C-17s for the IAF?

[abhik]

Gilles you are just trying to find holes in their claim.
1>Both the Arjun and the T90 wont need a waiver because they both weigh below 130,000 pounds(~59t).By the way the full weight of an M-1 70+t
2>Unlike the Canadians we wont buy the planes first then later suddenly realize what we are going to use it for.
I was only pointing out that being able to haul tanks(Arjuns and t90s)is an important sales point even if it has to land on tarmac only(say thoise air base) because we cant do it presently.
And Im confident IAF will validate the claims before signing on the dotted line.

[GeorgeWelch]

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.

1. Again you got smacked down on PPRUNE on this very issue by the person there who HAD done the study for the UK and showed it could be done, no approval from Boeing needed. They just never went any further because they never had a need to.

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-292545.html

Just to clarify, it has been live trialled (I did it :oh:) but not flown because the frame was needed for something else. We didn't write a TDS because we didn't have time to devise one. It was merely to prove nothing would break, and there was enough space to work with. Overall weight was never an issue. The issue was an Abrams has 7 'axles', and a Challenger has only 6. It was a maths problem more than anything.

AFAIK, it has never been loaded since, as there was no need. It was done to answer a question which arose at the time.

The answer then to the overall question is: To my knowledge "NO", but it can be carried without too much trouble, and without the need for ANY dispensations at all.

2. Again this particular Canadian experience isn't relevant to India. The C-17 is somewhat limited as a strategic transport because of its 'short' legs. Transporting a tank from Canada to Afghanistan would have required multiple refuelling stops or aerial refuelling. Of course short is a relative term. In the Indian situation, it's range is more than sufficient for anything they would need.

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.......

In this particular case, the Arjun is 58.5 tonnes so it can go on the ramp no 'waiver' needed.

If, and I repeat, IF India thinks this is an important sales point

I don't think it is.

The important sales point is that there are some jobs that an Il-76 can't do and they need something bigger. An Il-76 can't land an Arjun on ANY runway because it won't fit in the plane.

[Gilles]

By the way the full weight of an M-1 70+t

A MBT is not ferried with full fuel, crew and ammunition. An M-1 is ferried at 61.5 tonnes and needed a waiver at that weight. Read the document I referenced.

I admit, I don't know the weights of the Indian tanks.

But when they were making the case for the C-17 in Canada, we had a Canadian Forces General state in front of Parliament that we needed the C-17 because the An-124 could not land in Kandahar and that the IL-76s could not carry tanks.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublication ... nt-1683075

Here is is the direct quote:

MGen Daniel Benjamin:
The Antonov cannot land in Kandahar. That is a big, big showstopper from our perspective. The only big one that can land right now is the C-17, and that is fundamental to bring tanks, for example, into the theatre. We have the Il-76, but again, we cannot put the tanks in it, so the C-17 is fundamental to land close to where our troops are in Kandahar. Otherwise, you have go to different locations, such as Kabul. As such, you have a road move from Kabul to Kandahar that in itself is very risky, very lengthy, and difficult to do.

So we always have to find the best route to bring the equipment in. The Antonov cannot get into Kandahar, and that's a showstopper in itself.

Both statements were false. The An-124 and even the An-225 had been to Kandahar many times before and after his statement, and the tanks we had at the time were Leo 1s, which are smaller than the T-72 and can fit inside the Il-76. You all know on this Forum that a T-72 fits inside an Il-76.

After that session, I sent to Parliament pictures of Antonov aircraft on the ground in Kandahar and of an Indian T-72 inside an Il-76. Then Parliament asked the same question, this time to the Minister of Defence.

Ms. Dawn Black:
Further, on October 4, Major General Daniel Benjamin was at our Standing Committee on National Defence and said that the Antonov cannot land in Kandahar. Is this also the minister's understanding? Will we continue to use Antonovs to do most of the transport of heavy equipment?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Chair, I believe the information the member has is correct. Antonovs were used to get somewhere close to Afghanistan. Then the equipment was moved onto C-17s, which were fully equipped to go into a hostile zone. They have defensive measures and all those sort of things, which the Antonovs do not. The Antonovs are pure commercial aircraft.

They now changed their story and decided the tanks had to be flown inside C-17s because the civilian aircraft had no missile countermeasures..........
There has not been a single missile fired at any aircraft in Afghanistan from day one. Our light armoured vehicles all arrived on IL-76s and on An-124s but the old Leo 1 needed missile countermeasures....
Like I mentioned before, when they sent Leo IIs to Afghanistan the following year, they all went on An-124s, which still had no countermeasures, but by then, the C-17s had been purchased and delivered......

