C-17s for the IAF?

[Viv S]

OK. An Il-76 can't haul a Arjun. But I have yet to see an Arjun, or a Leopard II or a Challenger II inside any C-17 either.

If it can airlift the M1, it can haul any of the rest.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/downloa ... 4_0081.jpg

http://www.visualintel.net/USAF/Weapon- ... 7K5B-L.jpg

[Gilles]

If it can airlift the M1, it can haul any of the rest.

Thats what Boeing lets you believe. They also say they can land on 3500 foot runways with 160,000 pounds in the hold. You want to take their word for it? Suit yourself. However, if India has any intention whatsoever of using any of those two capabilities, I suggest India do like that airline in Bhutan did, and ask for a demo flight. Its a small thing to ask really.

Canadians have Leopard II in Afghanistan. They arrived by leased An-124s.
The Danes also sent Leopard II tanks to Afghanistan. They also arrived by leased An-124s.
The British have operated the C-17 since 2000. 10 years now. They have yet to carry a single tank in any of them.

Coincidence ? If you want to think so, suit yourself.

[Viv S]

Thats what Boeing lets you believe. They also say they can land on 3500 foot runways with 160,000 pounds in the hold. You want to take their word for it? Suit yourself. However, if India has any intention whatsoever of using any of those two capabilities, I suggest India do like that airline in Bhutan did, and ask for a demo flight. Its a small thing to ask really.

You believe the C-17s can't airlift the Abrams?

Canadians have Leopard II in Afghanistan. They arrived by leased An-124s.
The Danes also sent Leopard II tanks to Afghanistan. They also arrived by leased An-124s.
The British have operated the C-17 since 2000. 10 years now. They have yet to carry a single tank in any of them.

Coincidence ? If you want to think so, suit yourself.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Should we buy An-124s instead, or should the airlift of a tank not be a necessary condition?

[Shalav]

That brochure claims does not reflect real world capabilities - as we can clearly see from the number of other countries who use the C17s and have never used them to transport their tanks about similar to the Arjun in weight and width.

Arjun carrying capability for the C17 is an assumption by members here - it has never been put in writing or stated by the manufacturer Boeing or the IAF or the GoI.

[Indranil]

Canadians have Leopard II in Afghanistan. They arrived by leased An-124s.
The Danes also sent Leopard II tanks to Afghanistan. They also arrived by leased An-124s.
The British have operated the C-17 since 2000. 10 years now. They have yet to carry a single tank in any of them.

Coincidence ? If you want to think so, suit yourself.

I take your word for the Canadians/Danes and British tanks.

But the fact that C-17 CAN'T carry the M1s is a little far fetched. One of the core requirements of the RAAF’s requirement of the C-17 aircraft was to be able to carry the M1s.

Also how did the American M1s reach Afghanistan and Iraq?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... -12692.jpg

Shalab bhai ... please read and think a little before you write such sarcastic statements on somebody else's work ... Just my humble thoughts

[Viv S]

That brochure claims may not reflect real world results, as we can clearly see from the number of other countries who use C17 and have not used them to transport their tanks.

Arjun carrying capability for the C17 is an assumption by members here - it has never been put in writing or stated by the manufacturer Boeing or the IAF or the GoI.

I'm no expert, but if apparently the C-17 can lift a 63 ton Abrams(as the picture suggest), it should be able to lift the 58 ton Arjun as well.

Also, AFAIK most equipment including tanks were shipped in via Kuwait(for Iraq) and via Karachi(for Afghanistan).

[Gilles]

That brochure claims does not reflect real world capabilities - as we can clearly see from the number of other countries who use the C17s and have never used them to transport their tanks about similar to the Arjun in weight and width.

Arjun carrying capability for the C17 is an assumption by members here - it has never been put in writing or stated by the manufacturer Boeing or the IAF or the GoI.

Agreed, but on the other hand, it is the only capability that has been stated on this Forum that the C-17 is claimed to have and that the Il-76 does not have.

[Gilles]

That brochure claims may not reflect real world results, as we can clearly see from the number of other countries who use C17 and have not used them to transport their tanks.

Arjun carrying capability for the C17 is an assumption by members here - it has never been put in writing or stated by the manufacturer Boeing or the IAF or the GoI.

I'm no expert, but if apparently the C-17 can lift a 63 ton Abrams(as the picture suggest), it should be able to lift the 58 ton Arjun as well.

I am repeating myself here, but I am used to it.

http://books.google.fr/books?id=AkpclHB ... 22&f=false

Look at this Google Book document called "Defense science board task force report on mobility". It's a US Department of Defence Document.

On page 136, you will read:

Because of the C-17's large capacity (in both size and weight), the parameters of an individual cargo vehicle rarely come into play. The C-17 can transport the ground force's heaviest combat vehicles, the M-1 tank, at a maximum weight of 135,000 pounds (61.2 tonnes). This is 5,000 pounds heavier that the operational weight limit of 130,000 pounds for loading across the ramp. However, a waiver was granted after analysis by the C-17 Systems Program Office (SPO) and the aircraft manufacturer showed that the load distribution of the M-1 did not detrimentally affect the ramp structure. This waiver is for the M-1 only

[Indranil]

Some more testimonials:

An RAAF officer speaks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eXpp9U- ... re=related

[Viv S]

Look at this Google Book document called "Defense science board task force report on mobility". It's a US Department of Defence Document.

