C-17s for the IAF?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Oct 2010 12:50

Are we going to see a precedent with the CWG scam?I say this because the boos and jeers that the CM of the OC got during the show must've given the jitters to the PM and co.This scandal will have a definite effect upon the minds of voters in upcoming elections.Just as Bofors proved to be a decisive factor in ousting rajiv,a major corruption scandal could be the nemesis in future elections.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Oct 2010 13:02

Certainly there is a good political reason to make good use of CAG report for CWG , we should all know by now who the fall guy and scapegoat will be , its absolutely crystal clear to every body.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Oct 2010 13:34

amit wrote:
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!

Perhaps they will.

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Oct 2010 13:38

It's really interesting to see how some folks here are pushing the line that what the ACM said in his latest interview is not the truth and that he's only said what he did because "he's toeing the govermind line" so as to not be sent to the Gulag.

His specific comments about IAF having considered several aircraft and match their performances with what IAF needs is considered at worst a lie and at best a figment of his imagination, in this line of reasoning. (RFP, RFP, stupid!)

I wonder if these folks realise what they imply when they spread canards like this. They are in effect saying that the ACM of the IAF is a weak man who's more interested in his career than in what is best for IAF and is willing to toe a political line so that his job remains intact. And so he is lying when he says, the IAF had looked at several aircraft before settling on the C17.

If this is the level of professionalism which folks here think that our armed forces bosses have, because they happen to be fascinated with a particular piece of hardware from a particular country, then why discuss anything at all?

I think we would be better served if we discuss which plane Madam Gandhi likes and if Yuvraj likes the same plane or does the PM have a favourite.

You know what? I think there's a good chance that the IAF will buy the Typhoon. That's because Rajiv Gandhi was in England when he met Sonia ji and Rahul also worked for a brief period in England. All these meet IAF's requirements since there's solid politics behind it - even the PM extolled on the virtues of the British Raj some years ago! And so get ready to see the Eurofighter with IAF's roundels.

[I'd like to see anyone refute my reasoning above, since all decisions are supposed to be political and the chiefs have no say. And hey we also satisfy the very, very, very important criteria of RFP!]

PS: Who was it that said, something repeated often enough becomes a fact? I'm sure some folks here know the guys name since they are following his tactics.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 19 Oct 2010 13:40

That was Goebbels.

I still dont get the demand for a MRCA style competition. Who will compete? There are no planes to have a competition that meet the required specs, and are available in the near term.

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Oct 2010 13:40

Perhaps they will.

Certainly they can draw in the deep knowledge that resides in this thread.

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Oct 2010 13:43

Tanaji wrote:That was Goebbels.

I still dont get the demand for a MRCA style competition. Who will compete? There are no planes to have a competition that meet the required specs, and are available in the near term.

Aha Tanaji, why did you let out the name of the very "fine" German "gentleman"? I was hoping to see the name written by certain members here.

As regards your other point, so what? We still did not satisfy the clerical requirement of sending out RFPs, even if they went out to companies who haven't built a new plane in years. And also did not go out to Airbus despite the fact that they have a 37 ton aircraft (with a huge waiting list) which is smaller (in terms of lift capacity) to the existing IL76. Sending out an RFP is an end in itself not a means to an end, why don't you get that?

Of course this assumes 400 per cent that the ACM was lying through his teeth when he said the IAF had considered several aircraft before deciding on the C17.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 19 Oct 2010 14:10

This is a rant.

Guys, If we are going to have so much heat burn on C17 (expensive) and the P8I (empty shell oof 737 to quote philip) . What about the PAK FA. The aircraft is an empty shell. just one prototype is in the air. The avionics capability is missing. The aircraft is to be "developed". Supposidely to enter service by 2020. To be funded by India in the name of Joint development.

The LCA will be killed by MMRCA but I don't see the MMRCA generating so much emotion.

Just because IAF is buying the C17 that has no equals in capability. And members are attacking it left right and center. Because it is American.

