C-17s for the IAF?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Jul 2010 21:01

Obviously a production line existed since they have churned out An 124 before. The current status of this production line is unknown, there are quite a few reports floating around about "restarting" it, and the locations for this vary from Russia, Ukraine to Boeing... It has been a while since the last An 124 was churned out from scratch (the last unfinished airframe was finished in 2004), so the status of the jigs is unknown. Another point to note is that IAF most likely would not have gone for the vanilla An 124 or even the An 124 100, rather would have been a heavily modernized version with a decent cockpit and other gear, something similar to An 124 150/200 Clearly, such has not been produced before, and would require changes to a production line, even if one was in working order.

What are the odds that a production line will exist given that the last time and unfinished airframe (not from scratch mind you!) was produced was 6 years ago?

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 14 Jul 2010 21:02

Philip wrote:The C-17 is on life-support and Boeing is looking to India for a shot of Vancomycin to save its child! The entire issue couldn't be clearer,why the C-17 is being thrust down our throats in such indecent haste.

C-17 production was about to be closed but the USAF ordered more of them! Can u suggest any alternative(already in production) to C-17 ? I believe our options are quite limited!

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Jul 2010 21:15

Kanan wrote:
C-17 production was about to be closed but the USAF ordered more of them! Can u suggest any alternative(already in production) to C-17 ? I believe our options are quite limited!

*Sigh*

Who was Sita and what was her relation to Ram?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 14 Jul 2010 21:16

Samay wrote:
Tanaji wrote:
So, getting the Russians to start a non existent production line for An 124-100 (God knows when it may happen) is halaal, getting Russians to go to the drawing board to design a mythical Il r!
Are you sure its production line 'does not exist'. ?

These pictures were taken in 2010 at the Aviastar plant in Ulyanovsk, one of the two plants where the An-124s were built. It shows two partially built An-124s. The An-124 production line is idle, but Aviastar delivered its last two brand new An-124s in 2004, just 6 years ago. They were RA-82080 and RA-82081 delivered to Polet and to Volga-Dnepr. The jigs and tooling are still there and resuming production will not be a great problem from a technical point of view. Its mostly a monetary problem. The one large technical problem I am aware of is that the wings for the An-124s were all manufactured at the TAPO plant in Tashkent, the same plant that manufactures the IL-76. Those wings were carried to Russia and Kiew on the back of a modified An-22which now sits in a museum in Germany, but I assume that the An-225 which belongs to the Antonov Design Bureau, can carry those wings on its back.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 14 Jul 2010 21:17

Well I was trying to stay away from here but what the #$#%

C17 production line is going to close with or without IAF order. In all likelihood, with Obama/Gates against procuring additional C17s, the line could close as early as next year. Window for IAF to procure C17 is closing fast and IAF order will not give a lifeline to C17 but just delay the eventual closing of assembly line by a year or two. So if I were IAF/GoI I'll be really worried that only existing line in the world for a VHMT aircraft is closing and after that there won't be any product available in that category from anywhere.

Which means-

Hurry up and buy as many as you can afford and/or need

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Jul 2010 21:47

was expecting the forlorn shell picture from Gilles hence I said

turning to a barely running or even non existent line

either way it is more of a lifeline to the AN 124 manufacturers than to Boeing if one were to argue

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 14 Jul 2010 22:01

Ajatshatru wrote:Bhailog a very basic query:

If the production line is about to close, what would be the likely implications of procuring spare parts of C-17, when needed by India, a few years/decade(s) down the line?

Only Aircraft assembly line is closing not the spare manufacturing plants or repair/maintenance facilities which represents 10s of billions of $$ in future revenues streams for Boeing and other suppliers in support of 200 aircrafts for next 40 years.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Jul 2010 22:11

Katare:

Your arguments apply more to the An 124 as Surya has said, its more of a lifeline to them. They arent producing anything, we will be bankrolling them to produce 10 planes. Who knows what happens after that? Gilles himself admits its a money problem, so what happens after the 10 planes roll out? They arent Boeing to be around forever..

Ajatshatru:

The contract includes something called Boeing global partnership programme (or whatever its officially called) which guarantees parts for the life of the plane (40 years?) . Barring political issues, Boeing is more likely to be reliable than the Russians

Gilles

You really arent contradicting what I said. I do have my reservations on how viable a production line that has been idle for 6 years is. Key personnel are lost, jigs go to disuse. BTW, I thought RA 82080/1 were made from unfinished airframes, and not from scratch i.e. airframes were made much earlier?

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 14 Jul 2010 22:16

duplicate

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 14 Jul 2010 22:17

Gilles wrote:
Tanaji wrote:
So, getting the Russians to start a non existent production line for An 124-100 (God knows when it may happen) is halaal, getting Russians to go to the drawing board to design a mythical Il r!
Are you sure its production line 'does not exist'. ?

These pictures were taken in 2010 at the Aviastar plant in Ulyanovsk, one of the two plants where the An-124s were built. It shows two partially built An-124s. The An-124 production line is idle, but Aviastar delivered its last two brand new An-124s in 2004, just 6 years ago. They were RA-82080 and RA-82081 delivered to Polet and to Volga-Dnepr. The jigs and tooling are still there and resuming production will not be a great problem from a technical point of view. Its mostly a monetary problem. The one large technical problem I am aware of is that the wings for the An-124s were all manufactured at the TAPO plant in Tashkent, the same plant that manufactures the IL-76. Those wings were carried to Russia and Kiew on the back of a modified An-22which now sits in a museum in Germany, but I assume that the An-225 which belongs to the Antonov Design Bureau, can carry those wings on its back.

