C-17s for the IAF?

[Sanku]

And WHEN that happens I will take it for what is worth. However the basic points still remain -- as Indian deals go

1) There is no clarity on role
2) There is way too much money being spent per plane
3) There is no multi-vendor competitive situation
4) There is a far greater hurry on what appears to be a less important piece than many other many more critical items

[amit]

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.

Boss can you tell us whom Boeing should give these "more details" to? Us folk on BRF? The media? Or to the officials who will make a decision on the aircraft?

Sure Gilles isn't selling aircraft but then he's posting stuff here and so should explain what he's trying to say if other posters have questions. One thing I'll say he's made an effort to do so for most part and so I respect his posts.

[Sanku]

I am still waiting for proof on your prior statement Amit.

[amit]

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

Specifically that.

After so many pages?

Why don't you give proof that IAF is very happy with IL76. And that proof should take into consideration that C17 is coming over for trails by IAF.

One good proof would be to show that IAF is very unhappy at the prospect of getting the C17s.

[amit]

I am still waiting for proof on your prior statement Amit.

Sorry don't expect me to repost stuff that's on this very thread. Can't do all the work for you.

Instead of waiting why don't you post proof of your long list of statements?

PS: I do not yet again how you avoided the point about whom Boeing should give information to. Par for course, sigh!

[Sanku]

Dear Amit, thank you. I just wanted to give you enough rope.

Mods please note, the poster Amit has once again, made a straw man statement and when asked for proof side stepped it.

I would hope that some action is taken against those who make patently false claims, repeatedly and when asked for proof sidestep it. This applies to both ascribing statements to forces which have not been made my them, claims on performances etc which are not backed up AS WELL AS total and bizarre misinterpretation of other posters position and clearly articulated views.

[Viv S]

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.

“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."

Pravda


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.

Indian Express

[Viv S]

I would hope that some action is taken against those who make patently false claims, repeatedly and when asked for proof sidestep it. This applies to both ascribing statements to forces which have not been made my them, claims on performances etc which are not backed up AS WELL AS total and bizarre misinterpretation of other posters position and clearly articulated views.

That attitude is surprising if one considers your post claiming the Il-76's serviceability is (probably) >60% because the CAG on its report on the An-32 didn't mention the figures for the Il-76.

[amit]

“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."

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


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

Viv,

Boss I appreciate your effort but it's really pointless, that's why I chose to ignore. I have on earlier pages posted articles of the same nature, as have many other posters including you.

But thanks Mate.

[Viv S]

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

There are two such PRINCIPLES

1) Intellectual honesty

2) Truth

And on what are you basing your theory about the 25% being dishonest and an untruth? Your mistrust of Ajai Shukla?

[Sanku]

I would hope that some action is taken against those who make patently false claims, repeatedly and when asked for proof sidestep it. This applies to both ascribing statements to forces which have not been made my them, claims on performances etc which are not backed up AS WELL AS total and bizarre misinterpretation of other posters position and clearly articulated views.

That attitude is surprising if one considers your post claiming the Il-76's serviceability is (probably) >60% because the CAG on its report on the An-32 didn't mention the figures for the Il-76.

No I did not say Il service is probably greater than 60% . I said given that there is NO report saying mentioning serviceability issues, and we know that GoI standards is 49-59%. Il WILL have greater serviceability.

CAG report is on ANs not ILs. If IE wants to use a AN report to make a statement on IL I would say lifafa piece.

These are sprouting up now that the C 17 charade is being gradually exposed. I expect a outbreak of "highly placed anonymous sources" spouting how peachy bottomed everthing about C 17 is while Il 76 is falling apart.


The usual people will crow about these reports with "highly placed anonymous sources" as if Moses has spoken from Mount.

[Viv S]

“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."

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


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

Viv,

Boss I appreciate your effort but it's really pointless, that's why I chose to ignore. I have on earlier pages posted articles of the same nature, as have many other posters including you.

But thanks Mate.

Sure no problem. I'd posted these on the last page in the same context but well....

[Sanku]

And on what are you basing your theory about the 25% being dishonest and an untruth? Your mistrust of Ajai Shukla?

Dear Viv S, as I said before, I dont debate on "I think" "I trust" "roughly" "believe" etc...

I base on AVAILABLE CREDIBLE INFORMATION and SIMPLE LOGIC.

We think VERY differently from each other, I am afraid. "Say so" may be good for you, doesnt cut the mustard for me.

