prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Besides the Boeing C-17, what other transport aircraft is the IAF considering for acquisition?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: Transport Aircraft for IAF - Page 67 - Bharat Rakshak
Transport Aircraft for IAF
Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF
Postby abhik » 17 Nov 2014 05:55
+1, Air India recently sold their entire fleet of Boeing 777s 
afaik the A330 MRTT does not make any structural mods or add anything internally in cargo or passenger cabin  it just relies on the intrinsic 110 tons of fuel  external refueling pods are added and internally the control station and cameras for the operator i guess 
so its a easy conversion from a passenger layout to the AAR mode - mostly ripping out the passenger cabin of all extra stuff and retuning the FCS for any changes in COG 
this should have been pursued years ago
the IL78 adds a palletized drum tank system inside its cargo bay due to paucity of intrinsic fuel but it can be removed and a/c converted back to cargo hauling or send off to russia for Phalcon structural mods if we want it that way  they will however need to change engines to PS90 as they have the old engines
http://www airplane-pictures net/images     7/5616 jpg
the RAF is already gone that route in 2011
http://www defensenews com/article/2011     -Refuelers
LONDON - Airbus Military has delivered the first of 12 A330-200 airliners due to be converted into in-flight refueling planes for the British Royal Air Force by Cobham Aviation Services 
The aircraft, part of an order of 14 jets, will be modified with aerial refueling pods and other equipment at Cobham's newly refurbished facility in Bournemouth, England  The first two aircraft have already been converted by Airbus in Spain 
The multirole tanker aircraft are being provided to the RAF under a private finance initiative service deal led by Airbus parent EADS 
Seven of the planes will be operated full time by the RAF  The remainder will be available for lease in the third-party market, with the proviso that they can be returned to British military service to meet any surge in demand 
All of the aircraft, to be known as the Voyager in RAF service, will be fitted with two wing-mounted refueling pods, while half the fleet will also be fitted for, but not necessarily with, a center-line mounted unit  The refueling units are being supplied by Cobham 
The first aircraft will become operational in a passenger and freight transport role by the end of this year to start relieving pressure on the RAF's hard-pressed assets 
Despite the increasing fragility of current RAF in-flight refueling operations, the new capability is not contracted to start being used in this role until 2015 
All 14 Voyagers are scheduled to be available for RAF operations by the middle of the decade  The A330 will replace the increasingly ancient Tristar and VC-10 refuelers now in service 
Push the 6 Il-476 from refueler to AEW duty  Phalcon them up
Not sure if that is a good path to follow  For one they all should be sent to pasture in about 8 years  Then if the are to be phalconed up - the requires major structural changes  Not worth that cost 
Whatever happened ot the two new ones that were supposed ot be ordered?
the IL78 can be easily converted back to IL76 cargo hauling  only the fuel tank inside cargo bay needs removal   infact that was even mentioned in initial days as swing role fuel/cargo 
Postby Cybaru » 17 Nov 2014 07:55
I am talking about the new il78 that we ordered recently in refueling role  Sorry for the mix up  They are the same platform, that I why i used 476 or 76 to identify it 
777 carries more internal fuel than the A330  We suck!
From the KC-777 program 
http://www globalsecurity org/military/     kc-777 htm
"the KC-777 would be 209 feet long with a wingspan of 212 feet, 7 inches  That's the same size as the 777-200LR commercial jet  The KC-777 would be able to carry far more fuel, cargo and passengers than either the KC-767 or the Airbus A330 tanker  The KC-767 offers more operational flexibility, while the KC-777 would be better suited for long-range strategic missions in which more cargo needs to be delivered  The KC-777 would be able to carry more than 350,000 pounds (160,000 kilograms) of fuel and offload more than 220,000 pounds (100,000 kg) of it on a mission of 500 nautical miles (900 kilometers)  On the other hand, the KC-767 can lift off with more than 200,000 pounds (90,000 kg) of fuel and offload more than 130,000 pounds (60,000 kg) in a similar mission  The KC-777 would be able to deliver 200 percent more fuel after flying 1,000 nautical miles than older Air Force KC-135s  The KC-777 could carry up to 37 pallets of cargo, compared to the 19 pallets for the KC-767 "
Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Nov 2014 04:31
Viv S wrote: From Ajai Shukla's article -
HAL points out that, since each Avro flies barely 350 hours every year, most of them have a residual life of about 80,000 hours  In a request for information (RFI) released on August 15, HAL has proposed replacing the aircraft’s engines (Rolls Royce Dart) with “modern fuel efficient engines” 
So, the IAF's Avros have a residual life of 228 years at the current rate of usage  Ain't life grand?
At zero up time, it could reach infinity 
Relax Cy  Kc777 has no client  Usaf is going with kc767 and almost everyone else with a330 
We don't have the number of heavies and long missions of usaf else I would say convert an124 
KC777 will be extremely expensive given the demand/backlog for the 777 and the 777x  Any buyer would have to virtually pay for the increase in capacity 
I think the 767 production line is closed  so the proposed KC767 Boeing is supposed to deliver 18 by 2017  that can be managed from mothballed and cargo hauler airframes on the market 
but to meet the final order of around 180 will they not have to open the production line unless such a huge number were available on the market?
I do get the spider feel this program again will be cancelled in favour of a in-production plane like the 777X ?
I wasn't suggesting we get the KC777  All I was doing was comparing what possibly the 777 could offload compared to A330  It carries 171000 liters of fuel versus 130000 liters that the A330 carries  If we had older 777s in stock, we could have quite easily converted them to this config  The cost to us would be miniscule just the refurbishing cost vs acquiring a new type 
Singha wrote: I think the 767 production line is closed  so the proposed KC767 Boeing is supposed to deliver 18 by 2017  that can be managed from mothballed and cargo hauler airframes on the market 
The Line is open, they have a backlog of around 50 (All Fed ex), with Fed Ex placing a small order this year  The Pegasus order is for all new builds, and so will the follow on order  The only reason for any nation to buy the 767 tanker is going to be because of the ability to hard bargain with Boeing given that the commercial future of the 767 is dead  This also allows a potential buyer to purchase cheap spares from the open market, or club its logistical and inventory purchase with that of the USAF  Other than that and perhaps availability (which would be doubtful once USAF pushes through a larger order) there is really no technical reason to purchase the this tanker over the A330 which by all accounts is a superior tanker in addition to being a much much better airliner in general 
IAI is doing conversations for the 767 and its called the 767 MMTT
http://www iai co il/sip_storage/FILES/1/38471 pdf
Cybaru wrote: I wasn't suggesting we get the KC777  All I was doing was comparing what possibly the 777 could offload compared to A330  It carries 171000 liters of fuel versus 130000 liters that the A330 carries  If we had older 777s in stock, we could have quite easily converted them to this config  The cost to us would be miniscule just the refurbishing cost vs acquiring a new type 
The cost of converting a commercial airliner to a tanker, certifying it and running a full fledged test program is by no means small  There is absolutely no justification for that sort of cost over and above the capability that that A330 provides  If it were a certified and tested conversion, that would be a different matter 
Postby Kartik » 21 Nov 2014 12:27
Cybaru wrote:
Why? If the airframe can handle more flight hours, why not?
because it is a very very old airframe as is  Maintenance spares won't be available easily even as of now, then imagine how it'll be 20-30 years from now   and as things stood anyway, the HS-748 offered very little in terms of payload and range versus a C-295 class aircraft  The C-295 offers a very credible light transport, whereas the HS-748's role in the IAF was more akin to a transport trainer and for communication duties with little operational use  Having seen a dozen or so HS-748s parked at Vadodara airport all through my childhood, I never once saw one in the air  They just seemed to be stored out in the open  Upon asking an IAF transport pilot who was my friend's father, he remarked "zyaada kaam ke nahi hain yeh" 
Why would you expend more capital on what is essentially an obsolete airframe, even if theoretically it had not yet reached its service life? You'd have to re-engine it, put new avionics on board and even that wouldn't suffice for para dropping requirements  it was operationally never suitable for para dropping, which is an important mission for transport aircraft and had deficiencies in hot and high climes as well 
Unfortunately, the 748 was never meant to be a military transport  At the request of IAF, its door was enlarged to enable larger cargo items to be loaded and to allow para dropping without hitting the tail plane  However, to load a jeep in it, a 30-ft long ramp was required  The jeep would drive in and insert its front wheels into the aircraft  Then it had to be manually lifted and turned to get it in  Unloading it was just as difficult  Para dropping of troops or cargo even from the aircraft with the enlarged door was considered too dangerous with the risk of hitting the tail plane  The aircraft's performance at hot and high airfields was hopelessly inadequate  Eventually IAF acquired the tail-loading An-32s which were powered specifically for IAF's need for operating in the Himalayas 
BRF article -Avro in IAF service
Now unless you want to overcome all these through a costly, time consuming engineering re-design program, that too without access to original documents since this airplane was designed in the 1960s, there is no question of keeping them going for another 40 years  By which time the original design would be over 80 years old and with no one on earth but the IAF as an operator and HAL as the agency supporting it  Hardly a situation anyone would want 
abhik wrote: +1, Air India recently sold their entire fleet of Boeing 777s 
Only 5 of the Boeing 777-200LR, to Etihad Airways, which IMO was a bad decision  they could have reconfigured the airplanes with just 2 classes and continued to fly them to the US, non-stop 
The remaining 3 777-200LR were offered for lease but are still a part of AI's fleet since they didn't find any takers  This particular model hardly sold much and was developed for ultra-long range flights  it was the least successful 777 model and clearly AI goofed up on the configuration by going for these in place of the 300ER  The economics however didn't make too much sense for AI eventually 
