C-17s for the IAF?

[srai]

How many IL-76 we do have?

The BR quotes 28, wiki -40 ( including 6 IL-78MKI and 3 for Phalcons) hence 31, recent news articles post numbers such as 23, 26 .....
What is the exact number?

If you look at BR IAF fleet page:
15 IL76s
6 IL76MKI
1 IL76 Phalcon
------------------
Total: 22

[Gilles]

But the C-17 is still big compared to IL-76. There will be a huge gap between the AN-32s and C-17s. So is IAF planning on ordering more C130s? C-17s are not exact replacements for IL-76s. And using those big aircraft to carry half its capacity cargo is just waste of fuel.

Half ? You are optimist.

Of course this has nothing to do with the aircraft itself (which, for the benefit of George, is a FANTASTIC AIRCRAFT with a 75 tonne capacity) but with military operators who are not quite as efficient in managing cargo aircraft and crews as penny-pinching civilian operators are with civilian cargo aircraft and crews.

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2009/10/c ... force.html

I just found a paper that provides a few numbers, based on actual use of C-17 missions during Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF) , which is the Afghanistan Operation, and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

The average C-17 load during both of these missions averaged just around 18 tonnes (metric) on deployments and around 13 tonnes on redeployments. That's it. Barely C-130 Hercules-sized loads.

[Gilles]

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Ce ... et/544262/

The first paragraph of the article announces that

the Indian Air Force (IAF), the ministry of defence has approved in principle the purchase of the US-based Boeing's C-17 heavy-lift Globemaster III.

The second paragraph informs us that

The C-17s have been short listed after IAF carried out a thorough study on its capability to take-off and land on short runways with heavy loads.

This is obviously the main selling point.

I wonder how thorough that study really was?

"The Americans told us that in Iraq and in Afghanistan.........so it probably can do so in India as well"

"The Americans demonstrated very short take-offs and landings on the dry asphalt of a very long runway with an empty aircraft in front of our generals ...... so our Indian pilots can most likely do the same with a heavily loaded aircraft on a wet unsurfaced mountain runway at night with NVG only......"

"The American carry their M1As tanks in theirs, so our tanks obviously fit in also......"

The usual stuff. And once the aircraft will be purchased, the aircraft will do none of all that.

"But it will have the theoretical capacity to do it", right George ?

The never, ever demonstrated capacity that exists only on paper and that every article about the C-17 mentions. I wonder why ?

Mmmmmmmm......

[GeorgeWelch]

The average C-17 load during both of these missions averaged just around 18 tonnes (metric) on deployments and around 13 tonnes on redeployments. That's it. Barely C-130 Hercules-sized loads.

Of course since you usually cube out before you gross out, it's hard to say exactly what that means.

I wonder how thorough that study really was?

I'm sure they have access to more and better data than anything you can get your hands on.

"The Americans told us that in Iraq and in Afghanistan.........so it probably can do so in India as well"

"The Americans demonstrated very short take-offs and landings on the dry asphalt of a very long runway with an empty aircraft in front of our generals ...... so our Indian pilots can most likely do the same with a heavily loaded aircraft on a wet unsurfaced mountain runway at night with NVG only......"

"The American carry their M1As tanks in theirs, so our tanks obviously fit in also......"

The usual stuff. And once the aircraft will be purchased, the aircraft will do none of all that.

"But it will have the theoretical capacity to do it", right George ?

You realize you're basically calling the Indian procurement officials a bunch of morons right?

[Gilles]

You realize you're basically calling the Indian procurement officials a bunch of morons right?

If the reason they are purchasing this aircraft is for its "capacity to land and take-off, day or night, from unpaved 3,500 foot runways", we will soon find out, won't we?

On the other hand, if they are knowingly purchasing a modern, reliable, 75 tonne capacity, strategic airlifter with some tactical capabilities and they think that this capability is worth an aircraft that will cost them $45,000/hour to operate when all costs are included, well then who am I to be against it, it is their choice to make and I have no say in it.

[Gilles]

Of course since you usually cube out before you gross out, it's hard to say exactly what that means.

Cube out ? You mean like when they carry a full complement 102 troops (less than the 128 that a C-130J can carry)

I carry troops sometimes. They are heavy. About 185 Kg per soldier, counting their gear.

Lets do a little math: 102 x 185 Kgs = 18,870 Kg or 18.87 tonnes. What a coincidence!

[KiranM]

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Ce ... et/544262/

The first paragraph of the article announces that

the Indian Air Force (IAF), the ministry of defence has approved in principle the purchase of the US-based Boeing's C-17 heavy-lift Globemaster III.

The second paragraph informs us that

The C-17s have been short listed after IAF carried out a thorough study on its capability to take-off and land on short runways with heavy loads.

This is obviously the main selling point.

I wonder how thorough that study really was?

"The Americans told us that in Iraq and in Afghanistan.........so it probably can do so in India as well"

"The Americans demonstrated very short take-offs and landings on the dry asphalt of a very long runway with an empty aircraft in front of our generals ...... so our Indian pilots can most likely do the same with a heavily loaded aircraft on a wet unsurfaced mountain runway at night with NVG only......"

