C-17s for the IAF?

[Nihat]

I was under the impression that in a conflict situation one of the very important aspects is to transport as many as possible men, materials, supplies, radars, missiles etc etc in as little time and minimized sorties as possible and for that purpose you need the biggest planes that can fit in the max. equipment. Runways could easily be damagd in a war like situation and therefore ability to land on damaged runways is vital too. In that respect C-17 wins hands down, out of the options that are currently into production, not ones that may or may not be revived.

The fact that IL-76 work brilliantly for us in peacetime perhaps leads us to believe that C-17 aquisition is a waste of time. But if we do have 15-20 C-17 in the IAF inventory, it gives us the capability to lift a huge ammount of resources during conflict or potential conflict situation and improves deployment time substantially and reduces risk as lesser sorties are needed.

So even if IL-76 is good for peacetime, we need atleast 15 odd C-17's to do major heavylifting during war, especially a 2 front war across the himalayas.

[GeorgeWelch]

Firstly, the C-17 is a "strategic" heavylifter,just look at its very name,"Globemaster",perfect for the US and NATO,who have 180+ and 25 respectively for their trans-continetnal obligations like Iraq and Af-Pak.Here,they need massive daily logistic operations to support the troops on the ground

This is actually a point I have made repeatedly. If you need to saturate an airfield, the C-17 is simply a better choice. It has a very compact footprint for the amount of cargo it carries. For massive logistic operations, throughput is king and no airlifter produces better throughput than the C-17.

India does NOT have any similar global agenda now or in the future.

I don't think anyone is selecting the C-17 over the Il-76 because of its range, it just simply doesn't seem to be a major consideration.

That said, I am glad you have taken it upon yourself to set Indian policy for the next 3 decades.

Already India has intervened in Sri Lanka and has peace keeping troops in Africa. Who knows what the future will bring?

Let's examine what our crying need of the hour is.Our major threat is in the High Himalayas,both from China and Pak.Here,the problem that we have is poor infrstructure,which though being attended to belatedly,suffers becuase as reports say,the "lack of heavy eqpt. and machinery for roadbuilding is due to a shortage of heavy-lift/medium helos!

Yet there are also several airfields in the region that are very capable of supporting the C-17, including Nyoma and more like it in the near future.

The IAF requires even more heavy-lift helos like the MI-26 that we operate or even smaller Chinooks.

This isn't an either/or question. It's more helos AND more heavy transports. India can now afford both. You need different options for different situations. A fleet consisting solely of helos and An-32s provides you fewer options than a fleet that provides a full spectrum of capabilities.

even ex-WW2 strips being renovated like the one at Daulat Beg Oldi.C-17s cannot land here,where smaller AN-32s have been the workhorse.

As has already been pointed out, there are plenty of fields now and in the future where the C-17 can land. Even if you need An-32s for access to smaller fields, where are the An-32s going to get the supplies they are delivering?

Instead of flying all the way south, wouldn't it make sense to have major bases in the north that An-32s could stage from? This way they spend less time in transit and are able to make more deliveries to the areas of need.

So C-17s can keep the major bases stocked and An-32s can work from there to nearby strips.

I find it remarkable that no one has challenged the myriad posts I've put out on the crisis at Boeing's C-17 facility,.which is why this knee-jerk buy from India is taking place.

Really? It's only been explained to you 30 times in this thread at least.

EVERY manufacturer is desperate for India's order. EVERY government is using all the 'influence' it can. Yes Boeing needs the order . . . but no more desperately than Ilyushin needs or Antonov needs it.

Yes the US will lobby for the C-17 . . . just like Russia will lobby for the Il-76 and Ukraine will lobby for the An-124.

So what?

Similarly in the MRCA competition, Russia is lobbying for the MiG-35, France is lobbying for the Rafale, etc, etc.

Your complete 'surprise' at Boeing wanting this order is either utter naivete or cynical distraction.

If so,why was the AN-124 not tested at all in competition?

There are no new-model An-124s to test.

More pointedly, the basic capabilities of each possible choice are well known. If their study concludes the An-124 is too big to efficiently transfer material to space-constrained bases, what test is needed? It is already known it doesn't fit India's need.

Why so many?

The better question is 'why so few?'

If you want to saturate a base, you will need more than 10 to keep a continual stream of aircraft in the air. And that's just one base. If you need to supply several bases simultaneously, the need grows even higher.

if we needed on occasion the services of a strategic heavylift aircraft,we could do what NATO is doing leasing AN-124s!

In wartime, leases are unreliable. If a war with China went 'hot', few leasing companies would be comfortable to have their planes go anywhere near the situation. Moreover, most of the commercial fleets are booked. Even if you could scare up a few in an emergency, 'a few' isn't going to cut it. You're going to need dozens.

Relying on commercial leases for critical wartime needs is very dangerous

It is so obvious that this is a political buy.

If filling a critical national security need with the best available choice is a 'political buy', then perhaps India should conduct more 'political buys'.

It is astonishing that while it is OK for the US? NATO to use a Russian AN-124 in Af-Pak ops,it is taboo for India to do so!

Nothing wrong with using it for the occasional charter when it's convenient. The point you're missing is that the US and NATO are not RELYING on leases. If the An-124 leases went away, they would still be able to get the job done with their massive fleet of C-17s and C-5s. Can India say the same?

then if we still needed a strategic heavy-lift,examine the merits of the C-17 against the AN-124 and after evaluation then take a decision.

They did just what you said. They conducted an evaluation and determined the C-17 meets their needs best.

[GeorgeWelch]

I am not sure as to how many MBTs can operate successfully in such mountainous terrain like the Himalayas.How many MBTs does the IA plan to use in such an environment? It would be interesting to see in which theatres they can be used.

Who knows what the future holds?

India sent tanks to Sri Lanka. Once the T-72 is retired, you won't even be able to do something like that any more.

Giving the military the capabilities gives it OPTIONS. Maybe a particular capability will or won't be useful in a particular situation, but no commander likes to have their options reduced.

Frankly your whole argument that India should create a less capable fleet because it doesn't 'need' anything better is very unpersuasive. Needs can shift rapidly and even now it is easy to imagine dozens of scenarios where more capability would be useful.

And more to the point, India can afford more capability. There is no reason to limit its capability or options.

[jai]

Sorry if this has been asked before, I seem to have missed it if so - would anyone know and be able to share what are the runway lengths of the ALG's in Arunanchal ? Can the C 17 land there ?

[Philip]

The timing of the order and Boeing's woes are the foundation of the deal.Join all the points together and the picture will emerge.The arguments in favour of India's heavylift needs are more academic than what we actually need right now.Ideally we could do with any amount of heavyweights,but this aircraft is meant primarily for a "global role.Plus its extra size is not a truly determining factor in the Indian scenario.This is a gold-plated $10 billion deal.We are not sitting on a heap of gold like Midas and there are as I've explained more urgent priorities.The IAF are being given a stretched "Limo" instead when what they really need is an SUV.Even the delivery schedule here is being armtwisted by Boeing! Well,that's my opinion.I stand by it.One day as I've said the facts will out,wait and see.

[JimmyJ]

X Post from International Military thread
Minister: Russia to buy weapons abroad

Russia will buy foreign and possibly U.S. arms because the domestic industry has failed to modernize, Russia's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov has said.

"Our weapons often do not meet the required standards," he said. "We are acting as consumers in this situation ... our producers want to issue outdated models but we don't want to buy them."

The Kremlin wants to completely overhaul the Russian armed forces. Moscow plans to radically cut the number of officers and overall troops to create a more modern and mobile force and has vowed to replace its Soviet-era equipment.

However, Russian officials are unhappy with the domestic industry and have in the past urged firms to step up their product portfolio and internal procedures to become more competitive.

[Philip]

Yes,the Mistral is one "want",but there appear to be problems selling Russia high tech western products.As far as transports go,Russia is restarting production of its heavy weights-IL-76s,AN-124s,etc.,large orders being placed with the manufacturers who are sorting out their earlier problems with some factories located in former SU countries like the Ukraine.A new pro-Russian govt. in the Ukraine is moving fast to restart transport aircraft production with Russia.I however doubt that real large scale orders will be placed with western states because of fear specially from the US that russia will dramatically catch up in areas where it is weak in def. tech.

