C-17s for the IAF?

[Tanaji]

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

Not to mention the T-90 where the initial deal did not include key aspects that were pitched to make the T90 superior : Shtora etc. and we ended paying for it later

The C17 is extremely costly, that much is true... but that deal even includes stuff like crew armour, mission planning software etc... so almost everything is included...

[Philip]

Amit,I have been reading posts of members all of them.Why don't you also read mine as carefully? It is a fact that the talks for co-development of the 5th-gen fighter have been on for a long time.Russia gave India first bite at the cherry and given our success with the SU-30MKI,we chose to go along.We have a "proven track record" here.Plus,NO western country has in the past (barring the French) offered to us their best wares until a couple of years ago,when suddenly the Typhoon was touted to us.The Europeans are bankrupt and neither the French on their own nor EADS can afford to develop a fifth-gen fighter of the calibre of the F-22,Pak-FA or even the JSF.The JSF is the "poor man's" F-22,an inferior product and even that tech is being denied to closest allies like Britain,let alone India.We are still suffering from many of our labs being blacklisted by the US for high-tech and even the watered down wares being offered to us have a long list of conditionalities attached to them if we want advanced tech.The Europeans are struggling to meet their purchase committments for the Typhoon and Britain has just shown how desperate its own situation is by buthcering its armed forces.Japan and SoKo do not have the tech. and have all but abandoned their plans to develop a 5th-gen fighter on their own.Eventually,they will all end up buying different versions of the JSF at $125m+ a piece!
Fortunately,there still exists in the MOD/services that amount of common-sense that knows that it would've been a sheer waste of time to have indulged in such optimism.However,there is a massive lobby that wants the bulk of India's defence acquisitions to go to the US,by the PMO it appears.Therefore the "heavy-hitting" while Dr.Singh is PM.

My objection to the C-17 is well known.I stand by my statement that this is a deal being done in indecent haste just to save Boeing's ass and American jobs.We may indeed need a heavylifter,but this urgently,when there are other far more important decisons to be made? This is the attitude of the CWG scam being played out yet again.Blank cheques for Uncle Sam! Dr.Singh has sold his soul to the US and we are in truth financing America's military and civilian aid to Pak,with the profits it will make out of these deals.A true patriot would've told the US point blank that continuing military aid to Pak,which has always used this aid to wage war against India would see India stop purchases of big ticket defence items until such aid was stopped.But Dr.Singh and patriotism apear to be at loggerheads with each other unless his patriotism is misplaced in favour of Uncle Sam.

[shukla]

Boeing C-17 Globemaster: A $5.8bn question mark
Domain-B reports..

Even as respective embassies and consulates in India and the United States gear up to provide the necessary PR overhang that will attend US president Barack Obama's visit to India next month, reports have also begun to circulate that the mammoth $5.8-billion deal for 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster heavy lift transport aircraft may well be announced in advance to allow for a formal signing event later when the US presidential entourage eventually arrives in Delhi.

What has puzzled observers is the fact that on current prices the order for the ten C-17 aircraft should have cost the Indian Air Force close to $2.2 billion but the deal is being talked about as being $5.8 billion in size. The discrepancy is sought to be explained away as related to excess expenditure on additional equipment and support infrastructure.

There are two problems with the whole programme which nobody is making any effort to explain. What happens to the spare parts and support regime for the aircraft when the factory production lines of the aircraft shut down? The lines, indeed, will shut down for orders for the aircraft have dried up.

even conceding the fact that India doubles its order to 20, the production lines are not going to remain open for very long. As a matter of fact, workers at the Boeing Long Beach, California plant that produces the aircraft have received a 58-month contract from their employers after a two-week strike in June. This means that Boeing calculates on keeping the lines open till 2015 at the most, assuming enough orders are on hand to keep the plant in operation till then.

So, what kind of strategic reserves does the IAF propose to accumulate to keep the fleet flying for the next 30-45 years? The USAF has accumulated a fleet strength of around 203 of these aircraft. Beyond a point of time it will began a process of cannibalisation, if needed, to maintain its existing fleet, wherein you scrap an existing aircraft and hack out its existing parts to serve as spares for the aircraft you are still keeping in operation.

Given its small fleet of brand new 10 aircraft, India has no such options. So is this an issue that needs to be clarified? A $6-billion order works out to an astounding Rs25-30,000 crore, or thereabouts. It is not the kind of money that India can afford to throw away just to make some US politician look good when he reaches home after a leisurely international safari.