On page 136, you will read:

Because of the C-17's large capacity (in both size and weight), the parameters of an individual cargo vehicle rarely come into play. The C-17 can transport the ground force's heaviest combat vehicles, the M-1 tank, at a maximum weight of 135,000 pounds (61.2 tonnes). This is 5,000 pounds heavier that the operational weight limit of 130,000 pounds for loading across the ramp. However, a waiver was granted after analysis by the C-17 Systems Program Office (SPO) and the aircraft manufacturer showed that the load distribution of the M-1 did not detrimentally affect the ramp structure. This waiver is for the M-1 only

I'm still unclear on why this waiver is not applicable to the Arjun as well. Is a question of weight or ground pressure or the tank's dimensions. If the M-1's load doesn't detrimentally affect the ramp structure, is it a stretch to assume the Arjun's load wouldn't affect it either?

[Kartik]

I'm still unclear on why this waiver is not applicable to the Arjun as well. Is a question of weight or ground pressure or the tank's dimensions. If the M-1's load doesn't detrimentally affect the ramp structure, is it a stretch to assume the Arjun's load wouldn't affect it either?

this whole argument about the C-17 only being given an exception for the M-1 by Gilles is rubbish. Why will Boeing manuals state exceptions for tanks that were not originally required to be loaded onto the C-17 ? does the US operate the Challenger or Leopard so that it will do tests for these tanks ?

if the M-1 Abrams can be safely loaded onto the C-17's ramp without causing structural damage, then the Arjun will be no different. the M-1 Abram's ground pressure is 0.96 kg/cm2 whereas that of the Arjun is 0.84 kg/cm2..
see this picture posted on Ajai Shukla's blog. the list was compiled by DRDO

Now if you're an engineer, tell me how is the Arjun all of a sudden going to be more difficult to load unless there are other clearance issues (other than weight) at work ?

Now its obvious that Boeing will give an exception for the M-1 only because the USAF would've asked them to do a study on that. If any other service that bought the C-17 requested Boeing to do a certification test for their MBT, I cannot see any reason why Boeing will refuse. If the IAF is uncertain about this, they ought to ask Boeing to certify that the Arjun can be loaded onto the C-17 without voiding any warranties or better still to demonstrate it in India. And with a lower ground pressure, it will be easier to load the Arjun than the M-1. The Arjun is no bigger either width wise, so it'll fit in.

[Viv S]

this whole argument about the C-17 only being given an exception for the M-1 by Gilles is rubbish. Why will Boeing manuals state exceptions for tanks that were not originally required to be loaded onto the C-17 ? does the US operate the Challenger or Leopard so that it will do tests for these tanks ?

Canadian Leopard being loaded on a C-17.

[ManuJ]

The C-17 can transport the ground force's heaviest combat vehicles, the M-1 tank, at a maximum weight of 135,000 pounds (61.2 tonnes). This is 5,000 pounds heavier that the operational weight limit of 130,000 pounds for loading across the ramp. However, a waiver was granted after analysis by the C-17 Systems Program Office (SPO) and the aircraft manufacturer showed that the load distribution of the M-1 did not detrimentally affect the ramp structure. This waiver is for the M-1 only

M1 = 61.2 tonnes = 135,000 pounds

Arjun = 58 tonnes = 128,000 pounds

Arjun's weight falls below C-17's operational weight limit. Where's the problem?

[Gilles]

Canadian Leopard being loaded on a C-17.

That picture is of a Leopard 1. It weighs only 45 tonnes. They arrived in Afghanistan inside C-17s. When the crews inside began to faint from heat stroke because they had no air conditioning and heat producing hydraulic turrets, Canada fast tracked the purchase of 65 tonne Leopard IIs. And those went to Afghanistan in Antonovs.

[Gilles]

this whole argument about the C-17 only being given an exception for the M-1 by Gilles is rubbish.

You read it black on white on a US Government publication that I reference and you call it rubbish? Are you the kind that reads in the manual that an IL-76 carry 45 tonnes but loads 60 tonnes in it because others have done it before? That kind of logic is Rubbish.

I do not claim that India cannot obtain a similar waiver for the Arjun if it tries to obtain one. My argument, sir, is that IF carrying the Arjun is the point of buying the C-17, have Boeing prove Before buying it that the C-17 can carry one. Do not assume it can do it because it carries the M-1.

[Gilles]

M1 = 61.2 tonnes = 135,000 pounds

Arjun = 58 tonnes = 128,000 pounds

Arjun's weight falls below C-17's operational weight limit. Where's the problem?

If that is true, there is no problem. I guess. But still ask for a demo.

[Indranil]

That picture is of a Leopard 1. It weighs only 45 tonnes. They arrived in Afghanistan inside C-17s. When the crews inside began to faint from heat stroke because they had no air conditioning and heat producing hydraulic turrets, Canada fast tracked the purchase of 65 tonne Leopard IIs. And those went to Afghanistan in Antonovs.

You are right. http://www.casr.ca/ft-leopard-2a6m-can.htm

But it was also speculated

The Leopard 2 arriving aboard an An-124 rather than the new CF CC-177 was a surprise. The CC-177 may have been held in case DART were sent to Peru. Or, because the tank was being shipped from Germany, perhaps it made sense to take advantage of SALIS, Canada’s assured access to Germany-based Antonov airlifters through NATO. That An-124s could deliver such heavy equipment to KAF was not a surprise despite earlier statements by DND to the contrary.

Anyways, doesn't seem like we should have a problem loading a Arjun into the hold of the C-17 if reqd. I have no idea why IAF is buying the C-17s. Arjun is just a speculation here, as it is one of the heaviest load! Even if we had to move T-72, T-90s I am very sure that the IAF is going to use the C-17s.

At the same time, I am not one of those who would jump into the conspiracy theory that the GOI/MOD is shoving it down IAFs throat! And even if it was, I would still stand by it. The defence allotment returns to the finance ministry and I dont know where it goes from there . It better be used for better preparedness for tomorrow!

[Gilles]

But the fact that C-17 CAN'T carry the M1s is a little far fetched.

I never wrote or insinuated such a thing. I don't take drugs and don't ever get drunk.

[Sanku]

What about the An-12s that the Il-76s replaced?

