Transport Aircraft for IAF

[Sanku]

Well, since the replies have been in bits and trickles, let me consolidate.

True, but I dont think the economics would work out, based on discussion so far , that is, it would cheaper to use a smaller aircraft for most sorties, with greater flexibilities of load.
Still not a particularly impressive addition.

Once hostilities break out, this "more number of sorties by a smaller aircraft" thing might not be possible,

Well that pretty much true for ALL aircrafts as well, once hostilities break out ANY and ALL assets would have trouble because the airstrips would be targeted.

Is the case then that in the short time a large aircraft would get significantly higher payload than smaller ones in same time frame? Why? After all the limiting factor will be time, and not number of aircraft's. Two smaller sorties in same time frame can deliver the same as one C 17. While providing greater flexibility.

Is having one vs two that much of a difference? To some extent yes, having one aircraft is easier, however consider a run away which has been hit -- now that is going to be still serviceable for small a/c compared to bigger ones.

C-17 Landed in Kangra in a light drizzle with a good number of people and fuel.

I am sorry what does this mean, "good number of people" a more exact number would be needed here? I suspect nearly any reasonable a/c can land in Kangra with a "good number of people" in light drizzle. This is not particularly a strong validation of the a particular ability of C 17.

what makes you think so? Thoise has a 10,000 Ft Asphalt Runway and ample apron space... A fully laden C-17 would easily able to land in Thoise, disgorge its cargo and egress quickly without even switching off its engine.

Well that was a boo boo all right. Having said that, is using C 17 to solve the issue of transferring men from Thoise (what the article was talking of) a strong point of C 17? Not really, C 17 is rather expensive, smaller a/c ferrying men is what is needed there.

[Sanku]

It would have been nice if they qualified it with what kind of load it was carrying.

NRao; thats the crux; for the few photo-ops landing we do not know what loads were carried, how many sorties made etc.

We do know that there is no known operation of C 17 in the conditions that are mentioned as being beneficial.

Will try and go back and check it out. It would help if you provided a little more info on what you want me to look for. The one that I know that blew up was the waiver and that too was on the last page.

Of real life examples of Canadian Air force with short strips compared to claims by Boeing.

Fact remains, the "can land of short unpaved airfields" if true is not something we have really seen in operation ever, only a few tortured photo ops.

So yes I am not sure on which basis did IAF chief made this comment;

Air Chief Marshal Naik observed that a key advantage of this aircraft is that despite being a huge airlifter with 75-tonne capacity, it can operate from very short and unpaved grassy airfield

Can it? Theoretically yes. Does it? Pretty much no.

Did they land at Kirkuk early on? Look for the answer
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/24-12.aspx

Here is C 17 landing at Bagram
http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2009/02/09 ... am-images/

And when Bagram has this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_Airfield

The ICAO ID is OAIX and it is specifically at 34.944N, 69.259E at 1,492 metres (4,895 ft) above sea level. The base had a single 3,003 metres (9,852 ft) runway built in 1976. A second runway, 3,500 metres (11,500 ft) long,[4] was built and completed by the US military in late 2006, at a cost of USD$68 million. This new runway is 497 metres (1,631 ft) longer than the previous one and 280 millimetres (11 in) thicker, giving it the ability to land larger aircraft, such as the C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster III or the Boeing 747 (which is used by Kalitta Air for regular cargo flights).[5]

So no, irrespective of any statements about "yes it can" it does not pass the test of "but has it?"

There are no known instances of extended C 17 operations from a less than perfect airstrip of any sustained period.

[GeorgeWelch]

So no, irrespective of any statements about "yes it can" it does not pass the test of "but has it?"

If it can, it can. Period.

There are no known instances of extended C 17 operations from a less than perfect airstrip of any sustained period.

false

[NRao]

Sanku,

To me your arguments fall into two broad buckets: Experience of the Canadians and solid examples (from other sources).

Before I start, that Bagram example you provided does NOT belong here, in this discussion (of short, unpaved strips and the C-17), since it is a gear-up landing. So, can we get that out of the way?

1) Canadian Air Force.

Great as they are (I mean that), they are not the standard that the IAF will follow, at least I hope not.

