C-17s for the IAF?

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

See my final point is cant we wait for something like C-X or A400 to show up? Cant we use a bit cheaper option and spend the rest of dollars on some good stuff from KHan himself like some Artillery or an LHD etc.

One, you're supposing that purchases are being held up because of lack of funds. But are they? Sanku, makes a point about judicious use and that still makes sense. But not above.

Two, I had requested you to please research the topic before you post - and you've not done so. A simple googgle would have told you this:

A-400M
Capacity: 37,000 kg (82,000 lb)
116 fully equipped troops / paratroops,
Up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel
Price - EURO 136million

C-17
Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster
Capacity: 102 troops with standard centerline seats or 134 troops with palletized seats or 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients or Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank
Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix of palletized cargo and vehicles
Price - USD 200million

You still think we need to wait for A-400?

Added later - The Japanese Kawasaki C-2 looks like a baby C-17 -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... bc/C-X.jpg

[Sanku]

No, I'd think... Hey! This elephant's capable of running at 25kph - nice! Why hasn't it done so before? Maybe it's been lazy or tying itself in knots and therefore not exploring its potential so far. If it can run at 25, I'd say, let it run, good for everyone concerned.

Which is precisely the thinking that I take issue with. When something that never runs at 25 kmph does so, ONLY once, you would look for something more.

WHY?

That is the key question.

Anyway, the question is not merely the "speed" of the matter, (note the stress on merely) the question is that process have been short circuited. Why? What was the pressing need to do that? If you want to do it fast (like every jingo) you do it fast for everything and while following the process, (DPP, LTIPP, Offset, multivendor, yada yada) not fall over yourself to get "once in a life time deal"

We know what "once in a life time deals are"

I am afraid I find the "oh it happened fast" must be good -- to be a slightly limited way of looking at things. The context is totally missing and the context is really needed.

And no, you didn't, in fact, answer my question: if this had been a Russian plane (or, to avoid accusation, a French one), with the same abilities, and selected via the same process, would you have raised the same objections? Would this conspiracy theory have come up?

Actually this too has been answered, for example look above. The point here is not Russian or American but the need to do it in the right manner. OUR process need be followed.

Of course, I must say that US for me is a supplier of least choice, as the least reliable supplier and expensive one too boot, I would be far more leerly of choosing them. I would give US some negative points in any competition a handicap, but then here the competition itself is dispensed with.

Finally irrespective of merits of the supplier, I think there is a trend to persuade the forces to choose american-- the current trend of repeatedly spiking tests where the US equipment cant make it in, rings many alarm bells.

The tanker case for one
The Loh case for another.

The straws in the air point to a overtly and unnecessarily favorable pasture to US as a supplier. I as a jingo dont like that.

I've said this before, I'm wary of the US too, and ALSO believe it might have been a political decision -

To which I agree.

I just don't like the thinking that the C-17 is totally unnecessary and the IAF are either ignorant about the mess they've been landed in (because I don't think it's a mess), or that the IAF hates the aircraft and are being handicapped for political reasons.

Well we (both you and I) may not like it, but it may be the case, however, personally
1) In India everything finds a use, including this monster -- just like rohitvats said
2) I dont think IAF hates the a/c.

The point is "Is this the right thing done for the right reasons in the right way?" and not "well can we make the most of a given decision"

[Sanku]

I have never argued that the C-17 is THE best solution, for the simple reason that I do not know. What I have argued is that there has been a NEED for India to have a strategic airlift capability - and that I have argued since about 1998ish (pre agreement with Iran for bases in Iran).

Then I would say that I am in sync with you to a great degree.

[Sanku]

Sanku>>I think Shiv already mentioned the basics that tank transport is like 1% of the requirement. Max.

War is a rare event as well. Should the military therefore not be prepared for it? I've already posted on the last page a pressing requirement not long back to airlift large speedboats to Leh.

Oh please, please please please.

You dont make a decision overwhelming on 1% role at best its a really minor factor.

War is not 1% chance thingy in India, its one a decade thingy.

And yes, the IA may want to airlift T-90s to A&N for the same reason the IA is deployed there in the first place. To deter an amphibious invasion onto the place or to use it as a launching point for the same.

Well let me be the first to say that they dont need "tanks" for that. Normal guns will more than suffice, I suggest you DO watch letters from Iwo Jima.

We could have used ships during Operation Cactus as well. But often(and especially during or nearing wartime) speed is of the essence. And the An-124 isn't in production, so that's not really an alternative.

Umm we can lease either that or something in that class in the one off case we need that.

In any case, dismantle the tank and send it by twos (it has been done)

Dismantle the tank? Defeats the purpose of airlifting it doesn't it. How do we know the destination will have the resources to assemble it in the field?

Not really that way HAS been done before without real degradation. Sure not doing it would help. But we are now talking 1% of 1%.

And not one that's necessarily linked to the US. Operation Cactus was a foreign deployment and one which preempted American intervention rather than supporting it.

I am sure the presence or absence of T 72s did not effect operation cactus in a big way. Fine its a nice to have, but not what is seen a "key requirement" by any stretch.

Which is just as well since they are no where on the scene. It makes no sense to buy aircrafts today to transport tanks which will come after 5 years (best case)

The aircraft wouldn't enter IAF service until a few years from now and will continue to serve the IAF till atleast 2040. The C-17 unlike the Il-76 will be able to airlift the IA's current and future MBTs.

In short one requirement which in best case is 1% of the regular use, and special uses only seen in really far fetched cases.

The IAF can scarcely start issuing RFIs and RFPs in the unusual event of a request to airlift tanks, IFVs or APCs is actually made by the IA.

No charter them, just like its being done now, if you are going out of the country especially.

Tanks are sent by An 124 when they fly in.

An-124's can't operate from rough airstrips, have a very high operating cost, and aren't in production.

Well they can pretty much where C 17 has demonstrated so far in most theaters of interest.

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

The point is that there is a whole range of options, and that too for a requirement which is not critical in terms of most use anyway.

[svinayak]

Why is every purchase from US a scandal while purchase from Russia is gilt edged? Why the same broken record every time?
It is all about relationships. One is 40 years old relationship and the other is a 5 year old relationship.
And that justifies whining about every major purchase from the US?

The reason is credibility. Until the credibility is established everything is up for grabs.

[Viv S]

Sanku>>I think Shiv already mentioned the basics that tank transport is like 1% of the requirement. Max.

War is a rare event as well. Should the military therefore not be prepared for it? I've already posted on the last page a pressing requirement not long back to airlift large speedboats to Leh.

Oh please, please please please.

You dont make a decision overwhelming on 1% role at best its a really minor factor.

War is not 1% chance thingy in India, its one a decade thingy.

In the last forty years, there's been one localized conflict. Regardless, the military still needs to be prepared for all contingencies.

