C-17s for the IAF?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Mar 2010 18:18

Chetak,

No, I always found the An-32 unpressurized like the Dornier. And yes, I believe IAF ferries cattle in the North East for the local populace, so its the original cattle class

I never had a Delhi posting, either.

Hand pumping . . . if I remember right, do you refer to the Islanders at Andamans and Kochi? Many a sweating observer have emerged from the cockpit.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Mar 2010 18:45

tsarkar wrote:Chetak,

No, I always found the An-32 unpressurized like the Dornier. And yes, I believe IAF ferries cattle in the North East for the local populace, so its the original cattle class

I never had a Delhi posting, either.

Hand pumping . . . if I remember right, do you refer to the Islanders at Andamans and Kochi? Many a sweating observer have emerged from the cockpit.

Islander has a fixed undercarriage. For every Air show at Bangalore the IAF ferries its lah de dahs in passenger config AN 32s from Delhi.

Observers always sweat, especially in training flights! Do you remember the three most useless things in the world? Its quite rude and I simply cannot post it here.

The AN 32 is pressurized. How can you tell about pressurization unless you know at what height you are flying? When you fly the airbus, boeing are you aware of the pressurization? you will not even notice it because it is working.

Why do you continue think that the AN 32 is unpressurized? because you think that the aircraft is russian or cheap or crude or what??

A dornier does not normally operate above 10,000 ft. You don't need pressurization. An AN 32 operates at much above 20,000 feet You will not survive without pressurization for very long, unless you have an oxygen mask.

Even holy cows traveling to the north east travel have to travel in comfort.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Mar 2010 19:40

No, Chetak, I am not disputing your point of view. Only expressing surprise on learning something new.

You are correct, the An-32 does fly supply to the Himalayas and it would need pressurization.

But I am unable to figure out which of our naval aircraft has hand pumped undercarriage.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Mar 2010 20:00

tsarkar wrote:No, Chetak, I am not disputing your point of view. Only expressing surprise on learning something new.

You are correct, the An-32 does fly supply to the Himalayas and it would need pressurization.

But I am unable to figure out which of our naval aircraft has hand pumped undercarriage.

The Super Connie for one had it.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Mar 2010 20:21

Gilles wrote:
Surya wrote:I don;t think the AN 124 can land in Leh etc.
Meaning you think that the C17 can ?

I have prime swamp land for sale in Florida if you are interested.......

Brother Gilles,

Would you have any inputs on the flat rating of the C-17 engines?

In summer, the temperatures at Leh and Thoise can get up to 28, 29 degrees celsius, maybe more.

At these temperatures and altitudes weight carrying capacity is directly and largely tied to engine performance.

Engine out performances can get pretty hairy when you are coming in with loads and into a dicey airfield with very little option for avoiding terrain or even trigger happy border guards on the go around path.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 03 Mar 2010 21:21

Why do you continue think that the AN 32 is unpressurized? because you think that the aircraft is russian or cheap or crude or what??

I like Russians and can speak a smattering.

But that does not mean I accept your contention that AN 32 is pressurised.

I have done many a sortie with this aircraft as I have done on IL 76 and commerical aircraft.

I am immensely surprised to learn that it is pressurised!

Maybe I don't understand what you feel is pressurised.

Good to know that tsarkar and I, who were passengers are dumb!

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 03 Mar 2010 21:49

I thought one passes out if flying for extended period without pressurization above 10000 feet?
I do know that even recreational sky divers have to take oxygen flasks when jumping from 13K feet... but thats a civilian requirement. Maybe military world it does not apply?

Perhaps RayC was flying below that level in his flight?

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

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 03 Mar 2010 22:03

The cabin pressure to be maintained is that of the atmospheric pressure at 8000 feet. Beyond that it is generally uncomfortable for human beings.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 03 Mar 2010 22:12

Tanaji wrote:I thought one passes out if flying for extended period without pressurization above 10000 feet?
I do know that even recreational sky divers have to take oxygen flasks when jumping from 13K feet... but thats a civilian requirement. Maybe military world it does not apply?

Perhaps RayC was flying below that level in his flight?

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

I would not know.

It was Chandigarh Leh and vice versa.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 03 Mar 2010 22:16

That apart.

