JimmyJAs per the news report, the current order of 10 planes will last for the next 2.5 years only. A foreign order (like India’s) will last another 2.5 years. 2.5 years is significant for 5,000 workers and 44 states (another say, 5000 workers) which supply that plant.
If I was an employee in Boeings’ plant, do you know what I would try to do now? Do you think I would wait for the 2.5 years to get another job or wait for the Saudis to save me like what you mentioned below?
After that Japan, Israel, Saudia, and other vassal states will be nudged to extend it’s order books for the next 2.5 years. Then another 5 years, and so on.And is there something about that happening right now?
Exactly. Senators themselves have “goaded” India to buy these. After all, its an FMS purchase i.e. govt to govt level and not Boeing to IAF.
Exactly. Not just that, but P-3C Orions, E-2C Hawkeye maritime AEW&C and what not. Enough to keep 25,000 American homes buzzing for the next 10 years, with due thanks to Indian taxpayer.
Years and years of “binge consumption” cannot be changed overnight. They desperately need these orders continuously from countries like India, otherwise democrats and Obama are in serious trouble.If you know about the US economy size, India buying c-17 alone won’t help them for sure
My response in red colors
JimmyJ“ Boeing is already slowing down its production rate from 15 C-17s a year to 10. If more orders don’t come in from foreign countries — and the U.S. stops buying, the Long Beach facility knows it has only 2-and-a-half more years worth of C-17s to build.”
So you mean to say that all that Boeing gets from the deal is a one year [or two?]extension of the production line when the deal is sealed? I am not sure how helpful that be. Are we over estimating our impact, unless you expect US and Boeing to find out more foreign customers within the delivery of the final C-17 to India? Or may be the Congress would approve for more C-17 by the time for the USAF? That all doesn’t add up with what you are attempting
I don’t think Boeing will be concerned about firing 5000 people for lack of order, the senators may. Boeing’s worry would be money and unless they get bulk US orders there is no further point.
JimmyJMobilizing the troop depends much upon behaviour of friendly countries as how they will allow foriegn troop on their soil. At the same time, dimensions of troop, logistics and sorties depends upon type of operation being carried out. Unless we aren’t involve in full blown conflict then troops must be in very low number especially of Special Ops kind to carry out the evacuation, suppression of behind enemy line at a lighting speed.
Considering the same, if the situation turns, would the special ops team required to be supported effectively? India to Afghan is still too far a distance unless they wisely use Iran also as a temp base, rather than just a fly over.
JimmyJJimmyJ, you raised the question of transporting to Maldives and Afghanistan yourself. Now, when I replied you say, “forget it, its a different story”. Fine.
Don’t put your word into my mouth, what I said/meant is Maldives is a pretty easy scenario and won;t face too many odds too where you won’t need to large transports unlike India launching an immediate operation into Afghan. on that basis the theater of Afghan and Maldives are both different. If there is any trouble in understanding what some one writes, it is possible to ask them rather than misquoting them, please.
My intention from the scenario is to see how probably C-17 would be useful for the IAF in any of the future scenario. some times one need to put oneself into the shoes of IA/IAF to see what they are expecting from the C-17.
And thanks for the rest of your post that was informative,.
JimmyJLike Operation Cactus in Maldives, Il-76s or our brand new C-130 Super Hercules would do the job quite well.
And how many troops do you intend to transport? Maldives and Afghan theater is an all together different story. The question is always what is the number; the troops, logistics, sorties etc,, not whether something supports or not.
JimmyJSpecial ops yes, but only at over 2,500 nautical miles away. For relief ops in flood-hit Bihar, is the IAF going to fly a C-17 from Nagpur ??? Better do that with 2 C-130Js. The few thousand dollars saved thus, could go a long way in helping the flood-hit.
Even during wartime, commercial planes from AI are pressed into troop transportation. What’s more, so many commercial planes are up for retirement that they can easily be refurbished and used by IAF, if they’re no longer good for passenger comfort and safety.
The above s the “last line of defence”, because the “IAF says so” and so it must be good. Please understand that defence deals also have geopolitical ‘undercurrents’ also, and are not always based on pressing requirements. The C-17 assembly line was on the verge of closure in the US, and now India has given it a lifeline.
