C-17s for the IAF?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2010 10:49

^^^ Got it. I am with you on that

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Nov 2010 11:59

I came across a report that we might actually buy 16 C-17s! The logic for such a massive buy beats me,since these "strategic" super-heavyweights are going to be used most of the time for operations within India ,and for supplyign eqpt. to friendly countries where we might have base facilties like Vietnam or island nations in the IOR,all heavy eqpt. will be sent by sea.We are doing Boeing a massive favour.What almost every report within the country says is that what is most urgently needed are large numbers of heavy and medium helos.Why can't these helo deals also be decided with the same urgency as the C-17? For the more urgent helo acquisitions,we have the time and luxury of the MI-26 facing off with the Chinook!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Nov 2010 13:40

^^^

Seems like another controversy in making to me, all the same hallmarks seen in a recent issue, bidding overridden in favor of preferred vendor arrangements, large amounts of money, rapidly changing figures.

The reason for purchase seem to be anything but real requirements (though IAF may end up making some limited use of it)

Ravishankar · Post by **Ravishankar** » 15 Nov 2010 13:51

Even if we order 10 we would be the second largest operator of C 17 after USA

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Nov 2010 14:10

Sanku,

How can we say that it is an un needed aircraft. The COA(ir)S is on record stating it is an aircraft that meets all the requirements of the force.

Then why do we keep on raising the point of the AC been un needed. Only being acquired to oblige the Khans.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Nov 2010 14:31

Pratyush wrote:Sanku,

How can we say that it is an un needed aircraft. The COA(ir)S is on record stating it is an aircraft that meets all the requirements of the force.

Then why do we keep on raising the point of the AC been un needed. Only being acquired to oblige the Khans.

Round and round we go!

Not a knock on you Pratyush... but I want my Lalchix!

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Nov 2010 14:40

^^^

Seems like another controversy in making to me, all the same hallmarks seen in a recent issue, bidding overridden in favor of preferred vendor arrangements, large amounts of money, rapidly changing figures.

The reason for purchase seem to be anything but real requirements (though IAF may end up making some limited use of it)

It's so easy to brew a controversy out of thin air. First we saw that with the pricing with Boeing saying its price is US$580 million (I suspect as a negotiating tactic) and the White House saying US$410 million. Yet we had people frothing in the mouth after someone dropped a figure US$850 million into the ring.

Now we have another "controversy" over rapidly changing numbers which a two-minute search on Google Mama would have solved very nicely. This Janes report says:

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has indicated that it is considering a bid to procure an additional six Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft.

Such a purchase would bring the total number of C-17s to be acquired by India to 16, comparable with the 17 ageing Russian-made Ilyushin Il-76MD transport platforms that the US aircraft is intended to replace from around 2012.

Philip questions why we would need so many C17s, presumably because we are such a poor nation and cannot afford to have the planes flying around within India. However I find it curious that he seems to have no objection to the fact that we already have 17 heavy transport aircraft in the IL76MD which must be flying around all over the country. The C17s are supposed to replace the aging IL76s aren't they? So if the Armed Forces needed 17 heavy transports over the past two decades, we have to immediately suspect hanky panky and efforts to please Uncle Sam if we order the same number (one less in fact) of another version of heavy transport to replace these, more so now when India's geopolitical interests and clout is increasing.

Man oh man! Where are the Lal Chix. They are needed to distract such hyper ventilating!

But just in case anyone though the extra six is a done deal, here's what the Janes report says:

Wing Commander Tarun Kumar Singha, official spokesman of the IAF, told Jane's on 11 August that a request to procure additional C-17s could be submitted by the IAF, although he did not confirm whether such a move was imminent.

A Boeing India spokeswoman said the company had not been notified of the procurement.

