C-17s for the IAF?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby RayC » 08 Mar 2010 08:55

Here is the USAF details of C 17

USAF details

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby RayC » 08 Mar 2010 09:04

chetak wrote:Tovarisch RayC,

Since you know some russian (русский), maybe you should read the
Antonov website in the original русский. :)

Dos vedanya


These days it is no longer Tavarich. It is Gaspadeen.

Spokonoi Nochi! ;) :mrgreen:

Same way as in China it is no longer Tongzhi. In fact, Tongzhi nowadays means something not quite explainable in family circles! ;) :mrgreen:

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby RayC » 08 Mar 2010 09:18


Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

An-124-150 model is in production

Postby Rien » 08 Mar 2010 14:02

Just to confirm that in fact the newest upgraded Antonov 124 model is in production. And one offtopic point to make: Please go to primary sources, rather than some "blog" to verify whether or not something is true. Russian language media > blog. A blog is not a verifiable source of information, unless it quotes someone who is.

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/presscen ... s/?id=5543

Moscow, August 19th 2009 – Today at Moscow International Aerospace Salon МАКС-2009 Vice-President of OJSC United Aircraft Corporation (OAK) Victor Livanov, General Designer of Antonov Design Bureau Dmitry Kiva and President of Volga-Dnepr Group Alexey Isaikin approved specifications for the design of new upgraded version of unique freighter aircraft An-124-100 “Ruslan”. The new airplane will be created as a part of the Programme for resumption of serial production of An-124 family aircraft.

The specifications have been developed by OJSC OAK and Antonov Design Bureau with involvement of primary customer for An-124-100 – Volga-Dnepr Group – as a part of the scope of cooperation under the An-124 Programme.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091228/157402215.html

New An-124 Ruslan (Condor) heavy-lift transport aircraft could start being delivered to the Russian Air Force in 2014, the contractor said on Monday. United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) CEO Alexei Fyodorov said a total of 20 aircraft were to be produced by 2020 in accordance with the state arms procurement program.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091225/157370232.html

I believe that by 2020 we will begin receiving new aircraft of this type," Lt. Gen. Viktor Kachalkin, commander of the 61st Air Army, said Friday at a news conference in Moscow.

Russian Air Force Commander, Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin, said at the MAKS-2009 air show outside Moscow in August that the Defense Ministry decided to resume the production of the An-124, which could be used both for domestic and military purposes.

And the specifications?

According to the approved document, the airplane will be able to carry up to 150 tons of cargo, and its flight range will be increased to 4,000 kilometers at maximum payload (15,000 kilometers at zero payload). Crew number will be reduced to 3 members.


That is considerably better than the C-17, whose production line will be closing. And which can only carry 77 tons. And which is priced at considerably more, with less service life, than the An-124.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21876
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: An-124-150 model is in production

Postby chetak » 08 Mar 2010 14:39

Rien wrote:That is considerably better than the C-17, whose production line will be closing. And which can only carry 77 tons. And which is priced at considerably more, with less service life, than the An-124.


Rien,

Its a no contest!!

The american brothers are in panic.

They are hoping to keep the C-17 production line open with Indian money and safeguard american jobs in some powerful senators backyard. No more, no less.

The AN 124 is in all respects a much better alternative to the C 17, even to the extent of exploring options of fitting new western engines.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: An-124-150 model is in production

Postby Gilles » 08 Mar 2010 20:28

Rien wrote:Just to confirm that in fact the newest upgraded Antonov 124 model is in production.


I hope you are correct, but I will believe it when I see proof. There has been talk of resuming An-124 production for years now, and many start dates have come and gone.

Here is a picture of the Antonov An-70 Serial Number 01/04 taken in 2005 at the Aviant Aviation plant in Kiev where the Ukrainian-built An-124s were built (there were two An-124 plants).

Image

Same aircraft in August 2008

Image

Now December 2009
Image

Although slow, there is work being done. The gigs are there and there are other An-70 components visible in the picture. I would have to see similar pictures for the An-124 to believe that production has begun.......
Last edited by Gilles on 08 Mar 2010 21:27, edited 1 time in total.

