Gilles wrote:Here we go again!
Yes indeed! I will once again continue to point out your hypocritical spin, lies and evasions
Gilles wrote:Page 7, Posted: 06 Apr 2011 20:01
here is your post from then:
Gilles wrote:The Russians require that anyone buying "military" hardware or spares must buy them through State owned Rosoboronexport. This situation allows for an Indian Airline that would operate IL-76s (there are none) to go purchase spares directly from the parts manufacturers, but force the IAF to buy the same spares for the same IL-76 from Rosoboronexport. Same goes for all dual use equipment like the Mi-8/17, the MI-26.......
Which just states what we already knew from articles. It does ZERO to address how India could resolve the situation or why we should trust them in the future. If India has to deal with Rosoboronexport and Rosoboronexport is being a problem, how does that give any confidence of supply in the future?
You did NOT provide any hypothetical solution until your most recent post saying that a proxy company could bypass Rosoboronexport.
Gilles wrote:1) About the Australians. They have HUNDREDS of unpaved runways in Australia. Why didn't they simply use a few of those to try out their new C-17 instead of building a "C-17 capable unpaved runway" ?
Now who is feigning amnesia?
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 92#p771792
GeorgeWelch wrote:That's not what that document says at all.
It was meant to be a demo of the Joint Rapid Airfield Construction (JRAC) program, in other words, they SPECIFICALLY went looking for airfields that were NOT C-17 capable.
Of the eight airfield sites surveyed [not hundreds], two of the existing airfields (Samuel Hill and Williamson) and the two undeveloped sites (Angalarri and Ikymbon) were identified as candidate sites for development into C-17 capable airfields. However, the two existing airfields at SWBTA were deemed so close to C-17 capable in their current conditions that they would not provide enough opportunity for JRAC technologies to be demonstrated [ie they were too easy] in a fullscale demonstration project. Of the two undeveloped sites at the BFTA, the Ikymbon site is the most desirable as it is much nearer to current areas and facilities under development, and it is closer to water and developed borrow sites needed for construction.
They weren't testing the C-17, they were testing their ability to rapidly construct a runway. A point that is obvious to anyone who spent 15 seconds browsing the document.
Gilles wrote:The goal of the 2007 JRAC demonstration will be to upgrade an existing airfield to C-17
capable, including adding ramp space and increasing
These people visited a bunch of unpaved airfields in Australia and detailed what would be necessary to UPGRADE these landing fields to make them "C-17 capable". And it was not always a problem of length.
Why did they just not go and land somewhere ? A wild guess, anyone ?
You quoted their goal and you STILL can't figure it out, unbelievable!
Let me repeat it again, in bold, in caps so maybe you will get it:
THEY WERE TESTING THEIR ABILITY TO RAPIDLY CONSTRUCT A RUNWAY
Landing a C-17 on an existing airfield does NOT test your ability to
RAPIDLY CONSTRUCT A RUNWAY
Again, the test was NOT about the C-17, it was about their ability to
RAPIDLY CONSTRUCT A RUNWAY
It even says in the title "
Joint Rapid Airfield Construction (JRAC)"
Gilles wrote:
2) Camp Rhino. I did not claim the C-17 couldn't not land there if it rained. Major Erik W. Hansen, a USAF pilot wrote that, in a published document that I referenced and quoted, and I will do it again here:
No he didn't. Stop misinterpreting people
Rhino LZ had almost 7,000 feet of runway and therefore more than adequate runway for takeoffs and landings especially
since conditions remained dry throughout Rhino LZ operations
He said it was MORE THAN ADEQUATE 'especially since' and 'solely because'. Notice the difference in terminology? Even if it had been wet, it still would have been adequate, but being dry gave them super-large margins of safety.
let's continue the quote from above:
In future operations, the use of shorter semi-prepared airfields may be required; adequate takeoff, rejected takeoff and landing data will be critical.
In other words, Rhino was long enough to be ok, but shorter fields will be problematic until we can get real data
Now let's examine some of the details you ignored/glossed over:
aircrews currently calculate the landing distance for wet semi-prepared runways using an RCR of 4, the same used for icy paved runways
Since they didn't have actual data for wet SPR ops, they based the calculation off a worst-case scenario: ice.
We already know it isn't nearly that bad, both from common sense and the actual tests done later. In other words, using the current calculations, Rhino would WELL within safety margins.
The normal (RCR 20) landing distance of a 447,000 lb (max gross weight for semi-prepared runway operations) C-17 is increased from 2,930-feet at sea level on a standard day to 5,370-feet using full max braking and max reverse thrust during wet runway operations.
5,370 landing distance is well under the nearly 7,000-foot length of the runway.
The Engineering Technical Letter, which provides guidance to civil engineers indicates that C-17s require a 7,000 foot runway during wet runway operations
And Rhino was nearly 7,000 feet, so even going by the absolute worst case calculation (ice) and max landing weight, it was probably fine.
BUT let's say the commander is a stickler for details and doesn't want to 'risk' it even though the RCR is obviously higher than that of ice? Simply land the planes a little lighter and Rhino will accomodate even worst-case assumptions. Thus rain would not have shut down Rhino and no one claimed that. At worst it would have slightly reduced the load of each plane.
Gilles wrote:
3) Alert.
Alert has a 5500 gravel runway, more than enough for a C-17. I was making fun of the Canadian Air Force, who, several years after buying the C-17 (and claiming in Parliament they needed it among other things for supplying Alert), had never landed there in a C-17.
No, you said it COULD NOT go there
The only reason I began this, is because that this alleged C-17 short and unpaved runway capability is used as a major selling point and was also mentioned in this thread. It was also advertised as such in Canada, and now that they are purchased, the Canadian Air Force does not land on unpaved runways with theirs. Canada even rented a civilian C-130 to haul freight to a 5,900 foot military gravel runway in our Arctic (CFB Alert) because its so-called STOL C-17 could not go there.
Not that the government was being overly cautious, not that they were gradually working up to a full capability, but that it flat-out could not do it.
Gilles wrote:I don't claim any such thing. What I claim is that civilian airlines have no trouble maintaining their IL-76s. They find parts, servicing etc. Why does the IAF have trouble getting parts ?
I don't know. But it apparently has been extremely frustrating for the IAF. What is your explanation?
What I do know is that they're going to be hesitant to invest any more in the planes until the situation is resolved.
Gilles wrote:Why do they only want to find a new contract for those aircraft that have not been upgraded ? It seems that they have resolved the problem for those aircraft that are to be upgraded ? Right ?
Not necessarily. Just because they aren't asking for those aircraft to be covered doesn't mean they're satisfied. They may be contractually prohibited from doing so on those aircraft. Until we know more, it would be unwise to make any assumptions about satisfaction with spares.
