The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Philip wrote:There's a gorious pic of a MI-26 salvaging a downed US helicopter in Afghanistan,a helo called the ...er...Chinook,supposed to be its contender in the heavylift stakes!
I'm not really sure what your point is, but since photos of Chinooks getting lifted gets you excited, here's a Chinook lifting a Chinook:
The difference was that the MI-26 carried a complete CH-47 with engines. The CH-47 carried a stripped down CH-47.
It's not exactly a secret that the Mi-26 lifts more, it was just that it seemed like Philip was having carnal relations with the photo which I found kind of funny
Yes it's an interesting photo, but it doesn't tell us anything we shouldn't already know.
Singha wrote:interesting. the rear engine atleast looks removed on the first chinook.
That's both engines, as they're mounted on each side of the helicopter's rear end and connected to the rotors by driveshafts.
The largest-ever defence deal with the US to purchase C 17 Globemaster III heavy transport aircraft is set to be cleared by the end of this month with the defence ministry working to push through the deal in the current financial year.
...
While it is in the final stages of getting cleared by the Cabinet committee on security, the government is working to resolve differences over the cost, which was put by Washington at $4.1 billion. The IAF did not expect the aircraft to cost over $3 billion.
Though the defence ministry is keen to push it through in the current financial year, there has been an objection from the Finance Ministry that is currently being resolved.
The last-minute hiccup has come after the ministry received several representations contending that the price being quoted to India for 10 heavy lift aircraft was inordinately high.
While the contract is in the final stage — commercial negotiations with manufacturer Boeing have been concluded —the ministry has sought a clarification from the US on the price of the aircraft, which is being purchased by the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route.
FMS is the US Department of Defense’s government-to-government method of selling US defence equipment, services and training.
“We have to ensure that we are getting the aircraft at the right price. The ministry has written to the US government for the price at which the aircraft has been sold to other countries. This has been done to get a fair assessment of the deal and put all speculation at rest,” a Defence Ministry official said.
The value of the deal — a highlight of President Barack Obama’s visit to India — has been pegged at $4.1 billion by the White House, and at $5.8 billion in the official notification before the US Congress. At either price — $410 million or $580 million each — the aircraft would be the most expensive ever purchased by India.
In a notification to Congress earlier this month, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency, which coordinates all FMS sales, declared a C 17 Globemaster III aircraft is being sold to Australia for $300 million.
Also, under the FMS programme, the US is supposed to sell the aircraft to India at the price at which the US government purchases it from the manufacturer, plus an additional facilitation fee. The US government buys the C 17 from Boeing at around $200 million per aircraft. This price, however, does not include spares and services.
Boeing says the price depends on the services and package required by the IAF. “The end price will vary depending on what the Indian government requires as part of the final package. That final price will be a matter for the two governments to communicate at the appropriate time,” the company said in a statement in November. It declined to comment on current negotiations.
The company had said that the $4.1-billion tag quoted by the White House did not include the cost of engines, spares and support. “$5.8 billion is an umbrella figure that includes everything that could be ordered,” a senior Boeing executive had said.
The IAF did not expect the aircraft deal to cost very much over $3 billion, and was taken aback by the price quoted by Washington. As first reported by The Indian Express, a tussle had broken out over the price after the IAF made it clear that it was unhappy over the “unrealistic” estimate of the deal.
The IAF did not expect the aircraft deal to cost very much over $3 billion, and was taken aback by the price quoted by Washington. As first reported by The Indian Express, a tussle had broken out over the price after the IAF made it clear that it was unhappy over the “unrealistic” estimate of the deal.
I really really hope and pray that IAF uses this lifeline to get out of lemon deal.