"The American carry their M1As tanks in theirs, so our tanks obviously fit in also......"

The usual stuff. And once the aircraft will be purchased, the aircraft will do none of all that.

"But it will have the theoretical capacity to do it", right George ?

The never, ever demonstrated capacity that exists only on paper and that every article about the C-17 mentions. I wonder why ?

Mmmmmmmm......

Now this is questioning IAF's evaluation without any substantiation. Your gripe with C-17 may have some merits. But it does not mean you question a professional Air Force's evaluation of its needs on baseless grounds.

[Philip]

Russia is trying to build the IL-76s at home,but will take some time to do so.Therefore the IAF needs a new large aircraft until IL-76 upgrades can be successfully carried out.It could buy,or preferably LEASE a small number of C-17s and evaluate them before any large scale purchase.The aircraft's range is far in excess of any IAF requirement as we do not have a global expeditionary military policy.It could be the tip of the iceberg though,with the US wanting to integrate India's armed forces into its global strategy,to fight anywhere on the globe.For immediate needs,there are other ready options for the IAF,the AN-72/74,an excellent medium ranged aircraft,which with its overwing engine location,is ideal for hot and high ops.and small Himalayan airstrips.This can be procured immediately instead of waiting for a decade before the MTA arrives!

The most significant design feature of the An-72 and An-74 is the use of the Coanda effect to improve STOL performance, which utilises engine exhaust gases blown over the wing's upper surface to boost lift. Other features include multi slotted flaps, rear loading ramp and multi unit landing gear capable of operations from unprepared strips.

An-72 - Max speed 705km/h (380kt), cruising speed range 550 to 600km/h (295 to 325kt). Service ceiling 35,000ft. Range with max fuel and reserves 4800km (2590nm), with a 7500kg (16,535lb) payload 2000km (1080nm). An-74 - Speeds similar. Range with reserves and a 10,000kg (22,025lb) payload 1150km (620nm), or with a 1500kg (3310lb) payload 5300km (2860nm).

India has had an excellent history of operating Antonov aircraft with the venerable AN-12s,which was the mainstay of the IAF's transport fleet decades ago.

[Gilles]

Now this is questioning IAF's evaluation without any substantiation. Your gripe with C-17 may have some merits. But it does not mean you question a professional Air Force's evaluation of its needs on baseless grounds.

Do not fall in that gentleman's trap. Now that he has laid the bait, he is calmly waiting on the sidelines for other posters to attack me for insulting the intelligence of India's Air Force and procurement officers. You were his first bite at his bait.

Note that in my reply to him, I clearly stated that IF the C-17 is purchased primarily because of its ability to land and take off on short unpaved runway, it will mean that the evaluation will not have been as thorough as stated. How can it be otherwise ? Or it is politics at play.

This claimed runway performance was stated by the Canadian Air Force as one of the reasons to purchase. If you were to go on the Canadian's Air Force's webpage on the C-17, those capabilities are still claimed today. Yet, more than 2 years after the C-17's induction in the CF, the C-17 has never been used in any unpaved runway of any length. They claim they don't need to but that "they can".

Am I accusing them of incompetence ? Or are they rather a willing accomplice of Boeing's somewhat doubtful sales pitch, because they wanted the C-17 at all costs for reasons other than the C-17's runway performance claims?

I am not writing here to insult anyone in the Indian Military , but rather to help the Indian taxpayers, who in a democracy are those ultimately paying for the airplane, not be insulted in their intelligence with sales pitches about false performance claims as the Canadian taxpayers were.

I have provided ample US Government sources that question if not quash those short unpaved runway performance claims. Yet years after these report were written, every article about the C-17 still echoes those claims, including those about the IAF acquisition of the C-17.

If one of these articles even states, as the quoted one did, that those short unpaved runway performance claims are the very reason the C-17 is being selected, what am I do deduct from it?

[GeorgeWelch]

If one of these articles even states, as the quoted one did, that those short unpaved runway performance claims are the very reason the C-17 is being selected, what am I do deduct from it?

That they have studied its true capabilities and are happy with it.

Even though it didn't exactly meet some original design goals (which is open and well-documented and known to everyone), it still has very impressive short-field capabilities.

[rajeshks]

I am not writing here to insult anyone in the Indian Military , but rather to help the Indian taxpayers, who in a democracy are those ultimately paying for the airplane, not be insulted in their intelligence with sales pitches about false performance claims as the Canadian taxpayers were.

The real reason behind a defense purchase may not be always the one stated publicly, it may be anything from strategic to economic to diplomatic, we never know..

[Gilles]

A well written, if somewhat "diplomatic" paper on C-17 use by US Air Force special operations, the famous SOLL II guys.

https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/d ... 58acd64640

This paper is about the USAF Special operations using the C-17 (SOLL II) It states that although the C-141 and C-5 had to be upgraded and modified to perform SOLL II missions, the C-17 was designed at the outcome to be able to perform such missions (extended low level flight). Yet it does not explain why SOLL II missions continued to be carried out by C-141s 9 years after the C-17 was inducted in 1993. The C-17 took over SOLL II responsibility from the C-141 only in May 2002.

