Philip wrote: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.
Lets assume a heavy lifter isn't as critical a requirement as bolstering the number of fighters in the IAF inventory. Does that imply that it should be overlooked until we've got 39.5 squadrons active? Has the induction of the MKI or Tejas or MRCA been held up because funds had been diverted to the C-17 acquisition? If not, then where's the connection?
We didn't hear about any crucial pressing need for airlifters for the special forces yet we've got the C-130Js on order. We didn't hear any angst about the lack of rotary airlift yet we've got 130+ new Mi-17s on order (no RFI/RFP style competition for them incidently).
Its been three years since the induction of the C-17 was studied. This purchase while not typically slow (since it followed the FMS route) was hardly superfast.
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.
You've made this statement repeatedly and every time received the same response, which you have thereafter ignored. Boeing has already delivered the number of C-17s it was originally contracted to produce and still has enough orders to keep the assembly line functioning through to the end of 2012 (DID article already posted). How are the dead (claimed dormant) Illyushin and Antonov lines in a better shape? How are they any less 'desperate' for Indian orders?
Also given the US' $700 billion annual expenditure, how big a favour is giving them a $4 billion order for C-17s (spread over at least three years).
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.
How do you know that?
1. Numerous articles have emerged recently citing maintenance and serviceability problems for the IL-76.
2. Despite a much cheaper IL-78 offer, the IAF still preferred to go for the Airbus MRTT.
3. Despite the fact that it already operates three Phalcon systems on the IL-76, the IAF wants to use a different platform for the follow on order.
To use your words - 'join the dots'.
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.
I asked this in my last post (and you've ignored this ... again). How is the C-17 this super heavy cross-continental lifter? Its range is not all that much higher than the IL-76. The IL-76s regularly fly to US and Europe for joint exercises, how come you think they have a limited range vis-a-vis the C-17 when it comes to force projection? Why is that IL-76 is okay for the Indian subcontinent while the C-17 can only be for out-of-theatre operations.
Also how do you know 17 IL-76s is the 'ideal' figure for the IAF? How do you know its not 34 IL-76s or instead 34 C-17s? The IAF has better funding today than it had in the 80s when the IL-76s were ordered. Where are you getting your figures from?
Easier to induct,especially when even the C-17s are coming without key eqpt. which we will have to procure from elsewhere.
Its a transport aircraft. How are comm. suites key equipment?
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.
I wouldn't be so eager to buy into Russian promises. Its not the Antonov that's problem, its subcontractors who supply the spares for the aircraft that'll end up stinging. I suggest you see ACM Naik's entire interview on NDTV. Boeing in contrast will give a spares chain servicing well over 200 military operated C-17s.
'Vested interests'? Come now Philip, you're starting to sound like a politician.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
The decision to buy the French tankers was made AFTER a face off between the Airbus tanker and the IL-78. Clearly there's something about the IL-76 that the IAF has trouble digesting.
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.
Given the options available to us, I'm sure it was an excellent choice. The current crop of IAF decision makers (who undoubtedly include some 'transport experts'), have decided the C-17 is still a better option than the IL-76.
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.
And yet the Mirage-2000 remained a far more serviceable aircraft than the MiG-29. Perhaps you should acknowledge that the aircraft itself is a factor in addition to its service life.
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.
The CoAS said that the C-17 was chosen after a thorough study of all present and future alternatives. He said it was found to be the best aircraft for the IAF's requirements.
Philip, you're going to have to come out and say it mate -
ACM Naik was lying through his teeth and this is a political purchase. You can't respect his opinion and trash it at the same time.
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?
Again... where is the indecent haste? Now if you were to say that there has been an indecent delay in other acquisitions, it would be a different thing (and I'd agree).
What do you think is the ideal pace at which it should have purchased in terms of months/years? Give us a figure.
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!
How do we know a lease wasn't examined? But on the question of leases -
1. Are aircraft available for lease that can be operated during wartime without some insurance company kicking up a fuss?
2. If so, how old are the aircraft available?
3. What sort mission availability will they be able to achieve compared to new aircraft?
The Indian Railways are very cheap mode of conveyance in India. But, if you have an appointment you better leave plenty of cushion time (though to be fair there's been a remarkable improvement over the last few years).
But unlike you and me, the IAF cannot afford to sacrifice efficiency for cost, especially in wartime.
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.
The first T-90 order yes. But what about the next two? Avadi rolled out its first batch of domestically built T-90s barely a month AFTER the first Arjun regiment was inducted.
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.
This can be taken up in the Armored Vehicles thread, but for the record the actual cost of the Arjun is still less than the T-90S(after all the omitted components are added).
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.
The final aircraft was still in development but the 737 was in service and the sensors itself may well have been available for testing.
How does the absence of a few comm. suites - radio and sat links mostly, equal an empty 737? Why wouldn't BEL supplied equipment suffice as a replacement? For the record, Indian data-links are being integrated into the P-8I.
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.
The British have cut numbers for both types. British orders remain a fraction of those intended to be made by the USN and USMC.
With regard to your assertion - would the F-35B/C not have been offered if the British hadn't switched their orders?
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.
I must ask in this context - if the C-17 is a strategic superheavyweight what is the IL-76? You seem to giving the impression that it doesn't have the range to operate outside the Indian subcontinent and is therefore better suited to Indian needs. Would you care to justify that?