C-17s for the IAF?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Nov 2009 15:43

Singha wrote:emperor naked question - why is Leh considered the major airhead in Ladakh?

from what I understand, the road to Siachen base camp climbs from Leh to khardung la pass, then descends into nubra valley and turns west, while if we continue north, daulat beg oldie is reached.

Actually if you continue north, you reach the Base Camp of Siahcen. This route runs along the Nubra River to Siachen Glacier. To reach DBO, you need to turn west and follow the Shyok River;this river originates in the Rimo glacier, which is at same latitude (approx) to Karakoram Pass (towards east of pass). The Skyok is flanked by mountains on both side except for some length after originating from Rimo glacier. One can gain access from here to Depsang plain and thence to DBO and Karakoram Pass. Chip-Chap river runs in this area.

In fact, there is a trade route from Sasoma (Upper Nubra Valley)-Saser La-Upper Shyok and Karakoram Pass. Saser La is considered to be really trecherous. This is what wiki says:

Sasser Pass, Saser Pass or Saser-la (el. 5,411 m (17,753 ft)) is a high mountain pass in India on the ancient summer caravan route from Ladakh to Yarkand in the Tarim Basin. It leads from the head of the Nubra Valley into the upper Shyok valley, on the way to the even higher, but easier, Karakorum Pass

"This was the notorious Sasser, not the highest but probably the most impressive and dangerous [of the passes along the caravan route between Ladakh and Yarkand]."

The Sasser Pass could not be avoided in summer and took a huge toll on caravan pack animals, such as ponies and mules. It was too icy for the Bactrian camels, which were the usual pack animals to the north of the Sasser Pass.

And then people say that Siachen has no strategic value. The last thin one wants is PA and their fliends in PLA coming down the Nubra Valley in a happy procession singing songs of peace and brother hood.

Sorry for not covering this in earlier post.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Nov 2009 18:12

shiv wrote:
Kanson wrote:
Only problem as i see wrt C-17 is price. .
After member Gilles raised his objections on this thread I did some Googling and he is right. It appears that Boeing has been promising and trumpeting a lot more than it can actually deliver with the C 17. Boeing claims that 9000 airfields worldwide can use this jet. It appears that the actual number is in the low hundreds. And Indian airfields have hardly been tested for suitability.

The C 17 has great airshow performance - but I now worry if it really is a good choice.

I dont know Shiv how you reached that understanding. A great appreciation to Gilles for lending his studies on C17 here. Without that there wont be this kind of interesting dicussion.
However having said that, i find in some areas Gilles observations are incomplete(maybe there is no data).

I present my side of data from USAF which i feel consistent:

1. These "18 inch rut" stories are all related to Semi-prepared runway which are unstablised. There is as such no problem with paved runway or Stabilised semi-prepared runway. As i know, most of our ALGs are stabilised semi-prepared runways ex. DBO.

2. As per USAF, the runway length necessiated for Op in semi-prepared dry runway is 3500 feet plus 300 feet run off on both ends totalling to 4100 feet with the load of M1A1. This is consistent.

Maybe you can list out your observation.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Nov 2009 18:30

Kanson wrote:
Maybe you can list out your observation.

No No - I haven't bothered to do any detailed "evaluation of information available". I know now that the C 17 story is not as rosy as I thought it might be after I saw it perform in Aero India. That's all. The aircraft does have some super characteristics - but it comes with a powerful sales pitch and the problem is to see if it suits our requirements or not

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Nov 2009 18:42

geeth wrote:>>>>Any commander would love to have their entire troops and machines delivered in shortest possible time with min. no. of sorties. In a battle zone, where ALGs comes under attack anytime, heavy life a/c plays a very crucial role of inserting troops or resupplies at shortest possible time. Anyone like to recall the IPKF-Jaffna-heli incident? This is where the capabilities of C-17 or other a/c's ability to land in semi prepared runway are of significance. Why we need 3 An-32 to deliver 98 para troops in Nyoma if we can make it with one a/c of large capacity? Can we forget the role of Mi-26 in Sumdorong Chu incident? So the argument of An-32 being the workhorse or MTA is enough is only good for academic exercise

The counter argument would be that:

1) If the airfield where landing is to take place is under attack, why risk a huge plane with many more troops inside? it will be a sitting duck. If one C-17 can unload 3 AN-32 cargoes, land 3 AN-32s in sequence....what would be the extra time required to land..? It will also distribute the assets as well - even if one gets shot, other two can land.

