C-17s for the IAF?

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 May 2010 07:25

Gilles wrote:I don't know but they were posted on a Russian Forum in Jan of this year.

Here: http://www.forum-avia.ru/forum/5/5/1006 ... 55_2.shtml

Thanks Gilles. I went to the webpage and it's in Russian. I put the Web page on Bable Fish translation.

The translation is not perfect but it does make for interesting reading with some fair amount of what seems to be skepticism.

I just hope we are not more confident of Ilyushin's abilities - especially in drastic redesign which would give birth to a wide-bodied and heavier version of the Il-76 - than the Russians are themselves!

Translation

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 May 2010 07:28

Acharya wrote:I know this personally since I do pricing and negotiations with customers directly. I know the margins and lot of massa companies make upto 30% or more in revenues from support deals.

Acharya,

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said or I wasn't clear. I'm not denying Mass land companies do that. What I'm saying is that they are not alone in this, especially in military sales. Just have a look at our problems with the Goroshkov, Scorpene subs, T-90s, Mirage upgrades etc.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 May 2010 16:31

amit wrote:
Gilles wrote:I don't know but they were posted on a Russian Forum in Jan of this year.

Here: http://www.forum-avia.ru/forum/5/5/1006 ... 55_2.shtml

Thanks Gilles. I went to the webpage and it's in Russian. I put the Web page on Bable Fish translation.

The translation is not perfect but it does make for interesting reading with some fair amount of what seems to be skepticism.

I just hope we are not more confident of Ilyushin's abilities - especially in drastic redesign which would give birth to a wide-bodied and heavier version of the Il-76 - than the Russians are themselves!

Translation

From my understanding, the new aircraft being built are improved IL-76MF, with new avionics, an improved wing, better payload, better performance but the same cabin width and length as the stretched Il-76.

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 May 2010 17:01

True Gilles. But some of the comments especially on the previous page of the translation questioned - it seemed to me - the present ability of the company to build what is essentially the same plane but with significant upgrades. Yet we've had comments posted here that Ilyushin can easily make major changes in the aerodynamic configuration of the plane and make it a wide body transporter aka C17. I'm sure they can do it but at what cost and what timelines given its present moribund condition?

Another point, India's name figures a lot of times as being what seems to be a potental customer? Have we dxpressed interest in this upgrade? That would be an interesting development.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 May 2010 18:01

amit wrote:True Gilles. But some of the comments especially on the previous page of the translation questioned - it seemed to me - the present ability of the company to build what is essentially the same plane but with significant upgrades. Yet we've had comments posted here that Ilyushin can easily make major changes in the aerodynamic configuration of the plane and make it a wide body transporter aka C17. I'm sure they can do it but at what cost and what timelines given its present moribund condition?

Another point, India's name figures a lot of times as being what seems to be a potental customer? Have we dxpressed interest in this upgrade? That would be an interesting development.

Yes, many posters question the ability to build the IL-476 in Russia. Tashkent seemed to have cornered the expertise on wings manufacture for example. The Wings of the IL-76, the An-12, the An-22, the An-124, the An-225 and the An-70 were all built in the TAPO factory in Tashkent.

I've also been reading the translated version since I do not speak Russian so my understanding is limited. It seems India is being named for a potential sale of more A-50 AWACS (based on the IL-76) and also they still have hope to bid with the IL-78 since the A-330 tanker is no longer the winner.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 May 2010 19:55

deleted, wrong thread, moved to Indian Air Force thread

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 28 May 2010 06:21

India's C-17 dilema; U.S. uncertain on the future for the transport plane program

28 May 2010 8ak: CNN reports that U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said that he would ask Obama to veto any defence bill that included further purchase of Boeing's C-17 Globemaster transport planes. The matter was further complicated by workers organising a 2 week strike at the C-17 plant in California fueling a Wall Street Journal report that since the orders had dwindled to just 10 planes a year that the program may be shut down. Gates (and Obama) have argued that the U.S. which already has ~300 transport planes does not need any more but it seems that senators want to keep the jobs in their constituency want to keep the purchases going. Reuters and many others contradicted the WSJ arguing that the program would continue.

