C-17s for the IAF?

[Manish_Sharma]

Anyway C-17 decision is already made, there is no way C-5 or An 124 have a chance. So discussing the capabilities of these is irrelevent.

[VinodTK]

IAF's acquisition of Boeing C-17 transport aircraft heading for trouble news

An Indian Air Force order for 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift transport aircraft is looking like an uncertain acquisition with a production-line strike at the Boeing facility where the giant aircraft are built and clear hints from the Pentagon that the programme will soon shut down.

[Gilles]

I know what the brochure says, but multiple sources in the USAF have confirmed it only carries one.

It may be a difference in the risk tolerance in the two organizations, I don't know. But whatever the case, the USAF will only ever use it to transport one at a time.

The M-1 weights 61 to 62 tonnes. The C-5B can haul 122.5 tonnes on short distances, so two M-1s is very tight and when done, the tanks have to be bare bones.

The C-5M has its payload increased to 130 tonnes, 7.5 tonnes more than the C-5B. But its certain that it cant fly 3500 miles with such a payload.

[GeorgeWelch]

I know what the brochure says, but multiple sources in the USAF have confirmed it only carries one.

Well I have been able to find a source that confirms that 2 were actually carried at least once. Still a lot insist that it's only one so there's something interesting going on.

IAF's acquisition of Boeing C-17 transport aircraft heading for trouble news

This has about zero impact on India. If anything, it might be helpful if it keeps the line open for a little longer.

The Pentagon isn't trying to shut down the line, they're just trying to stop ordering more. If Boeing can secure more orders from someone else, great for them.

The M-1 weights 61 to 62 tonnes. The C-5B can haul 122.5 tonnes on short distances, so two M-1s is very tight and when done, the tanks have to be bare bones.

The C-5M has its payload increased to 130 tonnes, 7.5 tonnes more than the C-5B. But its certain that it cant fly 3500 miles with such a payload.

My understanding was that it wasn't a weight issue but rather a balance/center of gravity issue.

But again it has been done but apparently is not SOP.

Regardless of whether it can carry 1 or 2, you still don't want the C-5A as it's a piece of junk.

[Gilles]

Well well well, GAO is finally on to the dirty little secret. Look at this November 2009 GAO report:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1067.pdf

However, there is a potential gap in the tactical airlift of medium weight loads beyond the capability of the C-130s. The C-17 is the only aircraft capable of moving this type of Army equipment within a theater of operation, although not to austere, short, or unimproved landing areas.

According to a DOD official, the C-17s are currently being employed to fill a capability gap existing in the department’s ability to airlift medium-weight vehicles within a theater of operations using dedicated tactical airlifters. DOD officials do not consider the C-17 to be a viable long-term solution as it cannot access short, austere, or unimproved landing areas in close proximity to combat operations.

We are a long way from this 1991 Air Force paper

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf

that claimed that the C-17 could carry 18 times the payload of a DC-3

yet land on shorter runways than that famous aircraft

.

Right.

[Brando]

Perhaps the IAF should buy the 10 of the 20 retired C-5A Galaxys from the US Air Force for One symbolic dollar each, and have them sent to Lockheed-Martin for full upgrade to C-5M standards (2009 cost reported to be 90 million per aircraft)
......................
So India, what do you think? Almost double the payload as the C-17 for two and a half times less money. Its American. It will please Obama. It will please US Senators. It allows interoperability with US and NATO forces. It can now land on unsurfaced austere runways. It can carry twice as many tanks as the C-17. It can carry three times as many soldiers as the C-17.

The US Air Force is now getting over 50 of them. They already took delivery of three. If its good enough for the USA, why not India?

The US Air Force was going to upgrade all C-5As but because they now have too many C-17s, they are forced to retire these C-5As instead of upgrading them.

First, it would be a hell of a deal if the USAF would sell a modestly used C-5A to India for a throw-away price of an Il-76. And I would support the Indian Air Force for jumping at that deal. However, that's not going to happen because the USAF and the Secretary of the AF would fight tooth and nail against the sale of any usable C-5s.
Second, you are forgetting about "airframe life" when you are talking about C-5A. Those old C-5A's are specifically in bad shape considering that they were already once repaired for cracks in their airframe and wings with patch jobs and a rebuilt hydraulic systems. The C-5Bs were built with all the new fixes. Even if India does get one of these old birds and upgrades the avionics and engines, it still doesn't mean it can come anywhere close to the utility of a new C-17 that is at least 2 generations ahead of the C-5 in everyday. After a point, it just becomes dangerous to keep it in the air.
Third, while the payload and the price may be attractive, how many hours of maintenance are required per hour of flying time for the C-5 ? How much does it cost to keep these old birds flying ? Procuring spares that are not made anymore ? Cost of fuel for that massive thing ?? The cost of owning and operating such a Goliath is inefficient and obscene in today's modern military scenario around the globe. The C-5's were a brilliant tactical transport during the Cold War era where they needed to transport huge quantities of men and machines to Europe in a hurry, come what may to stem any Soviet thrust into Europe but today it is just redundant, thus, the C-17. Instead India could just buy An-124s and upgrade them for cheaper but that is just a stop-gap solution just like the C-5's would be.

[GeorgeWelch]

Second, you are forgetting about "airframe life" when you are talking about C-5A.

Ironically the reliability of the C-5A's is so poor that they actually have most of their theoretical airframe life remaining.

In fact, even though they are at least 10 years older, the average C-5A has FEWER hours on it than the average C-5B. Which tells you something about how bad the C-5A is.

[Sanku]

BTW, I'm also of the opinion that C-17 is being handed down to IAF.

Then rohit we are not disagreeing at all.

(b) Sanku - On the airlift requirement thing - just because there has been no sound byte or articles (that you know of) prior to 2008, does not mean that IA or IAF were not cognizant of the requirement for Strategic Airlift.

Rohit I do not think we disagree, I understand that Gen S was the author of the doctrine of force projection et al. and I understand that the topic is not new; I was specifically referring to a warm intrest as measured by discussions in public sphere etc. (refer for example the Parliamentary comittees displeasure that IAF ADGES has been suffering despite they making their case for past 20 years. )

And I may not know -- but the issue is the forumites in general have also not been able to add to this knowledge.