[/quote]

Gilles,

That is not an assembly line, the picture shows a few Soviet era unfinished airframes stored in Russia. All the recent supplies of Il and An series aircrafts are from those stored platforms of which few still remains. If you count for China order than none of the Il76-78 are available for IAF procurement.

What a shame since both those were and still are prolly the best MTA ever built and IAF could use dozens of them if they are available.

Tanaji,

Read again I said "it is not a lifeline for Boeing infact it has little or no consequences for C17 or Boeing" is what I said.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 14 Jul 2010 22:24

Strategy emerges to prevent more C-17 funding

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/ ... 17_071410/

The Air Force doesn’t need more C-17s, she said. In fact, the Air Force would like permission from Congress to retire 22 of its oldest C-5s, she said. That would save $325 million in maintenance, flying and modernization costs over the next five years, she said.

maybe IAF could buy the C5's for cheap..

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Jul 2010 22:24

leaving the arguments aside it is sad to look at the forlorn shells.

Pretty much all of us (even the C 17 fanbois

) have still a large soft corner for Ruskie heavy transports - wish they were humming instead of where they are.

sigh

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2010 19:17

The Russians have openly stated that IL-76 UGs and AN-124 production will restart,along with an AN-12/AN-26 replacement.They seem quite serious about it.There is no reason why the IAF cannot find out from our "old friends" what they intend to do before buying an aircraft on its way out.The AN-124/IL-76s have a future,because the RUSAF needs a large number of new transports and is committed to building them (after sorting out the logistics of where all the components will be made), but not the C-17.That's the stark truth of the matter.

But as I said before,I would delay buying a strategic airlifter (Instead upgrade all the existing IL-76s in batches,plus a few new IL-476s) and instead spend the money in fast-tracking the LCA MK-2,indigenous engine devepment and the most serious of all deficiencies,acquiring new trainers across the board,basic trainers,IJTs and AJTs,the shortage of which is having a serious affect upon our training of pilots.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 15 Jul 2010 19:22

maybe we should ask russia to restart the mig-21 production line

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 15 Jul 2010 19:26

2 front war is pretty high up on the Threat board and 10 C17s are clearly inadequate to meet this. I think it would be nice if the IAF decides to take the 22 Surplus C5's from USAF

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Jul 2010 21:43

The Russians have openly stated that IL-76 UGs and AN-124 production will restart,along with an AN-12/AN-26 replacement.They seem quite serious about it.

Dates, sir, dates, where are the dates? Leave alone the dates, they havent even decided where to manufacture the thing! The Russians were quite serious about delivering a $1B Goroshkov too, but we all know what happened of that

There is no reason why the IAF cannot find out from our "old friends" what they intend to do before buying an aircraft on its way out.

Ah, that "way out" again.. Its perfectly okay to champion Mig 35s that the RuAF will not buy themselves and likely the production line will end there after, but not the C17 where there are guarantees in the contract.

plus a few new IL-476s

Maybe IAF should contact Raavan and ask for Pushpak vimaana given that both are mythical beasts.

Truth be told, a modern An124 with western avionics, glass cockpit and western engines would be the perfect choice for the IAF. Unfortunately, such a beast is not available right now.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Jul 2010 23:54

Philip wrote:The C-17 is on life-support and Boeing is looking to India for a shot of Vancomycin to save its child! The entire issue couldn't be clearer,why the C-17 is being thrust down our throats in such indecent haste.

I've posted this before, but what the heck!

The UAE contract pushes the total number of C-17s added since September 2009 to 17 (10 USA FY 2010, 1 UK, 6 UAE), and raises FY 2010 C-17 production to the full production rate of 15 planes. Total lifetime C-17 orders now stand at 249 (223 USA, 7 UK, 6 UAE, 4 Australia, 4 Canada, 3 NATO, 2 Qatar with 2 more options), and the current production backlog is 37 planes. Boeing representatives say this will continue production through to September 2012.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/UAE ... 0Js-05302/

If they were to reduce the production rate they could extend the line even further. As a matter of fact, while it preferred a quick delivery, Boeing has been specifically requested to stretch out the C-17 deliveries by the IAF.

On a different but related note, when exactly is the An-124 production line being exhumed?

Tanaji wrote:Maybe IAF should contact Raavan and ask for Pushpak vimaana given that both are mythical beasts.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jul 2010 14:16

If the "two-front war " is the reason for the C-17s acquisiition,than it is simply absurd,as mules and porters matter more in the high Himalayas rather than a super-freighter that cannot land in the battle zone! Even the 70+ strategic roads that are being built in knee-jerk fashion to meet China's logistic superiority,will not be finished for several years to come and whatever our C-17s transport to base camp will have to be hoofed up the traditional way as has been done for centuries! Instead,an acquisition of the largest size of heavy-helos that can land where we need them most,would be a better buy.They can the transport light artillery,light tanks using underslings and even our existing MI-26s have a payload equivalent to an old AN-12! The new Russian light tank with a 125mm gun is a worthwhile acquisition,as it can fight in any terrain,marshes,high alt.desert,etc.It would be easier to transport than T-72s/T-90s which is being planned.Until we have established a huge network of all-weather roads,we will have to depend upon small airstrips and helipads to meet logistic demands and acquiring both heavy and medium sized helos that can ferry large numbers of troops and eqot. to any alt. is the immediate need.

The C-17/AN-124 are best suited to transporting troops and eqpt. to far flung bases like the A&N islands/our island territories, and countries where we have defence agreements like Mauritius,the Maldives and beyond,also supporting UN peacekeeping missions as we are doing in Africa,etc.In selling us the aircraft,the US is trying to press-gang us into becoming "military partners" of the US's band oif mercenary nations,through the back door of C-17 user agreements.This wil also result in the IAF in the future partly footing the US's strategic airlift bill when they come- a-calling during their cyclic military crises.Unfortunately,we have in our administration,political classes and now even in the the military,many would be "procurers" for Uncle Sam,especially given the huge "tilt" that the "leaning tower of Singh" has developed.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 16 Jul 2010 14:45

If the "two-front war " is the reason for the C-17s acquisiition,than it is simply absurd,as mules and porters matter more in the high Himalayas rather than a super-freighter that cannot land in the battle zone! Even the 70+ strategic roads that are being built in knee-jerk fashion to meet China's logistic superiority,will not be finished for several years to come and whatever our C-17s transport to base camp will have to be hoofed up the traditional way as has been done for centuries!

I take it that if we buy Il76 or An124 as you propose, the above issues magically disappear?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Jul 2010 15:16

Philip wrote:If the "two-front war " is the reason for the C-17s acquisiition,than it is simply absurd,as mules and porters matter more in the high Himalayas rather than a super-freighter that cannot land in the battle zone! Even the 70+ strategic roads that are being built in knee-jerk fashion to meet China's logistic superiority,will not be finished for several years to come and whatever our C-17s transport to base camp will have to be hoofed up the traditional way as has been done for centuries! Instead,an acquisition of the largest size of heavy-helos that can land where we need them most,would be a better buy.They can the transport light artillery,light tanks using underslings and even our existing MI-26s have a payload equivalent to an old AN-12! The new Russian light tank with a 125mm gun is a worthwhile acquisition,as it can fight in any terrain,marshes,high alt.desert,etc.It would be easier to transport than T-72s/T-90s which is being planned.Until we have established a huge network of all-weather roads,we will have to depend upon small airstrips and helipads to meet logistic demands and acquiring both heavy and medium sized helos that can ferry large numbers of troops and eqot. to any alt. is the immediate need.

Also, global warming is causing sea levels to rise. Therefore, the government should take steps to check environment damage and encourage international proposals to control emissions.

The C-17/AN-124 are best suited to transporting troops and eqpt. to far flung bases like the A&N islands/our island territories, and countries where we have defence agreements like Mauritius,the Maldives and beyond,also supporting UN peacekeeping missions as we are doing in Africa,etc. In selling us the aircraft,the US is trying to press-gang us into becoming "military partners" of the US's band oif mercenary nations,through the back door of C-17 user agreements.This wil also result in the IAF in the future partly footing the US's strategic airlift bill when they come- a-calling during their cyclic military crises. Unfortunately,we have in our administration,political classes and now even in the the military,many would be "procurers" for Uncle Sam,especially given the huge "tilt" that the "leaning tower of Singh" has developed.

Operation Cactus was authorized by the GoI and in fact ended up preempting an American intervention in the Maldives. Should India give up the strategic reach provided by heavy lifters? And in case you're plumbing for the Russians because the Americans are imperio-fascist-zionist pigs, it would be instructive to note that India has not bowed to US pressure anywhere. Indian troops are not deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. The only time India ever toed the American line was when it voted for a resolution against Iran long back, in return for US powering through an exemption for India from the NSG and IAEA(it has since reversed all such steps taken). Any opposition to the US needs to be an informed decision rather than just plain sentimental rhetoric. There is nothing to suggest India will take any expeditionary step that is not in accordance with its own foreign policy objectives.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Jul 2010 17:14

The new Russian light tank with a 125mm gun is a worthwhile acquisition,as it can fight in any terrain,marshes,high alt.desert,etc.

you left out space, air, lava,ocean,beaches....

even our existing MI-26s

and how frequently are they used?? or not used ?? why?? Don't you think as the IAF has operated this they would know where the advantages of one vs the other???

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Jul 2010 18:45

Philip wrote:<SNIP> The new Russian light tank with a 125mm gun is a worthwhile acquisition,as it can fight in any terrain,marshes,high alt.desert,etc.<SNIP>

Last I checked, even the Russians don't intend to buy this baby and the program is scrapped.....Guess, where does that lead us with the "no production line debate"?

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 16 Jul 2010 20:41

Philip wrote: Unfortunately,we have in our administration,political classes and now even in the the military,many would be "procurers" for Uncle Sam,especially given the huge "tilt" that the "leaning tower of Singh" has developed.

I completely understand your frustration at the current administration going thorough a fundamental realignment of the tilt toward the Russians. As a pragmatic leadership should, the current leadership is taking the Geo-political reality into consideration in order to secure the best interest of India. If that results in India procuring more arms and equipment sourced from US so be it. There are permanent interests not permanent friends or permanent enemies.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Jul 2010 18:31

Congress continues debate on cargo plane's future..

Does the U.S. need more Boeing C-17s?

Million dollar question. Oops..sorry..BILLION dollar question should I say..

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Jul 2010 18:38

^^ Just as US seems to be on the verge of ceasing any more orders.. comes this news.. India to possibly order another 10 C-17's..

Boeing says more India C-17 orders possible

India could buy 10 to 12 more C-17 transport planes from Boeing Co. beyond the 10 planes already planned, Christopher Chadwick, president of Boeing military aircraft told Reuters on Monday.Boeing, the No. 2 U.S. defense contractor, is forecasting strong demand for the C-17 planes, which have been used heavily during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Chadwick said at the Farnborough Airshow outside London.

On Sunday, Boeing officials said the company could sell 20 more C-17 transport planes to foreign buyers over the next five to ten years, in addition to the 10 already planned for India. Chadwick said the number could rise even higher, given expectations that India could eventually more than double its planned purchase of 10 C-17s

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jul 2010 19:23

Dear Tony H,this has nothing to do with procuring arms from either "east or west".There is no frustration reg. any dilution of traditional arms purchases from Russia.Our stated goal is that of "70% indigenous production".The fact is that vested interests are driving Indian defence procurement to our detriment,with these low priority ad-hoc purchases like the C-17,when key acquisitions and decisions are languishing perhaps deliberately so.The scandal that has engulfed our entire training regime of the IAF,sloppy Hawk local production-only 12 aircraft locally assembled in 2 years,due to alleged poor OEM quality of components from BAe.,delays in the IJT,the HT-32 a rookie flying coffin, whose engine conks out regularly and is now to be rescued when the engine conks out in flight hopefully by a "parachute recovery system",while Grob and other similar trainers use lightweight ejection seats! One can go on with the list,but you get the picture.The lack of transparency in def. priorities partly stems from the fact that there is no clear national strategy at all.What work does the NSAB/CCS actually do? If there was one,then the roadmap towards defence preparedness and the goal of 70% of indigenous self-sufficiency in weapon systems and epqt. might be better achieved.The C-17 is the prime example of a knee-jerk acquisition not to counter any enemy acquisition of lethal weaponry or dramataically enhance our strike capability,but to salvage the sagging fortunes of a foreign manufacturer and protect American jobs,a hot political potato on Capitol Hill! Pl.read my post in the Ind-US strategic thread.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 19 Jul 2010 20:50

Philip Saar

How can we assume what takes higher priority and what does not? The valid point here is lack of transparency - 100% with you on that. Yes jobs are a major issue here in US but that alone is not driving the C17 purchase - surely the Indian leadership has other criteria in mind while deciding on deals of such magnitude.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jul 2010 22:37

Anthony Hines wrote:
I completely understand your frustration at the current administration going thorough a fundamental realignment of the tilt toward the Russians. As a pragmatic leadership should, the current leadership is taking the Geo-political reality into consideration in order to secure the best interest of India. If that results in India procuring more arms and equipment sourced from US so be it. There are permanent interests not permanent friends or permanent enemies.

It is not a geo political imperative to make this purchase. Maybe at earlier times this kind of purchase would have obtained great dividends but that is a wrong reason now. Fading empires need a different strategy and this is a small effort. One of Americans I was talking to after knowing that India was making the purchases asked what is India trying to defend from. For him China has never gone after other countries. He agreed only after Tibet was mentioned.
For establishment Americans these are dismissive efforts and do not really count. For these people - boots on the ground in AfPak, logitics help and war efforts are real reasons for engagements.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jul 2010 00:13

Acharya wrote:
Anthony Hines wrote:
I completely understand your frustration at the current administration going thorough a fundamental realignment of the tilt toward the Russians. As a pragmatic leadership should, the current leadership is taking the Geo-political reality into consideration in order to secure the best interest of India. If that results in India procuring more arms and equipment sourced from US so be it. There are permanent interests not permanent friends or permanent enemies.
It is not a geo political imperative to make this purchase. Maybe at earlier times this kind of purchase would have obtained great dividends but that is a wrong reason now. Fading empires need a different strategy and this is a small effort. One of Americans I was talking to after knowing that India was making the purchases asked what is India trying to defend from. For him China has never gone after other countries. He agreed only after Tibet was mentioned.
For establishment Americans these are dismissive efforts and do not really count. For these people - boots on the ground in AfPak, logitics help and war efforts are real reasons for engagements.

Af-Pak and WoT is a short-term perspective. Over the long term (next two or three decades) its not unreasonable to assume India and US will move closer to balance the strategic heft of a burgeoning China. That's a view that increasingly being espoused by the American strategic establishment. And it coming closer does not imply India will in any way become a client state of the US or any other way subservient to American interests.

With regard to the C-17, it is in India's interests to give it (and feasible alternatives, if any) a fair evaluation. No more, no less. The final decision needs to be based on the merits of the aircraft.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2010 03:39

Viv S wrote:
Af-Pak and WoT is a short-term perspective. Over the long term (next two or three decades) its not unreasonable to assume India and US will move closer to balance the strategic heft of a burgeoning China. That's a view that increasingly being espoused by the American strategic establishment.

WOT will surpass the vietnam era war in terms of duration and also the cost. Moving closer will also mean working on common goals and no client relations. So engagement has to be different from buying planes such as C-17 if that is the purpose.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 20 Jul 2010 07:58

a little OT here

Russia may purchase 20 An-124 transport planes before 2020

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jul 2010 15:38

OK,let's look at a future perspective,where we have an enhanced global role.However,figures for C-17 operators show that the combined forces of NATO and all us allies operating the aircraft are less than 25 in number,the US-220+,while we are buying 10,with latest news that we might buy another 10+too,equal or more than all the others! We are NOT in NATO,neither are we a US ally,not even a "non-NATO ally" like rent-boy Pak.For what purpose then do we need a strategic airlifter (even AN-124 for that matter) so desperately,in such extreme haste when many other more urgent acquisitions are stagnating (LCA MK-2,light helos,artillery,subs,IJTs/AJTs,etc.).Our extended security responsibilities in recent times,officially mentioned are to do with other nations in the IOR,mainly island states like Mauritius,the Maldives,the Seychelles and Sri Lanka,the last mentioned where the IN chief and not the IAF chief made a recent visit to shore up defence cooperation! In actual fact,the greater responsibility upon ensuring the security of these nations is going to fall upon the IN and not the IAF,which will have a secondary role only! It is why we need as planned,three carrier task forces using three indigenous built carriers with part indigenous naval aircraft aboard (naval LCA).

