Transport Aircraft for IAF

[Gilles]

And the weight of the Arjun is 129,000 lbs.

No waiver needed.

Someone had already brought this to my attention and I had forgotten it. Its only the Arjun II which will weigh 66 tonnes. Yet again, some web site report the 58.5 and 66 as "Combat weights", meaning with fuel and ammunition. If that is true, they are even lighter as they are carried in aircraft.....

[Gilles]

Again this is false. If you look through the previous thread you will see where the C-17's airdropped bulldozers in Iraq and they constructed a dirt field in the desert and used it for quite some time.

I must be reading it wrong ! You claim C-17s airdropped bulldozers in Iraq, the airdropped bulldozers built a dirt field, on which the said C-17s came back and not only landed nut used it for quite some time ?




Of course, you have no dates, names, websites or articles to back this up do you GW. It's top secret stuff ?

[tsarkar]

The C-17 purchase was a Hobson's choice for the IAF.

Firstly, every manufacturer, whether US, British, French, German, Russian, Chinese - or indigenous - does make claims that does not hold good in real life conditions.

So when jingoes trumpet 9g capable fighters, in real life, it would most probably be in clean conditions or 2 AAM loadout with half fuel load.

An-124 & Il-76 production lines are closed, suppliers scattered across CIS are not banded together in a reliable supply chain.

Had a reliable An-124 line existed, India wouldnt have hesitated to pump money. The HAL Ilyushin MTA project has not taken off, despite Indian money, because of lack of Russian priority, availability of industrial base, and design bureaus based in Ukraine and Uzbekistan. How many Chinese Il-76 have been delivered?

Having said that, hats off to the ruggedly designed and built planes that are being used worldwide in critical situations.

I don't know the daily flights + tonnage carried by An-124/Il-76 to Af-Pak/Iraq, but could the flight/tonnage numbers be scaled up incase of escalation in conflict? In my opinion, unlikely.

From Indian perspective, Il-76 carry loads from Chandigarh to Leh, An-32 from Leh to Thoise, Mi-17 from Thoise to Siachen base and Cheetah to forward posts. In wartime, can these flight numbers / tonnage be ramped up if using An-124/Il-76 without a reliable supply chain? Unlikely.

A-400 is prohibitively expensive and still in development.

C-17 is the only in production (which is coming to an end) and does have a sanction prone but, among the available options, relatively reliable supply chain.

So ultimately, its Hobson's choice, of all, its the only one available, take it or leave it.

Secondly, why this craze of flying Arjun to Forward Bases?

From the Indian perspective, AMX-13 were flown to Chusul in An-12 in 1962 in dire emergency, T-72 to Sri Lanka using Il-76 for urgent requirements and T-72 to Ladakh using Il-76 as a proof of concept. Its not standard operating procedure to fly tanks directly to battle.

Post Kargil, both NH-1A and the Manali roads have been upgraded to carry T-72s.

The real use of C-17 is increased logistics load.

Indian artillery is moving to 155 mm from 105 mm, so 100 rounds of newer ammo weigh more than 100 rounds of the older ammo. Tank rounds are moving from 105 mm to 125 mm / 120 mm. MBRS rocket replenishments needs to be transported.

Two new divisions with 30,000 plus men will require more 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm rifle rounds, 84 mm RCL rounds and 81 mm mortar rounds.

Lastly, IAF will have 8 tonne carrying fighters (Su-30MKI/Rafale/Typhoon) instead of 2-4 tonne carrying fighters (MiG-21/23/27). 16/18 Su-30 based at Chabua will consume more bombs/rockets than 16/18 MiG-21 replaced. Weapons for these fighters needs to be replenished too, and C-17 will cater to these increased loads.

The C-17s will spend most of their lives transporting these stuff to forward bases rather than MBT. Most cargo will be "bulk out" rather than "load out".

Politically, India has a burgeoning population requiring energy for growth and development, that no amount of coal or petroleum or eco-energy sources can fulfill. Nuclear Power is the only option available, and with US controlling the nuclear supplier's cartel, it has to be appeased. We simply don't have sufficient and quality domestic uranium reserves. Hence these US deals for transports and amphibious ships. Do note India will never purchase mission critical stuff from US like fighters or destroyers. Hence Hillary Clinton's lobbying for F-35 will never bear fruit.

