C-17s for the IAF?

[NRao]

The MKI was hardly a result of political manouvering -there was a desperate need for a fighter, the original requirement was the M2k-5, which was however, quite out of INdia's budget, hence the MKI. And thank goodness for that.

Not quite true. The need from Indian side was there but the timing and agreements were politically timed for sure. The MKI did have both a technical need and a political aspect to it. As I mentioned, the "deposit" that was given vanished and India had to pull a few teeth to get it back (and route it to Sukhoi). (There were detractors in India too - for good reasons.)

But, the C-17 is not quite in that class - granted.

[Shalav]

Threat of sanctions 0 and as time goes on, no way.

Why? Do you know something everyone else doesn't? Is the end use agreements signed between the US and India and as applicable for the INS Jalashwa suddenly not applicable to other military purchases from the US? If so provide proof. If not that is only hopeful speculation.

Has the US suddenly changed domestic laws so that nuclear test do not automatically kick in sanctions. And do not tell me India will never ever test a nuclear warhead in the next 40-50 years.

You asking too many questions that frankly dont need answering. Constantly mentioning threat of sanctions makes all you look like cowards...oooo what is the big bad wolf unkil gonna do...oooo sanctions...ooo we cant use them oooo...damn even the Iranians are still using their f-14s, you mean to say we cant operate the c-17 even during sanctions?

Having no answers to the sanctions questions leaves you with weak strawmen to set-up / destroy and awkwardly lolling to yourself. Still does not answer the question of what guarantees are there that there will be no sanctions?

As regards operations during sanctions, please do familiarize yourself with the maintenance requirements of complex aircraft. Once the spare parts are used up what you gonna do? lol about how the "big bad wolf" shafted us for upto Rs. 26,000 crores.

Iranian F14s - Another strawman argument - These were purchased by a previous govt. and they had no choice in the matter. We have a choice; and Indian C17 will have to be paid for by an elected govt. and consequences if any will have to be paid for by us and future elected govt. - those can be upto Rs. 26,000 crores.

Rest of your post has no substance.

[Shalav]

From Brahma Chellaney's blog

Factsheet on U.S-India accord on end-use monitoring

Please let me know why this is OK for something we are paying Rs. 26,000 crore for?

Negotiated with New Delhi over a three-year period, the Indo-U.S. EUMA is controversial.

Some of its clauses may not be a subject of concern, such as prohibitions on second-hand sales without approval of the United States.

But its contentious clauses impose restrictions on what India may do with the equipment it buys from USA.

►EUMA will allow the U.S. to periodically carry out an inspection and inventory of all articles transferred to India. In the negotiations, India strenuously objected to physical inspection and instead sought an inspection of the records and other measures in place. In the end, the Americans had their way, but it was agreed that the physical inspection would be done at a time and place granted by India. Supplying-state officials, in any case, would need visas and other assistance from the recipient state, including about the location of the equipment, to carry out an inspection. So surprise inspections are precluded anyway. But to prevent U.S. personnel from visiting sensitive military sites, the Indian government intends to move U.S.-origin defense equipment to a non-sensitive place before any inspection.

►The U.S. will have the right to check that India is using any purchased weapon for the purpose for which it was intended. This could mean that a weapon system bought by India to bolster defenses against China cannot be deployed against Pakistan, a failing state American policy just won't let fail.

►EUMA restricts what the purchasing country, India, can do with the U.S.-origin defense equipment, even within its own borders.

►Under the terms of EUMA, India cannot modify the purchased defense article or system in any form.

►Also, to prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on the United States for maintenance, EUMA restricts India from getting U.S.-origin defense equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from the United States.

These "cradle-to-grave" restrictions arm Washington with continuing leverage over the recipient country. After all, any equipment or system needs maintenance. Such leverage, in turn, can help ensure that the recipient country cooperates with Washington on larger political matters.

[Kartik]

If this part of the EUMA is true, then its better not to waste any more time with the US fighters. the IAF ought to simply not list them as part of its top 2-3 fighters. or even if it does, the MoD should scratch the US fighter off the list. It makes no sense to buy 126 MRCA fighters + options at around $10-15 billion only to have to ask US permission to use it as we wish.

The U.S. will have the right to check that India is using any purchased weapon for the purpose for which it was intended. This could mean that a weapon system bought by India to bolster defenses against China cannot be deployed against Pakistan, a failing state American policy just won't let fail.

[arnab]

I think all discussions about the 'price' is irrelevant unless we get to know what is included in the price. If the price quoted includes full life cycle costs including future upgrades (like the Australian SHs), then it may well be worth it. Else we may end up like our T-72 purchases, where we got the tanks cheap at Rs 9 crore each and then spend another 6 crore upgrading it, and thereby bringing it at par with the cost of a Arjun.

[shukla]

Please let me know why this is OK for something we are paying Rs. 26,000 crore for?

