C-17s for the IAF?

[Patrick Cusack]

Did somebody say that India has only <20 active IL-76s?

[GeorgeWelch]

Secondly, in light of IAF requirements (mainly within territorial boundaries), the Indian Railway should be considered. India has a very dense railway network, which will be used to considerable effect for strategic needs - the airlift capability will complement this network in areas where it cannot reach or in forward sectors where the need might be immediate.

What if your entire army is in areas it cannot reach?

Rail is a very vulnerable asset that is easy to attack and/or sabotage. Take out one vital bridge, oops, your whole army has been strangled.

Surely you use it when it's available, but relying on it?

Saying your army can only be in areas that are serviced by rail is a rather glaring weakness.

Did somebody say that India has only <20 active IL-76s?

2 people. I don't know how reliable they are or if one is just parroting the other, but here you go:

Anantz
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 60#p765542

srai
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 00#p766666

[Kartik]

To get an idea of what IAF transports do you need to see some of my least popular videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTXGiTxz6c


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC-KAF8wQo8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyPeZxa5asY

thanks for posting these vids Shivji. haven't seen them before. the only part that really irritated me with the production was that they showed an American Bald Eagle and then transposed it on the Golden Eagle that is the IAF's emblem..whats with the complete ignorance of India's native birds of prey..Shiv Aroor had pointed how how INS Shikra (IN's dedicated helicopter base) had the emblem of a bald eagle in place of the Shikra..

[Kartik]

The C-17 will hopefully be squashed by MOD. It is an unnecessary expenditure. Il-76 MF would be ideally suited for IAF requirements and budget. If outsized cargo needs to be carried then 4-6 An-124 should be purchased. For the price of 10 C-17's IAF can easily procure 4 Condors and 20 Il-76's or just 30 IL-76's. The C-17 was a mistake that only USAF can afford. Even UK and AUS can only manage a meager handful. Most of the time they just charter the condors.

and which airports in India can take the An-124 ? do you suppose that all air bases in India can handle that behemoth ?

[VishalJ]

the condor was not designed primarily as a military transport and is not exactly better at that job than the C-17 which is a superlative a/c indeed if we ignore its price.

Why hasnt the An-124 been considered seriously by ANY of the worlds Air Forces/Military except Russia ?

Is it because of this >>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An ... evelopment

Series production ceased with the break up of the Soviet Union.
The last five unfinished airframes left from the Soviet times were completed in 2001, 2002, and 2004.
While currently no An-124 are being produced, Russia and Ukraine have agreed to resume the production in the Q3 2008.

In May 2008, at the Berlin Air Show, it was reported that the governments of Russia and Ukraine were closing in on final details to restart production of the An-124.
The new variant, to be known as the An-124-150, will feature several new features including a maximum lift capacity of 150 tonnes.
However, an announcement by Antonov's partner, United Aircraft Corporation in May 2009 does not include any planned production for An-124s in the period 2009 – 2012.

^^ wtf

[Rishirishi]

After all the An 32 does not need RATO/JATO to take off from the highest airfields generally operated by any Air Force in the world - i.e. those in India. I don't think any aircraft in the world currently can operate at full payload from some of the airfields used by the IAF.

The full payload of a tiny aircraft is still tiny.

When I started looking at the transport capability of the IAF I was truly shocked.

I know you don't appreciate comparisons to the US and the US has different needs than India and I have resisted making such comparisons in the past, but this time the sheer difference in scale is mindboggling.

In one year (FY10) the US will purchase more airlift capability than is in the entire IAF

17 C-17 * 77.5 tonnes = 1317.5
11 C-130J * 19.9 tonnes = 218.9
8 C-27J * 11.5 tonnes = 92
35 V-22 * 6.8 tonnes = 238 (it can fly like an aircraft so I'm including it )
1866.4 tonnes US FY10 order

103 An-32 * 7.5 tonnes = 772.5
15 Il-76 * 47 tonnes = 705*
40 Do 228 * 2.3 tonnes = 92
28 HS 748 * 5.1 tonnes = 142.8**
1712.3 tonnes Total IAF capability


*15 Il-76 is per that post by srai, if it's actually 24 then the final Indian number would be 2135.3

**best info i could find is 60 total with 32 in storage

Admittedly this is a very crude way of just adding up the payload capabilities of the different planes. But if you start getting more sophisticated with ton-miles per day, it would look even worse for India.

Yes I realize that India doesn't have any need for the globe-spanning air-bridge the US has, but the point, to me anyways, is that when asked what type of airlifter India needs, the answer is simply 'more'.

Sa you say the requirement is different. India has a relatively smalll size landmass, and can move more stuff on the ground. the cheaper labour cost means that the requirement of efficiency is not the same in India, as compared to US.

[negi]

I have seen An-124 operate from Dabolim in Goa and even the naval base in INS Rajali ; but then these bases operate the Tu-142 class aircraft and have airstrips measuring approx. 4km (the one in Rajali should be even longer) and very well built (paved with concrete/asphalt ) , its highly unlikely that IAF's forward airstrips are this long and built to bear the kind of loads AN-124 hauls.

Basically we need to take into consideration the LCN for the airfield even if its long and wide enough, for forward airbases the LCN is likely to be low.

