Transport Aircraft for IAF

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 22 Jun 2011 18:03

cheenum wrote:
vivekmehta wrote:can anyone guess where will be C-17’s will be based out. Agra seems to be too congested. Even if it is doubled in his size it still will get some 6 re-fulers . certainly 2 more awacs .
Similarly 8-12 P8I needs to be accommodated by Navy . in near future .
I thought about this sometime back... let me answer both parts of your question.
IN P8Is would be predominantly based in INS Rajali in Arakkonam with couple of airframes performing missions from Cochin, Dabolim and Port Blair. Arakkonam is where the IN Bears are currently bases, there is plenty of room to grow. Also if Goa civilian airport and Vizag civilian airport are moved to dedicated sites, these Airfields would have more than adequate space for hosting our ever increasing Naval Aviation assets.

Coming to C-17s, our current fleet of IL-76s are based out of three locations, Chandigarh, Agra and Nagpur. These Air Bases / Air Ports have huge space. If we move our IL76s out of Agra to Nagpur and Chandigarh, then we can base our C17s in Agra. Apart from these we have multiple bases around the country which host our AN-32s.

So all of these are based out of western theater? nothing on the north east? Some of the AWACS (future) should be based out of Kalaikunda may be to keep track of China..?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jun 2011 23:52

Indian Air Force AN-32 Life Extension Programme begins at 1 BRD

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 23 Jun 2011 00:07

prithvi wrote:So all of these are based out of western theater? nothing on the north east? Some of the AWACS (future) should be based out of Kalaikunda may be to keep track of China..?

No point in basing any Naval Aviation Assets in the NE or even East.

AWACS can be based in Agra and be available for sorties in the NE. Kalaikunda / Tejpur could be a base where they would come home to roost / refuel but it is not feasible to base 3 (or 5) Phalcon AWACS in 3-4 bases. Once our ARDE AEWCS comes in numbers, they might be based in smaller detachments in bases in the NE or J&K or even down south.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 23 Jun 2011 00:20

chackojoseph wrote: I went almost 5 pages back. Nothing there. Any idea why they are still using "Indian 'may' buy 45 engines" in their current press releases after the FMS order to Boeing? Even boeing says nothing about the engines, which is a major cost. I know abt the congress notification, but, thats bit old.

This 45 Engines is over and above the 40 Engine which will come with the 10 C17s, correct? it would be criminal to conclude one deal to buy 10C-17s for $4.1B without engines and then try for another deal for the engines.
the Stratpost link posted talks about 10 installed and 5 Spares. I don't think Desh would order 5 Spare engines for 10 planes. For 40 LCAs they ordered ~100 engines from GE.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Jun 2011 00:48

cheenum wrote: This 45 Engines is over and above the 40 Engine which will come with the 10 C17s, correct? it would be criminal to conclude one deal to buy 10C-17s for $4.1B without engines and then try for another deal for the engines.
the Stratpost link posted talks about 10 installed and 5 Spares. I don't think Desh would order 5 Spare engines for 10 planes. For 40 LCAs they ordered ~100 engines from GE.

45 spare engines?

Modern jet engines do not go kaput very often. 45 spares would be a colossal waste. I am pretty sure these 45 contain the 40 to be installed on the 10 aircraft + 5 spares.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Jun 2011 01:15

yup it will be 40 plus 5

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2011 04:40

I don't think Desh would order 5 Spare engines for 10 planes. For 40 LCAs they ordered ~100 engines from GE.

40 for 10 planes, 5 spares.

The 100 GE engines include quite a few for reverse engineering purposes.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 23 Jun 2011 06:18

NRao wrote: The 100 GE engines include quite a few for reverse engineering purposes.

That is BS. Provide a source to back it up.

There never was an order for 100 GE engines.

