C-17s for the IAF?

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 11 Oct 2010 23:27

Sanku wrote:When all is said and done, the fact that multi-vendor process, which was so vaunted that can hold up many many more critical cases has been short circuited here (all for good reason course) -- WILL come back and bite people, a lot of people.

The angst and fulminations and defensive seen on the thread are just indicative of that.

Sad, IAF did not need such a political mill-stone around its neck, especially when the process could have been easily followed (after all there were no options but C 17 and no vendor would have been able to respond to the RFI or pass the RFP)

This is incorrect, DPP has to be followed for all purchases including this one, it can't pass throw the system unless it has gone through all the gates. You and I do not have enough information doesn't meant it was not done. Links were posted here that RFIs were sent out (IAF chief) in 2007-08 and boeing at least said it received one at that time. Not everything will be tested like MRCA or needed to be tested like it. Another IAF chief is saying that his team considered and did a detailed study of 6-8 aircrafts that were available in world market. Do you think the IAF team googled all the information for their study? The information must have come officially in responce to a RFI if it was the basis of official selection report. After that they selected something and tested it in India to validate that it meets ASQR.

This kind of favrotism can be alleiged for any deal since not all the information is available to public. Conclusions made based on incomplete information are more likely to be incorrect.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Oct 2010 01:25

Katare, when the matter is gone into, the questions will be asked "Please justify what exemplary reasons of critical operational requirement needed a departure from the multi-vendor model" the above reply wont be cutting it in South Block.

Also note, NO ONE HAS POSTED ANY LINKS YET saying RFIs HAVE GONE OUT.

The links say RFI's will be sent to many vendors, but no confirmation ever of sending any RFI to anyone but Boeing.

CAG will ask, then we will see...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Oct 2010 02:03

Hasnt the IAF Chief himself now gone on record saying that they did a detailed study and only the C-17 met the requirements. The interview was made before AF day. Its there on some other thread.

So whats the point of ranting on the internet about it. The decision has been made, one way or the other. Coming to whether items can or should be ordered from the US, even that horse has left the table, and the services seem ok with, P-8I has gone from 8 to 12, the C-130J from 6-12, the C-17 will see some more planes and the LCA got 99 (probably double in the future) engines.

CAG may crib and it will cause a 2-3 day media furor but the planes will be in service by then, so whats the point.

So relax, have a cool one and watch how things go.

Rohitvats,

I sort of lost you, apologies, so I take it you too support this procurement, looking at your second statement?
Since given the options in your first, even that A400M is by no means ready, and by the time it comes what do we do till then.
My take is, we really need a lot of airlift. And, we need to accept what the market has, which is the C-17.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 12 Oct 2010 02:15

I can agree to the point that we may be in need of a a strategic air lifter and IAF found c-17 good. Hence the purchase of C-17 is justified looking from an in service personal's point of view.

But from a tax payers point of view we are being rushed to sign this deal only because of uncle/Boeing pressure. Not only India but Qatar, UAE, Kuwait who all are tiny states nor even having the size of a state India purchasing a strategic air lifter. May be Saudi could be the next ones.

If the UPA govt is so concerned about the Armed forces, let them sign a artillery deal with any company, IMHO it is also important as C-17's. BTB, Obama has written a letter to senate for approval for selling c-130 aircrafts. if the deal goes through, we could see the Chinese clones of c-130's in another 5-7 years. There is nothing that we are gaining by supporting this Obama Administration.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 12 Oct 2010 02:31

rohitvats wrote:First, how do you know that tanks are stripped and then airlifted? Where have you come across such an instance?

Difficult but has been done.

http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_unit.php?ch=36

1993-94 : Deinduction of T-72 Tanks from Leh (Total 24) - Due to restrictions of maximum take off weights when operating from Leh (altitude 3270 mtrs), the deinduction was a laborious process as the hull and turret of the tank had to be dismantled and two sorties were required to deinduct one tank (wt of hull 24 tons, turret 10 tuns, other accessories 08 tons). A total of 55 sorties were flown of 55 sorties were flown to deinduct 24 tanks plus four ARVs.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 12 Oct 2010 03:28

Sanku wrote:Katare, when the matter is gone into, the questions will be asked "Please justify what exemplary reasons of critical operational requirement needed a departure from the multi-vendor model" the above reply wont be cutting it in South Block.

Also note, NO ONE HAS POSTED ANY LINKS YET saying RFIs HAVE GONE OUT.

The links say RFI's will be sent to many vendors, but no confirmation ever of sending any RFI to anyone but Boeing.

CAG will ask, then we will see...

Absence of information can't be used as a proof that it was not done. Use your own criteria of direct quote from GoI or Company officials to indicate that RFI was not issued.

Do you have a proof that RFI was not sent?
Do you have a proof that it is not an exemplary requirement of IAF?
Do you have any proof that DPP was not followed?

That information (at least limited) is available for public (including you) and media to access through official channels or RTI. The information can also be obtained by Member of Parliament. I wish some of these guys were as concerned about it as you are but…..

Also as per DPP multi vendor is only one of the avenues available for arms purchase. There are multiple routes for acquiring what is needed with detailed procedures. In DPC meeting chaired by defense minister and attended by three Chiefs, DRDO, MoD and Finance min officials they take these decisions collectively and everyone signs on the meeting minutes. Based on these guidelines deals move through, if you have any proof that this was not followed I would love to read it.

I can call a person thief and keep arguing based on vague conjectures, witty comments or color full theories till eternity but its not going to become truth.

This govt is most pro US govt but last govt of BJP was also most pro USA govt until that time. No one had an issue with that, nuclear deal was also started by NDA and it was called visionary movebut as soon as Congress came to power people’s thinking changed. I am pretty sure that next indian govt would also be the the most pro US because that may be the only option when a dragon is breathing fire up your neck. We didn't have anything in common with mass murder Stalin and his ruthless empire but we still went to Russia because we had no other option. That turn out so wonderfully good for us didn’t it?

The link for RFI were posted for you in previous pages one quoting IAF chief of that time and I think vic posted one quoting a boeing official.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 12 Oct 2010 08:29

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:I hope we order more C-17s quickly and build up the fleet to at least 15-17 aircraft. Pretty much seems to be the only game in town, so we best get on it. The recently flown IL-76 variant is underwhelming, to say the least.
Karan, I've always maintained that IAF will need staggered airlift and replacement for IL-76 will either be newer version of IL-76 or something like A-400M.

Either that or IAF goes for a very large fleet of 20-25 tonnes airlift a/c with at least 4000kms radius of operations at full load.

A-400M and IL-76 are different class altogether.

The best of the mechanic maintains right sized hammers for right sized jobs. It is a balancing act. It is why airlines do not operate all 747. Cool to look at, but basically useless if what you are transporting is 1000km away and would fit in an embraer

What you need for transporting is dependent on what you are transporting and to where.

The fleet will have to compose of AN-32 class, IL-76 class, C-130J class, and C-17 class.

We do not need all in one shape, size, capability.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Oct 2010 08:56

Karan M wrote:
<SNIP>

Rohitvats,

I sort of lost you, apologies, so I take it you too support this procurement, looking at your second statement?
Since given the options in your first, even that A400M is by no means ready, and by the time it comes what do we do till then. My take is, we really need a lot of airlift. And, we need to accept what the market has, which is the C-17.

Same here. For me, C-17 purchase - either because of PMO or IAF's own volition is immaterial. We need airlift and need it as of yesterday. Given the current scenario in 30+tonnes airlift capability - we need C-17 to hedge our bets. There does not seem to be any option in the IL-76 category which we can look at and plan induction. A-400M has a huge backlog - though, given the economic scenario how many countries can/will maintain the order is a different question.

We need AN-32-->MTA/C-130J-->IL-76X/A-400M-->C-17.

IN has already taken the steps towards Expeditionary Force creation with planned purchase of four LPDs - these will give us capability to project a re-inforced Brigade worth of troops with strong Armor component. Now, we need the airborne leg of this force projection thing.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2010 09:49

Guys,

I feel that we need to list pricisely just how much air lift the IAF will reguire in a 2 front war situation. Only then will we know the correct size of the TPT fleet and the capabilities needed for the fleet. Once that is doen only then will the context of the current and potential acquisitions will become clear.

