C-17s for the IAF?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jul 2010 11:57

You want info,you'll get it!
The AWST report I mentioned was a June issue,I will provide the exact date of issue.Meanwhile,here is an earlier (April) AWST issue with excerpts from its report.Not to mention other reports about as poss. Boeing involovement to produce AN-124s for US customers!If the C-17 is so good,why then is production ceasing and Def.Min. Gates wants the production ceased immediately?

Please read the article on why Gates is taking on the "military-industrial complex" in the US as 40 states,which supply the C-17 with components."pork barrel politics" is demanding that the C-17 production continues even though the Pentagon does not want any more.So India is to buy the C-17 simply to keep US aviation workers employed! That is the truth of the matter,NOT any desperate need by the IAF (perhaps ferrying supplies to alleviate the flood hit people of the Punjab?) and our spineless GOI of the day is obliging Uncle Sam,why?

Here is Gates in his own words on the subject.
“I’m fully aware of political pressure to continue building a C-17 and to proceed with an alternate engine for the F-35, so let me be clear, I will strongly recommend that the president veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of these two programs,” Gates said."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/02 ... z0tAPgeqEC
ates' oiwn words:
"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03592.html

AN-124 production to restart,reports:

A Russian-Ukrainian team of manufacturers and operators recently submitted a business plan to their respective governments outlining the feasibility of resuming assembly of the An-124, which had been idle for more than a year. Also proposed was completion of work on a modified version designed for higher capacity, reduced operating costs and capable of meeting future Chapter 4 noise regulations (AW&ST Apr. 14, p. 41).

Alexey Isaikin, who heads Volga-Dnepr, the largest An-124 operator, says Ukraine's recent decision to merge the three contractors--prompting the departure of long-time Antonov boss Petr Balabuyev--could help move the project forward. Russia's Aviastar is the final assembly plant for the An-124.

According to Isaikin, VolgaDnepr is planning to form a consortium by December to start work on the project. Other participants would be Antonov (another big An-124 operator), Motor Sich (whose D-18T engines equip the airlifter) and perhaps Aviant and Ilyushin Finance Co.

However, government backing would have to be assured for investors to support the project, and Alyoshin refused to be pinned down as to the extent and timing of any Russian involvement.

ISAIKIN ESTIMATED the An-124 project would cost $400 million for retooling, production design and training plus $100 million for each aircraft produced.

VolgaDnepr and Antonov have already initiated a modification, dubbed the An-124-100M, intended to raise the payload to 150 metric tons, from 120 now, improve service life and reduce the flight crew to four from six. The companies presented here a further modification, called the An-124-100M-150, that would raise service life to 40,000 flight hours, from 24,000 in the original modification, and extend the range to 5,000-5,400 km., from the initial 4,500. It is not clear which upgrade is covered by the cost estimate.

Also presented in Paris was a much longer-range follow-on model, the An-124-300, that would combine the fuselage of the An-124 (minus the centerplane) and the wings of the bigger An-225 Mryia. This aircraft would be equipped with Western engines and avionics, and feature a four-engine layout, instead of the six-engine configuration on the An-225, along with an extended cargo floor and palletized loading system. Top range would be 8,100 km. with a 120-ton payload, and 11,500 km. with a 100-ton load. The development cost was not given, but would certainly exceed $1 billion.

At Le Bourget, VolgaDnepr agreed to lease a pair of PS-90A1-powered Ilyushin Il-96-400s from Ilyushin Finance Co., in effect launching this higher-gross-weight version of the Il-96-300. The aircraft are set to be delivered in 2006. The cargo specialist is also looking to launch an initial production batch of modified Il-76 freighters equipped with Perm PS-90A-76 engines designed to meet international noise and emissions requirements, raise hot-and-high capability and reduce operating costs. Partners in the venture, which would include 15 aircraft--half new-build and half retrofit--would be Ilyushin and an unidentified Russian bank. The prototype is to enter service in September (AW&ST July 29, 2002, p. 43).

Alexey Komarov contributed to this report from Moscow.

Defence Industry report.
"More AN-124s on the way"
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mor ... ers-02913/
Excerpt:

Antonov’s AN-124 Condor began as a Soviet super-heavy military transport aircraft that would be even larger than the American C-5 Galaxy. After coming out on top in that particular ‘mine is bigger than yours’ contest, the AN-124 outdid its American rivals again by going on to a surprising second career in the civilian sector. It has become the de facto global standard super-heavy cargo aircraft for outsize loads – a market that may rise to $500 million by 2010. Even NATO uses the Condor these days, via its SALIS lease of 6 AN-124s to meet the military transport needs of 17 participating nations.