The IAF chief, according to reports, has clarified that India can operate in such a denial regime. Presumably the French and the Israelis, always ready in the wings, will step up to the plate and provide the missing links. But this would then become a 'commercial' purchase.

Under the US Foreign Military Sales route a customer gets the product at approximately the same price as its US military counterpart, making it cheaper to acquire. With differing sources for electronics and avionics what happens to the pricing? There is a further problem with respect to integration of systems.

[GeorgeWelch]

Domain-B reports..

The USAF has accumulated a fleet strength of around 203 of these aircraft. Beyond a point of time it will began a process of cannibalisation, if needed, to maintain its existing fleet, wherein you scrap an existing aircraft and hack out its existing parts to serve as spares for the aircraft you are still keeping in operation.

That is not how the USAF works.

Whether through an adequate spare pool or for contracts to keep high-demand parts in production, the USAF plans to support all aircraft through their expected life without cannibalization.

Presumably India would have access to the same sources.

[Surya]

I am confused

The article's author is concerned about spares on soon to close line

Would make sense to see how B52s etc are maintained years and decades after line is closed

[Tanaji]

Not to mention C-5, B2 Spirit, Abrams (IIRC, they dont produce it from scratch these days), submarines etc etc.

[Singha]

germany F-4 phantoms, UK nimrods, french atlantiques, P3 orions, KC-135, KC-10, Lockheed Tristar tanker, boeing 737-200 (in use with IAF VVIP sqdn ) ....

[Lalmohan]

most manufacturers maintain large tails of spares inventory in the 'aftermarket' (true for auto as well) for decades after wards

i think there are still outfits making various bits for canberras around

[Surya]

hell our very own M2Ks

after all we are spending billions more to upgrade it??

suddenly the whole whining on spare parts sounds incredibly silly especially when the same guys want to get non existent products from piece meal supply lines WHICH have given so much headaches to the IAF in the last 2 decades


Lal

I assume you mean production of spare continues as long as the economics of it are justified.

And as long as 200 odd C17s are there in use - spares will be made

[D Roy]

Yeah this plane costs a bomb alright
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOOM

July 11, 2008 – On July 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Qatar of logistics support and training for two C-17 Globemaster III aircraft and associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $400 million.
The Government of Qatar has requested a possible sale of logistics support and training for two (2) C-17 Globemaster III aircraft being procured through a Direct Commercial Sale, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical data, flight engineer training, communications equipment, maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, preparation of aircraft for shipment, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $400 million.

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/3 ... _08-53.pdf

The C-17 aircraft and engines were sold via direct commercial sale, rather than a Foreign Military Sale that must be announced by the DSCA. Based on past C-17 purchases, the initial 2 planes are likely to cost another $400-450 million.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/C-1 ... tar-04988/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND KABOOM

On March 2, 2006 the Australian Government announced the purchase of three aircraft and one option with an entry into service date of 2006. The Australian Government's 2006-07 budget (May 2006) included funding of A$2.2 billion to fund the purchase of three or four C-17s and related spare parts and training equipment.In July 2006 a fixed price contract was awarded to Boeing to deliver four C-17s for US$780m (AUD$1bn). Work on the aircraft will be completed in phases, with the first C-17 delivered to Australia in December 2006 and follow on deliveries continuing through to February 2008.

http://www.aviationearth.com/aircraftda ... aster.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND BAM

The sale includes 18 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines, 4 AN/AAQ-24v13 LAIRCM (Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures) Systems, 20 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles, Electronic Combat International Security Assistance Program software equipment, mission planning system and software, COMSEC equipment, spare and repair parts, Personnel Life Support equipment, flares, supply support, training equipment and support, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support.

The estimated cost is USD $1.3 billion…. but Canada’s entire program has a limit of about USD $3 billion. Which also leads one to ask what happened with the expected competition – and where are the 4 C-17s to go with all of this gear?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/can ... ort-02635/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A $51.8 million cost-plus-incentive fee, firm-fixed-price and time and materials contract modification to incorporate Canada’s C-17 aircraft into the global C-17 “virtual fleet.”

Boeing Co. in Long Beach, CA was awarded an $80.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee/ fixed-price award-fee/ time-and-materials contract modification. This contract modification is a foreign military sales requirement for Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) C-17 Globemaster IIIs to join the international C-17 Sustainment Partnership Program. This action incorporates the RAAF’s 4 aircraft into the C-17 “virtual fleet” which includes aircraft maintenance, upgrade, and sustainment. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH is the contracting activity (FA8614-04-C-2004/P00110).