You see why I am so upset. The whole purchase was justified to the taxpayer by a series of falsehoods, from both within and without.......

1. Again you got smacked down on PPRUNE on this very issue by the person there who HAD done the study for the UK and showed it could be done, no approval from Boeing needed. They just never went any further because they never had a need to.

That person on Pprune just stated that the weight and tracks on the Challenger were similar enough to those of the M-1 that he thought it could be loaded in the same manner. It does not change the fact that if the Challenger is in fact over the maximum structural weight of the C-17's ramp, it WILL require a waiver from Boeing before it can be loaded. The Waiver that the M-1 obtained is valid for the M-1 and the M-1 only. Not for "similar" tanks.....

Of course, if the Indian tanks are all under the Max Ramp Weight, this is all irrelevant to India......

[abhik]

Rahul gi, I never suggested that we buy the c17s so that we can emulate the US future combat system and land/airdrop entire armored brigade/divisions only that we needto be able to airlift Arjuns/T90s to places like Leh so that they can be deployed there. Nor do I suggest that we buy 40-50 of them, we have neither the need nor the means to do so.

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 ?!

Not so fast!The max take off weight difference b/w c17 & il76 is about 55t(20-25%),but tha the difference b/w c-130 & il 76 is if i'm am not mistaken about 130-140t ,thats twice(200) the Max Take off Weight of the c130!
And about new An-124s costing ~100mil$ or even under it, I just find it impossible to believe.IT wont be that cheap even if chinese child labor was used to build it.

[GeorgeWelch]

A MBT is not ferried with full fuel, crew and ammunition. An M-1 is ferried at 61.5 tonnes and needed a waiver at that weight. Read the document I referenced.

You mean this one?

https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q ... nginespage

136,400 Combat-Ready M1A1

. . .

the M1A1 (including ammunition and 3/4s of a tank of gas)

ok, so not 'full' fuel but with ammunition

But when they were making the case for the C-17 in Canada

[snip snip blah blah]

You see why I am so upset. The whole purchase was justified to the taxpayer by a series of falsehoods, from both within and without.......

We aren't fighting the Canadian procurement battles here. This is an Indian forum and the Indian situation is quite a bit different than Canada's.

That person on Pprune just stated that the weight and tracks on the Challenger were similar enough to those of the M-1 that he thought it could be loaded in the same manner.

No, he stated they actually put the tank on the plane (and nothing broke).

How else do you interpret 'it has been live trialled'? A 'live trial' is not a thought experiment or a mathematical analysis, it is a live . . . trial.

And also 'AFAIK, it has never been loaded since'

The 'since' means that it WAS loaded then.

it WILL require a waiver from Boeing before it can be loaded.

That might be the Canadian position or the US position, but that certainly is not the UK position. Again to quote from the person who had actually done it and understands UK regulations

without the need for ANY dispensations at all

[Rahul M]

the last bit was in jest but for the statement that something of the Il-76 class will have no role between the MTA or the C-17.
and you can't really say that 10-15 of the tank-hauler class transport is enough for IAF.
it's not IMHO !
we don't need to emulate the US but we do need a capability to move armoured vehicles quickly by air. I gave the rough estimate of 40-50 (accounting for 15 odd MBTs, 30 odd ICVs and supporting vehicles) and I do feel that's necessary.

That person on Pprune just stated that the weight and tracks on the Challenger were similar enough to those of the M-1 that he thought it could be loaded in the same manner. It does not change the fact that if the Challenger is in fact over the maximum structural weight of the C-17's ramp, it WILL require a waiver from Boeing before it can be loaded. The Waiver that the M-1 obtained is valid for the M-1 and the M-1 only. Not for "similar" tanks.....

weights can be spread out using innovative methods, using a layer of beams for example.
it's not an insurmountable problem IMO.

[rohitvats]

PART 1

In trying to answer the question regarding requirement for C-17, we’ve not tried to tackle what should be the corner stone of the whole argument: what is the airlift requirement of the Indian Armed forces? Or for sake of simplicity, the requirement of Indian Army, as it is the biggest customer of this service. We’re handicapped by lack of relevant data. And as is wont these days, the debate has degenerated to US versus Russia (except for sanction part).