This indicates that the AN-124 is likely to occupy a unique and sustainable space in the global cargo market for quite some time to come, with new aircraft rolling off the production line and financing available. Across the Atlantic, the USA is undertaking upgrades to its decades-old C-5A Galaxies that will give them acceptable mission readiness profiles via new engines and electronics. They also seem intent on shuttering C-17 production despite usage and wear levels in the existing fleet that have been significantly higher and more strenuous than originally envisioned. Oddly, the Americans even seem to be creating obstacles to civilian use.

Novosti.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100526/159163128.html

Russia
Russian Defense Ministry plans to order An-124, An-70 transport aircraft
An-124 transport aircraft
13:21 26/05/2010© RIA Novosti. Andrey GreshnovRelated News

The Russian Defense Ministry intends to order An-124 and An-70 military transport aircraft under the new state arms procurement program for 2011-2020, Airborne Troops Commander Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov said on Wednesday.

"While working under the state program, we have submitted our proposals," Shamanov said.

He said the Airborne Troops had ordered 40 An-70s aircraft, but he did not specify the number of An-124s ordered by his military unit.

There are up to 300 transport aircraft in service with the Russian Air Force, including, among others, An-12, An-70 and An-124 Ruslan strategic heavy airlift transport aircraft.

The An-70 is a medium-range turboprop military transport plane developed by Ukraine's Antonov design bureau. The Antonov company first tested a flying prototype of the An-70 in 1994, but a lack of Ukrainian state funds, and political disputes between Moscow and Kiev have prevented large-scale production of the aircraft.

The recent thaw in Russian-Ukrainian relations saw Moscow renew long-stalled funding to Ukraine for eventual joint production of the airplane.

The An-70 is due to occupy the An-12's niche.

The An-124, that can be used both for domestic and military purposes, was designed by the Antonov Design Bureau in 1982, and was produced in Ukraine's Kiev and Russia's Ulyanovsk until 1995. The plane has a maximum payload of 150 metric tons with a flight range of around 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles).

The cargo jet is the world's third largest after the An-225 and the Airbus A380F.
Russia and Ukraine reached a preliminary agreement to resume production of the An-124 in April 2008.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2010 12:50

Since Philip is showing off a Washington Post report from April 2009 to prove that the An124-100 production line is going to/is being/has already been (take your pick) set rolling, let me point to a slighter more fresher Link from June 2010.

The link as, er, an interesting quote, which for the purpose of this rigmarole of a discussion is IMVHO relevant and topical [

]:

June 23 - Staff at HLPFI don't know what is more repetitive. Watching the England football team struggle through the group stage of a World Cup final (thank goodness for John Terry's backside), or anticipating news that the manufacture of the AN-124 is about be resumed.

And Oh yes, just to keep the record straight, most reports say that whatever US "interest" was shown for the An124-100, it was as a replacement for the C5 and not the C17. Needless to say the C5, is not made any more and in the tiered system of heavy transport aircraft it sits above the C17.

However, such small details are not important from the perspective of some posters who have suggested aircraft from the 37 ton Airbus transport all the way to 150 ton An124-100.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2010 12:55

Here's another piece of news from June 22, 2010 which might interest Philip Saar. It also talks about the An124-100 production:

BOEING may take over the final assembly of the An-124 for use in the US market.

Alexei Fyodorov, head of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation, claims both the Russian and US governments have discussed the matter and taken it up with Boeing. Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, will further discuss the matter with the US during his visit to the US later this month.

However, Ukraine’s Antonov Design Bureau claims it wasn’t involved in any of the negotiations, protesting that it still owns the rights to the design of the An-124.

While the An-124 is still a popular aircraft, since the end of its production rumours of its resumed manufacture have been as common as they have been elusive.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2010 13:03

Yet another link. This time with a quote from Putin himself.

"We are certain that the Russian aircraft industry could find its own niche on the global market and we lay serious hopes on that," Putin said at the international forum Engineering Technologies-2010.

So even Putin Saab is also still in the hoping stage?

The An-124 was designed by the Antonov Design Bureau in 1982, and was produced in Ukraine's Kiev and Russia's Ulyanovsk plants until 1995. Although there are no An-124s being built at present, Russia and Ukraine have reportedly agreed to resume production in the future.

I'd like to point out the significance IMO of the bolded portion above.

The 2009 reports which were linked by Philip Saar seemed to indicate that all agreements were in place and only the logistics needed to be sorted before the production of the An124-100 started.

Yet more than one year later we still have reports of Putin hoping and RIA saying that Russia and Ukraine have reportedly agreed...

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 09 Jul 2010 13:38

From Philip;s own link:

However, government backing would have to be assured for investors to support the project, and Alyoshin refused to be pinned down as to the extent and timing of any Russian involvement.