Well let me be the first to say that they dont need "tanks" for that. Normal guns will more than suffice, I suggest you DO watch letters from Iwo Jima.

You didn't need "tanks" in Operation Pawan either, and yet they were crucial in situations like the Para Cde. extraction after the Jaffna University airlift.

Umm we can lease either that or something in that class in the one off case we need that.

We can lease out all our transport needs and save a huge pile of cash for that matter.

Not really that way HAS been done before without real degradation. Sure not doing it would help. But we are now talking 1% of 1%.

You proposed it so... how do you split a tank into two parts without sawing through the chassis? And how do you put the two 25 ton parts(presumably) back together in the field(not factory)?

I am sure the presence or absence of T 72s did not effect operation cactus in a big way. Fine its a nice to have, but not what is seen a "key requirement" by any stretch.

Point was the IAF may be committed to foreign deployments without the US pulling strings in the background.

In short one requirement which in best case is 1% of the regular use, and special uses only seen in really far fetched cases.

The C-17 can perform every mission the Il-76 can and do it with a bigger payload. Being able to airlift heavy vehicles isn't its sole selling point, its simply a an important capability that's absent in the Il-76.

No charter them, just like its being done now, if you are going out of the country especially.

In wartime, the MoD can't be expected to go scouting around Russian and Ukrainian private airlines operating the An-124.

An-124's can't operate from rough airstrips, have a very high operating cost, and aren't in production.

Well they can pretty much where C 17 has demonstrated so far in most theaters of interest.

Do you have evidence of that? I have never seen or heard of an An-124 operating from a rough strip.

The point is that there is a whole range of options, and that too for a requirement which is not critical in terms of most use anyway.

Range of options? You've named just one option of leasing An-124s which isn't possible at short notice and unlike the C-17 cannot operate out of unpaved runways.

[Philip]

°we no longer want to be contrained...°.
Well,10 C-17s will be a joke if we think that they will make us an imperial force! The real need is about 50.100,000 troops ,marines,who can fight like the USMC and to transport them we need a large fleet of amphibious vessels.Oz is doing just that with the building of several Juan Carlos 35,000t multi-role flat tops,plus the logistic ships to carrry their eqpt.The C-17s will mereley ferry troops to fight a US led war.

[arnab]

Sanku ji was arguing that his problem with C-17s was not merely the speed of acquisition (a non argument), but also the fact that it ignored Indian rules such as 'multi-vendor' and 'offset' policy.
As pointed out several times - 'multi vendor' is NOT a rule. The decision to go to a single vendor CAN be taken by DAC. There is no real reason to send RFIs for non-existent aircrafts (A400) or less capable aircrafts (IL-76).

Let us now turn to the 'offset' issue. Boeing CEO (Dr. Vivek Lall) says that the 30 per cent offset rule applies to the C-17. So one more bogeyman put to rest.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories594.htm

Dr Lall, a former NASA expert who is now with Boeing, also said that the agreement would involve 30 per cent offsets, for which Boeing was already working out details. The matter would be finalised with the Indian Ministry of Defence once the Congressional clerance was available.

Defence Analyst and Aviation Editor of India Strategic Air Marshal Ashok Goel (Retd) described the decision to go in for C-17s as "timely." Air Marshal Goel, who had brought in the first IL-76 aircraft to India, observed that the Soviet aircraft had served the IAF very well and should have a residual life of 10 to 15 years.The same should be true for the AN-32, which is now under upgrade and life extension under a contract with Ukraine.

But as there is not much choice of military transport aircraft at the moment in the international market, quick and timely decisions for both the C-17s and C-130Js needed to be taken. "By the time the Soviet vintage aircraft are phased out, IAF should be well positioned with other - and more modern - aircraft." Both the C-17 and C-130J aircraft have "excellent proven records" and IAF would have to build appropriate capability requirements, he observed.

The C-17 would be able to carry one T-90 or one Arjun tank plus other sytems. Despite its massive size, it flies like a fighter with a simple joysitck. Thanks to its automated systems, it is operated only by a crew of three, two pilots and one loadmaster. In comparison, the Il 76 operated by the IAF needs a crew of seven.

It is one thing to be reflexively anti-american, but it is quite another to be 'more loyal than the Czar', at the cost of good proven equipment (whether made locally like the Arjun or imported from the US like C-17).

[rohitvats]

°we no longer want to be contrained...°.
Well,10 C-17s will be a joke if we think that they will make us an imperial force! The real need is about 50.100,000 troops ,marines,who can fight like the USMC and to transport them we need a large fleet of amphibious vessels.Oz is doing just that with the building of several Juan Carlos 35,000t multi-role flat tops,plus the logistic ships to carrry their eqpt.The C-17s will mereley ferry troops to fight a US led war.

Great!!! Since, we don't have the Sea lift for 100,000 or 50,000 troops, we should not have airlift for may be a Brigade worth of troops. Or unless we have like, 100 C-17s, what is the point of having 10 of those? But I guess, if we had order another 25 newer IL-76, everything would have been all right? The arguments get more weird day by day Will you transport Paratroopers by XYZ Class LPD from Agra to Maldives in another Op. Cactus? Or may be re-inforce a sector in double quick time should the need arise? Do you know that IA had airlifted the Division HQ of 6 Mountain Division and some troops to re-inforce the sector during Kargil to plug any gaps? Or airlifted 6 Mountain Division during Op Trident in 1987 (which btw was the actual plan to take NA and Op. Brasstacks was a master deception)?

Is it difficult to understand that for the fledgling Amphib+Airborne Force Projection structure we're trying to put in place, C-17+IL-76 will serve as the airborne leg of deployment? But no, since C-17 has been bought from US, it is for fighting US led wars - the fact that MMS and his coeterie can send those troops in Russian IL-76 and with Russian equipment is lost on our resident Russian apologist.

The amount of nonsense that passes off as opinion is simply amazing...

[Sanku]

In the last forty years, there's been one localized conflict. Regardless, the military still needs to be prepared for all contingencies.

Viv S, you do manage to surprise me, every time. What was IPKF? What was brass tacks? What was chequreboard. What is a low intensity conflict.

Dont be more absurd than you absolutely have to be please.

You didn't need "tanks" in Operation Pawan either, and yet they were crucial in situations like the Para Cde. extraction after the Jaffna University airlift.

As I said dont be more absurd than you have to be please, defending A&N against a amphibious assault (a far fetched idea in itself) is like Sri Lanka ops ?

Umm we can lease either that or something in that class in the one off case we need that.

We can lease out all our transport needs and save a huge pile of cash for that matter.

Simply ridiculous arguments, we are talking about shifting TANKS alone to long distances outside the country, a 1% or 1%. NATO leases them even when it has C 17s.

Wow man you are SOMETHING.

