C-17s for the IAF?

[Sanku]

Perhaps then the answer is not to order the piece meal purchases, but go for a bulk order like 820 T 90s so ToT et al can be leveraged.

[Gilles]

@Rohit, well the way I read it was two points

1) Canadian AF did a bit of hanky panky in projecting the service rates
2) Service rates depend on money spent.

I did not read it as you did.

Just offering my perspective -- Gilles can speak for himself.

The Canadian Air Force spent years leasing IL-76s and An-124s for airlifting their military hardware. They were happy with them. The A-310s flew the troops to UAE, and C-130s took over from there and flew them to Afghanistan "because the A-310s did not have defensive suites" (no one ever suggested to install a defensive suite on the A-310, which would only cost a few million)

Yet when they began to smell the arrival of C-17, stories began to surface in the press on how unsafe, inadequate and unreliable the IL-76s, An-124s and even the CF A-310s were. Our poor C-130s were being flown into the ground because we did not have larger aircraft capable of going to Afghanistan. Just like magic. Journalists pitched in. Generals pitched in. Bloggers pitched in. Senators pitched in. Military think tanks pitched in. The US ambassador pitched in. Like it was all orchestrated from some invisible place.

But this does not go in India. India is above all that.

[Austin]

Perhaps then the answer is not to order the piece meal purchases, but go for a bulk order like 820 T 90s so ToT et al can be leveraged.

Well no need we will just Photochop it

[Austin]

Austin, all we know is that 6 was the initial number, we would be hard pressed to find one single case where the IAF ordered all in one single large order(the ones I do remember, M2k, deemed too costly, mig-29 the associated conditions were unacceptable). when even much smaller air forces have much larger tanker fleets, it seems very unlikely that IAF with its huge AOR would want to be stuck with just 12.

Rahul , I do not know if IAF also includes planned numbers when it proposes it case to MOF , like 6 now but the plan is to go for 20 of these.

Most likely they dont , they just put their preference and why they think they need this over that and let MOF do the rest of calculations.

Atleast there are no opensource info which says 6 A-330 with the option to buy 14 more so that was really not a consideration.

That would be the same for MMRCA deal where MOF will decide for 126 aircraft and not for say 200 - 250 that the IAF may opt for later on.

[Gilles]

Gilles, this one actually takes the cake. You've no idea of what you're talking about. You've been requested before not to extrapolate the situation as might be obtained in other AFs or countries to India but in your blind hatred for the C-17, you simply fail to see reason.

You're actually accusing the IAF of deliberately sabotaging the serviceability of IL-76 to get C-17? That IAF is on purpose showing IL-76 in poor light? Please stop this nonsense and take this drivel somewhere else.

Number one, I love the C-17. I am a professional pilot and I love aircraft. I love the IL-76. I love the MIG-21. I love the Cessna 172.

But if you were to claim that your MIG-21 could carry 30 passengers, I would have to challenge you. If you were to claim that your Cessna 172 could fly at Mach 2, I would have to challenge you. If you were to claim that your IL-76 burned only 5 tonnes of fuel an hour and was quiet, I would have to challenge you.

The C-17 is no better at landing on gravel runways than a commercial B-737-200 with a gravel kit. In fact the B-737 is better.

Here is a Canadian B-737 landing on a 5000 foot gravel runway in Canada. You can see the runway was contaminated with slush.

[youtube]z-8OIEPB9ZE&feature=related[/youtube]

The landing from outside:

[youtube]Lqkg6931cK0&feature=related[/youtube]

Airport data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Bay_Airport

Canadian C-17s don't go there. Unless you can find me a video that proves otherwise. They did land at Alert's 5500 foot runway with one difference: the B-737 landed full of cargo and passengers and took off full of passengers. It wasn't a one time "mission". They fly there on schedule, day and night, in all weather.

The C-17 landed in Alert with minimal fuel, had to refuel there, had 8 passengers (including the US Ambassador) and one pallet of about 500 pounds for cargo.

So if the IAF wants C-17s, its fine with me. But dont claim it can do things it cant, and do not claim, to justify this expensive purchase that the IAF is no longer able to maintain its IL-76s in the air. Or rather, if the latter is true, find the real cause. Its certainly not because they are Il-76s. For there other people who operate the same aircraft with great dispatch reliability. What to they have that the IAF does not?