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby bhavani » 08 Mar 2010 20:58

An-124 production details:

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/ ... ing_an124/

These are the pictures of production line of An-124

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 08 Mar 2010 22:03

bhavani wrote:An-124 production details:

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/ ... ing_an124/

These are the pictures of production line of An-124


Sorry to disappoint but these are old pictures. In one picture you can see "0803" painted on the tail. That is a "Line Number". I have in front of me a book called "Antonov's Heavy Transports" by Yefim Gordon and Dmitry and Sergey Komisarov (Red Star Collection Volume 18). On page 52 the whole production line of An-124 is listed with Construction Number, Line Number, Version and Registration.

It states that 0803 is now RA-82081. It was delivered to Volga-Dnepr in 2004. Construction number is 9773054459151

http://www.casr.ca/id-antonov-costs.htm

The first time a picture of it appeared on Airliners.net, June 4 2004 :

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Volga-Dnepr-Airlines-(HeavyLift/Antonov-An-124-100-Ruslan/0596119/M/

Of course if the IAF called Antonov and showed interest in buying 6 new An-124s that just might trigger the long stalled re-start of An-124 production.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 09 Mar 2010 11:56

Gilles wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:It's not a tangent, it's the truth.

You keep pretending the civilian standards for well-prepared runways apply to all the situations a C-17 could be flying into.

They don't.


But in real operations, C-17s NEVER land on unpaved runways except those that have been custom-built or custom-upgraded specifically for C-17 operations (Tareen Kwot in Afghanistan is the only one I know of).


So I take it you're admitting you can't find any evidence that CRFI applies to dirt fields after all?

See, you truly are the master of changing the subject after you get called out on an inconvenient truth.

Gilles wrote:There, army engineers first thought that the Afghan gravel runway was going to be able to sustain hundreds of C-17 landings.


As usual the article doesn't quite match what you claim

Rhino was NOT gravel, it was dirt. And it had never carried anything larger than a Cessna before.

And as far as the 'hundreds of C-17 landings', "By the time we left we were absolutely certain it would support C-130s and cautiously optimistic that it would support C-17s"

Gilles wrote:Note that one problem they did not have at Rhino was wet runways. Had that runway been located in an area where it rained, C-17 operations may have not even been possible.........


Um no, according to the report, the runway length at Camp Rhino was 'more than adequate' even when wet.

Gilles wrote:I encourage all who have a stake in this issue to read this report in full.


Now I would encourage you to turn your energy to determining the 'true' rough-field capability of the An-124 since that is what we're comparing it to after all.

How many dirt fields is the An-124 operationally operating from? How many passes can it make at said fields before they have to be repaired?

I await your findings with interest.
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 09 Mar 2010 13:26, edited 3 times in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: An-124-150 model is in production

Postby GeorgeWelch » 09 Mar 2010 12:00

chetak wrote:They are hoping to keep the C-17 production line open with Indian money and safeguard american jobs in some powerful senators backyard. No more, no less.


You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's no different than any other country. Do you think Russia wants to sell its equipment because they care about India? No, they want India's money and the jobs that come with it.

Russia tries to sell Russian products, Sweden tries to sell Swedish products, Britain tries to sell British products and the US tries to sell American products.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 09 Mar 2010 13:42

Latest AWST reports say that Boeing is pushing hard for 10+10 C-17s for India to keep the production lines open.If one looks at the entire scheme of things,one deal leads on to another.Buy a transport aircraft that can carry US artillery,helicopters,missiles,armoured vehicles,tanks,all of which will be force- fed to us,enter into non-NATO ally logistic networks and before you know it,hey presto!....you are part of Uncle Sam's global military machine and not in control of your military or your territory.The US wants India to be its major IOR logistic hub,where US warships and subs can be repaired,aircraft serviced and using a huge fleet of C-17s ,transport Indian "contracters" ,mercenary troops like those of Oz,swinging either to eastern or western theatres.

