C-17s for the IAF?

[RayC]

With a payload of 170,000 pounds, the C-17 can take off and land in 3000 ft or less. (Salute)

Technical specification C 17

IL 76 payload is 88, 185 pounds
IL 76

[shukla]

looks like india might get its C-17 pretty fast!

I would have thought so as well, but.....

Boeing Co. (BA) expects to begin contract negotiations with the Indian authorities for the sale of 10 C-17 Globemaster III advanced airlifters next year, a senior company official said Monday.

Negotiations won't even start until next year... yawnnn...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-201 ... 04454.html

[Niraj_D]

Boeing Co. (BA) expects to begin contract negotiations with the Indian authorities for the sale of 10 C-17 Globemaster III advanced airlifters next year, a senior company official said Monday.

Negotiations won't even start until next year... yawnnn...

Very well! The first meeting will start next year followed by months of Chai-Biskut rounds with MOD asking for local manufacturing or at least vendor support & many other things.
And when these officials will be done with anything, MTA will be in last phase shadowing rather confusing the immediate no. of units delivery.
Till then let's relay on Upgraded An-32, they are trustworthy though.

Lets pray we transport our troops in better aircraft for joint Chinese exercise without any embarrassment

[Shalav]

The AWACs and mid air refullers are on refurbished il 76 platforms.

I've said it before - the C17s are over priced

The AWACS and AARs are new built airframes. China in 2009, has placed an order for 34 IL 76 & 4 IL 78 AARs with Russia for "only" $1.5 billion. That's nearly 4 times the airframes for about half the price. Or if we want to compare load capacity about 1.5 times the payload capacity for 1/2 the price!

I don't see any advantage to the C17 buy - even its short runway capacity is with reduced payload - not the 170k lbs max payload claimed by shiny brochures.

Furthermore the C17s are restricted by US agreements on end use. None of us have seen whats in that document, so we don't know what use is restricted, and the govt. is not telling us either.

Additionally the C17s are subject to US sanctions at any time. There is nothing preventing US sanctions on India, they have done it before and they have not proved they will never do it in the future. Russia has never let us down whenever we needed them. If we are going to spend a lot of money on 'phoren' stuff lets at-least direct it to people who have stood by us in times of crisis.

Don't get me wrong - I wish we could get more US equipment, they are good. However they are more expensive for what they provide and they come with hidden strings attached along with the threat of sanctions at any time, that's a big sword hanging over any US sourced military equipment.

I just hope we will never see those C17s as hangar queens because the US decided to sanction India for not falling in line with their policies!! Not after the money we would have spent.

[GeorgeWelch]

China in 2009, has placed an order for 34 IL 76 & 4 IL 78 AARs with Russia for "only" $1.5 billion.

That was 2005 and then Russia came back and asked for more money (sound familiar?) and the contract has been frozen in dispute ever since.

[Shalav]

That the Chinese don't want to pay more than contract price is a commercial problem.

That the price is less than 1/2 for maybe 2 times more payload capacity is undeniable.

I understand the Chinese and Russians are in negotiation - as I see it even if the price is increased and equals the price of 10 C17s they would still have nearly twice the payload capacity, hence paying about half the price per tonne of capacity.

Anyways the main point is not the price or the negotiation/renegotiation that occurs.

The main point is there is no guarantee that sanctions will never be applied on the C17s. Unless you have got hold of some secret document which shows the US will never do this - we are stuck with paying a VERY HIGH price for equipment not guaranteed to be available in times of war.

So whats the point of giving the US money with no guarantees? If we are so enamored of giving our money away lets give it to friends who have not let us down in the past in times of need. I would rather the renegotiation headache than the sanction headache.

[GeorgeWelch]

The main point is there is no guarantee that sanctions will never be applied on the C17s.

I would point out that the Il-76 comes with no such guarantee either.

Such a guarantee is not possible with ANY piece of foreign supplied equipment

That's part of the risk you have to accept for not being 100% indigenous

[Shalav]

But then we get it half or less than half the price per tonne of payload capacity. Making it an eminently more sensible choice than the C17s. Plus India is yet to see any Russian sanctions, making it even more of a sensible alternative.

Some expectations are reasonable and some are unreasonable given India's position, and based on who have shown themselves to be friends in our times of need

-That there is little or no chance of Russian sanctions against Russian supplied military equipment is a reasonable expectation for India.