Shalav, let us be clear that the clauses stated on the blog are a part of a "standard" EUMA text. The writer has in various instances has stated exapmles using educated guesswork, contemplating how India would be affected if these standard clauses were agreed upon.. Eg..

The U.S. will have the right to check that India is using any purchased weapon for the purpose for which it was intended. This could mean that a weapon system bought by India to bolster defenses against China cannot be deployed against Pakistan, a failing state American policy just won't let fail.

The clauses in the standard text are not necessarily 'everything' that India has necessarily approved or agreed upon. In fact, the final version on the terms "agreed" upon by both sides still remain unclear and subject to speculation. Its has been stated on numerous occasions by not just defence personell but also polititians that the most contravesial and objectionable clause has been direct physical inspection and verification of equipment. Though, to some, there are a lot of clauses in there that might appear more detrimental to Indian interests than others..

This is not to say that the fear that US might have got away by pressuring India to agree upon some if not all of those contentious issues is unfounded..but we will never know until the final draft of the agreement is made available for public viewing.

[Brahmananda]

Every body here thinks due to the 'right to info' act we can just get all the info we need, dream on guys. we do have the right to question our govt. but they have been giving answers, if you expect them to lay down all hundreds of scenarios where the c-17 can come in handy one by one to all the citizens well honestly you seem to have very high expectations. The below text of EUMA is hogwash, we would have never agreed on no use against Pak clause. IMO there wont be sanctions they have too much business at stake and they stand to loose a lot if sanctions come even if we conduct a n-test.

FMS also doesn't mean no offsets or TOT, even in the c-130J deal we are getting some TOT and work. LM is delivering $300 million worth of offsets and tot. It mandatory for any big deal. So with offset requirment @ 30% for large deals. we will have roughly $1.74 billion of work on the c-17 locally, which will mostly include things like spares and all things needed to maintain and operate the aircraft without any problems till MLU and beyond. Thats is the deal value is 5.8 billion but that can change. The price will be lower. the process has just begun. The P-8I as well has lots of local work and IN is happy with its decision to buy.

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... -30js.html

We have Astors on offer, i hope we order 10 of them or so. ideal no. of c-17 is 30 and ideal number of c-130J is around 45, coz at this pace god only knows when the MTA will be ready if it will be ready at all. We should set our eyes on the Wedgetail as well about 8 of those , heck of an awacs, will add punch to our intel abilities. The US is already getting lots of work, some of their platforms will always end up winning because they have competitive edge wherever there is competition or in other cases like c-17 no competition, now whether the mod is trying shove these giants down the IAF's throat or IAF wants it , i dont know. every thing points to IAF wanting it. If you need clarifications ask the IAF. Worried about sanctions ask the IAF? they dont seem to worry, when IAF, IN or IA aren't worried why should you loose your sleep worrying about it. I trust our armed forces, matter of fact the only people in India i trust, so if they want c-17, some may call them sanction prone giants or white elephants, for me i dont care, as long as the armed forces get what they want, no matter the cost. I am actually glad we shelling out cash and lots of it to buy makes us look rich and we are.

[Sanku]

Brilliant, since I now know that I will anyway win test I need not even sit for those?

Usually those who run from tests have something to hide.

[nsarma]

About the not-too-clear clauses in EUMA, IMHO the interpretation will be used to the advantage of the producing country, in this case USofA. In the event of a situation where unkil wants to stump his authority (e.g. war with the western neighbours or nuclear test which I doubt will ever take place given the tail waging of the present government in front of unkil) the EUMA will be interpreted in whichever way it suits unkil. It could be : "Look the EUMA says you cannot use this piece of machinery againts intended use, i.e. against TSP, so we are stopping all supplies and support" or "yes we see no violation of this clause as Eastern or Western front India has used this piece of machinery to safeguard her sovereignity. We'll continue our services" Our interpretation / argument will not cut ice with unkil in the former case.

Can we look at this situation from a different angle. What will be a good deal for India if we are to buy the C-17s ? Both money wise and other constraint wise, e.g. the EUMA. Gurus, please help !

[JimmyJ]

EUMA or no EUMA, if a supplier country decides that it won't supply the buyer in case of a war, there is nothing the buyer can do about it unless buyer have some clout over the supplier through other means. Option for the buyer would be to ensure local make of the spare parts which have extreme short life times. The ultimate way is to take out the buyer tag which India is no where near.

The reason sometimes I respect China is that US today is in no position to dump China just like that. If US takes extreme measures China can dump the US bonds and dollar. Being an authoritarian state, China may less care about what happens to its people than what a democratic US would for its population.

The only thing that irks me is that we are discounting the Pakistan's defense purchases with our own weapon sales from US.