However, given an emergency situation - how prudent is to carry a split tank?

Sir, this blew out of proportion, my point was a small one, that tank transport in theators of war in a issue which can be and has been addressed in multiple ways. This again was to show that obsession with tanks w.r.t. airlift is misplaced.

As for the Throughput parameter, it is an extremely important one from US perspective - just type C-17 and throughput in google. May or may not apply in our case.

Strongly agree.

About the C-17 trials - well, I have no answer. There seem to be none - as was with C-130J.

Agree again.

Do IL-76 and C-17 fill the same requirement? In a graded structure, AN-32>C-130J>IL-76>C-17 will be the case.

Rohit there are Il 76 with 65 tonne lift, the Il 76 MF model. A RFI tendor should be sent there. I believe Airbus could also be asked if they can present a modified Mil standard Airbus in that range.

If there was no breakneck speed the above options could also be tried.

And that is if we are looking for 65 tonnes and more -- I am still not convinced that the "strategic airlift" as talked about Gen S et al automatically translate into 65 tonnes. I do question whether our needs can not be done in a range of 50-80 (note it may well be that we need 65 tonnes but all I am saying is that discussion is missing)

[amit]

Rohit there are Il 76 with 65 tonne lift, the Il 76 MF model. A RFI tendor should be sent there. I believe Airbus could also be asked if they can present a modified Mil standard Airbus in that range.

Sanku,

The IL76MF is a stretched version of the same Il76 model and not a new airplane. Link

Have you considered something? If the IAF gets new super heavy category of air freighter today, for arguments sake let's say 2011, then these planes would be expected to be in service well into the 2030s if not 2040? We got our first IL76 in 1984 or thereabouts and they are expected to be around till at least 2020.

Now if you can agree on that, can you tell me honestly, if you were say in charge of procuring such a plane would you choose a plane which was conceived in the 1960s (the IL76 first flew in 1967) and has an air frame designed with 1960s technology. Or would you choose a plane which was conceived in 1990s (the C17's maiden flight was in September 1991) and has 1990s technology in the air frame?

Do you think India should, in say 2030, be flying a plane which was conceived and designed 70 years ago?

It's not always about money, so-called political interference and the alleged toeing some country's line. There's also something called long-term planning.

If Ilyushin had a new plane on offer, even if it was only in the design stage, it would have made great sense for India to partner with them. It's a great company and certainly a more preferred supplier than Boeing. But, sadly, they don't seem to have anything on the table save for the MTA, which India is most likely to collaborate on.

Regarding Airbus. Do you seriously think that Airbus would offer a heavily modified (it has to be otherwise no civilian aircraft can operate with the kind of wear and tear a military transport is expected to go through) for a production run of 10 or maybe at the most 15, especially when it is invested itself in the 37t A400? And even if it did, do you realise what the per unit cost (with amortisation over just 10-15 birds) would be?

Added later: Unless we consider the 380, the biggest Airbus is the 340-600 which has a maximum take off weight (as opposed to cargo capacity) of around 37tond. And you know what? It's maximum width is just over 5 metres. Is that enough for a widebodied cargo plane? What you're saying would essentially entail building a entirely new plane, all for a production run of 10-15!

I think we need to be a bit realistic and not argue for arguments sake. There is no comparable competition out there in the C17 category. Bad state of affairs true but that's the way it is.

[Viv S]

On more serious note, a similar case could have been made in the 80s for ordering another 2 An-32s or 4 Avros instead of the Il-76.

As there should be, questions like what role is being filled in IAF by a particular a/c and whether some different approach does not suffice should have been made.

But in 80s the purchase method for any equipment was clear cut, the Soviets had the innate advantages of selling us top end equipment at throw away prices that too for ruppee-rouble trade (no hard currency) and that to in barter like system.

We didnt need DPP yada yada then...

We do now, since we dont have sweetheart deals for political quid pro quo.

Well that excludes the Avro then. But, the An-32 was still a Soviet product. The merit of the Il-76 acquisition still had to be judged against opting for more An-32s and that decision had to be made by the IAF.

[Viv S]

Rohit I do not think we disagree, I understand that Gen S was the author of the doctrine of force projection et al. and I understand that the topic is not new; I was specifically referring to a warm intrest as measured by discussions in public sphere etc. (refer for example the Parliamentary comittees displeasure that IAF ADGES has been suffering despite they making their case for past 20 years. )

I don't one should expect the domestic media to get involved in the question of what constitutes an ideal cap for the IAF's lifting requirements. Atleast I don't see them getting involved unless there's a corruption/malfeasance angle to the issue. Most people will simply assume that the IAF knows its requirements best and leave them to it.

Rohit there are Il 76 with 65 tonne lift, the Il 76 MF model. A RFI tendor should be sent there. I believe Airbus could also be asked if they can present a modified Mil standard Airbus in that range.

The problem with the Il-76MF is while it has a higher weight capacity it still has the same volume that limits the actual quantity of cargo it can carry. The C-17's wide-body on the other hand ensures that it has a much higher cargo volume of 435 cu. m as opposed to the Il-76's 235 cu. m.

With regard to the Airbus, would the IAF be interested in an opting for an (for all practical purposes) experimental aircraft particularly one that it was the sole operator of?

And that is if we are looking for 65 tonnes and more -- I am still not convinced that the "strategic airlift" as talked about Gen S et al automatically translate into 65 tonnes. I do question whether our needs can not be done in a range of 50-80 (note it may well be that we need 65 tonnes but all I am saying is that discussion is missing)

How did you arrive at the 50-80 ton figure? Why not 30-40 tons?

[Sanku]

Well that excludes the Avro then. But, the An-32 was still a Soviet product. The merit of the Il-76 acquisition still had to be judged against opting for more An-32s and that decision had to be made by the IAF.

Huh? You miss the point totally, the merit or otherwise of buying Il 76 vs more An 32 depends on many factors, cost being an important one.

If the cost of procurement of more An 32s and more Il 76s is not a issue, other factors will weigh in.

