C-17s for the IAF?

[Sanku]

Uh, what are current Il 76s? The ones inducted by IAF in 1985?

Or what will be built for the RFI that IAF would send out?

As I and Gilles have said there are already Il's which are NVG capable, and I have already posted links for An 32.

The Indian Il 78 are fully all condition capable as well.

Whats the big deal?

[GeorgeWelch]

And IAF wants to carry more than Il 76 is passe.. how much more 10 grams? 100 grams? Forget Il 476, NEW Il 76 MF/MD can carry up to 60 tonnes.

We don't know, but it is easy to suppose one of the requirement is something like 'able to transport all army vehicles'.

The Il-76 can't carry many vehicles no matter how many tons it can lift because they simply won't fit through the door.

So then you will say no IAF wants a cargo hold this big, but not not An 124 because its too big.

No, I say the An-124 isn't now and isn't sure to ever be back in production. And even if it is, it will likely be more expensive than the C-17.

[Gilles]

We don't know, but it is easy to suppose one of the requirement is something like 'able to transport all army vehicles'.

The Il-76 can't carry many vehicles no matter how many tons it can lift because they simply won't fit through the door.

Really ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_ ... y#Vehicles

On the above list, I count about 50 different vehicles of the Indian Army. Out of those, I count approximately 2 that can't fit in an IL-76 (your Pet ones). Maybe a few more ( I don't have the dimensions of the bridge-laying vehicles, but I know that the US version of those same vehicles do not fit in the C-17 either)

[GeorgeWelch]

On the above list, I count about 50 different vehicles of the Indian Army. Out of those, I count approximately 2 that can't fit in an IL-76 (your Pet ones). Maybe a few more ( I don't have the dimensions of the bridge-laying vehicles, but I know that the US version of those same vehicles do not fit in the C-17 either)

T-90
Arjun
I can't prove it, but I have serious doubts about the 5P85SE and Tatra TELAR
PZA Loara (planned acquisition)

[arnab]

Some time back Gilles was arguing that the 'new' IAF Phalcons (based on IL 76 platforms) was proof that IL 76s are still being made. Here is what Vayu says on the subject:

As production of the Il-76MD aircraft ceased some time ago, the three Indian aircraft were to be sourced from the Tashkent factory in Uzbekistan, where a number of surplus incomplete airframes were available for disposal. The airframes were flown from Tashkent to the Irkut Corporation facility at Irkutsk, where, along with some structural modifications, were completed and more powerful Aviadvigatel PS-90A replacing the standard D-30KP-2 turbofans. The completed aircraft were then flown to the IAI factory in Israel for the installation of the Phalcon radar system.

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/Selected_ar ... al/sub.htm

[Surya]

weren't even these delayed

even before the airframes were delivered to Israel.

but again other than a few who are expecting that factory to hum without problems everyone else realises the supply chain issues here

[amit]

Some time back Gilles was arguing that the 'new' IAF Phalcons (based on IL 76 platforms) was proof that IL 76s are still being made. Here is what Vayu says on the subject:

As production of the Il-76MD aircraft ceased some time ago, the three Indian aircraft were to be sourced from the Tashkent factory in Uzbekistan, where a number of surplus incomplete airframes were available for disposal. The airframes were flown from Tashkent to the Irkut Corporation facility at Irkutsk, where, along with some structural modifications, were completed and more powerful Aviadvigatel PS-90A replacing the standard D-30KP-2 turbofans. The completed aircraft were then flown to the IAI factory in Israel for the installation of the Phalcon radar system.

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/Selected_ar ... al/sub.htm

Bingo Arnab! Good find.

When Gilles and others raised this point, I remembered reading about this but since I didn't have enough time to search online for a link I didn't raise the issue.

And we still should have sent an RFI to Illyusin I suppose. I guess they probably can scourge around and find incomplete airframes for disposal for the 10 plane order.

[amit]

T-90
Arjun
I can't prove it, but I have serious doubts about the 5P85SE and Tatra TELAR
PZA Loara (planned acquisition)

George,

It's the T90 and Arjun which are the key.

If you consider that a very heavy lift transport of the class of C17 is used for force projection and mobility then it's not only a question of moving the combatants to a frontline. You have to move their equipment along with them. And in a frontline combat situation the most vital piece of equipment would be the MBT, right?