-That there is little or no chance of US sanctions against US supplied military equipment is an unreasonable expectation for India.

[bhavani]

I have posted so many times why C-17 is bad idea. An Over priced lifter with varied capabilities. But 80% of these special capabilities are rarely used.

http://www.casr.ca/id-antonov-2.htm

A review of C-17 and An-124 by canadians.

An-124 by comparison is a great choice. It is not an old design one by any chance and is being upgraded heavily also.

I think Air lifter are to be used for what they are supposed to be Lifting stuff and the C-17 is average and is mighty expensive at that. It looks great in the colors and the photography. I dont know is why does a lifter need a slew of MFD's. Do they make the day to day air lifting activities any easier.

Even NATO is thinking of An-124. If C-17 was great they would have it brough otherwise in numbers. US shoved it down the throats of UK and others. But Still only a few C-17 sold.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/nat ... ore-02128/

Even though all these talk of civilian An-124 we can still buy the military An-124. 10 of these will offer great lift capability compared to C-17's.

[GeorgeWelch]

As far as the Il-76:

1. We do NOT know how much it would cost as it currently isn't in production. Any 'X times cheaper' statement is specious at best. If they did buy it, it would probably be a heavily modernized version that would cost significantly more than what the original did.

2. It doesn't matter how much cheaper it is if it can't get the job done.

A lot of stuff simply won't fit on an Il-76. We've talked about T-90s and Arjuns, but also many newer MRAPS, bigger helicopters, special forces boats, etc

Just for reference, the height and width of the Il-76's cargo box is significantly less than even the A400M.

If you need to be able to move such items, the Il-76 simply isn't an option even if it's free. (Or, if you prefer, you need something in addition to the Il-76)

As far as the An-124:

1. It too is not in production. If and when and at what cost it could restart are all serious questions.

2. It is simply too big. The C-17 is at the sweet spot of being big enough to carry most everything yet still being small enough to go most everywhere. This is what gives it such flexibility.

Yes the An-124 can carry more, but if it can't go where you need it, what good is it?

[Shalav]

Sorry the the IL 76 can certainly carry the T-90 - search on this forum or website for pictures.

Here's one http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 7/0133.jpg

MRAPS - they can be carried on the IL 76 too - just check height and width against cabin box.

A heavily modernized IL-76 may cost more - but I am betting it is not going to cost a quarter of a billion dollars / unit.

However at the end of the day - and superseding all other considerations is the question of availability and guarantee against US sanctions in times of crisis.

If India pays commercial prices for its equipment it expects to use it how and when it wants to - it does not want end-use agreements, it does not need the probability of sanctions in times of need. If military equipment is supplied with such strings, we may as well burn that money!!!

There is no guarantee that the C17 will never be sanctioned by the US when we need it the most. I notice you have not guaranteed this either and seem to be jumping around the point. So whats the point of having the capability, but not being able to use it? Please address why the C17 is better if it is subject to US sanctions and the IL-76 is worse because it is not subject to Russian sanctions.

Rather a less capable useful airframe than a more capable useless airframe is my POV, I am pretty sure many people in India see it the same way.

[GeorgeWelch]

Sorry the the IL 76 can certainly carry the T-90 - search on this forum or website for pictures.

Here's one http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 7/0133.jpg

That's a T-72

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... MBT/T72M1/

MRAPS - they can be carried on the IL 76 too - just check height and width against cabin box.

I have checked, and many can't

However at the end of the day - and superseding all other considerations is the question of availability and guarantee against US sanctions in times of crisis.

The thing is, there is no alternative to the C-17 for what it is. No number of Il-76s will replace the need for some C-17s. Not buying it would just be like self-imposed sanctions.

I notice you have not guaranteed this either and seem to be jumping around the point.

I already said such a guarantee is not possible with ANY foreign equipment

[bhavani]

Sweet Spot - boy i did not know that there was one in cargo lifters. If An-124 can lift more let it be. I don think having the capability to lift more is a problem.

Aviastar recently upgraded some An-124's . INfact UK Mod has proposals to lease AN-124-210 versions with rolls royce engines. The AN-124M are equipped with series 3 D-18 engines

[GeorgeWelch]

Sweet Spot - boy i did not know that there was one in cargo lifters. If An-124 can lift more let it be. I don think having the capability to lift more is a problem.

