C-17s for the IAF?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 23 Sep 2010 03:47

As per one other article somewhere on the forum, failure to sign CISMOA means they won't get the latest and greatest communications/EW suite.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 30 Sep 2010 18:41

Came across this article of possible sale of C-17s to Kuwait..

What was shocking was..

In addition to India and Kuwait, Boeing is also negotiating possible sales with Saudi Arabia, Oman, South Africa, Pakistan and reportedly Egypt, among others.

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

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 01 Oct 2010 18:29

Russia, Ukraine to Build 60 An-124 Cargo Planes

KIEV, September 30 (RIA Novosti)

A proposed Russia-Ukraine venture has received orders for 60 An-124 cargo aircraft, Antonov Civil Aircraft said on Thursday.

"The contracts have not been signed yet but we have already received orders for the production of 60 planes," the statement said.

Russia's United Aircraft Corporation and Ukraine's Antonov are expected to set up a joint venture to produce Antonov aircraft in October.

In the first stage, the venture will manage the marketing and after-sales service of aircraft designed by the Ukrainian company.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 02 Oct 2010 16:59

Sify news reports..
US seeks $4.4 bn Globemaster deal before Obama visit

Washington, Oct 2 (IANS) The United States and India are working on a $4.4 billion deal for the Indian Air Force to acquire ten C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft ahead of President Barack Obama's visit to India, according to a senior US official. The deal could potentially create up to 30,000 jobs in the US. The possible deal was cited as an example of agreements envisioned by Obama for India-US partnership by Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake at the 27th Annual Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Lecture at San Diego State University, California.

'Obama envisions a partnership with India where businesses create new wealth with job opportunities for the peoples of both countries, where scientists can develop jointly new drugs to combat global diseases, and where our militaries can work to protect global sea lanes from piracy,' he said. As India emerges as a global player, it seeks to build a 21st century military with the latest cutting-edge technology, Blake said noting 'Instead of relying on its historical partner Russia for hardware, it has started to look to the US.'

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 02 Oct 2010 17:00

Economic times reports..
C-17 deal with India could create 30,000 jobs in US: Blake

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Oct 2010 01:10

C-17 A Carefully Considered Choice: IAF Chief

There's been a healthy measure of skepticism recently about India's decision to buy 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster-III heavylift transports from the US. Arguments against the purchase have ranged from questioning the need for such aircraft to calling attention to the huge acquisition cost, to suspicion about the speed from interest to potential contract conclusion, likely to take place when President Barack Obama is in Delhi later this year.

Well, for what it was worth, the Indian Air Force chief was asked today if the soon to be concluded C-17 deal was simply another piece of business thrown Washington's way in line with India's new strategic imperatives. Air Chief Naik replied, "A great amount of thought and planning has gone into our decision to obtain the C-17. My team did a detailed study about what was available and what capabilities were out there. There were no compulsions. We had requirements that dictated a certain amount of lift capacity and the ability to operate from short runways. The C-17 turned out to be the only aircraft in the global market that met both requirements. The other heavylift types, with six or eight engines, cannot function from short runways, and that was a basic requirement."

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/10/c- ... e-iaf.html

It doesn't seem like the MoD's been pressurizing the IAF into buying the C-17.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Oct 2010 04:03

now now - don;t tell that to Sanku, Philip et all.

bah humbug what do you know ??

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 05 Oct 2010 05:08

Indian Air Force Strives For Commonality
Aviation Week

Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, Big Chief of the Indian Air Force Says,

Financial Constraints Hampered this Effort in the Past, Naik says.

We Can Now Spend More Money and Buy What We Need.

Naik Justifies India’s U.S. foreign military sales Request for 10 C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft—a $4.4-billion deal.

“A Big Study was Carried Out,” he says.

“Our Requirement was to Move a Large Quantity of Forces and Materials from Forward Places and Operate on Short Air Strips.

The C-17 Stood Out.”

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Oct 2010 05:29

shukla wrote:Came across this article of possible sale of C-17s to Kuwait..

What was shocking was..
In addition to India and Kuwait, Boeing is also negotiating possible sales with Saudi Arabia, Oman, South Africa, Pakistan and reportedly Egypt, among others.

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

it will be definitely on their begging list. They'll say that the C-17s are required to drop supplies, para troopers and equipment to the frontlines of the war with the Taliban..of course, they will want it for free as part of a military aid package, since they are now expert beggars. Keep an eye out for this scenario to come true a few years from now.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 05 Oct 2010 05:38

First of Canada’s new Hercules aircraft to land in Afghanistan before year’s end

The first of 17 stretched C-130J models of Hercules aircraft the Harper government ordered nearly three years ago at a cost of $1.4 billion is to begin flying combat support missions in war-torn southern Afghanistan by the end of the year, several months earlier than originally planned.

