C-17s for the IAF?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Oct 2010 17:54

Philip wrote: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.

The C-17 acquisition has been on the cards for almost three years now. And like I've proved (with links) before, the C-17 line isn't closing down tomorrow. Its got confirmed orders that'll keep it running to mid 2012. As opposed to the dormant/closed production lines for the IL-76 and An-124 that may or may not be revived in the near future. Also, Boeing isn't being 'forced' to close down production. Its already manufactured (more than) the originally intended production numbers.

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.

Huh? Lets not assume that the aircraft is missing vital sensors without actually having the requisite information at hand. For all we know, it could be just some elements of the communication suite missing (like the C-130J), replaceable with BEL/DRDO components.

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.)!

Err... the 'bird in hand's defence minister is threatening to import equipment unless its domestic industry pulls its socks up. All the same India has and will continue purchasing very significant quantities of arms (MKIs, Talwar, PAKFA, MTA etc) from them.

Russia To Import 'Outdated' Arms: Minister
MOSCOW - Russia will import arms rather than buy outdated Russian models, the defense minister said Oct. 4, slamming the failure of the domestic defense industry to meet modern standards.

There are the same issues with the Mistral. The Russian military-industrial complex does not meet our standards. Therefore, we are talking about buying imported ships," Serdyukov said.
He added that Russia was even interested in buying technology from its former Cold War foe and the world's top weapons producer the U.S. but did not elaborate further.

Last month, President Dmitry Medvedev witheringly described the state of Russia's weapons sector as "quite bad, quite difficult."
"The Russian military-industrial complex is not yet capable of reacting to an increase in orders or of financing an adequate level of output of high-quality technical production," he argued.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =EUR&s=LAN

India Set For 4-Year Run as Russia's Top Customer

MOSCOW - India bought more Russian weapons last year than any other country, and recent deals seem likely to solidify that status, Alexander Fomin, the deputy director of the Russian Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, told Russian official ITAR-TASS news agency Sept. 9.

For the nearest four years - from 2010 to 2013 - India will remain the biggest client, accounting for 54.4 percent, or $15.16 billion, of the Russian foreign defense orders portfolio for this period, according to the center. Vietnam's orders for this period come second in size, reaching $3 billion.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Oct 2010 19:55

Sanku wrote:
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)

Why do you ignore my "paper planes" comment? The Mi-26 and Mi-28 are very much in existence and offer capabilities similar to or better than the Chinook and Apache. The only such competitors for the C-17 were the IL-476, which was and still is a paper plane and the An-124 which was long out of production. The An-124-150 etc. also did not exist back then (and still don't). The IAF would be shooting themselves in the foot if they went for a Multi-vendor process in this case.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Oct 2010 19:57

why are you even bothering to explain to philip??/

If someone calls an order to a company with an exisitng production line and supply chain geared to support usage for years ahead as support but declines to do the same to a company with no existing production line, and a supply chain which runs in bits and pieces based on the last delivery of cash- there is not much credibility to that person.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Oct 2010 19:58

and even the Mi28 and Mi26 kind of disappeared at the thought of a real competitive trial in india, under indian observation against the opposition.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Oct 2010 20:25

even the CNS has frowned upon FMS sales, as I've quoted many a time before

would the CNS prefer the Gorshkov route??

against the CNS the IAF chief seems ok with it.

and since this is IAF equipment - can we move past it?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Oct 2010 20:28

we could rely only upon the Soviet Union for regular arms supplies without conditions attached

money, lack of supply chain, lack of observing legal niceties impose their own 'conditions'

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Oct 2010 00:51

It does not matter what IAF chief "wants", I suppose that part was obvious. The process has a certain methodology, it has to be followed.

His wants or does not wants is completely irrelevant to the issue.

There is a process and it has to be followed, which means drafting a requirement in a way which allows for multiple candidates, sending it to them and carrying out the remaining due diligence.

Unless it can be demonstrated unequivocally that it was the only possible fit for a desperately critical requirement.