This maybe of interest

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... adakh.html

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 03 Mar 2010 23:14

chetak wrote:
Brother Gilles,

Would you have any inputs on the flat rating of the C-17 engines?

In summer, the temperatures at Leh and Thoise can get up to 28, 29 degrees celsius, maybe more.

At these temperatures and altitudes weight carrying capacity is directly and largely tied to engine performance.

Engine out performances can get pretty hairy when you are coming in with loads and into a dicey airfield with very little option for avoiding terrain or even trigger happy border guards on the go around path.

At these altitudes, engine lose performance and this is compensated by reducing take-off weight. The advantage of 4 engine aircraft over two engine aircraft is that in the case of an engine failure, one loses 25% of thrust instead of 50%. That is why military aircraft such as the IL-76, the C-17, Il-12, C-130, A-400M, An-70 all come with 4 engines, even when engine technology and power would allow only 2.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/B ... ac42147906

This is a picture of a PW-2040 powered (same engine as C-17) B-757-200 at La Paz airport, an airport located at over 13,000 MSL. If that aircraft can legally land there, it means it can take off after losing an engine. At what Take-off weight ? I do not know.

I used to fly B-757s a few years ago and still have all my flight and performance manuals in the basement, but the aircraft I flew were Rolls Royce powered, like most of the B-757s in the world. My charts dont apply to PW powered aircraft.

Specs, info and flat rating can be found here:

http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?t ... master_III

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Mar 2010 17:37

Gilles wrote: This is a picture of a PW-2040 powered (same engine as C-17) B-757-200 at La Paz airport, an airport located at over 13,000 MSL. If that aircraft can legally land there, it means it can take off after losing an engine. At what Take-off weight ? I do not know.

I have the best case and the worst case cargo carried figures for the IL-76 from Leh and Thoise. The spread is considerable and enlightening. Best case being winter ( when flyable! ) and worst being the height of summer.

I am equally sure the C-17 would turn in better figures given the vintage and performance of the currently fitted IL 76 engines.

The question is how much better and would it be worth the while to invest in the C-17?

I am not able to get authentic flat rating figures for the IL engines and not even sure if such a concept was considered during the design of these engines, considering their vintage.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Mar 2010 18:05

RayC wrote: But that does not mean I accept your contention that AN 32 is pressurised.

I have done many a sortie with this aircraft as I have done on IL 76 and commerical aircraft.

I am immensely surprised to learn that it is pressurised!

Maybe I don't understand what you feel is pressurised.

RayC,

All it should take to convince you is a phone call that you yourself have to make to any of your pals in the IAF.

So go ahead and call.

There is only one definition of a pressurized aircraft.

Not your's or mine or anyone else's but only the aeronautical definition.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 04 Mar 2010 21:40

RayC wrote: But that does not mean I accept your contention that AN 32 is pressurised.

I have done many a sortie with this aircraft as I have done on IL 76 and commerical aircraft.

I am immensely surprised to learn that it is pressurised!

Maybe I don't understand what you feel is pressurised.

Gentlemen,

Right off the Antonov Website here: http://www.antonov.com/products/air/tra ... /index.xml

(Antonov website has a problem. If page does not load, click on link to change language to Russian(русский), then back to English and page will load)

"The cockpit and cargo compartment are pressurized and equipped with the air conditioning system. The separate control of the air temperature of the compartments keeps the required temperature for the cargo transportation, preserving the standard temperature conditions for the crew. "

The An-32 if an offspring of the An-26, which is an offspring of the An-24. There is an aerial photography version of the An-26 called the An-30. All four versions are fully pressurized.
Crews always have the option to fly non pressurized if para drops are planned or if the aircraft has a technical problem preventing pressurization such as a forklift denting a door frame while loading the aircraft: once a door seal is damaged, a very common occurrence in loading and unloading cargo aircraft, the pressurization can no longer be maintained until a repair is made. This does not prevent an aircraft from flying if flying at altitudes where pressurization is not required (varies with country but in Canada we are allowed unlimited flight to 10,000 feet and above 10,000 feet up to 13,000 for 30 minutes) or if supplemental oxygen is available and used by crew (and occupants, again varies with local regulations)

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 04 Mar 2010 22:34

chetak wrote:I have the best case and the worst case cargo carried figures for the IL-76 from Leh and Thoise. The spread is considerable and enlightening. Best case being winter ( when flyable! ) and worst being the height of summer.