Another important point is the fallacy of using US Armed Forces centric metrics to analyze the airlift requirement and capability of the IAF. The metrics like Million-Tonnes-Miles/Day (MTM/D) is relevant to US Air Force as they need to transport men and material to distant warzones and Strategic Airlift (SA) Capability needs to airlift and sustain forces in these theaters. MTM/D becomes relevant to evaluate the capability of SA to transport the required force strength (A and B Echelons) at one go. Ours is not exactly a similar scenario.

This is my humble attempt to answer the question regarding the requirement of light/heavy/super heavy lift capability and see where AN-32/MRTA, IL-76 and C-17 fit into the scheme:

1) Requirement – Active: There are two main areas of active involvement of the Tpt fleet of IAF. One is the air maintenance task carried out every day to support operations in Ladakh (Op Meghdoot) and North East. This is called the Transport Support Role (TSR).The other is RTR (Route Transport Role) sorties carried across the length and breadth of the country by IAF. As for the requirement of Air Maintenance is concerned, the scope of operations is quite different for the two sectors. Each one of us is aware of role played by IL-76 and AN-32 in Air Maintenance of northern sector, especially Ladakh, courtesy the great articles written by Group Captain Bewoor. We use a mix of AN-32 and IL-76 to supply the Leh and Thoise AB and from there on the AN-32 and Mi-8/17 take the stuff to ALG and various DZ. The case is different in the NE. The center of Air Maintenance is Mohanbari (often called as Dibrugarh Airfield) and Chabua. AN-32 and Mi-8/17 carry the material to DZ and ALG in AP primarily from these two locations. The formations in thick of action here are two Mi-8/17 Helicopter Units based in Mohanbari and the AN-32 Sqn. based in Jorhat. Unlike Ladakh, the goods are supplied through road network which remain open through out the year, to these main staging areas for further airlift.

So, if we’re to consider the requirement of additional lift capability, where would it be required? The obvious answer is the Chandigarh – Leh/Thoise route. IMHO, the reason we’re using AN-32 for the task (Chandigarh-Leh) is lack of sufficient number of IL-76 in inventory. Augmenting the IL-76 fleet in this sector will help in taking the AN-32 for other jobs. The NE sector is serviced by AN-32 and Mi-8/17 combo and want require the IL-76 fleet for this. I’ve tried to do some calculations to arrive at the number and type required. Yes, these are quite simplistic in nature but in absence of any public data, this is the best I could do.

Tonnage Calculations

--Total Air Maintenance Tonnage/annum – 37,000 tons (as per quote from Chief of Air Staff)
--For Northern Sector (including Ladakh) – 60% (assumption; this might be higher)
--Total Tonnage airlifted – 22,200 tonnes

Average Cargo Capability
--IL-76 – 33 tonnes (as per article by Gp. Capt. Bewoor unless the cargo is high density like T-72, the volume gets filled with 33 tonnes worth of Cargo)
--AN-32 – 5.6 tonnes (assumption; 75% of lift capacity of 7.5 tonnes)

Fleet Assumption
IL-76 – 5
AN-32 – 20

Airlift Required

Type-----No.-------%age of Load Carried----Load Carried (tonnes)------Sorties Required--------Sorties/Aircraft
IL-76-----5-----------------60%----------------13,320---------------------80.7-------------------16.1
AN-32----20----------------40%-----------------8,880---------------------74.0--------------------3.7

While I've taken 60% for IL-76, it might be other way around. The reason being that since we've more AN-32s than IL-76, more can be deployed for the task and IL-76 used for more strategic inter theater airlift requirements. If anything is required to added to this task of Air Maintenance (AM), it is more IL-76s which can reduce the sorties required to trasnfer the good to Leh/Thoise. IMHO, a C-17 will not add bring anything to the table here and we cannot justify the cost of acquisition and O&M Costs.

I will try and answer the requirement for two other types of scenarios: Contigency Airlift (Force projections) and Crisis situations.

[vasu_ray]

whats the price differential with a C-17 if avionics upgrades for IL-76 are taken into account? with probably having the avionics from western sources

to Gilles point, we should see a demo that a C-17 with the T-90 tank can both takeoff and land from the recently opened ALGs in the NE

and if its the trunk routes of Leh or Thoise AFB, why not use the A380 freighter version?