It is a problem if the field where you need to land is too small to handle your plane

Sweet spot obviously depends on mission.

If you need something that can carry almost anything almost anywhere, the sweet spot is going to be C-17 sized

If you need to carry large amounts of materials to large bases, the sweet spot will look similar to the An-124

Different planes for different missions

[Surya]

This is like Groundhog day

We have been through all this.

[RayC]

I've said it before - the C17s are over priced

The AWACS and AARs are new built airframes. China in 2009, has placed an order for 34 IL 76 & 4 IL 78 AARs with Russia for "only" $1.5 billion. That's nearly 4 times the airframes for about half the price. Or if we want to compare load capacity about 1.5 times the payload capacity for 1/2 the price!

I don't see any advantage to the C17 buy - even its short runway capacity is with reduced payload - not the 170k lbs max payload claimed by shiny brochures.

Furthermore the C17s are restricted by US agreements on end use. None of us have seen whats in that document, so we don't know what use is restricted, and the govt. is not telling us either.

Additionally the C17s are subject to US sanctions at any time. There is nothing preventing US sanctions on India, they have done it before and they have not proved they will never do it in the future. Russia has never let us down whenever we needed them. If we are going to spend a lot of money on 'phoren' stuff lets at-least direct it to people who have stood by us in times of crisis.

Don't get me wrong - I wish we could get more US equipment, they are good. However they are more expensive for what they provide and they come with hidden strings attached along with the threat of sanctions at any time, that's a big sword hanging over any US sourced military equipment.

I just hope we will never see those C17s as hangar queens because the US decided to sanction India for not falling in line with their policies!! Not after the money we would have spent.

Since I am not aware of the avionics or the material that has gone into the airframe, I cannot comment if it overpriced or not.

I have flown in all types of Russian transport aircraft that the IAF has and they are good. Yet, there is the disadvantage that they are ATF guzzlers.

The C17 load is approx 170000 lbs and the IL 76 is approx half that.

C17 short runway take off and landing is not from military glossies, but what I believe has been verified during the trials. From the military standpoint, this is very critical factor indeed!

One has to understand what is strategic lift to understand what a greater payload would mean to reinforce a combat situation and thus, there is great advantage accrued if one buys an aircraft that has greater payload lift capability.

Sanctions are inherent in all military imports. Geopolitics and geostrategy did not encourage the USSR from pressing sanctions on India.

It maybe mentioned that most of our Russian equipment are without spares (those that we don't produce under licence) since factories of the erstwhile USSR are no longer in the territorial span of Russia.

[chakkunny]

Does someone have a rough idea, as to what it costs to upgrade an airstrip, to one which can handle a fully loaded IL 76. Is it conceivable that to simply upgrade about a dozen or more of our advanced airstrips to this capability, will cost us only a fraction of the price difference between an order of C17 versus the IL 78.

[chakkunny]

This http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/pol ... rports.pdf indicates that a 10,000 ft commercial grade runway 100 ft wide, would cost around USD 22M. Madrassa Math seems to indicate that the cost of one C17 should cover about 2 dozen airfields that can take a fully loaded IL 78

[GeorgeWelch]

will cost us only a fraction of the price difference between an order of C17 versus the IL 78.

1. Sometimes the size of an airstrip is limited by geography (runs into a mountain, etc)

2. Again, the price differential is irrelevant to a certain extent. There are many jobs an Il-76 simply CAN NOT do no matter what. So if you need to do those jobs, the Il-76 is not and never will be an option.

The thing is that the C-17 truly has no competition in its particular niche. Everything smaller (Il-76, A400M, An-70, C-390, C-X) is too small to carry all the newest hardware and everything larger (An-124) doesn't have any tactical capabilities

[Gilles]

This http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/pol ... rports.pdf indicates that a 10,000 ft commercial grade runway 100 ft wide, would cost around USD 22M. Madrassa Math seems to indicate that the cost of one C17 should cover about 2 dozen airfields that can take a fully loaded IL 78

Not quite. Although a loaded IL-76 needs longer runways than a C-17 does, its lower footprint allows it to land and take-off from REGULAR gravel runways, which the C-17 cannot do.
Il-76s fly in and out of Station Nord's 5900 foot gravel runway in Greenland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ENWi9ttcD0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrrtrRz1 ... re=related

Station Nord has a 5,900 foot runway. Of course if the Il-76 needs to operate from a warmer runway located at altitude, it might need an 8000 or 9000 foot runway, but still gravel.

The C-17 will need hard surface or one of those custom-built make-believe "un-surfaced" runways they built here and there to allow their pilots to practice "un-surfaced" landings.

But like our C-17 backer friend says, if its that important to airlift T-90 tanks to the Himalayas airstrips, get C-17s and lay hard-surfaced runways in these places.

[GeorgeWelch]

its lower footprint allows it to land and take-off from REGULAR gravel runways, which the C-17 cannot do.

And just to clarify what our C-17 basher friend is saying, it most certainly CAN takeoff from REGULAR gravel runways, it's just a question of how many take-offs/landings can be made before the ruts become large enough to force the runway to be regraded

(The point being that peacetime limitations on runway damage/cost won't necessarily apply in wartime)

[RayC]

I am not getting into the politics or economics of the issue since that is for the Govt to take the call. I am merely stating points of matters military.

When dropping equipment, supplies, troops (para dropped or air-landed) the fewer the number of aircraft in the combat zone, the less is the chance of exposure to ground fire of the enemy.

If a mission is planned (be it equipment, supplies or troops) and there are not enough aircraft to go around to lift the said load or troops, then the mission will be abandoned since it would not serve the purpose to have a half baked lift that does not meet the requirement of the area where the lift was intended for. A study of the Vietnam War will indicate that though the French had fine troops, they could not put troops on the ground owing to lack of adequate number of aircraft to do so and hence lost. It will be recalled Giap cleverly took the war into Laos knowing fully well that the French Logistics would be stretched since it was far from the de Lattre line. The result is too well to be recounted. Had the French bigger aircraft available (they had Dakotas or C 47s), it would have compensated for the meagre numbers and limited airlift capability at their disposal. Maybe one big aircraft would serve the purpose of four small ones and hence the numbers would not matter!

The C17 has dual row logistic rails that allow two rows of equipment to be air-dropped instead of the single rail. This ensures a faster drop and reduces the drop dispersion, which is very important in the mountains as also for those who have to collect the drop. It minimises losses. Greater the dispersion, greater is the time lost. And as I stated earlier, because of the drop being faster because of this (double rail and more load), it minimise the stay over the combat zone, the drop having been completed faster.

The gravity drop with rigged platforms, with energy absorbing material underneath, is 14,500 lbs.

It has a Station Keeping Equipment that allows the C17 to fly in formation with reduced space between aircraft in bad weather.

The C-17 can operate on paved or semi-prepared airfields and matting. Paved airfields consist of conventional rigid and flexible pavements and are generally used for routine operations. A “semi-prepared” airfield refers to an unpaved airfield. The amount of engineering effort required to develop a semi-prepared airfield depends on the planned operation, the service life needed to support these operations, and the existing soil and weather conditions. Semi-prepared construction/maintenance preparations may range from those sufficient for limited use to those required for continuous routine operations. Options for surface preparation may include stabilization, addition of an aggregate course, compaction of in-place soils, or matting.

Lastly, gravel is the biggest enemy of any aircraft - fixed or rotary wing!

[shukla]

Indian order 10 + an option for another 10??

The Indian FMS deal also is believed to include provisions for an additional 10 options, while Boeing is pursuing a potential double-digit order from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... By%20Third

This is the 1st time I have heard about the option of additional 10.. Is that true? Has anyone else read any other reports?? The Boeing pie seems to be getting bigger by the day....

[RayC]

Currently the world's largest airplane, the An-225 Mriya (dream) is an enlarged version of the An-124. The original purpose of the An-225 was to ferry large components used in the Soviet space program. These duties were formerly performed by a modified M-4 Molot bomber, but this aircraft did not have the payload capabilities required by the rocketry developments of the 1980s. Antonov was called upon to develop a new aircraft capable of carrying the Buran space shuttle, components of the Energiya rocket, or other large cargos required by the construction and mining industries.

It costs $300 million.

[Philip]

Purely from the cost angle the C-17 buy is a scandal.The figures that the Chinese have spent for acquiring their large number of IL-76s/78s indicates the way to go.Why are they not worried about spares then? It is common knowledge that the Russians are ramping up support for IL-76 airframes in service around the world and devloping an improved upgraded version totally of Russian origin to avoid the earlier spread of production/component facilities.In any case we too have acquired IL-78 tankers,so what's the problem?

