C-17s for the IAF?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Oct 2010 05:42

Gilles,

India is going to buy the C-17s. Not the Il-76, An-124, the An-225 or the An-124-500SL.*. It's a done deal. The IAF (Air Marshall Naik) wants the C-17. He's going to get it.

The C-17 works and it's a 3% haircut (via FMS) to the Pentagon versus a 10% crew cut to the dilli billis for a paper airplane that will not arrive when we need it like the Gorky/Akula.

The Russian supply chain is so busted it's worse than any US sanctions.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Oct 2010 06:14

Gilles wrote: It can land 'in under 3500 feet" on dry runways when nearly empty.

If by 'nearly empty' you mean 'carrying an Abrams tank'.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Oct 2010 06:30

aha round and round we go again

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2010 10:23

Gilles wrote:The Russian Air Force F does not need any AN-124s, nor can they afford them. They pressently own 24 of them, of which at least half (or more)are grounded, for lack of funds. Polet had already purchased a few ex Russian Air Force An-124s in the past and had them upgraded to the civilians An-124-100 standard.

Gilles at the risk of going OT , the decision has already been taken and at that at the highest level in Kremlin to acquire the An-124 and start production , I have read many recent interviews by UAC , Fedrov et all and they have all said An-124 production will start.

Infact the viability of new An-124 built for commercial operation makes it profitable to start production as per UAC.

But if link is the only way to prove ones claim then I can provide you with some and that too a recent one

First from the President himself link

President Dmitry Medvedev ordered up to 20 ‘Ruslan’ planes in the defense procurement program for the period until 2020 and to resume the production of this aircraft, he said.
“If the instructions are implemented quickly, we can start the deliveries in 2014. We also hope to supply up to 20 aircraft by 2020,” Fyodorov said.
The project costs 17 billion rubles, and the UAC expects budgetary funding, he said. A renovated ‘Ruslan’ will cost $200 million.

Now the acquisiation Czar Popkin link

"We are now working on this issue... We intend to buy about 20 such aircraft," said Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin, who is in charge of arms procurement.
He said an agreement on the modernization of the Ruslan planes which are currently in service had been signed earlier this year.
"We plan to modernize two planes annually, and starting from 2015-2016, if the manufacturers are ready, we will start purchasing them," he added.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Oct 2010 10:43

Austin wrote:
Gilles wrote:The Russian Air Force F does not need any AN-124s, nor can they afford them. They pressently own 24 of them, of which at least half (or more)are grounded, for lack of funds. Polet had already purchased a few ex Russian Air Force An-124s in the past and had them upgraded to the civilians An-124-100 standard.
Gilles at the risk of going OT , the decision has already been taken and at that at the highest level in Kremlin to acquire the An-124 and start production , I have read many recent interviews by UAC , Fedrov et all and they have all said An-124 production will start.

Infact the viability of new An-124 built for commercial operation makes it profitable to start production as per UAC.

But if link is the only way to prove ones claim then I can provide you with some and that too a recent one

First from the President himself link

President Dmitry Medvedev ordered up to 20 ‘Ruslan’ planes in the defense procurement program for the period until 2020 and to resume the production of this aircraft, he said.
“If the instructions are implemented quickly, we can start the deliveries in 2014. We also hope to supply up to 20 aircraft by 2020,” Fyodorov said.
The project costs 17 billion rubles, and the UAC expects budgetary funding, he said. A renovated ‘Ruslan’ will cost $200 million.
Now the acquisiation Czar Popkin link

"We are now working on this issue... We intend to buy about 20 such aircraft," said Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin, who is in charge of arms procurement.
He said an agreement on the modernization of the Ruslan planes which are currently in service had been signed earlier this year.
"We plan to modernize two planes annually, and starting from 2015-2016, if the manufacturers are ready, we will start purchasing them," he added.

Oh I was not doubting your claims, one bit and I also believe that the Russian Air Force claims it wants to order 20 An-124s. But will it put its money where its mouth is? I don't think so. Now if India had placed an order for 10 of them, the plant would already be milling with activity because that desire would have been accompanied by a check.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2010 11:14

Gilles wrote:Oh I was not doubting your claims, one bit and I also believe that the Russian Air Force claims it wants to order 20 An-124s. But will it put its money where its mouth is? I don't think so. Now if India had placed an order for 10 of them, the plant would already be milling with activity because that desire would have been accompanied by a check.

Gilles from the interviews I have read the story goes this way.

