IAF clears proposal to buy three C 17; Boeing says only one plane left to sell

The Economic Times, India ^ | 17 Aug, 2015 | Manu Pubby

[sukhoi-30mki]

NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force appears to have taken too long to push through a Rs 8,100 crore proposal to buy three new Boeing C-17 transport aircraft. The American manufacturer simply does not have that many aircraft to sell anymore, having pledged four of the last five C-17s in its production line to Qatar.

After months of efforts, the air force, at a Services Capital Acquisition Plan meeting on July 31, managed to push through the proposal to add three aircraft to its existing fleet of 10 Boeing C-17s that were ordered in 2011. Officials said the proposal is likely to be taken up by the high powered Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) shortly.

However, Boeing officials have gone on record to say that after signing the contract with Qatar the company is left with just one C-17 for sale. With its production facility for the aircraft at Long Beach in shut-down mode, the company has already halted the production line.

Boeing had five C-17 aircraft to sell when the air force first moved the proposal in April, as ET had first reported.

Officials said the air force could get committed aircraft from US inventory or retracted orders of a third country, but the chances of this happening are slim. A solution cannot be ruled out, they said, given that the deal is being processed under the Foreign Military Sales pact.

[Spktyr]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/01/airforce_aircraft_budget_011010w/

It’s behind a paywall, though.

[FreedomPoster]

Not going to pay. Is there any justification for the number, or just a “this is how many we need” statement?

Again, 10:1 is just absurd on the face of it.

[Spktyr]

I believe it has to do with cubic capacity. A single C-5 can transport 2 Abrams tanks plus a bunch of other stuff, a C-17 can only carry one and not so much extra. Remember, the C-17 is between the C-130 and the C-5 in size.

[Freeport]

Their subcontractors who make major parts of that aircraft have not made any new parts in over 5 years.

Let alone all the trained personnel that have already hit the road.

To restart production would need a substantial order and a lead time of over a year to restart. Onesies, twosies does not a production run make.

Boeing would probably need 30 to 50 new orders to make it financially viable to start up production again.

[FreedomPoster]

Yes, I’ve been on all of the above, I understand. Heck, I remember playing with load floor planning paper dolls when my dad was at staff school, many, many moons ago. How many AH-1s can you cram into a C-141? Heh.

Now, those numbers you quote argue for much less than a 10:1 replacement ratio. 10:1 sounds like something a Boeing military sales rep would come up with, is all I’m saying.

[Spktyr]

I also have my doubts about it, but even if you go on ‘how many tanks + associated gear can it carry’ as a metric, you’re still looking at a ~3:1 ratio of C-17s to every C-5 to be retired. Under that metric, we bought enough C-17s to replace 6 C-5s (since that declaration) and we’re going to be retiring 21 of them.