You proposed it so... how do you split a tank into two parts without sawing through the chassis? And how do you put the two 25 ton parts(presumably) back together in the field(not factory)?

Read it up, you will find it on BR. Clearly your knowledge levels are rather low, that does not stop you from stuttering around confidently though.

Point was the IAF may be committed to foreign deployments without the US pulling strings in the background.

May be is your favorite word isn't it?


Well an asteroid may strike earth in a months time wiping out all life, may be.

Hey and AVM talks about partnerships and force projection -- but to you? May be?

The C-17 can perform every mission the Il-76 can and do it with a bigger payload. Being able to airlift heavy vehicles isn't its sole selling point, its simply a an important capability that's absent in the Il-76.

Wow, I am impressed by the insight. You know that is true for An-32s too (by your definition) stop for a moment and try using your head.

Why does the world have many kinds of trucks? After all, all trucks use the same roads go the same place and carry same things?

In wartime, the MoD can't be expected to go scouting around Russian and Ukrainian private airlines operating the An-124.

Hello Ji we were talking of external deployments, exactly what NATO is doing today

Do you have evidence of that? I have never seen or heard of an An-124 operating from a rough strip.

You have heard of very little in general. Please look at what Gilles posted a while back on this very thread.

The tanks carried into Afg were An-124 and they landed at many places in Afg, the same places that C 17s landed.

That is a practical real world example.

Range of options? You've named just one option of leasing An-124s which isn't possible at short notice and unlike the C-17 cannot operate out of unpaved runways.

Tut, you are beginning to be really obtuse

Range of options are
1) Ships
2) Trains
3) leased a/cs
4) dismantled tanks for airlift.

So for a requirement which is any way 1% of total operation, and for which there exists multiple solutions, you want a expensive beast short circuiting everything?

Give me a break.

[Sanku]

As pointed out several times - 'multi vendor' is NOT a rule. .

Wow Arnab you cracked it? I am totally impressed. It is NOT a rule, didnt we know. My my my... how do you find such gems Sir we were totally in the dark before!!

http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_4_1_akantony.pdf

At the same time it would also encourage the widest possible competition. It is only through competition that we can ensure the maximum value for our money. It is important to have broad based and realistic QRs that will lead to multi-vendor competition. When you are preparing QR, don't think of one country or one OEM in your mind. That will lead to lot of complications. QRs must lead to help the competition, QRs must lead to multi-vendor situations, you must try to avoid single vendor situation as far as possible. Then many of the problems can be solved

This Sir, is Shri A K Antony, the Hon Raksha Mantri speaking to IDSA.

I can demolish the rest of your tripe quite as easily but then -- and may be I will if the fancy strikes me.

Debating with you is easy. You do all the work I just have to push.

[arnab]

As pointed out several times - 'multi vendor' is NOT a rule. .

Wow Arnab you cracked it? I am totally impressed. It is NOT a rule, didnt we know. My my my... how do you find such gems Sir we were totally in the dark before!!

http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_4_1_akantony.pdf

At the same time it would also encourage the widest possible competition. It is only through competition that we can ensure the maximum value for our money. It is important to have broad based and realistic QRs that will lead to multi-vendor competition. When you are preparing QR, don't think of one country or one OEM in your mind. That will lead to lot of complications. QRs must lead to help the competition, QRs must lead to multi-vendor situations, you must try to avoid single vendor situation as far as possible. Then many of the problems can be solved

This Sir, is Shri A K Antony, the Hon Raksha Mantri speaking to IDSA.

I can demolish the rest of your tripe quite as easily but then -- and may be I will if the fancy strikes me.

Debating with you is easy. You do all the work I just have to push.

Sure - he said 'where possible, we encourage'. Did he say it was a 'rule' as laid out in the DPP procedures? DPP procedures clearly set out the options and schedules for a multi vendor or a single vendor option.

Do also note that Air Marshal Goel (presumably he knows a bit about Transport aircrafts) says that there is not a lot of competition available in the international market for military transport, do we go by his words - or do we reinvent the wheel and ask for RFIs from IL 76?

P.S Do refute the 'offset' rule for the C-17

[JimmyJ]

Sanku, how about the deals that happened and happening between the Israelis and Indians, including the Greenpine radar, why there was no hue and cry about these deals when there was no competition involved.

The feel I get from the forum is if we rename C-17 to probably Il-17 or An-17 and make it in a country other than USA there would be a lot of people going to support the operational need of this aircraft.

The opposition to purchase is just because of the tag USA and nothing else. Well, unless something goes miraculously wrong; like China making US its best friend or India being named as the Master of Axis of Evils by US, the military partnership between India and US is going to get stronger and stronger as each day pass, whether I or anyone like it or not. And when it happens we would need at least few Indians who could probably leverage the partnership to benefit of India too.

[arnab]

Sanku, how about the deals that happened and happening between the Israelis and Indians, including the Greenpine radar, why there was no hue and cry about these deals when there was no competition involved.

The feel I get from the forum is if we rename C-17 to probably Il-17 or An-17 and make it in a country other than USA there would be a lot of people going to support the operational need of this aircraft.

Hush JimmyJ. When we enquired about whether Gorky purchase had a similar 'multi vendor' approach? We were told that this was before the 'multi vendor' concept was introduced in procurement !! (of course the contract for Gorky was signed in 2004 and DAC was constituted in 2001).

I also notice that Sanku ji is quoting from a speech by Shri Antony given in Oct 2009, Can we assume that since the C 17 process commenced in 2008, Antony's prescriptions are not applicable here?

[Sanku]

Sanku, how about the deals that happened and happening between the Israelis and Indians, including the Greenpine radar, why there was no hue and cry about these deals when there was no competition involved.

The answer is actually obvious, at least I think it is; it is a clear case of buying what appears to be a very expensive white elephant.

Did any one complain against M777 howitzer deal?

Why dont you want to use that as a data point.

The feel I get from the forum is if we rename C-17 to probably Il-17 or An-17 and make it in a country other than USA there would be a lot of people going to support the operational need of this aircraft.

Sure US is a terrible supplier and has a bad rap because of its policies, no arguing against that.

Do note that merely doing what you suggest will also probably slash the cost by half in addition.

The opposition to purchase is just because of the tag USA and nothing else.

Actually thats a whine that those who cant put up a single decent argument in resort too. Yes, US is a poor choice of supplier for mil equipment -- yet C 130 had no hue and cry? Why?

So clearly your argument is without any merit (well it was obvious from word go but some time you have to spell the obvious too)

Well, unless something goes miraculously wrong; like China making US its best friend

So you dont follow news in general? Guess what Obama said to the Chinese? Guess whats happening since Nixon-Kissinger days?

or India being named as the Master of Axis of Evils by US, the military partnership between India and US is going to get stronger and stronger as each day pass, whether I or anyone like it or not.