[Philip]

Proponents of this questionable deal have yet to answer as to why thee is such indecent haste in which this deal is being concluded.When you realise the fact that the C-17 production line is in imminent danger of closure,it throws light on the true reason for the haste for India to buy it.Moreover,the requirement for C-17s or a strategic heavy-lifter was never in the list of requirements for all these years,or so vital and immediate a neccessiity as is being made out by the pro-US bandwagon!

There are other far more important IAF requirements which are languishing.Take the shortfall of all types of trainers for example,for which even for basic turboprop trainers an urgent RFP has been floated.No one would've questioned an urgent buy/FMS sales of basic trainers,IJTs or even advanced jet trainers,as this fundamental aspect of pilot training is in virtual shambles in the IAF,with the old MIG-21 Mongol trainers still doing duty because of the shortfall.There was a VAYU article 1/2010,where it was said that extra simulator training is being handed out to rookie pilots because of the lack of trainer aircraft.The number of flying hours before they are qualified is also being reduced.Isn't this onbe of the main reasons why we have in the past had so many crashes? The La Fontaine report two+ decades ago underlined the neccessity to acquire an AJT a decision which broke all world records for indecision and we are still suffering as a result from the failure of the MOD/HAL.IAF/DRDO,etc.,etc.,to produce indigenous trainign aircraft even a basic turboprop! The LCA MK-2 engine,Jaguar engine + upgrades,M-2000 upgrades and MMRCA deal are far more important than strategic airlifters right now.If the decisions for almost all critically needed eqpt. decisions pending ,were being addressed,then one would have little objection,but where are the decisions on the other issues? n the contrary,we've had delay,cancellation of selected systems and late induction of US systems,which all seme to indiacte that if it is a US manufacturer,first preference should be gvien to them.

As for those who say that Russia is being stroked,what are the major decisions made in favour of Russia in recent times? Extra Sukhois are only to be expected because of the outstanding performance of the aircraft and the decision to acquire SU-30s was made a decade ago.The delay in the LCA and depletion of the MIG-21/23/27 fleet is another major factor.Similarly,the decision to acquire the MIG-29Ks was made when the Gorshkov deal was first signed,the aircraft being part of the package-along with the Akula lease.T-90s were bought in a knee-jerk reaction to Pak acquiring Ukranian T-80UDs too.Arjun in current form arrived only now and was not avialable then.Extra MI-17s (MI-8 upgrades) were bought because they are the best in their class (IAFs statements),are being used even by NATO members and are "more of the same" in service.All other Russian wares are contesting in tenders with other manufacturers.There has been no "single purchase" policy as we are seeing now with US products.

The most objectionable point about buying from the US is its massive stroking of Pak with aid and arms,that too specific arms that will be used to constrain India like F-16s with hundreds of 120KM range AMRAAMs,P-3 Orions to hunt our subs and ships,all armed with Harpoon missiles and paki subs with sub-Harpoon missiles too,8 OH Perry ASW frigates in "hot condition",with all their sophisticates sensors and weaponry for a throaway price of just $80m per ship,Cobra attack helo gunships,etc.,to fight the Taliban?!
Furthemore,the US is once again turning a blind eye to Pak's clandestine nuclear proliferation through the Chinese,where even more reactors outside any IAEA inspection regime will produce plutonium for Pak's N-warheads,where they already have about 100+,equal or more than India,and are rapidly building up a second strike capability to checkmate India.As for halting Paki terror against India,the US has in reality been concealing evdience (Headley/GIlani) shielding guilty Pak from both Indian and international counter-action .

[Sanku]

EUMA or no EUMA, if a supplier country decides that it won't supply the buyer in case of a war, there is nothing the buyer can do about it unless buyer have some clout over the supplier through other means. Option for the buyer would be to ensure local make of the spare parts which have extreme short life times. The ultimate way is to take out the buyer tag which India is no where near.

Surprisingly although "theoretically the statement is true. In reality in 60 years the only country to have done this to us is US of A (and its poodles)

The reason sometimes I respect China is that US today is in no position to dump China just like that. If US takes extreme measures China can dump the US bonds and dollar. Being an authoritarian state, China may less care about what happens to its people than what a democratic US would for its population.

Perhaps the REAL reason is that China has ZERO purchases from US in Mil? What will US sanction? Export of soft toys?

The only thing that irks me is that we are discounting the Pakistan's defense purchases with our own weapon sales from US.

Not just its defence, the entire Pakistan is on US dole.

[Austin]

I was wondering if the cost of ~ $5.8 billion covers some of the infra building cost for F-18 E/F as well as C-17 and all this is a precursor to F-18 E/F purchase for MMRCA.

[Sanku]

I was wondering if the cost of ~ $5.8 billion covers some of the infra building cost for F-18 E/F as well as C-17 and all this is a precursor to F-18 E/F purchase for MMRCA.

So you are saying GoI will fudge with the real price of MRCA bids to favor one party over other. And the decision is already made irrespective of IAF feedbacks on the birds?


I hope to god its not as messy as that.

