C-17s for the IAF?

[Sanku]

I am NOT worried about extra delay it would cause.

And that is the crux of the matter. We dont know why the IAF wants it now. But it does so all the other options are out.

Yes, that is IMO a PROBLEM, we dont know, very unusual.

However I dare say that we do may know, there are only two reasons taken together which can explain this.
1) Interoperability
2) A need to project force in very short term.

Other reasons as we see fall apart on closer scrutiny.

Yes, its loaded in the C-17's favor but thats how MoD operated in the past and is doing so now.

Minor Correction that is how MoD operated in past and today is ONLY doing it now for C 17 purchase not others.

This is also what MoD berated itself for doing in the past and swore never to do again in the future.

[Gilles]

I dont get it Tanaji? Is that a question for me? Yes I want IAF to send a RFI to the
An 124 which is not in active production
Il 476 which is just coming on line
and Airbus 400 which is still backed up.

I also want IAF to send a RFI to HAL and give them a chance to tie up with some one.

I also want IAF not to make a ad hoc purchase of paltry 10 birds but negotiate a substantial number with a view over future requirements

I am NOT worried about extra delay it would cause.

God knows for 5.8 billion $ for 10 and probably more follow on orders IAF can get a full assembly line.

Now can you tell me why IAF should not follow the RFI/RFP route to multiple vendors for THIS purchase when it does so for all others?

What is the worst that will happen, the manufacturer(s) will turn down the RFI and say they cant meet the number of orders in given time or given cost or whatever. How long does that take six months? Year?

All evidence actually suggests I think every Manufacturer will jump at it and try and outdo each other in making a great proposal -- that is what we need.

At the end, if it C 17, so be it!

We keep forgetting it, although I mentioned it several times. The An-70 should also be looked at also. It carries 10 tonnes more than the A-400M with a similar sized cabin. That program is far from being dead, although Airbus wishes it was.

[Sanku]

We keep forgetting it, although I mentioned it several times. The An-70 should also be looked at also. It carries 10 tonnes more than the A-400M with a similar sized cabin. That program is far from being dead, although Airbus wishes it was.

Gilles, I didnt, that was one of my two choices at the very first stab at looking at alternatives. In fact I found it attractive because it is something that be a An-70 MKI rather than, be a customer to yet another unreliable supplier.

That idea did not fit in well with "70 tonnes to 5400 km not more not less" crowd. The idea got rubbished.

[Gilles]

We keep forgetting it, although I mentioned it several times. The An-70 should also be looked at also. It carries 10 tonnes more than the A-400M with a similar sized cabin. That program is far from being dead, although Airbus wishes it was.

Gilles, I didnt, that was one of my two choices at the very first stab at looking at alternatives. In fact I found it attractive because it is something that be a An-70 MKI rather than, be a customer to yet another unreliable supplier.

That idea did not fit in well with "70 tonnes to 5400 km not more not less" crowd. The idea got rubbished.

But this is a 47 tonne capable aircraft that can land anywhere an An-32 can, which includes the ALG as they are now. I think that is a big plus for India, once the IAF becomes convinced that the C-17 cannot do the same (I suspect most people still think it can)

[Sanku]

You are preaching to the Choir Gilles, I absolutely think An 70 would be perfect for IAFs current operations. We need them in large numbers too.

[Indranil]

But this is a 47 tonne capable aircraft that can land anywhere an An-32 can, which includes the ALG as they are now. I think that is a big plus for India, once the IAF becomes convinced that the C-17 cannot do the same (I suspect most people still think it can)

AN-70 impressed me because of its internal volume too. But I do not know if its weight carrying capacity is (being the same as the IL-76) is what the IAF wanted. There were reports before (links posted earlier), where the IAF expressed interest in a bigger load carrier than the IL-76. Besides, AFAIK the RuAF decided not to go for the An-70 because they want to go forward with the IL-476. The same reasoning might be applied by the IAF! The An-70 in its native form did not impress the Chinese either. They are going for a jet powered variant. Why are so many AF not going for the An-70? Any ideas?

I do not know if A-400 would be a wise decision. Do I need to explain!

Gilles sir, as far as delays in delivery for the c-17 are concerned, are you really worried about production delays?

I do not know what IAF found about the Il-76/78. But for the tanker deal, it seems to be wanting anything but the IL-76. And unlike what many have proposed the MoD was against a more costly acquisition! So the reluctance towards the IL-476 might be understandable, though I do not know the reasons.

Also since the IAF is going to evaluate it, why not wait for a short while before commenting on the plane. If the IAF finds it suitable, even then I fear, some of you will say, "they were favoured"!

C-17 might not be a great plane for unprepared runways. However, STOL, that it might have!

sanku ji, I respect you a lot for some of your post. But please don't write things like ask HAL to come up with an alternative to IL-76 or an upgrade and wait. Are you serious? Do you not know how much it takes to build such a plane! And India will be doing it for the first time. you can easily double to triple the time that Boeing, Airbus, Antonov, Illyushin etc take after centuries of plane building. Also "5.8 billion can buy an entire assembly line". Seriously? Sir people follow you. Many people will take your word for things. Isn't that a position of more responsible posting?

[Sanku]

Also since the IAF is going to evaluate it, why not wait for a short while before commenting on the plane. If the IAF finds it suitable, even then I fear, some of you will say, "they were favoured"!

But of course, you invite one person to contest and then give him the gold medal? How unbiased is that.

This is not the check to see if C 17 is competitive, it is only to see if will "chalega"

That we already know.

But please don't write things like ask HAL to come up with an alternative to IL-76 or an upgrade and wait. Are you serious?

Absolutely, the idea was that HAL would not *build* the plane *from scratch* but act as the *partner* for a joint consortium and will in turn tie up with some one else who already had a ready plane but no orders to go forward. Please read *buying* a assembly line in the same context.

For this they have to be at least given a foot in the door. They are denied that even.

The confusion is because I typed out the full proposal a couple of times, it kept getting rubbished. So I shortened it. If its going to be rubbished anyway at least save energy.

And thanks for the very kind words.

[Indranil]

but that is the problem. First, whom should HAL form a consortium with? Second, if MRTA is an example to go by, it has been coming for a decade, and even by the official word it will keep coming for another! What should the IAF do?