Here is the 404IN20 order for Mk1. Total of 24+17 =41. Mk1 order is for 40.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscent ... 70207.html

Here is the 414INS6 order for for Mk2. Total =99+49 options. Plan is up to 140 Mk2s
for IAF and up to 60 for navy.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscent ... 101001.htm
http://www.gereports.com/india-orders-9 ... hter-jet/l

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2011 08:35

ok so if the C17 price is without engines, do they come with seats , IAF logo , two joysticks and wheels atleast? or do we need another FMS deal for that?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jun 2011 08:39

As I see. 40 + 5 under the current deal. The spare engines count go up in logistics deal later, if needed. for example. 5 in immediate stores for eventuality. Anothe x amount with logistics deal, will take them at so much price if needed.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 23 Jun 2011 08:47

As I see. 40 + 5 under the current deal. The spare engines count go up in logistics deal later, if needed. for example. 5 in immediate stores for eventuality. Anothe x amount with logistics deal, will take them at so much price if needed.

IIRC, the issue about engines cropped up immediately after Obama visit, when the Boeing rep made a statement that engines are not included in the price tag and Indian babus refused to accept it. I understand one of the reason for prolonged negotiation is this. As I see it, the engine price is separate and over and above the $4.1 Billion. Looks like same story repeating...though not 100% sure.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 23 Jun 2011 08:58

April 13/11: IANS reports on the current state of the C-17 pursuit, following an interview with Boeing Military Aircraft president Christopher M. Chadwick:

Chadwick also dismissed rumours about India being upset with the $5.8 billion that the US has cited for the 10 C-17 Globemaster heavylift cargo planes for its air force…. “There has been no direct request to us about the pricing (of C-17s). I think what we offered is very fair and allows us to meet the requirement of airplane capability and lifecycle costs. So we are waiting to see what they (Indian government) have to say. I think we are pretty close to signing the contract,” Chadwick said. He said their price for the 10 C-17s was fair and transparent” and noted that the company’s offset commitment plan had been approved already.

Nov 9/10: India Defence cites Indian media reports quoting IAF chief Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik:

Nov 6/10: During Obama’s trip to India, an initial agreement is signed for 10 C-17s, with further details to be worked out. A White house statement says that:

“The Boeing Company and the Indian Air Force have reached preliminary agreement on the purchase of 10 C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft, and are now in the process of finalizing the details of the sale. Once all have been delivered, the Indian Air Force will be the owner and operator of the largest fleet of C-17s outside of the United States. Boeing, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is the aircraft manufacturer. Boeing reports that each C-17 supports 650 suppliers across 44 U.S. states and that this order will support Boeing’s C-17 production facility in Long Beach, California, for an entire year. This transaction is valued at approximately $4.1 billion, all of which is U.S. export content, supporting an estimated 22,160 jobs.”

Oct 19/10: Competing reports surface regarding India’s C-17 buy. India’s Economic Times says a $5+ billion deal for C-17s will be signed in advance of Barrack Obama’s visit to India in November 2010. The second layer of speculation has to do with electronics, since India hasn’t signed the USA’s Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), or the Basic Exchange and Co-operation Agreement for geo-spatial co-operation – and reportedly doesn’t intend to.

The alternative would be to create a C-17i with avionics and communications systems from Israel instead, or from France’s Thales. The latter could even be borrowed from commercial aircraft systems, but any substitution will incur both equipment integration and testing costs, and international civil/military certification testing and costs. Economic Times of India | “An EUM Bellwether? India/US Arms Deals Face Crunch Over Conditions.”

April 26/10: The US DSCA announces India’s official request to buy 10 C-17A strategic transport aircraft, along with 45 (40 installed and 5 spare) F117-PW-100 engines, 10 of ATK’s AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems, 10 of BAE systems’ AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems, along with pyrotechnics, flares, and other explosives; plus spare and repairs parts, any modifications desired by India, repair and return services, warranty, aircraft ferry and refueling for delivery, crew armor, mission planning system software, communication equipment and support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require up to 20 U.S. Government and 20 contractor representatives for annual program management and technical reviews in India or the U.S. for 1 week per review, over approximately 6 years. The estimated cost is $5.8 billion, a far more reasonable figure than earlier estimates, and in line with past sales to Australia and Canada. The US Embassy in New Delhi reminds onlookers that, as always:

http://weapons.technology.youngester.co ... 10-11.html

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 23 Jun 2011 09:00

In April 2010, the U.S. Defence Security Cooperation Agency informed the U.S. Congress on the possible sale at an estimated cost of $ 5.8 billion. The inventory included 45 engines (40 installed and 5 spare engines), missile warning systems, spares and repair parts, repair and return, flares, other explosives, aircraft ferry and refuelling support, crew armour, mission planning system software, training and training equipment, publications and technical data. The offer from Boeing was for the latest Block 18 aircraft.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/techno ... 082458.ece

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 23 Jun 2011 09:03

The company had said that the $4.1-billion tag quoted by the White House did not include the cost of engines, spares and support. “$5.8 billion is an umbrella figure that includes everything that could be ordered,” a senior Boeing executive had said.