I am equally sure the C-17 would turn in better figures given the vintage and performance of the currently fitted IL 76 engines.

The question is how much better and would it be worth the while to invest in the C-17?

I am not able to get authentic flat rating figures for the IL engines and not even sure if such a concept was considered during the design of these engines, considering their vintage.

Very good question. You know that aircraft performance in mountainous regions is based on a notion called density-altitude, which is a the altitude compensated for temperature. Aircraft have much better performance at a cold sea level airport than at a high warm airport. In high altitude airports in the summer, better performance can be achieved at 4 in the morning when its cooler than at 3Pm when its warm.

I am pretty certain that the C-17 has a better high altitude performance than the D-30 powered IL-76s and Il-78s. But yet again, India has the possibility to re-engine all its IL-76s from 26,500 pound D-30KP engines to PS-90s of 35,280 pound of thrust, and this at a cost hundreds of millions less than buying C-17s.

http://www.avid.ru/eng/products/civil/PS-90A-76/

(You might notice that the PS-90-76 is listed as 16000 Kg of thrust on the Ilyushin website at Standard temperature (15 degrees Celcius) but at 14,500 Kg of thrust on the manufacturers website at Sea Level but 30 degrees Celcius)

I do not have all the flat rating data, but when compared to published standard atmosphere data.

The C-17 is powered by 4 x 180 kN PW2040 and has a MTOW of 279 tonnes.
The thrust to weight (T/W) ratio is (4 x 180 / 279) = .263

The IL-76MD is powered by 4 x 118 kN D-30KP and had a MTOW of 190 tonnes.
The thrust to weight ratio is (4 x 118 / 190) = .253

The IL-76MD-90 is powered by 4 x 157 kN PS-90-76 and has a MTOW that is bumped up to 195 tonnes.
The thrust to weight ratio is (4 x 157 / 195) = .328.

So at Sea Level and 15 degrees Celcius, at Max Gross Take Off Weight, the C-17 has a slight advantage over the D-30KP powered IL-76MD but is well behind the PS-90-76 powered IL-76MD-90, which the IAF IL-76s will be if re-engined with PS-90-76s.

It remains to be seen how all these respective engines perform at 11,000 feet MSL in 30 degree weather.....

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 04 Mar 2010 23:30

Gilles wrote:The C-17 is powered by 4 x 180 kN PW2040 and has a MTOW of 279 tonnes.
The thrust to weight (T/W) ratio is (4 x 180 / 279) = .263

The IL-76MD is powered by 4 x 118 kN D-30KP and had a MTOW of 190 tonnes.
The thrust to weight ratio is (4 x 118 / 190) = .253

The IL-76MD-90 is powered by 4 x 157 kN PS-90-76 and has a MTOW that is bumped up to 195 tonnes.
The thrust to weight ratio is (4 x 157 / 195) = .328.

1. You of all people should know the dishonesty of comparing MTOW when you should be comparing equal payloads.

2. Any comparison between the Il-76 and C-17 doesn't really interest me as the Il-76 simply can't do the job no matter what engines you put on it.

Stick with the An-124 comparisons, they at least are credible.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Mar 2010 23:52

In the days of yore, the powers that be had given brief thought to re engining the IL 76 with a CFM series of engine. How I wish..

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 05 Mar 2010 00:32

C-17 versus An-124 is meaningless because the crap called C-17 cannot carry 100 tonnes no matter how many american puppets blow hard at BR.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Mar 2010 00:41

Gilles wrote:
RayC wrote: But that does not mean I accept your contention that AN 32 is pressurised.

I have done many a sortie with this aircraft as I have done on IL 76 and commerical aircraft.

I am immensely surprised to learn that it is pressurised!