And if you consider that whatever aircraft IAF buys now will be in service for the next 40 years or so, then isn't it common sense that the IAF would look for something that can move at least one of India's two MBTs, even if that's done only once or twice during this period? From all available indications over this 40 year period India's MBTs would be Arjun and derivatives and/or T90 and derivatives. Both are in a weight and dimension class which knocks out Il76 as a transporter.

I wouldn't be surprised if during the trials that the IAF would conduct, they would pack an MBT in the belly of a C17 and see where it can land with it.

One point that is being overlooked is that when India bought the present Il76 transports, India's MBT was different, as was the need to be able to do force projection. There was also a question of what planes were available. In the 1980s there was no way in hell that the US would have sold a strategic aircraft like a heavy transporter to India.

This is not a knock on the Il76 which has served India well. But the fact is it was/is not built to transport tanks. And why should it, if you look from the perspective of the Soviet Union era when it was designed. The Soviets built the much larger An124 for moving the real heavy stuff.

Finally I know it's considered unfashionable by some but the fact of life is when you do requirement planning for something as long as 40 years you need to take the economic aspect into consideration. By 2030 or thereabouts, India's economy would be among the top three, either No2 or No3 - there's even a long shot that it may replace China as the biggest economy in the world. Along with the size will come increasing responsibilities (like protecting economic interests in Africa, as a random example).

Today cira 2010 we may feel no need to send forces overseas. However are we certain we won't feel the need or face the necessity to do so 20-30 years for now? What would we do then? Hire chartered An124s? Would they even be around then, outside museums?

The C17 is a very expensive aircraft when compared to what India has today. However, as Gilles has pointed out, going by general standards at $220 million a pop, it's comparably priced for a modern four engined heavy aircraft.

The killer is the service contract but as I and others have pointed out so many times, the actual cost would depend on what the India takes and what it doesn't. The price negotiation will only start after the trials.

Jumping out and down with the $5.8 billion tag now is just a red herring

[amit]

but again other than a few who are expecting that factory to hum without problems everyone else realises the supply chain issues here

Boss,

Agree with you totally.

The point is if India pours in sufficient $$$ (I reckon in the billions), then I'm sure a company of the heritage of Ilyusin would easily be able fix the supply chain and reopen production of military grade versions of Il76 (as opposed to civilian cargo planes which only have a more efficient engines slapped on them so that they can fly over Europe).

I'm sure they can also probably MKI'se the planes to meet whatever standards that the IAF sets.

But my question is, why should India do this favour to Ilyusin for a 10 plane order? From all available indications, India at the most want 20 such planes. Then why should we go the same path as the SU-30 MKI for such a piddly order? The Su-30MKI made eminent sense as India will be getting hundreds of these magnificent beasts and they are the mainstay of our air force. But does it make sense for this particular order?

What we'd probably end up doing is spending Indian taxpayers money to reopen and refurbish the Ilyusin plant and then they will go and sell slightly tweaked versions of a hypothetical Il76 MKI to China!

Why do we need to be so stupid? And can anyone guarantee that the extra investments that we'd need to make to get a Il76 MKI would be less than what we're likely to pay for this 10 plane order for C17?

Making a lot of noise, indulging in verbal diarrhoea and insulting other posters with a different POV by calling then liars and alleging they have weak minds can't sweep these issues under the carpet.

[arnab]

And due to popular demand... A direct quote from ACM Naik. In an interview with NDTV. Note the question

http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/india_up ... o_ndtv.php

NDTV: Air Force has expeditionary capabilities. How are you looking at that? You might have an out of area contingency requirement in coming years as we grow, how are you equipping yourself with that kind of capabilities?

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik: Our PM said some years ago that India's interest has grown from Hormuz to Malacca. I would not like to call it expeditionary capabilities but strategic reach to meet the country's aspiration. I would definitely want that for which we need long range aircraft, we need air-to-air refullers, we need to ensure that we can reach there. The UN missions are probably going to increase so we need to take our people there, bring them back, which we do by chartering aircraft at the present moment. If Air Force had that capability, we could do that too. So projection of power over large distances in keeping with the country's aspirations is something we are definitely looking at. We need very heavy transport aircraft, the v hi-tech variety of the C-17 class.

