C-17s for the IAF?

[Sanku]

Viv S, I am afraid but I seem to be not getting "through" to you. If you are really interested in this discussion you need to do some homework yourself and learn and get the basics right at least.

Right now you are arguing pretty much every point for the sake of argument. For example -- you quibble about how tanks are transported in two pieces -- google and do some reading.

Also please dont answer with "possibly" "I assume" "roughly" etc etc. You have nearly every sentence of your answer liberally peppered with such adjectives. Possibly our PM is a man from Mars working on a long term colonization project.

You have tons of pointless statements like
And what does HAL never license produced a transport means? They cant do it in future? They must not? They cant be trusted? What?

Finally you WANT to think that tanks were the overwhelming requirements for C 17? Sure please continue thinking.

As I said, people here have pretty much come and said "I will think what I want, including what you really think" so clearly -- the lack of supporting data and thinking about it has no correlation.

Kindly continue, dont let me get in the way.

[Nair]

I don't understand the argument that you can lease transport when needed....so if the chicken neck is broken due to a massive Chinese invasion is the IAF expected to lease aircraft to fly troops into the NE?

NATO leasing aircrafts in Afghanistan or Iraq is not a similar situation..

[Sanku]

NATO leasing aircrafts in Afghanistan or Iraq is not a similar situation..

If the chicken neck is cut, probably there is no airfield safe enough in NE to land troops on anyway. In any case the point is that of many cases that exist that would need airlifting tanks (remember the previous context was specifically about tanks) leased airlift can be used.

Sure there *may* exist a few cases where the combination of a airfield where C 17 can land with a tank in its belly and is really needed to do that will exist.

But its one of the *corner case* requirements, you dont make the corner case your main decision making criteria, normally at least.

[Nair]

NATO leasing aircrafts in Afghanistan or Iraq is not a similar situation..

If the chicken neck is cut, probably there is no airfield safe enough in NE to land troops on anyway. In any case the point is that of many cases that exist that would need airlifting tanks (remember the previous context was specifically about tanks) leased airlift can be used.

Sure there *may* exist a few cases where the combination of a airfield where C 17 can land with a tank in its belly and is really needed to do that will exist.

But its one of the *corner case* requirements, you dont make the corner case your main decision making criteria, normally at least.

That is a reach...and the chicken neck getting cut is a nightmare scenario for India and getting prepared for that is not wrong. I am sure in such a scenario that army will be glad for the extra load the C-17 can carry.Forget tanks..why is everyone fixated on tanks.The C17 can carry a lot more of other things than what the IL-76 can.

[GeorgeWelch]

1) Tank airlift is 1% of the requirement, so its a nice to have factor but not must to have.

There are other things besides tanks that don't fit in anything smaller than a C-17.

2) There are options such as leasing a An-124. (as currently demonstrated)

In an emergency situation, leases might not be available, and certainly may not be available in sufficient quantity

In peacetime/sustainment operations, leases may be great. During a crisis, not so much.

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

The C-17 won't replace the Il-76 any more than the Il-76 replaces the An-32.

Have not both the Il-76 and the An-32 served in the IAF side-by-side for years? Why do you assume the C-17 will be any different?

Your statement is true, but there is another corollary as well, It would be suboptimal to replace a C-17 with an Il-76.

Finally some one wants to replace Il 76 with C 17s?

Again, no one's talking about replacing the Il-76s.

They dont have a ready line? Big deal where is a "ready line" for Gripen NG?

There are a couple significant differences.

1. You currently have aircraft that can perform all the duties the Gripen NG would perform. If there was a crisis and they were needed now, it wouldn't be a disaster because you have other very capable planes that can perform the same duties.

You have no planes that can perform the same duties as the C-17. Hence it is more critical that they are obtained and inducted before they are needed.

2. The Gripen-NG (and other MRCA contenders) is already flying. Where is HAL's C-17 competitor? A lot of design and development work took place before India ever became involved. The MRCA is not a 'clean-sheet' design contest. If it were, the timeline would be significantly longer.

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.

It's funny that you point to both the MRCA and the tanker, which are all based on off-the-shelf aircraft. Which off-the-shelf aircraft can compete with the C-17? Perhaps the An-124, but that is all.

[Sanku]

Forget tanks..why is everyone fixated on tanks.

You ask that to Viv S, he seemed convinced C 17 is to move tanks.


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

GeorgeWelch, the points that you raise have been addressed, please look up previous answers.

But yes I agree with a lot of what you say said -- I AM SAYING

1) Tanks are not the important thing for C 17
2) C 17 and Il 76 WILL coexist in IAF for a long long time.
3) Leases are only for Indian involvement in Afg and other such situations.
4) Yes it WOULD be suboptimal to replace C 17s by Il 76s where needed.

So yes you make a lot of sense and I agree, but what I am saying is that

1) Does India REALLY need C 17 class ? -- this sort of thing came new to all us Indians, I am not convinced.
2) Are there any in C 17 class should it have been tried -- yes we should try anything in and around C 17 class, including upgraded Il 76s. Indian processes call for multi-vendor competition bases purchase and that should be so.

The process calls for setting up requirements not in a very strict faishon but broad based so that as many candidates as possible can be looked at.