This subservient client state status is what our good spin-doctor ane peddlar of snake-oil,Dr.Singh wants India to be.His microscopic vision is that "growth" as envisaged by him calls for Indians to be servile cogs in the wheel for Uncle Sam and his retinue of MNCs.Like automatons,Indians will be shackled into serving a foreign master in fact yet again,scarcely 70 years after we attained Independence.A state of permanent "Dependence" is what is in store for us if the good doctor has his way.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 09 Mar 2010 14:05

Philip wrote:before you know it,hey presto!....you are part of Uncle Sam's global military machine and not in control of your military or your territory


:rotfl:

I sincerely hope that this is just your schtick, but regardless, it's amusing whatever the case

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby merlin » 09 Mar 2010 16:57

Anybody have a pointer to the ASR (not the actual one for obvious reasons, but any news articles that mention it or any blog entry or other web resource) that the C-17 fulfills?

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby geeth » 09 Mar 2010 17:18

>>>Anybody have a pointer to the ASR

Was there any ASR to begin with?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 09 Mar 2010 17:46

George,I give you the perfect example of losing your "territory".The pathetic case of rent-boy Pak allowing the US to operate in secret from its air bases which are under complete US control for UCAV operations and attacks,while pretending that no such thing has happened.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21876
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 09 Mar 2010 18:09

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Philip wrote:before you know it,hey presto!....you are part of Uncle Sam's global military machine and not in control of your military or your territory


:rotfl:

I sincerely hope that this is just your schtick, but regardless, it's amusing whatever the case



Yeah right.

Our dear neighbor is still trying to get his ass out of hock and he is practically dying of laughter.

We can hear their jollies all the way down here and we are certainly not amused.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21876
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: An-124-150 model is in production

Postby chetak » 09 Mar 2010 18:14

GeorgeWelch wrote:
chetak wrote:They are hoping to keep the C-17 production line open with Indian money and safeguard american jobs in some powerful senators backyard. No more, no less.


You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's no different than any other country. Do you think Russia wants to sell its equipment because they care about India? No, they want India's money and the jobs that come with it.

Russia tries to sell Russian products, Sweden tries to sell Swedish products, Britain tries to sell British products and the US tries to sell American products.


But saar, no one else has the fatal embrace of the americans, thrown in for free.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gaur » 09 Mar 2010 18:32

^^
Considering your reply, I assume that you are unaware of the fact that GeorgeWelch is American? I am only telling you this lest you unknowingly write something which would be offensive to him.
Anyways, regarding this point, I agree with GeorgeWelch. No one sells to another country for the love of it. Everyone does it keeping their own interests in mind and there is nothing wrong with that.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby merlin » 09 Mar 2010 18:52

geeth wrote:>>>Anybody have a pointer to the ASR

Was there any ASR to begin with?


Good question :mrgreen:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby rohitvats » 09 Mar 2010 18:57

Philip wrote:George,I give you the perfect example of losing your "territory".The pathetic case of rent-boy Pak allowing the US to operate in secret from its air bases which are under complete US control for UCAV operations and attacks,while pretending that no such thing has happened.


Sir, hows is this argument pertinent to the debate? Even if one considers your earlier post and subsequent reply to it?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 09 Mar 2010 19:07

...the point being that the C-17 is the proverbial "thin end of the wedge" as to future acquisitions,as to fill the belly of the aircraft,weapon systems of other nations including the Arjun as someone mentioned,might not be easily possible.From the various increasing US arms contracts signed over the last few years,it is becoming clearer that what the US plans for India is to assimilate India into its network of like-minded allies and the entire Indian military machine into its future order of battle.For cooperative engagement,crucial to the task,we have to succumb to master in every way just as Pak is doing.Once you have lost control over your independence of military,you have effectively lost control over your territory as your own interests have become compromised.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Surya » 09 Mar 2010 19:41

Thats an off tangent whine

Fact is we have to import a foreign aircraft.