Maybe I don't understand what you feel is pressurised.
Gentlemen,

Right off the Antonov Website here: http://www.antonov.com/products/air/tra ... /index.xml

(Antonov website has a problem. If page does not load, click on link to change language to Russian(русский), then back to English and page will load)

"The cockpit and cargo compartment are pressurized and equipped with the air conditioning system. The separate control of the air temperature of the compartments keeps the required temperature for the cargo transportation, preserving the standard temperature conditions for the crew. "

The An-32 if an offspring of the An-26, which is an offspring of the An-24. There is an aerial photography version of the An-26 called the An-30. All four versions are fully pressurized.
Crews always have the option to fly non pressurized if para drops are planned or if the aircraft has a technical problem preventing pressurization such as a forklift denting a door frame while loading the aircraft: once a door seal is damaged, a very common occurrence in loading and unloading cargo aircraft, the pressurization can no longer be maintained until a repair is made. This does not prevent an aircraft from flying if flying at altitudes where pressurization is not required (varies with country but in Canada we are allowed unlimited flight to 10,000 feet and above 10,000 feet up to 13,000 for 30 minutes) or if supplemental oxygen is available and used by crew (and occupants, again varies with local regulations)

Tovarisch RayC,

Since you know some russian (русский), maybe you should read the
Antonov website in the original русский.

Dos vedanya

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Mar 2010 00:45

vavinash wrote:C-17 versus An-124 is meaningless because the crap called C-17 cannot carry 100 tonnes no matter how many american puppets blow hard at BR.

How many 100 ton pieces of equipment do the Indian Armed Forces have?

Compare this to the number of T-90 and Arjuns they are going to have.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 05 Mar 2010 01:13

Ok 120 tonnes so 2 arjuns can be accommodated? ISn't 60 tonne capability of IL-76 MF enough for arjun. C-17 is a costly piece of junk and IAf should not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Mar 2010 01:56

vavinash wrote:ISn't 60 tonne capability of IL-76 MF enough for arjun.

Arjun is too wide to fit in the Il-76.

That's the fundamental problem with the Il-76, it's cargo box is too small to accomodate many newer pieces of equipment such as the T-90, Arjun, larger MRAPs and larger helicopters.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 05 Mar 2010 02:06

George,

Just like you assume the C17 can carry the Arjun, we are assuming the IL76 will carry the T90.

Hence a cheaper alternative.

PS - if you insist the C17 can carry the Arjun, please provide a picture of the Arjun in the C17 cargo box, else it is just speculation.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Mar 2010 02:44

Shalav wrote:George,

Just like you assume the C17 can carry the Arjun, we are assuming the IL76 will carry the T90.

Not even close to remotely comparable

The specs of the Arjun are COMFORTABLY within the capabilities of the C-17. There is no doubt it will fit, and easily. It's a simple roll on/roll off job.

The T-90 on the other hand is wider than the T-72, and we all know the problems they had getting the T-72 on the Il-76. They damaged at least half of the Il-76s when they tried. Sorry, I do not see trying to load an even wider tank ending well.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 05 Mar 2010 02:50

GeorgeWelch wrote: 1. You of all people should know the dishonesty of comparing MTOW when you should be comparing equal payloads.

What are you talking about ? It was a specific reply to a specific question. What did you want? A payload-to-lift ratio ? Never hear of any such thing.

The IL-76 had already landed in Leh with complete T-72s on board and taken off with dismantled one. That is proven and with the old engines.

The C-17 had never been to Leh, let alone with an Arjun on board.......

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 05 Mar 2010 03:00

This Arjun and T-90 thing has been going on for some time and it seems to be the only reason the C-17 is being considered in the first place.

GeorgeWelch, name me specific places that the the C-17 can carry those tanks and that An-124s cannot. Specific airports please.

Do not avoid the question by talking about availability or non-availability of the An-124. It may involve leased An-124s. Maybe India intends to join SALIS. Maybe India made a deal to buy 6 used An-124s from the Russian Air Force that they will overhaul and upgrade to An-124-100M specifications (150 tonne capacity and newer engines). Maybe its new production An-124s that will be available in 2013.......

Mark Walpole · Post by **Mark Walpole** » 05 Mar 2010 03:29

A quick questions to ppl who know more about this issue than me...but is the procurement of a heavy lift aircraft somehow based on its ability to transport tanks to an area i.e.in most cases discussed here Leh, because as i can see from satellite imagery and the little i remeber of when i went ther with my father many moons ago....wont that area be disadvantageous to any kind of tank based attack or defense scenarios?? Even then are we actually gona be mobilising a massive air lift to take tanks to far flung reaches..or is this one of those just in case situations where if required we can send tanks by air...