I would also like the money to be spent in a manner that a local collaborator get substantial rights on the project (not merely offset spending)

[Sanku]

Oh yes one more point w.r.t. C 17 decision making process;

Is there ANY open source data of what testing did C 17 do in India? Did it try Leh? With what loads? Did they try NE? With what loads? What runways? What temperatures? In monsoon?

Remember this is the sort of testing that MRCA birds are going through right now (Not to mention our own Tejas) and there are tons of "little birdy" reports too.

Heck even the LoH went through the entire rigmarole?

Where is this info for C 17? Am I missing something or there is none?

[GeorgeWelch]

1) Does India REALLY need C 17 class ? -- this sort of thing came new to all us Indians, I am not convinced.

Well either a situation will arise where you will need its capabilities or it won't.

If it doesn't, then of course it doesn't matter if you have it or not.

If it does, then you will be darn glad you have it.

Will you need it? Who knows? Who can predict the future?

The better question to ask is: "Can you afford to be without it if you do need it?"

2) Are there any in C 17 class should it have been tried -- yes we should try anything in and around C 17 class, including upgraded Il 76s.

The Il-76 (even upgraded) isn't in the C-17's class

Indian processes call for multi-vendor competition bases purchase and that should be so.

The process calls for setting up requirements not in a very strict faishon but broad based so that as many candidates as possible can be looked at.

There is no competitor in its class, it is a class of one. There is the An-124, but that is a very different plane, another 'class of one'. If the IAF looked at its needs and decided that it needed a C-17 class airlifter, there only one possible choice.

I would also like the money to be spent in a manner that a local collaborator get substantial rights on the project (not merely offset spending)

Direct offsets may not be possible in this case because of the limited lifespan of the C-17 line. By the time something gets setup, it will probably be closed. That isn't to say indirect offsets aren't possible (Boeing agrees to buy so many 737 components from Indian companies for instance)

[Sanku]

Will you need it? Who knows? Who can predict the future?

No George I cant, but the GoI can, it also publishes it (secretly) they call it LTIPP (long term... plan)

Light hearted banter aside -- well the entire world is built on making choices about the future about trade offs.

The better question to ask is: "Can you afford to be without it if you do need it?"

You know George, not to be rude, but that sounds like a very typical sales pitch (which Americans are great at, as I know first hand)

It appeals to the piskology of fear, "hey what happens if I turn it down" sharpening that argument by removing the context -- as it happens, India answers that sort of question about a ton of other things every day.

Should we have 45 Sqn of front line fighter today? What happens if need it?
Do we need the artillery guns today? What happens if we need it?
Do we need <xyz> today? What happens if we need it?

As it happens, our Government is also pretty phlegmatic on these matters, it will in 99.9% of the cases say, "Its happening, whats the hurry" there is a reason why we are called the elephant.

So yes, may be we can may be we cant, but if you ask me (and IAF till pretty recently) it was nowhere on the radar as "yes we need it, NOW" many things have been for a long time

including air defence shields, MRCA etc etc

But not this, NO.

The Il-76 (even upgraded) isn't in the C-17's class

Does not matter neither is Gripen in EF class, we compare them anyway (and other such examples) the requirements when importing cant be fixed, that is the bigger requirement, we need to be flexible to ensure multi-vendors.

We HAVE to. It is a directive from the top. -- It can only be overridden from the very top. Which has happened in this case. (top here would be PMO/MoD)

Direct offsets may not be possible in this case because of the limited lifespan of the C-17 line.

Personally I would say that another big flaw in this particular decision then. A big one.

I would want a big offset not merely in money terms but MORE importantly in tech terms. Which as you say is not happening.

[GeorgeWelch]

The Il-76 (even upgraded) isn't in the C-17's class

Does not matter neither is Gripen in EF class, we compare them anyway (and other such examples) the requirements when importing cant be fixed, that is the bigger requirement, we need to be flexible to ensure multi-vendors.

They are in the same class in the sense that they perform the same job. A fighter can be big or small but it still does the same thing.

It is not the same for transports. Big and small transports do different things.

We HAVE to. It is a directive from the top. -- It can only be overridden from the very top. Which has happened in this case. (top here would be PMO/MoD)

So . . . what's the problem?

I would want a big offset not merely in money terms but MORE importantly in tech terms. Which as you say is not happening.

There is nothing particularly high-tech about the C-17. What technology in particular were you looking to transfer?

[Sanku]

They are in the same class in the sense that they perform the same job. A fighter can be big or small but it still does the same thing.

It is not the same for transports. Big and small transports do different things.

Umm... Not true. The roles of a/c are significantly dependent on their sizes for fighter a/c too, I can go in detail and get into ranges, types of weapon, radar range etc. resulting into point defence or air superiority etc. but suffices to say not correct. (brevity since that OT)

We HAVE to. It is a directive from the top. -- It can only be overridden from the very top. Which has happened in this case. (top here would be PMO/MoD)

So . . . what's the problem?

We dont like this directive from the top. Just as you Americans dont like directives from the top many times.


More seriously the policy is good its there for a reason, it should be only overridden in rarest of the rare cases. Which C 17 is not.

There is nothing particularly high-tech about the C-17. What technology in particular were you looking to transfer?

Engines maybe?

But that aside, just a stake in building the product is yet another of those "must have" directives from the top.