Firstly, let me say that I am not a blind supported of the C-17. I am posting all my posts here trying to understand why the IAF likes this particular plane! I am trying to find alternatives like most of you. But thinking form a customer's (IAFs) point of view, I can understand why they don't want to bank on half cooked beans!

I do not know what the IAF is planning to do with the C-17. But, we want more troops in the NE, Leh, Ladakh. As long as the rail links don't come up, we will have to air lift supplies. More mouths and more guns on not so big airports. And we want the troops now, not after 10 years! Now the C-17 looks impressive. As I said, the C-17 may not be suitable for dirt tracks, but its STOL characteristics will be checked by the IAF. I know at the airshows the C-17 would demonstrate STOL with the least amount of fuel etc etc. But even then if you have been to the AERO India shows, it does take off and land in extremely short spans, even for an empty plane! The IAF has had demos by them (links posted earlier). Boeing can fool us, but the IAF! If they can, they we should stop trusting that the IAF can do its work properly, isn't it?

And if the relief was an objective, there is no urgent need today, but tomorrow there might be a hurricane or tsunami. It will become urgent in a flash. Why not stay prepared? To be able to lift fifty more people from Tsunami hit Port Blair at each go would be critical. There your strategic 4500 km range would be awesome too. you wouldn't need to refuel at Port Blair! A bigger plane which can take off and land on a slightly shorter runway than usual will be a life saver where personnel and resources would be scarce. We can't say we could send 2 Il-76 instead of 1 C-17. Numbers are critical there.

[Gilles]

AN-70 impressed me because of its internal volume too. But I do not know if its weight carrying capacity is (being the same as the IL-76) is what the IAF wanted. There were reports before (links posted earlier), where the IAF expressed interest in a bigger load carrier than the IL-76. Besides, AFAIK the RuAF decided not to go for the An-70 because they want to go forward with the IL-476. The same reasoning might be applied by the IAF! The An-70 in its native form did not impress the Chinese either. They are going for a jet powered variant. Why are so many AF not going for the An-70? Any ideas?

The An-70 has a larger cabin than the Il-76 but a smaller payload. Its typical payload will more be in the 30 to 35 tonne range (so flying MBTs is not its thing). However it excels in its tactical abilities, outdoing the C-130 Hercules. The Russian decision was a political one, not based on technical reasons. The An-70 and its engines are built in a foreign country, Ukraine, not Russia. So was the Il-76 (Uzbekistan) but the Ilyushin design bureau which owns the IL-76 type certificate is in Moscow, so there was no problem for the Russians to bring back the IL-76 plant in Russia, which they are in the process of doing. In the case of the An-70, the Ukrainians own the type certificate, so the Russian cannot just build a An-70 in Russia without Antonov being involved. The Russians decided to favour a local product over a foreign one.
As for the Chinese, they only looked at the An-70 when the IL-76 deal fell through, so they were looking at a machine that could do what they had envisioned for the IL-76.

I do not know if A-400 would be a wise decision. Do I need to explain!

I think the A-400M is expensive and that the waiting list is long.

Gilles sir, as far as delays in delivery for the c-17 are concerned, are you really worried about production delays?

I do not think there will be any production delays for the C-17. If ordered they will probably be delivered on time or even early. But Industry has reported a 24 month delivery time-schedule which I just repeated. Its all over the Net.

I do not know what IAF found about the Il-76/78. But for the tanker deal, it seems to be wanting anything but the IL-76. And unlike what many have proposed the MoD was against a more costly acquisition! So the reluctance towards the IL-476 might be understandable, though I do not know the reasons.

Civilian type airframes (A-310, A-330, B-707, B-767, L-1011, VC-10, all of which are used as tankers in different parts of the world) are much more efficient than Strategic type airframes. They burn less fuel, fly farther, faster, haul bigger loads. The Soviets, with their louzy engine technology, had nothing but fuel guzzling aircraft anyway, so to them, it didn't make difference between basing their re-fueller on a IL-76 or an IL-62. They both had the same four engines and almost the same fuel burn. By using the Il-76, they at least had a common airframe and in the case of the earlier IL-78s, they had a cargo door and could be used as transports when needed. This feature was eliminated with the M series that India has. The only real advantage in using the IL-78 for India, besides crew and maintenance commonality with IL-76 and A-50 crews is purchase price if the IL-78MKIs are still dirt cheap. If not, a refueller based on a civilian type aircraft is better.

Also since the IAF is going to evaluate it, why not wait for a short while before commenting on the plane. If the IAF finds it suitable, even then I fear, some of you will say, "they were favoured"!

If the C-17 was already selected for "Other" reasons, such as a nuclear deal or giving the nasty dog a bone to chew on, the evaluation will only be a show. In Canada, the selection criteria were published.

Land at a prepared airfield 27.4 meters (90 feet) wide and 1,219 meters (4000 feet) in length with a pressure altitude of 1798 meters (5900 ft) and temperature at ISA. Upon landing, the SAT WS is to be capable of offloading and on-loading an oversized wheeled payload of 39,000 kg (85,980 pounds), and takeoff with enough fuel to fly a minimum distance of 1250 nautical miles. This distance includes a low-level route of 100 nautical mile;

b. Take-off and landing from unpaved, austere airfields 27.4 meters (90 feet) wide and 1,067 meters (3,500 feet) in length, at sea level and temperature at ISA;

c. Demonstrate an ability to operate to/from high altitude airfields 1,798 meters (5,900 feet) or greater, with temperatures of at least 30 degrees Celsius;

They just never had Boeing prove that the aircraft could do what was required. They took Boeing's word for it.

India will ask Boeing to prove it can do what is needed, but are the IAF requirement published? Not that I know of.

[Sanku]

Indranil, there are many issues here, which think you are mixing up.

1) Will HAL be able to make a joint bid which is successful? Perhapsm perhaps not. Does not matter. The important point at this stage is that HAL be given that chance as well. Possible alternatives are An and Il for their planes which dont have a big market otherwise. They have been discussed before.

The important point to note is that multi vendor option is exercised, with as many vendors as possible, imaginative solutions tried

2) Can C 17 do some jobs, sure it can, I never said it could not. However it is not clear at all based on open sources if it is necessarily better. By all available info. Not really. Its just like others, other than being inter operable with US and its Munnas.