Huh!! what about them?

And its still an assumption on your part that the IAF would want to go for a life extension program for the Il-76. And no it does not have 10-15 years left in any case.

Hello When will you learn to put something more on the table than "I think so"

1) Gilles has clearly shown an estimate of a 60 year life for Il 76, when means even if we take a conservative figure it has 10-15 years left.
2) Every platform in IAF service has SLP upgrade but you dont think Il 76s will have one?

Why? What have they told you that they didnt tell the others?

Yes, I think the assumption that the Ils will have SLP is valid, as we speak An 32s are undergoing that.

These are not suitable candidates. The An-70 is an expensive turboprop with (AFAIK) confirmed military orders for only five aircraft. The Tu-330 is a step down from the the Il-76. Why would the IAF want to replace the Il-76 with a less capable aircraft?

Hain jee, because you say so? An-70 is a expensive turboprop? Can you put the numbers on how expensive it is compared to what? What does the number of current mil orders have to do with anything.

Tu-300 is a little lighter than Il by 33%, but hey LOOK at the open source literature, they talk about Il-76, An-70 and Tu-330 being in contention of similar roles.

As usual you are opinionated without knowledge.

I reposted my first post, because you're missing the point(again). I already stated in my very first post, I was unsure why the IAF wasn't opting for new Il-76s instead. But, either way the choice of aircraft replacing the Il-76, was an IAF decision.

Hee, hee see the strawman, you want to discuss the Il-76 replacement by sayings it IAFs decision, when there is ZERO evidence on the ground that Il-76s will be replaced.

And its evident from the decision, that the IAF wants something that can airlift a tank comfortably.

Which discussion? Your say so on BRF?

I know that ALL publicly available information is diametrically opposite of what you say.

It says the capability will have to be built from scratch because the current fleet is rapidly approaching the end of its service life.

Tcchh, picking up a statement in isolation of the context always as these problems. Put the statement back in the paragraph where it was taken from and THEN read it.

And if there is a replacement, so let there be RFI and RFP route, whats the problem? If that is indeed the core objective.

And not power projection and interoperability. Words you are constantly sidestepping.

Hey if you tell IAF that it should get big babies to go to Afg efficiently and the cheque book is open, why would they say no? They would say yeah sure and this is the big baby (since its the only one) that you make the cheque for.

The IAF didn't need the C-17, while operating 12000 miles away from home at Red Flag. The Canadian forces in Afghanistan today are primarily supplied through Il-76s. The entire Soviet campaign in Afghanistan was supported by Il-76s. Its a fallacious argument that C-17s are necessary for an Indian deployment to Afghanistan.

Hey even the greatest fans of Il-76 are first to acknowledge that C -17 is a much larger bird, with larger foot prints and much better meshed into US grid.

Whether or not it is fallacious argument or not, it is the IAF which has put on record NEW roles include force projection and interoperability. No amount of looking the other way changes that. Hard luck.

The C-17 is a 'really huge' aircraft? Compared to what?

What do you think we were talking of? Cessana of course.


And after all the references quoted here.

And the recommendation for the C-17 came from the IAF not the MoD. They weren't 'asked to get' it, they asked for it.

Tchh... Of course they went for it. If I ask the IAF today to go for a strategic airlift with large aircraft and at the same time also develop interoperability with friend nations. What aircraft will they pick?

Have you ever heard of requirements being written such that ONLY one product fits the requirement? Happens quite often you know.

They're both strategic airlift aircraft with rough field capabilities. They're both used in the same role. And unless it involves airlifting a tank, there is no place the C-17 can be deployed and the Il-76s can't.

Bunch a claims not backed up by a single open source statement or comparison.

Where as I clearly put forth a chart showing how every large nation has a distinct air lifter in various weight bands.

I can repeat whatever I what I posted about the defence acquisition process from the MoD site. Bottom-line: the service identifies and evaluates the defence acquisition, the MoD's job is vetting that request and conducting the purchase.

As usual "Ashwatthama hatho type techniques" take a small part out of the over all context and claim that all there is.

Any way you have regressed. You CLEARLY agreed when I showed you the overall picture of acquisition with a pointed question.

You just dont want to ACCEPT.

To justify your absolutely untenable claim you have inane logic such as

1) Il 76 is roughly the same as C -17s, yes and roughly the same as HAL MTA and roughly the same as An 120. They are all roughly the same.

2) Il 76s are being replaced. No SLPs will be done so what if IAF has done SLPs for EVERY other platform.

3) GoI has NO role, IAF wants a goody, GoI bends over back wards to hand it to them.

Sure buddy if you are determined to keep your eyes shut and keep repeating completely unsubstantiated statements. Who am I to stop you.

Keep at it. There are many who believe a lie when told a 1000 times becomes a truth. Maybe you can convince them.

[Sanku]

But the fact that C-17 CAN'T carry the M1s is a little far fetched.

I never wrote or insinuated such a thing. I don't take drugs and don't ever get drunk.

Gilles, you really have no clue, M1 and Arjun are roughly similar, so are Lepoard 1, and C 71s are also roughly similar to whatever An that you have been yakking of.

It is obvious that all these roughly similar aircraft can do exactly same things, when ever such rough requirements are needed.

And why do you need to be more exact? Are you a lawyer? Getting into all these details all the time.

IAF wants it thats all we know and care about right?

[Indranil]

But the fact that C-17 CAN'T carry the M1s is a little far fetched.

I never wrote or insinuated such a thing. I don't take drugs and don't ever get drunk.

I never meant to disregard your thoughts/info. In fact, I am an avid admirer of your knowledge on C-17s. My post was not strictly in response to your post. There were other posts around yours too. Also I got the drift of your post to mean that C-17s couldn't carry the M1s as you had marked out cases where M1s users had used the An-124 in spite of having C-17s and asked the readers to guess why?