[GeorgeWelch]

Just as a general comment, there seems to be the thought if you aren't dealing with outsize cargo, you can always replace a bigger transport with more flights of a smaller transport.

This just isn't true.

Often the limiting factor isn't the number of planes you have, it is the capacity of the airfield. Most recently the Haiti earthquake demonstrated this where they were turning away planes because they didn't have any place to put them. The US ran into a similar issue at Tiranas where they were trying to supply their entire operation through one airport.

Throughput becomes the key factor. How many planes can you land, how many can you park and how quickly can you turn them around to make room for the next plane?

You can fly a bunch of smaller planes in, but they just clog the place up without delivering enough materials. You can fly really large planes in, but you can't fit more than a couple on the ground at a time.

Where the C-17 really shines is throughput, saturating an airfield with as many tons a day as possible. A crude measure of how much space an airplane takes is the area of it's 'box' (span x length). The C-17's box is less than 17% larger than the Il-76 yet its cargo bay has over 60% more square footage (cargos tend to cube out before they gross out). And in comparison to the larger C-5, the US found that the C-17 had 3 times the throughput (tons/day) at the same airfield thanks to its smaller box and better maneuverability.

As a side note, this also shows why the theatrics necessary to load the T-72 on the Il-76 are a bad idea, especially if you have to go with splitting the turret and the hull into separate loads. The more time the plane spends on the ground waiting for these awkward items to be dealt with, the fewer other planes can land and the fewer supplies can reach the troops.

[GeorgeWelch]

Umm... Not true. The roles of a/c are significantly dependent on their sizes for fighter a/c too, I can go in detail and get into ranges, types of weapon, radar range etc. resulting into point defence or air superiority etc. but suffices to say not correct. (brevity since that OT)

In the generic sense that may be true, but both the Gripen-NG and EF (and MiG-35 and SH etc) would be used for the same role.

We HAVE to. It is a directive from the top. -- It can only be overridden from the very top. Which has happened in this case. (top here would be PMO/MoD)

We dont like this directive from the top. Just as you Americans dont like directives from the top many times.

You claim not to like 'directives from the top', but the policy you are fighting for tooth and nail is itself a 'directive from the top'.

More seriously the policy is good its there for a reason, it should be only overridden in rarest of the rare cases. Which C 17 is not.

Then how do you propose they invite competition when there is none? Should they rub their magic lamp and wish for it to appear?

But that aside, just a stake in building the product is yet another of those "must have" directives from the top.

But you don't like directives from the top . . .

[GeorgeWelch]

You know George, not to be rude, but that sounds like a very typical sales

That doesn't mean it's not true.

Should we have 45 Sqn of front line fighter today? What happens if need it?

India recognizes the shortfall and is working to rectify it as quickly as possible.

Do we need the artillery guns today? What happens if we need it?

Again India is working to fill the gap.

They are working to fill the gap on fighters, artillery, subs, tanks, carriers, supersonic cruise missiles, all sorts of things.

Why do you begrudge them trying to fill the gap in heavy lifters?

(Also some interesting programs. Where was the competition for the Gorshkov? For the T-90? for the Su-30MKI?)

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

1) Does India REALLY need C 17 class ? -- this sort of thing came new to all us Indians, I am not convinced.

How about elaborating that India does not need C-17? How about throwing around some numbers and some genuine analysis?

2) Are there any in C 17 class should it have been tried -- yes we should try anything in and around C 17 class, including upgraded Il 76s. Indian processes call for multi-vendor competition bases purchase and that should be so.

What is the competition in C-17 Class? What multi-vendor situation could have been obtained? Which specific IL-76 upgrade are we talking about? And how does this upgraded IL-76 compare with C-17?

[Philip]

Reg. the issue of interoperability,remember the group that operate the C-17,all US military allies who have a joint military agreement for the same.It is this backdoor method of getting the US military foot,or rather the Indian military foot inside the US group of military allies that is totally unacceptable .Ubder MMS,the independence of the nation is being surreptitiousòy sold off to the US.He is taking us into an inferior realtionship with a superpower whose track record in Pak has been that of using Pak like a condom,as one Paki military man has put it! MMS is doing his best to turn us into another US servile vassal entity to compete with Pak for title of regional rentboy.

[NRao]

There is no reason to believe that the planes supplied by the US can be totally taken over by non-Indian forces (at will). This fear-mongering needs to take some rest. It is strange that there are economists (ref latest Newsweek) that want the likes of Indian middle class to buy from "developed nations" and then there are Indians who are not prepared to negotiate out of old world fears!!! What a strange world.

First it was some Trojan software (in missiles that were incapable of displaying any error message), now it seems to be "interoperability" that is making the rounds. !!!!!!!

[arnab]

There is no reason to believe that the planes supplied by the US can be totally taken over by non-Indian forces (at will). This fear-mongering needs to take some rest. It is strange that there are economists (ref latest Newsweek) that want the likes of Indian middle class to buy from "developed nations" and then there are Indians who are not prepared to negotiate out of old world fears!!! What a strange world.

First it was some Trojan software (in missiles that were incapable of displaying any error message), now it seems to be "interoperability" that is making the rounds. !!!!!!!

