C-17s for the IAF?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4953
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Tanaji »

Lalmohan wrote: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

True. As you rightly stated, the MMRCA dhaaga, this one are just wash, dont even rinse, repeat ad nauseum

Lal chicks are the best. I will bring Khushpoo along and we will have a party.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

Some people have good taste, I hab to be saying....
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Lal Mullah ko lal salam

If the idea is to be warned for derailing the thread. :P Count me in. lal chicks rock. :P

If one brings kushpoo. I will bring ayesha.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Lalmohan »

i wonder if there was a tendering process to hire lal-chicks?
did they have to undergo rigourous performance (dance that is!) trials?
did #3 get down selected to white-ghagra status?
and where is the production line located?
enquiring minds want to know
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Tenders were issued to Ahem Ahem parties. The performers were checked out and only the most satisfying were selected. Ahem Ahem
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Surya »

It had to happen

Finally after reading these posts again and again - people cracked !!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Well I am more optimistic that, I will see elephants fly, before we see good sense prevail on the members in this thread
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Lalmohan »

when in doubt, pull the black and yellow d-ring and bring forth the lal-chicks
atleast they are more interesting.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Austin »

I think more then the Weapons Systems or Platform from US which is no doubt combat proven , it is the ability of US to influence our foreign policy or other decision as they gain access to this market is something that would likely to happen , to put it mildly 10 years from now we may be shepherded to allign our Foreign Policy or other decision to be more in tune with US ( atleast not against their interest ) else we might have some senator and congress men jumping shouting murder.

Russia for the worst that they are and French for the expensive they sound are more then happy to make money in dealing with India but would let India independently decide here foreign policy.

US would rather give us to the extent they get a firm grip of our balls and then they would just press it hard as and when it suits their need , but that is probably another debate.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Austin,

The only way to deal with the concern that you have raised will be to gain complete independence in terms of defence systems. Else we will always be at risk.

JMT
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Avid »

P-8I/C-17/C-130J are not exactly offensive systems, and the way US defines them - they definitely are not. That said, the penchant for sanctions during war is for Offensive platforms (fighter aircrafts, ammo, etc.) Consequently, the orders from the US have a certain pattern towards favoring platforms that do not automatically come under the sanctions trigger.

Secondly, the ability to keep them operating through sanctions for a few years, is relatively easier than keeping fighters etc.

Now for the comparison of IL-76/C-17 -- they are complements not substitutes!

C-17
Payload ~78 tons
Range ~4,500 km (max payload)
Cargo compartment: Length 26m; Width 5.5m; Height: 3.76 to 4.11m

IL-76D
Payload ~45-47 tons (earlier versions ~40 tons)
Range ~3,000-3,500 km (max payload)
Cargo compartment: Length 24.5; Width 3.5; Height: 3.4m
Cargo Volume: 321 m^3
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Avid »

By the way, the IAF selection of C-17 is based on its performance in Afghan operations where it has been operating from shoddy airfields. Not to mention it is capable of in-flight refueling (something that I am not aware IL-76 is able to)
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Austin »

Pratyush wrote:Austin,

The only way to deal with the concern that you have raised will be to gain complete independence in terms of defence systems. Else we will always be at risk.

JMT
True and that will never happen if the best brains we have are used to make as many deals with the best RFP and then get the best imported stuff which is second to none.

Since now we have the money ( not that we do not have other more critical needs to take care of in this country ) the defence force are on arms import spree , have money will splurge has taken over.
Anthony Hines
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 16 Jul 2009 22:09
Location: West of Greenwich

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Anthony Hines »

I guess it is time to ignore the Salesman for IL-76 and all things Russian.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Sanku »

Pratyush wrote:Austin,

The only way to deal with the concern that you have raised will be to gain complete independence in terms of defence systems. Else we will always be at risk.

JMT
Pratuysh the world is not 0 or 1. It is a fallacy to say that since we have to depend on some one outside everyone is same.

BTW this has nothing to do with C 17. The above is a generically true statement.

The world forces us to chose from the best of exisiting evils, waiting for perfection is often not a option.

