C-17s for the IAF?

[Gilles]

Its probably just gossip, but here is a California newspaper that says that talks are under way to supply Pakistan with C-17s.......

http://www.contracostatimes.com/califor ... ck_check=1

Ratification comes just days after media in India reported that Congress had approved the sale of 10 C-17s to the Indian Air Force. As part of the deal, Boeing would provide lifetime service and parts for India's jets - maintenance that would be performed at a Boeing warehouse near Spring Street and Redondo Avenue.

While the jet has been the workhorse of the United States Air Force since production began in the mid-1990s, Boeing is increasingly turned to foreign customers as demand dries up at home.

The United Kingdom, Qatar, Canada, Australia, United Arab Emirates and a NATO-led force have purchased C-17s in recent years, and talks are reportedly underway for sales to Saudi Arabia, Japan and Pakistan.

If foreign orders are secured in coming months, the Long Beach plant could remain in production well past the current contract's expiration date, in June 2015.

[Surya]

You guys all decided to pick on me or what? Everyone tries to shoot down whatever I say. Is it a hobby ?

oh touchy are we

Err last I knew you are the one who has come in here with your gripes and issues with the C 17, made inane comparisons to the other users of C17 and suggested even more inane ideas like hiring planes.

and you are surprised we shoot down what you say

[Karan Dixit]

Regarding AN124:

I am of an opinion that we can use about five AN124s. There definitely is a need for them and probably we can purchase used ones from airliners. But the problem is runways. The icy heights where Indian soldiers are posted today are very difficult terrain. One of the problems with these mountains is that it is hard to find a long enough stretch of flat land that can be turned into a runway. So, AN124s are out of question for these icy heights unless we want to build super hi-tech runways by connecting two or more peaks. It can be done but this again brings us back to USA. I cannot think of any other country but US which can undertake this kind of project. If completed, it will be an expensive piece of asset which of course will be on the top of enemy's bombing list. Once bombed, during the war time, it cannot be repaired that quickly; meaning it will be rendered useless.

Other alternative is to survey and identify the flat piece of lands which are not very long, certainly not long enough to land AN124s but can be converted into runways easily. And, let us hope that pilots can land C17s on them; IAF trials for C17s will begin soon and we will know the truth then.

I understand that C17s are expensive but what are we going to do with the soldiers who are posted on these heights? They need to be rotated. They need food, medicines, ammunition and lots of gears to survive up there.

[Gilles]

You guys all decided to pick on me or what? Everyone tries to shoot down whatever I say. Is it a hobby ?

oh touchy are we

Err last I knew you are the one who has come in here with your gripes and issues with the C 17, made inane comparisons to the other users of C17 and suggested even more inane ideas like hiring planes.

and you are surprised we shoot down what you say

Inane ? When I began to post in this Forum, most people here were convinced the C-17 was some kind of large jet-powered STOL aircraft that was going to land at the unpaved high altitude ALGs with belly loads of Arjuns.

You also though that the C-17 operating cost was low and that India would buy 10 of them for 1.8 Billion dollars.

And you call my arguments inane? You know that "inane" means stupid ?

[Sanku]

The only inanity on display here is the clear cut avoidance of basic truth...

[Sanku]

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.

Tanaji, all those statements are basically incorrect period. Trying to set up IAF as a angle by bashing IA on some imagined grievance is not going to cut it.

Meanwhile the argument is still take it on faith. Sorry buddy, I do not take anything on faith, thats for our illegitimate cousins to the west. (Cant leave a chance to take a jibe on them can I)

The whole reason that the procurement policy was revamped to expressly avoid the situation of single vendor deal and associated muck raking.

Clearly the basic tenets of MoD itself have been flouted here.

Is calling for tenders such a new concept that MoD never even heard about it before 2002?

Well thats like saying since concept of fire existed internal combustion engine is no big deal.

The concepts have all existed since MB in 3000 BCE at least. The concepts are not a problem, the system and the approach that we are supposed to take after the new Defence Aquisition Plan and its preferred model since 2002 is.

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.