When CAG et al asks, I hope IAF has the answers (based on open source clearly there is no answer, but then giving IAF benefit of doubt, it has data which it will only share with CAG )

Any which way, on the face of it, IAF is probably going to get hauled over coals for their decision. Particularly if a GoI is in power which is demonstrably neutral.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Oct 2010 01:15

Sanku wrote:
Unless it can be demonstrated unequivocally that it was the only possible fit for a desperately critical requirement.

Why should it be a desperately critical requirement? Was the C-130J a "desperately critical requirement"? If it is the only possible fit, it is the only possible fit. There is NOTHING to gain and everything to lose by going for a multi-vendor process in such a scenario.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Oct 2010 02:15

I have to say that both Philip and Sanku have a very decent point - whats the rush for C-17s? And if there is a rush, why can't a modded IL-76 not to the trick? Does the ability to carry a tank or two, specifically the Arjun make the C17 an emergency requirement?

IMVHO, No! This deal is purely to further the US-India relationship, for better or worse. And it is being rushed through to aid the US to some extent.

Point is - I see nothing wrong with this - yes it is a political decision, and perhaps the IAF could do well enough with something else (although it is worth considering that the ACM says it is merit based), but if relationships have to be pursued, such moves are necessary, India needs to be seen as supportive to the GOTUS. BO could do with a bit of $$s in the economy, and if India comes in at such a time, goodwill and political ground are gained. ARGUABLY at an extra expense, but so be it.

It is all a balancing act - why else are the Russians being offered the humungous possibility of 300 FGFAs (ya, we get something too in the form of tech and firepower, but when did the IAF ever have a need for something so top heavy?) 300 flankers and FGFAs! It should be the other way around - 400 LCAs + 200 MCA/MRCA + 125 Flanker + 125 FGFA. Thats the way it has always been - the bottom of the pyramid are the small, single engined birds - MiG-21/27s, followed by the Jags, Mirages and Fulcrums in the middle and a sqd or two of esoteric stuff such as the Foxbats. Make no misktake, with 600 heavy fighters, the Russkis are being kept happy as the leader of the pack (FGFA, MKIs, upgrades, MRTAs, AAMs, etc etc). The Americans will feel satisfied with a nice chunk of the pie as well, not as big, but rather decent. And then the Euros will be compensated - let us see how. Perhaps the 40 SFC fighter/bombers are set aside for the Frenchies, perhaps the additional frigates/subs will be Oiropean, perhaps the MRCA will be a Tiffy or Gripen.

But all this has to happen, India is a big player now and seems to have the moolah to spend on such toys. A consequence of this feat is that it has to manage an extra gorilla in the picture - Uncle Sam, not as a cold war suspect, but as a partner. It is a novel situation - you want to be a big boy, you have to pay the piper somewhere.

As far as armtwisting/sanctions go, I'd rather the IAF puts such hardware, which has a built in redundancy in the form of other transport a/c, at risk than open its cutting edge fighter fleet to this threat. IOWs, so long as the MRCA goes somewhere safer, the C17 is alright.

JM2 paisa.

CM

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Oct 2010 03:17

Cain Marko wrote:I have to say that both Philip and Sanku have a very decent point - whats the rush for C-17s? And if there is a rush, why can't a modded IL-76 not to the trick? Does the ability to carry a tank or two, specifically the Arjun make the C17 an emergency requirement?

There was no rush. The IAF took its time evaluating the aircraft. Also, modified IL-76's aren't feasible. The basic airframe cannot be widened without a thorough redesign.

And no, airlifting the Arjun isn't a critical requirement but then this isn't an emergency purchase. In fact, IIRC Boeing is in discussions with the IAF which has asked for a phased period of delivery extended till 2017.