Talking about manufacturing Strawmen!

niran · Post by **niran** » 15 Nov 2010 14:45

Philip wrote:I came across a report that we might actually buy 16 C-17s! The logic for such a massive buy beats me,since these "strategic" super-heavyweights are going to be used most of the time for operations within India ,and for supplyign eqpt. to friendly countries where we might have base facilties like Vietnam or island nations in the IOR,all heavy eqpt. will be sent by sea.We are doing Boeing a massive favour.What almost every report within the country says is that what is most urgently needed are large numbers of heavy and medium helos.Why can't these helo deals also be decided with the same urgency as the C-17? For the more urgent helo acquisitions,we have the time and luxury of the MI-26 facing off with the Chinook!

logistic for Afganistan after Unkil is bowed out, perhaps.
quick replacement in times during war perhaps
ability of single day deployment of mechanized battalion perhaps
wishfulness of the writer perhaps.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Nov 2010 14:46

niran wrote:
Philip wrote:I came across a report that we might actually buy 16 C-17s! The logic for such a massive buy beats me,since these "strategic" super-heavyweights are going to be used most of the time for operations within India ,and for supplyign eqpt. to friendly countries where we might have base facilties like Vietnam or island nations in the IOR,all heavy eqpt. will be sent by sea.We are doing Boeing a massive favour.What almost every report within the country says is that what is most urgently needed are large numbers of heavy and medium helos.Why can't these helo deals also be decided with the same urgency as the C-17? For the more urgent helo acquisitions,we have the time and luxury of the MI-26 facing off with the Chinook!
logistic for Afganistan after Unkil is bowed out, perhaps.
quick replacement in times during war perhaps
ability of single day deployment of mechanized battalion perhaps

Niran see my post above. If we do buy 16 C17 it will be to replace the 17 IL76s we have today. There's no other dark reason for it.

Added later: The other possibility could be that this is a tactic to dangle a carrot in front of Boeing before formal negotiations start.

niran · Post by **niran** » 15 Nov 2010 14:59

amit garu, me is not tactically or strategically sound, but have some taste of "logistic" in supply, and my conclusion is, in logistic more is better,
need always arises when you are most vulnerable, and it always ends in

kash mere pass thoda aur hota

hence IMVHO more the better.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Nov 2010 15:13

amit wrote:
Added later: The other possibility could be that this is a tactic to dangle a carrot in front of Boeing before formal negotiations start.

The other likely possibility is that this whole thing is pay off to the Americans for the nuclear deal. Lets face it, the Americans are not likely to get huge contracts to build nuclear reactors, and the IAF may be loathe to putting in American equipment as their frontline fighters. So the other way to give the pay off is in not so critical sector such as P8I and transports.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Nov 2010 15:19

Tanaji wrote:
Round and round we go!

Not a knock on you Pratyush... but I want my Lalchix!

Hey you can have the lalchix as long as I get the white chix. (Or the Nagaland police Ayesha

)But you are right round and round is what we are doing on this thread.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Nov 2010 16:20

Amit,etc.,my query is why we are buying a strategic superheavyweight,when we do not have a global strategic expeditionary role like the US/NATO.The IL-76s are NOT being discarded and are to be upgraded from earlier reports.Moreover,if the task is to assist logistics in the Himalayas,then this is "overkill",as the aircraft cannot land on our small Himalayan airstrips where AN-32s ,also being upgraded are doing a great job.I sad many a time,this is a favour for Boeing so that they can eke out some more moolah before the plant closes and India is being suckered into buying them at exorbitant prices.

The entire NATO forces have just 25 C-17s.We have no role public or otherwise on a global footprint like NATO.However,if we read between the lines and the fine print,this deal forces us to provide logistic support to all C-17 users who are US?NATO allies! This is the insidious part of the deal,that India through the backdoor is to become a US military satellite.I've mentioed earlier the option for us to lease out such sueprheavyweight sized aircraft.The US has more than it needs,why didn't we try for a less costly lease?After all Russia is leasing us a SSGN! why can't Uncle Sam do the sam?With the moolah saved we could use it in various critical programmes,for the LCA,MMRCA,AWACS,heavy helos,etc.Well,that's my view and I stick by it.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Nov 2010 16:30

^^
So as per this logic goes, if we operate Il76, lease a Russian nuke sub and have massive amounts of Russian fighters, are we a Russian military satellite?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Nov 2010 16:44

Tanaji,

No we are not a Russian satalite. But we add any US hardware we become a US satalite. You should have understood it by now.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Nov 2010 16:47

Tanaji wrote:^^ So as per this logic goes, if we operate Il76, lease a Russian nuke sub and have massive amounts of Russian fighters, are we a Russian military satellite?