[Katare]

With possibility of IA/IAF facing threat of two front war looking more likely, massive airlift capacity is becoming essential forcemultiplier. Add poor infra, chicken's neck and no sea port to NE and it looks like a no brainer to have several dozens of C17s with a lot more Il76s ASAP.

[GeorgeWelch]

Sa you say the requirement is different. India has a relatively smalll size landmass, and can move more stuff on the ground.

The problem is that you can't always rely on being able to move stuff by ground. The enemy could cut off supply lines leaving your forces in a very bad situation.

You need enough airlift to be able to sustain a major miliary operation. And what the IAF has now is barely a drop in the proverbial bucket.

You size your military for the worst case situation. For instance, ordering 450 MiG-21 could be viewed as a waste. They did nothing but sit there, perform training exercises and get pilots killed. Yet there was a possible threat that required them so they were obtained. If they are never needed, everyone is glad, but they are an insurance policy.

Similarly you may never need a massive transport fleet, but better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

What I envision is something closer to 200 MTRA, 90 Il-76 and 50 C-17, something that gives serious airlift capabilities that could rapidly move a brigade into or out of a hotspot and keep a division supplied indefinitely.

I realize those numbers are wildly unrealistic for anything the IAF is likely to ever do . . . and yet the need is still there in my opinion.

[vavinash]

People neeed to stop dreaming. IAF will never require more than 40-50 IL-76 MF's. IAF is not planning to station troops and materials in Africa or latin america. IAF does require about 40-50 IL-76 MF's(60 tonne), 100-110 MTA, 60-80 odd RTA(An-32 substitute). That is a very potent lift capability by any standards. IAF should not try to match someone but fulfill its own needs.

[NRao]

For what it is worth, there have been plans to open a 2nd front from the Iranian side!!!!!!! (Posted long, long back on BR.)

[VijayKumarSinha]

For what it is worth, there have been plans to open a 2nd front from the Iranian side!!!!!!! (Posted long, long back on BR.)

Given the fact it was Iran that gave Pakistan direct military aid and channeled the same from Turkey for Pakistan in every war we have had with Pakistan, I find it hard to imagine that such a scenario is possible.

[GeorgeWelch]

IAF is not planning to station troops and materials in Africa or latin america.

Now I'm not terribly familiar with Indian geography, so please forgive any egregious errors. But let us consider a hypothetical situation.

Jammu and Kashmir are facing a massive invasion. The Kashmir Railway has been cut at several locations and the roads leading there have been made impassible. The Indian Army in the region is Under Siege and in desperate need of supplies, reinforcements and Steven Seagal (sorry, bad joke).

What do you do?

IAF should not try to match someone but fulfill its own needs.

I am not talking about anyone else's needs, only India's

[SaiK]

may be we are thinking advanced warfare then.. we have to start looking at UCAVs and attack drones, along with heavy robotic soldiers and remotely (satellite) controlled guns and tanks.

[VijayKumarSinha]

The Indian Army in the region is Under Siege and in desperate need of supplies, reinforcements and Steven Seagal (sorry, bad joke).

You must be a seriously old dude, we won’t have Seagal when we could have the G.I Joe’s
Good thing you didn’t mention David Carradine now that would have been bad!

[Gilles]

The C-17 is not the STOL aircraft it claims to be. It is true that when lightly loaded it can land very short on dry hard-surfaced runways. It also takes-off relatively short, thanks to its great power.
However, the C-17 has a very high Pavement Classification Number. This is the weight of the aircraft on the runway. This is because this very heavy aircraft only has 14 wheels. Because of this, the C-17 cannot land on regular unpaved runways like the IL-76 or the An-32 can. Or rather, it CAN, but it creates huge ruts into the gravel runways when it does, rendering the runways unusable. So in practice, it cannot land on any unpaved runways unless such runway can be sacrificed in the process. In the US and in Australia, the Air Force had to build specially-built heavy duty "unpaved" runways to allow C-17 pilots to practice assault landings on "unpaved" runways. This is because there is no way a C-17 can drop in to any regular civilian or military unpaved runways such as the hundreds that are available to C-130s.
Compare the much lighter IL-76 with its 20 wheels. Even the US C-5 Galaxy, with its 28-wheel undercarriage, can land on softer runways than the C-17.

Second: the C-17 relies on heavy braking for its short runway capability. The efficiency of this braking is greatly reduced when the runways are wet, almost doubling its landing distance. SO runways that may be available to C-17s when dry will be off limits to C-17s when wet. This is true for take-off also, because the aircraft has to be able to brake and stay on the runway if it loses an engine before V1 and/or VMCG is reached.

Boeing claims the C-17 can land in "under 3,500 feet" but ask the Air Force to produce any real unpaved 3,500 foot runway they have ever landed on. They can't produce any. The practice runways they built to practice assault landings are "make-believe" 3,500 foot runways with under-runs and over-runs of several hundred feet in length on either end. They never practice on real 3,500 runways and don't even use their own practice runways when these are wet: too short.
The "unpaved runways" it uses in Afghanistan are long and have to be constantly repaired after every few C-7 landings.
The C-17 carries just 102 troops, barely more than a Hercules (92). India can buy 5 Il-76s for the price of one C-17. In addition to your transport IL-76s you have the IL-78 and the A-50s, which are also version of the Il-76s. Having a large common fleet reduces maintenance and training costs.