Its not a monochrome decision as you think in terms of "better bigger etc"

Many trade offs are involved, with Soviet supply logisitics, the only factors was "whats the most that they are ready to give us and whats the most we can handle"

The decision was to have more Il 76s and An 32s (the second part got held up as Soviet union died)

It was not one over other.

[Sanku]

I don't one should expect the domestic media to get involved in the question of what constitutes an ideal cap for the IAF's lifting requirements.

Boss, domestic "media" also includes IDSA publications, SRR by BR lancer pubs yada yada.

Why do you assume domestic media == RubberRag (to borrow from Dileep)?

India is a country which is predicated on knowledge and intelligent informed debate on all issues?

Now you will have BRF shutting down as well.

Atleast I don't see them getting involved unless there's a corruption/malfeasance angle to the issue. Most people will simply assume that the IAF knows its requirements best and leave them to it.

Which is why this is BRF and not "most people" most people do not come on BRF and have a opinion. Their choice. But if on BRF, most people angle can not be tried.

Meanwhile BRF is a non-formal version of many GoI backed institutions which are created for this express purpose.

The problem with the Il-76MF is while it has a higher weight capacity it still has the same volume that limits the actual quantity of cargo it can carry.

In correct, the body shape is also played about with, particularly the internal box. And anyway, its merits or demerits not withstanding, its close enough to fall in the same bracket.

Hence a candidate for evaluation.

Reject is post evaluation by all means, why no evaluation even?

With regard to the Airbus, would the IAF be interested in an opting for an (for all practical purposes) experimental aircraft particularly one that it was the sole operator of?

Its not really a "experimental aircraft" as in first plane from wright brothers, it would be coming from a long line of Airbus history and Mil version of existing plane.

A derivative design.

For all practical purposes a known old design with added mil features.

How did you arrive at the 50-80 ton figure? Why not 30-40 tons?

Precisely the question!!

Why this figure and why not some others? Any discussion in open fora? For other cases there are you know.

[Viv S]

Well that excludes the Avro then. But, the An-32 was still a Soviet product. The merit of the Il-76 acquisition still had to be judged against opting for more An-32s and that decision had to be made by the IAF.

Huh? You miss the point totally, the merit or otherwise of buying Il 76 vs more An 32 depends on many factors, cost being an important one.

If the cost of procurement of more An 32s and more Il 76s is not a issue, other factors will weigh in.

Its not a monochrome decision as you think in terms of "better bigger etc"

Many trade offs are involved, with Soviet supply logisitics, the only factors was "whats the most that they are ready to give us and whats the most we can handle"

The decision was to have more Il 76s and An 32s (the second part got held up as Soviet union died)

It was not one over other.

I believe you misunderstood me. My point was the despite the An-32 being more cost-effective aircraft for everyday operation, the Il-76s were still acquired because the IAF needed an aircraft with its lifting ability. If one is willing to accept that, its not a stretch to accept that the IAF wants an aircraft with the C-17's capability.

Also, the C-17 while having a higher cost of acquisition seems to have a substantially lower operating cost as well as having faster turnaround time.

[Sanku]

I believe you misunderstood me. My point was the despite the An-32 being more cost-effective aircraft for everyday operation, the Il-76s were still acquired because the IAF needed an aircraft with its lifting ability. If one is willing to accept that, its not a stretch to accept that the IAF wants an aircraft with the C-17's capability.

Yes it is, because based on that kind of simplistic extrapolation IAF wants the Beluga as well.

Why not the An 124.

IAF will always love (forget want) to fly as many bigger and badder things it can get its hands on. It does not do that because it does not always makes sense to get a bigger and badder a/c sometimes yes sometimes no. Many tradeoff are considered.

In case of 80s and Il 76, the conditions were totally different. They are totally different now.

This is a very simplistic view that you have there.

Also, the C-17 while having a higher cost of acquisition seems to have a substantially lower operating cost as well as having faster turnaround time.

We KNOW that acquisition costs are higher

We
that operating costs are lower. No such data is seen. At best an article of faith (based on snake oil selling by the Americans I think)

Typically Soviet equipment is designed to have the cheapest operating cost and ease of maintenance -- they do it at the cost of "gold plating" that the western equipment have.

[amit]

I see the really tricky questions are conveniently ignored, while heavy polemics is applied on the thread.

[Viv S]

Boss, domestic "media" also includes IDSA publications, SRR by BR lancer pubs yada yada.

But, we haven't had any disagreement on the C-17 acquisition expressed through them, have we? Atleast I haven't heard of any.

Why do you assume domestic media == RubberRag (to borrow from Dileep)?

India is a country which is predicated on knowledge and intelligent informed debate on all issues?

Now you will have BRF shutting down as well.

Well if it counts, a debate on this public forum has been on for a long while now.

The problem with the Il-76MF is while it has a higher weight capacity it still has the same volume that limits the actual quantity of cargo it can carry.

In correct, the body shape is also played about with, particularly the internal box. And anyway, its merits or demerits not withstanding, its close enough to fall in the same bracket.

Hence a candidate for evaluation.

Reject is post evaluation by all means, why no evaluation even?

Refer next post.

With regard to the Airbus, would the IAF be interested in an opting for an (for all practical purposes) experimental aircraft particularly one that it was the sole operator of?

Its not really a "experimental aircraft" as in first plane from wright brothers, it would be coming from a long line of Airbus history and Mil version of existing plane.

A derivative design.

For all practical purposes a known old design with added mil features.

If it did not indeed have a high development cost and just involved modification, I believe Airbus would have been marketing it to air forces globally. For example, until recently BAe had a stake in Airbus, which would have made it an option for the RAF. The NATO as well as middle eastern AFs are other possible customers.
But, since they haven't it just goes to show, its not a feasible option for India.

How did you arrive at the 50-80 ton figure? Why not 30-40 tons?

Precisely the question!!

Why this figure and why not some others? Any discussion in open fora? For other cases there are you know.

Well the IAF hasn't preempted any discussion on public fora. The C-17 has been on the cards for couple of years now. I haven't heard any significant opinion that treated the aircraft as overkill so far. Most dissension was with regard to the US as a supplier rather than the C-17 as an aircraft.