Also, in a two front war situation, the higher the capability the better. Ie, it is better to have the capability that you don't use, then to need the capability and not have it.

JMT

Main · Post by **Main** » 12 Oct 2010 10:02

Gurus, your opinions on the implications of the following NEWS plz !!!

American Weapons for China - President Obama Pushes for Sale of C-130s to China

"In a complete reversal of decades of U.S. policy on geopolitics and strategic security, U.S. President Barack Obama has written to the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate seeking a termination of suspension of Arms Exports to China and to allow the sale of C-130 medium lift transport aircrafts to China. "

"The letter by the President claims that this is in 'American national interest' and is for 'oil spill cleanup' efforts. "

Excerpts from his Obama's Letter

"...I hereby report to the Congress that it is in the national interest of the United States to terminate the suspensions under section 902(a)(3) of the Act with respect to the issuance of temporary munitions export licenses for exports to the People's Republic of China insofar as such restrictions pertain to the C-130 cargo aircraft to be used in oil spill response operations at sea."

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=13581

rsharma · Post by **rsharma** » 12 Oct 2010 10:27

Have not been following this thread, so apologies if already discussed.. Does the 4.4 billion dollar deal come with an offset clause like the MRCA deal or is it "accommodated" without it..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Oct 2010 10:56

Katare wrote:
CAG will ask, then we will see...

Absence of information can't be used as a proof that it was not done. Use your own criteria of direct quote from GoI or Company officials to indicate that RFI was not issued.

Karan M wrote:Hasnt the IAF Chief himself now gone on record saying that they did a detailed study and only the C-17 met the requirements. The interview was made before AF day. Its there on some other thread.

Ok folks, no need to get so touchy about it, after all, as you said, this is a good deal, so why so defensive.

So when CAG asks (which it will, it is its job, it always does) -- I am sure the IAF will have no problem will they.

They will be able to show all the proofs and steps that have not been shown to the outside world.

Oh there is no proof of absence of Maritans, living amongst us, only a absence of proof. Pity.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2010 13:43

Great! Obama will choke over his burger when he sees within his term of office,Chinese Hercules clones being made without his permission! This is why the Russians are p*ssed off with the PRC for reverse engineering without their nod and royalty dues.

Back to the C-17,acquisition,I can only surmise that one of the main reasons why we are acquiring a strategic airlifter-apart from doing Boeing a mighty favour,is that we have made some strong committments to certain IOR nations,especially island nations,to come to their aid in any crisis.One remembers Op Cactus and the Male ops.However,I fail to understand how the IAF "studied carefully" other contenders without actually having them evaluated in the Indian scenario and then dismissing them in favour of the C-17. If we go by "catalogue" purchases for a $10 billion dealor single item evluation,then why not do the same for far smaller purchases too? Why evaluate anything at all in its context?We could just pick one of the the MMRCA contenders from what is touted in the brochures and PP presentations and watch it fly in India skies!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Oct 2010 14:36

Pratyush wrote:Guys,

I feel that we need to list pricisely just how much air lift the IAF will reguire in a 2 front war situation.

the correct answer is zero. we must not be caught by surprise by our two dear neighbours - and at a strategic level, be fully prepared with all supplies in place, and no need for massive strategic airlift. tactical airlift will of course be required

for other war situations, especially those involving long range power projection, then this is more viable

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Oct 2010 16:10

Lalmohan wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Guys,

I feel that we need to list pricisely just how much air lift the IAF will reguire in a 2 front war situation.
the correct answer is zero. we must not be caught by surprise by our two dear neighbours - and at a strategic level, be fully prepared with all supplies in place, and no need for massive strategic airlift. tactical airlift will of course be required

for other war situations, especially those involving long range power projection, then this is more viable

+1. Wish there were more thinkers like you Lalmohan Ji.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 12 Oct 2010 19:04

Does it strike as odd that the rather "rapid" build up and reshaping of airlift capabilities (acquisition of C-130J and C-17) coincides with increased noises about US withdrawal from Afghanistan?

The orders are by no means small, and considering how long and drawn out the MRCA acquisition, or Howitzer acquisition has been -- these have been relatively quick.

