C-17s for the IAF?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 28 Feb 2010 00:48

nachiket wrote:
Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, longrange, and ease of operation.
I think that should pretty much end the debate.

Under a totalitarian regime, you would be correct. In a Parlimentarian Democracy, the MPs have the duty to oversee how their constituents' tax dollars are spent especially when dealing Billions of dollars with a company that in its own country, had a major 100 aircraft contract with its own military cancelled because of corruption.

You will find al the details here about the Tanker lease scandal. It was foiled thanks to Senator McCain.

http://www.pogo.org/investigations/nati ... -deal.html

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 28 Feb 2010 01:28

Antonov 225 Mriya
This is the second airframe which i'm sure as everyone knows was abandoned but, was rolled-out of the hangar on this day.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 28 Feb 2010 01:42

Great pictures, thanks. A gentleman from Air Foyle, the Antonov Airlines agent in the UK wrote to me that another problem with completing this aircraft was that the wings were built by the TAPO aircrat factory in Tashkent, the same one that builds the Il-76. To carry the wings, Antonov had modified an An-22 which carried the wings on its back. This modified An-22 has since been sold to a museum in Germany......

The same factoory also makes the An-70 wings. I do not know how the An-70 wings were carried from Tashkent to Kiev......

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 28 Feb 2010 08:03

Gilles wrote:You see, they are well aware of their "little secret". They are waiting funding to start the program.

Unfortunately for Boeing..Obama admin has ceased funding for the current program.. that dream for Boeing, i am afraid i going to remain in the pipeline while Boeing now fight for survival for the C-17 program..

Though there is a lot of debate and criticism of that decision..I doubt its going be overturned..

On February 2nd, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress that the military needs no additional C-17 aircraft and that the production line should be shut down in 2011.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 28 Feb 2010 11:03

For those who feel that Russia is a time tested friend and will never impose sanctions, the report appended would be interesting to note.

USSR was a time tested friend, but it need not be the case with Russia.

Russia, for instance, has delayed giving `full ToT' for India's plan to indigenously manufacture 1,000 T-90S tanks. This despite India first importing 310 of these tanks for over Rs 3,625 crore in a February 2001 contract, and then signing another Rs 4,900 crore contract in November 2007 to import 347 more tanks.
Time Tested Friend!

One has to be pragmatic in the context that the Cold War is over and Russia has to get their own act together rather than give handouts to please all and sundry!

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 28 Feb 2010 17:58

are we forgetting

Brahnos
Arihant
Su 30 mki
Smerch

all so soon
T90 is nothing more than a commercial Hicup

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 28 Feb 2010 18:31

Well, the IAF's requirements don't make any sense. To select the C-17 over the existing alternatives by claiming there is a "sweet spot" is ludicrous. The IL-76 can land in far many more places, along with the AN-32, than this plane can. The airpot at Leh has a long runway: 2,755 m Leh Kushok Bakula Rimpochee Airport. The other two runways are short 152 m runways. To put it briefly, there are no relevant airports in India where the C-17 can go that the AN-124-150 cannot. If you disagree, please list them!

http://www.antonov.com/products/air/tra ... /index.xml
http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=52326
* digital antiskid braking system allowing to reduce landing distance up to 30% had been installed. 70% 0f 800 = 560 m landing distance, which is even better than the C-17.

Performance Boeing C-17 An-124-150
Maximum Payload 77 tonnes 150 tonnes
Range 4444 km 5,400 km
Service Life 30,000 hours 45,000 hours
Crew 3 4
Price(million US$) 250-300 50-80

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 7-life.htm

The C-17 is designed to operate from runways 1,064 m. But that is of no consequence, since the relevant airports that matter in Assam and Jamnu and Kashmir are longer. Rather, payload, and range matter more, as well as price. It simply makes no sense at all. The Antonov plane, available from both Ukraine and Russia, so there is no one supplier to cut off parts. It offers double the payload, a 1/3rd increase in range, and has a longer service life, and a lower cost. And you ony need 1 plane to replace 2 C-17's.

http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=52326

This plane has also already served in Afghanistan, and other mountainous areas. It clearly meets or vastly exceeds all the performance requirements, and the IAF can save a couple of hundred million for PGM's or more planes. And worst of all, a direct government to government deal means no offsets. No production will be done in India.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Feb 2010 18:39

Shankar wrote:are we forgetting

Brahnos
Arihant
Su 30 mki
Smerch

all so soon
T90 is nothing more than a commercial Hicup

And is Gorshkov / Vikramaditya deal is a non commercial hiccup ?