There will be risks but go of the deep end and whine about every possible conspiracy shows how far we have to go.


So far the only valid point is how well the C 17 can handle unprepared runways IF thats what the IAF is going for. ANd of course price but I doubt the others will be that much cheaper
Last edited by Surya on 09 Mar 2010 19:46, edited 1 time in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 09 Mar 2010 19:43

Philip wrote:as to fill the belly of the aircraft,weapon systems of other nations including the Arjun as someone mentioned,might not be easily possible


Oops, you found us out.

The C-17 includes a magic technology detector on its ramp.

If it detects any unauthorized technology (Russian for instance), it says in a deep voice 'Thou shall not pass!' and the ramp snaps shut.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gaur » 09 Mar 2010 20:01

^^
:rotfl:
Good one.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21876
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 09 Mar 2010 21:12

Gaur wrote:^^
Considering your reply, I assume that you are unaware of the fact that GeorgeWelch is American? I am only telling you this lest you unknowingly write something which would be offensive to him.
Anyways, regarding this point, I agree with GeorgeWelch. No one sells to another country for the love of it. Everyone does it keeping their own interests in mind and there is nothing wrong with that.


So, what's so wrong in looking out for ourselves too?

We certainly have great examples of american embraced countries in our own backyard. If these guys are sucking up to us, we are eventually going to pay an unacceptable price.

american equipment comes with unacceptable baggage.

It may even be injurious to our national health.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 09 Mar 2010 22:14

GeorgeWelch wrote:So I take it you're admitting you can't find any evidence that CRFI applies to dirt fields after all?

See, you truly are the master of changing the subject after you get called out on an inconvenient truth.


How can you turn something I wrote into the exact opposite ?

I will repeat in very clear terms.

In Canada, it is required by LAW for all airports that deserves scheduled turbojet aircraft to report CRFI, including those with unpaved runways. I gave two specific airports in Canada's north as example where this is done. I could scan the Canada Flight Supplement pages that list these two airports, and show that they have only unpaved runways yet report CRFI to aircraft.

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:There, army engineers first thought that the Afghan gravel runway was going to be able to sustain hundreds of C-17 landings.


As usual the article doesn't quite match what you claim


There you go again. Yes it does.

Page 30, Quote:

"Tingle (Tingle, 1998) agrees that surface CBR values cannot successfully predict the runway performance for the C-17 aircraft under the operating conditions of the Phase 1 SPRO test program. This tendency was borne out during operations in Afghanistan when prior to operations at Rhino LZ, the initial surface CBR values was 72. This left Air Force Combat Controllers "cautiously optimistic that it would support C-17s" (Sawyer, 2002). While the C-17 performance manual indicates this would support hundreds of C-17 passes based upon the "rolling wheel" criteria, (SPO, 1997) the field required extensive maintenance following on eight landings"

Un-Quote

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:Note that one problem they did not have at Rhino was wet runways. Had that runway been located in an area where it rained, C-17 operations may have not even been possible.........


Um no, according to the report, the runway length at Camp Rhino was 'more than adequate' even when wet.


The runway at Rhino was 6900 feet long.

On page 26 "Current data does not allow accurate determination of runway length requirement for wet surfaces"

Page 27 "Rhino LZ had almost 7000 feet of runway, and therefore more than adequate runway for take-off and landings especially since conditions remained dry throughout Rhino LZ operations"

In 15 years of operations since its induction, the C-17 has been used operationally ONCE on a regular unpaved runway: the Rhino LZ. The runway was rendered unusable after 8 C-17 landings.

In 15 year of operations since its induction, the C-17 has NEVER landed operationally on any short un-improved runway anywhere. NEVER.

The Only un-paved runway it uses operationally today, Taren Kwot, was upgraded and lengthened in 2005 specifically for C-17 operations. It is now the subject of a US Army Corp of Engineers 25 to 100 million dollar contract to have it paved.