IMHO with draw down in US forces from Afghanistan, GoI is seriously concerned about Pak refocusing its forces to their Eastern border. Forces that have been relatively well beefed up (compared to 2001), and no longer on brink of economic disaster. That coupled with increasing hostile noises coming from our north/north-east, the US withdrawal is dramatically going to reshape the security environment for India. (The Volcano that ACM has mentioned recently is very likely this).

Note that the draw down will have equal implications in reduced naval presence in the region which has been abuzz with USN carriers, and fleet.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2010 21:42

No it doesn't. The idea was that India has a decade to take care of economy and then re-arm. However things on Asian chessboard are moving faster than expected thanks to G-2. The C-17s will give the capability to land armoured brigades where needed and supplement existing heavy lift aircraft. It gives punch to "Cold Start" in hot places.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Oct 2010 21:58

^^^The PA forces committed to their western border were considered given for Indo-Pak the day USSR forces withdrew from Afganistan. IMO, the XI and XII Corps will be used to bolster forces in the Kashmir and Central Pakistan Sector.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Oct 2010 22:32

rohitvats wrote:In case it was your opinion - please qualify your post accordingly.

In case it is your opinion is that my info is correct then why not state so? And incidentally in what manner were T-72s inducted by IL-76 were de-inducted? with or without turrets?

Also you make dozens of posts everyday without providing any source! But when anything contradicts your position then one has justify it on affidavit signed by Chief of Staff, I suppose?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Oct 2010 01:23

vic wrote:
rohitvats wrote:In case it was your opinion - please qualify your post accordingly.

In case it is your opinion is that my info is correct then why not state so? And incidentally in what manner were T-72s inducted by IL-76 were de-inducted? with or without turrets?

Also you make dozens of posts everyday without providing any source! But when anything contradicts your position then one has justify it on affidavit signed by Chief of Staff, I suppose?

The above reply is typical of your posting behaviour. The moment someone asks for back-up - there are counter questions and personal attacks.

You've made an assertion that MBT are inducted piecemeal and it is but matter of ' few hours' to put them together. I don't have information to either agree or deny your assertion - and hence, I asked the questions. Either you've answer to them or you don't. There are no shades of gray here. If there are, then do qualify your statements as opinions and not facts

There are broadly two things one can post - Facts and Opinion.

You're welcome to challenge me on any of the above. I will need to provide back-up for facts (where ever I've stated them) and reasoning for my opinions - again, based on some intelligent asssessment.

So, please do point to the 'dozens of posts' you might have trouble with and we can go over them

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Oct 2010 05:51

The Canadian Forces just announced they are about to ship 20 Leopard II tanks from Canada to Afghanistan. The Canadian Air Force has owned C-17s for over 3 years now. The last Leopard IIs that were shipped went via chartered An-124. How are these going to be shipped? C-17 or An-124?
I'm wiling to eat crow if they go by C-17. But I suspect they wont.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Oct 2010 06:29

Gilles wrote:The Canadian Forces just announced they are about to ship 20 Leopard II tanks from Canada to Afghanistan. The Canadian Air Force has owned C-17s for over 3 years now. The last Lleopard IIs that were shipped went via chartered An-124. How are these going to be shipped? C-17 or An-124?
I'm wiling to eat crow if they go by C-17. But I suspect they wont.

Its cheaper to transport a larger payload by the An-124, but considerably more expensive when the payload is smaller (say 40 tons). The Canadian Forces will probably employ the An-124s.

Now a different but related question for you -

What if only one tank had to be transported? Would the An-124 still be the best option?

Point being that while it may be better at lifting outsized cargo, several disadvantages accompany it-

1. Its far more expensive to operate
2. Timelines for production are still an open question.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Oct 2010 08:31

I dont think the C17 has the range to fly with a 55t payload from canada direct to afghanistan while An124 might do it.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Oct 2010 19:39

Cross Posting from Mil Aviation thread..

Juggi G wrote:Russians Hold Up IAF Chopper Contests
StratPost
Russians Hold Up IAF Chopper Contests
October 5, 2010
By Saurabh Joshi

...<snipped>...
The IAF would, presumably, want to prevent the Process of Acquisition of the two types of aircraft from being Jeopardized by the Withdrawal of the Russian Helicopters from the Contest.
Under the Indian Defense Procurement Procedure (DPP), Any Contest which Results in the Survival of Only a Single Vendor is Vitiated and the Process has to be Restarted.