Our greatest threat still comes from the Sino-Pak combine and on land in the high Himalayas and a possible penetration into the IOR of the PLAN's subs and future carriers and the use of Burma (a poss. nuclear Burma too just like Pak) as a springboard to negate and neutralise our advantage of controlling the Malacca Straits chokepoint from the A&N islands.China is trying hard to circumvent this by establishing a naval/sub base at Gwadar with the Pakis and a visionary rail link to Pak and Gwadar through POK,extending the Tibetan railway just as the Karakorum Highway has done.Here,a large number of transports (100+ AN-32s being upgraded) that can land on small airstrips ,plus even more numbers of medium and heavy helos would be more useful than a superheavyweight airlifter.Light tanks with 125mm guns,MICVs and a massive fast-track approach to our road and rail infrastructure in the N-East and Ladakh would be far more meaningful.If China can think of building a rail link through POK to Pak,why can't we maximise our efforts in our own rail network in J&K,Ladakh and the N-East too?

Two more critical needs must be mentioned,that relating to strategic offence and defence.The absolute requirement for an ABM and holistic air defence system for the entire country,especially the key cities,bases population and industrial zones.More worrisome for our enemies would be our ability to launch hundreds of nuclear MIRV tipped ICBMs.A signiificant number of SSBNs in IN service will take at least 10-15 years.Until that time a large number of land based mobile ICBMs,at least 100+) spread throughout the land,will give serious worry to any would be enemy who might think of launching a sneak first strike attack,as the widespread and mobile character of our landbased ICBMs would give them genuine fear of being attacked in return.Add to this even larger numbers of mobile N-tipped missiles likie B'Mos closer to the battlefield/borders for both strategic and tactical requirements and the machinations of the Sino-Pak axis will be checkmated.

I'm sure others can list out their key priorities too and show how there are many other far more important rquirements of the armed forces and the nation's military infrastructure than buying the C-17 and saving Boeing's ass!

PS:And if we truly want the biggest and the best,then there is nothing like the AN-225!

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/ ... ain?id=389

The plane had the first flight in early 1988 and entered service in 1989. It's first flight took 75 minutes. After the cancellation of the Buran space program, the only An-225 built was stored in spring 1994, and it's engines were used for An-124s. In 2001 the aircraft was made airworthy again, and made it's new first flight on May 7. There were rumors that the European Space Agency had plans to launch the unmanned British HoTOL (Horizontal Take-Off and Landing) from the An-225, though these rumors appear to be unfounded. Although, some possibilities for deployment have already been found. Plenty of customers are to be found in the USA. According to Bruce Bird, Director of the Charter Division of Air Foyle, parts of rocket launchers like the Delta and Atlas could be transported in the An-225. Lockheed's planned Venture Star could be transported on its back. Additionally the Mrija could serve as a launch platform for the X-34B. Furthermore big sections of aircraft could be transported in it. The complete assembled fuselage of a Boeing 737 can be fitted in the hold.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Jul 2010 17:52

PS:And if we truly want the biggest and the best,then there is nothing like the AN-225!

Tanaji and I are happy

thisis almost like pakis developing ICBM against us

But jokes aside Philip - this is one of your better posts - on many points I agree.

The big question is why the IAF needs it

that info is not open source and everything else is pure speculation.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 20 Jul 2010 19:38

We are NOT in NATO,neither are we a US ally,not even a "non-NATO ally" like rent-boy Pak.For what purpose then do we need a strategic airlifter (even AN-124 for that matter)

We were NOT in the Warsaw Pact, nor were we a Soviet ally (remember we were non aligned) unlike rent boy Pak. For what purpose then did we need the Mig 21, Mig 25, Mig 27 and Mig 29? And why do we need more SU-30s than the Russian Air Force?

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 20 Jul 2010 20:28

Philip wrote:OK,let's look at a future perspective,where we have an enhanced global role.However,figures for C-17 operators show that the combined forces of NATO and all us allies operating the aircraft are less than 25 in number,the US-220+,while we are buying 10,with latest news that we might buy another 10+too,equal or more than all the others! We are NOT in NATO,neither are we a US ally,not even a "non-NATO ally" like rent-boy Pak.For what purpose then do we need a strategic airlifter (even AN-124 for that matter) so desperately,in such extreme haste when many other more urgent acquisitions are stagnating (LCA MK-2,light helos,artillery,subs,IJTs/AJTs,etc.).Our extended security responsibilities in recent times,officially mentioned are to do with other nations in the IOR,mainly island states like Mauritius,the Maldives,the Seychelles and Sri Lanka,the last mentioned where the IN chief and not the IAF chief made a recent visit to shore up defence cooperation! In actual fact,the greater responsibility upon ensuring the security of these nations is going to fall upon the IN and not the IAF,which will have a secondary role only! It is why we need as planned,three carrier task forces using three indigenous built carriers with part indigenous naval aircraft aboard (naval LCA).

Our greatest threat still comes from the Sino-Pak combine and on land in the high Himalayas and a possible penetration into the IOR of the PLAN's subs and future carriers and the use of Burma (a poss. nuclear Burma too just like Pak) as a springboard to negate and neutralise our advantage of controlling the Malacca Straits chokepoint from the A&N islands.China is trying hard to circumvent this by establishing a naval/sub base at Gwadar with the Pakis and a visionary rail link to Pak and Gwadar through POK,extending the Tibetan railway just as the Karakorum Highway has done.Here,a large number of transports (100+ AN-32s being upgraded) that can land on small airstrips ,plus even more numbers of medium and heavy helos would be more useful than a superheavyweight airlifter.Light tanks with 125mm guns,MICVs and a massive fast-track approach to our road and rail infrastructure in the N-East and Ladakh would be far more meaningful.If China can think of building a rail link through POK to Pak,why can't we maximise our efforts in our own rail network in J&K,Ladakh and the N-East too?