Anyways, if I have conveyed in an offending manner, I apologize. Let me assure you that it was unintentional!

On a lighter note: I also don't take drugs or ever get drunk. So that makes two of us .

[JimmyJ]

I think that certainly the Chinese would look at us as less of a threat if we were not so pro-active into jumping into the US camp.There has been a debate for some time whether our current pro-active tilt towards Yankee Doodle has been responsible for the Chinese sabre rattling.Some analysts/China watchers say that this was their way of reminding us about getting too far into Uncle Sam's underwear.For some time now India has been shying away from the Shanghai Coop Org. (SCO) group,but the US's attitude towards Pak has seen us rethink about joining the group.

AS for exercising with the US,the scale and content of the exercises have gone far beyond that of "friendly exercises",where US nuclear subs and carrier forces have been participating with IN flotillas in full spectrum warfare exercises.If we curtailed such exercises,that too held soley with US allies and "groupies",we could see less of PRC anti-Indian military moves on the chessboard.The PRC is not too worried about an Indian military buildup because it knows that traditionally,Indian forces are meant for defence first.However,that is not the case with the US at all and the current "tilt" in Uncle Sam's direction is seen as highly provocative.The PRC have openly expressed their concern to India about this. With the US in "withdrawal" mood in the region (AF-Pak),there is absolutely nothing of strategic significance that we can expect from it.All our tilting in its favour like the Leaning tower of Pisa has not stopped Paki terror from ceasing,and if there is any Indo-Sino spat to take place,Uncle Sam will be nowhere on the horizon to help us.We will be all alone and should plan for the worst to fight alone.

So shall we say this is exactly succumbing to the Chinese pressure?

This is not just Military but Economics too, US withdrawing from Asia would be a pretty seen to imagine when more than 50% of our great IT industry is dependent on US and the Chinese export firms much more. In the world today, it is extremely difficult to think about military without economics.

[Surya]

To sum it up

No one here denies that the IL 76 is bad or it can have some extension of life or more (if the plant can hum reliably) would be good. It is good for what it brings to the table and if we can get more reliably - great.

We also agree that the C 17 is expensive and it has some differences\advantage in certain areas.

None of us know what is the real purpose behind the purchase - whether its political, diversifying or some other special need???

beyond that this thread is not going anywhere

[arnab]

Sanku Saheb,

Your argument is that GOI (PMO) critically influenced the choice of C-17s. You call this an 'open and shut' case based on Air Marshal Pandey's paper where talks about how such acquisitions 'may' provide a platform for inter-operability and force projection if the newly found bonhomie between US and India continues. IOW, this bit of his argument was speculative or at best a serendipitous occurence. Where he was unequivocal was when he said that - India's strategic airlift capability needed to built up from scratch because the current fleet was fast approaching the end of its servicable life (Now of course Gilles can forward to him the document which proves IL 76s have a 60 year life, but this is the assessment of a serving senior IAF officer).

Second, I know you have been making the argument in various threads that the armed forces are basically mindless grunts whose only role is to 'execute'. They apparently have no capability to comment on, analyse or develop long-term strategic aims and the means to achieve them. It is only the PMO which wields the strings and decides on long-term strategy and acquisitions.

However, the reality is not so. It is highly unlikely that GOI can formulate a holistic 'strategy' without seeking inputs from the services and other concerned departments. Similarly, with respect to acquisitions, MoD manages the contract subject to finance being made available. No more. No less. In this context there is no proof that GOI influenced C-17 purchases. Nothing in the Air Marshal's paper remotely suggests that the causality went the other way (choice of eqipment determining strategy, instead of the other way around)

So, in conclusion, as of today, there is zero evidence that GOI forced C-17s down the IAFs throat. May be it did - but there is no proof. OTOH Air Marshal Pandey seems to be independently writing that strategic airlift capability is a critical requirement for the future IAF.

[Viv S]

Huh!! what about them?

For some reason the IAF didn't find it necessary to put them through a life extension program.

Hello When will you learn to put something more on the table than "I think so"

1) Gilles has clearly shown an estimate of a 60 year life for Il 76, when means even if we take a conservative figure it has 10-15 years left.
2) Every platform in IAF service has SLP upgrade but you dont think Il 76s will have one?

1)Service life is 30 years. Please show me one report or quote that says the IAF is planning to put the Il-76s through a service extension.
2)Refer to An-12s again.

Why? What have they told you that they didnt tell the others?

The idea that An-70s and Tu-330s can replace the Il-76 is your idea and not one espoused by the IAF. Show me one article that says the IAF is considering either of these aircraft.

Yes, I think the assumption that the Ils will have SLP is valid, as we speak An 32s are undergoing that.

I see. Now the 'I think so' analysis is somehow valid.

Hain jee, because you say so? An-70 is a expensive turboprop? Can you put the numbers on how expensive it is compared to what? What does the number of current mil orders have to do with anything.

Its expensive compared to the Tu-330 or even the Il-76, which for a propfan(not turboprop sorry) is less than impressive. The number of military orders has everything to do with it. Its determines how the $1 billion+ investment will be recovered. Most importantly, it will determine what sort of risk is entailed in placing a major order from the manufacturer. Something the IAF can't be underwriting.

Tu-300 is a little lighter than Il by 33%, but hey LOOK at the open source literature, they talk about Il-76, An-70 and Tu-330 being in contention of similar roles.

So while China is looking to induct a 200 ton class aircraft, you want the IAF to downsize to 'little lighter' aircraft. Heck the IAF could go little lighter still and just manage with the in-development MTA.

As usual you are opinionated without knowledge.

I bow to thee, O' fountain of knowledge.

Hee, hee see the strawman, you want to discuss the Il-76 replacement by sayings it IAFs decision, when there is ZERO evidence on the ground that Il-76s will be replaced.