there are 13 777-300ER as a part of their fleet ahd their economics is much better 
Govt  to decide tomorrow on whether to go ahead and allow the IAF to verify the technical details of the C-295 bid by Tata-Airbus instead of scrapping the tender due to single vendor situation 
The government will decide on Saturday whether to press ahead with the Rs 13,000 crore mega project for the private sector to supply 56 medium transport aircraft to the IAF despite only a single bidder, the Tata-Airbus consortium, being in the fray 
Though the defence acquisitions council (DAC) chaired by Manohar Parrikar will take the final decision, MoD sources on Tuesday said the "emerging dominant view" is that green signal should be given to the crucial project designed to promote Indian private sector's entry into the domestic aerospace arena with foreign collaboration 
"The Tata-Airbus technical and commercial bid is a credible offer submitted in a competitive environment  The other seven contenders backed out for one reason or the other," said a source 
IAF has now sought the clearance of the DAC -- the first such meeting to be chaired by Parrikar after becoming defence minister on November 10 -- to begin technical evaluation of the C-295 aircraft offered by Airbus Defence & Space and Tata Advanced Systems 
Though it has become a single-vendor situation, the DAC can approve it if it wants as per existing procurement procedures  Of the eight foreign aviation majors that got the global tender, American Boeing and Lockheed-Martin as well as Brazilian Embraer said they did not manufacture the class of aircraft being sought by IAF 
Refusing to take part in the tender, Russian Rosoboronexport said it wanted a fresh design and development project  Antonov of Ukraine wanted yet another extension of the bid submission deadline due to the ongoing conflict in Crimea  Swedish Saab said it had shut down its assembly line for such aircraft 
Then, Alenia Aermacchi was linked to Italian conglomerate Finmeccanica, which has been slapped with "a partial ban" after the infamous VVIP helicopter scandal  "All this left only the European consortium Airbus  The DAC will have to take a call since re-tendering may lead to the same situation," said the source 
Incidentally, it was the Modi government's first DAC in July -- then headed by Arun Jaitley - which revived the Avro replacement project after it was put on hold by the UPA-2 regime last year due to strong opposition from the powerful PSU lobby and ministers like Praful Patel, as reported by TOI earlier 
Apart from the critical need to encourage the private sector to enter defence production in a big way, especially in the aerospace arena where Hindustan Aeronautics enjoys a monopoly, its felt the defence PSU's order books are already overflowing with projects 
Fingers crossed  Hopefully sense will prevail 
Why was lr got? Er is capable of Dubai to sfo nonstop 
Lr is overkill unless we want Delhi to Peru  
Singha wrote: Why was lr got? Er is capable of Dubai to sfo nonstop 
they wanted it for non-stop routes from India to the west coast of the US  But with fuel prices going higher and with the lower seat count on the 777-200LR, the seat mile costs grew too high  A 3 class configuration only made matters worse  A higher density configuration with more economy class seats and just 12-15 Business class seats would have been better perhaps, especially if they didn't have very high First Class load factors 
LR and ER is better if you want to have a better payload down below for long haul  Ultimately, the best bet is going to come form the 787's that take a fewer people (so you can do the longer routes) with still a competitive CASM, and the B and F class folks will pay good money for newer aircraft 
Postby Kartik » 04 Dec 2014 12:55
Lets see if there is any forward movement on the stalled MTA project once Putin arrives in New Delhi
Major defence deals to be signed during Putin-Modi summit
In this connection, it is expected that during the summit, Russia and India may ultimately resolve several long-delayed agreements on military-technical cooperation projects between the two countries and sign them finally for their implementation  These agreements, above all, include joint Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project and joint development of Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA) 
A final deal on FGFA for production has been delayed because the Indian Air Force (IAF) did not approve the design and work-share  Now Russia has reportedly agreed that the jet would be a two-seat design, not a one-seater  India’s work-share would also be increased from18 percent to 25 percent, and even up to 40-50 percent in the near future, in view of the steady development of the Indian aviation industry 
Defence and SecurityAccording to the agreement, India’s stealth air-to-air missile “Astra” along with Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile will be mounted on the FGFA 
The preliminary design agreement on FGFA had been signed in 2010 between Indian HAL and Russian Sukhoi Design Bureau to build the jet for the use by both countries  The final design contract was to be signed in July-August 2012  But the deadline has already passed  According to the Indian media reports, under the programme, India is expected to build 200 fighter jets at the cost of $30 billion 
FGFA is not the only Indo-Russia joint project  The two countries also signed an agreement on the joint development of MTA in 2007, based on Il-214 Russian plane  The cost of the $600 million project is being equally shared by the two countries  The MTA, when developed, will have ready market for 205 aircraft - 45 for the Indian Air Force, 100 for the Russian Air Force, and 60 more for exporting to friendly countries  The international market for MTA is estimated at 390 planes  Under the agreement, thirty percent of the annual production of planes could be exported to third countries 
The MTA was expected to go in service with the Russian and Indian Air Forces in 2015  But the project faced a number of problems, delaying the development of the MTA  The project got into rough weather after India felt there was nothing much for Indian engineers and scientists to do in the design and development of the MTA 
However, all the issues related to the project were resolved with the Russians when the HAL undertook to carry out design and development of its work-share of MTA at Aircraft R&D Centre at Bangalore  Russian Ilyushin Design Bureau and the Irkut Corporation and HAL are participating in the project  The first flight is expected to take place in 2017-18 
The MTA would replace the AN- 32 aircraft being used by the IAF  It will be used for both cargo and troop transportation, para-drop and air drop of supplies, including low-altitude parachute extraction system 
BrahMos missile exports a challenging proposition
Another key deal expected to be signed during the summit, is for the development of “BrahMos mini missile” by the Indo-Russian joint venture BrahMos Aerospace which manufactures supersonic cruise missile  BrahMos’ new CEO Sudhir Mishra recently said he was hopeful that a deal to develop the mini version of the missile will be signed during Putin’s summit with Modi 
“We are hoping to sign a tripartite agreement between DRDO, NPOM lab and BrahMos Aerospace during the planned visit of Russian President in December,” Mishra said 
He said that the new missile will have a speed of 3 5 mach and carry a payload of 300 km up to a range of 290 km  In size, it will be about half of the present missile, which is around 10 metres long  The missile can be integrated with different platforms, including submarines and FGFA  It is planned to be inducted into service by 2017 
Modi-Abbott to upgrade defence ties
A new dimension:
In a first, India and Australia will also set up a mechanism to discuss “synergies in integrating defence system”, including research and development cooperation on integrating defence equipment that both countries currently purchase, for example, U S’s C-17 Globemaster III, according to officials 
^^That report about MTA is fishy  First it says that India has nothing to learn from an existing design (duh) and then says the issue has been resolved  How? Next it says India's need is 45 planes to replace over 100 An-32s  It also speculates about the export potential which may be nonexistent unless we sell it for peanuts 
This is a scam which only aims to create screwdriver jobs at HAL, stall any attempt to introduce private players into the aviation market and continue the Russian gravy train  My fear is the Russkies have our testiments in a firm grip with key components of Brahmos, nuke subs, Su30mki etc and we may be jerked around 
(They need to be more definitive about "MTA" - Multirole vs  Medium)
The Indians had not selected an engine (among other things) for the MTA with the Russians  Perhaps that has been resolved now 
On export numbers, IIRC, it was the responsibility of Rosoboronexport  ?????
Kartik wrote: The MTA would replace the AN- 32 aircraft being used by the IAF  It will be used for both cargo and troop transportation, para-drop and air drop of supplies, including low-altitude parachute extraction system 
Pardon my ignorance  The Avro and An-32 have different upgrade paths  How are the replacements for these venerable aircraft different in terms of use cases in IAF  Cannot one platform replace both these types? (Either MTA or C-295)
In this case, I feel they should have just gone with screwdrivergiri (production tech) and got to market first  There is no jet-powered transporter in this range! Just license produce the IL-214 with the PD-14M, glass cockpit and a state-of-the-art COTS avionics computer 
In my view, it was a low hanging fruit, which they completely messed up! They could have learnt on how to adopt the plane for the 160-200 seater 
indranilroy wrote: They could have learnt on how to adopt the plane for the 160-200 seater 
Yes, the MTA project should fold the Avro, An-32 and the regional transport role and become a conversion project rather a development one  The driving numbers will come from the regional transport (thousands in India itself) rather than the Avro or medium transport roles (max 300 between them)  This changes the ball game and introduces all kinds of possibilities  But I'm pretty sure that the Il-214/MTA is not the way to go because it will take a decade or more to arrive  A good possibility was another Antonov, the An-148 but it has some mechanical glitches apparently besides being bogged down in the Ukraine mess  Maybe the Russians can "relocate" the aircraft to Russia? The other possibility is the BAe-146 which is ironically another Avro  We should remember that both the HS-748 "Avro" and An-32 were regional airliners that were converted to military use, not the other way around  HAL or a private firm will pick up a lot of experience in the conversion process itself 
The Sukhoi Superjet is already in production/orders,with over 100+ for Russian and intl  customers  It is ideal for regional transport,perfect for flights to smaller Tier-2/3 cities from metros  If we really want a regional jet this is the fastest way toi go,we can set up a manufacturing unti here for the same at an HAL unit 
Postby shaun » 05 Dec 2014 15:24