Il-76MF: Stretched military version with a 6.6 m longer fuselage, PS-90 engines, maximum take-off mass 210 t and lift capability of 60 tonnes. First flew in 1995.
width is still going to be an issue if the idea is to airlift certain vehicles like Akash, Namica, IFV and Spyder vehicles, Samyuta EW vehicles, portable radars....
bigger vehicles like brahmos , pinaka and smerch I am assuming will always deploy via road and rail.
the AN-124-v2 will likely start production for Rus and Ukr later half of this decade. until then and until the first lot comes off the production line as proof of materials produced, the C17 is the only show in town.
the C17 or IL76 cannot however land in any of the ALGs we are setting up, so AN32-upg is only spanner for last-mile problem.
how much we need the rapid deployment capability offered by C17 for vehicles too wide for IL76 is a matter to think about. in NER we have garrisons in the assam plains and are setting up more - road and rail connectivity is there apart from airbases. in ladakh, the road connectivity is weak but we have only two airports Leh and Thoise for large transport a/c [ not sure of Thoise ] . should we stockpile units in Leh and Tezpur / north bengal -vs- depend on C17/IL76 to rush addl Spyders or Tunguskas in a emergency?
for stuff like casualty evac to base hospitals in south-central india, rushing of pallets of munitions and missiles how the C17 compares to IL76 can be looked at.
in the end however if a bunch of IAF IL76 are reaching end of airframe life and no stretched fresh new IL76MD available within 1-2 yrs, then C17 it will have to be.
Americans are very good salesmen, if not careful they'll charge you even for the coffee @$1000/cup that pilots will consume while delivering the craft to India.
Streching length is good for only transporting additional troops, might as well buy more C130s. Additional tonnage would hardly be useful in streached frame as increase in volume would not be much. C17s lift almost twice the cargo by volume and carry things that narrow aircrafts like Il76 are not designed to carry. Il76 streached or pulled, can't match a wide body aircraft that allows drive in drive out for even the largest military vehicles besides providing twice as much volume for non-bulky carg.
IIRC, as per some news a while back, IAF is not even interested in midlife upgrades for Gajrajs. They are already 25-30years old and upgrades may not be worth it given spare shortages, low servicing/uptime and high operating cost. I think new tankers and A-50s must have shown the realities of the products. Indian armed force love to order Russian stuff by truckloads if it even barely meets their requirements.
I hope those 20 odd airframs would get midlife upgrades and serve IAF for another 2-3 decades along side new techno punks like C130s and true widebody MBA types like C17s. Half a dozen Ruslans would be nice to top it all........
These would help, but nothing can replace all weather roads all over northeast and to/in Laddakh/other borders with cheen.
High time govt gave it critical priority, and built 6 - 8 lane highways to Laddakh and in the mountains of Arunanchal, Nagaland, Sikkim, Mizoram, Himanchal etc all the way to the borders.
Then the other need is to have underground/under the mountain (tunnels) garrisons which can hold sufficient equipment like Armour, ICV's, Artillary, AD systems, troops etc for quick deployment during wars and keep men and equipment out of reach of paki and cheenee missiles/inclement weather.
ah, so GOI is indeed a little peeved with the C-17's price, when I had said as much (that the price was a problem) in the older thread, the yankee fanboys here were gunning for me with indirect barbs and what not.
Conspiracy Mode On
####
I just wonder if the extra cost for C-17 is being used to part fund US MMRCA bid , so that it can competitively price its aircraft as L1 within the selected bid.
####
Mode Off
Cybaru wrote:That stretched Il-76 looks nice. Hopefully the next 5 phalcons will be based on those.
These were just special built aircraft for Jordan , although they look pretty.
If IAF chooses IL-76 as the base platform for next series of Phalcon it would be Il-476 model , I am sure IAF will be looking at other aircraft from Airbus and A-330 could be one strong contender if it wins the Aerial Refueller bid
in AAR atleast the A330 heavily outperforms the IL76 , while still retaining a strong cargo pallet loadout and massive range.
likewise it will have loads more interior room, loiter and comfort for a Phalcon / JSTARS / nuclear weapon command post role.
its in a different weight and cost category from IL76 for sure. if we want to refuel Rafale's with CFT with tons of extra fuel over Malacca thats the bird
Austin wrote:Conspiracy Mode On
####
I just wonder if the extra cost for C-17 is being used to part fund US MMRCA bid , so that it can competitively price its aircraft as L1 within the selected bid.
####
Mode Off
It is appealing to thing that way, but is unlikely that this is the thinking. The cost mentioned in the absence of clear inputs on costs, could well be because the life time cost of the aircraft is being charged (Inclusive of spare parts and full service support ).
My own CT is that the Inflated price is being charged from India in order to subsidise some of the costs being incurred in paying off TSP. IOW, it is the Indian money that supplies arms to the TSP.