To which I would like to put on record that I am the biggest votary of Indianization, and repeatedly call for massive injections of money and other infrastructure into the Def Res system, completely independent of forces budgets even.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Lalmohan »

i think selective indianization is more viable, we cant replicate everyone's industrial base all at once
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Philip »

Looking at the wider perspective of our transport fleet,I was leafing through an old article in depth on the multi-national A-400 development,which is being produced for the Europeans,Malysians too,as a transport that fits in between the C-17 sized heavylifter and the C-130s.According to the article,the C-17 is too large and expensive and NATO forces do not deploy them as regularly as the USAF,making it a more affordable aircraft to procure.The Hercules C-130J is only a stretched version and the fuselage cannot accomodate some of the newer eqpt. meant to be transported.Using turboprops too is intended to bring operating costs down.We have been offered the A-400 just recently from reports,and if the logistic footprint of the IAF is going to expand dramatically,it is worth taking a look at the aircraft even though we have signed on for the MTA.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by amit »

Philip wrote:Looking at the wider perspective of our transport fleet,I was leafing through an old article in depth on the multi-national A-400 development,which is being produced for the Europeans,Malysians too,as a transport that fits in between the C-17 sized heavylifter and the C-130s.According to the article,the C-17 is too large and expensive and NATO forces do not deploy them as regularly as the USAF,making it a more affordable aircraft to procure.The Hercules C-130J is only a stretched version and the fuselage cannot accomodate some of the newer eqpt. meant to be transported.Using turboprops too is intended to bring operating costs down.We have been offered the A-400 just recently from reports,and if the logistic footprint of the IAF is going to expand dramatically,it is worth taking a look at the aircraft even though we have signed on for the MTA.
Philip,

Do you know what is the cargo carrying tonnage for the A-400? Or is it the article that you leafed through did not mention that?

Can you check that out and educate us unwashed Abduls as to why India should buy the A-400 and not more IL-76s which by your own account is about to be available in massive numbers very soon? Surely the massed produced IL-76s would cost less than the A-400s?

The "Buy anything you want, save C-17!" chorus is now becoming surreal. Everything from the behemoth 100 ton plus An124 all the way to the A-400 are being paraded as alternatives.

Just plain silly!
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Lalmohan »

a400 costs are also astronomical
C17 is plenty good enough and more
as omid djallili would say - "belly dance!"
and i say "lal-chicks!"
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Amit, if you keep on responding to some members on this forum, you will become oldie in no time. I am sure, that is not your motivation but it looks to me that you are aiming for the status of an exalted oldie :P .
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Alright,

How about the Jingo wet dream competition for TPT fleet ofeIAF. The only constrain is to have an aircraft that is currently in prduction or is undergoing flight testing.

What aircraft will you chose and why. Don't bring the numbers to be acquired etc in the discussion as it make it accurate. So who wants to take a stab at this.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4953
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Tanaji »

Philip, before you recommend the A400, please take a look at the backlog it has, and the projected date for the first plane to reach IAF, if order were placed now. IIRC it is around 2018 time frame.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by amit »

Pratyush wrote:Amit, if you keep on responding to some members on this forum, you will become oldie in no time. I am sure, that is not your motivation but it looks to me that you are aiming for the status of an exalted oldie :P .
:D

Boss what to do I've got an obstinate streak in me. This pulling out Rabbits from the Hat show were seeing some how triggers me off even though I think I've had enough. We've been seeing variations of the following

1) Must have RFI/RFP because that is the law (only in the case of the C17 that is, not PAKFA! :rotfl: )

2) There are so many great planes out there (all of them Russian of course) so why buy C17.

3) [This one methinks is the most sophisticated] Why doesn't the Army re craft its war fighting doctrine and machinery to accommodate the shortcoming of the IL-76. For example so what the T90 or Arjun don't fit in the belly of the IL-76? Go for lighter tanks, stupid. And you know where to look for them. Why the Bear has a whole cupboard filled with them.

