C-17s for the IAF?

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Oct 2010 10:32

koti wrote: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.

The C17 and the IL76 are both transport aircraft and not combat aircraft. And so it is most likely they will fly in either clear skies or under heavy fighter escort.

In such a situation don't you think the most important consideration is how much maal (and of what dimension) can be delivered per sortie?

If you look at it from this angle, guess which aircraft is more "capable".

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 29 Oct 2010 10:53

^^^
You'd rather not go down that line of reasoning , somebody is surely going to say "Ha! What about the An-124 then?"

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Oct 2010 11:15

abhik wrote:^^^
You'd rather not go down that line of reasoning , somebody is surely going to say "Ha! What about the An-124 then?"

Well if it becomes a "mines bigger than yours" p**sing contest again I plan to whip our my A380 transport or rather my RFI for a A380 MKI transport aircraft which I've been preparing for sometime.

Now who will be able to beat that in terms of size?

koti · Post by **koti** » 29 Oct 2010 11:37

abhik wrote:^^^
You'd rather not go down that line of reasoning , somebody is surely going to say "Ha! What about the An-124 then?"

Exactly.
Bingo!!!

amit wrote:
abhik wrote:^^^
You'd rather not go down that line of reasoning , somebody is surely going to say "Ha! What about the An-124 then?"

Well if it becomes a "mines bigger than yours" p**sing contest again I plan to whip our my A380 transport or rather my RFI for a A380 MKI transport aircraft which I've been preparing for sometime.

Now who will be able to beat that in terms of size?

C-5 would be a better bet then A-380 to speak reasonably.

But none the less.....Since we are spending money several times higher on C-17 then on IL-76, it would be incorrect to assume the extra money is solely for tonnage as Mr. Abhik has implied

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Oct 2010 12:06

Singha wrote:would it not bring the price down?

Not a $. We will be made to pay extra for removing the stuff.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Oct 2010 12:17

amit bhai, please don't talk about maal, it rhymes with laal...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Oct 2010 12:19

and with taal as well

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 29 Oct 2010 13:46

Pratyush wrote:
Singha wrote:would it not bring the price down?

Not a $. We will be made to pay extra for removing the stuff.

Many pages ago when there was lots of Ho-halla over 5 billion price, the reason for high price was given many of these special bells, DIRCM etc. So now minus all that price should come substantially down.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 29 Oct 2010 14:09

I hope at least they would spare the engines

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Oct 2010 14:16

Pratyush wrote:and with taal as well

Taal pe Taal...

Or should that be Taal pe Maal

Or,

Taal pe Lal?

I want my 124

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Oct 2010 14:19

Manish_Sharma wrote:Many pages ago when there was lots of Ho-halla over 5 billion price, the reason for high price was given many of these special bells, DIRCM etc. So now minus all that price should come substantially down.

Manish,

If you remember the discussion then, it was shown with links that the $5billion price was the hypothetical max price for the 10 birds in case India took all bells and whistles as well as service contracts.

I think several reports have indicated that IAF may not go for everything, cherry picking what it needs/wants etc. Net result IMO, which it would be substantially more costlier than IL76, it would definitely be much less than the $5 billion figure.

JMT

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Oct 2010 14:29

Amit,

You are bringing the apsaras to disrupt the tapasya of Vishwamitra. 100 lashes

to you.

BTW , is I want my 124 to be sung to the tune of I want my money back, by Meat Loaf.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2010 14:42

C5 is said to be unpopular with ground crews as a maintainence hog - I wonder why? newer engines in desired size is there on market. and cargo a/c are quite austere compared to combat a/c. next gen glass cockpit is available.

I wonder if we can get a few in working shape off some boneyard in new mehico or arizona ?

if they can use the KC135 as a tanker and 707 as E3 and B52 for decades, why is the C5 a unwanted child?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 29 Oct 2010 15:15

It has 16 hours of maintenance for every flight hour as per Wiki. Also take a look at this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -maint.htm

58% mission capable... even when supporting Op Enduring Freedom, it was only 80%

US itself was cannibalizing C5s since parts are not available.

If Huge is what is needed, An 124 or better still A380F when it comes along!