But then you belong to the camp that think 25% or 99% are after all, just numbers. Pull them out Musharraf, at your convenience.

[Viv S]

And on what are you basing your theory about the 25% being dishonest and an untruth? Your mistrust of Ajai Shukla?

Dear Viv S, as I said before, I dont debate on "I think" "I trust" "roughly" "believe" etc...

I base on AVAILABLE CREDIBLE INFORMATION and SIMPLE LOGIC.

We think VERY differently from each other, I am afraid.

Please share this AVAILABLE CREDIBLE INFORMATION with us. I'd be very interested in an alternate figure for serviceability from whatever your source is. As far as I can see, you rubbished Ajai Shukla's figure without any justification or explanation because you reject his credibility as a journalist.

[Tanaji]

For Sanku, nothing less than a signed statement by the IAF Chief will do. Everything else is summarily rejected as evidence.

In Arjun and nuclear debates however, even Purefool Bidwai type articles are acceptable

[Sanku]

As far as I can see, you rubbished Ajai Shukla's figure without any justification or explanation because you reject his credibility as a journalist.

In the case you could not see, I would strongly encourage you to spend time developing your basic comprehension skills -- because two posts above I did post --

-----------
No I did not say Il service is probably greater than 60% . I said given that there is NO report saying mentioning serviceability issues, and we know that GoI standards is 49-59%. Il WILL have greater serviceability.

CAG report is on ANs not ILs. If IE wants to use a AN report to make a statement on IL I would say lifafa piece.
----------

You need to understand one thing very BASIC in addition, the burden of proof lies on person who makes the statement -- not on the one who questions it, because any tom, dick or Shukla can and do make completely unsubstantiated statements.

If the statement is not proven soon, very soon I will preface every comment of Shukla's posted on this forum with a reminder to people that Shukla is a person who went to a Boeing factroy to make a glowing report on C 17 and pulled some numbers on C 17 in the bargain.

I know there are some to which this makes no difference what so ever, because 25% and 99% are all numbers after all and irrelevant, but thankfully the average BRFite does not hold such views.

[Sanku]

For Sanku, nothing less than a signed statement by the IAF Chief will do. Everything else is summarily rejected as evidence.

In Arjun and nuclear debates however, even Purefool Bidwai type articles are acceptable

The second statement is a lie. Plain lie. Nowhere have I used a data point not from a official source on Arjun.

As far as the nuclear deal is concerned I never used Purefools statements. You can check the archive I have always requested even those supporting the position I took to not use Purefools statements because that man will tarnish anything by association.

Tanaji I expect better from you, not some others, but at least you have shown intellectual honesty in the past, please dont make claims which are not tenable right now.

There is no harm in saying that we dont know when we dont, the number pulled out by Col Shukla needs to be verified or could be considered a serious piece of lifafagiri.

[shukla]

US Congress clears C-17 sale for India

The US Congress has cleared the sale of C-17 Globemaster III strategic lift aircraft for India. The Obama administration had notified the Congress April 23 of the potential sale of 10 aircraft to India and sought out objections or approval. The Congressional consent has come before Wednesday’s start of the Indo-US strategic dialogue in Washington Wednesday.

The actual cost of the C-17 aircraft for India would be less as India would not be buying all the options and the 3.8 percent fee would be payable only on the actual amount of the deal. In some countries, the administrative fee ranges up to 18 percent.

Boeing India’s Vice President for Defense, Space and Security, Vivek Lall, told India Strategic from Washington: “We are pleased that India’s intent to buy 10 C-17 Globemaster III has received US Congressional approval. With this, the Indian government is one step closer to acquiring the C-17 which we believe is ideally suited to meet India’s airlift needs for military and humanitarian purposes. “The submittal of the Letter of Acceptance to the government of India will be the next step towards finalizing the Foreign Military Sale.”

[amit]

Folks, apologies in advance. I feel very embarrassed to have to quote my own post in response to something Arnab wrote. But since selective quoting is being done, not only in one post but in several one after the other with the intention of establishing a fiat accomplice I need to set the record straight.

I wrote:

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?

I would request folks to look at the bolded portions of my post to see the context of the comment I made about serviceability number.

And this comes from a poster who complains publicly about Strawmans being posted.