Says it all me thinks

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 09 Jul 2010 15:52

Philip,

Please read these links :

AN-124
Latest production : 2004. Total 36 Airframes
http://www.rzjets.net/aircraft/?typeid=21

Further information / statistics : http://russianplanes.net/EN/REGISTR/Antonov/An-124

C17
Latest production : 2010 (2 yet to complete): Total 170 Airframes
http://www.rzjets.net/aircraft/?page=4&typeid=229

Can you respond?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jul 2010 17:45

Big deal! It is what is going to be produced in the future-,AN-124 and what is NOT going to be produced C-17! Read Putin's lips and Gates' lips!

However,everyone critical is missing the point and can't see the wood for the trees,it is not the acquisition of the C-17/AN-124 that really is the issue,we may indeed need at some time a strategic airlifter,it is the lopsided priorities of the GOI/MOD/IAF,which leads one to wonder whether the entire acquisition philosophy and masterplan for the IAF is a prisoner of vested interests.Some decisions languish for years,while others zoom ahead at supersonic speed.

We all know what really ails the IAF today.Firstly,falling numbers of combat aircraft,while China and Pak rapidly increase their inventory as well as quality.Secondly,the excuciating delay in developing our own light fighter,which was supposed to make us self-reliant (70% indigenisation of def. eqpt. the national goal).27 years on,it has neither entered sqd. service,neither is it indigenous enough,with the key item,the engine,which saw the early demise of a great fighter,the HF-24,still unavailable to us-that too a foreign engine underpowered and an indigenous one that has yet to be perfected despite thousands of crores being spent on the GTRE.While we've been developing the LCA,the Sino-Pak combine have produced the JF-17,now taking part at Farnborough wwith turd-world exports too in mind! Now does not grate upon the mind? To me the LCA project,with the naval variant too should be the top prioority for the IAF as well as sorting out the trainers mess.What has our entire establishment,politicos,babus and IAF brass been doing all these decades? Most informed observers also predict a drawn out final verdict for the MMRCA.The collapse of our basic trainer,delays in IJT devlopment,AJT production too have drastically affected the very foundation of the IAF,training its pilots.Here,the IAF too must share a portion of the blame.We have set our sights upon the high peaks of cutting edge tech.,while ignoring the fact that a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step and "base camp" has been hit by a landslide!

The defence and security of the country cannot also be viewed just through the eyes and requirements of just one service.A holistic approach should be taken.Apart from the priorities of the IAF,the priorities of the three services TOGETHER is what is required to be listed out,as they are meant to train together and fight together as a cohesive entity for the nation.Taking this approach,we see that the IA has huge shortcomings,the main issue being that of the artillery shortfall.SP,towed,lightweight,etc. are sorely needed to deal with both Pak and a rsurgent threatening China.Here vested interests appear to have been at work,attempts to bannning some manufacturers from time to time and delays in field tests of contesting eqpt.,etc.Purely from the performance of Bofors guns to date and their subsequent development,the BAe (new owners) gun offered should be the first choice.Further development and production of Arjun,we know the maze of that issue to be traversed! Finally Arjun has proven its worth and now should be ordered in large number to justify the decades of development and expense.Moreover,despite it not being "5th-gen" or whatever,it is available,locally developed (but for the engine again and the thermal sights) and will not suffer lack of spares,etc. during a crisis.In all these years too,what armoured vehicles apart from Arjun have we developed? The arrival of IEDs on the battlefield we knew as far back as the IPKF in Lanka.They are taking a devastating toll in Iraq/Afghanistan and we now have our very own Naxals using them aaprt from the Pakis in J&K. It is only the private sector that seems to be developing such vehicles.What about a light tank,air portable in our existing transports that can fight in the Himalayan heights,as well as in the riverine deltas and the deserts? There have been aost of opportunities for indigenous development,but HVF has kept on pursuing Tank-X which the IA refuses to consider.There must be synchronciity between end-user and R&D.

If you look next at the IN's woes,the decision on the second line of subs has been languishing for about 10 years! Even stopgap methods of buying a few more U-boats to complement our 4 U-209s or buying a few more Klub Kilos have not been taken.Developing an anti-missile/PDMS was a failure (Trishul) requiring an import,Barak,whose acquisition withut any competitor was controversial.The NG Barak too is being acquired/developed without considering any other missile.Finally Akash has arrived and been ordered in large number.A naval variant must be developed,as it is logical,but has there been any news of such a line of thinking? One can go on and on,but as I've pointed out,our priorities are lopsided and acquisition of defence eqpt, and weapon systems is done on an ad-hoc manner,where it appears that vested interests have more to do with decision making than the services and their needs.In recent times,our new found friend the US and their hollow claim to be our strategic aprtner,when in actual fact Pak is a far greater srartegic partner than India,has been armtwisting the GOI for India to buy US def. eqpt.,that too without a free sale,but coming with strings,ropes and shackles of conditions attached unlike our acquisitions from Europe or Russia or Israel.Despite this we seem hell bent upon buying US eqpt. which will be prone to sanctions in a crisis with Pak or China.What gives? The men at the top are responsible for India's security.They need to take decisions carefully and on time if we are not to suffer the ignominy of another '62.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2010 17:56

However,everyone critical is missing the point and can't see the wood for the trees,it is not the acquisition of the C-17/AN-124 that really is the issue,we may indeed need at some time a strategic airlifter,it is the lopsided priorities of the GOI/MOD/IAF,which leads one to wonder whether the entire acquisition philosophy and masterplan for the IAF is a prisoner of vested interests.Some decisions languish for years,while others zoom ahead at supersonic speed.