3) Is it needed fast -- sure it is, in India every defence piece was needed yesterday, if not day before yesterday. But so what, why the "special" treatment for C 17 over other pieces which are far more critical. And were actually needed last week. If we can live with those, why not for C 17. If this route is good for C 17 why not do it for all others?

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

From IAFs realpolitik C 17s are not a issue, why would it be, if GoI wants to spend whatever to give it 10 good new birds pronto, why not? Why look a gift horse in the mouth. Does it help, yeah hell. Is it good, sure is. Well tested and tried (even if the short take off is mythical)

But then the acquisition budget is not IAFs baby, they dont have to see whether it is expensive or cheap. It is not their charter. The finances are with MoD. Neither is making decisions like whether buying C 17s is better money use than An 70s. Its not their job to worry about how long term Mil Ind complex should be groomed?

So a C 17s could be perfectly acceptable to IAF in a very legitimate way and yet be a throughly stupid decision.

[Karan M]

1) Will HAL be able to make a joint bid which is successful? Perhapsm perhaps not. Does not matter. The important point at this stage is that HAL be given that chance as well. Possible alternatives are An and Il for their planes which dont have a big market otherwise. They have been discussed before.

And where has HAL otherwise indicated it is even interested in a 10 aircraft order or even interested in doing something like this? On what basis do you claim that HAL should be given this order?

2) Can C 17 do some jobs, sure it can, I never said it could not. However it is not clear at all based on open sources if it is necessarily better. By all available info. Not really. Its just like others, other than being inter operable with US and its Munnas.

How is it not necessarily better? The IAF has indicated a clear VHTA - Very Heavy Transport Aircraft requirement and proceeded to order this aircraft. Can you kindly tell which other -in-production, in service aircraft are available,which meet the exact requirement?

3) Is it needed fast -- sure it is, in India every defence piece was needed yesterday, if not day before yesterday. But so what, why the "special" treatment for C 17 over other pieces which are far more critical. And were actually needed last week. If we can live with those, why not for C 17. If this route is good for C 17 why not do it for all others?

So if A is not done well, ie we do not acquire a critical piece of equipment correctly and on time, we should go ahead and do the same for everything else. Is this even logical?

From IAFs realpolitik C 17s are not a issue, why would it be, if GoI wants to spend whatever to give it 10 good new birds pronto, why not? Why look a gift horse in the mouth. Does it help, yeah hell. Is it good, sure is. Well tested and tried (even if the short take off is mythical)

Please go ahead and point out examples in the past where the IAF has been given gift horses which it did not want and yet accepted.

But then the acquisition budget is not IAFs baby, they dont have to see whether it is expensive or cheap. It is not their charter. The finances are with MoD. Neither is making decisions like whether buying C 17s is better money use than An 70s. Its not their job to worry about how long term Mil Ind complex should be groomed?

Wrong. The IAF is very aware of the acquisition budget and nor is it infinite. It vets every item on it and only is that item taken up for procurement.

So a C 17s could be perfectly acceptable to IAF in a very legitimate way and yet be a throughly stupid decision.

Talk about tying yourself up in knots with an arguement that does not make any sense from beginning to end!

Here:
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories331.htm

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, longrange, and ease of operation.

IAF was looking at acquiring 10C 17S initially through the US Government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, and that a proposal in this regard was being considered by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), he said adding that the aircraft should come in about three years after a contract is signed.

At present India has less than 20 IL 76 Soviet-era aircraft for strategic lift, but they were acquired two decades ago. The requirement for today is for technologically better, easier to maintain and a larger number of aircraft due to the strategic scenario around India and the need to ferry troops, men and material even within India in times of contingency.

An IL 76 can carry a cargo of around 45 tonnes while a C 17 can carry 70 tonnes, and is much easier to operate with a small crew of two pilots and a loadmaster (total three) only despite its massive size, thanks to its various powered-asisted systems. Two observers though can also be seated.

...and lets not start "the journalists misquoted what he said" etc. The above is fairly categorical and implies one way or the other, the IAF chose the C-17 with its eyes open.

[Sanku]

Sanku>>1) Will HAL be able to make a joint bid which is successful? Perhapsm perhaps not. Does not matter. The important point at this stage is that HAL be given that chance as well. Possible alternatives are An and Il for their planes which dont have a big market otherwise. They have been discussed before.

And where has HAL otherwise indicated it is even interested in a 10 aircraft order or even interested in doing something like this? On what basis do you claim that HAL should be given this order?

You know Mrinal, it would be very nice to discuss with you IFF you read others posts as well.

Where did I say HAL should be given this order? Please read what I did say.

How is it not necessarily better? The IAF has indicated a clear VHTA - Very Heavy Transport Aircraft requirement and proceeded to order this aircraft. Can you kindly tell which other -in-production, in service aircraft are available?

Plenty of posts here, please feel free to read it.

Wonderful. So if A is not done well, ie we do not acquire a critical piece of equipment correctly and on time, we should go ahead and do the same for everything else. Is this even barely logical?

Mrinal you have a problem with DPP you take it up with MoD, I am merely asking for the same standards to be applied to all purchases.

Do you have a reason why multi-vendor approach should not be done for this case? At least send a RFI to all, has it been done.

Go ahead and point out examples in the past where the IAF has been given gift horses which it did not want and yet accepted.

Gift horses that IAF did not want? Now where did I say IAF did not want that? Do read old chap, please.

But then the acquisition budget is not IAFs baby, they dont have to see whether it is expensive or cheap. It is not their charter. The finances are with MoD.

Wrong. The IAF is very aware of the acquisition budget and nor is it infinite. It vets every item on it and only is that item taken up for procurement.

IAF is aware of the acquisition budget? Hmm, actually I think they publish it in the budget so I think even we may be aware.
But awareness was not what we are talking of eh?

So a C 17s could be perfectly acceptable to IAF in a very legitimate way and yet be a throughly stupid decision.

Talk about tying yourself up in knots with an arguement that does not make any sense from beginning to end!

Indeed, it would require you to read.

Here:
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories331.htm

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, longrange, and ease of operation.

