C-17s for the IAF?

[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

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.

The big fear about US aircraft from the Indian standpoint is sanctions. The big fear about Russian aircraft is unreliability in terms of manufacturer support. I dont know if the IL-76 line will ever reopen and whether it is prudent for India to rely on that production line. If heavy lift is what India is looking for in terms of the C-17 class, then the AN-124 is even worse in terms of supply reliability given how few airframes are available and the difficulty in getting anything like efficient production going again.

Also, where will this heavy lift capability be required. Wholly within India. Possible. But that is preparing for yesterday's war. It is also likely that India wants capability to project force outside Indian borders especially to secure its economic interests in the neighbourhood and further afield. You cannot rely on the domestic Indian rail network to to do that as someone suggested.

And you are correct that in wartime, peacetime restrictions on runway usage get thrown out of the window.

[GeorgeWelch]

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

I've been reading this and I don't see the problem.

The C-17 delivered two Marine Expeditionary Units (64 sorties, 970 short tons, 481 passengers) to Rhino LZ, a 6000 foot long unstabilized semi-prepared runway 80 miles southwest of Kandahar. Although the MEU deployment to Rhino LZ was successful, it was not without it limitations since the runway required extensive repair every day following the eight sorties flown during the previous night’s operations.

1. India is only looking at 10 C-17s and the problem is with repeated landings, it is unlikely that India could generate enough sorties quickly enough to be a serious issue.

2. While repairing the runway was a nuisance, IT GOT DONE. You might not consider it ideal, but the C-17 ACCOMPLISHED THE MISSION.

Also the paper mentions possibilities to mitigate the problem such as having separate runways for takeoffs and landings.

Again, I don't see any issues that can't be dealt with.

[Gilles]

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.

I never said the C-17 was worthless. Its a fine aircraft, reliable, modern, etc.

What I claim is that it's very expensive, it cannot land on short runways in real life, nor can it land on soft runways without tearing them apart. Canada has hundred of runways of 3,000 to 4500 feet in length especially in our Arctic communities. This aircraft was sold to us as one that could go to these places in case of disasters. But it turns out that it can't. Or rather it can, if the aircraft is empty, if a highly trained test pilot is at the controls, if the runway is dry, devoid of snow (we're in Canada remember) and if a grader and a steamroller are on hand to repair the damage right after the aircraft leaves. The result is that in our tens of thousands of square miles of Northern territories, the C-17 is restricted to a handful of runways.

Australia is in the same situation. Thousands of small runways, all off-limits to the C-17.

Maybe India is dotted with long hard asphalt runways, I don't know.

[Rahul M]

for the record :

http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/military/76md.html

engine 4 X D30-KP
max take-off weight (t) 190
max payload (t) 48

http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/mi ... 6md90.html

engine 4 X PC-90А-76
max payload (t) 50
max take-off weight (t) 195

http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/military/76mf.html

engine 4 X PS-90A-76
max take-off weight (t) 210
max payload (t) 60

it seems that if the Il-76MD's are re-engined with PS-90, the payload capacity will come up to 60 t or higher (comparing with the MF which has probably a heavier empty weight than the MD)
that is in fact enough for our requirement to airlift tanks (with the very serious need to widen the fuselage too).

I dont know if the IL-76 line will ever reopen and whether it is prudent for India to rely on that production line.

I don't think we need to be too concerned on that account.
russia occupies a huge pie of the medium-heavy transport market, it's unlikely they will simply surrender that to a competitor which has sold less than a fifth of its numbers (approximately) and costs five times as much.

they are currently negotiating transfer of manufacturing capability from uzbekistan to russia and the Il-476 is supposed to be test flown next year.

[negi]

On India's need for a transport AC capable of airlifting MBTs

Inducting T-72 tanks by air into Jaffna-- Gp Capt A G Bewoor VM (Retd)

Jaffna is at sea level, the RW has a very low LCN (Load Classification Number) and was only 7500 ft long. Not a very comfortable configuration for an IL-76 with a belly full of T-72. The runway surface is not good, small gravel is abundantly available. Given the hostile actions of LTTE, who reportedly had 'some' shoulder fired AA missiles, we had to land on a westerly heading irrespective of wind direction. Using all four in reverse would have been very unwise and fraught with FOD (Foreign Object Damage) possibility for No 1 and No. 4 engines due to the back flow of the reverse thrust of No 2 and 3 engines.

The first sorties were relatively uneventful and we got back by lunch for the second trip. It was here that I met a Maj Kaul the Squadron Commander of the regiment being inducted into Jaffna. All went well till his tank was in and lashed. Then he popped that inevitable question cum request. "Sir, I want to load my jeep". The gunners said,"No way, not even a milk tin can go in". "This is my recce jeep." said Kaul, "I need to check things before moving my tank".