You imperialist colonizer amercian agent....how dare you ask this question? Don't you know that the Americal equipment comes with nano-boosters which propel the buyer into an orbit and the buyer revolves for perpetuity around the US of A.....don't you know simple physics?

Hundered lashes to you for this ignorance.......

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Nov 2010 16:55

Pratyush wrote:Sanku,

How can we say that it is an un needed aircraft. The COA(ir)S is on record stating it is an aircraft that meets all the requirements of the force.

Then why do we keep on raising the point of the AC been un needed. Only being acquired to oblige the Khans.

Pratyush, I did not not say it was a un-needed aircraft. I merely said that

The reason for purchase seem to be anything but real requirements (though IAF may end up making some limited use of it)

Its fairly evident why the requirements which dictate that C 17s must be acquired are not "real" (and no strategic airlift != C 17) and no surfing the web is not a substitute for sending RFIs to determine what are the real options that IAF has.

The real way to acquire a useful asset is to FIRST make RFI and then look for suitable candidates

AND NOT

To FIRST SEE C 17 and THEN make a RFI and send it to C 17.

The difference is crystal clear and the angst and hopping about on one foot that is seen when ever the very basics are raised is eloquent testimony to it.

Cheers....

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Nov 2010 16:58

Philip wrote:Amit,etc.,my query is why we are buying a strategic superheavyweight,when we do not have a global strategic expeditionary role like the US/NATO.The IL-76s are NOT being discarded and are to be upgraded from earlier reports.Moreover,if the task is to assist logistics in the Himalayas,then this is "overkill",as the aircraft cannot land on our small Himalayan airstrips where AN-32s ,also being upgraded are doing a great job.I sad many a time,this is a favour for Boeing so that they can eke out some more moolah before the plant closes and India is being suckered into buying them at exorbitant prices.

The entire NATO forces have just 25 C-17s.We have no role public or otherwise on a global footprint like NATO.However,if we read between the lines and the fine print,this deal forces us to provide logistic support to all C-17 users who are US?NATO allies! This is the insidious part of the deal,that India through the backdoor is to become a US military satellite.I've mentioed earlier the option for us to lease out such sueprheavyweight sized aircraft.The US has more than it needs,why didn't we try for a less costly lease?After all Russia is leasing us a SSGN! why can't Uncle Sam do the sam?With the moolah saved we could use it in various critical programmes,for the LCA,MMRCA,AWACS,heavy helos,etc.Well,that's my view and I stick by it.

Aha, so Philip finally you are admitting (even though in a backhanded way) that the C17 and the IL76 are not the same class of planes and so if the IAF wants as you call a "strategic superheavyweight" then the IL76 is not the answer?

Regarding the NATO having 25 C17s, the question you should ask is this: Why do they even have one?

That's because isn't the US a part of NATO? And doesn't NATO forces use each other's military hardware (especially the strategic type like heavy transports)? In that case the US has more than a 100 of these birds and it's quite unlikely that the NATO would go on a mission without US involvement. Why then does the NATO have even one C17.

Also, NATO is an organisation and not a country and I think its a testament to the usefulness of the C17 that an organization like NATO, which depends of funding from member states, has bought 25 of these super expensive planes.

On the other hand any "strategic superheavyweight" (as you call them) plane that is bought today by India would be in service till at least 2040? Do you feel that India would have no "global strategic expeditionary role" or interest say 20 years from now?

Would you be happy if India was still boxed within South Asia then, that is in 2030 or thereabouts? Perhaps I should rephrase this question. Do you think India would still be boxed within South Asia and would have no strategic interest in places like Central Asia, Far East and Africa in the 2030-40 decade? Do remember that by then India would be the world's second or third biggest economy and energy security would be the top of the agenda for the GoI of that period.

However,if we read between the lines and the fine print,this deal forces us to provide logistic support to all C-17 users who are US?NATO allies! This is the insidious part of the deal,that India through the backdoor is to become a US military satellite.

This comment takes the cake. Folks like you and Sanku ji have argued earlier that even NATO uses/used Russian made aircraft in Afghanistan to dish the C17 and question why we need to buy it. Yet you think India would become a US military satellite only if it buys the C17 and presumably not if it buys Russian maal.

If India chooses to be a US satellite what prevents it from using Russian aircraft to do the US' bidding?

You can have your cake and eat too, you know!

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Nov 2010 16:59

Sanku wrote:The real way to acquire a useful asset is to FIRST make RFI and then look for suitable candidates

AND NOT

To FIRST SEE C 17 and THEN make a RFI and send it to C 17.

The difference is crystal clear and the angst and hopping about on one foot that is seen when ever the very basics are raised is eloquent testimony to it.

Cheers....

Lal Mullah, if you are reading this, time to send out your RFI for the Lal Chix!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Nov 2010 17:00

Entering Alice in Wonderland territory again

Isn't the jump to SU 30 compared to the fighters we had (range,payload, capability etc) the same as jumping to C 17 wrt to IL 76??

So I never saw anyone screaming that we do not need a fighter to be able to fly over malacca or the gulf??

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

If it was really Alice in wonderland, it would not bother you guys so much.

Its pretty clear to everyone whats happening here.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Nov 2010 17:12

Sanku,

Lets come to the RFI. If the IAF has a requirement that can only be fuilfilled by the C17 then C 17 gets the deal. It seems that you are more bothered with the form rather then the function of the deal.

Also, if the AN 124 was available in large numbers and had an active line. One could have understood if not accepted the angst of the members WRT the C17 deal. Right now, it is not understandable.

It (C 17) offered capabilities that are unmatched by any other aircraft today. The IAF wanted it. They are going to get it.

Also, since it is available as FMS, the question / fear of bribes does nto arise. So the project gets a fast track approval. Same with the M777.

The only grouse I have is that the numbers of heavy/ medium lifters is too small. Even 16 C 17s (proposed) along with 45 (Again proposed MTAs ) will be a miniscule number whent it comes to the future needs of the IAF. Even the Germans were looking at 60 A400 at one time.

It needs a whole lot more then that.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 15 Nov 2010 17:17

i remain distressed that there has been insufficient media coverage of the lal-chix
yeh to bahut na-insaafi hai...

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Nov 2010 17:18

oh sanku

only the cost bothers us.

Added Later - yeah we do not like CISMA BisMO etc also but we will go with what the IAF thinks we can manage under circumstances

And we have been consistent about it.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Nov 2010 17:20

Sanku wrote:Its pretty clear to everyone whats happening here.

Indeed it's clear to everybody what's happening.

Good entertainment.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Nov 2010 17:22

Lalmohan wrote:i remain distressed that there has been insufficient media coverage of the lal-chix
yeh to bahut na-insaafi hai...

Aha but Lal Mullah that is because you did not issue a RFI and then a RFP. Beware the CAG black coats will burst into your room while you are, ahem, red in the Chix!

Don't say you weren't forewarned!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Nov 2010 17:43

Israel's relations with India and our defense cooperation dates back to the time when we did not even see an eye to eye with US on even fundamental issues. Unkil has burnt it's hands dealing with China (Lora and Hughes case) and is wary of advanced technology items falling into the hands of PRC hence the pressure on Israel to block the Phalcon sales to PRC.

And why Sir ?

Exactly , US does not want any sensitive technology which are of strategic nature or could challenge US ability to effectively deal with China to fall in China arm , so it pressured Israel to cancel the Phalcon deal and scale down defence co-operation with China ,partly because much of Israel development is subsidised by US.

BTW so I still didnt get it , we are saying the same think knoow ?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 15 Nov 2010 17:58

caught lal-handed...
now who will save me from wrath of CAG-Naga-Police-lady-with-dah?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Nov 2010 17:59

Lalmohan wrote:caught lal-handed...
now who will save me from wrath of CAG-Naga-Police-lady-with-dah?

Order a Russian mail order bride. All your previous transgressions will be forgiven.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 15 Nov 2010 18:02

i tried that, but half way through, the price was jacked up...

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 15 Nov 2010 19:31

Austin wrote:
negi wrote:kapitan that's why I said *at first* and mind you Israel unlike UK , Aus or even Japan is not exactly an Unkil's poodle it realized the potential of the Indian defense market long before US did .
Negi Sir , I would think Israel is more dependent on US then any of the poodle both for its very survival and subsidising its economy/defence industry , had it not been US pressure on Israel and some Congress/Senator crying foul they would have got a big share in China defense modernization.