Lets take hypothically, The IAF drafted a requirement and the IL 76 could not meet it then what. It is another matter that the IL 76 as availabel tops out at 40 tons and the prototype tops out at 60 tons. How will it compete with a design that can easily carry 70+ tons. If not the IL 76 then what, An 124, surely it can beat the C17. The plant to build it doesnot exist. That it will require massive investments to reopen the plant and recreate the supplier network is irrelevent to some. Same for the IL 76. The factory is bankrupt. The suppliers are out of business. But IAF ought to have given IL 76 a chance. What great wisdom.

We must only buy Russian. American with an assurance of life time of spares supply and service from the manufacturer must not be bought at any cost.

Rant OFF.

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Oct 2010 14:36

Pratyush wrote:This is a rant.

Guys, If we are going to have so much heat burn on C17 (expensive) and the P8I (empty shell oof 737 to quote philip) . What about the PAK FA. The aircraft is an empty shell. just one prototype is in the air. The avionics capability is missing. The aircraft is to be "developed". Supposidely to enter service by 2020. To be funded by India in the name of Joint development.

Boss very good point. I demand we send out RFPs to every plane manufacturer, including HAL, for our requirement of a fifth generation aircraft before committing billions of dollars on the PAK FA.

It's another matter we didn't do that for the SU-30MKI, the Gorky or the T90 because they came before the requirement for RFPs. Now that we have this requirement we must send out RFPs to everybody before joining the Russians and committing billions.

If we don't do that, I'm sure CAG will have a field day!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Oct 2010 16:51

I agree with Sanku.
Noooooooo I am shocked

can visualise Sanku furiously ringing up CAG members

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Oct 2010 18:19

Austin wrote:
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.

Nope. Our Il-78s use the D-30s. Only the Phalcons have the PS-90s. Frankly, I do not understand why the IAF hasn't tried to re-engine them along with the Il-76 fleet.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Oct 2010 20:14

Kaps

Cannot answer diff between charters and mercenaries and armd dealers running IL 76 flights into africa

and the IAF operating them.

But next time we can ask the question to "you know who" aka the ascendant one

.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Oct 2010 00:27

Tanaji wrote:That was Goebbels.

I still dont get the demand for a MRCA style competition. Who will compete? There are no planes to have a competition that meet the required specs, and are available in the near term.

So if there is no one to compete, C 17 will win by default. They could have sent a RFI (forget the other steps for the moment) to all and sundry.

Would have taken 6 months or so extra at most.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Oct 2010 00:58

So if there is no one to compete, C 17 will win by default. They could have sent a RFI (forget the other steps for the moment) to all and sundry.

Err but that did not happen with Arty did it??

Single vendor - back we go into issuing new requirements

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Oct 2010 07:53

nachiket wrote:Nope. Our Il-78s use the D-30s. Only the Phalcons have the PS-90s. Frankly, I do not understand why the IAF hasn't tried to re-engine them along with the Il-76 fleet.

Probably the dont feel the need to re-engine it , they have some upgrades for D-30 available , will just boil down to cost vs benefit. Ofcourse we are just assuming that engine is the issue which may not be the case.

It simply may not be a problem and could be Shiv Aroor invention , the last interview to Force the IAF chief mentioned the IL-78 tanker were doing well.

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 Oct 2010 09:26

Austin wrote:It simply may not be a problem and could be Shiv Aroor invention , the last interview to Force the IAF chief mentioned the IL-78 tanker were doing well.

Not really Austin.

You seem to have forgotten that the IAF was mighty miffed that the MoF shot down its proposal to buy the Airbus Tanker and that too only six years after getting the IL78 tanker.

What the IAF said - (to paraphrase), you can look up the article, it's linked somewhere in this thread - that even though the upfront cost of the Airbus bird is higher its total lifetime cost is lower on account of lower maintenance requirements. The article also mentioned that the IAF was unhappy with the IL76 tanker because of heavy maintenance woes.