Not to mention the obvious fallacies that the lack of a 'multi vendor' acquisition is proof that this was a political decision. As if GOI cannot nudge the forces for a particular choice in a multi vendor context (considering there have been rumours that the French Soltam guns won the contest but the Bofors was chosen in a multi-vendor scenario earlier). I'm sure if the SH is selected, it would be a 'political' decision and if it is the Mig 35 - it would be the 'best plane won' Such arguments are really pointless since these are based on conspiracy theories.

Second, apparently we are conducting a 'technical' decision on the merits of C-17 (one e.g of Technical: see we do not object to the fast acquisition of C-130s and M777, but why was C 17 acquired fast?)

Other 'Technical' reasons for why the C-17 should not be acquired includes:

(1) it is 'expensive' - though no measures will be provided, does one include 'timeliness of delivery' when measuring costs, does one use 'life cycle costs' to measure it. Does one include the fact that it requires 3 persons to operate the aircraft (vs 7 in IL 76) Amit has posted a link that MoF used to follow the 'lowest base cost' method of awarding contracts (no wonder the Russians won) and then we paid through our nose upgrading them (e.g T-72).

(2) do we really need it, what is its 'role'? (now that was a great one - Letters from Iwo Jima showed we needed boats in past, Star Trek shows soldiers and weapons will be beamed up in the future - why do we need C-17s? Only piddly Air Marshals are calling it a necessary and timely acquisition).

(3)and look at EUMA, nuke liability and what Obama said to China (but that is fine - C 130s and M777s pass these technical arguments).

(4) Why was it acquired when other critical areas remain unfullfilled? - Logic would suggest that since we need to upgrade every area of the forces, this was an easy decision to make because there was no real competition (As Air Marshal Goel said). The Kargil expereience showed that strategic airlift capability is required (and no it can't be achieved by leasing aircrafts). Second, has someone made an official list stating 'priority of acquisition'? So how does one know what is more critically required?

[amit]

(4) Why was it acquired when other critical areas remain unfullfilled? - Logic would suggest that since we need to upgrade every area of the forces, this was an easy decision to make because there was no real competition (As Air Marshal Goel said). The Kargil expereience showed that strategic airlift capability is required (and no it can't be achieved by leasing aircrafts). Second, has someone made an official list stating 'priority of acquisition'? So how does one know what is more critically required?

Arnab,

Nice and concise summary of the kind of "deeply technical" material that is being presented against the acquisition of the C17s.

There are a few more I can point out but before that I bring your attention to you point No4.

Now the argument is, "Oh we have so many other things we need immediately and this money should have been used to acquire those..."

Most of these critical equipment are those that the Army needs (as opposed to the IAF, which has said, through various past and present officers that the C17s serve a critical need). Now some of these needs includes new artillery guns for example and there's no denying the fact that the Army needs them immediately. So the argument is that the $X billion that we would spend on the C17s should be diverted to purchase the Artillery pieces.

But my question is, can that be done in such a simplistic fashion? I mean India is not a banana republic and it has a full-fledged Budget for Defence. Now I'm not really too conversant in how the Indian Defence Budget is drawn up, but common sense and best practices elsewhere would suggest that out of the Rs X,000 crores that are allocated for Defence in a particular year, the Army would get a share as would the air force and navy plus allocations for DRDO etc. And this money would be spent by the various arms of the forces for both operational needs as well as for acquisition of new equipment.

Now, wouldn't the $X billion that's spent on the C17 come from the IAF's kitty? Just as the $Y billion needed for the artillery pieces come from the Army's budget?

I mean is it possible from an accounting perspective to take money from the IAF budget (for acquisitions) and use it to buy stuff for the Army in the same accounting year? I would think not and if say the IAF were not to go ahead with this acquisition this money would go back to government as unspent money. And if this is indeed the case is it being implied that the Govt is so broke that it needs to take money from the IAF in one year so that it can use it next year to buy stuff for the Army?

So this simplistic shopping exercise where you go into a supermarket and use your $X dollars to buy only stuff you "critically" need and nothing else doesn't really work. And then of course the question is whose going to decide who's "critical need" is more critical - that is in the real world and not on BRF?

Last I heard the Indian govt is actually rolling in money and so while the Defence budget as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest in the world, the actual amount of money available for the Forces is going up every year.

And this is the reason that, me thinks, the previous practice of buying the cheapest available in the world is being increasingly discarded for buying what best fits the needs of the forces - if that can be called a political conspiracy hatched by the UPA govt so be it!


So is this take money from the IAF to buy toys for the Army another Red Herring? There are so many jumping around in this thread that I feel like bringing my fishing rod!

[arnab]

[Now, wouldn't the $X billion that's spent on the C17 come from the IAF's kitty? Just as the $Y billion needed for the artillery pieces come from the Army's budget?

Precisely Amit, The budget specifically allocates capital expenses for IA, IAF and IN under different heads. But of course, if you are conspiracy minded you could argue that MMS would have told the army not to spend their money on capital acquisitions (and return it to the consolidated fund), but allowed the IAF to spend it - because they were buying US products, personally pushed by GOI I mean - can one even go on arguing like this? (technically speaking)

[amit]

Precisely Amit, The budget specifically allocates capital expenses for IA, IAF and IN under different heads. But of course, if you are conspiracy minded you could argue that MMS would have told the army not to spend their money on capital acquisitions (and return it to the consolidated fund), but allowed the IAF to spend it - because they were buying US products, personally pushed by GOI I mean - can one even go on arguing like this? (technically speaking)

Now to do a bit of stock taking on the kind of arguments that we've seen here.