The shortest USAF operational landing I found was on a paved 3,940 foot runway in Iceland with a payload of under 10 tonnes and where the C-17 sustained over 1 million dollars in damages in a main landing gear failure that the Air Force claims is unrelated to the short landing but due to a manufacturing defect. Perhaps, but quite a coincidence that this happened on the shortest USAF C-17 landing I was able to find.....

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 09 Mar 2010 22:49

Gilles wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:So I take it you're admitting you can't find any evidence that CRFI applies to dirt fields after all?

See, you truly are the master of changing the subject after you get called out on an inconvenient truth.


How can you turn something I wrote into the exact opposite ?

I will repeat in very clear terms.

In Canada, it is required by LAW for all airports that deserves scheduled turbojet aircraft to report CRFI, including those with unpaved runways. I gave two specific airports in Canada's north where this is done.


Neither of those are dirt though are they?


Gilles wrote:There, army engineers first thought that the Afghan gravel runway was going to be able to sustain hundreds of C-17 landings.


That was your claim.

Which you try to backup up with this

Gilles wrote:"Tingle (Tingle, 1998) agrees that surface CBR values cannot successfully predict the runway performance for the C-17 aircraft under the operating conditions of the Phase 1 SPRO test program. This tendency was borne out during operations in Afghanistan when prior to operations at Rhino LZ, the initial surface CBR values was 72. This left Air Force Combat Controllers "cautiously optimistic that it would support C-17s" (Sawyer, 2002). While the C-17 performance manual indicates this would support hundreds of C-17 passes based upon the "rolling wheel" criteria, (SPO, 1997) the field required extensive maintenance following on eight landings"


So there you have it, in 1998 at least they knew that using the charts in the manual weren't adequate for all situations. That is reflected in the Controllers 'cautious optimism' that it would support the C-17 at all. NOWHERE does it indicate that 'army engineers' EVER thought the runway would support hundreds of landings

Again, you claim:

Gilles wrote:Note that one problem they did not have at Rhino was wet runways. Had that runway been located in an area where it rained, C-17 operations may have not even been possible.........


And try to back it up with this:

The runway at Rhino was 6900 feet long.

On page 26 "Current data does not allow accurate determination of runway length requirement for wet surfaces"

Page 27 "Rhino LZ had almost 7000 feet of runway, and therefore more than adequate runway for take-off and landings especially since condition remained dry throughout Rhino LZ operations"


Even with selective quoting you still can't prove your point.

Let me fill in the details you ignored.

The normal (RCR 20) landing distance of a 447,000 lb (max gross weight for semi-prepared runway operations) C-17 is increased from 2,930-feet at sea level on a standard day to 5,370-feet using full max braking and max reverse thrust during wet runway operations.


Thus the 7,000 foot runway was more than adequate to handle a 5,370-foot landing distance at max gross weight even in wet conditions

Getting back to your quote "Current data does not allow accurate determination of runway length requirement for wet surfaces", that is why by default they set it to the worst possible situation, RCR 4 (Ice). Even under the absolute worst possible situation it would not need more than 5,370 feet.

But the experiences at Rhino showed that if they wanted to use shorter fields in the future, they would need actual data to figure out what the RCR really was. Thus was born the infamous series of tests you denigrated earlier. It was to validate that they could use a higher RCR (like say 13) when calculating landing distance and thus use shorter fields than simply assuming they were made of ice.

In 15 years of operations, C-17 has been used operationally ONCE on a regular unpaved runway: the Rhino LZ.


Again I look forward to your documentation of the An-124's off-field exploits.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 09 Mar 2010 23:26

More about the Rhino LZ

US Seabees at work to keep Rhino LZ open:

http://www.constructmyfuture.com/Students/PDF/military_con.pdf

Other articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Rhino
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/12/news/mn-14150
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_664_57/ai_n28928490/
http://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_07ca55f5-7fd3-4ba7-8d9f-d958acd64640/display.aspx?rs=enginespage


During the time Camp Rhino was being used, there were 800 fixed-wing flights into that airport during a period of a few weeks. Only 46 of them were with C-17s (64 according to another source). The bulk was done with C-130s and KC-130s.

