C-17s for the IAF?

[Sanku]

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.....

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.......

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 ....

I am completely with Shiv or 1 and 3, but if I am not wrong the discussion on this thread does show that per tonne Il 76 is much cheaper considering everything.

RayC's counterpoint to that was in times of war number of sorties count and if you can cut it down, great. But then you are saying its not likely to be a adjunct of weapon of war (given that Humanitarian and force projection in partnership type of comments feature prominently) So essentially its it 3 which seems to be the overwhelming case.

[Sanku]

Viv S. No not blogs not speculations not other sources

I will look forward to your quoting a single statement from any one in IAF/MoD/GoI 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?)

Fine?

Secondly. My point was, Govt identifies the role for armed forces, based on that they prepare a doctrine based on that acquisitions are done"

Now identifying a role is purely GoI decision
Doctrine/GSQR are prepared by the forces
Acquisition is then handled by MoD/Finance (who looks into whether the GSQRs do indeed meet the role that forces are tasked for and do that effectively, looks into whether it should be a RFI/RFP route or a single vendor, whether money should be spent or not spent, whether ToT or even without, whether offsets or not offsets etc etc)

So steps 1 and 3 are pure GoI steps (with inputs) -- this is all in the MoD site. You will have to read it fully.

Just let me know if you agree or disagree with the above. If disagree what specifically and on what basis

[Philip]

Leaving aside the indecent haste in acquisition and questionable priority rating in the IAF's list,let us examine where and how the aircraft is going ot be deployed and whether there are other alternatives.This might be difficult to ascertain because info. of troop strengths,etc., on the ground in the sensitive border areas with the PRC and Pak are classified.Can this behemoth land at our high-alt airstrips at all? Would a larger medium and heavy helicopter fleet be a better buy,because they can land virtually anywhere on the ground anywhere not just at airstrips.The MI-26 has a hold larger than an AN-12! Do we seriously believe that Arjun tanks,or larger MBTs will be taken into the high Himalayas? Would a "mixed fleet" of aircraft and helos do the job better?
In the sub'continental context,the gains are almost invisible,as there are severe limitations as to where the giant aircraft can operate,but in a global context,they are invaluable.As Shiv has said,is there going to be a significant shift towards satisfying UAS interests...before ours?!

[Gilles]

When an aircraft operator is going to operate a new aircraft into a runway that pushes the limits of the aircraft's performance, before the airline buys the aircraft, the manufacturer does a series of test and demonstration flights to prove to the buyer that the aircraft is suited for its intended use.

When Druk Air Royal Bhutan Airlines was considering buying Boeing 737-700s to fly it commercially into Paro, a 6,500 foot long runway located at 7,300 ft above sea level, and surrounded by deep valleys and 18,000-ft peaks, they just didn't take Boeing's word for it that the 737-700 could operate from that airport. They made Boeing come to Paro with a B-737-700 and demonstrate it.

Here is a Boeing article on that demonstration flight:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... Bhutan.pdf

Another Boeing article on the same technical demonstration flight:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... story.html

Everyone assumes that the Boeing C-17 purchase by the IAF is meant for the Chinese border. Yet the capabilities of that aircraft in that environment were not demonstrated. One cannot just assume that it can do it. Druk Air Royal Bhutan Airlines didn't assume. They required a demo and Boeing gladly obliged.

Boeing is not credible when it comes to C-17 landing performance. Every time one reads about that aircraft on non-Boeing publications, one reads about the aircraft being capable of landing on 3,000 or 3,500 foot unpaved runways with a 160,000 payload in the cabin, something I have never seen the C-17 do anywhere in the world. (Boeing is more careful and only claims that the aircraft can land in "under 3,500 feet", not on 3,500 foot runways)

And now they plan to use this huge aircraft in short un-improved high altitude runways in the Himalayas ? Are they going to let Indian Air Force pilots test the capabilities of that aircraft in that demanding environment, a bit like those IAF pilots who had to learn on their own how to load a T-72 inside an IL-76?

[Viv S]

Double post. Deleted.

[Viv S]

Viv S. No not blogs not speculations not other sources

Fine?

Now you're starting to sound like a lawyer, wilfully ignoring the obvious. There was no subterfuge or speculation in the links I posted. Is their doubt about that fact that the Il-76 fleet is approaching the end of its service life? The first units were inducted in 1984/85 with deliveries continuing in 80s. The oldest units will have seen almost 30 years of service when the C-17s deliveries start coming in. Lets assume all the links are irrelevant, how do you see the IAF replacing the Il-76s, if the C-17 are serving in some completely different and exotic role?