As I earlier mentioned,the entire indecent haste with which this deal is being pursued is to prevent the C-17 line from closing due to budget cuts with a cut in USAF acquisitions and also by buying the aircraft,we will automatically be sucked into the global C-17 support network which has US and NATO allies as its members.A smaller aircraft like the IL-76,which is huge by itself is far better suited to support our Himalayan troops as they have done so for decades.Perhaps a small buy of 3-4 AN-124s will suffice if we really require such a large transport in our inventory,larger and cheaper.WE could also examine the prospect of a long lease for the same.

[Lisa]

Currently the world's largest airplane, the An-225 Mriya (dream) is an enlarged version of the An-124. The original purpose of the An-225 was to ferry large components used in the Soviet space program. These duties were formerly performed by a modified M-4 Molot bomber, but this aircraft did not have the payload capabilities required by the rocketry developments of the 1980s. Antonov was called upon to develop a new aircraft capable of carrying the Buran space shuttle, components of the Energiya rocket, or other large cargos required by the construction and mining industries.

It costs $300 million.

I saw this machine both fly and then suffer a single engine failure as it
landed at Farnborough. Massive machine. Cold war was still on and still
remember the pilot asking the Red Arrows crew "You want to fly inside?"
No answer, just speechless!

[nachiket]

Currently the world's largest airplane, the An-225 Mriya (dream) is an enlarged version of the An-124. The original purpose of the An-225 was to ferry large components used in the Soviet space program. These duties were formerly performed by a modified M-4 Molot bomber, but this aircraft did not have the payload capabilities required by the rocketry developments of the 1980s. Antonov was called upon to develop a new aircraft capable of carrying the Buran space shuttle, components of the Energiya rocket, or other large cargos required by the construction and mining industries.

It costs $300 million.

RayC, there is only one An-225 aircraft currently operational and that is likely to remain so. Work on completing the second prototype (which had been partially developed in the late eighties) was finally abandoned in 2009.
Awesome aircraft of course from an aviation enthusiast's perspective. Soviet aircraft design capability at its best.

[Shalav]

GeorgeWelch,

The dimensions of the T72 and the T90 are similar. The T 90 is wider by 19 cm, and taller by 3 cm. that is about 6" and 1". your contention that the IL76 cannot carry the T90 is absolutely wrong. Please do not propagate misinformation on this board.

As regards sanctions - like I stated earlier and based on past performance of respective suppliers with their buyers

The likelihood of Russian sanctions on Russian military equipment is almost zero

The likelihood of US sanctions on US military equipment is significantly much greater.

If India is going to be spending $3+ billion I would rather it be spent on equipment which is less likely to be sanctioned.

All other arguments and viewpoints make amount to nothing if we cannot use the C17 because the US decides to sanction them, and whatever your view; any empirical study of US behavior vs Russian behavior wrt sanctions on their military equipment will show the US is more prone to apply sanctions than the Russians. So why spend $3+ billion on purchasing military equipment which may be better but also has a greater chance of being sanctioned and becoming useless just when we need them the most.

No one questions the C17 capabilities, but that is not the point, and unless the US guarantees that this will never be sanctioned it is a waste of Indian taxpayer money. All those capabilities are for nothing if we cannot use them because of sanctions.

Imagine how badly we will feel if ever the C17s get sanctioned and we have already forked over $3+ billion to enable the C17 line to stay open and provide jobs to US citizens.

I have no idea why the govt. and the IAF is so pushy about this purchase, the IAF already paid $1 billion for 6 C130's. now another $3 billion for 10 C17's? This sort of procurement makes no sense at all.

$4+ billion for 16 aircraft = Rs. 18,000 crores!!!! = Rs. 1125 crores per airframe and all for equipment which is covered under US end-use agreements details of which we are not aware of and which the govt. is keeping secret, and all of this Rs. 18,000 crores spend remains under threat of sanctions, there is no exception made for India.

In fact the sanctions threat to India is the same as those for the bakis who get their equipment for free! This is an incompetent decision and even if taken for whatever reasons, they are playing fast and loose with Indian taxpayer money.

[merlin]

And unfortunately Indian tax payers cannot do anything about this because Indian MPs will not raise this issue in Parliament.

[Surya]

The figures that the Chinese have spent for acquiring their large number of IL-76s/78s indicates the way to go.Why are they not worried about spares then?