So according to ACM, he needs very high tech aircrafts like C-17s for India's strategic reach and aspirations.

Now hopefully we can end this silly debate about whether C-17s are needed or whether they are hi technology aircrafts.

[amit]

And due to popular demand... A direct quote from ACM Naik. In an interview with NDTV. Note the question

http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/india_up ... o_ndtv.php

NDTV: Air Force has expeditionary capabilities. How are you looking at that? You might have an out of area contingency requirement in coming years as we grow, how are you equipping yourself with that kind of capabilities?

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik: Our PM said some years ago that India's interest has grown from Hormuz to Malacca. I would not like to call it expeditionary capabilities but strategic reach to meet the country's aspiration. I would definitely want that for which we need long range aircraft, we need air-to-air refullers, we need to ensure that we can reach there. The UN missions are probably going to increase so we need to take our people there, bring them back, which we do by chartering aircraft at the present moment. If Air Force had that capability, we could do that too. So projection of power over large distances in keeping with the country's aspirations is something we are definitely looking at. We need very heavy transport aircraft, the v hi-tech variety of the C-17 class.

So according to ACM, he needs very high tech aircrafts like C-17s for India's strategic reach and aspirations.

Now hopefully we can end this silly debate about whether C-17s are needed or whether they are hi technology aircrafts.

But, but Arnab bhai, where are the direct quotation marks ("")? And unless the IAF gives a certification - in triplicate - that what the US stooge NDTV carried is an accurate representation of what the ACM said, can we trust that its not just lifaffa giri? And once we've crossed that hurdle, we have to consider whether the ACM was forced by the MoD - who was prodded by the PMO, who was prodded by... - to say what he said? Do we know this is exactly what the ACM and the IAF really thinks? Remember, according to impeccable sources who have reported on this thread, the ACM looked at shinny Boeing brochures and read newspaper reports and then announced that the IAF had already evaluated the C17 and found it good and so wanted to go ahead and test it in India before buying it. So not so fast!

Jokes apart, this just shows that the IAF is certainly thinking ahead about requirements 10-20 years ahead. As India grows, there is bound to be confrontation with the Chinese over global resources and Africa is likely to be the battleground. By that I don't mean we'll be fighting a hot war but it will be via proxies and in such a situation, IMO, the ability to project power will be vitally important. And to do that 10 years from now, we need to start planning today.

JMT

Added later:

Now hopefully we can end this silly debate about whether C-17s are needed or whether they are hi technology aircrafts.

I share your sentiment. Hopefully this thread can now move forward and discuss in what possible ways the IAF could utilise the C17 to its fullest potential if and when it buys it. And what extra capability it would give to the IAF vis a vis China.

But as they say, "If wishes were horses..."

[Sanku]

Arnab my man, I love you. You bring the choicest nuggets.

-----
Aside --
Heavy lift capability of hi technology variety == C 17 for only one class of people.


-----

Also I am glad that it validates the two points I have been making since the beginning of the thread

Our PM said some years ago that India's interest has grown from Hormuz to Malacca. I would not like to call it expeditionary capabilities but strategic reach to meet the country's aspiration

So as I said, why the SUDDEN need for C 17s?

Because the PMO has recently directly asked the IAF to prepare for expeditionary capability.

Thank you for the confidence, I am the greatest, my statements have been brought to life by ACMs statement no less.


Of course if this was being done in a transparent manner, this would mean a Multi-vendor selection; as was mentioned in the first interview, before PMO probably told MoD to do it VERY fast with *established* players.

In time the interoperability bit will also come out.

[amit]

Arnab,

There are some more interesting nuggets in that interview. Am taking the liberty of posting them:

The sentence right after the para you quoted:

We need heavy transport of the 50-60 tonne class, we need long range communication. I still wouldn't call it expeditionary force. We may need to transfer troops from north to south for some reason, from east to west or west to east. So all these capabilities we need to develop and we are looking at the aircraft to increase there strength as far as air force inventory is concerned.

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik: Over the next one decade, the country's aspirations in my opinion are going to increase. My main task is to be able to meet the country's aspirations. The country's zone of influence, zone of interest is going to increase.