Secondly. My point was, Govt identifies the role for armed forces, based on that they prepare a doctrine based on that acquisitions are done"

Now identifying a role is purely GoI decision
Doctrine/GSQR are prepared by the forces

So what major doctrinal change in the IAF's role has the MoD introduced that the IAF cannot perform with existing equipment, and wishes to acquire the C-17s for that specific purpose?

Acquisition is then handled by MoD/Finance (who looks into whether the GSQRs do indeed meet the role that forces are tasked for and do that effectively, looks into whether it should be a RFI/RFP route or a single vendor, whether money should be spent or not spent, whether ToT or even without, whether offsets or not offsets etc etc)

So steps 1 and 3 are pure GoI steps (with inputs) -- this is all in the MoD site.

Just let me know if you agree or disagree with the above. If disagree what specifically and on what basis


You will have to read it fully.

I have read the MoDs procedures fully.

Again quoting from the site, the point most pertinent to this debate - "short-listing of the prospective manufacturers/suppliers carried out by the SHQ."

In a government to government sale as well, it clearly states the acquisition is identified by the concerned service and the proposal forwarded for approval to the MoD.

The C-17 order is NOT an incorrigible idea the mandarins of South Block devised, forcing the ever suffering men of the IAF to accept yet another overpriced showpiece. This was VERY MUCH an IAF proposal. While Dr. Manmohan Singh's government did not dither in the approvals that were needed, in the event the sale goes through, the credit(or criticism) is primarily the IAF's.

[Sanku]

Viv S, I asked two very straightforward questions? I did that specifically to stop you from beating about the bush.

If you want I can do that again. This time I will even reduce it to one question. Perhaps we can eventually have a discussion if we take one very small tiny point and get you to get a straight answer on that.

In a discussion on full flow, you switch around too much, I even forget what we were talking of.

Otherwise dont bother, your call -- either stick directly to the point. Or lets not talk.

[Viv S]

Viv S, I asked two very straightforward questions? I did that specifically to stop you from beating about the bush.

If you want I can do that again. This time I will even reduce it to one question. Perhaps we can eventually have a discussion if we take one very small tiny point and get you to get a straight answer on that.

In a discussion on full flow, you switch around too much, I even forget what we were talking of.

Otherwise dont bother, your call -- either stick directly to the point. Or lets not talk.

All right. I'll make this as simple as I can for you. I'll specifically answer your two straightforward questions, exam style. And I'll pose two of my own, taking in good faith you'll not evade them.


Q1. You want a news clip that explicitly identifies an IAF officer giving out a time-line for the Il-76s retirement.

A1. I don't know of any news report where an IAF officer has been quoted giving out prospective dates of retirement a la the MiG-21.


Q2. Does the MoD spell along doctrine for the armed forces?

A2. Doctrine is a broad term but on a larger scale, yes it does, in conjunction with officers from the armed forces as well as intelligence services.



Now my questions to you - I'll limit them to two as well.

Q1. Do you recognize the fact that the Il-76s are nearing the end of their service lives and that the C-17s can perform whatever role the Il-76's were tasked with (and more)?

Q2. You've insinuated that doctrinal changes introduced by the MoD were responsible for the order of the C-17. So what are these changes that the forced the IAF, to request the MoD to approve the C-17 acquisition?

[Gilles]

Q1. Do you recognize the fact that the Il-76s are nearing the end of their service lives and that the C-17s can perform whatever role the Il-76's were tasked with (and more)?

What is the service life of an Il-76 ?

I read that it was for 30,000 hours. If the IAF IL-76s fly 500 hours a year, that allows for 60 years.

I also read that Ilyushin had service life extension programs. There are also engine and avionics upgrades.

The US Air Force still flies B-52s and KC-135s from the sixties. The B-1 Lancer Supersonic bomber first flew in 1974, the same year as the first IL-76. They have not been retired yet.

So I don't think that one can just state that the IL-76 are nearing the end of their service life. They probably still have plenty of life into them. The IAF still flies all 17 of its original IL-76s

[Sanku]

Thank you I believe we are on the same page now, w.r.t. to prior questions.

Q1. Do you recognize the fact that the Il-76s are nearing the end of their service lives and that the C-17s can perform whatever role the Il-76's were tasked with (and more)?

Il 76 nearing end of their service life? With or without a Life upgrade program? This IS India we are talking of you know. I expect Il 76s to fully be around for a while. (Clarification 20+ years)

I also expect Il 76 to be replaced by a 45 tonne carrying aircraft when the time comes. A better one than Il 76 (range, fuel efficiency, runway length etc etc) but NOT C 17.

Examples would be Tu - 330 or An 70 two very modern military airlift planes in the pipeline. Much cheaper as a partnership for sure.

