C-17s for the IAF?

[Gilles]

An 12 carried passengers to Leh and was not pressurised.

About An-12:

"The prototype and first 100 series An-12 had cargo hold pressurized. Starting from the 3rd batch, only flying deck and 14-seat compartment are pressurized, while the cargo hold is equipped with oxygen masks for paratroopers. This seriously restricts usefulness of the An-12 as paratroop carrier."

[Singha]

quite a few tourists do develop issues in leh and are unable to make further road trips on the itinerary, instead after resting in the lodge for a day they are sent back home. the road trips
climb (briefly) over 18000ft passes like khardung-la and chang-la - army has big signboards
and troops posted there to ensure people do not linger beyond 15 mins for their own good.

there are videos on youtube of panting ITvity types with camcorders recording their (brief)
stay at such heights before moving to lower altitudes.

[RayC]

An 12 carried passengers to Leh and was not pressurised.

About An-12:

"The prototype and first 100 series An-12 had cargo hold pressurized. Starting from the 3rd batch, only flying deck and 14-seat compartment are pressurized, while the cargo hold is equipped with oxygen masks for paratroopers. This seriously restricts usefulness of the An-12 as paratroop carrier."

The An 12s I flew in is what you state - pilots area and 14 seats.

[RayC]

quite a few tourists do develop issues in leh and are unable to make further road trips on the itinerary, instead after resting in the lodge for a day they are sent back home. the road trips
climb (briefly) over 18000ft passes like khardung-la and chang-la - army has big signboards
and troops posted there to ensure people do not linger beyond 15 mins for their own good.

there are videos on youtube of panting ITvity types with camcorders recording their (brief)
stay at such heights before moving to lower altitudes.

One has to acclimatise oneself before venturing forth.

They should also be medically fit and without any heart ailment.

[bhavani]

One thing all of us have to accept regarding the C-17 is it has a very good marketing team. Every small widget or advantage provided by C-17 is blown out of proportion like the rough field performance. Every russian lifter had rough field performance.

The C-17 is credited with huge amount of automatic operations with few personnel. The giant An-124 has fully mechanized cargo handling and two auxiliary power units for power supply and engine ignition to secure autonomous operation of the aircraft at poorly equipped aerodromes. The Russians were never that great at marketing. Their math may be good, but skills in marketing are poor.

The Huge amount of space inside the An-124 is also highly advantageous when moving artillery pieces etc. The An-124 has a quadraplex fly by wire systems

Regarding An-124 high altitude operations from http://www.aviant.ua/eng/an-124.html

The aircraft is able to cover the distance of 4500 km with the maximum load of 120 t, it performs flights in all latitudes, in altitudes of up to 10000 m and in temperatures ranging from 60 о С below zero to 45 о С above zero. It secures operations at the meteorological minimum of 60x600 m ICAO Category I, at the aerodromes that are certified under this category.

I dont understand these statements completely, But do you guys think the An-124 can land in Leh.

[Tanaji]

From that website itself, it is clear that the AN124 is not in production....

Perhaps IAF does not want to be at the vagaries of a Russian supplier that is selling a plane that was last built in 1980s.

[rohitvats]

From that website itself, it is clear that the AN124 is not in production....

Perhaps IAF does not want to be at the vagaries of a Russian supplier that is selling a plane that was last built in 1980s.

I've actually myself argued against the C-17 induction wrt its usefullness when dealing with regular need of Defence Forces is concerned. Something, which additional IL-76 can fulfill. But one thing that cannot argue against is the availability of the plataforms from Russia.

If IAF was to go out and order 30 more IL-76 today, is there a plant and production line ready to produce it from te word go? I'm not informed so I am asking.

Another question to public: what is/has been the serviceability rate of IL-76 in IAF and C-17 in USAF? Thanx.

[Tanaji]

Well it seems that there are only 3 alternatives to C-17:

An 124
Il 76
A400

The first one is not in production. If we are objecting to C17 on grounds that it will be soon out of production in US, we cant in the same breath argue that An 124 is a choice since it was made 10-15 years ago.