The IAF faces a totally different situation - a live and volatile one - that the Canadians do not face. So, there itself the dynamics have to be very, very , very different. In that the IAF are habituated to greater risks as part of their daily lives. The Canadians have to such risks to face on a daily basis.

I read an example of an Ambassador being sent to some far out place and what happened. Bet India would do the very same think that the Canadians did - both NEED to have that man come back in one piece. I do not know what was the reason to provide that example, but it just did not fit the discussion. I would take utmost care to get that Amby back.

But in a situation where both had to send tanks, bet the IAF will take greater risks than the Canadians AND further bet that the IAF will be used to such risks, while the Canadians are not. Canada has no China to face on a daily basis - cold, sub-zero, bone cracking temps - YES. But no potential of an enemy encroaching - even in peace times, etc, etc, etc.

This is not to down play what they do, just to set the picture straight - that the IAF has and will take greater risks. Point being if Canada has opted not to do something, the IAF has no choice in a lot of cases, they HAVE to get it done. (You can see that with INS Vikrant in 1971, the MiG-29 and the MKIs as other examples.)

2) I would like to spend some time on:

There are no known instances of extended C 17 operations from a less than perfect airstrip of any sustained period.

Expectations.

I have not looked hard, but I think there is a very good reason for this situation.

There is no need that has arisen so far for expecting a sustained operation of these kinds.

Think about it.

Which nation, that owns a fleet of C-17s, has a daily need to land on such strips?

Looking at a google result:
Australia? Can we expect them to have such a need? I do not think so.
Canada? Perhaps the best candidate for such ops? (I will need to research this more i guess)
NATO? Perhaps, but I bet they will pave anything overnight.
Qatar? Nope
UAE? Nope
UK? Perhaps, but again I would expect them to pave overnight
US? Some time. They pave over night.

Among all of them India seems (to me) the only one that will try and test this claim out in the longer run. India, unlike most/all of the others, has such a situations - naturally. I doubt that India will opt to pave most of the ALGs, for instance.

So, until some situation arises where there can be a sustained op, do not expect it - you will not find it. You cannot find it. So IMHO it is not worth bringing it up.

[NRao]

for the few photo-ops landing we do not know what loads were carried, how many sorties made etc.

Low blow.

Most photos/videos are taken by grunts.

To call them photo-ops and imply that most are some sort of marketing stuff by a vendor is silly.

[Sanku]

for the few photo-ops landing we do not know what loads were carried, how many sorties made etc.

Low blow.

Most photos/videos are taken by grunts.

To call them photo-ops and imply that most are some sort of marketing stuff by a vendor is silly.

Oh no, the photos may be taken by whomsoever but given that US of A is very touchy about appearances and H&D of its mil equipment, it would be naive to expect that people will say that there is no "touching up" involved.

[Sanku]

1) Canadian Air Force.

Great as they are (I mean that), they are not the standard that the IAF will follow, at least I hope not.

I believe you have not read the incident by Gilles that I refered to.

Because note, the situation is that the Candians tried to use C 17s on short unpaved runways etc and the hoops that they had to jump to, to just manage a few is described. It has nothing to do with the operating enviornment or xyz. It is very specific. Canadians found that C 17s short runway capacity was not really a practically usable option.

Or are you saying that Candian Air Force could not use C 17 effectively because of professional competence issues?

But in a situation where both had to send tanks, bet the IAF will take greater risks than the Canadians AND further bet that the IAF will be used to such risks, while the Canadians are not.

Well so IAF will take extra risks with C 17 to do what is supposed to be a standard operating capability of C 17 which any one can use? Just like they have pushed pretty much every other piece of machinery they have been given (I had started out by saying that IAF being IAF also makes Canberra useful)

Thank you, what else can I say? You have made my point so very eloquently for me.

There are no known instances of extended C 17 operations from a less than perfect airstrip of any sustained period.

Expectations.

I have not looked hard, but I think there is a very good reason for this situation.

There is no need that has arisen so far for expecting a sustained operation of these kinds..

Whatever be the excuses, the point is that in 30 years C 17s have not done it. For anyone.