And does that mean its also a good thing? If you cant resist r*** lay down and enjoy it type philosophy here?

And when it happens we would need at least few Indians who could probably leverage the partnership to benefit of India too.

There will always be Indians who would leverage what ever they have (despite the pol leadership consistently messing things up), pointing out what a BIG favor we are doing to US by buying overpriced gold plated elephants is one part of such leverage actually.

[Rahul M]

If you guys cannot discuss without dissecting each others' hidden motives and biases, I'll have to lock this thread.

[Sanku]

Hush JimmyJ. When we enquired about whether Gorky purchase had a similar 'multi vendor' approach? We were told that this was before the 'multi vendor' concept was introduced in procurement !! (of course the contract for Gorky was signed in 2004 and DAC was constituted in 2001).

So after I have conclusively shown that Multi-vendor is indeed a highly preferred method by the MoD (which is being sent out for a six here) you are back with your "open shirt torn fly type arguments?"

I also notice that Sanku ji is quoting from a speech by Shri Antony given in Oct 2009, Can we assume that since the C 17 process commenced in 2008, Antony's prescriptions are not applicable here?

Have the negotiations started for C 17?

In any case so Gorky in 2010 is same as C 17 in 2010? As I said, thank you for making my case.

[arnab]

Hush JimmyJ. When we enquired about whether Gorky purchase had a similar 'multi vendor' approach? We were told that this was before the 'multi vendor' concept was introduced in procurement !! (of course the contract for Gorky was signed in 2004 and DAC was constituted in 2001).

So after I have conclusively shown that Multi-vendor is indeed a highly preferred method by the MoD (which is being sent out for a six here) you are back with your "open shirt torn fly type arguments?"

I also notice that Sanku ji is quoting from a speech by Shri Antony given in Oct 2009, Can we assume that since the C 17 process commenced in 2008, Antony's prescriptions are not applicable here?

Have the negotiations started for C 17?

In any case so Gorky in 2010 is same as C 17 in 2010? As I said, thank you for making my case.

Yes Multi vendor is a preferred method since the early 1980s - ever since the time we purchased the Jaguars (where several aircrafts were showcased) or take the e.g of Bofors (other guns were in fray). However, it does not preclude a single vendor approach as you would have noticed in the history of armed purchases. So you are arguing at cross purposes here. What is different is that since 2001, it is the DAC (comprising politicians, service chiefs and babus) which decides whether to go for single vendor or multi-vendor. This is for creating a holistic approach to procurement

[Sanku]

Sure - he said 'where possible, we encourage'. Did he say it was a 'rule' as laid out in the DPP procedures? DPP procedures clearly set out the options and schedules for a multi vendor or a single vendor option.

Did I ever say "rules" were broken?

Do also note that Air Marshal Goel (presumably he knows a bit about Transport aircrafts) says that there is not a lot of competition available in the international market for military transport, do we go by his words - or do we reinvent the wheel and ask for RFIs from IL 76?

Well such views from IAF have not stopped GoI from sending the MRCA contract to SIX diverse birds.

I have full respect for IAFs views, as I mentioned to rohitvats too, and as I have told you many times too, specifically, that this is not my argument anyway.

P.S Do refute the 'offset' rule for the C-17

Nothing to refute (from your quote) --

The matter would be finalised with the Indian Ministry of Defence once the Congressional clerance was available.

We know it was not multi-vendor. We know that it has not been discussed before. Based on the available information it will also not involve partnership (as in MTA etc) and resulting ToT.

How much offset and what types? Let us see, as of now, there is no formal word from GoI on what it would entail. Let that come first.

I hope at least Offsets + spare supply through domestic route are ensured.

[Sanku]

Yes Multi vendor is a preferred method since the early 1980s - ever since the time we purchased the Jaguars

Really werent you going on about how DPP etc came through in 2001? When was the formal restructruing of MoD aquisition done and new methods implemented (hint 2005-2006)

Were we buying 10 a/c for 5.8 billion $ in 80s?

What was the defence budget in 80s?

Was Soviet Union around in 80s?

Were americans selling in 80s?

Please Arnab, I am well aware that you make fantastic claims to support a open and shut case but this?

[amit]

If I may say so Rahul that may be a good idea to do so, especially since we're reduced to reading "tripe" (do note that word has been used many times on this thread) like dismantling tanks and taking them to the front line and maybe even overseas and then putting them together on the field and then fighting a war. I would like to know which country follows this practice. It would quite educational.

If that's the best argument, that those opposed to the C17 purchase then apart from bickering I don't think anything is going to come out of this debate.

I also note the deafening silence to the quote from one person who's a real expert in strategic airlift aircraft and IL76, Air Marshal Ashok Goel (Retd)

But as there is not much choice of military transport aircraft at the moment in the international market, quick and timely decisions for both the C-17s and C-130Js needed to be taken. "By the time the Soviet vintage aircraft are phased out, IAF should be well positioned with other - and more modern - aircraft." Both the C-17 and C-130J aircraft have "excellent proven records" and IAF would have to build appropriate capability requirements, he observed.

Since this has been written:

I can demolish the rest of your tripe quite as easily but then -- and may be I will if the fancy strikes me.

I really hope the fancy to demolish Air Marshal's arguments strikes somebody on this thread. I'm sure we'll learn something new then.

[amit]

Well such views from IAF have not stopped GoI from sending the MRCA contract to SIX diverse birds.

Wow! This should get a prize for Strawman of the Year on BRF!

This comes in response to this quote:

Do also note that Air Marshal Goel (presumably he knows a bit about Transport aircrafts) says that there is not a lot of competition available in the international market for military transport, do we go by his words - or do we reinvent the wheel and ask for RFIs from IL 76?

So there we have it Transport Aircraft and MRCA are the same beasts and IAFs views on either of them are interchangeable. Presumably they are interchangeable in roles too!


Just to recap, this is the exact quote for the India Strategic article on the Air Marshal's views:

Air Marshal Goel, who had brought in the first IL-76 aircraft to India, observed that the Soviet aircraft had served the IAF very well and should have a residual life of 10 to 15 years.The same should be true for the AN-32, which is now under upgrade and life extension under a contract with Ukraine.

But as there is not much choice of military transport aircraft at the moment in the international market, quick and timely decisions for both the C-17s and C-130Js needed to be taken. "By the time the Soviet vintage aircraft are phased out, IAF should be well positioned with other - and more modern - aircraft." Both the C-17 and C-130J aircraft have "excellent proven records" and IAF would have to build appropriate capability requirements, he observed.

A veteran transport pilot, Air Marshal Goel was the first to land the IL-76 at short and high altitude airbases of Leh and Thoise, as also at the port cities/ towns of Port Blair, Car Nicobar, Colombo and Male during trials and operations.