Thorough study, even before the aircraft arrived for test.


Kya baat hai -- What a statement.



This made my day.

Perhaps India strategic, a magazine which has made many other such claims in the past could also show the quote form ACM? Or did it run out of space after printing the Boeing ads?

And you know, I would very much encourage you to not make a hugely long post without reading the prior pages, its very trying.

[Karan M]

You know Mrinal, it would be very nice to discuss with you IFF you read others posts as well.

Where did I say HAL should be given this order? Please read what I did say.

What you said did not make sense. You said HAL should also be asked to get into this RFI? Why?

Do they have enough to do, are they not currently booked to the gills as is?

Plenty of posts here, please feel free to read it.

I have an explicit cite here which says the IAF has a VHTA requirement noting PV Naik supported the acquisition. Feel free to show me another report, likewise, stating the IAF does not have a VHTA requirement and PV Naik does not want it. Please go ahead.

Mrinal you have a problem with DPP you take it up with MoD, I am merely asking for the same standards to be applied to all purchases.

I indicated no problems with the DPP. I merely pointed out what you said was completely illogical. You pointed to cases of flawed procurement and then said the same should be the case here. Ie if A is messed up, B should be too. Sorry - but I'd rather at least some procurement happened. For every Hawk, if theres a MKI, thats still some relief as compared to all being messed up on a matter of principle!

Do you have a reason why multi-vendor approach should not be done for this case? At least send a RFI to all, has it been done.

Why should a Multi vendor approach be taken? Feel free to point out any in service aircraft worldwide with the same specifications and capabilities of the C-17, in production, and ready for delivery within 3 years. Please go ahead.

Gift horses that IAF did not want? Now where did I say IAF did not want that? Do read old chap, please.

I have read what you said. You claimed the IAF was making the best of a bad deal by taking something that was procured for it one way or the other. Please point out, in the past decade and a half, any procurement forced on the IAF.

IAF is aware of the acquisition budget? Hmm, actually I think they publish it in the budget so I think even we may be aware.
But awareness was not what we are talking of eh?

Then what were you talking of? Care to be precise? Heres how budgeting is done for your kind information. The IAF draws up a list of what it requires, compares against the indicative budget including that for capex that will be available to it, and puts that up for clearance. They are well aware of each and every line item they want and procure and fight for every bit of their money. As in all services, they want max bang for their buck.

So please tell us where and how the IAF is not aware of where its money is going, or it does not have control, as you implied?

Indeed, it would require you to read.

Which is the advice you have been dishing out so far. Is it that we all cant read, or is it that you cant write?

Thorough study, even before the aircraft arrived for test.

Your surprise is amusing. The C-17 has already been flown to India before, demo'ed to Indian pilots. Indian crew have gone to the US including on exercises and seen it first hand. Clearly they have enough info to draw up an estimate of its capabilities, to do a thorough study and are now conducting flight tests to validate it.

Kya baat hai -- What a statement.

This made my day.

I am glad that it made your day.

Perhaps India strategic, a magazine which has made many other such claims in the past could also show the quote form ACM? Or did it run out of space after printing the Boeing ads?

Care to point out in specific what other claims India Strategic has made in the past?
And also point out which defence magazine in India does not run ads from Boeing, Dassault, Lockheed etc - as you seem to think this is a big deal and marks them apart?
And third - if India Strategic has misquoted the ACM, why has no retraction occurred from the IAF on his behalf?

The authors of the story were: Gulshan Luthra and Air Marshal Ashok Goel - the former from the Army & latter from the AF. Are you suggesting malfeasance on their part? Please be clear.

[Karan M]

Have you seen these pictures before? Here.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/10/ia ... ar_16.html

Kindly see those pictures, and that should explain the information available to the IAF to make a detailed study.

The photos above show Indian Air Force officers in February this year getting a hands-on tour of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III at Hickam AFB, Hawaii. IAF personnel are getting a far more personal experience with the Globemaster-III right now (from the same squadron above) as part of the Cope India 09 airlift and airdrop special missions exercise. According to sources, the government will shortly kickstart Foreign Military Sale (FMS) procedures to procure a fleet of ten C-17 Globemaster-IIIs from Boeing.

US and Indian forces will "exchange airlift, airland and airdrop delivery techniques, participate in aeromedical and disaster management exercises, conduct cooperative flight operations, to include aircraft generation and recovery, low-level navigation, tactical airdrop, and air-land missions; and conduct subject matter expert exchanges in the operations, maintenance, and rigging disciplines."

[Sanku]

What you said did not make sense. You said HAL should also be asked to get into this RFI? Why?

Do they have enough to do, are they not currently booked to the gills as is?

You dont want to give HAL a chance to expand? And here I was thinking of you as the strongest proponent of doing what ever it takes to expand domestic manufacturing and design strengths.

I indicated no problems with the DPP. I merely pointed out what you said was completely illogical. You pointed to cases of flawed procurement and then said the same should be the case here.

Uhh I dont see how. I merely said that multi-vendor approach should be followed, I gave example of far more critical items undergoing that route.

Why should a Multi vendor approach be taken?

On these thread some time back I posted a speech from A K Antony on why, who am I to say better.
http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_4_1_akantony.pdf

Also MoD site has conditions when single vendor is allowed.

Feel free to read.

I have read what you said. You claimed the IAF was making the best of a bad deal by taking something that was procured for it one way or the other. Please point out, in the past decade and a half, any procurement forced on the IAF.

No I did not say that, just a few posts above I said exactly what I meant.

Then what were you talking of? Care to be precise? Heres how budgeting is done for your kind information. The IAF draws up a list of what it requires, compares against the indicative budget including that for capex that will be available to it, and puts that up for clearance. They are well aware of each and every line item they want and procure and fight for every bit of their money. As in all services, they want max bang for their buck.

Mrinal you know a lot, but sometimes I wonder if you understand some of it fully. Note the highlighted part.

From where does IAF know what will be the indicative capex for that purchase?

Who makes that decision?

Thorough study, even before the aircraft arrived for test.

Your surprise is amusing. The C-17 has already been flown to India before, demo'ed to Indian pilots. Indian crew have gone to the US including on exercises and seen it first hand. Clearly they have enough info to draw up an estimate of its capabilities, to do a thorough study and are now conducting flight tests to validate it.