This puts India in a tough spot since it has formally expressed interest in purchasing 10 of the C-17 aircraft, which would keep the plant going for another year to 2012. Here is the U.S. Defence Security Cooperation Agency notifying the U.S. congress of India's interest in the program. While Boeing does not reveal the cost of the aircraft, it was expected to be a US$2.2 billion deal with India (US$200 million per plane as reported by wikipedia). So people were a bit taken aback when the deal was announced to be pegged at US$5.8 billion. Though the difference was explained as price for support and additional equipment, the lack of media coverage or discussion on the issue in India has surprised others. One good article on the effect to India of a possible closure of the line here.

A good article from Ajai Shukla detailing the faltering U.S. - India relationship on the various agreements that the U.S. needs India to sign or the new American aircraft being delivered to India will come without critical technology and equipment.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 28 May 2010 21:56

A gem: read this article

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2513729720100525

Boeing Co accused rival EADS of having courted Iran and other countries at odds with the United States and said this should figure in awarding a potential $50 billion U.S. Air Force refueling plane contract....

So here is the Boeing logic: because EADS, Airbus's parent company, is attempting to sell helicopters to Iran, it should not be allowed to compete to supply Air refuellers to the US Air Force.

Do you think that Boeing would think even one second that some of its customers might want to apply this same logic in regards to products that they are buying from Boeing ?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 May 2010 22:07

The idea of carrying T 72 / T 90 / T xyz / Arjun / Karan / Bhim / Yudhishthir / etc may be just a red herring.

The REAL job of C 17 would be to carry AGNI 1/2/3/4/56/7, from the warehouse in central and southern India to their "underground" bases and advanced launch site in north, west and MOST IMPORTANT, eastern India.

Kersi

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 May 2010 22:11

The idea of carrying T 72 / T 90 / T xyz / Arjun / Karan / Bhim / Yudhishthir / etc may be just a red herring.

The REAL job of C 17 would be to carry AGNI 1/2/3/4/56/7, from the warehouse in central and southern India to their "underground" bases and advanced launch site in north, west and MOST IMPORTANT, eastern India.

Kersi

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 May 2010 06:38

$580-million tag for IAF's C-17 aircraft can be cut: Boeing

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 31 May 2010 08:27

$ 580 million a pop? Say it ain't so just say it ain't so. I was questioning this deal at $ 200-250 million each. The new price is rape pure and simple. We can't afford Rs. 400 crore for high altitude test facilities for Kaveri but can spend this kind of money for a transport plane?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 May 2010 12:54

Why aren't the "usual suspects",our media defence analysts not followoing up the heated debate on BR reg. the C-17 deal? WE are being pushed into it when even the US Def.Sec. wants production closed down!

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 31 May 2010 14:49

^^^^^WE are being pushed into it BECAUSE the US Def.Sec. wants production closed down!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 May 2010 15:05

the P15DDGs cost each around $400 mil I think.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 31 May 2010 23:16

The Boeing spokesman in India claims avionics could cost up to $ 150 MILLION per plane. What pray tell would cost that much on a transport plane. The C-17 would cost almost twice the price of an Il-76 based Phalcon AWACS. This is the definition of insanity.

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 01 Jun 2010 01:07

This is Day time robbery, 5.8 billion for 10 cargo planes and that too with out GPS and other Aids. so 5.8 billion does not buy 10 fully equipped C-17's.