[Kartik]

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......

this post displays a lack of insight into operations in the northern sector..Please read up on this and this. Just because Canada or Britain haven't carried tanks or artillery on their C-17s doesn't mean that the IAF wont need to anytime in the future either. I don't think that An-124s could land at Thoise when even IL-76s had such a difficult time getting in. while it is definitely cheaper to charter flights to carry tanks when needed, India's airfield infrastructure may mean that it may not be feasible to actually get the tanks or artillery anywhere close to their final destination.

as for your suggestion that India should carry lighter tanks than the T-90, they're supposed to the spearhead of the Indian tank divisions. T-72s won't be in service for longer than 10-15 years. and while the IA is looking to buy light tanks specially flor the NE and Northern sectors, it may still need to induct heavy tanks.

[KrishG]

and if its the trunk routes of Leh or Thoise AFB, why not use the A380 freighter version?

It's a civilian aircraft so it wouldn't have the necessary countermeasures against missiles. It's a requirement since Leh is very close to the enemy lines.

[GeorgeWelch]

and if its the trunk routes of Leh or Thoise AFB, why not use the A380 freighter version?

The A380 Freighter has been deferred, permanently.

Not to mention the A380 costs more than the C-17, the A380F probably doesn't have doors large enough to fit a tank through, and even if it did, it would require specialized equipment to hoist the tank high in the air and load it into the plane and even then there would be extensive bracing effort required for the floor.

The A380F would be optimized for high volume low density shipments, ie NOT tanks.

[jai]

May be Injuun Railways steill have a rooolle somebhere..........Momta deee....bhere are jhu ? bhy is Injuun Railway missing in action on something strategic and of national interest.....the chinese line goes to golmund and lhasa now....we can still come second in taking our's to leh now and gettting the seelveer .....nd maybe the vayuuuu senaaaaaaaa guuyys can save some monney....

[vasu_ray]

to the point of countermeasures it is more to do with upgrades with a system similar to that currently protects the C-17

I think the A380 is the one that comes close to a AN-225 in terms of payload and if we put decade scale timeline, we might see a freighter version since the delay is more to do with Airbus's operations than design itself

There is a bridge laying variant of the Arjun which can provide the incline for the tanks to roll into a A380

[Craig Alpert]

C-17s for India?

The C-17’s advantages include its easier handling (compared with the IL-76) and ability to operate from short and rough airstrips, added the sources…. The Indian military needs to do three things: augment its ability to quickly lift larger numbers of troops as it views possible threats on its border with China; strengthen its presence on the Pakistani border; and fight terrorism and low-intensity warfare, said a senior Defence Ministry official. India needs to triple its lift capacity, said the official.”

In contrast, the C-17’s price tends to hover near a modern 747’s, at around $200-250 million. Australia spent about $1.4 billion, and Canada about $1.6 billion, to buy and induct 4 C-17As into their respective air forces; the USA, who does not have the extra expenses that accompany any new aircraft type, was set to spend $2.5 billion for 10 C-17s in the Senate’s FY 2010 defense budget. A $1.7 billion budget might buy India 5 operational C-17s, but it’s very difficult to see how it could buy 10.

[Gilles]

. . .

the M1A1 (including ammunition and 3/4s of a tank of gas)

ok, so not 'full' fuel but with ammunition

Are you a Boeing sales person ? You really are nitpicking here. And annoying. The previous document I quoted stated that a M1A as it is ferried weighs 61.5 tonnes. It didn't make it up. Its a US Air Government publication and I provided the reference.

The C-17 can haul about 75 tonnes (according to the model) so it can obviously carry an M1A, all its ammo, its fuel (even full tanks) and its crew all at the same time. This does not mean, however, that the ammo, the crew and the fuel are on board the tank while it is being driven across the C-17s' loading ramp.......

Good luck with you procurement India, I hope you get a good deal on whatever it is you buy.

And remember: read the fine print before you sign on the dotted line. Especially with guys like George Welch around......

And by the way, the A-380F, with all its volume and payload, still has low ceilings. The two floors that separate the lower hold from the lower deck and the lower deck from the top deck are structural and cannot be removed, so there is a maximum height issue which probably cannot accommodate most tanks.....

[vavinash]

Like the Airbus A-340 based refuellers the C-17 deal will never materialize. Nearly 2 bil for measly 10 transports with massive maintenance cost will never be approved.

[VishalJ]

To conclude from the last half-dozen pages,

An124 & IL76 production lines being down means there's very little choice left except the C-17 but, strings attached as its an American product.