Sir, there was NO SYSTEM. You are plain incorrect. The next DAP et al have come into existence in 2002.

Unfortunately, GoI does not work on concepts, it works on a system, as in defined rule book. The new directives ARE different.

Sorry but thats how it is.

[arnab]

.

Clearly the basic tenets of MoD itself have been flouted here.

This of course is an unvarnished lie I'm sure Sanku ji will not be able to prove this statement with any DPP documents that are available.

[Sanku]

.

Clearly the basic tenets of MoD itself have been flouted here.

This of course is an unvarnished lie I'm sure Sanku ji will not be able to prove this statement with any DPP documents that are available.

Actually I have already showed how it is so. The DPP clearly says that single vendor purchase be avoided except of cases of national security being compromised etc.

I also posted a speech by Shri A K Antony.

Now does C 17 qualify for national security imperative? -- Depends on who you ask, clearly.

[arnab]

Actually I have already showed how it is so. The DPP clearly says that single vendor purchase be avoided except of cases of national security being compromised etc.

I also posted a speech by Shri A K Antony.

Now does C 17 qualify for national security imperative? -- Depends on who you ask, clearly.

Nope you simply quoted a speech where Shree Antony says - go for multi-vendor approach 'where possible'. DPP 2006 (Capital Acquisitions) clearly lays out procedures for a multi-vendor approach as well as a single vendor approach.
There is a reason why GOI does not pay attention to amatures pontificating on a forum. You think the 2002 (?) Policy was created to remove 'muck' in procurement. Wrong. It was simply to codify a multitude of existing practices (single vendor / multi vendor et al) into a structured policy. There was nothing revolutionary in the 'revised' procurement procedure. period.

[Sanku]

Actually I quoted the DPP from MoD site as well,

Nope you simply quoted a speech where Shree Antony says - go for multi-vendor approach 'where possible'. DPP 2006 (Capital Acquisitions) clearly lays out procedures for a multi-vendor approach as well as a single vendor approach

Where it clearly says the procedure of single vendor approach is acceptable in "special cases" and proceeds to outline the special cases.

I know you are adept at mixing just a mite of less than truth with clear cut facts to produce a distorted vision, but hey your choice.

Unfortunately both the DPP (which the MoD itself says is a new approach to deal with changed times. ) and Shri Anotnys speech make it clear for a unbiased party to what is the MoD stand

Aberrations clearly stand out.

But hey, those who wont see cant see.

[arnab]

Actually I quoted the DPP from MoD site as well,


Where it clearly says the procedure of single vendor approach is acceptable in "special cases" and proceeds to outline the special cases.

I know you are adept at mixing just a mite of less than truth with clear cut facts to produce a distorted vision, but hey your choice.

Unfortunately both the DPP (which the MoD itself says is a new approach to deal with changed times. ) and Shri Anotnys speech make it clear for a unbiased party to what is the MoD stand

Aberrations clearly stand out.

But hey, those who wont see cant see.

Actually you did not, but I will make it easier for you. Show me Here is the relevant section. Prove that the basic tenants have been flouted by GOI / DAC.

Single Vendor Situation
69. If certain state-of-the-art equipment being manufactured by only one vendor is to be
procured to get qualitative edge over our adversary then such case should be debated by the
DAC after proper technology scan is carried out by HQ IDS in consultation with the DRDO.

[Sanku]

Thank you Arnab, and I am sure you will also tell us how

case should be debated by the DAC after proper technology scan is carried out by HQ IDS in consultation with the DRDO.

Because

only one vendor is to be procured to get qualitative edge over our adversary

Was done to identify critical technologies in C 17 which would give us a edge over our adversary.

So far the only edge any one has pointed out has is its a horribly more expensive than others who do the same job.

But of course there must be some really secret way that C 17 can be used compared to others, perhaps it has better goat pens for use when meat on hoofs is transported. We dont know but it must be, even though C 17 is a simple transport seen in action all over the world by a large number of people in addition to An 124 and Ils.

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

PS> Did I say you were my best buddy in these debates? You prove the point in a way I could never?

If I did, let me say it again. Many thanks.