[Sanku]

....

Amit, I am not responding to you as the admins have asked that.

I would like to put on record that the above was a MASSIVE OUT OF CONTEXT mischaracterisation of what I said.

I note that you (along with some others) are resorting to "interesting interpretation" of fairly simple things that I am saying by taking statements out of context and mixing it with other statements taken out of context.

I would very much like that you dont use ANY of my material at all.

[akimalik]

At least in one video here, the C-17 is supposed to be taking off from a rough air-strip.
http://www.bush-planes.com/Boeing-C-17- ... Il-76.html

I too feel that if we have qualitative (meaning numbers) arguments to support our arguments then one should present these here, I find it quite childish the way people are attacking each other in this thread.

We seem to be missing out on the technical merits of the discussion (found elsewhere on this forum).

Thanks in Anticipation (I look forward to learning more about the a/c in question)

[amit]

I'm sorry to disappoint you Sanku, but if you are going to keep on posting contestable POVs, I'm going to point out fallacies in them in a civil manner as possible. I'm sure the Admins on this board wouldn't object to that. And yes I'm not going to fall into the trap of engaging in any more p!!sing contests.

And I hope you can also respond, if you wish, in a civil manner to any point that I may raise. I'm sure we're both mature and grown up enough to be able to debate in a civil manner.

I would certainly like to know your viewpoints on the Air Marshal's POV on the C17-Il76 debate as brought out by that article.

Cheers!

[arnab]

Yes Multi vendor is a preferred method since the early 1980s - ever since the time we purchased the Jaguars

Really werent you going on about how DPP etc came through in 2001? When was the formal restructruing of MoD aquisition done and new methods implemented (hint 2005-2006)

Were we buying 10 a/c for 5.8 billion $ in 80s?

What was the defence budget in 80s?

Was Soviet Union around in 80s?

Were americans selling in 80s?

Please Arnab, I am well aware that you make fantastic claims to support a open and shut case but this?

Look As I said before, $ 5.8 billion is a nominal number which makes no sense when you compare the 1980s with the 2010s. To make an accurate comparison either consider the 'real' value (by adjusting for inflation) or look at it in terms of share of GDP (or share of the defence budget). What was India's GDP in 1980s and what was the defence budget as a % of GDP?

Second, tell me what is it that we are getting for that $5.8 billion. When you say it is costly - do note that C-17s require 3 people to operate it and IL-76 requires 7. Would IAF factor these in when calculating 'replacement costs' or 'war attrition'?

Third, of that $5.8 billion, $1.9 billion will come into India as offsets. Would that mean a boost for local industry? Unlike say the Gorky purchase?

Please see what I wrote - to paraphrase, multi vendor is a concept that has been around for a long time. The restructuring meant a more transparent approach to decision making. It did not mean that a new concept of 'multi-vendor' approach was introduced. This ne approach is more about procedure - it involves politicians, service chiefs and MoD officials - so that everybody is on board in determining acquisitions and ad hoc decisions are avoided.

[Sanku]

At least in one video here, the C-17 is supposed to be taking off from a rough air-strip.
http://www.bush-planes.com/Boeing-C-17- ... Il-76.html

I too feel that if we have qualitative (meaning numbers) arguments to support our arguments then one should present these here, I find it quite childish the way people are attacking each other in this thread.

We seem to be missing out on the technical merits of the discussion (found elsewhere on this forum).

Thanks in Anticipation (I look forward to learning more about the a/c in question)

akimalik, please refer to previous pages, the discussion on technical merits has indeed happened. One of the factors discussed was the real ability of C 17 to use rough fields, if it could do so, the questions were with what payloads, seen in which real life conditions, was it tested extensively in India.

In addition the question were how do those capabilities compare with that of other aircrafts, which are not insignificant.

So I would like to say that such discussion do take place. The question however in this case appears to not be about the technical merits per se.

[amit]

The way I see things is where will India be in 2020. IF the C-17 fits a 2020 view, then I do not mind it. IMHO, in 2020 Russia will not be in the same position she has been in the past, important as a country no doubt, but relative to India she will not have the same power/influence/etc she has held all these decades. In short, the Russia-India ratio will tilt heavily in favor of India. Again, IMHO, the same will be true of the Indo-US ratio. So, the question to me is, what is good for India? Go for that without fear. And, then the issue of whom does India tie with (IF at all it has to be done), I would prefer the US - just the way it is. (I understand that these statements will generate more questions that provide answers for, but no time to get into details right now.)

NRaoji,

This is a very important point you make. Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the C17s, it should be noted that even if we sign the deal tomorrow, it's not like the 10 birds will be with the IAF the day after.

I would reckon it would take several years for the 10 to arrive in India and a few years more for the IAF to ready operational doctrines etc - that means the 2020 time frame for full operational deployment of all the birds plus the residue IL76s that we would have is a good one.

Now when trying to factor in what our strategic lift requirements would be, it is useful to factor in the size of our economy and influence in 2020 rather than using what's our economic size and influence is today and then trying to figure out why we need 10 "expensive" C17s.

JMT

[Sanku]

Please see what I wrote - to paraphrase, multi vendor is a concept that has been around for a long time.

Sir the concepts have themselves been around for the longest time, all of them. Self reliance and import was a issue in Vijaynagar as well.

But what is not contestable is that TODAYs context is not same as that of the 80s. neither that of the 2000s.

What is now is now and must be looked at with current set of guidelines.

The rest I consider is merely floss to divert from the real questions which still are

1) What are the real roles for C 17s.
2) For the roles envisaged, what other options were explored and why let go. Why no multi-vendor?
3) Given that many critical requirements for defense forces are moving slowly which require far less money, why this burst of speed here.

None of these questions are still answered (apart from vague answers like "all options were considered", and the comparison with other defence purchases stand out. That is not my claim, that is obvious for all to see.

Even if your claim is that the defense acquisition methods were restructured for transparency -- nothing in this deal is remotely transparent -- so even by the minimum standards you impose on the scheme.

To the public at large, its a very ad hoc decision -- and no Govt cant hide under -- IAFs prerogative on this.

[vardhank]

The point is "Is this the right thing done for the right reasons in the right way?" and not "well can we make the most of a given decision"

How do you come back to the same thing again and again and again? And then say I'm wrong and am putting words in your mouth?

Oh, and your comment about doing it OUR way? Lovely. Lets allow the License Raj only, na? Babudom rules! If a process to acquire a good piece of equipment does not match your exacting standards and the quotes from ministers you choose to use, shall we then assume that it was only done via some underhanded method and that politicians, for their own nefarious purposes, have handed the IAF an s-bomb that's going to explode in all our faces?

And no, actually, I WILL go out on a limb here. If it had been, as someone said, an An-17, you'd have been rolling around on the floor in champagne.