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,

This point was raised (yet again) on the last page. When this point was answered we jumped (yet again) to fanboy wow, wowing of the mythical An124-100.

When this point was answered, we go back again to how stoopid GOI/MOD/IAF is, they can't even understand the country's strategic needs which Internet warriors during timepass can see so clearly.

Some posters with patience will spend the rest of this page of the thread responding to this. And then next page we'll again get back to admiring the curves of the to be built sometime in the future An124-100.

Thankfully the Il476 or whatever hasn't yet (again) made it's (re) appearance for several pages.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Jul 2010 17:59

^^ you people are having lot of patience. I appreciate it.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2010 18:03

Kanson wrote:^^ you people are having lot of patience. I appreciate it.

Kanson ji,

Actually I admire the paitence and perseverance of the people who keep drumming the same points page after page, not letting reason, facts and logic get in the way.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 09 Jul 2010 18:49

From the link "Trials over, Boeing awaits IAF decision on $5.8 billion C-17 deal"

>>>The trials were conducted at the Gaggle Airport in northern India some 500 km from New Delhi on 23 June, ahead of the procurement of 10 giant strategic airlift aircraft for an estimated USD 5.8 billion.

Anybody know whether trials were conducted only at this airstrip or it was done at other airstrips as well? for eg. Leh...

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 09 Jul 2010 18:54

Philip,
[quote= ......What has our entire establishment,politicos,babus and IAF brass been doing all these decades? ..[/quote]
Answer : They have been buying from the Russians. Result is all the mess that you have taken trouble to list. I guess it is time to move on to a different acquisition paradigm (read transparent), which I believe the current set of acquisitions are largely following. This is causing the Russian lobby a lot of heartburn - They apparently do not like transparency as is evident. Like any acquisition, there are going to be winners and whiners. About China and Pakistan and JF17 - You see, the Indian political class is never going to think strategically, they can and will only think about the next election whereas the Chinese and Pakistanis are not constrained by that sort of complications nor do they have any compunctions. But I digress, Can you, instead of bringing unrelated points respond to my links with answers better than "Big Deal" - for instance by providing links that show that An 124 production is revived - definitive proof if you will?
Thanks in advance.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Jul 2010 19:22

Aha

when one has no answers to mythical production, drip drip, beg, borrow production lines and using super large planes then one produces 6 paras of all other issues.

Now we discuss IEDs in the C 17 thread

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 09 Jul 2010 19:33

Mods - please delete if inappropriate..

Philip,

I have reproduced the statistics to assist you...

Antonov An-124 statistics:

An-124 An-124-100 An-124-100M summary
flying 10 25 3 38
not flying 1 1
stored 12 1 13 I am sure you fervently wish that India buys these
crashed 2 2 4
build 2 2
summary 25 28 5 58
2002 03 2004 stat.prot. ord./build
made 1 2 1 2
flying 1 2

Airline statistics:
(for additional information click on AL)
airline active leased stored br/up ord./build
1 [ru] Russia (USSR) - Air Forces 12 12
2 [ru] Volga-Dnepr (AirBridge Cargo) 10 2
3 [ua] Antonov Design Bureau (Antonov Airlines) 7 1
4 [ru] Polyot 4 2 (curr.)
5 [ly] Libyan Arab Air Cargo 2
6 Maximus Air Cargo 1

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 09 Jul 2010 19:49

Philip:

Can you post links to your assertion that the following projects are languishing due to lack of adequate funds:

LCA project
NLCA project
IJT development
Arjun tank
Trishul

More specifically, something to support the theory that the amount being spent on the heavy lifter acquisition will expedite these projects.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 09 Jul 2010 20:57

^^ Tanaji one thing I want to point out is the lightening speed with which the whole deal is proceeding. Ok we are rich country getting more richer and pay 26000 crore for 10 aircrafts. I'm fine with it.

But the thing is other deals proceed after lots of

even then they take decades to move like jet trainers, submarines. Even now after damning report of CAG about our submarines only 48% ready for war and still there is not even talk about next line after scorpene. The new ship project which IN wanted first ship built outside Defence ministry denied on the basis of cost (can't remember its number 15 or 15b). Even for Tejas' engine they are taking so long to decide, presumably on cost that 414 costs 4 million each while EJ200 costs 10 mil.

Out of these how come C 17 deal moved so fast, that first there was not even a whiff of its need and now suddenly all the steps are being cleared at breakneck speed?

Though I agree as rohit says whatever forces can get quickly is better for the country. Still only US deals are clearing fast. Please also note that no one was objecting over P 8I or C 130s, but regarding C 17 things have moved really fast.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jul 2010 21:20

Well it is damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If a deal takes 20 years we curse. If it is done in a year we curse.

Why not first say how long a deal should take and then judge deals by that standard?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Jul 2010 21:55

Anthony Hines wrote:
Philip wrote: ......What has our entire establishment,politicos,babus and IAF brass been doing all these decades? ..

Answer : They have been buying from the Russians. Result is all the mess that you have taken trouble to list. I guess it is time to move on to a different acquisition paradigm (read transparent), which I believe the current set of acquisitions are largely following. This is causing the Russian lobby a lot of heartburn - They apparently do not like transparency as is evident.

Anthony, I have been opposing Philip all throughout this thread. I have openly supported the C-17 acquisition and spoken out against !L-76/476 and An-124 as viable options.

However, I find your huge statements like "we are in a mess because we bought Russian" and that the "US deals are/will be transparent" very subjective. What's more, neither of them are true. And you would loose all ground if you want to take on any of the nay-sayers based on history. Even in the present, US gives giving alms to Pak which is no way related to anti-terrorism warfare. I understand that their hands might be tied to some extent, but the end result is that Pak has those arms and there is only one direction where their arms are pointing right now and will be for a while.

Also please tell me what Russian equipment has had us in a mess and which other alternative was open to us. Also please elaborate how US deals are more transparent. And transparent to whom? We mango people would only get the information when it is released to us. But, the guys who are negotiating have always dealt transparently. Leave aside the Gorshkov, much of our other deals with Russia have not seen cost escalations. Yes, subsequent batches have been more expensive, but that's the norm. On the other hand, France, which calls itself "the first ally of US" has back stabbed us in every deal, name any one! BAE failed us in the first mega deal in years too. What defines transparency is eluding me right now! Please enlighten me on that prospect.

To paraphrase IMVHO, to say that Indo-Russia partnership has been a mess for India and that Indo-US partnership is going to be a consortium of saints is as far from the truth as can be and can only be taken as ignorance or fanboy-ism.

I would request everybody to stick to the merits/demerits of the C-17 deal and not make subjective comments based on feelings, just my thoughts.

P.S. I support Shivji's idea on timelines. What is the model of timelines should we adopt for the future, given the fact that Pak/China's military acquisition seem to go through much faster/smoother whereas we languish for decades in every single deal!

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 Jul 2010 19:30

India-US begin price negotiations on Boeing C-17 airlifter.

India and the United States have begun talks here on the price and onboard equipment for the 10 Boeing C- 17 military transport aircraft that the Indian Air Force (IAF) wants.

According to reliable sources quoted by India Strategic defence magazine, the validation trials of the aircraft were complete and that one United States Air Force (USAF) C-17 which had come to India in this regard last month had met the IAF specifications. The aircraft was tested in short and high altitude runways.

As India is buying the aircraft from the US government under its Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme, the US Department of Defense (DOD) and USAF are leading the discussions from the supplier side and the Indian Ministry of Defence and the IAF are negotiating from the buyer side.

DOD has set the maximum price at $5.8 billion for the aircraft and various systems but the actual price would depend upon what equipment and onboard options the IAF finally selects.

The US government will issue a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) after these discussions are finalized, indicating the equipment, services, and lifecycle support and their costs. There would be a 3.8 per cent administrative fee that the US government now charges on all FMS deals. (This fee varies periodically between 2.5 to 5 per cent).

India Strategic quoted Boeing's Vice President for Global Mobility Systems Tommy Dunehew, who was here recently, as saying that Boeing has offered assured maintenance and supply of spares for the lifetime of the aircraft - say 40 years - and serviceability.

The aircraft is manufactured by Boeing at its Los Angeles facility.

According to an official Boeing statement, the latest large T-tailed C-17 Globemaster-III, which India is seeking, can carry a maximum payload of 74,797 kilograms for 2,400 nautical miles without refueling and 45,495 kilograms for 4,000 nautical miles without refueling.

The aircraft can also be refueled midair to extend its range to carry equipment and humanitarian aid across international distances.

The statement said that the C-17 can operate from "a small, austere airfield in 3,000 feet or less" with full payload. "The C-17 is equipped with an externally blown flap system that allows a steep, low-speed final approach and low-landing speeds for routine short-field landings."

Boeing has delivered 199 C-17s to the USAF. There are 19 C-17 aircraft with other international customers.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 11 Jul 2010 22:32

Vipul wrote:India-US begin price negotiations on Boeing C-17 airlifter.

The statement said that the C-17 can operate from "a small, austere airfield in 3,000 feet or less" with full payload. "The C-17 is equipped with an externally blown flap system that allows a steep, low-speed final approach and low-landing speeds for routine short-field landings."