Two more critical needs must be mentioned,that relating to strategic offence and defence.The absolute requirement for an ABM and holistic air defence system for the entire country,especially the key cities,bases population and industrial zones.More worrisome for our enemies would be our ability to launch hundreds of nuclear MIRV tipped ICBMs.A signiificant number of SSBNs in IN service will take at least 10-15 years.Until that time a large number of land based mobile ICBMs,at least 100+) spread throughout the land,will give serious worry to any would be enemy who might think of launching a sneak first strike attack,as the widespread and mobile character of our landbased ICBMs would give them genuine fear of being attacked in return.Add to this even larger numbers of mobile N-tipped missiles likie B'Mos closer to the battlefield/borders for both strategic and tactical requirements and the machinations of the Sino-Pak axis will be checkmated.

I'm sure others can list out their key priorities too and show how there are many other far more important rquirements of the armed forces and the nation's military infrastructure than buying the C-17 and saving Boeing's ass!

PS:And if we truly want the biggest and the best,then there is nothing like the AN-225!

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/ ... ain?id=389

The plane had the first flight in early 1988 and entered service in 1989. It's first flight took 75 minutes. After the cancellation of the Buran space program, the only An-225 built was stored in spring 1994, and it's engines were used for An-124s. In 2001 the aircraft was made airworthy again, and made it's new first flight on May 7. There were rumors that the European Space Agency had plans to launch the unmanned British HoTOL (Horizontal Take-Off and Landing) from the An-225, though these rumors appear to be unfounded. Although, some possibilities for deployment have already been found. Plenty of customers are to be found in the USA. According to Bruce Bird, Director of the Charter Division of Air Foyle, parts of rocket launchers like the Delta and Atlas could be transported in the An-225. Lockheed's planned Venture Star could be transported on its back. Additionally the Mrija could serve as a launch platform for the X-34B. Furthermore big sections of aircraft could be transported in it. The complete assembled fuselage of a Boeing 737 can be fitted in the hold.

Philip
Great post. The threat is indeed multidimensional and there are several ways to bridge the gaps in defenses: 1.Raise the absolute numbers of men and materiel. 2. Increase the retaliatory consequences to a level where it becomes unacceptable for the Sino-Pak combine providing a credible deterrent. 3. Negotiate a status quo (this would naturally entail some barter). 4. Break up the combine. 5. Raise the ante technologically 6. Raise the numbers of heavy lifters (C17s, C5s, An 124 or what have you) to make rapid deployments across theaters possible >> china is already adept in such deployments as they demonstrated in Stride 2009 (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... r3354.html). 6. raise army brigades/ divisions that can be deployed using Mistral like troopships. 7. India needs to think 60 - 75 combat squadrons not 45.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jul 2010 21:56

Philip wrote:OK,let's look at a future perspective,where we have an enhanced global role.However,figures for C-17 operators show that the combined forces of NATO and all us allies operating the aircraft are less than 25 in number,the US-220+,while we are buying 10,with latest news that we might buy another 10+too,equal or more than all the others! We are NOT in NATO,neither are we a US ally,not even a "non-NATO ally" like rent-boy Pak.For what purpose then do we need a strategic airlifter (even AN-124 for that matter) so desperately,in such extreme haste when many other more urgent acquisitions are stagnating (LCA MK-2,light helos,artillery,subs,IJTs/AJTs,etc.).

Even when we had a 'subdued' global role we were operating a strategic airlifter. Being a non-NATO country has nothing to do with it. China is developing its own aircraft in the 200 ton class and that's the last country anyone who accuse of being in 'league' with the US.

With regard to the other stalled or stumbling acquisitions, I'd like to pose only one question - will cancelling the C-17 order in anyway expedite the purchase of other equipment?

Our extended security responsibilities in recent times,officially mentioned are to do with other nations in the IOR,mainly island states like Mauritius,the Maldives,the Seychelles and Sri Lanka,the last mentioned where the IN chief and not the IAF chief made a recent visit to shore up defence cooperation! In actual fact,the greater responsibility upon ensuring the security of these nations is going to fall upon the IN and not the IAF,which will have a secondary role only! It is why we need as planned,three carrier task forces using three indigenous built carriers with part indigenous naval aircraft aboard (naval LCA).

While its true the IN needs to be built up, like before I must point out again - Operation Cactus was carried out by the IAF's strategic airlift squadrons. Whenever rapid-deployment is necessary the IAF is always the preferred option. Compare the time taken to prepare, transport and deploy an amphibious brigade to its airborne equivalent.

Our greatest threat still comes from the Sino-Pak combine and on land in the high Himalayas and a possible penetration into the IOR of the PLAN's subs and future carriers and the use of Burma (a poss. nuclear Burma too just like Pak) as a springboard to negate and neutralise our advantage of controlling the Malacca Straits chokepoint from the A&N islands.China is trying hard to circumvent this by establishing a naval/sub base at Gwadar with the Pakis and a visionary rail link to Pak and Gwadar through POK,extending the Tibetan railway just as the Karakorum Highway has done.Here,a large number of transports (100+ AN-32s being upgraded) that can land on small airstrips ,plus even more numbers of medium and heavy helos would be more useful than a superheavyweight airlifter.Light tanks with 125mm guns,MICVs and a massive fast-track approach to our road and rail infrastructure in the N-East and Ladakh would be far more meaningful.If China can think of building a rail link through POK to Pak,why can't we maximise our efforts in our own rail network in J&K,Ladakh and the N-East too?