"It’s a generational leap," Maj. Mark McCullins said of the new aircraft. "Having a J model is like having an extra engine on the Hercules," which could prove to be a critical advantage in Afghanistan, where extremely hot temperatures and the high altitude make takeoffs with heavy loads especially tricky.

The new Hercules, which can fly faster and further and carry about 25 per cent more cargo than the aircraft it is replacing, may also be a boon to recruiters trying to attract the computer generation, said McCullins, who has flown 300 hours as a test pilot on the new variant and runs Canada’s current Hercules fleet based in the Middle East and Afghanistan, which is comprised of the much-less-capable E and H models.

"It should appeal to kids who want to fly because it has a fully digital cockpit and a head’s up display that is similar to that of an F-22 fighter," he said, referring to the most sophisticated jet flown by the U.S. air force....

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Oct 2010 09:20

I for one do not think that PAF will go for C-17. For a simple reason - they have no use for it. Half a dozen or more C-130J is what is ideal for them considering their geographical spread. Everything said and done, PAF and other services are prudent in spending the little cash that they have. C-17 will be a white elephant for them.

amit · Post by **amit** » 05 Oct 2010 11:15

Surya wrote:now now - don;t tell that to Sanku, Philip et all.

bah humbug what do you know ??

Now come, come Surya, you should know better.

Haven't you heard the argument that ACM Naik is just a puppet on a string for the political masters out to please you know who.

He will say what he's been told to say! And what he says doesn't necessarily mean that is in the best interest of IAF or is even the majority opinion.

Surely you know that?

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 05 Oct 2010 11:29

I too don’t think the pukes will go for the C17
1. Too expensive to operate
2. Their country is not vast/deep enough to justify its acquisition
3. Too expensive for the US to be given in alms to the international beggars

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 05 Oct 2010 11:37

Surya wrote:now now - don;t tell that to Sanku, Philip et all.

bah humbug what do you know ??

You don't seriously expect him to say that GoI/PMO/MoD pressurised him to buy it, do you?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 05 Oct 2010 12:08

Kartik wrote:it will be definitely on their begging list. They'll say that the C-17s are required to drop supplies, para troopers and equipment to the frontlines of the war with the Taliban..of course, they will want it for free as part of a military aid package, since they are now expert beggars. Keep an eye out for this scenario to come true a few years from now.

And it won't be surprising if they get it as a 'gift' for their (pseudo) war on terror..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Oct 2010 12:47

It is very simple.There are those who will "bend with the wind",and those who will "stick to their guns".Indian defence chiefs have been either "fish or fowl".We've the examples of Adm.Bhagwat and his successor.We've rarely if ever come across one who was neither of these two! As mentioned before,what service chiefs want is "capability now",a proverbial "bird in hand rather than two in the bush".When a govt. is openly so servile to the US and has made no bones about it,what can an IAF chief do? His priority is not that of the PMs and Boeing's.So he must either like Bhagwat commit harakiri,or graciously thank his "betters" and play with his new expensive toys ,paid for courtesy the Indian taxpayer,who is actually saving Boeing's C-17 production from closing down,saving the jobs of the workforce of 40+ component manufacturers scattered across the US .This is a matter which has been a raging controversy in the US,with Robert Gates saying emphatically "no more" C-17s! That's why the Indian order needs to be finalised this year otherwise work will grind to a halt and C-17 production closed down forever.This is the stark simple truth guys and no matter what the ACM has said,he is fooling no one.

For Boeing,its saviour is Dr.Singh,saving US jobs by squeezing more blood from the Indian taxpayer.Frankly,it is absolutely scandalous and shameful,even more than the CWG mess.Now the LCA engine award to GE is another sop to US defence interests.The media reports of the ACM saying that the IAF needs between 200-250 5th-gen fighters being co-developed with Russia,starting from 2017,indicates that the 5th-gen fighter is going to be the main focus and priority of the IAF,with the LCA MK-2 GE engined bird requiring even more modifications and will arrive not earlier than 2015,produced after that date in small production batches too.By then who will want 4th-gen LCAs when the 5th-gen fighters will be about to enter production? The IAF might well be cutting its "losses" with the LCA and even the MMRCA deal,going along with whatever lands up on its dinner table,taking the stand that "any food on the table is better than going hungry feeding off an empty plate".