1) C17 shouldn't be bought because the US will use the draconian EUMA to cripple the planes during crucial times. But of course EUMA isn't a factor on the C130J the planes which the Armed Forces will actually use to land Marines in Pakistan when the time for that comes.

2) India doesn't need such large planes as it has no global ambitions or responsibilities, never mind the fact by 2020, by which time all 10 C17s would be operational and in regular use, the Indian economy would be either the third biggest or fourth biggest in the world. Being small and inconsequential is so good isn't it? Who needs to project influence?

3) C17 are being bought so that it is interoperable with the "evil" US of A. Do note this point is related to this one: "Why do we think C17 is such a big deal, even the coalition forces in Afghanistan used the An124 - and not C17 - to ship stuff to the theater of war". Of course less endowed minds continue to wonder why India couldn't do the same with the IL76 in case it really does want to take part in the war in Afghanistan or some other place. As an aside I wonder if Vajpayee had committed to send troops to Iraq, what transport would have been used then? What would have happened to interoperablity issues?

4) C17 not needed because if you want to actually transport a tank - again say to Afghanistan - you can simply take off the turret and then ship the chassis and turret separately. I learnt something new here. I had no idea that tanks were like lego bricks, you can take off one part - something as crucial as the turret -, transport it and then put then back together again at the frontline! Of course there's an alternative solution. That is dismantle a part of Avadi and ship it along with the tanks, na?

5) We should have gone for an "ungraded" IL76. Now that's one helluva mythical bird, I haven't seen anything on the Internet about this bird, that is how it looks what are the technical specs etc and how they differ from the current IL76s. There are a few IL76 "upgrades" with more modern engines etc. But the question is, how can you upgrade a 40 ton aircraft and make it 80 tons?

6) And the pièce de résistance was issuing an RFP to HAL instead of buying the C17. And I suppose that HAL could come up with a 80 ton heavy lifter capable of operating in rough and short runways within say, what? two years? And incidentally forget 80 tons, if HAL were to do it I'd even settle for a 40 or 20 tonner. Incidentally how many years will it take to develop the MTA?

Could go on, but what the heck. We are going to hear variations of the above 6 and the four you posted. Hopefully a few new ones would be added, over the next few pages of this thread to make it all interesting. Maybe I'll update and repost this again then.

[Manish_Sharma]

First it was some Trojan software (in missiles that were incapable of displaying any error message), now it seems to be "interoperability" that is making the rounds. !!!!!!!

How about this:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... ge__st__40

US manageed to spoof Indian ship communication channel during Op Parakram, such that during the peak of Indian Military manuvere the ships that were on strict radio silance and guarding assigned flanks on western Arabian seas un-expectedly sailed home and only when they reached Mumbai, IN discovered they were spoofed with a messages that teh IN Command never sent. That was when IN rarely used a US equipment (that too on peripheral systems), what to speak of Command & Control nodes or sensor nodes, or AESA that dowes both.

[shiv]

How about this:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... ge__st__40

US manageed to spoof Indian ship communication channel during Op Parakram, such that during the peak of Indian Military manuvere the ships that were on strict radio silance and guarding assigned flanks on western Arabian seas un-expectedly sailed home and only when they reached Mumbai, IN discovered they were spoofed with a messages that teh IN Command never sent. That was when IN rarely used a US equipment (that too on peripheral systems), what to speak of Command & Control nodes or sensor nodes, or AESA that dowes both.

Did the spoofer leave a signature and passport size photo to say that the US spoofed Indian ships? Could have been Pakistan no? Pakistan is not supplying C-17s so no problem there.

[Viv S]

First it was some Trojan software (in missiles that were incapable of displaying any error message), now it seems to be "interoperability" that is making the rounds. !!!!!!!

How about this:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... ge__st__40

US manageed to spoof Indian ship communication channel during Op Parakram, such that during the peak of Indian Military manuvere the ships that were on strict radio silance and guarding assigned flanks on western Arabian seas un-expectedly sailed home and only when they reached Mumbai, IN discovered they were spoofed with a messages that teh IN Command never sent. That was when IN rarely used a US equipment (that too on peripheral systems), what to speak of Command & Control nodes or sensor nodes, or AESA that dowes both.

That's obviously somebody's (misinformed) opinion. India's deployment during stand-off lasted for well over six months. Transit time from Mumbai to Karachi is about 24 hours(at 20 knots). No big deal. The IN would have been back deployed off the port of Karachi within a day's time.

There are protocols to prevent this kind of BS from happening.

[GeorgeWelch]

How about this:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... ge__st__40

Your BS meter seems to be broken.

[Viv S]

Viv S, I am afraid but I seem to be not getting "through" to you. If you are really interested in this discussion you need to do some homework yourself and learn and get the basics right at least.

Well atleast answer two points-

1) How come the USAF replaced the C-141 with the C-17 if they perform different roles? And why did India replace the An-12 with the Il-76, since they belong to different classes?

2) Why do you assume the IAF doesn't need something the the 80 ton payload class and should settle for something cheaper?