And the Talwars were delayed by a year because Shtil SAM did not work ?

Shankar
Let us accept the reality. USSR has stood by us thru thick and thin.

But perhaps Russia has not been very good to us

K

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Feb 2010 19:27

Even Brahmos and Arihant had hiccups

but then again we are talking to Shankar resident King of La La (everything is good with Russia) Land

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Feb 2010 19:52

Kersi D wrote: Shankar
Let us accept the reality. USSR has stood by us thru thick and thin.
But perhaps Russia has not been very good to us K

Kersi D ji,

USSR was a superpower, russia is not and will not be for a long time if ever.

Russia wants an economic price for its goods, not the political price the USSR charged, as in the old days.

Even then I think that Russia will stand by India for strategic reasons. But the shoe is now on the Indian foot. I say this in a good way. The russians are painfully aware of this major shift.

The russians are desperate to safeguard their traditional arms markets. They are really afraid that their traditional markets in India will dry up because of sloppy work by their russian companies.

The russian government and people actually like India and the Indians. The ordinary russian on the street is a warm Indian well wisher.

The Gorshkov / Vikramaditya deal was a gross error on our part. She was built in an Ukrainian yard and we are getting her refitted and upgraded in a russian yard that does not know jack about the carrier or even have the complete build plans? They did not even have the required infrastructure or the expertise to handle a project of this magnitude and complexity.

We should have towed her to Ukraine and got the russian help to complete the refit where required. Neither the Indians nor the russians had a very good idea of exactly what the refit entailed. This is the major reason for the mismanaged and buggered up refit.

Used as we were to dealing with the USSR and we did not realize that russia was different. Now I hear that the difference has sunk in rather painfully in our defence HQs.

We are being set up by the americans to help subsidize and extend their old assembly lines and provide job security for the boys in some or the other senators' constituency.This is the logic behind the IAF fighter deal and the C-17 offers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2010 21:36

Shankar wrote:are we forgetting

Brahnos
Arihant
Su 30 mki
Smerch

all so soon
T90 is nothing more than a commercial Hicup

Forgetting what? What about those systems?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Feb 2010 21:48

We are being set up by the americans to help subsidize and extend their old assembly lines and provide job security for the boys in some or the other senators' constituency.

Thats the nature of all arms sales.

Hell thats the nature of all business

we just lost out to a firm whose German HQ ordered them to use SAP even though our product has been used by them for 6 years and they have to spend millions on SAP customizations and consultants

Its up to usto wring out what we need.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 01 Mar 2010 01:19

For whatever reason, IAF thinks Il 76 are unsuitable for new purchases since they want a higher lift capability and range. We cant really double guess their logic, its THEIR GSQR... and they are best placed to make the assessment. So the Il 76 alternative is not going to fly. So the question to ask is whether An 124 is suitable, and if so why wasnt it considered.

Are new build An 124 being produced (by that I mean new builds from scratch)? I am not sure they are... If not then isnt C17 the only alternative? A400 is the best alternative, but it has so many delays and cost rises that its not viable

Neeraj Bagga · Post by **Neeraj Bagga** » 01 Mar 2010 02:34

During my commutes from Santa Clara to San Fransisco I used to regularly see AN-124s parked at the Moffet Naval Air Station (Near Sunnyvale).

It is a common knowledge that US (both private companies and federal agencies) regularly use AN-124

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... harter.htm

If AN-124 can land and take off from those far flung airports, then IMHO it is a no brainer. AN-124 all the way.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 04:38

I don;t think the AN 124 can land in Leh etc.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 01 Mar 2010 05:13

Surya wrote:I don;t think the AN 124 can land in Leh etc.

Meaning you think that the C17 can ?

I have prime swamp land for sale in Florida if you are interested.......

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 05:21

I would let the Indian AIr Force decide that.

Mark Walpole · Post by **Mark Walpole** » 01 Mar 2010 06:21

I am a novice at all of this and completely inexperienced but as i look at it the only way the An-124 would be of any use to the indian armed forces is if in the forseeble future we are required to deploy an armoured regiment at a moments notice to a forward area and that too out of asia...
if we are to purchase 10-20 of these behemoths then we could transport about 20-40 tanks(t 90's) and a number of mech inf vehicles to an area in a reasonable amount of time in a massive airlift operation(but alas this would only be a boys dream)...but as of now we wont get these aircraft by the end of this decade..

The decision if taken to go for the C 17's seems like a geo politcal one and aslo in some cases keeping in mind the low pilot uptake in the IAF...as the aircraft only requires a total of 3 crew i.e. 2 pilots and a loadmaster(wiki)..it also increases our lift capacity and allows us to absorb western(american isreli etc) tech into our tech pool.

On the other hand the russians have had a massive chunk of our defense budget with follow on mki orders, the fgfa project
t 90 orders, the various naval projects etc. Also the fact that we are having difficulty in procuring airframes for our remaining AEW&C aircraft mite be causing mod to hesitate with any more orders..oh and also the medium lift aircraft project i.e. MTA which have ongoing...plus the crew requirements of the il 76 is in the range of 5-7 as well which mite decline with the use of modern aircraft managment systems..

just my 2 cents i mite be wrong in my presumption..

Gerard sir thank you for the cool new name. im sorry overlooking the name rules..if possible can it be changed to mickey ..thank you

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Mar 2010 06:28

RayC wrote:For those who feel that Russia is a time tested friend and will never impose sanctions, the report appended would be interesting to note.

USSR was a time tested friend, but it need not be the case with Russia.

Russia, for instance, has delayed giving `full ToT' for India's plan to indigenously manufacture 1,000 T-90S tanks. This despite India first importing 310 of these tanks for over Rs 3,625 crore in a February 2001 contract, and then signing another Rs 4,900 crore contract in November 2007 to import 347 more tanks.
Time Tested Friend!
One has to be pragmatic in the context that the Cold War is over and Russia has to get their own act together rather than give handouts to please all and sundry!

I haven't read the entire article yet, but I'd think that the piece is from R. Pandit, the usual mouthpiece for ToIlet! When was the last time he wrote anything positive either about the Russkis or about indigenous products? Plenty of hit jobs from certain directions (normally, TOI hits on Roosies, Chindu tends to hit on non-roosies, but without fail, all seem to hit on the natives

)

Obviously things have changed and Russia has different expectations (as does India) but thankfully, I think (or perhaps I am being optimistic) the GOI is well aware of this and so far has not completely turned the tables. Many deals are going to the U.S. but still no truly large ones and purchases are piecemeal reflecting a degree of caution on part of the planners. Wonder if the US is considered reliable enough to go with the F-18E/Fs?

Re. the T-90 deal itself, as Chetak pointed out Russia has an economic agenda now, and it will not part with its IPR at Soviet prices, India will have to fork over more, either up front or piecemeal haggling. And then again, this is just one deal among the many, most of which seem to be going alright.

However, this hardly changes the fact that as strategic partners, Russia is still very much in the game. At the same time, one can understand the IAF and IN's desire to diversify - no point in being at the mercy of any one country - so long as it is done cautiously and smartly.

CM

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Mar 2010 15:16

Isn't the AN-124 arriving for the 2010 Hyderabad air show? I saw a media report about it.It would be a good time to evluate the aircraft against the C-17.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 01 Mar 2010 21:56

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-b ... 4659.story

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Mar 2010 10:55

So the main questions are these: How far can the aircraft fly with a normal load? How heavy can the maximum load be? How big a load can fit into the aircraft?

Let’s compare the An-124-100 and C-17 based on these technical characteristics.

Aircraft

Read in Columns
Type Maximum
Load Maximum
Volume Range Max Load
Range with a 77t Load

An-124-100
120 t
1270 m3
3333 km
5925 km

Boeing C-17
77 t
592 m3
4444 km
4444 km

From this table we can see that, compared with the C-17, an An-124-100 has:

• 55 % greater maximum load than the C-17
• 115 % more of a maximum cargo-cabin volume
• 33 % greater range (when carrying 77t – the C-17’s maximum load)

Put simply, the An-124 can carry loads which are 1.5 times heavier, cargo that is more than twice as large, and it can travel almost 1,500 km further than the C-17 with a similar load.