It costs 25 million an year to maintain 90% operational readiness as a part of globemaster sustainment program. WHen i posted that the price was 5 odd billion a lot of members were apprehensive. Let us see what 5.8 Billion will buy us

5 P15 Class ships - 2 billion
5- G550 Based Awacs - 2.5 billion

Still left with a chunk change of 300 million for Arty or any thing else. we can have n combinations like this.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 01 Jun 2010 02:22

it would be height of insanity if we end up paying as much , I'm certain there are more cost effective alternatives out there.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 01 Jun 2010 03:31

PIC 1 At Boeing's Long Beach facility, outside Los Angeles, where the C-17 Globemaster III is assembled.
PIC 2 A side view of the C-17... a photo does not adequately capture the size of the beast.
PIC 3 The F117 engine, a derivative of the commercial Pratt & Whitney PW2000 engine, that powers the Globemaster and allows it to reverse with the help of thrust deflectors.

Courtesy ShookLaw!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Jun 2010 07:06

Quoting Ajai Shukla:

The comparison with an IL-76 is a false one. India's IL-76 fleet costs so much to keep flying, and provides such low serviceability rates (currently 25%) that the thought of buying more makes IAF planners go ballistic.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jun 2010 07:41

I assume all these visits to gripen, LA etc are paid for and organized by the aircraft vendors to keep indian journos in good humour?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 01 Jun 2010 07:47

Viv S wrote:Quoting Ajai Shukla:

The comparison with an IL-76 is a false one. India's IL-76 fleet costs so much to keep flying, and provides such low serviceability rates (currently 25%) that the thought of buying more makes IAF planners go ballistic.

So based on this and the C-17s serviciability of over 80 %, means 1 C17 = approx 3 IL 76. Add to this the fact that tonnage wise 1 C 17 = slightly less than 2 IL 76. So we have a scenario where 1 C 17 = 5 IL 76. At $50 m a pop for a basic IL 76, the cost becomes $250 m. Around the same as the base cost of a C 17.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Jun 2010 07:55

Singha wrote:I assume all these visits to gripen, LA etc are paid for and organized by the aircraft vendors to keep indian journos in good humour?

One could argue that, but on the other hand, Ajai Shukla has written plenty of articles supportive of the DRDO, HAL and private domestic companies. One could say his articles on the Arjun were biased since the DRDO showed him a good time during his trip to Chennai.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 10:58

Viv S wrote:Quoting Ajai Shukla:

The comparison with an IL-76 is a false one. India's IL-76 fleet costs so much to keep flying, and provides such low serviceability rates (currently 25%) that the thought of buying more makes IAF planners go ballistic.

I hope that this will for the forumites cast light of what Shri Ajai Shukla credibility level is.

When he was doing hatchet pieces against the IA on Arjun issue (strangely he was not pro Arjun but anti Army) people out of fondness for Arjun believed him.

I would like people to think what 25% serviceability means in IAF.

(Meanwhile we have all the open source data posted by Gilles on the operating costs of Il 76 compared to other birds for private carriers --- And we have Col A Shukla -- unimpeachable "unnamed sources")

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Jun 2010 11:19

Ajai Shukla has a biased opinion on subjects depending on his personal likings and dis-likings , he can easily come up with some figures to suite his whims and fancies and get away with it quoting unnamed sources.

If IL-76 has a serviceability rate of ~ 25 % then I guess all the Phalcon/AWACS/Refuller operational uptimes will go for a toss.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Jun 2010 11:48

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote:Quoting Ajai Shukla:

The comparison with an IL-76 is a false one. India's IL-76 fleet costs so much to keep flying, and provides such low serviceability rates (currently 25%) that the thought of buying more makes IAF planners go ballistic.
I hope that this will for the forumites cast light of what Shri Ajai Shukla credibility level is.

Well he was the first to report on the results of the comparative trial. And for some reason all other news reports seem to echo what he reported.

When he was doing hatchet pieces against the IA on Arjun issue (strangely he was not pro Arjun but anti Army) people out of fondness for Arjun believed him.

Not 'believed him' but 'believe him'. And recent developments have vindicated him.

I would like people to think what 25% serviceability means in IAF.

Lets assume he's spouting hokum. Lets hear your figures for serviceability.