There is a great opportunity for India here to take advantage of the situ and in mutually beneficial JVs ,develop ahost of weapon systems that we need.The 5th-gen fighter,hypersonic B'Mos,N-subs,warship and sub production,armoured vehicles,helicopters, plus a range of advanced missiles for all three services can be developed.In fact,India can offer to build for Russia a range of def. eqpt, which we are good at producing.We have the manpower and the money these days and both sides can benefit enormously with JVs.

[JimmyJ]

Yes,the Mistral is one "want",but there appear to be problems selling Russia high tech western products.As far as transports go,Russia is restarting production of its heavy weights-IL-76s,AN-124s,etc.,large orders being placed with the manufacturers who are sorting out their earlier problems with some factories located in former SU countries like the Ukraine.A new pro-Russian govt. in the Ukraine is moving fast to restart transport aircraft production with Russia.I however doubt that real large scale orders will be placed with western states because of fear specially from the US that russia will dramatically catch up in areas where it is weak in def. tech.

There is a great opportunity for India here to take advantage of the situ and in mutually beneficial JVs ,develop ahost of weapon systems that we need.The 5th-gen fighter,hypersonic B'Mos,N-subs,warship and sub production,armoured vehicles,helicopters, plus a range of advanced missiles for all three services can be developed.In fact,India can offer to build for Russia a range of def. eqpt, which we are good at producing.We have the manpower and the money these days and both sides can benefit enormously with JVs.

I think the article point towards more than Mistral, cause that is just French. But the important point is that Russia itself recognize the deficiency and is ready to look outward for the time being.

This could also provide better opportunity for India and Russia to partner for developing various defense equipments with results expected in a decade time. Let B'Mos, MTA and FGFA be just the tip of the iceberg.

[Vivek K]

While even Russia acknowledges problems with its military industrial complex, our fanboys continue to lobby for India to buy Russian!! Sab chalta hai! Mera bharat mahaan!!

[Kanson]

Sorry if this has been asked before, I seem to have missed it if so - would anyone know and be able to share what are the runway lengths of the ALG's in Arunanchal ? Can the C 17 land there ?

The IAF vice chief was replying to questions if the Air Force feared adverse Chinese reaction to it upgrading six Advanced Landing Grounds (ALGs) in Arunachal Pradesh for operating heavier transport aircraft.

Not only runway length, even strength of the runway needs to be upgraded to operate "heavy" aircraft, if not they are already capable.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/iaf-s ... al/529041/

[Austin]

Minister: Russia to buy weapons abroad

It is true all is not well with Russian Defence Establishment and its in a dire strait lacking innovation and accountability

Yes the new DM Anatoly Serdyukov has been brought in by Kremlin to reform the hard nut Russian Defence Establishment and clean it of corruption and business as usual attitude by old players.

He has been given a free hand to reform top bottom and he has taken many to task much to the disliking of few senior top officials in the military.

As Medvedev has mentioned last week there is hardly any innovations in Russian military and manufactures are just perfecting Soviet Designed system.

For eg there is hardly any innovation in S-400 system and is a derivative of S-300 and has been criticized for higher power requirement.

The new DM has admitted to weakness in Russian manufactured system and has looked to friendly western country namely French and Italy to import key system for eg TI for T-90, French Felin Future Army system and big ticket item like Mistral much to disliking for Russian USC , similar from Italy more than thousand IVECO M65 armoured vehical to be lic built over Russian Tigr.

The message from DM is simple shape up be competitive and innovative else we will import it from outside and he has started kicking hard on local manufactures where it hurts them the most

Much of the reform is concentrated around the lean and mean army with rapid mobility concept and system either imported from friendly Europe or with JV with friendly countries like India,france,Italy,Germany

[Kanson]

Boeing's promotional ads from Defexpo 2010

[Katare]

imo the biggest drawback of IL76 (probably even the new MF) is that it cannot take T90 tanks, let alone arjun. and even fitting in the T72 is a delicate piece of work per accounts not the drive in and order a burger model.

so for moving some serious meat up into the hills, I doubt the IL76 can do it. the onlee other modern option in production is C17.

like or dislike for USA doesnt enter into it - we are fighting to save our backsides from being roasted by the lizard here. inactivity is not an option.

Actually that is prolly the second most important factor; IMO the most important is the fact that C17 can lift twice as much volume as IL-76 per flight. This gives tremendous lift capacity with a much small size fleet.

Ability to lift pretty much anything that you probably would want to lift in war zone can be lifted with this aircraft.