[Rahul M]

well, of course there is no open source anything on this at the moment but sometimes it pays to look at the larger picture rather than just what lies immediately in front of you.
IAF has a fighter fleet numbering around 650 which is likely to go up in the future. 126 is a large number by itself and therefore is reasonable to work with it, further orders are possible but unlikely.

while for an AF the size of IAF 12 tankers is quite small indeed.
just for comparison
F- fighters
T- tankers
IAF : F650+ T12
RAF : F300 T24
FAF : F300 T14
IDF-AF : F350+ T13

need I add the size of IAF's AOR, including A&N and the threats it faces ?
do we really think given all this it is likely that 12 tankers in total is all IAF wants just because there has been no public report to the contrary, when there are n number of examples where the IAF has expressed only a part of its actual needs at the start of a deal ? let's not forget that the MKI started off with an order of 40, it is touching what number now ? 280 ?

the ordering by piecemeal does hurt the exchequer because of price escalations but it was a necessary step taken by IAF at a time when bean-counters would quash even legitimate requirements. to talk of these issues we need to try to understand the mindset of the institution too.

[Tanaji]

There was always an alternative, of NOT going the FMS route, of first defining the role, sending the tender to as many corps as possible and then the usual method of selection.

The absence of this is the primary issue -- everything else is spin.

Hmm, how many tanks were auditioned when the T90 was selected? Would you apply your same rigid standard of NOT going the FMS route to the T90 deal?

Sorry NO. There is a difference between Airbus 330 tanker uptime being better w.r.t. Il 76 tanker and having a 25% up time for the cargo fleet.

A whole world of difference.

The difference between truth and lie.

The IE report explicitly mentions Il 76 and not the tankers. The tankers are Il 78.

The IAF's two IL-76 squadrons and five AN-32 squadrons have been besieged with poor serviceability record of less than 50 per cent, meaning the fleet was available to the Air Force for less than half their intended utilisation and a huge shortfall in their assigned tasks and performance, mainly due to non-availability of spares and inadequate maintenance.

the CAG also points this out

"High levels of un-serviceability indicated that repair and maintenance capabilities at wings and repair depots were inadequate," the CAG report had said, adding that actual flying tasks fell significantly short of the task prescribed by the government, ranging between 49 and 59 per cent.

Are you suggesting that all this is figments of someone's imagination and IAF is very happy with the IL 76?

[Gilles]

well, of course there is no open source anything on this at the moment but sometimes it pays to look at the larger picture rather than just what lies immediately in front of you.
IAF has a fighter fleet numbering around 650 which is likely to go up in the future. 126 is a large number by itself and therefore is reasonable to work with it, further orders are possible but unlikely.

while for an AF the size of IAF 12 tankers is quite small indeed.
just for comparison
F- fighters
T- tankers
IAF : F650+ T12
RAF : F300 T24
FAF : F300 T14
IDF-AF : F350+ T13

need I add the size of IAF's AOR, including A&N and the threats it faces ?
do we really think given all this it is likely that 12 tankers in total is all IAF wants just because there has been no public report to the contrary, when there are n number of examples where the IAF has expressed only a part of its actual needs at the start of a deal ? let's not forget that the MKI started off with an order of 40, it is touching what number now ? 280 ?

the ordering by piecemeal does hurt the exchequer because of price escalations but it was a necessary step taken by IAF at a time when bean-counters would quash even legitimate requirements. to talk of these issues we need to try to understand the mindset of the institution too.

Most Air Forces used a civilian type aircraft to support their tankers. They are based on the Boeing 707 (sort of) the DC-10, the B-767, the B-747, the VC-10, L-1011, the Airbus A-310 and A-330. Why? Because these aircraft are more aerodynamically efficient than military type strategic aircraft whose wings are made to allow them to also fly into shorter runways (which is why they burn more fuel, fly slower and have less range). Why did the Russians decide to base their tanker on the IL-76?, probably because they had no better civilian long range airliner at the time. Tanker kits can be installed on any airliner. Just take your pick. Il-78s are cheap to buy. Ukraine just sold some used ones to Pakistan. They have a lot of those in Ukraine, inherited from the USSR. Airbus 310s are a little more expensive but cheap also. Then the A-330-based is much more, and the B-767 is the most expensive I think.

[Rahul M]

err, not sure what your point is.