If I have to choose between the CTs I will take yours any day of the week.
Austin wrote:Conspiracy Mode On
####
I just wonder if the extra cost for C-17 is being used to part fund US MMRCA bid , so that it can competitively price its aircraft as L1 within the selected bid.
####
Mode Off
That shouldn't be the case. MMRCA is say a 10Bln deal.
The OEM might get a profit of not more then 25 percent at max. That boils down to 2.5billion spread out over 4-5 years.
That becomes 500-600 million dollars for a year.
Thats like the amount US gives out as freebies to several of its so-called allies....
The Government of Australia requested a possible sale of up to four C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft,
up to 18 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines, up to four AN/AAQ-24V(13) Large Aircraft Infrared
Countermeasures (LAIRCM) Systems, up to 15 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles; Personnel Life
Support equipment, spare and repair parts, supply support, training equipment and support, publications
and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of
logistics support. The estimated cost is $2 billion.
This comes out to $500 million a piece ($548 million in today's money), which is right around the price being quoted to India.
If GeorgeWelch is correct then this is a problem. I don't think Congress has the necessary political capital to risk highly inflated deal right now... But my questions is how come IAF got the pricing so wrong? Hope this is not Gorshkov all over again....
Sri wrote: Hope this is not Gorshkov all over again....
Relax, no contract has been signed. So no commitments. If it's too expensive, we don't buy it. Simple. We didn't have this option with Gorshkov because the Russians increased the price after the contract was signed and we had already sunk a lot of money in it.
The Government of Canada requested a possible sale in support of a Direct Commercial Sale for four
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft. This proposed sale includes 18 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100
engines, 4 AN/AAQ-24V(13) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) Systems, 20
AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles, Electronic Combat International Security Assistance Program software
equipment, spare and repair parts, mission planning system and software, Personnel Life Support
equipment, flares, COMSEC equipment, supply support, training equipment and support, publications and
technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of
logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.3 billion.
Well it remains to be seen - above & beyond the C-17 aircraft itself - what exactly did India order (and in what quantity)? Did they order additional P&W F117-PW-100 engines (an absolute certainty), countermeasures, NVGs, spare parts, training equipment and after-sales support, etc?
The Government of Canada requested a possible sale in support of a Direct Commercial Sale for four
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft. This proposed sale includes 18 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100
engines, 4 AN/AAQ-24V(13) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) Systems, 20
AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles, Electronic Combat International Security Assistance Program software
equipment, spare and repair parts, mission planning system and software, Personnel Life Support
equipment, flares, COMSEC equipment, supply support, training equipment and support, publications and
technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of
logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.3 billion.
Marten wrote:George, what specifically is different between the two deals. Specifics as in terms of equipment, spares, etc. Would appreciate a numerical comparison of how many engines, comm. equipment, other spares, etc.
I think I was misreading the deals.
Australia's price was 4 C-17s + support items.
Canada's price was JUST the support items, not including the 4 C-17s which were done separately as a commercial sale.
The ~$200 million difference in unit price would seem to support that, as that is about how much a base C-17 is.
The Ruslan was chosen under many aspects including its considerable advantages before competitor – Boeing C-17 American airplane. By the maximum cargo capacity Ruslan exeeds it almost twice (AN-124-100 – 120 t, AN-124-100M-150 – 150 t against 76,7 t). The same regards the volume of cargo cabin and a range of flight. Ruslan is able to be operated autonomous for the long time which is confirmed by the everyday practice of its use. It is equipped with the onboard complexes of loading-unloading equipment. These complexes allow load/unload airplane without use of ground means including that from /on the car though the rear cargo ramp. [ http://www.antonov.com/news/index.xml?n ... 070129.xml
I wonder when NATO itself went ahead with An-124...wtf is going on in MoD and IAF...what extra did MoD and IAF managed to bargain ??
chandanus wrote:I wonder when NATO itself went ahead with An-124...wtf is going on in MoD and IAF...what extra did MoD and IAF managed to bargain ??
There aren't any An-124 for sale. NATO is leasing a few hours, not buying a fleet of 10, very different situation. NATO also bought 2 C-17s even after leasing the An-124.