The IAF did not expect the aircraft deal to cost very much over $3 billion, and was taken aback by the price quoted by Washington. As first reported by The Indian Express, a tussle had broken out over the price after the IAF made it clear that it was unhappy over the “unrealistic” estimate of the deal.

http://asian-defence.blogspot.com/2011/ ... r-iii.html

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Jun 2011 16:00

how many C-17s IAF wants?? 24!!!

as per this -

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic defence magazine (http://www.indiastrategic.in) in an interview that while the Government had accorded the approval to buy 10 aircraft early June, IAF was now processing the case for six more of these strategic airlifters. At a later date, “we will add some more,” he disclosed but did not specify the number.

Reliable sources however say that IAF could opt for eight more aircraft, in which case the deal for C 17s could touch a total of $ 10 billion.

A key advantage of the offsets under this programme is assistance by Boeing to set up an approximately $ 500 million engine testing wind tunnel for jet engines with Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The Air Chief said that this project should go a long way in helping Indian scientists develop jet engines.

The indigenous capability in India for aircraft engines at the moment is vastly inadequate, as it is difficult to master the engine core technology. Despite the acquisition of a very large number of aircraft from the Soviet Union/ Russia and France, nobody has shared this expertise despite various collaborative programmes.

It may be noted that a modern version of the IL 76, designated just 476, is being developed in Russia and will be out in 2014.

India to buy ‘more’ than 16 C 17 airlifters

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 23 Jun 2011 20:47

It may be noted that a modern version of the IL 76, designated just 476, is being developed in Russia and will be out in 2014.

Sure it will.

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 Jun 2011 21:38

It may be noted that a modern version of the IL 76, designated just 476, is being developed in Russia and will be out in 2014.

Just like the Vik was ready in 2005 itself and the Nerpa undergoing interior painting since 2009!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 12 Jul 2011 02:38

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... -force-iaf

C-17 Globemaster III aircraft to be inducted at Hindan base

"We have decided to induct the C-17 at the Hindan air force base when the first aircraft would be delivered to us in the 2013-14 time-frame," IAF officials told PTI here.

. . .

Hindan, the closest air force station outside the capital, is already the home base for the C-130J Super Hercules which was inducted in February for carrying out Special Operations.

Till now, Agra has been the main hub of heavy lift aircraft such as the Ilyushin-76 and Il-78 mid-air refuelers along with the bases in Chandigarh and Nagpur.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jul 2011 07:44

Agra also houses the Phalcons. maybe they want to keep the american and russian planes at separate places. there will be heavy presence of american technicians for a few yrs to run the support ops for C130 and C17.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 12 Jul 2011 10:26

Singha wrote:Agra also houses the Phalcons. maybe they want to keep the american and russian planes at separate places. there will be heavy presence of american technicians for a few yrs to run the support ops for C130 and C17.

Excellent point Singha... my onlee Thakleef with this is, USAF C5s, C17s and C130s have been regular vistors to AGRA AFB for many years (even after our first Phalcon came to Yindiya). Is this segregation to protect Yindoo Phalcons from Yanks or the Yindian C-xxx (of Yank Origin) from the bears...
This egregation is a sound logic no doubt. Also Agra is already congested with IL76s, IL78s, Phalcons and AN32s.
Would C130s and C17s require a different type of fuel than other aircrafts? (Remember the goof-up in the Italian AFB where British planes couldn't be refuelled as the base only had the fuel type for Khan planes?!?)