The second one , the IAF does not want because it wants a heavier carrying capacity. Whether that is sound logic or not, I am not an expert to decide. But they want a heavy lifter, its their GSQR... so they have ruled out Il 76

The A400 is not really a option, its a prop, and its still on the drawing board. Who knows when EADS will deliver it?

So is there really an alternative?

[bhavani]

From that website itself, it is clear that the AN124 is not in production....

Perhaps IAF does not want to be at the vagaries of a Russian supplier that is selling a plane that was last built in 1980s.

The line of An-124 has been re- opened and Volga-dnepr has 5 on order and Polet airlines have 5 on order. The russian airforce will start taking deliveries of about 20 from 2015.

An-124 has operated from various airports in Bolivia and it has one of the highest airports.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/940819/

An-124-210 was the version proposed for UK's STSA (Short Term Strategic Airlifter ) requirement with RR-RB211 engines and competition was initially abandoned and then was re-opened and C-17 was selected.

[Shalav]

Tanaji,

The IAF reports to Parliament. The question is not "is there an alternative", the question should be "why?"

[Shalav]

Rohit,

Per those dimensions of the IL 76 even the T72 wouldn't fit in since its width is 3.59 m not 3.46m

However per the images in this article and the article itself we know the IAF did get the T72 on the IL76 and transported them to Jaffna and Leh.

Furthermore per that image - I see more than 4 cm on either side of that T72 - which should accommodate the width of the T90.

Just so that we are clear about a distance of 4 cm - it is ~width of 4 adult fingers - There more than 4 fingers of space on BOTH sides of the T72 in that image - plenty to accommodate the T90.

I do not see a need to spend an extra $ billion and a half on sanction prone equipment when it can be done at half the price with equipment we already have, and more importantly which is not sanction prone

Anyway I would like to hold the C17 to the same standard of proof its supporters are asking of its competitors. I see no photograph of the Arjun on the C17 and see no evidence that the C17 is certified to carry the Arjun. Holding the C17 camp to the same standard of proof, lets see some images of the Arjun on the C17.

Lets see the certification of the C17 to load and carry the Arjun, even an image will do. Elsewise what we have is a marketing push by certain person of unknown origin for a particularly expensive sanction prone expensive to buy, expensive to maintain aircraft. I also see these people setting up strawman arguments in order to demolish them, while providing no evidence of their own in support of their claims.

For instance the C17 supporter here has been stating the C17 can land within 3500', while also stating that the C17 can carry the Arjun. It seems to me the George has been trying to imply the C17 can land within 3500' with an Arjun as payload. Not that it has been explicitly stated by him, but neither has he bothered to correct this impresison whenever it was stated by others from time to time.

I see no supporting evidence (by this I mean actual numbers) for the payload the C17 actually carries when landing within 1100m (3500') - I need evidence of payload, fuel, altitude, temperature, velocity etc. Talk of 1100m landing capability is cheap marketing glitz.

Lets take the claims of the purported advantages of the C17 vs its rivals one at a time and examine it in detail.

1. C17 short field capability - allegedly 3500'.

Examining this claim in detail we suddenly realise - we have no evidence other than manufacturer statements.

Lets assume the best case 55T Arjun payload, low fuel and landing velocity of 1.1x stall velocity which is lower than 1.3x stall velocity (the usual standard for landings) and at sea level. The lower landing velocity means the aircraft will land in a shorter distance, it also means the aircraft has a higher sink rate, which translates to higher impact on the landing gear on touchdown. The landing gears are rated for a certain number of cycles (landing / take-off) before they have to be serviced, this is completely different from the aircraft airframe maintainence cycle. With a 20% greater impact (and we are not even considering the consequences of the difference when landing with no payload) those LG maintainence cycles are gone for a toss. It also means with greater stress those LG's are prone to greater failure rates than with normal landings. Remember the manufacturer is sating its LG maintainence cycle only for normal landings not the over stressed landing with a 55t Arjun and the short field. Higher wear and tear on the landing gear means more costs and more spare parts (again these spare parts are also sanction prone)!

If we assume landing is to be at Leh, there is only loud silence from supporters and more importantly the manufacturer.

So we can lay this claim to rest right now. This is no advantage. Sea level landings within 3500' while carrying the Arjun are not required by the IAF. