C-17s for the IAF?

[Manish_Sharma]

There should be a list pasted on MoD gate about what many things could be purchased from $9bn other than white elephant(c17), if we just neglect it and use a comfortable combo of IL76 and AN 124(5 nos).
Let me add few:
1.18 brand new phalcon awacs or
2.2000 Arjun MK2 tanks (2 such tanks could be loaded on an-124) or
3.10 nuke submarines or
4.18 scorpene subs or
5.250 Su 30 MKI
6.100-150 pakfa
7.15 stealth destroyers
8.100 mrca
9.300 LCA MK 2..........this purchasing spree from america is to make monkey-bama jump with excitement when he visits India,and he gets so much happy that he donates another 5bn to porkis,,.

Thank you for this eye opening post!

[amit]

Samay, boss since you seem to have some deep knowledge of this deal which most others don't seem to possess could you enlighten us with the following details:

1) Where did you pull out the $9 billion cost for C-17s from?

2) By when do you think the 5 An124s and X nos of Il76s would be available as fully built aircraft?

3) And how much would they cost per aircraft? According to available information posted on this page of the thread, five basic new-build An-124s would cost $1.25 billion at $250 million a pop. Do you think that they are cheap? And what would be the cost of any Il76 that may be built in the future

A friendly suggestion: It's good to have an opinion. And it's perfectly valid to think that the C-17s are a bad buy. But could you please read the thread, its got quite a lot of information, which might help.

Cheers!

PS: Incidentally 10 nuke subs cost the same as 18 Scorpenes? And both cost the same as 100-150 Pak Fas? BTW 100-150? Have you realised the percentage range?
What's the cost of each N-sub? And you already know the cost of the PakFa even before the Russian have finalised the configuration! Man you've got hold of some very classified info!

[amit]

Georgewelch, and others above..
C17 should not be compared with IL76...
and all that discussion about AN 124 is just to show that there is one comparable aircraft ,with much better payload capacity than c17,which could be easily used for military as well as other strategic purposes.

Factually incorrect. Unless you are suggesting that India buy second-hand, 1980-1990s built An-124s there is no An-124 aircraft available at this point of time.

[amit]

Thank you for this eye opening post!

Indeed eye-opening, in fact eye-popping post. I'm trying to get my eye-balls back into their sockets!

[Gilles]

Gilles,

Sorry to say but your post reads like a Strawman.

Where did the report say that the C17 would be used for civilian operations and hence needs civilian certification in Asia?

I hope you did not read this:

The requirement in the Asian region is based on major civil disasters like the tsunami, earthquakes and peacekeeping missions.

... to imply civilian use!
.

You read wrong, I wrote no such thing. I wrote that BECAUSE THE C-17 is not civilian certified, they will have to create from scratch a Pan Asian MILITARY consortium to operate it. Please read again.......

I wrote

Asian nations will soon be operating C-17s,under the umbrella of a soon to be created Asian military alliance.

You pounce on me for the pleasure of it ?

[Tanaji]

We are on page 60 of this thread and yet no one has been able to give an alternative to the C17 in the same load class that is available right now as a brand new build. Instead we have arguments on the lines of

IAF does not need C17
We should wait till the Russians start An124 production (wherever and whenever that may be... )

The first is second guessing the IAF, the second one is even more bizarre.

[amit]

You read wrong, I wrote no such thing. I wrote that BECAUSE THE C-17 is not civilian certified, they will have to create from scratch a Pan Asian MILITARY consortium to operate it. Please read again.......

And what makes you think that in the Asean context they need to do that, that is they (meaning Asean) do not have the framework in place?

PS: Boss the report was speculative at best, so let's not go off topic here. We are discussing C17s for India and it really does not matter whether Boeing sells the planes to Asean or not.

Also I did not pounce on you. If you post something that I think is incorrect or speculative, I'll point it out to you in a civil manner. Please do the same in the case of my posts. Why this sense of victimhood boss? I've time and again said that I find many of your posts are informative?

[amit]

We are on page 60 of this thread and yet no one has been able to give an alternative to the C17 in the same load class that is available right now as a brand new build. Instead we have arguments on the lines of

IAF does not need C17
We should wait till the Russians start An124 production (wherever and whenever that may be... )

The first is second guessing the IAF, the second one is even more bizarre.

Tanaji,

Couldn't agree with you more. The arguments are becoming more bizarre by the page!

[Gilles]

You read wrong, I wrote no such thing. I wrote that BECAUSE THE C-17 is not civilian certified, they will have to create from scratch a Pan Asian MILITARY consortium to operate it. Please read again.......

And what makes you think that in the Asean context they need to do that, that is they (meaning Asean) do not have the framework in place?

PS: Boss the report was speculative at best, so let's not go off topic here. We are discussing C17s for India and it really does not matter whether Boeing sells the planes to Asean or not.

But instead of telling that to the person who posted the article, on which I just commented, I get the derogative comment, as usual.....

You know of an Asian military alliance that can operate military aircraft on behalf of several nations, like NATO ? Name one.

[amit]

But instead of telling that to the person who posted the article, on which I just commented, I get the derogative comment, as usual.....

Come on man get off your high horse! What derogative comment did I use. Saying that something is a strawman is not derogative, at least on BRF. In case you haven't noticed BRF is not for the faint hearted.

[Gilles]

Also I did not pounce on you. If you post something that I think is incorrect or speculative, I'll point it out to you in a civil manner. Please do the same in the case of my posts. Why this sense of victimhood boss? I've time and again said that I find many of your posts are informative?

I wrote black on white

Asian nations will soon be operating C-17s,under the umbrella of a soon to be created Asian military alliance.

and you criticize me for suggesting that C-17s will be operated by civilians.

How about apologies ? No, you just rectify by criticizing again the same post on a different angle, however politely.

You called me a Strawman. The Strawman definition:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

Honestly, does that look like me, or you ?

[Samay]

Thank you for this eye opening post!

Indeed eye-opening, in fact eye-popping post. I'm trying to get my eye-balls back into their sockets!

If I have written something extreme ,it is only to indicate that c17s would be another extreme in terms of cost-advantage...
instead of denial(by picking up small errors),if you see what is the intention things would be clear..

1) Where did you pull out the $9 billion cost for C-17s from?

well you can calculate it by factoring why it wont cost 1bn a piece, you will get the numbers .

2) By when do you think the 5 An124s and X nos of Il76s would be available as fully built aircraft?

I didnt knew that we have to talk to the production manager before selecting an aircraft , or we neglect it if it is reported in the media,that the assembly lines are closed .(for a certain period they may be dormant,in case of less rubles ).

five basic new-build An-124s would cost $1.25 billion at $250 million a pop.

If they are assembled in the US..

A friendly suggestion: It's good to have an opinion. And it's perfectly valid to think that the C-17s are a bad buy. But could you please read the thread, its got quite a lot of information, which might help.

I will suggest you to read previous pages .

Factually incorrect. Unless you are suggesting that India buy second-hand, 1980-1990s built An-124s there is no An-124 aircraft available at this point of time.

I am not saying that they are out there in open with a price tag attached,waiting for someone to come and purchase
and we are not talking about purchasing an apparel for the night's party from a retail store?
Current availability is not that big issue in this
You tell russians to make parts of brahmos, irrespective of the fact that they dont purchase themselves ,thats what their job is .... The infrastructure to make AN124 is there , it only needs further orders .
In case they could be assembled here in India, before we let boeing open a manufacturing center here and makes us assemble the AN124 which it later sells us .

What's the cost of each N-sub? And you already know the cost of the PakFa even before the Russian have finalised the configuration! Man you've got hold of some very classified info!

I am not forcing anyone to consider the numbers as factual( even though the cost of manufacturing arihant class from the prototype would be far lesser than international standards .Some russian expert did mentioned the cost-range of pakfa lies between 50 mn to 100mn,for your satisfaction http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20100219/157939986.html) .
what I was suggesting is that there are more ways to utilize scarce resources than spending on white elephants.
Instead of making jokes and considering a corrupt decision as correct(since it favours amriki stuff) ,I suggest you explore what are the different possibilities before praising USA

[amit]

Samay,

Good entertainment and sense of humour.

Thanks!

[Sanku]

Good amit, nice to see that your colors are up for show.

We are on page 60 of this thread and yet no one has been able to give an alternative to the C17 in the same load class that is available right now as a brand new build. Instead we have arguments on the lines of

No Tanaji none of us can suggest a aircraft which will lift exactly 70-77 tonnes over 5400 Kms. With the size shape and cost of a C 17.

Most other aircrafts that we are aware of are different -- for one they are substantially cheaper and then they either carry a few tonnes more or less.

But I suspect IAF had a pressing requirement to carry exactly 70-77 tonnes over 5400 kms. Nothing else would have done.

Of course there was never even a cheep from IAF prior to 2008 that they needed a C 17 class neither the fact that Shri A K Antony has been beseeching the forces to have a broad based specs have anything to do with the matter.

Of course 70-77 tonnes over 5400 Kms and today, right now, immediately. Absolutely critical for survival I must say.

[Tanaji]

Er, there you go second guessing IAF again

My understanding is the IAF wants to carry more than what a Il 76 can carry. Why? I don't know, but that seems to be the criteria.

Care to name an alternative that is a new build and available now?

[Sanku]

Tanaji, its simple, if IAF wants to carry more than what Il 76 currently carries

1) There are Il versions which carry more
2) There is a An 124
3) There are militarized versions of Airbus a/c

In case you are saying, "oh they are not available yet" please note one month and C 17 production line would be in same shape as the others, shut down for a while.

Clearly at 5.8 billion $ we can buy the entire assembly line and get it to Bangalore and make as many as we want, and pay for HAL MTA and kick start the airline and what not. (well this statement is a little over the top but the idea is to convey what this much money would do)

-------------

And Sir, the whole forum is *about* second guessing the GoI based on informed opinions after all.

[Tanaji]

In case you are saying, "oh they are not available yet" please note one month and C 17 production line would be in same shape as the others, shut down for a while.

That is glossing over a bit isnt it?

An 124 - 100 is the "new" build that is offered. There are no dates on when they will start production. Let alone that, they dont even know WHERE they will assemble it. Russia? Boeing?

Il 76 extended range, again , no known production dates if at all. Is the final engineering even complete? Who will be the customers? Just us?

Are you referring to A400 or the tanker? If the former, again, huge delays, and it is expensive. I dont know how much it compares with the C17 though. Plus there is a backlog of 181 planes that are ahead in the queue of our order. Any guesses when the plane would actually be with the IAF in that case?

Do you really think the IAF should go for the first two options? Would you even buy a washing machine from them under those circumstances?

[Sanku]

In case you are saying, "oh they are not available yet" please note one month and C 17 production line would be in same shape as the others, shut down for a while.

That is glossing over a bit isnt it?

List of issues....

No it is not, in fact I see them as opportunities, to get a far better deal than before, maybe a local partnership. Whats the hurry after all? Surely if we can take it easy with rapidly depleting air strength then transports are really not that a big deal?

Do you really think the IAF should go for the first two options? Would you even buy a washing machine from them under those circumstances?

Well in case I have to buy a washing machine for a price which I can buy a new house along with all paid washerperson, hey why not, I will wait for a while and wash my own clothes till then, or use a Laundromat.

Anyway I am not even saying that IAF should BUY them, I am saying

1) Issue a RFI, explain the role to Indian taxpayer too
2) Carry out tests
3) Do PNC

Then buy...

This is the process to be followed except for really life and death purchases; and clearly C 17 is not a life and death purchase, in fact till two years back it was not even on horizon remotely.

The real life and death purchases are all on taking their sweet time....

[Tanaji]

Whats the hurry after all? Surely if we can take it easy with rapidly depleting air strength then transports are really not that a big deal?

Ah, there you go second guessing the IAF again. Evidently they want it now... why, how , what for are IAF questions. If we assume that IAF issues a requirement then we have to take it on faith.

You dont grudge the IA their fantastic cut and past GSQRs, so why grudge the IAF?

1) Issue a RFI, explain the role to Indian taxpayer too
2) Carry out tests
3) Do PNC

Yes agree of course. Pity, no one applies same standards for the T90 deal when the vendor was Russian... where we ended up buying 1200 of a inferior product to a cheaper local one.

For the record, I dont believe the C17 is a good deal by a long shot. But its the only game in town currently. I also think this may be pay off to the Americans for the nuke deal.

[Shalav]

Had written about this a bit earlier up-thread.

I am convinced this is part of QPQ for Amirkhan, the other half will be when we buy an over-priced GE nuclear power plant. I have even stopped arguing about it some 20 or so pages back.

As an Indian, I will hope the Rs. 26,000 crores spent on these aircraft will never be wasted spending.

[Sanku]

Whats the hurry after all? Surely if we can take it easy with rapidly depleting air strength then transports are really not that a big deal?

Ah, there you go second guessing the IAF again. Evidently they want it now... why, how , what for are IAF questions. If we assume that IAF issues a requirement then we have to take it on faith.

Take it on faith?

I think I just made my point.

And I think the transports are in much better shape than combat really, what with An 32 Life extension and 10-15 years of Il even with life extension. Really, this has nothing about second guessing IAF. IAF itself has been crying itself hoarse about the DIRE need for more sqns, in comparison the most any IAF officer has said about C 17 is nice to have, and that too for less than 2 years.

So if IAF really wanted transports over other pieces, they have been awfully quite about it, where as they have been vocal about other stuff.

You dont grudge the IA their fantastic cut and past GSQRs, so why grudge the IAF?

I have absolutely the same standards for both. These standards are what MoD wants for either party.

Yes agree of course. Pity, no one applies same standards for the T90 deal when the vendor was Russian... where we ended up buying 1200 of a inferior product to a cheaper local one.

Sorry Tanaji, thats a weak argument, as I have mentioned before, which you conveniently side step, the decision taken in 1998 and 2008 are separated by 10 long years, 10 years of redefinition of procurement process.

What next? You will use Mig 21 purchase to justify this?

For the record, I dont believe the C17 is a good deal by a long shot. But its the only game in town currently. I also think this may be pay off to the Americans for the nuke deal.

This is not the only game in town by a long chalk

This is a payoff to Americans

This is also to ensure that we have the logistical abilities to host US Forces as they base in India in future.

[Tanaji]

And I think the transports are in much better shape than combat really, what with An 32 Life extension and 10-15 years of Il even with life extension. Really, this has nothing about second guessing IAF. IAF itself has been crying itself hoarse about the DIRE need for more sqns, in comparison the most any IAF officer has said about C 17 is nice to have, and that too for less than 2 years.

Or perhaps the IAF was so concerned with the fighter strengths (since thats their primary mission) it raised a stink so it gets approved on a priority. The transport while being a necessity of course was lower down the list than the fighters, but a requirement nevertheless. What, you are now complaining that we should have waited till the IAF raised a stink about the transporters similar to the fighters?

These standards are what MoD wants for either party.

Exactly so, these are the IAF requirements for a > Il 76 load carrying capacity. Why double guess them?

Sorry Tanaji, thats a weak argument, as I have mentioned before, which you conveniently side step, the decision taken in 1998 and 2008 are separated by 10 long years, 10 years of redefinition of procurement process.

What next? You will use Mig 21 purchase to justify this

You are now making it appear that the whole process of tenders is somehow a brand new development that the MoD suddenly discovered. No one in its 63 years of history ever thought to issue a tender for any MoD contract whatsoever...
Fact is, the T90 selection process was completely flawed to begin with to suit some vendor(s). Now that the powers-that-be are using the same procedure to benefit a non Russian vendor, its suddenly a huge issue.

Both processes are/were flawed, period. Trying to justify the T90 procedure is lame.

[Sanku]

Or perhaps the IAF was so concerned with the fighter strengths (since thats their primary mission) it raised a stink so it gets approved on a priority. The transport while being a necessity of course was lower down the list than the fighters, but a requirement nevertheless. What, you are now complaining that we should have waited till the IAF raised a stink about the transporters similar to the fighters?

So the priority item that IAF raises a stink about takes 10+ years to even have a selection where as the non priority items gets fast tracked in less than two years without any effort?

I know MoD is a strange place, but the above is truly alice in wonderland.

Exactly so, these are the IAF requirements for a > Il 76 load carrying capacity. Why double guess them?

Umm why not? This is what we do here and clearly this is what I am entitled to as a citizen of India.

In any case in this example I am not second guessing IAF, I am merely saying what the IAF has itself said.

Its just that when different things IAF has said are put together on the same page, the reasons for C 17 choice stands thread bare.

Not my problem

You are now making it appear that the whole process of tenders is somehow a brand new development that the MoD suddenly discovered.

Actually, yes, this whole process has been put together in 2002 time frame and still being updated.

Earlier there was much more flexibility and much more ad hocness.

Both processes are/were flawed, period. Trying to justify the T90 procedure is lame.

T 90 was brought in another era, another time under a different set of rules, and under a completely different threat perception.

That is a episode different from the current one. Trying a equality is flawed.

[Samay]

This is not the only game in town by a long chalk

This is a payoff to Americans

This is also to ensure that we have the logistical abilities to host US Forces as they base in India in future.

well said sanku ji, you nailed it,.
as a general phenomenon ,this happens with all the so called us allies.,not to mention our politicos always jump to grab anything that makes their pockets heavy.

[eklavya]

US forces will not be based in India in the future. We do not enhance the capability of our forces through comprising sovereignity. The whole point of enhancing capability is to protect sovereignity.

[Samay]

US forces will not be based in India in the future. We do not enhance the capability of our forces through comprising sovereignity.

Eklavya ji ,,the case study of us-allies will make it clear

The whole point of enhancing capability is to protect sovereignity.

Whats the use of such a huge force when we debate on every tiny issue ,whether to use it for self defence or not ,and there persists a behavioural delay in every incident related to the national security...
then suddenly one day somebody comes up with a decision to buy very costly aircrafts without a normal transparent procedure ,that too for a cargo plane,when there was no immediate need of any such strategic scenario
what makes this happen?

[Indranil]

I had decided long time back not to post against opinions, because all of us are entitled to ours, and nobody seems to budge .

But I will ask one question, since I see it being raised far too often.

Samay (nothing personal, I am just asking you since you raised it last ), under the previous acquisitions and scheme of things, did we get any transparency. For example in the MMRCA competition, what will you and me come to know? If the MoD/IAF has already made a decision, would any of us know! It is very easy to censor such information, isn't it?

[eklavya]

Enhancing our strategic airlift capability is clearly a good thing. I havent done the cost-benefit life-cycle analysis of the C-17 versus the alternatives, but I agree that US$560m per bird is an eye-watering figure. Its a government to government deal without any competitive bidding (as far as I can tell), but this is not the first or the last system where we will choose to or be compelled to deal with a single vendor (who, other than Russia, would lease India an Akula class boat). Strategic factors are clearly at play here. And no strategic partnership with India can be based on compromising our vital interests. Therefore, I repeat my narrow point, that foreign forces will not be based in India.

[Samay]

If the MoD/IAF has already made a decision, would any of us know! It is very easy to censor such information, isn't it?

By censoring information (of foriegn-origin acquisitions) they have already burnt their fingers many times, so why to hide information if the decision is secured anyway ?
In a govt to govt sales ,such possibility of involving middlemen is reduced, but not the offsets

[Tanaji]

Umm why not? This is what we do here and clearly this is what I am entitled to as a citizen of India.

Of course, thats why the forum is for. But one has to accept some things as given right? IAF knows about its requirements and we dont know why they want it, so double guessing on the whys is pointless. As I said before, did you double guess on the fantastic cut and paste GSQRs by the IA? "We want the best" seems to be the armed forces mantra.. and currently the C17 is, purely because its the only game around that is available *now* and not at some mythical point in the future.

T 90 was brought in another era, another time under a different set of rules, and under a completely different threat perception.

That is a episode different from the current one. Trying a equality is flawed.

Come sir, do you seriously mean to suggest that the MoD never ever called for bids for *any* contract prior to 2002? You yourself have admitted that there was a lot more "flexibility and adhocism" before. Doesn't that mean the MoD had a lot more latitude to get the best deal around? Is calling for tenders such a new concept that MoD never even heard about it before 2002?

Fact is, the system was manipulated at that time to benefit a single vendor, just as it is being manipulated now. It is wrong now and it was wrong then.

[Viv S]

1. The appearance of new production aircraft onto the market is still iffy.
2. $45,000! This 2008 report for the Congress puts it at $11,330. Over its lifetime that works out to be a difference of $450-500 million per aircraft. Assuming(optimistically) that cost of aviation fuel doesn't increase.
3. I didn't bring it up as benchmark. The An-124 hasn't flown from the Camp Rhino so that negates Sanku's statement.
4. Maybe you're right about that then. With regard to the C-17's professed capability, its coming to India for trials at the end of this month. If its specs are indeed fictional as you claim, the IAF will reject it.
5. Its still very much serves a niche market for oversize cargo. I don't expect it to have anywhere near the production numbers of the C-17.

1) Correct, I agree.
2) You are also correct. But that figure does NOT include the cost of acquisition, only the direct operating cost. In the same box where you read the $11,330 figure, just above it, it is written that the average C-17 acquisition cost was 280 million dollars. The aircraft has a service life of 30,000 hours. Divide 280 million dollars by 30,000 hours and you come up with 9,333 dollars which is to be added to the $11,330. Then there is the interest on the loans.....
3) Its difficult to compare CIVILIAN An-124s to MILITARY C-17s. The An-124 had never been to war yet. Who knows where a military operated An-124 would have landed.
4) I can't wait. I just hope they won't make a big secret about it. One thing for certain, a C-17 that lands anywhere on an unpaved runway in India does not go un-noticed. The IAF will reject it only if unpaved runway capability is really important to them. It may not be important all all. The UK and Canada both hyped that STOL C-17 capability while they were in the acquisition stages. None made use of it once the aircraft were purchased and inducted. Australia did fly a few times to one custom-made-for-C-17 "unpaved" runway in Afghanistan.
5) Correct. The C-17 is the equivalent to the USSR's IL-76 of which 950 were built. The An-124 is to be compared to the C-5. The difference I was making though, is that both the IL-76 and the An-124 are attractive to commercial operators. The C-17, the C-141 and the C-5 were not. Not because they were not good aircraft, but because of their very high cost.

2) Yes, but then you'd have to include a new build An-124/C-5's acquisition + maintenance costs as well. They'd still end up costing at least 50% more than the C-17. Interest on loans?
3) Well until it enters production the IAF doesn't have the option of field testing it like its doing the C-17.
4) Not really. In central or south India it would certainly be observed. But, if it were tested in the NE or Ladakh it could may not come up strong on the media's radar. Also, rough field capability is not something that you'd use in peacetime(the Afghanistan war isn't a conventional one). But (at least in the IAF's case) the forces need to be prepared for a conventional war/crisis situation where hitherto unemployed capabilities can be of critical importance.
5) True. But again the low cost was to a large extent possible through large orders from the VVS, Soviet allied states as well as countries like India and China. Would a new build IL-76 or An-124 get similar orders to depress the cost? US companies on the other hand usually get massive orders from the DoD allowing them to offer foreign customers good value for money.

[Viv S]

Anyway I am not even saying that IAF should BUY them, I am saying

1) Issue a RFI, explain the role to Indian taxpayer too
2) Carry out tests
3) Do PNC

How do you know an RFI wasn't issued to Ilyushin/UAC for the IL-76MD-90/MF?

[Juggi G]

India Edges Toward C-17 Buy

Boeing also is in discussions with Indian paramilitary forces looking at purchasing C-17s.

[Gilles]

2) You are also correct. But that figure does NOT include the cost of acquisition, only the direct operating cost. In the same box where you read the $11,330 figure, just above it, it is written that the average C-17 acquisition cost was 280 million dollars. The aircraft has a service life of 30,000 hours. Divide 280 million dollars by 30,000 hours and you come up with 9,333 dollars which is to be added to the $11,330. Then there is the interest on the loans.....
3) Its difficult to compare CIVILIAN An-124s to MILITARY C-17s. The An-124 had never been to war yet. Who knows where a military operated An-124 would have landed.
4) I can't wait. I just hope they won't make a big secret about it. One thing for certain, a C-17 that lands anywhere on an unpaved runway in India does not go un-noticed. The IAF will reject it only if unpaved runway capability is really important to them. It may not be important all all. The UK and Canada both hyped that STOL C-17 capability while they were in the acquisition stages. None made use of it once the aircraft were purchased and inducted. Australia did fly a few times to one custom-made-for-C-17 "unpaved" runway in Afghanistan.
5) Correct. The C-17 is the equivalent to the USSR's IL-76 of which 950 were built. The An-124 is to be compared to the C-5. The difference I was making though, is that both the IL-76 and the An-124 are attractive to commercial operators. The C-17, the C-141 and the C-5 were not. Not because they were not good aircraft, but because of their very high cost.

2) Yes, but then you'd have to include a new build An-124/C-5's acquisition + maintenance costs as well. They'd still end up costing at least 50% more than the C-17. Interest on loans?
3) Well until it enters production the IAF doesn't have the option of field testing it like its doing the C-17.
4) Not really. In central or south India it would certainly be observed. But, if it were tested in the NE or Ladakh it could may not come up strong on the media's radar. Also, rough field capability is not something that you'd use in peacetime(the Afghanistan war isn't a conventional one). But (at least in the IAF's case) the forces need to be prepared for a conventional war/crisis situation where hitherto unemployed capabilities can be of critical importance.
5) True. But again the low cost was to a large extent possible through large orders from the VVS, Soviet allied states as well as countries like India and China. Would a new build IL-76 or An-124 get similar orders to depress the cost? US companies on the other hand usually get massive orders from the DoD allowing them to offer foreign customers good value for money.

2) These are unknown. Industry publications reported that the last couple An-124s sold around 2004 for about 35 to 50 million. Although these were completed with previously built airframes, a lot of components were brand new and reflected 2004 prices: engines, avionics, hydraulics, etc. People have speculated that an An-124 would cost 250 million dollars. That is just speculation. Let compare with the price of current production Russian aircraft. The TU-204, a current production aircraft based on a Soviet design, sells for about 35 million dollars. Brand new. Its a 210 passenger aircraft with trans-oceanic range. Not built from old airframes. A B-737-800, which is smaller, sells in the 70 million range. Smaller aircraft sells for double the price.
Yes, interest on loans. Like commercial airlines, governments generally borrow money for military purchases. Even the United Arab Emirates borrowed to buy their 6 C-17s (http://www.wahacapital.ae/news/106/106/ ... =22&mode=1). I don't think I have to tell you the US borrow from the Chinese to buy theirs. All countries that run deficits do. You don't think India will pay cash for theirs do you?
3) Antonov Airlines which owns several An-124s, several of which have been upgraded to the new An-124-100M-150 standard (150 tonne capacity), happens to belong the the Antonov Design Bureau, the type certificate holder, the designer and the builder of the An-124. Why could they not provide one of their aircraft to India for field tests? The upgraded An-124M-150 can be considered a prototype for new production aircraft.
5) I think that a new build IL-476 built from scratch in Ulyanovsk, in Russia, would probably cost more (50% or so) than the 50 million for IL-76 coming out of Tashkent but probably not by far. The IL-476, like the Boeing 737 or the C-130, will not be a new design with all the cost associated with new designs but an improvement over an existing and proven aircraft. Its much cheaper than new designs. Which is one of the reasons the SU-100, an aircraft half the size of the TU-100, costs almost the same price.

[amit]

People have speculated that an An-124 would cost 250 million dollars. That is just speculation.

Gilles,

How can you say the $250 million price tag is pure speculation? This RiaNovosti (state-owned Russian news agency) report clearly states that the price is $250 million.

Russian experts believe that the future project could become reality only if a "political" decision is made to manufacture An-124 for the U.S. military. The civilian use of the plane is very limited, while the cost of up to $250 mln would require the production of a large number of such aircraft to make it profitable.

The report clearly implies that future new build An124s can only be reality if Boeing makes them and that too initially for the US military. Now it could well be that this report is wrong/inaccurate. But please don't expect anyone to take your word for it. Please post a link which states that the actual cost of new build An124s would be cheaper than the $250 million and would be built in Russia/Ukraine. If you can show a credible source then I'll be the first to agree with you.

Incidentally, just for your information, I also think that the C17s are horribly expensive and it would be nice to see an alternative. But, as others have pointed out, in the 60 odd pages of this thread, nobody has been able to point to a concrete, flying and new build alternative despite suggesting planes from the 37 ton class like the new Airbus transport that is being developed all the way to the massive 150 ton plus An124.

[amit]

India Edges Toward C-17 Buy

From this report:

Boeing is looking at fulfilling the 30% in offsets that would be required for the deal through joint ventures in training and support, manufacturing, IT, support equipment and services.

A senior Indian air force official says the aircraft was chosen after a thorough study because of its range, ease of operation and capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads.

Please note this report is from Aviation Week and not from some blog.

[Surya]

Its still not signed and certified by IAF

[Gilles]

How can you say the $250 million price tag is pure speculation? This RiaNovosti (state-owned Russian news agency) report clearly states that the price is $250 million.

Well your article states "Russian experts as the source.

This article dated Dec 2009 quotes

United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) CEO Alexei Fyodorov said a total of 20 aircraft were to be produced by 2020 in accordance with the state arms procurement program.

He added the UAC planned to manufacture three Ruslans each year through 2020.

He said the cost to build one aircraft was around $200 million.

Thisarticle from the Moscow news, dated a few day ago, says

“Even if produced in Russia, UAC announced that the catalogue price for the plane will be $150-200 million, and production in the USA is going to be objectively more expensive,”

So in 5 minutes of Googling, I produced three prices, 250 million, 200 million and "between 150 and 200 million".

Take your pick. Its all speculation on their part.

By the way, I read somewhere that this talk of a joint venture between the Russians and the US for resuming An-124 had been done without consulting the Ukrainians. Mr Medvedev seems to have forgotten that the Antonov Design Bureau, without whom no An-124 production can be considered, since they are the designers and the type certificate holders, is located in Kiev, in the Ukraine, not in Russia.

[amit]

How can you say the $250 million price tag is pure speculation? This RiaNovosti (state-owned Russian news agency) report clearly states that the price is $250 million.

Well your article states "Russian experts as the source.

This article dated Dec 2009 quotes

United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) CEO Alexei Fyodorov said a total of 20 aircraft were to be produced by 2020 in accordance with the state arms procurement program.

He added the UAC planned to manufacture three Ruslans each year through 2020.

He said the cost to build one aircraft was around $200 million.

Thisarticle from the Moscow news, dated a few day ago, says

“Even if produced in Russia, UAC announced that the catalogue price for the plane will be $150-200 million, and production in the USA is going to be objectively more expensive,”

So in 5 minutes of Googling, I produced three prices, 250 million, 200 million and "between 150 and 200 million".

Take your pick. Its all speculation on their part.

By the way, I read somewhere that this talk of a joint venture between the Russians and the US for resuming An-124 had been done without consulting the Ukrainians. Mr Medvedev seems to have forgotten that the Antonov Design Bureau, without whom no An-124 production can be considered, since they are the designers and the type certificate holders, is located in Kiev, in the Ukraine, not in Russia.

So Giles, you use a December 2009 report to dish what a June 11, 2010 report says. That's fine by me if you want to do that.

Regarding the Moscow New article, perhaps you missed these two points:

Fedorov earlier said that resuming production of Ruslan may cost up to $1 billion and the US specialists may be invited to ease the financial pressure on all the participants, reported Rosbalt news agency. “Besides, the participation of a third partner will open up new markets for the project,” he said.

And:

Experts see the deal as economically impractical. “Even if produced in Russia, UAC announced that the catalogue price for the plane will be $150-200 million, and production in the USA is going to be objectively more expensive,” a source told the daily. The plane cannot be used in regular flights and the charter operation will be unprofitable.

So the new and improved An124 cannot be used in regular flights, eh?

You're right boss 2 mins of Googling can produce very interesting results.

Incidentally a C17 plane - just the plane - without a service contract costs $220 million (this figure has been time and again been linked on this thread so please don't ask me to provide a link). How different is that from $200 million which is just a guesstimate without any production facility even being built?

[Gilles]

So Giles, you use a December 2009 report to dish what a June 11, 2010 report says. That's fine by me if you want to do that.

Regarding the Moscow New article, perhaps you missed these two points:

Fedorov earlier said that resuming production of Ruslan may cost up to $1 billion and the US specialists may be invited to ease the financial pressure on all the participants, reported Rosbalt news agency. “Besides, the participation of a third partner will open up new markets for the project,” he said.

And:

Experts see the deal as economically impractical. “Even if produced in Russia, UAC announced that the catalogue price for the plane will be $150-200 million, and production in the USA is going to be objectively more expensive,” a source told the daily. The plane cannot be used in regular flights and the charter operation will be unprofitable.

So the new and improved An124 cannot be used in regular flights, eh?

You're right boss 2 mins of Googling can produce very interesting results.

Incidentally a C17 plane - just the plane - without a service contract costs $220 million (this figure has been time and again been linked on this thread so please don't ask me to provide a link). How different is that from $200 million which is just a guesstimate without any production facility even being built?

Laugh all you want. The 250 million quote was from anonymous "experts" while the 200 million one, although 6 month old, was a direct quote from the CEO of UAC, the largest aviation consortium in Russia which happens to own the Aviastar plant where An-124s are built (http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/) Like I said, take your pick.

I don't see what you're gloating about. You guys all decided to pick on me or what? Everyone tries to shoot down whatever I say. Is it a hobby ?

No An-124 has ever been used on regular flights. Not now. Not in the past. Not in the future. A B-747F carries cargo for much less money. A Cargo MD-11F does too. Just about any wide bodied cargo aircraft does. Ramped military-type aircraft (IL-76, An-124 etc) can only make money hauling what regular aircraft cannot: Oversize or super heavy, or flying regular cargo into airfields the others cannot land on. That never includes regular flights for the An-124 which cannot fly into short or un-improved fields. UPS, DHL and Fed-Ex will never have such aircraft.

I've been telling all on this Forum for months that there was no interest in the commercial version of the C-17, called the BC-17, because at the price they were selling it, no company could make any money with it. That argument is valid for any 250 million dollar An-124.

This means there are 3 courses of action:
1) An-124s will have to be sold for an amount commercial operators can afford
2) It will only be sold to the military
3) It will no longer be produced

That is what the phrase "and the charter operation will be unprofitable" makes reference to above.