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Oct 2010 15:55

Philip wrote:It is very simple.There are those who will "bend with the wind",and those who will "stick to their guns".Indian defence chiefs have been either "fish or fowl".We've the examples of Adm.Bhagwat and his successor.We've rarely if ever come across one who was neither of these two! As mentioned before,what service chiefs want is "capability now",a proverbial "bird in hand rather than two in the bush".When a govt. is openly so servile to the US and has made no bones about it,what can an IAF chief do?

Okay. So, the IAF chief is not only being forced into purchasing the C-17 (or risk being embroiled in a corruption case) but also being forced to defend it as a IAF choice in public. Puppet on a string.

His priority is not that of the PMs and Boeing's.So he must either like Bhagwat commit harakiri,or graciously thank his "betters" and play with his new expensive toys ,paid for courtesy the Indian taxpayer,who is actually saving Boeing's C-17 production from closing down,saving the jobs of the workforce of 40+ component manufacturers scattered across the US .This is a matter which has been a raging controversy in the US,with Robert Gates saying emphatically "no more" C-17s! That's why the Indian order needs to be finalised this year otherwise work will grind to a halt and C-17 production closed down forever.This is the stark simple truth guys and no matter what the ACM has said,he is fooling no one.

Here's a truthier statement:

The UAE contract pushes the total number of C-17s added since September 2009 to 17 (10 USA FY 2010, 1 UK, 6 UAE), and raises FY 2010 C-17 production to the full production rate of 15 planes. Total lifetime C-17 orders now stand at 249 (223 USA, 7 UK, 6 UAE, 4 Australia, 4 Canada, 3 NATO, 2 Qatar with 2 more options), and the current production backlog is 37 planes. Boeing representatives say this will continue production through to September 2012.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/UAE ... 0Js-05302/

Without Indian orders the production line will continue on for another two years. Also it was never intended to carry on in perpetuity.

For Boeing,its saviour is Dr.Singh,saving US jobs by squeezing more blood from the Indian taxpayer.Frankly,it is absolutely scandalous and shameful,even more than the CWG mess.

You have a problem if an Indian order would save a US product from being buried, but would feel great if it was exhuming a Russian bird from its grave. Truth is Indian money would create or retain jobs whenever expended. Ideally that should be in India, but in this case the US is best option for aircraft. That's what the MoD, the IAF and most civilian and ex-military commentators think (and I don't hear the NDA opposing the deal), so you're going to have to speak a little louder Philip.

Now the LCA engine award to GE is another sop to US defence interests.The media reports of the ACM saying that the IAF needs between 200-250 5th-gen fighters being co-developed with Russia,starting from 2017,indicates that the 5th-gen fighter is going to be the main focus and priority of the IAF,with the LCA MK-2 GE engined bird requiring even more modifications and will arrive not earlier than 2015,produced after that date in small production batches too.By then who will want 4th-gen LCAs when the 5th-gen fighters will be about to enter production?

The GE engine is a sop because the LCA ought to be cancelled (in light of the coming FGFA) ?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 05 Oct 2010 16:00

^^^ Head, meet wall.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Oct 2010 17:51

I think enough has been said by me in several posts on the subject,but those who chose to be like ostriches ,good luck to them!

Here's Obama and Gates again on the subject as a reminder.

The Obama Administration, the Challengers, recently unveiled their proposed defense budget for the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2010. Just like last year, once again they want to end production of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III advanced airlifters, and once again, most elected officials that are speaking up, the Defenders, give the idea a strong right jab. Hanging in the balance are the jobs of about 5,000 Boeing Long Beach employees who assemble the big four engine cargo planes.

It was not surprising that the budget proposal called for an end to production of C-17s, but the President’s words were more aggressive than in the past. Last year, the Administration went to the mat for a handful of other high profile defense programs they wanted to dump, and for those programs where they chose to make their stand, they won. But, even though they initially said they wanted to end C-17 production, after the first bell, they took a hands off approach to the idea. This year, however, President Obama highlighted termination of C-17 production in his budget first bell speech.

The President said “We save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe. One example is the $2.5 billion that we're spending to build C-17 transport aircraft. Four years ago, the Defense Department decided to cease production because it had acquired the number requested -- 180. Yet every year since, Congress had provided unrequested money for more C-17s that the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's waste, pure and simple.”

......The difference is, this year not only did Gates submit a defense budget which called for an end to C-17 production, he also has already called for a Presidential veto if the final budget includes more of the big planes. He did not do that last year

AWST
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... e2723f0837

According to a report being filed by my colleague Neelam Mathews, India’s Ministry of Defense has sent a Letter of Request to the U.S. government for a Foreign Military Sales purchase of 10 C-17s. Assuming this is officially confirmed on Jan 8, the news marks a dramatic revival in fortunes for the beleaguered line which has been under threat of closure for almost four years as the backlog dwindled and the company fought to preserve a viable line that could make international sales affordable.

Ironically some of these studies are understood to have been sparked in part, at least, by the desire to keep the line active to accommodate India’s wishes for deliveries to be stretched out over several years. Part of the problem closing the deal with India is believed to have centered on devising a compromise between the protracted delivery schedule and the realities of maintaining the line with the shrinking orderbook.

PS:So gents,you can see that for "4 years" Boeing has desperately tried to keep the line open and run from country to country to try and get further orders and who has leapt into the fray to save its bacon? Nowhere on the list of priorities of the IAF over the last few years has a giant strategic transport been mentioned.Suddenly it takes precedence over other more pressing decisions.Every time an Indian DM,FM or PM visits the US or has confabulations over here,a new order is announced.The hard truth is that the US Def. Dept. is now taking over procurement decisions of the Indian MOD! Look at the decision to acquire 2 more obsolete Osprey minehunters to add to the list of US junk being acquired.Here is a real priority ,which has languished for years.The EU countries have several very good MCM designs ,some of which we were apparently considering to be built at Goa,but enter the great "strategic relationship" with the US and presto we accept "hand-me-down" clothes from Aunty..sorry,Uncle Sam!

This wholesale sellout to the US will backfire very badly in the future and it will not be a happy event.As I've said many a time,when the US keeps on arming Pak,we cannot reward it with major ticket items,that too without any contest.Hercules transports are fine,as they are the best in their class and we need them for special forces,logistics,etc.10 C-17s is a luxury that we do not need when the entire NATO number is just 25.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Oct 2010 18:03

the situation on border with china is that we cannot maintain huge forces there due to weather conditions and cost. they are cheaper and easier to maintain further down. but the chinese have a faster escalation response time due to better terrain, roads and some railways, apart from 16,000ft runways they have been building in various parts of tibet.

the go/no-go decision for a serious land grab on india is going to be based on the situation after all all-out lightning quick buildup of forces by one side(china) and other side's response(india).

if indian posture is weak, they will landgrab and like kargil dare us to take it back or widen the war.

if indian posture is quick and strong, they will back down and war will be averted...always the cheapest option.

now the IL76MD is a good a/c about as we know it has a tough time fitting in a T72. C-17 on other hand should have no issues
fitting in bulky items like T72, BMP2, Spyder, Pinaka, 155mm cannons, Samyukta, radars, Akash TELs, Namica, WLRs and
Nirbhay GLCM etc with minimum fuss or special methods needed.

can anyone say what is the status of deliverable IL76/AN124 today?
[a] is the production line open and capable of taking immediate orders? what is the ordered backlog if any?
does a stretched version with PS90 engine exist in tested form and production line ready?
[c] AN124 can it land on improved fwd ALGs?
[d] what is the lead time on AN124 if ordered today?

we must explore all means to make sure our response is both heavy + quick - if it means C17 and a bunch of A330 cargo lifters
to ferry additional ammunition, food, POL, spares , small arms etc then so be it.

the lizard would just love a clumsy response and resulting easy landgrab using light mobile forces and segway mounted kamandu's
while we trip over shoelaces trying to rush reinforcements from jammu and via the rohtang pass. after slapping us around he
might even generously give us back the area after dotting the ts and is on the teach-a-lesson course.

our heavy airlift capability and airbase infra vs china is truly bad and more we explore addl solns like A330 the better.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 05 Oct 2010 18:07

Saying that the IAF chief is a puppet towing the line of govt. is going too far. These are thorough professionals doing their best to protect the interest of the country and people under their command.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Oct 2010 18:25

More on Boeing's desperation..and to give the company and to give the company,read on.....

"more time to scare up foreign sales"

"resembles a last desperate round of chemo prescribed for a patient whom the doctors aren't sure can be saved ."

Billions are spent to defend 5,000 jobs at Boeing C-17 plant
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/08 ... i-hiltzik8

October 08, 2009|MICHAEL HILTZIKIf you're interested in contemplating the harvest of this country's decades of failed economic policies, failed military policies and just plain failed politics -- and who isn't? -- I know just where to send you.

It's a Boeing aircraft factory on the outskirts of Long Beach Airport, where a brigade of 5,000 veteran workers can turn out 16 state-of-the-art C-17 military cargo planes every year.

This is the last factory in America capable of building large military aircraft, and it's headed for extinction.

In approving a $626-billion military budget for fiscal 2010 this week, the Senate threw in $2.5 billion for 10 more C-17s to be built at the plant. But the appropriation resembles a last desperate round of chemo prescribed for a patient whom the doctors aren't sure can be saved -- or should be. (The corresponding House bill calls for three planes, so the versions will have to be reconciled.)

The Air Force didn't actually request the planes approved by Congress; the service isn't sure that it needs any more C-17s beyond the 213 it already owns or has on order. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates wants to kill the program. So does Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who launched an unsuccessful last-ditch attack on the appropriation

So it argues that the government should keep the orders flowing against the chance that it will decide it wants a lot more C-17s after all -- something many defense analysts say is likely -- and to give the company more time to scare up foreign sales.

"We're at a no-kidding decision point," Tommy Dunehew, Boeing's vice president at the plant, told me this week.

So the good Dr.Singh has rushed in to save the patient,one Mr.Boeing who was going,going,going...Come on guys,can't you spot the obvious here,its an open and shut case.As for the CoAS,what he worry? He probably would've been satisfied with rough and tough Skodas,but is being gifted with the equiv. of gold plated stretched Lincolns instead! Every kid loves a toy.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Oct 2010 19:26

Philip wrote:Come on guys,can't you spot the obvious here

Yes, your irrational hate of all things American (despite your claim about the C-130J) is pretty obvious to all.

As has been REPEATEDLY asked and you CONTINUALLY ignore: If this was an Il-76 order, would you be going on and on and on about how Russia was desperate for the Indian order to reopen the line and India was just a Russian puppet being used to save Russian jobs?

Yes or no?

JVKrishnan · Post by **JVKrishnan** » 05 Oct 2010 21:56

Philip wrote:
This wholesale sellout to the US will backfire very badly in the future and it will not be a happy event.As I've said many a time,when the US keeps on arming Pak,we cannot reward it with major ticket items,that too without any contest.Hercules transports are fine,as they are the best in their class and we need them for special forces,logistics,etc.10 C-17s is a luxury that we do not need when the entire NATO number is just 25.

Philip,

NATO has only 25, so India should have none?? Where are you trying to go with line of thinking?

Pak & China have no 5th gen aircrafts so IAF should hibernate for a decade+? ?

Pak has no nuke sub so we should auction off Arihant?

Pak Army has no 2000++ range missile so we should stop missiles anything beyond Agni 2??

Not so long ago we had no diplomatic contact with Israel bcoz they were "perceived" murderers of Palestinians! Those were the days of shortsighted babus! Behold, today we embrace their technology as divine magic straight from the heavens! Would this have been possible with your avowed philosophy of "touch them not for they are filth"? Bottom line, we don't have it, we need it, we get it! India must be willing to wade through sludge if it wants to grab the lotus, India must be prepared to dig up dirt to grab the diamond.

"If India wants to exercise its independence" as MMS put it, it must be willing to pay! If C-17 is the best in its category, so be it and India must be willing to put its money on the best! Why do you want to compromise? India must be prepared to fight its own war and how are you going to achieve this? by introducing myopic political thought? buying second or third rated stuff? So you want your armed forces to not just wage war but actually win it with curtailed or absent capability? What next, win a war with sticks & drums when your adversary comes charging with his guns blazing?

So, we want the armed forces to stay where we want it not where they ought to be? Seriously, are those armed forces or slaves? Why this obsession about micro-managing things? I don't see a reason why we should be passing judgments on decisions over which we have little or no locus! Is it so hard to trust your armed forces for the decisions they take? There are enough self anointed pontiffs for the armed forces to deal with. Lets not these threads add further to their stress!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Oct 2010 22:02

iirc nato was able to muster up only around 20 tankers for the kosovo war. the usaf+usng sent around 100. so long as EU has US to do the heavy lifting, they will always have a get-out-of-jail card for free and punch above their real weight.

our threat is china and as you know they are taking delivery of atleast 35 IL76, setup a production line for Mi17V using a more powerful engine than the ones we are getting and have two large transport a/c plane programs under way and well funded at present.

and there is no big brother to help us.

their civilian aircraft fleet also outnumbers ours in a 3:1 basis if anyone wants to compare numbers of boeing and airbus planes available to comandeer.

amit · Post by **amit** » 06 Oct 2010 13:21

<sarc/on> I propose that Philip Saar be made the next ACM. It's pretty obvious, being the great Internet Warrior that he is, he knows far better than any serving IAF officer on what is best for the air force. <sarc/off>

He's doing everything save actually calling the ACM a liar.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 06 Oct 2010 13:41

Cross posting from Military Aviation thread..
Enhanced Ilyushin IL-76MF to Compete for Indian Transport Aircraft Requirements

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Oct 2010 13:45

Saw this thread after a long time.

Two things stood out for me.

Viv S wrote:C-17 A Carefully Considered Choice: IAF Chief

There's been a healthy measure of skepticism recently .........
......

The other heavylift types, with six or eight engines, cannot function from short runways, and that was a basic requirement."

So,
1) I am glad that the ho halla that we have been making was heard and went towards creating a situation where Col Shukla and others felt the matter needed clarification from the highest authorities.

2) I have no reason to doubt the Air Chief, particularly considering his recent "hard line" straight talking positions.

I am glad that the requirement comes from IAF and IAF is deeply involved. I am also happy for my part is asking difficult questions.

I STILL maintain that IAF/MoD should have done the song and dance of Multi-vendor RFI (at least if not RFPs) at the cost of a little extra time, there are somethings which are important to be seen doing right as well as doing right.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Oct 2010 13:55

the IL76MF also sounds like a good plane - we need 50 asap. for bulky loads the C17 will be better. it could also be of use for the next lot of Phalcons.

The IL-76MF the length of the aircraft fuselage was enlarged by 6.6m; more powerful and efficient PS-90A-76 engines replaced the previously installed models; the integrated piloting and navigation equipment and aircraft systems were modified and updated; a new auxiliary power unit replaced the originally installed unit.

Engines
engine type PS-90A-76 by-pass turbojet engine
Performance
cruise speed (km/h) 830-850
range with payload (km) of 60t 4000
range with payload (km) of 40t 6200

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Oct 2010 13:59

Guys,relax.Take a holistic view of the issue.I've not called anyone a "liar",least of all the CoAS,he has to be diplomatic with the decisions of his political bosses or end up like Adm.Bhagwat,win the big battles and lose some of the smaller,etc.,but study dispassionately the situ. and then decide for yourselves.This is a political decision being made by the PMO and not the MOD or IAF.

Firstly, the C-17 is a "strategic" heavylifter,just look at its very name,"Globemaster",perfect for the US and NATO,who have 180+ and 25 respectively for their trans-continetnal obligations like Iraq and Af-Pak.Here,they need massive daily logistic operations to support the troops on the ground.India does NOT have any similar global agenda now or in the future.The maximum threat scenario that we can imagine is within the IOR and even if it involves Afghanistan,our existing IL-76s being upgraded can do the job.The IL-76s and their tanker version the IL-78 have successfully taken part in exercises in the US,Alaska and Europe too.

Let's examine what our crying need of the hour is.Our major threat is in the High Himalayas,both from China and Pak.Here,the problem that we have is poor infrstructure,which though being attended to belatedly,suffers becuase as reports say,the "lack of heavy eqpt. and machinery for roadbuilding is due to a shortage of heavy-lift/medium helos! It is helos that are required urgently far more imprtant than heavy-lift aircraft.We are adressing the problem with a second batch of MI-17s ordered,the type which is the most popular even with NATO forces in Af-Pak (AWST) and even old MI-8s are in heavy demand because of the unique "hot and high" capabilities of the type.The IAF requires even more heavy-lift helos like the MI-26 that we operate or even smaller Chinooks.

We do not have a daily strategic lift logistic requirement like the US or NATO,but rather a daily need to supply our troops in the Himalayas using smaller airstrips,even ex-WW2 strips being renovated like the one at Daulat Beg Oldi.C-17s cannot land here,where smaller AN-32s have been the workhorse.It is why I feel that the C-130s are needed more which can operate from smaller runways,as the MTA will only arrive later in the decade and has not even started flying.

This is a more important priority than buying C-17s which I've posted enough data is due to the problems afflicting Boeing's production of the same,due to end but for "armtwisted" orders from India and perhaps the UAE.The problem with India's order is that we want to stretch the delivery,while Boeing wants a quick delivery of all to suit its own interests.I find it remarkable that no one has challenged the myriad posts I've put out on the crisis at Boeing's C-17 facility,.which is why this knee-jerk buy from India is taking place.

OK.let's assume that the IAF does need such an aircraft.the next Q,when and how many? If so,why was the AN-124 not tested at all in competition? Why so many? Three would be suficient and if we needed on occasion the services of a strategic heavylift aircraft,we could do what NATO is doing leasing AN-124s! Boeing's C-17 woes have been known for "5 years" as I've posted earlier and its desperation to find a new buyer is an open secret.As said before,the terminally ill patient found its saviour in Dr.Singh.It is so obvious that this is a political buy.It is astonishing that while it is OK for the US? NATO to use a Russian AN-124 in Af-Pak ops,it is taboo for India to do so!

The real issue here is one of buying an aircraft based upon one's true priorities and on merit ,or a buy for political expediency.It is nothing to do with a preference for Russian or US aircraft.MMS has promised the US huge defence buys in exchange for the N-deal and is trying to complete his part of the bargain,but with the decision on eqpt. in this case and with others,being taken first at the Pentagon and not in S.Block, I Reiterate.If the decision was left to myself,I would buy far more heavy-lift helos like the MI-26,plus Chinooks if found worthy on merit,more MI-17s,C-130s,upgraded Il-76s with extra new ones, and then if we still needed a strategic heavy-lift,examine the merits of the C-17 against the AN-124 and after evaluation then take a decision.This we have not done at all,unlike what is happening wiht the MMRCA deal.Boeing needs a decision in haste."Marry in haste,repent at leisure".

PS:As for the "Russia bashers",just take a look at the Indo-Russia thread to see what Russia plans to offer India to thread to counter China,SSBN tech,Oscar class SSGNs,5th-gen fighter,Kirov class N-powered battlecruisers,TU-22M3 strategic naval bombers,etc.AS also stated by a top Russian def. official,China is not being given any equivalent tech. at all,whatever has been given is inferior to what India has acquired.Let us rank who are our best "friends" from the capability,quality and TOT of systems that they provide us with and at what cost.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 06 Oct 2010 14:05

The new engine is also quieter.

amit · Post by **amit** » 06 Oct 2010 14:30

Philip wrote:Guys,relax.Take a holistic view of the issue.I've not called anyone a "liar",least of all the CoAS,he has to be diplomatic with the decisions of his political bosses or end up like Adm.Bhagwat,win the big battles and lose some of the smaller,etc.,but study dispassionately the situ. and then decide for yourselves.This is a political decision being made by the PMO and not the MOD or IAF.

OK Philip,

I'm relaxed and feeling all warm and fuzzy.

Now concentrate on the two bolded portions of a part of your post (I don't take the rest of your post seriously, my apologies).

Say's who?

In case you don't understand, let me be more clear.

1) Say's who that the ACM is being diplomatic - and not saying what he thinks is in the best interests of IAF - because he's worried otherwise he'd end up like Adm. Bhagwat?

2) Say's who that this is a political decision being made by the PMO and not the MOD or IAF?

Man Oh Man, the ACM says the IAF did a detailed study and then came to the conclusion that the C17 best fits its needs and yet you say ACM is being diplomatic because it is a political decision taken by PMO (presumably to please OmBaba).

Next time you try to sell a lemon, make sure at least that it's ripe.

On another note, my wife's grandfather's, third cousin's wife's daughter's husband's son's daughter-in-law's, next door neighbour (this it to satisfy the Say's who criteria) tells me the Howrah Bridge is on sale and going at a good price. You interested? I'll take minimum commission. Don't worry the sale is a political decision taken by Buddhadeb Babu to appease Mamata Didi and finance her next elections. Do let me know asap.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Oct 2010 15:21

imo the biggest drawback of IL76 (probably even the new MF) is that it cannot take T90 tanks, let alone arjun. and even fitting in the T72 is a delicate piece of work per accounts not the drive in and order a burger model.

so for moving some serious meat up into the hills, I doubt the IL76 can do it. the onlee other modern option in production is C17.

like or dislike for USA doesnt enter into it - we are fighting to save our backsides from being roasted by the lizard here. inactivity is not an option.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Oct 2010 15:39

Sure,if the IAF did a study on the requirement for a strategic heavylifter where and when was it done? As a taxpayer I have a right to ask.We saw no contest whatsoever unlike the MMRCA one,which has been an earlier contest remember.The C-17 requirement came from I feel,since you brought in the delicious Bengal aspect,PC Sorcar's hat! The facts all speak for themselves as I've given on this thread time and time again details of the crisis in Boeing and their desperate search for a sucker.MMS was willing and Boeing is making a killing! One day the aspects of whole deal will "out",but unfortunately it will not be laughing matter (except for Boeing) for the taxpayer.

Please study my analysis of the real transport/logistic requirements of the IAF/IA ,based upon numerous reports and articles on the same subject.It would be an interesting exercise to see which airstrips in the High Himalayas,our mountainous terrain can operate a strategic airlifter like the C-17,plus others like the IL-76,C-130,etc. I am not sure as to how many MBTs can operate successfully in such mountainous terrain like the Himalayas.How many MBTs does the IA plan to use in such an environment? It would be interesting to see in which theatres they can be used.If one goes by the Kargil War,the requiremement and need is far greater for light artillery,lighter tanks and ICVs,which also carry a heavy gun (I gave an example some time ago) and a range of man-portable missiles for use against ground forces and aircraft.