[Viv S]

IAF to get 10 C -17s from Boeing

The IAF shortlisted the C-17 Globemaster III as its new very heavy lift transport aircraft (VHTAC) and will use the aircraft to modernise its cargo capabilities. This is a step forward in the US foreign military sales (FMS) process and is a necessary prerequisite to negotiations on the deal. The aircraft should come in about three years after a contract is signed.

The C-17 is the workhorse of the US Air Force transport fleet and has proven highly reliable in the harsh environments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Earlier this year New Delhi had submitted a letter of request to the US government for the possible acquisition of up to 10 Boeing C-17 strategic transports, with the move forming part of a programme to replace its air force's aged AN-32s and Ilyushin Il-76s.

An advanced version of the Il-76 was also considered to meet future requirements, but the defence ministry sources say the C-17 was the preferred choice.

[Sanku]

But, we haven't had any disagreement on the C-17 acquisition expressed through them, have we? Atleast I haven't heard of any.

Hmm, more the point, too silent.

Well if it counts, a debate on this public forum has been on for a long while now.

Not a long time, no, a short time, and only after the news that we were already buying (practically speaking) the C 17 broke.

But, since they haven't it just goes to show, its not a feasible option for India.

It shows nothing like that at all please. Again extapolations.

All it shows is that there is not a big market. At 5.8 billion $ (may be with work shared at HAL) it could happen.

At least did they try?

Well the IAF hasn't preempted any discussion on public fora. The C-17 has been on the cards for couple of years now. I haven't heard any significant opinion that treated the aircraft as overkill so far.

You haven't heard anything in the public fora, the silence is the issue, we have heard that its being bought and the IAF thinks its good that it will help its abilities. Period.

[Viv S]

I believe you misunderstood me. My point was the despite the An-32 being more cost-effective aircraft for everyday operation, the Il-76s were still acquired because the IAF needed an aircraft with its lifting ability. If one is willing to accept that, its not a stretch to accept that the IAF wants an aircraft with the C-17's capability.

Yes it is, because based on that kind of simplistic extrapolation IAF wants the Beluga as well.

Why not the An 124.

IAF will always love (forget want) to fly as many bigger and badder things it can get its hands on. It does not do that because it does not always makes sense to get a bigger and badder a/c sometimes yes sometimes no. Many tradeoff are considered.

In case of 80s and Il 76, the conditions were totally different. They are totally different now.

This is a very simplistic view that you have there.

You have a firm belief that the IAF does not require an wide-body aircraft that can airlift 80 tons but still needs a 45 ton(or now 65 ton) airlifter. But, you've dodged all posts asking you to substantiate that claim with figures or examples. Me? I assume the IAF did its homework in 1984, and it would have done its homework in 2008.

Also, the C-17 while having a higher cost of acquisition seems to have a substantially lower operating cost as well as having faster turnaround time.

We KNOW that acquisition costs are higher

We
that operating costs are lower. No such data is seen. At best an article of faith (based on snake oil selling by the Americans I think)

Typically Soviet equipment is designed to have the cheapest operating cost and ease of maintenance -- they do it at the cost of "gold plating" that the western equipment have.

The Il-76 is 20 year older design than the C-17, so an assumption that being of Soviet origin its cheaper and easier to maintain is incorrect. And while I don't have specific figures, I did make an analysis on their fuel efficiency on the previous page from publicly sourced material. Even accounting for inaccuracies the C-17 does end up being far more economical than the Il-76.

[Sanku]

An advanced version of the Il-76 was also considered to meet future requirements, but the defence ministry sources say the C-17 was the preferred choice.

Go easy on the fonts, the size does not change the content.

What sources?
What consideration? Did they send a RFI?

Its a lifafa post, read it, its a press release by US Embassy congratulating Indians on their excellent choice in buying from them. and Boeing's happiness.

It also thinks

with the move forming part of a programme to replace its air force's aged AN-32s and Ilyushin Il-76s.

So Viv you are not alone in thinking An 32, Il 76 can all be replaced by C 17s, you are in good company.

[Viv S]

But, we haven't had any disagreement on the C-17 acquisition expressed through them, have we? Atleast I haven't heard of any.

Hmm, more the point, too silent.

Well one can't hold the MoD or IAF responsible for that.

Well if it counts, a debate on this public forum has been on for a long while now.

Not a long time, no, a short time, and only after the news that we were already buying (practically speaking) the C 17 broke.

Again, RFIs were issued in 2008. That's three years of potential debate and there's still while to go before the contract is signed.

But, since they haven't it just goes to show, its not a feasible option for India.

It shows nothing like that at all please. Again extapolations.

All it shows is that there is not a big market. At 5.8 billion $ (may be with work shared at HAL) it could happen.

At least did they try?

Nope. They opted for the safer option rather than risking a A-400M type fiasco with the Indian taxpayers money.

Well the IAF hasn't preempted any discussion on public fora. The C-17 has been on the cards for couple of years now. I haven't heard any significant opinion that treated the aircraft as overkill so far.

You haven't heard anything in the public fora, the silence is the issue, we have heard that its being bought and the IAF thinks its good that it will help its abilities. Period.

Again the MoD isn't responsible for the silence publicly. I'm inclined to think the public and intelligentsia isn't bothered by the IAF's choice(excluding a few).

[Viv S]

An advanced version of the Il-76 was also considered to meet future requirements, but the defence ministry sources say the C-17 was the preferred choice.

Go easy on the fonts, the size does not change the content.

What sources?
What consideration? Did they send a RFI?

Its a lifafa post, read it, its a press release by US Embassy congratulating Indians on their excellent choice in buying from them. and Boeing's happiness.

Shoot the messenger.

It also thinks

with the move forming part of a programme to replace its air force's aged AN-32s and Ilyushin Il-76s.

So Viv you are not alone in thinking An 32, Il 76 can all be replaced by C 17s, you are in good company.

I suggest you read it again. It says 'forming part of the programme to replace'.

[Sanku]

You have a firm belief that the IAF does not require an wide-body aircraft that can airlift 80 tons but still needs a 45 ton(or now 65 ton) airlifter. But, you've dodged all posts asking you to substantiate that claim with figures or examples. Me? I assume the IAF did its homework in 1984, and it would have done its homework in 2008.