(Meanwhile we have all the open source data posted by Gilles on the operating costs of Il 76 compared to other birds for private carriers --- And we have Col A Shukla -- unimpeachable "unnamed sources")

Other birds are immaterial. Gilles did post a comparison of the fuel efficiencies of C-17 and Il-76, and the C-17's was somewhat better than Il-76MD's.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Jun 2010 11:58

Austin wrote:Ajai Shukla has a biased opinion on subjects depending on his personal likings and dis-likings , he can easily come up with some figures to suite his whims and fancies and get away with it quoting unnamed sources.

What are the real figures then?

If IL-76 has a serviceability rate of ~ 25 % then I guess all the Phalcon/AWACS/Refuller operational uptimes will go for a toss.

Maybe, maybe not. The IAF's Il-76s are 25 years old, while Il-78 and Phalcon platform are seven and two years old respectively. However its an interesting fact that the IAF opted for a substantially more expensive A-330 over the (logistically sensible) Il-78 for its future aerial tanker.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 12:19

I like the way it's been assumed that all one has to do is pick up the phone and the Russians will home deliver the Il76 - and a widebodied one which can carry Arjuns and T-90s to boot- like pizzas.

I'm sure the Chinese are not amused. See this link, one of several available courtesy Google Mama.

The Russians are up to familiar negotiations tactics (remember Goroshkov aka Vikramaditya?) - first sign and contract and then say sorry we miscalculated so we gotta increase price, meanwhile please have some vodka. And we blissfully think we're going to get a widebodied Il76 version for $50 million?

Even assuming that we can get a better deal with the Russians than the Chinese, has anyone made an attempt to calculate the cost of helping the Russians to kick start production in Russia, now that the Taskent factory no longer has the capacity to make the planes. And to boot to fund a widebodied version of the planes? More importantly what kind of timelines are we looking at?

The $2.2 billion to $5.8 billion should be viewed from this angle along with the operating cost angle.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 12:22

arnab wrote:
Quoting Ajai Shukla:

The comparison with an IL-76 is a false one. India's IL-76 fleet costs so much to keep flying, and provides such low serviceability rates (currently 25%) that the thought of buying more makes IAF planners go ballistic.
So based on this and the C-17s serviciability of over 80 %, means 1 C17 = approx 3 IL 76. Add to this the fact that tonnage wise 1 C 17 = slightly less than 2 IL 76. So we have a scenario where 1 C 17 = 5 IL 76. At $50 m a pop for a basic IL 76, the cost becomes $250 m. Around the same as the base cost of a C 17.

Arnab,

I'm sure folks in the IAF made this same or similar calculation besides looking at operational requirements before deciding on a plane which on face value is several times more expensive than its "competitor".

However, it's not fashionable to think thus: that is the folks who take decisions like this can think and usually have a better grasp of the situation than Internet warriors hunched over their consoles who become experts in just about everthing (from Nuclear power, Tanks and Aircraft) by virtue of their mastery over keystrokes!

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 12:37

Austin wrote:Ajai Shukla has a biased opinion on subjects depending on his personal likings and dis-likings , he can easily come up with some figures to suite his whims and fancies and get away with it quoting unnamed sources.

If IL-76 has a serviceability rate of ~ 25 % then I guess all the Phalcon/AWACS/Refuller operational uptimes will go for a toss.

Oh Austin ji,

Everyone writes (or posts!) according to their "likings" and "dislinkings". We all saw that in another thread.

However, Ajai should be Kosher. Remember the famous debates on the nuclear deal? Some folks here even posted articles by Purefool Bidwal to show how the N-deal was BAD, BAD, BAD because Purefool said so. And it would lead to CRE and millions of inspectors sniffing in every bathroom in India.

If Purefool is OK I'm sure Ajai is OK as well.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 13:20

Viv S wrote:However its an interesting fact that the IAF opted for a substantially more expensive A-330 over the (logistically sensible) Il-78 for its future aerial tanker.

Viv,

I posted this on an earlier page of this thread: Centre cancels contract for midair refuellers for fighter aircraft

This has some very relevant quotes:

The finance ministry had also objected to the acquisition of the costlier Airbus 330 multi-role tanker transport aircraft six years after the air force bought the Russia-made Ilyushin-78. But, sources said, the force justified the buy in a detailed written reply, saying Airbus was technologically superior than Ilyushin-78 and that the overall cost of the European product would be competitive. IAF pointed out that Airbus was fuel efficient and most of its civilian parts could be serviced in India.

Also this one:

The air force is upset at the cancellation. When it comes to the military, technological capabilities and sophistication make a huge difference, “but that is immaterial if the finance ministry is to be trusted”, a source in the force said. “For every bit of sophistication, we have to pay a price, and that makes a huge difference in the battlefield,” he said.“It would take us a few years now to select a tanker, unless they force us to buy the Russian tanker,” an IAF officer said.

“We need to break the logjam” on opting for the cheapest, another air force officer said.

I think its interesting - and relevant to the current discussion - that after only six years of use the IAF seems to have become very disillusioned with the refuellers and want to replace them. Why?

Of course we believe in the moto of our bean counters: cheap is always good!

PS: One can always call this a lifafa article!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2010 13:37

actually the reasons that apply to refuelers(and also to AEW&C aircraft, among others) does not apply to transports. for refuelers, the main job is flying from point A to B and for that civilian airliner derived models are the best bet, since they are fuel efficient and require less maintenance. hen IAF was entirely justified in asking for the A330 refuelers.
these reasons do not carry over to the case of transports.

amit wrote:The Russians are up to familiar negotiations tactics (remember Goroshkov aka Vikramaditya?) - first sign and contract and then say sorry we miscalculated so we gotta increase price, meanwhile please have some vodka. And we blissfully think we're going to get a widebodied Il76 version for $50 million?

why the strawman, who said that ? the chinese deal is very different and it's not just about russian production capability.

Sanku wrote:I hope that this will for the forumites cast light of what Shri Ajai Shukla credibility level is.

When he was doing hatchet pieces against the IA on Arjun issue (strangely he was not pro Arjun but anti Army) people out of fondness for Arjun believed him.

I would like people to think what 25% serviceability means in IAF.

the IL-76 serviceability rate has nosedived in the recent past, that is one of the reasons why IAF wanted the A330.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 01 Jun 2010 13:47

I would like people to think what 25% serviceability means in IAF.

(Meanwhile we have all the open source data posted by Gilles on the operating costs of Il 76 compared to other birds for private carriers --- And we have Col A Shukla -- unimpeachable "unnamed sources")

Gilles has posted a lot of excellent stuff, but what he has definitely NOT posted are figures for IL 76 serviceability in the IAF. We dont know what they are, but the IAF has made it known that it is not terribly happy with the current rates.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 13:52

Rahul M wrote:why the strawman, who said that ? the chinese deal is very different and it's not just about russian production capability.

Boss, sorry to say but I don't understand why you call that a strawman.

I put the link, one of several dozen that are available, to show that after signing the contract with the Chinese, the Russians have said that they miscalculated costs (sound familiar?) and so the Chinese have to pay $400 million more. I know that the Russians are worried about giving the Chinese so many heavy lifters which they could one day use to move into Siberia. But the fact remains that they are willing to renegotiate the price.

So how does raising this issue become a Strawman? We've also experienced what "miscalculated costs" can mean in terms of $$$$, na?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 13:59

I wonder if those who make comments like "Il 76 has 25% serviceability" are held to account for their statements if proven wrong?

So far there has been not shortage of Pundits who had made ridiculous claims which were later rubbished. I wonder how people live with that?

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 14:00

Tanaji wrote:Gilles has posted a lot of excellent stuff, but what he has definitely NOT posted are figures for IL 76 serviceability in the IAF. We dont know what they are, but the IAF has made it known that it is not terribly happy with the current rates.

Correct Tanaji. Gilles indeed has posted a lot of great stuff and some of it includes (see some of last few posts) Russian chatrooms where there's a lot of scepticism about Ilyushin's current capabilities due to the Taskent factory going downhill.

Now do note all this scepticism is about later derivatives of the Il76.

And yet we've discussed the point that if the IAF is to buy something that is expected to go up to 2040 or so, then it should buy something that would be able to carry a fully kitted Arjun or T-90. I know there's an argument that ferrying tanks would be probably one per cent of what a heavy lifter would do. But if we are to have them in service for at least 30 years, by which time we'll be one of the top nations in the world shouldn't we budget for that?

Now the point is if Ilyushin is struggling to even manufacture late model Il76, how can we expect them to do a major, major redesign and virtually build a new widebodied Il76 just for us and that too for a production run of 10, maybe 20 planes?

And at what cost and what timelines? Sure a widebodied Il76 would not cost $50 million?

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 14:02

Sanku wrote:I wonder if those who make comments like "Il 76 has 25% serviceability" are held to account for their statements if proven wrong?

So far there has been not shortage of Pundits who had made ridiculous claims which were later rubbished. I wonder how people live with that?

Sanku,

That's a question that you should post on Ajai's blog. Nobody made that comment here.

But it would be of immense interest to know what figure you have in mind? Surely you have one, otherwise how are you sure Ajai is wrong?

At least Ajai stuck his neck out and gave a figure.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Jun 2010 14:02

Tanaji wrote:
I would like people to think what 25% serviceability means in IAF.

(Meanwhile we have all the open source data posted by Gilles on the operating costs of Il 76 compared to other birds for private carriers --- And we have Col A Shukla -- unimpeachable "unnamed sources")

Gilles has posted a lot of excellent stuff, but what he has definitely NOT posted are figures for IL 76 serviceability in the IAF. We dont know what they are, but the IAF has made it known that it is not terribly happy with the current rates.

How has IAF made it known? I say Shukla statement is complete made up BS. He is taken to US and shown around a Boeing facility and comes back and says Il 76 has 25% serviceability rates in IAF?

Meanwhile the point about references by Gilles was simple -- all publicly available information shows that Il 76 are being operated easily and cheaply the world over -- but out of the blue Col Shukla says that it is not so?

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jun 2010 14:05

Meanwhile the point about references by Gilles was simple -- all publicly available information shows that Il 76 are being operated easily and cheaply the world over -- but out of the blue Col Shukla says that it is not so?

All the references are for civilian use of Il76 as opposed to military use by the IAF.

Are we to understand there's no difference?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2010 14:25

amit wrote:
Rahul M wrote:why the strawman, who said that ? the chinese deal is very different and it's not just about russian production capability.
Boss, sorry to say but I don't understand why you call that a strawman.

I put the link, one of several dozen that are available, to show that after signing the contract with the Chinese, the Russians have said that they miscalculated costs (sound familiar?) and so the Chinese have to pay $400 million more. I know that the Russians are worried about giving the Chinese so many heavy lifters which they could one day use to move into Siberia. But the fact remains that they are willing to renegotiate the price.

So how does raising this issue become a Strawman? We've also experienced what "miscalculated costs" can mean in terms of $$$$, na?

I was talking of this as strawman :

Rahul M wrote:
amit wrote:The Russians are up to familiar negotiations tactics (remember Goroshkov aka Vikramaditya?) - first sign and contract and then say sorry we miscalculated so we gotta increase price, meanwhile please have some vodka. And we blissfully think we're going to get a widebodied Il76 version for $50 million?
why the strawman, who said that ? the chinese deal is very different and it's not just about russian production capability.

I think that's clear from what I've quoted.

and this too.

I like the way it's been assumed that all one has to do is pick up the phone and the Russians will home deliver the Il76 - and a widebodied one which can carry Arjuns and T-90s to boot- like pizzas.

if you want to argue by means of strawman tactics and flaming, I would either have to turn a blind eye when others do the same (which I've no intention of doing) OR start applying the board rules. your call.
I don't have the slightest idea why you thought that it is OK to use these tactics here.