Its an international projects, with components outsourced from different international vendors   Over 30 foreign partnership companies are involved in the project and partly financed by Italy 
Sukhoi is good for passenger use but wont be suitable for military, rough field use  The shoulder wing jets like the An-148 have slower speeds and better ground clearance  The Bae-146 was usedby Druk Air in Bhutan so it should do OK in the ALGs  If we don't fold our requirements then we should go with something like the Superjet which we will at least be able to make in India and also modify to stretched versions  Unless we have a clear path to operational clearance within 10 yrs for the RTA project vetted by our top industrial houses, it is pie-in-the-sky and should be dropped  The RTA will be big enough to keep 2-3 factories humming and leapfrog our capabilities  If we don't get our act together almost immediately, we will miss the boat, just like our trainer fiascos 
I don't think Superjet fits into our scheme of things  We should think as a country and see to it that our programs don't trample on each other 
First, the more certain ones:
1  Mahindras NM5 and Airvans can care of the low-cost but sturdy 5,8,10 and 18-seater section 
2  Saras had such great potential for being the high performance 14-18 seater  But I have almost given up on it  This section will most probably be taken up by the Tata-built Do-228 NG 
3  We should standardize the C-295 as the Avro/An-32 replacement and create a 70-80 seater variant out of it 
And then the more wishful ones:
1  If the RTA is going to be a jet, then make it a 100-130 seater  I don't expect the first prototype to take the sky before 2025  I feel it is too big of a jump where we don't even have a base  With LCA, at least we were at least license producing other fighters 
4  Building on the IL-214, the MTA was on a more sure footing  But, I can't see how the first prototype can to take to the sky before 2019(more than 10 years since MTAL was formed)! If the transport plane materializes, then one can imagine making a civilian 150-200 seater version of the same  But this program needs a push  Will Putin's visit be able to galvanize this into the next symbol of Indo-Russian cooperation  Probably not!
Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Dec 2014 23:39
http://www ctvnews ca/canada/defence-de     -1 2144472
The Defence Department intends to purchase a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, a large military transport plane that comes with a price tag of just under $200 million, CTV News has learned
It's difficult to get a good count, but by some sources, if this and the 4 Australia planes go through, there will only be 5 left 
X-Posting from FGFA thread 
Despite Putin’s visit, two pacts on military aircraft still in doldrums
President Vladimir Putin may have come and gone but stalemate largely persists over two key long-pending India-Russian defence projects, the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) and military multirole transport aircraft (MTA) 
The deadlock over the MTA, which were initially envisaged to gradually replace IAF's ageing fleet of the medium-lift AN-32 aircraft, seems to be much more serious  India now wants to ascertain the cost viability of the twin-engine transport aircraft in comparison to similar planes available in the market 
There are also questions about the MTA's "predicted timelines for delivery" as well as its failure to meet the high-altitude requirements, which need to be answered before India even thinks of inking the full-scale contract for the project, said sources 
Postby Gyan » 13 Dec 2014 12:29
indranilroy wrote: I don't think Superjet fits into our scheme of things  We should think as a country and see to it that our programs don't trample on each other 
1  Mahindras NM5 and Airvans can care of the low-cost but sturdy 5,8,10 and 18-seater section  Righto
2  Saras had such great potential for being the high performance 14-18 seater  But I have almost given up on it  This section will most probably be taken up by the Tata-built Do-228 NG  We need future extended variants of presurrized aircraft like 30 seater Saras and say 30 seater unpressurized Do-328 NG 
3  We should standardize the C-295 as the Avro/An-32 replacement and create a Civilian turboprop pressurized cabin 70-80 seater variant out of it 
1  If the RTA is going to be a jet, then make it a 100-130 seater  Agreeeeeed I don't expect the first prototype to take the sky before 2025  I feel it is too big of a jump where we don't even have a base  With LCA, at least we were at least license producing other fighters  Though I think that we should participate in Russian MS-21 and also the wide body follow on 
4  Building on the IL-214, the MTA was on a more sure footing  But, I can't see how the first prototype can to take to the sky before 2019(more than 10 years since MTAL was formed)! If the transport plane materializes, then one can imagine making a civilian 150-200 seater version of the same  Though I think that we should participate in Russian MS-21 and also the wide body follow on  But this program needs a push  Will Putin's visit be able to galvanize this into the next symbol of Indo-Russian cooperation  Probably not!
Absence of any specifics on Sukhoi Superjet, MS-21, Wide body aircraft, Mi-38, MRTA, FGFA, even after Putin visit is very disappointing 
FlightGlobal- Boeing sitting on 8 unsold C-17s
By: Dan ParsonsWashington DCSource: Flightglobal com
This story is sourced from Flightglobal com 12 hours agoBoeing has sold two more C-17 transports to an undisclosed customer, but it will likely end the year with eight unsold white tails 
There are 10 Boeing C-17 airlifters in various stages of assembly at the company’s Long Beach, California, production facility 
Two of the aircraft are spoken for by an unnamed customer, Boeing says  Boeing is trying to sell off the other eight white tails, which will be the last produced before the factory is shuttered sometime in the summer of 2015 
The 279th – and final – C-17 fuselage will be mated to its wings in January or February, programme spokeswoman Tiffany Pitts tells Flightglobal  The operation is California’s last remaining aircraft production line and the lone widebody military aircraft production line in the USA, according to Boeing 
At least two countries – Australia and Canada – have publicly announced an intention to purchase a C-17, though neither factor into Boeing’s future planning, Pitts says  Until contracts are finalised, the number available remains eight, she says  The Royal Canadian Air Force already has four C-17As, according to Flightglobal’s World Air Forces 2014 directory 
Canadian news outlets reported earlier in December that the air force would buy one C-17 with money left over at the end of 2015 
Australia is further along with its bid to purchase C-17s  The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency in November announced Australia was approved to buy up to four C-17s and support equipment for $1 6 billion 
Boeing has plans to store any unsold C-17s following closure of its production line, Pitts says 
“I’m hoping they all will be sold before then, but we’ve had plans in place for a very long time to store and maintain the aircraft if that doesn’t happen,” she says 
the IAF will need to factor in the demand vs availability of C-17s and stock up with a follow-on order quickly  The initial plan to have 16 C-17s may not fructify, considering that there are just 8 left now, with Australia having announced plans to buy 4 more 
why are they closing the line if it has demands ???
Real estate sales tactics probably  Buy now last 8 3bhk flats Saar 
krishnan wrote: why are they closing the line if it has demands ???
It requires 3 years lead time to order raw materials/parts from all of its sub-vendors  All current firm orders have been fulfilled, and no new orders have come  Anticipating a need for a few more aircrafts, they produced 10 extra (self-funded) units before production winded down  Bottom line is they don't make money keeping an idle plant around with all its employees and infrastructure  At most what they will likely do is keep a limited infrastructure around for a few more years in case a bunch of new orders come  They can then see if it makes business sense to re-open the plant 
Postby Aditya_V » 17 Dec 2014 12:19
Wish this can be brought to the notice of Journos/ Poster when slamming LCA/ Arjun and other indigenous projects  If there are no orders there will be no efficiency 
Dec 10, 2014 :: Russia launches Il-76MDM upgrade programme
Russia's Ilyushin has started to upgrade a first Russian Air Force (VVS) Ilyushin Il-76MD 'Candid' military transport aircraft to Il-76MDM standard, company officials have told IHS Jane's   The main features of the upgrade include refurbished engines and upgraded avionics 
The modernisation is being conducted at the VVS's Military Transport Aviation (MTA) maintenance facility based at the Ilyushin division in Zhukovsky city near Moscow 
A senior Ilyushin official told IHS Jane's that the upgrade of the first aircraft will be finished in 18 months  Subsequent aircraft will take less time to complete the process, however  When the modernisation is finished the initial Il-76MDM will undergo state trials  The upgrade process for subsequent aircraft will begin when the trials programme is completed 
IHS Jane's was previously told by a VVS senior official that the modernisation of 41 MTA Il-76MDs is planned by 2020  While the Il-76MDM upgrade retains the old D-30KP engine (compared with the PS-90A engine equipping the new Il-76MD-90A/Il-476), the modernisation effort should match the aircraft's onboard electronics with those of the newbuild Il-76MD-90A  This and other efforts mean the cost of modernising the Il-76MD to Il-76MDM is only a third of that of a newbuild Il-76MD-90A 
The existing D-30KP engines are to be enhanced to increase their service life  The overall aircraft's service life will be extended by 15 years 
The upgrade works are planned to be conducted in an aviation repair factory or in the MTA's aircraft maintenance facility  As a result, the Ulyanovsk-based Aviastar-SP plant, which is building the Il-76MD-90A, is not involved in the Il-76MD to Il-76MDM modernisation programme 
Users browsing this forum: Jaeger, Manish_Sharma, rajkumar, VikramA and 43 guests
Context 2: South Dakota v  Wayfair, Inc  - Harvard Law Review
Fourth Circuit Invalidates Maryland Statute Regulating Price Gouging in the Sale of Generic Drugs 
South Dakota Supreme Court Holds Unconstitutional State Law Requiring Internet Retailers Without In-State Physical Presence to Remit Sales Tax 