[Austin]

IAF feedback et all is ok , its not a compelling reason or an overriding factor , if GOI makes a political decision on this then its a done deal .

What i mean is you buy the aircraft thats one thing but you also need the infra on ground and those have to be built at enormous cost considering if they buy F-18 thats would be the first US fighter in large numbers. So C-17 deal of ~ $5.8 billion is really very high but even C-17 needs infra , so why not pay a huge amount now by gradually building infra for C-17 and F-18 and then choose F-18 later perhaps US will do some fudging on the cost if they can adjust the cost with C-17 deal.

[Sanku]

IAF feedback et all is ok , its not a compelling reason or an overriding factor , if GOI makes a political decision on this then its a done deal .

What i mean is you buy the aircraft thats one thing but you also need the infra on ground and those have to be built at enormous cost considering if they buy F-18 thats would be the first US fighter in large numbers. So C-17 deal of ~ $5.8 billion is really very high but even C-17 needs infra , so why not pay a huge amount now by gradually building infra for C-17 and F-18 and then choose F-18 later perhaps US will do some fudging on the cost if they can adjust the cost with C-17 deal.

But then why go through the charade for MRCA? And cross subsidization for one under a different name. Say we are buying XYZ from US under this combined price.

A decision by GoI also has political angles in it, sure, but this is skullduggery in a sense. At least I would treat it as such.

[Austin]

But then why go through the charade for MRCA? And cross subsidization for one under a different name. Say we are buying XYZ from US under this combined price.

To show that its a fair deal and relations with US has taken another leap ( politically ) after Indo-US nuclear deal.

If you do a competition and then you make a choice it becomes GOI prerogative to choose plus you can bargain for a lower price based on other bids , if you do not do what appears to be fair trial you cannot bargain much plus you give opportunity to your opponent to cry foul

A decision by GoI also has political angles in it, sure, but this is skullduggery in a sense. At least I would treat it as such.

I will quote you an ex Admiral who i met personally and he mentioned Chief are like rubber stamp in Delhi Power Corridor , what the GOI decides is what GOI gets it by hook or by crook.

[Sanku]

But then why go through the charade for MRCA? And cross subsidization for one under a different name. Say we are buying XYZ from US under this combined price.

To show that its a fair deal and relations with US has taken another leap ( politically ) after Indo-US nuclear deal.

TO show right. That is the crux.

If you do a competition and then you make a choice it becomes GOI prerogative to choose plus you can bargain for a lower price based on other bids , if you do not do what appears to be fair trial you cannot bargain much plus you give opportunity to your opponent to cry foul

So this helps us bargain better? I think if such a thing is happening Americans would be in the know, GoI would of course be in the know. So the only people you fool are Indian public and other vendors. If US knows we are overpaying for C 17s, they will realize that they have us by the balls, how can we then negotiate?

Sounds like a big scam to me. Pulled on Indian public -- the way you describe it.

I will quote you an ex Admiral who i met personally and he mentioned Chief are like rubber stamp in Delhi Power Corridor , what the GOI decides is what GOI gets it by hook or by crook.

As you know I have also mentioned this knowledge from my personal experience. But the question of morality is still there. GoI is powerful to do what it wants, but overriding systems, not keeping fair practices, indulging in methods which will hurt Indian interests all seem to be wrong to me.

It is not a question of what can they get away with. If they are doing this, its hanky-panky and hurts India, that is all.

[Austin]

So this helps us bargain better? I think if such a thing is happening Americans would be in the know, GoI would of course be in the know. So the only people you fool are Indian public and other vendors. If US knows we are overpaying for C 17s, they will realize that they have us by the balls, how can we then negotiate?

Sounds like a big scam to me. Pulled on Indian public -- the way you describe it.

Well this is one of my theory on the unusual high cost for C-17 so yes I am speculating , but if F-18 does get selected then you owe me a beer

As you know I have also mentioned this knowledge from my personal experience. But the question of morality is still there. GoI is powerful to do what it wants, but overriding systems, not keeping fair practices, indulging in methods which will hurt Indian interests all seem to be wrong to me.

It is not a question of what can they get away with. If they are doing this, its hanky-panky and hurts India, that is all.

South Block is not exactly Heaven and the people out there are no Angels.

GOI is honest and transparent as long as it affords them to be , then there are strategic interest that matters.

[Sanku]

Well this is one of my theory on the unusual high cost for C-17 so yes I am speculating , but if F-18 does get selected then you owe me a beer

I think I will buy you a beer anyway, but not for F 18, fugly beast (yes I have shifted loyalties)

GOI is honest and transparent as long as it affords them to be , then there are strategic interest that matters.

I am only worried about whose strategic interests.

[JimmyJ]

I am only worried about whose strategic interests.