It took a lot of explaining to make Kaul understand that 43 tons was all that the aircraft can take. He was insistent, desperate, frustrated and finally asked me in incredulous anger, "Sir, the ramp is empty and my jeep will fit on it. Why are you being so fussy about a jeep. How will I do my recce?" It was a tough one for me and the crew, especially with the tank guys watching and waiting to see who wins, their sqn cdr Maj Kaul, or Bewoor, the 'driver' of the aeroplane. I won. That decision was to save Maj Kaul from certain death some days later, I did not know it then, but he reminded me about it at Command Hospital Pune later, at that time he had only one eye. But more on that later.

We got into Jaffna again, I landed second and the offloading started. The tank in my aircraft gave so much trouble that by the time it was on ground the sun had set and it was pitch dark. IAF orders were very precise, 'No fixed wing aircraft is to remain on the island overnight'. Jaffna had no night flying facility at all. No runway lights, no goosenecks, no torches, nothing. We had to get out of Jaffna, that was for sure. So we lined up, facing East, I was in the right seat with a trainee pilot, I briefed the crew on the very special circumstances of this take off and the need to be extremely vigilant. We had been up since five in the morning, and were pretty tired. Landing lights were put on to High and we rolled. I wanted to get off the ground as soon as possible It is a 'dead area' East of Jaffna, no habitation, and no lights to give us the ability to discern between sky and ground. Our AUW (All Up Weight) was very low, standard Slat / Flap selection of 14 / 25 would have resulted in a very steep Nose Up attitude, not a good way to take off on a dark night with zero ground reference. So we selected landing configuration Slats / Flaps of 25 / 43, this way the attitude at take off and climb away would be low. It was not the easiest of things to do. But a great education to the crew and myself. We used this experience to brief and train other crew, as it was very probable that they would have to repeat this. In the event it never again became necessary to take off from Jaffna at night.

Another severe limitation in the T-72 induction is that the fuel reserve has to be very low and in full violation of regulations. The reason is that the max AUW for landing is 140 tons. With 90 tons as the basic wt and 43 tons of cargo, the landing fuel at Jaffna could to be not more than 7 tons. The dilemma was not the 7 tons at landing, it was that to fly from Jaffna to Chennai we needed at least 7 tons of fuel at take off from Jaffna. Refuelling on the island was prohibited so we had to land at Jaffna at an AUW of 147 tons, or 7 tons above permissible AUW, to ensure that we had at least 14 tons on take off. That too was not enough considering holding and delays due to civil traffic. Madras control was briefed by us to give priority to all IL-76s returning from Jaffna, without the necessity of them demanding priority landing. The civil controllers understood the situation very well and to the great chagrin of many domestic and international flights, No.44 Squadrons IL-76s returning from Jaffna and Trinco, always got a direct priority landing at Meenambakam, day or night,

See the pic illustrating a T-72 being hauled up inside the Il76 (note the clearances available on either flank between the chasis of the MBT and AC fuselage , T-72 is about 3.59mtr wide while T-90 is 3.78mtr and Arjun 3.87mtr (Approx).We are talking about substantial changes to IL-76 fuselage apart from uprating the engines .

Coming to C-17 , the major USP of the AC is its ability to release/drop men and material to a designated point with very low CEP , something which every Army would be glad to have.C-17 in particular has requisite equipment on board to automatically compute the bearings of a point in space from where the cargo needs to be released so that it lands at a pre-designated spot known as "Computed Air Release Point Procedures (CARP)"

Also C-17 can offload as much as 42000lbs (19000kg) of load at extremely low altitudes (several feet above the ground) via low-altitude parachute extraction system (LAPES) again facilitated by 'CARP', which imo can be handy where landing is not possible and CARGO needs to be delivered with a very low CEP.This imo should make up for its inability to land on unprepared fields which, btw might affect other transport AC too

[ldev]

I don't think we need to be too concerned on that account.
russia occupies a huge pie of the medium-heavy transport market, it's unlikely they will simply surrender that to a competitor which has sold less than a fifth of its numbers (approximately) and costs five times as much.

Sure, the Russians will not surrender. But the issue is India's assessment of their ability to deliver. Not that the C-17 is cheap in absolute terms but one has to compare its capabilities to the asking price.

Also, payload is not the only issue, comparing interior volumes and dimensions will determine its ability to cargo outsize cargo such as a T-90 tank.

[Gilles]

The C-17 delivered two Marine Expeditionary Units (64 sorties, 970 short tons, 481 passengers) to Rhino LZ, a 6000 foot long unstabilized semi-prepared runway 80 miles southwest of Kandahar. Although the MEU deployment to Rhino LZ was successful, it was not without it limitations since the runway required extensive repair every day following the eight sorties flown during the previous night’s operations.