I thought these are stuck in price negotiations?? Any link to show they got their machines for the price they wanted?


It is common knowledge that the Russians are ramping up support for IL-76 airframes in service around the world and devloping an improved upgraded version totally of Russian origin

What is common knowledge?? Could you point me to some links relating to supply chain improvements for the IL 76\78 etc?? And not a statement that they will do it - something more that things are actually happening?? like xyx is supplied this part, abc has supplied 20 sets for a future order.


The price of the C 17 is discomforting - no denying that - and someone needs to query the MOD who was quick to shoot down the more reasonable A 330 deal about this

[Singha]

the right people have been adequate compensated/made to keep quiet.

[GeorgeWelch]

The dimensions of the T72 and the T90 are similar. The T 90 is wider by 19 cm, and taller by 3 cm. that is about 6" and 1".

More like 7.5", but anyways the problem is that the T-72 is already severely straining what the Il-76 can do.

If you read the Jaffna story, you will see that they moved 8 tanks and 'many' T-72s were damaged getting the tanks loaded and unloaded.

Another 7.5" inches is a step too far.

your contention that the IL76 cannot carry the T90 is absolutely wrong

Please show me a picture of a T-90 on an Il-76.

No such picture exists

I have no idea why the govt. and the IAF is so pushy about this purchase

Because it's a capability they desperately need?

[Shalav]

I have no wish to argue about what is good about the C17, we all know where it is better or worse.

All I'll say is - The IL-76 it is sanction-proof - the C17 is not.

Rs. 18,000 crores of investment in sanction subject military equipment is complete incompetence if not worse.

Thats it from me for this page. I'll be back in the next page!!

[GeorgeWelch]

All I'll say is - The IL-76 it is sanction-proof - the C17 is not.

But the point you refuse to acknowledge is that the Il-76 is INCAPABLE OF DOING THE JOB.

If this is a capability they need and the Il-76 can't do it, what options do they have?

[Bheem]

It seems that A400 costs, which is around half the MTOW is hitting around US$ 300 million

Il-76 present cost may be hitting around US$ 100 million and IL-476 which is supposed to near equivalent to C-17 may be in future around US$ 150 million.


So US$ 200 million for C-17 may not be far off

[Shalav]

Sorry had to get back on the point of desperate need and incapability.

What desperate need what incapbility? India is not asking its air-force to transport troops and equipment halfway across the world, We don't need them to. For the IOR we have the Navy (who BTW do a much better job in design and indigenization) for that.

The IAF has to transport troops across the Indian landmass, the IL-76s or cheaper alternatives are good enough. We don't need to pay Rs. 18000 crores for shiny expensive toys in order for them to be competent enough.

The IAF is making incompetent decisions about 'phoren' equipment when it should be concentrating on getting indigenous solutions for its requirements.

Rs. 18000 crore is a very expensive "sanction subject" experiment by the IAF.

[RayC]

I have no wish to argue about what is good about the C17, we all know where it is better or worse.

All I'll say is - The IL-76 it is sanction-proof - the C17 is not.

Rs. 18,000 crores of investment in sanction subject military equipment is complete incompetence if not worse.

Thats it from me for this page. I'll be back in the next page!!

Sanction proof but not spare proof.

Heard about the simulator fracas with Russia?

Apart from that, any comments on the military aspects I mentioned?

Or are the military aspects secondary to other issues?

This is a military aircraft for military use, right?

[GeorgeWelch]

The IAF has to transport troops across the Indian landmass, the IL-76s or cheaper alternatives are good enough.

No they're not because they can't carry everything that is needed, no matter how short the range.

I repeat, if certain material needs to be air transportable and it won't fit on the Il-76, what options does the IAF have?

No amount of wishing and hoping will make the Il-76 a C-17 substitute.

[RayC]

Guess how the tanks for Ladakh was airlifted!

[Brando]

Why haven't they built a rail line to Ladhak even after 60 years ?

Hoping to buy special aircraft to lift one tank at a time is not only very expensive but also very inefficient and would not solve the underlying logistical problem at all since all the PLAAF would need to do is bomb the airfields and ALGs.

If a railway line could be built for less than the cost of 10 C17s or 3 billion USD (which is very much possible) than it is a much better utilization of that tax payer money than some fancy airplanes! (not to mention all the domestic jobs it would create ! )