4) [This is another sophisticated argument as opposed to the ham handed ones in 1 and 2] Every defence deal is political - first establish this point. Once this has been established, then go on claim the Indian decision to buy C17 is political. And then comes the really clever argument and that is: We've never been able to trust the US and they've always stabbed us in the back and their geopolitical goals don't tally with ours. Ergo, don't buy C17.

We've been seeing variations of these 4 arguments pages after pages once the really technical arguments have been settled.

Oh yes do add to this list, if I have missed any variation to the merry game that is being played.

What the heck the thread is going to get shaeed in another 10 pages or so, so might as well join the fun! :)

When logical gymnastics being pursued induces vertigo, Lal-mullah's Lal-chick are always there.

But wait I really must ask Lal Mullah when he sent out the RFI and RFP for the Lal chick? Can I send out a RFI for the white ghargra chick? And to whom should I do that? Shall I pack a bottle of vodka along with by RFI?
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by amit »

Tanaji wrote:Philip, before you recommend the A400, please take a look at the backlog it has, and the projected date for the first plane to reach IAF, if order were placed now. IIRC it is around 2018 time frame.
Tanaji,

How do you expect such minor details to deter Philip?

After all he's convinced himself that the Russian have already built shinny TFTA factories which will be producing new generation IL-76s and An124 by the thousands.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by amit »

Pratyush wrote:but it looks to me that you are aiming for the status of an exalted oldie :P .
Boss I have no intention of becoming an Oldie. The quality of posts by some Oldies on this thread has me shivering in my dhoti! :((
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Philip »

Guys,don't shoot the postman please! I haven't offered it to the GOI,it is the manufacturers who have! Why not take a look-"nothing ventured,nothing gained",after all the aircraft has emerged,is flying while the MTA has yet to emerge and will do so only aftre the A-400 is in production.I read a piece recently,where Boeing says that the time taken for manufacturing a C-17 is "37" months.Even if the orders are given now,the new aircraft will only emerge later on.

I do have a positive alternative though,just to show members that I am objective in my outlook,If we need the C-17,why can't we lease out C-17s from the huge stock that the USAF has? They have enough and more,"no more" said Gates.If Boeing can provide us with USAF C-17s on lease in the interim while new ones are being manufactured,it would help the IAF right now with its vast obligations.A lease also puts the onus on the operational capability of the aircraft on the owner/manufacturer with respect to spares after-sales support, maintenance,etc.I can't undersatnd why this option hasn't been thought of as NATO leases out AN-124s.Just take a dekko as to who is leasing An-124s,NATO,Germany +18 countries ,Atlas-V launch vehicles shipped and...C-17 manufacturers Boeing too!

AN-124 lease details:
Antonov 124
The Antonov An-124 Ruslan (NATO reporting name: Condor) is the largest aircraft ever mass produced, and was, until the advent of the Antonov An-225, the largest aircraft in production. It flew for the first time in 1982. Over forty are currently in service in Russia and Ukraine.

Physically, the An-124 is similar to the American Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, but is larger in many dimensions. An-124s have been used to carry locomotives, yachts, aircraft fuselages, and a variety of other oversized cargoes. Up to 150 tonnes of cargo can be carried in a military An-124: it can also carry 88 passengers in an upper deck behind the cockpit.

Germany intends to lease An-124s for NATO strategic airlift requirements as a stopgap until the Airbus A400M is available. Boeing also has used the Russian cargo company Volga-Dnepr to ship oversize aircraft components to their Everett plant with their An-124 fleet. Specifically, the An-124 is the only means of airlifting the General Electric GE90 turbofan engines used in the Boeing 777 airliner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124
In May 2008, at the Berlin Air Show, it was reported that the governments of Russia and Ukraine were closing in on final details to restart production of the An-124. The new variant, to be known as the An-124-150, will feature several new features including a maximum lift capacity of 150 tonnes.[9] However, an announcement by Antonov's partner, United Aircraft Corporation in May 2009 does not include any planned production for An-124s in the period 2009 – 2012.[10] In late 2009, it was reported that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered production of the aircraft resumed. It is expected that Russia will be purchasing 20 new aircraft.[11]