Consensus is never possible in any deal, of the one billion people any one can claim that the deal not for India's strategic interest. The only way is to try to eat the other so as not to get eaten and then you would see a balance one day, just like the Yin Yang symbol [Just my definition of it ]Yin Yang

But at this moment US is capable of eating us more, we need to develop more to match them

[Viv S]

Actually I did but it seems to have met Admin scissor hands, so this time, a little safer.


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

Quoting from that, the need for C-17s is apparent.

'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.'

Roughly same dimensions?

With that sort of slight of hand you can skip any question.

The question is still not answered.

Well I'm all ears. Please explain, aside from its higher payload, how the C-17 fundamentally differs from the IL-76. AFAIK broadly speaking there were three classes of airlifters - An-12/C-130, IL-76/C-17, An-124/C-5. The An-12 has mostly been replaced either with the larger Il-76 or smaller An-32. There were other aircraft, but by and large these are the relevant ones.

Firstly its not the question. You are just sidestepping again.

The IAF is the executor, if the GoI says, build strategic airlift and no RFI and RFP this is what will happen. Its quite simple.

That is in fact the question. The IAF has had a strategic airlift capability for decades now. That's the reason why two battalions could be airlifted to the Maldives during Op. Cactus with the first elements touching down within 12 hours of the assistance call.

Indeed you are not, with many things clearly. But they can all be dismissed as "murky middle-man facilitated acquisitions of yesteryear"

So simple.

All your rhetoric and sarcasm aside, the point still stands. Unless you think India's defence acquisitions during the 80s were the ideal model to be followed.

Dear Sir, the RFI/RFP route means that, RFI is DONE FIRST, then RFP. You have clearly sidestepped that question. Along with many others.

And RFI/RFP decision is not IAF. Its MoD, specifically the procurement committee.

So, who do you expect the IAF MoD, to send an RFI to? I would assume since the IAF already operates two dozen IL-76s, Illyushin is not whom you had in mind.

Probably eh. Probably the martians will use it.

How can a C 17 class replace a Il 76 class? Shouldnt it be replaced by a similar cargo capacity? A Mig 21 is replaced by a Tejas not a Su 30.

The MiG-21 can do Mach 2, shouldn't it be replaced by something that can do Mach 2. Reject the Tejas as well.

Again side stepping the REAL questions and creating straw men are you?

If you were to ask a pertinent question, I'd give it a shot. The speed of the C-17 acquisition(its been signed as yet) is neither improper nor unprecedented.

The real question is, is it worth spending so much money for a aircraft whose role is questionable, which is exteremly expensive in such a hurry when the more pressing needs languish.

The question on which this debate centred was, 'does the IAF believe it needs the C-17'.

Again side stepping the question. The question is when did IAF first say that they needed AWACS capability.

Extrapolating that to the C-17 debate; the IAF first inducted a strategic airlift aircraft in 1984/85, so it presumably started looking for one during the early eighties.

Actually as I have shown the only resort you have is to deny the truth, repeatedly.

Sad.

Anyway there is no point debating with you, anything can be justified by using words like
roughly same (for C 17 and Il 76)
Probably
I dont think so.

That sort of thing can go on forever, you just wont accept what the blatant truth, because it could maybe wrong if seen from your perspective

What can any one say to that?

Tell you lets condense these long posts to two points of disagreement -

1. Is the C-17 fundamentally very different from the Il-76, i.e can it replace the Il-76?

2. Is the acquisition because of a change in doctrine spelled out by the MoD? Or was its requirement identified by the IAF?

[Sanku]

Viv S why do you bother, other than "hum nahi manange" -- I will not agree. What is your net contribution? You continually side step questions, ignore the real point go on a tangent and what not.

In any case the questions are clear -- and no boss a question is not answered by answering some other random disconnected question.

If you cant answer the question say so, its okay. Let me remind you the real questions are

The real question is, is it worth spending so much money for a aircraft whose role is questionable, which is extremely expensive in such a hurry when the more pressing needs languish.

A perfect summary is here.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 93#p864293

A set of answers is here from me.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 07#p864307

If you dont agree fine. Its obvious that you do not and its even more obvious that you wont.

[Viv S]

Viv S why do you bother, other than "hum nahi manange" -- I will not agree. What is your net contribution? You continually side step questions, ignore the real point go on a tangent and what not.

In any case the questions are clear -- and no boss a question is not answered by answering some other random disconnected question.

If you cant answer the question say so, its okay. Let me remind you the real questions are

The real question is, is it worth spending so much money for a aircraft whose role is questionable, which is extremely expensive in such a hurry when the more pressing needs languish.

A perfect summary is here.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 93#p864293

A set of answers is here from me.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 07#p864307

If you dont agree fine. Its obvious that you do not and its even more obvious that you wont.

It so happens, YOU quoted me on page 33 of this thread, when I said this was an IAF decision. That was where the debate started. I wasn't talking the aircraft's cost or value for money. As for the C-17's role, its been irrefutably established by statements from the IAF, that it intends to replace Il-76s with it, which are reaching the ends of their service lives.