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 12 Jul 2011 10:58

Hindon Vs Agra for Lhan birds!!! (based on fuel types using Public Domain info!!!)
Agra AFB stores and vends the following fuel types
JP-4, Wide cut turbine fuel MIL Spec T-5624
115/145 octane gasoline, leaded, MIL-L-5572F (PURPLE)
100/130 MIL Spec, low lead, aviation gasoline (BLUE)

It appears none of these cut it for C130Js, Hercs operate on Jet-A1 fuel, not Avgas
Incidentally based on public domain info, only AVGAS is currently available in Hindon but adding one more type would not such a big deal in Hindon (as against adding a 4th type in Agra).

Could these fuel restrictions be a limiting factor for Khan birds in MMRCA?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 19 Jul 2011 04:05

CAE-130 J Simulators Soon in Hindon; Paris Air Show 2011

CAE is building the C-130J simulator under subcontract with Lockheed Martin and will be delivering the simulator in the fall of this year at Hindon airbase. It will be ready for training in February 2012. We were put under contract in June 2009 and now the final integration testing programme is on at the CAE plant in Tampa Florida, US. It will be packed and shipped in October and installed at Hindon where again it would undergo testing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2011 04:32

Singha wrote:Agra also houses the Phalcons. maybe they want to keep the american and russian planes at separate places. there will be heavy presence of american technicians for a few yrs to run the support ops for C130 and C17.

You better believe that.

It is one thing to visit and another to be based.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 19 Jul 2011 09:40

NRao wrote:
Singha wrote:Agra also houses the Phalcons. maybe they want to keep the american and russian planes at separate places. there will be heavy presence of american technicians for a few yrs to run the support ops for C130 and C17.
You better believe that....It is one thing to visit and another to be based.

It is not that simple, if desh wants to show the bear the american maal, they will show it to them in any location of their choosing and need not be the place where they are based. Ameer Khan will not be shown the Phalcon to protect Desh's interest onlee... but we might bear our cupboard to the bear because we are bhai-bhai with them!!! atleast was Bhai-Bhai...
other reasons like space, fuel type and sheer desire to not put all eggs in one basket.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jul 2011 18:13

Some of you may recall that I predicted a long time ago that the Canadian Leopard tanks that had been deployed to Afghanistan aboard An-124 aircraft, would go home the same way and not on any of Canada's C-17s?

Well this news link confirms it. The Leopards will be flown from Afghanistan to Cyprus on An-124s and then shipped to Canada by surface.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/can ... story.html

No 60 tonne Leopard II has ever been carried on board any C-17 yet.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jul 2011 18:21

Shrinivasan wrote: Boeing 787 is not a delivery issue, it is a legal issue. There is a boatload of 787s which are ready for delivery... but cannot be delivered to customers because Uncle's Baboos need to get of their Musharaff and sign some papers... Boeing stores these new 787s indoors or outdoors depending on the customers. I saw 3-4 AirIndia 787s indoors when i visited Everett plant.

You call the FAA certificate of airworthiness "some papers"? As an airline pilot, I place my life on the meaning of those "papers". If the FAA has not issued that paper yet, there may be a valid reason for it.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 22 Jul 2011 18:49

Gilles wrote:Some of you may recall that I predicted a long time ago that the Canadian Leopard tanks that had been deployed to Afghanistan aboard An-124 aircraft, would go home the same way and not on any of Canada's C-17s?

As you may recall I predicted the same thing since it was simply more affordable.

I also recall how you claimed the C-17 hadn't carried the Challenger II.

Then I showed you a post from someone in the RAF who had personally done it.

Then you still refused to believe it even though it was a respected forum member who was known to others in the transport community.

I also recall how you made a huge deal about how the C-17 hadn't landed at Alert.

Then the C-17 landed at Alert.

Then I recall you made a huge deal about how it was just a demo flight and wasn't carrying a real load.

Then the C-17 landed at Alert with a real load.

Then I recall you tried to nitpick something about the range flying to Alert

Then I showed how you were misinterpreting the article.

It soon becomes clear that no matter what it does, it will never be good enough for you

Gilles wrote:You call the FAA certificate of airworthiness "some papers"? As an airline pilot, I place my life on the meaning of those "papers". If the FAA has not issued that paper yet, there may be a valid reason for it.

I know Boeing killed your mother, but try to at least pretend your bias isn't as big as Everest

The reason is simply that there hasn't been sufficient time to complete all the required tests.