Right now you are arguing pretty much every point for the sake of argument. For example -- you quibble about how tanks are transported in two pieces -- google and do some reading.

I did and I still have no answers. Which is why I'm still awaiting a link from you.

Also please dont answer with "possibly" "I assume" "roughly" etc etc. You have nearly every sentence of your answer liberally peppered with such adjectives. Possibly our PM is a man from Mars working on a long term colonization project.

You have tons of pointless statements like
And what does HAL never license produced a transport means? They cant do it in future? They must not? They cant be trusted? What?

You insinuated that the HAL should somehow have been involved with acquisition. I merely pointed out that given the fact that there's no precedent to it, its not really relevant to the discussion.

Finally you WANT to think that tanks were the overwhelming requirements for C 17? Sure please continue thinking.

As I said, people here have pretty much come and said "I will think what I want, including what you really think" so clearly -- the lack of supporting data and thinking about it has no correlation.

Kindly continue, dont let me get in the way.

1) The fact that its a wide-body aircraft is a huge advantage it has over the Il-76 beside its advantage in payload.
2) It doesn't seem like the IAF is very happy with the Il-76 platform given its preference for a different tanker in addition to the C-17.

[geeth]

US manageed to spoof Indian ship communication channel during Op Parakram, such that during the peak of Indian Military manuvere the ships that were on strict radio silance and guarding assigned flanks on western Arabian seas un-expectedly sailed home and only when they reached Mumbai, IN discovered they were spoofed with a messages that teh IN Command never sent.

Then all those who had sailed home "un-expectedly" would have got the retirement benefits also "un-expectedly".

I don't understand how can people be so colourful in their imaginations? There are set procedures for sailing orders. And any sailing orders are invariably acknowledged and important parameters relayed back to avoid such confusion.

[amit]

You have tons of pointless statements like
And what does HAL never license produced a transport means? They cant do it in future? They must not? They cant be trusted? What?

You insinuated that the HAL should somehow have been involved with acquisition. I merely pointed out that given the fact that there's no precedent to it, its not really relevant to the discussion.

Viv S,

You forgot to mention something. And that is does it make sense to make the investment (a huge one as HAL has no facilities that can be converted to make a 80 ton aircraft or for the matter a 40 tonner) for a production run that's likely to be in the region of 10 or maybe 15 aircraft.

Taking the cost of investment in such infrastructure and training, what would be the per unit cost of such a licensed produced by HAL aircraft be - would it be less than the C-17? And what kind of timelines would we be looking at. Would the first aircraft even be available within 10 years? More importantly who the hell would be interested in a licensing agreement for a production run of 10-15 aircraft, unless they get paid a huge sum of money?

Of course one could argue - and I'm sure we'll hear this eventually - that after producing 10 aircraft under licence, voilà HAL would have the capability of making big, worldclass transporters. Just as it has the ability to make SU-30 and Jaguar type of aircraft which are licensed produced - hey what heck why do we have a MRCA competition going on?

Actually if you go through all the arguments, they are just a front for one thing or issue. And that is only buy Russian, even if there's something better available and India has the money to buy it. This is discernible on multiple threads but is camouflaged with a lot of ridiculous and outlandish arguments.

Sure the Russians have been and continue to be reliable partners for India. And will remain so over next decade at least. But I think we should look out for what is best for India and not what is best for the Russian MilInd complex. The major part of the 70 per cent that India imports will come from Russia as it should be. But why this urge to ensure 100 per cent of the 70 per cent goes to Russia?

JMT, take it for what its worth.

[NRao]

First it was some Trojan software (in missiles that were incapable of displaying any error message), now it seems to be "interoperability" that is making the rounds. !!!!!!!

How about this:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... ge__st__40

US manageed to spoof Indian ship communication channel during Op Parakram, such that during the peak of Indian Military manuvere the ships that were on strict radio silance and guarding assigned flanks on western Arabian seas un-expectedly sailed home and only when they reached Mumbai, IN discovered they were spoofed with a messages that teh IN Command never sent. That was when IN rarely used a US equipment (that too on peripheral systems), what to speak of Command & Control nodes or sensor nodes, or AESA that dowes both.

I JUST peeked at the source of that quote!!!!

Do not know if I should cry or laugh.

But, it does prove that the "interoperability" button is working for sure - IF it was the US that "spoof"ed.

Well, IF the US provided machines could spoof a talk between Pasha and Karzai, who knows .......................

I for one find that very hard to believe. It is possible. But is it probable?

Just BTW, India has JUST supplied the com link for the P-8I. Perhaps it was related to this incidence?

[Sanku]

Wow so the usual stuff from the usual people eh; petty personal insults instead of a single answer to any question.

Figures, figures...

Let me re-answer some non-strawmen worth answering

Throughput

George dear, if you look at my elaborate answer to Viv S I have already talked about throughput so yes I am well aware that C 17 has higher throughput a fancy way to say it can carry more per sortie.

Il 76 has higher throughput than An 32 and An 124 has the highest throughput.

So yeah its just the same old of transport basics, packed in a fancy word (how typically American)

So thanks but no thanks, I dont buy your "last chance, sale sale sale pitch" and till very recently neither did IAF, its a new fascination.

How about elaborating that India does not need C-17? How about throwing around some numbers and some genuine analysis?