First and foremost the restarting of An-124 production line has nothing to do with India and India has never desired to go for this big bird and the decision to acquire An-124 and An-70 is a political/commercial decision by Kremlin then a pure military one , much like C-17 buys for India is as much of a political decision.

Ok for the story most of the cargo carriers way back in 2004-2005 lobbied for An-124 production start up and the numbers needed by them was good enough to make the production line economically viable but the sticking point was the money that was needed start the production was $500 million and they wanted the MOD to pay that initial amount.

RuAF was not interested in new An-124 buy much like they were never interested in purchasing An-70 but were happy to see the existing An-124 modernised and purchase IL-476 over An-70 ( if you do a google you will find RuAF chief clearly stating both )

Now due to intense lobbing by Cargo carriers and Ukraine, for economical reason by the former due to the niche profitable business and monopoly they enjoy and new found bonhomie between Ukrainian and Russia , the Kremlin at the highest level has decided to support new acquisition of An-70 ( which RuAF did not like ) and An-124 ( which RuAF did not want to fund ) .

So 2011-2020 acquisition program has supported new buys of 40 An-70 and 20 An-124 for military , but most of An-124 will be for cargo carriers , since the total planned number is 60 An-124.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Oct 2010 11:15

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote: It can land 'in under 3500 feet" on dry runways when nearly empty.
If by 'nearly empty' you mean 'carrying an Abrams tank'.

I've never seen a C-17 land on a 3500 runway while carrying an Abrams tank. If you have a link, please provide it for all to see.

Maybe there was an Arjun tank in the C-17's hold during the IAF trial flights, when it landed and took off from Gaggal's 4650 foot runway? That would be sort of convincing. Was there or was that aircraft nearly empty also, for lack of an available Arjun that day ?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Oct 2010 11:24

Austin wrote:
Gilles wrote:Oh I was not doubting your claims, one bit and I also believe that the Russian Air Force claims it wants to order 20 An-124s. But will it put its money where its mouth is? I don't think so. Now if India had placed an order for 10 of them, the plant would already be milling with activity because that desire would have been accompanied by a check.
Gilles from the interviews I have read the story goes this way.

First and foremost the restarting of An-124 production line has nothing to do with India and India has never desired to go for this big bird and the decision to acquire An-124 and An-70 is a political/commercial decision by Kremlin then a pure military one , much like C-17 buys for India is as much of a political decision.

Ok for the story most of the cargo carriers way back in 2004-2005 lobbied for An-124 production start up and the numbers needed by them was good enough to make the production line economically viable but the sticking point was the money that was needed start the production was $500 million and they wanted the MOD to pay that initial amount.

RuAF was not interested in new An-124 buy much like they were never interested in purchasing An-70 but were happy to see the existing An-124 modernised and purchase IL-476 over An-70 ( if you do a google you will find RuAF chief clearly stating both )

Now due to intense lobbing by Cargo carriers and Ukraine, for economical reason by the former due to the niche profitable business and monopoly they enjoy and new found bonhomie between Ukrainian and Russia , the Kremlin at the highest level has decided to support new acquisition of An-70 ( which RuAF did not like ) and An-124 ( which RuAF did not want to fund ) .

So 2011-2020 acquisition program has supported new buys of 40 An-70 and 20 An-124 for military , but most of An-124 will be for cargo carriers , since the total planned number is 60 An-124.

I'd be really happy if it was true, especially for the poor An-70 which is a fantastic tactical aircraft with so much sales potential, if only they would finally finish the certification flights and put the damn thing in production. I am 100% certain that it will attract many orders from many countries if and when it becomes available.

I know there was no Indian interest in the An-124. I was just trying to stress that a firm order from a serious buyer could tip the scales towards opening the production lines, which vague promises from Russian generals cannot do.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Oct 2010 11:36

Gilles wrote:
If by 'nearly empty' you mean 'carrying an Abrams tank'.
I've never seen a C-17 land on a 3500 runway while carrying an Abrams tank. If you have a link, please provide it for all to see.

I believe the quote was that it can land in 3500 feet, a subtle distinction, but there it is

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2010 12:18

Gilles wrote:I'd be really happy if it was true, especially for the poor An-70 which is a fantastic tactical aircraft with so much sales potential, if only they would finally finish the certification flights and put the damn thing in production. I am 100% certain that it will attract many orders from many countries if and when it becomes available.