Incorrect again. I do not have firm belief -- I am only asking if IAF needs that where is the discussion.

Because unlike you I do not assume -- I look at discussions in public domain and see what IAF is talking of for future.

Also I do not assume that IAFs aquisition are based on IAF home work alone. I know that
1) Aquistion has only a small forces homework component and big Babu spadework component.
2) All big ticket purchases are political as well, esp in the FMS route.

Both the knowledge points have been shared liberally with working of MoD, from its websites and past many examples (Bofors etc) You want to assume rather than know.

The Il-76 is 20 year older design than the C-17, so an assumption that being of Soviet origin its cheaper and easier to maintain is incorrect.

Il 76 is also modernized please. We wont be buying a 60s Il 76 if we do so today so this discussion IS irrelevant. Fact is we KNOW that acquisition is expensive and are NEEDLESSLY ASSUMING that operating it would be not.

[amit]

IAF to get 10 C -17s from Boeing

Viv S,

There is an important quote in the link you posted which is very relevant to the discussion.

Here it is:

Although the official notification to Congress lists the potential value as $5.8 billion, this represents the highest possible estimate for the sale, and includes all potential services offered. The actual cost will be based on IAF requirements and has yet to be negotiated.

I guess this nails yet another propaganda point and that is: "Oh at $5.8 billion it is toooo expensive and so there must be a catch".

So now let's see, a quick point and counter-point analysis:

a) Why was there no multi vendor arrangement with a RFP.

Counter: There is really no comparable plane in that class and IAF has been flying the IL76 for close to 30 years and knows all about it, and didn't need to send an RFP.

[Added later: I can't resist doing a . The IAF should send a RFI for a plane they've been flying for close to 30 years!]

b) At $5.8 billion, way too expensive.

Counter: It now comes to light that that is the absolute outer limit and is not the cost of the plane but also includes all potential services, which I suspect would be something like after sales services.

c) The plane has been thrust on the IAF

Counter: More than one source in the IAF has shown that they are indeed happy with the plane and want it.

d) The selection was hurried through.

Counter: How long do you take to evaluate when the field of competition is restricted to just one plane? In other words how many years do you need to test one plane whose sole criteria is moving a large volume of goods (as opposed to a fighter aircraft where a myriad of performance criteria and weapons compatibility, radar performance etc has to be considered).

I think I've covered most of the points haven't I?

Now I'll wait for the next round of Polemics!

[Sanku]

Shoot the messenger.

Sorry boss too old and seen too many
Sources said
statements

BULL SHIT. Was RFI sent? If not no multi-vendor period. We also considered is BS, I consider buying a Merc every other day.

with the move forming part of a programme to replace its air force's aged AN-32s and Ilyushin Il-76s

I suggest you read it again. It says 'forming part of the programme to replace'.

Yes funny isnt it. Pretty much any one with basic knowledge of this would tell you that

An 32 || MTA || Il 76 || C 17 are different classes, hey it has nearly universal acceptance by everyone who posted here too, even in favor of C 17 except you that is.

Anyway, lets cut the banter -- the point is, C 17 is first and foremost a political purchase, also secondly being of some use to IAF.

I believe all the points I made are crystal clear, and I think that now that you much more than you did before, you should go easy on the claim that IAF drove this.

You may still want to assume that or believe it, perhaps, but then if this amount of data (with numerous examples of your assumptions being proven plain incorrect) does not change your view nothing will (which I actually always suspected from the beginning)

[Viv S]

You have a firm belief that the IAF does not require an wide-body aircraft that can airlift 80 tons but still needs a 45 ton(or now 65 ton) airlifter. But, you've dodged all posts asking you to substantiate that claim with figures or examples. Me? I assume the IAF did its homework in 1984, and it would have done its homework in 2008.

Incorrect again. I do not have firm belief -- I am only asking if IAF needs that where is the discussion.

Because unlike you I do not assume -- I look at discussions in public domain and see what IAF is talking of for future.

Spurring debate in public fora isn't the MoD's responsibility. If there did exist such a debate, and it the general opinion was against the purchase, I would've been eager for an IAF clarification or renegotiation. In its absence, I go with what the IAF says.

Also I do not assume that IAFs aquisition are based on IAF home work alone. I know that
1) Aquistion has only a small forces homework component and big Babu spadework component.
2) All big ticket purchases are political as well, esp in the FMS route.

Both the knowledge points have been shared liberally with working of MoD, from its websites and past many examples (Bofors etc) You want to assume rather than know.

I have been through the DPP. It states plainly that the proposal for a FMS route acquisition is also to come from the forces.

The Il-76 is 20 year older design than the C-17, so an assumption that being of Soviet origin its cheaper and easier to maintain is incorrect.

Il 76 is also modernized please. We wont be buying a 60s Il 76 if we do so today so this discussion IS irrelevant. Fact is we KNOW that acquisition is expensive and are NEEDLESSLY ASSUMING that operating it would be not.

I'm not assuming that operating it would be cheaper. I've got some figures that say it would be. If I've made a mistake with them, I'd like it pointed out. If not, point stands.

[amit]

Here's another report on the cost:

Though the contract cost is yet to be worked out, each C-17 aircraft made by Boeing comes for $220 million, adding up to $2.2 billion, as reported by TOI earlier. With the associated equipment, it could go up to $3 billion. In fact, if India exercises all the available options of equipment, spares, support, training and services for the C-17 s, the deal could be worth $5.8 billion, says the notification.

So another nail on the $5.8 billion.

But not to worry, any article that doesn't support your worldview can be labelled a lifafa article. Simple isn't it. Doing that you don't need to produce counter articles supporting your POV that C17 are horribly expensive, bad for IAF and that IAF does not need a air freighter of that class.

All iz well!

[Sanku]

Viv I dont think you want to understand.

Spurring debate in public fora isn't the MoD's responsibility.

OBVIOUSLY NOT -- BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT

Its presence or absence is a clear indicator of whats happening.

Where the bang head on the wall icon.

I have been through the DPP. It states plainly that the proposal for a FMS route acquisition is also to come from the forces.