You may allude it to the fact that no one wanted to do it (though thats clearly incorrect based on experiences of Canadian A/F at least where it tried and failed) -- but I find it stretches my credulity that the much hyped much tom-tommed USP of C 17 is not used because no one found a a reason to use it over 30 years

I mean Huh.. Just not possible (even if we did not have the known counter example)

Will IAF make them do it? Possibly, but IAF can pretty much make a Graf Zeppelin do it similarly well with flying colors.

And if IAF gets down to doing it; surely there are better platforms for doing that.

[GeorgeWelch]

I believe you have not read the incident by Gilles that I refered to.

Because note, the situation is that the Candians tried to use C 17s on short unpaved runways etc and the hoops that they had to jump to, to just manage a few is described.

You're confusing all the effort Gilles goes through to make mountains out of molehills with the effort Canada actually expended.

His basic modus operandi is that if it hasn't been done, that proves it can't possibly be done. And he'll sit and loudly proclaim how it fails to do something when the basic fact is that they just haven't bothered to get around to it yet.

And then they get around to it and do it and he looks rather silly.

Or are you saying that Candian Air Force could not use C 17 effectively because of professional competence issues?

I'm saying Gilles snookered you.

Well so IAF will take extra risks with C 17 to do what is supposed to be a standard operating capability of C 17 which any one can use?

Never confuse a capability with 'standard operating procedure'. The C-17 can and has and will operate from rough fields when necessary. However it does cause damage that has to be repaired, which is expensive. Thus it is avoided when possible.

However if there is a war and the capability is needed, the cost is irrelevant and the capability will be used.

Whatever be the excuses, the point is that in 30 years C 17s have not done it. For anyone.

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.

[chetak]

The IAF will not take extra risks.

No one will until the situation so warrants that someone in a tight spot will take what you call "extra risks".

Damage from landing on unpaved runways can sometimes be pretty severe and may well put a bird out of commission when least affordable.

It's a always a tradeoff between risk and reward. All air forces will try their best to tilt the scales in only one way. Sometimes they fail and the poor buggers wind up as a statistic in some remote field.

[GeorgeWelch]

The IAF will not take extra risks.

No one will until the situation so warrants that someone in a tight spot will take what you call "extra risks".

Then there is the risk of not delivering the needed material in time.

When you weigh KNOWING that your troops will be in a bad way if supplies don't land right now vs the POSSIBILITY the plane might be damaged (but still deliver the supplies), well . . .

Frankly most of the damage was to items that aren't absolutely essential like antennas on the belly. If the plane HAD to fly a mission, it could still go. And they did hundreds of tests establishing the landing parameters, so the damage wasn't that severe and/or common. To actually knock a plane out of service would be fairly rare.

[Shrinivasan]

Guys, this C-17 fight has gone on for too long, Can we end this fight please... I know I am over stepping my limits but I entreat you guys... All of you are giving excellent points but then it is pointless as IAF has decided to go in for a fleet of C-17s, additional orders are expected ACM himself said so, IAF would evolve a doctrine around these. C-17 will serve the nation like other platforms in our inventory. Desi Jugaad has kept INS Viraat so long, they'll use C-17s like nobody else had dreamed about. Please stop this fight. thanks in Advance.

***Forum Moderators: If I have overstepped my posting Rights shoot me***

[chetak]

The IAF will not take extra risks.

No one will until the situation so warrants that someone in a tight spot will take what you call "extra risks".

Then there is the risk of not delivering the needed material in time.

When you weigh KNOWING that your troops will be in a bad way if supplies don't land right now vs the POSSIBILITY the plane might be damaged (but still deliver the supplies), well . . .

Frankly most of the damage was to items that aren't absolutely essential like antennas on the belly. If the plane HAD to fly a mission, it could still go. And they did hundreds of tests establishing the landing parameters, so the damage wasn't that severe and/or common. To actually knock a plane out of service would be fairly rare.

GeorgeWelch ji,

I meant taking risks in a war time scenario only.

In peace time we very generously not only feed our own troops but also the other guys because airdropped stores seem to acquire a mind of their own after being dropped. oftentimes, this cuts both ways.