This is for Sanku ji. Please note the part in red. Maybe the reason the IAF did not go for a multi vendor procurement was because they did not want to end up in this position. There was a great chance of this happening in the Heavy Lift aircraft case as most of the other contenders were probably paper planes when the process was started. IMHO of course.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 13 Oct 2010 21:56

The question that I still feel unanswered is whether IAF is purchasing C-17 to carry tanks?

It may be a reason but is it really the most important one. While the reasoning of transporting a tank clearly fits the view for purchasing a C-17, it also blurs to see other necessities that IAF/IA may have with C-17.

JMT

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 14 Oct 2010 00:08

With India going through modernization of its armed forces at a seemingly rapid pace these days, China might get spooked and attack India somewhere in the east or Laddakh/LAC regions thinking that they better do it now before it would be too late when Indian forces would be strategically much stronger in the future. In 1962 they perceived India was weaker then them and they were correct. Now with the U.S. and the West owing them so much in debt and their prestige factor high in the West currently they might think that this is a good time to attack India and get away with it. You never know with the Chinese. We need to get deep into their chicom heads.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 14 Oct 2010 00:28

Philip wrote:Great! Obama will choke over his burger when he sees within his term of office,Chinese Hercules clones being made without his permission! This is why the Russians are p*ssed off with the PRC for reverse engineering without their nod and royalty dues.

Back to the C-17,acquisition,I can only surmise that one of the main reasons why we are acquiring a strategic airlifter-apart from doing Boeing a mighty favour,is that we have made some strong committments to certain IOR nations,especially island nations,to come to their aid in any crisis.One remembers Op Cactus and the Male ops.However,I fail to understand how the IAF "studied carefully" other contenders without actually having them evaluated in the Indian scenario and then dismissing them in favour of the C-17. If we go by "catalogue" purchases for a $10 billion dealor single item evluation,then why not do the same for far smaller purchases too? Why evaluate anything at all in its context?We could just pick one of the the MMRCA contenders from what is touted in the brochures and PP presentations and watch it fly in India skies!

I hope you do not choke on this one... No C130's for China..

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... china.html

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 14 Oct 2010 01:01

Gilles wrote:The Canadian Forces just announced they are about to ship 20 Leopard II tanks from Canada to Afghanistan. The Canadian Air Force has owned C-17s for over 3 years now. The last Leopard IIs that were shipped went via chartered An-124. How are these going to be shipped? C-17 or An-124?
I'm wiling to eat crow if they go by C-17. But I suspect they wont.

And not relevant to India's needs at all.

1. The distances involved are extreme for the C-17. I doubt India needs to ship anything that far.

2. This sort of pre-planned non-emergency shipment is perfect for leased/chartered airlift

I've always said there's nothing wrong with using leases.

You just can't RELY on them.

If Canada HAD to do it on their own, they could. It may not be the most cost-efficient, but at least they have the capability.

vic · Post by **vic** » 14 Oct 2010 11:07

rohitvats wrote: The above reply is typical of your posting behaviour. The moment someone asks for back-up - there are counter questions and personal attacks.

...... I don't have information to either agree or deny your assert............

Anybody who disagrees with you is a personal attack! now why don't you tap your sources and find out how T-72s were de-inducted, what lessons were learnt and how will they be re-inducted, if at all? was the idea of re-inducting T-72s given up? were they too big a pain in the ass? you have so much knowledge about Indian Army in general so why not ask your buddies how many hours would it take to re-asssemble 6 -12-24 or impossible without your clearance and import of C-17s?