I'm well aware of those points, having made the same observations a little back.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 33#p880433
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 42#p880542

[Gilles]

"High levels of un-serviceability indicated that repair and maintenance capabilities at wings and repair depots were inadequate," the CAG report had said, adding that actual flying tasks fell significantly short of the task prescribed by the government, ranging between 49 and 59 per cent.

Are you suggesting that all this is figments of someone's imagination and IAF is very happy with the IL 76?

What that report is suggesting is that the IAF is not happy with the serviceability of their IL-76s. You, on the other hand are translating that statement on the serviceability of the fleet into a judgment of the aircraft itself when it could mean a number of things:

Lack of mechanics
Lack of training
Lack of spares
Lack of preventive maintenance
Lack of budget
Bureaucracy problems
Technical manual problems
The list of possibilities is endless and the age and quality of the aircraft are only two of those possibilities.

An audit should point the finger at the actual cause, not just name the problem.

In the seventies, the CIA (Air America) was flying a fleet of Pilatus PC-3s in South east Asia. They were crashing a lot of them. Air America had Pilatus send a representative to come and audit the air operation to try to identify the cause of so many crashes. His report was simple. In just about every crash, the aircraft had been used in a manner that far exceeded the manufacturers' performance claims. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft. Its the way they were operated that was wrong.

If there is a problem, stop pointing the finger at the IL-76 itself and find the real cause of the problem

[Gilles]

err, not sure what your point is.

I'm well aware of those points, having made the same observations a little back.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 33#p880433
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 42#p880542

Sorry. I posted without finishing, was interrupted. The point I was going to make, is that from a purely military point of view its better to have a large number of cheap tankers than a small number of fuel efficient ones. Get more IL-78s or 20 Airbus 310-based is better than having 6 high tech and expensive ones. Look at the the USAF fleet. Mostly very old tankers. But a lot of them.

[Sanku]

Hmm, how many tanks were auditioned when the T90 was selected? Would you apply your same rigid standard of NOT going the FMS route to the T90 deal?

Yes, TODAY I would, which post 2002 framing of the new policy.

In 1998 I would not.

The IE report explicitly mentions Il 76 and not the tankers. The tankers are Il 78.

I am talking of the CAG report that IE quotes.

CAG talks of ANs explicitly.

The IE report has NO quotes from CAG on ILs?

Why did they tag that along?

the CAG also points this out

"High levels of un-serviceability indicated that repair and maintenance capabilities at wings and repair depots were inadequate," the CAG report had said, adding that actual flying tasks fell significantly short of the task prescribed by the government, ranging between 49 and 59 per cent.

Yes for AN 32s explicitly.

Are you suggesting that all this is figments of someone's imagination and IAF is very happy with the IL 76?

Yes

[Tanaji]

Er, you are interpreting things...

Nowhere have I said Il 76 is a flawed design. In fact one of the links I have put up clearly states that the problem is with the supply of spares from the Russian vendor. But that does not change in any way the crux of the argument: lack of spares is resulting in reduced availability for the Il76/78 fleet and the IAF is not happy about it. This phenomenon is not restricted to aircraft alone, and which is probably one of the reasons why the IAF is looking for a different vendor altogether.

[Sanku]

But that does not change in any way the crux of the argument: lack of spares is resulting in reduced availability for the Il76/78 fleet and the IAF is not happy about it. .

Of which there is no remote proof -- yet.

[Viv S]

What are the real figures then?

Ask the IAF , serviceability of any aircraft are operational matters something IAF will never disclose it.

The CAG's public report quoted a figure for the An-32s serviceability. I don't think they'd be all that reticent about disclosing the Il-76's (unquoted) figures to a ex-serviceman journalist.

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.

Even if the IL-76 are 25 years old they must be well maintained and serviced bird , assuming it just gives 25 % of uptimes can at best be termed ridiculous Unless some one can quote that figure from MOD/IAF.

No one is blaming the IAF or otherwise casting a slur on their professionalism, for the Il-76's serviceability rate. On the contrary its the IAF that in its wisdom seems to want to break from the platform.

Well one has to look into cost/benefit ratio while looking into A-330 rejection by MOF viz a viz IL-78 , the MOF babus would have rejected it on good grounds.

I can't say what the level of the MoF's technical evaluation is, but the fact that the IAF(and the MoD concurred) did not opt for the cheaper Il-76 platform(at the cost of commonality) is illuminating.