[amit]

The only inanity on display here is the clear cut avoidance of basic truth...

Well said.

The basic truth which is being strenuously avoided is that there is no comparable aircraft to the C17 in production that could be tested out in a MRCA type of multi-vendor competition by the IAF.

The so-called new and improved Il76 and An124 exist on paper and in board rooms. It is not IAF's responsibility nor charter to bankroll the Russian companies to do the necessary R&D and building of production facilities to get the aircraft in production so that it can buy 10 or maybe 20 aircraft. And then the Russians make a profit by selling them to the Chinese in greater numbers.

[Folks cry blue murder due to the fact that the US sells arms to Pakistan,as they should rightfully. However, there's thundering silence over the fact that the Russian do the same with the Chinese - the Chinese operate more Il76s than do the IAF].

To get around this fundamental truth we've had this amazing display of inanity that every theoretical plane from the 37 ton Airbus transport of which not a single copy has yet been built (and which has a potential order backlog of 180 odd aircraft), all the way to a 150 ton An124 (that the Russians may build for the US military if all the stars align) being touted as a better buy than the C17.

Yet one fundamental question remains unanswered:

1) How much would the 37 ton Airbus transport cost?

2) How much would a "new and improved" Il76 cost?

3) How does/would a 150 ton version of the 120 ton An124 cost?

And how much would a service contract comparable with what Boeing is willing to sign the dotted line on would cost with these three vendors?

Do note that apparently all the shouting against the C17 is because of the cost factor.

Even Sanku ji hasn't yet taken the line that we shouldn't buy the plane because its a piece of crap!

So cost should be the overriding consideration na?

[Sanku]

Amit, the answers are all put to the completely incorrect points that you keep flogging.

Sorry, but I just want to put it on record that you have still not learnt despite being taught very well, by excellent set of posts by Gilles and rohitvats, in fact the truth got so difficult that you started a abominably uncivil behavior with Gilles trying to shut him up.

As it happens the facts that have been posted by Gilles about the various a/cs and by me about the system speak for themselves.

I dont expect anything remotely better from you frankly and neither from one or two others, but since you insist on taking my posts and making a reply to them I thought let me repeat the basics once more.

[amit]

abominably uncivil behavior

Perhaps you should complain to the Admins to take action Sanku ji?

But before doing that please tell me:

1) How much does a "new and improved" Il76 (which is supposed to be 60 tons) cost?

2) How much does a 150 ton An124 cost?

3) How much does a 37 ton Airbus transport cost?

And how these compare with the C17.

Would be much obliged.

[Sanku]

Amit, I dont know whats your problem, the *rough* numbers for ALL aircraft's are posted.

The exact numbers could only be known IFF the GoI issued a RFI and RFP etc...

But CLEARLY its obvious that many other options exist other than C 17 for airlift, all of which as per available information are much cheaper.

Enough case to ensure that
1) Definition of role
2) RFI
3) RFP
4) Competitive trials
5) Price recognition route

Is feasible But was not followed.

[amit]

Amit, I dont know whats your problem, the *rough* numbers for ALL aircraft's are posted.

The exact numbers could only be known IFF the GoI issued a RFI and RFP etc...

But CLEARLY its obvious that many other options exist other than C 17 for airlift, all of which as per available information are much cheaper.

Enough case to ensure that
1) Definition of role
2) RFI
3) RFP
4) Competitive trials
5) Price recognition route

Is feasible But was not followed.

You know you are an interesting person!

The only *rough* numbers that I've come across are:

* $250 million for An124 (note since its a *rough* number I'm entitled to pick this number and not the 150-200 million which your pal Gilles took).

* $150 million for a wide-bodied version of the Il76 which Rahul_M speculated. However, Rahul added a caveat that a wide bodied version of the Il76 is only being discussed/speculated on BRF and nowhere else.

Do you know of any other *rough* numbers? And yes spare us the $50 million for a plain vanilla Il76 since these are not produced any more and if at all Ilyusin reopens the Il76 plant it will be making a more advanced version of the plane whose *rough* cost/number we don't know about.