I think you must appreciate that the very idea of C-17 landing in semi- or unprepared runway is provide men and material directly to the battle zone or behind the enemy lines. When it takes many a/c to supply them, it will take more time to "assemble" them to make it as a fighting unit. Ex. If your a/c has only enough payload to supply tank without ammunition in single pass, you need to wait for next a/c to get the ammunition for the tank. So when the time prolongates, chances of enemy detecting the landing area and neutralizing the assembled troops before they make themselves as fighting unit will increase. As it is desired to supply the men/material in shortest possible time in those theatres involving these Ops, it is necessary for having heavy-lift a/c.

2) For the asking price of C-17, there is only a limited number we can have. Like the MI-26, they will remain white elephants. Yes, ofcourse, they can be on special duty, but for day to day operations, they may not be of immense use.

3) short landing and take-off, landing on unprepared surfaces etc are design features incorporated in MTA also, apart from those cargo planes already operating. These thngs are a norm, not an exception for a military plane.

All said and done, the biggest problem with C-17 is its price and American origin, IMO.

I dont know abt the white elephants but the price is high.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Nov 2009 18:45

I know now that the C 17 story is not as rosy as I thought it might be after I saw it perform in Aero India. That's all.

Oh..what happened ? Does it not perform well in STOL ?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 12 Nov 2009 18:48

Arrey Bhai Log,

Hot and High ke liye C-17 best hai.

haan Il-76 ka ground pressure kam hai ( 20 chakke hai uske) naya engine achha hai ityaadi ityaadi ..

however the C-17 can also possibly come in an MC-17 configuration. In today''s dense electronic environment even for a transport what is "inside" the aircraft will count.

Besides the 60 ton variant of the Il-76 is hardly productionized.

I had read an interview of the Air chief where he talked about aircraft in both the VHTAC as well as HTAC categories. I think both planes will be used by the IAF.

And given the state of the Uzbek IL-76 line, it makes sense to induct VHTAC first and then order more Ilyushins at a later date when the MF version becomes par for the course and is produced in the new facilities being set up in Russia itself

jai · Post by **jai** » 12 Nov 2009 20:29

In this debate on C17 v/s IL 76 and others, we should be asking why after 60 years of independence are we still dependent only on a small number of transport aircraft to defend Indian territory.

Why have successive govts not developed multilane highways across Laddakh and Arunachal for fast troop and equipment movement - what has the surface transport min done all these years ? Why Does Indian railway stay so painfully shy of India's entire north eastern borders ? Is the defence of this country only the responsibility of the three services ? Our hard reality is - no one else cares !!! Not the least our politicians who can not even spare time to honour our fallen Jawans and officers and sanction a decent war memorial in Delhi.

I think time has come for Govt of India to think and plan differently. Infrastructure development along the entire J & K, Laddakh sector, the border with China has to become a national priority - Uncle MMS needs to show national pride, stop worring about Chini reactions, and sanction money needed to complete work that should have ben done decades back.

Army needs to create permanent garrisons in Laddakh with deep tunnels and extensive underground storage - permanently station T 90S, Arjun regiments, Long range artillary, heavy Air defence cover etc. Ministeries other than defence should be made responsible for completion of all civil works, with def min laying out specs, project management shd be with the PMO.

Airforce similarly needs to build modern airfields and heli-bases across Laddakh and Arunachal which are capable of all weather operations with all sizes of Aircraft, heavily defended by air defence cover and with good protection built for all assets over and under ground/in tunnels.

We should be inducting/developing/asking for equipment that can best deliver in our environment - instead of trying to force fit - T90's without AC's being just one example...what's identified/developed per our own specs should then be mass produced in India - fighters or transports - even at double the costs ....

The whole aspect clearly needs different thinking - way beyond 10 C 17's or 20 IL 76's or C 130J's.

It was awesome to read that Gilles was able to bring his observations to his parliament and ministers......how does one do that in India.....invite our key ministers and parliamentarians to BR ?

My humble 2 paise....

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 12 Nov 2009 20:59

sunny y wrote: but what if NAL RTA comes earlier than MTA. I mean RTA is more in league of commercial aircrafts but How much tweaking needs to be done in order to convert it for military use ??

No rear loading ramp. At best for communications and training duties. With sufficient legs it can be equipped with Dhruv's maritime search radar for Coast Guard.

But lets see NAL come out with Saras first, for which IAF had already placed an order IIRC. In today's date Do-228 remains a better bet.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Nov 2009 21:14

the brutal fact is developing roads/railways/PSU factories in NE/HP/Ladakh does not bring votes.
assam has barely 15 MP seats, the rest of NE states hardly 1-2 each.

for decades all the big employment generating PSUs and whatever little investment was done on
roads and rails was done in the big populous states and by luck whatever forgotten small states
happened to be co-located. yet still we do have this swathe of naxal infested dark territory right
next to rail-dense areas like UP, bihar, WB.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 13 Nov 2009 04:56

Tata, Sikorsky JV to make aerospace components

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Nov 2009 13:27

IMO, the only reason GOI is going for C17 is heavy STOL capability in Arunachal. Our current Il76s are ok for Ladakh. They must know something we don't and are not willing to wait for another option to appear in a year or two (there really aren't any) or worse, decades for a comparable indigenous a/c to materialize, if at all.

As things stand, there is no other way that I'm aware of to get a Prithvi, Agni or Brahmos battery deep into Arunachal Pradesh because there are no roads capable of handling them and there won't be for another 5-10 years at least. AFAIK, nothing has been done about the multi-lane trans-Arunachal highway that so much noise was made about.

No doubt there is potential for corruption and American villainy in the C17 deal both now and in the future but those are present even in Russian deals. Besides, it appears we don't have a choice.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Nov 2009 17:36

I've moved some of the last posts to http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0&start=40
continue there if needed and spare this thread from a discussion on corruption.
Rahul.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 13 Nov 2009 18:20

Can anyone get the tyre pressures of both C-17 and IL-76? I have tried to google..but could not get much info.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 13 Nov 2009 18:38

geeth wrote:Can anyone get the tyre pressures of both C-17 and IL-76? I have tried to google..but could not get much info.

Tyre Pressure ??

Are you interested in how smooth the ride is upon taxing to and from the runway on a C17 ?

Maybe you are looking for ACN (Aircraft Classification Number) and PCN (Pavement Classification Number) of the C17 and the Advanced Landing Grounds in Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh ?

A useful resource for to judge the C17's capability to land on semi-prepared ALG's :

Engineering Technical Letter: Criteria and Guidance for C-17 Operations on Semi-Prepared Airfields

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Nov 2009 19:42

The tire pressure can be adjusted in flight from 2.5 to 5.0 bars (36 to 73 lb/sq in) for different runways conditions. Main wheels has heavy duty hydraulic brakes.

IL-76

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 19:53

Kanson wrote:However having said that, i find in some areas Gilles observations are incomplete(maybe there is no data)

I normally have internet based references for every statement I have made. If you cannot find the refence for anything I have written, or if I neglected to provide the reference, please let me know and I will be glad to indicate where I sourced the information.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 13 Nov 2009 20:03

On 25th November, the President Pratibha Patil is scheduled to fly in a Su 30 MKI.

Not sure that to make of it... the cynic in me says "wastage of tax payer money". But would I have said the same thing if it was APJ Kalam as the President? Dont know...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Nov 2009 20:05

geeth wrote:Can anyone get the tyre pressures of both C-17 and IL-76? I have tried to google..but could not get much info.

Speaking of tyre pressures - Soviet/Russian aircraft often had variable pressure tyres that IIRC could be changed by the pilot from the cockpit. I recall reading this ages ago - will need to check that again.

Added later:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avil76.html
Il 76

The tire pressure could be adjusted in flight from 2.5 to 5 atmospheres to deal with different types of airfields.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avantgt.html
The Antonov Giants: An-22, An-124, & An-225

The An-22 was designed for rough-field operation, with two-wheel nosegear and three levered-suspension dual main landing gear assemblies in each fairing, for a total of six main gear assemblies and twelve main gear wheels. The aircrew could adjust tire pressure from the cockpit to compensate for field conditions.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 20:54

Brando wrote:A useful resource for to judge the C17's capability to land on semi-prepared ALG's :

Engineering Technical Letter: Criteria and Guidance for C-17 Operations on Semi-Prepared Airfields

A very interesting document that I had read in the past and provided as a reference on the C-17 Blog.

The first question one must ask oneself, is why was a document specifically written about how to build contingency runways for the C-17? Do you think they have such a manual for every aircraft type ?

You'll note that this document states that the minimum runway length must be 3500 feet. But it also states that 300 foot overruns must be built at either end of the runway. In a little note about the overruns, it says on page 13:

The overruns must be constructed to the same standards as the runway

One wonders why they just don't call it a 4100 foot runway and get it over with?
This is because Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) had a contractual agreement with the Pentagon to supply an aircraft capable of landing on a 3000 foot runway, later changed to 3500 feet. Since it could not quite meet the 3500 foot criteria either, they came up with this required over run scheme, which you will not find anywhere else in the aviation world.

Now the real catch. Go to page 11 and you will see a box, with the required runway length in relation to pressure altitude and another factor called "RCR". You will begin to notice that the so called 3500 foot runway (in fact 4100 feet since it does include the two overruns) is only available at the Maximum RCR of 20 up to 6000 feet MSL and at an RCR of 16 but only up to 2000 feet MSL.

Lets now see what RCR (Runway Condition Rating) means. Its a friction figure you come up with by using a vehicle, a machine, a computer and some software that determines if the C-17 is capable of braking to a stop or not on the runway. Dont go looking for any numbers or graphs on this document, there aren't any. But I've learned from reading in other documents that I,ve already referenced that WET runway = LOW RCR.
At sea level, a C-17 needs somewhere around 6000 feet to land confortably on a wet runway. So unless the chinese are attacking during the dry season......
You'll notice that at 6000 feet, the required runway with a good RCR is already 4500 (so 5100). When the surface is wet.........

And all this is assuming the Upaved runway was built according the specs of this document. This data is not valid for existing unpaved runways.

If you go here, you will see how the Australians, after scouting different existing unpaved runways in Australia for training their pilots on landing on unpaved runways, and finding none that were suitable (Australia has hundreds in not thousands of such runways) finally had to buit a runway from scratch using the above reference document. They decided to make it a little longer than the minimum required:

https://jrac.erdc.usace.army.mil/docume ... report.pdf

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Nov 2009 21:16

Thanks Gilles for engaging. I was referring to this.

Gilles wrote:I found Fukche on Google Earth. Its around 9000 feet long. This is going to be very interesting.

The length is getting extended beyond 10000 feet. Its height is around 14k feet. How good c 17 perform there.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 13 Nov 2009 21:21

Tanaji wrote:On 25th November, the President Pratibha Patil is scheduled to fly in a Su 30 MKI.

Not sure that to make of it... the cynic in me says "wastage of tax payer money". But would I have said the same thing if it was APJ Kalam as the President? Dont know...

Well ... the President of India is afterall the "Supreme Commander of Indian Armed Forces". I think it is a good thing ... gives the President an idea of how the armed forces operate. Now, what they do with that knowledge is a different thing ...

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 21:23

Kanson wrote: These "18 inch rut" stories are all related to Semi-prepared runway which are unstablised. There is as such no problem with paved runway or Stabilised semi-prepared runway. As i know, most of our ALGs are stabilised semi-prepared runways ex. DBO.

Its all a matter of how strongly the runway was built. Like I said, the C-17 has the footprint of a Boeing 707. How many unpaved runways in the world do you think were built with hosting a large airliner in mind? The footprint of the C-17 is similar to other airliners of its weight category. A Boeing 777-200, at 247,000Kg, is about the same weight as the C-17 and has the same number of wheels (14, although with a different geometry). Do you think any of the ALGs as they are now, can support the weight of the B-777-200?

I do not know about High Altitude performance, about carrying the new tanks, or about required runway length, but there is not a shadow of a doubt that the IL-76 can land in much softer runways than the C-17 can.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 13 Nov 2009 21:37

Kanson wrote:Thanks Gilles for engaging. I was referring to this.

Gilles wrote:I found Fukche on Google Earth. Its around 9000 feet long. This is going to be very interesting.
The length is getting extended beyond 10000 feet. Its height is around 14k feet. How good c 17 perform there.

Can you please give me the co=ordinates ? I would like to locate it on GE

K

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 21:44

shiv wrote:
geeth wrote:Can anyone get the tyre pressures of both C-17 and IL-76? I have tried to google..but could not get much info.
Speaking of tyre pressures - Soviet/Russian aircraft often had variable pressure tyres that IIRC could be changed by the pilot from the cockpit. I recall reading this ages ago - will need to check that again.

Added later:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avil76.html
Il 76
The tire pressure could be adjusted in flight from 2.5 to 5 atmospheres to deal with different types of airfields.
ttp://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avantgt.html
The Antonov Giants: An-22, An-124, & An-225
The An-22 was designed for rough-field operation, with two-wheel nosegear and three levered-suspension dual main landing gear assemblies in each fairing, for a total of six main gear assemblies and twelve main gear wheels. The aircrew could adjust tire pressure from the cockpit to compensate for field conditions.

The IL-76 can adjust the tyre pressure in flight, and Boeing plans to add that feature to its future C-17B.

[url][/http://www.kmimediagroup.com/mlf-archiv ... ion.pdfurl]

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 13 Nov 2009 21:50

well, the price and the delivery schedule for the C-17B can be a bummer

anyways, hover craft air cushioning can serve well to the heavy cargo aircraft while landing on unprepared airfields, check this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubr_class_LCAC, they have experimented with XC-8A way back, theoretically, the landing surface can be any thing that is accessible to hovercraft including beaches

and probably its cheaper to purchase light weight mountain tanks so the existing IL-76 fleet can transport them or even the future MTA/C-130, all mountains based equipment (construction & combat) will have to be sized around this

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Nov 2009 22:01

Gilles wrote:If you go here, you will see how the Australians, after scouting different existing unpaved runways in Australia for training their pilots on landing on unpaved runways, and finding none that were suitable (Australia has hundreds in not thousands of such runways) finally had to buit a runway from scratch using the above reference document. They decided to make it a little longer than the minimum required:

https://jrac.erdc.usace.army.mil/docume ... report.pdf

That's not what that document says at all.

It was meant to be a demo of the Joint Rapid Airfield Construction (JRAC) program, in other words, they SPECIFICALLY went looking for airfields that were NOT C-17 capable.

Of the eight airfield sites surveyed [not hundreds], two of the existing airfields (Samuel Hill and Williamson) and the two undeveloped sites (Angalarri and Ikymbon) were identified as candidate sites for development into C-17 capable airfields. However, the two existing airfields at SWBTA were deemed so close to C-17 capable in their current conditions that they would not provide enough opportunity for JRAC technologies to be demonstrated [ie they were too easy] in a fullscale demonstration project. Of the two undeveloped sites at the BFTA, the Ikymbon site is the most desirable as it is much nearer to current areas and facilities under development, and it is closer to water and developed borrow sites needed for construction.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 22:26

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:If you go here, you will see how the Australians, after scouting different existing unpaved runways in Australia for training their pilots on landing on unpaved runways, and finding none that were suitable (Australia has hundreds in not thousands of such runways) finally had to buit a runway from scratch using the above reference document. They decided to make it a little longer than the minimum required:

https://jrac.erdc.usace.army.mil/docume ... report.pdf
That's not what that document says at all.

It was meant to be a demo of the Joint Rapid Airfield Construction (JRAC) program, in other words, they SPECIFICALLY went looking for airfields that were NOT C-17 capable.

Of the eight airfield sites surveyed [not hundreds], two of the existing airfields (Samuel Hill and Williamson) and the two undeveloped sites (Angalarri and Ikymbon) were identified as candidate sites for development into C-17 capable airfields. However, the two existing airfields at SWBTA were deemed so close to C-17 capable in their current conditions that they would not provide enough opportunity for JRAC technologies to be demonstrated [ie they were too easy] in a fullscale demonstration project. Of the two undeveloped sites at the BFTA, the Ikymbon site is the most desirable as it is much nearer to current areas and facilities under development, and it is closer to water and developed borrow sites needed for construction.

You keep nickpicking me. I never wrote that they surveyed hundred of fields did I? I wrote that out of the hundreds, if not thousands of unpaved airfields in Australia, none were suited to C-17 use.

As for the so-called excercise in building "contingency airstrips", one does not need any existing airstrip to build one. You just hack one out of the bush (which is in ample supply in that country) like one would do at war.

At war, one does not survey a whole country the size of Australia to find the perfect place for a contingency runway. Headquarters decides "we need an airfield here for x reason" and orders engineering to see to it. Period.

Now please do this for me sir before you attack my statements any further: show me one instance were an Australian C-17 landed in an unpaved airport in Australia outside of the one they built for it, one where you seem to think they wouldn't have had the opportunity to demonstrate their building skills?

Why don't they uses those that "were suitable" or "almost suitable"

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 13 Nov 2009 22:39

Delhi Metro coach being shipped to India (built by bombardier)

No I am not saying we buy Ants!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Nov 2009 22:40

Gilles wrote:You keep nickpicking me. I never wrote that they surveyed hundred of fields did I? I wrote that out of the hundreds, if not thousands of unpaved airfields in Australia, none were suited to C-17 use.

And there is absolutely NOTHING in the document to support that assertion.

Please show were it says that there was not a single unpaved runway in Australia suited for C-17 use.

You can't.

Gilles wrote:As for the so-called excercise in building "contingency airstrips", one does not need any existing airstrip to build one.

Which was the conclusion they came to

Gilles wrote:You just hack one out of the bush (which is in ample supply in that country) like one would do at war.

However if you read the document you will see that they considered other criteria. If you're going to build an airstrip, might as well put it where it will be useful (which they did).

Gilles wrote:At war, one does not survey a whole country the size of Australia to find the perfect place for a contingency runway. Headquarters decides "we need an airfield here for x reason" and orders engineering to see to it. Period.

The 'perfect' place was driven by need, proximity to logistics, distance from civilians. Physical suitability was not an issue most of the time. Period.

Gilles wrote:Now please do this for me sir before you attack my statements any further: show me one instance were an Australian C-17 landed in an unpaved airport in Australia outside of the one they built for it, one where you seem to think they wouldn't have had the opportunity to demonstrate their building skills?

Sorry, I don't track every Australian military flight.

Gilles wrote:Why don't they uses those that "were suitable" or "almost suitable"

Maybe they do. Can you prove they don't?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 22:51

Kersi D wrote:Can you please give me the co=ordinates ? I would like to locate it on GE

K

Its very hard to see, so I'll give you the coordinates of both thresholds of the runway.

N 32 54 41 00 E 79 13 24 35
n 32 56 46 60 E 79 12 12 60

The elevation is around 13, 700 feet and I read that An-32 have landed there in the recent past.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Nov 2009 22:55

shiv wrote:
sunny y wrote:Saras production is likely to be delayed

Latest on NAL Saras. Apologies if posted earlier....

http://www.icast.org.in/news/2009/oct09/oct01Tb.pdf
Thanks for scanning. I actually spoke to someone about this and the impression I got was that there was pilot error involved. But take my word only as rumor - the DGCA report is not out yet and the Saras is collecting dust in the meantime.

DGCA is still on overload because of the YSR crash.

Also they have been overtaken by other ongoing events and SARAS is not a priority for them.

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/07/21/stor ... 231300.htm

“Wrong relight drills caused Saras crash”

Ravi Sharma

BANGALORE:Tuesday, Jul 21, 2009

The board of inquiry constituted by the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has completed its investigation into the March 6 crash of the Light Transport Aircraft Saras near Bidadi in Karnataka.

Two pilots and an engineer, all from the Indian Air Force’s Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment, were killed in the crash of the Prototype Two (PT2).

An official of the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), designers of the Saras, said the DGCA had promised to make the report available before month-end.

The Hindu has learnt from officials connected with the board of inquiry that the engine relight (engine restart) drills given by the designers and followed by the pilots were wrong.

The two test pilots were for the first time on the Saras, attempting to switch off and relight in midair one of the two Pratt and Whitney (PT6A-67) engines. The test is a mandatory requirement of the flight development programme. The aircraft had reached its designated height of 9,000 feet and the left engine switched off. After one minute, the crew attempted to relight the engine, and this was communicated to the ground crew. But soon after radio communication was lost, the aircraft started losing height and crashed. “Prior to the flight, the pilots were briefed by the designers about the drills to be followed during relight, and they followed it. But the relight drills were incorrect. With each aero engine having its own unique set of procedures to be adhered to during relight (like at what speed, airflow, where the propellers stop, etc), the pilots just followed the designer’s briefings. Errors occurred; the aircraft went out of control and crashed,” an official explained.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 22:58

GeorgeWelch wrote: Maybe they do. Can you prove they don't?

All right sir, in that case, I will make it very easy for you:

Find me one proof, picture or other, of a C-17 landing anywhere in the world, on an unpaved runway that was not :

1) Either a military runway in the home country (US and Australia) that had been specifically built or upgraded for the C-17 to land on it

or

2) One that was in a war zone in an occupied country (Afghanistan and Iraq) where the US were free to destroy it and rebuilt it as they pleased.

Just one example, and you will have made your point.

I have been researching the subject for 3 years and know of no such landing anywhere in the world.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Nov 2009 23:09

Gilles wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: Maybe they do. Can you prove they don't?
All right sir, in that case, I will make it very easy for you:

You're the one that's making the claim. It's up to you to provide the proof.

Sorry, your/my inability/lack of desire to find a picture does not constitute 'proof'.

Gilles wrote: 2) One that was in a war zone in an occupied country (Afghanistan and Iraq) where the US were free to destroy it and rebuilt it as they pleased.

Um, why exclude that?

The whole point of CRITICAL EMERGENCY WARTIME operations is that they will do what they have to do.

You buy it so if you really need the capability, it's there.

And if you really need the capability, you won't care about destroying/rebuilding runways if you have to.

I truly don't understand what point you're trying to make. It doesn't make a good civilian taxi to remote Canadian outposts? Ok, we got that.

But in war, by your own admission, you can make perfectly suitable airfields.

Which is all I think any military (except maybe the Canadian

) asks.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Nov 2009 23:13

Find me one proof, picture or other, of a C-17 landing anywhere in the world, on an unpaved runway that was not :

1) Either a military runway in the home country (US and Australia) that had been specifically built or upgraded for the C-17 to land on it

or

2) One that was in a war zone in an occupied country (Afghanistan and Iraq) where the US were free to destroy it and rebuilt it as they pleased.

But just for fun I sent 5 seconds with google and came up with this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/snow55/348478389/

Antarctica isn't in the US or Australia and isn't a war zone.

That probably still won't make you happy, but that's what you asked for.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 23:29

GeorgeWelch wrote: Sorry, your/my inability/lack of desire to find a picture does not constitute 'proof'

We are not in a court of law, and I think I've made my point to the readers of this Forum.

Here what I am attempting to say, in a few words:

The C-17 can land in unpaved runways. Its made for it. But the unpaved runways of the world were not made for the C-17. The aircraft destroys the unpaved runways it lands on. According to the strength and qualify of the unpavedc runway, it can be destroyed after one landing or after 10.

So, yes, in case of war, it can be sent to unpaved runways, and if necessary, an engineering team can be flown in to constantly fix the runway between C-17 passes. That is what they do in Afghanistan, that or making unpaved runways built under the specs listed in that document we mentionned.

As for the STOL capability, unless you have a garanteed dry runway, plan for a 5 to 6000 foot runway, even at sea level. None of your pilots will ever agree to fly that large beast of an aircraft into a REAL 3500 or 4000 foot runway (those that dont have safe overruns on either end)

So because of these limitations, do not accept arguments that the C-17 will have a humanitarian or economical purpose for India outside of what it will be able to do by using the long hard surfaced runways. In peacetime, one does not go around tearing up runways.

Otherwise, if you can afford its price and high cost of operation, the C-17 will be a wonderfull aircraft for the IAF. Modern, reliable, high tech, fun, etc....

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Nov 2009 23:35

Gilles wrote:So, yes, in case of war, it can be sent to unpaved runways, and if necessary, an engineering team can be flown in to constantly fix the runway between C-17 passes. That is what they do in Afghanistan, that or making unpaved runways built under the specs listed in that document we mentionned.

And that's all that matters.

Gilles wrote:As for the STOL capability, unless you have a garanteed dry runway, plan for a 5 to 6000 foot runway, even at sea level.

4100

Gilles wrote:None of your pilots will ever agree to fly that large beast of an aircraft into a REAL 3500 or 4000 foot runway (those that dont have safet overruns on either end)

So because of these limitations, do not accept arguments that the C-17 will have a humanitarian or economical purpose for India outside of what it will be able to do by using the long hard surfaced runways.

If by 'long hard surfaced' you mean '4100 ft dirt'

Sorry, I don't see the huge difference between 3500' and 4100'. You act as if that 600' suddenly means it's useless for all humanitarian missions.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 23:41

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Find me one proof, picture or other, of a C-17 landing anywhere in the world, on an unpaved runway that was not :

1) Either a military runway in the home country (US and Australia) that had been specifically built or upgraded for the C-17 to land on it

or

2) One that was in a war zone in an occupied country (Afghanistan and Iraq) where the US were free to destroy it and rebuilt it as they pleased.
But just for fun I sent 5 seconds with google and came up with this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/snow55/348478389/

Antarctica isn't in the US or Australia and isn't a war zone.

That probably still won't make you happy, but that's what you asked for.

If that is an argument, here is the perfect Strategic Airlifter.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Nov 2009 23:41

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Find me one proof, picture or other, of a C-17 landing anywhere in the world, on an unpaved runway that was not :

1) Either a military runway in the home country (US and Australia) that had been specifically built or upgraded for the C-17 to land on it

or

2) One that was in a war zone in an occupied country (Afghanistan and Iraq) where the US were free to destroy it and rebuilt it as they pleased.
But just for fun I sent 5 seconds with google and came up with this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/snow55/348478389/

Antarctica isn't in the US or Australia and isn't a war zone.

That probably still won't make you happy, but that's what you asked for.

GeorgeWelch

This hard packed ice runway does not ideally fall in the category of
" Unprepared " . They left black tyre marks on the ice!!

Here's what the pilot had to say

Yep...I feel lucky getting to fly this plane. I had flown both C-141s and C-17s to McMurdo, Antarctica. It is just like landing on a normal runway. Antarctica is a desert-like climate (very dry) so they take some of the snow and spread it over the ice runway. It is like landing on sandpaper. We actually left black tire mark where we landed.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Nov 2009 23:45

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:So, yes, in case of war, it can be sent to unpaved runways, and if necessary, an engineering team can be flown in to constantly fix the runway between C-17 passes. That is what they do in Afghanistan, that or making unpaved runways built under the specs listed in that document we mentionned.
And that's all that matters.

Gilles wrote:As for the STOL capability, unless you have a garanteed dry runway, plan for a 5 to 6000 foot runway, even at sea level.
4100

Gilles wrote:None of your pilots will ever agree to fly that large beast of an aircraft into a REAL 3500 or 4000 foot runway (those that dont have safet overruns on either end)

So because of these limitations, do not accept arguments that the C-17 will have a humanitarian or economical purpose for India outside of what it will be able to do by using the long hard surfaced runways.
If by 'long hard surfaced' you mean '4100 ft dirt'

Sorry, I don't see the huge difference between 3500' and 4100'. You act as if that 600' suddenly means it's useless for all humanitarian missions.

SIR, THE 4,100 FOOT IS DRY RUNWAY ONLY, No rain, no recent rain, no melting snow, no slush, no snow, no frost etc.

How can an aircraft be dispatched under those circumstances in the real world? In Saudi Arabia, maybe. In India or Canada close to never.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Nov 2009 23:47

The other point you're missing Gilles is that the quoted landing lengths are at a weight of 447,000 pounds, or 164,500 pounds of fuel and cargo.

Many missions won't require that much payload.

Decrease the weight and the landing length decreases.

To be a fair comparison, you need to compare the C-17 and Il-76 at equal payloads and see how the landing lengths compare.