And oh why not replace Il 76 with Il 76 itself? That would be best? (Of course I mean a significantly better Il 76 with better engines etc)

Q2. You've insinuated that doctrinal changes introduced by the MoD were responsible for the order of the C-17. So what are these changes that the forced the IAF, to request the MoD to approve the C-17 acquisition?

Change in doctrine, force projection, as mentioned in the link arnab first posted. Interoperability with other countries.

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]

To clarify about slots in airlifter look at this page, there is a comparison chart at the bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_t ... t_aircraft
Each major country has a transport at slots, slot being (around)
5-10 T
20 T
40 T
80 T
150 T

A nice little series. To serve each sweet spot.

[Katare]

I think I am liking this "indecent haste" (thanks Philip) that GoI is showing in acquiring some of the needed hardware. What good is cost effectiveness if the competition is never gets finished? GoI approved 40 additional MKI and than in additiona "indecent haste" they approved another 50 MKI, or that's what i here.

I suspect that next year GoI is going to take another decision in "indecent haste" and buy 4 squads of MRCA from Boeing/LM inthrough FMS sale.

Its better to get something in hand than to evaluate it in the open world wide competitive bidding for two decades

[Sanku]

I think I am liking this "indecent haste" (thanks Philip) that GoI is showing in acquiring some of the needed hardware. What good is cost effectiveness if the competition is never gets finished? GoI approved 40 additional MKI and than in additiona "indecent haste" they approved another 50 MKI, or that's what i here.

I suspect that next year GoI is going to take another decision in "indecent haste" and buy 4 squads of MRCA from Boeing/LM inthrough FMS sale.

Its better to get something in hand than to evaluate it in the open world wide competitive bidding for two decades

Yes, the Govt has very little time to spend a lot of money on high price lemons.

[Katare]

Yes little time and lotsa money for GoI to spend but they are spending it on top notch products like C17, MKI C130, P8I, F18 etc!

[Patrick Cusack]

Thanks - so the best option would be RR Engines & UK/Israeli avionics similar to what UK bought.

[Sanku]

Yes little time and lotsa money for GoI to spend but they are spending it on top notch products like C17, MKI C130, P8I, F18 etc!

If only we could believe that.

[Brahmananda]

One cant assume that C-17 isnt China or PAk specific and frankly the operator IAF hasnt made it clear so they'll use it whenever they want to and need it. Whether the aircraft can land in high alt air fields or not is none of our concern because the IAF has tested it and testing is always very quiet. They wouldnt order a 5.8 billion aircraft if they weren't happy with the value it would be adding.

[Viv S]

Il 76 nearing end of their service life? With or without a Life upgrade program? This IS India we are talking of you know. I expect Il 76s to fully be around for a while. (Clarification 20+ years)

I don't know of any statement or even indication the IAF has made about the a service extension program for the Il-76s. Where did you hear about it?

I also expect Il 76 to be replaced by a 45 tonne carrying aircraft when the time comes. A better one than Il 76 (range, fuel efficiency, runway length etc etc) but NOT C 17.

Examples would be Tu - 330 or An 70 two very modern military airlift planes in the pipeline. Much cheaper as a partnership for sure.

The An 70 is expensive, prop driven and the Russian Air Force has withdrawn from the program. While the Tu-330 is a turbojet, in terms of payload and range, it would be a step down from the Il-76. both aircraft are under development and the IAF has shown no interest in either.

And oh why not replace Il 76 with Il 76 itself? That would be best? (Of course I mean a significantly better Il 76 with better engines etc)

The IAF already operates the Il-76 and therefore does not really need to issue a RFI for further orders. As for why its not opting for the Il-76, my first post on this thread( the one that you quoted and started the debate) was-

"Why blame Dr. M. Singh for it? This was an IAF decision. Personally, I can't figure out why they would want to acquire it(or the Airbus refueller for that matter) considering the fact we already operate a fleet of IL-76s and IL-78s and will be operating 6 Phalcons, again on the IL-76 platform. Maybe the C-17's higher payload capacity was the decisive requirement."


^^^ So we're getting off-topic here. Point was i) is the C-17 going to be replacing the Il-76 and ii) was this an IAF decision?

Change in doctrine, force projection, as mentioned in the link arnab first posted.

The link states that a replacement of the existing fleet is a necessity given the limited service life remaining.

Interoperability with other countries.

Come now, its one thing to say that to the media after a joint exercise and another to actually base a major acquisition on it. In what real-world situation, would the employment of the Il-76 instead, actually impede the Indian military's capability?

[shukla]

Some news trickling in about the likely "EXTRA's" requested by GOI with regards to sale of C-17.