India is more neutral in that matter as it does not threaten US interest , hence US does not mind the ever growing Israel presence in India , generates good money for Israel defense industry.

As proof, Israel had begun Phalcon AWACS projects based on A-50 for China long before it began the IAF A-50s. The Chinese even purchased 4 A-50s, the first of which was sent to Israel for Phalcon conversion in 1999.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/spe ... kj2000.asp

Under US pressure, the deal was cancelled, and the Israeli avionics were removed from the nearly completed A-50 Phalcon and the aircraft was sent back to China, which then began to develop its own technology.

So when the US decides to put pressure on Israel, it can do so quite effectively.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Nov 2010 19:36

^^ Yes very much it can , Israel can be pressured to if US wants to .... infact the GreenPine and Phalcon only can through with tacit US approval.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 15 Nov 2010 19:45

Philip wrote:For the more urgent helo acquisitions,we have the time and luxury of the MI-26 facing off with the Chinook!

Although the Chinook is much talked about, it is not the largest US helicopter. That title is held by the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-53E_Super_Stallion. It has 13.6 tonne payload (14.5 external load) vs 12.7 for the CH-47F. Under development is a more powerful CH-53K which will have a 15.9 tonne payload, much closer to the MI-26's 20 tonne payload.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 15 Nov 2010 22:34

LNS, please PM me with your email address. I have something for you.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Nov 2010 23:31

Pratyush wrote:Sanku,

Lets come to the RFI. If the IAF has a requirement that can only be fuilfilled by the C17 then C 17 gets the deal. It seems that you are more bothered with the form rather then the function of the deal.

Sorry Pratyush, this is funny.

How does IAF decide that it has a requirement that can only be fulfilled by C 17?

Without any RFI's to multiple vendors? Without RFPs? Without testing different manufacturers?

We know that the actual course of events was as follows

1) Boeing show cases C 17 in Aero India

2) IAF likes it

3) IAF sends a RFI to Boeing alone

4) IAF selects C 17

Of course ONLY C 17 could make the shortlist. Since it was fighting for top spot in a list of 1. Of course it would be the ONLY alternative.

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

MoD and RM is on record saying how that whole approach is trouble some since it short changes India. (Many articles, MoD rules, and speechs have been placed on record)

The approach that can chose the correct option is to
1) FIRST decide what is needed -- in a way which is not too narrow
2) Send RFI to the wide range (like in EVERY other deal)
3) Send RFP to interested manufacturers
3) Test
4) PNC

5) Final purchase.

That is the ONLY way to know which is the ONLY product which fits, in a TRANSPARENT fair manner.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Nov 2010 00:22

Okay Sanku sir.

There is a requirement for very heavy lift. To who all should should IAF send RFI?
1. IAF doesnt seem to like the IL-476s for the future. They have made it amply clear on numerous other occasions (read refueller, AWACS). With only about 20 about of these heavy lifters, high availability is a grave concern.
2. AN-70 (doesn't even make it to the very heavy lift category but anyhow) was shown very lacklustre support by RuAF.
3. A400M (doesn't even make the cut as VHL) is yet to be certified, will be equally expensive and will come here much later.
Which other aircraft?

The rest would be VVHL like the An-124 and the C-5 Galaxy. You yourself have asked the requirement for VHL. How will you justify the requirement for VVHL? WE have never even leased them once!

So where should the IAF send the RFI to and then waste 5 more years (at he minimum, if you go by the trend, it will be over a decade). By that time C-17 lines would be closed. There will be re-tender because there are no planes in the VHL category expect the IL-476 which the IAF will not want. The saga will continue.

Here atleast for once we are getting a piece of defence equipment in time and it doesn't seem fair?

There will be no procurement where we have no qualms (may be not even when we start building these in house). C-17s are a good plane. It may be overpriced coming from western stables. I tmight not come with comm. equipment. But other than that it is a good plane which we are procuring with time on our hands. That is a welcome first IMHO.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Nov 2010 00:34

Sanku wrote: MoD and RM is on record saying how that whole approach is trouble some since it short changes India. (Many articles, MoD rules, and speechs have been placed on record)

The approach that can chose the correct option is to
1) FIRST decide what is needed -- in a way which is not too narrow
2) Send RFI to the wide range (like in EVERY other deal)
3) Send RFP to interested manufacturers
3) Test
4) PNC

5) Final purchase.