Judicial junk, the Court has long thought, is easier to scrap when the erroneous precedent cannot be fixed by Congress, as in constitutional cases 1× 1  See Burnet v  Coronado Oil & Gas Co , 285 U S  393, 405–10 (1932) (Brandeis, J , dissenting); Lee Epstein, William M  Landes & Adam Liptak, The Decision to Depart (or Not) from Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court, 90 N Y U  L  Rev  1115, 1116 (2015) (“[Justice Brandeis’s] dissenting opinion       now has the status of black letter law ”)  On the flip side, whenever a bad precedent can be corrected by Congress, stare decisis applies with “special force ”2× 2  See Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 172–73 (1989)  The Court, following Justice Brandeis, usually articulates the rule as distinguishing between “constitutional” and “statutory” precedents  See, e g , id  But the distinction is occasionally said to be between “constitutional” and “nonconstitutional cases ” See, e g , Glidden Co  v  Zdanok, 370 U S  530, 543 (1962) (plurality opinion)  Nomenclature aside, the Court has — until now — adhered to Justice Brandeis’s key insight that the important factor is whether or not the mistake may be legislatively corrected  Last Term, in South Dakota v  Wayfair, Inc ,3× 3  138 S  Ct  2080 (2018)  the Court tinkered with this thinking in overruling an outdated dormant commerce clause precedent  Dormant commerce clause decisions technically produce constitutional holdings, but Congress may override them at will 4× 4  See Prudential Ins  Co  v  Benjamin, 328 U S  408, 421–27 (1946)  Under the usual logic of stare decisis, it should take special force to dislodge such precedents  But Wayfair applied the weakened stare decisis of constitutional cases, asserting that the Court must “address a false constitutional premise         whether or not Congress can or will act ”5× 5  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096–97 
Emerging from Wayfair is an odd and ominous development in stare decisis doctrine  Odd, because it turns on a formal classification instead of on Congress’s practical ability to fix the problem  Ominous, because the Court’s logic leads far past the dormant commerce clause  Wayfair grants only feeble stare decisis to precedents that set a “constitutional default rule,”6× 6  Id  at 2096 (“While       Congress has the authority to change the physical presence rule, Congress cannot change the constitutional default rule ”)  meaning constitutional decisions that allow for legislative adjustment or override  This new stare decisis analysis makes other precedents setting constitutional default rules more vulnerable — including, perhaps, mainstays of criminal procedure like Miranda v  Arizona7× 7  384 U S  436 (1966)  and Mapp v  Ohio 8× 8  367 U S  643 (1961) 
Since its 1967 decision in National Bellas Hess, Inc  v  Department of Revenue,9× 9  386 U S  753 (1967)  the Court has held that, under the “dormant” or “negative” implication of the Commerce Clause,10× 10  The dormant or negative commerce clause is a judicial derivation from the Commerce Clause “prohibiting States from discriminating against or imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval,” which “strikes at one of the chief evils that led to the adoption of the Constitution, namely, state tariffs and other laws that burdened interstate commerce ” Comptroller of the Treasury of Md  v  Wynne, 135 S  Ct  1787, 1794 (2015)  states may not compel remote sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes 11× 11  See Bellas Hess, 386 U S  at 759–60  In Quill Corp  v  North Dakota,12× 12  504 U S  298 (1992)  the Court refused to overrule the “bright-line, physical-presence requirement” of Bellas Hess, leaning heavily on stare decisis 13× 13  Id  at 317–18  Three Justices joined a concurrence explaining that their decision rested solely “on the basis of stare decisis ” Id  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)  So the physical presence test remained the law of the land while the internet conquered the earth  Justice Kennedy had joined the Quill majority and Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion emphasizing stare decisis, but by 2015 he had second thoughts  Writing separately in Direct Marketing Ass’n v  Brohl,14× 14  135 S  Ct  1124 (2015)  Justice Kennedy acknowledged that “[t]he Internet has caused far-reaching systemic and structural changes in the economy” and therefore “Quill now harms States to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier ”15× 15  Id  at 1135 (Kennedy, J , concurring)  He concluded with the wish that “[t]he legal system should find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill and Bellas Hess ”16× 16  Id 
Seldom has a concurring opinion signed by a lone Justice prompted a state to officially declare an emergency  Yet in 2016, in response to Justice Kennedy’s overture, the South Dakota legislature passed a law, S B  106, “to provide for the collection of sales taxes from certain remote sellers       and to declare an emergency ”17× 17  2016 S D  Sess  Laws ch  70 pmbl  217 (codified at S D  Codified Laws § 10-64 (2017))  It required every remote seller to collect and remit sales tax if the seller’s business in South Dakota comprised either a “gross revenue” greater than $100,000 or at least 200 “separate transactions” within one calendar year 18× 18  Id  § 1  Significantly, the law did not apply retroactively 19× 19  Id  § 5  The “emergency” declaration was necessary to give the law immediate effect, for the purpose of “permitting the most expeditious possible review of the constitutionality of this law” by the U S  Supreme Court 20× 20  Id  § 8(8)  As Justice Alito put it, the “South Dakota law [was] obviously a test case ”21× 21  Transcript of Oral Argument at 27, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494), https://www supremecourt gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/17-494_7lho pdf [https://perma cc/8HYH-VU8N] 
Expeditiously, a group of remote sellers challenged the law  After being sued by South Dakota for refusing to register for the newly required sales tax license, Wayfair, Inc , Overstock com, Inc , and Newegg, Inc  moved for summary judgment in South Dakota circuit court on the grounds that S B  106 was unconstitutional under Quill and Bellas Hess — a point South Dakota conceded, indicating that it was seeking review by the U S  Supreme Court to overturn Quill 22× 22  State v  Wayfair Inc , 2017 SD 56, ¶¶ 9–11, 901 N W 2d 754, 759–60  Accordingly, the South Dakota circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment and South Dakota appealed to the state’s highest court 23× 23  Id  ¶ 12, 901 N W 2d at 760  The South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, recognizing that South Dakota’s “arguments on the merits” may be “persuasive” but “Quill remains the controlling precedent ”24× 24  Id  ¶ 18, 901 N W 2d at 761  See generally Recent Case, State v  Wayfair Inc , 2017 SD 56, 901 N W 2d 754 (S D  2017), 131 Harv  L  Rev  2089 (2018) 
The U S  Supreme Court vacated and remanded 25× 25  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2100  Writing for the Court one last time, Justice Kennedy26× 26  Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, and Gorsuch joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion  pilloried Quill’s physical presence rule as “arbitrary, formalistic,” “anachronistic,” and “unfair and unjust” to both states and brick-and-mortar retailers 27× 27  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2092, 2095  After all, the rationale of Quill was that remote sellers lacked a sufficiently “substantial nexus” with the state to justify imposing a duty of tax collection 28× 28  Quill Corp  v  North Dakota, 504 U S  298, 311 (1992) (quoting Complete Auto Transit, Inc  v  Brady, 430 U S  274, 279 (1977))  This was wrong even in the mail-order catalog days of 1967 and 1992, but “the Internet revolution has made [Quill’s] earlier error all the more egregious and harmful ”29× 29  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2097; see also id  at 2092  The rule deprived the states of billions of dollars, since they could not force remote sellers to collect the tax and consumers hardly ever paid it on their own 30× 30  Id  at 2088 (“[C]onsumer compliance rates are notoriously low ”)  Quill “serve[d] as a judicially created tax shelter” for remote retailers who do a great deal of business online 31× 31  Id  at 2094 
Satisfied that Bellas Hess and Quill were wrongly decided, the Court then jumped the hurdle of stare decisis  The Quill Court had feared upsetting reliance interests 32× 32  Quill, 504 U S  at 317 (“Bellas Hess       has engendered substantial reliance and has become part of the basic framework of a sizable industry ”)  Wayfair shrugged off this concern, noting that “stare decisis accommodates only ‘legitimate reliance interest[s]’”; by contrast, reliance on the physical presence rule was largely due to consumers evading their use-tax obligations 33× 33  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2098 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v  Ross, 456 U S  798, 824 (1982))  Quill had also appealed to Congress’s ultimate authority over interstate commerce as a reason to abide by a precedent, even if wrongly decided 34× 34  See Quill, 504 U S  at 318–19; id  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“Congress       can change the rule of Bellas Hess by simply saying so ”)  But Wayfair denied that Congress’s ability to change the law was a proper consideration:
While it can be conceded that Congress has the authority to change the physical presence rule, Congress cannot change the constitutional default rule  It is inconsistent with the Court’s proper role to ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of this Court’s own creation  Courts have acted as the front line of review in this limited sphere; and hence it is important that their principles be accurate and logical, whether or not Congress can or will act in response 35× 35  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096–97 
Having dispensed with the physical presence rule, the Court remanded the case to the South Dakota courts to determine in the first instance “whether some other principle in the Court’s Commerce Clause doctrine might invalidate the Act ”36× 36  Id  at 2099  But the Court listed “several features [of South Dakota law] that appear[ed] designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce ” Id 
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions  Justice Thomas wistfully likened himself to Justice White — who voted for Bellas Hess but against Quill a quarter-century later — and confessed that he “should have joined [Justice White’s dissenting] opinion ”37× 37  Id  at 2100 (Thomas, J , concurring)  Justice Thomas added that the “Court’s entire negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence” is wrong and should be abandoned 38× 38  Id  Justice Gorsuch also wrote separately to express skepticism of the Court’s dormant commerce clause jurisprudence, raising “questions for another day” of whether the doctrine “can be squared with the text of the Commerce Clause, justified by stare decisis, or defended as misbranded products of federalism or antidiscrimination imperatives flowing from Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause ”39× 39  Id  at 2100–01 (Gorsuch, J , concurring) 
Chief Justice Roberts dissented 40× 40  Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the Chief Justice’s dissent  Surprisingly, the dissenting Justices “agree[d] that Bellas Hess was wrongly decided, for many of the reasons given by the Court ”41× 41  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2101 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  The dispute between the majority and the dissent turned entirely on the principles and application of stare decisis  Chief Justice Roberts argued that whether or how to reverse Quill should be left to Congress, which “has the flexibility to address these questions in a wide variety of ways” and “can focus directly on current policy concerns rather than past legal mistakes ”42× 42  Id  at 2104  He also pointed to the “baffling” burdens of compliance with the idiosyncratic tax codes of “[o]ver 10,000 jurisdictions,” particularly for small businesses, and doubted that new “software” — the majority’s proposed solution to this mess43× 43  Id  at 2098 (majority opinion) (“Eventually, software that is available at a reasonable cost may make it easier for small businesses to cope with these problems ”)  — would soon solve the problem 44× 44  Id  at 2103–04 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  In Bellas Hess, the Court reasoned that the dormant commerce clause protects interstate business from being “entangle[d]       in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions ” Nat’l Bellas Hess, Inc  v  Dep’t of Revenue, 386 U S  753, 759–60 (1967)  The dissent replied that the Court “vastly underestimate[d] the skill of contemporary man and his machines ” Id  at 766 (Fortas, J , dissenting)  The dispute in Wayfair over whether software is up to the task effectively reprised the old debate from Bellas Hess, only this time couched as part of the stare decisis inquiry’s concern for reliance interests rather than as a matter of dormant commerce clause doctrine  While Wayfair acknowledged that “[c]omplex state tax systems could have the effect of discriminating against interstate commerce,” 138 S  Ct  at 2099, the Court remarked that “[t]he physical presence rule is a poor proxy” for an inquiry into any actual burdens imposed on interstate commerce, id  at 2093 
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that a “heightened form of stare decisis”45× 45  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  applies when “Congress       can, if it wishes, override this Court’s decisions with contrary legislation ”46× 46  Id  at 2101 (first citing Michigan v  Bay Mills Indian Cmty , 134 S  Ct  2024, 2036 (2014) (tribal sovereign immunity); then citing Kimble v  Marvel Entm’t, LLC, 135 S  Ct  2401, 2409 (2015) (statutory interpretation); and then citing Halliburton Co  v  Erica P  John Fund, Inc , 134 S  Ct  2398, 2411 (2014) (judicially created doctrine implementing a judicially created cause of action))  In Quill, the Chief Justice noted, the Court had taken to heart that “Congress may be better qualified” and “has the ultimate power to resolve” the question47× 47  Id  at 2102 (quoting Quill Corp  v  North Dakota, 504 U S  279, 318 (1992))  while Justice Scalia had “recogniz[ed] that stare decisis has ‘special force’ in the dormant Commerce Clause context due to Congress’s ‘final say over regulation of interstate commerce ’”48× 48  Id  (quoting Quill, 504 U S  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment))  Moreover, “[i]f stare decisis applied with special force in Quill, it should be an even greater impediment” afterward since Quill effectively “tossed [the ball] into Congress’s court ”49× 49  Id  (alteration in original) (quoting Kimble, 135 S  Ct  at 2409); cf  Bay Mills, 134 S  Ct  at 2039 n 12 (“When we inform Congress that it has primary responsibility over a sphere of law, and invite Congress to consider a specific issue within that sphere, we cannot deem irrelevant how Congress responds ”)  Because the Court invited Congress to act and then “suddenly chang[ed] the ground rules, the Court may have waylaid Congress’s consideration of the issue ”50× 50  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102–03 (Roberts, C J , dissenting) 
In Wayfair, the Court applied the flimsier form of stare decisis to a precedent that could have been overruled by Congress  It did so in the context of a dormant commerce clause case, but Wayfair’s logic extends to all constitutional default rules — that is, constitutional decisions that Congress remains free to change  Not only does Wayfair deviate from the Court’s decades-old stare decisis analysis, it also imperils other precedents that set constitutional default rules 
The Court’s reasoning in Wayfair departs from its prior stare decisis analysis  In 1932, Justice Brandeis posited that stare decisis must bend “in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible ”51× 51  Burnet v  Coronado Oil & Gas Co , 285 U S  393, 406–07 (1932) (Brandeis, J , dissenting)  The Court has long since adopted his argument,52× 52  See, e g , Smith v  Allwright, 321 U S  649, 665 (1944)  as well as its corollary — that stare decisis commands “special force in the area of statutory interpretation” where “Congress remains free to alter what [the Court has] done ”53× 53  Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 172–73 (1989)  For normative evaluations of heightened stare decisis for statutory precedents, see generally Einer Elhauge, Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation 211–23 (2008); and William N  Eskridge, Jr , Overruling Statutory Precedents, 76 Geo  L J  1361, 1364–1409 (1988)  Justice Brandeis’s logic demands that dormant commerce clause cases, where Congress is free to act, be granted the weightier stare decisis 54× 54  Scholars have noted the curious fact that Justice Brandeis included many dormant commerce clause cases as examples of overruled constitutional precedents  See, e g , Earl M  Maltz, Commentary, Some Thoughts on the Death of Stare Decisis in Constitutional Law, 1980 Wis  L  Rev  467, 468–469, 469 n 11  One explanation for this is that Justice Brandeis sought the authority of Chief Justice Taney’s dictum that the Court’s “opinion upon the construction of the Constitution is always open to discussion” — which referred to the dormant commerce clause  See Burnet, 285 U S  at 408 n 3 (Brandeis, J , dissenting) (quoting The Passenger Cases, 48 U S  (7 How ) 283, 470 (1849) (Taney, C J , dissenting))  In Chief Justice Taney’s time, it was thought that Congress could not override the Court’s dormant commerce clause decisions, see Cooley v  Bd  of Wardens, 53 U S  (12 How ) 299, 321 (1852), so the context of Chief Justice Taney’s dictum does not conflict with Justice Brandeis’s theory of stare decisis  The Court applied this reasoning in Quill, as Chief Justice Roberts underscored 55× 55  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102 (Roberts, C J , dissenting) 
Yet the Wayfair majority refused to consider Congress’s authority to legislate as a relevant factor for stare decisis 56× 56  Even Justice Kennedy’s earlier opinion in Direct Marketing contemplated judicially overruling Quill, conspicuously neglecting a possible legislative solution  See supra p  278  The Court even insisted that to do so “is inconsistent with the Court’s proper role,” since Quill embodied “a false constitutional premise of th[e] Court’s own creation ”57× 57  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096 (emphasis added)  This refusal breaks from the practical Brandeisian wisdom that has guided the Court’s treatment of precedent for the better part of a century  The point is not that stare decisis should have ultimately propped up Bellas Hess yet again, as Wayfair’s dissenting Justices maintained  After all, a realistic approach that is alert to each branch’s institutional capacities might have led to the conclusion that Congress was actually ill-equipped to overrule Quill  In this vein, the Court could have sensibly pointed out that Congress is unlikely to stick its neck out with a tax hike (or a look-alike) from which only the states would benefit 58× 58  For two practical arguments to this effect, see Brian Galle, Essay, Kill Quill, Keep the Dormant Commerce Clause: History’s Lessons on Congressional Control of State Taxation, 70 Stan  L  Rev  Online 158, 160–62 (2018), https://review law stanford edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/70-Stan -L -Rev -Online-158-Galle pdf [https://perma cc/22YP-P4V5]; Edward A  Zelinsky, The Political Process Argument for Overruling Quill, 82 Brook  L  Rev  1177, 1191–92 (2017)  Indeed, South Dakota advanced such practical arguments in its brief 59× 59  See Petitioner’s Brief at 54, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494) (“Congress has little incentive to act here because it would be (or appear to be) authorizing new or greater tax collections from its constituents, while receiving none of the revenue in return ”)  More generally, the Court might have discussed the limits of the states’ influence in the federal system as a reason not to wait for congressional intervention, a topic it has debated on other occasions 60× 60  See Richard H  Pildes, Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law, 2013 Sup  Ct  Rev  1, 30–32; see also Galle, supra note 58, at 159 (“Congress is not a trustworthy guardian of state fiscal power, making continuing judicial involvement a more appealing prospect ”)  Or it could have argued that new facts on the ground — namely, the blast of e-commerce that hit like a comet after Quill — overpowered stare decisis of any force, special or plain 61× 61  Two recent studies of stare decisis highlighted the physical presence rule as exemplifying a precedent that may reasonably be overruled due to changed facts  See Bryan A  Garner et al , The Law of Judicial Precedent 364–65 (2016); Randy J  Kozel, Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent 112–13 (2017)  It should be noted that the authors of The Law of Judicial Precedent classify the physical presence rule as a constitutional precedent for stare decisis purposes, thus anticipating the Court’s misstep in Wayfair  Garner et al , supra, at 354–65  Because even statutory precedents may sometimes be overruled,62× 62  See Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 173–74 (1989) (discussing justifications for overruling statutory precedents)  Contra Lawrence C  Marshall, “Let Congress Do It”: The Case for an Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis, 88 Mich  L  Rev  177 (1989)  the Court could have killed Quill without first planting its constitutional kiss of death 63× 63  Cf  Thomas R  Lee, Stare Decisis in Historical Perspective: From the Founding Era to the Rehnquist Court, 52 Vand  L  Rev  647, 704 (1999) (“Justice Brandeis’       memorable prose has since become a mandatory part of the burial rite for any constitutional precedent ”) 
The Court resisted such arguments  Instead, Wayfair reasoned that Congress’s total ability to correct an erroneous decision counts for nothing when the Court gets the Constitution wrong  That such a theory sprouts from a case like Wayfair, which repudiated a “formalistic distinction,”64× 64  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2092  is ironic  Wayfair’s stare decisis analysis resorts to the formalism of making constitutional a “magic” word65× 65  See Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 21, at 12  rather than asking whether Congress can step in 
Moreover, the Court’s new thinking on stare decisis threatens other constitutional default rules  Wayfair now stands for the proposition that a “constitutional default rule” — a term the Court apparently lifted from South Dakota’s reply brief on the merits66× 66  Reply Brief at 22, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494) (“Congress is polarized, which makes it critical       to get the constitutional default rule right ”)  — gets only weakened stare decisis  To appreciate why this holding matters, it is worth exploring the concept and scope of constitutional default rules  Contract theory describes default rules as legal rules that the parties may “contract around ”67× 67  See, e g , Ian Ayres & Robert Gertner, Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules, 99 Yale L J  87, 87 (1989)  Although “constitutional default rule” could be read broadly to include a variety of actors and contracting mechanisms,68× 68  See John Ferejohn & Barry Friedman, Toward a Political Theory of Constitutional Default Rules, 33 Fla  St  U  L  Rev  825, 826 (2006) (“When we speak of default rules in constitutional law, we typically are talking about specifications of ways the government can act (or modify its behavior) to get around a constitutional prohibition ”)  the Court’s use of the term for purposes of stare decisis may be narrowly defined as judicial precedents of constitutional law that “are ultimately subject to congressional control ”69× 69  Gillian E  Metzger, Congress, Article IV, and Interstate Relations, 120 Harv  L  Rev  1468, 1525 (2007) (describing judicially enforceable “constitutional default rules imposing obligations on the states in the name of union [that] are ultimately subject to congressional control”)  The dormant commerce clause is a paradigmatic constitutional default rule because what the Court does today Congress may undo tomorrow  Justice Scalia declared this fact “[t]he clearest sign that the negative Commerce Clause is a judicial fraud,” for “[h]ow could congressional consent lift a constitutional prohibition?”70× 70  Comptroller of the Treasury of Md  v  Wynne, 135 S  Ct  1787, 1808 (2015) (Scalia, J , dissenting)  But that’s what a constitutional default rule is  The Court has allowed Congress to overturn its dormant commerce clause cases since 1891 71× 71  See In re Rahrer, 140 U S  545, 560–62 (1891) 
Dormant commerce clause cases are not the only constitutional default rules  Professor Laurence Tribe’s treatise identifies two others 72× 72  1 Laurence H  Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 6-35 (3d ed  2000)  And in a groundbreaking article, Professor Henry Monaghan revealed “a substructure of substantive, procedural, and remedial rules” forming “a constitutional common law subject to amendment, modification, or even reversal by Congress ”73× 73  Henry P  Monaghan, The Supreme Court, 1974 Term — Foreword: Constitutional Common Law, 89 Harv  L  Rev  1, 2–3 (1975); see also Susan R  Klein, Identifying and (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, and Incidental Rights in Constitutional Criminal Procedure, 99 Mich  L  Rev  1030 (2001) (further developing Monaghan’s theory in criminal procedure context)  What follows is a list of six lines of cases beyond the dormant commerce clause that may be fairly described as constitutional default rules  The first two are drawn from Tribe’s treatise while the next four are found in Monaghan’s article:
(1) State Taxation of Federal Instrumentalities: States may not tax instrumentalities of the federal government74× 74  McCulloch v  Maryland, 17 U S  (4 Wheat ) 316, 436 (1819)  — unless Congress consents 75× 75  See, e g , Helvering v  Gerhardt, 304 U S  405, 411 n 1 (1938) (“Congress may curtail an immunity which might otherwise be implied or enlarge it beyond the point where, Congress being silent, the Court would set its limits ” (citations omitted))  One court has described such judicial decisions as setting a “constitutional default rule ” United States v  Delaware, 958 F 2d 555, 560 n 9 (3d Cir  1992) (“[W]e must decide the constitutional default rule for this type of tax, fully aware that Congress could decide at any time to reverse our decision statutorily ”)  (2) Article I, Section 10 Cases: Article I, Section 10 provides that certain prohibitions on the states may be waived by Congress 76× 76  See U S  Const  art  I, § 10, cls  2–3  The Court has taken note of this when considering whether to overrule, for instance, an Import-Export Clause precedent 77× 77  See Hooven & Allison Co  v  Evatt, 324 U S  652, 668 (1945) (“In view of the fact that the Constitution gives Congress authority to consent to state taxation of imports and hence to lay down its own test for determining when the immunity ends, we see no convincing practical reason for abandoning the test which has been applied for more than a century        ”), overruled on other grounds by Limbach v  Hooven & Allison Co , 466 U S  353 (1984)  In Michelin Tire Corp  v  Wages, 423 U S  276 (1976), the Court left open the question whether “Congress may authorize, under the Import-Export Clause, an exaction that it could not directly impose under the Tax Clause ” Id  at 301 n 13  Metzger, however, argues that the Import-Export Clause is free of other clauses’ limits on congressional power  See Metzger, supra note 69, at 1500 & n 120  (3) Bivens Cases: In Bivens v  Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,78× 78  403 U S  388 (1971)  the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment gives rise to a right to sue for damages 79× 79  Id  at 397  But the Court has also held that “[s]uch a cause of action may be defeated       when       Congress has provided an alternative remedy which it explicitly declared to be a substitute for recovery directly under the Constitution and viewed as equally effective ”80× 80  Carlson v  Green, 446 U S  14, 18–19 (1980)  (4) Miranda Cases: The Miranda Court famously “encourage[d]” Congress and the states to explore alternative “procedures which are at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it ”81× 81  Miranda v  Arizona, 384 U S  436, 467 (1966)  In Dickerson v  United States, 530 U S  428 (2000), the Court struck down a congressional attempt to effectively abolish Miranda, holding that “Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively ” Id  at 444  But Dickerson also stood by Miranda’s “invitation for legislative action” to replace Miranda with an adequate substitute  Id  at 440; see also Michael C  Dorf & Barry Friedman, Shared Constitutional Interpretation, 2000 Sup  Ct  Rev  61 (discussing legislative alternatives to Miranda)  (5) The Police Lineup Case: In United States v  Wade,82× 82  388 U S  218 (1967)  the Court created an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained from a police lineup in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel but acknowledged that it could be replaced by “[l]egislative or other regulations       which eliminate the risks of abuse ”83× 83  Id  at 239  (6) The Exclusionary Rule Cases: Mapp v  Ohio made the Fourth Amendment “exclusionary rule” binding on the states,84× 84  367 U S  643, 655 (1961)  yet Congress is thought to have the power to replace it 85× 85  See Bivens v  Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed  Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U S  388, 422–24 (1971) (Burger, C J , dissenting) (inviting Congress to replace the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule); Harold J  Krent, How to Move Beyond the Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response to Legislative Reform Efforts, 26 Pepp  L  Rev  855, 864–71 (1999) 
All of the above are arguably constitutional default rules set by the Court that remain, to one degree or another, open to congressional revision  The list could be longer or shorter, depending on which default rules the Court will view as constitutional86× 86  A shorter list could be produced by whittling away at the constitutional status of the cases identified by Monaghan  While the Court has held that Miranda is a constitutional decision, Dickerson, 530 U S  at 444, some of the other cases may be viewed as nonconstitutional  See, e g , Collins v  Virginia, 138 S  Ct  1663, 1675–80 (2018) (Thomas, J , concurring) (arguing that Mapp is “nonconstitutional,” id  at 1678 n 5); Richard H  Fallon, Jr  et al , Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 775–77 (7th ed  2015) (discussing whether Bivens is constitutionally required)  Conversely, a longer list might include any constitutional right that can be waived by a party  See, e g , Daniel A  Farber, Another View of the Quagmire: Unconstitutional Conditions and Contract Theory, 33 Fla  St  U  L  Rev  913, 918 (2006) (describing the Eleventh Amendment as “just a contractual default rule that the states are free to barter away”)  Such a list might also include various constitutionally inspired judicial presumptions  See, e g , Jack Goldsmith & John F  Manning, The President’s Completion Power, 115 Yale L J  2280, 2299 (2006) (describing the Chevron presumption of delegated interpretive power to administrative agencies as “a constitutionally inspired default rule”); Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 Harv  L  Rev  2085, 2097–98 (2002) (describing clear statement rules as “constitutional default rules” reversible by Congress)  Many other decisions could likely be characterized as constitutional default rules; the list above is only an initial stab  and on how it will answer open questions about congressional authority over certain constitutional provisions 87× 87  See, e g , Thomas v  Wash  Gas Light Co , 448 U S  261, 272 n 18 (1980) (plurality opinion) (leaving unresolved whether Congress may limit constitutional full faith and credit obligations); White v  Mass  Council of Constr  Emp’rs, Inc , 460 U S  204, 215 n 1 (1983) (Blackmun, J , concurring in part and dissenting in part) (leaving unresolved “whether Congress may authorize       what otherwise would be a violation” of the Privileges and Immunities Clause); 1 Tribe, supra note 72, § 6-35, at 1243–44 (arguing that Congress cannot override judicial constructions of the Privileges and Immunities Clause); Metzger, supra note 69, at 1486–89 (arguing the opposite)  But the takeaway is clear: weaker stare decisis for constitutional default rules  Pre-Wayfair, one would have thought that stare decisis applies with special force to such precedents, given congressional power to set them straight  Not anymore  Why? Because it is improper to “ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of th[e] Court’s own creation ”88× 88  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096  The Latin for Wayfair’s doctrine is not stare decisis, which should reflect a realistic, working relationship between the legislative and judicial branches  It is mea culpa 
In its zeal to update the Constitution for “the Cyber Age,”89× 89  Id  at 2097  the Court deleted Congress from stare decisis doctrine in constitutional cases  The Court had better options  It could have left Quill on Congress’s doorstep, as the dissent argued  Or it could have justified overruling Quill notwithstanding the special force of stare decisis  Instead, the Court reasoned that it doesn’t matter whether Congress is willing and able to do the job: a constitutional mess calls for a judicial clean-up crew  For constitutional default rules — a category of decisions embracing the dormant commerce clause and sweeping far beyond — Wayfair’s new theory of stare decisis makes the Court’s precedents less sticky and Congress less relevant 
Context 3: McPherson County (standard abbreviation: MP) is a county located in the U S  state of Kansas   As of the 2020 census, the county population was 30,223  The largest city and county seat is McPherson  The county is named for Civil War General James B  McPherson 

History

Early history

For many millennia, the Great Plains of North America was inhabited by nomadic Native Americans  From the 16th century to 18th century, the Kingdom of France claimed ownership of large parts of North America  In 1762, after the French and Indian War, France secretly ceded New France to Spain, per the Treaty of Fontainebleau  In 1802, Spain returned most of the land to France, but keeping title to about 7,500 square miles 

In 1803, most of the land for modern day Kansas was acquired by the United States from France as part of the 828,000 square mile Louisiana Purchase for 2 83 cents per acre  In 1848, after the Mexican–American War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Spain brought into the United States all or part of land for ten future states, including southwest Kansas  In 1854, the Kansas Territory was organized, then in 1861 Kansas became the 34th U S  state 

19th century

From the 1820s to 1870s, the Santa Fe Trail passed through, what is now McPherson County  The trail entered the county, east of Canton, then south of Galva, then north of Inman, and west towards Lyons  In 1855, Charles O  Fuller established a ranch adjacent to the Running Turkey Creek Crossing about two miles south and one mile east of Galva  Fuller's Ranch provided accommodations for travelers on the Santa Fe Trail and was probably the first white settlement in McPherson County 

Peketon County was established in 1860, by the passage of a bill by S  N  Wood:  An act to establish Peketon County  Section 1  - That all that territory west of the sixth principal meridian and south of Township 16, in Kansas Territory, be and the same is hereby erected into a county, to be known by the name of Peketon County  On February 17, 1865, Peketon County was abolished, and McPherson County was made a part of Marion County, which extended from the west line of Chase County to the present western boundary of Kansas 

In 1868, Solomon Stephens and L  N  Holmberg were appointed Justices of the Peace—the first officers in what is now McPherson County  The next year (1869) occurred the first election for the township, now the county of McPherson  McPherson was regularly organized as a county in the spring of 1870, a mass meeting being held at Sweadal  Sweadal, the county seat thus selected, was located about one mile and a half southwest of the present site of Lindsborg  In September, however, the County Commissioners resolved to meet at the latter place, McPherson which had already been located some two years 

In April, 1873, a petition was filed for the county seat re-location  It was signed by 483 voters, and a special election was accordingly ordered for June 10  Upon that day, McPherson received 605 votes, New Gottland 325, King City 3 and Lindsborg 1; McPherson's majority over all, 276  In May the McPherson Town Company had offered, as an inducement for the location of the county seat at this point, the free use of rooms for ten years, and the donation of two squares of land on the town site  The offer was accepted the next month, the County Commissioners selecting blocks 56 and 65  Thus the county seat was established at McPherson and has remained since 

As early as 1875, city leaders of Marion held a meeting to consider a branch railroad from Florence  In 1878, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and parties from Marion County and McPherson County chartered the Marion and McPherson Railway Company   In 1879, a branch line was built from Florence to McPherson, in 1880 it was extended to Lyons, in 1881 it was extended to Ellinwood  The line was leased and operated by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway  The line from Florence to Marion, was abandoned in 1968  In 1992, the line from Marion to McPherson was sold to Central Kansas Railway  In 1993, after heavy flood damage, the line from Marion to McPherson was abandoned  The original branch line connected Florence, Marion, Canada, Hillsboro, Lehigh, Canton, Galva, McPherson, Conway, Windom, Little River, Mitchell, Lyons, Chase, then connected with the original AT&SF main line at Ellinwood 

In 1887, the Chicago, Kansas and Nebraska Railway extended its main line from Herington to Pratt   This main line connected Herington, Ramona, Tampa, Durham, Waldeck, Canton, Galva, McPherson, Groveland, Inman, Medora, Hutchinson, Whiteside, Partridge, Arlington,  Langdon, Turon, Preston, Natrona, Pratt   In 1888, this main line was extended to Liberal   Later, this line was extended to Tucumcari, New Mexico and Santa Rosa, New Mexico, where it made a connection with the Southern Pacific from El Paso, Texas   The Chicago, Kansas and Nebraska Railway was absorbed by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway  This line is also called the "Golden State Route" 

20th century
The National Old Trails Road, also known as the Ocean-to-Ocean Highway, was established in 1912, and was routed through Windom, Conway, McPherson 

Geography

According to the U S  Census Bureau, the county has a total area of , of which  is land and  (0 3%) is water 

Adjacent counties
 Saline County (north)
 Dickinson County (northeast)
 Marion County (east)
 Harvey County (southeast)
 Reno County (southwest)
 Rice County (west)
 Ellsworth County (northwest)

Major highways
  Interstate 135
  U S  Route 56
  U S  Route 81
  K-4
  K-61
  K-153

Demographics

The McPherson Micropolitan Statistical Area includes all of McPherson County 

2000 census
As of the census of 2000, there were 29,554 people, 11,205 households, and 7,966 families residing in the county   The population density was 33 people per square mile (13/km2)   There were 11,830 housing units at an average density of 13 per square mile (5/km2)   The racial makeup of the county was 96 53% White, 0 81% Black or African American, 0 34% Native American, 0



ground_truth: The IAF is considering the acquisition of the Airbus A330 MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) besides the Boeing C-17.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did Justice Kennedy argue about Quill in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 4: \section*{Dynamical Behaviour of $O$ in Lattice Gases}

The dynamical behaviour of the anisotropic order parameter  $m$ [see Eq ~\eqref{eq:def-m} in the Letter] following a quench to the critical point is well described by
the Gaussian theory for all the three lattice gas models studied, $i e ,$ driven lattice gas with either constant (IDLG) or random (RDLG) infinite drive and equilibrium lattice gas (LG)  In other words, in the short-time regime, $m \sim t^{1/2}$ [see Eq  \eqref{eq:mt}] and the Binder cumulant $g$ of the lowest transverse mode [defined in Eq  \eqref{eq:binder}] is zero in this regime  The alternative order parameter $O,$ however, distinguishes between the driven (IDLG, RDLG) and the equilibrium (LG) lattice gases  

In order to understand  this, we first write the phenomenological scaling form for $O$,  analogous to Eq  \eqref{eq:scalingass} in  the Letter,
\begin{eqnarray}
O (t, L_{\parallel} ; S_\Delta) = L_{\parallel}^{-\beta/[\nu(1+\Delta)]} \tilde f_O (t/L_{\parallel}^{z/(1+\Delta)} ; S_\Delta) \quad
\label{eq:Oscalingass}
\end{eqnarray}
We already remarked that, in the LG, this scaling form is not compatible with the prediction $O \sim t^{1/8}  L_{\parallel}^{-1/2}$ of the Gaussian theory   However, following Ref  \cite{AS2002}, it can be argued that, at short times, the only dependence of $O$ on the system size $L_{\parallel}$ is of the form $O \sim L_\parallel^{-1/2}$ which is very well confirmed by numerical simulations  Accordingly,  the generic behaviour of $O$ can be assumed to be
\begin{eqnarray}
O \sim t^{\alpha} L_\parallel^{-1/2}, \label{eq:O}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ is a phenomenological exponent to be determined  This, along with Eq  \eqref{eq:Oscalingass}, implies $\tilde f_O(x) \sim x^{\alpha} $ Comparing the finite-size behaviour in Eq ~\eqref{eq:O} with Eq ~\eqref{eq:Oscalingass} one actually infers,
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha &=& \frac{1+ \Delta -2 \beta/\nu}{2 \, (4- \eta)}  \label{eq:alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation, together with the hyperscaling relation $\Delta - 2 \beta/\nu= - \eta$ in two spatial dimensions, shows that the prediction $\alpha = 1/8$ of the Gaussian theory [see Eq  \eqref{eq:Ot}] can be obtained only when $\eta=0,$ which is the case for the IDLG (exactly) and the RDLG (approximately) but not for the LG  

On the other hand,  Eq ~\eqref{eq:alpha} predicts $\alpha = 1/10$ upon substituting the values of the critical exponents corresponding to the Ising  universality class (LG)



ground_truth: Quill harmed states more than anticipated due to the Internet.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Who is the county seat of McPherson County?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: 32% Asian, 0 06% Pacific Islander, 0 79% from other races, and 1 16% from two or more races   1 94% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race  37 1% were of German, 12 9% Swedish, 12 1% American, 6 7% English and 6 3% Irish ancestry according to Census 2000 

There were 11,205 households, out of which 33 00% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 62 50% were married couples living together, 6 00% had a female householder with no husband present, and 28 90% were non-families  25 50% of all households were made up of individuals, and 11 80% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older   The average household size was 2 49 and the average family size was 2 99 

In the county, the population was spread out, with 25 40% under the age of 18, 10 30% from 18 to 24, 25 20% from 25 to 44, 21 80% from 45 to 64, and 17 30% who were 65 years of age or older   The median age was 38 years  For every 100 females there were 95 90 males   For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 92 90 males 

The median income for a household in the county was $41,138, and the median income for a family was $48,243  Males had a median income of $33,530 versus $21,175 for females  The per capita income for the county was $18,921   About 4 20% of families and 6 60% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5 20% of those under age 18 and 8 10% of those age 65 or over 

Government

Presidential elections
McPherson county is often carried by Republican candidates  The last time a Democratic candidate has carried this county was in 1964 by Lyndon B  Johnson 

Laws
Following amendment to the Kansas Constitution in 1986, the county remained a prohibition, or "dry", county until 1996, when voters approved the sale of alcoholic liquor by the individual drink with a 30 percent food sales requirement 

Education

Colleges
 McPherson College in McPherson
 Bethany College in Lindsborg
 Central Christian College in McPherson

Unified school districts
 Smoky Valley USD 400
 McPherson USD 418
 Canton-Galva USD 419
 Moundridge USD 423
 Inman USD 448

School district office in neighboring county
 Goessel USD 411
 Little River-Windom USD 444

Museums
 Birger Sandzén Memorial Gallery in Lindsborg
 McCormick-Deering Days Museum in Inman
 McPherson Museum in McPherson
 Lindsborg Old Mill & Swedish Heritage Museum in Lindsborg
 Kansas Motorcycle Museum in Marquette

Communities

Cities

 Canton
 Galva
 Inman
 Lindsborg
 Marquette
 McPherson (county seat) 
 Moundridge
 Windom

Unincorporated communities
† means a Census-Designated Place (CDP) by the United States Census Bureau 
 Conway
 Elyria†
 Groveland
 Johnstown
 New Gottland
 Roxbury†

Ghost towns
 Alta Mills
 Battle Hill
 Christian
 Doles Park
 Elivon
 King City
 Sweadal

Townships
McPherson County is divided into twenty-five townships   The cities of Lindsborg and McPherson are considered governmentally independent and are excluded from the census figures for the townships   In the following table, the population center is the largest city (or cities) included in that township's population total, if it is of a significant size 

See also
 List of people from McPherson County, Kansas
 National Register of Historic Places listings in McPherson County, Kansas
 McPherson Valley Wetlands
 Maxwell Wildlife Refuge

References

Notes

Further reading

 Wheeler, Wayne Leland  "An Analysis of Social Change in a Swedish-Immigrant Community: The Case of Lindsborg, Kansas " (PhD dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia; ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1959  5905657) 

County
 Through the Years: A Pictorial History of McPherson County; McPherson Sentinel' Heritage House Publishing Co; 1992 
 McPherson County First Courthouse Built About 1869 or 1870; Lindsborg News-Record; March 30, 1959 
 Pioneer Life and Lore of McPherson County, Kansas; Edna Nyquist; Democratic-Opinion Press; 1932 
 A History of the Church of the Brethren in Kansas (includes McPherson College history); Elmer LeRoy Craik; McPherson Daily; Republican Press; 397 pages; 1922 
 Portrait and Biographical Record of Dickinson, Saline, McPherson, and Marion Counties, Kansas; Chapman Bros; 614 pages; 1893 
 Standard Atlas of McPherson County, Kansas; Geo  A  Ogle & Co; 82 pages; 1921 
 Plat Book of McPherson County, Kansas; North West Publishing Co; 50 pages; 1903 
 Edwards' Atlas of McPherson County, Kansas; John P  Edwards; 51 pages; 1884 

Trails
 The Story of the Marking of the Santa Fe Trail by the Daughters of the American Revolution in Kansas and the State of Kansas; Almira Cordry; Crane Co; 164 pages; 1915  (Download 4MB PDF eBook)
 The National Old Trails Road To Southern California, Part 1 (LA to KC); Automobile Club Of Southern California; 64 pages; 1916  (Download 6 8MB PDF eBook)

Mennonite Settlements
 Impact of Mennonite settlement on the cultural landscape of Kansas; Brenda Martin; Kansas State University; 1985/1988  
 Mennonite settlement : the relationship between the physical and cultural environment; Susan Movle; University of Utah; 1975/1886 
 Status of Mennonite women in Kansas in their church and home relationships; Eva Harshbarger; Bluffton College; 1925/1945 

External links

County
 
 McPherson County - Directory of Public Officials
Historical
 , from Hatteberg's People'' on KAKE TV news
Maps
 McPherson County Maps: Current, Historic, KDOT
 Kansas Highway Maps: Current, Historic, KDOT
 Kansas Railroad Maps: Current, 1996, 1915, KDOT and Kansas Historical Society

 
Kansas counties
1867 establishments in Kansas
Populated places established in 1867



ground_truth: McPherson.