[Sanku]

The CAG's public report quoted a figure for the An-32s serviceability. I don't think they'd be all that reticent about disclosing the Il-76's (unquoted) figures to a ex-serviceman journalist.

You think there is no difference between a paid hack and CAG?

I would request you to cease and desist from flogging this line of absolutely unsupported figment of imagination.

No one is blaming the IAF or otherwise casting a slur on their professionalism, for the Il-76's serviceability rate. On the contrary its the IAF that in its wisdom seems to want to break from the platform.

On the contrary I am accusing you of ascribing to IAF which IAF has never said.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

But this does not go in India. India is above all that.

My interpretation of the above statement is that you're trying to be sarcastic. But tough luck, my man. All you've ended up doing again is displaying your lack of knowledge of how systems work in India.

The fact that you bring in a completely unrelated example of Canadian purchase of C-17, like the other one earlier, again shows how you've not bothered to see beyond your prejudices. If an AF is purchasing C-17, something must be rotten about it. Right?

Don't you think there is a reason behind the fact that no one, repeat no one, is faulting IAF on the C-17 purchase? Even those posters who've opposed the C-17 purchase tooth and nail?

Please read up a bit more about Indian system(s) and IAF before passing these judgement(s). You're only making fool of yourself by brining in completely unrelated arguments and trying to make them stick.

[Viv S]

So if the IAF wants C-17s, its fine with me. But dont claim it can do things it cant, and do not claim, to justify this expensive purchase that the IAF is no longer able to maintain its IL-76s in the air. Or rather, if the latter is true, find the real cause. Its certainly not because they are Il-76s. For there other people who operate the same aircraft with great dispatch reliability. What to they have that the IAF does not?

The C-17s will be flying to India for flight trials(which typically tend to be very rigorous). The IAF isn't basing the purchase purely on a Boeing brochure.

No one is pointing a finger at the IAF's maintenance. The Il-76s routinely accompany the IAF's contingents flying to locations as far as Alaska, they are not grounded. While you've posted quite a bit on the Il-76s operating by civilian airlines, figures for serviceability are still unknown. In specific, its sortie generation vis-a-vis the C-17 is still unknown(to us, the IAF probably has a fair idea).

[Viv S]

The CAG's public report quoted a figure for the An-32s serviceability. I don't think they'd be all that reticent about disclosing the Il-76's (unquoted) figures to a ex-serviceman journalist.

You think there is no difference between a paid hack and CAG?

I would request you to cease and desist from flogging this line of absolutely unsupported figment of imagination.

If you'd have asked me around 2002-03, I could have gotten you a rough figure for the Il-76s serviceability. Its not a state secret. But, since you contest Ajai Shukla's figures, lets hear yours.

No one is blaming the IAF or otherwise casting a slur on their professionalism, for the Il-76's serviceability rate. On the contrary its the IAF that in its wisdom seems to want to break from the platform.

On the contrary I am accusing you of ascribing to IAF which IAF has never said.

It is a fact that the IAF opted for an expensive A-330 despite operating 6 fairly new Il-78s as well as 18 Il-76s.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

How is your emotional rant on the performance of other aircrafts related to the purchase of C-17 by IAF? What role the IAF will ascribes to C-17 has not been shared in public domain. All you've is some news snippet here or there. So, why fault IAF based on these unnamed and anonymous sources?

Till date there is no known report of IL-76 landing in any of the Advanced Landing Grounds (ALG) in Ladakh. They operate from perfectly OK IAF bases or civilian airports. Does that make IL-76 any less important to IAF airlift requirement? Similarly, if all the C-17 does is transport heavy Cargo from location A to B, will it become a less capable plane?

So if the IAF wants C-17s, its fine with me. But dont claim it can do things it cant, and do not claim, to justify this expensive purchase that the IAF is no longer able to maintain its IL-76s in the air.

Please show me one IAF press release or GOI report which shows that C-17 is being bought for it's legendary (and controversial) short-strip performance? AFAIK, USAF needed this capability to ensure that C-17 can deliver troops directly to the forward bases and cut down on intra-theater tactical airlift using C-130.

IMO, we won't need any such capability in such a measure that it becomes over riding criterion. If we can have an a/c (and cumulative airlift capability) which can deliver 60+ tonnes from location A to B and help IA mobilize an Infantry Brigade to flashpoint(s) that much faster, the a/c would've done it's job.

Or rather, if the latter is true, find the real cause. Its certainly not because they are Il-76s. For there other people who operate the same aircraft with great dispatch reliability. What to they have that the IAF does not?

As for this, I don't have enough data points. The issue with Russian/CIS equipment has been the supply chain - what is the problem in this case is not known.

[Tanaji]

Of which there is no remote proof -- yet.

So when IE says it, Shiv aroor says it and even when a Russian news agency Pravda says that Il 76/78 has issues they are all lying. Wow.

Yes, TODAY I would, which post 2002 framing of the new policy.

In 1998 I would not.

Interesting.. so when the Russians were benefiting from the no-bid, FMS type largesse it was acceptable. But when other vendors figured out the scam and joined in, it suddenly became unacceptable.

Of which there is no remote proof -- yet.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

[Sanku]

If you'd have asked me around 2002-03, I could have gotten you a rough figure for the Il-76s serviceability. Its not a state secret. But, since you contest Ajai Shukla's figures, lets hear yours.

Right; I make a claim, the third moon of the fifth planet of gobblydegook is made of green cheese. There I have made the claim now lets hear yours.

Get this straight buddy, if some one makes a claim the onus is on that person to provide proof.

You read what the CAG report said, the GoI expectation is that uptimes are 49-59%. I am sure the ILs are doing more, since the ANs were flagged at being 47-50 and the ILs were not.

Its simple.

Col Shukla's views are uncoborrated and come inside a trip report to Boeing factory. That is worse than no data. If no evidence comes up soon -- the number would mean its a clear cut lifafa piece.

It is a fact that the IAF opted for an expensive A-330 despite operating 6 fairly new Il-78s as well as 18 Il-76s.

Which is not the same as any of the other comments that have been made, stick to that, dont guess, extrapolate and run into all the "perhaps" "roughly" "broadly" type of meaningless comparisons that are so gratuitously made,we are ok.

IAF preferred A-330 in the tanker deal. Fine. We understand the choice and yet disagree with its choice, the MoF at least prima facie backs up the argument. (getting boeing in through back door may just muck it again though)

[Sanku]

Of which there is no remote proof -- yet.

So when IE says it, Shiv aroor says it and even when a Russian news agency Pravda says that Il 76/78 has issues they are all lying. Wow.

Tanaji, you are tempting me now. Did any of them use the word 25% uptime?

OTOH CAG report clearly said 49% for An 32 and we have NO KNOWN references for ILs

There are issues compared to Airbus 330 == Il 76 has 25% uptime?

Yes, TODAY I would, which post 2002 framing of the new policy.

In 1998 I would not.

Interesting.. so when the Russians were benefiting from the no-bid, FMS type largesse it was acceptable. But when other vendors figured out the scam and joined in, it suddenly became unacceptable.

Well you want the Russian T 90 deal, made in 2000 to follow the rules set down in 2002, and if they do not, I must be favoring the Russians?



Sorry please lend me your time machine next time.

Of which there is no remote proof -- yet.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Ohhh I didnt know!!! And little green men also abound by the same logic.


SO FAR NO REMOTE PROOF OF THE STATEMENT.

[arnab]

.

Interesting.. so when the Russians were benefiting from the no-bid, FMS type largesse it was acceptable. But when other vendors figured out the scam and joined in, it suddenly became unacceptable

.


Well you want the Russian T 90 deal, made in 2000 to follow the rules set down in 2002, and if they do not, I must be favoring the Russians?



Sorry please lend me your time machine next time.

Right so the 'multi-vendor' approach was a brain wave which occured to MoD only in 2002? Do tell us about the pre 2000 multivendor Jaguar acquisition and the Bofors acquisition? So why not for the T-90s? You do not need a time machine We have been over these arguments before - why turn this thread into a clone of the Arjun thread?

[amit]

The C-17 is no better at landing on gravel runways than a commercial B-737-200 with a gravel kit. In fact the B-737 is better.

Here is a Canadian B-737 landing on a 5000 foot gravel runway in Canada. You can see the runway was contaminated with slush.

Canadian C-17s don't go there. Unless you can find me a video that proves otherwise. They did land at Alert's 5500 foot runway with one difference: the B-737 landed full of cargo and passengers and took off full of passengers. It wasn't a one time "mission". They fly there on schedule, day and night, in all weather.