Let's not flog dead horses all over again!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Oct 2010 10:58

^^^ I am talking about FH Major Interview to FORCE , he clearly mentioned that IL-78 was doing fine in the IAF and the reason IAF preffered A-330 was because it was the next generation tanker.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Oct 2010 11:33

the IL78 carries 40t of transferable fuel? if true, topping up 4.5t (50% fuel) into permit around 8 MKI to refuel or 16 smaller a/c max.

the A330 is claimed to carry 90-100t of fuel that is transferable in its basic format iirc from the earlier thread we had. it can probably hang around a lot longer refueling a/c returning to south india from strikes in tibet/china/pak or else accompany a half squadron of planes deep into the ocean and do two refuelings (inbound and outbound) to extend the reach. and it will have no problem with oceanic work being civilian cleared for london-australia routes for instance.

being bigger sure has its advantages. its a real beast of a plane - one of them did a 22hr nonstop london-sydney flight empty as a proving test. we need around 15-20 asap

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Oct 2010 11:36

Surya wrote:
So if there is no one to compete, C 17 will win by default. They could have sent a RFI (forget the other steps for the moment) to all and sundry.
Err but that did not happen with Arty did it??

Single vendor - back we go into issuing new requirements

Precisely

Well then, if you think the multi-vendor system is flawed, ask the MoD to change the system, for all, as long it stands, short circuiting it is no good.

If Arty suffers, why the special treatment to C 17?

In the end it comes to that, for a whole host of critical requirements, the process is a followed, even if a b****, why is C 17 special.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Oct 2010 12:20

Sanku wrote: Precisely

Well then, if you think the multi-vendor system is flawed, ask the MoD to change the system, for all, as long it stands, short circuiting it is no good.

The DPP has provisions for single vendor orders. No short circuiting required.

If Arty suffers, why the special treatment to C 17?

In the end it comes to that, for a whole host of critical requirements, the process is a followed, even if a b****, why is C 17 special.

In the IAF's opinion there aren't any viable alternatives to the C-17. The same doesn't hold for the competing artillery guns.

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 Oct 2010 12:23

Question for Sanku.

Going by your logic, shouldn't we at least send out a RFI and or RFP before committing billions to the PAK-FA? After all there are two viable alternatives out there and one has already been flying for several years?

Take it as a hypothetical question.

Thanks.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 20 Oct 2010 12:51

I think this post of mine is inappropriate... but I wonder sometimes, do some of the posters on this board have an interest (financial, management etc) in Russian arms sales?

Just as brokers are legally required to disclose their own holdings for full disclosure, sometimes I wish it would apply here.

I dont in any way mean to suggest that posters are dishonest, but having an interest in a particular vendor may result in a slight bias. Of course, it is entirely possible that posters are above all that...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Oct 2010 14:49

Tanaji , I do not think any Arms Dealer or people having any financial interest in Russian,US or European arms will spend even a minute on any forums promoting their favourites arms , they have nothing to gain and will be wasting their time.

People who post here are quite passionate about their choice and defend their favourite toys/military ware very passionately , that happens in any forum be it Bikes, Cars or even open source products forums like Linux.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Oct 2010 15:20

Which 5th-gen fighters have been offered to us with FULL on board eqpt.? Answer,other than the PAK-FA none.Take the US's attitude for example.They won't even SELL Japan the F-22,let alone co-produce it.They refused pet (ex) poodle Britain inferior JSF tech.angering the Brits who are forced to buy US Trident missile tech.,who gave them the the full Harrier tech,etc.We are getting an "empty shell",that's the gospel truth,of the P-8I,to be filled up with Israeli and French avionics and eqpt. because we haven't signed on the dotted line of various US conditional agreements.All that has bene offered to us regarding US LRMP tech. is an earlier model of P-3 Orion eqpt. which has already been sold to Pak!

The PAK-FA is being offered to us at the development stage,where we can specify and co-design all the exotic technology required to OUR requirements.If money was Russia's objective,then why has this aircraft not been offered to anyone,with the Chinese deliberately kept out? Will this succeed? Take the "Proof of the Pudding" test, the SU-30MKI acquisition.It has been the finest acquisition of the IAF in its history,even better than acquiring the MIG-21 in large numbers and licence producing it in India.We have taken this superb platform and equipped it with the best of the west avionics and eqpt. wise,including indigenous eqpt.It has proven itself a winner in all exercises with US and western aircraft and will shortly exercise with the RAF's far more expensive Typhoons.
With this track record of India buying,using and improving upon Soviet/Russian eqpt., we have another potential winner in the PAK-FA.Anyway,this is the C-17 thread and we should get back on track with that issue.Being a lowly transport ,it is an easy disposable product for the US,as no TOT is involved,but will make us attached to Uncle Sam's spurs for quite a while.