[Sanku]

It so happens, YOU quoted me on page 33 of this thread, when I said this was an IAF decision. That was where the debate started. I wasn't talking the aircraft's cost or value for money. As for the C-17's role, its been irrefutably established by statements from the IAF, that it intends to replace Il-76s with it, which are reaching the ends of their service lives.

I will look forward to your quoting a single statement from any one in IAF which says "C17s will replace Il 76s"

One, single, Endu, solitary.

Not that "We need to build tactical aircraft ability from scratch" (if you need to build up from scratch, you dont have a capability, but the Il 76s are here and will be here for many years so it cant be that can it?)

Please spare us, "I think this statement means this" I dont care what you think. The question is where has IAF said so.

-----------------

Secondly is it IAFs decision? No capital acquisition in ANY forces decision, it is a decision of MoD (specifically the DPP) which is them backed by CCS and finance aspect looked by Fin Min. This is all written in black and white on MoDs site. So dont try interpreting it either.

If you cant find those answers (which you wont) its fine. No one else has either.

[Viv S]

:

I will look forward to your quoting a single statement from any one in IAF which says "C17s will replace Il 76s"

One, single, Endu, solitary.

Not that "We need to build tactical aircraft ability from scratch" (if you need to build up from scratch, you dont have a capability, but the Il 76s are here and will be here for many years so it cant be that can it?)

Perhaps you should post the remainder of that sentence as well : as the existing fleet is fast approaching the end of its total technical life. That seems at odds with what you've tacked to the end of the sentence - 'are here and will be here for many years'.

Secondly is it IAFs decision? No capital acquisition in ANY forces decision, it is a decision of MoD (specifically the DPP) which is them backed by CCS and finance aspect looked by Fin Min. This is all written in black and white on MoDs site. So dont try interpreting it either.

^^^ That is not what's given out in black, white or pink on the MoD's site. The MoD gives the approval for an acquisition and conducts it thereafter. It does not unilaterally identify the need for an acquisition and proceed on its own merry way.

This is from the much harped on MoD site:

<MoD>


- The process of procurement of stores commences only on receipt of indents, duly approved and authenticated by the competent authority. Every indent should contain the following information:-
..
..
(e) Names of likely sources of supply, if available.


- At present foreign OEMs and vendors are being registered by the Service Headquarters and Headquarters of other Departments. Till such time as common guidelines are formulated, these Registering Authorities would continue to register foreign OEMs and vendors as per the existing procedure followed by them.


- Details of registered vendors and likely sources of supply are to be indicated in the indent. Vendors already registered with Army, Navy, Air Force, Ordnance factories, DRDO, DGS&D and Defence PSUs for similar items will be treated as registered vendors and may be considered for issue of Limited Tender Enquiry. The registering agency should include all foreign vendors registered with different departments of MOD. However, specific needs of the departments/wings are to be kept in mind and complied with.


-Single Tender Enquiry without PAC may be adopted in the following circumstances:
..
..
(c) When there is only one known/established source, but the PAC status has not been approved by the CFA or
(d) When there are operational or technical reasons for doing so, which should, however, be recorded.

</MoD>

[Brahmananda]

what hurry, Boeing first showcased the c-17 in Aero India 2007, IAF sent RFI in 2008, in 2009 IAF checked it out and flew it during various occassions, 2010 the process has begun, 2011 the deal will be concluded, what rush are people talking about from start to finish 4 years, i am sad they didnt get it done last year. I am sad they arent ordering more, imo we can have another 20 of these babies.

Sanku just because its role is questionable to you doesnt mean it is to IAF. With your lack of imagination i can understand you dont see how such a big and expensive bird can be used by IAF, but IAF has tested it, our pilots have flown it, they like it and they want it, simple as that. Your 'real' question has a very limited answer here, the people in IAF who can talk about it will genralise it saying we need it for heavy lifts, they arent going to send you a personal invitation to come check it out and show you just how much cow dung and fecal matter they can carry into battlefield, kill the enemy with the smell.

Besides once ordered they'll arrive in 2013 or so, right on time to get rid of the old illusions of keeping the Illyushin 76 forever.

[Sanku]

- The process of procurement of stores commences only on receipt of indents, duly approved and authenticated by the competent authority. Every indent should contain the following information:-

Procurement of stores?

I should have known (I must be posting this about a 1000 time on the forum)

http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/welcome.html

Defence Acquisition Council : The Government has set up a Defence Acquisition Council headed by the Raksha Mantri for decision making in regard to the totality of the new planning process, which inter-alia involves according ‘in principle' approval of capital acquisitions in the long term perspective plan and according ‘in principle' approval for each capital acquisition programme. The decisions flowing from the Defence Acquisition Council are to be implemented by the following three Boards:-

(i) Defence Procurement Board headed by the Defence Secretary;

(ii) Defence Production Board headed by the Secretary, Defence Production and

(iii) Defence Research & Development Board headed by Secretary Defence Research & Development.

