C-17s for the IAF?

[Sanku]

err as rohitvats has been screaming from the rooftops the IAF and India has a huge need and we need all the IL 76s and C 130s and C 17s and AN 32s we can afford to keep running safely

Oh but I always agreed with him, with a marginal difference in methodology.

IAF and GoI should and arguably are going with whats best for the forces and in allignment with the needs.

That is the problem, arguably, in a big way. GoI has a method where it can do so unarguably, fairly easily, unfortunately it did not do so, thus raising the obvious inference of geo-political games at the cost of defence, what you hope should not be done (and with which part I agree)

[Sanku]

Sankuuuuuuuuuu !!! Welcome back, I missed you. I heard from Gopaniya but not vishwasniya sutras that during this banwas you worked on another story which you may share with us soon.

Thanks!!

Hey Manish, Dileep is on right now isnt he. So maybe later (short on time too)

[Philip]

Media reports say that the IAF order/wish is for 10+6 C-17s.There is another report castigating the govt./MOD/services for ignoring the great danger from Sino-Pak by neglecting our border infrastructure.The BRO cannot make headway with construction as "heavy eqpt." cannot be obtained at the sites due to the "shortage of helicopters"! This is what I've been emphasising,that in confined areas where aircraft cannot land,helicopters are the lifeline of the Army.We've seen this at Siachen for decades now,and instead of 16 C-17s we should first buy several dozen large/medium helos like the MI-26 (the world's largest),MI-17s-of which we are operating a large number and possibly another type like the eH-101 Merlin,which is doing very well in Afghanistan.

[rohitvats]

Oh but I always agreed with him, with a marginal difference in methodology.<SNIP>

One of the few areas where we are on the same side of the debate...

PS: Welcome back.

[Manish_Sharma]

Thanks!!

Hey Manish, Dileep is on right now isnt he. So maybe later (short on time too)

Hee hee greedy me! Hope you find time soon.

[Gilles]

Canada uses the C-17 operationally for the first time on a gravel runway

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/8w-8e/ ... 1&id=10928

With two flights landing daily, one in the morning and one in the evening, the Globemaster delivered 560,000 pounds [254,012 kilograms] of dry goods in just eight flights from Thule, Greendland

Thats an average of 31,7 tonnes of cargo per flight into the 5500 foot gravel runway.

If you get caught in a storm or if the runway is wet, we would have to either make adjustments on our cargo load before taking off from Thule, or fly back to Greenland

The 31.7 tonne per flight was the DRY RUNWAY capacity. The pilot states (although they were only carrying 31.7 tonnes of payload) that if a rain shower were to pass over Alert while they were en-route, they would have to divert, since the 5,500 foot runway would then be too short for a wet runway landing.

There is another article on the subject:

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisp ... ?e=2715111

The guys here did a great job maintaining the runway as it gets chewed up after a while

The runway needed maintenance although only 8 flights were done ?

[Philip]

The ET today said that an extra "3.8%" would be added onto all FMS weapon sales as "management fees"! This might even have retrospective effect with done deals.It opens up a whole new angle to FMS acquisitions from the US,where our CNS earlier this year at a conference said criticising the FMS route for acquisitions,that FMS sales "skewed" deals in favour of the manufacturer.The Sikorsky built Sea Kings that also came along with the Trenton had major "A" grade faults,said another report.Now add this extra "management fee" to the C-17 costs and it really is an obscene deal,when viewed in the light of other more urgent priorities yet to be decided upon.

[GeorgeWelch]

It is informative to note the changing nature of Gilles' criticisms.


08 Nov 2009

The only reason I began this, is because that this alleged C-17 short and unpaved runway capability is used as a major selling point and was also mentioned in this thread. It was also advertised as such in Canada, and now that they are purchased, the Canadian Air Force does not land on unpaved runways with theirs. Canada even rented a civilian C-130 to haul freight to a 5,900 foot military gravel runway in our Arctic (CFB Alert) because its so-called STOL C-17 could not go there.

07 Jul 2010

Like Canada which recently landed its C-17 for the first time at CFS Alert, a 5500 foot gravel runways located in the Arctic: the payload consisted of the US ambassador, about 7 other people (big brass and the ambassador's staff), a couple suitcases and several cases of coca-cola. The aircraft did not even have enough fuel to depart, and had to refuel in order to go to Thule, the closest airport, although the precious fuel at CFS Alert is flown-in at great cost inside C-130 Hercules aircraft. But nothing is to too outrageous when it comes to showing our great American friends how we put the equipment they sell us to great use. The same people and luggage of course could have been taken to Alert on a Canadian Air Force Canadair Challenger jet, but the US ambassador would not have been as pleased as he was by going there in a C-17.