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/273 ... -uk-01273/

So there is a global sustainment partnership which by Globemaster standards is not that bad. A 100 odd million will get you in.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so everybody pays 2x for their deal.
BUT ours may cost proportionately more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should note that the C-17 hasn't had too many export orders, and I think it is because of its sheer cost. Very few people can afford to have strategic lifters of this kind.


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


The only way in which this deal can get a licky boom boom down is if we buy many more fatties in the future and they cost less than half as much given that all the infrastructure would already be in place.

That would mean that we make a conscious decision to do away with calls to also buy something new in the "40 ton class" and simply accept that our hi-lo mix will be C-17 - MTA, something on the lines of what Austin was guessing.

Given the IAF's piece meal acquisition system, there is a likelihood that more than 16 will be obtained. Otherwise paying such a huge premium for these fatboys is difficult to justify, funny as this logic sounds.

[Sanku]

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...

So this is what it comes to when there are no answers to the real questions.


@Amit, please look up the word partnership and acquisition in dictionary, but it doesn't matter, dont let facts get in your way.

[Sanku]

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

Sure but after exhausting the preferred route (and that too because of sabotage really speaking)

[Austin]

But one could combine passion and business

Nobody every got rich$ by posting at BRF , if it is other wise just let me know

[nachiket]

In the arty deal, there were viable alternatives present, which were all available and provided approximately the same performance. If the IA had actually gone in for a single-vendor deal in this case, it would have been highly inappropriate. Suspicious even.(That the worthies in the MoD and CBI sabotaged the deal either out of sheer stupidity or palm-greasing by vested interests is another matter).
In the case of the C-17, as per ACM Naik himself, they did not find any other aircraft that fit their requirements. Now before you cry "No RFI", let me just say something. At the beginning of the MRCA saga, the IAF did not send out RFIs to the F-15 or the Su-35. Because the knew, that these aircraft would never fit their requirements (weight, cost etc. in this case). The IAF did not need to send an RFI to find out what they already knew through open sources. RFI cannot be the first step in the deal. Preliminary technical studies first have to identify aircraft which may satisfy the requirements. If all other "competitors" (if paper planes can be called "competitors") are eliminated at this stage itself, what is the point of sending out RFIs? ACM Naiks clearly states in his interview that they did a thorough tecnhnical study and did not find any other aircraft that could do the job.

[Surya]

Nobody every got rich$ by posting at BRF , if it is other wise just let me know

I will I will if I come across one

But I am sure the motive need not be to be rich

Sometimes just limping along comfortably is not a bad option

[Surya]

Sure but after exhausting the preferred route (and that too because of sabotage really speaking)

And so why ask ourselves to jump into that volcano again???

Especially since unfortunately there is nothing else out there to match??

And do we want another M2K tamasha where after dilly dallying the line closed and now we have the MRCA tamasha??

All this to satisfy a procedure??

- lets argue about something valid - cost etc. but to willingly screw ourselves in another area??

[Gilles]

Historically, most nations could not afford Strategic Airlift. The C141 Starlifter first flew in 1963. No one outside the US Air Force purchased any. It was too expensive. Many Air Forces considered it, including Canada who at the time maintained military bases in Germany as a NATO member. Lockheed Martin even obtained an FAA civil certification for the C-141, designated as the L-300. They received no orders because it was too expensive for airlines. The C-5 Galaxy which first flew in 1968 had no takers either outside the US Air Force. Too expensive. Then when the C-17 first flew in 1993, it too had no takers. Several Air Forces looked at it but balked at the cost. In 1998, the Royal Air Force was interested and had tender in which a westernized An-124 competed against the C-17.

The Short-Term Strategic Airlift (STSA) procurement process ran from January 1998 to May 2000. The specified requirement was to deploy the Joint Rapid Reaction Force (JRRF) over a distance of 3,200 miles within seven days. The competition was "terminated" by the Government on the advice of the Chief of Defence Procurement (CDP), Sir Robert Walmsley, in July 1999. The competition was halted because no one bidder had, in the view of the DPA project team, met the needs of the Ministry of Defence. Of the three relevant bids, that of IBP, based on the standard Antonov An-124 100, was judged to have too many political risks because it was dependent on co-operation from agencies of the former Soviet Union. The Air Foyle/Antonov bid, based on the proposed Antonov An-124 210, was judged to be delayed by potential technical risk because the aircraft was to have been modified with Rolls-Royce engines and Western avionics. The MOD project team evaluation that four years would be needed to successfully modify and certificate the aircraft was made without any reference to the aircraft Design Authority, Antonov, who had declared that two years was required to complete the task. The customer's preferred choice, the C-17 bid from Boeing/British Aerospace, was judged to be unaffordable as it exceeded in price the budget allocated for the procurement and operation. The price could not be negotiated down, despite a special meeting between CDP and Harry Stonecipher, the Chief Operations Officer of Boeing, at the Paris Air Show in July 1999. At this time Boeing planned to sell four C-17s to the MOD for use by the RAF, and the budget set for the STSA programme was £500 million. The competition was not part of the Smart Procurement Initiative (SPI); no Integrated Project Team was formed; discussions were adversarial rather than co-operative. The competition was halted on 5 August 1999 and the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) initiated a new process to provide the capability the MOD sought.

