for any merchandise from the US? If we have decide to trust them, then are C-17s in any of the airforces having them hangar queens? Last I heard, they had very high up-times!

Lets stop this "I feel", "I know" stuff. Lets bring facts to the table and discuss them ... will be much more productive IMHO

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Apr 2010 04:01

Indian Express announces:

IAF to buy 10 C-17s from US

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 28 Apr 2010 04:17

indranilroy wrote:Also, such statements like C-17 = hangar queens. Isnt this over-speculation? If we are so scared of the sanctions, why go for any merchandise from the US? If we have decide to trust them, then are C-17s in any of the airforces having them hangar queens? Last I heard, they had very high up-times!

Lets stop this "I feel", "I know" stuff. Lets bring facts to the table and discuss them ... will be much more productive IMHO

I am the first to say that the Boeing products are excellent, that Boeing engineering and after sales support are first class. I have several thousand hours as a pilot on Boeings and loved flying it. It was simple, reliable, dependable. I am not one to lie. When someone posted a picture of a T-90 here and claimed it had been taken inside of an IL-76, I was the first to denounce it and show that the picture had in fact been taken inside an An-22 and not inside an IL-76 as claimed.

1) However, because of its price, the C-17 is expensive to operate (40, to $45,000 an hour).
2) It does not have the STOL runway performance the people who market it claim it has. It was meant to have it, but when it failed to meet its runway requirements, the shortcoming were hidden with smoke and mirrors to continue assured financing by Congress.
3) It needs a long runway when runways are wet.
4) Because it only has 14 wheels, it has a very high footprint which damages regular unpaved runways it lands on.
5) Because it is subject to US ITAR rules, all those who buy it have to conform to US ITAR restrictions and are forced to sign on to the Boeing In Service Contract to service the aircraft.
6) It has a maximum across the loading ramp weight restriction which prevent loads above a certain weight to be driven on board (that might restrict the Arjun)

Otherwise, its reliable, fun to fly, well equipped, comfortable to the crew, pilots love to fly it. I would love to get to fly one. But I would also love to fly an An-2 biplane, so I'm afraid that is not an argument.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Apr 2010 04:25

Gilles wrote: 6) It has a maximum across the loading ramp weight restriction which prevent loads above a certain weight to be driven on board (that might restrict the Arjun)

While your other points might be true, this one can't be. If the C-17 can carry the M1, the Arjun shouldn't be a problem.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Apr 2010 04:33

Shalav wrote:Not really - they have the same hull - which is 3.4 m across the width of the tracks. They also changed the T72 designation to T90 after modifying the T72 M1 with better armaments and protection. 8 "= 20 cm (lets keep to metric - I don't want to confuse anyone) wider - thats simply incorrect.

Wiki, and FAS both give the figures as 3.58/3.59m for the T-72 and 3.78m for the T-90.
Where is the 3.4m figure quoted?
[/quote]

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 28 Apr 2010 04:43

C-17s heading for India

.....................

The C-17’s advantages include its easier handling (compared with the IL-76) and ability to operate from short and rough airstrips, added the sources…. The Indian military needs to do three things: augment its ability to quickly lift larger numbers of troops as it views possible threats on its border with China; strengthen its presence on the Pakistani border; and fight terrorism and low-intensity warfare, said a senior Defence Ministry official. India needs to triple its lift capacity, said the official.”

India is serious. Serious enough to file a formal DSCA request, worth up to $5.8 billion…

The US DSCA Official Release

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Apr 2010 04:49

One thing we have to keep in mind is that the FinMin has to give its nod to the deal. So it is far from done. I for one don't believe they will sanction $5.8 billion for 10 aircraft after the A330 MRTT episode. So if the price negotiations fail to bring down the price to acceptable levels the deal won't happen.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2010 04:57

Craig Alpert wrote:C-17s heading for India
.....................

The C-17’s advantages include its easier handling (compared with the IL-76) and ability to operate from short and rough airstrips, added the sources…. The Indian military needs to do three things: augment its ability to quickly lift larger numbers of troops as it views possible threats on its border with China; strengthen its presence on the Pakistani border; and fight terrorism and low-intensity warfare, said a senior Defence Ministry official. India needs to triple its lift capacity, said the official.”