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 29 Oct 2010 15:24

The landing gear all seems to be about Tie rods no?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Oct 2010 15:24

rkirankr wrote:I hope at least they would spare the engines

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 29 Oct 2010 15:31

Those were the days my friend
we thought would never end

When the Russians would sell by Kilo the arms it was so easy to buy no tender feelings just buy sheer weight(y) decisions

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Oct 2010 15:39

ShivaS wrote: When the Russians would sell by Kilo the arms it was so easy to buy no tender feelings just buy sheer weight(y) decisions

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 02 Nov 2010 20:17

http://tinyurl.com/3ad7ley

The serviceability of the IL-76 has also been called into question. Since the aircraft is manufactured in Uzbekistan , there is a constant lack of spare parts, adding to IAF woes. “The spares availability of the IL-76 is not good. We have to get them from Russia , and that takes a lot of time, and additionally, they are not easily available. Secondly, it is not economically viable to set up an overhauling facility for the IL-76 in India. So, it is not the best situation to be in,” Mr Chengappa said.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 03 Nov 2010 09:19

X-Post

Threat to Innovative Fix-Dependent System

Opinion - Lead

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 05 Nov 2010 02:24

Juggi G wrote:X-Post

Threat to Innovative Fix-Dependent System

Opinion - Lead

Very instructive article........

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Nov 2010 02:48

amit wrote:The C17 and the IL76 are both transport aircraft and not combat aircraft. And so it is most likely they will fly in either clear skies or under heavy fighter escort.

In such a situation don't you think the most important consideration is how much maal (and of what dimension) can be delivered per sortie?

If you look at it from this angle, guess which aircraft is more "capable".

Sorry, but what you wrote is total bunk. You'd have been better off arguing or determining whether CISMOA does not take off anything vital apart from communications kit and those we can replace with our own or similar imported items.

But that "clear skies" or "fighter escort stuff" is absolutely wrong. The thing to remember about these C-17s, and similar aircraft is that these are high value targets. Not only are they expensive, strategic assets in themselves, but they will also carry vital supplies and manpower, and hence need every bit of protection. Thanks to this, they are key targets for any opponent. Just relying on fighters wont work. Todays advanced SAM systems are very mobile, and often cannot be detected and targeted in real time. The opponent, can even decide to put up with heavy losses just to target your transports and strategic lifters.

And the size and design of these large aircraft, makes them very visible and vulnerable to all sorts of systems from radar guided to infrared guided missiles, and these large aircraft cannot aggressively maneuver to get out of harms way. So they need every bit of protection, that a country can afford.

IL-76s just have regular chaff & flares (they also have a gunner, but thats of doubtful use), but the Americans (and others) now offer DIRCM (Directed Infrared Counter Measures) which is especially targeted against heat seeking missiles (DIRCM have heat lamps and even lasers to dazzle the seeker of the missile), while other options are towed decoys and onboard jammers against radar guided missiles.

While adding to the cost of the platform, these systems are increasingly essential to protect such valuable assets. Recent reports put the cost of the C-17 acquisition at $5.8 Bn, including presumably the logistics. Even assuming the actual aircraft cost a third of the amount, each C-17 comes in at around $190 Million, thats equal to four Sukhois, not to mention the cost of the equipment and material they'll carry. Simply, these are assets we cannot afford to lose at wartime.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Nov 2010 03:37

^^^ Good post Karan.

Just one nitpick ... The IL-76s used to come with gunners . The upgrades by IAF did away with them, although I am not sure if all the planes have gone through the upgrade.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Nov 2010 04:38

Thanks, but have our IL-76s been upgraded? I think they only received basic chaff & flares plus local RWR, which is not a bad thing per se, because flares are still effective against many MANPAD systems.

What we need to add to all our transports are these:
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3860

An automated MAWs linked to the RWR, a central controller plus the chaff & flares to detect even non radar guided missile launches and respond automatically, and the larger IL-76 and C-17 transports should also carry jammers, and DIRCM.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3811952

We apparently chose Israel for the DIRCM partnership, based on news from last year and work is underway.

India should also look at towed decoys for its high value fleet - AWACS, transports, tankers - these force multipliers are vital.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ray ... oys-02573/

Local production is essential (to keep costs down and for periodic upgrade).

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Nov 2010 13:34

^^^In any expeditionary type role or while carrying Paratroopers into TSP territory, these defensive aids are a must......one cannot sensitize every square inch of enemy territory.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 06 Nov 2010 06:38

Karan M wrote:
IL-76s just have regular chaff & flares (they also have a gunner, but thats of doubtful use), but the Americans (and others) now offer DIRCM (Directed Infrared Counter Measures) which is especially targeted against heat seeking missiles (DIRCM have heat lamps and even lasers to dazzle the seeker of the missile), while other options are towed decoys and onboard jammers against radar guided missiles.

Looking on the internet, I found one confirmed case where a SAM was fired at a C-17. It hit the aircraft which lost an engine and had to return to land. Although the US admitted that particular C-17 aircraft was fitted with serviceable missile countermeasures, they never said which kind was fitted on it (was it the the LAIRCM or just the AN/ALE-47 and the Lockheed Martin/ Alliant Techsystems AN/AAR-47 missile warning system?) Only about one quarter of the C-17s are fitted with the LAIRCM and about half of the Galaxys are due to be fitted with it (one Galaxy was also hit with a missile in Iraq, although that aircraft only had the regular countermeasures suite).