NDTV: You have opened three small runways in Ladakh, which attracted lot of notice, both here and internationally. What was the purpose of those three advance landing grounds in Fukche, Nyoma and DBO?

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik: The latest was Nyoma, which is in the Indus valley. Then Fukche and DBO was the earliest. DBO is at around 16000 feet and Nyoma a little lower at 13000 feet. These assets have already been existing. Because of lack of technology and lack of experience we have not been using them as extensively as we are suppose to. So it's just a gradual progression in our plan that we are using it. The strength of our army have increased there, requirements have increased there, so they need more and more help from the air because the terrain over there is quite hostile. That is the main reason why we have re-activated these advanced landing grounds bases which have been existing since the 1940s.

I would like to point out the lengths of these forward runways in Ladakh.

[Sanku]

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik: The latest was Nyoma, which is in the Indus valley. Then Fukche and DBO was the earliest. DBO is at around 16000 feet and Nyoma a little lower at 13000 feet.

I would like to point out the lengths of these forward runways in Ladakh.

Yea!!

http://kuku.sawf.org/articles/50911.aspx

No wonder this thread has been turned into a comedy circus of inane statements.

[amit]

I hate to quote myself, but this is what I wrote in jest in response to Arnab's post:

And once we've crossed that hurdle, we have to consider whether the ACM was forced by the MoD - who was prodded by the PMO, who was prodded by... - to say what he said? Do we know this is exactly what the ACM and the IAF really thinks?

The next post after mine we get this:

Of course if this was being done in a transparent manner, this would mean a Multi-vendor selection; as was mentioned in the first interview, before PMO probably told MoD to do it VERY fast with *established* players.

[amit]

Never mind

[arnab]

Also I am glad that it validates the two points I have been making since the beginning of the thread

Our PM said some years ago that India's interest has grown from Hormuz to Malacca. I would not like to call it expeditionary capabilities but strategic reach to meet the country's aspiration

So as I said, why the SUDDEN need for C 17s?

Because the PMO has recently directly asked the IAF to prepare for expeditionary capability.

Thank you for the confidence, I am the greatest, my statements have been brought to life by ACMs statement no less.


Of course if this was being done in a transparent manner, this would mean a Multi-vendor selection; as was mentioned in the first interview, before PMO probably told MoD to do it VERY fast with *established* players.

In time the interoperability bit will also come out.

err ok.. So this 'strategic reach' that the ACM is talking about (NDTV calls it 'expeditionary', PM had mentioned India's interest in securing Indian Ocean and the Rim). Is this a perjorative term? You were in an accusatory mode through out - saying the IAF was being coerced into buying an aircraft it did not need (and nor was it particularly hi-tech), or there were many other aircrafts which could do the same thingt cheaply.

So what was your point? We should not be thinking about strategic reach? (Note he did not mention IL-76 production or its servicability, because that was not the question).

And what multi-vendor? You were the one arguing C-17 'class' is a class of one!! So if ACM wants C-17 class - why this RFI for non-existent aircraft?

Added later: Infact you were saying ACM had not mentioned C-17 at all. It was all lifafa or a misquote

[Sanku]

err ok.. So this 'strategic reach' that the ACM is talking about (NDTV calls it 'expeditionary', PM had mentioned India's interest in securing Indian Ocean and the Rim). Is this a perjorative term? You were in an accusatory mode through out - saying the IAF was being coerced into buying an aircraft it did not need (and nor was it particularly hi-tech), or there were many other aircrafts which could do the same thingt cheaply.

Dear Arnab, now now... I was in accusatory mode? About what? ONLY about the lack of multi-vendor process.

I was amongst the FIRST one to say here along with Chetak (even before you posted data here) that -- the whole thing shows a PMO push. This was being touted by some as "a long term IAF requirement being fulfilled"

We have now confirmation. of what I said being correct and "long term IAF requirement" being a crock of shite...

I also said that this was PMO prerogative, I never accused hanky panky.

And what multi-vendor? You were the one arguing C-17 'class' is a class of one!! So if ACM wants C-17 class - why this RFI for non-existent aircraft?

C 17 is a class of one when you define 77 tonnes over 5400 feet exactly. C 17 is NOT in a class of one if you consider a 60 tonne plus carrying a/c.