(500 million pounds represented 809 million US dollars in 1999)

To go around the pricing problem, a new tender was initiated where 4 C-17s would not be purchased from Boeing but would instead be leased. The lease allowed the C-17 to be "acquired" within the budget and the C-17 won the tender. The first "RAF" leased C-17 was delivered in May 2001, 4 months before 9/11. Then the British armed forced deployed to Afghanistan and then to Iraq, which created a need for such aircraft, and the four leased C-17s were eventually purchased (they later purchased even more). It is then that Canada and Australia which both also had troops in far away Afghanistan, also ordered C-17 of which they took delivery in 2007. So for 44 years, the USA was the only "western" country that could afford Strategic Transport Aircraft, despite the Cold War.

On the Soviet side, the first true Strategic Aircraft was the An-22 which first flew in 1965. None were sold overseas. Then the IL-76 came out in 1974. Because it was so cheap, a few Air Forces were able to purchase some. The first overseas customer was Iraq in 1977, followed by Syria in 79, Libya in 80 and Cuba and India in 1985. The An-124 came out in 1985 and initially, none were sold overseas. Its only with the breakup of the USSR that new and used decommissioned Il-76 and An-124s were sold for peanuts to many countries, in addition to several of the ex Soviet Republics that kept Soviet Air Force and Aeroflot aircraft that were based on their territory.

Many third world Air Forces now own Il-76s (some purchased for just 1 million dollars) but countries such as Canada, Australia, the UK, Qatar and the UAE think they now need and can afford a type of aircraft that for several decades, only the two Superpowers were able to afford.......

Yet they are not cheaper today than they were in 1965, on the contrary, they have only gotten more expensive to purchase and to operate.

[Austin]

If one looks beyond the military needs a good number of these military transport types are operated by charter cargo carriers and its generating good revenues for them the major ones are even fully booked till 2012 , if you look at the IL-76 and An-124 types being operated by these players in good number ferrying huge cargo across the world

The impetus to restart the production line of An-124 and improved IL-76 is as much driven by these players due to market needs.

[Tanaji]

So this is what it comes to when there are no answers to the real questions.


@Amit, please look up the word partnership and acquisition in dictionary, but it doesn't matter, dont let facts get in your way.

Actually it is the other way round. Despite providing clear, logical, factual and reference backed answers to why the C-17 is being procured, the same questions are being asked over and over again and the same non starter paper planes are being thrown as an alternative. Which does beg the above observation. It is nothing personal btw.

The only valid argument (and IMHO, is a BIG argument), is the cost. The plane is very expensive.

[Lalmohan]

the C17 thread, the LCA thread and the MMRCA thread tend to be cyclical with very marginal insight generated in each new cycle, much more productive to discuss lal-chicks

[amit]

@Amit, please look up the word partnership and acquisition in dictionary, but it doesn't matter, dont let facts get in your way.

I do see deep ski marks on the hillside.

Sanku ji,

Let me point out to a post of yours on this page made to Surya

Sure but after exhausting the preferred route (and that too because of sabotage really speaking)

Now, pray tell me how do you know, without issuing a RFI and/or RFP to say Lockheed Martin that India would not be offered a partnership in the Joint Striker project? If I'm not mistaken eight nations are already partners. With the billions India is willing to spend and the numbers it is going to induct, isn't there a good chance India could have had a partnership as opposed to outright purchase? Or for the matter how are you sure without issuing a RFI/RFP to Dassault (for example) that the French company wouldn't be interested in a partnership with India to make a fifth gen plane given the amount of billions India is willing to spend?