I can only recommend to members wanting India to buy the C-17 and other US products,the latest TOI article asking why we are to spend/give Obama billions on his visit,filling his pockets,with which he is going to simultanelously give Pak the same amount in billions in US aid so that it can continue to wage terror against India? Where are India's interests Dr.Singh-being sacrificed at the altar of the Mess-iah and Uncle Sam?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Oct 2010 15:43

Tanaji

Well at least one poster operates a little business which involves dealing for Russi stuff (not arms).
So its possible - may nto be direct arms business but some ancillary front.

Of course to some extent Austin may be right.

But one could combine passion and business

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Oct 2010 16:04

Well sanku even arty finally we are going FMS route and getting some qty of arty.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 20 Oct 2010 16:08

Buy the bloody C-17 but please negotiate the price properly.

Figures like 4.4 billion and 5.8 billion scare people.

yeah and I know spares, support, consultancy, new infrastructure yada yada . but even then the price needs to be looked into especially since the tanker contract was cancelled on cost grounds.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Oct 2010 16:11

The PAK-FA is being offered to us at the development stage,where we can specify and co-design all the exotic technology required to OUR requirements.If money was Russia's objective,then why has this aircraft not been offered to anyone,with the Chinese deliberately kept out?

If you still have no answers for this then its hard to argue. Hint hint su 27 copies and shrinking Russian hold on the East,

D Roy

agree - the price is an issue for me

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 20 Oct 2010 16:36

Capability is certainly not the issue. the Air chief has made that clear and I daresay their study carefully considering more technical parameters than has been discussed here has shown the C-17 to be optimal.

Also given Uzbekistan's issues with producing the IL-76, the chinese order backlog and the new facility in Russia itself still not totally ready the Ilyushin is dicey even if we say forget for a moment the VHTAC/HTAC issue.

But the prices being quoted right now for the Globemaster are horrendous. Especially since India wants to space out the delivery over a mediumish period.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 20 Oct 2010 16:44

See all the COMSEC equipment can be stripped out anyway given that we ain't ever gonna sign no CISMOA.

other Yamrikhan bells and whistles can be done away with as well. So the price with spare engines and other support equipment should be in the 2.5- 3 billion range for 10 fatsos not more.

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 Oct 2010 16:46

Philip wrote:Which 5th-gen fighters have been offered to us with FULL on board eqpt.? Answer,other than the PAK-FA none.Take the US's attitude for example.

Philip,

This is what happens when you post without bothering to read what other posters are posting/saying.

Now let me explain the context to you.

The ACM has said that after looking at various factors and planes the IAF decided that the C17 fits its requirements. For a lot of posters here, including myself, it's enough that the ACM thinks so.

Now Sanku is asking, if I'm reading him right, is this: How does the ACM know this without issuing a RFI and/or RFP to various manufacturers (various but I suspect specifically two Russian ones). He also goes on to argue that MoD has laid out a guideline that purchases should go through the RFI/RFP route come hell come high water. And thus IAF ERRED (here the political decision thingy comes to play) in not sending out RFI/RFPs as that was the only way they could know that indeed the C17 is the right choice and there's no competitors.

Now, if you take this line of argument and apply it to the case of the 5th gen plane, can you tell me how you know that the other two fifth generation fighters out there would not share all technologies with us unless you send a RFI and/or RFP to them? How do you know EDS wouldn't be willing to collaborate with HAL to build a 5th generation fighter from scratch without sending a RFI and/or RFP to them?

In short how do you know that PAK-FA is the best and only plane on offer to IAF without the RFI/RFP route being taken? Don't you think CAG would have a field day?