Russia has begun to re-engine its older Il-76s with the new fuel efficient Perm PS-90 engines (same engine as fitted on India's new A-50 AWACS). I think that for all IAF Il-76s that still have good airframes, upgrading the IL-76 with new engines and new avionics is the Way to go. As an example. the C-130 Hercules first flew in 1953. The C-130J which is still on the market now is a version with new engines and new avionics.
All CH-47D Chinooks helicopters are upgraded older CH-47A, B and C helicopters originally built in the sixties and seventies. Yet the US Army has hundreds of them.

I think upgrading is the best course of action for renewing the Transport fleet.

The C-17 has a service life of 30,000 hours. At a cost of 250 million dollars, each hour of flight will cost 8,333 dollars in acquisition cost alone. This is before fuel, crew, maintenance and parts are counted. All in all, each hour of C-17 operation will cost India over $40,000. Plus the aircraft is subject to US ITAR laws.

My two cents.....

[shiv]

shiv, the flying into hurricanes req. is only to highlight the need for all-weather flying in mountains both during war and peacetime, above the mountains the weather is turbulent, not sure how many heavy lift transports will be able to handle that

Vasu Ray - I don't think turbulence is the major issue of flying into and out of mountain air bases. Violent turbulence that occurs when a plane is 10 meters off the ground can crash any plane while turbulence over the mountains when you are flying kilometers above them is a different matter.

The problem with flying into and out of mountain air bases is the thin air and of course the mountains themselves acting as physical barriers. Since the wing of any aircraft sits on a sort of "cushion" of air, thin air requires that the plane needs to fly faster to stay afloat. When you are flying at any speed and descending between mountains - if you find a mountain appearing in front of you you need to turn or climb in case you are not planning to fly into the mountain. Because the air is thinner and you are flying faster, your ability to turn away or climb away is hampered. You need extra distances to do either, or you need to generate tremendous extra power. But because your engines are already at high altitude and getting less air, they will not be able to give you that tremendous extra power.

In practice what happens is that you have an aircraft that is taking off from a mountain air base and it has to gain enough height to clear a range of mountain peaks up ahead. The heavier your a/c is the slower it will climb and the less chance it has to clear the peak. And allah forbid - if one of your engines packs up during your climb - you may not be able to make it. There may not even be enough room between mountains for you to turn around and land.

The most stupid thing about aircraft is that you have to land them safely. If you are trying to land in a mountain airfield, you need to make sure that if - for some reason you have to abort the landing at the last moment and go for another chukker - you have enough power to climb away and not hit those mountains ahead.

Even if you leave out the issue of mountains and look at ordinary transport requirements from bases near sea level and not much higher - I am reminded of the Bangalore-Chennai or the Bangalore-Coimbatore jet flight. Now jet engines are most economical at altitude (I think about 10000 meters). A plane takes about 15-30 minutes to reach cruising altitude - but the Coimbatore flight is so short that the plane climbs for 15 minutes and descends for 15 minutes and the journey is over. The jet engines do not have the time to reach their optimum altitude as they would in a much longer flight. For this sort of situation it makes eminent sense to use a turboprop especially if transport for the Air Force is many short hops. Like any airline the Air Force too needs and optimum mix of types and sizes.

[Rahul M]

george, we have rajnikant. steven seagal has nothing over him, I assure you !

[vavinash]

Thank you Giles for pointing out the obvious advertising gimmickry that some people are indulging in. To put it in perspective the C-17 cannot do a STOL with Arjun tank (59 tonne)or T-90. It will require regular paved runways for that. IL-76 MF should be able to carry T-90 (may be even arjun??). The cost of Il-76 MF in addition to the commonality with the current fleet will help IAF get far more bang for the buck that advertising gimmick like C-17. Let US subsidize it like they are doing it for Porkis if they are desperate to sell it. IAF should get its money's worth and C-17 simply cannot deliver.

[Yogi_G]

X-Posted from China military watch.

I know its about China, but in the current context of discussion I thought it would be useful to post this part here which caught my eye while reading the article.

China air force much improved though still lagging

Excerpt:

In addition, China's air force doesn't have enough planes to mount a major airlift of equipment and supplies in either a combat or humanitarian relief operation. Troops taking part in a recent nationwide training exercise flew by commercial jet, and the lack of capacity has frustrated China's aspirations to play a greater regional role in humanitarian relief operations.

While the air force mobilized massively to deal with last year's Sichuan earthquake, bad weather forced the cancellation of several attempts to fly in men and equipment. A much ballyhooed mission to parachute in troops bordered on farce, requiring the better part of two days and resulting in the dropping of a mere 15 soldiers.