The basis of honest discussion is sharing of knowledge which might even support the other side of the argument. But if you are selling a view point then you are welcome to use what ever tactics.The problem is that you are justifying acquisition of C-17s, and anything that remotely questions the rationale, raises your hackles. In any case, I also feel that C-17 acquisition may be justified but as a reasonable politico-economic deal and T-72/Arjuns may or may not figure in the calculus, at all.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Oct 2010 13:08

Aditya G wrote:
rohitvats wrote:First, how do you know that tanks are stripped and then airlifted? Where have you come across such an instance?
Difficult but has been done.

http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_unit.php?ch=36

1993-94 : Deinduction of T-72 Tanks from Leh (Total 24) - Due to restrictions of maximum take off weights when operating from Leh (altitude 3270 mtrs), the deinduction was a laborious process as the hull and turret of the tank had to be dismantled and two sorties were required to deinduct one tank (wt of hull 24 tons, turret 10 tuns, other accessories 08 tons). A total of 55 sorties were flown of 55 sorties were flown to deinduct 24 tanks plus four ARVs.

Aditya G, thank you for the reference. I completely missed your post.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Oct 2010 13:26

vic wrote:
Anybody who disagrees with you is a personal attack!

First things, first - What is that I've been saying and to which you've disagreed to? What is my stand on the C-17 purchase and how is your opinion contrary to that? Please don't create strawman here....

As for personal attacks - This is what you wrote:

Also you make dozens of posts everyday without providing any source! But when anything contradicts your position then one has justify it on affidavit signed by Chief of Staff, I suppose?

I've asked you this earlier and I'm asking you this again - please pull up my posts which you've disagreement to and you consider are more gas than susbstance. And I'll provide back-up for my reasoning. And I hope that once you do that, you'll have your own reasons and counter arguments.

now why don't you tap your sources and find out how T-72s were de-inducted, what lessons were learnt and how will they be re-inducted, if at all? was the idea of re-inducting T-72s given up? were they too big a pain in the ass?

You're trying to hide behind inanities. And proof of that is right here on this page. This is what IAF Wesite says about de-induction of T-72 from Leh:

http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_unit.php?ch=36

1993-94 : Deinduction of T-72 Tanks from Leh (Total 24) - Due to restrictions of maximum take off weights when operating from Leh (altitude 3270 mtrs), the deinduction was a laborious process as the hull and turret of the tank had to be dismantled and two sorties were required to deinduct one tank (wt of hull 24 tons, turret 10 tuns, other accessories 08 tons). A total of 55 sorties were flown of 55 sorties were flown to deinduct 24 tanks plus four ARVs

Before you say I said so - this is not the norm and was done because of limitation. In case the IAF could airlift the whole tank at one go, they would have done so. So, your assertion that tanks are airlifted piecemeal as a matter of fact is patently wrong. As per the above quote, it is not only cumbersome but also expensive - far more effort is required than what would have been ideal situation.

Still, if you have contrary information, please share so rather than hiding behind smoke and mirror posts.

<SNIP> But if you are selling a view point then you are welcome to use what ever tactics.The problem is that you are justifying acquisition of C-17s, and anything that remotely questions the rationale, raises your hackles.

Like I asked earlier, how do you know what is my stand on C-17 purchase? And how is asking information about MBT piecemeal transportation (a claim you made) same as batting about C-17 purchase?

vivekmehta · Post by **vivekmehta** » 14 Oct 2010 13:33

sorry to interrupt , but why did we de inducted them ? we had a descent number up there 24. with recovery systems . any how it would have been a lot of pain to induct them into leh. we inducted it them in jan 88 and de inducted in 93. around 5 yrs experience of operating there.they why didnt we build on it ?

and do we know what kind of maneuvers or exercises they did there ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Oct 2010 13:50

^^^There is no clear cut answer to this question.

One school of argument says that the tanks had limited use in the said environment. I've not seen any explanations as to why? After all, the 3rd Infantry Division has integral Mechanized Infantry Battalion. And as per Suman Sharma's blog, another one is also planned. In the past, we inducted tanks during 1962 war in the sector and they provide their worth (although, these were light tanks-AMX-13)

My opinion is that once the Sino-India Accord was signed in 1993, the Army, sensing low threat levels, de-inducted the two Recce Suadrons. Please remember that during this period, Services were low on most of equipments and IA may have considered it prudent to use these Recce Squadrons with formations on Western Border. The Kashmir militancy was at its peak and Indo-Pak shooting match may well have been a possibility.

PS: The tanks inducted in Leh and Thoise were from two (I) Recce Squadrons and not a single Regiment. I have corrected my post.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Oct 2010 14:01

nachiket wrote: Russian delay w.r.t. chopper trials....