Yes the An-70 is a fine bird and some one has to buy it first to operationalise it in the AF and fine tune it during day to day ops before putting out for export market hence the RuAF has stepped in

I know there was no Indian interest in the An-124. I was just trying to stress that a firm order from a serious buyer could tip the scales towards opening the production lines, which vague promises from Russian generals cannot do.

They have serious buyers from commercial vendor , they really do not need the MOD to purchase it but to fund the start up with the money , beyond that its economically feasible , but now with Kremlin stepping in they have not much to worry other then how to get the job done quickly , post 2015 for a new bird is still long time.

added later: I wont be surprised if China at some point in the next decade will look at An-124 as a serious strategic lift option taking a cue from India from C-17 deal.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2010 12:33

I wouldnt be surprised if India also buys into An124 once production is stable. could be useful to move men and materials into foothill "junction airports" and then onward by C17/An32/IL76/MTA. for bulk goods in pallets it can certainly take 100t of meals, medicines, machinery, munitions packed in bangalore or hyderabad in the morning and deposit in tezpur or chabua in the afternoon after a 3hr flight. IL76/C17 would be released from plains duties and used best for plains->hills route.

maybe Rus/Ukraine could work out some flap / "blower" improvements to improve the takeoff/landing runs for AN124, better low and slow, steeper landing descent angle and new engines to permit this beast to foray up into areas like Leh also

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Oct 2010 15:23

dont forget that large numbers of B737's and A320's can be commandeered for moving men and palletised goods between hubs too

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Oct 2010 21:52

Austin wrote: added later: I wont be surprised if China at some point in the next decade will look at An-124 as a serious strategic lift option taking a cue from India from C-17 deal.

China has not yet cancelled that order for 38 IL-76s.....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2010 22:32

Gilles wrote:
Austin wrote: added later: I wont be surprised if China at some point in the next decade will look at An-124 as a serious strategic lift option taking a cue from India from C-17 deal.
China has not yet cancelled that order for 38 IL-76s.....

Yes price is the factor which is not acceptable to Russia and China is not willing to pay more , but the recent statement by medvedev in china that defence relation will grow and that they have some big plans could perhaps set the ball rolling.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Oct 2010 15:55

here we go round, round... round, givin' me the run-around...

btw, i saw a new lal-chix pic on the india today site, but was unable to get to an url...
iph anywun kan halp plij...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Oct 2010 15:59

LM,

bhy are you not entertained by this merry go round? Bliss do tall.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Oct 2010 16:09

the only circular motions that i am entertained by are those involving female hips (and goats ofcourse)
this debate (C17) is generating more heat than light
i am a seeker of the light onlee

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Oct 2010 16:28

Aha....

That explains it.

I had been meening to ask you. Did you issue a tender for the LAL chicks or was it a single vendor affair.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Oct 2010 16:51

well i had issued my requirements to DRDO, but for a long time were unable to meet them. then the russian maal arrived on the market...
phinally DRDO managed to come up with some kvality desi goods...
no kantest

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Oct 2010 17:01

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 25 Oct 2010 18:07

Lalmohan better cleaup the Pinglish before the Breapers come in

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Oct 2010 18:08

i am registering my protest towards other members using pinglish
since plain english has clearly failed

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 25 Oct 2010 19:22

Lalmohan wrote:here we go round, round... round, givin' me the run-around...

btw, i saw a new lal-chix pic on the india today site, but was unable to get to an url...
iph anywun kan halp plij...

Lalmohan ji

Is this the pic you are talking about

Please post the links of all the links of Lal-chix pic you have come across for the make benefit of @All.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Oct 2010 19:29

juggi-g to the rescue!!
with improved white-ghagra chix in formation too!
too much!

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 25 Oct 2010 23:59

India purchased 17 Il-76 but several people have mentioned that the IAF has only 15 right now. If true, where are the other 2?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 26 Oct 2010 01:27

Gilles wrote:India purchased 17 Il-76 but several people have mentioned that the IAF has only 15 right now. If true, where are the other 2?

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/IAF/Aircra ... Il-76.html

The 14 aircraft in IAF service are distributed between 44 Squadron and 25 Squadron (one Flight). The remaining three aircraft are operated by the Aviation Research Center which falls under the Cabinet Secretariat.

amit · Post by **amit** » 26 Oct 2010 10:43

Lalmohan wrote:juggi-g to the rescue!!
with improved white-ghagra chix in formation too!
too much!

I must protest!