Now another *rough* question. Since we are speculating, suppose if IAF wanted to do a RFI/RFP for the IL76 and An124, could you make a *rough* guess as to how soon a IL76 or an An124 with equipment and engines in final configuration to what IAF would buy be available for testing?

Facts and reality can indeed by *rough* quantities you know. They have a nasty habit of cutting through delusions.

Ah well... Life's a Biatch!

[Viv S]

Amit, I dont know whats your problem, the *rough* numbers for ALL aircraft's are posted.

The exact numbers could only be known IFF the GoI issued a RFI and RFP etc...

But CLEARLY its obvious that many other options exist other than C 17 for airlift, all of which as per available information are much cheaper.

Enough case to ensure that
1) Definition of role
2) RFI
3) RFP
4) Competitive trials
5) Price recognition route

Is feasible But was not followed.

The An-124 isn't is production and is not being marketed by Antonov and any figures to do with a future build be they related to performance or price are completely hypothetical, so lets exclude that from the debate.

Now the question remains how the heck do you know an RFI was NOT issued for the IL-76MD-90? How can you say the IAF didn't evaluate it before opting for the C-17?

[amit]

Now the question remains how the heck do you know an RFI was NOT issued for the IL-76MD-90? How can you say the IAF didn't evaluate it before opting for the C-17?

Simple Boss, because there was no public debate/sharing of information with the public. Don't you know that how MoD, IAF, IA and the Navy do procurement of high-tech defence items. Even the paanwala/chaiwaala was excluded!


*****Ducking for cover*****

[Sanku]

Amit My mistake to reply to you, you posses the endearing ability to keep repeating "sun rises in the west" like a well tuned metronome -- and your predictions to happily ignore tons of available data and cherry pick some words from a arbitrary passage and hold it up like the ten commandments.

The An-124 isn't is production and is not being marketed by Antonov and any figures to do with a future build be they related to performance or price are completely hypothetical, so lets exclude that from the debate.

Did the GoI send them a proposal to which they said the above too?

You guys are so sure about C 17 being that great that you are not even willing to concede that perhaps GoI should have taken six months more to send a expression of intrest to three more manufacturers to see what happened?

Actually I understand the paroxysms of frustration that occurs when even the words -- "take six months or so more to look at options, by sending others letters" are said.

What would happen to the nicely concocted "C 17 is the thing" story if the above was done -- thus even the thought must be terminated, at extreme prejudice. Quite similar to the Chinese reactions to Tibetan xeroxs I personally think.

[Sanku]

Now the question remains how the heck do you know an RFI was NOT issued for the IL-76MD-90? How can you say the IAF didn't evaluate it before opting for the C-17?

Actually that is marvelous question? How do we know any thing at all?

Did you know that MRCA RFI was sent to 12 more people including in Papua New Gunie? No dont protest, its true, only you dont know about it.

[geeth]

>>>Yet one fundamental question remains unanswered:

>>>1) How much would the 37 ton Airbus transport cost?

A lot if what we read is correct. Did the IAF ever enquire?

>>>2) How much would a "new and improved" Il76 cost?

That information will be available, only if the IAF approach the Russian Company that manufactures it. Did the IAF ever think about their future requirements, say a couple of decades after the first IL-76 landed? As in the case of the Sukhoi 30 MKI, did the IAF ever approach the Russian Manufacturer and discuss about possible improvements to the existing plane? If not, why not? Did the IAF think of a 'requirement' for the C-17 only after that plane landed in Bangalore for the airshow? Was the requirement for a plane like C-17 so sudden that they didn't get the time to discuss it internally.....and have to hurry up to sign on the dotted lines before Boeing closed their plant once and for all?

Leave the IAF, did you ask these questions yourself?

3) How does/would a 150 ton version of the 120 ton An124 cost?

If there is a query from IAF, then the manufacturer would have given an answer..But, from the past experience, it would be considerably cheaper than the C-17 deal. Don't you think so??

>>>And how much would a service contract comparable with what Boeing is willing to sign the dotted line on would cost with these three vendors?