In peace time no one takes a risk as promotions are jepordised. This is a fact of life.

[chetak]

Guys, this C-17 fight has gone on for too long, Can we end this fight please... I know I am over stepping my limits but I entreat you guys... All of you are giving excellent points but then it is pointless as IAF has decided to go in for a fleet of C-17s, additional orders are expected ACM himself said so, IAF would evolve a doctrine around these. C-17 will serve the nation like other platforms in our inventory. Desi Jugaad has kept INS Viraat so long, they'll use C-17s like nobody else had dreamed about. Please stop this fight. thanks in Advance.

***Forum Moderators: If I have overstepped my posting Rights shoot me***

Fight?

What ever makes you think that this is a fight??

There are many of us who think that this is simply the wrong aircraft for the IAF. There are very many unsubstantiated "facts and figures" about this wonder machine.

Not the least of which is keeping some production line open somewhere so that some congressman can get reelected and can thereafter comfortably continue to ride the gravy train.

So american in intent but so very Indian in content,no?

The NSG waiver is responsible for this state of affairs.

The americans all are screaming about quid pro but no quo.

So now we have a dud waiver and also a dud machine.

Go figure.

[GeorgeWelch]

So now we have a dud waiver and also a dud machine.

And what waiver are you speaking of?

[chetak]

So now we have a dud waiver and also a dud machine.

And what waiver are you speaking of?

GeorgeWelch ji,

NSG, of course. Recent events have rendered it a dud or hadn't you noticed?

Not to mention the preposterous american demand that we change our legislation to suit some crass extraneous commercial aims, completely forsaking the interest of the Indian people.

Even though the commies have made the point below, it is a widely held national POV.

After the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster, there can be no other Indian view on liability issues. Obama reinforced this view further when he extracted swift and expensive retribution from BP for the recent oil spill fiasco.

Can't have one price for the masters and another for the natives, no?

The natives are no longer willing to settle for trinkets.

Clinton’s India Nuclear Landmine

Indian concerns about the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group’s recent hardening of Enrichment and Reprocessing technology transfer terms remained unaddressed, while Clinton instead conveyed Washington’s annoyance over Indian nuclear liability laws, which make it possible to seek compensation from suppliers, and asked the UPA government to tweak them further to conform with international liability norms. She also asked India to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency on the legislation, even though there’s no international legal requirement to do so. Finally, she spoke of some ‘remaining issues’ that need to be tackled to enable full implementation of the Indo-US civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement.

What Clinton didn’t say directly, but what she likely meant, was that unless India dilutes its nuclear liability laws, full implementation of the deal will remain a mirage. It’s clear that although officially the United States is insisting that it will fully implement the nuclear deal, the agreement faces yet another phase of diplomatic rough and tumble.


The UPA government can’t contemplate diluting the liability laws due to massive domestic pressure. Virtually the entire opposition, from left to right, has pressured Prime Minister Manmohan Singh into hardening liability legislation. Tinkering with this now would therefore be political suicide for his government.

The opposition that Singh would face in making any change was underscored while Clinton was on a visit to Chennai (incidentally the first ever to the southern city by a US secretary of state) as the Communist Party of India (Marxists) issued a hard-hitting statement against Clinton’s advice to India on the liability laws.

The statement said: ‘The United States continues to exercise pressure on the Indian government to dilute the Civil Nuclear Liability law which was adopted by Parliament. This has become evident from the statement made by Hillary Clinton in Delhi asking India to engage with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that the nuclear liability law ‘fully conforms’ with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). The CSC does not provide for suppliers’ liability in the event of a nuclear accident. The Indian government should reject this suggestion. The IAEA is only a depository for the Convention and cannot judge a law passed by Parliament.Clearly, Clinton has stepped on a political landmine in India. Expect more political parties to pile on over this issue.’

[GeorgeWelch]

And what waiver are you speaking of?

NSG, of course.

Which of course has nothing to do with the C-17 . . .

[chetak]

NSG, of course.

Which of course has nothing to do with the C-17 . . .

Really?

Depends on how you choose to look at it and consider whose supreme national interests are of primary importance here.