What? Link and QUOTE please (I have seen you claims in the past about CII too -- simply incorrect if not outright fraudulent)

Anyway again that NOT the point. The point is that the acquisition HAS to be multi-vendor unless a overwhelming national security reason.

. I've got some figures that say it would be. If I've made a mistake with them, I'd like it pointed out. If not, point stands.

Your points are based on assumptions that there is no information about. Any logical process starting from a set of assumption will remain an assumption.

Viv S -- finally -- spare me. I am had dealing with such amazing amount of basics like "Il 76 replaced An 32s"

You inhabit a world of assumptions that I feel giddy stepping in. Please excuse me if I dont respond in future.

[Viv S]

Shoot the messenger.

Sorry boss too old and seen too many
Sources said
statements

BULL SHIT. Was RFI sent? If not no multi-vendor period. We also considered is BS, I consider buying a Merc every other day.

Okay how do you know it was NOT sent? The article says that the Il-76MF was considered. Your claim is that they didn't have all the relevant information(usually obtained through a RFI). Can you substantiate that?

I suggest you read it again. It says 'forming part of the programme to replace'.

Yes funny isnt it. Pretty much any one with basic knowledge of this would tell you that

An 32 || MTA || Il 76 || C 17 are different classes, hey it has nearly universal acceptance by everyone who posted here too, even in favor of C 17 except you that is.

The article does NOT claim the An-32 is to be replaced by the C-17(contrary to your insinuation). And the fact that the C-17 can replace the Il-76 is pretty obvious to everyone. Unlike the C-130/An-32, the Il-76 does not have a lower operating cost than the C-17. Quite the opposite in fact. Which implies the C-17 can substitute the Il-76 on every mission without any compromise on performance.

Anyway, lets cut the banter -- the point is, C 17 is first and foremost a political purchase, also secondly being of some use to IAF.

Except that the recommendation for the purchase came from the IAF(and that's been substantiated by the media).

I believe all the points I made are crystal clear, and I think that now that you much more than you did before, you should go easy on the claim that IAF drove this.

Its a telling fact that retired IAF commentators(informed professionals) are generally supportive of the purchase. Which incidently comprises atleast one facet of the public debate that you're demanding on the issue.

You may still want to assume that or believe it, perhaps, but then if this amount of data (with numerous examples of your assumptions being proven plain incorrect) does not change your view nothing will (which I actually always suspected from the beginning)

I must point out assumptions about - Indian sponsored Airbus strategic airlifter, dismantled tanks shipped separately assembled in the field, the An-124 can operate from all the airfields as the C-17, the MoD has somehow suppressed public debate on the issue. And that's besides the main point - that the IAF is being suckered into the deal inspite of the fact that is recommended the purchase.

[Viv S]

Viv I dont think you want to understand.

Spurring debate in public fora isn't the MoD's responsibility.

OBVIOUSLY NOT -- BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT

Its presence or absence is a clear indicator of whats happening.

Where the bang head on the wall icon.

Well for better or worse there's been no public debate on the IAF's lifting requirements. There has been no stated consensus on what the IAF's strategic airlifter should be able to carry. In the absence of that debate, one has no option but to accept the IAF's opinion.

If you feel that's wrong or a loss, its the publications and intelligentsia that you need to take it up with not the MoD and IAF.

I have been through the DPP. It states plainly that the proposal for a FMS route acquisition is also to come from the forces.

What? Link and QUOTE please (I have seen you claims in the past about CII too -- simply incorrect if not outright fraudulent)

"There are occasions when equipment of proven technology and capabilities
belonging to a friendly foreign country is identified by our Armed Forces while participating
in joint international exercises. Such equipment can be procured from that country which
may provide the same, ex their stocks or by using Standard Contracting Procedure as
existing in that country. In case of multiple choices, a delegation may be deputed to
select the ones, which best meets the operational requirements."

Anyway again that NOT the point. The point is that the acquisition HAS to be multi-vendor unless a overwhelming national security reason.

No it does NOT. The IAF's requirements HAVE to be foremost.

. I've got some figures that say it would be. If I've made a mistake with them, I'd like it pointed out. If not, point stands.

Your points are based on assumptions that there is no information about. Any logical process starting from a set of assumption will remain an assumption.

I've employed figures available in the public domain to compile the fuel efficiencies of both aircraft. With regard to the older variants atleast, the C-17 had almost twice the Il-76's fuel efficiency. If you feel they're incorrect, please point that out. If you've got figures of your own, please present them. If there is an error in methodology, please identify it.

[Gilles]

Anyway C-17 decision is already made, there is no way C-5 or An 124 have a chance. So discussing the capabilities of these is irrelevent.

Agreed. Discussing the C-17 is also irrelevant too isn't it? Unless we want to talk about the colours its going to be painted. So far, all C-17s worldwide are the same colour, except for the one Qatari C-17 which was painted in Qatari Airways coulour. It seems the paint has some special properties (they were mentioned in the Canadian SOR).

Do you think the IAF will be the first C-17 operator to have its fleet painted differently ?

[Gilles]

First, it would be a hell of a deal if the USAF would sell a modestly used C-5A to India for a throw-away price of an Il-76. And I would support the Indian Air Force for jumping at that deal. However, that's not going to happen because the USAF and the Secretary of the AF would fight tooth and nail against the sale of any usable C-5s.
Second, you are forgetting about "airframe life" when you are talking about C-5A. Those old C-5A's are specifically in bad shape considering that they were already once repaired for cracks in their airframe and wings with patch jobs and a rebuilt hydraulic systems. The C-5Bs were built with all the new fixes. Even if India does get one of these old birds and upgrades the avionics and engines, it still doesn't mean it can come anywhere close to the utility of a new C-17 that is at least 2 generations ahead of the C-5 in everyday. After a point, it just becomes dangerous to keep it in the air.
Third, while the payload and the price may be attractive, how many hours of maintenance are required per hour of flying time for the C-5 ? How much does it cost to keep these old birds flying ? Procuring spares that are not made anymore ? Cost of fuel for that massive thing ?? The cost of owning and operating such a Goliath is inefficient and obscene in today's modern military scenario around the globe. The C-5's were a brilliant tactical transport during the Cold War era where they needed to transport huge quantities of men and machines to Europe in a hurry, come what may to stem any Soviet thrust into Europe but today it is just redundant, thus, the C-17. Instead India could just buy An-124s and upgrade them for cheaper but that is just a stop-gap solution just like the C-5's would be.