These Boards have been entrusted with specific functions. A Defence Acquisition Wing headed by Special Secretary (Acquisition) has also been created to assist the Defence Procurement Board in its functioning.

The new structures are intended to facilitate expeditious decision-making in an integrated manner in areas relating to acquisitions for the three Services while at the same time imparting a higher degree of transparency and cost effectiveness to the process of acquisition of equipment, weapon and weapon systems. For Defence Procurement Organisation and Defence Procurement Procedures-02 (June 03 version ) please see ‘NEW ADDITIONS'.

---------------------

Meanwhile I will wait for you to come up with

I will look forward to your quoting a single statement from any one in IAF which says "C17s will replace Il 76s"

One, single, Endu, solitary.

Not this or that but that particular call by IAF, Il 76s to be replaced by C 17s with the following schedule. (In past IAF has mentioned when various a/c were going to be phased out -- roughly at least)

[Viv S]

Procurement of stores?

The SPM gives out the hierarchy better but since you insist on nitpicking here you go:

- All Capital Acquisitions shall be based on Services Qualitative Requirements (SQRs). The SQRs should lay down the user’s requirements in a comprehensive, structured and concrete manner.

- The SQRs would be drafted by the user directorate at SHQ.

- In order to seek Acceptance of Necessity, the Service Headquarters would prepare a Statement of Case as per format at Appendix ‘A’ to the DPP -2008. Four copies of the Statement of Case would be prepared, justifying the procurement proposal. One copy each would be forwarded to DDP, DRDO, MoD (Fin) and Administrative Branch of MoD.

-Once the SQRs have been finalised, the sources of procurement of the weapon system/stores shall be ascertained and short-listing of the prospective manufacturers/suppliers carried out by the SHQ.

-A TEC(Technical Evaluation Committee) will be constituted by the SHQ for evaluation of the technical bids received in response to RFPs, with reference to the QRs, under an officer from the SHQ.

Defence Acquisition Council : The Government has set up a Defence Acquisition Council headed by the Raksha Mantri for decision making in regard to the totality of the new planning process, which inter-alia involves according ‘in principle' APPROVAL of capital acquisitions in the long term perspective plan and according ‘in principle' APPROVAL for each capital acquisition programme.

Where does it say, the defence ministry will identify any shortfall in capability. That is always the service's responsibility.

Meanwhile I will wait for you to come up with

Not this or that but that particular call by IAF, Il 76s to be replaced by C 17s with the following schedule. (In past IAF has mentioned when various a/c were going to be phased out -- roughly at least)

'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.'

What part of the above was unclear/contradictory?

"The IAF had shortlisted the aircraft on the basis of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads. Now the defence ministry has approved in principle the acquisition and has sent a letter to the US authorities seeking formal offer for the aircraft’, said a senior IAF official.

link

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has shortlisted the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III as its new Very Heavy Lift Transport Aircraft (VHTAC).

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.

link

Keen on replacing its ageing Russian IL-76 transport aircraft fleet, the Indian Air Force has shortlisted US major Boeing's C-17 Globemaster III for its heavylift aircraft.

"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.

link

[Cain Marko]

I was wondering if the cost of ~ $5.8 billion covers some of the infra building cost for F-18 E/F as well as C-17 and all this is a precursor to F-18 E/F purchase for MMRCA.

So you are saying GoI will fudge with the real price of MRCA bids to favor one party over other. And the decision is already made irrespective of IAF feedbacks on the birds?


I hope to god its not as messy as that.

IMVHO, and this might allay Sankusaab's fears a bit - the C-17 purchase, which almost necessarily seems a political move considering the lack of the usual tamasha and the unusual speed displayed, could be a tit for tat wrt the NSG waiver. IIRC, the USA has still not grabbed any advantage of this (unlike both Fra, and Rus, who have bagged massive orders) thanks to its own laws.

This could also be a way of making sure that the MRCA stays non-American (likely, considering operational independence is critical to the IAF).

I don't think that setting up infrastructure for C-17s, or P8s etc will do much for the Shornet, the birds are very different, and as such will require a considerably different setup (P8s, C-17s and F-18s are not exactly modular and plug and play). Kartik might be in a better position to confirm this.

CM.

As an afterthought - that Indian and US interests converge and will continue to do so in the near future should not be that surprising, things are happening fast but not fast enough imho. India is still a little shy and the Americans still are reluctant to completely give up on Pakistan. These two obstacles will no doubt, be overcome soon. All this is OT of course, and for that I apologize.

[Patrick Cusack]

In war with Pak - can the US remotely shutdown the C-17 from flying against Pak? - Is that capability builtin?

[Kartik]

Viv S why do you bother, other than "hum nahi manange" -- I will not agree. What is your net contribution? You continually side step questions, ignore the real point go on a tangent and what not.

I find it hilarious to see that you would write something like this when your attitude on the Arjun-T90 debate is exactly the same.."hum nahi maanenge..kaahe ko zor zabardasti karte ho?"

[Kartik]

what hurry, Boeing first showcased the c-17 in Aero India 2007, IAF sent RFI in 2008, in 2009 IAF checked it out and flew it during various occassions, 2010 the process has begun, 2011 the deal will be concluded, what rush are people talking about from start to finish 4 years, i am sad they didnt get it done last year. I am sad they arent ordering more, imo we can have another 20 of these babies.

they'll ask for as many as they need. not just to please some alloo talloo who thinks that money grows on trees in India all of a sudden or that having these is a status symbol.

[Indranil]

In war with Pak - can the US remotely shutdown the C-17 from flying against Pak? - Is that capability builtin?

has to be a software switch! can be done but there is no precedent to that. Wouldnt worry to much about it! There are much better switches to exert pressure

[putnanja]

Did the IAF test these aircraft in high altitude airfields in India, for which they are being bought? How about testing them in some airfields in NE sector?

[shiv]

Here is my 0.02.

I think most jingos on here are looking at this handful of C-17 as as an adjunct to a weapon of war. I doubt if it is meant to be that. The IAF has huge logistics requirements with equipment/supplies from ports of big cities to be transported to way out places in the Indian Ocean/North east. Remember 99% of the usage will be peacetime usage although a huge percentage of that will be for "defence needs" and therefore indirect readineass and preparation for war. Even for "preparaedness" you need to move in and move out men and materials.

What we don't know is whether 7 C-17 flights will work out cheaper and more efficient than say 13 Il 76 flights for some of the hundreds of destinations that the IAF must supply. And don't forget that there are some places in the NE (villages/civilians) that are supplied by air only by the IAF and we have no idea about the exact requirements other than the figures Google uncle gives us.

Finally I will make an OT comment. I believe that there is a deliberate move on the part of the GoI to selectively bandwagon with the US and say we are not just buyers of your adversaries' equipment, but we are willing to do business with you. The actual discuaaion about this tends togo on in the other forum and I will not say any more than I have said elsewhere about this.

[Gilles]

In war with Pak - can the US remotely shutdown the C-17 from flying against Pak? - Is that capability builtin?

has to be a software switch! can be done but there is no precedent to that. Wouldnt worry to much about it! There are much better switches to exert pressure

Yes there is! The French did it to Iraqi Mirages. Not not forget that such things are hard to detect because they do not transmit any signal, they just receive them. Any internal component that is powered can have a tiny radio receptor that will activate a kill switch when it receives the right radio signal. They can also be programmed to only be active when certain conditions are met, such as in flight and when the aircraft is pressurized. This will prevent Indian technicians from being able to scan the aircraft on the ground, since the condition will not be met for activation.

It does not take much to ground such a technologically advanced aircraft. All the systems talk to each other and by modifying a simple parameter, one can make a number of seemingly unrelated systems fail. Its a kids game really.

[Gilles]

Did the IAF test these aircraft in high altitude airfields in India, for which they are being bought? How about testing them in some airfields in NE sector?

What I've been suggesting all along. If that is really important to the Indian military, ask that they land and take off on an 3500 foot unpaved runway with an Arjun in the hold.

[Pratik_S]

Do we have anything else which can do the job ? The answer is no. C-17 is one of a kind of aircraft, it has the mobility, adaptability and multi-utility of C-130 and payload, range of a heavy bomber. If India has a chance of getting its hand on such a machine than it should buy it no matter what all negative points it comes with because lets face it everything which we buy has a dark side and only solution to this is to build our own. IMO the C-17 is China specific because there is no real need for such a aircraft in case of Pak. India has a well developed infra on the Pak border so the Il-76's can take care of all the things which IAF might want to do. And as long as India is using it against the Chini's we won't have any trouble from the Amriki's. Plus once the Americans are out of Afghan, Pak will be of lesser importance to US than India. Rest of my views on the C-17 is over here :Angle of Attack

[Sanku]

Viv S why do you bother, other than "hum nahi manange" -- I will not agree. What is your net contribution? You continually side step questions, ignore the real point go on a tangent and what not.

I find it hilarious to see that you would write something like this when your attitude on the Arjun-T90 debate is exactly the same.."hum nahi maanenge..kaahe ko zor zabardasti karte ho?"

Where did that come from. There is no Arjun-T 90 debate that I have ever done? In fact I have always stayed away from that debate because it totally pointless. (Note it is entirely possible to discuss either tank without getting into comparisons)

Anyway, you have any technical point to add, do so on either thread, sure do so and I will welcome the debate.

But given your value as a poster, it does not behoove you to take cheap pot shots at others that too from behind others backs. Of course you may do what ever you want, but it reflects poorly.