[Manish_Sharma]

The C-17 is not the STOL aircraft it claims to be. It is true that when lightly loaded it can land very short on dry hard-surfaced runways. It also takes-off relatively short, thanks to its great power.
However, the C-17 has a very high Pavement Classification Number. This is the weight of the aircraft on the runway. This is because this very heavy aircraft only has 14 wheels. Because of this, the C-17 cannot land on regular unpaved runways like the IL-76 or the An-32 can. Or rather, it CAN, but it creates huge ruts into the gravel runways when it does, rendering the runways unusable. So in practice, it cannot land on any unpaved runways unless such runway can be sacrificed in the process. In the US and in Australia, the Air Force had to build specially-built heavy duty "unpaved" runways to allow C-17 pilots to practice assault landings on "unpaved" runways. This is because there is no way a C-17 can drop in to any regular civilian or military unpaved runways such as the hundreds that are available to C-130s.
Compare the much lighter IL-76 with its 20 wheels. Even the US C-5 Galaxy, with its 28-wheel undercarriage, can land on softer runways than the C-17.

Second: the C-17 relies on heavy braking for its short runway capability. The efficiency of this braking is greatly reduced when the runways are wet, almost doubling its landing distance. SO runways that may be available to C-17s when dry will be off limits to C-17s when wet. This is true for take-off also, because the aircraft has to be able to brake and stay on the runway if it loses an engine before V1 and/or VMCG is reached.

Boeing claims the C-17 can land in "under 3,500 feet" but ask the Air Force to produce any real unpaved 3,500 foot runway they have ever landed on. They can't produce any. The practice runways they built to practice assault landings are "make-believe" 3,500 foot runways with under-runs and over-runs of several hundred feet in length on either end. They never practice on real 3,500 runways and don't even use their own practice runways when these are wet: too short.
The "unpaved runways" it uses in Afghanistan are long and have to be constantly repaired after every few C-7 landings.
The C-17 carries just 102 troops, barely more than a Hercules (92). India can buy 5 Il-76s for the price of one C-17. In addition to your transport IL-76s you have the IL-78 and the A-50s, which are also version of the Il-76s. Having a large common fleet reduces maintenance and training costs.

Russia has begun to re-engine its older Il-76s with the new fuel efficient Perm PS-90 engines (same engine as fitted on India's new A-50 AWACS). I think that for all IAF Il-76s that still have good airframes, upgrading the IL-76 with new engines and new avionics is the Way to go. As an example. the C-130 Hercules first flew in 1953. The C-130J which is still on the market now is a version with new engines and new avionics.
All CH-47D Chinooks helicopters are upgraded older CH-47A, B and C helicopters originally built in the sixties and seventies. Yet the US Army has hundreds of them.

I think upgrading is the best course of action for renewing the Transport fleet.

The C-17 has a service life of 30,000 hours. At a cost of 250 million dollars, each hour of flight will cost 8,333 dollars in acquisition cost alone. This is before fuel, crew, maintenance and parts are counted. All in all, each hour of C-17 operation will cost India over $40,000. Plus the aircraft is subject to US ITAR laws.

My two cents.....

Thanks to Gilles' and Brando's unbiased, honest and enlightening inputs it becomes obvious what a great sanction prone white elephant India is going to buy.

Not to forget Cybaru's first hand input from the C17 Loadmaster about how maintenance intensive this plane is.

[chetak]

Sa you say the requirement is different. India has a relatively smalll size landmass, and can move more stuff on the ground.

The problem is that you can't always rely on being able to move stuff by ground. The enemy could cut off supply lines leaving your forces in a very bad situation.

You need enough airlift to be able to sustain a major miliary operation. And what the IAF has now is barely a drop in the proverbial bucket.

You size your military for the worst case situation. For instance, ordering 450 MiG-21 could be viewed as a waste. They did nothing but sit there, perform training exercises and get pilots killed. Yet there was a possible threat that required them so they were obtained. If they are never needed, everyone is glad, but they are an insurance policy.

Similarly you may never need a massive transport fleet, but better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

What I envision is something closer to 200 MTRA, 90 Il-76 and 50 C-17, something that gives serious airlift capabilities that could rapidly move a brigade into or out of a hotspot and keep a division supplied indefinitely.

I realize those numbers are wildly unrealistic for anything the IAF is likely to ever do . . . and yet the need is still there in my opinion.

GeorgeWelch,

Why are you so keenly pushing the C-17?

[GeorgeWelch]

Ah, I see our favorite Canadian friend has made it to the party.

The C-17 is not the STOL aircraft it claims to be.

That's nice. It's still an important aircraft to have for 1) outsize loads 2) moving large amounts of material to areas where civvies fear to tread 3) hot and high performance

So in practice, it cannot land on any unpaved runways unless such runway can be sacrificed in the process.

I seem to recall you getting pretty thoroughly thrashed on PPRUNE over this claim.

The C-17 carries just 102 troops, barely more than a Hercules (92).

No, 8 seating pallets * 15 seats per pallets = 120 seats + 54 sidewall seats = 174 seats

India can buy 5 Il-76s for the price of one C-17.

This claim is unsupportable since no Il-76 line is running and they are working on upgrading it with more modern engines and avionics (= more money)

In addition to your transport IL-76s you have the IL-78 and the A-50s, which are also version of the Il-76s. Having a large common fleet reduces maintenance and training costs.

But if it doesn't fit your needs, you still need something else.

The C-130J which is still on the market now is a version with new engines and new avionics.

There's a wee bit more difference than just new engines and avionics.

I think upgrading is the best course of action for renewing the Transport fleet.

Upgrading may or may not be a good idea, but my point is that 24 Il-76 simply isn't enough to get the job done anyway you look at it.