India is serious. Serious enough to file a formal DSCA request, worth up to $5.8 billion…

The US DSCA Official Release

The very last line:

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded

It also states "estimated cost". So, there is some flexibility - downward or upward it does not state. I take this document to be more accurate than other politicos that attempt to clarify the cost aspect.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Apr 2010 05:24

Gilles wrote: 1) However, because of its price, the C-17 is expensive to operate (40, to $45,000 an hour).
2) It does not have the STOL runway performance the people who market it claim it has. It was meant to have it, but when it failed to meet its runway requirements, the shortcoming were hidden with smoke and mirrors to continue assured financing by Congress.
3) It needs a long runway when runways are wet.
4) Because it only has 14 wheels, it has a very high footprint which damages regular unpaved runways it lands on.
5) Because it is subject to US ITAR rules, all those who buy it have to conform to US ITAR restrictions and are forced to sign on to the Boeing In Service Contract to service the aircraft.
6) It has a maximum across the loading ramp weight restriction which prevent loads above a certain weight to be driven on board (that might restrict the Arjun)

Alas, the 17B didn't get sanctioned. It would have solved almost all of the above points! THAT plane would have been a difficult plane to find faults with IMHO. Wonder why the USAF felt "that it doesn't fit the scheme of things". They use the C-17s the most, do not seem to be in any hurry for their C-17s which are yet to come. And if any AF has to use unprepared runways, cant see anybody else using them more than the USAF (given their ever promptness to fly outside of their airspace)! Do they find the present C-17s capabilities enough? Honestly, Gilles I am not trying to say anything contrary to your opinions. I am just thinking out aloud here

Actually, you will most probably be the guy who could answer this question, or may be GeorgeWelch (wonder where he is these days)!!!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 28 Apr 2010 05:37

nachiket wrote:One thing we have to keep in mind is that the FinMin has to give its nod to the deal. So it is far from done. I for one don't believe they will sanction $5.8 billion for 10 aircraft after the A330 MRTT episode. So if the price negotiations fail to bring down the price to acceptable levels the deal won't happen.

One: This is a US product, so chances of approval are high.

Two: in the MRTT case, the main objection was that there was already existing refuellers based on Il-78 and question was raised as to why a new type was reqd. There isn't anything similar in size to C-17.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 28 Apr 2010 05:38

nachiket wrote:
Gilles wrote: 6) It has a maximum across the loading ramp weight restriction which prevent loads above a certain weight to be driven on board (that might restrict the Arjun)
While your other points might be true, this one can't be. If the C-17 can carry the M1, the Arjun shouldn't be a problem.

They had to get a waiver from Boeing to be able to load the M-1. This required a joint study between Boeing and the Army. Waiver is only valid for M-1.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 28 Apr 2010 05:45

indranilroy wrote:Alas, the 17B didn't get sanctioned. It would have solved almost all of the above points! THAT plane would have been a difficult plane to find faults with IMHO. Wonder why the USAF felt "that it doesn't fit the scheme of things". They use the C-17s the most, do not seem to be in any hurry for their C-17s which are yet to come. And if any AF has to use unprepared runways, cant see anybody else using them more than the USAF (given their ever promptness to fly outside of their airspace)! Do they find the present C-17s capabilities enough? Honestly, Gilles I am not trying to say anything contrary to your opinions. I am just thinking out aloud here Actually, you will most probably be the guy who could answer this question, or may be GeorgeWelch (wonder where he is these days)!!!

Probably that the 17B came too late, when the C-17 orders were almost filled. Do not forget that the USAF order was for 180 units, which was supposed to be completed several years ago, and that every year, for the past several years, Congressmen have unilaterally ordered a few more C-17s above and beyond what the USAF needed. I think the total is now at 205, but that extra 25 was never expected. They will not modify the assembly line just to build 5 aircraft.

Nair · Post by **Nair** » 28 Apr 2010 05:46

putnanja wrote:
nachiket wrote:One thing we have to keep in mind is that the FinMin has to give its nod to the deal. So it is far from done. I for one don't believe they will sanction $5.8 billion for 10 aircraft after the A330 MRTT episode. So if the price negotiations fail to bring down the price to acceptable levels the deal won't happen.
One: This is a US product, so chances of approval are high.

Two: in the MRTT case, the main objection was that there was already existing refuellers based on Il-78 and question was raised as to why a new type was reqd. There isn't anything similar in size to C-17.

Yup...there is nothing else on the market with the same capabilities so the refueller argument won't work...

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 28 Apr 2010 05:51

JimmyJ wrote: 2. A war situation where Indian citizens in another country may need to be evacuated due to any war/calamity.