The plane has an on-board overhead crane capable of lifting up to 30tons of cargo, and items up to 120tons can be winched on board.[12] Some planes have a limit of 20tons for the crane.[13
More lease details:

A Volga-Dnepr An-124 at Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville, California.Germany led the recent effort to lease An-124s for NATO strategic airlift requirements. Two aircraft are leased from SALIS GmbH as a stopgap until the Airbus A400M is available.[14] Under NATO SALIS programme NAMSA is chartering six An-124-100 transport aircraft. According to the contract An-124-100s of Antonov Airlines and Volga-Dnepr are used within the limits of NATO SALIS programme to transport cargo by requests of 18 countries: Belgium, Hungary, Greece, Denmark, Canada, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland, France, Germany, Czech Republic and Sweden. Two An-124-100s are constantly based on full-time charter in the airport of Leipzig/Halle, but in case of necessity two more aircraft are to be provided on six days notice and another two on nine days notice.[15] The current contract is valid until 31 December 2010. The aircraft proved extremely useful for NATO especially with ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.[16]

Russian cargo company Volga-Dnepr has contracts with Boeing to ship outsize aircraft components to their Everett plant. The An-124 is used for airlifting (in fully assembled form) the massive General Electric GE90 turbofan engines used in the Boeing 777 airliner.

United Launch Alliance contracts the An-124 to transport the Atlas V launch vehicle from its facilities near Denver to Cape Canaveral. Two flights are required to transfer each launch vehicle (one for the Atlas V main booster stage and another for the Centaur upper stage).[17]

Space Systems Loral contracts the An-124 to transport satellites from Palo Alto, CA to the Arianespace spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.[18]

Rolls-Royce contracts the Antonov An-124 to transport the Trent family engines to and from their test facilities worldwide.

Polet Airlines An-124 being loaded with 1/3 model of an Airbus A380 centre fuselage section in Emirates Airline livery.Airbus Transport International has selected another Russian cargo company, Polet Airlines as "designated carrier" to the company. Polet expects its three An-124-100s will transport astronautic equipment manufactured by EADS, which is Airbus' parent company, and full-size components of a model of the Airbus A380 superjumbo.[19] As the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 is the only A380 engine that can be transported whole in a Boeing 747F,[20] the competing Engine Alliance GP7200 needs a larger aircraft, like the An-124, if it is to be shipped in one piece.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Is the US stock available for leasing?
Has the US ever leased any equipment to any one when it is still in fronline service in the recent past.
Will the AN 124 operator allow the AC to be operated by the IAF to supply a base that is under siege by the PLA.


The question I have is why are you not advocation the leasing of tankers as an alternative to the proposed Tanker buy in order to save costs. A tanker leasing company exises in the US. The tankers in question are MD 10 and some IL 78s.

Or even the C130J from the USAF to prevent its purchase.
Last edited by Pratyush on 22 Oct 2010 13:49, edited 1 time in total.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4953
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Tanaji »

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/ ... -india.htm

From the horse's mouth:
Currently 180 aircraft are ordered by the seven launch nations, with an additional four from Malaysia.

"We can consider selling A400M to India after fulfilling the orders of the launch nations as we see India as a major market," Vernet said, adding they plan to manufacture 30 aircraft per year.
So, my bad. Its at least 2016 assuming deliveries start next year.

Added later:

If you believe Wikipedia:
Currently 184 aircraft are ordered by 8 nations.[6] First deliveries to the French Air Force are planned to take place at the end of 2012. Deliveries of the current orders will conclude in 2025
Lets leave the 2025 date. If one assumes first delivery in 2012, then my initial comment about 2018 as the first date by which the plane will arrive if order is placed now is correct.

This is sad. All this has been said on the earlier pages.

I have half a mind to write up a FAQ on this thread, and have it up as a sticky. Then we can just cut and paste every time, since the same arguments are being hashed again and again.
Last edited by Tanaji on 22 Oct 2010 13:58, edited 1 time in total.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4953
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Tanaji »

All this leasing begs the question, if the An 124 is so much in demand, why hasn't production started already?
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Kersi D »

Pratyush wrote:Well I am more optimistic that, I will see elephants fly,
You might hit the bottle and see pink elephants flying.