Why?

One of the reasons was that only highly trained SOLL II aircrews were qualified to do such landings and that these crews were very limited in numbers.

Some reports that USMC fuel trucks did not fit in Hercules aircraft could not be sent to Rhino so smaller USAF fuel truck were sent instead. Why not on C-17s ? Because the few crews those that could land there were busy doing other things....
Last edited by Gilles on 10 Mar 2010 00:25, edited 1 time in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 09 Mar 2010 23:46

Gilles wrote:One of the reasons was that only highly trained SOLL II aircrews were qualified to do such landings and that these crews were very limited in numbers.


Let us examine the facts.

Fact 1: "Camp Rhino was in use from 26 November 2001 to 1 January 2002"

Fact 2: "The 437th Airlift Wing, Special Operations Division (437AW/OGS) at Charleston Air Force Base (AFB) assumed primary responsibility for the SOLL II mission in May 2002 providing a dynamic improvement from the previous C-141 and C-5 platforms"

So we see that the C-17 SOLL II wasn't even fully stood up at the time of Camp Rhino.

If you continued on with the article, you would also see that there were a limited number of C-17s available at the time and AFSOC was fighting AMC every time they wanted to 'borrow' one, requiring at least 48-hour and usually 72-hour advance notice.

Now, why did it require SOLL II crews? The issue wasn't the quality of the runway, it was the use of NVGs (only night landings were allowed) and minimal landing aids on a blacked-out field with a brand new plane where the appropriate procedures hadn't been worked out yet.

Once again you completely misunderstand/misrepresent the situation.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 10 Mar 2010 00:13

GeorgeWelch wrote:Again I look forward to your documentation of the An-124's off-field exploits.


Its totally irrelevant since we are comparing two of the same: essentially aircraft that are both capable of unpaved runway landings but that in reality never do any operationally. And I am not certain that the An-124 requires more runway than a C-17 when both carry 75 tonnes of payload.

I cannot find any data on An-124 having actually ever landed on unpaved runway (it might have, I just cannot find anything to support it) The C-17 did it on one runway (Rhino) in 2001 with the problems and consequences we know. I dont think this proves to the IAF that the C-17 is adequate for carrying Arjun tanks to remote high altitude unpaved (and wet or snow covered) airfields.

Here is an interesting video of An-124 that ran off a runway.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6bKCsJd2K0

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 10 Mar 2010 00:16

GeorgeWelch wrote:So we see that the C-17 SOLL II wasn't even fully stood up at the time of Camp Rhino.


Yet on page 5 of this document

http://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_07ca55f5-7fd3-4ba7-8d9f-d958acd64640/display.aspx?rs=enginespage

it say that SOLL II aircrews made the Rhino landings.

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 10 Mar 2010 00:47

GeorgeWelch wrote: Even under the absolute worst possible situation it would not need more than 5,370 feet.


One last argument. I have under my eyes an Airbus A-310-308 landing distance chart (Page 15.20 of the QRH)

It states that an Airbus 310, at 120 tonnes landing weight, needs only 1250 meters (4100 feet) to land on a paved wet runway when maximum braking is applied. With full reverse, one can decrease that by another 10%, so 3690 feet.

Does that mean that anyone will risk landing a 120 tonne A-310 on a wet 4000 foot runway? It can be done when everything is done perfectly. But send 64 aircraft with 64 aircrews there and I guarantee that several will roll off the end.

So for the C-17, when everything is done perfectly, 4 degree slope, perfect speed, perfect flare, ideal touch down point, maximum braking, full reverse, the computed landing distance for a 447,000 pound C-17 on a wet unpaved runway is 5,370 feet.

You would send your guys in such a wet, unpaved, blacked-out runway at night with NVGs and hope they make out all right with a 1400 foot margin for error ?