1. India is only looking at 10 C-17s and the problem is with repeated landings, it is unlikely that India could generate enough sorties quickly enough to be a serious issue.

2. While repairing the runway was a nuisance, IT GOT DONE. You might not consider it ideal, but the C-17 ACCOMPLISHED THE MISSION.

Also the paper mentions possibilities to mitigate the problem such as having separate runways for takeoffs and landings.

Again, I don't see any issues that can't be dealt with.

From the same paper:

From an engineering aspect, a runway is considered failed when the depth of the ruts reaches 3 inches..........

The C-17 landings at Camp Rhino, Afghanistan, created 18 inch ruts in the runway. The very first day of the assault, they had to fly in a Seabee team with a grader and other heavy equipment to repair the runway. Its only after runway "improvements" by the Seabee team that they were able to do bring down repairs to every 10 landings. There is a detailed article on the net about the Seabee involvement there.

Sure in times of war, you can tear up a runway, especially in a foreign country, but can you do it to evacuate a flooded village in your own country, to fly in a replacement turbine for a dam, or a heavy Generator in times of peace.

Like I said, if this capability is not needed, the C-17 is a fine aircraft and go for it. But don't buy it thinking its any kind of 4x4 Truck. It's not.

[chetak]

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.

For an infrequently used or required heavy lift ( beyond the IL-76 ) capacity why do we need to buy C-17s? We could always lease the right airplane and be done with it.

In case of a real emergency, we could always bank on the ruskies to help out in a hurry as they have done in the past.

[Rahul M]

Also, payload is not the only issue, comparing interior volumes and dimensions will determine its ability to cargo outsize cargo such as a T-90 tank.

ya, I mentioned that.

this soft runway requirement from C-17 isn't too big a deal IMO. we will have the Il-76 for that. (I hope !)
and leh does have a good runway.

[Cain Marko]

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

Are you serious? The IA is dispersed all over the damn place. If it ever comes to "the entire army being in areas that cannot be reached" - India has already lost the war (or something has seriously/irreversibly gone wrong). Air lift capability doesn't mean much when your entire army is already out of reach. Did it just sink in the IOR?

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?

Vulnerable as it is, India uses it even for strategic assets (i.e. nuke delivery) so can't be all that unreliable. So far, through 4 different wars, it has not backfired. Of course, sabotage is a possibility; but it would have to be a massive internal conspiracy to totally decapitate such communication nodes. As far as availability goes, again check the indian railway - there are so many stations, trains and schedules, it transports a bazillion people daily for heaven's sake.

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

You do realize that there are very few areas that the Indian Rlys does not service within the territories, right? Again, the indian rail network is extensive - probly the most extensive in the world. In other words, the Army is unlikely to be stationed somewhere the rly cannot reach (apart from forward sectors). And yes there is the possibility that a few units during war could be cutoff but but for such scenarios they'd hardly need a hyper massive type airlift capability.

From what I can remember, only the himalayan heights, Andamans or Lakshwadeep, and possibly the northeast are a problem in terms of rail service.

Just to be clear - I am not complaining about the IAF's C-17 interest - if the IAF think it needs 'em thats good enough; it is just that I don't think the airlift capability of the IAF needs to be much "more" - not for its needs and not within the budget that india sets aside for it.
CM

[Rahul M]

For an infrequently used or required heavy lift ( beyond the IL-76 ) capacity why do we need to buy C-17s? We could always lease the right airplane and be done with it.

In case of a real emergency, we could always bank on the ruskies to help out in a hurry as they have done in the past.

really ?
we will just call the "rent a transport" helpline and wait for the ruslans to arrive all the while when our borders are being attacked ? how much time will it take to even arrive, let alone complete the missions, if at all the owners are willing to risk the aircraft in a war situation.

[negi]

For time being lets agree that C-17 is not as good as the IL-76 when it comes to operating from unprepared fields (lets go by those published ACNs).Having said that how does IL-76 compare with C-17 in terms of countermeasures and self protection suite ? How does IL-76 score in terms of precision dropping of men and material ? C-17 and even C-130J can drop paratroopers and cargo with very low CEP as they have dedicated equipment to compute the ballistics involved with releasing an object at certain point for it to be delivered at a designated point .

And then LAPES imho makes up for the inability to operate from unprepared airstrips to some extent.

[GeorgeWelch]

From the same paper:

From an engineering aspect, a runway is considered failed when the depth of the ruts reaches 3 inches..........

The C-17 landings at Camp Rhino, Afghanistan, created 18 inch ruts in the runway.

obviously they need to adjust their definition of 'failed'

The very first day of the assault, they had to fly in a Seabee team with a grader and other heavy equipment to repair the runway. Its only after runway "improvements" by the Seabee team that they were able to do bring down repairs to every 10 landings.

so?

Like I said, if this capability is not needed, the C-17 is a fine aircraft and go for it. But don't buy it thinking its any kind of 4x4 Truck. It's not.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing.

I'm saying also get the Il-76 so . . . what exactly do you propose for missions that the Il-76 simply can't do?

[GeorgeWelch]

For an infrequently used or required heavy lift ( beyond the IL-76 ) capacity why do we need to buy C-17s? We could always lease the right airplane and be done with it.

On the contrary, the real infrequent use is delivering heavy loads to semi-prepared dirt strips.

It's something that simply isn't going to be an issue most of the time. I would forsee most missions being to established bases like Leh and Thoise.

Gilles is bitter about what happened in Canada and is blowing a small issue way out of proportion.

As far as leasing,
1) for all the rhetoric about being independent and not at the mercy of foreign governments, many people sure seem eager to put themselves at the mercy of foreign companies (which are regulated by foreign governments)

2. Civil operators tend to frown on taking aircraft into situations where there is a serious risk.

The only way to guarantee the necessary lift available at the proper time is to have it organic

In case of a real emergency, we could always bank on the ruskies to help out in a hurry as they have done in the past.

So why even have a military? Just rely on the good old ruskies right?

[vasu_ray]

shiv, regarding flying hot and high in mountains with payload, its tough to do that right with good visibility, still the transports should graduate to all weather flying in that terrain

Doppler radars
terrain avoidance
CAT 3 auto-landings
sat com
what have you?

for 26/11 the IL-76 taking NSG men, if the weather didn't cooperate, it could have added to the delays, it goes without saying the criticality during wartime

if the IL-76 can be upgraded, great

[chetak]

As far as leasing,
1) for all the rhetoric about being independent and not at the mercy of foreign governments, many people sure seem eager to put themselves at the mercy of foreign companies (which are regulated by foreign governments)

In case of a real emergency, we could always bank on the ruskies to help out in a hurry as they have done in the past.

So why even have a military? Just rely on the good old ruskies right?

Now you have reached the crux of the matter.

We have found the ruskies far more reliable and helpful than any other ally especially new found ones who will sanction us at the drop of the proverbial hat.

We see the plight of our neighbors and wonder why we should end up like them.

[GeorgeWelch]

Canada has hundred of runways of 3,000 to 4500 feet in length especially in our Arctic communities. This aircraft was sold to us as one that could go to these places in case of disasters. But it turns out that it can't. Or rather it can, if the aircraft is empty, if a highly trained test pilot is at the controls, if the runway is dry, devoid of snow (we're in Canada remember) and if a grader and a steamroller are on hand to repair the damage right after the aircraft leaves. The result is that in our tens of thousands of square miles of Northern territories, the C-17 is restricted to a handful of runways.

The anticipated use in India is vastly different and basically has no relationship to the situation in Canada.

The number one purpose would be to transport outsize loads and large amounts of material to established bases like Leh and Thoise.

The (very) secondary purpose would be to make combat deliveries of heavy units (like T-90 and Arjun) on semi-prepared surfaces. Since the Il-76 can't transport either tank in the first place . . .

It was never intended to be a regular taxi service to remote outposts like you seem to think it was sold as in Canada. If there is a major operation that requires landing tanks on dirt, then yes, they'll bring in graders and make it work.

[shiv]

Adding fuel to fire ..

How about the Airbus A-400?

[GeorgeWelch]

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

Are you serious? The IA is dispersed all over the damn place. If it ever comes to "the entire army being in areas that cannot be reached" - India has already lost the war (or something has seriously/irreversibly gone wrong). Air lift capability doesn't mean much when your entire army is already out of reach. Did it just sink in the IOR?

Well certainly not the ENTIRE army, but a good chunk of it could be. Say the chunk in Jammu and Kashmir.

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?

Vulnerable as it is, India uses it even for strategic assets (i.e. nuke delivery) so can't be all that unreliable. So far, through 4 different wars, it has not backfired. Of course, sabotage is a possibility; but it would have to be a massive internal conspiracy to totally decapitate such communication nodes. As far as availability goes, again check the indian railway - there are so many stations, trains and schedules, it transports a bazillion people daily for heaven's sake.

I'm not talking about destroying the entire rail system, only a few strategic links. Like the Kashmir Railway.

the Army is unlikely to be stationed somewhere the rly cannot reach (apart from forward sectors).

Coincidentally battles usually take place in forward sectors.

[GeorgeWelch]

Adding fuel to fire ..

How about the Airbus A-400?

I think it would be a fine plane, but with India already involved in MRTA and the possibility of a further Il-76 buy, it gets squeezed into a place of extreme redundancy.

Also with the latest price increases, it isn't that much cheaper than a C-17.

[Rahul M]

Adding fuel to fire ..

How about the Airbus A-400?

too small.

[srai]

Adding fuel to fire ..

How about the Airbus A-400?

Good specs ... in the size of IL-76 payload capacity.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/standards.html

It can even be quickly converted to an air-to-air refueling tanker!

Performance

A400M has been designed to provide high strategic mission
efficiency whilst meeting the demands of tactical operations.


Speed / Altitude Capability

The A400M is an economical turboprop aircraft with a cruise speed almost as fast as turbofan powered transports. Its advanced aerodynamic design, coupled with four new generation, high performance turboprop engines and 8-bladed propellers provide cruising speeds up to Mach 0.72 at 37 000 ft.


Field Performance

For tactical missions, good field performance is a crucial factor for mission success.

The A400M provides excellent soft field capabilities and requires only a short runway length, both for take-off and landing. In a combat situation where it would land on a semi-prepared forward operating strip and unload all its cargo, the A400M would require less than 1000 m of usable runway.

The aircraft is capable of operating into unprepared landing strips under adverse meteorological conditions completely independent of ground
support. With its 12-wheel main gear and high flotation characteristics, the A400M will be able to land on soft grass fields over low plasticity clay, a performance which far exceeds that of any similar aircraft.
Operations from remote sites, with limited or no ground facilities and limited space for manoeuvre are severe constraints for a tactical airlifter. The A400M is designed from the outset to work in these conditions.

* A turning radius of 30 m enables the A400M to be operated from simple air bases with limited aprons and taxiways;
* The A400M is capable of reversing up, under its own power, a 2% slope on hard surfaces and a 1% slope on soft surfaces at its tactical MTW in hot and high conditions.



Aerial Delivery

As a tactical airlifter, the A400M is capable of air dropping paratroops and equipment via parachute or gravity extraction. A single load up to 16 tonnes, or multiple loads up to 25 tonnes of total weight; 116 paratroops plus a wedge load of 6 tonnes.

The A400M can drop simultaneously paratroops and cargo. It can performs as well Very Low Level Extraction (VLLE – 15 ft above ground) of a single load up to 6.35 tonnes, or 3 individual loads, each up to 6.35 tonnes.

Aerial delivery by gravity extraction of a single load up to 4 tonnes, or multiple loads up to 20 tonnes of total weight can be performed by a nose-up attitude or by being manually dispatched.



Air-to-Air Refuelling

The A400M is also quickly convertible into a tactical tanker. The flight envelope of the A400M allows it to refuel a wide range of aircraft and helicopters, at the altitudes appropriate to their missions.

* A two-point trailing drogue system can be installed within two hours by fitting two standard air-to-air refuelling pods (optional) to the multi-role attachment points on the wings. Each pod provides a fuel flow of up to 1200 kg/min.
* A centre-line pallet-mounted hose drum unit can be fitted in the rear cargo bay. It provides a fuel flow of 1800 kg/min.

To enhance the fuel volume, up to two optional cargo hold fuel tanks (CHT) can also be installed, providing up to 5.7 tonnes at extra fuel each. These additional tanks connect directly to the aircraft's fuel system and thus become part of the A400M's computer-controlled centralised fuel management system.

Designed from the outset to be a dual-role air transport and air-to-air refuelling aircraft, the versatile A400M offers air commanders and planners new levels of flexibility in the delivery of air power. Its basic fuel capacity of 50.5 tonnes or up to 60 tonnes with two optional Cargo Hold Tanks fitted, coupled with its own low fuel-burn rate, makes it an efficient aerial tanker and a cost-effective way for air forces to acquire an aerial refuelling capability.

[Rahul M]

Adding fuel to fire ..

How about the Airbus A-400?

Good specs ... in the size of IL-76 payload capacity.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/standards.html

The German newspaper Financial Times Deutschland has closely followed the A400M program and reported on 12 January 2009 that the aircraft is overweight by 12 tons and may not be able to achieve a critical performance requirement, the ability to airlift 32 tons. Sources told FTD that, currently, the aircraft can only lift 29 tons, which is insufficient to carry a modern armored infantry fighting vehicle.

it's quite a bit less than the Il-76 in terms of specs and about 3 times as pricier than the newer Il-76 versions, which have better performance at 50-60 t.

[srai]

This gives the cost of A400M ... and it comes out to be Euro 100 million unit cost with around Euro 200 million 30-Year life cycle cost.


http://www.airbusmilitary.com/effectiveness.html

A fleet of 50 A400M airlifters represents an acquisition cost of 5bn-Euros and a 30-year total LCC of 10bn-Euros. When compared to a corresponding fleet of competing aircraft required to obtain the same overall airlift capability, the A400M will have the lowest 30-year life cycle cost.

[a_kumar]

For an infrequently used or required heavy lift ( beyond the IL-76 ) capacity why do we need to buy C-17s? We could always lease the right airplane and be done with it.

In case of a real emergency, we could always bank on the ruskies to help out in a hurry as they have done in the past.

To put it bluntly, Russia couldn't stop the Chinese supply of RD93 to Pakistan. Keeping the motives aside, the point here is that, allies can only provide so much support. We can't expect them to lift all the weight, IOW we can't expect them to do what fundamentally is our job!!

Thinking about defence :
I agree with George on the need for the capacity (be it C-17 or others). Indian Railways is pretty pervasive, but India has one of the most challenging terrains to deal with (all in sensitive areas, J&K and NE). Imagine how many choke points there would be for road/rail links. How much time would it take to overcome a setback or two in infrastructure?

Thinking about force projection:
We dream about increasing our area of influence in the IOR. There are wet dreams of balkanization etc. How will India ever protect its interests in foriegn shores forcefully if we don't have a robust air-lift capacity. (Incidentally this would become a good point against c-17).

[GeorgeWelch]

This gives the cost of A400M ... and it comes out to be Euro 100 million unit cost with around Euro 200K 30-Year life cycle cost.

That page hasn't been updated to account for recent 'developments'.

The cost will be significantly higher.

[panky]

Adding fuel to fire ..

How about the Airbus A-400?

The German newspaper Financial Times Deutschland has closely followed the A400M program and reported on 12 January 2009 that the aircraft is overweight by 12 tons and may not be able to achieve a critical performance requirement, the ability to airlift 32 tons. Sources told FTD that, currently, the aircraft can only lift 29 tons, which is insufficient to carry a modern armored infantry fighting vehicle.
it's quite a bit less than the Il-76 in terms of specs and about 3 times as pricier than the newer Il-76 versions, which have better performance at 50-60 t.

also the delivery schedule of the ordered plane is already running behind and there is cost huge cost escalation with south Africa already cancelling the orders. 4 A400Ms ordered by Malaysia in 2004 to be delivered by 2013 is now running 3 years late. check out the following article
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... ry-to.html

[abhik]

It seems that it has been taken for granted that the c-17 is some how 'unaffordable' ,expensive an costs or will cost 5 times that of any 'new' Il-76 with out evidence of this being the case.
Let us assume that the cost of each unit will be around 250million$(which is highly probable),now compare this to the price of a popular airliner like the airbus A330(of which dozens are made every year) which has a max take off weight of about 230t (Vs ~265t for the c-17) costs about 180-205million$.Considering the economies of scale in favor of the airbus and that the c-17 is a military plane the only conclusion i can come to is that c-17 is very reasonably priced if not cheap! , Do any of you think that a newly manufacture IL(if it is ever) is going to cost 50mil$, that is simply impossible and my guess is that it is going to end up costing about the same or a little less than the c-17 .
Point no2 is the myth (as it appears to me) that the Russians will restart the line because there is a huge market to be taped.Doing this will take billions to be spent but is this really justified?
the Russians themselves don't absolutely need any new planes because the have a huge stock of old ones(in varying conditions) "adjust" with or upgrade if need be.Next other than India and china how many other countries need such heavy planes?for most countries a 20t class plane like the c-130 is enough.A simple comparison of the no of operators will show this(c17=7, c130=~70;Il-76 with 30something most being former soviet Republics or allies who probably never would own them if the hadn't inherited them ).Also the Chinese would definitely try to build their own plane sooner or later.
all information/data used was from wiki.

[shiv]

Without actually doing any research into what the Russians do or do not do with production lines - I recall reading a link off BRF that showed that in many cases Russia had built one heckuva lot of incomplete airframes that are simply lying around. I wonder if the Il 76 is one such..

[Rahul M]

^^^ it was. many have been already used. a few dozen are still left IIRC.
--------

I still don't get why we need to compare the C-17 and Il-76 in the first place ?

added later :

Point no2 is the myth (as it appears to me) that the Russians will restart the line because there is a huge market to be taped.Doing this will take billions to be spent but is this really justified?
the Russians themselves don't absolutely need any new planes because the have a huge stock of old ones(in varying conditions) "adjust" with or upgrade if need be.Next other than India and china how many other countries need such heavy planes?for most countries a 20t class plane like the c-130 is enough.A simple comparison of the no of operators will show this(c17=7, c130=~70;Il-76 with 30something most being former soviet Republics or allies who probably never would own them if the hadn't inherited them ).Also the Chinese would definitely try to build their own plane sooner or later.

not correct. of the 38 countries that operate the IL-76, 26 never belonged to the erstwhile USSR. most of them do however belong to the so-called third world which means western aircraft was not the first choice in terms of price or ruggedness.
I don't know what to make of statements like c-130 will suffice when the fact remains that many of them chose the Il-76 over the c-130.

RuAF itself probably needs transports of this class in not too far-off future, given the support the russian govt gave to the similar class An-70 program. most of the RuAF's IL-76 are from the 70's and 80's and not many have been maintained well.
in fact, not infrequently RuAF has had to depend on the civilian operators for Il-76 airframes. it seems to me very unlikely that they can handle the whole gamut of future requirement from upgrades only.

[Gilles]

The (very) secondary purpose would be to make combat deliveries of heavy units (like T-90 and Arjun) on semi-prepared surfaces. Since the Il-76 can't transport either tank in the first place . .

So hauling tanks is important? That's what Canada was told also. Canada used to have Leopard 1 tanks (44 tonnes). When they were deployed to Afghanistan (using An-124s to Manas AFB and from there on US C-17s) the crews began to faint inside them from heatstroke and dehydration because the Leopard 1s had heat producing hydraulic turrets and cannons, and no air conditioning (they were meant for Canada and Europe) Canada quickly leased 20 65-tonne Leopards 2s from Germany and were going to quickly airlift them to Afghanistan (the C-17 had just been inducted) when......oh oh!?
They ended up flying the Leopard II from Germany to Afghanistan on Antonovs 124s.

If you go here, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc ... tTRDoc.pdf, you will find an interesting Sept 2005 US Department of Defence document called "Defence Science board Task Force on Mobility". In this document, you will read on page 136:

Cargo vehicles:

Because of the C-17's large capacity (in both size and weight), the parameters of an individual cargo vehicle rarely come into play. The C-17 can transport the ground force's heaviest combat vehicles, the M-1 tank, at a maximum weight of 135,000 pounds (61.2 tonnes). This is 5,000 pounds heavier that the operational weight limit of 130,000 pounds for loading across the ramp. However, a waiver was granted after analysis by the C-17 Systems Program Office (SPO) and the aircraft manufacturer showed that the load distribution of the M-1 did not detrimentally affect the ramp structure. This waiver is for the M-1 only.

So yes, the Leopards IIs would maybe one day be flown on the C-17, buy only after an analysis was done and after a waiver was granted by Boeing. I think this is one of the reasons the UK has yet to airlift a Challenger tank in any of its C-17s.

So don't accept as an argument that "if it can carry an M-1, it can carry an Arjun". Ask for a demonstration first is my advice.......

Look, I'm not knocking the C-17. Its a great aircraft. But their salesmen have a history of not being too generous with the truth.

On the US Air Force website, on the page relating to the C-17 http://www.af.mil/information/factsheet ... sp?fsID=86

The design of the aircraft allows it to operate through small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters). Even on such narrow runways, the C-17 can turn around using a three-point star turn and its backing capability.

If, and I repeat, IF India thinks this is an important sales point, India should choose a 1,064 meter unpaved runway in India (with no over or under runs) and ask Boeing to land on it with a Arjun tank in the cabin and a pilot from a regular US Air Force outfit at the controls (they have a couple dozen highly trained SOLL II pilots from the 437th Air wing which are normally exclusively tasked with difficult landings). Under such conditions they will refuse. The aircraft just cant do it.

[abhik]

I was just trying to make the point that most countries dont need larger heavier class of transport aircraft than a 20 toner like the super herc, i.e the market isn't that large after all.
And about the 26 countries not belonging to the erstwhile USSR, tell me how many countries actually bought any 'new'(i.e built from incomplete airframes) in recent times other than India and China of course,discounting operators(public and private) who may have bought of 'old' ones for bargain basement prices to service niche markets.Please dont return that question to me because my educated guess is not too many.

^^^

I still don't get why we need to compare the C-17 and Il-76 in the first place ?

.

And Rahul gi,we do need to compare the two because they are in the same class.even though one is bigger than the other they both significantly bigger than the c-130's and even the A400 &An-70 ; and are both significantly smaller than the c-5 and An-124.Forgive my usage of automotive analogy, the maruthi swift and the fiat punto are considered to be in the same class(because they come at the same price range which is the discriminating factor here) even though the fiat is close to a foot longer .What i am saying is that they belong to the same class because there is no 45t,55t,65t,75t class but only one Strategic/tactical class(if we can call it that) b/w the strategic(c-5,an124) and tactical(c-130,a400).Of course I'm not suggesting that the two be compared spec to spec because that will be funfair.now you may like the swift better but the key question is does it do the job? i.e can the IL transport an MBT to theater(if not the Arjun at least the t90) ? Well it cant.
the problem with the current IAF airlift fleet is that there is nothing between the 6t An32 and 45t IL-76. As the HAL mta gets inducted in larger no.s(in about 10 years say) they will do most of the freight moving as its large enough to do most of the routine jobs while being more efficient than the 4 engined IL-76.And the heavy lifting and long range transport missions will be fulfilled by the c-17s which can do it better.So the IL will nether be here or there,+ its low serviceability means might as well just ditch it(instead of going in for upgrades and so on).

[abhik]

Gilles India is NOT Canada,not only is hauling tanks important it is absolutely essential (even if it is landing on a hardball surface)and is being done today in Ladak.Taking them by road will probably involve more effort. The problem is that the current aircraft can transport only the older generation T72 MBTs(that too with great difficulty) and not the newer T90 or Arjuns because they just don't fit in and no amount of upgrades can change that.

[Gilles]

abhik did you even READ my last post? I suggest you go over it again.

[Rahul M]

abhik sahab, fair enough, but I'm not too sure IAF can get the absolute fleet expansion it needs in the medium-heavy category if it goes for C-17 alone.
my guess would be a fleet of about 40-50 of this category with the capability to lift at least a squadron strength of MBTs and the rest for moving double that amount of ICVs alongwith the additional vehicles. do note that MTA will NOT be able to airlift the newer ICVs which are increasingly ending up in the 20 t and upwards category (abhay for example).

can we afford 40-50 C-17 ? if not, then we do need to have something of the IL-76 class that is affordable.

And about the 26 countries not belonging to the erstwhile USSR, tell me how many countries actually bought any 'new'(i.e built from incomplete airframes) in recent times

that's the operative phrase isn't it ? nothing later than 1998 I think.
and a lot of those operators are civilian. secondly, as I said RuAF itself probably has a requirement given that the An-70 program has gone nowhere.
also let's not forget that the production was based in uzbekistan, following the break-up of the USSR I guess it didn't have that much support from russia.

the problem with the current IAF airlift fleet is that there is nothing between the 6t An32 and 45t IL-76. As the HAL mta gets inducted in larger no.s(in about 10 years say) they will do most of the freight moving as its large enough to do most of the routine jobs while being more efficient than the 4 engined IL-76.And the heavy lifting and long range transport missions will be fulfilled by the c-17s which can do it better.So the IL will nether be here or there

not necessarily, if you can argue that the C-17 and the IL-76 belong to same role (with a 30t difference in payload) I can argue that the C-130/MTA and Il-76 (payload difference again 30t) also belong to the same role ??
and by the same token the IL-76 can do MTA's job better ?
clearly, that's faulty logic ?!

-----------------------
frankly, if we could afford 40-50 C-17s and did not have to worry about sundry other american strings I would said dump the Il-76 and get only C-17.
unfortunately, that's not how things stand.

[Gilles]

Since 2007, Ilyushin delivered at least 6 brand new Il-76s that I know of. Two were delivered to Russian Volga-Dnepr (which has several others on order), three were delivered to Silk Way (in Azerbaidjan), the last one in July of 2009, and India just received a brand new A-50. You all know that India has two more of those on order. I don't know if they left Tashkent yet for the Beriev plant for A-50 conversion or for Israel for the electronics.

And by the way, the IAF IL-78 tankers (6 I think) were delivered around 2004. Thats also after 1998.

[Rahul M]

and all are the MD90 model ?

[Gilles]

Except for the third Silk Way IL-76 delivered in July 2009, which has the old engines (why would they do that I wonder), the 2 Volga-Dnepr and the first two Silk Way aircraft had the new PS-90 engines. The IAF A-50. of course, does also.

[KrishG]

Since 2007, Ilyushin delivered at least 6 brand new Il-76s that I know of. Two were delivered to Russian Volga-Dnepr (which has several others on order), three were delivered to Silk Way (in Azerbaidjan), the last one in July of 2009, and India just received a brand new A-50. You all know that India has two more of those on order. I don't know if they left Tashkent yet for the Beriev plant for A-50 conversion or for Israel for the electronics.

And by the way, the IAF IL-78 tankers (6 I think) were delivered around 2004. Thats also after 1998.

During the 2008 Berlin Air Show there was some discussion on Russia and Ukraine jointly restarting the production of An-124s. The An-124-150 (Russia-Ukraine jointly planned new version) would cost around 100 million USD at max and would give IAF with better capability.

Here is cost comparison between C-17 and An-124--------
http://www.casr.ca/id-antonov-costs.htm

The same Volga-Dnepr which Gilles mentioned has 5 An-124s on order (maybe refurbished ones). It would be an ideal situation for IAF if Russia and Ukraine can each an agreement on restarting the production.

[tejas]

C-17 unit cost of $202.3 million is the lowest I've seen. Even if we accept this figure ( most numbers I've seen are between $230-$250 million), we're looking at over $10 billion for 50 aircraft. IAF transport fleet is pathetic but this is a ton of money.

MRCA plus C-17 would set us back $20-25 billion. And GOI can't come up with $100 million to allow GTRE to test kaveri in India rather than Russia/Germany. This hemorrhaging will never stop until we have our own Boeings and GEs. It will continue for eternity when all that is available is HAL and BHEL.

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheet ... sp?fsID=86