You see you can't say IAF needed to send out a RFI/RFP to defunct air plane makers to make absolutely sure that Iluysin wouldn't offer a wide bodied super heavy IL-76 verison or that Annotov wouldn't suddenly start their production line and make a An124 to India's specifications. And at the same time be sure that India would not be offered a partnership by Lockheed or Dassault without sending out a RFI/RFP. That's the preferred route, nah?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, isn't it?

To repeat: I don't see how you can say sending a RFI/RFP was absolutely essential thing to do in the C17 case and yet argue it was perfectly OK to go the single vendor route for the PAK FA project.

Now let me grab my dictionary...

PS: FYI, I think the PAKFA is the way to go for India and the f35 shouldn't be touched with a barge pole and the French are less reliable than the Russians when it comes to joint development and we already have great working models in the SU-30MKI and Brahmos.

But then I also think given the lack of alternatives in the wide-bodied very heavy lift transport planes the C17 - even though horribly expensive - is the correct decision.

One last time: RFI/RFPs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. When open source information clearly points to the fact that there are no viable flying alternatives to the C17 the IAF has no business sending out RFIs or RFPs. Just as open source and our experience clearly tells us that the Russians are the most reliable partners as far as developing a Fifth generation plane goes. No need for RFI/RFPs.

[Sanku]

Sure but after exhausting the preferred route (and that too because of sabotage really speaking)

And so why ask ourselves to jump into that volcano again???

Because

All this to satisfy a procedure??

Yes.

Unfortunately the entire GoI works on procedure, if the procedure is so stupid (another debate) change it.

Till such time, expectationalism will be a issue -- and raise questions of properietry.

What after all is special about C 17 which is not true for Arty guns, MMRCA, choppers, Subs yada yada yada....

[Sanku]

the C17 thread, the LCA thread and the MMRCA thread tend to be cyclical with very marginal insight generated in each new cycle, much more productive to discuss lal-chicks

Yes, for different reasons, on C 17, the facts are clear but unpalatable and need dressing up and or shooting the messenger exercise.


Tanaji, sorry, *it is it is* is no answer, thats why YOU have no option but to try the tar and feather routine.

Till some one shows how data was procured to show that RFI to multiple vendors was ruled out (for what exact grand benefit ?) all questions are open, particularly in light of IAF suddenly talking about how C 17 was needed (not why strat airlift was critical) AFTER the decision was made. (I am not saying that strat airlift is not needed, just that IAF seem to find it urgent only in shape of one plane after it was shown to them, till then it was one among the list of many other requirements being pursued tepidly, like all others are being pursued tepidly)

[Lalmohan]

anyone got any nice pics of the lal-chicks?

[amit]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



I'm still curious as to what you did to the third lal-chick. Any chance for me...

[Lalmohan]

some of the white ghagra chicks looked pretty good to me too... maybe you can snag a few of those?

[Tanaji]

Another point :

It is bad to buy a C-17 because its production line is being shut down in the near future and there may be no spares available
But it is okay to buy a An 124, whose production line currently does not exist, may exist in the near future, but there is no guarantee how long it will remain open or which entity may suddenly go bankrupt.

[Sanku]

Another point :

It is bad to buy a C-17 because its production line is being shut down in the near future and there may be no spares available
But it is okay to buy a An 124, whose production line currently does not exist, may exist in the near future, but there is no guarantee how long it will remain open or which entity may suddenly go bankrupt.

No nothing of that sort.

Just send a RFI to all and ask for guarantees etc on their production and spares and proofs of back up plans (manufactured in India? All blueprints shared? A early large stock provided)

[Sanku]

anyone got any nice pics of the lal-chicks?

I want to see too......

pliss to be posting

[amit]

No nothing of that sort.

Just send a RFI to all and ask for guarantees etc on their production and spares and proofs of back up plans (manufactured in India? All blueprints shared? A early large stock provided)

All this for 10 planes, maybe 20? Shift the manufacturing to India?

This is getting interesting. And I'm sure even with all the tooling, machinery, documentation, expertise etc that is required to start a production line for something as complex as a very heavy lifter in a country which has no expertise in building such a big plane, it will still cost a fraction of the cost of the C17, right? There's a small issue of what we do when our production run is finished.

I say, bring on the RFI/RFP and what have you.