[amit]

US Congress clears C-17 sale for India

The Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief of Staff, Air Chief Marshal P V Naik, had told India Strategic last year that IAF was looking for 10 plus 10 C 17s, described in its parlance as VHTAC, or Very Heavy Transport Aircraft, as a replacement of its ageing fleet of Soviet vintage IL 76 transport jets. {The IAF loves the IL76, yet it is replacing it's "ageing" fleet with C-17; and this from the boss himself. Sure there's no proof that IAF wants to replace IL76s, this must be a liffafa article!}

India has 17 IL 76 transporters, another six as IL 78 midair refuelers and one as an AWACS with Israeli Phalcon electronic radome radar. But IL 76 is out of production after the demise of the Soviet Union, and whatever useable airframes were available, they have mostly been acquired by China.

An IL 76 can carry up to 45 tonnes of cargo, while a C 17 can carry about 75 tonnes, and for a much longer range. A C 17 can land from grassy, football field size strips and needs only three crew members as against 7 for an IL 76.

[Sanku]

I am still waiting to see a remote statement that IAF is unhappy with Ils first and foremost.

And of course the engineer in me cant fathom how unhappiness means that how a number between 25% to 99% is irrelevant to discussion.

Some people find numbers something they can change to their liking at will -- I am reminded of this joke...

A businessman was interviewing job applications for the position of manager of a large division. He quickly devised a test for choosing the most suitable candidate. He simply asked each applicant this question, "What is two plus two?"
The first interviewee was a journalist. His answer was, "Twenty-two".
The second was a social worker. She said, "I don't know the answer but I'm very glad that we had the opportunity to discuss it."
The third applicant was an engineer. He pulled out a slide rule and came up with an answer "somewhere between 3.999 and 4.001."
Next came an attorney. He stated that "in the case of Jenkins vs. the Department of the Treasury, two plus two was proven to be four."
Finally, the businessman interviewed an accountant. When he asked him what two plus two was, the accountant got up from his chair, went over to the door, closed it, came back and sat down. Leaning across the desk, he said in a low voice, "How much do you want it to be?" He got the job.

[Sanku]

I am obliged to point out that India strategic has produced no quote from ACM which says purportedly what is paraphrased.

Paraphrasing is a fun art. We have seen it in action on this very thread.

[Tanaji]

I am still waiting to see a remote statement that IAF is unhappy with Ils first and foremost.

As I said, you are unlikely to get a signed statement from the IAF. In the public domain one has to rely on statements from various sources, preferably independent ones. In my book, reports from IE, a blogger who has access to MoD and armed services and a foreign news agency (belonging to the same country as the vendor even!) certainly qualify as independent sources.

Lets drop the 25% number for now. It may be 48% or 20% or whatever. But surely the combination of the three reports should give us the valid data point that the IAF is not very happy with the IL 76/78 series, be it because of the aircraft or because of spares issues. The latter is even more likely due to fact that such the same vendor has been guilty of such behaviour in the past.

One can only assign probabilities to the believability of a story. In this case, it certainly appears believable.

[Sanku]

I am still waiting to see a remote statement that IAF is unhappy with Ils first and foremost.

As I said, you are unlikely to get a signed statement from the IAF.

One can only assign probabilities to the believability of a story. In this case, it certainly appears believable.

Fair enough take, there are only one issue. When A independent blogger is taken to a C 17 factory by Boeing and then writes that Il figure in 25% specifically, without any due proof, the matter has gone murkier.

I would have dropped the 25% number if not for that.

There appears to be serious lobbying now, it seems that the C 17 sale has hit some airpockets suddenly after sailing so smoothly.

Why? Note the purported statements against American FMS from IA Chief (even if untrue it seems some sections of establishment have started pushback)

[Gilles]

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?

I wasn't comparing the aircraft as such, but only their claimed capacity to land on gravel runways. The Boeing 737 claims it can operate from 5000 foot gravel runways on a routine basis. In real life it does so. Canadian North uses them to fly cargo and passengers into 5000 foot gravel runways, day and night, in all kinds of weather. They fly into these airports daily and a scheduled basis.

However, the same company, Boeing, has another much larger product called the C-17, which although it is loudly claimed in every article that mentions this aircraft, that it can operate with a 170,000 pound payload into 3,500 foot runways, in real life, we never ever see them land on any such runways. In fact, it seems that they cannot even land on a routine basis into the same gravel runways that the Boeing 737 uses on a routine basis.

That was my point and the extent of my comparing the gravel kit fitted B-737-200 to the C-17.