The bulk of our armoured forces and MBTs will be used in the plains of the Punjab and the deserts of Rajasthan.Here,transportation (even new production from Avadi) will be through our excellent rail network and not by heavy transports.Our strategic reserves are well located whereby within a few hours troops and eqpt. can reach forward bases and the front.If our "Cold Start" doctrine is anything to go by and is still has shelf life,then our MBTs will have already been strategically and tactically positioned and be not too far off from where the action will begin.

I do however see a role for a heavylifter with respect to airlifting missiles.Given the increasing number of tactical and strategic missiles being developed in the country,it would be another v. interesting task to see which of our current and future key missiles can be airlifted by both IL-76s and C-17s,as both are going to be in service with the IAF.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 06 Oct 2010 15:54

I cant believe we are dredging up the same issues over and over again.

Of course the new build An 124s, Il 76s with the new design changes exist right now to do a MMCRA style stand off. Oh, and the A400M is available in the time frame that IAF wants as well. Right next to the Pushpak vimaana.

I thought we had gone beyond this stage of discussion at Page 82 of this thread having debunked those red herrings.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 06 Oct 2010 16:10

Philip wrote:
Please study my analysis ........

Philip, i truly respect your views and like your posts, but sometimes it looks one sided in the sense that you beat down anything US.

And unlike the past the present generation have not faced or does not see any immediate conflict with US. One place where US won and Russia failed is people to people contact with India. So unlike 15 years ago you will not see any greater opposition towards US. Look at this, even the CPIs have stopped complaining because the people of India does not worry anymore about India's relation with US. It is no longer a political chip in India. What you are saying may be the truth, all this may be MMS conspiracy, but unfortunately until the lightning strikes very few will believe it.

amit · Post by **amit** » 06 Oct 2010 16:46

Tanaji wrote:I cant believe we are dredging up the same issues over and over again.

Of course the new build An 124s, Il 76s with the new design changes exist right now to do a MMCRA style stand off. Oh, and the A400M is available in the time frame that IAF wants as well. Right next to the Pushpak vimaana.

I thought we had gone beyond this stage of discussion at Page 82 of this thread having debunked those red herrings.

In freestyle wrestling I believe such a tactic is known as smothering your opponent till they submit.

Repeat the same cliches - nevermind facts, rebuttals and worse - a sufficient number of times and those who oppose you will get disgusted enough to concede your point.

Tanaji, you've been posting regularly on this thread and you know most of the so-called "objections" were settled by page 40 or so by knowledgeable folks like you with links containing the relevant facts and figures.

What was left was "motive". And that's also been cleared, conclusively, with the latest info from ACM Naik.

So what should be the strategy now? Debunk the ACM and insinuate that what he says is not what he means or feels (I'm sure you realise I'm being politically correct here) and at the same time rake up all the old issues, knowing very well others don't have the energy to go through all that trash all over again.

And hey presto, you win the argument and Bharat Mata is again saved at the last moment by valiant Internet Warriors! Simpul onlee!

amit · Post by **amit** » 06 Oct 2010 16:50

Philip wrote:As a taxpayer I have a right to ask.

Sure you have why don't you write a letter demanding answers to the ACM?

On second thoughts, even if he answers, he will tell what MMS and others want him to tell, right?

Grave problem!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Oct 2010 17:25

Ha!Ha!Ha!
Seriously guys,with RTI around one never knows.However,the establishment-babudom,is doing its best to scuttle the RTI avenue in obtaining info.I thnk however that defence info. is vvirtually unobtainable and unless one is an MP and asks embarrassing Qs in the House,one will have to wait for the CAG,etc.,to shed light ,perhaps in 5 years time! By then,both the CoAS and the good Dr.will be in retirement and their memoirs if out by then might have a few morsels of the facts in them.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 06 Oct 2010 17:30

Philip wrote:Ha!Ha!Ha!
Seriously guys,with RTI around one never knows.However,the establishment-babudom,is doing its best to scuttle the RTI avenue in obtaining info.I thnk however that defence info. is vvirtually unobtainable and unless one is an MP and asks embarrassing Qs in the House,one will have to wait for the CAG,etc.,to shed light ,perhaps in 5 years time! By then,both the CoAS and the good Dr.will be in retirement and their memoirs if out by then might have a few morsels of the facts in them.

No you do not need to be an MP you may need just enough to buy an MP to ask some questions in Loksabha.