In the Chapter about the Carlson Drop Zone / Landing Zone, where SOLL II C-17 initially airdropped engineering heavy equipment in eastern Afghanistan to build an airfield, it states that the engineering unit was able to hack out a runway where a light USAF STOL aircraft was able to land 43 hours later. Great! A C-130 Hercules was then able to land two weeks later. Good also. But it took 120 days to make the runways suitable for the first SOLL II C-17 (by SOLL II read "best C-17 pilots the USAF has") to be able to land there. It took 106 extra days of effort to transform a C-130 capable runway into a C-17 capable runway.....

In the chapter called "Broken promises" it says:

The C-17 was originally touted to be the Hybrid answer to combining the best of the Air Force's traditional strategic and tactical platforms. Through the C-X development program, the Air Force and Army mow possessed and aircraft that was large enough to move outsize cargo while offering the capability of direct delivery to an austere short field on the front lines. What made the C-17 so promising is that both services conceived the aircraft in terms of overall joint war fighting capabilities, not as an organic Air Force requirement. However since the aircraft achieved initial operational capability in January 1995, tactical achievement have by far been the exception rather than the rule.

To date the C-17 community in general has been involved in only two contingency operations involving landing in semi-prepared airfields........

So far, all of it is exact. Its when the author switches to the causes of that situation that he is somewhat "diplomatic". He claims that GAO report to congress stated that

the projected benefits of obtaining the aircraft were grossly overstated

and that such a council

conditioned decision makers to adopt views that believed that few austere airfields worldwide were likely to be used in major regional contingencies for which DoD is planning

In other words, the author claims that C-17 restriction to strategic-only role only was a decision taken at the top of DoD based on wrong assumptions about the aircraft's capabilities.

Then, in another chapter called "Risk Aversion" the author claims that because stereotyping the C-17 as a Strategic Aircraft within DoD, that

AMC is risk adverse and with only a handful of exceptions, is afraid to send its aircraft in harms way.

This author totally ignore the real implications of the very GAO reports he quoted. Perhaps he did not read them carefully. These claim that the C-17 cannot land withing the confines of the runways it was meant to land on, and that the runways it does require in dry conditions is almost doubled when in wet conditions. A C-17 on a wet runway and with the payload and fuel that it was meant to carry in its hold and in its fuel tanks, requires about 6000 feet to land.

The other main GAO report dwells on the C-17's high footprint which is even higher than the giant C-5s. So although there are many runways in the world that are too short for the C-5 and long enough for a C-17, the surface of the majority of these shorter runways cannot sustain the weight of the C-17. There were also many other problems with C-17 (ie its ability to para-drop troops, some of which have since been resolved) but these two are the major problem that turned the Hybrid Strategic/Tactical C-X into a mostly Strategic C-17, with some limited Tactical capabilities.

And that is why AMC is very hard pressed to "send the C-17 in harms way" as the report states (which, for example, sending a C-17 into a 3500 foot runways does, since that runway is unlikely to have the mandatory 400 foot "under runs" and "over runs", and if it rains between the moment the aircraft is dispatched and its arrival, the mission must either be aborted or the C-17 is likely to overrun the runway)

[shiv]

The real reason behind a defense purchase may not be always the one stated publicly, it may be anything from strategic to economic to diplomatic, we never know..

Well Rajiv Gandhi saved Maggie Thatcher's government by buying Westland WG 30 helos which never flew after that.

Jagan has the story
http://warbirdsofindia.com/forum/viewto ... 29d1253cae

[kit]

Russian aircraft with good service/overhaul facilities are the best for India. American aircraft are being preferred for some other reasons known to all.Even NATO prefers the Mi 17 for its ruggedness.

[GeorgeWelch]

This paper is about the USAF Special operations using the C-17 (SOLL II) It states that although the C-141 and C-5 had to be upgraded and modified to perform SOLL II missions, the C-17 was designed at the outcome to be able to perform such missions (extended low level flight). Yet it does not explain why SOLL II missions continued to be carried out by C-141s 9 years after the C-17 was inducted in 1993. The C-17 took over SOLL II responsibility from the C-141 only in May 2002.

You keep trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Let me explain a few things.

The C-17 was a new aircraft and its capabilities were desperately needed elsewhere. The existing C-141s were performing SOLL II perfectly fine so there was no immediate need to change. On the other hand the airlift capabilities of the C-17 were very much in demand so that's where it was used.

You also must have missed the very large section on how the C-17s were owned by AMC and NOT AFSOC, which made it very difficult to get training time and approval for missions.

In the end, as you yourself admit, they were and still are used for SOLL II. So what's your point?

You keep trying to throw out statements that have no meaning yet are still negative in tone. Why?