Saddam Hussein..... Iraq.......Terrorism......Weapons of Mass Destruction.......9/11......Ben Laden.

Repeat the same lie enough times and half of the Earth will come to believe it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jul 2010 19:04

Gents,if you read my posts carefully,it is not just the inadequacy of funds that sometimes ties up our projects in knots,but the indecision or perhaps deliberate obfuscating thanks to vested interests,that delays decisions and results in the funds unspent being returned.Now the three services have themselves been crying hoarse for decades that the def. budget should be 3% of the GDP.It has not happened.This indicates that there is insufficient funding for the services in general.For example,the IN has consistently asked for warships and subs to be ordered in series/large number once the design has been approved,so that economy of scale can be achieved.Sometimes we squander whatw e have built up and paid for like the sub-building capabilities for the U-boats and now Pak has the lead over us in AIP conventional sub-building.We were offered 6 Talwars for the same price but delayed and paid extra for the second lot being built.How the services establish priorities depends upon the strategic perspective/plan that is supposedly drawn up from time to time,but most of our defence acquisitions have been knee-jerk affairs.Keeping the large numbers in our PSUs appears to be one major objective of the MOD,so that a considerable amount of funds are spent in re-inventing the wheel on occasion.

According to some international reports we are gpoing to spend about $100 billion on defence within the next few years,at a time when many countries are experiencing severe economic stress.You cann imagine the hectic lobbying and influence peddling going on right now for defence contracts and new supposed "strategic partners".

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 12 Jul 2010 20:19

indranilroy wrote: Anthony, I have been opposing Philip all throughout this thread. I have openly supported the C-17 acquisition and spoken out against !L-76/476 and An-124 as viable options.

However, I find your huge statements like "we are in a mess because we bought Russian" and that the "US deals are/will be transparent" very subjective. What's more, neither of them are true. And you would loose all ground if you want to take on any of the nay-sayers based on history. Even in the present, US gives giving alms to Pak which is no way related to anti-terrorism warfare. I understand that their hands might be tied to some extent, but the end result is that Pak has those arms and there is only one direction where their arms are pointing right now and will be for a while.

Also please tell me what Russian equipment has had us in a mess and which other alternative was open to us. Also please elaborate how US deals are more transparent. And transparent to whom? We mango people would only get the information when it is released to us. But, the guys who are negotiating have always dealt transparently. Leave aside the Gorshkov, much of our other deals with Russia have not seen cost escalations. Yes, subsequent batches have been more expensive, but that's the norm. On the other hand, France, which calls itself "the first ally of US" has back stabbed us in every deal, name any one! BAE failed us in the first mega deal in years too. What defines transparency is eluding me right now! Please enlighten me on that prospect.

To paraphrase IMVHO, to say that Indo-Russia partnership has been a mess for India and that Indo-US partnership is going to be a consortium of saints is as far from the truth as can be and can only be taken as ignorance or fanboy-ism.

I would request everybody to stick to the merits/demerits of the C-17 deal and not make subjective comments based on feelings, just my thoughts.

P.S. I support Shivji's idea on timelines. What is the model of timelines should we adopt for the future, given the fact that Pak/China's military acquisition seem to go through much faster/smoother whereas we languish for decades in every single deal!

Point taken and offending words are taken back with the hope that the persons who so vehemently oppose dealing with US without having adequate information / data also agree to re-evaluate their positions.

Questions:

Considering also the paradigm shift in the international order and the relations between various nation states, having the same evaluation criteria that drove thinking during the cold war era may not really be in tune with the times. In international relations there is no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.

As for time-lines, it still is hostage to the political constraints of the decision makers and we mangoes (nice one) do not have any visibility into the process.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 12 Jul 2010 20:24

I just think that this C17 deal is for something that we are not aware of at all. Totally clueless - Not "Dal mein kuch kala hain" variety, but more in the realm of "Chini kay designs mein kuch kala hain"

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 12 Jul 2010 22:09

People opposing the C-17 deal are the same category of people who opposed the IL-76 deal when it was signed way back. "Why do we need strategic lift capability, we are SDRE only..." went the argument. India's foresight in signing that deal has been more than validated by time. And history will repeat itself.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 12 Jul 2010 23:02

ManuJ wrote:People opposing the C-17 deal are the same category of people who opposed the IL-76 deal when it was signed way back. "Why do we need strategic lift capability, we are SDRE only..." went the argument. India's foresight in signing that deal has been more than validated by time. And history will repeat itself.

Pray tell me what SDRE stands for?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 13 Jul 2010 04:02

India Keen On Buying C-17 Globemaster Aircraft From US

The renewed talks came nearly a month after the IAF declared that the plane met its specifications. The IAF pilots tested the C17's engines, fuselage, seating, para-jumping, and loading and unloading systems when the aircraft arrived in India on June 19.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jul 2010 05:26

Gilles wrote:
Vipul wrote:India-US begin price negotiations on Boeing C-17 airlifter.