The GoI also owns Air India (AI) & Indian Airlines (IC).
During the Gulf War AI & IC airlifted our countrymen & brought them home > http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6284481

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 28 Apr 2010 06:07

I love America but am apprehensive of America's dual pro-Pakistani policies ..... C17 will face shortage of spairs when we may need most ...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Apr 2010 06:08

Gilles wrote:
Probably that the 17B came too late, when the C-17 orders were almost filled. Do not forget that the order was for 180 units which was supposed to be completed several years ago, and that every year, for the past several years, Congressmen have unilaterally ordered a few more C-17s above and beyond what the USAF needed. I think the total is now at 205, but that extra 25 was never expected. They will not modify the assembly line just to build 5 aircraft.

Though orders are not there yet, but there could be 17 more, in which case the last ones will reach the USAF by 2013!

May be the 17B upgrades would be part of the midlife upgrades! (Very iffy on that point though especially the landing gear). Engines and slats might be incorporated though (if the need is felt!)

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Apr 2010 06:19

putnanja wrote:
nachiket wrote:One thing we have to keep in mind is that the FinMin has to give its nod to the deal. So it is far from done. I for one don't believe they will sanction $5.8 billion for 10 aircraft after the A330 MRTT episode. So if the price negotiations fail to bring down the price to acceptable levels the deal won't happen.
One: This is a US product, so chances of approval are high.

Why? There is not enough evidence to suggest that US products are being unjustly favored.

Two: in the MRTT case, the main objection was that there was already existing refuellers based on Il-78 and question was raised as to why a new type was reqd. There isn't anything similar in size to C-17.

Yes, there is no aircraft in the same category. But even then, if it is deemed simply not affordable the IAF will have to do without it. It all depends on how the negotiations go. I will be very very surprised (and angry) if the FinMin actually gives approval to a $5.8 billion purchase in this case.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Apr 2010 10:03

Viv S, bringing in irrelevant strawmen and digressing from the main topic may be useful strategy when there is no meaningful answer to be given.

So as I am wont, let me summarize to get the real issues in forefront once again

1) IAF has NEVER talked about the need for a large Airlifter like C 17 ever.
2) No one has been able to make a case for use of C 17 in India at all.
3) ALL large military purchases in India are not the result of the forces decision, but a result of forces acquiring a capability in response to what its tasked for by GoI.
4) Even in cases which are straightforward one is one swap of systems like MRCA, GoI is involved in deciding what the needs of forces are in larger contexts.
5) All defence purchases take far longer, esp as large as this. This is being practically rushed through.

Everything I have said above can be easily verified by spending some time at MoD website. This has also been corroborated by ex officers of forces here, in addition my own personal experiences vouch for that.

Finally, what is your personal semantic interpretation of words is irrelevant to the matter at hand. If you have anything remotely meaningful to say on the above points, lets hear it with specific examples backed up by links.

If not (and I suspect not otherwise you would have already put up some data) please stop bringing in irrelevant and unconnected matters.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 28 Apr 2010 10:16

Sanku wrote:Viv S, bringing in irrelevant strawmen and digressing from the main topic may be useful strategy when there is no meaningful answer to be given.

So as I am wont, let me summarize to get the real issues in forefront once again

1) IAF has NEVER talked about the need for a large Airlifter like C 17 ever.
2) No one has been able to make a case for use of C 17 in India at all.

This is what Air Marshal Pandey writes about strategic airlift in the context of the future of IAF:

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009 ... uture.html

Power Projection Capability

A major responsibility of the IAF in the future would be in the area of strategic airlift. Internal security compulsions will place growing demand for the movement of quick reaction as also regular security forces within the country on short notice. Given its emerging regional power status and the newly forged strategic partnership with the US if not abrogated by the incoming administration, India may be called upon to project power in the region which may involve airlift of large military forces to areas of interest of either of the partners in the region outside our borders and to provide sustained logistic support. Strategic airlift capability of the IAF would therefore need to be built up practically from scratch as the existing fleet is fast approaching the end of its total technical life. At the tactical level, the IAF should be equipped with a fleet of medium tactical transport aircraft and helicopters capable of speedy response with special forces over shorter ranges.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Apr 2010 10:29

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:Viv S, bringing in irrelevant strawmen and digressing from the main topic may be useful strategy when there is no meaningful answer to be given.