1) The C-5As were built with defective wings which developed cracks. That is why the aircraft, which was originally designed for unpaved runways operations was later restricted to paved runways. However, in the eighties, all the C-5A were retrofitted with new wings, the same as those found on the C-5B. The unpaved runway tests were never completed, but the reason that prevented them no longer exists.

2) I suggested that the C-5As be given to Indian for free. They are going to the bone yards anyway. I also suggested that India pay L-M to upgrade the donated C-5A to C-5M standard, which involves brand new engines, new avionics, new autopilot and many other upgrades. I wrote these cost around 90 million but now found a GAO that claims the price went up to around 134 million.

3) A USAF study revealed that the C-5A, with all their maintenance problems, still have 80% of the useful life left in them. Once upgraded, they will be good until 2040.

Of course, the same could be done with Russian Air Force An-124s. Several of the An-124s that Russian company Polet operates commercially today as upgraded An-124-100s, are ex Russian Air Force An-124s. And they fly non-stop. I don't see them broken down on tarmacs everywhere they go.

[rohitvats]

Ofcourse the Il-76 isn't going to be replaced anytime soon. Some aircraft will serve till 2020 and perhaps past it if the aircraft goes through a life extension program. But, its pretty clear the IAF's future strategic airlift will be performed by the C-17(I expect follow-on orders) unless some major realignment takes place. The higher tonnage doesn't place it in a different class - the newer variants of the Il-76 can reportedly lift over 50 tons. The C-5/An-124 on the other hand do belong to a different class with vastly higher operating cost, double-decker body, no austere field capability and capable of performing inter-continental missions.

So, what you're basically saying is that IAF will only use C-17 in the future to undertake the "Strategic Airlift" requirement. BTW, just for clarity, IMO, IAF will require aircraft in 40tonnes category. However, do you realize the implication of above for a Air Force that does not have a 20/40 tons capacity aircraft?

Let me share an example - USAF acheived Average Payload of 20.4 STONS per mission during Operation Enduring Mission and 19.4STONS during Operation Iraqi Freedom on their C-17. For an aircraft which was cleared to carry 45 STONS during these missions (based on range and other factors), that is 50% payload utilization. This was the utilization for a nation which has the largest fleet of C-17 and greatest demand for Air Lift. What does that tell you? That while the average payload lifted per mission can be improved with better planning, there are airlift requirements which will not tax the given aircraft to the maximum - even for a nation like USA.

What your suggestion means is that for anything requiring to be moved above the 7.5 tons, IAF will have to either deploy multiple AN-32 or single C-17. Delivery of 33 tons of Cargo (Cargo Volume of IL-76 maxes out at this number) will require either 6 AN-32 or 1 C-17. Does it make sense to use an aircraft with 75+tons of airlift capability at loads lesser than 45% of the capability? What is Stratigic about it?

With addition of 10 C-17@75tonnes each, IAF has added more airliftcapability than the entire fleet of IL-76 (15 a/c). Does one use this serious capability to do errand boy job? Which C-17 will end up doing if their is lack of staggered airlift capability. There is a reason USAF has C-130J and C-17 in service. And the reason the much debated short strip capability of C-17 was put in place was to allow a Strategic Airlifter to act as Tactical Aircraft - to weed out requirement for larger number of C-130 and/or A-400M type of 35+ tons capability.

And btw, what Strategic Airlift are we talking about while making the case of C-17? What about the round-the-clock air support that IAF provides? IAF airlifts 37,000 tons of payload every year - with bulk of that being for Air Maintenance of troops in forward areas like Leh and NE. The job is done by AN-32 and IL-76 combine in Leh Sector and AN-32+Mi-17 in NE. Is the average airlift per IL-76 per mission (or bulk of missions) always 33 tons and hence, a single C-17 can be used to replace multiple IL-76 sorties?

^^ The operative condition is cost of operation. The Il-76 has a much higher operational cost than the An-32, otherwise it would have been the aircraft of choice. The C-17 on the other hand has at the very least a comparable operational cost vis-a-vis the Il-76. From my 'back of notebook' calculation it seems to have half the fuel consumption of the Il-76(could be wrong though - I'd like it pointed out if I am).

What are you trying to convey above? What has the fuel consumption of IL-76 as compared to C-17 got to do with requirement for multiple air-lift platforms?

Fair enough. But, even though the IAF would have liked something to bridge the An-32, Il-76 gap they would still prefer to retain the Il-76's capability. The same applies to the C-17. Its been implied on the thread that the IAF had a role in mind for the Il-76 but one doesn't exist for the C-17, and that its only real utility is foreign operations which is plainly false.

As is the assertion that only C-17 can do the job in heavy airlift arena. And Strategic does not mean only 65 ton airlift aircraft.

[Gilles]

Rohit there are Il 76 with 65 tonne lift, the Il 76 MF model.

The only IL-76MF I have ever seen is the original prototype which is a converted IL-76 TD. This one:



It was the first IL-76 to be fitted with PS-90 engines, around 1994. The Il-76 book I have at home claims that in addition to the prototype, 10 stretched IL-76 airframes were built in Tashkent. Looking at Googlemap some years ago, I did notice that several engine-less Il-76s on the ground at the TAPO factory seemed to have longer fuselages than the others.

In 2005, the international Press announced that the Royal Jordanian Air Force had ordered 2 IL-76MFs. As far as I know, they were never delivered. Except for the IL-76MF prototype (RA-76900), which has not been displayed in public since MAKS 2005, I have yet to see another IL-76TF.

Since then, the PS-90 was fitted to the IL-76MD, the IL-76TD and the A-50sm and Ilyushin sold several of these models, but as far as I know, no PS-90 fitted IL-76MF has ever been built or sold.

What is the reason for this, I have no idea.

