U.S. Approves Boeing C-17 Globemaster Sale to India

[Dash]

From all known reports and the interview of the air chief, they never evaluated another aircraft than the C17

Sure they have not but I can feel that C-17 could have been a reason behind the rejection of MRTT. coz they would have wanted a dedicated transport plane for troop movement.

 

[greatsequence]

This is a cool jet man watch this how quickly this thing takes off and how quickly stops after landing.

YouTube - C-17 Short Field Landing - Thrust Reverser Demo

 

[Capt.Popeye]

From all known reports and the interview of the air chief, they never evaluated another aircraft than the C17.


For the simple reason that; based on performance alone- the C-17 was the best existing aircraft available. It was pretty much a no-brainer.


MRTA will replace AN 32, C27J could only be a stop gap, or addition but not in big numbers. AFAIK, IAF is not evaluating it, but BSF.

About the C-17 evaluation; please read above.

Quite correct there, the C-27 Spartan is being considered only for the BSF.

Contrary to some sentiments being expressed here by some members; the AN-124 is not/and will not be on the IAF wish-list. Neither is the C-5 Galaxy!
Both of those "Sumo Wrestlers" have no place in IAF Air-lift doctrines at present. And no chance in the foreseeable future.

 

[sancho]

Sure they have not but I can feel that C-17 could have been a reason behind the rejection of MRTT. coz they would have wanted a dedicated transport plane for troop movement.

Oh now I get you, but you are mistaken my friend. FM rejected the A330 MRTT, not the A400M and just because of cost reasons. It was officially stated that IAF and MoD wanted the A330 MRTT, which means it has no relation with the C17, the one was chosen as a tanker mainly, the other as a transport aircraft and this seperation imo is not very smart. As I pointed out in my analysis, a mixed fleet of multi role aircrafts in higher numbers can be used way more effectively and probably even more cost-effective, than such a limited number of C17s.

Also when it comes to troop movement, the C17 does not have a big advantage, even against smaller aircrafts. The C130J-30s for our special ops, carries nearly as many troops (128 vs 134 in the C17). If we move troops only from one airbase to another, the A330 MRTT is even more capable than the C17, because it can carry up to 300 troops, during an refuelling mission. That's what I meant, the C17 can do it all, fair enough, but for such high costs (which translates in limited numbers) and for an effective transport fleet, it is not the best choice for us.

For the simple reason that; based on performance alone- the C-17 was the best existing aircraft available. It was pretty much a no-brainer.

Check this interview with the Air chief:

Is the Air Force losing its edge?


At minute 8:47 he says:

The C17 was chosen after a very detailed study, all the existing and developing aircrafts were considered

So it's wrong that existing today was an requirement!
He further says that carrying large loads and operating on shorter surfaces (from unprepared airstrips) were the requirements. Which obviously leaves only the C17, but that can't justify such high costs and as I said before, they never did a real evaluation, because they never send at least an RFI out to other alternatives. The A400 is one, the modernised IL 76 versions could be (some sources says they can STOL on unprepaired airstrips) and with the latest reports, even the Kawasaki C-2 could be one.
If FM accept this deal at $5.8 billions, with the only advantage of higher loads compared to these alternatives, but rejecting A330 MRTT in the tanker competition for cost reasons (although clearly more capable in several fields), it obviously was a political decision!

 

[dbc]

So it's wrong that existing today was an requirement!
He further says that carrying large loads and operating on shorter surfaces (from unprepared airstrips) were the requirements. Which obviously leaves only the C17, but that can't justify such high costs and as I said before, they never did a real evaluation..... it obviously was a political decision!

Why was India so anxious to procure C-17's?

1. To impress Obama / Michelle
2. Because IAF is stupid
3. To improve Indian armed forces rapid response, to counter Chinese capability for quick massive deployment along its border with India.

I know sancho thinks the answer is 2. For those who think he's right and IAF should have gone the MMRCA route, what do you think China will achieve in the next ten years while India is busy debating the best choice for IAF's heavy lift needs.

Rewind to 1962, what were the lessons learned from that defeat?

The Indian soldiers, on the other hand, did not even have enough winter clothing and shoes. Even the line of communications was difficult as there was no road network. The supplies and reinforcements for the troops were sent most by air, states the official Indian history.

NDTV.com:

Nearly 50 years later the road network is still inadequate and the only way to mobilize quickly enough to counter rapid Chinese buildup is the use of air transportation - you can be sure the first item on the Chinese todo list will be the destruction of runways close to its border with India.

He further says that carrying large loads and operating on shorter surfaces (from unprepared airstrips) were the requirements. Which obviously leaves only the C17, but that can't justify such high costs....

I think poor planning and inadequate preparations on India's part has made the C-17's a necessity.

 

[luckyyy]

This is a cool jet man watch this how quickly this thing takes off and how quickly stops after landing.

YouTube - C-17 Short Field Landing - Thrust Reverser Demo

that's actually the main reason for C-17 been choosen...

 

[sancho]

I know sancho thinks the answer is 2. For those who think he's right and IAF should have gone the MMRCA route, what do you think China will achieve in the next ten years while India is busy debating the best choice for IAF's heavy lift needs.

Not really, I am just not so naiv to believe that our forces gets everything what they want, or really need and that these kind of procurements are (just like in any other country), often made by political decisions. That's the same reason why the F18SH has a good chance to win the MMRCA, not because it is the best for our forces, but the best political choice.
By the way, not even with 16 x C17 will make a major differences against China, because we can transport the same number of troops with other aircrafts too and carrying 16 x MBTs doesn't mean a big thing either. They are a good addition, but not a good choice if they really cost that much!

 

[Dash]

Oh now I get you, but you are mistaken my friend. FM rejected the A330 MRTT, not the A400M and just because of cost reasons. It was officially stated that IAF and MoD wanted the A330 MRTT

Sorrry, my bad. always get confused with names..Like I said, I am trying to figure out a rationale behind buying C-17s..

I just read an article witten by AOA.

on 26th April that the US congress was notified on sale of C-17 transport aircraft to India. This report was received by hostility by most Indians who are unsatisfied by the price being offered which according to the article is 5.8 billion $. There is also some sense of lack of confidence towards the American's who have imposed sanctions on India in the past. However I feel that India needs the C-17 and it should be purchased.
Firstly its clearly mentioned in the article that the 5.8 billion $ price tag is the maximum possible price which America can earn, its not the price which is being negotiated. IAF is yet to put forward its requirements for spares and services which it will need.

American equipments also traditionally have been expensive to purchase but cheap to maintain. They also provide large amount of spares and support equipments along with the initial purchases deal, this practice is not followed by the Russians hence Russian products have low contract price. So what we do is we get into a seperate contract with them for additional price, like we did with DCNS of France and USC of Russia for scorpenes and INS Vikramaditya.



Having said that I will still say there is a difference in buying a fighter and a transport plane from US. The only factor is lower risk. Dont know how much less but its substantial.

 

[sancho]

American equipments also traditionally have been expensive to purchase but cheap to maintain. They also provide large amount of spares and support equipments along with the initial purchases deal, this practice is not followed by the Russians hence Russian products have low contract price. So what we do is we get into a seperate contract with them for additional price, like we did with DCNS of France and USC of Russia for scorpenes and INS Vikramaditya...

Since the visit of Obama and the announcement of the C17 deal, we saw several different media reports about the price, but so far the most reliable was the one with the interview of the Boeing official (even a president, if I'm not wrong) and he stated the $5.8 billions. Also if we take the prices of other recent C17 deals, like for Kuwait (1 for close to $700 million), 10 for $580 million seems already to be a reduced price or?
However, if they reduce the costs the deal will be worth it, although I still say we had other alternatives, that was worth to evaluate them and would have increased IAF capabilities more than these C17s.