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

Now I also said interoperability with US was a key (and no spare me the juvenile definition that some have who thing interoperability means landing at a airstrip) -- this was shown by AVM Pandey's article.

I am sure that in near future we will see confirmation for that too.

And then finally to the real issue -- of buying expensive gold plated shiny (and easily scratched) toys to do what others could have done better and cheaply, without putting them through comparison and contest.

We need to find out why the intent by IAF to send a multi vendor RFI was junked....

[arnab]

err ok.. So this 'strategic reach' that the ACM is talking about (NDTV calls it 'expeditionary', PM had mentioned India's interest in securing Indian Ocean and the Rim). Is this a perjorative term? You were in an accusatory mode through out - saying the IAF was being coerced into buying an aircraft it did not need (and nor was it particularly hi-tech), or there were many other aircrafts which could do the same thingt cheaply.

Dear Arnab, now now... I was in accusatory mode? About what? ONLY about the lack of multi-vendor process.

I was amongst the FIRST one to say here along with Chetak (even before you posted data here) that -- the whole thing shows a PMO push. This was being touted by some as "a long term IAF requirement being fulfilled"

We have now confirmation. of what I said being correct and "long term IAF requirement" being a crock of shite...

I also said that this was PMO prerogative, I never accused hanky panky.

And what multi-vendor? You were the one arguing C-17 'class' is a class of one!! So if ACM wants C-17 class - why this RFI for non-existent aircraft?

C 17 is a class of one when you define 77 tonnes over 5400 feet exactly. C 17 is NOT in a class of one if you consider a 60 tonne plus carrying a/c.

Wow - by that, any statement by the PM on security matters can be read as a 'PMO push'!! PM says 'India's interests are growing', 'India needs to secure oil supplies', 'India cannot choose neighbours' - Any of these could be seen as a PMO push In your parlance - we await a "direct quote"

No, the C-17 is in a class of its own when the ACM defines it like that ('C-17 class'). It is a combination of technology and load carrying capability. Otherwise he could have merely said - we want an Aircraft in the 80 tonne range.

[Sanku]

Yes Sir, it is a PMO push, i.e. a decision taken by PMO towards meeting a political imperative. This is how the system is *supposed* to work.

Why get so offended?

--------

And yes we want the C-17 class, that is also obvious. The only thing is that the C 17 class is essentially a euphemism for saying "we need to buy C 17"

Its a bit like IPhone class, if you are looking for a mobile device with various features robustness and reliability you have multiple choices.

But if you want the IPhone class, you buy the Iphone.

C 17s are being brought by the same methodology that teenagers buy iphone.

but of course we know that is misleading, since GoI is not a teenager. So the real reason is that it is merely pretending to model its purchase methods on Iphone shopping to hide the REAL reason.

Its a little complicated, but if you cant handle complication stay out of GoI related discussions

[Sanku]

This actually belongs here, copy paste Iphone with C 17 and Boeing with Apple and you have the exactly same set of "onlee this will do" arguments


replacing post by link....

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 58#p893158

[arnab]

Yes Sir, it is a PMO push, i.e. a decision taken by PMO towards meeting a political imperative. This is how the system is *supposed* to work.

Why get so offended?

--------

And yes we want the C-17 class, that is also obvious. The only thing is that the C 17 class is essentially a euphemism for saying "we need to buy C 17"


Its a little complicated, but if you cant handle complication stay out of GoI related discussions

No offence sir merely amused Good now we agree that the IAF wants C-17 (And I would like to think they are a wee bit more competent in working out their requirements than Yuppies choosing Iphone). It is only complicated - if you choose to make it so. That is when you bring accusations of - lifafas, no real technolgy factors, pushed by PMO to ignore IL 76 etc etc without any proof. Else all good. Cheerio

[Sanku]

No offence sir merely amused Good now we agree that the IAF wants C-17 (And I would like to think they are a wee bit more competent in working out their requirements than Yuppies choosing Iphone). It is only complicated - if you choose to make it so. That is when you bring accusations of - lifafas, no real technolgy factors, pushed by PMO to ignore IL 76 etc etc without any proof. Else all good. Cheerio

Oh no Arab, you dont get away with that kind of slight of hand so easily. I am well aware of your penchant of slipping in horribly incorrect under two or three correct statements.