Frankly, I'm tired of you. The moment someone questions you, we start skating on oil, like with the Arjun vs T-90 debate, where we went off on a complete tangent. Shall we start talking about how the C-17's wings are not suitable because they're not smoothbore? Or why it's bad because the seats are pink and not yellow? Or shall we start discussing Antony's strange and sinister way of talking about multiple vendors AFTER a single-vendor deal's gone through? Oooo... scary!

Or shall we just get on with this thread and discuss HOW the C-17s might be used? AFAIK, it's pretty much a done deal. And IMEHO, not a bad one.

[arnab]

Please see what I wrote - to paraphrase, multi vendor is a concept that has been around for a long time.

Sir the concepts have themselves been around for the longest time, all of them. Self reliance and import was a issue in Vijaynagar as well.

But what is not contestable is that TODAYs context is not same as that of the 80s. neither that of the 2000s.

What is now is now and must be looked at with current set of guidelines.

The rest I consider is merely floss to divert from the real questions which still are

1) What are the real roles for C 17s.
2) For the roles envisaged, what other options were explored and why let go. Why no multi-vendor?
3) Given that many critical requirements for defense forces are moving slowly which require far less money, why this burst of speed here.



To the public at large, its a very ad hoc decision -- and no Govt cant hide under -- IAFs prerogative on this.

Then why bring in obvious fluff like 'hugely expensive' $5.8 billion planes.

The 'roles' have been enumerated in various articles by Air Marshal Pandey and Air Marshal Goel. Why do you think repeating questions will elicit different answers?

Why no multi vendor? - because IAF evaluated based on their needs and DAC decided. Advanced aircrafts to eventually replace old IL 76s

Speed - debunked before. No speed, a smooth thorough evaluation.

So why this false debate?

[Viv S]

In the last forty years, there's been one localized conflict. Regardless, the military still needs to be prepared for all contingencies.

Viv S, you do manage to surprise me, every time. What was IPKF? What was brass tacks? What was chequreboard. What is a low intensity conflict.

Brass Tacks and Chequerboard were exercises and none of the rest were wars. You've side-stepped the point. The IA will look to the IAF when an airlift of tanks is needed, not to private Russian and Ukrainian companies.

Dont be more absurd than you absolutely have to be please.

Please avoid such rhetoric. Unless you want the thread locked.

As I said dont be more absurd than you have to be please, defending A&N against a amphibious assault (a far fetched idea in itself) is like Sri Lanka ops ?

One could make a case to roll back the IA's deployment altogether in A&N since being called on to defend it is a far fetched idea. And no its not ideal terrain for tanks or IFVs(nor was Sri Lanka for that matter), but it remains a valuable asset for infantry support.

Simply ridiculous arguments, we are talking about shifting TANKS alone to long distances outside the country, a 1% or 1%. NATO leases them even when it has C 17s.

The IAF has had to airlift tanks in the past. I'm not referring to a hypothetical requirement.

Wow man you are SOMETHING.

Yet more rhetoric.

You proposed it so... how do you split a tank into two parts without sawing through the chassis? And how do you put the two 25 ton parts(presumably) back together in the field(not factory)?

Read it up, you will find it on BR. Clearly your knowledge levels are rather low, that does not stop you from stuttering around confidently though.

Post the link then. I haven't been able to find it. Explain how you'd bisect the T-90 or Arjun and load it into two Il-76s to be later assembled in the field.

Point was the IAF may be committed to foreign deployments without the US pulling strings in the background.

May be is your favorite word isn't it?


Well an asteroid may strike earth in a months time wiping out all life, may be.

Hey and AVM talks about partnerships and force projection -- but to you? May be?

You've sidestepped the point again. I'll rephrase my statement and remove the offending term.

"Point was the IAF may be HAS BEEN committed to foreign deployments without the US pulling strings in the background.

The C-17 can perform every mission the Il-76 can and do it with a bigger payload. Being able to airlift heavy vehicles isn't its sole selling point, its simply a an important capability that's absent in the Il-76.

Wow, I am impressed by the insight. You know that is true for An-32s too (by your definition) stop for a moment and try using your head.

^^^I've heard this from you before. And you're yet to offer an explanation to how the C-17s role differs from the Il-76. You've resorted to sarcasm instead of facts every single time I've posed this question. AFAIK they're both strategic airlifters for cross-theatre operations, that can function as bush planes. The C-17 has a higher payload but that's to be expected from an aircraft that entered service two decades after the Il-76 and replaced the C-141(the US equivalent of the Il-76). What is this unique doctrinal update that the MoD has chalked up for the IAF, which can only be fulfilled by the C-17?

Why does the world have many kinds of trucks? After all, all trucks use the same roads go the same place and carry same things?

Okay. Since we're pursuing that line of reasoning, what is the Il-76s role in the IAF? What is the metric behind your support for the induction of an aircraft with a 40-45 ton payload and opposition to one with a 80 ton payload?

In wartime, the MoD can't be expected to go scouting around Russian and Ukrainian private airlines operating the An-124.

Hello Ji we were talking of external deployments, exactly what NATO is doing today

The IAF has in the past been tasked with armoured airlift within the country as well. And the NATO's leased An-124 are supporting an eight year old counter-insurgency operation not a military offensive. Will the Russians and Ukranians be willing to fly their aircraft into a 'hot' combat zone?

Do you have evidence of that? I have never seen or heard of an An-124 operating from a rough strip.

You have heard of very little in general. Please look at what Gilles posted a while back on this very thread.

The tanks carried into Afg were An-124 and they landed at many places in Afg, the same places that C 17s landed.

That is a practical real world example.

I suggest you go back an look at what Gilles posted. And then see if your 'it can go everywhere the C-17 can' statement still applies. Unlike the C-17, the An-124 does NOT operate from rough strips(which Kabul and Kandahar aren't).

Range of options? You've named just one option of leasing An-124s which isn't possible at short notice and unlike the C-17 cannot operate out of unpaved runways.

Tut, you are beginning to be really obtuse

Range of options are
1) Ships
2) Trains
3) leased a/cs
4) dismantled tanks for airlift.

1&2)Ships and trains are how armor is usually transported. If an airlift is called for, its obvious the IA doesn't have those options available either due to the destination being remote or the requirement being urgent.
3)Leased aircraft are basically civilian aircraft and have all the limitations of one.
4)You're yet to substantiate this 'option'.

So for a requirement which is any way 1% of total operation, and for which there exists multiple solutions, you want a expensive beast short circuiting everything?

Give me a break.

By your argument - why go for an expensive Il-76 purchase either, when the IAF can manage 99% of sorties with the cheaper An-32s.

[Sanku]

The point is "Is this the right thing done for the right reasons in the right way?" and not "well can we make the most of a given decision"

How do you come back to the same thing again and again and again? And then say I'm wrong and am putting words in your mouth?

Because the following example amply demonstrates that.

Oh, and your comment about doing it OUR way? Lovely. Lets allow the License Raj only, na? Babudom rules! If a process to acquire a good piece of equipment does not match your exacting standards and the quotes from ministers you choose to use, shall we then assume that it was only done via some underhanded method and that politicians, for their own nefarious purposes, have handed the IAF an s-bomb that's going to explode in all our faces?

This entire picture is entirely your own. I merely said that process that MoD says should be followed -- you dont like MoDs process? I am sorry but that is how things are supposed to work.

And no, actually, I WILL go out on a limb here. If it had been, as someone said, an An-17, you'd have been rolling around on the floor in champagne.

Well I am not responsible for what you think. As you have already demonstrated you will think what you want to think.

Please continue, no skin off my nose.

Frankly, I'm tired of you.

Again not my problem.

The moment someone questions you, we start skating on oil, like with the Arjun vs T-90 debate, where we went off on a complete tangent. Shall we start talking about how the C-17's wings are not suitable because they're not smoothbore? Or why it's bad because the seats are pink and not yellow? Or shall we start discussing Antony's strange and sinister way of talking about multiple vendors AFTER a single-vendor deal's gone through? Oooo... scary!

I see your problem. You dont like my views in general, this has nothing to do with C 17s all the technical merits.

Fine, at least you are upfront about it. Again not my problem.

Or shall we just get on with this thread and discuss HOW the C-17s might be used? AFAIK, it's pretty much a done deal. And IMEHO, not a bad one.

Fine, so you said your piece? Did I stop you? No? I said my piece too and reply on when responeded too. Why is it causing so much pain?

[Sanku]

Then why bring in obvious fluff like 'hugely expensive' $5.8 billion planes.

Because its is a deal which is half the cost of the MRCA deal.
As per prior discussion the costs for C 17 are higher than that for Il 76.

The 'roles' have been enumerated in various articles by Air Marshal Pandey and Air Marshal Goel. Why do you think repeating questions will elicit different answers?

Two line answer, also dealing with force projection and political alliances. (which is being papered over) -- if you take that statement in entirety it means "C 17s to be interoperable with US as per political guidance" but that answer is also not accepted here right?

Why no multi vendor? - because IAF evaluated based on their needs and DAC decided. Advanced aircrafts to eventually replace old IL 76s

Sorry does not cut it. Can be said for every purchase if you want to.

Speed - debunked before. No speed, a smooth thorough evaluation.

Sorry the question has to be asked why GoI is fast in this case alone and never otherwise.

Your claim cuts no mustard.

So why this false debate?

The debate is false, because it is expected that "IAF knows" is sufficient answer. Sorry wont do.

[amit]

Two line answer, also dealing with force projection and political alliances. (which is being papered over) -- if you take that statement in entirety it means "C 17s to be interoperable with US as per political guidance" but that answer is also not accepted here right?

Sanku,

Can you elaborate what the bolded part means in the case of a piece of equipment which you in other posts have equated with a truck?

I mean if the C17 as a strategic airlifter can carry troops and war fighting materials, why is there a need for interoperability with the US "as per political guidance" (as you say)?

If India wants to join a war or deploy troops overseas in tandem with the US, why can't it do so with Il-76s?

Suppose India wants to send troops and equipment to Afghanistan, (though tanks would be a problem, I mean after dismantling a T-90, how are you going to put it together at Bagram Air Base?) what's to prevent using Il76s.

And as you yourself have point out time and again, interoperability shouldn't be an issue with Russian equipment because, after all, NATO has used AN120s to deploy troops and equipment in Afghanistan, na?

Sorry but your "political guidance" spiel doesn't really fly.

Also:

The debate is false, because it is expected that "IAF knows" is sufficient answer. Sorry wont do.

If IAF knows won't do, what will do can you elaborate? Whose word should folks here take as the last word? If it's not that of a Air Vice Marshal and other IAF past and present officials then whose??

I'd like to know that and I suspect a lot of others here would like to know as well.

Thanks!

[nelson]

if c-17 be considered a done deal for the GoI and iaf, IMO, then it is one costly affair that the nation shall regret in a not so distant future. costly in terms of capital involved, operational overheads and in terms of involvement with unkil's scheme of things in the geo-politics. the benefits that accrue shall be marginal compared to the costs.

[JimmyJ]

The answer is actually obvious, at least I think it is; it is a clear case of buying what appears to be a very expensive white elephant.

Did any one complain against M777 howitzer deal?

Why dont you want to use that as a data point.

Well I guess there is another obvious reason too, that this is a thread dedicated to C-17. I am sure you know the Media syndrome, when latest news comes the old are discarded that is what happens in the threads related to Indian Army or Military Aviation. But here we have a thread where nothing new can happen as the thread name itself is "C-17s for the IAF?" So expect the complaints to be more on C-17 than any other. This is part of psychology which can never be obvious unless one puts effort to see it.

So clearly your argument is without any merit (well it was obvious from word go but some time you have to spell the obvious too)

There is a part which is know as learning which sometimes comes out through discussions. I hope we are not here to blow the hell out of others, there is chance for learning and relearning all the time.

So you dont follow news in general? Guess what Obama said to the Chinese? Guess whats happening since Nixon-Kissinger days?

The Nixon days are long gone, what we would see soon would be two countries trying to see whose head would be above the other by 2040. History can sometimes be a burden esepcially in a society were changes are more rapid than memories getting wiped out.

And does that mean its also a good thing? If you cant resist r*** lay down and enjoy it type philosophy here?

I hope we can keep out such statements from our discussions .

There will always be Indians who would leverage what ever they have (despite the pol leadership consistently messing things up), pointing out what a BIG favor we are doing to US by buying overpriced gold plated elephants is one part of such leverage actually.

Yep it is, you will have one or two senators here are there all time, after all the other controversial deal 123 went through it. We have Indian lobbyist in US. You know it, even I do, but you tend to turn a blind eye just for the time being. I love watching the H1B issues, hey the US corporates and Indians seem to be on the same page here.

[Sanku]

But here we have a thread where nothing new can happen as the thread name itself is "C-17s for the IAF?" So expect the complaints to be more on C-17 than any other. This is part of psychology which can never be obvious unless one puts effort to see it.

Interesting but I must say that after being in BRF for so long, if there is a reason to discuss something, people will discuss it. Even at the cost of taking threads OT, and the other deals too were discussed (I think C -130 had its own thread too)

So I think there is genuine concern here.

There is a part which is know as learning which sometimes comes out through discussions. I hope we are not here to blow the hell out of others, there is chance for learning and relearning all the time.

Sure, I guess sometimes there are people to argue just for the heck of it, and we tend to forget that we are here to learn as well and not only argue.

The Nixon days are long gone, what we would see soon would be two countries trying to see whose head would be above the other by 2040. History can sometimes be a burden esepcially in a society were changes are more rapid than memories getting wiped out.

True, but while I agree with your point, you mentioned chances of US and China getting together, the point is, they have been together pretty thick all this while, they have carved out sphere of influence for each other and let each other be in those and cooperate. They just ensure that neither party goes over and starts intruding in others sphere.

I dont think the other parts are currently relevant to C 17 so while interesting, I will pass those points for the while.

[Sanku]

Viv S; I did not read your post, I tried but it went all over the place, so let me retarget

What in C 17 means that it has a capacity which others dont have; yes its more of the same, but what more.

Tanks?

1) Tank airlift is 1% of the requirement, so its a nice to have factor but not must to have.
2) There are options such as leasing a An-124. (as currently demonstrated)
3) There are options such as taking the tank in two units (turret and chassis are separated)
4) Has a C 17 actually landed in a hot zone with a tank on a dirt airfield? No not seen -- so far real combat experience shows that C 17s have operated where even leased An 124 have big deal

So clearly tank does not cut it.

So basic question, why have different types of cargo aircraft's? Would have been easier if you had directly had this as your first post, I was thrown by the tenor of rest of your posts and thought you were being snarky so I replied with sarcasm.

The answer is simple -- for the same reason you have different sizes of trucks (roughly speaking) -- for a large country with a large set of operation you will have different weight needs at different points of time

1) Some times quickly ferry few troops into battle or med evac -- medium weight medium volume.
2) Some times take a large amount of food rations for a division -- low weight high volume.
3) Some times take lot of heavy equipment -- large weight large volumes.

So basically between volume and weight you can have a whole spectrum of requirements. Now you can chose to address it by

1) Lot of smaller sorties
2) One large sorty
3) One sorty running at 1/3 capacity

Similarly we can add one more dimension, distance.

Some times it may be possible to take the material in multiple sorties some times not.

Some airfields can be served by smaller airstrips some not (and I dont buy the C 17 claim)

You also have to do it efficiently in terms of prices since shifting price per tonne (including maintenance) will depend on the loading and distance etc. Also the amortized cost of platform is an issue. Factor speed in to.

So basically no ONE aircraft can efficiently address ALL the requirements -- you end up with multiple aircraft's in different zones. As I showed, there are Mil Lift aircraft in all ranges from
5-10
20
40
80
160

etc carrying capacities with various distances.

That is why it will be suboptimal to replace a An-32 with a Il-76 and a Il-76 with C 17.

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

Finally some one wants to replace Il 76 with C 17s? Fine, No skin of my nose. Just clarify the role in RFI and send the proposal to all major aviation vendors INCLUDING HAL.

Give HAL a chance to play in partnership too. Why not?

They dont have a ready line? Big deal where is a "ready line" for Gripen NG? For 5.8 BILLION dollars the world moves -- why not try? After all exactly same logic is used for MRCA, Taker, LoH yada yada yada.

Whats so special about C 17 requirement?

[Viv S]

Viv S; I did not read your post, I tried but it went all over the place, so let me retarget

What in C 17 means that it has a capacity which others dont have; yes its more of the same, but what more.

Tanks?

1) Tank airlift is 1% of the requirement, so its a nice to have factor but not must to have.
2) There are options such as leasing a An-124. (as currently demonstrated)
3) There are options such as taking the tank in two units (turret and chassis are separated)
4) Has a C 17 actually landed in a hot zone with a tank on a dirt airfield? No not seen -- so far real combat experience shows that C 17s have operated where even leased An 124 have big deal

1) Its not an ability the IAF would like to compromise on for an aircraft which needs to serve for the next forty years.
2) No rough field capability. Very unreliable availability during wartime.
3) What purpose does separating the turret and hull serve?

i) AFAIK its not something the T-90 or Arjun is designed for(unless you've got some info saying otherwise?)
ii) A dismantled tank cannot be driven onto the Il-76. Loading a 20 ton turret/hull into belly of the aircraft is a problem.
iii) The dimensions of the chassis are still restrictive.
iv) Mating the turret to the hull isn't something that can be performed in the field.

4) The only real combat theatre the C-17 has been a part of, is the recent Iraq invasion, where armored thrusts were either sea-borne or launched from Kuwait.
The question of a armored drop in a rough strip never arose. Combat experience is irrelevant in this case. A conflict involving the Indian military will not necessarily be played out along the lines of the second Gulf War.

An An-124 cannot operate from this airstrip in Afghanistan:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diX3x6ffvSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfI4gSz4RJk [cockpit video - shows the quality of the airstrip]

The answer is simple -- for the same reason you have different sizes of trucks (roughly speaking) -- for a large country with a large set of operation you will have different weight needs at different points of time

1) Some times quickly ferry few troops into battle or med evac -- medium weight medium volume.
2) Some times take a large amount of food rations for a division -- low weight high volume.
3) Some times take lot of heavy equipment -- large weight large volumes.

So basically between volume and weight you can have a whole spectrum of requirements. Now you can chose to address it by

1) Lot of smaller sorties
2) One large sorty
3) One sorty running at 1/3 capacity

So we were to assume that a single C-17 sortie can be replaced by two Il-76 sorties, we would also have to conclude that a single Il-76 sortie can be replaced by two An-32 sorties, therefore eliminating the need for the Il-76 either.

So basically no ONE aircraft can efficiently address ALL the requirements -- you end up with multiple aircraft's in different zones. As I showed, there are Mil Lift aircraft in all ranges from
5-10
20
40
80
160

etc carrying capacities with various distances.
That is why it will be suboptimal to replace a An-32 with a Il-76 and a Il-76 with C 17.

How would you then explain the USAF's replacement of the C-141 with the C-17? Or the IAF's replacement of the An-12 with the Il-76?

Finally some one wants to replace Il 76 with C 17s? Fine, No skin of my nose. Just clarify the role in RFI and send the proposal to all major aviation vendors INCLUDING HAL.

Give HAL a chance to play in partnership too. Why not?

They dont have a ready line? Big deal where is a "ready line" for Gripen NG? For 5.8 BILLION dollars the world moves -- why not try? After all exactly same logic is used for MRCA, Taker, LoH yada yada yada.

Whats so special about C 17 requirement?

AFAIK HAL never license produced the Il-76 or An-32 despite producing the MiG-21 and Jaguar and assembling the MiG-27. So you can't draw parallels between license manufacturing the MRCA and doing the same with the C-17.

Also how can you assume the IAF did not study other aircraft available globally? Maybe they didn't issue an RFI to Ilyushin(assuming they didn't) for the same reason they didn't send one to Sukhoi for the MMRCA competition i.e. they were already familiar with the aircraft and had a different (in the C-17 case, higher lift) requirement.