But do not expect desi netas and babus to do something that is really beneficial to the nation and not just to them.

K


PS
If you hit the bottle on your head than too you may see pink elephants flying. But you still will not see desi netas and babus to do something that is really beneficial to the nation and not just to them.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Lalmohan »

leasing US ac might be problematic, what with the CISMOA and all that jazz...
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Kersi D »

Anthony Hines wrote:I guess it is time to ignore the Salesman for IL-76 and all things Russian.
NO Anthony NO

I think Russians have some superb systems. Off hand I would say that AN 32 and Mi 8/17 are too good systems to even think of floating tenders for their substitutes.

K
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Budy,

Am non alcholic, so no chance of either drowning in a bottle or hitting my self with it. Some one can sure hit me with it when I am not looking though :P
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Kersi D wrote: I think Russians have some superb systems. Off hand I would say that AN 32 and Mi 8/17 are too good systems to even think of floating tenders for their substitutes.

K
Very true

The repalcement of MI 8 can be Mi 17, no issues with that. If need bigger then I am konphused onlee :((
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by amit »

Philip wrote:Guys,don't shoot the postman please! I haven't offered it to the GOI,it is the manufacturers who have! Why not take a look-"nothing ventured,nothing gained",after all the aircraft has emerged,is flying while the MTA has yet to emerge and will do so only aftre the A-400 is in production.I read a piece recently,where Boeing says that the time taken for manufacturing a C-17 is "37" months.Even if the orders are given now,the new aircraft will only emerge later on.
Philip,

Can you educate us as to how the A400 with 37 tons cargo lift capacity and the MT which is proposed to have around 24 tons or so (if my memory serves me right) will satisfy the IAFs requirement of Very Heavy Lift Capacity?

And I'll ask you yet again, even though I know you'll evade the question.

How the heck do you lump a 100 ton plus aircraft along with a 37 ton aircraft as alternatives to the C17

Regarding your new strawman about leasing C17 from the US, what makes you think that Uncle Sam would be persuaded to do so?

I see I have to add point No5 to my post above about "arguments" on this thread.
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Kersi D »

Avid wrote:
Now for the comparison of IL-76/C-17 -- they are complements not substitutes!

C-17
Payload ~78 tons
Range ~4,500 km (max payload)
Cargo compartment: Length 26m; Width 5.5m; Height: 3.76 to 4.11m

IL-76D
Payload ~45-47 tons (earlier versions ~40 tons)
Range ~3,000-3,500 km (max payload)
Cargo compartment: Length 24.5; Width 3.5; Height: 3.4m
Cargo Volume: 321 m^3
So WHY ARE WE TALKING SO MUCH !!!!

Kersi

Me still thinks that C 17s are meant to carry some long thin things like er.. like.. er... pipes for oil and gas pipelines to and from J&K, Ladakh, NE, Arunachal Pradesh etc. I know that there is some oil available in NE but I do no know about J&K & sisters.
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Kersi D »

Pratyush wrote:Budy,

Am non alcholic, so no chance of either drowning in a bottle or hitting my self with it. Some one can sure hit me with it when I am not looking though :P
Better get and wear a good helmet. Make sure its Russian and not made by one of the commie infected OFs !!

K
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by amit »

Lalmohan wrote:leasing US ac might be problematic, what with the CISMOA and all that jazz...

We can send Philip Saar to negotiate with Uncle Sam. I'm sure he can persuade them simply by issuing memo pe memo written in the same style he uses on this thread and with the same substance. The receiving officer on the US side will give his consent before committing suicide! :-)
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Lalmohan »

perhaps we should just decide if we want to form an autonomous republic within the russian federation or the 52nd state of the united states
then arguement phinish no?
we should move the cargo discussion to the indian mil aviation thread, keep this for tracking the C17 order which is pretty much a done deal
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Post by Pratyush »

Amit,

I think you ment, "the receiving officer on the US side must give his consent or commit suicide! ". Instead of, "The receiving officer on the US side will give his consent before committing suicide! "
Locked