Cost, support, reliability and availability make it an obvious choice for IAF!

Fears related to future sanctions, usual superpower strings (CISMOS/EUMA CRAP etc) are real and tangible issues that can't be swept aside either.

US-Pak relationship, our own checkered history and association with loosing side of the cold war makes it painful for a lot of old f@rts, on either side, to swallow this new relationship.

[Austin]

The new IL-476 which can carry a payload of 60T , should be quite capable of either taking off with Arjun or T-90.

Although I am not certain if dimensionally the Arjun can fit inside the IL.

[Indranil]

^^^ As far as I know there is no change in the width from IL-76 to the IL-476. If Arjun did not fit in the IL-76,ost probably it wont in the IL-476.

[nachiket]

The new IL-476 which can carry a payload of 60T , should be quite capable of either taking off with Arjun or T-90.

Although I am not certain if dimensionally the Arjun can fit inside the IL.

The fuselage hasn't been widened. So I do not see how this is possible. The weight of the T-72 wasn't the problem, its dimensions were. The T-90 which is even wider will not fit inside the Il-476.

[amit]

The new IL-476 which can carry a payload of 60T , should be quite capable of either taking off with Arjun or T-90.

Although I am not certain if dimensionally the Arjun can fit inside the IL.

Boss,

Forget the Arjun, even the more SDRE T-90 will not fit in the new IL-476.

This is how the bird "will carry up to 60 tons"

MAK Ilyushin developed a modernized Il-476 project with a new wing, avionics and engines with Perm PS-90A-76. The Il-476 or 'fourth-generation Il-76' will feature PS-90A76 engines, a glass cockpit and a further 13 to 17 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency.

Incidentally this quote is from the link you posted.

But we've gone through all this before on this thread. Rahul M was the only one who came up with a credible plan/idea which consisted of speculating whether India could ask the Russians to develop a wide-bodied version of this bird and how much that could possibly cost.

If that can't be done (that is widen the fuselage) even if, with better engines and wings an IL version can carry 80 tons, it still won't carry a T90. A C17, on the other hand can not only carry both types of tanks, but more importantly, IMO, it can carry two Ashok Leyland trucks (the types the Army uses) side by side and four in total and also if I remember correctly would be able to carry three ALH (with rotor blades dismantled) in one cargo hold.

The schematic diagrams for this have been posted on this thread.

With the IAF talking about upgrading the ALH at Nayoma, which is I think around 14 km or so (please correct me if I'm wrong on this but it's certainly close) to the border, I'm sure you can imagine what kind of flexibility the C17 would give the Army?

Finally: Any idea when the first Il-476 built to military grade would be flying? And who will make it?

PS: Let's not visit old issues just for timepass. A humble suggestion onlee.

[amit]

Just to reiterate, here are two pictures for comparison

C-17:



Il-76 and/or Il-476:

[Singha]

aye the t90 wont fit. and we would need atleast the t90 to deal with the masses of chinese ztz99+ and ifv groups in the tibetan plateau - the B-team will not suffice , we need the A-team up there. in a war of fast moving manouver the t90 should do well, as does all russian origin eqpt when maintained and supplied properly.

we need maybe 6 indep armour brigades (over strength ones to account for slow logistics) to perhaps keep an offensive posture in ladakh?

[Singha]

the photo indicates pretty much all artillery systems like pinaka, 155mm cannons and tractors, radar vehicles, Akash telars should crawl inside c17.
the brahmos tel will not fit and needs to drive into action.

[amit]

the photo indicates pretty much all artillery systems like pinaka, 155mm cannons and tractors, radar vehicles, Akash telars should crawl inside c17.
the brahmos tel will not fit and needs to drive into action.

I dunno the exact dimensions of the brahmos tel but do note that cargo hold can hold four Ashok Leyland trucks. Is the brahmos tel longer and wider?

[Austin]

Finally: Any idea when the first Il-476 built to military grade would be flying? And who will make it?

Oh I was under the impression that the T-90 could fit inside the Il-76.

The first flight of IL-476 will be in 2011 with planned completion by 2012 , the first customer will be MOD of Russia with 38 Il-476 to be inducted as part of 2011-2020 procurement plan.

But isnt the Army looking at new light tanks and not the T's and Arjun to fight up there with the chinese ?