At a cost of 250 million dollars

The latest report is $1.7 billion for 10, or 170 million each

[Rahul M]

chetak, that's irrelevant. as long as he is not breaking any rules he(or anyone else) can support any damn plane he/she likes, as long as it is supported by facts.
@ georgewelch, don't reply to that question.

we are having a quite informative discussion, please keep things that way.

[Gilles]

Carrying tanks is not that important. All the US M-1 Abrams tanks in Iraq arrived on ships, not on aircraft. The British which have 6 C-17s on inventory and have thousands of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have never carried a tank in any of their C-17s. Canada and the Dutch shipped their tanks to Afghanistan on Antonov 124s.
If India absolutely needs to carry tanks, they can either carry smaller tanks than the T-90, one that is under 50 tonnes, or they can rent An-124s......

[Surya]

Giles

links to support your claims??

[Rahul M]

Carrying tanks is not that important. All the US M-1 Abrams tanks in Iraq arrived on ships, not on aircraft. The British which have 6 C-17s on inventory and have thousands of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have never carried a tank in any of their C-17s. Canada and the Dutch shipped their tanks to Afghanistan on Antonov 124s.
If India absolutely needs to carry tanks, they can either carry smaller tanks than the T-90, one that is under 50 tonnes, or they can rent An-124s......

in India's case having an ability to airlift at least a small number of tanks (1 tank sqn at a time, say) is absolutely essential.

[chetak]

I have seen An-124 operate from Dabolim in Goa and even the naval base in INS Rajali ; but then these bases operate the Tu-142 class aircraft and have airstrips measuring approx. 4km (the one in Rajali should be even longer) and very well built (paved with concrete/asphalt ) , its highly unlikely that IAF's forward airstrips are this long and built to bear the kind of loads AN-124 hauls.

Basically we need to take into consideration the LCN for the airfield even if its long and wide enough, for forward airbases the LCN is likely to be low.

The An-124 can operate from unprepared landing strips also.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... an-124.htm

An-124 CONDOR (ANTONOV)

An-124 was created in the tradition of An-22 to be the largest production transport aircraft in the world. It is larger than the C-5B Galaxy, but smaller than the An-225 Mriya (NATO named Cossack) which carries the Russian space shuttle. The first prototype (SSSR 82002, Number 318) flew on December 26, 1982. Designed as a military transport, it appeared at the Paris Air Show in Aeroflot colors in June 1985.

It is similar to the C-5A except for the low horizontal stabilizer. The Condor appears to have a wing of higher aspect ratio and a slightly higher sweep. The horizontal tail is larger and is body-mounted rather than T-mounted on the vertical tail. The wing has conventional ailerons, singleslotted Fowler flaps, leading-edge flaps, and upper-surface spoilers. The tail has fixed-incidence and an elevator. The wings are high-mounted, swept-back, and tapered with curved tips and negative slant. Four turbofans are mounted on pylons under the wings. The fuselage is a thick oval in cross-section with a rounded nose and tapering to the rear. The tail fin is swept-back and tapered with rounded tips. Flats are swept-back, tapered, and mid-mounted on the body.

The An-124 includes many features to aid in loading and unloading and has an extensive array of flaps and spoilers to facilitate low-speed flight and short-field operation. The An-124 can unload cargo from both the tail and nose of the jet and is listed in the Guinness Book of Records for carrying the heaviest single cargo item ever, a 135.2 ton electric generator. The Condor has a wider storage area and can carry more weight than the Air Force C-5 Galaxy cargo transportation aircraft. The "Condor" uses a 24-wheel landing gear system, which permits its operation on unprepared fields.

The Condor is the largest aircraft ever mass produced. It was designed by the Soviet aerospace companies Aviastar and Antonov in the late 1970s and conducted its first test flight in 1982. The Condor began flying for the Red Air Force and Aeroflot in 1986. It is capable of hauling 300,000 pounds of cargo and 88 passengers. It holds the world record for extended flight, covering a distance of 20,151 kilometers. It has a maximum airspeed of over 450 knots and a maximum range of 2,900 nautical miles between refueling stops.

The heavy transport An-124 was created in 1982; it is a wide-body aircraft, designed to carry various cargoes, including those, whose loading gauge and weight do no allow carrying them by rail and other means of transportations. The An-124-100 “Ruslan” is a civil version of the airplane. The vehicle was designed to large freight hauling for new building work in Siberia , the North and the Far East , as well as at transcontinental carriages. the cargo space can place and secure carriage of maritime containers weighing up to 20 t in through the fore and aft hatches, long frameworks and bridge conduits, earthmovers and pipe-laying machines, building cranes and drilling equipment, heavy dump-trucks and tractors, buses, river boats, etc. Modern airborne transport equipment comprising two bridge cranes weighing 10 t each, two winches with the thrust of 29 kN, and roller and tie-down equipment provides for loading and unloading the aircraft without assistance.

The high-pass gear allows operating the airplane both at paved and unpaved runways. Mechanization of handling and two auxiliary power units for power supply and engine ignition secure autonomous operation of the aircraft at poorly equipped aerodromes. High carrying capacity and flight range, the engines economy and autonomous operation of the aircraft provide for a high profitability in operation. The prime cost of cargo carriage by the An-124 is half as high as that by other transport airplanes.