Ehh demoed is enough info to make a decision about its capabilities? fine fine, but then if its already chosen after a thorough study, why test.

If its already chosen (not shortlisted) what are they testing? Will they reject if the claims are false? Why not test some more aircrafts too.

Care to point out in specific what other claims India Strategic has made in the past?

Actually three such in recent past -- including this.
1) The DRDO smart bomb kit is coming from Rayethon really
2) India has S 300 in numbers

And third - if India Strategic has misquoted the ACM, why has no retraction occurred from the IAF on his behalf?

There are articles which are wrong but not countered. Not surprising.

The authors of the story were: Gulshan Luthra and Air Marshal Ashok Goel - the former from the Army & latter from the AF. Are you suggesting malfeasance on their part? Please be clear.

I am claiming inexact phrasing of what ACM said. For if we take that at face value there are many other questions which come up.

But seriously Mrinal, you are making me repeat a lot of what is already thrashed over.

[Sanku]

Have you seen these pictures before? Here.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/10/ia ... ar_16.html

Kindly see those pictures, and that should explain the information available to the IAF to make a detailed study.

I am sorry what I mean by detailed study to make a choice is what MRCAs are going through and as per the reports, so will C 17s.

Except that C 17 will be running for a gold in a field of one. Oooh how exciting.

[Sanku]

And good night to you too....

[Karan M]

You dont want to give HAL a chance to expand? And here I was thinking of you as the strongest proponent of doing what ever it takes to expand domestic manufacturing and design strengths.

But it has to make economic sense. Consider, for the MRTA, IAF will acquire anywhere between 60+ aircraft to many more, and the Russians some 100+. Based on this orderbook, it makes some sense to invest huge amounts and spend time and money, and manpower hours to do something like this. And for that too, we have been haggling for the better part of a decade. Now consider, with only 10 aircraft, where and how will HAL get a partner to join it and if it tries on its own, where will it get the money?

Uhh I dont see how. I merely said that multi-vendor approach should be followed, I gave example of far more critical items undergoing that route.

But all those items, bar the MRCA (another mess!) are of the same class!

Why should a Multi vendor approach be taken?

On these thread some time back I posted a speech from A K Antony on why, who am I to say better.
http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_4_1_akantony.pdf

Also MoD site has conditions when single vendor is allowed.

Boss, again - when the conditions apply! If the IAF has a VHTAC requirement, which no other aircraft currently fulfills how can it be multi-vendor?

Mrinal you know a lot, but sometimes I wonder if you understand some of it fully. Note the highlighted part.

I am sorry but you are missing the point. If the requirement is not a priority, they will drop it. So if the C-17 is not a priority item from the IAF end, they will not push for it. Point is their requirements come first. If it was foisted on them, you would have heard a million leaks by now.

From where does IAF know what will be the indicative capex for that purchase?

Who makes that decision?

Even if funds are made available for a "political purchase", I am yet to see a single case where such has occurred in the past 15 years, is my point.

Ehh demoed is enough info to make a decision about its capabilities? fine fine, but then if its already chosen after a thorough study, why test.

If its already chosen (not shortlisted) what are they testing? Will they reject if the claims are false? Why not test some more aircrafts too.

Ok, lets make this simple. The IAF has a VHTAC requirement. They do a study and see the C-17 meets it. The Americans are asked, and they promptly fly it to India to show it off. IAF crew see it, like it. Presentations are made, data is exchanged. The IAF then goes for exercises where the C-17 is part of the exercises and sees its performance first hand. Based on all this data a detailed study is done, and procurement is proposed.
After this, it will be flown into India where the IAF will crosscheck its performance by flying it on their own. The final check! If it meets minimum required standards (for that money, it better!) it will be chosen.

Actually three such in recent past -- including this.
1) The DRDO smart bomb kit is coming from Rayethon really

They made no such claim as far as I am aware. They said the OFB (not DRDO) is in talks with Raytheon for the Paveway. So they were.

2) India has S 300 in numbers

Where? I have gone through their website and can find no such claim or link! Are you sure you are not confusing them with somebody else?

There are articles which are wrong but not countered. Not surprising.

Sorry - that does not serve, AM Goel is a rtd officer who writes for India Strategic. His own views may be countered as subjective, but not an attribution re: the IAF's CAS is a serious matter, not something taken lightly by the IAF.

I am claiming inexact phrasing of what ACM said. For if we take that at face value there are many other questions which come up.

What inexact phrasing. Whats the point of all these wordy debates. Fact is VHTA exists. Fact is PV Naik alluded to it publically and said the IAF did a detailed study for this and chose the C-17. So what is the big deal here?

Of course they would have to do a detailed study to procure or justify the procurement of any aircraft, what exactly is so surprising?

[Karan M]

I am sorry what I mean by detailed study to make a choice is what MRCAs are going through and as per the reports, so will C 17s.

Except that C 17 will be running for a gold in a field of one. Oooh how exciting.

In the case of the MRCA, all contenders are superior, to the original single vendor procurement, the Mirage 2000 V which anyways went out of production! So there is no question of single vendor there.
In the case of the C-17, where are all the aircraft superior to it, in service to be evaluated? None exist

Good night.

[Samay]

This retail store theory of current availability of an less important product should not be applied for such a huge deal
we have other priorities to think first , I think first comes mrca ,then LCA, mrta etc,.

[Indranil]

Samay, can you prove that the funds allotted for the C-17 are hindering the MRCA, LCA etc?!!! You discounted one retail theory for another!

It is surprising how easily you say "less important" . Work horses are not as glorious as fighters, but I am sure you know their worth!

[arnab]

Actually there is no belief that it has not followed proper procedure. In fact there is no statement saying that procedural lapses have happened at all.

Procedures have all been followed, that was never the issue.

I dont understand why you have so much difficulty in understanding the basics.

arrey baba then I wish you would make up your mind. If proper procedures have been followed, why do you say that the C-17 acquisition ignored the basic procedure of asking for 'multivendor' under DPP 200x and as reiterated by A K Antony in his speech?

[arnab]

And for 'proof' we have Gilles saying that for 'commercial' operations BC-17s are expensive !! .