So as I am wont, let me summarize to get the real issues in forefront once again

1) IAF has NEVER talked about the need for a large Airlifter like C 17 ever.
2) No one has been able to make a case for use of C 17 in India at all.
This is what Air Marshal Pandey writes about strategic airlift in the context of the future of IAF:

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009 ... uture.html

Power Projection Capability

A major responsibility of the IAF in the future would be in the area of strategic airlift. Internal security compulsions will place growing demand for the movement of quick reaction as also regular security forces within the country on short notice. Given its emerging regional power status and the newly forged strategic partnership with the US if not abrogated by the incoming administration, India may be called upon to project power in the region which may involve airlift of large military forces to areas of interest of either of the partners in the region outside our borders and to provide sustained logistic support. Strategic airlift capability of the IAF would therefore need to be built up practically from scratch as the existing fleet is fast approaching the end of its total technical life. At the tactical level, the IAF should be equipped with a fleet of medium tactical transport aircraft and helicopters capable of speedy response with special forces over shorter ranges.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 28 Apr 2010 11:20

here he goes again, Sanku man its plain english, read the reports, and ther are many of them claiming IAF was the one to have evaluated the C-17 and sent the proposal to buy to the MOD. Boeing did what it does very well, market its products, we checked it out and IAF wants it. So drop the bs about IAF not wanting it, they are not morons and are not going to buy a $5.8 billion aircraft unless they need it. The deal is being rushed through? The link below suggests Boeing started pitching the c-17 in Aero India 2009 after recieving a request for info on strategic heavy air lift ability. Boeing briefed the country's air force in October 2007. "We received the RFI in 2008 and have now responded," says Boeing Military Aircraft president Chris Chadwick.

Last years excercises with US made sure we checked it out thoroughly and some of our pilots even flew it. Now the official process has begun, the deal will be signed by next year or mid next year, no rush just because the US congress has been notified means the sale isnt finished, the whole process begins now. Will take another 8 months to 1 year to conclude. Guess what the C-130J, P-8 also roughly took about 2.5 to 3 years to complete. no rush here, unless you want them to keep wasting time by delaying the process for 5 years. You either want an aircraft or you dont, its obvious the IAF wants it and has had more than one chance to test it well. Hey its already been 2 years since Boeing recieved the RFI. one more to conclude the deal, 3 years is a lot of time.

Sanku you too bring up matters that actually dont matter and lots of bs bro. The c-17 has found a need with the IAF and IAF will get it. If no one has ever found a need for the c-17 then why did the IAF send in the RFI. If the c-17 hasnt found a need for you, i can understand, your one small person, its one big aircraft. so dont generalise, i can find many needs for the c-17 and so can the IAF. If you expect them to justify all the reasons to you, well you regard yourself very highly. they have no reason to justify this buy to any one of us. The only things they can say is " hey we have a need for heavy transport, will be useful in disaster management, dropping troops and supplies etc. etc. where and when needed". If you expect them to sit with you and lecture you on how wonderful or useful an aircraft it is, well keep waiting my friend coz that wont happen. Its a heavy lift aircraft and they will give you the reason they have been giving ever since IAF expressed interest so just live their explanation.

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

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... t-for.html

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Apr 2010 13:03

That above post has nothing do with what I said. It is like arguing that it is the bullet which kills and not the gun or the man firing it.

Its pointless to discuss such fantastic thought process.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 28 Apr 2010 13:43

Sanku wrote: 1) IAF has NEVER talked about the need for a large Airlifter like C 17 ever.
2) No one has been able to make a case for use of C 17 in India at all.

Pease allow me to modify the above a bit.

1. IAF has NEVER talked about the need for a large Airlifter like C 17 ever in public.

I am not sure if IAF will discuss all their operational needs in public though in this scenario

2. No one here has been able to make a case for use of C 17 in India at all.

This would simply mean that we are not yet aware of what is going through GOIs & IAFs mind rather than the scenario not existing.

But there is something more than what meets the eyes which we are unaware of. The number of joint exercises with US armed force is increasing, the two armies are getting closer as each and every year pass by. But all the scenarios created here had been mainly on India vs Pak & China. Are we going into some war if they occur with US in the future especially in the wake of dominance which China seeks?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 28 Apr 2010 13:45

Retd. Air Marshal Ashok Goel (who incidentally had brought in the first IL-76 aircraft to India), comments on the C-17 deal & favourably so..

Defence Analyst and Aviation Editor of India Strategic Air Marshal Ashok Goel (Retd) described the decision to go in for C-17s as "timely." Air Marshal Goel, who had brought in the first IL-76 aircraft to India, observed that the Soviet aircraft had served the IAF very well and should have a residual life of 10 to 15 years.The same should be true for the AN-32, which is now under upgrade and life extension under a contract with Ukraine.