Point is - I see nothing wrong with this - yes it is a political decision, and perhaps the IAF could do well enough with something else (although it is worth considering that the ACM says it is merit based), but if relationships have to be pursued, such moves are necessary, India needs to be seen as supportive to the GOTUS. BO could do with a bit of $$s in the economy, and if India comes in at such a time, goodwill and political ground are gained. ARGUABLY at an extra expense, but so be it.

It is all a balancing act - why else are the Russians being offered the humungous possibility of 300 FGFAs (ya, we get something too in the form of tech and firepower, but when did the IAF ever have a need for something so top heavy?) 300 flankers and FGFAs! It should be the other way around - 400 LCAs + 200 MCA/MRCA + 125 Flanker + 125 FGFA. Thats the way it has always been - the bottom of the pyramid are the small, single engined birds - MiG-21/27s, followed by the Jags, Mirages and Fulcrums in the middle and a sqd or two of esoteric stuff such as the Foxbats. Make no misktake, with 600 heavy fighters, the Russkis are being kept happy as the leader of the pack (FGFA, MKIs, upgrades, MRTAs, AAMs, etc etc). The Americans will feel satisfied with a nice chunk of the pie as well, not as big, but rather decent. And then the Euros will be compensated - let us see how. Perhaps the 40 SFC fighter/bombers are set aside for the Frenchies, perhaps the additional frigates/subs will be Oiropean, perhaps the MRCA will be a Tiffy or Gripen.

Such a policy itself isn't illogical. Though some may believe it borders on heresy.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Oct 2010 03:37

"When a system gets old, the OEMs lose their subcontractors. They close their assembly lines. Spares are difficult to get and there is a lot of effort to be put in... [so] now we do not plan for 3 years or 5 years, we plan for 20 years in the long term perspective plan." - ACM P.V. Naik

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/i ... /167850?hp

It does explain why news articles keep mentioning spares and maintenance problems faced by the IAF's current IL fleet. The IL-76 and AN-124 assembly lines have already been closed and their manufacturers are trying to restart them. The C-17 on the other hand comes with structured plan for support extended over the lifetime of the aircraft.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 15 Oct 2010 07:39

GeorgeWelch wrote: 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.

Maybe, but that remains to be seen.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 15 Oct 2010 09:18

Cross - Post

Enter the Airbus Military A400M

Airbus Military Targets India For A400M
Aviation Week

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Oct 2010 09:23

X-posting my own post:

Given the distaste for IL-76X expressed by IAF, I guess the replacement of IL-76 category will be something like A-400M. And with economic situation being what it is, I order book from European nations might not hold firm. Or they may be just too happy to let the first production numbers go to India - which has more pressing need and more importanty, the money

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Oct 2010 10:34

^^^ A-400M has stiff competition from the IL-76 (upgrades) and AN-70 in terms of price, availability, operational history.

I do not understand why IAF is showing almost no interest in this 40T category at all. We are not even speaking of upgrading our IL-76s engine-wise or avionics-wise. Neither has IAF shown any interest in this weight category to either IL, nor Airbus, nor Antonov.

Whereas there is interest in every other category exists
Hansa for Dornier,
RTA/AN-32 upgrades for HS-748/An-32,
C-27J (11.5 T new class),
C-130J/MRTA (20T new class),
nothing for 40T class??
C-17 (possibly)

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Oct 2010 10:59

The lack of interest could be because the IL 76s still has about 10 to 15 years of life left in them. So the interest in replacing them may emerge from 2015 onwards.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Oct 2010 12:37

Didn't we have an earlier post not too long ago about IAF IL-76s to be upgraded? In any case,the Russians have placed huge orders for extra IL-76s/476s,AN-124s,etc.AWST has had some reports on the same,as their transport fleet has to be modernised and enlarged and will be done on a war footing.Discussions with Ukraine have already taken place,which now has a pro-Russian govt. for restarting manufacture of aircraft,components,etc.If the IAF is acquiring transports in a gradual phased manner,as is being intended with C-17s,then these new IL-76s,etc.,AN-124s will arrive at the right time.