The right statement is IAF wants a modern heavy lift aircraft in response the recent directives from the PM to build capability to influence the region.

This is ALL that CAS has said and this ALL that I agree on.

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

Now the accusation stands...

Why no RFI?

And should you be first looking at building force before worrying about force projection?

The Indian armed force strength is wasting away and the *head in the cloud* PM wants us to influence the world?

Nah -- this directive by PM is just a euphemism for "lets pay US a lot of money to look out for us, because sure as hell, GoI has abdicated that responsibility"

[amit]

The iphone is a good example.

From my personal experience: I wanted a iPhone-class phone, so I did some research (aka RFI) and then went to the shop to look, test and feel and get the price (aka RFP, testing and price negotiations) and then settled for an Android HTC Desire at a lower price point that the iPhone. I also had the option of getting the Samsung Galaxy S at a higher price point with more features.

Both happen to be iPhone-class as is the Motorola Milestone and a host of others. And while the iPhone is undoubtedly a high class (aka technology and functionality) phone. The others like my new HTC Desire performs the job equally well.

Now, if I want a C17 class plane. Which are the others that I can look around as alternative? I get it the A400, Il76 and An124 right - they are all C17-class right?

Folks should think a bit and research a bit before posting silly similes.

[amit]

The Indian armed force strength is wasting away and the *head in the cloud* PM wants us to influence the world?

From the link posted by Arnab, here's what the ACM has to say about IAF force strength:

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik: Ours is not a small Air Force. After all, we have 30 squadrons of fighter aircraft alone. Our acquisition will be coming in a year or two years from now. Every country goes through this process. It's a passing phase I would say. There is nothing to be alarmed about. This is one thing I would definitely want to assure our citizens. Now when the old equipment becomes old, it needs to be phased out in a phased manner again if I can repeat myself. As far as that is concerned, the date is fixed. As far as the new equipment is concerned, there may be slippages, there may be other issues involved where there are delays in the acquisition of new equipments. So you have this passing phase. But let me assure you and the rest of the country that we are at the bottom of the curve right now but after this, it is only upwards.

I think the ACM needs to read BRF "experts" to get a grip on the "gravity" of the situation.

[Kailash]

Boeing gets $1.53 bln US contract for eight C-17s

June 22 (Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) has received a $1.53 billion U.S. Air Force contract for eight C-17 transport planes, the Pentagon said on Tuesday in a daily list of contract awards.

Code: Select all

 It said $734 million has already been obligated toward the work.

The Obama administration has said it is opposed to Congress adding further funding for C-17 aircraft beyond those already budgeted for. (Washington newsroom, 202 898-8300)

[Tanaji]

Sanku dismisses even direct quotes that contradict his position, what else is new?

However, WE still have seen no quotes yet from the PMO or the RM that say:

C17 is bought to have interoperability with NATO/US.

The other point is restarting dormant / defunct production lines. People like to think its magical: IAF hands a contract for 10 planes, and Antonov and Ilyushin go into raptures and find the personnel, the engineering designs, the jigs etc. to make it happen. Reality is of course slightly different....

[amit]

The other point is restarting dormant / defunct production lines. People like to think its magical: IAF hands a contract for 10 planes, and Antonov and Ilyushin go into raptures and find the personnel, the engineering designs, the jigs etc. to make it happen. Reality is of course slightly different....

Tanaji,

Spot on.

And do note the thundering silence on the cost involved in reopening the production lines and MKI'sing the plane chosen and proof that that cost would be significantly lower than whatever price India would pay if it chooses the C17.

[Sanku]

Hey buddy which direct quote I have dismissed.

What I dismiss is "interesting" paraphrasing of direct quotes.

Where "like" gets dropped from a sentence magically, where a figure is a number between 0 and 100 of not any importance and such like.

Hey find me a single point where I have dismissed a single quote?

[Sanku]

And do note the thundering silence on the cost involved in reopening the production lines and MKI'sing the plane chosen and proof that that cost would be significantly lower than whatever price India would pay if it chooses the C17.

ho hum more lies, and debate what numbers pulled out of musharaffs of posters who quote the altitude of airfields as its length?

There are only the following truths as known today

1) IAF is interested in acquiring a Very heavy lift aircraft in response to PMs idea of force projection, a dream that has come in a vision to PM recently, around 2 years back.