[Sanku]

Never confuse a capability with 'standard operating procedure'. The C-17 can and has and will operate from rough fields when necessary. However it does cause damage that has to be repaired, which is expensive. Thus it is avoided when possible.
.

Wow man.

Thanks buddy.

[NRao]

Never confuse a capability with 'standard operating procedure'. The C-17 can and has and will operate from rough fields when necessary. However it does cause damage that has to be repaired, which is expensive. Thus it is avoided when possible.
.

There is ample material to support that on the net. Iraq and A'stan have been prime examples over the past 10 years or so. Google for C-17 and FOB. Or even Seabee.

[Sanku]

Never confuse a capability with 'standard operating procedure'. The C-17 can and has and will operate from rough fields when necessary. However it does cause damage that has to be repaired, which is expensive. Thus it is avoided when possible.
.

There is ample material to support that on the net. Iraq and A'stan have been prime examples over the past 10 years or so. Google for C-17 and FOB. Or even Seabee.

I see the irony is lost. No matter.

[NRao]

And for a very good reason.

My earlier assertion that there was no need and therefore there are no examples played out very well here.

Very briefly, the "FOB" - WRT a C-17 - came into existence during the Iraq war, but really was put to the test in Afghanistan. In the early part of the A'stan conflict was when the US transport planes were compelled to use real raw landing strips (due to sudden political pressure). My (incomplete) research showed that one of the first was Camp Rhino - a dry lake bed. I have not read GeorgeWelch's post, but I suspect that is where got his comments from. C-17 landings produced 18" gashes in the lake bed. Seabees fixed that during the day so that more planes could fly in during the night.

This also is an example of what I meant by risk. It is not anyone in the US wanted to take such risks, but were compelled to do so at that point in time. India took huge risks during Kargil too - the situation demanded that.

As the engineers spent more and more time in A'stan, they had longer time to prepare the landing strips - just as I had figured. Which is why as time went on we see less and less of raw landing strips and more and more "paved" (not concrete) - better prepared strips.

There were about 35 FOBs that I counted and some had pictures of the C-17 landing on such strips.

One of the best account is provided by a Canadian AF pilot who was sent to the US for training to be an instructor for the Canadian C-17s. As it turned out Canada did not buy the C-17 until about 6-7 years after he was sent and by then these wars had broken out and as part of his "training" he was sent to both Iraq and A'stan. He states that he operated from 2001 to 2004 and mentions that he used at various FOB dirt strips.

He also mentions and has a picture of a M1 inside a C-17. States that the tank weighed 134,000 lbs fully loaded - ammo and all and as he puts it ready to fight.

There are quite a few .mil and lesser .ca sites that provide decent to good info. I am sure one can approach various entities with the AF and embassies to further get into this topic.

I have also come across some test data generated around 2006 or so.

Finally, the Indian situation is also interesting. I did not come across any dirt landing strips, but the strips that I have come across I think the C-17 will very well. I have come across about 5 articles that help build a decent picture.

I am very sure and confident that there is some good amount of data if anyone wants to chase it.

BTW, would appreciate if someone could point me to the Canadian experience posted in an earlier page. TIA.

More l8r.

[Singha]

where in India is the C17 expected to operate from unpaved strips of hard packed earth? none of the ALGs on chinese border look like they can handle beyond a C130 (pls correct me if wrong). the rest are all concrete paved.

the ability or not of the C17 from unpaved strips would not matter for us if so.

[Sanku]

And for a very good reason.

My earlier assertion that there was no need and therefore there are no examples played out very well here.

What come on, the whole thing is a joke, to put it mildly,

"yes it can be be landed on a rough strip if needed only that it gets damaged and repairs are expensive"

is the support for a capability to have short take off and landing from rough strips?

Yes and freedom is slavery.

the ability or not of the C17 from unpaved strips would not matter for us if so.

Yes Sir, yet another reason why the whole mythical capability is a red herring.