If you think there is any doubt that the papers will be issued, and soon . . .

kindly explain the relevance of this comment "I know Boeing killed your mother"
Rahul.
warned for flaming in view of the non-existent response.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 23 Jul 2011 10:00

Gilles wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote: Boeing 787 is not a delivery issue, it is a legal issue. There is a boatload of 787s which are ready for delivery... but cannot be delivered to customers because Uncle's Baboos need to get of their Musharaff and sign some papers... Boeing stores these new 787s indoors or outdoors depending on the customers. I saw 3-4 AirIndia 787s indoors when i visited Everett plant.
You call the FAA certificate of airworthiness "some papers"? As an airline pilot, I place my life on the meaning of those "papers". If the FAA has not issued that paper yet, there may be a valid reason for it.

Gilles, I stated "papers" for not wanting to go into details on a public forum. I don't think it is the "FAA certificate of airworthiness", FAA has allowed 787s to fly to Europe and even Japan (ANA's planes) but not yet cleared it for commercial flight/customer delivery due to some other document. I don't have the name handy & would prefer not to disclose it also.
Yes, there is a very "VALID" reason for this hold-up. last post on this subject from me!!!

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Jul 2011 16:35

GeorgeWelch wrote:
I also recall how you claimed the C-17 hadn't carried the Challenger II.

Then I showed you a post from someone in the RAF who had personally done it.

Then you still refused to believe it even though it was a respected forum member who was known to others in the transport community.

GeorgeWelch, its lovely how you love to distort and even lie. An anonymous poster on an aviation forum claimed a Challenger II had been LOADED onto an RAF C-17 on the ground but not flown. Thats what he calims and it may not even be true. And you come here and change that to "A C-17 carried a Challenger II ?". Why ? Because you want people in India to maintain the illusion that all Indian MBT will be carried by IAF C-17s. So far the only documented cases of MBTs on C-17s I have been able to find were the M-1 Abrams, and the older Canadian 44 tonne Leopard 1s. No Challenger IIs, no Leopard IIs.

You also have selective Amenesia. I wrote on this Forum that although I am now an Airbus captain, I flew Boeings for several years and that I loved it. It was a fantastic machine, simple., safe, realiable. I also stated on this Forum, that although the C-17 is in reality an MD product, that I was certain that it was also a fantastic machine. I just did not like that people were always claiming that it could do things on a routine basis that in real life, it never did, like routinely flying in and out of unpaved 3500 foot runways with heavy loads, or routinely landing on unpaved runways of any length, which it never did at all unless the "unpaved" runway had been specifically built or modified to be used by C-17s. To that I had found one exception in the lifetime of the C-17, a few landings in "Camp Rhino" in Afghanistan in 2001.

As for CFS Alert, it is not a 3500 strip in a mountain valley, it is a 5500 foot Arctic gravel strip located on flat terrain at sea level. It is the most northern airstrip in the world, a Canadian Forces base that is resupplied twice a year by an air bridge they call Operation Boxtop. These had always been done with C-130 Hercules out of Thule AFB in Greenland. I had noticed that several years after taking delivery of the C-17s (2007), the CF were still using their C-130s to do the Boxtop airlifts, even using leased civilian C-130s to help out, although a Canadian General had stated in Parliament that one of tasks the C-17s were needed for was to re-supply Alert. In 2007, 2008, 2009, they did not. Then in April 2010, a C-17 was ordered to take the US Ambassador to Alert.

Although the C-17 is made to carry battle tanks to 3500 foot runways on a routine basis, the CF first sent an empty C-17 to Alert (2300 NM each way) to test the landing. It was sent with minimum fuel, so it had to refuel in Alert in order to leave (fuel that had been flown in on C-130s earlier). A few days later, the C-17 came back with the US Ambassador and a few other people (less then a a dozen) and one small pallet of personal effects). There again it had to refuel. It left the ambassador in Alert and went to spend the night in Thule. When it came back for the US Ambassador, it had to refuel again. Its four months later, in Aug 2010, that the C-17 was first used for re-supplying Alert, to my surprise, I must admit. They carried carried 40 to 45 tonnes per trip.