Taking an average of the above performance characteristics (55%, 115% & 33% better / 3), we come to the conclusion that An-124-100 has a critical strategic airlifter performance which is 68% better than that of the C-17.

Strategic Airlifter

The issue is what does the IAF want - a tactical airlifter, or a strategic airlifter or a combination?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 02 Mar 2010 11:38

chetak wrote:
Kersi D wrote: Shankar
Let us accept the reality. USSR has stood by us thru thick and thin.
But perhaps Russia has not been very good to us K
Kersi D ji,

USSR was a superpower, russia is not and will not be for a long time if ever.

Russia wants an economic price for its goods, not the political price the USSR charged, as in the old days.

Even then I think that Russia will stand by India for strategic reasons. But the shoe is now on the Indian foot. I say this in a good way. The russians are painfully aware of this major shift.

The russians are desperate to safeguard their traditional arms markets. They are really afraid that their traditional markets in India will dry up because of sloppy work by their russian companies.

The russian government and people actually like India and the Indians. The ordinary russian on the street is a warm Indian well wisher.

The Gorshkov / Vikramaditya deal was a gross error on our part. She was built in an Ukrainian yard and we are getting her refitted and upgraded in a russian yard that does not know jack about the carrier or even have the complete build plans? They did not even have the required infrastructure or the expertise to handle a project of this magnitude and complexity.

We should have towed her to Ukraine and got the russian help to complete the refit where required. Neither the Indians nor the russians had a very good idea of exactly what the refit entailed. This is the major reason for the mismanaged and buggered up refit.

Used as we were to dealing with the USSR and we did not realize that russia was different. Now I hear that the difference has sunk in rather painfully in our defence HQs.

We are being set up by the americans to help subsidize and extend their old assembly lines and provide job security for the boys in some or the other senators' constituency.This is the logic behind the IAF fighter deal and the C-17 offers.

You could not have put it in any better words. It is upto us to get the best of both (or all) the worlds.

Buying a big ticket item like F 16/18, from US is a dicey proposition. We are still having nightmares about all the sanctions imposed by US on us and others, on soem whim and fancy. But the Gorshkov / Vikramaditya issue leaves a bad tatse in the mouth.

But we will have to take the plunge. Even the Europeans countries impose sanctions at thier will or USA's will. Does this mena we have to buy only form Russia or maybe France or Israel.

Today Russia wants an economic price and yeas we are giving it to them. But this means that they have to compete with all and sundry, they cannot get an economic price on a single bidder system e.g. T 90. It is going to be a dirty market. To me it appears that Russia has a lot of Indian MOD babus on their payroll, but they have overlooked that US / Europe may have deeper pockets. And for high pitched marketing, US is perhaps still unero uno.

I do want Russia to lose out on Indian arms bazar bu Russia too must realise that THEY want market prices then they have to counter market forces

K

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2010 12:03

suppose India orders 20 AN124 - question is how much time will Antonov need, how much money to
hit full production rate and what will be rate of delivery. will all their suppliers be reliable.

I think doubts on these lines always go against ex-USSR products that are somewhat there, but not
supported by a giant and rich military buying machine.

in 1980s it would be a no brainer with the USSR going full swing.

our Mi26 experience has been rough wrt spares and uptime apparently.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 02 Mar 2010 12:05