Zero evidence, except for the fact that its approaching the end of its service life.

Which discussion? Your say so on BRF?

I know that ALL publicly available information is diametrically opposite of what you say.

I said 'decision' not 'discussion'. And that refers to the IAF's decision in case a clarification on that is needed.

Tcchh, picking up a statement in isolation of the context always as these problems. Put the statement back in the paragraph where it was taken from and THEN read it.

By all means, put it back. Its meaning still doesn't change. It still implies the current fleet is reaching the end of its service life 'because'(quoted words not mine) of which the strategic airlift capability will have to built up from scratch.

And if there is a replacement, so let there be RFI and RFP route, whats the problem? If that is indeed the core objective.

Absolutely. Let the IAF issue a RFI for a wide body aircraft that can airlift a tank, can carry paratroopers and is capable of rough field operation. Or maybe they can go directly to the manufacturer of the only aircraft that can do that.

And not power projection and interoperability. Words you are constantly sidestepping.

Do explain what the words mean. What advantage does the C-17 have over Il-76 when it comes to projecting power? And how does operating the Il-76 prevent India from (theoretically) acting within a coalition campaign?

The IAF didn't need the C-17, while operating 12000 miles away from home at Red Flag. The Canadian forces in Afghanistan today are primarily supplied through Il-76s. The entire Soviet campaign in Afghanistan was supported by Il-76s. Its a fallacious argument that C-17s are necessary for an Indian deployment to Afghanistan.

Hey even the greatest fans of Il-76 are first to acknowledge that C -17 is a much larger bird, with larger foot prints and much better meshed into US grid.

How does the Il-76's 'smaller footprint' and being less 'enmeshed into US grid' hinder it in supporting an Indian participation in Afghanistan?

Whether or not it is fallacious argument or not, it is the IAF which has put on record NEW roles include force projection and interoperability. No amount of looking the other way changes that. Hard luck.

Still waiting for you to explain, why the Il-76s cannot perform these NEW roles including force projection and interoperability(that's a role now?).

The C-17 is a 'really huge' aircraft? Compared to what?

What do you think we were talking of? Cessana of course.

Well the Il-76 is also 'really huge' aircraft in that case.

And the recommendation for the C-17 came from the IAF not the MoD. They weren't 'asked to get' it, they asked for it.

Tchh... Of course they went for it. If I ask the IAF today to go for a strategic airlift with large aircraft and at the same time also develop interoperability with friend nations. What aircraft will they pick?
Have you ever heard of requirements being written such that ONLY one product fits the requirement? Happens quite often you know.

They don't need a new aircraft for that. The IAF has a strategic airlift capability today provided by the Il-76. And it can operate within coalition airspace.

Bunch a claims not backed up by a single open source statement or comparison.

Really? Do tell. Where is it that the C-17 can go an the Il-76 can't?

Where as I clearly put forth a chart showing how every large nation has a distinct air lifter in various weight bands.

And I suggest you start googling for the western equivalent to the Il-76. Spend enough time and you'll find it was the C-141 Starlifter.

* The general configuration of the Il-76T was so much along the lines of the earlier US Lockheed C-141 Starlifter military transport that it is hard to believe Ilyushin engineers didn't find the C-141 an interesting source of ideas. Like the Starlifter, the Il-76T featured a high-mounted swept wing with anhedral droop and four turbojets on underwing pylons, plus a high swept tee tail. The main landing gear was stowed in large fairings alongside the fuselage to ensure that the cargo bay remained unobstructed. Cargo was loaded through a rear ramp, with a upward-folding rear door and outward-folding clamshell doors, all of which were hydraulically actuated.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avil76.html

And if you continue to google you'll find the C-141 has been replaced in USAF service with.... that's right, the C-17 Globemaster III.

The aircraft remained in service for almost 40 years until the USAF withdrew the C-141 from service on 5 May 2006, replacing the aircraft with the C-17 Globemaster III.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-141_Star ... al_history

As usual "Ashwatthama hatho type techniques" take a small part out of the over all context and claim that all there is.

Any way you have regressed. You CLEARLY agreed when I showed you the overall picture of acquisition with a pointed question.

Your point has been - the C-17's are a gift from the MoD to the IAF, which will enable the IAF to perform unprecedented missions. What missions, one asks? Oh yeah... force projection and interoperability. What prevented the IAF from performing those with the Il-76? Ans: Well .... don't change the topic and sideline the main issue.

[Viv S]

Canadian Leopard being loaded on a C-17.

That picture is of a Leopard 1. It weighs only 45 tonnes. They arrived in Afghanistan inside C-17s. When the crews inside began to faint from heat stroke because they had no air conditioning and heat producing hydraulic turrets, Canada fast tracked the purchase of 65 tonne Leopard IIs. And those went to Afghanistan in Antonovs.

Point was both the Leopard and Arjun fall within the C-17 loading ramp's operational weight limit. If it can be used for the Leopard, I see no reason why it cannot take the Arjun.

[Sanku]

Sanku Saheb,
Your argument is that GOI (PMO) critically influenced the choice of C-17s.

Actually my argument is that GoI critically influences the choice of all platforms, especially newer (in terms of prior experience with forces) big ticket items, more in some cases and less in others.

In the case for C 17, its more obvious than not.

If the rational for C 17 has to be looked, looking at IAF is the wrong place.

You call this an 'open and shut' case based on Air Marshal Pandey's paper where talks about how such acquisitions 'may' provide a platform for inter-operability and force projection if the newly found bonhomie between US and India continues.