I don't think that the A-400 has much chance because of the Indo-Russian MTA project,which is off and running which will be closest too in size and role.In any case,we are acquiring Hercules C-130Js and should acquire another lot for the METAC role/standardisation, until MTA's arrive.There's no point in acquiring yet another type!

Media reports suggest that in the future,greater emphasis is going to be given to indigenous manufacture and only if the tech is unavailable within India,will imports be allowed.This however is rife with danger as our "indgenous" track record,where even here a huge proportion of the cost/components are foreign origin,have seen in almost every case delays and other manufacturing problems.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 16 Oct 2010 06:13

Tashkent aircraft factory, named after Chkalov, goes bankrupt

http://enews.ferghana.ru/news.php?id=1878&mode=snews

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Oct 2010 06:57

Philip wrote:Didn't we have an earlier post not too long ago about IAF IL-76s to be upgraded? In any case,the Russians have placed huge orders for extra IL-76s/476s,AN-124s,etc.AWST has had some reports on the same,as their transport fleet has to be modernised and enlarged and will be done on a war footing.Discussions with Ukraine have already taken place,which now has a pro-Russian govt. for restarting manufacture of aircraft,components,etc.If the IAF is acquiring transports in a gradual phased manner,as is being intended with C-17s,then these new IL-76s,etc.,AN-124s will arrive at the right time.

Yes the RuAF is getting upgrades, IAF which has IL-76s from the same period hasn't shown any interest that I know of.

Philip wrote: I don't think that the A-400 has much chance because of the Indo-Russian MTA project,which is off and running which will be closest too in size and role.

A-400 and C-130J/MTA are not in the same weight category!

The question is, if C-17s come in and there are 20T carriers, should we have 40T carriers as well?

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 18 Oct 2010 16:41

X-Post

No Defence Agreements During Obama's Visit

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 18 Oct 2010 17:19

Gilles wrote:Tashkent aircraft factory, named after Chkalov, goes bankrupt

http://enews.ferghana.ru/news.php?id=1878&mode=snews

In addition did it not plan to make wings for An 124?

The point is this is one of the reasons why the IAF may have decided to go for the C-17. These planes are built piecemeal all over the erstwhile Soviet Union. While that was great if it existed, it doesnt now. What guarantee is there if suddenly one of the "factories" went bankrupt or stalled the production by asking for more money than the contract?

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.

Philip, no quibbles on the first 300 T-90s to be delivered, but when the order mysteriously gets bumped up to 1100+, certain key components that were initially advertised get dropped (Shtora), performance is not up to par, key designs are not transferred as per contract, and yet this is put forward as a model to emulate.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Oct 2010 18:51

From the interesting link posted by Gilles -

Few days ago mass media reported that SJSC TAPEnC produced new IL-76MF, military-transport carrier. On September 30 he had its first flight. IL-76MF is the new model of IL-76, one of the biggest heavy military cargo planes in the world. The new plane was managed by Russian-Uzbek crew. "The flight continued for 38 minutes. IL-76MF is an excellent plane", RIA Novosti quotes the crew captain Nikolay Kuimov. Nonetheless, according to Ferghana.Ru sources, after 38 minutes the plane made the emergence landing due big number of defaults.

http://enews.ferghana.ru/news.php?id=1878&mode=snews

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Oct 2010 20:35

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 18 Oct 2010 21:38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 2k1txRHxCE

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Oct 2010 23:32

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Unless it can be demonstrated unequivocally that it was the only possible fit for a desperately critical requirement.

Why should it be a desperately critical requirement? Was the C-130J a "desperately critical requirement"? If it is the only possible fit, it is the only possible fit. There is NOTHING to gain and everything to lose by going for a multi-vendor process in such a scenario.

Because that is what the policy asks for, the rational is quite simple, India gets the best deal when there is competition, especially when large amounts of money are involved.

So either there has to be a critical requirement which is so narrow that only one piece of equipment fits, otherwise a RFI has to be drawn in way which allows multiple options, or it has to be shown what is so critical and unique about the requirement where only one solution fits.