But as there is not much choice of military transport aircraft at the moment in the international market, quick and timely decisions for both the C-17s and C-130Js needed to be taken. "By the time the Soviet vintage aircraft are phased out, IAF should be well positioned with other - and more modern - aircraft." Both the C-17 and C-130J aircraft have "excellent proven records" and IAF would have to build appropriate capability requirements, he observed.

A veteran transport pilot, Air Marshal Goel was the first to land the IL-76 at short and high altitude airbases of Leh and Thoise, as also at the port cities/ towns of Port Blair, Car Nicobar, Colombo and Male during trials and operations. As for the C-17, in addition to the US Air Force, it is currently in service with the British Royal Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Canadian Forces, NATO and Qatar. UAE announced an order for six C-17s in January 2010. The C-17 would be able to carry one T-90 or one Arjun tank plus other sytems. Despite its massive size, it flies like a fighter with a simple joysitck. Thanks to its automated systems, it is operated only by a crew of three, two pilots and one loadmaster.

http://indiastrategic.in/topstories594.htm

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Apr 2010 14:17

It is so obvious that good Dr.Singh,who learnt all his values in the UK and US from Oxford/Foxford or wherever,as he has openly and publicly stated,is desirous of saving those cherished values by supporting the west to the hilt.Therefore,Boeing which is desperate for more orders of the C-17,which the US's very own Def.Sec. Robert Gates has said "no more",is being saved by "Super-Singh"!

Why do we need these Jurassic Park monsters too you might ask?Well,in order to save the west ,we have to fight for the stars and stripes and in his vision for India,the good doctor and peddlar of snake-oil,wants Indian jawans to fight Uncle Sam's (aka Obama) wars anywhere upon the globe.So globetrotter Indian "grunts" have to be transported to far off places and so must their equipemnt also be carried.What better manner than buying a US warbird that can carry our gallant troops ,existing eqpt. AND US eqpt. to be bought,like artillery,armoured vehicles (in the future),Patriot missiles,etc.,etc.

It defies logic why the C-17 is being acquired in such large number ,ten of them,when we could've instead leased out such aircraft in time of need,just as the west is doing with ex-Soviet AN-124s! Moerover,the canard that the IL-76 is not in production is bogus,because our AWACS aircraft are based on the very same platform and so too our our tankers (IL-78s)! These aircraft are being upgraded in Russia and it is not impossible for us to order/upgrade
another new lot,plus ugrades of existing aircraft.

The current dispensation in Delhi has sold the country down the Swanee river.It has disgraced itself with these non-sensical purchases when urgent requirements are being deliberately stalled so as to favour US manufacturers.We have seen this time and time again with the Light Helo contest,where the winner was disqualified because oif US protest and the IA is years away from meeting its most urgent need,the P-8 I order,where an order was placed for an aircraft that had yet to fly and where the only equivalent was an earlier civilian aircraft,not an earlier version of the same,the attack helo contest where US manufacturers first did not tender and later on the tender was revised so as to bring them along,the naval ASW replacement for the Sea Kings,still undecided after a decade of delay,the medium helo requirement where the Chinook is about to be bought in similar manner as the order for P-8s,C-17s,etc.,light artillery,LCA engine,the list is extending by the day.All this favouritism towards the US when that country keeps on arming Pakistan to India's detriment and cares a hoot about our concerns,and we're not even talking about Headley! The US can extradite ex-Panamanian stroongman Gen.Noriega at will to France to face trial,but cammot extradite Headley/Gilani another confessed criminal.What duplicity!
(See the article from the Diplomat in the Indo-US thread).

We are now discussing the scandal of the Mata-Hari in our Pak mission.It is absolutely nothing in comparison with the current dispensation where the entire administration seems to be in service to Uncle Sam!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Apr 2010 15:27

shukla wrote:Retd. Air Marshal Ashok Goel (who incidentally had brought in the first IL-76 aircraft to India), comments on the C-17 deal & favourably so..

I think that does it. If a retired Air Marshal is supporting it then that is enough for me. I think then this is a good decision. Changing my vote.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 28 Apr 2010 16:13

Doesn't matter what he says. Price is still a major factor for a country like India. What happened to that lowest price factor.

These 10 C17 costs nearly as much as 2 aircraft carriers which is by any standard way above what India should/could spend on tactical air-lift.

btw UAE also bought C17 but their quoted price seems to be a bit smaller the what they offered to us. They are buying 6 C-17 at the price nearly at 2.2 billion USD. That still souds cheaper then what they have offered to us.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/UAE ... 0Js-05302/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Apr 2010 17:09

Sid,well put,not to mention the cost of just 10 aerosauruses equal to the ENTIRE requirements of the IA's artillery!