The C-17 landed in Alert with minimal fuel, had to refuel there, had 8 passengers (including the US Ambassador) and one pallet of about 500 pounds for cargo.

Gilles,

I'm no pilot but I don't understand your point here. Since you're going a direct comparison with the B737 and C17, we'd have to assume that it would be an apples to apples comparison and not a orange to apples one.

Now a simple search gives these figures:

B737

Wingspan: Varies from 93ft for the base model to 117ft for the next gen models.
Length: Varies from 94ft to 138ft, again depending on the model.
Fuselage width: 12ft 4 inches.
Maxi take off weight: from 50,300kg (50tons) to 85,000 kg (85 tons)

C17

Wingspan: 169.8 ft
Length: 174ft
Width: Couldn’t find it but I guess it’s easy to agree that it’s much more wider.
Maxi take off weight: 265,350kg

Even to my untrained eyes it's pretty obvious that the C17 is a substantially bigger plane with bigger capacity than even the late model B737s. Then how can you do this comparison?

If you compare a Cessna like you did earlier with the B737 you'd find that it could probably land in a even smaller field. Or to take the analogy further if you'd take a Bombardier or Ebraer 100+ seater aircraft, I bet they would be able to land on a shorter airstrip than the B737. But then what would be the point of the comparison, because they are in two different classes of airplanes?

[Viv S]

If you'd have asked me around 2002-03, I could have gotten you a rough figure for the Il-76s serviceability. Its not a state secret. But, since you contest Ajai Shukla's figures, lets hear yours.

Right; I make a claim, the third moon of the fifth planet of gobblydegook is made of green cheese. There I have made the claim now lets hear yours.

Get this straight buddy, if some one makes a claim the onus is on that person to provide proof.

So you have no idea what the Il-76's serviceability rate is. You simply reject Ajai Shukla's figures on principle.

You question his integrity. That's fine, as long one doesn't make an argument that its very hard to obtain the figures for the serviceability rate, because the IAF jealously guards that information.

You read what the CAG report said, the GoI expectation is that uptimes are 49-59%. I am sure the ILs are doing more, since the ANs were flagged at being 47-50 and the ILs were not.

Its simple.

And here I thought we'd switched a philosophy of rejecting unconfirmed theories and not making overarching assumptions. How can you say with such certainty that the Il-76 had a higher serviceability? How do you know the vastly larger size of the An-32 fleet wasn't the overarching concern besides the fact that its essential for the Army's paratroopers?

The IAF's two IL-76 squadrons and five AN-32 squadrons have been besieged with poor serviceability record of less than 50 per cent, meaning the fleet was available to the Air Force for less than half their intended utilisation and a huge shortfall in their assigned tasks and performance, mainly due to non-availability of spares and inadequate maintenance.

link

It is a fact that the IAF opted for an expensive A-330 despite operating 6 fairly new Il-78s as well as 18 Il-76s.

Which is not the same as any of the other comments that have been made, stick to that, dont guess, extrapolate and run into all the "perhaps" "roughly" "broadly" type of meaningless comparisons that are so gratuitously made,we are ok.

IAF preferred A-330 in the tanker deal. Fine. We understand the choice and yet disagree with its choice, the MoF at least prima facie backs up the argument. (getting boeing in through back door may just muck it again though)

So you 'understand' the IAF and MoD's choice of the A-330 but not the C-17. Pray tell, why is that? As far as I can see, both aircraft were selected over an alternative that was both cheaper as well as being logistically simpler because it was already in service.

India rejects Russian aerial tankers over poor maintenance

According to Russian and foreign media sources, India refused to buy Russian Il-78 fuel tanker aircraft. Indian officials motivated this decision with the non-conformity of planes to the customer’s requisitions. The spare parts supply and the after-sales service were also mentioned.

“After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia alternated its approach to the handling of the defense business. Nowadays we are facing problems with spare parts, the support of manufacturers and the delays conditioned by the centralized structure of their defense corporations”, Fali Homi Major, the Commander-in-Chief of Indian Air Force told RIA Novosti. Instead of Russian planes India is likely to buy Airbus A330 MRTT manufactured by the European company EADS.

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/107643-0/

[arnab]

You question his integrity. That's fine, as long one doesn't make an argument that its very hard to obtain the figures for the serviceability rate, because the IAF jealously guards that information.

IMO questioning 'integrity', 'credibility', 'ability' etc is all secondary. First one has to contend with 'courage'. Shukla (might be a hack for all I know) has put in a 25 % value and has signed his name below it. Here we have fine gentlemen with anonymous handles doubting his integrity etc. But sir, the same can be said of you, and then we do not even know what your motives are (if any). (As an analogy, one can choose to believe Kakodkar or Santanam with respect to Fusion / fizzle - but they were debating under their own names).

Then to suggest that GOI / Boeing is so afraid of these anonymous posters on mighty BRF, that they would have paid a journalist to come up with imaginary numbers on IL 76 servicability..... Well what can I say? One has to be delusional (or a resident of Canada) to believe that.

[Sanku]

Right so the 'multi-vendor' approach was a brain wave which occured to MoD only in 2002? Do tell us about the pre 2000 multivendor Jaguar acquisition and the Bofors acquisition? So why not for the T-90s? You do not need a time machine We have been over these arguments before - why turn this thread into a clone of the Arjun thread?

Arnab, the defence procurement rules have been substantially changed in the 2002-2006 time frame. That is a fact.

Your concurrence is not needed for the validity of the statement.

[Sanku]

Yes I oppose the Il 76 25% figure on a matter of PRINCIPLE

There are two such PRINCIPLES

1) Intellectual honesty

2) Truth

[arnab]

Arnab, the defence procurement rules have been substantially changed in the 2002-2006 time frame. That is a fact.

Sure. May I ask if you are making the case that the C-17 acquisition flouted these rules?

[amit]

IMO questioning 'integrity', 'credibility', 'ability' etc is all secondary. First one has to contend with 'courage'. Shukla (might be a hack for all I know) has put in a 25 % value and has signed his name below it. Here we have fine gentlemen with anonymous handles doubting his integrity etc. But sir, the same can be said of you, and then we do not even know what your motives are (if any). (As an analogy, one can choose to believe Kakodkar or Santanam with respect to Fusion / fizzle - but they were debating under their own names).

Then to suggest that GOI / Boeing is so afraid of these anonymous posters on mighty BRF, that they would have paid a journalist to come up with imaginary numbers on IL 76 servicability..... Well what can I say? One has to be delusional (or a resident of Canada) to believe that.

Just to add to this fine post. The 25 per cent quoted by Ajai is just a number. The actual could be 24.99999 per cent or 99.99999 per cent.

The other (and more important IMHO) factoid here is that there has been multiple reports posted on these threads which have shown that the IAF as an institution is unhappy with the IL series of aircraft and the unhappiness stems from a variety of factors including high operating costs (note the IAF argument that while the A330 tankers were more expensive they were cheaper to operate) to low serviceability. [Note: As recently as last year, if memory serves me right, the Russians grounded their entire IL fleet.]

This unhappiness, IMO, is prompting the for air force to look at non Russian and more expensive platforms.

Once this point is accepted then it's immaterial what the serviceability percentage is.

To argue against this point one would have to do either or two things, IMO.

1) Deny that IAF is unhappy with the IL series.

2) Claim that the entire IAF is up to hanky panky and is indulging in its own version of liffafa.

I wonder which would it be?

[amit]

Yes I oppose the Il 76 25% figure on a matter of PRINCIPLE

There are two such PRINCIPLES

1) Intellectual honesty

2) Truth

May we ask what is the Truth - that is the figure or range of serviceability of the Il76?

After all it's a sign of Intellectual honesty to call a person or his comment a lie (opposite of Truth) only when one knows what the Truth is - in this case the actual figure or range?

A simple example if someone stated that 5X5 = 50 and continuously espoused this POV I could say with conviction it's wrong/a lie because I know the correct answer.

But would I be able to do the same if I was a duffer in math and didn't know how to multiply?

I wonder what kind of Intellectual honesty it is to question Ajai's comment because of dislike or because the figure does not match ones POV? Of course one could oppose the figure with knowledge what the actual figure or range is/could be.

[Sanku]

I know that even simple things some times stick in the gullet, but I had made MY take at the number a long long time back.

CAG report indicates that GoI expects 49-59% uptime -- they talk about AN not making it (50% is their number)

Hence Il uptimes are > 49-59%.

[Sanku]

Amit I normally dont respond to the absolute ****** that passes for your posts.

But some things need countering.

Just to add to this fine post. The 25 per cent quoted by Ajai is just a number. The actual could be 24.99999 per cent or 99.99999 per cent.

So 25 % is just a number eh?

And 99% is same as 25%?

while I know that this is the standard that C 17 is good club has been using consistently in the debate, this really really needs to be pointed out and highlighted?

No 65 tonne carrier is not same as a 40 tonne carrier

And no 25% and 99% does not mean the same thing.

[Sanku]

The other (and more important IMHO) factoid here is that there has been multiple reports posted on these threads which have shown that the IAF as an institution is unhappy with the IL series of aircraft

Amit proof time -- post a single article which quotes IAF saying that "IAF is unhappy with IL"

Specifically that.

Not
1) Airbus was chosen for tanker
2) Some reports say that perhaps the serviceability is low.

To you 25% and 99% may be same thing -- but without getting into that sort of comparison a single point

Show the above statement with proof.

[ldev]

Hence Il uptimes are > 49-59%.

Maybe the IAF sees better potential uptime with the C17. The excerpt below was posted in another forum and relates to the performance based logistics deal between Boeing and the USAF. I dont know what Boeing is discussing with the IAF in terms of fleet availability. (It is also called the Boeing Globemaster sustainment partnership that Gilles was referring to)

The value is created because of a unique feature of PBL deals. Boeing guarantees aircraft availability at a fixed cost. For the C-17 programme, Boeing must ensure the fleet averages 90% availability at all times, or is penalised.

Now admittedly this deal is being cancelled and maintainance transferred inhouse because the USAF projects that it will save 12 billion dollars over a 30 year period for its 205 aircraft fleet. On a per aircraft basis per year it works out to more than a little over one million dollars per year, but I guess the sheer number of aircraft that the USAF has makes a difference.

[Sanku]

Hence Il uptimes are > 49-59%.

Maybe the IAF sees better potential uptime with the C17.

That is not the question being discussed here.

The question is validity of claims being touted to support the decision.

Specifically on that issue -- Gilles pointed out uptime is a function of many things a big one among them is the money you are willing to throw.

[ldev]

That is not the question being discussed here.

The question is validity of claims being touted to support the decision.

Specifically on that issue -- Gilles pointed out uptime is a function of many things a big one among them is the money you are willing to throw.

I dont think anyone other than the IAF knows the reasons why they want this aircraft. Everyone else is whistling in the dark. But if uptime is an issue then per your figures of 49%-59%, the C17 has a better record at least in terms of what is agreed to between Boeing and the USAF.

As far as Gilles pet issue of landing the aircraft on unprepared runways is concerned, I think he should publish the ACN/PCN graphs for subgrade runways for the C17 vs any other aircraft that he chooses too. Not that that factor again alone would be an issue. But it is at least a time pass so that some people can feel self important that maybe the IAF is reading this thread.

[Sanku]

I dont think anyone other than the IAF knows the reasons why they want this aircraft. Everyone else is whistling in the dark.

Isnt that strange, that no one other than IAF knows?

But if uptime is an issue then per your figures of 49%-59%, the C17 has a better record at least in terms of what is agreed to between Boeing and the USAF.

Sorry please dont reinterpret or misrepresent what I said -- I only said that CAGs figures are 49-59% minimum needed as per GoI guideline. Il would be higher since CAG has not complained about Il. We dont know how much higher.

Also the figures themselves have come up and down over different years -- and there are many factors which make it so, including the age and the money spent.

It is not a function of aircraft alone as you are saying.

As far as Gilles pet issue of landing the aircraft on unprepared runways is concerned, I think he should publish the ACN/PCN graphs for subgrade runways for the C17 vs any other aircraft that he chooses too.

Gilles is not selling the 5.8 billion dollar a/c I would expect those doing the hard sell (namely boeing) to come up with more details.

As it is he has added far more information than available from other sources.

[ldev]

Isnt that strange, that no one other than IAF knows?

I am sure that in good time after they have performed their tests they will do so provided the reasons are not classified such as airlifting Agni missiles. Since they are also likely to be negotiating with Boeing at the present time regards a potential maintainace contract they are unlikely to satisfy on a real time basis the curiousity of internet posters with anonymous handles.

Gilles is not selling the 5.8 billion dollar a/c I would expect those doing the hard sell (namely boeing) to come up with more details.

And just because Boeing has not made a formal presentation to you or to Gilles on the C17 how do you conclude that they have not provided the IAF with all the details they need to evaluate the aircraft.