The Government of India (GOI) requests a possible sale of 10 Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft, 45 F117-PW-100 engines (40 installed and 5 spare engines), 10 AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems, 10 AN/AAR-47Missile Warning Systems, spare and repairs parts, repair and return, warranty, pyrotechnics, flares, other explosives, aircraft ferry and refueling support, crew armor, mission planning system software, communication equipment and support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

This news appeared in Aerospace & Defence News citing their "source" as - US Defense Security Cooperation Agency..

http://www.asdnews.com/news/27605/India ... rcraft.htm

[Gilles]

Some news trickling in about the likely "EXTRA's" requested by GOI with regards to sale of C-17.

The Government of India (GOI) requests a possible sale of 10 Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft, 45 F117-PW-100 engines (40 installed and 5 spare engines), 10 AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems, 10 AN/AAR-47Missile Warning Systems, spare and repairs parts, repair and return, warranty, pyrotechnics, flares, other explosives, aircraft ferry and refueling support, crew armor, mission planning system software, communication equipment and support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

This news appeared in Aerospace & Defence News citing their "source" as - US Defense Security Cooperation Agency..

http://www.asdnews.com/news/27605/India ... rcraft.htm

Its the same that all the other countries purchased. Basically the C-17s, the spares, the Defensives Aid System (DAS), installed by another company, and the Boeing In Service Support Contract.

What was curious, was that Canada first bought the 4 C-17 without any engines, for an undisclosed amount. Boeing of course, does not manufacture any engines. Then, 18 engines (16 for the 4 aircraft and 2 spares) were purchased in a separate transaction through a Direct Military Sale, inside of that 1.3 Billion transaction that included the Boeing In Service Contract.

Here was the Canadian announcement:

http://www.casr.ca/doc-c17-support.htm

[VishalJ]

Examples would be Tu - 330 or An 70 two very modern military airlift planes in the pipeline. Much cheaper as a partnership for sure.

The Tu-330 is too similar to the HAL MTA, except the winglets & T-Tail both seem to have about similar tonnage so very less or no chance for the Tupolev.



Gilles i have a question for you.
Can you please list what all IAF gets besides the 10 Planes & 5 Spare Engines for the $5.8 Billion ?
Is all of this (below) included ?

The Government of India (GOI) requests a possible sale of 10 Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft, 45 F117-PW-100 engines (40 installed and 5 spare engines), 10 AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems, 10 AN/AAR-47Missile Warning Systems, spare and repairs parts, repair and return, warranty, pyrotechnics, flares, other explosives, aircraft ferry and refueling support, crew armor, mission planning system software, communication equipment and support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

[Gilles]

77
Gilles i have a question for you.
Can you please list what all IAF gets besides the 10 Planes & 5 Spare Engines for the $5.8 Billion ?
Is all of this (below) included ?

The Government of India (GOI) requests a possible sale of 10 Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft, 45 F117-PW-100 engines (40 installed and 5 spare engines), 10 AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems, 10 AN/AAR-47Missile Warning Systems, spare and repairs parts, repair and return, warranty, pyrotechnics, flares, other explosives, aircraft ferry and refueling support, crew armor, mission planning system software, communication equipment and support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

Lets assume that the C-17 with engines are 250 million, 10 of them is 2.5 billion.

We know that Canada purchased 18 engines, some DAS and a 20 year ISS contract with Boeing for 4 aircraft for 1.3 Billion. Lets take out about 5 million per engine and 5 million per DAS. Thats about 110 million. Then there was the Night Vision Goggles and other small stuff. Lets round up the 20 year ISS with Boeing to 1 billion or slightly more. Thats about 250 million per aircraft for the ISS to make a nice round number.

If India is buying the same 20 year ISS from Boeing for 250 million, for 10 aircraft it comes out to 2.5 Billion. Add that to the 2.5 Billion for the aircraft and you get 5 Billion. Add 10 DAS for the 10 aircraft is 50 Million. Some other spares, other engines etc and you get roughly 5.8 Billion. It all computes.

[VishalJ]

i have another q.
whats your email id ?
you can contact me through here - http://www.airliners.net/profile/vishaljo

[Sanku]

I don't know of any statement or even indication the IAF has made about the a service extension program for the Il-76s. Where did you hear about it?

Indian forces have undertaken SLPs for EVERY platform they posses so far. If they dont do it for Ils that would be another question, why not? But in any case 10-15 years in the minimum horizon that Ils have even now (refer to Gilles post on Il life)

The An 70 is expensive, prop driven and the Russian Air Force has withdrawn from the program. While the Tu-330 is a turbojet, in terms of payload and range, it would be a step down from the Il-76. both aircraft are under development and the IAF has shown no interest in either.

Huh? The question was what are suitable candidates for replacing Il when the time comes. These are roughly suitable candidates. IAF should be interested in those when the time comes.