[amit]

But isnt the Army looking at new light tanks and not the T's and Arjun to fight up there with the chinese ?

That they may be. But you can't fight today's war with tomorrow's (planned) acquisitions. The threat is now and immediate and any Armed forces worth their salt plans to fight with what they have and not what they may acquire in future.

T90 and Arjun are today's reality and the Chinese threat is today's reality. And hence there has to be a plan to get any one of these tanks to the border as quickly as possible.

Any guesses as to which is the fastest way to get them there?

[Austin]

^^^ The threat is now and immediate , Ah for a moment I thought I was reading Lockheed Martin Advt

The fastest way is C-17 ofcourse

[Singha]

both light and heavy tanks and IFVs (wheeled and tracked) will be needed because PLA will also field both, for recce and attack units.

[amit]

^^^ The threat is now and immediate , Ah for a moment I thought I was reading Lockheed Martin Advt

The fastest way is C-17 ofcourse

Aha nice recovery Austin Bhai.

But apologies for identifying your flanking manoeuvre.

First let slip that T90 can get into the new Il476, (hence buy Russians and not American). When that is called, Plan B: Bring up the vague talk of light tanks which may or may be on drawingboard. A possible event in FUTURE.

Hence Light (QED) tank for Bharat (at a future date) so buy IL76 (of whatever nomenclature) NOW (QED).

Nice try and good recovery.

[Austin]

Well atleast the defence forces seems to be serious about light tanks and possibly that is what they have in mind to fight those Chinese , now how and when it gets materializes or if it does gets remains to be seen. It all depends how serious MOD views it.

If T-90 and 72 is all they want up there then C-17 would be the only choice atleast for the former , though I feel we have paid a huge sum.

But all the talk of threat is immediate , now and staring is as much about hype as it is about substance

[vic]

Frankly I am ok with "well thought out" political decisions compared to half baked or ridiculous GSQR inspired competitions as in 155mm guns. The only issue is price as well as strategic benefits like ToT. Therefore I think some basic paper competition should be conducted and we should not get taken for a ride

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

But isnt the Army looking at new light tanks and not the T's and Arjun to fight up there with the chinese ?

The jury is still out on the whether the T-90 can fit into IL-76/476 or not - for a simple reason that it is based on T-72 and I'm yet to come across reports/information that the hull was widened. That being the case, if T-72 could be lifted - albeit with difficulty - T-90 can also be lifted.

As for Light Tanks and Tibetan Plateau - the Indus Valley (follow the route it takes from Dhemchok to Leh) is flat as a pancake and which can support Division level thrust by PLA against Leh. That is why defence of Chusul (north of Dhemchok opposite Pagong Tso Lake) was so vital even in 1962. Apart from Dhemchok, this is another entry into the Indus Valley.

And these sectors will have to be defended by heavy armor - you need Cold Steel to take on Cold Steel.

Just check these pictures:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/223 ... d243_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1369/757 ... 99fa_b.jpg

As for Light Tanks - these are required for a specific tasks - they are not substitute for Heavy Armor.

[amit]

The jury is still out on the whether the T-90 can fit into IL-76/476 or not - for a simple reason that it is based on T-72 and I'm yet to come across reports/information that the hull was widened. That being the case, if T-72 could be lifted - albeit with difficulty - T-90 can also be lifted.

Rohit,

I respect your knowledge in these matters so I don't want to challenge your contention that the T90 "can also be lifted" by the Il-76 without a wider fuselage.

However, this site states that the width of a T90S is 3.78 metres. The WiKi T90 site also gives this width.

And this site says the width of the Il76 cargo hold is 3.4 metres.

This diagram posted by Rahul M also gives the width as 3.4 metres.

[rohitvats]

Rohit,

I respect your knowledge in these matters so I don't want to challenge your contention that the T90 "can also be lifted" by the Il-76 without a wider fuselage.

However, this site states that the width of a T90S is 3.78 metres. The WiKi T90 site also gives this width.

And this site says the width of the Il76 cargo hold is 3.4 metres.

This diagram posted by Rahul M also gives the width as 3.4 metres.

Thank you for the kind words.

As for the dimensions - the real dimension figure that you should be looking at (and which I tried to find out and could not and gave up) is the width of T-90 with-out side skirts.