The multipurpose heavy long-haul wide-body transport aircraft An-124-100 “Ruslan” is designed to carry various cargoes, including bulky and heavy goods, as well as equipment, that cannot be carried by rail and land. The vehicle secures cargo transportation at long distances, including transcontinental routes. The An-124 can also carry 88 passengers in an upper deck behind the cockpit.

The aircraft is able to cover the distance of 4500 km with the maximum load of 120 t, it performs flights in all latitudes, in altitudes of up to 10000 m and in temperatures ranging from 60 ? ? below zero to 45 ? ? above zero. It secures operations at the meteorological minimum of 60x600 m ICAO Category I, at the aerodromes that are certified under this category. The wing pylons are fitted with four power units, each with the engine thrust of 23,4T, which provide for rather low fuel consumption (0.6 kg/kf . h) for this type of airplanes. Two auxiliary power units TA-12 ensure the air and land engine starting as well as the aircraft power supply.

The airplane is fitted with the handling equipment, including two cranes, each with carrying capacity of 3 t. The fore and aft cargo hatches are used for handling; they allow maximum using the midship of the cargo space of 6.4x4.4 m. the cargo hatches are equipped with leading footlights, and special systems regulate the height of the cargo hatches doorsills. High carrying capacity and flight range, the engines economy and autonomous operation of the aircraft provide for a high profitability in operation.

A total of 57 An-124 planes were built since 1986. Of them, 49 were in operation as of early 2007. About half of them belonged to the Defense Ministry of Russia. The remained were owned by Volga-Dnepro Airlines – 10 units, Ukraine’s Antonov Airlines – 7, Russia’s Polyot Airlines – 5, Libya – 2 and the United Arab Emirates – 1.

The An-124-100 “Ruslan” is a civil version of the airplane. The vehicle was designed to large freight hauling for new building work in Siberia , the North and the Far East , as well as at transcontinental carriages. the cargo space can place and secure carriage of maritime containers weighing up to 20 t in through the fore and aft hatches, long frameworks and bridge conduits, earthmovers and pipe-laying machines, building cranes and drilling equipment, heavy dump-trucks and tractors, buses, river boats, etc.

In 2001 the Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) awarded the Antonov design bureau, the developer, and Avistar production plant, the manufacturer, a complimentary certificate for the An-124-100 Ruslan heavy weight cargo aircraft extending its lifetime to 24,000 flight hours, 6,000 flight cycles and 25 calendar years. At that time research done by the Central Aerohydrodynamics Institute (TsAGI) and the State Scientific-Research Institute of Civil Aviation (GosNII GA) showed that the Ruslan's lifetime might be increased further to 40,000 flight hours, 10,000 flight cycles and 40-45 years. This meant that the Ruslan can stay in service until the year 2040.

During the Soviet era, An-124 aircraft were assembled at two plants: Aviant in Kiev, Ukraine, and at Aviastar in the town of Ulyanovsk, Russia. All in all thirty six An-124 aircraft were produced at the Ulyanovsk Aviastar Plant. In 2004 Aviastar assembled the final An-124-100 from the backlog remaining of previous years.

“Aviant” has completed production of the An-124-100s “Ruslan”, but it continues manufacturing spare parts for the vehicle, performs various forms of maintenance of An-124s, and converts An-124s into the variant An-124-100. The works is now considering several airlines' offers to restart production of the airplanes of this type. Works on modernization of the basic model of the Ruslan are under way. Motor Sich is working on increasing the supply of motors and improving their specifications and capacities. Vyacheslav Bohuslayev, Chairman of the Board of OJSC Motor Sich, says that the company’s designers increased the design resource by 160 times from 500 to 80,000 hours. The thrust of the new engine was increased by about 15-20%, which will increase cargo lift capacity from 120 to 150 tonnes. Meanwhile, the Russians have already begun renewing the assembled stock (parts) at the Uliyanovskiy Aircraft Manufacturing Plant.

On 15 July 2008 Ukraine and Russia agreed to continue studying AN-124-100 Ruslan planes market within the frames of the project on renewal of serial production of these planes, Industrial Policy Minister Volodymyr Novytskyi informed while commenting on his meeting with President of the Russian OJSC United Aircraft Corporation Alexey Fedorov in Kyiv. In order to renew the production of the Ruslan aircraft suspended ten years ago, Volga-Dnepro, the manufacturer of aircraft engines at Motor Sich (Zaporizhzhya), and the Kyiv Antonov Design Bureau (the main designer of the plane), created a special managing company Cargo Planes. The plans also foresee the Uliyanovskiy Aircraft Manufacturing Plant (Russia), where holding frames for the manufacture of the Ruslan have been preserved, and the Progress Design Bureau (Zaporizhzhya), which manufactures aircraft engines, joining the Volgo-Dnepro and Antonov in the near future. Start-up investments into the revival of Ruslan are approximately US $400 mn. This would only be a sufficient amount of investment to revive manufacturing and produce several aircraft units. For full-scale line production, around US $2 bn in investments is required.

The An-124-100-150 "Ruslan" passed certificate testing on 25 April 2007. At the final stage of the trial, a piloting-and-navigation system (PNS) was put on the test. The purpose was to make sure it meets the requirements of basic and accurate zonal navigation (B-RNAV and P-RNAV) when performing terminal taking-off and arrival procedures to European airports, where these procedures are certified and should be performed by means of zonal navigation method.