Now we have this article with a very interesting quote that Gilles leaves out:

the Globemaster delivered 560,000 pounds [254,012 kilograms] of dry goods in just eight fights from Thule, Greendland. The Hercules would have needed approximately 25 to 26 flights to move the same amount of cargo

So we've gone from "can't do it" to "well it can do it, but just as a stunt" to "so maybe it is actually useful, but it still damaged the (gravel) runways".


PS: One other 'minor' issue is that in addition to the 560,000 pounds of dry goods, the C-17s ALSO delivered 170,000 pounds of fuel on those 8 missions.

Also it's clear they're still running at a very high safety margin:

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisp ... ?e=2715111

managed to stop 100,000 pounds of fuel and cargo within 3,100 feet of the Arctic station's 5,1000-ft. semi-prepared runway.

Another fun quote:

Another advantage of using the Globemaster for this new role in the Arctic is that because it’s a larger aircraft than the Hercules, it was able to bring oversized construction material to Alert and that will lead to potential changes at the station.

“As most of the cargo was oversized construction material, I believe the second and third order effects to CFS Alert will be enormous,” said Maj Hoddinott.

[rohitvats]

GW, the bottom line is this: Does IAF need the controversial short runway performance? Or is the overall weight carrying capacity good enought and corner stone of the whole deal?

[Pratyush]

Guys, I have followed this thread almost since inception. I am in favour of the C 17 and feel that the IAF needs all the Airlift it can get.

One of the points quoted in favour is that the C17 can land and take off from semi prepared landing strips in times of need. This in turn causes a lot of damage to the Strip it self.

The figure I have seen quoted in this thread a few posts above is upto 8 landings before the landing strip needs repairs. If the C 130 or the AN 32 type aircrafts were to use the same kind of landing strip. Then after how many landings will the landing strip require repairs. For both the types. As the landing weights and ground pressures may be diffrent.


Will appreciate some informed inputs.

[GeorgeWelch]

GW, the bottom line is this: Does IAF need the controversial short runway performance? Or is the overall weight carrying capacity good enought and corner stone of the whole deal?

To me it's a combination of 2 main factors:

1. Outsized Cargo: There are quite a few things you just can't physically fit in an Il-76, no matter what engines you put on it.

2. Cargo Throughput: If you need to quickly move a massive amount of material into an area, the bottleneck soon becomes tarmac area. The C-17 puts a lot of internal square footage into a very compact and maneuverable ground footprint. In the US experience in Bosnia, they found that even though the C-5 carries far more material per plane, the C-17 was far more productive (2-3 times as much) at actually moving cargo as they could fit more planes in there. If you compare it to the Il-76 you'll find that it offers greatly enhanced cargo square-footage for only a minor increase in ground footprint.

[rohitvats]

GW, the bottom line is this: Does IAF need the controversial short runway performance? Or is the overall weight carrying capacity good enought and corner stone of the whole deal?

To me it's a combination of 2 main factors:

1. Outsized Cargo: There are quite a few things you just can't physically fit in an Il-76, no matter what engines you put on it.

2. Cargo Throughput: If you need to quickly move a massive amount of material into an area, the bottleneck soon becomes tarmac area. The C-17 puts a lot of internal square footage into a very compact and maneuverable ground footprint. In the US experience in Bosnia, they found that even though the C-5 carries far more material per plane, the C-17 was far more productive (2-3 times as much) at actually moving cargo as they could fit more planes in there. If you compare it to the Il-76 you'll find that it offers greatly enhanced cargo square-footage for only a minor increase in ground footprint.

GW,

I'm in complete agreement with you on the above.

[Philip]

Leafing through some, old mags,IDR,JDW,AWST,etc.,2008 issues,news about Russian plans for transport aircraft acquisition,through new production of their main types ,AN-124,IL-76,etc.) has been found accurate according to latest reports.Regardless of the relevant merits of the Russian vs C-17 type,whuchever suits the IAF better,my main point is whether the strategic airlifter in a holistic perspective of our overall defence needs is that urgent.A similar situation exists in the UK,where engaged in two wars,Iraq and Afghanistan-somewhat similar to our two-front threat,the British MOD preferred to spend money on high ticket items instead of "relevant" equipment sorely needed on the battlefield to support and save lives of troops.Former army chief,Gen Dannatt has lashed out at the govt. of the day in this report,worth reading in full.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... y-day.html

Even then “much of the MoD, in its Byzantine way, was conducting business as usual, in a cocooned environment far distant from the harsh reality experienced by our soldiers”. ...

He says that for decades too much money has been spent on Britain’s long-term defence at the expense of immediate needs of troops.

“The protection of vested interests” in both the industrial and political fields “seemed to rank higher than the need to succeed in the field”. He argues that the Coalition should “replace the idea of a 'balanced force’ with something more akin to a 'relevant force’,” meaning some expensive items should be scrapped.

PS:The latest VAYU has some happy news,in that the shortfall in helicopters across the spectrum is being looked into,especially those reqired for logistic support, shortlists have been arrived at.For the 12+ heavy lift helo for heavy lft,the MI-26 (heaviest helo available anywhere with a cargo hold equiv. of an old An-12,which we have a few and sparingly use for special missions) and the Chinook are in the running.Another large amount of MI-17Vs are being acquired for the medium role and about 50 multi-role helos for the IN with several competitors from the US and Europe.The most interesting contest is for the light helo role between a cute Eurocopter design and an intriguing desing from Kamov, which has no cabin,just a small cockpit,where a variety of special modules are fitted onto the frame depending upon the mission.180+ are required,which number will probably go up in time.If these decisions are taken with the same interest and speed as the C-17 strategic transports (now to cost 3.8% more for all FMS sales for "admin.expenses"!),one can't complain.

[Philip]

PPS:Just saw this in the IN thread,more details in the link.

Two years after Navy issued tenders for purchase of 16 multi-role helicopters worth $1 billion, a deal is not in the pipeline since bids from two competing global manufacturers have expired.
Defence ministry sources said on Thursday that the commercial bids from American Sikorsky and British-Italian AgustaWestland expired last month and the ministry was considering asking them to revalidate their existing offers or revise their prices.

[Gilles]

PS: One other 'minor' issue is that in addition to the 560,000 pounds of dry goods, the C-17s ALSO delivered 170,000 pounds of fuel on those 8 missions.

There you are wrong.

With two flights landing daily, one in the morning and one in the evening, the Globemaster delivered 560,000 pounds [254,012 kilograms] of dry goods in just eight fights from Thule, Greendland

The dry cargo included non-perishable food, construction material, vehicle, communications and electronic supplies, aviation fuel, unleaded gasoline, retail store goods and general supply items.

The 170,000 pounds of fuel is included in the 560,000 pounds quoted above. Except for the first aircraft that had more fuel (40,000 lbs) and less cargo, the others all offloaded about 23 tonnes of cargo located in the cabin, and 8 tonnes of fuel.

So from an aircraft that can land in 3000 or 3500 foot unpaved runways with a 72 tonne payload, we have one that can land on a 5500 foot one with 31.7 tonnes of payload (when the runway is DRY and clean) and which requires an engineering team to fix the runway after each landing (No big deal in this case since this is a Military runway, but don't try that on civilian runways)

[Katare]

hahahaha.....round and round! same 'ol same 'ol

[GeorgeWelch]

The dry cargo included non-perishable food, construction material, vehicle, communications and electronic supplies, aviation fuel, unleaded gasoline, retail store goods and general supply items.

This clearly did not come from the fuel tanks, so it was in barrels or whatever they use to ship fuel.

They could have shipped some aviation fuel the same way, as 'dry cargo'. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it was a different grade of fuel or something. Perhaps it was AvGas used for propeller planes.

Anyways it is clear from the article that the defueling operation was separate from the 'dry cargo' and it is also clear from the plain language that there is no way you can call defueling 'dry cargo'.

The 170,000 pounds of fuel is included in the 560,000 pounds quoted above. Except for the first aircraft that had more fuel (40,000 lbs) and less cargo, the others all offloaded about 23 tonnes of cargo located in the cabin, and 8 tonnes of fuel.

Your math doesn't add up.

The C-17 took off at 428,00 pounds, weighs 282,500 lbs empty and had 87,000 lbs of fuel. That means it was carrying 58,500 lbs of stuff besides fuel. Let's call it 50,000 lbs of 'dry' cargo, leaving a generous allowance for crew and misc.

So the plane left behind 50,000 lbs of dry cargo and 40,000 lbs of fuel, or 90,000 lbs total in one flight.

If 8 flights all delivered the same amount, that's 720,000 lbs of cargo + fuel.

560,000 lbs dry + 170,000 lbs fuel = 730,00 lbs total

Wow, what a coincidence!

Trying to say 560,000 lbs total is obviously way too low for 8 flights when one flight delivered 90,000 lbs.

So from an aircraft that can land in 3000 or 3500 foot unpaved runways with a 72 tonne payload, we have one that can land on a 5500 foot one with 31.7 tonnes of payload (when the runway is DRY and clean)

A few issues:
1. It was with 45.6 tons of payload.
2. They landed within the first two-thirds of the runway (3,100 ft).
3. Who cares? You keep trotting out this one thing like it's the biggest scandal of all time and frankly I don't see it.

The customers know what they're getting and the plane performs its mission admirably.

[Gilles]

The C-17 took off at 428,00 pounds, weighs 282,500 lbs empty and had 87,000 lbs of fuel. That means it was carrying 58,500 lbs of stuff besides fuel. Let's call it 50,000 lbs of 'dry' cargo, leaving a generous allowance for crew and misc.

So the plane left behind 50,000 lbs of dry cargo and 40,000 lbs of fuel, or 90,000 lbs total in one flight.
.

Dear Sir,

You are forgetting a very minor detail: the C-17 needs to burn some of its own fuel to get to Alert and fly back to Thule. Its a great aircraft but it still burns kerosene to fly in the air. A C-17 burns 8 tonnes an hour. They stated it was a 70 minute flight. With take-off and climb, lets be generous and call it 9 tonnes or 20,000 pounds per leg.

A C-17 that leaves Thule with 87,000 pounds burns 20,000 pounds to arrives at Alert. He needs another 20,000 pound to get back to Thule, plus another 20,000 pounds to make it to his alternate for the return leg, which is also Alert. Plus he needs 30 minutes of reserve fuel (9000 pounds) for a grand total of 69,000 pounds. So from the 87,000 pounds he left Thule with, he needs 69,000 pounds for himself, leaving 18,000 pounds for Alert, or about 8 tonnes.

7 C-17 x 18000 = 126,000 pounds plus the first one that came straight from Trenton and that left 40,000 = 166,000 (pretty close to the 170,000 pounds for a rough guesstimate no ?)

In your example, if 8 flights had each left 40,000 pound of fuel there would be 320,000 pounds, not 170,000.

But I agree its a great airplane for what is it capable of. Just stop telling people it can play the violin.

[GeorgeWelch]

You are forgetting a very minor detail: the C-17 needs to burn some of its own fuel to get to Alert and fly back to Thule.

Dear Sir,

You are forgetting the very plain text of the article.

"We took off from Thule with 87,000 pounds of fuel on board, and left almost half of it behind," said Maj. James.

. . .

We took about 40,000 pounds of fuel off the first flight within about 30 minutes," said Philibert.

In your example, if 8 flights had each left 40,000 pound of fuel there would be 320,000 pounds, not 170,000.

8 flights * 50,000 lbs of dry goods = 400,000 lbs, which is 160,000 lbs short of the claimed 560,000 lbs of dry goods.

160,000 lbs coincidentally is very close to your claimed gap of fuel deliveries.

It is obvious that later flights traded fuel for dry cargo. Look at the COMBINED fuel+cargo, that's the important number.

But I agree its a great airplane for what is it capable of. Just stop telling people it can play the violin.

If they removed that one small claim from the non-technical marketing material, would you then have any complaints about the proposed Indian purchase of the C-17?

[Gilles]

If they removed that one small claim from the non-technical marketing material, would you then have any complaints about the proposed Indian purchase of the C-17?

Short reply: NO

But Boeing does not even claim that the C-17 can land on 3000 or 3500 foot runway.

Here is the Boeing claim:

Take off from a 7,600-ft. airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight and land in 3,000 ft. or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield in day or night.

But US Air Force, Canadian Air Force literature changed the can land in "3000 or less" to land of 3000 or 3500 feet RUNWAYS". NOT TRUE.

Canadian Air Force Website :

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equ ... ex-eng.asp

It can also take off and land on unpaved runways as short as 1,067 metres (3, 500 feet) and as narrow as 27.4 metres (90 feet) by day or by night.

US Air Force Website

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheet ... .asp?id=86

The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters)

And every time any Newspaper article, or Military Blog mentions the C-17, it always quotes this same B/S. But Boeing does not claim a 3000 foot runway. Even my widebody civilian airliner can land in "3000 feet or less". I've often landed in 4000 feet or less. My boss would yank my ears if I ever decided to apply full braking on landing just for the sake of landing in under 3000 feet. But I could.

In order to have the required safety margins to routinely fly into runways, one either has to use longer runways, or considerably reduce the weight. Just like my airliners.

As for the Alert thing, the FIRST flight that went to re-supply Alert, came straight from Trenton Air Base. That aircraft had less cargo but off-loaded 40,000 lbs of Jet fuel before proceeding to Thule. It was because the wanted to have the fuel available in case subsequent C-17 flights from Alert to Thule were forced to divert back to Alert, they would have fuel available there to re-fuel. The subsequent flights left Thule with 87,000 pounds but did not leave half of their fuel behind, regardless of what is written. I demonstrated that they needed most of it and left around 18,000 pounds each time.

Believe it, do not believe it, its irrelevant now. The C-17 is not being purchased for its ability to land on short or unpaved runways anyway. That claim is only for public consumption.....

[GeorgeWelch]

As for the Alert thing, the FIRST flight that went to re-supply Alert, came straight from Trenton Air Base. That aircraft had less cargo but off-loaded 40,000 lbs of Jet fuel before proceeding to Thule.

That's not what the article says.

We took off from Thule with 87,000 pounds of fuel on board

Believe it, do not believe it, its irrelevant now. The C-17 is not being purchased for its ability to land on short or unpaved runways anyway.

Although I pretty much agree with this, why are you so vociferous about this one point then if it's not even relevant to the purchase decision?

[shukla]

USAF uses C-17 for bio-fuel flight-test

The US Air Force (USAF) flew a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft on JP-8 aviation fuel blended with bio-fuel during tests at Edwards Air Force base (AFB), California, it announced on 3 September. The trials, which were carried out by the 418th Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) between 23 and 27 August, mark the first time that the USAF has flown an aircraft on bio-fuel. They were a major milestone in the air force's attempts to develop an alternative to JP-8 aviation fuel, of which it is the largest consumer in the world.

During the trials a C-17 flew on all four engines being powered by a 50:25/25 blend of JP-8; bio-fuel derived in part from animal fat; and synthetic fuel derived from coal. The flight was a first for any Department of Defense aircraft where a 50 per cent mix of JP-8 was blended with 25 per cent renewable bio-fuel and 25 per cent fuel derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process, which is essentially liquefied coal or natural gas.

According to Lieutenant General Mark D Shackelford, the military deputy to the assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, the test marks a major milestone in the USAF's efforts to source half of its jet fuel requirements from domestically derived, environmentally friendly alternative sources by 2016.

[Kartik]

The ET today said that an extra "3.8%" would be added onto all FMS weapon sales as "management fees"! This might even have retrospective effect with done deals.It opens up a whole new angle to FMS acquisitions from the US,where our CNS earlier this year at a conference said criticising the FMS route for acquisitions,that FMS sales "skewed" deals in favour of the manufacturer.The Sikorsky built Sea Kings that also came along with the Trenton had major "A" grade faults,said another report.Now add this extra "management fee" to the C-17 costs and it really is an obscene deal,when viewed in the light of other more urgent priorities yet to be decided upon.

FMS sales have always had that percentage going to the US govt. since they are in some ways the executors and guarantors to the deal. This is not something that they're doing specifically in the Indian case, so no need to act so shocked.

They take the deliveries, they go through the headache of liaison and make sure that whatever was contracted for is delivered. In any other deal, this much or even more will be eaten up by dubious arms dealers and politicians as their "cut". I'd rather that the FMS route pay the GOTUS a percentage and keep the deal fair and clean rather than work through fake or shady companies that act as conduits for arms dealers which if caught later on will imperil our armed forces' preparedness.

[Philip]

True,but then there is no compeition for acquring he best for the brief and who says that in US FMS deals there are no kickbacks.They are simply hidden better.

Here's one from the past.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/15/world ... backs.html

http://www.pcij.org/stories/print/lockheed2.html

Kickbacks and Negotiated Deals Mar AFP Procurement System
by MALOU C. MANGAHAS
FOR 40 years, or until the Senate voted in 1991 to terminate the RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the Armed Forces of the Philippines had acquired all its big-ticket communication, mobility and artillery equipment from the United States, under the Foreign Military Sales Credit program.

The service commands drew up their “wish list” of what they wanted to acquire, and the former Joint US Military Assistance Group checked this against a list of materiel the United States wanted to give away.

After 1991, negotiated deals became the norm, with the AFP going straight to the President for whatever big purchase it wants to make.

Nearly all these deals turned disadvantageous—if not downright disastrous—to the troops in the end.

Some officers and arms contractors concede that the years of dependence on the United States for war materiel have resulted in a Philippine military that has little expertise at the bargaining table, and even less in discerning the advantages of one equipment over another.

But they also say that corruption in the AFP officers corps is mainly to blame why paratroopers are jumping out of training planes without the required parachutes and equipment, supposedly brand-new jets are crashing, causing the deaths of their pilots, and young soldiers are toting 35-year-old M-16s that can no longer fire accurately.

Officers say that corruption has become so pervasive in the AFP that the crooks in their midst have evolved a vocabulary all their own. For instance, one colonel said, “cost of money” means “the amount a proponent pays to facilitators for making his dreams come true.” “Cleared money,” meanwhile, is “money (procurement budget) that has been converted (to other uses), which one could spend anywhere.” Put another way, it is “laundered money

[Philip]

...and more.

http://www.counterpunch.org/armspushers.html

Behind the Revolving Door
The Arms Pushers

The heart of the government's sales program is the Defense Security Assistance Agency, the Pentagon bureau that handles the government's Foreign Military Sales program. The DSAA has a staff of about 5,000 people working out of U.S. embassies and field offices in more than 100 countries. The DSAA receives a 3 percent commission per sale, which provides about 80 percent of its budget. DSAA racked up so much money from the 3 percent kickback that in 1992 Congress placed a $300 million cap on the funds the agency could accumulate in its account.

The US military establishment is now trying to boost overseas sales even more. As part of that effort, deputy defense secretary John Hamre last year ordered a review of the Pentagon's foreign military sales program with an eye towards cutting red tape that slows shipments abroad. The "study group" heading up the review is composed of military officials, industry leaders and even representatives of foreign governments who purchase American weaponry.

Dev. of GCC air forces.

the clauses of a deal with so much room for kickbacks and commissions. The deal was carried out as a government-to-government Foreign Military Sales ... levied by the US Department of Defence on Foreign Military Sales (FMS) deals, ...
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_399.shtml - Cached - Similar

Iraq...
U.S. Arms Dealer Tests Legal Bounds in Middle East Arms Bazaar
By Sharon Weinberger 07.03.08

But ironically, Iraq has fueled a new market for these professional middlemen; the United States is funneling billions of dollars into modernizing Iraq's army so that the country's government can fend for itself after coalition troops withdraw. And Iraq's largely Soviet-equipped military is a natural market for Eastern European countries brimming with old or out-of-date equipment they would like to unload. The middlemen, in these cases, serve a key role by allowing the U.S. government to do business with an American company, which in turn buys equipment from Eastern Bloc countries in deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it financed with U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Read More http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... z0zlbfH500

This is a most interesting tle about billonaire arms dealer Nadhmi Auchi,manipulaing the system,"...encountering cover up attempts within the DOD"!
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/From_Baghdad_ ... chi_empire

...facilitating payments spread among political figures in Iraq and elsewhere, Auchi was able to fix the three contracts for three companies which in turn benefitted three of the most senior Iraqi politicians. $435 million was found missing from the Coalition Provisional Authority communications account along with all records. Multimillion dollar bribes were paid to various Brits and Americans to facilitate both the fix and its cover up.

The official DoD report of May 11, 2004, which Auchi has spent four and a half years trying to discredit, encountered cover up efforts within the DoD. These in turn prompted Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on December 10, 2004 to transfer the case to the Department of Justice to assure the integrity of the continuing investigation. The FBI is still working on the case..

[Kartik]

True,but then there is no compeition for acquring he best for the brief and who says that in US FMS deals there are no kickbacks.They are simply hidden better.

Here's one from the past.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/15/world ... backs.html

http://www.pcij.org/stories/print/lockheed2.html

Kickbacks and Negotiated Deals Mar AFP Procurement System
by MALOU C. MANGAHAS
FOR 40 years, or until the Senate voted in 1991 to terminate the RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the Armed Forces of the Philippines had acquired all its big-ticket communication, mobility and artillery equipment from the United States, under the Foreign Military Sales Credit program.

The service commands drew up their “wish list” of what they wanted to acquire, and the former Joint US Military Assistance Group checked this against a list of materiel the United States wanted to give away.

After 1991, negotiated deals became the norm, with the AFP going straight to the President for whatever big purchase it wants to make.

Nearly all these deals turned disadvantageous—if not downright disastrous—to the troops in the end.

Some officers and arms contractors concede that the years of dependence on the United States for war materiel have resulted in a Philippine military that has little expertise at the bargaining table, and even less in discerning the advantages of one equipment over another.

But they also say that corruption in the AFP officers corps is mainly to blame why paratroopers are jumping out of training planes without the required parachutes and equipment, supposedly brand-new jets are crashing, causing the deaths of their pilots, and young soldiers are toting 35-year-old M-16s that can no longer fire accurately.

Officers say that corruption has become so pervasive in the AFP that the crooks in their midst have evolved a vocabulary all their own. For instance, one colonel said, “cost of money” means “the amount a proponent pays to facilitators for making his dreams come true.” “Cleared money,” meanwhile, is “money (procurement budget) that has been converted (to other uses), which one could spend anywhere.” Put another way, it is “laundered money

it is blaming corruption in the ARMED FORCES OF PHILLIPINES, not in the FMS system ! It is pointing to AFP personnel laundering their own procurement budget money, nowhere does it accuse the US of bribing them..The article also accuses the FMS system of making the AFP lazy and unable to bargain or look at other systems to decide which is better, and that is AFP's fault, not the US'. I don't really think that such a situation is likely to happen in India where our babus will forget how to bargain..totally irrelevant in our case.

[Anthony Hines]

...and more.

http://www.counterpunch.org/armspushers.html

Behind the Revolving Door
The Arms Pushers

Yes.. the corrupt Politicians in India are susceptible as their brethren in Iraq - I am assuming that your post implies there is no guilt involved if the Russians resort to bribing unlike the US..

[Katare]

IIRC, The charge for FMS is 2.5 to 18.5% depending on deal and country. This was mentioned in dozens of articles posted in this thread over last two years. This is the money that ensures you get stuff at the rock-bottom prices that US acquires those hardware for. I would say better than any tender that never get over......Artillery
Also better than any tender where companies charge additional billions for same work after winning the contract - French submarine deal and Gorky/MKI/T90.

[Kartik]

Yes.. the corrupt Politicians in India are susceptible as their brethren in Iraq - I am assuming that your post implies there is no guilt involved if the Russians resort to bribing unlike the US..

Russian arms mafia has stooped to the level that the Pakistani Navy is capable of..after all, they were behind the killing of an honest Indian Navy officer (and the PN's officers carried out a bombing to kill French engineers as payback to DCN which didn't pay them promised bribes)..

of course, don't expect Philip to ever mention such things. his bias towards them and his dislike for the US and everything American is legendary.

[Philip]

Kartik,stop ranting yet again at me personally.I am merely pointing out that the FMS system is flawed,it has even been criticised by our current CNS himself at an open seminar-"skewed in favour of the manufacturer". I suppose you would like to take issue wth the CNS! I am neither pro-nor anti US arms on a meritorious and holistic examination and evaluation.I root for the C-130Js,the Hercules is a legendary aicraft,we need at least a dozen more,that will serve us well until the MTA arrives.I oppose rewarding the US for selling Pak lethal weapon system which it always uses against India.It is why the most critical deals that involve force-multipliers like the MMRCA should not be given to the US for fear of sanctions ,if we have to N-test again, and that the Pakis will also get similar eqpt.Look at how the Pakis are gettng late-model P-3 Orions,while our new P-8s will have eqpt. much smilar,except that the platform is based on the 737.

If the Russians cannot deliver their promises on time,delvery,spares and maintenance and with the expected capabilities,then they must be penalised as was done with the first Talwar batch.I've repeatedly pointed out that with every country we've had contractual problems,price escalation-the Scorpene deal is the worst,Derby missiles underpeformed,Hawk,etc,etc.

In the many FMS deals mentioned in the above post,I have disproved the assertion that an FMS deal is pure and clean,whch is what you've tried to propagate.As for Indian politicos and babus being above board,whom are we kidding?

The issue of cooperation with the US does not have to depend upon US arms and eqpt.The US wants us to buy its eqpt. and arms so that it can use us as a military ally,use our base and logistic facilities,etc.etc.We will become a vassal state of the US just like Pak.Never have we ever allowed in all the years of buying Soviet/Russian arms the Russians or Soviets such facilties on Indian soil despite such large assistance from Russia.It is something to be proud of. What the US should do is to understand India's fears about Pak and China,which are based upon the track record of the two nations and not be duplicitous in its foreign and defence policy.US interests cannot come first in any US-Indo relationship.,especially in our own backyard! On Afghanistan for example,the US should view the situ from our perspective more than that of the TSP,which realy IS the problem!

Pakistan is the terrorist cancer that is fast spreading across the globe whch also has a nuclear dimension.Mollycoddling it has failed.The US must abandon its rent-boy and be principled in its sub-continental and Asian foriegn policy if it wants a closer cooperation with India strategically.It cannot view India through the same lens with which it views Pak.neither can it reduce Inda to an inferior status vis-a-vis China.India stands upon its own merits an stengths and the US must treat us as an "equal" partner for further cooperation on security issues.

[nrshah]

^^^Philip,

with respect to geo politics and international relations, agree with you completely....

[Anthony Hines]

Kartik,stop ranting yet again at me personally.I am merely pointing out that the FMS system is flawed,it has even been criticised by our current CNS himself at an open seminar-"skewed in favour of the manufacturer". I suppose yuo would like to take issue wth the CNS! I am neither pro-nor anti US arms on a meritorious and holistic examination and evaluation.I root for the C-130Js,the Hercules is a legendary aicraft,we need at least a dozen more,that will serve us well until the MTA arrives.I oppose rewarding the US for selling Pak lethal weapon system which it always uses against India.It is why the most critical deals that involve force-multipliers like the MMRCA should not be given to the US for fear of sanctions ,if we have to N-test again, and that the Pakis will also get similar eqpt.Look at how the Pakis are gettng late-model P-3 Orions,while our new P-8s will have eqpt. much smilar,ecept that the platform is based on the 737.

If the Russians cannot deliver their promises on time,delvery,spares and maintenance and with the expected capabilities,then they must be penalised as was done with the first Talwar batch.I've repeatedly pointed out that with every country we've had contractual problems,price escalation-the Scorpene deal is the worst,Derby missiles underpeformed,Hawk,etc,etc.

In the many FMS deals mentioned in the above post,I have disproved the assertion that an FMS deal is pure and clean,whch is what you've tried to propagate.As for Indian politicos and babus being above board,whom are we kidding?

The issue of cooperation with the US does not have to depend upon US arms and eqpt.The US wants us to buy its eqpt. and arms so that it can use as a military ally,use our base and logistic fcilities,ec.etc.We ill become a vassal state of the US just like Pak.Never have we ever allowed in all theyears of buying Soviet/Russian arms the Russians or Soviets such facilties on Indian soil despite such large assisance from Russia.It is something to be proud of. What the US should do is to understand India's fears bout Pak and China,which are based upon the track record of the two nations and not be duplicitous in its foreign an defence policy.US interests cannot come first in any US-Indo relationship.,especially in our own backyard! On Afghanistan for example,the US should view the situ from our perspecive more than that of the TSP,which realy IS the problem!

Pakistan is the terrorist cancer that is fast spreading across the globe whch also has a nuclear dimension.Mollycoddlgn it has failed.The US must abandon its rent-boy and be principled in its sub-continental and Asian foriegn policy if it wants a closer cooeration with India strategically.It cannot view Inia through the same lens with which it views Pak.

Many of these statements smack of complaints. US runs its foreign policy based on its perceived interests and it is not going to change its positions simply because it may not suit India. Remember there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies - there are only permanent interests. I believe India as a sovereign nation should also conduct its foreign policy keeping its own interest in front & center and have a robust foreign policy where the objectives are known and strategies are followed irrespective of the party /parties in power. It is so unfortunate that most of the decisions that impact the country's well being are hostage to short term political expedients. Maybe it is time to present "The Prince" and "Arthashastra" to the people in power.

[putnanja]

India, US may sign $3.5 billion defence deal

NEW DELHI: The largest-ever defence deal between India and the US — acquisition of 10 C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft by the Indian Air Force for $3.5 billion, nearly Rs 16,100 crore at current exchange rates, — is likely to be inked during US President Barack Obama’s planned visit to India this November.

Negotiations have reached the final stage and each of the giant transport aircraft, which can carry helicopters too, would be priced at around $300 million. After spares and maintenance are included, the final deal size would be around $3.5 billion, making it the biggest defence deal between the two countries.
...
...

[Manishw]

^ Good if it helps us to keep Unkil out of the real meat -MMRCA+ increase in Airlift capability is really needed and always welcome.

[Nihat]

It's a mighty enticing prospect, especially if seen in conjuntion with the IAF's plans to convert Nyoma into a full fleged airbase. I can already visualize the Indian army having the capability to land plenty of T-90's just 23 Km's off the LAC on very short notice using these C-17's.

[Craig Alpert]

same news but with a HIGHER number
India, US finalising $5.8bn Boeing deal

The $5.8 billion deal along with all potential support services and spares is the biggest-ever defence deal between the two countries till now," a senior government official told Reuters.

Another official said the actual announcement could be made during President Obama's visit.
.......................

"India will receive the most advanced version of the C-17 available, which will include the latest upgrades and capability," said Vivek Lall, Boeing's vice president (defence space and security) India, confirming the deal.

hmm for that to be true, the CISMOA and LSA agreements must have been made India specific, or else the indian taxpayer money is going for a ride!

[putnanja]

LSA is not required. LSA basically says that the two countries can use each other's facilities for free.

[Craig Alpert]

right, but I thought that they were negotiating all these to make them "india specific" which also included the LSA... If not then I stand corrected.

[putnanja]

As per a news report that I had linked above, India is not signing CISMOA or LSA at this time as they don't see the need for it.

[Craig Alpert]

Correct again. That's why it's oddly surprising when Viveklal says
"India will receive the most advanced version of the C-17 available, which will include the latest upgrades and capability," which India will NOT be getting if it doesn't sign the CISMOA....