India Still Hoping To Receive Three Boeing C-17s

[Zarvan]

A Boeing C-17 Aircraft

The Indian Air Force is hoping to procure three Boeing C-17 aircraft it had cleared for purchase since August this year.

An IAF source told defenseworld.net correspondent that the plan to procure three aircraft for which an INR 8100 crore (US$ 1.2 billion) funding had been proposed, was on but it was not clear when the force would receive them.

A Boeing representative said that only one was available for sale as all the remaining C-17s had been taken up by other customers. The production line of the C-17 has since been shut.

India has acquired 10 C-17s and finds them immensely useful in transporting military cargo and in humanitarian operations. It had subsequently mooted a proposal to acquire six additional aircraft but the government okayed only three but that too seems doubtful given that nine out of 10 available for sale at the time Boeing decided to shut C-17 production last year have been committed elsewhere.

While India was still considering additional orders for the C-17, Kuwait picked up two, Australia two, Canada one and Qatar four of the last 10 available. Industry sources said that unless there are order cancellations or the US governments accommodates India from the US Air Force inventory, chances of receiving the three C-17s is bleak.

India’s defence acquisition council (DAC) which gives the final go-ahead for procurement projects has not yet cleared the additional three C-17 acquisition. This is indicative of the fact that the purchase may not happen in the near future, said an industry source.

 

[cloud4000]

Sounds like someone in India's defense ministry screwed up. Should've have known production line was being shut but failed to submit an order in time.

India's defense procurement process is so bad. Takes forever to make a decision and when the decision is made, it takes forever to sign a contract. Process needs to be streamlined.

 

[wiseone2]

Sounds like someone in India's defense ministry screwed up. Should've have known production line was being shut but failed to submit an order in time.

India's defense procurement process is so bad. Takes forever to make a decision and when the decision is made, it takes forever to sign a contract. Process needs to be streamlined.

talk about the obvious

 

[anant_s]

Boeing had made it clear a long time ago that once Longbeach assembly line for C-17 will be closed only last few pieces from White tail program would be available on First come First Served basis.
However given the inertia of our bureaucracy, order for additional birds were cleared at a leisurely pace, leading to this embarrassing condition.
Now lets hope if US congress doesnot clear budget on additional C-17s for USAF, we will still get 3 required. But yes something must change in way files move without giving two hoots for ground realities.
@Abingdonboy
@Capt.Popeye

 

[Abingdonboy]

Boeing had made it clear a long time ago that once Longbeach assembly line for C-17 will be closed only last few pieces from White tail program would be available on First come First Served basis.
However given the inertia of our bureaucracy, order for additional birds were cleared at a leisurely pace, leading to this embarrassing condition.
Now lets hope if US congress doesnot clear budget on additional C-17s for USAF, we will still get 3 required. But yes something must change in way files move without giving two hoots for ground realities.
@Abingdonboy
@Capt.Popeye

Sounds like someone in India's defense ministry screwed up. Should've have known production line was being shut but failed to submit an order in time.

India's defense procurement process is so bad. Takes forever to make a decision and when the decision is made, it takes forever to sign a contract. Process needs to be streamlined.

I think blaming the Indian MoD or bureaucracy solely for this issue is a bit unnecessary- they played their part but India was also a victim of circumstance. India was already one of the very last C-17 customers, in fact its order for 10 helped keep the production line open for an additional few years (it was meant to close years ago). As such it was always going to be the case that additional orders would need to be made asap and would be tricky.

One can't reasonably expect the IAF to have exercised its clause for additional C-17s before it had received its first example and even then it took a while for the IAF to properly evaluate the C-17 in its service. Once the IAF had operationally deployed its C-17s a few times it became clear that the aircraft justified additional orders but by that time the production line had closed and many of the "white tails" had already been snatched up. If the IAF/GoI had placed additional C-17 orders prior to this it could have led to quite the fiasco. Whilst we can say, as outsiders talking with the benefit of hindsight, additional C-17s were a good idea from the outset it would not have been financially prudent for the IAF/GoI to expend billions on a whim. What if these additional orders had been placed and in the interim the IAF finds there is a major shortcoming or issue that affects their deployment of the C-17? Then you would not only have a fleet of 10 that were restricted in utility but additional orders too i.e. a fleet of white elephants- I'm sure the CAG would love that. We may lament bureaucracy but protocols have their place.