What is so frigging great about this plane and its sophistication, warranting an outlay of close to $4 Billion over a period of 20 years..? Why should India pay $ 200 Million to U.S.Of A for APPROVING THE SALE OF THESE PLANES BY BOEING?

>>>Do note that apparently all the shouting against the C17 is because of the cost factor.

Oh! you woke up now? Is it apparent to you NOW, after so many pages?

There is a requirement for the Rafale from France. Why the IAF is not going after it?

>>>Even Sanku ji hasn't yet taken the line that we shouldn't buy the plane because its a piece of crap!

I don't know about Sanku, but IMO, for the price quoted, it is crap, from the IAF utility point of view. Don't tell me IAF wants it - sometimes extraneous considerations influence decisions. See Union Carbide..where are we now? Indian Netas are pliable and the babus and armed forces are servile.

[Viv S]

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.

2) So would you suggest the IAF puts its plans on hold, until Antonov and its prospective partner make up their mind whether they should build new aircraft?
I do think India will pay cash - I believe about half of the defence budget is dedicated to capital acquisitions; I don't believe a LoC will be necessary. With regard to national fiscal deficit, how is that relevant to a choice between buying Russian or buying American?
3) If I've understood it correctly they aren't marketing it globally right now. I suppose the IAF could have approached them and volunteered to be a launch customer. It didn't for obvious reasons
5) Then again, as with the IL-76 the lack of a wide-body still remains a deficiency in the IL-476.

[Sanku]

3) If I've understood it correctly they aren't marketing it globally right now. I suppose the IAF could have approached them and volunteered to be a launch customer. It didn't for obvious reasons.

Quite right the reasons ARE obvious.

[Viv S]

Now the question remains how the heck do you know an RFI was NOT issued for the IL-76MD-90? How can you say the IAF didn't evaluate it before opting for the C-17?

Actually that is marvelous question? How do we know any thing at all?

Did you know that MRCA RFI was sent to 12 more people including in Papua New Gunie? No dont protest, its true, only you dont know about it.

^^^ So is that a 'yes it was sent', 'no it wasn't' or a 'I don't know'?

[amit]

If there is a query from IAF, then the manufacturer would have given an answer..But, from the past experience, it would be considerably cheaper than the C-17 deal. Don't you think so??

You know Geeth, instead of treating us with you occasional pontifications, it would help if you do some reading on this thread. Both on this page of this tread and the previous page there is report from the Russian state-owned news agency that says the price of a new-build An124 would be $250 million.

Does your past experience suggest that the Russians are bluffing and the actual cost is much lower?

Incidentally the report and another one by Moscow News states that the production lines can be reopened only if the US military pick up the planes. I guess based on past experience that's also a fib?

And I guess based on past experience, if the Indians asked the Russians nicely they would have given the An124 for less than $100 million perhaps? Didn't they give us the Gorshokov for free with only $1 billion for refurbishing?

That's also past experience too you know.

[amit]

Amit My mistake to reply to you, you posses the endearing ability to keep repeating "sun rises in the west" like a well tuned metronome -- and your predictions to happily ignore tons of available data and cherry pick some words from a arbitrary passage and hold it up like the ten commandments.

The An-124 isn't is production and is not being marketed by Antonov and any figures to do with a future build be they related to performance or price are completely hypothetical, so lets exclude that from the debate.

Did the GoI send them a proposal to which they said the above too?

Sanku,

I'm sorry to say but your desperation is showing. You need to quote a portion of VivS's post out of context without atribution and make it look that I wrote it, all in order to dish me!



And meawhile,

I'm still waiting for the *rough* numbers of how much the new Il76 and the An124 would cost. It's a *rough* game, sad to say.

[Viv S]

3) If I've understood it correctly they aren't marketing it globally right now. I suppose the IAF could have approached them and volunteered to be a launch customer. It didn't for obvious reasons.

Quite right the reasons ARE obvious.

One word - caution. With US what you see is what you get. With the Russians(along with the Ukrainians in this case) you consult your astrologer first, pay later and cross you fingers thereafter.