Why wasn't Bideshi chix formations considered? There are many blond Ruski birds who perform at Bollywood masla shows - doing tight g-turns with considerable ALG potential (to land on laps).

Why wasn't a RFI sent out to them?

It would have certainly have resulted in a RFP which then could have been compared with lal-chick RFPs!

Boys that's the way it has to be done because a rule being the RULE is always the rule and you can't get around the RULE (well OK maybe if the Ruski birds got there first before the lal-chicks then some exceptions could have been made)!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Oct 2010 12:02

i am a strong believer in field-trials before deciding which bird to fly with

nishu · Post by **nishu** » 26 Oct 2010 12:24

i am also a strong believer in field trails before deciding to marry ................ a plane to the iaf ...

amit · Post by **amit** » 26 Oct 2010 12:27

Lalmohan wrote:i am a strong believer in field-trials before deciding which bird to fly with

Sorry that doesn't cut it. You must follow the RULE and first issue an RFI and then RFP before any hands-on - oops I mean field-trails.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Oct 2010 12:34

the process is flawed, most vendors only allow field trials after RFP and ITP signing, whereas you actually want to do that during RFI phase, so you can rule out the obvious non-contenders. I prefer RFI and MoU stages, then more prolonged discussions for RFP and ITP before squadron induction. But then you realise that there are a large number of quirks and serviceability issues that were not apparent at RFP. If you're lucky the RFI sometimes catches these at an early stage
but then, in service is a whole different ball-game
which is when you look for a back up capability for rapid deployment in rough field conditions

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 Oct 2010 22:42

C-17 main landing gear

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Oct 2010 15:21

US showing its true colors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPaBn4jA0Hg

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_T0PaJrQgQ

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Oct 2010 15:40

^^^^^^^^
Both equipment bought without competitive bidding as well...

Aisa to hona hee tha

(was bound to happen)

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Oct 2010 15:41

Lalmohan wrote:the process is flawed, most vendors only allow field trials after RFP and ITP signing, whereas you actually want to do that during RFI phase, so you can rule out the obvious non-contenders. I prefer RFI and MoU stages, then more prolonged discussions for RFP and ITP before squadron induction. But then you realise that there are a large number of quirks and serviceability issues that were not apparent at RFP. If you're lucky the RFI sometimes catches these at an early stage
but then, in service is a whole different ball-game
which is when you look for a back up capability for rapid deployment in rough field conditions

Is this post for the plane or the lal chicks am konphused onleee.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 28 Oct 2010 18:32

Manish_Sharma wrote:US showing its true colors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPaBn4jA0Hg

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_T0PaJrQgQ

Or, for a more balanced view:

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/10/ex ... heyre.html
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/10/no ... chief.html

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Oct 2010 02:33

They can keep the SAMOSA. We can fit reasonably similar equipment of our own.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 29 Oct 2010 02:59

Cybaru wrote:They can keep the SAMOSA. We can fit reasonably similar equipment of our own.

From what I read, India purchased the IL-76s without defensive aids (which Russia had available for that aircraft since the Afghan war) and developed and installed locally designed defensive aids on the aircraft.

The items deleted from the C-130Js and the C-17s are just communication avionics. Its no big deal for India if this communication equipment is not included in the deal for the C-130 and C-17 since the absence of these will not prevent their aircraft from performing their primary role as transports. India can either do without, buy them from a third party or make its own.

The aircraft that will probably be affected in its intended role if certain electronics are withheld for the same reasons, is the P-8.

koti · Post by **koti** » 29 Oct 2010 10:18

Gilles wrote:
Cybaru wrote:They can keep the SAMOSA. We can fit reasonably similar equipment of our own.
From what I read, India purchased the IL-76s without defensive aids (which Russia had available for that aircraft since the Afghan war) and developed and installed locally designed defensive aids on the aircraft.

The items deleted from the C-130Js and the C-17s are just communication avionics. Its no big deal for India if this communication equipment is not included in the deal for the C-130 and C-17 since the absence of these will not prevent their aircraft from performing their primary role as transports. India can either do without, buy them from a third party or make its own.

The aircraft that will probably be affected in its intended role if certain electronics are withheld for the same reasons, is the P-8.

A few more deletions would put the IL-76 as a more capable aircraft.

We are paying huuuge sums to get the aircraft into our services. Now if misses on the critical components like comm equipment or ECM it would be an unfortunate thing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2010 10:22

would it not bring the price down?