[Philip]

Though I am totally against the acquisition of C-712s for oft stated reasons,trying to be as objective as I can and playing the role of a "devil's advocate",I can only surmise that two "trains" of reason or shall we also say mutual lust colided.The first is that Boeing is closing down production shortly,the US have enough of the type,NATO have just 25 and a few allies and satellite states possess small numbers-all joined togther in a C-17 logistics "club",each promising to support the others with spares,logistics,etc.Boeing's desperation to get more orders from abroad is understandable,as there is a lot of political "push" in the US for keeping the lines open and saving thousands of US jobs in "40+ states",so we are told.This has seen it park itself outside South Block,where the IAF has been grappling with a medium-priority item,its increasing transport responsibilities within and without the country in the future,given our expanding role in the IOR.These would require a holistic assortment of transports ranging from light,medium and heavy both aircraft and helos and ideally,acquisitions should be made according to the most urgent of requirements which is that of medium and heavy helos to boost infrastructure and logistic capabilities in the Himalayas,especially on the Chinese/northern borders.

As far as heavy transports are concerned,our IL-76s are doing yeoman service and even though the Russians are to restart production of both Il-76s and AN-124s,everyone loves a new expensive toy if the GOI/MOD are-a willing to gift it! This is where Boeing has made its pitch,"buy now or forevermore hold your peace".Hoping to seize this final opportunity and with the PMO eager to please its foreign master (secret deals within the N-deal to buy US defence eqpt.),the deal is being made at hypersonic speed when compared with far more urgent and critical acquisitions like the second line of subs,artillery,further orders of Arjun (to keep Avadai running and recovering the huge investment spent on developing Arjun!),more combat and trainer (situ desperate) aircraft for the IAF,etc.,etc. Many of the above posts have raised big Qs about future spares,support,etc., once C-17 production closes.These are genuine and valid Qs and we've yet to see convincing answers.It is ironic that when ILK-76/476 and AN-124 production is going to reopen with form orders/intent announced by Russia,we are closing our options to acquiring "more of the same" and buying an aircraft that is going out of production!

The lust of three parties converging simultaneously,that of Boeing,the PMO and the IAF,is why the deal is being processed so smootlhly and with indecent haste.The prices too appear heavily inflated.Remember the famous saying,"marry in haste,repent at leisure"!

[amit]

As far as heavy transports are concerned,our IL-76s are doing yeoman service and even though the Russians are to restart production of both Il-76s and AN-124s,everyone loves a new expensive toy if the GOI/MOD are-a willing to gift it!

With your superior knowledge of all things Russian, can you tell us when the production lines will be restarted? We've been hearing of the restart for the past five years. And what would be the cost of these birds, with the same level of services and lifetime guarantees that the C17 deal is supposed to provide for?

I know these are small issue in the grand scheme of things but bean counters demand attention in these things.

[Juggi G]

anyone got any nice pics of the lal-chicks?

I want to see too......

pliss to be posting

The Lal-chicks




Very good choice Lalmohan ji, Look pretty good to me too

[Lalmohan]

juggi-g rocks!

[Tanaji]

Please also comment on how *long* they will stay open after they are started. And no, "as long as there are orders" is not an answer.

[amit]

If I didn't know better I would have thought that was Lal Mullah in the middle!

[amit]

It is ironic that when ILK-76/476 and AN-124 production is going to reopen with form orders/intent announced by Russia,we are closing our options to acquiring "more of the same" and buying an aircraft that is going out of production!

I'm sorry to say but these kinds of strawmen being posted ad nauseam begs the question: To what purpose?

We've covered this point only in the last page of this thread. Does this learned poster think that the more than 100 odd C17s that the US has will be grounded when the production stops?

The Russians haven't produced a new body AN124 for ages. Has all the existing An124s been grounded?

Sigh! Might as well bang my head against a wall.

[Lalmohan]

c'mon tanaji - don't resist any longer, come and join the lal-side
its much more fun than pontificating about things we cant tangibly determine

[amit]

I'm with you Lal-mullah.

Lal chicks (and the white ghagra ones as well) Zindabad!

[Philip]

Amit,as I've said,if we (GOI/IAF) are willing to carefully consider all options-look at how the extra Tanker deal is being delayed,the carefull evaluation of the MMRCA,the RFI for trainers (desperately needed after HT-32 grounding),long evaluation of vitally needed howitzers,etc.,it is easily possible to find out from the Russians when production will be restarted-announcements have been made and reported in AWST,and when aircraft will be available if India orders them.Just look at how long ( a couple of years now) we are taking on finalising the M-2000 upgrade deal too,when the only country that can do it best is France! Here we are bargaining on the cost,but have simply swallowed the pricetag atached to the C-17. We are "jump-starting" the acquisition and when in such indecent haste-for reasons I've given a-plenty,what more can be said? The convergence of interests of Boeing and Dr.Singh are what is fuelling this racy and lucrative deal.