Just a honest query nothing else....

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 05 Mar 2010 03:33

Now that we have all seen a T-90 on board an An-22......

A little background. Many An-22s were retired early not because they were old and worn out but because they had been replaced by the An-124, an aircraft the Soviets rushed to production just to compete with the US Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, at a time when the An-22s were still quite young.

In 1993, the Antonov Design Bureau realized that there were many good surplus military An-22s sitting around and decided to certify it as a civilian aircraft and put them for sale as a civilian 80 tonne capacity cargo aircraft. They converted and overhauled one An-22 and found no takers. The market was not ready. This sole civilian An-22 is now being flown by Antonov Airlines.

The idea behind this project is still valid. Antonov is still capable of acquiring surplus military An-22s and converting them to civilian specs. They even probably have a couple airframes sitting around Kiev already. This is an 80 tonne capacity 300+ knot strategic airlifter than can carry anything the Indian Armed Forces need to carry anywhere. Including to Leh. It has the same engines as the Tu-142 and Tu-95. And its cheap.

You want modern ? The USAF still flies B-52s, KC-135s, E-3s, E-8s, P-3s, all based on airframes that were first built in the fifties (the models flying were probably built in the sixties and seventies), so why not a modernized An-22 ?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Mar 2010 04:17

Gilles wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: 1. You of all people should know the dishonesty of comparing MTOW when you should be comparing equal payloads.
What are you talking about ? It was a specific reply to a specific question. What did you want? A payload-to-lift ratio ? Never hear of any such thing.

Thrust to weight ratio at equal payloads.

Gilles wrote: The C-17 had never been to Leh, let alone with an Arjun on board.......

Do you seriously think that's an issue or are you just trying to muddy the waters?

Gilles wrote:name me specific places that the the C-17 can carry those tanks and that An-124s cannot. Specific airports please

I've already said the An-124 is an interesting choice.

I don't have the data or the technical expertise to determine which airfields would be suitable for an An-124 with which loads.

It is merely a concern I would have. If your goal is getting a big load to a small field, it is an issue you would want to investigate carefully.

Gilles wrote:so why not a modernized An-22 ?

Well that certainly is one of the more creative ideas I've seen

Gilles wrote:You want modern ? The USAF still flies B-52s, KC-135s, E-3s, E-8s, P-3s, all based on airframes that were first built in the fifties (the models flying were probably built in the sixties and seventies)

Well first of all you will notice that none of those are cargo planes. Cargo planes actually get used and abused unlike B-52s that may fly 100 hours a year. So even if they're still flying, I would wonder how much service life they have left.

Likewise the spares situation for a plane that was last built 35 years ago is somewhat sketchy.

I couldn't find any specs for it, but it would be interesting to see what sort of hot/high takeoff performance it has.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Mar 2010 04:20

Gilles wrote:This Arjun and T-90 thing has been going on for some time and it seems to be the only reason the C-17 is being considered in the first place.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. We don't know what the IAF has in mind as far as items that need to be transported. There are certainly many things besides tanks that a C-17 can take that an Il-76 can't

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 05 Mar 2010 05:49

GeorgeWelch wrote:Thrust to weight ratio at equal payloads.

Well like you said, I do not know what payload either of these aircraft can carry at these high altitude airports, and how much fuel.

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Do you seriously think that's an issue or are you just trying to muddy the waters?

It might be possible. It fits inside, that is certain. The Arjun, as it is flown, may even be under the C-17's Across-the-Ramp Maximum structural limit of 160,000 pounds.

That Leh can accommodate an aircraft of that weight (C-17 plus Arjun, plus 25 tonnes of fuel = about 215 tonnes) with that high PCN, I am not certain.

GeorgeWelch wrote: It is merely a concern I would have. If your goal is getting a big load to a small field, it is an issue you would want to investigate carefully.

Carefully indeed.....

GeorgeWelch wrote:Well first of all you will notice that none of those are cargo planes. Cargo planes actually get used and abused unlike B-52s that may fly 100 hours a year. So even if they're still flying, I would wonder how much service life they have left.

At least a couple of the E-8 are ex clapped-out (according to Canada anyway) Canadian Forces B-707s that were overhauled and converted to E-8s.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Likewise the spares situation for a plane that was last built 35 years ago is somewhat sketchy.

Like for the US models I just quoted. They have a large graveyard of derelict aircraft from which to harvest spares. Take the Short Belfast. Only 10 were built in the mid sixties for the RAF (retired in 1976). Now, Heavylift is using parts harvested from the others to keep its sole Belfast flying in commercial service 45 years later. By the way, its the largest western-built commercial airlifter (32 tonne capacity) http://heavyliftcargo.com/Bcaps.htm

GeorgeWelch wrote:I couldn't find any specs for it, but it would be interesting to see what sort of hot/high takeoff performance it has.

Honestly, I have no idea.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Mar 2010 10:15

Shalav wrote:George,

Just like you assume the C17 can carry the Arjun, we are assuming the IL76 will carry the T90.

Hence a cheaper alternative.

PS - if you insist the C17 can carry the Arjun, please provide a picture of the Arjun in the C17 cargo box, else it is just speculation.

There is a strong reason to assume that C-17 can carry the Arjun. The reason being it's ability to carry the M1A1 Abrams...why is that so difficult to understand? You've enough other valid valid points to argue against the C-17 purchase...rather than make such inane statements as the bolded part above....

A little use of google would have told you this:

Arjun-width-3.864 meters (12 feet 8.1 inch) - from wiki
C-17-Loadable width of Cargo hold - 5.49meters(18 feet) - from the link posted below

You can check the dimensions of C-17 here: http://www.globemaster.de/c-17/dimensions.html

Do you still feel that Arjun cannot be carried by C-17?

Another data-point to chew on:

T-90 width - 3.78meters( 12feet 5inches) - source wiki
IL-76TD-90 Cargo width - 3.45meters - source Ilyuhin website (it is same for IL-76TF as well)***

check here:http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/cargo/76td90.html

Do you still think that IL-76TD-90 can carry the T-90?

***There is another dimension data point for the Cargo width of IL-76 - 3.56meters and this is because the cargo hold is not one uniform 'O'. 3.45M is the width of the upper section and 3.56M the width of lower section. This is from the schematic diagram on the website link posted by chacko in the post below. Check here: http://www.unitag.co.il/upload/il-76.gif

IMO, the above number(3.56M) should be taken as reference as it explains how the IL-76 in IAF service were able to airlift the T-72. The reason I say this is beacuse the width of T-72(as per wiki) is 3.59 meters, which is marginally higher than width of IL-76 cabin. If you look at the T-72 pic here:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... T72-Il.jpg, you can see that the side skirts of the tank have been removed.

We also need to keep this in mind(from the Group Captain Bewoor):

As the driver engages the tracks to the engine, the tank jerks and our hearts pop into our mouths. In fact this heart popping goes on throughout the loading / off loading exercise, and is a cardiologists delight. The reason for this cardiac-thorax link is that, there is less than a foot of space between the steel tracks of the T-72 and the cargo compartment skin. And, right behind the aircraft skin run the hot air ducts for pressurising and heating the ac. If the tank moves sideways by more than a foot, the steel tracks break the duct.

The dimensions of T-90 are already larger than T-72. So, how is it going to fit in the belly of IL-76 of any make?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Mar 2010 10:17

vavinash wrote:Ok 120 tonnes so 2 arjuns can be accommodated? ISn't 60 tonne capability of IL-76 MF enough for arjun. C-17 is a costly piece of junk and IAf should not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Please see the Cargo hold dimensions (width) of IL-76 and compare the width of Arjun;the data points are given in above post. That should answer your question.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Mar 2010 10:22

Mark Walpole wrote:A quick questions to ppl who know more about this issue than me...but is the procurement of a heavy lift aircraft somehow based on its ability to transport tanks to an area i.e.in most cases discussed here Leh, because as i can see from satellite imagery and the little i remeber of when i went ther with my father many moons ago....wont that area be disadvantageous to any kind of tank based attack or defense scenarios?? Even then are we actually gona be mobilising a massive air lift to take tanks to far flung reaches..or is this one of those just in case situations where if required we can send tanks by air...

Just a honest query nothing else....

Certain pockets of southern segment of the Ladakh Sector from Chusul to Dhemchok are considered to be tankable country. We do maintain Mechanized forces under the Leh based 3rd Division.