The Boeing C-17 acquisition will in future one predicts,become as well known as the Lockheed scandal in Japan and dwarf even Bofors.Iy is amazing that the two other services are keeping quiet about this piece of outrageous stupidity.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2010 17:14

I personally think the price is too high, BUT, that is NOT the price. It has yet to be negotiated.

The price is an issue, but so is the value this aircraft will provide to the IAF. It is NOT a zero sum game - so please avoid, if possible, trying to see what else India could have got for the price of 10/20 C-17s. India today is rich enough to buy two more air craft carriers if need be.

1. IAF has NEVER talked about the need for a large Airlifter like C 17 ever in public.

I am not sure if IAF will discuss all their operational needs in public though in this scenario

2. No one here has been able to make a case for use of C 17 in India at all.

This would simply mean that we are not yet aware of what is going through GOIs & IAFs mind rather than the scenario not existing.

In the late 90s India and Iran signed an agreement (which is still in force) which allowed India to start a second front with Pakistan. This idea of starting another front has been in place for some 2-3 decades. The price of the C-17 notwithstanding, the need has been there. As I see it a wealthier India is doing something (I do not agree at this point int time with everything, but .......) to alleviate the problem.

The need has been satisfied by other means - make do. India, today, seems to have more funds and is buying a product that it always wanted and needed and now can afford. Granted the cost is an issue, but the "need" has always been there.

Operation Falcon? Demoed the "need"?

"Super Singh"

Super IAF too. However, this Super Singh (and again I do not agree with a lot of things he does) is responsible for the that super growth - which he is far better at and understands it and also has control over it. Understandably we do not agree with some or a lot of the things he does. BUT, Indian armed force purchases have always had political leanings. The most famous one: the Su-30 MKI. Just that it turned out a dynamite decision. At times I wonder what-if the MKI was a flop, with a drunken PM and his cohorts siphoning the Indian funds for whatever purposes and India having to bat to get back those funds from corrupt Russians, so that Russians could be paid for a product India had bought!!!!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Apr 2010 17:40

I think retired Air Marshal Goel's word should be enough. He has no vested interest in IAF procuring this Aircraft, not to mention he has had flying Il76 experience + overview of IA and IAF needs in Himalayan.

If he is happy with it then so should we be. As for price let's see what the actual price is going to be.

Now next stage of manthan should be :
''Why don't we go for improved C17B?"

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 28 Apr 2010 17:57

Manish_Sharma wrote: If he is happy with it then so should we be. As for price let's see what the actual price is going to be.

Now next stage of manthan should be :
''Why don't we go for improved C17B?"

Nope nope nope. Unless we understand the motivation behind it, supporting a deal just because of the product may be great or on the view of an officer alone would just make as banana people [hope that's like banana republic]. We already have retired officials working for foreign defense firms.

Also the ad vocation of what next foreign maal we need to import, is just dumping our own defense industry, that many a people had been advising against here.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Apr 2010 18:05

Philip wrote:It is so obvious that good Dr.Singh,who learnt all his values in the UK and US from Oxford/Foxford or wherever,as he has openly and publicly stated,is desirous of saving those cherished values by supporting the west to the hilt.Therefore,Boeing which is desperate for more orders of the C-17,which the US's very own Def.Sec. Robert Gates has said "no more",is being saved by "Super-Singh"!

......<Rest of the pointless rant snipped>

Philip are you trying to convert the Mil forum into another HAF with such speculation? If you want to rant why not go to the Whine Thread instead.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Apr 2010 18:10

Sid wrote:Doesn't matter what he says. Price is still a major factor for a country like India. What happened to that lowest price factor.

These 10 C17 costs nearly as much as 2 aircraft carriers which is by any standard way above what India should/could spend on tactical air-lift.

btw UAE also bought C17 but their quoted price seems to be a bit smaller the what they offered to us. They are buying 6 C-17 at the price nearly at 2.2 billion USD. That still souds cheaper then what they have offered to us.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/UAE ... 0Js-05302/

Like NRao ji has been shouting at the top of his voice here, $5.8 billion is NOT the final price. That is just the maximum price possible if the IAF buys every bell and whistle available along with the aircraft plus spares, training costs etc.. (Read This post again) Let's see what the final price looks like after the price negotiations have been concluded. If the negotiations fail to bring the price down to something we can afford, the deal could be scrapped.