What if no one else orders the aircraft? And does Antonov offer a lifetime sustainment program for a 10 aircraft product line? Who pays for the development cost? What happens if the development cost balloons midway? What if the development time for an upgraded An-124 shoots up? What if crude oil cost skyrockets globally(the An-124 chugs almost twice as much fuel as the C-17/IL-76)?

[arnab]

Thank you Arnab, and I am sure you will also tell us how

case should be debated by the DAC after proper technology scan is carried out by HQ IDS in consultation with the DRDO.

Because

only one vendor is to be procured to get qualitative edge over our adversary

Was done to identify critical technologies in C 17 which would give us a edge over our adversary.

So far the only edge any one has pointed out has is its a horribly more expensive than others who do the same job.

But of course there must be some really secret way that C 17 can be used compared to others, perhaps it has better goat pens for use when meat on hoofs is transported. We dont know but it must be, even though C 17 is a simple transport seen in action all over the world by a large number of people in addition to An 124 and Ils.

----------------[/b]

Naturally - ex air vice marshals and the Air Chief Marshal (as member of the DAC) has identified it as a critical need to replace an ageing airlift fleet. Have you been able to provide us with any proof to the contrary? All we hear are vague conspiracy theory. And for 'proof' we have Gilles saying that for 'commercial' operations BC-17s are expensive !! You see - a non delivery of commercial cargo in given time merely increases your insurance premium. In the forces it costs lives.

p.s Yes I know - I try to educate you from time to time, but as I said - you can take the horse to water....

[Sanku]

^^^ So is that a 'yes it was sent', 'no it wasn't' or a 'I don't know'?

Absence of information in this case is information of absence.

Could you get that? Probably not.

[Sanku]

One word - caution. With US what you see is what you get. With the Russians(along with the Ukrainians in this case) you consult your astrologer first, pay later and cross you fingers thereafter.

That is Bull Shite frankly......

overwhelming love for US is one thing, but even die hard US philes dont buy the above.

Hey other than a true rust bucket we have not bought anything from them other than WLR for which stories are now circulating.

On top of that we know of their what you see is what you get in case of LCA and other places...

[Sanku]

Naturally - ex air vice marshals and the Air Chief Marshal (as member of the DAC) has identified it as a critical need to replace an ageing airlift fleet.

Arnab, thats why I hang around here to make sure that people dont get away by making blatantly untrue statements

No such comments are seen other than free loading attribution by hacks and others of similar caliber.

Anyway sure there is a critical need, and we found the need right in 2008 no less.....

So critical that we couldn't even send a letter of interest to anyone.

[Tanaji]

No such comments are seen other than free loading attribution by hacks and others of similar caliber.

So Pravda is a "free loading attribution by hacks" ?

[Sanku]

No such comments are seen other than free loading attribution by hacks and others of similar caliber.

So Pravda is a "free loading attribution by hacks" ?

Pravada comment was that Airbus was chosen for better maintenance outlook over Il. Nothing more nothing less

That is a valid comment.

I have no problem if GoI gives Pravda a chance to write something like that again by
1) Issuing a role
2) Issuring RFIs
3) Issing RFPs
4) Test
5) Price negotitation
6) Approval of price in the competitive scenario by Fin Min

Just like for MRCA, just like for the tanker, just like for LoH, just like for the Artillery guns, just like for.......

If eventually IAF is asked to by Ils for cost once again what would you say to that?

[Viv S]

^^^ So is that a 'yes it was sent', 'no it wasn't' or a 'I don't know'?

Absence of information in this case is information of absence.

Could you get that? Probably not.

It is? Do tell. So if I have this right, the IAF did NOT have all relevant information at hand while rejecting the IL-76, and if only they'd have known about the IL-76's new engines or _____ feature, we wouldn't have had to put with stupid Boeing?

[geeth]

>>>You know Geeth, instead of treating us with you occasional pontifications, it would help if you do some reading on this thread. Both on this page of this tread and the previous page there is report from the Russian state-owned news agency that says the price of a new-build An124 would be $250 million.