Show them the money, they will get the 20 in no time

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Mar 2010 13:43

Russian Military Industry: Arming Opponents of the West

Pavel Simonov, AIA Russian section

Russian military industry is actually abandoned its own military, becoming more and more export oriented, the deputy director of the Russian Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, chief editor of the Russian professional "Export of Arms" magazine Konstantin Makiyenko claims. In his interview to the daily Vremya Novostei he claims that Russian Defense Ministry was unable to set priorities of military- technological policy and finance them properly. The number of the companies comprising military industry of Russia is on decline – 1500 firms were registered last year, today only 1250 of them left on the list.
Russia is arming foreign armies, Makiyenko claims. The leading companies of the military industrial complex - mainly the major aircraft-building corporations like ''Sykhoi'', "Irkut", "MiG" and related to them instrument-making companies are still mostly working for an export. Almost 90 per cent of their output goes overseas.
The shipbuilding enterprises are also becoming the leaders on sales due to the foreign contracts. "Northern shipyard" builds destroyers for China; "Baltiysky Zavod" constructs frigates for India. This year, as expected, "Admiralty shipyards" will have the biggest proceeds, for it will transfer four Kilo class submarines to China for $2 billion. As for manufacturers of engines a share of export also reaches 70 per cent. The export orientation of the military industry is clear, he states.
Makiyenko notes that the biggest and the most profitable orders of the next year will be the licensing contract on Su-30 MKI with India, Malaysian contract on purchase of the 18 Su-30 MKM for $900 million. In 2008 the delivery date of the contract on MiG-29K to India will come, bringing $740 million.
Interestingly enough, though understanding this, Makiyenko insists on calling the Russian military industry – "defensive industry" and not the military. Whom is it defending he is not emphasizing...

Makiyenko adds that the situation is worsened by the total disorder and nonexistent global security and defensive policy of the current administration. For example, in spite of the increasing governmental orders to the military industry, the money is not used properly to support the companies and wasted on senseless projects. Of this year's $6 billion state defense order, about half is spent on equipping the nuclear deterrence forces, he said. Another $3 billion are scattered among numerous research and development projects, the majority of which never reach the stage of production samples......

If the Russian Ministry of Defense will publish the sums it allocates, for example, for the development of the fifth generation combat aircraft, people to die laughing, for it will take a century to develop it, Makiyenko said. It is easier to by it abroad.......

Less than 20 per cent of the Russian military budget is going to the prioritized projects. For example, in 2004, Russian military purchased only 14 new tanks and modernized 8 planes.
As for ammunition manufacturing it is also in a mess, the expert claims. It cannot be a commercial branch of the military industry, for without the support of the state it will simply seize to exist. Makiyenko brings an example of the US ammunition production, which is controlled and sponsored by the state and no transaction in this sphere can go on without the governmental approval. It is totally different in Russia were the ammunition branch was left to its own devices. What the expert doesn't say that sometimes to survive this branch has to engage in dealing with doubtful characters.....

Yet another problem of the Russian "defensive" military industry by Makiyenko's opinion is lack of lobbing of its interests abroad, especially in India, which the Russian military industry may lose as a customer. "Every high ranking figure, even the President himself, has to harness to this activity. The biggest in the history tender on purchase by India of 126 combat aircrafts started. It is worth $9 billion. The US President always get involved in such deals", he notes. Another important customer for Russia is Saudi Arabia, Makiyenko notes, for the country after September 11 started to change its American weapons suppliers

Russian Military Industry

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Mar 2010 14:29

The above speaks a lot of the state of the Russian military industry and the disarray it is in.

It is most disturbing to read:

for example, for the development of the fifth generation combat aircraft, people to die laughing, for it will take a century to develop it, Makiyenko said

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Mar 2010 14:49

Notwithstanding the debate out here, one thing that worries me is that there was a report that the media could be 'bought'.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2 ... topic=2836

I am befuddled by the Arjun debate. I spoke to an ex COAS who is an armoured corps officer and he said that the T 90 was a fine tank and not a fiery ball as some suggested here. On the Arjun, he was cryptic stating it was a Mk I (whatever that means). I did not probe more given the military niceties.

Ajai Shukla on the BRF was gung ho to condemn the Arjun. Now, he is singing paeans for Arjun. How the change of heart? I sure would like to know what all has been done since his complaint of the Arjun's failings. Of course, one can change one's opinion if things work out, but then we are interested to know how things are better and comparable, if not better.

I was not in the Armoured Corps and so am not an expert as others might be including some who are literature watchers. All I say is lets us have the best, be it indigenous or imported since I don't want the men and officers to die with a lemon, just to support the indigenous industry or help an 'old and trusted' friend who did not fail, but is failing regularly now!

Neither does the US military industry PR impress me.

Let those whose life is at stake either sell themselves for lollies or keep the National and the military prestige flying high.

There are too many wheels within wheels, more so when the are far divorced from the battlefield!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Mar 2010 14:50

RayC wrote:
chetak wrote:

RayC,

I have to confirm that the AN 32 is fully pressurized.

The IL-76 is also capable of differential pressurization and temperature in the cockpit and cargo area.
I have flown in AN 32 in the cargo hold and I can assure you that it was not pressurised.

It is what is genuine cattle class, though better than An 12 or Fairchild Packet.

I have flown in IL 76 too and I can assure you that it was pressured.

I have flown in most military aircraft extensively as also commercial. I would like to believe I understand what is a pressurised compartment.

I am told that the Ukrainian variety of An 32 is pressurised. We have only the USSR variety to the best of my knowledge.

Experience is believing!

RayC,

I confirm again that with the sole exception of the Dornier DO-228, all other transport aircraft of the IAF currently operating and that includes the AN 32, are fully pressurized.

Depending on circuit height and mission, the AN 32 may de pressurize for a short while in flight to complete drops or whatever.

During this stage the crew may don oxygen masks above 10-13 thousand feet or even lower at lower heights if the kapitan is finicky!

Normal cruise altitude is 25-35 thousand feet depending on factors.
At those heights its bloody cold up there. But if you ask nicely the crew may also turn on the air conditioning to keep you warm and cosy, while pressurized.

Our lot of hundred plus AN 32s came from Ukraine onlee.

The Antonov Design Bureau is situated in Kiev, now the capital of the Ukraine. India operates more than one-quarter of the altogether 360 An-32 planes manufactured by Antonov during the latter years of the Soviet Union. The only organization operating more An-32 - some 150 aircraft - is the Ukrainian air force.

Seems like a unique ukrainian breed saar. No russian cousins.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Mar 2010 14:53

chetak wrote:

RayC,

I confirm again that with the sole exception of the Dornier DO-228, all other transport aircraft of the IAF currently operating and that includes the AN 32, are fully pressurized.

Depending on circuit height and mission, the AN 32 may de pressurize for a short while in flight to complete drops or whatever.

During this stage the crew may don oxygen masks above 10-13 thousand feet or even lower at lower heights if the kapitan is finicky!

Normal cruise altitude is 25-35 thousand feet depending on factors.
At those heights its bloody cold up there. But if you ask nicely the crew may also turn on the air conditioning to keep you warm and cosy, while pressurized.

Our lot of hundred plus AN 32s came from Ukraine onlee.

The Antonov Design Bureau is situated in Kiev, now the capital of the Ukraine. India operates more than one-quarter of the altogether 360 An-32 planes manufactured by Antonov during the latter years of the Soviet Union. The only organization operating more An-32 - some 150 aircraft - is the Ukrainian air force.

Seems like a unique ukrainian breed saar. No russian cousins.

Have you flown in an An 32?

Literature may say so, but my personal experience is different. I have never had such a horrid flight. It could be a technical fault not rectified. I don't know. But it was a repeated feature. I am a 'hands on' and experience man and not by what the literature states or how good the technician on ground is! Put your money where your mouth is, is what I say!

If I not mistaken we still have 120 in service.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Mar 2010 15:07

RayC wrote:
chetak wrote:

RayC,

I confirm again that with the sole exception of the Dornier DO-228, all other transport aircraft of the IAF currently operating and that includes the AN 32, are fully pressurized.

Depending on circuit height and mission, the AN 32 may de pressurize for a short while in flight to complete drops or whatever.

During this stage the crew may don oxygen masks above 10-13 thousand feet or even lower at lower heights if the kapitan is finicky!

Normal cruise altitude is 25-35 thousand feet depending on factors.
At those heights its bloody cold up there. But if you ask nicely the crew may also turn on the air conditioning to keep you warm and cosy, while pressurized.

Our lot of hundred plus AN 32s came from Ukraine onlee.

The Antonov Design Bureau is situated in Kiev, now the capital of the Ukraine. India operates more than one-quarter of the altogether 360 An-32 planes manufactured by Antonov during the latter years of the Soviet Union. The only organization operating more An-32 - some 150 aircraft - is the Ukrainian air force.

Seems like a unique ukrainian breed saar. No russian cousins.
Have you flown in an An 32?

Literature may so, but my personal experience is different.

If I not mistaken we still have 120 in service.

Yes Sir, many times.

Warm and cosy, except for the high noise and vibration levels.

IL-76, AVRO and Dornier as well.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Mar 2010 15:20

Have you flown in an An 32?

Literature may so, but my personal experience is different.

If I not mistaken we still have 120 in service.

Yes Sir, many times.

Warm and cosy, except for the high noise and vibration levels.

IL-76, AVRO and Dornier as well.

I have flown in the An 12, graduated to Dakota (Carnic Courier) and flew it on autopilot making Air Cmde Dodd furious, went on to An 12 (noisy stuff) to An 32 and then to IL 76.

An 32 was warm and cosy since you were in the pilot's area.

Flown a heptr 20 mins level and steady. Don't ask how since I won't tell you.

If you call the cargo hold pressurised you have another guess coming or improve it so that we know it is pressurised and not a hell hold.

I have also flown in an Avro of the Communication flight since I was with Gen Joshi, the Army Commander. Great aircraft, but being used to jet, a damn bit too slow!

I have flown in a civil Donier. Not impressed!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Mar 2010 15:54

RayC wrote:
Have you flown in an An 32?

Literature may so, but my personal experience is different.

If I not mistaken we still have 120 in service.

Yes Sir, many times.

Warm and cosy, except for the high noise and vibration levels.

IL-76, AVRO and Dornier as well.
I have flown in the An 12, graduated to Dakota (Carnic Courier) and flew it on autopilot making Air Cmde Dodd furious, went on to An 12 (noisy stuff) to An 32 and then to IL 76.

An 32 was warm and cosy since you were in the pilot's area.

Flown a heptr 20 mins level and steady. Don't ask how since I won't tell you.

If you call the cargo hold pressurised you have another guess coming or improve it so that we know it is pressurised and not a hell hold.

I have also flown in an Avro of the Communication flight since I was with Gen Joshi, the Army Commander. Great aircraft, but being used to jet, a damn bit too slow!

I have flown in a civil Donier. Not impressed!

I am SDRE saar.

Always flew with my guys in cargo area onlee, even though invited to cockpit.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 02 Mar 2010 15:58

Chetak, I am genuinely surprised to learn An-32 has pressurization

I remember, in addition to vibration and noise, on one occasion the aircraft had a hydraulic failure, and had to use emergency nitrogen to deploy the landing gear.

But nothing beats a Kamov!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2010 16:08

my father one only once occasion flew a vayudoot dornier from silchar to gau. the flight engineer
kind of sits behind the pilots. perhaps due to unpressurized, a bottle in someone's bag exploded
with a loud sound as they were weaving and ducking through heavy weather over meghalaya.
the pilots are said to have been scared out of their skins and sat bolt upright.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Mar 2010 16:43

tsarkar wrote:Chetak, I am genuinely surprised to learn An-32 has pressurization I remember, in addition to vibration and noise, on one occasion the aircraft had a hydraulic failure, and had to use emergency nitrogen to deploy the landing gear.

But nothing beats a Kamov!

tsarkar ji,

Why surprised about the pressurization?

Have you not flown AN 32 cattle class from Delhi for the Aero shows?

About the Kamov, I fully agree with you.

In some other planes, you have to manually pump the undercarriage down during hydraulic emergencies.

You can imaging how frenzied the pumping gets as the runway gets closer!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Mar 2010 16:51

Singha wrote:my father one only once occasion flew a vayudoot dornier from silchar to gau. the flight engineer
kind of sits behind the pilots. perhaps due to unpressurized, a bottle in someone's bag exploded
with a loud sound as they were weaving and ducking through heavy weather over meghalaya.
the pilots are said to have been scared out of their skins and sat bolt upright.

We used to call them yamadoot.

That was because of the number of engines they totaled in flight - 22, 23 at last count. I cannot remember the Navy, the Coast Guard or the IAF even putting a scratch on any one of their engines or aircraft.

I have provided unofficial service to these jokers and wasted many many valuable weekends over a year and a half, sorting out their problems. Filled with stupid dopes.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 02 Mar 2010 21:53

RayC wrote:So the main questions are these: How far can the aircraft fly with a normal load? How heavy can the maximum load be? How big a load can fit into the aircraft?

Let’s compare the An-124-100 and C-17 based on these technical characteristics.

From this table we can see that, compared with the C-17, an An-124-100 has:

• 55 % greater maximum load than the C-17
• 115 % more of a maximum cargo-cabin volume
• 33 % greater range (when carrying 77t – the C-17’s maximum load)

Put simply, the An-124 can carry loads which are 1.5 times heavier, cargo that is more than twice as large, and it can travel almost 1,500 km further than the C-17 with a similar load.

Strategic Airlifter

Even as a tactical aircraft they can be compared, to some extent. Put identical loads on both aircraft and compare their runway performance (ie put 77 tonnes in each aircraft and see how much runway each uses to take-off and land). You might notice that the C-17, when fully loaded with 77 tonnes, uses as much runway as a lightly loaded An-124 with 77 tonnes.

The same goes for the the Pavement Classification number. Put equal payload in both aircraft and the C-17 loses its advantage.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Inter ... Tables.pdf

Finally, it is unfair to compare the performance of Civilian operated An-124-100s to military operated C-17s. A fair comparison would be to compare the military performance Specs of the Russian Air Force An-124s to the C-17 or if Boeing published civilian performance charts for its planned BC-17 (the commercial C-17) to the An-124-100.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 03 Mar 2010 09:51

Gilles wrote:
Even as a tactical aircraft they can be compared, to some extent. Put identical loads on both aircraft and compare their runway performance (ie put 77 tonnes in each aircraft and see how much runway each uses to take-off and land). You might notice that the C-17, when fully loaded with 77 tonnes, uses as much runway as a lightly loaded An-124 with 77 tonnes.

The same goes for the the Pavement Classification number. Put equal payload in both aircraft and the C-17 loses its advantage.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Inter ... Tables.pdf

Finally, it is unfair to compare the performance of Civilian operated An-124-100s to military operated C-17s. A fair comparison would be to compare the military performance Specs of the Russian Air Force An-124s to the C-17 or if Boeing published civilian performance charts for its planned BC-17 (the commercial C-17) to the An-124-100.

Those were rhetorical questions for the follow up arguments of the post.

So the main questions are these: How far can the aircraft fly with a normal load? How heavy can the maximum load be? How big a load can fit into the aircraft?

Thereafter I wrote:

Even as a tactical aircraft they can be compared, to some extent. Put identical loads on both aircraft and compare their runway performance (i.e. put 77 tonnes in each aircraft and see how much runway each uses to take-off and land). You might notice that the C-17, when fully loaded with 77 tonnes, uses as much runway as a lightly loaded An-124 with 77 tonnes.

Therefore, my query remains, does the IAF want a strategic airlifter, a tactical airlifter or a combination.

Lastly, in so far as taking equal weight into consideration for comparison, well it is a fair one prima facie.

However, what one has to consider is the economics. It is like having a 10 ton truck moving 5 ton of load instead of being optimally used i.e. with a 10 ton load!

One has to also know what is the cost of operating a C17 and the An 124 in terms of:
1. Crew and their costs in all aspects.
2. Maintenance
3. Fuel efficiency.
4. Operating ease i.e. loading and unloading or parachute dropping.
5. The number of loaders/ unloaders required and the manner in which when paradropped, the load would be collected and the area of error.

I am reading a fascinating book ‘The Lifeblood of War: Logistics in Armed Conflict’ sent to me by a very kind and warm BRF member Anoop C from the US, who I have not met in person. I was at the Vietnam War part of the book. The comparison of the French logistics and the US logistics is most fascinating and the way the US dropped the loads. The US LAPES and GPES are totally fascinating.

Just by comparing statistics and figures may not be the solution.

Application and requirement would be more near the truth.

So what is the IAF searching for?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 03 Mar 2010 10:02

Let us also analyse where these airlifters would be used, the reason why they will be used and what could be the payload.

That will give us some idea of what is required (as we see it and it may not be accurate).

As I see it, the critical issue is that we will have to use rough and ready air strips (mainly against China). Therefore, which is the best aircraft to deliver the optimally required payload. And what will be the payload? Tanks are not the only concern.