[amit]

I wasn't comparing the aircraft as such, but only their claimed capacity to land on gravel runways. The Boeing 737 claims it can operate from 5000 foot gravel runways on a routine basis. In real life it does so. Canadian North uses them to fly cargo and passengers into 5000 foot gravel runways, day and night, in all kinds of weather. They fly into these airports daily and a scheduled basis.

However, the same company, Boeing, has another much larger product called the C-17, which although it is loudly claimed in every article that mentions this aircraft, that it can operate with a 170,000 pound payload into 3,500 foot runways, in real life, we never ever see them land on any such runways. In fact, it seems that they cannot even land on a routine basis into the same gravel runways that the Boeing 737 uses on a routine basis.

That was my point and the extent of my comparing the gravel kit fitted B-737-200 to the C-17.

Fair enough Gilles, I have no issues with that. I guess I misunderstood the point you were making.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Gilles]

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.

Well that won't take me long. C-17 and most aircraft are listed here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/inter ... able_e.pdf

[Viv S]

As far as I can see, you rubbished Ajai Shukla's figure without any justification or explanation because you reject his credibility as a journalist.

In the case you could not see, I would strongly encourage you to spend time developing your basic comprehension skills -- because two posts above I did post --

-----------
No I did not say Il service is probably greater than 60% . I said given that there is NO report saying mentioning serviceability issues, and we know that GoI standards is 49-59%. Il WILL have greater serviceability.

CAG report is on ANs not ILs. If IE wants to use a AN report to make a statement on IL I would say lifafa piece.
----------

IE did not use the CAG report on the An-32 to make a statement on the IL. The CAG report was quoted independently. You on the other hand created a (fictional) implication that all was well with the Il-76 fleet because the CAG is yet to dedicate a report exclusively to the IL fleet.

You need to understand one thing very BASIC in addition, the burden of proof lies on person who makes the statement -- not on the one who questions it, because any tom, dick or Shukla can and do make completely unsubstantiated statements.

Its because he is a journalist(and a good one as far as defence journos go) that his assertions are taken credibly. But, even if we assume Business Standard is a rag, that still doesn't explain the Indian Express' article.

If the statement is not proven soon, very soon I will preface every comment of Shukla's posted on this forum with a reminder to people that Shukla is a person who went to a Boeing factroy to make a glowing report on C 17 and pulled some numbers on C 17 in the bargain.

His report on the C-17 was far from glowing(though it wasn't critical either).

[Sanku]

IE did not use the CAG report on the An-32 to make a statement on the IL.


The CAG report was quoted independently.

So you are saying that IE does not have ANY official report of Il. I must applaud the rare honest statement from you.

You on the other hand created a (fictional) implication that all was well with the Il-76 fleet because the CAG is yet to dedicate a report exclusively to the IL fleet.

Well Il is a aircraft being used extensively by IAF, no Governmental watchdog (CAG, Standing committee on defence etc) -- you want us to believe that it is not so because?

because "some people" said so?

Sorry take your wink-wink nudge-nudge some where else.

Its because he is a journalist(and a good one as far as defence journos go) that his assertions are taken credibly.
But, even if we assume Business Standard is a rag, that still doesn't explain the Indian Express' article.

Ok so now we are on the job of counting the number of "hear says", so counting that You, Amit and Arnab makes it total of FIVE COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS?

So we should all fall over each other to accept that?

You know something, ONE, FIVE or ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE "hear says" dont make it right? They are at best baseless speculations of that number.

His report on the C-17 was far from glowing(though it wasn't critical either).

Let me repeat --

If the statement is not proven soon, very soon I will preface every comment of Shukla's posted on this forum with a reminder to people that Shukla is a person who went to a Boeing factroy to make a glowing report on C 17 and pulled some numbers on C 17 in the bargain.

[Viv S]

IE did not use the CAG report on the An-32 to make a statement on the IL.


The CAG report was quoted independently.

So you are saying that IE does not have ANY official report of Il. I must applaud the rare honest statement from you.

I quoted IE as the source not the CAG. Reposting the quote;

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.

You on the other hand created a (fictional) implication that all was well with the Il-76 fleet because the CAG is yet to dedicate a report exclusively to the IL fleet.

Well Il is a aircraft being used extensively by IAF, no Governmental watchdog (CAG, Standing committee on defence etc) -- you want us to believe that it is not so because?

because "some people" said so?