Not on that paper alone, no. Many things
1) General GoI structure and the role of forces in in a acquisition (note for example a comment by Senior IAF personel that they are looking at the birds purely from "can it meet the reqs" point of view or not) which is limited and kicks in after GoI gives them a role to prepare for and ends with a recommendation.
2) The lack of discussion in public forum about the need for a C -17 class of airlift, etc.
3) The very visible tendency of GoI to shoot down FORCES recommendation in cases which did not go to US and call for retrial and redo of whole thing. Examples are LOH, the tanker deal, and to an extent not restricting the MRCA to additional Mirages.
4) The lack of RFI/RFP, these are NOT IAF decisions.

IOW, this bit of his argument was speculative or at best a serendipitous occurence.

Where he was unequivocal was when he said that - India's strategic airlift capability needed to built up from scratch because the current fleet was fast approaching the end of its servicable life

You guys are too much, in one paragraph with two clear statements one statement becomes unequivocal and other serendipitous.

WOW.

What can I say to that?

(Now of course Gilles can forward to him the document which proves IL 76s have a 60 year life, but this is the assessment of a serving senior IAF officer).

What exactly was the assessment? That the current fleet is nearing end of life? Sure. When? With what? How?

Did he say that C 17s are the way to go?

On one hand he says clearly that the role would be for force projection, this is conveniently ignored.

On the other he says we will need replacement -- this is extrapolated to automatically make C 17 == immediate Il 76 replacement.

JAI HO.

Second, I know you have been making the argument in various threads that the armed forces are basically mindless grunts whose only role is to 'execute'.

Tcchh the only mindlessness was in your interpretation of a obvious statement which meant nothing of the sort in a remotest manner.

I wont even dignify such poor understanding with a comment other than -- what a joke.

They apparently have no capability to comment on, analyse or develop long-term strategic aims and the means to achieve them. It is only the PMO which wields the strings and decides on long-term strategy and acquisitions.

More strawmen

It is highly unlikely that GOI can formulate a holistic 'strategy' without seeking inputs from the services and other concerned departments.

So now it becomes unlikely is it?

Buddy, I am TELLING you how GoI works, please keep your unlikely/shunlikely out of this.

I know it is proving to be difficult to grasp the basic working of GoI but it as follows (once more in a fond hope)
1) GoI provides the overall policy framework
2) Forces execute that frame work
3) Forces request for equipment to execute that frame work is looked into by GoI.

At each step it will involve people from various forces and OTHER arms of Govt.

When did I ever say it would not involve IAF? Hain?

Similarly, with respect to acquisitions, MoD manages the contract subject to finance being made available. No more. No less.

WRONG. Totally hopelessly and incorrectly wrong. Written in black and white and posted about 1001 times here.

LOOK INTO THE ROLE OF ACQUISITION COMMITTEE -- it is what the MoD page says and NOT what you say.

It looks into whether
1) The request meets the overall goals
2) DRDOs inputs on the same in terms of technical data and in house procurement and which platforms serve it best.
3) The request meets the specific goals
4) How to obtain, RFI/RFP single vendor.

In this context there is no proof that GOI influenced C-17 purchases.

Influenced? Hey it influences everything. Get that first.

Nothing in the Air Marshal's paper remotely suggests that the causality went the other way (choice of eqipment determining strategy, instead of the other way around)

Hello ji? Who says choice of equipment determines strategy? Where did this one totally new twist come out of?

So, in conclusion, as of today, there is zero evidence that GOI forced C-17s down the IAFs throat.

[/quote]

Wow. You have managed to prove a point which no one was arguing against.
================================

Can you please tell me how though

C 17 purchase is a decision driven primarily by PMO/GoI

is same as

GoI forced C 17s down the IAFs throat?

Can You please spare us these kinds of magical mathematics?

[Sanku]

Your point has been - the C-17's are a gift from the MoD to the IAF, which will enable the IAF to perform unprecedented missions. What missions, one asks? Oh yeah... force projection and interoperability. What prevented the IAF from performing those with the Il-76? Ans: Well .... don't change the topic and sideline the main issue.

You know Viv I am wasting time, really if after all this one can come back with a series of misinformed data along with such gem like

force projection and interoperability. What prevented the IAF from performing those with the Il-76?

Sure Il 76 would be as interoperable with US as C 17s. A base supporting C17s will also easily support Il 76.

I also realize that for you Il 76 == C 17, a C 17 does nothing which Il 76 cant do, anywhere anyhow in general too.

What can I say to those? As I said Gilles is wasting his time.

=======================

Gilles, you really have no clue, M1 and Arjun are roughly similar, so are Lepoard 1, and C 71s are also roughly similar to whatever An that you have been yakking of.

It is obvious that all these roughly similar aircraft can do exactly same things, when ever such rough requirements are needed.

And why do you need to be more exact? Are you a lawyer? Getting into all these details all the time.

IAF wants it thats all we know and care about right?

========================

You win I lose. It is all roughly the same anyway.

[Sanku]

beyond that this thread is not going anywhere

Absolutely Surya. Except that this part is wrong

None of us know what is the real purpose behind the purchase - whether its political, diversifying or some other special need???

Some of us, already know that C 17s are being brought to replace Il 76, routine replacement. Haw hum, totally hum drum routine change of oil types.

We are wasting time.

[Viv S]

You know Viv I am wasting time, really if after all this one can come back with a series of misinformed data along with such gem like

force projection and interoperability. What prevented the IAF from performing those with the Il-76?

Sure Il 76 would be as interoperable with US as C 17s. A base supporting C17s will also easily support Il 76.

You need to correct your notions about force projection. You've pointed out a grand total of zero features on the C-17 that fundamentally separate it from the Il-76. You've identified zero types of missions that the C-17 can perform and the Il-76 can't. And at this point you're simply side-stepping the question with the usual- 'that's so ludicrous, what can I say'.

As far as interoperability is concerned - the bulk of Canadian military equipment was flown in by Il-76s into the same airbases housing USAF C-17s in Afghanistan. An-124s leased by coalition members regularly fly war material into Kabul. What exactly prevents the IAF's IL-76s from doing the same?

I also realize that for you Il 76 == C 17, a C 17 does nothing which Il 76 cant do, anywhere anyhow in general too.

What can I say to those? As I said Gilles is wasting his time.

You've again skipped over the part, where I pointed out the western equivalent of the IL-76 was called the C-141 Starlifter, with the same payload of around 45 tons, same crew size, very similar physical characteristics as well as performance. The C-141 has been replaced by the C-17 in the USAF, yet you are adamant its a different class of aircraft from the IL-76.

To use your words- what can I say to that?

[Gilles]

1) Gilles has clearly shown an estimate of a 60 year life for Il 76, when means even if we take a conservative figure it has 10-15 years left.
2) Every platform in IAF service has SLP upgrade but you dont think Il 76s will have one?

1)Service life is 30 years.

Could you provide the readers with a reference to that claim please?

[Gilles]

Canadian Leopard being loaded on a C-17.

Point was both the Leopard and Arjun fall within the C-17 loading ramp's operational weight limit. If it can be used for the Leopard, I see no reason why it cannot take the Arjun.

No Leopard II has ever been on board any C-17.

You are confusing things. The are two basic Leopard tanks. The old Leopard 1 Tanks, that weigh between 40 and 45 tonnes. Then there is the current Leopard called the Leopard II. These are in the 60 tonne bracket. They are not the same at all.

Canada first shipped 18 Leopard 1s to Afghanistan, which made the last leg of their journey inside of C-17s. No problem there. They later shipped 20 Leopard II tanks. These all arrived inside An-124s.

Denmark also sent Leopard IIs to Afghanistan, also on leased An-124s.

The US by the way, have no MBT in Afghanistan. They do in Iraq, but these all came on ships. They sent hundreds, and sending them one by one on C-17s would have been ridiculous.

[Sanku]

You've pointed out a grand total of zero features on the C-17 that fundamentally separate it from the Il-76.

You are right of course, I have seen errors of my ways. I have also realized that airlift carriers carrying 5 tons, 20 tons, 45 tons and 75 tonnes are all roughly the same.

I have also realized that a airlifter which carries 35 tonnes is shitty replacement for one which carries 45 tonnes, but the perfect fit is one which carries 75 tonnes, since roughly speaking 75 tonnes is closer to 45 tonnes than 45 to 35.

No fundamentally different features. None at all.

As far as interoperability is concerned - the bulk of Canadian military equipment was flown in by Il-76s into the same airbases housing USAF C-17s in Afghanistan.

Absolutely, you are right and in that defines interoperability. There is nothing beyond that to interoperability.

When the AVM Pandey was speaking of interoperability he was talking of the ability to be able to fly and land in Afghanistan. I wonder why he spoke of that? I am sure I can land a Cessana there if I have a mind to? Doesnt the Air Marshal understand that thats all there is to interoperability?

You are right Viv, I just didnt see something as basic as this.

[Gilles]

You've again skipped over the part, where I pointed out the western equivalent of the IL-76 was called the C-141 Starlifter, with the same payload of around 45 tons, same crew size, very similar physical characteristics as well as performance. The C-141 has been replaced by the C-17 in the USAF, yet you are adamant its a different class of aircraft from the IL-76.

No entirely true. The Americans long claimed the Il-76, because of its vague similar external appearance, was a copy of the C-141. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The C-141B took off at 147 tonnes. It had a maximum payload of 41 tonnes. Although the C-141B had a long cabin, it was only 3,05 meters wide and 2,74 meters high. Not suited to carrying oversize cargo like armoured vehicles or helicopters. It was not certified for landing on unpaved runways.

The IL-76 takes off at 190 tonnes, while the tanker version, the IL-78, take off at 210 tonnes. The payloads vary between 45 to 50 tonnes (more for the IL-78). The IL-76's cabin 3,56 wide and especially 3,4 meters high, allowing it to carry armoured vehicles and helicopters such as the MI-8. It was also made to operate from unpaved runways.

You are correct that the C-17 was meant to replace the C-141, but the program was nearly scrapped, precisely because the C-17 turned out so much larger than the C-141 and closer to the C-5 Galaxy. Why should they pay over 200 million for a 75 tonne strategic airlifter, the US Congress argued, when they could get a brand new and much larger 115 tonne strategic airlifter, the C-5 Galaxy, for less money? At the time the last C-5 was delivered in 1989, the C-5 cost about 168 million, much less than the projected price of the C-17 which first flew in 1991. So some though it more logical to fund more C-5Bs instead of the new C-17.

To survive, McDonnell-Douglas portrayed the C-17 has a large tactical airlifter, that could replace both the Strategic Airlift Galaxys and the tactical C-130 Hercules, by being able to fly large Galaxy-type loads straight to the battlefield, and land on 3000 foot unpaved runways.

That was the argument that convinced Congress to continue funding the new C-17 instead of buying more brand new G-5B Galaxys.

So the Boeing C-17 owes its existence to this myth that it was an oversized tactical aircraft capable of also replacing the C-130s. Which is why they go through great length to perpetuate the myth, although the actual track record of 15 years of C-17 operations proves otherwise. It has almost no track record of landing on unpaved runways, and no track record of ever landing on 3000 foot runways, later changed to 3500 foot runways, later changed to 3500 foot runways with a 500 foot over-run at either end, later changed to DRY 3500 foot runways with a 500 foot over run on either end, later changed to "we can do but will only risk it if we are forced to in time of war".

The latest version is "Lets see if the Indians try it"

[Viv S]

You've pointed out a grand total of zero features on the C-17 that fundamentally separate it from the Il-76.

You are right of course, I have seen errors of my ways. I have also realized that airlift carriers carrying 5 tons, 20 tons, 45 tons and 75 tonnes are all roughly the same.

I have also realized that a airlifter which carries 35 tonnes is shitty replacement for one which carries 45 tonnes, but the perfect fit is one which carries 75 tonnes, since roughly speaking 75 tonnes is closer to 45 tonnes than 45 to 35.

No fundamentally different features. None at all.

The USAF replaced its C-141s with C-17s. What doctrinal change would you say, precipitated that action? What unique role are the C-17 performing that the C-141 was never employed for?

Absolutely, you are right and in that defines interoperability. There is nothing beyond that to interoperability.

When the AVM Pandey was speaking of interoperability he was talking of the ability to be able to fly and land in Afghanistan. I wonder why he spoke of that? I am sure I can land a Cessana there if I have a mind to? Doesnt the Air Marshal understand that thats all there is to interoperability?

That's all the interoperability you need to deploy the Indian military in Afghanistan.

[Viv S]

No entirely true. The Americans long claimed the Il-76, because of its vague similar external appearance, was a copy of the C-141. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The C-141B took off at 147 tonnes. It had a maximum payload of 41 tonnes. Although the C-141B had a long cabin, it was only 3,05 meters wide and 2,74 meters high. Not suited to carrying oversize cargo like armoured vehicles or helicopters. It was not certified for landing on unpaved runways.

The IL-76 takes off at 190 tonnes, while the tanker version, the IL-78, take off at 210 tonnes. The payloads vary between 45 to 50 tonnes (more for the IL-78). The IL-76's cabin 3,56 wide and especially 3,4 meters high, allowing it to carry armoured vehicles and helicopters such as the MI-8. It was also made to operate from unpaved runways.

You're comparing the most recent variants of the IL-76 with the C-141. At the time the C-141 was in service, it had approximately the same payload and MTOW as the C-17. The C-141 could transport light tanks and wheeled vehicles like the IL-76. But, both of them were restricted from carrying MBTs. The IAF did manage to get the T-72 in the IL-76, but it was a unique challenge and not something the Russians could train the Indian crews for(despite requests).

You are correct that the C-17 was meant to replace the C-141, but the program was nearly scrapped, precisely because the C-17 turned out so much larger than the C-141 and closer to the C-5 Galaxy. Why should they pay over 200 million for a 75 tonne strategic airlifter, the US Congress argued, when they could get a brand new and much larger 115 tonne strategic airlifter, the C-5 Galaxy, for less money? At the time the last C-5 was delivered in 1989, the C-5 cost about 168 million, much less than the projected price of the C-17 which first flew in 1991. So some though it more logical to fund more C-5Bs instead of the new C-17.

The C-17 has a rough field operating capability unlike the C-5 which is closer to the An-124 being designed for intercontinental ranges. It cannot for example operate from Kandahar unlike the C-17.

So the Boeing C-17 owes its existence to this myth that it was an oversized tactical aircraft capable of also replacing the C-130s. Which is why they go through great length to perpetuate the myth, although the actual track record of 15 years of C-17 operations proves otherwise. It has almost no track record of landing on unpaved runways, and no track record of ever landing on 3000 foot runways, later changed to 3500 foot runways, later changed to 3500 foot runways with a 500 foot over-run at either end, later changed to DRY 3500 foot runways with a 500 foot over run on either end, later changed to "we can do but will only risk it if we are forced to in time of war".

Well lets assume it cannot operate at the limits laid out by the brochures. It can still operate where the C-5 can't. And unless I'm very wrong it can operate out of most airfields, where the IL-76 can.

[Sanku]

...
That's all the interoperability you need to deploy the Indian military in Afghanistan.

Viv S, you are right of course. I am sorry I had no clue. Neither did AVM Pandey. Do send him a mail please.

[Gilles]

The C-17 has a rough field operating capability unlike the C-5 which is closer to the An-124 being designed for intercontinental ranges. It cannot for example operate from Kandahar unlike the C-17.

The C-5 Galaxy can very easily land at Kandahar. Why not? The An-124 fly there. So does the An-225. Boeing 747s land there, as well as RAF L-1011s. Any aircraft can land in Kabul and Kandahar or Bagram etc....

The only reason the USAF does not fly their C-5s into Afghanistan is because these aircraft are not fitted with DAS (missile defence systems). So the C-5s fly to Kyrgyzstan and offload their cargo to waiting C-17s who continue to Afghanistan.

Certain countries (UK, Canada, USA) maintain this policy that any aircraft that fly into a "combat zone" must have missile defence, even if the enemy has no missiles. Every US, UK and Canadian aircraft (fixed wing or rotary wing) that flies into Afghanistan is fitted with DAS. Some other countries are more realistic and have no such requirements (France, Germany, Danes, Dutch etc).

You will notice by the way, that India's C-17 are meant to be fitted with DAS although I don't think your IL-76s have any (although that is an available option for the IL-76).

[Viv S]

...
That's all the interoperability you need to deploy the Indian military in Afghanistan.

Viv S, you are right of course. I am sorry I had no clue. Neither did AVM Pandey. Do send him a mail please.

AVM Pandey did not at any point in his article, advocate or insinuate that an American airlifter is a necessary, to provide logistical support to any campaign involving power projection in the region.

[Viv S]

The C-5 Galaxy can very easily land at Kandahar. Why not? The An-124 fly there. So does the An-225. Boeing 747s land there, as well as RAF L-1011s. Any aircraft can land in Kabul and Kandahar or Bagram etc....

It was my understanding that C-5 operate out Kabul but not Kandahar. I was probably mistaken or maybe what I read referred to the early part of the campaign before the airbases were built up.

In any case, would you put the C-5's rough field capability at par with the C-17 for any sort of forward deployment(tanks in particular)?