That said, where does this leave us now? Well it's a bit hopeless, isn't it? A fleet of >20 IL-76s but only 10 C-17s to replace them and the situation is actually more desperate than that. Right now the IAF has >30 heavy lifters (C-17/IL-76) but starting in 2025 2/3rds of this fleet will begin to be phased out and this all during a time when the demands on the IAF's transport fleet will be growing so the shortfall will be stark by 2030. The IAF was actually looking to have a fleet of >22 C-17s and I don't know where this 3 additional unit requirement comes from because the original deal including a clause for 6 not 3 so there are some details being omitted from these reports right now.



The most logical measure to take, and what I sincerely hope the IAF/MoD are looking at is to buy some of the latest USAF C-17s who are actually being preserved and in mint condition. The USAF itself ordered more C-17s than it required explicitly to keep the Long Beach plant open and thus they have mothballed tens of C-17s who are all effectively brand new airframes. The IAF could easily meet its needs from this source.


The Long Beach plant will never be reopened IMHO- as I understand it the plant has already begun downsizing and the tooling for the C-17 has been removed.

 

[cloud4000]

talk about the obvious

It's worth repeating because it's a serious problem.

 

[anant_s]

I think blaming the Indian MoD or bureaucracy solely for this issue is a bit unnecessary- they played their part but India was also a victim of circumstance. India was already one of the very last C-17 customers, in fact its order for 10 helped keep the production line open for an additional few years (it was meant to close years ago). As such it was always going to be the case that additional orders would need to be made asap and would be tricky.

One can't reasonably expect the IAF to have exercised its clause for additional C-17s before it had received its first example and even then it took a while for the IAF to properly evaluate the C-17 in its service. Once the IAF had operationally deployed its C-17s a few times it became clear that the aircraft justified additional orders but by that time the production line had closed and many of the "white tails" had already been snatched up. If the IAF/GoI had placed additional C-17 orders prior to this it could have led to quite the fiasco. Whilst we can say, as outsiders talking with the benefit of hindsight, additional C-17s were a good idea from the outset it would not have been financially prudent for the IAF/GoI to expend billions on a whim. What if these additional orders had been placed and in the interim the IAF finds there is a major shortcoming or issue that affects their deployment of the C-17? Then you would not only have a fleet of 10 that were restricted in utility but additional orders too i.e. a fleet of white elephants- I'm sure the CAG would love that. We may lament bureaucracy but protocols have their place.


That said, where does this leave us now? Well it's a bit hopeless, isn't it? A fleet of >20 IL-76s but only 10 C-17s to replace them and the situation is actually more desperate than that. Right now the IAF has >30 heavy lifters (C-17/IL-76) but starting in 2025 2/3rds of this fleet will begin to be phased out and this all during a time when the demands on the IAF's transport fleet will be growing so the shortfall will be stark by 2030. The IAF was actually looking to have a fleet of >22 C-17s and I don't know where this 3 additional unit requirement comes from because the original deal including a clause for 6 not 3 so there are some details being omitted from these reports right now.



The most logical measure to take, and what I sincerely hope the IAF/MoD are looking at is to buy some of the latest USAF C-17s who are actually being preserved and in mint condition. The USAF itself ordered more C-17s than it required explicitly to keep the Long Beach plant open and thus they have mothballed tens of C-17s who are all effectively brand new airframes. The IAF could easily meet its needs from this source.


The Long Beach plant will never be reopened IMHO- as I understand it the plant has already begun downsizing and the tooling for the C-17 has been removed.

any other options you think would serve the role in super heavy carrier category.
i mean won't be an operationally ideal move to have 2 platforms but as you mentioned 10+3 won't be a sufficient number considering Illyushin replacement and increasing role of IAF.

 

[Abingdonboy]

any other options you think would serve the role in super heavy carrier category.
i mean won't be an operationally ideal move to have 2 platforms but as you mentioned 10+3 won't be a sufficient number considering Illyushin replacement and increasing role of IAF.

I'm still holding out hopes that the original requirement for a >20 C-17 fleet will be met- somehow (the only way it will happen is the above way I have outlined).

Other than that there isn't a whole lot of choice open to the IAF- rule out the Russians/Ukranians outright, then what are you left with? The A400? That itself is a sub-optimal solution (relative to the C-17) but probably the best. No one is really interested in strategic airlifters these days now the USAF's requirements for such an aircraft are filled (by the C-17) for the next 30-40 years.

Perhaps the IAF are already preparing for this eventuality:

IAF impressed with Airbus A400M
- SP’s Exculsive




Long term (20-30+ years in the future) the only option will be an in house product (Indian).

 

[Echo_419]

I think blaming the Indian MoD or bureaucracy solely for this issue is a bit unnecessary- they played their part but India was also a victim of circumstance. India was already one of the very last C-17 customers, in fact its order for 10 helped keep the production line open for an additional few years (it was meant to close years ago). As such it was always going to be the case that additional orders would need to be made asap and would be tricky.

One can't reasonably expect the IAF to have exercised its clause for additional C-17s before it had received its first example and even then it took a while for the IAF to properly evaluate the C-17 in its service. Once the IAF had operationally deployed its C-17s a few times it became clear that the aircraft justified additional orders but by that time the production line had closed and many of the "white tails" had already been snatched up. If the IAF/GoI had placed additional C-17 orders prior to this it could have led to quite the fiasco. Whilst we can say, as outsiders talking with the benefit of hindsight, additional C-17s were a good idea from the outset it would not have been financially prudent for the IAF/GoI to expend billions on a whim. What if these additional orders had been placed and in the interim the IAF finds there is a major shortcoming or issue that affects their deployment of the C-17? Then you would not only have a fleet of 10 that were restricted in utility but additional orders too i.e. a fleet of white elephants- I'm sure the CAG would love that. We may lament bureaucracy but protocols have their place.


That said, where does this leave us now? Well it's a bit hopeless, isn't it? A fleet of >20 IL-76s but only 10 C-17s to replace them and the situation is actually more desperate than that. Right now the IAF has >30 heavy lifters (C-17/IL-76) but starting in 2025 2/3rds of this fleet will begin to be phased out and this all during a time when the demands on the IAF's transport fleet will be growing so the shortfall will be stark by 2030. The IAF was actually looking to have a fleet of >22 C-17s and I don't know where this 3 additional unit requirement comes from because the original deal including a clause for 6 not 3 so there are some details being omitted from these reports right now.



The most logical measure to take, and what I sincerely hope the IAF/MoD are looking at is to buy some of the latest USAF C-17s who are actually being preserved and in mint condition. The USAF itself ordered more C-17s than it required explicitly to keep the Long Beach plant open and thus they have mothballed tens of C-17s who are all effectively brand new airframes. The IAF could easily meet its needs from this source.


The Long Beach plant will never be reopened IMHO- as I understand it the plant has already begun downsizing and the tooling for the C-17 has been removed.

US armed forces often order more equipment than they need.So why not order a couple of C-17s from USAF's stocks? And the A400M program us messed up better fastrack the MTA program

 

[jhungary]

US armed forces often order more equipment than they need.So why not order a couple of C-17s from USAF's stocks? And the A400M program us messed up better fastrack the MTA program

They did...They made 10 more without confirmed buyer.......

But 5 of those 10 are already gone, (2 to RAAF, 2 to RAF and 1 to Qatar) and India could snatch the remaining 5.

The USAF however, is actually too lacking on Strategic Airlift Power once C-5B are retired (leaving only some 50 C-5M). And there won't be any for sale within the US stock.

 

[Echo_419]

They did...They made 10 more without confirmed buyer.......

But 5 of those 10 are already gone, (2 to RAAF, 2 to RAF and 1 to Qatar) and India could snatch the remaining 5.

The USAF however, is actually too lacking on Strategic Airlift Power once C-5B are retired (leaving only some 50 C-5M). And there won't be any for sale within the US stock.

5 looks Like a good number

 

[Abingdonboy]

US armed forces often order more equipment than they need.So why not order a couple of C-17s from USAF's stocks? And the A400M program us messed up better fastrack the MTA program

Because the MTA program is going so well

Anyway, how is the MTA (in the class of the C-130 and a AN-132 replacement) an adequate replacement for the C-17 bro? They are two very different categories of airlifter- the MTA just won't cut it (if it ever materialises).

 

[satish]

We don't need c-17 anymore. A 5 ton truck is more important for logistics than c-17 which costs millions of dollars and a burden on the tax payers

 

[Echo_419]

Because the MTA program is going so well

Anyway, how is the MTA (in the class of the C-130 and a AN-132 replacement) an adequate replacement for the C-17 bro? They are two very different categories of airlifter- the MTA just won't cut it (if it ever materialises).

I am proposing MTA as an alternative to A-400 & not C-17

 

[Abingdonboy]

I am proposing MTA as an alternative to A-400 & not C-17

Even still, the MTA is far too limited in payload to be compared to the A-400 bro. And the A-400 buy I have proposed is only as an alternative to the C-17 itself so effectively we are talking about the MTA as an alternative to the C-17 which doens't make much sense.