PS: It's another matter that I personally think PAK-FA is indeed a the best plane for India because I think while the RFI/RFP route is a good one, it's only a means to an end not the end in itself.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 20 Oct 2010 16:54

This is from the DSCA notification:

The Government of India (GOI) requests a possible sale of 10 Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft, 45 F117-PW-100 engines (40 installed and 5 spare engines), 10 AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems, 10 AN/AAR-47Missile Warning Systems, spare and repairs parts, repair and return, warranty, pyrotechnics, flares, other explosives, aircraft ferry and refueling support, crew armor, mission planning system software, communication equipment and support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $5.8 billion.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/ ... _10-08.pdf

Also about the spaced out buy:

India is expected to purchase 10 C-17s between FY-11 and FY 14. While New Delhi could
purchase all 10 aircraft at once, the documents show it would likely purchase three planes
per year in FY-11 through FY-13 and the remaining aircraft in FY-14. Qatar, which is in the
process of receiving its first two C-17s, is expected to buy two more in FY-12, and the
United Arab Emirates is expected to buy four aircraft in FY-11.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf

But in 2009 the initial reports were like:

India is negotiating the purchase of Boeing’s C-17 Globemaster Heavy-Lift aircraft in a
deal with the United States that is estimated at about $1.7 billion.
India already possesses a fleet of 40 Russian-made Ilyushin-76 Garjaj transporters.
But experts and several Indian defense officials say that the inclusion of an entirely new
bird to its transport fleet would boost the country’s air force capabilities.
No details of the deal have been disclosed by India’s Ministry of Defense. But local and
international media experts say the negotiation centers on the purchase of 10 C-17
aircraft made by the U.S.-based Boeing, the world’s second-largest plane maker.
While reports pegged the deal price at $1.7 million, analysts question the size of the
discount that the United States could be offering to India.
Specifically, each aircraft costs $250 million and the U.S. Congress has authorized $2.5
billion for 10 of the heavy-lift transport planes for the country’s air force. The plane,
though, is an aircraft that the U.S. Department of Defense does not want to retain for
domestic use.

“India eyeing 10 C-17s”, UPI wire report of November 17, 2009, obtained from UPI.com.

So what happened? Initially it was a nicey nice 2 billionish deal.

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 Oct 2010 16:58

D Roy, if I'm not mistaken a lot of the extra pricing is due to the logistic support and maintenance guarantees. But even then it's hell'va pricey plane.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 20 Oct 2010 17:07

Amit,

That's exactly what has been spelled out in the DSCA release. Read from above

The Government of India (GOI) requests a possible sale of 10 Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft, 45 F117-PW-100 engines (40 installed and 5 spare engines), 10 AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems, 10 AN/AAR-47Missile Warning Systems, spare and repairs parts, repair and return, warranty, pyrotechnics, flares, other explosives, aircraft ferry and refueling support, crew armor, mission planning system software, communication equipment and support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $5.8 billion.

5.8 billion is scary shit.
The requirement is understood. The question is how does one get the price down?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 Oct 2010 17:09

i suspect that US inspectors will also be required to come and sign-off the goods to "certify" that all eez vell... which is really why cismoa and all that jazz is a pain in the musharraf

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Oct 2010 17:47

Will people stop getting scared by the price? It is only the estimated price, not the final one. After the MoD negotiators are done, we will either have a price acceptable to the MoF or if the price is still too high, the MoF will shoot down the deal like they did with the tankers. Nothing to worry about IMO.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 20 Oct 2010 17:52

It is not an estimated price by Raam Pyare on BR. It is very much an official DSCA notification. Its not to be taken lightly.

Just as the 1 .1 billion for six C-130J-30s. which turned out to be exactly that.

koti · Post by **koti** » 20 Oct 2010 17:55

So what happened? Initially it was a nicey nice 2 billionish deal.

And we cry for the Gorshkov's price escalation!!!

The quoted price will be effectively dampen all the reasoning the beast.
OT

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 Oct 2010 18:05

Boss the Gorky price hike happened after the contract was signed, in fact much after. Here ay least everything is up front and transparent.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Oct 2010 18:07

US equipments are costly , the additional engine , communication gear ,CMDS , training ,logistics to be build from ground up for the new type , that should justify the cost of ~ $5.5 billion.

May be in the long run IAF may save on operational cost and maintenance cost of this equipment , the sunk cost could justify more numbers of C-17 that will come at lower cost.

I have the feeling we will eventually replace all the IL-76 with C-17 and will maintain two types of transport aircraft MTA for short and medium leg and C-17 for long leg.