The width of T-72 is 3.59 meters. So how did they fit the tank into IL-76 - which as per your own numbers has Cargo hold width of 3.4 meters? The answer to this question is removal of side skirts.

See this pic from BR page about airlift of T-72 to Ladakh:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... T72-Il.jpg

You can clearly see the skide skirts have been removed. We need dimension of T-90 in such a scenario.Yes, one can argue that since base width of T-90 is greater than T-72 (3.79 versus 3.59) - may be removal of side skirts may still make is difficult to move the MBT into the Cargo hold.

But since I do not have the figures - I cannot pass judgement on the issue.

[Singha]

are those indian or PLA units in the photos?

even if T90 fits by a whisker, it still needs additional pre and post time to deal with the side skirts and extreme care in loading and unloading
to avoid damaging the plane. the C17/An124/C5 offers a drive in and drive out model for T90 and Arjun without such hassles.

I know secretly all BRFites would like to avoid Ahuja sir's scenario's of outgunned namica and BMP units supported by a handful of Dhruvs
mounting a desperate defence in places like DBG and outskirts of leh! all of you jingoes want to see a arjun division with helicopter gunships
and BMps unleashed onto the high plateau to deal with chinese armour and div-MSRs!! and supported by a couple of airborne brigades
using uprated AN32s, Mi26 to establish vietnam style 'fire bases' at chokepoints. go on - admit your dark side...XM777s lined up hubcap to hubcap
and unleashing bombardment on vehicular convoys ... and the smoky white trails of pinaka and smerch rockets crossing the sky from
blue horizon to blue horizon...beautiful and serene but deadly

[rohitvats]

are those indian or PLA units in the photos?

even if T90 fits by a whisker, it still needs additional pre and post time to deal with the side skirts and extreme care in loading and unloading
to avoid damaging the plane. the C17/An124/C5 offers a drive in and drive out model for T90 and Arjun without such hassles.

I know secretly all BRFites would like to avoid Ahuja sir's scenario's of outgunned namica and BMP units supported by a handful of Dhruvs mounting a desperate defence in places like DBG and outskirts of leh! all of you jingoes want to see a arjun division with helicopter gunships and BMps unleashed onto the high plateau to deal with chinese armour and div-MSRs!! and supported by a couple of airborne brigades using uprated AN32s, Mi26 to establish vietnam style 'fire bases' at chokepoints. go on - admit your dark side...XM777s lined up hubcap to hubcap and unleashing bombardment on vehicular convoys ... and the smoky white trails of pinaka and smerch rockets crossing the sky from blue horizon to blue horizon...beautiful and serene but deadly

Singha, the 3rd Division has an integral Battalion of Mechanized Infantry - these are most likely BMPs from same Battalion

As for the ease of operations with T-90 and IL-76/476 - you're bang on target. The C-17 offers drive in and drive out facility without raising the spectre of damaging the skin of Cargo Hold

As for the Armor in Ladakh - ideal scenario is a dedicated Corps HQ for Eastern Ladakh with two Divisions and integral Armor Group with each..may be something like two RAPIDs but with 3 instead of 2 Infantry Brigades plus an Armor Brigade. Corps HQ can hold the composite Aviation Brigade of a Squadron each of Dhruv, WSI Dhruv and LCH.

Another thing - build infrastructure to quickly induct I Strike Corps in case of any serious threat from PLA.

[Kersi D]

are those indian or PLA units in the photos?

even if T90 fits by a whisker, it still needs additional pre and post time to deal with the side skirts and extreme care in loading and unloading
to avoid damaging the plane. the C17/An124/C5 offers a drive in and drive out model for T90 and Arjun without such hassles.

I know secretly all BRFites would like to avoid Ahuja sir's scenario's of outgunned namica and BMP units supported by a handful of Dhruvs mounting a desperate defence in places like DBG and outskirts of leh! all of you jingoes want to see a arjun division with helicopter gunships and BMps unleashed onto the high plateau to deal with chinese armour and div-MSRs!! and supported by a couple of airborne brigades using uprated AN32s, Mi26 to establish vietnam style 'fire bases' at chokepoints. go on - admit your dark side...XM777s lined up hubcap to hubcap and unleashing bombardment on vehicular convoys ... and the smoky white trails of pinaka and smerch rockets crossing the sky from blue horizon to blue horizon...beautiful and serene but deadly

Singha, the 3rd Division has an integral Battalion of Mechanized Infantry - these are most likely BMPs from same Battalion

As for the ease of operations with T-90 and IL-76/476 - you're bang on target. The C-17 offers drive in and drive out facility without raising the spectre of damaging the skin of Cargo Hold

As for the Armor in Ladakh - ideal scenario is a dedicated Corps HQ for Eastern Ladakh with two Divisions and integral Armor Group with each..may be something like two RAPIDs but with 3 instead of 2 Infantry Brigades plus an Armor Brigade. Corps HQ can hold the composite Aviation Brigade of a Squadron each of Dhruv, WSI Dhruv and LCH.

Another thing - build infrastructure to quickly induct I Strike Corps in case of any serious threat from PLA.

I understand that the C 17 "type" ac are necessary to airlift all the heavy hardware, AND WE MUST HAVE THEM.

But we are missing one VERY important point. Why don't we have the roads and infrastructure to simply drive the Arjuns and T Xyz ? Airlift can be used in a emergency situation or where it just may not be feasible to have a road. It is too much to rely on 10 - 20 C 17s to save Ladakh or even J&K.

Kersi

[neerajb]

Why do we need to drive or fly the tanks to Ladaakh? Why not station a regiment or two permanently there like what we did with T-72s?

Cheers....

[Singha]

well you know the conditions in kargil and drass in winter...that road can never be all weather. the Manali road is being fixed for all weather with the rohtang tunnel started off by rajmata in person!

yes we will ofcourse post more and more elements there but infra needed to house and feed more people also needs more of a supply chain 24x7.
it takes time. whatever we put there cannot be extricated and move elsewhere quickly, so the mix between deployed forces, ready forces in the rear and road/air deployable forces in the plains will be carefully thought out.

[Tanaji]

The realistic alternative to C-17 is a massively upgraded An 124: new glass cockpit, better engines etc etc, something that they said was going to happen with An 124-100. The problem with this is the Russians dont know themselves where the aircraft is to be built (let alone flight test): some say Boeing facility in US, some say Russia... also the wings are made in Ukraine IIRC....

Plus it takes time to get the tooling ready. But assuming all this can be done, that plane can beat C-17 at a cheaper price per ton, and without CISMOA type requirements.

[Austin]

As for Light Tanks and Tibetan Plateau - the Indus Valley (follow the route it takes from Dhemchok to Leh) is flat as a pancake and which can support Division level thrust by PLA against Leh. That is why defence of Chusul (north of Dhemchok opposite Pagong Tso Lake) was so vital even in 1962. Apart from Dhemchok, this is another entry into the Indus Valley.

And these sectors will have to be defended by heavy armor - you need Cold Steel to take on Cold Steel.

Rohit , but isnt it a case that at high altitude you are better of with good firepower and better mobility at the cost of reduced protection.

The heavy tank engine could take its own toll in a atmosphere which could not be oxygen rich as plains of Punjab or Rajasthan , assuming the fuel used remains the same ?

Say for eg If you could get an Arjun Gun on a 20 T tank with a high round of first kill probability but that needs a engine of low power ( 600 hp ) and weight but better mobility , then it is just a question of who hits first one who hits first will win no matter what the armor protection could be.

[Singha]

I am sure it will be in IAF when it appears maybe 5 yrs from now. by that time the big runways and other infra like capacious aprons will be ready.

we will use whatever sticks we can get.

[Austin]

The realistic alternative to C-17 is a massively upgraded An 124: new glass cockpit, better engines etc etc, something that they said was going to happen with An 124-100. The problem with this is the Russians dont know themselves where the aircraft is to be built (let alone flight test): some say Boeing facility in US, some say Russia... also the wings are made in Ukraine IIRC....

The Russians first prefer to upgrade their existing An-124 and then buy new ones which will happen only after 2015 for new buys. They have decided to purchase 20 An-124-150 as part of 2011-2020 rearmament drive.

But the need and real push to go for more advanced and new An-124-150 comes from cargo carrier namely Volga-Dnepr , Polet Airlines and Ukranian one , commercially they are making good revenues from the bird and there is a big market as per their survey for the next 30 years , hence the need to build 60 new An-124-150