I have read, and it is in this very thread that Gilles pointed out to you that the cost could be anywhere between $150 Million to $250 Million. If you wish to stick to $250 Million, then don't complain about pontification. Secondly, this price is for a plane having double the carrying capacity of the C-17.

Leave alone AN-124 - Tell one one Russian product which is costlier than its American counterpart or comparable system.

>>>Does your past experience suggest that the Russians are bluffing and the actual cost is much lower?

My experience and knowledge says, in general, Russian defence equipment (or for that matter any other product) are cheaper than American or European ones. What is your take?

>>>Incidentally the report and another one by Moscow News states that the production lines can be reopened only if the US military pick up the planes. I guess based on past experience that's also a fib?

What if they say, if there are sufficient orders from IAF, they will open up the lines?Have they said no? Did the IAF ask them? Have you bothered about why the IAF haven't thought about their heavy lift requirement till now, when the Boeing is about to close their plant?

>>>And I guess based on past experience, if the Indians asked the Russians nicely they would have given the An124 for less than $100 million perhaps? Didn't they give us the Gorshokov for free with only $1 billion for refurbishing?

What is your knowledge about what comes for that $1 Billion..? If the same thing was procured from U.S.A, tell me from your experience, how much less it would have cost India?

What happened with Trenton? Can we use it anywhere without the permission of U.S.A? What is the price we paid for refurbishment? Share your experience with me..please.

I suggest you don't waste your time on unnecessary arguments. Again, if you feel it is pontification, you are welcome to ignore the suggestion.

[Tanaji]

Pravada comment was that Airbus was chosen for better maintenance outlook over Il. Nothing more nothing less

That is a valid comment.

Thank you for accepting this. You were unwilling to concede that earlier.

It means that the IAF prefers the Airbus over the Il76 due to the maintenance / spares issues with the supplier. Earlier you were claiming there are no issues at all.

Now thats out of the way, given that there is HUGE commonality between the Il76 and the Il78, it is not a leap of faith to say, the same issues could be seen on Il76 as well. Hence the C-17.

[Sanku]

It is? Do tell. So if I have this right, the IAF did NOT have all relevant information at hand while rejecting the IL-76, and if only they'd have known about the IL-76's new engines or _____ feature, we wouldn't have had to put with stupid Boeing?

Trying to spin away again are you? Sidestepping is favorite sport of some here....

The question is did IAF send a RFI/RFP to all potential providers. Yes or NO.

Clearly there is NO INFORMATION what so ever to remotely suggest they did.

[Viv S]

One word - caution. With US what you see is what you get. With the Russians(along with the Ukrainians in this case) you consult your astrologer first, pay later and cross you fingers thereafter.

That is Bull Shite frankly......

overwhelming love for US is one thing, but even die hard US philes dont buy the above.

Hey other than a true rust bucket we have not bought anything from them other than WLR for which stories are now circulating.

On top of that we know of their what you see is what you get in case of LCA and other places...

You don't get price escalations of the Gorshkov sort with a US company. And with regard to the An-124 every point I made still stands. A commitment by the IAF while the aircraft's future remains uncertain is a gamble plain and simple.

[Sanku]

Pravada comment was that Airbus was chosen for better maintenance outlook over Il. Nothing more nothing less

That is a valid comment.

Thank you for accepting this. You were unwilling to concede that earlier.

Actually never

It means that the IAF prefers the Airbus over the Il76 due to the maintenance / spares issues with the supplier. Earlier you were claiming there are no issues at all.

Did I claim that there were no *issues*? There are always *issues* with every supplier, there are reported issues with WLR, there are KNOWN issues with HAWK there are issues with everything. There were issues with Trenton where the gas used information was not known and led to death of 2 people?

The question was not of *issues*, Yes or No. The question was are the issues really that big a deal? Clearly a part of GoI itself disagrees.

Now thats out of the way, given that there is HUGE commonality between the Il76 and the Il78, it is not a leap of faith to say, the same issues could be seen on Il76 as well. Hence the C-17.

Yet the Fin Min shot down the purchase, they thought the *issues* were not worth paying extra for.

And as I said, put it through the same route as tanker. I wont object.