Had that runway been wet, half of them would have ended up off the end.......or more likely, the planes would have been diverted or called back.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 10 Mar 2010 01:01

Gilles wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:So we see that the C-17 SOLL II wasn't even fully stood up at the time of Camp Rhino.


Yet on page 5 of this document

http://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_07ca55f5-7fd3-4ba7-8d9f-d958acd64640/display.aspx?rs=enginespage

it say that SOLL II aircrews made the Rhino landings.


Er, yes

My point was getting at why so few were available.

You seemed to be implying that it was some limitation of the plane.

I was showing that it was a brand new unit that wasn't fully operational (ie it had some crews trained, but not all) at the time.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby GeorgeWelch » 10 Mar 2010 01:08

Gilles wrote:You would send your guys in such a wet, unpaved, blacked-out runway at night with NVGs and hope they make out all right with a 1400 foot margin for error ?


1. Yes, 1400 feet is a rather larger margin of error

2. Again, the 5,370 foot figure was assuming the runway was pure ice. In reality they knew it was significantly better than that. How much better? Well that was the problem, no one knew exactly.

But combine a 1400 foot safety margin plus the knowledge that it wouldn't actually take 5,370 feet in the first place, yes, I would have been perfectly comfortable sending planes into that.

Not to mention that this was on a dry lakebed and the surrounding terrain was very, well, flat. Even if they had gone off the end of the runway, it was unlikely to be catastrophic.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 10 Mar 2010 11:06

George,will the US sell us the C-17 with the "magic detector?!" Ha!ha!

Seriously,the C-17 is a "strategic transport",not a tactical transport.I don't think that its non-ability to use short-unprepared runways is that much of a liability,if it is going to complement the fleet of Il-76s.If the GOI have ambitions to join the US's "globo-cop empire",then acquiring such a large strategic airlifter makes sense.Indian troops and eqpt. can be flown into any battlezone around the globe,along with a galaxy of US weapon systems armoured vehicles,etc.,etc.,perhaps evn in joint ops with US forces.Senn from such a scenario the requirement makes sense.

If on the other hand it is all about capability that suits India's threats,present and future,then the Antonov is far better option,where we could use instead aircraft designed to accomodate Russian eqpt. which is predominant in our services right now and for the forseeable future.XXl,XL,L,M and S sizes of aircraft are all required to "do the business" in our unique theatres of operations,from the lofty Himalayas to golden beaches.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby RayC » 10 Mar 2010 11:27

I find it interesting that every foreign purchase is linked to Us global strategy.

India has no strategic interest?

We are a puppet on a string?

China's aggressive posturing is nothing to us?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Philip » 10 Mar 2010 14:38

Rahul Bedi moaned in an old JDW report about 2 years ago,that India,despite its growing economy was constrained in its world influence by having no strategic vision of its own.It was earlier obsesed with Pak but was now looking warily at China.I think that there was an illuminating thread not too long ago debating Indian interests and India's lack of grand strategy.Wherever we look,it appears that we are following China's lead,whether it be chasing after Africa's mineral and oil wealth or oil exploration rights in various countries,scrabbling for deals like doggies after a bone!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21876
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby chetak » 10 Mar 2010 14:49

RayC wrote:I find it interesting that every foreign purchase is linked to Us global strategy.

India has no strategic interest?

We are a puppet on a string?

China's aggressive posturing is nothing to us?


If you see the kind of US equipment that is on offer, anyone would begin to wonder about what exactly was the underlying motive of the americans.

This is true only for US sourced equipment. It's not usually applicable for sourcing from other countries.

It would take a han on a one way mission, carrying a few shoulder launched missiles, to take out a massive investment in airlift capability ( one single C-17!). How many could we afford to lose at the quoted prices?

If India has strategic interests involving long range C 17s, it has been kept very well hidden so far! :)

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby RayC » 10 Mar 2010 15:14

chetak wrote:

If you see the kind of US equipment that is on offer, anyone would begin to wonder about what exactly was the underlying motive of the americans.