[NRao]

Giles,

See if this satisfies your thirst for the time being.

Will circle back with more info.

However, air dropping things like a bulldozer (flying very, very low) is standard ops. So, why the surprise?

TSarkar,

I am sure there are umpteen reasons - including political - that go into make decisions to buy a product. However, for:

Had a reliable An-124 line existed, India wouldnt have hesitated to pump money.

this:

A great amount of thought and planning has gone into our decision to obtain the C-17. My team did a detailed study about what was available and what capabilities were out there. There were no compulsions. We had requirements that dictated a certain amount of lift capacity and the ability to operate from short runways. The C-17 turned out to be the only aircraft in the global market that met both requirements.

For what that is worth.

Also, you yourself seem to have provided THE reason for not going Russian:

The HAL Ilyushin MTA project has not taken off, despite Indian money, because of lack of Russian priority, availability of industrial base, and design bureaus based in Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

With ALL due respects to the Russians, who cares? (That bolded part is laughable.)

However, what you say proves that from a pure Indian PoV, Russia is unrelaible - that just based on data points you provided and NOT emotions.

How many Chinese Il-76 have been delivered?

Very good. May the Chinese find peace in that solution. (Not that I care about what the Russians and Chinese do or do nto do WRT transports. It is their business. But clearly that attitude -vely impacts Indian decision making and for that reason alone needs to be set aside.)

Firstly, every manufacturer, whether US, British, French, German, Russian, Chinese - or indigenous - does make claims that does not hold good in real life conditions.

The question is (remains) if what a manufacturer claims is what the IAF (claims to?) need.

why this craze of flying Arjun to Forward Bases?

This is an internet problem and also to a very great extent BR posters who do not read posts or research on thier own prior to posting. The issue is/was about the C-17's ability to transport the Arjun. What was not said explicitly but undertsood was - in dire times of need. To be sure, the preferred was is road/rail/whatever. It was never suggested (as far as I can see) that this should be the preferred way to transport the tank.

[NRao]

NOT bulldozers. But, close enough for the time being!!!!

[NRao]

Getting hotter ............... Just by the way: 2010!!!!

[youtube]ynrbuEDqmBY&NR=1[/youtube]

[tsarkar]

NRao, my earlier post was not a "for x against y" post.

It was a general post highlighting the difficulties faced when having to make a Hobson's choice.

"lack of Russian priority" - because they've sufficient transport assets good enough to last the next 2-3 decades, hence they dont have the urgency to develop Il-214 vis-a-vis the urgency to develop PAK-FA.

The issue is/was about the C-17's ability to transport the Arjun.

It may have been an issue for BR posters, but not the primary reason for the IAF/MoD. I have never come across any specific comment from anyone - IAF/MoD - that C-17 is required to transport Arjun. You may correct me here by showing relevant comments from IAF/MoD, but I dont think any comments were made by IAF/MoD that they need C-17 to fly Arjun to Ladakh.

And the reason is simple, of the 100% sorties any transport flies in its lifetime, 0.01% of those sorties will be ferrying MBT to battle. You may check this against An-12 flight history in IAF, where out of 4-5 digit sorties, only double digit sorties ferried AMX-13. Same for Il-76. Carrying such loads requires additional maintenance over & above the regular maintenance cycle, and greatly increases life cycle costs. Hence its done only in extreme emergencies, like flying AMX-13 tanks to Chusul in 1962 to stop the Chinese onslaught. Also, T-72s were not loaded on Il-76 until the aircraft was in service for many years, indicating it was not the priority reason why Il-76 was procured.

The priority reason for transports is to cater for increased logistic loads, more ammo, more pol, more rations and more food. IAF Transports primary raison d'etre is maintain the air bridge to North & North East.

The Germans already had tanks in Stalingrad, they lost because their air-bridge was unable to supply fuel and ammunition. Most of Market Garden transport sorties were supply drops. Most of Burma transport sorties were supply drops. That is what Il-76 and An-32 is doing in IAF service, and that is what C-17 will do in IAF service - supporting the logistic needs of the new mountain corps.

This is an internet problem and also to a very great extent BR posters who do not read posts or research on thier own prior to posting.

This is an internet problem and also to a very great extent BR posters who do not understand the business or operation or research on thier own prior to posting.

[ShauryaT]

Do note India will never purchase mission critical stuff from US like fighters or destroyers. Hence Hillary Clinton's lobbying for F-35 will never bear fruit.

I used to believe this too but not any more on the never part. We shall see.

[NRao]

An incomplete document, from the US Army, but please check out the ToC:

2006 :: Airdrop of Supplies and Equipment: Reference Data for Airdrop Platform Loads

Figure 2-37. M101A1 Howitzer ............................................................................................ 2-38
Figure 2-38. Type 1 D-5B Tractor Dozer ............................................................................. 2-39
Figure 2-39. John Deere 450G Lt Full-Tracked Bulldozer .................................................. 2-40
Figure 2-40. Deployable Universal Combat Earthmover (DEUCE) .................................... 2-41

(Original doc: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 20-116.pdf)


One angle:

[youtube]zSUmn7PMPM0&feature=related[/youtube]

Second angle:

[youtube]Tbo0plJiEPI&feature=related[/youtube]

36K Lbs extracted. With grunts looking on right next to the extracted material.

And, may be a third view!!

[youtube]_gXq0-A9Xxw&feature=related[/youtube]

[NRao]

C-130, light tank:

[NRao]

Walking on very thin ice for the time being, but GlobeMasher was one of the first Canadians (want to emphasize that) to be sent for training to be a C-17 pilot. When Canada delayed their purchase of the plane he, along with a few other sent to be trained, were sent to Iraq and then to Afghanistan. He claims (and having read quite a bit by now - I am inclined to believe him) he has around 4-5 years if front line experience - including landing on dirt strips in his C-17.

From here, from 2007, this:

Quote from: geo on October 02, 2007, 09:42:09
Q: Is airdropping a dozer from a C130 or C17 a possibility these days?

GlobeMasher: Yes - all this stuff is dropped as "Heavy Equipment" but it is not extracted from the aircraft using LAPES procedures or rigging.

This can be rigged as HE for the C-17, or rigged as HE but dropped using the "Dual Rail" airdrop procedure - in a sense it is a hybrid of rigging the HE as HE, but letting it be gravity extracted just like CDS from the logistics rails instead of the air drop rails.

That from a Canadian forum!!!!!!!!!!

Here is some more. Not sure if it is used now a days. They have GPS aided chutes. Just that the GPS tech costs $50K per and takes months to get it back from the FOB.

[rohitvats]

^^^NRao sahab, the LAPE procedure (the pic of tank extracted from C-130) is an extremely dangerous and risky one. Something, which is used/will be employed in case of dire requirement. It requires hell lot of airmanship and IMO, only the most experienced crew can undertake it (or will be allowed to undertake).

Please see this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Altitu ... ion_System

[chandanus]

Hi all..what is the progress going on in the Heavy Helo competition ??

[ks_sachin]

Hi all..what is the progress going on in the Heavy Helo competition ??

Ah..

There is a very heavy contest ongoing at the moment....The decision weighs very heavily on the shoulders of the IAF and heaviness forbid the wrong heavy is chosen.... so the competition is facing a heavy going.....

[NRao]

^^^NRao sahab, the LAPE procedure (the pic of tank extracted from C-130) is an extremely dangerous and risky one. Something, which is used/will be employed in case of dire requirement. It requires hell lot of airmanship and IMO, only the most experienced crew can undertake it (or will be allowed to undertake).

Please see this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Altitu ... ion_System

Thanks.

Actually during my googling I found that this was a too high a risk was to deliver goods. A few pilots have lost lives trying this out.

However, the coolest stuff I came across was a C-17. Comes in over the landing strip, door is already open, around 10 ftish a para pops out, in a sec or so the pallets follow the para and the C-17 lands and rolls to a halt in a short distance.

Of course the strip is unusable till the pallets are removed, so i am not sure what was the need for such an exercise, but it was cool.

[Shrinivasan]

^^^NRao sahab, the LAPE procedure (the pic of tank extracted from C-130) is an extremely dangerous and risky one. Something, which is used/will be employed in case of dire requirement. It requires hell lot of airmanship and IMO, only the most experienced crew can undertake it (or will be allowed to undertake).
Please see this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Altitu ... ion_System

LAPE is for extreme situations demanding quick insertion of men and equipment (mostly equipment at LA with men being dropped at Higher alt), desperate situations demand desperate measures. One thing to note is, LAPE puts the platform at extreme danger from ground fire. I am not sure if LAPES is used during combat in recent times (other than in exercises simulating combat). It would be a field day for a RPG toting Ninja who is lurking in the drop (combat) zone!!!

[aniket]

Not to mention the huge potential for pilot error,FOD potential etc.

[shukla]

Purchase of 10 C-17 Globemaster III Aircraft
MOD Press release

The government have accorded approval to buy ten C-17 Globemaster-III aircraft for the Indian Air Force. The Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) for procurement of these aircraft along with associated equipment was signed on 14th June 2011.

The cost of the procurement is $ 4.116bn

The delivery of these aircraft will commence from June, 2013 and is expected to be completed by June, 2015.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri Shyamal Chakraborty in Rajya Sabha today.

[VinodTK]

India-Russia accelerate Multi Role Transport Aircraft Project

The project envisages production of a 20 tonne cargo plane for both military and civilian applications with low gross take off weight and capable of landing/take off from poorly surfaced runways. It is intended to replace the AN-32s in the Indian Air Force and equip the Russian Air Force as well.

[Gilles]

^^^NRao sahab, the LAPE procedure (the pic of tank extracted from C-130) is an extremely dangerous and risky one. Something, which is used/will be employed in case of dire requirement. It requires hell lot of airmanship and IMO, only the most experienced crew can undertake it (or will be allowed to undertake).

Please see this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Altitu ... ion_System

The Canadian Forces C-130s and crews used to be LAPES qualified. But it lost two aircraft during LAPES excercises, one on November 16, 1982 (CC-130H 130329 crashed during a LAPES operation at Namao when the load failed to clear the aircraft causing it to crash) and another on July 22, 1993 (CC-130E 130321 crashed while performing a LAPES drop at CFB Wainwright)

After the second accident, LAPES capability was abandoned by the CF.

The C-17 was designed as LAPES capable although I think that the USAF decided not to use this aircraft for LAPES deliveries. A few LAPES trials were performed, one with a 42,000 lbs load.

[GeorgeWelch]

Interesting chart of operational cost per flight hour for different aircraft in the USAF fleet.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ombat.html

Of particular note is that the C-17 actually costs less to operate than the C-130H and only a hair more than the C-130J, even with the difference in fuel burn. I'm not sure how it's possible, but there it is.

[vic]

India needs to start developing a Turboprop military aircraft for replacement of An-32. We can also license produce C-27 or something equivalent. MRTA and NCA are both Turbofans and will not address the need of 20 ton MTOW aircraft

[Philip]

Once the IL-476 prooduction run stabilises in the near future,as the Russians have placed large orders for all forms of transport aircraft (reports in AWST,etc.),the IAF will have a choice when neccessary.However,the real workhorses of the IAF has been the AN-32,with 100 of them being upgraded with Ukranian help.A second batch of C-130Js would be wise,for special force needs and also for logistic reqs.,and when the MTA arrives we would have stabilised our requirements for transport aircraft.

However,we should also look at other variants of the MTA and heavy transports.We need many EW,SIGINT aircraft,MRPs,special need variants,for the IN,CG,too.Worldwide,single-type passenger aircraft/transport variants have beend eveloped for these alternative uses and we shgould do the same. We did do exactly that with the DO-228,turning them into IW aircraft for the IN.This way we will be less dependent upon aircraft like the P-8I ,which in a crisis wioth pak can have its spares,etc shut off.

[Singha]

we should get lots of C-130J for transport role (there is a stretched version), maybe 100 would be a good start. with the ability like AN32 to operate off the ALGs , these will be useful assets in all conditions. we can delete any comsec kit and install our own. need not be equipped upto MC130 level but does need a weather radar and blind navigation facility to cope with low cloud levels, rain and fog in hilly NER terrain.

having the ability to resupply at night and bad weather to fwd areas could be vital game changer.

[Shrinivasan]

we should get lots of C-130J for transport role (there is a stretched version), maybe 100 would be a good start...
having the ability to resupply at night and bad weather to fwd areas could be vital game changer.

Singha, are you serious about this "100" number? It would be extremely expensive unless we license build it in desh, parts ityaadi will cost us a bomb. a maximum of 20-25 airframes would be adequate. These along with the future fleet of C-17s and the current fleet of AN-32s would be the backbone. MTA is still in the future and when it is realized, we should order those in large numbers rather than C130Js (eventhough C130J is an excellent aircraft!!!)

[tejas]

Wiki gives "std" C-130J a unit cost of $62 million in 2008. I know IAF got enhanced equipment but we paid 300% more than that

[Singha]

I think some of the back end cost like spares and training get amortized over large nos of airframes ie they might remain same or close as number of airframes scale up?

in any case, license build will not really reduce the cost as parts will need to be imported for quick production run - even at say $70 mil - we can get 100 for under $7b which is like buying 15 C17 only.

scale is important. scale x quality is necessary to intimidate the lizard, not just quality.

[rohitvats]

^^^I second that. Extremely important to have these a/c if we want any sort of Rapid Response capability at Division level over respectable distance.

[shiv]

Turbofans and will not address the need of 20 ton MTOW aircraft

Why?

With high altitude take-off and landing being a primary requirement for the iAF, I thought turbofans would be a much better choice.

[Philip]

I am with Shiv and have always been for acquiring more turbo-fans like the C-130s and other similar aircraft available.The pre-eminent need is to support our troops at the highest alts. in the Hinalayas.C-17s cannot land at these small airstrips which are vital for our ground ops there.10 C-17s is more thna adequate,remember these are "intercontinental strategic heavy lifters",meant for expeditionary warfare supporting western/US invasions like that of Iraq ,Afghanistan,etc.! Even here the AN-124 and IL-76s and MI-8/17s seem to be the preferred transport aircraft and helos.We will have many more smaller medium and light transports available for all theatres during a crisis.They come cheaper too.

[Indranil]

Philip saar .... you are supporting turboprops like C-130s or planes with turbofans?

Vic, I am hoping that the turboprop variant of the RTA comes to life.

I am with you that for ALGs we would be best served with a high-mounted tapered wing, turboprop plane (like in the AN-32, and C-130). This configuration gives better lift as the prop-wash flows around the wing. This is good for our ALGs. At low-speeds the turboprop will give better performance than the turbofans. This is another thing which helps operations at ALGs. I hope we quickly build these as replacements for AN-32s from the IRJ-military-turboprop variant and buy more C-130s. Also turboprops will always be more efficient than turbofans when it comes to fuel used.

Actually if you ask me the turbofan version is more like a stepping stone on the "We have to start somewhere" line ... I am not pretty sure that we would garner a lot of international orders with that as the market is already crowded and even the players who alread have their plane on the block like Sukhoi and Avic are struggling for orders. However, with increasing fuel costs an operating costs the turboprop version with a seating capacity of 70-110 people would have garnered a lot of interest. There are already a lot of airlines worldwide which are looking for a high-capacity turboprops.

Shivji, just wondering why you think a turbofan would be better for the ALGs though?

[Austin]

I really like the idea that we are building the RTA and hopefully the people who are building it have done their homework or market research on their ability to sell x amount of aircraft in the global market against global competition to make it a viable project against the amount they plan to spend or rather expect GOI to fund them.

But what I dont like is they are already assuming that the RTA will be purchased by the IAF in significant numbers because they think the IAF must/will buy it and I have yet to hear any IAF official express their intent desire or support for RTA or more specifically the need to buy it for what is primarily a civilian aircraft for passenger service.

The downside is NAL is setting the wrong expectation that IAF will/must buy this aircraft no matter what ever happen in civilian space because they have built it so IAF must buy it. Tommorow the same people will cry foul if IAF refuses to buy it because according to their expectation IAF must buy it and it will come to IAF not supporting indigenous development.

That same thing like IAF must support Saras aircraft becuause NAL made it and no matter if NAL manages to sell it in India or Globally but IAF should buy it which may be not the best deal for IAF if they have Do-228 that can be easily manufactured or logistically better supported and purchasing Saras may not be a viable option for them.

NAL should stop firing from IAF shoulders or set the wrong expectation even before the project has started and should focus on the core area of development which to make a competitive aircraft that would sell against global competition and make a niche for itself and then later should focus on defense needs if such a demand does come from defence services.

[shiv]

Jet engines are much more efficient in providing thrust at high altitude and turbofans provide a good compromise that work well at low and high altitude. Props really score over jets where the air is really dense and cool. Hot and high means jets. The time when the plane requires maximum thrust is at takeoff and a takeoffs at 10,000 feet is normal for the IAF . At high altitude props are unable to generate that mus thrust and ae also unable to achieve the RPM that turbofans reach - which in turn contributes to thrust. However the newer prop designs - eg A-440 are likely to be as good - but unless you have a working engine of that class we will have an MTA with no proven engine.

Lift enhancement is a different issue. Planes that do not have air blowing over the wings by means of a prop can use various other measures. The whopping huge flaps of the C-17 are an example - the plane almost behaves like a vectored thrust aircraft (Harrier) when it is flying at super low speed at 100 meters above the runway.

I think there is an India Commercial transport Aircraft plan that will feature a common body but a choice of prop or jet depending on role - short haul or long haul respectively. OT

[Philip]

Indra,both engines/aircraft have their advantages.We need a variety of aircraft that can deliver what is needed right from small turboprops to medium and large transports.The AN-32 seems to have been a great success for many years,upgradingthem excellent,but we do need newer more modern aircraft taking advantage of the tech developments in high-performance engines in recent times.There seems to be a resurgence globally in tj/tf powered aircraft.

[vic]

I think a rough and ready solution would be 4 engined turoprop version of MRTA?

[Indranil]

Shivji, not quite right ... At takeoff and landing speeds turboprops are way better than turbofans or turbojets even at altitudes of 10,000 feet ... this is a very important reason why most high performance STOL planes have turboprops ... turbofans are efficient for cruising and hence it is preferred on airliners and on the C-17s which are designed for strategic reach. Normally, turboprop engines are most efficient at speeds between 250 and 400 m.p.h. and altitudes between 18,000 and 30,000 feet. They also perform well at the slow airspeeds required for takeoff and landing, and are fuel efficient. The minimum specific fuel consumption of the turboprop engine is normally available in the altitude range of 25,000 feet to the tropopause.

Due to the power advantage at low speeds, the the turboprops have much lower approach speeds. Even for our turboprop RTA, the approach speed is 110 kts (take of run of 900-1000 mtrs) whereas that of the turbofan NCA is 125 kts (takeoff run of 1400 mtrs).

Also there is a distinct advantage of using prop wash for lift ... using flaps comes with a huge drag penalties which is not a the best thing to happen when your engine is air deprived.

Moving to the civilian version ... The reason I was supporting a turboprop plane even in the civilian market was because a modern turboprops could fly almost at the same speed as turbofans and yet require 2/3rd to half the fuel vis-a-vis a turbofan. From what I have read a lot of budget airlines (one would be amazed as the number of budget airlines in the world today) want a high passenger capacity turboprop plane.

[shiv]

Shivji, not quite right ... At takeoff and landing speeds turboprops are way better than turbofans or turbojets even at altitudes of 10,000 feet

I actually searched and found no information to support this statement. I would like to see some sources that say this. At low altitudes yes. At 10,000 feet I am not so sure. I need to see some refs - with explanations. Especially at the high ambient temps that we see in India.

The problem really is achieving that takeoff speed at high altitude high temperature given the length of existing mountain runways. There is very little public source info on this and I am inclined to believe that MTA/Turbofan was not a blind ignorant choice. After all there is a deliberate choice to shift from turboprop An 32 to a turbofan. I have also read no critcism of the choice in any aviation related medium - outside of BRF.

[NRao]

The C-17 is considered to be both a tactical and a strategic air craft.

Indian purchase of the C-17 IS for use with ALGs!!!! During an emmergency the C-17 will be used to deliver larger quantities of men or supplies.

100 C-130s (or for that matter upgraded An-32s or alternatives) have a place. So does the C-17. Strange as it may sound.

[Sanku]

The C-17 is considered to be both a tactical and a strategic air craft.

Depending on what the Boeing thinks will be needed to close the sale. In reality its not.

Indian purchase of the C-17 IS for use with ALGs!!!! During an emmergency the C-17 will be used to deliver larger quantities of men or supplies.

No C 17 has ever landed on any ALG with any meaningful role in 25+ years and neither will they start doing that.

100 C-130s (or for that matter upgraded An-32s or alternatives) have a place. So does the C-17. Strange as it may sound.

Yes it sounds strange if the above two statements were really correct (that of C 17 being anything other than a big lumbering transport) -- since its not really. Tactical airlift will be needed for last line while C 17 run some expensive sorties between major airbases.

[NRao]

OK. We are making progress. We are down from 30+ to 25+ years.