The An-124-100M aircraft, with western avionics and a payload of 150 tons, was to be the initial product of renewed assembly by the Antonov Design Bureau and Volga-Dnipro group of companies, which had signed a contract in 2003 to resume production of the An-124 Ruslan aircraft. The An-124-100M variant complies with chapter 4 ICAO and other new technical requirements.

The An-124-100M-150, a modernized Ruslan with a cargo capacity of 150 tons, is planned for series production starting in 2012 in a broad Russian-Ukrainian cooperation. The new version of the airplane certified by the interstate aviation committee in June of 2007 complies with requirements of European control of zonal navigation P-RNAV, as well as accuracy requirements of piloting airplanes ?-RNP-1. Preparation for the validation of certificate of type by the EASA was already started in 2008. Ruslan International Ltd (UK) established by the partners in 2006 acts as the marketing agent of the Ukrainian and Russian operators. Volga-Dnepr and ANTK Antonov intend to renew the production of the transport airplanes, placing an order on 17 aircraft. Motor Sich will design a modified D-18T engine of 4th series especially for these aircraft.

The proposed An-124-210, with 264-kN Rolls-Royce RB.211-524H-T engines in lieu of the 229-kN ZMKB Progress D-18T offers better field performance, requiring a 2,300m strip for takeoff instead of 2,800 m for the current An-124-100 model.

The An-124-300 is a new version Antonov would like to produce which would use more powerful Western turbofan engines and be able to carry an increased load of 150 tons. Design work is underway to create a supersized An-124-300 designed for nonstop transcontinental flights. The Chinese PLA would ostensibly purchase this freighter to become more competitive in commercial outsized cargo transport.

The An-225 Mriya is a strategic airlift transport aircraft which was built by Antonov, and is currently the world's largest airplane. The design, built to transport the "Buran" shuttle, was an enlargement of the successful An-124 Ruslan. With a maximum gross weight of 640 tonnes (1,411,000 lb), the An-225 is the world's heaviest aircraft

[GeorgeWelch]

george, we have rajnikant. steven seagal has nothing over him, I assure you !

Sorry, I was making a play on the title 'Under Siege' (a series of movies Seagal did)

Not to forget Cybaru's first hand input from the C17 Loadmaster about how maintenance intensive this plane is.

I'm sorry, but that report was bunk. The C-17 has the highest mission capability rate of any plane in the USAF. EVERY report I have read has praised its reliability and ease of maintenance.

IL-76 MF should be able to carry T-90 (may be even arjun??).

No, the T-90 is too wide to fit in the Il-76.

And even with the new engines, thrust was only marginally improved so I have my doubts about it's ability to handle heavy loads in hot and high conditions.

I mean, requiring a temperature of +15C or lower to land a Bofors at Thoise? Seriously?

C-17 simply cannot deliver.

There are many capabilities that Il-76 simply cannot deliver.

[srai]

...

Did somebody say that India has only <20 active IL-76s?

2 people. I don't know how reliable they are or if one is just parroting the other, but here you go:

Anantz
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 60#p765542

srai
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 00#p766666

I got that info from BR's IAF: Aircraft Fleet Strength page:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units ... Fleet.html

[Gilles]

So in practice, it cannot land on any unpaved runways unless such runway can be sacrificed in the process.

I seem to recall you getting pretty thoroughly thrashed on PPRUNE over this claim.

Thrashed ? I have no recollection of that. But let's not talk in the clouds.

The Aircraft Classification Numbers are published here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Inter ... Tables.pdf

A C-17 at gross weight for Flexible Pavement, High sub-grade A has an ACN of 46

An IL-76, in the same conditions, has an ACN of 27. A C-5 Galaxy has an ACN of 31. A C-130 has 29

The Boeing 707, a far cry from a STOL aircraft, has an ACN of 45, a bit lower than the C-17.

For the rest, don't take my word for it, read this paper written by a US Air Force Major:

"EVALUATING THE C-17 SEMI-PREPARED RUNWAY CAPABILITY – AN OFF-ROAD MAP", written in June 2002 by USAF Major Erik W. Hansen https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q ... nginespage

About the seating capacity, its 102 without the pallets, 134 with them.
Source Boeing : http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... 17spec.htm

I read somewhere that the US Air Force does not have more than 10 sets of those seating pallets and rarely use them, because they prevent the aircraft from being used to haul any cargo on the return leg.

[Aditya G]

We need a workhorse - C-17 cannot be at workhorse of the IAF like IL-76 is today. The IAF requirement is for only 10 such aircraft.

An immediate 'solution' to the IAF's needs would be to:

1) The C-130J on order is kitted out with expensive self protection suite and possibly other features seen in MC-130. Induct at least 2 sqn of vanilla C-130J. It is a reliable, proven aircraft with history of operating in the subcontinent with PAF, SLAF and BAF. In India it was deployed in post-1962 aid by USAF and with CIA/Air America for Tibet ops. The aircraft used to take off from Nepal and land in plateau to offload supplies in to the tibetan freedom fighters. Our biggest gap since An-12 retired was that we do not have a 20 tonne aircraft between An-32 and IL-76. For anything moderatly heavy the Gajraj has to be drafted in. I would not put all eggs in MTA basket.