[Singha]

I would rather test a C17 thoroughly in dusty conditions , height of monsoon conditions and sea level 100% humidity conditions to look for wear and tear and if the engines and loading gear are rugged enough for indic conditions. we cannot pamper these beasts like the usaf does because they have 100s of these and can pull in a spare airframe on short notice - we cannot.

there could be a few 'surprises' in such tests, just like any western gear tested in indic conditions tend to fall somewhat below the brochure figures

[koti]

^^Not stopping there, we should also have a comparision on similar parameters to the existing fleet.
We may actually see even more surprises that way.

where in India is the C17 expected to operate from unpaved strips of hard packed earth? none of the ALGs on Chinese border look like they can handle beyond a C130 (pls correct me if wrong). the rest are all concrete paved.

The ability or not of the C17 from unpaved strips would not matter for us if so.

During peace time, true.
But it is more than likely that during the war hours, the runways of most of the critical airfields would have been damaged by enemy air strikes, cruise missiles. Ability to operate from temporary or repaired runways can be of very vital significance.

[chetak]

I would rather test a C17 thoroughly in dusty conditions , height of monsoon conditions and sea level 100% humidity conditions to look for wear and tear and if the engines and loading gear are rugged enough for indic conditions. we cannot pamper these beasts like the usaf does because they have 100s of these and can pull in a spare airframe on short notice - we cannot.

there could be a few 'surprises' in such tests, just like any western gear tested in indic conditions tend to fall somewhat below the brochure figures

The engines and loading gear, their performance and durability is not likely to hold any nasty surprises saar. Some deterioration is only to be expected and we can jugaad our way out of this.

The beast can perform decently from well behaved runways, with first world or first world "army" infrastructure. There is no doubt about this.

It's the as yet to be credibly established performance from our rogue runways that are of some importance to us. Rogue runways and third world infrastructure is not clearly covered in all their brochure type presentations.

We expect crystal like clarity when we are asked to put down 10 odd billion in dollars. Not to mention the stupid LSA or the CISMOA or the BECA or any other alphabet soup that is high on the american menu.

[anyusharma]

newbie question,
are the AN 32s of IAF configured to carry out A2G bombing?

[nrshah]

Why on the earth would we like to transport Arjun by Air?

Are we going to fight in the Afghanistan with Arjun?

Why cant Arjun move to battle field by Road and/ or Rail?

Will we deploy all the 10 0r 16 of C17 for Arjun movement?

How many Arjuns can be airlifted in a short notice and what is such period? We have rail wagons which can carry them and being a witness to it, i know rails carrying arjuns will be given all green signals on a top priority with all the rajdhani and others stopped on the extra track

I think the answer to the above questions are quite evident? This is like asking for F22 as it can do a lot more than what is available but do we need that at a price that it comes for?

The other day when CJ quoted some defense brass saying that plans go bust in the time of war, we said it was past and with better information and survillence, it is no more a case. Why can't such survillence give us enough time to move Arjuns and for that matter other goods available through road and thus avoid Air lift and unpaved runways?

Having a capability is a good thing so long as cost does not make is silver bullet and all the quoted prices of C 17 reveals it is a Gold bullet, forget silver... Compare the same with Phalcons with more gadgets and radars, still cheaper than a mere wide body transport aircraft...

In my opinion (and yes mine), for a country like ours who dont foresee long distance battles beyond our borders that makes it necessary to have such super heavy lift aircrafts with capablity of fairing the likes of Abrahams and of course in few hundred numbers to maintain logistics open, we are better off having good lift capablity in the range of 20tonnes.. Increase c 130J or make 45 MTA a 100 MTA project... That will give us flexibilty and capablity to service multi theatre war which is more likely than the possibility of air lifting arjun (with 16 of such aircrafts)

[NRao]

I would rather test a C17 thoroughly in dusty conditions , height of monsoon conditions and sea level 100% humidity conditions to look for wear and tear and if the engines and loading gear are rugged enough for indic conditions. we cannot pamper these beasts like the usaf does because they have 100s of these and can pull in a spare airframe on short notice - we cannot.

there could be a few 'surprises' in such tests, just like any western gear tested in indic conditions tend to fall somewhat below the brochure figures

After 18 pages? Hope someone else had asked that question earlier. What is BR coming to? Or has come to?