The IAF already operates the Il-76 and therefore does not really need to issue a RFI for further orders. As for why its not opting for the Il-76, my first post on this thread( the one that you quoted and started the debate) was-

We are talking of replacing Ils here right? So when Il's have to be replaced because their service life is over, one option would be upgraded Ils.

If we already have Il, we cant replace? We are replacing newer Ils are also an option.

See thats not so complicated is it?

"Why blame Dr. M. Singh for it? This was an IAF decision. Personally, I can't figure out why they would want to acquire it(or the Airbus refueller for that matter) considering the fact we already operate a fleet of IL-76s and IL-78s and will be operating 6 Phalcons, again on the IL-76 platform. Maybe the C-17's higher payload capacity was the decisive requirement."

And just what is that supposed to mean? You start by assuming that Ils are being replaced by C 17s and then show it by stating your own assumption?

The link states that a replacement of the existing fleet is a necessity given the limited service life remaining.

Yes but it does not say that
1) Replacement is imminent
2) The replacement will be C 17 for Il 76

It ALSO says that capability is being built from scratch for some purposes like force projection, it says so in black and white.

Come now, its one thing to say that to the media after a joint exercise and another to actually base a major acquisition on it. In what real-world situation, would the employment of the Il-76 instead, actually impede the Indian military's capability?

Hey if you tell IAF that it should get big babies to go to Afg efficiently and the cheque book is open, why would they say no? They would say yeah sure and this is the big baby (since its the only one) that you make the cheque for.

Why is it any skin off IAFs nose if they are asked to get really huge A/c for power projection?

Bottom line
C 17 is for the role mentioned in the interview by a SENIOR IAF official.
It is not for Il 76 replacement, its not remotely in the same class.

The role mentioned by the IAF can not be decided by IAF, it has been given that role to prepare for.

Basically its a GoI/PMO driven decision, open and shut copy book case.

[Sanku]

Examples would be Tu - 330 or An 70 two very modern military airlift planes in the pipeline. Much cheaper as a partnership for sure.

The Tu-330 is too similar to the HAL MTA, except the winglets & T-Tail both seem to have about similar tonnage so very less or no chance for the Tupolev.

I dont know what similar looking would have to do with the comparison

For Tu 330 the Max payload in 35000 Kg, For MTA its 18.5/20 000 Kgs. A Il is +/- 45,000 kg (depending on version)

An 70 or Tu 330 are much better suited to replace a 45 tonne carrier a/c.

HAL MTA is totally different class.

[Brahmananda]

An-70 seems like the better one to replace the IL-76, An-70 useful payload is 35-47 tons. Ideal to replace the IL-76. About 30 of these to replace the IL-76.

[Hitesh]

Will HAL MTA replace the aging fleet of An-32s? I think the replacement of An-32s are a higher priority than the C-17s.

[Sanku]

Will HAL MTA replace the aging fleet of An-32s? I think the replacement of An-32s are a higher priority than the C-17s.

Thats the plan, but apparently GoI's new motto is "let them eat the cake"

[Philip]

Going by the GOI/MODs track record,it has been meticulous and correct too,in trying to upgrade as many weapon systems that we have because they have much life left in them and prove a very cost effective solution.

AS far as the IL-76s go,full glass cockpits,new engines,etc . are planned and the IAF must do so.The same with upgrading the AN-32s that can be upgraded until the MTA arrives.If one goes a little back in time,we saw how efficient the IL-76s were during Op Cactus,the Maldives op,which makes for spine tingling reading every time,a pinpoint landing on a small airstrip on an atoll in the IOR in darkness too! The aircraft carried the eqpt. for our advance squads of commandos,so there is no real deficiency in this splendid aircraft and long may it serve the IAF.The C-17 falls into a different class.Do we really need it for IOR ops? Perhaps a larger aircraft will make it easier to carry more troops/larger eqpt/ that an IL-76 cannot.But here is the rub.Why so many? WE do NOT have a global policing agenda,unl;ess good Dr.Singh has sold us out lock,stock and barrel to Uncle Sam and that is the great suspicion,because all existing C-17 operators have agreed to share base,spares and other logistic facilities to any of the operators in a crisis.Therefore,Dr.Singh by the "rear end", making us part of an American global military ally! This will have serious implications upon our foreign policy and our relations with other major powers plus Russia.The Chinese have been for quite some time using the fact of major military exercises with the US and its allies (naval and air) insinuating that there is a secret Indo-US plan and military alliance against China.Using this argument,they are massively arming Pak with nuclear capable missiles and more N-plants ,virtually giving Pak a free hand in nucelar prolifertion,etc.At the same time the US is also arming Pak! In fact,Pak has found "prostituting" its foreign policy very profitable.It makes US policy in the region look completely crooked and illogical.What the US is trying to do because of its dificulties in Af-Pak,is to stabilise the region along with the Paki military and wean Pak away from PRC machinations by the ususal game of providing its toy boys with toys and loot.