Again, this is not an either-or choice. We've always had a large fleet of tactical airlift aircraft, and light and medium helicopters. And its evident from the induction of the Dhruv, and impending induction of the LOH, MTA, Eurocopter & Chinook/Mi-26, that the IAF is very cognizant of modernization required in segments besides very heavy lift fixed wing category. Also, the infrastructure in the border regions is in the midst of a major overhaul and upgrade program.

PS:And if we truly want the biggest and the best,then there is nothing like the AN-225!

There is nothing like the An-225 in production today.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 20 Jul 2010 22:05

Philip wrote:when many other more urgent acquisitions are stagnating (LCA MK-2,light helos,artillery,subs,IJTs/AJTs,etc.)

Which is unrelated to any possible C-17 purchase.

This isn't an either/or situation.

If you think those programs are going too slow, the solution is to speed them up, not to slow down yet another program.

Philip wrote:Here,a large number of transports (100+ AN-32s being upgraded) that can land on small airstrips ,plus even more numbers of medium and heavy helos would be more useful than a superheavyweight airlifter.

Again, this isn't an either/or situation.

You need all classes. Light transports are good, but so are heavy transports.

Philip wrote:Light tanks with 125mm guns

If light tanks can always do the job, why even bother with Arjun?

Sometimes you need the big boys.

Philip wrote:a massive fast-track approach to our road and rail infrastructure in the N-East and Ladakh would be far more meaningful.

Again, this isn't an either/or situation.

Improving the rail infrastructure would be a great help, but again it doesn't replace the need for something like the C-17. Rail will never go everywhere, especially across the border. Rail is also very vulnerable to sabotage.

Philip wrote:Two more critical needs must be mentioned,that relating to strategic offence and defence.The absolute requirement for an ABM and holistic air defence system for the entire country,especially the key cities,bases population and industrial zones.

I'm not sure how this relates to the C-17.

Philip wrote:far more important rquirements of the armed forces and the nation's military infrastructure than buying the C-17 and saving Boeing's ass!

You could make the same argument no matter which airlifter you get.

C-17: Boeing needs the order to keep the line open.
An-124: Russia needs the order to open the line.
A400M: EADS needs a foreign buyer to salvage the program's profitability.

If India were to order the An-124 would you whine incessantly about how it was being forced down your throats just so Russia could reopen the line?

Philip wrote:PS:And if we truly want the biggest and the best,then there is nothing like the AN-225!

Generally you want the smallest that will do the job. And if the job is carrying all army equipment, the C-17 is the smallest plane capable of doing the job.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 20 Jul 2010 23:00

Philip,

India has no global role or NATO role, just because you keep repeating that there is some larger plan between GoI and GoTUS would not make it true. So no point in going there repeatedly until GoI actually commits to any role in support of USA against any country

Indian Armed forces need strategic transporters to replace and upgrade its existing fleet of Il76 strategic lifters that was inducted starting in 1985.

India always buys in batches with followon options, if you haven't heard/read about possible follow-on order for 10 more aircrafts that doesn't mean it’s a new news

We would buy 20 (possibly more) because we have more than 20 aircraft to replace. We have such a puny air lift capacity for such a large force whose equipments and mechanization is increasing every year.

It needs more airlift capacity because it is preparing (and always have) to fight a two front war with those fronts 1000-200KM apart

The new Cold start doctrine needs quick deployment and sustained and rapid reinforcement to sustain initiative which would need large airlift

We need 20+ C17 which is more than rest of the NATO countries because we are not a NATO member. For defending their homeland Canada, UK et al would have 220 C17 of USAF available to them but India would have to rely on its own assets. You as an oldie should know that US provides huge defense subsidies to its Munna allies by providing guaranteed defence shield which allows likes of France, Japan and SK defence expenditure of 1% of their GDP even when living under the shadow of the dragon. No one likes to be MuNna unless one is getting some free goodies in return…

We could use bigger aircraft ( than Il76) because world over armed forces are getting mechanized, armored and heavier. A C17 would carry twice the volumetric load than a Il76. It also provides unmatched load flexibility like flying troops, a tank, more numbers of large vehicles and odd size loads and any mix of these.

There is no haste. The process is on going for last several years and still is a work in progress. If anything its taking too long to complete the deal since everything is right there on table.

It is a romantic and patriotic but naive belief that throwing more dollars on DRDO et al would make LCA and other projects move faster. Money can not compress time and it can't give design experience to scientist or provide 20 year database of flight test data or create trained and experience workers/ancillary industry. Although almost everyone realizes the need to increase expenditure on R&D

LCA and LCA Mk2 are all fully funded, approved and sanctioned until 2018. Money has never been an issue with DRDO projects; GoI has funded 10 to 50 fold increases in budget and decades long delays without much accountability.

There are no evidences to suggest that one acquisition causes forces to let go something else when you have billions of dollars in capital fund being returned to treasury over last several years. The problem is lack of capacity to complete acquisition process and fear psychosis that has been created by politicians, media and yahoos on net.

You ( and most of us here) are not qualified to decide what is and should be the priority so we should put our views as an alternative thinking not as fact and call others corrupt and conspirators.