But was hauling 45 tonnes of cargo into a flat 5500 foot sea-level runway in the high arctic such a great feat for an aircraft that claims to be able to be airlift 60 tonne main battle tanks into 3500 foot un-improved runways and take off again on a routine basis ? I do not think so. Hard pressed, I could land my Airbus 330 on a 5500 foot runway.

I mentioned earlier that Camp Rhino was the only regular gravel runway a C-17 had ever landed on. One would think that Alert was the second one, for it is gravel and was not built or modified for C-17 use. But one must recall that being in the High Arctic, Alert is built on permafrost ground which is hard as concrete. Its strong enough to accomodate any aircraft in the world.

And by the way, my mother, although 88 years old, is still living, thank you.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Jul 2011 16:44

Shrinivasan wrote: Gilles, I stated "papers" for not wanting to go into details on a public forum. I don't think it is the "FAA certificate of airworthiness", FAA has allowed 787s to fly to Europe and even Japan (ANA's planes) but not yet cleared it for commercial flight/customer delivery due to some other document. I don't have the name handy & would prefer not to disclose it also.
Yes, there is a very "VALID" reason for this hold-up. last post on this subject from me!!!

Shrinivasan, the FAA certificate of Airworthiness will be issued to the Boeing 787 when all certification tests are completed and passed. That and only that will allow this aircraft to be used for the commercial carriage of passengers and freight. Those B-787s that are now flying are issued restricted or experimental Certificates of Airworthiness for demonstration, ferry and test flights. I am certain that its only a matter of time before they get it, but the FAA is certainly not holding back the sale and delivery of these completed aircraft for just "paperwork". Its most certainly technical.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Jul 2011 20:23

Gilles wrote: GeorgeWelch, its lovely how you love to distort and even lie. An anonymous poster on an aviation forum claimed a Challenger II had been LOADED onto an RAF C-17 on the ground but not flown.

First of all, the poster wasn't anonymous. Other people did know who he was. So you can stop making that claim right now.

Here's another little memory refresher:

The ENTIRE basis of your claim was that the RAMP was not rated for its weight.

Clearly if they loaded it onto the plane, the ramp survived and your entire argument was DISPROVED.

Gilles wrote:And you come here and change that to "A C-17 carried a Challenger II ?". Why ?

To show your consistent pattern of making claims against the C-17 that turn out to not be true and then never admitting you were wrong, even after being proven so.

Gilles wrote:Because you want people in India to maintain the illusion that all Indian MBT will be carried by IAF C-17s.

It's one thing to claim it hasn't been 'proven' (even though it weighs less than the routinely carried Abrams), it's another thing to claim it is an 'illusion'.

According to the specs, the C-17 comfortably handles the weight and width of India's largest MBT.

To support your claim you need to show either:
1. The Arjun is outside the specs, or
2. The specs are wrong

Something you have repeatedly failed to do.

Gilles wrote:So far the only documented cases of MBTs on C-17s I have been able to find were the M-1 Abrams, and the older Canadian 44 tonne Leopard 1s. No Challenger IIs, no Leopard IIs.

Again the Challenger II HAS been documented.

But you know what else the C-17 hasn't been proven to be able to carry?

You.

Until I actually see pictures of you in the cargo hold, the ability of the C-17 to carry you is an illusion

Gilles wrote:I just did not like that people were always claiming that it could do things on a routine basis that in real life, it never did, like routinely flying in and out of unpaved 3500 foot runways with heavy loads

Which has exactly what to do with the Arjun?

Gilles wrote:As for CFS Alert, it is not a 3500 strip in a mountain valley, it is a 5500 foot Arctic gravel strip located on flat terrain at sea level.

Then why were you so adamant that the C-17 COULDN'T land there?

Probably the same reason you're so adamant that the C-17 CAN'T carry the Arjun.

Gilles wrote:Its four months later, in Aug 2010, that the C-17 was first used for re-supplying Alert, to my surprise, I must admit. They carried carried 40 to 45 tonnes per trip.

I have a feeling you will be equally 'surprised' when India rolls an Arjun into a C-17.

Gilles wrote:Alert is built on permafrost ground which is hard as concrete. Its strong enough to accomodate any aircraft in the world.