The statement said that the C-17 can operate from "a small, austere airfield in 3,000 feet or less" with full payload. "The C-17 is equipped with an externally blown flap system that allows a steep, low-speed final approach and low-landing speeds for routine short-field landings."
Saddam Hussein..... Iraq.......Terrorism......Weapons of Mass Destruction.......9/11......Ben Laden.

Repeat the same lie enough times and half of the Earth will come to believe it.

?? I though we'd already established that the C-17 landed within 2700ft with a M1A1 MBT. That's approximately 90% of the specified runway length with 90% of its full payload. Accurate enough, even if the question of runway life for an austere airfield stands.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Jul 2010 06:08

Philip wrote:Gents,if you read my posts carefully,it is not just the inadequacy of funds that sometimes ties up our projects in knots,but the indecision or perhaps deliberate obfuscating thanks to vested interests,that delays decisions and results in the funds unspent being returned.

On the contrary, the factor that is hindering speedy acquisitions is transparency. The govt. is making sure every foreign company knows that India isn't a banana republic where the politicos and brass have their own bidding process(for kickbacks). While the acquisition mechanism is still a work-in-progress in terms of efficiency, they've certainly got the right idea and it will lead to better utilization of money in the longer run.

Now the three services have themselves been crying hoarse for decades that the def. budget should be 3% of the GDP.It has not happened.This indicates that there is insufficient funding for the services in general.

Defence chiefs always argue for bigger budgets. Everywhere, not just in India. Their jobs don't require them to worry about spending on infrastructure, social welfare or debt servicing. India spends about 13% of its annual budget(centre) on defence which is pretty reasonable. In fact, seeing as the deficit is running at about 30% (financed mainly through loans), even a smaller defence budget would not have been a terrible idea. For reference, the centre's annual expenditure on infrastructure is about $37 billion.

For example,the IN has consistently asked for warships and subs to be ordered in series/large number once the design has been approved,so that economy of scale can be achieved.Sometimes we squander whatw e have built up and paid for like the sub-building capabilities for the U-boats and now Pak has the lead over us in AIP conventional sub-building.

Pakistan's fleet has been stuck at 3 Agosta-90Bs for a while now and if recent news is to be believed they're scrapping the U-214 plan and eyeing the Chinese Yuan class(unlike the Chinese, the Germans aren't prepared to advance Pakistan a line of credit).

According to some international reports we are gpoing to spend about $100 billion on defence within the next few years,at a time when many countries are experiencing severe economic stress.You cann imagine the hectic lobbying and influence peddling going on right now for defence contracts and new supposed "strategic partners".

The $100 billion in acquisitions is estimated over the coming decade - I don't think anyone expects the recession to continue that long, especially given that the global economy is expected to grow at 4% this year. And on the topic of influence peddling, its instructive to note that the Russians and Europeans companies need Indian orders a lot more than their US competitors.

NOTE: In general if anyone finds the Pakistani way of things appealing, please read up on the dirt coating every purchase from the Agosta 70s to the (now supposedly cancelled) U-214, that's implicated even a former four star CNS. The U-214 purchase is believed to have been cancelled because of Zardariji's 'affinity' for DCN. India has a slower but far far cleaner system in place.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jul 2010 11:14

How naieve can you get that India has a "cleaner" system in place!We have had our share of scandals too.Bofors,HDW,coffins,etc. What India has is a similar decision making system to that in Pak except that because the military rule the roost in Pak ,decisions affecting defence acquisitions are faster.The reason for their not getting German U-boats is because the Germans are now unwilling to sell them the same for obvious reasons (Pak's terror links),also hoping that with the HDW scandal now buried,they can sell more AIP U-boats to India.We are slower in decision making because of the pulls and tugs from various directions,where babus are unwilling to put their dhobi mark on files.As long as they get their salary and perks of pelf,whoever wins,"what me worry?" As for evaluation,the services simply offer the leadership an "menu" of acceptable systems from which they can pick their choice.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 13 Jul 2010 11:18

Anthony Hines wrote:Pray tell me what SDRE stands for?

short, dark, rice-eating.
Self-deprecating term for ourselves (BRF coinage).

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 13 Jul 2010 19:03

ManuJ wrote:
Anthony Hines wrote:Pray tell me what SDRE stands for?
short, dark, rice-eating.
Self-deprecating term for ourselves (BRF coinage).

I suppose we can also replace rice with roti ..

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 13 Jul 2010 19:06

Defense Acquisition is a profession and there is a University here called DAU http://www.dau.mil/default.aspx. I suppose it would be to the benefit of the Acquisition folks in India to take a serious look into courses on offer at this place.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jul 2010 08:10

Philip wrote:How naieve can you get that India has a "cleaner" system in place!We have had our share of scandals too.Bofors,HDW,coffins,etc. What India has is a similar decision making system to that in Pak except that because the military rule the roost in Pak ,decisions affecting defence acquisitions are faster.