That is the ONLY way to know which is the ONLY product which fits, in a TRANSPARENT fair manner.

^^^

The possible implications of that are:-

1. The procedure followed was in VIOLATION OF THE LETTER spelled out in the Defence Procurement Procedure - a brief perusal of the actual document proves that this isn't the case.

2. The procedure followed was in VIOLATION OF THE SPIRIT of the Defence Procurement Procedure - which would imply that the ACM P.V. Naik was being dishonest when he said all possible alternatives, present and future were analysed before the decision was made.

3. The COMPETENCE OF EVALUATING COMMITTEE is questionable, i.e. the study of alternatives was faulty given the absence of RFIs - I leave that to your judgement.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 16 Nov 2010 00:46

indranilroy wrote:WE have never even leased them once!

You just raised a very interesting point here.

Canada which purchased 4 C-17s in 2007 (and which also owns 5 Airbus A-310s) had, for years, been regularly leasing An-124s, An-225s and Il-76s for its military. In fact, even after buying the C-17, Canada continued to lease these same aircraft. Canada has been renting these aircraft even before its involvement in the war in Afghanistan (for e=military exercises, peacekeeping or disaster relief)

The UK, which now owns 6 C-17s (in addition to its fleet of L-1011 and VC-10s) still regularly leases IL-76s and An-124s to augment its airlift capability.

The USA, which owns the biggest strategic transport fleet in the world, with 200 C-17 and 100 C-5s (plus 500 KC-135s and about 50 KC-10s, which, although primarily tankers, are also used as transports) still is one of the largest An-124 users in the world. They regularly carry US armored vehicles, rocket booster etc)

All of the western European armed forces regularly rent Il-76s and An-124 for military charters, for their war efforts, for deploying their assets during multinational exercises or for disaster relief.

You are saying that the Indian Air Force NEVER rents civilian An-124 or IL-76s to augments its capabilities ? The current fleet of 17 IL-76s always meet all their needs? Interesting.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Nov 2010 01:03

^^^ I have never heard that IAF/IA has leased the AN-124/C-5 leave aside the An-225. I know that ISRO had used the Ruslan. But I have never heard its usage for military civilian roles. I would be very interested to know if it is otherwise.

I don't know how India gets by with only 17 IL-76s. Perhaps that accentuates the need for more Heavy lifts.

I don't know about Canada or EU or what there requirements are. But surely 4-5 aircrafts are not going to suffice any country with any considerable military. Also US's problems with the C-5s are well known. However, I won't venture into that.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose you were an Indian citizen. Knowledgeable as you are, would you have seen this deal positively or negatively and why? If you think we shouldn't get the C-17s, then what should we do.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Nov 2010 01:48

Gilles wrote: Canada which purchased 4 C-17s in 2007 (and which also owns 5 Aisbus A-310s) had for years been regularly leasing An-124s, An-225 and Il-76s for its military. In fact, even after buying the C-17, Canada continued to lease these same aircraft. Canada has been renting these aircraft even before its involvement in the war in Afghanistan (for e=military exercises, peacekeeping or disaster relief)

The UK, which now owns 6 C-17s (in addition to its fleet of L-1011 and VC-10s) still regularly leases IL-76s and An-124s to augment its airlift capability.

The USA, which owns the biggest strategic transport fleet in the world, with 200 C-17 and 100 C-5s (plus 500 KC-135s and about 50 KC-10s, which, although primarily tankers, are also used as transports) still is one of the largest An-124 users in the world. They regularly carry US armored vehicles, rocket booster etc)

All of the western European armed forces regularly rent Il-76s and An-124 for military charters, for their war efforts, for deploying their assets during multinational exercises or for disaster relief.

You are saying that the Indian Air Force NEVER rents civilian An-124 or IL-76s to augments its capabilities ? The current fleet of 17 IL-76s always meet all their needs? Interesting.

I believe the primary reason for that would be the structure of those organisations. Since the end of the Cold War they have been mostly expeditionary forces necessitating regularly airlifts for foreign deployments and joint exercises. The Indian military in contrast was primarily served by the roadways and railways and its only over the last decade that its started regular exercises with friendly militaries on foreign soil.