The transport plans do not need agreements. The C-130J is a special ops plane which is why it needs encrypted stuff - the IAF planes have Indian systems. The normal C-130s or the C-17 have no such special needs. They have the same GPS system that our Toyota/Honda have - civilian stuff.

Anyways, all the best. Back to my threads.

[nrshah]

The normal C-130s or the C-17 have no such special needs. They have the same GPS system that our Toyota/Honda have - civilian stuff.

This is what makes C 17 with the much hyped but low practical utility capability (from Indian perspective, for khan it is must have) an ubber expensive purchase.... With all the bells and whistle, Phalcon is cheaper than a mere transport aircraft with basic avionics and navigation package.

[Kanson]

>>hyped but low practical utility capability.

Practical utility in what sense? As war machine during wartime or transport a/c during peace time? But do ask yourself why IAF must be chosen with intention to buy more.

[nrshah]

>>hyped but low practical utility capability.

Practical utility in what sense? As war machine during wartime or transport a/c during peace time? But do ask yourself why IAF must be chosen with intention to buy more.

Practical utility in the terms of fairing Arjun in any time.

With respect to IAF having intention to buy more, that should not be a reason to avoid discussion. Besides, IAF has not communicated that it is buying because of some capability like the ones that is being hyped.

IAF also approved the upgrade of mirage, but that does not mean it is not expensive...
It is the cost that i have raised my voice and against attempts to justify the cost by capabilities that we might never have to use...

My take is with the numbers we are looking forward, the capability of taking arjun might not have significant utility, of course if we have plan to buy in few dozens, than yes it can make difference.

[Gurneesh]

People forget that the only Indian MBT that can fit in a IL76 is a T72 (plain T72M, not CIA) and that too just. So, if you want to quickly move some Arjuns or even T90's, you need C17.

[Singha]

can the C17 carry two T90 (each 48t) or just one? how many Dhruv helis (with rotor blades removed) would it be able to carry nose-to-tail?

apparently it can carry 3 x BradleyM3 , so should not be a issue with 3 x BMP2 or FICV.

[Kanson]

Lets leave Arjun. More important than transporting Arjun like MBT, is the ability to transport nearly twice the warload than IL76. IOW, If IL76 can take 2 trips, C-17 can do that in single trip. This availability of valuable resources in time many times, changed the course of battle. Only those with military mind can really appreciate the importance of this. This is not about C-17 but any plane having similar capabilities.

Second characteristics particular to C-17 is ability to land MBT like heavy vehicle/equipments near the frontline or behind the enemy line directly influencing the outcome of the battle.

I think it can take 2 or 3 Dhruvs. Could recall it can take 2 mil heavy duty helis.

[Surya]

lets not also forget the existing IL 76s are worn out.

[Gurneesh]

Code: Select all

C17 cargo compartment dimensions

Cargo Floor length:      20.78 m

Loadable width:             5.49 m

Loadable Height:           3.76/4.5 m (under wing/aft of wing)

Max Weight:              77,519 kg

source: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... 17spec.htm

So, while it can only carry one T90, it can carry a whole lot of ammo and supplies along.

[Tanaji]

We keep making the same arguments over and over....

The C-17 is expensive no doubt, but no one has yet despite repeated requests has provided an alternative in the same class as the C-17. The standard response to such a request has always been that "such a requirement itself is not required", presumably others know IAF requirements better than the IAF.

[NRao]

Is there a need?

For what it is worth:

Oct 4, 2010 :: C-17 A Carefully Considered Choice: IAF Chief

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. The other heavylift types, with six or eight engines, cannot function from short runways, and that was a basic requirement.

Then there is the capability. There is enough on the web to provide documented proof of its capabilities.

What is to be noted is that the needs may not match all the capabilities, but the capabilities should match the needs - as stated by the CAS.

It would be nice if one did some research before posing questions for which answers exist on the net.

[nitinr]

As others have already pointed out before, why this fascination of carrying MBT through C17. I am sure a millitary transport plane is required and have requirements for many other things during war time.
It will be better to discuss the overall capacity and capability of plane then just a niche capabality of it.
Sorry for OT.