Sanku wrote:I think Shiv already mentioned the basics that tank transport is like 1% of the requirement. Max.
War is a rare event as well. Should the military therefore not be prepared for it? I've already posted on the last page a pressing requirement not long back to airlift large speedboats to Leh.
In any case...
Viv S wrote:It was a challenge for the IAF and IA to get the Il-76 to airlift a 41 ton T-72 to Sri Lanka and Leh. What happens the next time round when its asked to airlift a 47 ton T-90 that's over eight inches wider to those areas or A&N
T 90 in A&N?
You have been watching the "letters of Iowa Jima" once too many times?
I haven't seen 'Letters from Iwo Jima' as yet. Plan to.
And yes, the IA may want to airlift T-90s to A&N for the same reason the IA is deployed there in the first place. To deter an amphibious invasion onto the place or to use it as a launching point for the same.
Well then, use a a ship. I dont see the need for a desperate need to send T 90s by air anywhere. In any case in Afg they were done mostly by An-124s so.....
We could have used ships during Operation Cactus as well. But often(and especially during or nearing wartime) speed is of the essence. And the An-124 isn't in production, so that's not really an alternative.
Why do you need to send it by Air? Last moment panic? With Silguri corridor also cut off? And no trains? Nothing?
In any case, dismantle the tank and send it by twos (it has been done)
Like I stated before, for the same reason troops are airlifted to forward areas. In the event that a rapid mobilization is in order or armored support is urgently required, the IAF needs to have the option of airlifting tanks.
^^^ And the IAF has
had to carry it out in the past. So yes, the ability to do so has to be retained.
Dismantle the tank? Defeats the purpose of airlifting it doesn't it. How do we know the destination will have the resources to assemble it in the field?
A VERY different matter.
And not one that's necessarily linked to the US. Operation Cactus was
a foreign deployment and one which preempted American intervention rather than supporting it.
Which is just as well since they are no where on the scene. It makes no sense to buy aircrafts today to transport tanks which will come after 5 years (best case)
The aircraft wouldn't enter IAF service until a few years from now and will continue to serve the IAF till atleast 2040. The C-17 unlike the Il-76 will be able to airlift the IA's current and future MBTs.
In short one requirement which in best case is 1% of the regular use, and special uses only seen in really far fetched cases.
Even US transports most of the heavy stuff into Afg on a regular basis by Ships through Pakistan (remember all the pretty picture of Nato yards in shambles with 100s of burning humvees and what not) Yummy!!
The IAF can scarcely start issuing RFIs and RFPs in the unusual event of a request to airlift tanks, IFVs or APCs is actually made by the IA.
Tanks are sent by An 124 when they fly in.
An-124's can't operate from rough airstrips, have a very high operating cost, and aren't in production.