[Gilles]

Now if you can agree on that, can you tell me honestly, if you were say in charge of procuring such a plane would you choose a plane which was conceived in the 1960s (the IL76 first flew in 1967) and has an air frame designed with 1960s technology. Or would you choose a plane which was conceived in 1990s (the C17's maiden flight was in September 1991) and has 1990s technology in the air frame?

India just did far worse. The C-130 first flew in 1953. We can almost say its late 1940s technology. Yet India just ordered C-130Js that it has not yet received.

The A-400M and An-70 are the two aircraft that are meant to replace the 1950s era C-130. But India ordered neither.

The P-8 which India just purchased is a modified Boeing 737. It first flew in 1967.

By the way, the first Il-76 first flew in 1971. Four years after the B-737 and 18 years after the C-130.

[Gilles]

Also, the C-17 while having a higher cost of acquisition seems to have a substantially lower operating cost as well as having faster turnaround time.

Nothing can be further from the truth. In the civilian market the two companies that lease brand new IL-76TD-90s, Volga-Dnepr and Silk Way, lease them for around $16,000 an hour, including everything, even the airlines' profit.

There are no commercial C-17s to compare with. However, its been determined that when acquisition costs are taken into account, the C-17 costs around 40 to $45,000 an hour to operate. Almost 3 times what an Il-76 costs.

Boeing attempted to market a civilian C-17, the BC-17. There were no buyers, although some attempted to have them subsidized by the Pentagon so they could join airlines and the Civil Air Reserve. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial ... t_Aircraft) At 230 million, they were just too expensive for the airlines to be able to afford them and fly them commercially at at profit. The CAMAA scheme was one where the Air Force would order new C-17s at full price (230 Million at the time), and sell used, older C-17s to airlines at 90 million, a price that it was determined they could afford to pay....... The Air Force would do this because those civilian C-17s would join the Civil Air Reserve Fleet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Reserve_Air_Fleet) and become available to the USAF should a war break out.

Anyway, all this scheme fell though. For Airlines to be able to operate the BC-17, it had to be certified by the FAA. That required hundreds of millions of dollars that the Pentagon was not paying for and that Boeing would not invest into unless it had orders for the BC-17 which it did not. Boeing attempted to petition the FAA to certify the BC-17 without going through the certification process using some legal loophole they found. The FAA said NO and that was the end of that.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... es-ag.html

During that time, Ilyushin sold and delivered 4 brand new IL-76TD with new chapter IV PS-90 engines and these airlines are flying those aircraft commercially and making a profit. And they are being chartered for less than a C-17 cost to fly.

So how can one turn all this around and claim that the IL-76 cost more to operate than a C-17?

Smoke and mirrors...............

[rohitvats]

Rohit there are Il 76 with 65 tonne lift, the Il 76 MF model. A RFI tendor should be sent there. I believe Airbus could also be asked if they can present a modified Mil standard Airbus in that range.

You can trust me to research what I post - I know that there are models of IL-76 with upgraded PS-90X engines. However, not all of them are in production - espeacially the IL-76MF/TF.

However, one single requirement in RFP/RFI about the ability to airlift a T-90 or Arjun will mean that IL-76X will be out of competition. For the simple reason that the Cargo Hold width dimensions are same. And even though lifting MBT may be an outlier as far as operational deployment is concerned - when push comes to shove, I would want my Strategic Airlifter to do that.

And that is if we are looking for 65 tonnes and more -- I am still not convinced that the "strategic airlift" as talked about Gen S et al automatically translate into 65 tonnes. I do question whether our needs can not be done in a range of 50-80 (note it may well be that we need 65 tonnes but all I am saying is that discussion is missing)

It is about the number of aircraft required to support a particular requirement. If the IA intends to have a Air-Mobile Division one day which requires say 6,000 tons (random assumption) to be airlifted - what would be the required number?

Aircraft Capacity Equivalent --> 86-C-17(70 tons)/100 - IL-76MF(60tons)/120-IL-76TD(50 tons). Factor in the availability rate and number for each type will go up further.

There is another angle to above story - Cargo Hold Volume of each a/c. The reason being one will not carry max. amount of load - cargo hold volume will fill up before one touches the max number. The cross section of C-17 gives advantage in this case. But again, I'll not need only C-17 for this role. Based on the type/volume/weight of the load to be carried for such a formation (and sustaining it in future), I know how many are low volume but high density items or bulk items in 50+ ton category. The same can be airlifted by C-17. Others can be lifted using the 40 ton category aircraft - for a simple reason that each time I might not need to carry 45+tons of Cargo. If we use C-17 for every thing above AN-32, we'll end up grossly underutilizing the a/c in terms of weight potential.

[geeth]

>>>Now I'll wait for the next round of Polemics!

here are a couple of them...

1) After the 'strategic airlift', I would like to know how many runways within and outside India can take this plane with its full load, without damaging itself?

2) When they say the max possible price is $5.8 billion, what are things India can discard to reduce the price, without affecting the operational readiness of the plane..? The point I want to make is, if we say we don't want the spares and after sales service, is there any escape from paying this price at a later date? Or, is it either we pay now with the cost of the plane or later?

[Viv S]

Also, the C-17 while having a higher cost of acquisition seems to have a substantially lower operating cost as well as having faster turnaround time.

Nothing can be further from the truth. In the civilian market the two companies that lease brand new IL-76TS-90s, Volga-Dnepr and Silk Ways, lease them for around $16,000 an hour, including everything, even the airlines' profit.

There are no commercial C-17s to compare with. However, its been determined that when acquisition costs are taken into account, the C-17 costs around 40 to $40,000 an hour to operate. Almost 3 times what an Il-76 costs.

Well first with respect to turnaround time; based on empirical evidence, the C-17 comes out tops.

Operating cost:- I don't know what the C-17's maintenance costs is relative to the Il-76, when employed by the same service/company. I've only taken into account fuel costs, which do happen to comprise the of the bulk of the operating cost. There is a huge disparity within the ranges of the two aircraft for the same load(I took it as 45 tons) despite the fact that their fuel capacities are comparable. Computing the figures I pulled of the net, the Il-76's fuel efficiency turned out to be almost half that of the C-17. That lead me to conclude that the C-17 would have a much lower operating cost than the Il-76.