I documented all of this on this very Forum with ample references and you have the gall to say that the only proof are my claims ?

Nope. I'm saying your proofs are irrelevant - since they apply to the civillian world.

[JimmyJ]

Just a suggestion,

Why tear apart the quotes to this level. It makes the discussion more hazy.

Please quote a para at least and reply to the para. Or else it just looks like we are cherry picking part of the point that we can easily counter and avoiding to answer the rest of the point.

JMT

[amit]

And yes spare us the $50 million for a plain vanilla Il76 since these are not produced any more

And how do you explain that Volga Dnepr took delivery of a brand new IL-76TD-90 in May 2010, just last month?

http://www.eyefortransport.com/content/ ... nepr-fleet

And this article that says

Volga-Dnepr expects to take delivery of the next two IL-76TD-90VD in 2011.

The truth is there before your eyes, but you make up your own dream land to suit your beliefs and expect people to believe it also.

Gilles,

Yes indeed the truth is right before my eyes. The IL-76TD-90VD with Aviadvigatel PS-90 engines and a partial glass cockpit was developed specially for Volga-Dnepr cargo company and a grand total of 3 aircraft are scheduled to be built. And the reason for that was the old Il76s were banned from European skies because of emission norms.

And you want IAF to go and buy an aircraft that was tweaked for civilian cargo hauling purposes? Why? Because you have dislike for the C17? Wow!

But anyway there's no point in getting into yet another p!ssing contest with you because you'll be crying that I've been targeting you specifically!

But to be honest Gilles I'm a bit disappointed with you. I used to think that you are knowledgeable in this area and I've said as much on this thread. Now I'm not too sure.

The IAF is on record that it wants a very heavy lift transport. Now, no one is questioning this requirement, save perhaps Sanku ji (but it's hard to tell what he really thinks since he say so many things, most of which are contradictory).

Yet you have joined the bandwagon of suggesting alternatives ranging from the 37 ton Airbus transport all the way to the 150 ton An124 which the Russian may (or may not) build for the US Airforce?

Step back a minute and think. Is this how military procurement is done/should be done - that is consider everything from 37 tons (while at it why not the Cj130 which is around 20 tons) all the way to the behemoth 150 tons?

Just consider the Airbus transporter. Suppose IAF waits patiently in the queue and buys it after 180 planes have been delivered to other customers. Now suppose over it's 40 year or so service life in the IAF, the Army wants to transport the Arjun tank somewhere? How does it do that? Are you one of those who think - like Sanku ji does - that a 60-odd tons tank can be dismantled like lego bricks and reassembled in the front line in a jiffy? Heck even if you could do that you'd still need two planes to carry one tank!

Or take the 150 ton An124. Suppose India pays the $1 billion or so that is required (refer to the RiaNovosti article or the Moscow News article) just to get the production line started. Then it buys the planes - OK let's take your figure of $100 million ( ) for a 150 ton plane. Now the IAF needs to move something to say the airstrip in Leh or perhaps to one of the airbases in the Andamans. What does your experience as a pilot say? Can a 150 ton behemoth land in the rarefied atmosphere of Leh and how big an airfield would it require to take off?

Realistically speaking the only alternative to the C17 - in some respects - is the Il76. It's pretty clear that the IAF has tons of experience with this plane and has generally been happy with it. However, recent moves, like the attempt to get the Airbus tankers despite buying the Il76 derived tankers only six years ago, clearly indicates that the IAF, for whatever reason, wants to move to another platform. Since they are the users and since nobody has yet accused the IAF of being anti-national one would assume that they know what they are doing?

I certainly think that they know what they are doing and would do a right and proper job. And I suspect many other posters on this thread feel the same.

And hence despite the fact that the C17 is a horribly expensive plane, especially with the service contract, I'm personally OK with the IAF evaluating it - the deal is not done yet, price negotiations as well as FinMins approval are required - and perhaps eventually buying it.

Now you may have problem with that. Which is fine, you've made that clear over several posts, and you certainly have a point. However, just to flog a dead horse please don't try to "think out of the box" and come up with weird theories and ideas.

Here's an example of what I think is weird: the MoD should send a RFI - let me spell that out, REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - to HAL about its ability to build or find a JV partner for a very heavy transport. You live in Canada so you may not get the "out of the box" part of this. HAL is a government organization directly under the MoD. In effect what this means is that MoD has no clue of what HAL is capable of doing or what direction it wants the company to take and which projects it wants HAL to concentrate on!

In short I would request you to stick to facts. I'm sure there's a lot of things that can be said against the C17, but please don't try to parade all manner of planes as an alternative.

JMT. And please note that I've not been abominably rude to you.

Cheers!

[Gilles]

Gilles,

Yes indeed the truth is right before my eyes. The IL-76TD-90VD with Aviadvigatel PS-90 engines and a partial glass cockpit was developed specially for Volga-Dnepr cargo company and a grand total of 3 aircraft are scheduled to be built. And the reason for that was the old Il76s were banned from European skies because of emission norms.

And you want IAF to go and buy an aircraft that was tweaked for civilian cargo hauling purposes? Why? Because you have dislike for the C17? Wow!

But anyway there's no point in getting into yet another p!ssing contest with you because you'll be crying that I've been targeting you specifically!

But to be honest Gilles I'm a bit disappointed with you. I used to think that you are knowledgeable in this area and I've said as much on this thread. Now I'm not too sure.

The IAF is on record that it wants a very heavy lift transport. Now, no one is questioning this requirement, save perhaps Sanku ji (but it's hard to tell what he really thinks since he say so many things, most of which are contradictory).

Yet you have joined the bandwagon of suggesting alternatives ranging from the 37 ton Airbus transport all the way to the 150 ton An124 which the Russian may (or may not) build for the US Airforce?

Step back a minute and think. Is this how military procurement is done/should be done - that is consider everything from 37 tons (while at it why not the Cj130 which is around 20 tons) all the way to the behemoth 150 tons?

Just consider the Airbus transporter. Suppose IAF waits patiently in the queue and buys it after 180 planes have been delivered to other customers. Now suppose over it's 40 year or so service life in the IAF, the Army wants to transport the Arjun tank somewhere? How does it do that? Are you one of those who think - like Sanku ji does - that a 60-odd tons tank can be dismantled like lego bricks and reassembled in the front line in a jiffy? Heck even if you could do that you'd still need two planes to carry one tank!

Or take the 150 ton An124. Suppose India pays the $1 billion or so that is required (refer to the RiaNovosti article or the Moscow News article) just to get the production line started. Then it buys the planes - OK let's take your figure of $100 million ( ) for a 150 ton plane. Now the IAF needs to move something to say the airstrip in Leh or perhaps to one of the airbases in the Andamans. What does your experience as a pilot say? Can a 150 ton behemoth land in the rarefied atmosphere of Leh and how big an airfield would it require to take off?

Realistically speaking the only alternative to the C17 - in some respects - is the Il76. It's pretty clear that the IAF has tons of experience with this plane and has generally been happy with it. However, recent moves, like the attempt to get the Airbus tankers despite buying the Il76 derived tankers only six years ago, clearly indicates that the IAF, for whatever reason, wants to move to another platform. Since they are the users and since nobody has yet accused the IAF of being anti-national one would assume that they know what they are doing?

I certainly think that they know what they are doing and would do a right and proper job. And I suspect many other posters on this thread feel the same.

And hence despite the fact that the C17 is a horribly expensive plane, especially with the service contract, I'm personally OK with the IAF evaluating it - the deal is not done yet, price negotiations as well as FinMins approval are required - and perhaps eventually buying it.

Now you may have problem with that. Which is fine, you've made that clear over several posts, and you certainly have a point. However, just to flog a dead horse please don't try to "think out of the box" and come up with weird theories and ideas.

Here's an example of what I think is weird: the MoD should send a RFI - let me spell that out, REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - to HAL about its ability to build or find a JV partner for a very heavy transport. You live in Canada so you may not get the "out of the box" part of this. HAL is a government organization directly under the MoD. In effect what this means is that MoD has no clue of what HAL is capable of doing or what direction it wants the company to take and which projects it wants HAL to concentrate on!

In short I would request you to stick to facts. I'm sure there's a lot of things that can be said against the C17, but please don't try to parade all manner of planes as an alternative.

JMT. And please note that I've not been abominably rude to you.

Cheers!

You want me to stick to facts? Facts like the IL-76 is no longer in production? Those are the kind of facts you'd like me to stick to?

You stated, when you knew it was not true, that the IL-76 was no longer available.

The IAF bought three A-50s in 2005, based on IL-76s airframes. Two were delivered. One more is to come. The Russians recently attempted to supply the IAF with more IL-78s. The A-330 was selected instead. Where were those IL-78 going to come from? They were going to produce them from thin air? Volga-Dnepr already took delivery of 3 IL-76TD-90s and has several more on order. Silk Way Airlines of Azerbaijan has also purchased several brand new Il-76s in the last few years, the last one delivered in May 2009.

http://www.silkway-airlines.com/news.asp?pid=21

But there are still people like you who claim the aircraft can no longer be purchased, that the factory is closed. Why? When these claims are made, it's generally when C-17s are being sold. In Canada too, they were claiming in 2006 that the Ilyushin plant was closed and had not produced aircraft in years. Because the mere existence of the 50 million dollar IL-76 was a nuisance to those who wanted Canada to buy the 250 million dollar C-17s. Rather than have to explain the choice, it was easier to claim that the Il-76 no longer existed.

The IL-76TD-90VDs are not, by the way, aircraft tweaked for civilian cargo use by any stretch of the imagination. Its the other way around. They are strategic air-lifters with tactical capabilities built for the Soviet Air Force that were adapted for civilian use. But that again, you know it very well I'm certain. The IL-76s are not banned from European skies. The D-30KP engines that power most of them are. That is why there is a re-engine program to put Chapter IV engines on IL-76s. Even the Russian Air Force began changing their engines. Like has been done to many aircraft before. Like has been done to the IAF A-50s. The old Boeing 707s were also all banned from North American and European skies. Then they put new engines on them. The US, NATO, French, UK and Saudi AWACS are all old 707s with new engines.

And you ask me to stick to the facts ?

By the way, I do not suggest that the IAF buy anything. The only reason I got involved in this Forum is because I noticed when reading it that the same lies were being repeated that had been told in Canada when the C-17 were being sold to us. The exact same lies.

The IL-76 no longer existing is one of them.

[Surya]

hmm someone was trying to teach me meaning of inane

Yes bwana

The only reason you came here is because you have a massive chip on your shoulder about the C 17 wrt Canada and want to thrust it down our throats.

As long as you stuck to technical details you were Ok but when you start suggesting that the IAF could rent from some operator for x dollars an hour and started comparing the IAFs needs to the Canadians for transporting geese or whatever, and omanis and Qataris (insert any tiny country of choice) - you crossed over to inane

[Gilles]

I documented all of this on this very Forum with ample references and you have the gall to say that the only proof are my claims ?

Nope. I'm saying your proofs are irrelevant - since they apply to the civillian world.

I see. The civilian BC-17 is expensive. The military C-17 is not. Got it! Sorry for mis-understanding you.

[Gilles]

hmm someone was trying to teach me meaning of inane

Yes bwana

The only reason you came here is because you have a massive chip on your shoulder about the C 17 wrt Canada and want to thrust it down our throats.

As long as you stuck to technical details you were Ok but when you start suggesting that the IAF could rent from some operator for x dollars an hour and started comparing the IAFs needs to the Canadians for transporting geese or whatever, and omanis and Qataris (insert any tiny country of choice) - you crossed over to inane

When arguments run out, the personal attacks begin.........

[Sanku]

You dont want to give HAL a chance to expand? And here I was thinking of you as the strongest proponent of doing what ever it takes to expand domestic manufacturing and design strengths.

But it has to make economic sense.

Granted, but for any of the "how" it will happen questions to be addressed, it has to first get a RFI at least.

We keep complaining that PSUs are not treated like Foreign vendors in terms of opportunity. Well this was the best case, give HAL a chance to quickly sew up a partnership and apply, they dont even need money or anything, to begin with they just need to keep some management time to have a joint venture to apply. If they win, then they can manufacture both in India and at their partner location to keep the costs down etc. Maybe HAL could do nothing but add a name plate to a set of goods designed, with outsourced components and manufacturing. It would just buy IP use rights.

Perfect seed to HAL to have a Bombardier like offshoot

I think it can be done.

Uhh I dont see how. I merely said that multi-vendor approach should be followed, I gave example of far more critical items undergoing that route.

But all those items, bar the MRCA (another mess!) are of the same class!

Does not matter, the DPP does not say class A or class B. It says multi-vendor is the highly preferred model which must be followed

Boss, again - when the conditions apply! If the IAF has a VHTAC requirement, which no other aircraft currently fulfills how can it be multi-vendor?

Sorry no, the conditions are quite clear, unless there is a critical techonolgy which gives a advantage over a adversary, none of them applies to a air-truck transport.

And as we have discussed there are options.

Mrinal you know a lot, but sometimes I wonder if you understand some of it fully. Note the highlighted part.

I am sorry but you are missing the point. If the requirement is not a priority, they will drop it. So if the C-17 is not a priority item from the IAF end, they will not push for it. Point is their requirements come first. If it was foisted on them, you would have heard a million leaks by now.

The priorities? Well IAF never even talked about this priority where as it feels all right to come on line and keep blasting all and sundry about missed priorities like ADGES, secure comm link, trainers and what not.

The priorities for IAF seem to have suddenly changed -- based on some new task that they have been given.

Even if funds are made available for a "political purchase", I am yet to see a single case where such has occurred in the past 15 years, is my point.

There is always a first time, when a massive departure from past patterns happens, we know its new, this is one such case.

After this, it will be flown into India where the IAF will crosscheck its performance by flying it on their own. The final check! If it meets minimum required standards (for that money, it better!) it will be chosen.

All fine, but thats not the point. Why not consider others for VHTAC too, as we have seen, there are options.

What inexact phrasing. Whats the point of all these wordy debates. Fact is VHTA exists. Fact is PV Naik alluded to it publically and said the IAF did a detailed study for this and chose the C-17. So what is the big deal here?

The big deal is that there is not a single direct quote, only attribution to India strategic. Why only India strategic? Why is not a direct quote simultaneously published by many? This is a big deal, why does India Stratgic have a scoop?

The lack of transparency coupled with a overt bias for Boeing is the main issue here.

[arnab]

I see. The civilian BC-17 is expensive. The military C-17 is not. Got it! Sorry for mis-understanding you.

Sigh. Yes BC-17s are expensive because civillian operators have to watch the bottom-line. The penalties for non-delivery of cargo by a certain time due to poor turn around times are covered by insurance. Forces don't have that luxury.

And yes it is absurd to suggest that GOI can go around scouting for transport aircrafts once a hot war erupts. We know what sort of price gouging occurs when nations go for emergency acquisitions. So unless you are in the market for offering to lease cargo aircrafts to GOI in the time of conflicts - such arguments make no sense.

To reiterate: Indian forces need a very heavy lift capacity (it also needs medium lift capacity etc). Currently C-17 fills that role. Other imaginary aircrafts that coulda shoulda woulda been made - does not.

[Sanku]

In the case of the C-17, where are all the aircraft superior to it, in service to be evaluated? None exist

I am sorry, but I am not willing to take such statements at face value. Such statements are true only if.

A role definition in general
RFI
RFP
Test
Price negotiation.

And I see the statement has gone from

No alternatives exist to C 17

to

C 17 is clearly superior no need to test.


Forgive me if I think thats favoritism at its best.

[Surya]

60 pages and all you can show is a forlorn shell sitting in some abandoned factory

sure have a lot of arguments going for you

[arnab]

Sorry no, the conditions are quite clear, unless there is a critical techonolgy which gives a advantage over a adversary, none of them applies to a air-truck transport.

Prove it. Why isn't augmenting land forces to hold territorry in areas such as in the north east - a critical requirement in the case of a Chinese assault? Or are we going to leave Assamese citizens to fend for themselves again?

[Sanku]

arrey baba then I wish you would make up your mind. If proper procedures have been followed, why do you say that the C-17 acquisition ignored the basic procedure of asking for 'multivendor' under DPP 200x and as reiterated by A K Antony in his speech?

Because single vendor is applicable in the rarest of rare cases where national security is a direct stake and very stringent and differentiating requirements are clearly not met by others

No such case for a air truck.

A air truck is a air truck is a air truck.

[arnab]

No such case for a air truck.

A air truck is a air truck is a air truck.

Nope an air-truck with a 25% servicability is not the same as a bigger air truck with more than 80 % servicability

[Sanku]

Sorry no, the conditions are quite clear, unless there is a critical techonolgy which gives a advantage over a adversary, none of them applies to a air-truck transport.

Prove it. Why isn't augmenting land forces to hold territorry in areas such as in the north east - a critical requirement in the case of a Chinese assault? Or are we going to leave Assamese citizens to fend for themselves again?

Prove what? That you are either extremely weak at comprehension or are deliberately distorting simple things.

What does Critical equipment have to do with critical technology?

Basic trainers are a VERY critical requirement -- are they critical technology such that only one trainer manufacturer in the world can fulfill it.



You really want to serve Assam? Get An 70 which CAN land anywhere a An 32 can including ALGs

[Sanku]

No such case for a air truck.

A air truck is a air truck is a air truck.

Nope an air-truck with a 25% servicability is not the same as a bigger air truck with more than 80 % servicability

Yes, but ANY new air truck you buy will not have 25% serviceability anyway.



And no Air truck in India has 25% serviceability, the worst is AN 32 today, which is at 50%. Which is also heading for mid life upgrade for that reason.

[Sanku]

60 pages and all you can show is a forlorn shell sitting in some abandoned factory

sure have a lot of arguments going for you

Thats straight away wrong. He has posted how Volga denper is taking deliviers of new a/c and many other data.

I dont expect refusal to see truth from people like you Surya.

[arnab]

You really want to serve Assam? Get An 70 which CAN land anywhere a An 32 can including ALGs

er..yes, though the first requirement would be their ability to stay in the air more than 25 % of the time? That is a critical wouldn't you say? Or get an Arjun to a place where your adversary has T-Xx? Would that be critical? Can an An 70 oblige?