This is true only for US sourced equipment. It's not usually applicable for sourcing from other countries.

It would take a han on a one way mission, carrying a few shoulder launched missiles, to take out a massive investment in airlift capability ( one single C-17!). How many could we afford to lose at the quoted prices?

If India has strategic interests involving long range C 17s, it has been kept very well hidden so far! :)


I would be extremely surprised if a strategic or tactical airlift, be it with a Dakota or a C17, taking place in an area that is not sanitised and out of the range of known missile.

Indeed, if is done, then someone has blundered and should be accountable for that.

For instance, I am aware that in Bagram, such precautions are taken.

I would not take it that Indians are any less educated of the issues than the US.

From merely an Army standpoint, I rather have my troops and equipment in least number of airlifts so that things get going soon!

Or else, what is wrong in moving a battalion in helicopter lifts? How many helicopters required and how many days would it take?

Imagine a Para Bde being ferried by helicopters for action!! Smaller target and loss less.

Indeed if a Para Bde was to be lifted for action by helicopters alone, when the time came for action, surprise would have been lost and the Bde Cdr, I think, would have gone off to sleep through sheer boredom and the time taken!

I am not too sure how many shoulder fired missile One Han can lift!

Anti-Missile Chaff/Flare Dispenser (1): Use the same effects as the TRIAX model. However, each time the system is engaged, the system fires off one chaff and 1D4 flares. Rifts Earth decoys systems are assumed to not operate against Phase World missiles due to technological difference. Reduce effects by 20% against smart missiles (Add +20% to rolls for smart missiles.)
Effect:

01-50 Enemy missile or missile volley detonates in chaff cloud - Missile are all destroyed
51-75 Enemy missile or missile volley loses track of real target and veers away in wrong direction (May lock onto another target
76-00 No effect, missile is still on target

Also note that the chaff cloud will also blind flying monsters that fly through cloud. They will suffer the following penalties: reduce melee attacks/actions, combat bonuses, and speed by half. Duration: 1D4 melee rounds.
Payload: 20 chaff, 40 flares. Each time the system is engaged, the system fires off one chaff and 1D4 flares.

C 17

Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: C-17s for the IAF?

Postby Gilles » 10 Mar 2010 18:50

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:"Tingle (Tingle, 1998) agrees that surface CBR values cannot successfully predict the runway performance for the C-17 aircraft under the operating conditions of the Phase 1 SPRO test program. This tendency was borne out during operations in Afghanistan when prior to operations at Rhino LZ, the initial surface CBR values was 72. This left Air Force Combat Controllers "cautiously optimistic that it would support C-17s" (Sawyer, 2002). While the C-17 performance manual indicates this would support hundreds of C-17 passes based upon the "rolling wheel" criteria, (SPO, 1997) the field required extensive maintenance following on eight landings"


So there you have it, in 1998 at least they knew that using the charts in the manual weren't adequate for all situations. That is reflected in the Controllers 'cautious optimism' that it would support the C-17 at all. NOWHERE does it indicate that 'army engineers' EVER thought the runway would support hundreds of landings


Ok, let me correct it.

1) The Rhino surface CBR was measured at 72 by the Air Force Combat Controllers.
2) The C-17 performance manual indicated that a runway with a CBR of 72 can support hundreds of landings (there was a condition to that: rolling wheels, meaning no heavy braking after touch down. That is probably not what was actually happening in the actual landings)
3) Yet the controller had only "cautious optimism" that this was correct.

Maybe they already knew at the time something that you refuse to accept today and that all the new tests are attempting to determine. What kind of unpaved runway can really accommodate the C-17 other than the ones that are custom-built from scratch for C-17 operations and how many landings can such runways accommodate before they need "extensive repairs". They also need to know the runway length that is required when these runways are wet because there are just not many 10,000 foot unpaved runways in the world.
Or they knew very well that to land there, the C-17s would require heavy braking and not risk "rolling wheel" landings.......


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests