Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Transport Aircraft for IAF

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5867
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 27 Apr 2016 23:12

^^^ No it is not possible. The drogue chute only stabilizes, doesn't have much retardation power. When exiting the plane, even the drogue chute is only beginning to deploy. Basically, the paratrooper falls like a stone, except that his rotation is arrested because of the deployment of the stabilizing chute. In an automatic system, the drogue chute opens the bag containing the main chute using a delayed opening system. Otherwise, the paratrooper starts a count as soon as he exits the aircraft. On reaching a certain count, he deploys the main chute. In the either of these cases, the paratrooper has cleared the aircraft by 100-200 feet. When jumping from very high altitudes, they use the altimeter to synchronize opening of the chutes.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 27 Apr 2016 23:38

indranilroy wrote:Your video perfectly demonstrates what I said. In the D5/6 Russian system only a very small pouch containing a drogue chute is attached to the line. When the paratrooper exits the aircraft, only a small bag attached to a carabiner clip is left on the line. This stays inside the aircraft, there is nothing left to be pulled in. You can see that the "jumpmasters" exit the plane immediately after the last man on either side has exited. On the American system, the jumpmaster(s) have to stay back to pull those lines and bag in. By the way, these men have to be incredibly strong.


Ahh.. okay. I assumed drogue chutes were a standard part of all static line systems, although that's mostly because when I did static jumps my gear had a drogue chute that preceded the ram-air parachute.


Two question though -

1. Isn't all this characteristic of the type of parachute gear chosen? That is to say, the IA probably uses the same (Russian?) parachutes irrespective of which aircraft it deploys from, so how do the C-17 & Il-76 come into play?

2. How do they shut the side-doors on the Il-76s if the jumpmasters go out with the last stick of jumpers?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5867
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 28 Apr 2016 00:11

1. I do not know the combination used by IAF.
2. None of the doors, on the C-17 or the IL-76 are closed manually ofcourse. It is just a matter of placement of the switch.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 30 Apr 2016 12:41

Media report. The R Co. has signed in sev deals with the UKR for a variety of def wares.Engines for FFGs (4 Talwars + another 6 in the second batch may be acquired),advancred upgrades for 2500 T-72s (IA requirement/tender) and interstingly for this td.,a med mil transport aircraft ,obviously with Antonov. The R Co. is going after everything military.


ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4998
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Aug 2016 10:03

Boeing C-17s, Shashikant Sharma, & accountability

It is curious that the Indian press and media that does raises hell when it comes to anything going wrong with ex-Russian military hardware is strangely silent and fails even to report the findings of the Comptroller and Accountant General regarding problems with Western and US-sourced equipment and platforms. .....

As per the offset contract (of June 2011), simulator services in India were to be made available by July 2013 for the planes inducted in the period June 2013-December 2014. Audit observed that Boeing “was yet to setup” the simulator through its Indian Offset partners — ....

CAG faults IAF for not assessing “suitability of its runways before induction”. The result is sheer “underutilization of pay load capacity”, according to CAG, with C-17s carrying as little as 17 tonnes on sorties and averaging around 26-35 tonnes. ....The cost penalties are huge considering the cost per flying hour is Rs 43. 19 lakh, which CAG deems “imprudent”.

In other words, there is no obligation for Boeing and the US Government to deliver, other than the aircraft itself, on the contracted services and infrastructure related to efficient operations of this aircraft. .....

But here’s the nub of the whole issue. How did this substantively flawed and faulty contract pass muster with the Ministry of Defence, and who is responsible for it? Well, the Director-General, Acquisitions, in MOD in June 2013, when the LOA was signed was one Shashikant Sharma, IAS, and hence directly responsible for accepting this contract. Sharma demitted the office of DG, Acquisitions, the next month (in July 2013) but not before concluding the Augusta-Westland VVIP helicopter deal — remember that scam? — for which he was rewarded with posting as Defence Secretary, retiring from which capacity he was appointed CAG by the Manmohan Singh’s Congress party government. And it is as CAG that he now pronounces on the shortfalls of the C-17 contract, which he was originally responsible for in the first place!!

As stated in earlier blogs, Shashikant Sharma on his retirement as CAG in 2017, needs to be investigated for his hand in the Agusta scam, but also for the C-17 fiasco. Unless accountability becomes the norm, the present phenomenally lax system, ultimately of financial resources mismanagement, will persist, and India willfully reduced, by its minders, to a pauper.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33959
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby shiv » 19 Aug 2016 10:15

Where is Philip?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Pratyush » 19 Aug 2016 11:30

Finally a "scandal "with us purchased equipment. I would love to know the per sorties avg lifted by the IL 76.

Before commenting on the utilisation rates for C 17.

MohdKav
BRFite
Posts: 203
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 15:34

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby MohdKav » 19 Aug 2016 15:36

Length of Runways, isnt really a scam. It is something that be easily rectified and can act as a advantage.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby rohitvats » 19 Aug 2016 21:25

Next time when anyone posts anything from Bharat-Karnad, it should be explicitly mentioned as such. At least one would not waste time by cliking such links.

He has been using filthy language against IAF for sometime now. Wonder what privilidge IAF did not extend to him!

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby JTull » 07 Oct 2016 14:45

Airbus C295W demonstrates air-to-air refuelling (Tanker) capability

Image

Airbus Defence and Space has successfully demonstrated the Airbus C295W medium transport as an airborne tanker. The C295W, equipped with a palletized air-to-air refuelling unit and associated computer control system, conducted multiple contacts with a standard Spanish Air Force C295 in a test flight on 29 September. Both crews reported extremely smooth operation at various speeds as low as 110kt. The system is intended for refuelling turboprop aircraft, helicopters, and eventually unmanned aerial vehicles. Possible applications include special operations and extending the range of search and rescue aircraft. Further trials with a helicopter receiver are planned before the end of the year.

Video Link

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Pratyush » 07 Oct 2016 14:57

Interesting, opens up the possibility of using IAF transporters as refulers.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 07 Oct 2016 17:35

Here! Did I not say aeons ago that the C-17 deal which appeared out of PC Sorcar aka Snake-Oil Singh's hat,was a trade-off for the N-deal? Boeing was about to close down the C-17 line and dear Old Snake-Oil was ever-willing to oblige. Mark Tully once told me that he (Snake-Oil) was obsessed with the N-deal.
Those who watch closely know that there was one set of stds for the US and another for Ru and the rest.

However,I do not deny the capability of the bird.In retrospect,it has given the IAF extra capability.nevertheless,at a huge cost,which when you examine the venerable IL-76s,now in a new upgraded avatar,come infinitely cheaper,3-4 for the cost of just one C-17 (no longer in production too),which have been used to ferry our IAF teams to take part in US air exercises (Red Flag,etc) in Alaska!

New IL-78 tankers are on the anvil,upgrades of all/most IL-76s and surely in the future more of them.A few more for the extra AWACS Phalcons already reportedly on order.

The pending decision is for the LTA/MTA.This should be speeded up asap as the AVROs are antiques.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60477
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 07 Oct 2016 17:38

Pratyush wrote:Interesting, opens up the possibility of using IAF transporters as refulers.


The midas had palletized fuel tanks. But who will fit the 3 refueling hoses, pump system and operator station on all transporters?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60477
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 07 Oct 2016 17:41

The c17 can lift large sam systems, brahmos and pinaka telar, agni1,radars and even t90 tanks into theater which il76 of any mark cannot.

The old soviets used an22 for this and now an124. Its the an124 which flies to syria routinely

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60477
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 07 Oct 2016 17:42

Il76 is good as people mover and para brigade nd russian vvd units use il76 mostly

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby JTull » 07 Oct 2016 18:42

Singha wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Interesting, opens up the possibility of using IAF transporters as refulers.


The midas had palletized fuel tanks. But who will fit the 3 refueling hoses, pump system and operator station on all transporters?


C295 solution truly seems different as per the video. The back ramp is opened and the pallet uncoils the hose. Seems pallets can just roll-on/roll-off with minimal effort of securing them in the hold.

Some more details here

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby JTull » 07 Oct 2016 18:44

And here

Image

Image

Image

Image

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby JTull » 07 Oct 2016 18:49

India should push ahead with this project to replace Avros and An-32s. Seems very versatile (link) with AWACS and XTOL (Extreme take off and landing) capabilities in the works.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1950
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 08 Oct 2016 01:59

I thought we shortlisted it and CCS approved. Not sure what remains at the moment. This would be a good addition. Add some extra IL476 and we can take our time on getting our heads out of our rears and start working on MTA on our own. We can do this!! Or get Airbus defence as consultant. They don't have a plane in the MTA category.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 08 Oct 2016 13:25

Apart from the LTA/MTA,we need to get a larger platform for our indigenous AEW bird now using EMB aircraft.Embraer have become embroiled in an intl. scam which may affect the Indian conrtact too for the 3 aircraft supplied.In case EMB's become "tainted",there are other options.

In the same size are two Ru aircraft,Sukhoi's Superjet and the MC-21 (ntended to replace the Yakovlev Yak-42, Tupolev Tu-134, Tupolev Tu-154, and Tupolev Tu-204/214s in service) .An Airbus Boeing rival. The smaller SSJ-100 is in the EMB class,5 yrs in service and over 77 built.Mexico's Interjet uses it also on US routes.has western engines. Either of these two types could be built in India if large civvy orders materialise.

For the tankers,the IL-78 upgraded version appears to be the IAF's choice,esp on price and commonality with existing aircraft.IL-76s/476s are being acquired for the extra Phalcons.

The largest number required is still the LTA/MTA to replace Avros and later on the upgraded AN-32s.Here the EU contenders are in pole position,though the R co.'s supposed tie-up with the UKR/Antonov may spring a surprise.We've operated Antonov's (AN-12s and AN-32s) v.successfully in the past,the bigger bird still going strong in some parts of the world.

We should also look forward with newer versions of the DO-228 s well since the aircraft has been built for decades by us RUAG own the co. now,which we've could've obtained for a song.There is an OZ design for a DO amphib too.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 12 Oct 2016 10:57

Is yet another deal being steered towards the US's way? There's nothing wrong with the IL-78s,which we operate,new upgraded ones in production at low cost.These very tankers few halfway across the globe to take part in US air exercises and support our fleet of Jags and MKIs. At this rate we will have such a variety of aircraft types in every segment which will make maintenance,etc. a nightmare.The IAF is the most profligate of the 3 services on this score and is suffering for it.

http://www.defencenews.in/article/Boein ... r_to_India
Boeing offers KC-46 tanker to India
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
By: Stratpost
U.S. aviation giant Boeing has offered India its KC-46 mid-air refueling aircraft, shortly after the withdrawal of the USD 1 billion Indian Air Force (IAF) tender for six tankers in July. This was the second time a tender for the aircraft was cancelled. The Airbus A330 MRTT (Multi Role Tanker Transport) had been selected both times, beating the Russian IL-78, an aircraft already operated by the IAF. The European aerospace and defense company had extended the validity of its bid several times before the tender was withdrawn.

Sources in the IAF told StratPost that Boeing has already sent in representatives to brief New Delhi on the aircraft. Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar was also apprised of the capabilities of the aircraft during his recent visit to the U.S.

Boeing’s KC-46 program was selected by the USAF for its USD 51 billion KC-X tanker requirement. The KC-46 is based on Boeing’s 767 commercial airliner.

Boeing has never participated in either of the two Indian tanker contests, but had admitted the possibility that it might offer the aircraft to India, in the event it was finally selected for the U.S. tanker program. At this point, it remains unclear if the defense ministry and the IAF will issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) for the third time or if they will choose the government-to-government approach to purchase the type without a tender.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kartik » 25 Oct 2016 04:56

Not exactly related to transport aircraft for the IAF, but hey, its MRTT, so in a way its a part time transport too. So it's going to be KC-46, Airbus A-330 MRTT and Il-78MD-90A MRTT.

Someone please start a new thread for Indian Military Aviation, the old one is over 100 pages and locked.

posting article in full from AW&ST

The Indian air force is working to define its qualitative requirements for an aerial tanker to replace its seven Ilyushin Il-78MKIs after scrapping plans to buy six AirbusA330 Multi-Role Tanker Transports (MRTT), and will accept offers from any global vendor capable of meetings its needs.

A high-ranking Indian air force official tells Aviation Week that the tender for six Airbus tankers was withdrawn related to cost concerns and an ongoing reassessment of requirements. The official stressed that the demand for more tanker capacity is greater now than ever, and the acquisition process will resume when the requirements and quantity have been revalidated. He anticipates an “open and transparent competition” between the Airbus A330 MRTT, Boeing KC-46 or other aircraft capable of meeting India’s needs. The official says Russia could even offer its new Ilyushin Il-78MD-90A-based multirole tanker, which is slated to begin testing in 2017.

“We talk about an open and transparent competition,” the Indian official says. “We don’t say we need this airplane or another. We state what capabilities the air force needs; whichever manufacturer can meet those needs obviously goes into the competition. It’s a global tender. Every country or industry that has the capability and can prove it will be cleared to respond, and there are people who can respond even if they cannot meet the qualifying requirements. Everybody is free to respond, [but] only those who meet the qualitative requirements will be considered.”

...

Boeing has an entrenched presence in India on the commercial and military side, with New Delhi ordering the company’s C-17 Globemaster III, P-8i aircraft and AH-64E Apache and CH-47 Chinook rotorcraft. The company will almost certainly pitch its Boeing 767-based KC-46 tanker to India, having now entered low-rate production for the U.S. Air Force after resolving significant development issues that had set the program back. Airbus will be looking to revive the A330 MRTT deal, which is worth $1-2 billion. The wide body tanker can double as a troop or executive transport aircraft and has long been the Indian air force’s preferred choice over Russian alternatives or a purpose-built Boeing KC-767.The A330 type is operated by Australia, France, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and UK. South Korea signed for the type last year.

The KC-46 is being procured by Japan, and Israel has expressed interest too. Thanks to the reset of India’s tanker acquisition, Boeing now has the time needed to enter its now fully developed KC-46A in New Delhi’s third tanker race since 2006. In August, Boeing secured U.S. Air Force contracts worth $2.8 billion for production of the first 19 operational KC-46s.

“Since the start of the program there has been strong interest from nations looking to modernize their air refueling capabilities,” Boeing said of its KC-46 in an Oct. 13 email. “Recently, with the KC-46 successfully completing the Defense Department’s Milestone C requirements, a number of potential international customers have reengaged with Boeing and we look forward to continuing our conversations with them.”

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5867
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 25 Oct 2016 22:34

Kartik wrote:Not exactly related to transport aircraft for the IAF, but hey, its MRTT, so in a way its a part time transport too. So it's going to be KC-46, Airbus A-330 MRTT and Il-78MD-90A MRTT.

Someone please start a new thread for Indian Military Aviation, the old one is over 100 pages and locked.


It is here and I am going to cross-post this post there.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby JTull » 03 Nov 2016 18:05

IAF C-17 lands at Mechuka forward landing ground in Arunanchal Pradesh, 29 Km from Sino border



This should answer some of the questions about it's capabilities vis-a-vis IL-76.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1077
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kakarat » 03 Nov 2016 18:47

Longer video of IAF C-17 lands at Mechuka

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 953
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Manish_P » 04 Nov 2016 10:32

Cooly efficient

Any idea of the load-out ?
(apologies if mentioned in the video... youtube banned at workplace :( )

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby vaibhav.n » 04 Nov 2016 14:07

Mechuka Valley on map. IAF usually has An-32 sorties to Mechuka ALG. Along is the district HQ.

Mechuka is a relatively large and wide river valley with low rolling hills all the way from Along. The terrain is less drastic than is experienced on the way to areas as Tawang . Ideal for any Armour that may be deployed.

Arunachal map

An-32 landing

BCM Road Trip to Mechuka

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby yensoy » 04 Nov 2016 20:01

Stupid question... but is it possible to "harden" any typical A-320 or B-737 for Air Force Transport use? A320 has a higher stance than the 737, and the earliest specimens supplied to Indian airlines had double bogie landing gears for poor airstrips. The interior baffle/floor can be removed and a rear door added. Sticking with civilian models gives huge cost advantages, parts/logistics commonality and crew/servicemen familiarity.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby yensoy » 04 Nov 2016 20:32

Thank you Zynda. As far as positioning personnel, guns, ammunition and supplies in remote places like Leh, Mechuka, Andamans etc - can a subfleet of converted commercial transport aircraft be used? Unless we are doing an airdrop over Siachen, do we really need the Il-76? Of course versatility is lost somewhat, and in an actual war situation the number of frontline air transport aircraft will be only a subset of the fleet. But there may be benefits in exploring this as we build better airstrips in the remote locations. China flies commercial aircraft into Nyingchi airport which is right across the border from Mechuka (of course the terrain is vastly different between Tibetan plateau and Arunachal). I also see a lot of armymen flying commercial these days (especially to Leh).

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Gilles » 03 Dec 2016 23:25

Many will no doubt recall this thread where I claimed that the Pavement Classification of the C-17 would in fact prevent if from going to most runways and that this aircraft was not able to and on 3000 and 3500 foot runways on a routine basis as claimed.

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?t=5291&start=320

It is therefore of no surprise to me to run into this July 2016 CAG report:

http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Chapter%20%203%20Contract%20Management.pdf

3.1.6 Non exploitation of capabilities of C-17 due to inadequate runways C-17 aircraft is capable of conveying payload of 70 tonnes with short field landing capability on 3500 feet runways including its capability to operate from high altitude austere airfield. However, for its effective operations at higher loads, it requires runway pavement to be of certain minimum quality. The quality of pavement is indicated through its pavement classification number (PCN). For operation of C-17 aircraft, runway was upgraded with PCN value to 75 at AFS, Hindan.
In order to operate C-17 aircraft with full pay load, Head Quarter Western Air Command (HQ WAC) decided (December 2014) for PCN evaluation during 2015-16 in respect of five Air Force bases (Sirsa, Sarsawa, Jammu, Pathankot, Udhampur) where runway resurfacing was planned for 2016-17. HQ WAC also decided (December 2014) for PCN evaluation in respect of four other airfields (Hindan, Awantipur, Chandigarh and Thoise) which were upgraded/resurfaced during 2015.
Since runways did not possess the required PCN and were not strong enough to withstand full impact, the aircraft was operating with lesser payload being carried. Although, the Maximum All Up Weight (AUW) of C-17 aircraft was 265 tonnes however aircraft was operating with average AUW of 216 tonnes.
Thus, IAF had not assessed suitability of its runways before induction of C-17 fleet and as a result of runways with lower PCN, C-17 aircraft was operating with lesser payload. Air HQ stated (April 2016) that the C-17 aircraft is capable of operating from runways with lesser PCN value in case situation demands such operation. Air HQ further added that the Audit statement holds good partially in respect of 14 airfields which were
found unsuitable for operation of C-17 because of low PCN values and ground manoeuvring requirements.
Reply of Air HQ may be seen in perspective that the C-17 fleet had been operating with the reduced payload.
Thus, there were delays in completion of specialist infrastructure and simulators required for training to pilots and loadmasters. Further, there was under-utilisation of operational capabilities of C-17 aircraft due to non-availability of runway with appropriate PCN and lack of ground equipment at various bases.


This is PCN problem is an issue the IL-76 does not have. It's PCN is almost half of the C-17's......

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 04 Dec 2016 00:43

Gilles wrote:Many will no doubt recall this thread where I claimed that the Pavement Classification of the C-17 would in fact prevent if from going to most runways and that this aircraft was not able to and on 3000 and 3500 foot runways on a routine basis as claimed.

Airstrips where the C-17 is expected to operate on a 'routine' basis is being resurfaced and are, for the most part, more than lengthy enough (the runway at Leh for example is over 9000 ft). Some of the infrastructure plans are behind schedule (and that is what the CAG report was alluding to).


In Siachen, a faster response system
The changes in the air-support are projected to match the changes on the ground: the IAF wants its ALG (advanced landing ground) at Nyoma in South Eastern Ladakh facing Aksai Chin (about 25 to 30km from the Line of Actual Control with China — a few seconds in flight) to be upgraded into a full-fledged base. It is doing that in Kargil where the runway is being lengthened. At Thoise, where we were diverted because bad weather made it impossible for the V5 to cross the Khardung La last evening, there is now a heated hangar for helicopters. C-17 Globemaster III aircraft of the IAF land in Thoise regularly as does a civilian plane chartered as a “courier” by the army.


As far as make-shift high altitude ALGs go, the C-17 is not expected to make 'routine' visits.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Paul » 05 Dec 2016 09:26

C17 flew over my house in S Bangalore. Probably on those remonetization trips to Mysuru.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5867
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 06 Dec 2016 00:03

Gilles,

Happy to see you back. What you were saying then was obvious, and therefore this CAG report is no surprise to me.

But, I don't think that IAF selection committee is a fool. They would have known this pretty well as well. Note, that they did not parrot the lines from the brochure. They did not refute the reporters whose comprehension is brochure-deep or who went gung-ho after a trip in a C-17 in an airshow. The truth is IAF needed the C-17s because the IL-78s service record is abysmal. It is not because the plane or the design is bad. It is because the after sales services of cash strapped Ilyushin is horrible. Plus, C-17s additional payload carrying capacity means that they can now actually take some loads to the hot and high places. All this carrying tanks to Leh and stopping within 3000 feet and all are part of the circus, i.e. called Indian defense procurement. We have our clowns just like any other country. IAF knows it and plays along to get what is needed.

But I hope you keep posting here. I loved your posts.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Gilles » 06 Dec 2016 04:53

Viv S wrote:Airstrips where the C-17 is expected to operate on a 'routine' basis is being resurfaced and are, for the most part, more than lengthy enough (the runway at Leh for example is over 9000 ft). Some of the infrastructure plans are behind schedule (and that is what the CAG report was alluding to).


I was claiming that too. The USAF had to make or resurface special "unpaved" runways for the C-17 to operate into, runways that could handle the aircraft's hi PCN (I remember posting that the C-17 has a PCN similar to that of a Boeing 707, which is not know as a bush aircraft).
The C-17 is never operated into regular unpaved, dirt or grass runway like a C-130 or Il-76 can.

So after selling this aircraft as a huge land and go-anywhere bush aircraft to the IAF, the same IAF had no choice but to upgrade a series of runways to accommodate same aircraft.........

Now that the wedding is celebrated and the marriage is consumed.......

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 06 Dec 2016 10:33

Gilles wrote:So after selling this aircraft as a huge land and go-anywhere bush aircraft to the IAF, the same IAF had no choice but to upgrade a series of runways to accommodate same aircraft.........

You know this how? The CAG report seems to suggest that the IAF & MoD were aware of the aircraft's PCN specs all along, presumably knew what the upgrades to the runways would cost and therefore made an informed decision while ordering the aircraft. Which is already running a critical air bridge to Siachen (Thoise).

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby JTull » 06 Dec 2016 16:40

Since we're on the subject of retrospectively comparing C-17 to IL-76, could we also look at what are the availability rates for both. That is, what part of each fleet is down at any time (on average) as compared to brochure/promised/contracted rates?

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Gilles » 06 Dec 2016 22:42

Viv S wrote:You know this how? The CAG report seems to suggest that the IAF & MoD were aware of the aircraft's PCN specs all along, presumably knew what the upgrades to the runways would cost and therefore made an informed decision while ordering the aircraft. Which is already running a critical air bridge to Siachen (Thoise).


Oh dont misunderstand me, there is no doubt in my mind that the IAF knew all along that these runway upgrades would have to be done, but this appeared nowhere in the brochures and the sales pitches to sell the aircraft. In any documentation, press releases etc provided by both Boeing and whatever customer who was looking to buy the aircraft and trying to convince the bean counters to fork out the required money, it was always presented as a huge bush aircraft that could land on any unsurfaced airstrip, as long as it was at least 3500 feet long. Earlier publications (before the IAF expressed its interest) even claimed 3000 feet.....

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Gilles » 06 Dec 2016 23:07

JTull wrote:Since we're on the subject of retrospectively comparing C-17 to IL-76, could we also look at what are the availability rates for both. That is, what part of each fleet is down at any time (on average) as compared to brochure/promised/contracted rates?


Good point. But for the comparison to be fair, one must also look at factors which are not directly related to the aircraft.

How much was invested in spares inventory for the IL-76 fleet vs the the Boeing fleet ?
How much was invested in after purchase support for the IL-76 fleet vs the Boeing fleet ?

When a C-17 is down, a Boeing technician is right there to fix it and has the required spare part on inventory. This was planned in the purchase contract.

Is this the case for the IL-76/78/A-50 fleet ?

A friend of mine once bought a 1974 Ferrari. He took it to a Ferrari garage to have it looked over, The technician went over the car with a fine toothed comb and prepared a list of items that had to be taken care of. My friend asked the technician how much all that would cost. The technician looked at him with a surprised look and replied that whomever asked such questions could not afford a Ferrari.

Whether you buy a 1974 or a 2016 Ferrari, it is still a Ferrari and both must be maintained as such.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 07 Dec 2016 00:00

Gilles wrote:Oh dont misunderstand me, there is no doubt in my mind that the IAF knew all along that these runway upgrades would have to be done, but this appeared nowhere in the brochures and the sales pitches to sell the aircraft. In any documentation, press releases etc provided by both Boeing and whatever customer who was looking to buy the aircraft and trying to convince the bean counters to fork out the required money, it was always presented as a huge bush aircraft that could land on any unsurfaced airstrip, as long as it was at least 3500 feet long. Earlier publications (before the IAF expressed its interest) even claimed 3000 feet.....

Well that may be relevant to a customer that needed such a capability (maybe the USAF). All IAF ops, including those involving the C-130J & the Il-76, are conducted from surfaced airstrips.

Whether you buy a 1974 or a 2016 Ferrari, it is still a Ferrari and both must be maintained as such.

Given that the C-17 was a more economical aircraft per unit cargo (flyaway) than the Il-476*, making a comparison to the 'Ferrari' is odd... unless you see the Il-76 in the mould of an Alfa Romeo perhaps.

*May have changed after the Ruble crash last year.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kersi, nash and 42 guests