Clearly GoI has not gone for a single vendor for any new acquisition in last 10 years (not follow on orders) without a competition, esp large orders but for C 130J and C 17s.

C 130J were "okay" in the sense of special forces requirement and lower amounts of money.

But still the fact that some purchases are more equal than others are clearly strange.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Oct 2010 02:20

now this is only from livefist and its only a meaningless blog

The IL-78M will compete, but the IAF doesn't want it. Overwhelming serviceability and support problems continue to dog the IL-76 platform, a situation that was partly responsible for the IAF choosing not to exercise a follow-on order of six more IL-78Ms, and instead float a fresh tender in 2006.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Oct 2010 02:26

Surya ji, if you have noticed, the arguments have changed from "These are only meaningless blog and DDM reports. IAF hasn't said anywhere that it needs the C-17", to "It does not matter what the IAF chief says/wants. There has to be a multi-vendor competition

", after ACM Naik's interview came out.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Oct 2010 02:42

nachiket - i know

hopefully the hints of the support issues are enough.

But we know it will not be

Bring forth the 476s and 124s

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Oct 2010 09:18

If what Shiv Aroor claims about IL-78 is true , then serviceability and support problems must have affected the IAF Transport Fleet operating IL-76 , Refuellers and AWACS in equal measure.

This will be bad for IAF that would be sub-optimally utilizing its key resource.

Can they move the next AWACS on A-330 based platform and standardise on it ?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 19 Oct 2010 09:42

Austin wrote:If what Shiv Aroor claims about IL-78 is true , then serviceability and support problems must have affected the IAF Transport Fleet operating IL-76 , Refuellers and AWACS in equal measure.

This will be bad for IAF that would be sub-optimally utilizing its key resource.

Can they move the next AWACS on A-330 based platform and standardise on it ?

Saar given that the Phalcons are operation with the newer PS90s as compared to the painful D-30s it would be interesting to see how efficient the newer injuns and changes made to airframe will be compared to the old horses in use. AFAIK the 78s also use the older D-30s and not the newer PS90s. I would imagine bringing them all up to the PS90s would bring commonality between the fleet while also alleviating some problems regarding maintainence, reliability while increasing payload/range?

Kapil · Post by **Kapil** » 19 Oct 2010 09:51

I go to Africa about onc a year and I am always stunned at the number of Russian airframes being operated by pvt operators.The An-12,the Mi-8s fly a lot of sorties in African conditions and infrastructure.Somehow we can't seem to maintain these birds.

Just imagine the potential if the IAF set up something like a transport company using assets that can't be used in a war

Kaps

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Oct 2010 10:03

andy B wrote:Saar given that the Phalcons are operation with the newer PS90s as compared to the painful D-30s it would be interesting to see how efficient the newer injuns and changes made to airframe will be compared to the old horses in use. AFAIK the 78s also use the older D-30s and not the newer PS90s. I would imagine bringing them all up to the PS90s would bring commonality between the fleet while also alleviating some problems regarding maintainence, reliability while increasing payload/range?

Which is assuming that it is an injun problem and D-30 is the main issue. What Shiv Arror hints at is serious problem with IL-76 and to quote him "Overwhelming serviceability and support problems".

And much of IL-78 and AWACS uses PS-90 if i am wrong so why is this overwhelming problem , Could be the overall aircraft ? Or as Kapil says some how we are not able to maintain these birds.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Oct 2010 10:07

Kapil wrote:Just imagine the potential if the IAF set up something like a transport company using assets that can't be used in a war :-)Kaps

Kapil not a bad idea which is what the Polets and Denpr do maintain a big fleet of IL-76,An-124 and other transport fleet which are charter services generating revenues in peace time and that cant be used in a war

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Oct 2010 10:52

well we do not make any spare parts for the IL76. probably the supply chain for this plane is across dozens of factories in the ussr and some are struggling. using 'reconditioned' spares scrounged from boneyards carries its own risks for IAF - something that pvt charter operators likely do not face any issues with.

we need A1 level of support in brand new spares, vendor contractors and updates - something with the americans seem to be quite good at when the basic platform is sound (like c130) , or else they get around it by throwing billions at the problem over a decade until things work (v22 osprey is in that phase now).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Oct 2010 11:12

^^ In that case the problem with IL-76 should be universal and should affect the dozen users around the world and even the RuAF , no body has so far complained of such problems , Knowing very well about this problem the IAF still decides to base the next lot of Phalcon on IL-76 ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Oct 2010 11:46

nachiket wrote:Surya ji, if you have noticed, the arguments have changed from "These are only meaningless blog and DDM reports. IAF hasn't said anywhere that it needs the C-17", to "It does not matter what the IAF chief says/wants. There has to be a multi-vendor competition ", after ACM Naik's interview came out.

No the argument never changed, it had many facets

1) IAF had never said what motivated it to buy C 17, discussed overall requirements
2) IAF should have issued a multi vendor RFI
3) IAF should have had a multi vendor trial
4) IAF should have had a a PNC after selection etc.

So if you see, so far only item 1 is ticked, and that too much after the decision was taken.

So neither was the order followed neither are the last three points (which are very critical) done.

Sorry folks, there is a right way and a wrong way, and unless some can show a reason why a airlift should not go through what everything else goes through, the matter will remain suspect.

Further, I am sure CAG will have a field day with this.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Oct 2010 11:46

Excellent suggestion by Kapil. We seem to have trouble in moving to the "next" step in leveraging the scale we have.

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Oct 2010 12:10

Further, I am sure CAG will have a field day with this.

I'm sure CAG can look up this thread for "insightful" posts which points them to what to look for when they decide to enter the field!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Oct 2010 12:13

I agree with Sanku.i also never fail to be amazed at the myriad excuses trotted out by the MOD and its apologists from time to time regarding defence purchases.We buy the Scorpene in a flawed deal,when we earlier took 7 years to assemble a German U-209 .We then burnt our fingers with the Gorshkov modernisation buy,underestimating the huge task involved,that too after years of scrutiny and negotiations and if memory serves me right there were NO plans available of electrical wiring because of a Ukrainian problem! We knew about the problem of sourcing spares after the SU collapsed,but that was a long time ago! What have we been doing since then? We buy a large number of T-90s in knee-jerk fashion after Pak gets T-80UDs from Ukraine,add to the number supposedly with flaws,and then buy even more! There is a "fog of war" here with this acquisition in relation to the Arjun vs T-90 performance and lack of orders for the "indgenous" MBT,which actually is not all that indigenous,like the LCA.We'll not talk about the LCA,as a whole thesis can be written about the management of that bird! We operate a large number of Il-76s,have done so for decades,but suddenly discover that maintaining them is a problem,that too just when Boeing is desperate to find new orders for the end-of-production C-17! As sanku said,no alternatives tested competitively,"only the C-17 will do" has been the attitude.Similarly P-8Is are bought before the aircraft has even flown,and will come without key avionics and sensors-banned as far as India is concerned,which makes the aircraft the equivalent of an empty 737 shell,to be filled up with French and Israeli eqpt. later on! What a laugh!
The sudden discovery in the second decade of the 21st century that "maintenance and spares" are vital to operating weapon systems is a sick joke.What have the MOD and services been doing all these decades since Independence then? Surely operational capability is as important as possessing the required numbers?

In all these purchases,there appears to be either a large degree of incompetence and/or vested interests at work.When we have a large number of a type of aircraft,like the IL-76 in service with several countries,surely it is then easier to acquire large numbers of spares ,or alternatively as the IN has done,set up with the OEM a MRO in India for the same? I'm sure that if the requirement was large enough HAL or a PSU subsidiary could've chipped in with some components at least.Now both IL-76s and AN-32s are being upgraded,so what's the problem with operating these types in the future? They have served for decades very well and have another 15 years of service in them at least.Thanks to our erstwhile colonial masters,most public buildings,built to last centuries,like railway stations have survived the use and abuse of India's millions.I read in the press recently while travelling,that passengers in a 2-AC sleeper bogie fled from it because it was infested with cockroaches!