This exposes the fact is that the US a long time ago ceded Asia to China,as it couldn't be stopped and is trying to forge a network of anti-PRC nations and allies to counter any hostile Chinese military action.China is countering by developing two ,nay three,very powerful proxies,Pakistan and NoKo,both N-powers and a future N-power,Burma.In addition it is deepening its relationship with Afghanistan and Iran soa s to provide a land route into the Gulf in the future for Chinese forces.This is where the C-17 charade comes in.Anti-PRC India located in the centre ofthe IOR,an unsinkable aircraft carrier,will provide the central logistic hub for all US forces from where they can strike out "tous azimuth".To support US forces and their eqpt.,of which they hope to seel to India lots of what is used by US forces, (Diego Garcia is a small remote atoll with serious logistic and base repair inadequacies) ,one needs US transport aircraft.The C-17s are really meant more for "inter-service" use rather than solely serving the IAF's needs.

[amit]

The Chinese have been for quite some time using the fact of major military exercises with the US and its allies (naval and air) insinuating that there is a secret Indo-US plan and military alliance against China.Using this argument,they are massively arming Pak with nuclear capable missiles and more N-plants ,virtually giving Pak a free hand in nucelar prolifertion,etc.

Philip,
Just curious, do you really believe that if India stopped military exercises with the US, bought ALL defence equipment (irrespective of quality) from the Russians, then the Chinese would stop massively arming Pakistan and helping them with the nuclear programme? Or at least reduce their (military) investment in Pakistan? I would like to understand the cause and effect equation here, that is, do you think that Chinese military help to Pakistan is ONLY an offshoot of the alleged closeness between India and the US?

I ask you this question because if your really don't believe that, then I'm afraid this part of your post sounds suspiciously like a Strawman in a discussion on whether the India's decision to buy C-17s is good or not.

Thanks.

[amit]

Juggi G ji posted this in the Naval Thread, quoting Deccan Herald. I think it's quite relevant here as well as in the Arjun-T90 discussion that's going on in the Armoured Thread.

Excessive Dependence On One or The Other Country to meet our Defence Needs is not in India’s Best Interests.

[Philip]

In previous posts I've said that the C-17 deal is taking place only because of the closure of the production line in the US and Boeing is desperate to clinch the deal and MMS is obliging them.

Having said that,the thread is filled with statements about the need for strategic airlift capability,etc.,etc.OK,fine,but where?That is the big Q.We have no global footprint unlike the US and the fine print of the C-17 deal is the interoperability/multi-national agreemetn between all C-17 users to assist each other/the US in time of need.This is tantamount to joning the US's military machine through the "back door",which is what both the US and MMS want.
C-17 operators all become part of the same "tribe" if one could coin a phrase from thir interoperability agreements.It is this apparent "meshing" of Indo-US military forces that it is worrying the PRC and allowing them to use such instances to further proliferate globally with N-weapons via Pak and accelerate their massive naval expansion to operate in the IOR as it has done/achieved with the piracy problem.The Chinese use such Indo-US military meshing,which includes as I said military exercises with anti-PRC entities like japan,Oz,SoKo,Singapore,etc.,to justify their massive buildup and encirclement of India.


The other aspect from pur objectivity is the plus and minus points of the aircraft.Had we just wanted 3-4,the deal woul've seemed reasonable,but not 10 and at what cost! The IL-76s are in excellent shape,they can very easily be upgraded at a fraction of the cost and have,as pointed out served India very well.IL-76 upgrade programmes are to be carried out in Russia.When we're upgrading virtually all our other IAF aircraft,it stands to reason to also upgrade the IL-76.This is not being "pro-Russia",just common sense.In addition,our Phalcon AWACS and IL-78 tankers recently bought and which flew to Europe and the US supporting our IAF Sukhois don't forget (perfomed splendidly didn't they?) are all based upon the same IL-76 platform! As said before,there are also several other far more urgent priorities for the IAF ,listed at length earlier,than the C-17s being bought just to please Boeing and Uncle Sam.

[amit]

Philip,

Detailed response but doesn't answer my question.

Would China behave differently if India were to stop buying US military hardware and stopped exercising with them!

Unless you can prove that my contention remains ; its a Strawman to bring Chinese support for Pakistan into this debate.

[gogna]

what is the progress on HAL MTA as the MOU was signed way back in 2001.