I don’t disagree with the C-130J purchase at all. If the Il-76s cannot even be refurbished to extend it’s life (also given Russia’s bad record on refurbishing Gorshkov), then purchase more C-130Js, I’m in full support of that.
But I don’t see the need for C-17s as explained above.
Let me bring two hypothetical scenario…………..Don’t ambush me:)
1. A friendly nation to India comes under attack,[has happened before] and request immediate assistance. Govt orders IA and IAF to move in, you being the IA chief [never possible by always being at KeyPub:p] , would you prefer a large pay load capable plane or a smaller one?
2.Similar case, an Indian embassy is under attack in Afghan and India prepares for a fitting reply, you being the IA chief, would you prefer a large pay load capable plane or a smaller one? [You may have to go in via Iran,not Pakistan and that is a real short route too;)] And what more proxies too would come into play here, you know what I mean in South asia we have a mini cold war always.
JimmyJBesides, coming to your original question, why do you think we’ve recently bought C-130J’s then ? They’re slightly “worse” than Il-76s.
Shouldn’t it have something to do with operational scenario too especially when it was mentioned that it is for special ops
JimmyJwhen looking inside the intakes can you see the engine face on your model??? hehhe 😀
You are an awesome guy…..:D Everything answered:dev2:
JimmyJTejas Mk.2 can easily complement the Su-30 MKI and there is no need for an MRCA at all. IAF is “zabardasti” trying to “wedge” a so-called MMRCA in between Tejas and Su-30.
I thought you would have realized that MMRCA is very much going to be in IAF stable already, unless something really odd happens and Tejas getting an IOC/FOC/becoming mk2 is not one among them. :confused:
JimmyJHow about adding the climate condition too, the hot and humid India?
JimmyJSo you’d rather that the Govt. have heeded the US’s request and make the MRCA into a single vendor or only-US competition and purchased it through the FMS process ? That would have been fair and alright by you ?
whereever the IAF/IA or IN have felt a need that is met mostly only by products made by the US, they have decided to go through the FMS route. By all indications, the MRCA evaluations are going well, they are fair and transparent. Saying that this procurement will take 20 years like the Hawk AJT is frankly being too pessimistic even by Indian standards.
Kramer, but what Matt expressed is a reality in the Indian scenario. It looks like whenever we conduct impressive MMRCA type tenders the product induction into the armed forces has taken much longer time and has been mired in red tapes, corruption charges, improper contractual obligation due to poor contractual documentation.
The Hawk contract is the classic example that in itself would give the Typhoons a bad mark, after all aren’t they the private, the kind that many people profess would solve India’s defense R&D and production issues.
JimmyJGuys, at least I, am tired of these never ending repeats, if you don’t mind could you start a J-17 vs LCA thread or an India vs Pakistan thread and keep this thread sane
Now if it is just my problem, and if the other posters would say that this is Jimmy’s problem, I am very much willing to stop visiting this thread.
JimmyJAfter all they do not want to give away like Indian Druv but sell it as a real tested and verified fighterjet.
:rolleyes:
What would that mean, the pilots survived a big crash due to human error which was determined by investigation from Equador
JimmyJ(70 Mirage2K-5/-9s from Gulf x unit cost) + (X no. of Eurofighters x unit cost) = $12 billion.
Solve the equation and see if total planes exceeds much more than 126 fighters. Then go for it.
Inspite of splitting, there are no disadvantages of splitting because M2K is already in service and does not add a new variety to logistics chain.
But I think we have crossed the stage already where we could combine the Mirage 2000 into the 12 billion dollars. It is definite that IAF is going to induct the new aircraft well above 100 in numbers. What we still don’t know is how many more years we need to keep this thread alive:p
JimmyJTejas is a multirole jet and has as much range and strike capability as MiG-29 or MiG-27, and much more superior than a MiG-21 (IAF’s current mainstay). The problem is that IAF still views the Tejas as a MiG-21 equivalent jet.
I truly believe that we must allow Tejas the fighter to do the talk. It would just be completing the IOC. More information would come out after the induction and especially in combat exercises. I believe rather just the specs there would be flight characteristics that would determine the superiority of a fighter over another which is to serve the same purpose.
Sign In