In the Chapter about the Carlson Drop Zone / Landing Zone, where SOLL II C-17 initially airdropped engineering heavy equipment in eastern Afghanistan to build an airfield, it states that the engineering unit was able to hack out a runway where a light USAF STOL aircraft was able to land 43 hours later. Great! A C-130 Hercules was then able to land two weeks later. Good also. But it took 120 days to make the runways suitable for the first SOLL II C-17 (by SOLL II read "best C-17 pilots the USAF has") to be able to land there. It took 106 extra days of effort to transform a C-130 capable runway into a C-17 capable runway.....

That's bogus and you know it. That is just when the first C-17 happened to land there. There is NOTHING that says they couldn't have landed there sooner or that making it C-17 ready was anywhere near a priority.

Not only that, you KNOW that C-17 capable runways have been built in far less time. The 'specially prepared' training runway in Australia that you keep moaning about was built in 2 weeks.

However, even if everything you said was true (and it most emphatically is not), it STILL couldn't have happened without the C-17

Due to the lack of transportation infrastructure, these pieces of machinery could not be delivered overland and they were too large for a C-130.

So C-130s were only ever able to land because of the capabilities of the C-17.

In other words, the author claims that C-17 restriction to strategic-only role only was a decision taken at the top of DoD based on wrong assumptions about the aircraft's capabilities.

What's so ironic is that you're holding up this section as supporting you when in fact IT CRITICIZES PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU.

The entire point of that section was that just because it didn't quite meet it's original specs, some people (like you) started WRONGLY thinking that it was solely a strategic aircraft.

Yet when it has actually been used as a tactical aircraft, it has been very successful

Each series of missions successfully pushed the aircraft to and sometimes beyond advertised capabilities

the runways it does require in dry conditions is almost doubled when in wet conditions. A C-17 on a wet runway and with the payload and fuel that it was meant to carry in its hold and in its fuel tanks, requires about 6000 feet to land.

Every aircraft requires a longer runway in wet conditions. What is your point?

The other main GAO report dwells on the C-17's high footprint which is even higher than the giant C-5s. So although there are many runways in the world that are too short for the C-5 and long enough for a C-17, the surface of the majority of these shorter runways cannot sustain the weight of the C-17.

And the Air Force rejected that assertion as incorrect.

And that is why AMC is very hard pressed to "send the C-17 in harms way" as the report states (which, for example, sending a C-17 into a 3500 foot runways does, since that runway is unlikely to have the mandatory 400 foot "under runs" and "over runs", and if it rains between the moment the aircraft is dispatched and its arrival, the mission must either be aborted or the C-17 is likely to overrun the runway)

That is a flat out lie. They were very clear what they meant by risk-averse. All the planned missions were within the capabilities of the C-17. That WAS NOT the issue. The issue was the cumbersome approval process that took so long that the opportunity would be gone before the approval was granted. You will also note that approval was NEVER DENIED, it just took too long to be useful.

[Gilles]

Every aircraft requires a longer runway in wet conditions. What is your point?

Quite right. We've all heard during our travels:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is the captain. Because a light drizzle fell on our destination runway while we were enroute and because the runway is still damp, I regret to inform you that we will have divert to our alternate airport and remain there until such time that the runway of our destination airport becomes, once again, dry. We sincerely regret the inconvenience this may cause to your travel plans and we appreciate your patience. This was an act of God over which Air Stupid obviously has no control and we hope that you appreciate that this measure is taken in the name of safety, which at Air Stupid is priority number one. We thank you, once again, for making Air Stupid part of your travel plans"

Sir, on the aircraft I fly, the difference in landing distance between a dry and a wet runway at maximum braking effort and at maximum landing weight is 370 meters, so about 1,200 feet. The minimum length runways we are dispatched to always includes the wet runway provision, precisely so that we never have make such a ridiculous announcement as the one above. How can one dispatch an aircraft to an airport thousands of miles away on the prayer that the destination runway will have to be dry at the time of arrival in order for the aircraft to be able to land?

Boeing, to be able to meet its target runway length, even after that target had been changed from 3,000 to 3,500 feet, had to imagine that little scheme where the 3,500 foot runways it was dispatched to always needed to have 400 foot under runs and over runs (which real 3,500 foot runways do not have) and then they decided not to include any wet runway provisions, such as is done for all aircraft of the world.

You can call me a liar all you want: I have provided US Government documentation for every statement I have made on this forum.

The Boeing C-17 is a fantastic Strategic Aircraft with some Tactical capabilities, just like the Ilyushin IL-76. Each of these two aircraft has advantages over the other, and each has qualities that the other does not have.

Aircraft can be upgraded and often are. Here is the picture of the cockpit of a C-141B



Here is the same aircraft with an upgraded cockpit:



When an airframe still has potential left in it, it can be upgraded in engines and avionics at a much lesser cost than replacing it with new expensive aircraft. The original 1963 C-141A was stretched, and provided with in flight-refuelling which became the C-141B and some of those were converted to full glass cockpit into the C-141C. All C-141B were converted and upgraded C-141A and all C-141Cs were upgraded C-141Bs.

The C-130 Hercules was first flown in 1953. It was continuously upgraded and improved over the years and is still in production today with the C-130J. Many Hercules aircraft were not manufactured in their final version but were upgraded from earlier versions.

In helicopters, the US has the CH-47 Chinook which was introduced in 1962. The most common version on US Army inventory now is the CH-47D. Almost all the CH-47Ds were not new builds but were converted, upgraded and overhauled CH-47As, Bs and Cs built in the sixties and seventies. Most new glass cockpit CH-47Fs are upgraded CH-47Ds which themselves were upgraded earlier from CH-47As, Bs and Cs.

With all this in mind, why is it that 1980s era IL-76s are considered ancient and of need of retirement? The only flying IL-76MF, the stretched version prototype, was converted by Ilyushin from a short IL-76. This can be done to any IL-76 like it was done to the whole fleet of C-141As. There is now a conversion kit to upgrade the older IL-76 with more powerful, fuel efficient PS-90s engines. Indian aviation industry is quite capable to convert the IL-76 to full glass cockpit, with a full suite of modern avionics, including flight follwing radar and a modern DAS suite. The same air to air refuelling boom receptacle as installed in the the A-50 can be installed on IL-76s, just like was done to the C-141A when it was converted to C-141B standard.

I find it peculiar that the greatest and most powerful nation in world finds it advantageous to spend millions to upgrade its older hardware in order to get more use out of them, but that countries such as India, which have the industrial capability and technical expertise to do the same, are encouraged to ground and retire aircraft which still have ample potential, in order to buy new and expensive hardware, over which they will have no control once they are purchased (Although this may be true in the case of older fighters such as the Mig-21, helicopters, bombers and transport aircraft can easily be upgraded to get more life out of them. The USAF still has hundreds of 1950s and 1960s B-52s and KC-135s on inventory.
If India buys C-17s, it will also sign a long-term service contract with Boeing to maintain these aircraft and Indian Aviation industry will get nothing in return. If India decides to upgrade its entire fleet of IL-76 with modern engines, to stretch them, to install glass cockpit and a modern DAS as well as in flight refuelling, it will end up with a cheaper and very capable modern strategic aircraft with very good tactical capabilities and Indian aviation industry may get some work out of it. If the Il-76 was not upgraded over the years, it was not because the aircraft's technical capabilities or potential, but rather because of the economic situation of Russia and of most countries that operated the Il-76 in the nineties which could not afford to invest in upgrading their fleets. India is now one of the largest operators of the IL-76 in the world, and the owner of the most modern IL-76 in the world, the new A-50 AWACS. A contract to upgraded and modernize 30 IL-76s will receive instant attention by Ilyushin if India decides to go that route as they did with their An-32s.

The alternative is for India to retire its IL-76s and purchase C-17s and sign a 20 year maintenance contract with Boeing for the service of the C-17. Then India will have to toe the US line if it wants it C-17s to keep flying. Ask Pakistan, France, Iran, Venezuela and others about their experience with purchasing US aircraft.......it always comes with many strings.

[GeorgeWelch]

The alternative is for India to retire its IL-76s and purchase C-17s and sign a 20 year maintenance contract with Boeing for the service of the C-17.

I never said anything about retiring Il-76. There's no reason they can't keep both. They fill different needs. No matter how much you upgrade the Il-76, it will always be TOO SMALL for some missions.

As India becomes more of a global player, they simply need a larger, more capable transport.

Then India will have to toe the US line if it wants it C-17s to keep flying. Ask Pakistan, France, Iran, Venezuela and others about their experience with purchasing US aircraft.......it always comes with many strings.

Pakistan - More gift than purchase
France - I have no idea what you're talking about
Iran - As long as India isn't planning on holding US embassy personnel hostage, I don't see a problem.
Venezuela - You are wrong again. The US still supplies spare parts for Venezuela's F-16 fleet.

[Manish_Sharma]

Gilles thanks for your enlightening posts, just finished watching this movie Syriana, and how Americans milk Saudis by forcefully selling them boeings and f-16s. I think now it is India's turn to be milked, amazing isn't it for country which took more than 20 years to decide on Hawk Jettrainer deal, so quickly decides P8-Is, C-130Js & now C-17. I mean just one morning I wake up to find out how bady army/navy wants such and such plane urgently and of course only American stuff suits us, poof by the time 4'O clock tea is done you hear on new how the deal is done. I mean much needed Howitzers files are rotting for years now and these fresh needs are getting fulfilled in a jiffy.

I am reminded of a Novel by Ludlum "Rhinemann Exchange", where two warring nations [Americans vs Germans] are stuck 'cause Germans need industrial diamonds for V1, V2 Rockets and Americans need Gyroscope technology. So the deal is stuck between the two. Same way in 30-40 years I can imagine some retired american beaureacrat telling someone "you know a big chunk of Aid given to Pakistan came from the profits made from Indian puchases"

Got to hand it to Americans how they have leashed/bought the media, no scandal even of the Defence Ministry file reaching Raytheon. How things have changed from Bofors and vigilant Indian Express days! Full marks to Americans on how they can turn any country into its colony while not being responsible for the country's needs. Sad very sad. But thanks for your eye opening posts.

[Gilles]

France - I have no idea what you're talking about
Venezuela - You are wrong again. The US still supplies spare parts for Venezuela's F-16 fleet.

In 2003, when Bush and Co were beating the war drums to attack Iraq, which with a combination of smoke and mirrors, had become the scapegoat for 9/11, France and Russia had decided to use their veto power to block a UNSC resolution allowing use of force against Iraq. That Russia, throw a monkey wrench in Bush’s war plans was understandable, but the US could not digest little France having the gall to block their grand war schemes. How dare France stand–up to the all mighty USA? Bush released the full wrath of the US against France: remember the Freedom fries and the calls to boycott all French products and France as a tourist destination? Most US news outlets let France have it non-stop. It lasted months…….

What I was not aware of at the time was what went on between the US and France on the military end.

The French military owns very little US hardware but they do own some C-130 Hercules, E-2 Hawkeyes, E-3F Sentry AWACS, C-135Fs and KC-135s. The catapults of the French aircraft carriers back then were are also US made.

As France was attempting to gear-up its military for an eventual Afghan mission, it soon discovered that the US had effectively blocked the export to France of parts for all these pieces of equipment, as well as any service of the same equipment by US firms, even those that were guaranteed by commercial contracts. The US disguised the disruption in parts and service contracts under the guise of requiring priority for these items for themselves, for reasons of national security, but for a while France was effectively locked out as a punishment for standing up to the US.
They still have a very sour taste in their mouths from the experience.

As for Venezuela, the US initially threatened to block parts and forced other F-16 suppliers (Israel) to stop doing business with Venezuela. Although parts were eventually shipped, as per the contract, no upgrades or modernization are allowed by US firms or by Foreign firms, which for fighters delivered in 1985, means obsoleteness, even if they are technically airworthy.

The US also blocked other countries including Brazil and Spain from delivering boats and aircraft to Venezuela because these items contained US technology, on the allegation that Venezuela "sponsored terrorism". We all know how much truth there is to that.

[GeorgeWelch]

this isn't the appropriate forum so I'll be brief

The US disguised the disruption in parts and service contracts under the guise of requiring priority for these items for themselves, for reasons of national security, but for a while France was effectively locked out as a punishment for standing up to the US.

your conspiracy theorist rantings are amusing

Although parts were eventually shipped, as per the contract

So they fulfilled the contract. if they didn't want to do a further contract, that was their business

And venezuela has done far more to antagonize the US than India is ever likely to do

And cargo planes don't go obsolete in the same sense as fighters, as long as they keep flying, they're fine

So again no relevance to the C-17

on the allegation that Venezuela "sponsored terrorism". We all know how much truth there is to that.

quite a bit

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/10/ws ... n-thought/

[Surya]

oh come on

Michelle malkin ???????

you are killing us

[GeorgeWelch]

oh come on

Michelle malkin ???????

you are killing us

. . . who quotes a story from the Wall Street Journal

I would link directly to the WSJ story but it's subscriber only

edit: found a non-pay link: http://reichert.house.gov/News/Document ... ntID=91393

[Surya]

GW

WSJ is equally humbug

its leanings are too well known.

anyway its off topic - frankly who cares

The fact is we all know if the US wants to screw you - it will - no matter what

LCa, sea kings etc - we do not need French or venezualan experience to know that

and so its up to us consider the possibilities and plan for it

[Gilles]

your conspiracy theorist rantings are amusing

I only learned about it around Aug 2009 while reading reader comments on a French military Blog which referred to it http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/. They were in fact discussing the possibility of France buying C-130Js or even C-17s (because the A-400M delay) which is why I was reading that Blog and the related comments in the first place. Surprised and incredulous as you are now, I checked the information with a French source and it was confirmed to me with details. That is how even know about the "spare parts for the US-made catapults of the French aircraft carrier" (my source was a French Naval Aviation person) Not a conspiracy theory. Its true.

Now if you want me to give you details and sources about the United States of America sponsoring terrorists groups in the World, I could fill up several pages in the time it takes you to blink your eyes, but like you said, this isn't the proper Forum for it......

[GeorgeWelch]

I checked the information with a French source and it was confirmed to me with details.

I checked with my source in the State Department and he says your reports are without merit.



See how easy that was?


Regardless, here is the point: If the Il-76 is inadequate to meet all of India's needs, what should it get?

You keep pounding the 'C-17 is evil' drum, but you don't have any constructive suggestions. The only alternative you propose (modernizing Il-76s) is patently inadequate.

So time for you to pony up: what would be your suggestion?

[Singha]

I was watching a tank pgm on discovery channel. they showed a little 15-ton M551 tank being dropped by drogue chute on a sled out of the back of a C130 which made a snappy touch and go land-takeoff. pretty impressive work by the pilots. it had flimsy armour but could carry 20 ATGMs or fire 20 x low velocity 152mm rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-130_airdrop.jpg

the BMP2 is 14.3 tons and when we remove the turret, the Namica would likely be the same or a little
lighter.

so wondering if its possible to quickly deploy larger nos of BMP2 and wheeled ATGM/HMG type vehicles
of such sleds to permit a zero turnaround time sorties from the plains?

[Gilles]

I checked with my source in the State Department and he says your reports are without merit.

See how easy that was?

Regardless, here is the point: If the Il-76 is inadequate to meet all of India's needs, what should it get?

You keep pounding the 'C-17 is evil' drum, but you don't have any constructive suggestions. The only alternative you propose (modernizing Il-76s) is patently inadequate.

For the 10th time. The C-17 is a fantastic machine. Boeing is a fantastic product. I have 3500 hours of Boeing in my logbook. I loved it (although the C-17 is really a MD product).

I just claim that Boeing overdoes the 3500 foot unpaved runway thing. Its false advertisement. Its misleading. That is my main complaint. I aggravates me to read this claim in every single piece of literature I read about the C-17. The C-17 is primarily a Strategic Aircraft with some tactical abilities (like the C-5 and the C-141, the An-124 and the Il-76, some of which can air drop, para-drop, do LAPES deliveries, do low level flying, be refuelled in the air etc)

Another solution ? I can think of one.

A total 56 An-124s were built. Today, 26 airworthy machines are in the hands of Commercial operators. Four were lost in crashes over the years. That leave 26 machines which belong to the Russian Air Force. Most are grounded.

Out of the 6 An-124s that Polet Cargo own, several were purchased used from the Russian Air Force. Polet also claims to have purchased two more of which it has not yet taken delivery of.
http://www.poletairlines.com/fleet.html

Out of the 26 machines the Russian Air Force owns, most are grounded. They were military type certificated and not converted to the civilian An-124-100 standard. Those that do fly were converted to civilian An-124-100 standard. They were converted to comply with international airspace standards and also for service life extension. The military versions had a service life of 7,500 hours. Once overhauled and converted to civilian standard, the service life is brought up to 24,000 hours . Antonov is now working to extend the service life to 45,000 hours. There is now the An-124-100M (also called An-124-100-150) which has a maximum payload of 150 tonnes versus 125 tonnes for the An-124-100.
http://www.an124.com/an124-ruslan/an124-100-150/ or
http://www.antonov.com/products/air/tra ... ?locale=ru then click on "english"

The same way Polet Cargo can go to the Russian Air Force and buy a few grounded military An-124s, the Indian Air Force had the clout to ask the Russians to provide them with 4 used An-124s, that they will upgrade and overhaul to An-124-100M standard. The reputation, performance and reliability of the An-124 is known and proven. It doesn't claim to be able to land on 3,500 runways. But it can and has landed on 6000 foot runways (and they are working on a new Anti Skid system that will improve landing distance)

You now have a real Strategic Aircraft that can carry two Arjuns at a time over a longer distance than a single C-17 could carry a single Arjun.

Not that I wanted to advertise the An-124 here GW, but you asked the question, right ?

[rohitvats]

I was watching a tank pgm on discovery channel. they showed a little 15-ton M551 tank being dropped by drogue chute on a sled out of the back of a C130 which made a snappy touch and go land-takeoff.................<snip>

Singha, the delivery technique you mentioned is known as Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES). Just as an info, the upper load limit is ~17tons. The a/c does not touch the ground at any point;it maintains a seperation of 2-10 feet from the ground.

LAPES is only used in case of emergency when airdrop/delivery by fixed wing a/c and heptr is no feasible. It is not something that is used as a regular feature. Primarily due to the risk factor/level of expertise required to carry out the delivery. USAF and US Army do not use it any longer (du to no requirement). But all the tpt a/c have to be LAPE compatible/certified. C-17 is also LAPE certified.

Air-dropping the cargo, BMP-II, is more easy achieved as compared to LAPES.

[Gilles]

Singha, the delivery technique you mentioned is known as Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES). Just as an info, the upper load limit is ~17tons. The a/c does not touch the ground at any point;it maintains a seperation of 2-10 feet from the ground.

Such as here:

and here:

And its risky:

The Canadian Air Force lost 2 C-130s in LAPES/Air drop accidents and no longer does LAPES. Although I don't think the C-17 does LAPES with the USAF, Boeing has built the C-17 to be LAPES capable and has demonstrated LAPES delivery with the C-17.

[GeorgeWelch]

I just claim that Boeing overdoes the 3500 foot unpaved runway thing. Its false advertisement. Its misleading. That is my main complaint.

The Indian procurement officials are professionals. Your concerns are misplaced.

Another solution ? I can think of one.

A total 56 An-124s were built.

You mercilessly bag on the C-17s short field abilities, so what do you propose instead, the An freaking 124!

You never cease to amaze me Gilles.

The fact remains that if you want something large enough to carry your biggest loads yet still small enough to be used tactically, the C-17 is your only choice.

A400M - Not enough payload
Il-76 - Too small physically
An-124 - Too big

Unless you have some other alternative up your sleeve, it becomes clear that the C-17 is the best choice for India's requirements.

[Singha]

in the clip discovery showed, the C130 pilot made a slight error and his rear wheels touched the ground
momentarily. must be a pretty hair raising work.

[rohitvats]

in the clip discovery showed, the C130 pilot made a slight error and his rear wheels touched the ground
momentarily. must be a pretty hair raising work.

That is the exactly the reason, complexity and expertise, that it is not recommended in run-of-the-mill ops. USAF have lost C-130 doing the LAPES maneouver when a/c went in to ground.

[Gilles]

Another solution ? I can think of one.

A total 56 An-124s were built.

You mercilessly bag on the C-17s short field abilities, so what do you propose instead, the An freaking 124!

You never cease to amaze me Gilles.

The fact remains that if you want something large enough to carry your biggest loads yet still small enough to be used tactically, the C-17 is your only choice.

A400M - Not enough payload
Il-76 - Too small physically
An-124 - Too big

Unless you have some other alternative up your sleeve, it becomes clear that the C-17 is the best choice for India's requirements.

You may be correct. I don't say otherwise. The C-17 MAY JUST WELL BE WHAT THE IAF NEEDS. If it is, great and I'll be happy about it. But it is not the only solution.

I do not bag the C-17s short field capabilities. They are good. Better than the IL-76. Better than the An-124. But they are not what Boeing claims them to be.

If it can land on a 3500 runway (with no runway extensions at the end) with a 160,000 pound payload on board and enough fuel to fly 300 NM afterwards, DEMONSTRATE IT! Or else stop claiming it can do it (in theory)

For the last time. I do not bag the C-17 at all. I bag the claims of the Boeing salespeople who relentlessly claim it lands on 3500 runways. Its false. Untrue. Fiction. A lie. Bogus. Exaggeration. Legend. It does not do it.

As an example of false claims, look at these Boeing press releases :

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... 3e_nr.html

or here:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2008/q3/080721a_nr.html

or here:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... 1c_nr.html

In all three (and in many other palces, it says:

The C-17 is the world's only tactical airlift aircraft with strategic capabilities.

That fine when your public is American. But can you stand in front of a Russian, Ukrainian, or Indian public, all of which are very familiar with the IL-76, and make that same claim ?

What make the C-17 a tactical aircraft that the IL-76 isn't?
What makes the C-17 and Strategic Aircraft that the IL-76 isn't ?
Or perhaps the IL-76 fits both definitions but isn't part of "The World" as defined by Boeing ?

[GeorgeWelch]

I do not bag the C-17s short field capabilities.

Could have fooled me.

They are good. Better than the IL-76. Better than the An-124.

Thank you!

The C-17 is the world's only tactical airlift aircraft with strategic capabilities.

What make the C-17 a tactical aircraft that the IL-76 isn't?

Wrong question

What makes the C-17 and Strategic Aircraft that the IL-76 isn't ?

1. No aerial refueling capability
2. Too small for modern tanks

[Gilles]

1. No aerial refueling capability

Look at the picture below and tell me :

1) What type of aircraft this is ?
2) What that pole-looking thing sticking out the front of the aircraft is ?

[VishalJ]

[GeorgeWelch]

1. No aerial refueling capability

Look at the picture below and tell me :

1) What type of aircraft this is ?

A-50

2) What that pole-looking thing sticking out the front of the aircraft is ?

An aerial refueling probe that is never used in practice.

Look, I'm not saying the Il-76 couldn't be equipped for aerial refueling, but it isn't now.

But even if it it equipped, it still will be lacking as a strategic aircraft because it's cargo cross-section is simply too small.

PS: A hose is a really, really slow way to refuel a 4-engine jet. The whole reason refueling booms were invented was because hoses were too slow for large aircraft.

[shiv]

in the clip discovery showed, the C130 pilot made a slight error and his rear wheels touched the ground
momentarily. must be a pretty hair raising work.

Singha - right from the time that parachute appears from the back of the C-130 its descent rate appears too high for recovery. From that point on it was an accident waiting to happen

[Prem]

Do they have gunship version of the C-17 as it might come handy if Hoodobhoy's dream come true and Paki abduls decided to walk toward Wagha for asylem or jihad?

[Gilles]

PS: A hose is a really, really slow way to refuel a 4-engine jet. The whole reason refueling booms were invented was because hoses were too slow for large aircraft.

Quite true. However, it doesn't prevent the Russians from refuelling their Tu-160 Blackjacks with a hose, although that aircraft burns much more kerosene than just about anything else that flies and can be refuelled in the air. An Il-78M can pump out as much as 615 USG per minute out of its fuselage mounted hose.

But even if it it equipped, it still will be lacking as a strategic aircraft because it's cargo cross-section is simply too small.

The 284 C-141s that comprised the workhorse of the USAF Strategic Airlift Command for 40 years were really lacking then, since their cross-section was even much smaller than the Il-76s'. What were they complemented with for missions they could not handle because of their small diameter?: C freaking 5A Galaxys, the equivalent of the An freaking 124.