Sorry take your wink-wink nudge-nudge some where else.

So if no governmental watchdog objects to the C-17 sale, it'll be nice to see you embrace it with open arms.

Its because he is a journalist(and a good one as far as defence journos go) that his assertions are taken credibly.
But, even if we assume Business Standard is a rag, that still doesn't explain the Indian Express' article.

Ok so now we are on the job of counting the number of "hear says", so counting that You, Amit and Arnab makes it total of FIVE COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS?

So we should all fall over each other to accept that?

You know something, ONE, FIVE or ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE "hear says" dont make it right? They are at best baseless speculations of that number.

So RIA Novosti, Indian Express, Business Standard are all rags.

His report on the C-17 was far from glowing(though it wasn't critical either).

Let me repeat --

If the statement is not proven soon, very soon I will preface every comment of Shukla's posted on this forum with a reminder to people that Shukla is a person who went to a Boeing factroy to make a glowing report on C 17 and pulled some numbers on C 17 in the bargain.

I suggest you read the report before going on and on.

[Viv S]

I am obliged to point out that India strategic has produced no quote from ACM which says purportedly what is paraphrased.

Paraphrasing is a fun art. We have seen it in action on this very thread.

India Strategic?

"We have finished all evaluations and selected the A330 MRTT. The deal will come up for final approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) very soon. The Russian platform did not meet certain requirements," Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major said in an interview with the Hindustan Times published on Monday.

Major said India was not satisfied with the level of after-sales service provided by Russia.

"After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia has changed the whole pattern of doing defense business. Now we are faced with issues concerning spares, vendor support and built-in delays in the structure of their centralized military corporations," he said.

RIA Novosti


The original article from Hindustan Times:

IAF drops Russia from $1 bn deal

What paraphrasing are talking about?



And while we're on it:-

Serviceability of IL-76s, which perform crucial strategic air-lift work for IAF, has been quite a problem.

Times of India

[Sanku]

I quoted IE as the source not the CAG.

Thank you, I believe we agree that IE reference is hearsay now.

So if no governmental watchdog objects to the C-17 sale, it'll be nice to see you embrace it with open arms.

Tcch again the habit of making a statement from nowhere -- I said that there is no govt watchdog which says there is a Issue with Il uptimes?

So sure I will do the same for C 17 -- in fact I am sure that Il and C 17 will have similar uptimes, that is not a issue at all.


But does that GIVE YOU any liberty to EXTRAPOLATE the statement to mean I will welcome C 17 with OPEN ARMS?


In case you have missed it, I never said Govt is not entitled to purchase C 17 -- I only say its like paying Americans free money.

[Viv S]

IAF has been facing the problem of serviceability of the IL-76s. Availability of spares for the four-engine IL-76 s has also been a major issue after the Soviet Union broke up.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article ... 00656f0300

[Sanku]

"We have finished all evaluations and selected the A330 MRTT. The deal will come up for final approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) very soon. The Russian platform did not meet certain requirements," Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major said in an interview with the Hindustan Times published on Monday.

Major said India was not satisfied with the level of after-sales service provided by Russia.

"After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia has changed the whole pattern of doing defense business. Now we are faced with issues concerning spares, vendor support and built-in delays in the structure of their centralized military corporations," he said.

Absolutely no issues with a direct quote -- now engage your superior extrapolation methods to show how the above statement also means

1) Il 76 has 25 % serviceability rates.
2) IAF is not happy with Il 76.



I am sure you will succeed, you have really capable skills on making one things same as other roughly speaking.

[Sanku]

IAF has been facing the problem of serviceability of the IL-76s. Availability of spares for the four-engine IL-76 s has also been a major issue after the Soviet Union broke up.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article ... 00656f0300

Another article quoting ABSOLUTELY NOBODY in IAF about a SIBERIAN IL crash.


Why are you doing this? Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?

[Viv S]

I quoted IE as the source not the CAG.

Thank you, I believe we agree that IE reference is hearsay now.

I hear they publish news themselves, but it is surprising you consider all their news reports hearsay. On other hand since they print only what their correspondents tell them, one could technically all their news is hearsay.

So if no governmental watchdog objects to the C-17 sale, it'll be nice to see you embrace it with open arms.

Tcch again the habit of making a statement from nowhere -- I said that there is no govt watchdog which says there is a Issue with Il uptimes?