'Cleaner' does not mean the system is perfect. What separates the Indian process from the Pakistani system is transparency. The new modalities have cut out the ubiquitous middle man, giving everyone a relatively level playing field. Which is why most of the scandals predate the new acquisition guidelines despite a spike in media oversight.

The reason for their not getting German U-boats is because the Germans are now unwilling to sell them the same for obvious reasons (Pak's terror links),also hoping that with the HDW scandal now buried,they can sell more AIP U-boats to India.

Don't tell me you believe that spiel about Germany giving up a (fairly) lucrative deal in favour of doling out some sternness to Pakistan. The Paks can't afford the U-214, plain and simple. And the Germans aren't willing to compromise on a cash upfront arrangement.

We are slower in decision making because of the pulls and tugs from various directions,where babus are unwilling to put their dhobi mark on files.As long as they get their salary and perks of pelf,whoever wins,"what me worry?" As for evaluation,the services simply offer the leadership an "menu" of acceptable systems from which they can pick their choice.

The bureaucracy albeit slower is preferable to the Pakistani system where all decisions are made by the generals behind closed doors and the civilian President is agreeable to that as long as he gets his 10%. In India, if you were to actually speak to any senior bureaucrats, you'd find there is a very sincere and concerted effort taking place at the highest levels to streamline governance in all departments, not just the MoD. That is why the MoD guidelines are regularly revised. That is why there is a provision for a fast track procurement including within them. That is why offset and ToT requirements, domestic production, life-cycle costs are being taken into consideration today. The same people who are pilloried in the press for delays in the MRCA acquisition are also responsible for two dozen MKIs being produced annually now. And one does a disservice to them when one assumes they aren't concerned about national defence.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 14 Jul 2010 13:45

Boeing C-17 Looks For Indian Lifeline

Pressure to both continue and close the C-17 line has overshadowed Boeing’s attempts to get more international business for the military transporter – however, with the A400M still a number of years away, the chances for a deal with India look promising.

With the UAE and Qatar being the other customers nearest to India, the C-17 would not only provide further impetus to follow up other global campaigns and lengthen the backlog, but it would also take away lucrative future business for the A400M – itself still reeling from huge cost overruns, making its pricing attractiveness much more difficult for new customers.

The Indian Air Force appears closer than at any previous time to completing this deal, but the customary political red tape and general slow pace of discussions, there is a likelihood that the deal will go through. Having decided not to take up Airbus’ A330 tankers earlier this year on the grounds of higher than expected acquisition costs, there is popular belief that while the C-17 backlog may grow with the Indian Air Force purchase, but that margins will be a lot thinner than expected due to the hard bargaining the Indian Government will engage in to finalise the deal.

If a deal is done, the C-17 line may breath a sigh of relief for the moment, but it still needs further business if it aims to stay alive.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jul 2010 17:35

The C-17 is on life-support and Boeing is looking to India for a shot of Vancomycin to save its child! The entire issue couldn't be clearer,why the C-17 is being thrust down our throats in such indecent haste.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Jul 2010 18:19

Selective reading huh philip

so you can pick up on the lifeline part but want to ignore this

but that margins will be a lot thinner than expected due to the hard bargaining the Indian Government will engage in to finalise the deal.

and a running production line gets a lifeline but turning to a barely running or even non existent line is not throwing a lifeline??

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Jul 2010 18:56

^^^Surya, harumphhh...thousand lashes to you and may the biggest lice infest your beard....how dare you make the above statement in light of all prevasie thruth about machinations of willy Americans and their manipulative ways????

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Jul 2010 19:21

Philip wrote:The C-17 is on life-support and Boeing is looking to India for a shot of Vancomycin to save its child! The entire issue couldn't be clearer,why the C-17 is being thrust down our throats in such indecent haste.

So, getting the Russians to start a non existent production line for An 124-100 (God knows when it may happen) is halaal, getting Russians to go to the drawing board to design a mythical Il 476 is halaal, with no guarantees on after sales support, buying An 124-100 if manufactured in a Russian- Boeing collaboration is halaal ...

But buying C17 from an existing operational production line, with guaranteed support over the life of the plane is not.

What logic sir!

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 14 Jul 2010 19:44

Hope India uncovers all the bugs planted by US, before putting C-17's to use. US always does, Chinese were intelligent enough to remove the bugs - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... g-jet.html.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 14 Jul 2010 19:50

Tanaji wrote:
So, getting the Russians to start a non existent production line for An 124-100 (God knows when it may happen) is halaal, getting Russians to go to the drawing board to design a mythical Il r!

Are you sure its production line 'does not exist'. ?