Again you have take the statement out of its context. But let me ask you, can you show with numbers that Il 76 are needed? What numbers will show it is needed or not? Do we have those numbers in public domain?

No we dont, what we have in the public domain is secondary data, views of IAF/MoD etc. And that is consistently silent on the need to acquire larger aircraft for Mil lift till last two years.

What is the competition in C-17 Class? What multi-vendor situation could have been obtained? Which specific IL-76 upgrade are we talking about? And how does this upgraded IL-76 compare with C-17?

It all boils down to how you write your specs. I can write a spec that I want a airlift which lifts 75-80 tonnes and goes 5000+ km with it.

I can write a spec that I want a aircraft which goes 60-80 tonnes and goes 4000-6000 kms with it.

Do a quick google and see which aircraft fit which bill.

Thats why Raksha Mantri wants that the SQRs be not very narrow.

Meanwhile add this to the questions noone wants to answer (enough time has gone by now)

Oh yes one more point w.r.t. C 17 decision making process;

Is there ANY open source data of what testing did C 17 do in India? Did it try Leh? With what loads? Did they try NE? With what loads? What runways? What temperatures? In monsoon?

Remember this is the sort of testing that MRCA birds are going through right now (Not to mention our own Tejas) and there are tons of "little birdy" reports too.

Heck even the LoH went through the entire rigmarole?

Where is this info for C 17? Am I missing something or there is none?

Rohit you want to take a stab?

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

Meanwhile Gripen and EF are in similar roles? But C 17 is in a class of one?

And the same people will turn around and say Il 76 and C 17 are both doing similar roles so just a upgrade.

So cut out the double-triple standard folks, if Gripen and EF are in same role, so are Il 76s and C 17 and An 32.

If the last three are distinct or the first two.

please take a cursory look at Gripen and EF before, they are same role statement -- range, loiter time, hard points, total payload are all different. So are prices, hugely. It is comical to suggest that they are same. Because they roughly do the same role.

And C 17s are not expensive at 5.8 Billion $? It has to be proved that 5.8 Billion $ is one of the largest deal ever? Thats fine with me, I wont be proving it. I dont want to prove that earth is round either.

The flat earthers win.

[Sanku]

Well atleast answer two points-

1) How come the USAF replaced the C-141 with the C-17 if they perform different roles? And why did India replace the An-12 with the Il-76, since they belong to different classes?

Who says An -12 were replaced with Il 76?

This was a gap which was there after An 12 retired and is being sought to be filled with HAL MTA

The MTA is meant to be a replacement for Russia's ageing inventory of Antonov An-12 and An-26/32 turboprop transports, which first entered service in the 1970s. In 2002 the combined Indian and Russian market was estimated to be at 200 aircraft.

Il 76 and An 12 have no correspondence.

As to why US of A lives with the loss of a C-141 class in its inventory? Well for one their airlift requirements are not like ours so it is for them to answer, but US also has tons of people using SUVs for personal transport. Does that make it right?

Even then as Gilles posted C 17 for C 141 was pushed through only by fraudulence in parts

2) Why do you assume the IAF doesn't need something the the 80 ton payload class and should settle for something cheaper?

Do different questions, does IAF need something? If they did they have been VERY quite about it, compared to the hulla they regularly raise on other issues. (Awacs, trainers, mid-air refullers, ADGES etc etc)

No a chirp.

Right now you are arguing pretty much every point for the sake of argument. For example -- you quibble about how tanks are transported in two pieces -- google and do some reading.

I did and I still have no answers. Which is why I'm still awaiting a link from you.

Ok then here goes,
http://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTempl ... t7yVwgcuQ=

To keep this move secret,tank turrets were removed and transported by vehicles. While heavily camouflaged turretless armoured vehicles moved from one harbour to another under the cover of darkness.

You insinuated that the HAL should somehow have been involved with acquisition.

I did not insinuate (look up the meaning of insinuate) I say CLEARLY that it makes sense to not have a off the shelf purchase but a partnership model.

I merely pointed out that given the fact that there's no precedent to it, its not really relevant to the discussion.

Precedence? Precedence dictates relevance? Then we should not ever discuss if buy C 17. There is no precedence for it.


That is truly irrelevant.

(in any case since its a point that you are harping on -- one word -- dorniers)

1) The fact that its a wide-body aircraft is a huge advantage it has over the Il-76 beside its advantage in payload.

Its a bigger a/c, its designed that way An 124 has advantage over every other a/c, should we all and only buy An 124?

2) It doesn't seem like the IAF is very happy with the Il-76 platform given its preference for a different tanker in addition to the C-17.

"It doesn't seem" eh? Now that is a insinuation, make a totally baseless remark and preface it by "It seems" "perhaps" "roughly" and other such words.

But in any case its nonsense and completely wrong IAF is VERY happy with Il 76.

There have been many statements. It is this precisely the kind of completely fraudulent statements that need to be trotted out to justify C 17.


Thank you.

[Sanku]

So buy C 17 in a break neck hurry and dont stop to consider

1) Why was never a chirp about this till 2 years back
2) Why no RFI and RFP why such a deep desire to skirt competition? (so you dont have to spike it like in cases of LoH and the tanker? -- the stuff in brackets btw is an insinuation inserted to explain its usage to those who dont know)
3) Why not the same treatment for many more critical items?
4) Where is the data for "adequately tested" a single report even chaiwalla?