2) While we fall over ourselves to project force, at home the ADGES net work is suffering, the LCAs engines are not decided and MRCA is still happening, of course we dont need to worry about them since they will happen in due time. OTOH force projection is extremely critical and has to be done as fast that we dont send out RFIs even.


And the above is just a partial list for IAF.

3) For heavy lift, despite the presence of many options including a 60 tonne Il 76 with new engines (not even Il 476) IAF finds itself unable to send a RFI and is willing to hand over 5.8 billion $ to the Americans.

4) AVM Pandey speaks about the need to prepare for partnership in context of heavy lifts.

Those are the only truths....

[Sanku]

Tanaji I hope you will point out which exact quote I have dismissed, I dont take kindly to being misquoted or erronous statements assigned to me.

I dont expect anyone to necessarily agree with me, but as I keep saying the prerogative of deliberately misrepresenting statements is a fundamental approach of 2 folks here. Let them stay in that club.

[amit]

Hey find me a single point where I have dismissed a single quote?

ACM Naik quote:

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik: ...There is nothing to be alarmed about. This is one thing I would definitely want to assure our citizens. Now when the old equipment becomes old, it needs to be phased out in a phased manner again if I can repeat myself. As far as that is concerned, the date is fixed. As far as the new equipment is concerned, there may be slippages, there may be other issues involved where there are delays in the acquisition of new equipments. So you have this passing phase. But let me assure you and the rest of the country that we are at the bottom of the curve right now but after this, it is only upwards.

In response:

While we fall over ourselves to project force, at home the ADGES net work is suffering, the LCAs engines are not decided and MRCA is still happening, of course we dont need to worry about them since they will happen in due time.

[amit]

posters who quote the altitude of airfields as its length?

Nice catch Sanku, my bad.

I wrote the post wrongly. What I meant to say is that the IAF could probably test the C17, carrying an MBT on these fields as Kanson has given a reference that the plane can land within 3000 feet.

[Sanku]

Amit, thank you for illustrating my point. Now please work on your comprehension skills, starting with difference in words altitude and length.

We may remotely be on the same page then.

[amit]

Amit, thank you for illustrating my point. Now please work on your comprehension skills, starting with difference in words altitude and length.

We may remotely be on the same page then.

Thank you for your kind words Sanku. But it's pointless I'm not going to be provoked.

Like I told you I'm not going to wallow in the mud with you. You're in your element there, unfortunately I'm not.

Cheers!

PS: I do note that you caught on to my post where I admitted I was wrong. But you've avoided my previous post. But that was only to be expected, debating is not one of your skills.

[Sanku]

Amit the idea was not to provoke you, I have absolutely not interest in provoking you. That comment was meant in all seriousness, you just do not posses the necessary comprehension skills to have a debate on a topic like this. There are way too many indicators.

That's why the question was to Tanaji and not you. Your statements I dont care about other than stepping in to correct your (yet) another totally and blatantly correct factoid -- for example when you were misleading everybody on the origins of MRCA contest.

If I see you trying to pass on suspect data, I will step in to keep the record straight, for the benefit of the forum but otherwise I could not care less for your opinions.

[amit]

Thank you once again Sanku. But I do note the lack of response to the post I referred to.

Anyway never mind, I really didn't expect you to respond.

No more assistance from me to the attempted derailment of this thread with personal attacks.

[Sanku]

I would like to point out a very obvious statement that you have not comprehended, I have already responded to your statement that I my statement is at variance with that of the ACM.

It is not -- simple. He says its happening even if slowly and there is no cause for alarm, all I have said is it is happening although slowly and IAF is not alarmed for -- that much is obvious or at least should be obvious.

I THEN go on to add that -- C 17s are of course critical that they are needed today, right now, like even if we skip the effort to see if we can use 5.8 can be better used for another heavy lift solution. -- a obvious attempt at reductio at absurdum.

It is just that you dont understand that and cant even after pointing that out. Now I will say this very slowly

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

In future

I hope

you will show

sufficient language skills

to express

that you have not understood

what I said

as opposed to "saying that I have not answered."
-----------------------------------------------
(I just hope you understood the last statement)

[amit]

I think I understand the verbal somersaults!

[Sanku]

If so, you have so far not demonstrated that competence.