And of course you conveniently ignore the real issue: ice

The limiting issue at Alert isn't the strength, it's the slickness which increases stopping distances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph8vqRS4wXM

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Jul 2011 00:19

Why are we still having a fight on the usability of C-17s for India. IAF evaluated C-17, it has a mission for the C-17, even before the first plane is on the floor (in Boeing), let alone inducted. IAF has talked about exercising the option for the optiona Six units. We are now seeing talks about additional Eight units. We don't know if it is 10+8 = 18 or 10+6+8 = 24 units. India needs tremendous levels of Strategic Airlift to compensate for a "PRECEIVED" lack of roads. Can it carry Arjun MBT, we will see it soon. Should it carry Arjun MBT? I am not sure as most theaters where Arjun might be usable could be reached by Rail and/or road transports.
George Thanks for the CFS Alert video about Canadian C-17 landing and take off. I have a much larger video of 6:38 sec which shows the same bird, landing, unloading it cargo and taking off (no refueling). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pmZNrQp ... re=related

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2011 00:52

Bumped into a C-17 pilot.

During the conversation he mentioned something that took me by surprise: the C-17 is a "dialed down F-18" (that is a direct quote). I could not spend much time with him, so I circled back to visit another C-17er. He was more blunt: "they behave similarly". If you learn one you know exactly how the other "behaves" in flight. The responses are the same, except that in the C-17, because of its size, it is much different. Turns out that the two have much in common, including computers and avionics (important to remember that it is a "dialed down" version though).

Boeing Boeing.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Jul 2011 10:14

NRao wrote:the C-17 is a "dialed down F-18"
"they behave similarly".
"If you learn one you know exactly how the other "behaves" in flight."
"Turns out that the two have much in common, including computers and avionics (important to remember that it is a "dialed down" version though)."

C-17 and F/A 18 came from the Mc Donnel-Douglas stable into Boeing. Unlike newer planes of Boeing, C-17 WAS NOT based on an existing Commercial Airline plane and was a mil aircraft from the grounds up. MD went all out to win the contract fighting against Boeing (before the acquisition) and hence it was a phenomenal aircraft to own and operate.I haven't heard this statement about similarity between C-17 and F/A 18 till now...
How is the Air Show!!! Dayton show rocks... I am under the weather so couldn't make the trip.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2011 10:17

maybe he meant they both have good low speed and high AoA handling, something the AeroIndia2009 show clearly proved wrt C17....it pretty much hung motionless in the air

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Jul 2011 10:17

Rao is in the Dayton Air Show 2011, Here are some pics from the show...http://www2.daytonairshow.com/pages/02_ ... craft.html See the loading ramp on a C-5 galaxy... and the B1B.
Hope to see some Hi-Res pictures from the show!!!

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 24 Jul 2011 15:08

Singha wrote:maybe he meant they both have good low speed and high AoA handling, something the AeroIndia2009 show clearly proved wrt C17....it pretty much hung motionless in the air

Reminds me of comparison between Canberra and Su-30

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Jul 2011 15:13

Singha wrote:maybe he meant they both have good low speed and high AoA handling, something the AeroIndia2009 show clearly proved wrt C17....it pretty much hung motionless in the air

One of the very few big birds whose engines can be intentionally reverse thrust in the air.

The designers really must have had SOME confidence in their work.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Jul 2011 15:16

Shrinivasan wrote:. I have a much larger video of 6:38 sec which shows the same bird, landing, unloading it cargo and taking off (no refueling). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pmZNrQp ... re=related

At 2:54 in the video you see a ground crew connecting the refuelling hose in the refuelling receptacle on the the right side of the aircraft.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Jul 2011 15:37

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Here's another little memory refresher:

The ENTIRE basis of your claim was that the RAMP was not rated for its weight.

Clearly if they loaded it onto the plane, the ramp survived and your entire argument was DISPROVED.

So you claim to ignore that an item can be loaded onto an aircraft without being rolled over the ramp ? Its funny how ignorant you make yourself to be when it suits your purpose yet you can become so knowledgeable at other times.
In 2009, the An-225 broke a world record by hauling a 187.6 tonne generator. You think that generator was rolled across the aircraft's ramp ?

http://www.an124.com/wp-content/uploads ... C06634.JPG