C-17s for the IAF?

[Pratyush]

Rohit,

Please let the detracters of the C 17 be. They have made up their minds. Please don't confuse them with facts. The usefullness of the project is usless to them.

Unless you want to add to your post count. Oh honoured Oldie.

[Lalmohan]

we will need C17's to come to the aid of the Oman government and other friends in the Gulf when threatened by hostile forces
We will need to ship relief supplies to indonesia and thailand when the next tsunami strikes
we will need to ferry brahmos spares and other supplies to vietnam, plus resupply the IN bases in Cam Ranh Bay with essential high end equipment
we will need to airlift infantry divisions from Leh to Bomdila and vice versa...

[Pratyush]

LM the same can be done by the Dakotas as well. why do you need the C 17 for. han ji.

[Lalmohan]

same can be done by bullock cart also
with bale of hay on back, with lalchix reclining on them with blade of straw between teeth...
you know where I'm going with this one...

[Sanku]

So you 're saying that when the COAS says that "We have evaluated all available options and selected the C 17 as the best suited" ,

Sigh, could you please at least read what I have posted on this page before getting so hot and bothered

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 05#p979305

Also, last thing I would want is another MRCA or refueller type "compettition" whereby it'll be ages before we aquire a much needed capability.

Ah the standard, "lets break the rules and preferred way because it does not make sense to me". No doubt Raja also thought he was doing the country a favor by quickly selling the spectrum "first come first serve", "get yours quickly"

Yes, we need to quickly acquire C 17s overlooking all other parameters, including what is the need for it. After all Americans are about to close the assembly lines pronto.

(and the jab was not IAF up there)

[Pratyush]

same can be done by bullock cart also
with bale of hay on back, with lalchix reclining on them with blade of straw between teeth...
you know where I'm going with this one...

Would love to see a convoy of bullock carts and one lalchix driving each one of them.

[Sanku]

same can be done by bullock cart also
with bale of hay on back, with lalchix reclining on them with blade of straw between teeth...
you know where I'm going with this one...

If it can be actually done by a bullock cart, bullock cart will get my vote.

The problem is it cant be done by bullock cart, but yes C 17 does not happen to be the only plane in the world.

There is not == between the 2 g and the C 17. If there is then even the P8 and the C 130 and the proposed javalin and the M 777 have to be questioned.

Yes in a sense quite so.

Dont see you raising the issue on these proposed and completed deals. But it is only the C 17 is the one that is the object of your displeasure.

The answer is on these lines

C-17s are cheaper than 2G scam

WAY TOO EXPENSIVE DUDE... That's MY money you are talking about you know.

[Pratyush]

Now it makes sense. In that i ask you again. What is the alternative. But it will restart the debate. So will not do so.

[Sanku]

The GOI bought the C-17 as thanks giving part of the deal , so lets be happy now

Austin this is something I could never understand, I expected that EVEN those who will support this deal to use the above as a starting point of argument + what RohitVats said, "we need airlift, period"

It may be a more interesting discussion then, right now people are just not able to get off the ground, still stuck in basics on "duh, why do we need multi vendor competition anyway?"

At least then we could discuss the REAL pro's and con's in the real world dynamics. Its stuck at a fanboi discussion level.

[Sanku]

Now it makes sense. In that i ask you again. What is the alternative. But it will restart the debate. So will not do so.

That is because you dont even understand "what is the requirement" (and no buying C 17 is not a requirement, it is a result)

First think in terms of
"What does IAF need here, what time frames, what costs etc etc"

and not

"Since IAF wants to buy C 17 the requirement is what is said by C 17 salesman in Aero India"

Personally I think that you have not questioned the requirements at all.

[Lalmohan]

pratyush
do a search on youtube for omid djallili and "belly dance"
i cannot do that from where i am otherwise I'd have provided it for you
[when faced with an impasse in his routine, omid reverts to "belly dance!" to divert attention]

[Sanku]

C-17s are cheaper than 2G scam

Thank god for small mercies.

[Pratyush]

pratyush
do a search on youtube for omid djallili and "belly dance"
i cannot do that from where i am otherwise I'd have provided it for you
[when faced with an impasse in his routine, omid reverts to "belly dance!" to divert attention]

LM nor can I. Its just a slow day in the office.

[Pratyush]

That is because you dont even understand "what is the requirement" (and no buying C 17 is not a requirement, it is a result)
SNIP..........
Personally I think that you have not questioned the requirements at all.

Sanku

Why should I question the Airlift requirements of the IAF .When, I know that the Logistical situation in the NE and laddhak is quite poor. I also know that the IAF will need the ability to airlift large quatities of hardware in the sectors of concern quickely. This can be done by a lot of diffrent designes. The most capble of them, that is still in production is the C 17. So it gets chosen.

Simple decision really. I dont understand why the IAF / MOD needs to make a hash of things and invite multiple vendors for a requirement that can be best filled by the 17.

Also the cost benifit analysis is some thing I have asked from you in one of my previous post. Please look at it and reply to it. In terms of choising a cheaper and a less capable design. That fails to meet the needs in times of crisis.

Added later,

I would wish the IAF to have capability that dont use. Then need the capability they dont have. C 17 gives them that. Thats good enough for me.

[Gilles]

The 2g scam is a diffrent issue all together. Please do not mix the two.

Sanku, I have not seen you give me one example of an aircraft that can match the C 17. When you do we can carry on forward. Untill then this debate regarding the procedure and processs is meaningless.

Another thing. If the rule exists, exceptions are also made. FMS is an exception. If I am to follow you logic. Every FMS deal is liiegal (No multi vendors etc. )and ought to be questioned and scraped and multiple vendors be brought in. Never mind that the alternates dont exist.

First tell us what were the IAF requirements that led to the choice of the C-17. Have you seen these or are you just deducting what the requirements might have been based on the choice of aircraft they made ?

[rohitvats]

First tell us what were the IAF requirements that led to the choice of the C-17. Has you seen these or are you just deducting the requirements based on the choice of aircraft they made ?

And do you have arguments against requirement of C-17 in IAF service?

[Gilles]

First tell us what were the IAF requirements that led to the choice of the C-17. Has you seen these or are you just deducting the requirements based on the choice of aircraft they made ?

And do you have arguments against requirement of C-17 in IAF service?

I do not know what the IAF requirements are. Unless the C-17 itself is a requirement.

[rohitvats]

And do you have arguments against requirement of C-17 in IAF service?

I do not know what the IAF requirements are. Unless the C-17 itself is a requirement.

Than stop tilting at the windmills.

You've already made your point (and a valid one) about the so called short-field performance of the C-17. But even in that case, the point is - we don't know what is the definition of short-field performance (as in how short is short length runway) and what weight the IAF expects to carry to these runways. And before anyone comes up with ALG+C-17 compatibility arguments, those are for AN-32. Interstingly, as per EAC-in-C, C-130 can land any where a AN-32 can. I say, get more of those....get 5-6 squadrons at least.

Apart from the above, IAF needs heavy airlift as of yesterday. Examples and comparisons with Canada and NATO are non-starters. We have active borders and an Army many times larger than most of them combined. And borders which have tendency to go live at short notices.

[JimmyJ]

First tell us what were the IAF requirements that led to the choice of the C-17. Have you seen these or are you just deducting what the requirements might have been based on the choice of aircraft they made ?

If one reads this thread from the beginning, the one single important information that is not available is this, the very reason why we have straw-man after straw-man.

[rohitvats]

First tell us what were the IAF requirements that led to the choice of the C-17. Have you seen these or are you just deducting what the requirements might have been based on the choice of aircraft they made ?

If one reads this thread from the beginning, the one single important information that is not available is this, the very reason why we have straw-man after straw-man.

In case you'd paid more attention, an attempt was made to answer this question using whatever public information is available in the first avatar of this thread.

[Viv S]

Amit ,I have never said that the IL-76 is the "equal"of the C-17.The big Q I've been asking all along is when we do not have a global interventionist role like the US or its NATO allies,why do we need an aicraft that is tailor made for the global super-heavywieght class and as Giles has pointed out,even with C-17s,these nations continue to lease extensively the hated lousy Russian AN-124s and IL-76s!

I think this has been answered several times, but what the heck, once more wouldn't hurt. Where does it say that this aircraft is 'tailor made for the global super-heavyweight class'? Its got a much higher payload than the IL-76 but the range is not all that much higher. In addition the IAF's IL-76s fly to far off places like the US and UK every year, something the C-17 will be required to do as well.

With regard to the fact that NATO forces lease C-17s and IL-76s, my question to you then is - how is it that they don't buy those aircraft instead of just leasing them?

Have you considered the fact that mission availability and turnaround time while crucial for an air force during war, don't weigh in so much when an aircraft is chartered during peacetime. Or that the ISAF forces are looking for additional capability for the Afghanistan mission today which will become excess in the future, and since the charter market is composed mainly of the IL-76 and An-124, they don't have a heap of choices.

As many have said,the Indian Railways are the best method of transportation of war material in the subcontinent and smaller medium sized aircraft like the AN-32s and heavylift/medium helos are more vital for suppling troops in the high Himalayas than C-17s.If we have NEVER leased a larger aircraft than Il-76s in the last few decades which we operate,then why are we going in for the C-17s?

How many transport aircraft larger than the IL-76 exist? How many were available to India in the 'last few decades'? And what makes you think that buying the C-17 means that concessions were made in the light and medium airlift department? Aren't we upgrading all An-32s? Isn't the number of C-130Js being bought is being predicted to go upto 20(a second order more or less being certain)? Aren't we inducting more Dhruvs, Mi-17s and 197 other choppers? Don't we have the LOH and MTA in development for just such areas? Isn't a major effort under way to upgrade all infrastructure in forward areas in Ladakh and the NE?

Even if it an absolute neccessity to possess such a capability,why hasn't the lease route been examined?Why is there this veil of secrecy about this acquisition which was never mentioned as critical in any JPC report or whatever! We are taking all the time in the world with artillery,jet trainers,submarines,etc.,but for an oversized transport aircraft for our immediate requirements,we are showing indecent haste.

A multi-vendor purchase inevitably takes place much slower than a single-vendor purchase. You haven't raised this point with regard to the rapid follow-on orders for the Su-30MKI, Mi-17 or for other single vendor purchases like the Tavor or C-130J. Why make an exception for the C-17?

Nowhere in Indian foreign/defence policy has it also been articulated that India is going to acquire a vast expeditionary force that will intervene anywhere on the gobe.While we have entered in recent times with some IOR island and littoral nations security agreements,these envisage a greater role for the IN rather thsn the IAF.This is why the IN is drawing up an ambitious amphibious warfare capability,with several amphibious ships to protect our 1000+ isalands and IOR interests.All heavy eqpt. will be transported by sea.

Why did we operate 17 IL-76s then if we did not require any expeditionary capability? How is a fleet size of 10 C-17s vast while 17 IL-76s isn't?

The answer as I've given time and time again is simple.This deal is an insidious "backscratch" by MMS for the N-deal,to save Boeing's goose/white elephant that flies.This fact is indisputable and so is the logistic string that comes with it.

Is the Chief of Air Staff also party to this insidious back-scratching?

Will the GOI allow US/NATO C-17s embarked upon waging war in the region for example against Iran-our strategic antidote to Pak ,to obtain refeulling and repair and other support facilties from Indian bases?

The agreement says nothing about NATO C-17s being serviced in India. And the government has refused to sign the LSA, treating requests on a case-by-case basis instead.

Lastly,we are not buying the C-17 "off the shelf".Boeing themselves have stated that it will take 3-4 years to build a C-17.They want India to buy the lot asap,but we want it spread out,therefore we now want "16",a tailor made deal to suit Boeing's interests NOT India's!

PS:And if we don't sign on the dotted line,reg. the servile agreements that the US wants us to do for all def. deals,then the aircraft will come without key eqpt. as well.

Again I must ask, is the air chief party to this servile behaviour? After all it he who announced that the IAF is looking to purchase another six C-17s and that not signing the CISMOA doesn't not have any effect on US sourced aircraft operationally.


Philip, while I respect your opinion, I've noticed you tend to simply overlook all responses to your posts and then simply restate those posts six pages later. Are we going to see the same this time around?

[Lalmohan]

^^^ not unless we move onto discussing lalchix
(there is madness to my method/vice versa)

[Sanku]

That is because you dont even understand "what is the requirement" (and no buying C 17 is not a requirement, it is a result)
SNIP..........
Personally I think that you have not questioned the requirements at all.

I would wish the IAF to have capability that dont use. Then need the capability they dont have. C 17 gives them that. Thats good enough for me.

Well I am glad we agree that you do not seek to understand this matter in any meaningful detail. Since we now understand each other there should be no issues, just that please dont make this into a virtue that all must abide by.

[KiranM]

Somebody who makes a virtue of harangue preaches about 'virtue'. Pah! What a baloney!

[Sanku]

Excellent, keep them coming!!

[Pratyush]

Sanku,

What is there to understand in this matter. Please expalin??

In my pervious posts. I have kept on asking you what is the alternative to the 17.In reply I get lectures of RFI/ RFP from you. That too for a govt to govt transaction.

From your posts it seems that the GOI should not enter into a transaction with another govt if the happens to be the US. Never mind that there is no viable alternative to this transaction.

Though you have no problem to other transactions with the same govt.

Right?

Talk about inconsitancy.

[Lalmohan]

please separate out your arguements according to:
1. requirements
2. availability of solutions
3. procurement process
4. pricing
5. operational reality

and besides, each of these categories has been gored to death... can we atleast hibernate until the deal is done?

[Pratyush]

Better still debate the feartures of our respective Lal chix.

[Lalmohan]

i am stunned that after all that, only 2 pix have appeared in the press
luckily i have video'ed the show...

[Tanaji]

What is interesting is that these paeans that are sung at the altar of multi vendor RFIs are magically forgotten when a Russian product is involved. Classic case is the T90 acquisition. Dubious ethically inconsistent arguments are made that claim because the T90 deal was made before an arbitrary date when the DPP was formed, multi vendor RFIs would not have provided any advantage. So, strangely multi vendor RFIs are a must if the product is non Russian and provides huge advantages and prevents single vendor price gouging, but when the product is Russian, the RFI provides no advantage "just because its before a fixed date".

(Hey if people are going to beat their RFI drum, I am going to beat my T90 drum too)

Lets beat these drums and get Lalchix to dance to the tune.

[Pratyush]

^^^ hear hear.

[Philip]

Viv,There are two key issues here which I've been trying to throw light upon.To me,this is not just a "one-off" deal.There are larger issues at stake.

One, the priority list for the Indian defence forces as a whole and the priority list of the IAF.At the "macro" level of the services,there have been several well debated issues I repeat,of eqpt. desperately reqd. by the services where inordinate delays are being experienced.I say this in context of the speed with which this deal is being concluded and the exact opposite as far as the other systems are concerned.I've listed some of them several times.Why is this so? As far as the IAF is concerned at the "micro" level,the "shrinking" IAF, the subject of many media reports and angst from the CoAS himself,indicates that this shortage of frontline combat aircraft should be top priority.In the last several years,we have NEVER heard of a critical requirement of heavylift transport aircraft being above combat aircraft,unlike subs,trainer aircraft,attack helos,transport helos,fighter aircraft,etc.,etc.The requirement for C-17s appeared only after we signed the N-deal and if any intelligent person joins the dots will see that Boeing is desperate for new orders and India is obliging it.Both the political and economic aspects of this deal are well understood in the US,where 40 states employ workers for the same.We are doing the US a big favour.So if we are,let's be honest about it and say that political/foreign policy compulsions are primarily behind the deal.

The second aspect is that if we do require such large transports,what are they for? It is not as if the IL-76s are in the same situation as the MIG-21s were at one time.The AN-32s long in the tooth are also being upgraded,indicating their value to the IAF even after decades of operating them.16 C-17s is the equivalent of almost the entire IL-76 fleet and unless the IAF is replacing the Il-76s-not going to happen according to reports,as they are also being upgraded,then where is this huge extra logistic support taking place? If it is only/mainly within the Indian subcontinent,on the Chinese borders,then extra IL-76s could easily be ordered as IL-476s are to be produced in the future.Easier to induct,especially when even the C-17s are coming without key eqpt. which we will have to procure from elsewhere.Russia has also said that if there are new orders even AN-124 production will be restarted soon.I'm only giving the alternatives/options as for the new tankers,the IAF/MOD's earlier decision to buy only French tankers was rejected and we now have a face off with the Airbus tanker vs the IL-78 which we operate.There appears to me to be a none too subtle attempt to badmouth the IL-76/78s by vested interests.Let there be a competition so that they can be evaluated and may the best win.I know of a most distinguished,upright recently retd.AM,who held command of two of our IAF commands,a transport expert,VVIP sqd. pilot,who swears by the excellence of the IL-76.We have not seen in all the years of operating the aircraft any major criticism of it.While saying this I do acknowledge that as a type gets older,accessibility to spares etc. becomes problematic,but this is not unique to any weapon system or aircraft.

There is no disrespect to the CoAS.Transports are also on his list and if the GOI feels that it is the most important,being a "political" requirement,takes a decision,then there is little that he can do about it but smile and accept it as he is at least getting one decision taken by an MOD that is poerhaps the world's worst for lethargy in decision-making.Here,remember,only the "decision" to acquire the C-17 is coming faster as you will see later on.In all my criticism of the deal it has never been about the capabilities of the C-17,but whether we need it that desperately,while delaying decisions in other critical areas.Now,from the timeframe that the IAF wants,a long drawn out acquisition,not acquiring the lot asap,along with Boeing's assretion that it takes 3-4 years to build one,does this it indicate that we really aren't all that desperate for it,so why the indecent haste? Why can't a lease at least be examined,and here Viv I'm talking about a long-term lease not just a stop-gap lease in a crisis.Airlines regularly wet-lease or dry-lease aircraft in their inventory,use then for years,making it incumbent upon the owner to keep the aircraft well maintained,so why can't the IAF do the same thing? We are after all "leasing" perhaps our most potent wespon system in the services,an Akula-2 SSGN from Russia with at least another to follow!

So let's look at the issue holistically,in all its aspects and ruminate as to what is really driving this deal forward.As for the member who asked why we bought the T-90 in the past,I think this issue has been dealt with years ago in other threads.Just for the record,Arjun's arrival was nowhere on the horizon,Pak suddenly acquired T-80UDs from Ukraine at bargain prices and in a knee-jerk reaction,we bought equivalent numbers of T-90s,the successor to the the T-72 which was and is the mainstay of the armoured corps.Western tanks were not offered and were far more expensive.Also remember that the Indian economy was not what it is now then.But here again the last shoot-out between the refined Arjun MK-1 and the T-90 saw the Arjun come out on top and a further 124 ordered,proving that competition gives us the best.I wish that this was increased to a total of 500 which would then make the effort cost-effective.Here one must also remember that 58% of Arjun's content is imported.Just for the record of single purchases,what about the P-8s? This aircraft was only on the drawing board,unlike the Airbus alyternative which was rejected and dspite all the touting about the superior capability of the P-8,the IN will get what will be the equivalent of an empty 737,with key components/eqpt. removed if we do not sign the controversial logistic/commn. agreements.With the British massively cutting their budget and drastically reducing numbers of JSFs to be bought-preferring Typhoons for the RAF as well as abandoning the STOVL version,thereby escalating the cost of the aircraft, we suddenly have the JSF being offered to the IN in like manner as the C-17! Watch this space and the IN thread.

PS:The unanswered Q remains whether we have secret agreements in principle with the US or anyone else, that demands the extra logistic "footprint" that an aircraft that C-17 will bring with it,being a strategic superheavweight.If we do have such agreements,or plan for the same but cannot say so publically for obvious reasons (no need to put a blowtorch up the Dragon's backside, what?!),then the acquisition for such a type and increasing the numbers of heavy transports is entirely justified,though we could've examined all options for the same.

[Surya]

The requirement for C-17s appeared only after we signed the N-deal and if any intelligent person joins the dots will see that Boeing is desperate for new orders and India is obliging it

Nonsense - time and time again this is spouted. if a functioning production line is desperate what would you call your mythical IL 476 line??

It is not as if the IL-76s are in the same situation as the MIG-21s were at one time.

How do you know??

then extra IL-76s could easily be ordered as IL-476s are to be produced in the future.

ah the mythical bird from non existent production lines??

The need to replace the IL 76s has been there internally - now you have seen a few public reasons for that (spares,servicability).

it takes donkey years to get anything from the ex soviet plants as they scrounge to find parts for a shell they have left over.




Other than the cost and to some extent the politics of it the rest of the arguments are nonsense

We are a large country with a large strategic footprint and have always needed strategic airlift

[Katare]

There is only one production line in the world active today for super heavy class transport aircraft. The line will be closing in near future since it is such a specialized aircraft that market is very limited. IAF has only couple of years window to get C17 or it'll have to live without a supeheavy class transporter.

There are only 3 places on earth that can design and build such aircrafts, US, EU and Russia. EU feeds off of US and it's land of peace after coldwar so tehy are not going too. Russia wants one but it's economy is too small to support a brand new design.

This means buy C17 now! or forget about this capability.

As for Philip's argument that we do not need C17 because it is made for "global intervention" is same argument that was used to beat-up on Su30 MKI purchase.

On the priority argument, I am not sure which item in that priority list is being ignored? Inability to purchase does not mean that they are being given lower prioriity. Also if i can't purchase item with top priority expediously does not mean I should not look down in the list and get what I can instead of returning money to finMin

Defence budget is being left unused every year so I would rather take couple of squad of C17 and C130 than loose it to some 2G scamer

[Lalmohan]

i think its fairly apparent that the C17 deal is an offset for the N deal
lets move on

[Surya]

i think its fairly apparent that the C17 deal is an offset for the N deal

highly possible but also dovetails with IAF needs

As long as COST does not become a problem

[Lalmohan]

under the circumstances, unkil will try to extract maximum leverage
and push cismoa... or 'educate dem injuns some more...' as was said in another thread

[Surya]

yup uncle will if you give him a chance

since both sides need something - bargain away

and this is where our babus need to earn their money

don't get me started on that educate them injuns -

[Sanku]

Better still debate the feartures of our respective Lal chix.

Obviously, since the facts are so clear that only denial or diversion works.

[Surya]

Obviously, since the facts are so clear that only denial or diversion works.

You mean like standardsing armor with a 125 mm gun