PS: The sentence has been modified by self.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 05 Mar 2010 11:12

Specs of IL-76

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Mar 2010 11:31

rohitvats wrote:T-90 width - 3.78meters( 12feet 5inches) - source wiki
IL-76TD-90 Cargo width - 3.45meters - source Ilyuhin website (it is same for IL-76TF as well)

of course they do raise the interesting point that according to the specs, the T-72 (3.59m) doesn't fit either, yet obviously it does (barely)

so there is something off about the specs

edit:
according to http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-72bm.html the T-72 width is 3.46m

they still have the T-90 at 3.78m

which puts the T-90 at 32cm or 12.6" wider

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Mar 2010 11:37

GeorgeWelch wrote:
rohitvats wrote:T-90 width - 3.78meters( 12feet 5inches) - source wiki
IL-76TD-90 Cargo width - 3.45meters - source Ilyuhin website (it is same for IL-76TF as well)
of course they do raise the interesting point that according to the specs, the T-72 (3.59m) doesn't fit either, yet obviously it does (barely)

so there is something off about the specs

I've revised my post. Please the expanded version above with additional data points and answering your question. Thanx.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Mar 2010 11:42

rohitvats wrote:I've revised my post. Please the expanded version above with additional data points and answering your question. Thanx.

Interesting info

So if we take 3.56m as the width of the Il-76 and 3.46m as the width of the T-72, we see it does barely fit.

However the T-90 at 3.78m is still clearly beyond 3.56m

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Mar 2010 12:32

Far more important would be acquiring large quantities of light 155mm artillery for the Himalyan regions.They would be far more useful than a handful of tanks,which would also stick out like sore thumbs and br extremly vulnerable to attack.Smaller BMPs and ICVs armed with smaller guns and cannon,along with missiles for bunker busting would be better able to traverse the mountainous areas.Where there is a large area of "tankable country" in the mountains,we must try and beef up our infrastructure like establishing rail links,as is being done in J&K,so that much larger .Secondly,the C-17 cannot land on all the small airstrips,which are now being serviced only by AN-32s.The whole purpose of the deal as Ive been saying is to keep C-17 lines open which are about to close and through the back door,through the bloc of nations who operate the aircraft-all NATO members and US non-NATO allies,India will "belong"/"join" a military group beholden to the US through the servcie agreements of the C-17! Thus Dr.Singh through the back door will have made India a "military ally" of the US-which cares bug**er all for Indian lives in Afghanistan and want to keep us put of the country,as they intend to hand it over to their favourite rent-boy Pak.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 05 Mar 2010 18:12

Tanaji wrote:I thought one passes out if flying for extended period without pressurization above 10000 feet?
I do know that even recreational sky divers have to take oxygen flasks when jumping from 13K feet... but thats a civilian requirement. Maybe military world it does not apply?

Perhaps RayC was flying below that level in his flight?

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

The Indian Army operates well above 10,000 ft without oxygen masks in Kargil and Leh etc. I have operated there quite a few tenures. I have not heard of anyone passing out except those who developed pulmonary oedema.

Leh Kushok Bakula Rimpochee Airport (IATA: IXL, ICAO: VILH) is an airport in Leh, Jammu and Kashmir, India. It's one of the highest airports in the world at 3,256 m (10,682 ft) above mean sea level.

Therefore, it is obvious that all aircraft flying into Leh has to be over 10, 682 ft.

There are many high mountains that are crossed by the Chandigarh Leh flight.

The IL 76 sticks to the same heights for entry into the Leh valley from the south as it has been for the AN-12 since 1961. The heights for downwind for Packets, Daks, AN-32s, AN-12s, HS-748s, Boeing 737s and fighter aircraft, is exactly the same for an approach and landing on RW 07 so states Gp Capt Bewoor.

An 12 carried passengers to Leh and was not pressurised except from the cabin.

Added Later:

I stand corrected on An 32 pressurised or not. I contacted a Gp Capt and he confirmed that An 32 is pressurised. The aircraft not being ergomatically designed (to use his words) for passengers, noise and vibration, it gives the impression that it is not pressurised, especially for those who have also travelled in commercial aircraft or IL 76.