Of course not. Its only the IAF that for some reason seems to be rejecting the splendid Il-76 and Il-78 in favour of foreign scams like the A330, C-130 and C-17.

So sure I will do the same for C 17 -- in fact I am sure that Il and C 17 will have similar uptimes, that is not a issue at all.

'I am sure'.

This is after railing against member after member about unsubstantiated claims.

But does that GIVE YOU any liberty to EXTRAPOLATE the statement to mean I will welcome C 17 with OPEN ARMS?

So you will not welcome the C-17 purchase even after no objection is raised? And here I thought the absence of an official quote means all is well.

In case you have missed it, I never said Govt is not entitled to purchase C 17 -- I only say its like paying Americans free money.

Huh? Well the IAF has requested the aircraft, the MoD has sanctioned their request, the media hasn't raised any eyebrows and retired IAF officers have approved of it. I admit it hasn't received the 'Sanku Stamp of Approval', but I think an exception can be made once in a while.

No merely your comprehension is deplorable in the extreme.

This is something I would expect some with a modicum of logic to understand, alas not the case.

Ah Sanku... you wound me deeply.

BS and IE have claimed low uptimes without any proof.

Ria Novosti said that Airbus was selected because of better uptimes.

Now better uptimes by Airbus != low uptimes for Il

Like I said BS, IE are rags since they state stuff without proof.

As for RIA Novosti - this was the headline for their report

India rejects Russian aerial tankers over poor maintenance

The meaning is pretty obvious and one doesn't need to go into uptimes and downtimes to understand it.
--------------------------------

There is perhaps only one good thing that will come out of this entire episode -- Col Shukla's mythical credibility (and misplaced) will be really tested with that 25% remark -- lets see the result.

Certainly, some people will look forward to that, since the vindication of his recent report on the Arjun(based on hearsay no less) hasn't gone down well with the T-90 supporters.

[Viv S]

IAF has been facing the problem of serviceability of the IL-76s. Availability of spares for the four-engine IL-76 s has also been a major issue after the Soviet Union broke up.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article ... 00656f0300

Another article quoting ABSOLUTELY NOBODY in IAF about a SIBERIAN IL crash.

I didn't quote the part about the crash in Siberia. I specifically quoted the only part that was relevant to the IAF's experience. Awaiting your dismissal of this source as a rag now.

Why are you doing this? Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?

In your opinion perhaps.

[Viv S]

"We have finished all evaluations and selected the A330 MRTT. The deal will come up for final approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) very soon. The Russian platform did not meet certain requirements," Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major said in an interview with the Hindustan Times published on Monday.

Major said India was not satisfied with the level of after-sales service provided by Russia.

"After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia has changed the whole pattern of doing defense business. Now we are faced with issues concerning spares, vendor support and built-in delays in the structure of their centralized military corporations," he said.

Absolutely no issues with a direct quote -- now engage your superior extrapolation methods to show how the above statement also means




I am sure you will succeed, you have really capable skills on making one things same as other roughly speaking.

No issues? I understood there was something about paraphrasing that you did take issue with. India Strategic something (I didn't get it).

ACM Major's statement give out very clearly what the IAF's opinion of ordering Russian is. And it happens to be at odds with your opinion.

1) Il 76 has 25 % serviceability rates.
2) IAF is not happy with Il 76.

1) That's one statement(from Ajai Shukla). Most other(rags) just seem to harp on low serviceability.

2) Professionally they're delighted with the Il-76. They're rejected the Il-78 and Il-76MF on personal grounds.

[Surya]

well at least the reports should point to the fact that the IL 76 situation for the future is not rosy even if they do not have the cast iron, signed by IAF authority as Sanku wants it.

[Tanaji]

[
Fair enough take, there are only one issue. When A independent blogger is taken to a C 17 factory by Boeing and then writes that Il figure in 25% specifically, without any due proof, the matter has gone murkier.

I would have dropped the 25% number if not for that.

There appears to be serious lobbying now, it seems that the C 17 sale has hit some airpockets suddenly after sailing so smoothly.

Why? Note the purported statements against American FMS from IA Chief (even if untrue it seems some sections of establishment have started pushback)

As I said, it is a matter of probabilities that one assigns to decide who is believable. In this case, you reject 3 independent press reports saying there is no official statement from IAF. But on the nuke thread, you reject an official statement from GoI, the DAE and APJK and tend to believe Santhanam who does not make official policy.

As I said, its a matter of probabilities.