Also remember that 272 MKIs are being inducted (28/year) and MRCA tender is being executed with more urgency and priority than C17. But it is easier to buy C17s with FMS route or order additional 82 MKIs for ~$6B or order follow-on Kirvak for 1.8B dollars. But it’s much harder to buy anything through this multi vendor competition process. That is the reason we don't have 155mm guns even after 5 rounds of tenders or its taking almost a decade to complete MRCA tender. Money is not the issue, not at this time anyhow.

I think it’s longer than I intended but....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2010 10:49

If one can't spot the "wood for the trees" then ,each to his opinion.This deal has more between the lines of importance than what is written.My many posts have explained the undercurrents.If we are upgrading almost all our 100+ AN-32s ,what is preventing us from upgrading the IL-76s also? As for the US's allies and NATO,they are all interlinked and networked into fighting any war anywhere on the globe and require an aircraft like the C-17 for their vast logistic requirements.India does not have a "global military footprint" and does not require such a large aircraft C-17,AN-124 or whatever that desperately.If the continent of OZ has just a few of them,why do we have to buy such a large number? The IL-76s aren't dropping out of the sky either,unlike some of our old MIG-21s and are being upgraded by the Russians.Why noty upgrade them too like the AN-32s? As for Arjun vs light tank,in the Himalayas,it would be far easier to induct a smaller multi-role light tank,with the same 125mm calibre gun as an MBT as proposed,easier to airlift and in larger numbers too at lower cost.No one is advocating it as a replacement for Arjun!

I maintain,we are doing the US and Boeing a huge favour,as Gates want's C-17 production closed pronto.We are keeping their workforce employed,pleasing their politicos (across 40 states?) and are adding another 10 more so that it is economical for Boeing to produce them! This is one huge goldplated defence deal that we could well do without,but servile Singh (the man who publicly said in the UK that all his values in life he learnt abroad at Oxford,Poxford or wherever,never mentioning India at all) needs to please his foreign masters as he has done all his life and is still doing.

PS:One report said that one key project,the MTA may suffer because we have absolutely no design expertise and enough human resources for transport aircraft.Why on earth then have we signed on with Russia for designing and developing the same,which will take a decade at least to finally arrive, when the Russians have alternatives flying like the AN-70 and the Europeans have their long delayed A-400M finally flying now and at Farnborough.We could've ideally joined the Europeans instead and fast tracked the MTA acquisition by buying the A-400.Is this another sop to the DRDO and PSU's reinventing the wheel? The farce that Saras is (crash due to "design deficiencies and pilot error") shows that we are years away from having the expertise in designing such high tech systems as modern aircraft.In any case where will we source the engines from? The Boeing Dreamliner shows how far aerospace tech has progressed and we are wanting to design our own regional airliner with the NAL responsible for Saras! Instead we could've teamed up with Embraer or Bombardier,the world's best for regional aircraft or even Sukhoi for their new Superjet which flies with European engines.If we could make such a swift decision to buy C-130J Hercules tactical transports,why not for the MTA too?Why is it that such swift decisions only happen when US systems are involved,the
P-8I ,C-130-J,C-17 and we believe more will come! The chaos with our basic trainer whos engine conks out at will has resulted in us starting yet another contest which will take a few more years to decide upon the winner and a few more years before the aircraft arrive. Oh the priorities of the MOD!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Jul 2010 11:43

Philip wrote:what is preventing us from upgrading the IL-76s also?

Nothing, except that even upgraded the Il-76 won't carry everything needed.

And that doesn't even begin to address the issue that the IAF's airlift capability, even with an upgraded Il-76, is woefully inadequate.

Philip wrote:India does not have a "global military footprint" and does not require such a large aircraft C-127,AN-124 or whatever that desperately.

It's a fallacy that large aircraft are only useful for global missions. They are also very useful for missions close to home where you have to quickly move large amounts of material, say a division from one side of the country to another.

Philip wrote:If the continent OZ has just a few of them,why do we have to buy such a large number?

It's not the size of the continent, it's the size of the army. And compared to other armies of similar size, India's airlift is sorely lacking.

The better question is: 'Why does India have so little airlift?'

Philip wrote:I maintain,we are doing the US and Boeing a huge favour

You would be doing a 'huge favor' to anyone you ordered a transport from, whether it was the US, the EU or Russia, so what's your point?

Philip wrote:but servile Singh (the man who publicly said in the UK that all his values in life he learnt abroad at Oxford,Poxford or wherever) needs to please his foreign masters as he has done all his life and is still doing.

That's a serious accusation to make.

Philip wrote:PS:One report said that one key project,the MTA may suffer because we have absolutely no design expertise and enough human resources for transport aircraft.Why on earth then have we signed on with Russia for designing and developing the same when the Russians have alternatives flying,AN-70 and the Europeans have their long delayed A-400M finally flying now and at Farnborough.

Well, I could give several reasons. The only way to get the necessary design expertise is to actually design something. As to why not the An-70 or A400M, well they don't carry everything and wouldn't be available for years. An-70 development was never completed and all A400M production slots are booked for several years.

Philip wrote:We could've ideally joined the Europeans instead and fast tracked the MTA acquisition by buying the A-400.

Why is fast-tracking the A400M 'ideal' but fast-tracking the C-17 the worst thing to happen to Indian acquistion in the last 30 years?

Especially when the A400M doesn't carry everything, won't be available for years and costs nearly as much as a C-17.

Philip wrote:Whys is it that uch swift decisions only happen when US systems are involved,the P-8I ,C-130-J,C-17 and we understand more to come!

When there is no credible competition in a particular field, it makes the decision easier. The SH has plenty of competition so you don't see a swift decision there.

Also Russia has had plenty of 'swift' decisions in their favor. T-90, Gorky, Su-30, nuke subs, etc.