2) IL-78MKI can be converted to cargo role quick time. For this reason and fact that rest of the fleet is still new we should exercise the order for additional 3(6?) aircraft.

3) Purchase small number of wiz bang C-17. Even if it is just 4-6.

4) Upengine IL-76 to PS-90

5) Replace Avros with Saras or Embraer (Avros no longer haul any cargo).

There are some other alternates that we can consider

> C-27J. Little brother to C-130 with same engines and IFR probe. Claimed hot and high performance and short/rough field capability.

> C-295M. IFR probe. cheaper than C-27, but with lesser performance. Pak has acquired smaller version C-235.

> A-400M. Somewhat similar, but lesser performance to Gajraj but obscenely expensive.

> An-74. Typical Russian big bang for small buck aircraft with all qualities of An-32 with perhaps even better hot and high performance.

[chetak]

The IL-76 has a all titanium cargo floor.

AFAIK, no american lifter has such a titanium floor.

Would wear and tear, load bearing capacity of the cargo floor be an issue or limitation?

[Gilles]

India can buy 5 Il-76s for the price of one C-17.

This claim is unsupportable since no Il-76 line is running and they are working on upgrading it with more modern engines and avionics (= more money)

When the IL-76 line in Tashkent shut down in the mid nineties, there were about 40 uncompleted IL-76s at the plant. All new IL-76 delivered since were from that lot, including the Il-78s from 2003 and the recent three A-50 Phalco AWACS. Ilyushin still has at least two dozen left from that lot, including the 11 unsold stretched IL-76MF.

[ldev]

Sorry for butting into this idealogical dogfight - it seems that proponents and opponents about the US vs Russian aircraft find reasons to support their respective transport aircraft based on whether they like the US or Russia

But a serious question to those who may know. I believe the IAF is pretty serious about looking after their equipment especially regarding FOD even from paved runaways. Does the IAF currently ever land its IL-76s on anything other than paved runways? Because if it does not, this whole argument about aircraft/runway usage classification is really irrelevant isnt it? And the IAF can buy whatever transport it really needs to move the maximum amount of cargo asap.

[Gilles]

Sorry for butting into this idealogical dogfight - it seems that proponents and opponents about the US vs Russian aircraft find reasons to support their respective transport aircraft based on whether they like the US or Russia

But a serious question to those who may know. I believe the IAF is pretty serious about looking after their equipment especially regarding FOD even from paved runaways. Does the IAF currently ever land its IL-76s on anything other than paved runways? Because if it does not, this whole argument about aircraft/runway usage classification is really irrelevant isnt it? And the IAF can buy whatever transport it really needs to move the maximum amount of cargo asap.

I agree with you 100 per cent. The only reason I began this, is because that this alleged C-17 short and unpaved runway capability is used as a major selling point and was also mentioned in this thread. It was also advertised as such in Canada, and now that they are purchased, the Canadian Air Force does not land on unpaved runways with theirs. Canada even rented a civilian C-130 to haul freight to a 5,900 foot military gravel runway in our Arctic (CFB Alert) because its so-called STOL C-17 could not go there.

[GeorgeWelch]

About the seating capacity, its 102 without the pallets, 134 with them.
Source Boeing : http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... 17spec.htm

They've since introduced 15 seat pallets

http://www.aarcorp.com/gov/Mobility/Pal ... allets.pdf

I read somewhere that the US Air Force does not have more than 10 sets of those seating pallets and rarely use them, because they prevent the aircraft from being used to haul any cargo on the return leg.

It's true that a C-17 generally isn't the most efficient troop transport, but the capability is there if you need it.

Would wear and tear, load bearing capacity of the cargo floor be an issue or limitation?

The C-17 is designed to have a fully combat loaded (fuel, ammunition, crew) M1A1 driven straight onto it. Floor strength is a, ahem, strength, of the C-17.

[GeorgeWelch]

Sorry for butting into this idealogical dogfight - it seems that proponents and opponents about the US vs Russian aircraft find reasons to support their respective transport aircraft based on whether they like the US or Russia

I advocated BOTH the Il-76 and C-17

Does the IAF currently ever land its IL-76s on anything other than paved runways? Because if it does not, this whole argument about aircraft/runway usage classification is really irrelevant isnt it?

During war, peacetime restrictions get thrown out.

[VijayKumarSinha]

Gilles vs. GW

1812 anyone?

[GeorgeWelch]

The only reason I began this, is because that this alleged C-17 short and unpaved runway capability is used as a major selling point and was also mentioned in this thread.

See to me this isn't so critical which is why your arguments in this area just seem so . . . pointless.

Different aircraft for different missions. If you need to move some small cargo to a podunk base in nowheresville, sure use a specialized tactical transport.

But you seem to be arguing that because the C-17 has certain unprepared field limitations it is worthless, and I just don't see that.

Sure, have your MRTA or Il-76 or whatever, but sometimes you simply need something bigger. (And with better hot/high performance)

And when it comes down it and a C-17 NEEDS to land/take off from a dirt strip, it can do it. Obviously this isn't something you normally regularly do with such a large aircraft, but the capability is there.