I have never heard of any transport aircraft fitted with any kind of "towed" decoys.

vic · Post by **vic** » 06 Nov 2010 08:57

I thought that I would make a list of equipment which is under discussion for purchase by India or could be purchased through tenders:-

1. P-8 Additional 4 after 8 around US$ 1 billion
2. C-17s around US$ 3.5 billion
3. C-130s Additional 6 apart from aircraft for paramilitary forces around US$ 1 billion
4. C-27s competing for tactical lift for paramilitary around US$ 500 million
5. Boeing Mid air refuelers – in competition? around US$ 1 billion
6. Apache helos – competing for 22 around US$ 1 billion
7. C-47s competing for 10-24 around US$ 1 billion
8. Harpoons 24 around US$ 170 million
9. Javelins around 2500 around US$ 300 million
10. Hellfire - ?
11. CBU-105s around US$ 350 million worth
12. M777 – 145 around US$ 6-700 million
13. GE414 engines around US$ 1 billion
14. LM2500 engines
15. Offer for Haweye 2D for the navy?
16. JSF for Navy?
17. Night sights? Thermal sights?
18. Will USA offer HALE UAV? Predator?
19. Will USA offer Stealth UCAV?
20. Off course MRCA competition
21. LOH competition
22. Turboprop trainer competition
23. There are some offers which are not likely to succeed in near future like Aegis radar, Patriot missiles
This comes to around US$ 15 Billion of possible deals as of today with other big ones to follow.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 06 Nov 2010 16:57

Deal or No deal? No deal yet says Boeing chief.
Boeing Yet to Seal India Order For C-17 Aircaft
Bloomberg

Boeing Co. Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney said India has yet to order C-17 military transport craft that the U.S. plane-maker has been negotiating for ahead of President Barack Obama’s arrival today.

Obama’s presence in India is helping U.S. companies push for contracts, McNerney told reporters in Mumbai after meeting the president. Boeing said last month it was looking to sell as many as 10 of the C-17 aircraft in what would be the largest defense deal for the Chicago-based company in India.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2010 17:15

Hmm they can sign the Statement of Intent or MOU along those lines

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 07 Nov 2010 02:19

it is not done deal, may be they found something during user testing in India that poked a hole or two large enough to warant a rethink!?!! Or may be they are waiting for Obama to leave before they sign defense deals else it'll look threatning to Chipak types and it'll also induce verbal diarrheaq in desi commies and sawadeshi lobby.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Nov 2010 07:58

^^ Only overactive imagination (verbal diarrhea?) I see is in the above post, as nobody seems to be making such a big fuss on the C17 deal, as it is one of many

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 07 Nov 2010 11:04

LIVEFIST: Done Deal

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 07 Nov 2010 14:04

10 C-17's = $4.1 billion = 22,160 American Jobs
Official White House Statement

According to a White House statement on Saturday, US' Boeing Company and the Indian Air Force have reached a preliminary agreement on the purchase of 10 C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft and are now in the process of finalizing the details of the sale.

"Each C-17 supports 650 suppliers across 44 US states and that this order will support Boeing's C-17 production facility in Long Beach, California, for an entire year. This transaction is valued at approximately $4.1 billion, all of which is US export content, supporting an estimated 22,160 jobs," the statement said.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-US- ... 22783.aspx

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 08 Nov 2010 19:22

Karan M wrote:^^ Only overactive imagination (verbal diarrhea?) I see is in the above post, as nobody seems to be making such a big fuss on the C17 deal, as it is one of many

And you were complaining that you felt insulted in MRCA thread!!?!!. What are you trying to say in your reply and what is the diarrhea that you are reffering too?

With this kind of attitude, talking from my decade long expereince, your stay @ BRF is going to be little fun and possibly short life for you.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 09 Nov 2010 03:06

$4.1bn C-17 aircraft deal set to get bigger, 6 more coming.

The biggest Indo-US defence deal in the pipeline, the $4.1-billion for 10 C-17 Globemaster-III giant strategic airlift aircraft, could get even bigger. India may well order another six C-17s after the first 10.

The impending final contract for 10 C-17s is in tune with India's aim to have swift power projection capabilities, with the region spanning from Persian Gulf to Malacca Strait being seen as the country's ''primary area of geo-strategic interest''.

The gigantic C-17s, after all, are capable of carrying a payload of 164,900 pounds after taking off from a mere 7,000-feet airstrip. These four-engine aircraft, manufactured by Boeing, can transport tanks and combat-ready troops over 2,400 nautical miles. ''After we have evaluated the performance of the 10 C-17s, we will take a decision on whether to order another six,'' IAF chief Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told TOI on Monday.