Until now i was/am slightly more into Commercial Aviation than Military though that gap is narrowing but anyways, in Commercial we have the 747-800F almost ready, the 77F is already flying & the A330F was just rolled-out.
Cant any of these be considered ?

Is it because military haulers do it like this :-



Whereas in Civil/Commercial :-


Btw, IAF is rumoured to get 3 747-400's which AI will retire in January 2010 once they finish doing the Haj sorties, they have already been retired from scheduled commercial service.
I (along with other fellow aviation enthusiast friends) just recently did its last 2 scheduled revenue flights

Just a wild idea but, if the IAF decides thay can either just convert/customise the 744's to their liking or >>> Dreamlifter...........


I should go to sleep now

[Singha]

imo given our pitiful heavy airlift capability and inability of large planes
to land at places like thoise, dbg etc - the onlee option is to pre-deploy
tanks by road to wherever they may be needed.

we just dont have the airlift to redeploy heavy armour and artillery on a
Just-in-time basis.

and I think this was done in Ladakh earlier with T72 regiments.

next summer or if possible before snows close the kargil road, it might
be prudent to station a couple regiment of T90 tanks in Leh and demchok
area?

[K_Reddy]

A little tit-bit for you guys.
Over the weekend, I spoke to an America air force pilot currently on deputation/exchange program with the IAF. I had no idea such co-operation was ongoing. We chatted over a few drinks at a friends place, nice guy. He is a liberal and not a crazy gung-ho maniac like some of the GI’s I’ve come to know. I asked him if the whole "SU-30 beating the F-15E’s" was hyped up for public consumption and in a flash his response was “no comment”. He elaborated when I pushed him saying something like “ya it’s a moral booster for you guys and a good way to keep our fellows from lowering their guard.”

[SaiK]

it would be pathetic if c17 deal has middlemen, and huge sums of corruption to happen. it is indeed surprising its everything now turning towards unkill systems without ever looking at cost angle.

[Vivek K]

Sai, why is that a problem? It is still ok to have an army of Russian lobbyists and talking of corruption in defence deals ........ look around you .....400% corruption!! Look at the BAE Hawk contract for starters!!

[SaiK]

its a problem, because we have not legalized corruption yet. i have no problems if its done that way.

[rohitvats]

Whatever be the merit/de-merit of C-17, please to be checking the C-17 take off video in the link below:

http://www.bush-planes.com/Boeing-C-17- ... Il-76.html

[Rahul M]

rohit, where are the following parts of your analysis ? waiting !
part 1 was excellent and lucid.

[rohitvats]

PART II

I have already demonstrated in an earlier post the non-requirement of C-17 category aircraft for the regular and major percentage of work undertaken by the IAF Transport fleet. If anything is required at all, it is more IL-76s to augment the existing fleet level for the TSR roles.

Now comes the other part of the Airlift Capability Spectrum:Force Projection. The situation we’re looking at is something like Operation Cactus (but on bigger scale) or what if we needed to intervene in Bangladesh to prevent the Pilkhana massacre destabilizing a friendly regime. The formation of choice for these kind of tasks in 50(I) Para Bde. Do we have the airlift strength to support this kind of operations? Lets look at a scenario:

Force:

50(I) Para Bde
Troop Strength: 3,000 (approximate)
Tonnage:1,500 (An airborne bde in US Army has 3,450 tonnes. I’ve assumed <50% of the same for SDRE Army)

Mode of Deployment
Para Drop – 1 Parachute Battalion/650 troops: To secure the airport and perimeter
Air land – 2 Parachute Battalions plus support elements./2,350 troops: Follow on forces

Here we need to understand that the follow on Para Battalions will be needed to be landed on priority basis and will need aircraft dedicated to this role. In case of support troops and equipment, we can assume that the same will come in two waves. The aircraft used in para drop + air landing of para battalions and 1st wave of support troops and equipment will have time to go around and carry troops/equipment on second trip. We're assuming C+24 hours to land the full complement of troops

Aircraft Capability

Aircraft Type------Airlift ability(tonnes)------Airlift ability(troops)-------Paratroopers
IL-76--------------33--------------------------140-------------------125
C-17--------------60---------------------------174-------------------104

Aircraft Required

Aircraft Type------Aircraft required(paradrop)----Aircraft required(follo-on para battalions)-----Aircraft required (tonnage)
IL-76------------------5----------------------------------9---------------------------------15
C-17-------------------6---------------------------------6---------------------------------- 7

Aircraft Required (tonnage) has been adjusted for assumption that it will be transported in 2 waves. These aircraft will also carry the support troops. Therefore, additional aircraft have not been budgeted for the same.

Total aircraft required:

IL-76 - 30
C-17 - ~20

Now the financial maths:

a) IL-76 inventory - 30 (assuming we buy fresh)
Acquisition cost only @ USD 75 million (extreme figure) - USD 2.2billion

b) C-17 Required - 20
Acquisition cost only @ USD 230million (approximate figure) - USD 4.453billion

There are two main benfits that I see of buying the C-17:
--Contigency situation: Where we are trying to airlift a division size force post haste.Something like airlifting the entire 6 Mountain Div to Leh in 1987. As the load (tonnage) one needs to carry increases, the utility of C-17 comes to fore.

--Transporting outisize cargo like T-90 and Arjun in case of crisis. This is one capability which no number of IL-76 can give you. In case IA decides to haul a Battle Group of 50(I) Para Bde+Mix Squadron of T-90/BMP-II, there is no replacing the C-17.

Will explain one more scenario (carrying a whole division) in Part III.

[rohitvats]

rohit, where are the following parts of your analysis ? waiting !
part 1 was excellent and lucid.

Rahul da, many thanks for the compliment. Was just trying to have an objective look at the whole scenario of C-17 acquisition. As is wont these days, the debate on acquisition tends to degenerate into USA vs. Russia. We need to look at hard numbers and then decide.Except for the outsize cargo point, none of USP of C-17 as advanced by posters holds any good for India.

The only sticking point is the availability of new IL-76 and its derivates with PMS-90 engines. I've not had the time to google that up, but will look into that angle as well. One final thing, IAF has nowhere said that C-17 is replacement for IL-76. Those are assumptions and conjectures of un informed media and people.

Strategic Mobility as defined and desired by USAF and US Army is not relevant for India. We will have to define our own Strategic Airlift. I've tried doing that in scenario above. Will present another case in PART III.

[Gilles]

This sequence was not filmed on a specially-made "unpaved" runway on which the US Army Corp of Engineers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with soil, gravel, stone and heavy machinery, preparing a so-called "unpaved" runway hard enough to support an overweight machine that should otherwise only land on paved runways, just so its pilots could get the feel of what it is like landing on an "unpaved" runway.

This video was filmed in a farmers field after his crop had be harvested, a regular farmers field like those that can be found in many places in the world, a field where aircraft like the DHC-5 Buffalo and the An-32, feel at home. Meet their big brother:

[googlevideo]5353906462603205349[/googlevideo]

Note that the An-70, which has a MTOW of 145 tonnes, 120 tonnes lower than the MTOW of the C-17 (265 tonnes), has the same number of wheels (14) as the C-17. That is why the planned C-17B, if it's ever built, will have an extra center landing gear with 4 extra wheels.
.
Boeing is well aware of their aircraft's high ACN, although they don't like to talk about it.

[Gilles]

PART II

I
Aircraft Capability

Aircraft Type------Airlift ability(tonnes)------Airlift ability(troops)-------Paratroopers

C-17--------------60---------------------------236------------------104

236 troops in a C-17 ?

The C-17 accommodates 54 troops on the folding sidewall seats. In addition to that, the center portion has another built-in 48 for a grand total of 102 troops.

Like this configuration :

Instead of the built-in center seats, palletised seats can be installed. According to Boeing, this allows for 80 passengers, plus the 54 sidewall seats, for a grand total of 134 troops.

Like this configurations :

Our friend GeorgeWelch informed us on this Forum on page 24 that there is another configuration I didn't know about which allows for 142 passengers, and there is another version that even allows for 174 (although I am not certain that is approved since that same company states that even the 142 passenger configuration may not be available because of "egress requirements").

142 Pax http://www.aarcorp.com/gov/Mobility/Pal ... StConf.pdf

174 Pax http://www.aarcorp.com/gov/Mobility/Pal ... StConf.pdf

But in any case, I do not see any case where one can stuff 236 troops into a C-17 unless it is standing up, although weight wise, it can do it in a heartbeat.

[GeorgeWelch]

there is another configuration I didn't know about which allows for 142 passengers

I think it is clear that the aircraft aren't being compared using the same standard.

If the C-17 can only carry 142 troops, there's no way the Il-76 can carry 140 using the same configuration.

And likewise if the Il-76 can carry 125 paratroopers, there is absolutely no way the C-17 carries fewer as it is larger in all dimensions.

My guess would be that the C-17 numbers have higher margins for passenger safety and comfort (or fatter American bodies, take your pick).

But if you apply the same standard to both planes, the C-17 will obviously carry significantly more.

[Gilles]

there is another configuration I didn't know about which allows for 142 passengers

I think it is clear that the aircraft aren't being compared using the same standard.

If the C-17 can only carry 142 troops, there's no way the Il-76 can carry 140 using the same configuration.

And likewise if the Il-76 can carry 125 paratroopers, there is absolutely no way the C-17 carries fewer as it is larger in all dimensions.

My guess would be that the C-17 numbers have higher margins for passenger safety and comfort (or fatter American bodies, take your pick).

But if you apply the same standard to both planes, the C-17 will obviously carry significantly more.

I really don't know. How do you explain that the smaller US-standard and US-built Lockheed C-141B carried 205 fat American troops although it was 53 tonnes lighter and smaller than the Il-76? Different standards too, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-141_Starlifter
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c141.asp

The Il-76's cabin is 20 meter long, not counting the ramp. The C-17's is 20.78
The Il-76s cabin at floor level is 3.45 meters. The C-17's is 5.48.
The C-141B had a cabin length of 28.3 meters and it was 2.8 meters wide.

[GeorgeWelch]

I really don't know. How do you explain that the smaller US-standard and US-built Lockheed C-141B carried 205 fat American troops although it was 53 tonnes lighter and smaller than the Il-76? Different standards too, I guess.

Experience with the C-141 taught them that packing people in so tight was a bad idea?

Dunno.

[vasu_ray]

rohitvats, would crisis and contingency plans include the ability to airlift in all weather conditions? without requisitioning one of PM's aircraft

[rohitvats]

236 troops in a C-17 ?

The C-17 accommodates 54 troops on the folding sidewall seats. In addition to that, the center portion has another built-in 48 for a grand total of 102 troops.

Our friend GeorgeWelch informed us on this Forum on page 24 that there is another configuration I didn't know about which allows for 142 passengers, and there is another version that even allows for 174 (although I am not certain that is approved since that same company states that even the 142 passenger configuration may not be available because of "egress requirements").

142 Pax http://www.aarcorp.com/gov/Mobility/Pal ... StConf.pdf

174 Pax http://www.aarcorp.com/gov/Mobility/Pal ... StConf.pdf

But in any case, I do not see any case where one can stuff 236 troops into a C-17 unless it is standing up, although weight wise, it can do it in a heartbeat.

Gilles, I made a mistake in interpreting the seating arrangement data on the Boeing C-17 webpage. Thank you for pointing that out.

I've made changes accordingly to the scenario I built.

And I'am with you on the so-called USP of C-17 (unpaved runway perfromance-whichitself is debatable) not having relevance to Indian context. If i understand correctly, you maintain (maintained?) a blog on the acquisition of C-17 by Canandian Armed Forces?

[rohitvats]

rohitvats, would crisis and contingency plans include the ability to airlift in all weather conditions? without requisitioning one of PM's aircraft

I guess so. With so much gadgetry on board todays aircraft along with ground radar, NVG compatible glass cockpits..it should not be a problem.

[Singha]

there was a piece in livefist or broadsword about IAF ordering new weather radars for the entire transport fleet with ability to detect far off storm cells.

the hilly nature and low cloud base in north bengal and NE is a risk all round the
year.

[Avinash R]

IAF combat units to be conferred President"s Standard today
Tue, Nov 10 2009

[vasu_ray]

there was a AN-32 crash in Arunachal recently and it was blamed on zero visibility weather

landing in cloud covered airstrips requires CAT III autolanding ability, which requires setting up suitable ground equipment at the airstrip, last I read flight operations are limited to a small window during daytime to all the ALGs in North and NE, they definitely do not support 24*7 operations

As an aside, a VIP heli crashed recently in bad weather flying into terrain

[Singha]

so putting in place the ground and airborne eqpt would vastly increase our
ability to feed in men and materials. hope the AN32 upg cover this

[pankaj]

IL 76 vs C17
@ http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/

[rohitvats]

IL 76 vs C17
@ http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/

I think our freind Gilles is the one maintains that blog.