The offer of Airbus with the A-330 tanker is intriguing.Here is another much touted aircraft that won and was rejected in the US tanker competition,thanks to protests from the US aircraft industry.So we are being earmarked as the suckers for this deal too,with talk of some extra-special refuelling eqpt. that only the A-330 has and the IL-78 hasn't,even though the Il-78s faithfully supported all our international exercises as far off as Alaska in the US! The MOD is now suffering in my opinion from the CWG syndrome,where anything can be bought no matter how expensive it is if it can be shown to contain "special" uinque eqpt. that its rivals do not have.The "Roll-Royce" purchasing disease appears to be rampant within the MOD as all manner of arms peddlars and pimps touting the most expensive wares available are descending into India.

I'm afraid that in India,as one seees it everywhere especially with any govt. run edifice,maintenance and regular repairs are unknown words in the GOI's lexicon.Just look at any govt. building,whether Central or State,how unkept and filthy most of them are.I know of one govt. dept. where in the common (not VIP) waiting hall,chairs have not been replaced for decades! Some have arms with no seats.Others seats with no backs.File covers have replaced missing seats.Walls are filthy with the muck from sweaty heads and a black band runs all along the room at head height,walls never having been repainted for 20+ years!
True,the services are a different breed and cannot operate at all if they adopted the same standards of other ministries,but the attitude towards maintenance and repair in the MOD is the same.The services for decades have bemoaned the lack of orders for spares,supply in time of the same and sub-standard quality of some of them.It has no glamour value-ordering spares,but extremely lucrative to fly-by-night dubious suppliers who make merry in supplying us with sub-standard spares.

The hard truth is that there is little transparency in India's defence acquisitions.Where is the grand strategy and "white paper" supposed to be tabled in the House each year on the state of India's defence and security and what our problems are ,needs are,ect.,etc.We have eternal parliamentary committees criticising the state of affairs and CAG questioning the deals ad nausem.With the arrival of the US's so-called "strategic relationship" and its very open pressure upon the GOI to buy US products,transparency has been thrown out of the window.

The C-17 is a done deal no matter the pros and cons and efforts are being made to tie up all loose ends before the Messiah's visit.The vested interests on both sides are delirious at the $5 billion+ order,drooling for even more to follow and Airbus is following Boeing's example of offering us as mentioned above their "unique" tanker hoping to strike gold too in India's Defence Games!

PS: As for missed opportunities,even though we were assembling/producing the GO-228 in India and had a steady order book for the same,we allowed the company to be bought over by RUAG and are actually doing the major work for it ,when we could've acquired the co. for a song and exported the same ourselves.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Oct 2010 12:44

I think every single vendor deal is a political decision be it US, Russians or anybody. Its a GOI decision to opt for some defence deal with any country based on larger interest of the country as the govt of the day sees it right and its their prerogative.

C-17 is certainly a political decision and IAF chief or any chief will toe the GOI line ( there are past example of chief getting their fair share of not doing so ) US has made its desire known on many occasion that it wants to enter Indian Defence Market in a big way and C-17 is just one part of the deal.

Even if the deal is multivendor like MMRCA , its not like a free and fair deal where the best product based on pure merits are selected , there is always political consideration and other factors like money that comes into play.

I do not know how seriously CAG reports are taken by GOI , its like a good summary of what was wrong and what was right on a nice piece of paper to be read during chai biscuit session or during debate such as these to prove or disprove a point ,Unfortunately CAG lacks the teeth to see those wrong done right and I do not recollect any Govt has cracked the whip based on what CAG has to say unless there is some political mileage to gained. CAG report are just academic exercise easily forgotten like those theory lectures.