This came shortly after Barack Obama, while addressing the media with Manmohan Singh, held, ''Today, I am pleased to welcome India's preliminary agreement to purchase 10 C-17 cargo planes, which will enhance Indian capabilities and support 22,000 jobs back in US.''

Incidentally, the major chunk of security paraphernalia, including armour-plated cars and helicopters, accompanying Barack Obama has come to India on-board C-17s. ACM Naik, on his part, said the C-17s would significantly augment India's ability to move troops and combat systems, as also humanitarian aid and disaster relief, over large distances.

At present, IAF has just a dozen Russian-origin IL-76 'Gajraj' aircraft, with its medium-lift fleet comprising 104 Russian AN-32 aircraft. ''C-17s have short-landing capabilities, which will be crucial in the future,'' he said.

The rugged C-17s can even land at small forward airbases on semi-prepared runways, which will be crucial for India to counter China's massive build-up of military infrastructure all along the 4,057-km Line of Actual Control, which includes new airfields in Tibet.

The contract for 10 C-17s, with all its final costs, offsets, training packages and the like, is ''close'' to being inked now. As earlier reported by TOI, India is buying the Globemasters under US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme in a direct government-to-government deal. Rubbishing criticism that India should have floated a global tender for such a big contract, ACM Naik said, ''We did a comprehensive evaluation of all such available aircraft in the world. The C-17s best met our requirements.''

Along with the C-17s, India wants five spare engines, 10 AN/ALE counter-measure dispensing systems.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Nov 2010 05:13

Katare wrote:
Karan M wrote:^^ Only overactive imagination (verbal diarrhea?) I see is in the above post, as nobody seems to be making such a big fuss on the C17 deal, as it is one of many
And you were complaining that you felt insulted in MRCA thread!!?!!. What are you trying to say in your reply and what is the diarrhea that you are reffering too?

With this kind of attitude, talking from my decade long expereince, your stay @ BRF is going to be little fun and possibly short life for you.

Boss, you are the one who took the cheap shots in both threads, so please lay off the exclamation marks. The verbal diarrhea comment is in question marks to indicate YOUR poor choice of words.

It was you who used the term to begin with.

This was your post to which I replied:

Katare wrote:Or may be they are waiting for Obama to leave before they sign defense deals else it'll look threatning to Chipak types and it'll also induce verbal diarrheaq in desi commies and sawadeshi lobby."

- can you specify who these desi commies and swadeshi lobby are?

I live in India, and I see no desi commies or swadeshi lobby making any fuss over the C-17, unlike you, let alone them needing such crude accusations of verbal diarrhea.
This thread was having a pretty good discussion, with pros and cons, and out you come with such comments.

If you dislike people even having complaints or questions about the C-17 deal, learn from the class shown by the Air Chief, who answered queries with dignity and detail, instead of accusing critics of "verbal diarrhea". That does far more to silence critics, than such crude comments.

And second - please keep your threats to yourself about who'll survive and where. Last I checked, that's not your job to decide. Coming to attitude, seen your own? Adept at dishing out abuse, tough rhetoric, but pretty poor at handling even your own words phrased as a question.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Nov 2010 08:02

^^^ Cool it guys

Lets discuss the C-17.

Pundits do you feel 4.1 billion for the 10 planes and the paraphernalia is a just price? What were earlier added in the deal (worth upto 5.8 billion) which have been left out now?

What other counter measure does the C-17 have except for chaff dispensers? Looks like we are going for the AN/ALE-47. Have towed decoys been used for C-17s (or anyother transport plane) before?

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 09 Nov 2010 09:15

deleted.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Nov 2010 09:20

We've been through this before but it helps to keep hammering the point home.

This is what ACM Naik had to say about the C-17 deal and on a subject that has generated a lot of heat and vapourware on this thread:

Rubbishing criticism that India should have floated a global tender for such a big contract, ACM Naik said, ''We did a comprehensive evaluation of all such available aircraft in the world. The C-17s best met our requirements.''

But I understand, this is not the same as a RFI or RFP!

According to the ACM, these are the other things that will come in the $4.1 billion deal:

Along with the C-17s, India wants five spare engines, 10 AN/ALE counter-measure dispensing systems.

I don't want to blow a trumpet but I did say before that there's no way the deal would be worth $5.8 billion a figure which, many moons ago, a Boeing official pulled out of his musharaff.

Funnily it became the gold standard on this thread.

Added later: Sorry I see Vipul has already posted the link. Anyway I'll let my post stand, unless Mods want to remove it.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 09 Nov 2010 18:10

Vipul wrote: Along with the C-17s, India wants five spare engines, 10 AN/ALE counter-measure dispensing systems.

5 Spare engines! You can see that these people are only accustomed to unreliable Russian engines. There is no way they can go through so many engines. One Spare maybe. Two at the most just in case the fleet has two bad luckk in a row, but 5!