Bah and humbug.

[amit]

Gripen NG and EF are in the MRCA competition and since the EF is in physical dimensions a bigger aircraft than the Gripen then hey why shouldn't a 40 ton air freighter be compared with a 80 ton air freighter - same logic right?

You know, I think we should go for the heaviest and biggest fighter plane money can buy, size does matter doesn't it in a dog fight or in a air superiority or bombing role! The enemy will run away with their tails between their legs the bigger the size.

I propose we enter the IL76 in the MRCA competition as well - we can fit it with a few missiles. Now that would be a big daddy of a MRCA for the IAF.

[NRao]

1) Why was never a chirp about this till 2 years back

From whom? I posted a few from retired personnel. Do not know if that is enough.

4) Where is the data for "adequately tested" a single report even chaiwalla?

IAF stated that they had done a study and found it fit!! We can question that statement, but it has to stand irrespective of what we think it to be.

Not read all your posts, but do you feel that India needs strategic airlift capability?

IF yes, then what alternative would you propose.

(Sorry if you already answered these two questions.)

[Sanku]

1) Why was never a chirp about this till 2 years back

From whom? I posted a few from retired personnel. Do not know if that is enough.

Not, lets look at open source material quoting senior officials and IDSA seminars and such likes. Some senior retired folks I know have wanted photon tarps since 1970s too.

4) Where is the data for "adequately tested" a single report even chaiwalla?

IAF stated that they had done a study and found it fit!! We can question that statement, but it has to stand irrespective of what we think it to be.

So IAF stated and there is no other news of C 17s landing here and there are anywhere. I am sorry thats not enough by FAR!! This is just like Gorky was adequately tested.

The silence is deafening as the word goes.

Not read all your posts, but do you feel that India needs strategic airlift capability?

IF yes, then what alternative would you propose.

(Sorry if you already answered these two questions.)

I did answer the question, to me, the first thing would be to actually identify what we need in a strategic airlift and why we need it. (I expect some public discussion on it) What payloads what ranges, what airstrips etc etc.

I would then expect RFI/RFP to be sent to all those who are interested in supplying a platform for that.

Trials, evaluation and purchase.

Transparent visible and in a way Indian Industry participated in a big way as a partner (with however, Boeing, Airbus etc)

Maybe get on the A 400 program?

[amit]

But in any case its nonsense and completely wrong IAF is VERY happy with Il 76.

There have been many statements. It is this precisely the kind of completely fraudulent statements that need to be trotted out to justify C 17.


Thank you.

Apologies for reposting stuff but some things need to be shown repeatedly if for nothing else by to nail "fraudulent statements".

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.

Link

Sure the Air Marshal doesn't say explicitly that the IAF doesn't like IL76s. But isn't it curious that he says that there is not much choice of military transport aircraft at the moment save for C17.

Doesn't that mean the IAF doesn't want to invest in further IL76s? Last I heard, or at least it seems from fanboys here the IL76s are there for the asking.

Now why is this so? Isn't this a valid question?

Of course it can be argued that IAF wanting something doesn't cut ice. What do they know anyway?

[KiranM]

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.

Sanku ji, agree with guns being more sensible to deter or defend from amphibious invasion of A&N, but disagree that tanks will not play a role. They will play the role of theatre reserve to counter attack a beach or coastal feature captured by the enemy. And as such the reserve need to be held a little behind to respond to where the need is greatest (assuming attack is from multiple axes).

[amit]

Maybe get on the A 400 program?

So we get on to a programme that may be cancelled due to lack of interest.

Incidentally the FM cancelled an order for the fueller version of Airbus, the A330 because it was so expensive! Any reason to think the A400 would be less expensive?

And we hear of cribs of how C17 is so expensive and yet it is perfectly alright to get on the A400 programme! But wait have we been invited on the programme? And we go through so many hoops for 10 aircraft!

Nice logic!

[amit]

Sanku ji, agree with guns being more sensible to deter or defend from amphibious invasion of A&N, but disagree that tanks will not play a role. They will play the role of theatre reserve to counter attack a beach or coastal feature captured by the enemy. And as such the reserve need to be held a little behind to respond to where the need is greatest (assuming attack is from multiple axes).

I'm sure folks here know but it needs to be reiterated. The southern most tip of the Nicobar Island is only 40 km from Indonesia - a part of Indonesia which has one of the most fundamentalist interpretations of Islam in that vast archipelago/country.

It's unlikely that there will ever be an invasion but the armed forces can hardly operate on hope can they?

[amit]

More on the A400:

Length 43.8m
Height 14.6m
Wingspan 42.4m
Maximum Take-Off Weight 130t
Maximum Landing Weight 114t
Operating Empty Weight 70t
Maximum Payload 37t

Data from here

Do note the pay load.

The A400M has a much larger payload than the C-160 Transall and C-130 and the design makes extensive use of composite materials. The capability for short soft field landing and take-off is part of the requirement and the aircraft has six-wheel high-flotation main landing gear.

Isn't it interesting the type of plane (in terms of capacity) that the A400 is being compared with?

But I guess 37t, 40t and 80t planes all fall in the same category, right?