[Philip]

I think that certainly the Chinese would look at us as less of a threat if we were not so pro-active into jumping into the US camp.There has been a debate for some time whether our current pro-active tilt towards Yankee Doodle has been responsible for the Chinese sabre rattling.Some analysts/China watchers say that this was their way of reminding us about getting too far into Uncle Sam's underwear.For some time now India has been shying away from the Shanghai Coop Org. (SCO) group,but the US's attitude towards Pak has seen us rethink about joining the group.

AS for exercising with the US,the scale and content of the exercises have gone far beyond that of "friendly exercises",where US nuclear subs and carrier forces have been participating with IN flotillas in full spectrum warfare exercises.If we curtailed such exercises,that too held soley with US allies and "groupies",we could see less of PRC anti-Indian military moves on the chessboard.The PRC is not too worried about an Indian military buildup because it knows that traditionally,Indian forces are meant for defence first.However,that is not the case with the US at all and the current "tilt" in Uncle Sam's direction is seen as highly provocative.The PRC have openly expressed their concern to India about this. With the US in "withdrawal" mood in the region (AF-Pak),there is absolutely nothing of strategic significance that we can expect from it.All our tilting in its favour like the Leaning tower of Pisa has not stopped Paki terror from ceasing,and if there is any Indo-Sino spat to take place,Uncle Sam will be nowhere on the horizon to help us.We will be all alone and should plan for the worst to fight alone.

[bahdada]

if there is any Indo-Sino spat to take place,Uncle Sam will be nowhere on the horizon to help us.We will be all alone and should plan for the worst to fight alone.

I'm sure a lot of our "unkil" "amrikhan" types in the early 60's said the very same thing.

[abrahavt]

The Chinese gave nuclear weapons to Pakistan when India didnt have a close relationship with the US. So to equate Chinese good behavior with Indian good behavior is ridiculous. As long as India doesnt become a poodle of the US (which I doubt will ever happen) I see no reason to not have a strategic relationship with the US and extract whatever benefits that we can from such a relationship. The benefits far outweigh kowtowing to the Chinks and allowing them to dictate our relationship with other countries.

[Shalav]

I agree. There is no reason not to have a close / strategic relationship with the US or Russia or anyone we feel is important to us.

However that relationship should not be at a cost of upto Rs. 26,000 crore on sanction enabled equipment with restrictions on end use and provisions for yearly inspections. That is not a partnership that is poodledom. And we will pay upto Rs. 26,000 crore for the privilege! How droll?

[Gilles]

The other aspect from pur objectivity is the plus and minus points of the aircraft.Had we just wanted 3-4,the deal woul've seemed reasonable,but not 10 and at what cost! The IL-76s are in excellent shape,they can very easily be upgraded at a fraction of the cost and have,as pointed out served India very well.IL-76 upgrade programmes are to be carried out in Russia.When we're upgrading virtually all our other IAF aircraft,it stands to reason to also upgrade the IL-76.This is not being "pro-Russia",just common sense.In addition,our Phalcon AWACS and IL-78 tankers recently bought and which flew to Europe and the US supporting our IAF Sukhois don't forget (perfomed splendidly didn't they?) are all based upon the same IL-76 platform! As said before,there are also several other far more urgent priorities for the IAF ,listed at length earlier,than the C-17s being bought just to please Boeing and Uncle Sam.

Its certain that the 17 Il-76s in the IAF should and need to be upgraded. The Russian Air Force has over 200 of these on inventory and began an upgrade program. In fact there is currently two engine upgrade programmes for the IL-76.
Here is a picture of one such upgraded Russian Il-76:



This particular aircraft was originally a 1991 IL-76MD. The aircraft is now fitted with Perm PS-90-76 engines. These are already certified and are the same as those fitted on the IAF's new A-50 AWACS aircraft.

NPO Saturn, the manufacturer that made the original IL-76 engine, the D-30KP, is also working on an upgraded model, the D-30KP-3 "Burlak" that is to meet Chapter IV noise and emission requirements at a cost, they claim, to be at a fraction of the cost of re-engining with PS-90s. This is because the basic original engine core is used and only the compressor stage is replaced with an upgraded on. The status of that program is displayed on NPO Saturn's website here:

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?pid=86

NPO Saturn claims there are still 750 IL-76s in the world. Its a huge market and there is no way these aircraft are going to go to waste, especially since, on the CIVILIAN MARKET, there is no competition since the Boeing C-17 is not certified as a civilian aircraft and cannot be used by airlines like the IL-76 is, even if they could afford it.

The reality is that the IL-76 is here to stay and it will still be around for decades. In comparison, there are only 26 Commercial An-124s in the world.

IAF's 6 IL-78s also need upgrading to better engines, especially because of the higher gross weight. The IL-76s take-off at 190 tonnes. The IL-78s take off at 210 tonnes, with the same engines.

As far as avionics and mission software: Any avionics can be installed in any aircraft and this can be done in India. Look at the glass cockpit of a modern, current production Cessna 172. This is the panel of a light single engine, 4 seater Cessna.



An IL-76 can be made to look like that too.

Here is the cockpit of the old C-5 Galaxy, as they were originally built



Here is the same aircraft with new avionics:



Here is the original C-130H Hercules cockpit:



Here is an upgraded C-130H Hercules. Same aircraft. New avionics:



Here is a CH-47D Chinook helicopter with original avionics:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 546776.jpg

A Belgian CH-47D Chinook with upgraded avionics:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 643389.jpg

Most CH-47Ds are upgraded model As, Bs and Cs that were built in the sixties. They are still flying and are now being upgraded to "F" standard. Most CH-47 in US Army inventory are at least 40 years old. But Americans call your IL-76s "ancient" because they want to sell you new C-17s.

So all Air Forces in the world upgrade their old machines to get more life out of them and at the very least install modern avionics in them, but India, which operates 17 IL-76s, 6 IL-78s and 3 A-50s, all based on the IL-76 airframe, is expected to retire its 1985-era IL-76 because they are "too old" and "nearing the end of their useful life" ? And intelligent Indians buy this?

The IAF can do the same with its IL-76s. At a fraction of the cost of buying new Boeing C-17s.

OK. An Il-76 can't haul a Arjun. But I have yet to see an Arjun, or a Leopard II or a Challenger II inside any C-17 either.

[Viv S]

Indian forces have undertaken SLPs for EVERY platform they posses so far. If they dont do it for Ils that would be another question, why not? But in any case 10-15 years in the minimum horizon that Ils have even now (refer to Gilles post on Il life)

What about the An-12s that the Il-76s replaced? And its still an assumption on your part that the IAF would want to go for a life extension program for the Il-76. And no it does not have 10-15 years left in any case.

Huh? The question was what are suitable candidates for replacing Il when the time comes. These are roughly suitable candidates. IAF should be interested in those when the time comes.

These are not suitable candidates. The An-70 is an expensive turboprop with (AFAIK) confirmed military orders for only five aircraft. The Tu-330 is a step down from the the Il-76. Why would the IAF want to replace the Il-76 with a less capable aircraft?

We are talking of replacing Ils here right? So when Il's have to be replaced because their service life is over, one option would be upgraded Ils.

If we already have Il, we cant replace? We are replacing newer Ils are also an option.

See thats not so complicated is it?

And just what is that supposed to mean? You start by assuming that Ils are being replaced by C 17s and then show it by stating your own assumption?

I reposted my first post, because you're missing the point(again). I already stated in my very first post, I was unsure why the IAF wasn't opting for new Il-76s instead. But, either way the choice of aircraft replacing the Il-76, was an IAF decision.

And its evident from the decision, that the IAF wants something that can airlift a tank comfortably.

Yes but it does not say that
1) Replacement is imminent
2) The replacement will be C 17 for Il 76

It ALSO says that capability is being built from scratch for some purposes like force projection, it says so in black and white.

It says the capability will have to be built from scratch because the current fleet is rapidly approaching the end of its service life. That implies

1) yes
2) yes

Hey if you tell IAF that it should get big babies to go to Afg efficiently and the cheque book is open, why would they say no? They would say yeah sure and this is the big baby (since its the only one) that you make the cheque for.

The IAF didn't need the C-17, while operating 12000 miles away from home at Red Flag. The Canadian forces in Afghanistan today are primarily supplied through Il-76s. The entire Soviet campaign in Afghanistan was supported by Il-76s. Its a fallacious argument that C-17s are necessary for an Indian deployment to Afghanistan.

Why is it any skin off IAFs nose if they are asked to get really huge A/c for power projection?

The C-17 is a 'really huge' aircraft? Compared to what?

And the recommendation for the C-17 came from the IAF not the MoD. They weren't 'asked to get' it, they asked for it.

Bottom line
C 17 is for the role mentioned in the interview by a SENIOR IAF official.
It is not for Il 76 replacement, its not remotely in the same class.

The role mentioned by the IAF can not be decided by IAF, it has been given that role to prepare for.

They're both strategic airlift aircraft with rough field capabilities. They're both used in the same role. And unless it involves airlifting a tank, there is no place the C-17 can be deployed and the Il-76s can't.

Basically its a GoI/PMO driven decision, open and shut copy book case.

I can repeat whatever I what I posted about the defence acquisition process from the MoD site. Bottom-line: the service identifies and evaluates the defence acquisition, the MoD's job is vetting that request and conducting the purchase.