This is for Sanku ji. Please note the part in red. Maybe the reason the IAF did not go for a multi vendor procurement was because they did not want to end up in this position.

IAF may or may not want to be in many positions, however, once a certain system of "show and tell" has been made, they have to follow it.

Although a Jingo, I am never a supporter of using "short-circuit" method to achieve ends, even for armed forces.

There was a great chance of this happening in the Heavy Lift aircraft case as most of the other contenders were probably paper planes when the process was started. IMHO of course.

In fact the same could be turned around and asked -- considering that choppers are more critical to supplying far flung areas and what not, if IAF is willing to live with the burden of multi-vendor including Russian tantrums, whats so special about C 17?

In fact as you can see from tons of data, from Scorepene to the LCA engines to Choppers, every where we see this process being followed DESPITE the OBVIOUS warts and issues associated with it.

What makes C 17 magically proof from such considerations.

That is essentially the fly in the ointment -- one which WILL come back to bite IAF. Big time.

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

Please dont tell me that C 17s are more critical than a whole laundry list of items which go through the process, or IAF realized magically that FMS is actually a fast method in case of C 17 (and did not do so for last 10 years in the other issues before and after C 17 purchase)

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Oct 2010 14:12

Although a Jingo, I am never a supporter of using "short-circuit" method to achieve ends, even for armed forces.

Except of course when the vendor to benefit are Russians.

Will you follow your own standards and categorically state that the T-90 single vendor acquisition was flawed? A simple yes or no answer please...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Oct 2010 14:30

Tanaji wrote:
Although a Jingo, I am never a supporter of using "short-circuit" method to achieve ends, even for armed forces.
Except of course when the vendor to benefit are Russians.

Will you follow your own standards and categorically state that the T-90 single vendor acquisition was flawed? A simple yes or no answer please...

No, because its was done before the process was laid down. If it was done today, yes, it would. Just as Su 30 should not be purchased today without due diligence (but was okay since purchase before that)

So as for Hawk.

So as for Mirages

So as for HDW

Also you have been informed of the facts before, but persist in ill informed statements, At some point of time, it is good to shed blinkers and accept the facts.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Oct 2010 14:59

Ah, yes so, just because the MoD changed from a system that allowed it more latitude and flexibility (your own words) to one which is more rigid, magically does away with all the evils that you claim exist with a single vendor route.

So, before rule change, buying from a single vendor without competition was okay, there was no chance that the said vendor would arm twist you. After rule change, suddenly buying from a single vendor means all the evils of single vendor are thrust upon you.

What is sauce for the goose , must be sauce for the gander. At least be consistent to your own principles.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Oct 2010 15:22

Tanaji wrote:Ah, yes so, just because the MoD changed from a system that allowed it more latitude and flexibility (your own words) to one which is more rigid, magically does away with all the evils that you claim exist with a single vendor route.

No it will not magically do away with the evils of that come with single vendor.

The rules will have to be followed, in order to make some difference to combat the ills.

So, before rule change, buying from a single vendor without competition was okay, there was no chance that the said vendor would arm twist you.

After rule change, suddenly buying from a single vendor means all the evils of single vendor are thrust upon you.

What is sauce for the goose , must be sauce for the gander. At least be consistent to your own principles.

Tanaji, you dont understand, in a GoI/MoD setup, the rules are not some ad-hoc, airy-fairy stuff which transpire overnight.

Rules mean a lot of things
1) Institutional Intent as solidified
2) Institutional understanding

So formation of the rules in 2001-3 time frame MEANT that for GoI the world HAD changed.

And the change was accompanied by changing of rules.

That is the reality of bureaucracy, and we are run bureaucratically (for better or for worse)

So if you wish to have a rant on ills of bureaucracy, that is a different matter.

But yes, in the CURRENT setup -- rules both reflect that the world HAS CHANGED as well as a attempt to CHANGE THE WORLD.

That is how it is.

This is not a context free philosophical discussion, it is a very context dependent one.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Oct 2010 15:48

Tanaji,if one takes an objective look back in history,during the Cold War,we could rely only upon the Soviet Union for regular arms supplies without conditions attached.Therefore,the majority of eqpt. in the inventory was Russian/SU origin.As far as the IA was concerned,the T-72s were inducted in large qty.We must examine the chronology of India's arms acquisitions,especially in the light of P-2 and the sanctions regime that followed.Now,European MBTs were very costly by comparison and some not avaiable to us like the US's Abrams.When Pak obtained on the cheap TU-80s from Ukraine,post SU,we had to immediately respond and bought T90s,the follow on to the T-72 with the same three-man crew,a logical choice.As for the U-209s,both Kockums and HDW were competing.Adm.Pereira,CNS at the time, preferred Kockums because of its superb TOT offer (similar to the Gripen offer today),whereas the MOD wanted HDW.HDW had to be armtwisted on TOT and we took 7 years to build just two subs at home.

Don't forget It is only in the very recent past that the west has suddenly looked upon India as a major potential buyer of arms and has (partly-in the case of the US) opened the door of its high-tech cupboard to us.We were never offered partnership in the Eurofighter Typhoon project or Rafale,JSF,etc.The maximum western tech we obtained was the Mirage-2000 from France.It is why we went in for the SU-27/30MKI ,the best that the Russians had,which has proved to be an outstanding success.

Thus,acquisition of T-90s cannot be equated with acquisition of C-17s ,where there are alternatives and even the CNS has frowned upon FMS sales, as I've quoted many a time before.The C-17 deal is being rushed through before Boeing is forced to close down production.This is an inescapable fact,whatever our crying need for a heavylifter is.Similar rushing through of deals through FMS have been the Boeing P-8I for the IN.Here ,a system that has never flown before and will not contain the same sensors and eqpt. as USN specs. is being acquired! In truth,it is nothing more than a 737 platform,where we will have to find the key eqpt. from diverse sources.The Airbus offer would've come with all the bells and whistles that the French could provide.

The acquisitions from the US are more "political" than "capability" driven.The "bird in the Bush"(pardon the pun!),"strategic relationship" (end to Paki terror,end to high-tech sanctions,N-power,etc.,etc.) being preferred to the bird in hand (5th-gen fighter,MTA,FMBT,hypersonic-B'Mos,N-sub tech,N-sub lease,N-triad systems,carrier tech. and fighters,advanced warships,etc.,etc.)!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Oct 2010 17:09

Sanku wrote: In fact the same could be turned around and asked -- considering that choppers are more critical to supplying far flung areas and what not, if IAF is willing to live with the burden of multi-vendor including Russian tantrums, whats so special about C 17?

Well it appears the IAF believes the C-17 has no competitors within its class, while the AH-64D and Chinook do. You or I may disagree, but that's the IAF's opinion.

In fact as you can see from tons of data, from Scorepene to the LCA engines to Choppers, every where we see this process being followed DESPITE the OBVIOUS warts and issues associated with it.

We've had enough single vendor orders to prove that a multi-vendor process is not a rigid requirement. Eg. - Tavor, C-130J, M777, Su-30MKI(follow-on orders), Harpy/Heron/Searcher, Barak, Derby, SPYDER, Osprey-class, Elta-2032, Javelin, Mi-17 etc. Upgrade contracts for the IA/IAF's existing equipment are often single vendor. Eg. the Mirage-2000 tender was given to Dassault despite a (supposedly) cheaper offer from IAI.

That is essentially the fly in the ointment -- one which WILL come back to bite IAF. Big time.

Time will tell.

Please dont tell me that C 17s are more critical than a whole laundry list of items which go through the process, or IAF realized magically that FMS is actually a fast method in case of C 17 (and did not do so for last 10 years in the other issues before and after C 17 purchase)

Acquisitions are not addressed in a queued manner. As far as the IAF is concerned the C-17 does not have any direct competitor. Also its was never ordered in the last ten years simply because the IAF did not have funds for modernization (paraphrasing ACM Naik's statement).

Rules mean a lot of things
1) Institutional Intent as solidified
2) Institutional understanding

So formation of the rules in 2001-3 time frame MEANT that for GoI the world HAD changed.

And the change was accompanied by changing of rules.

Are you saying that the DPP has not been followed in the C-17's case or that the rules/guidelines themselves are faulty?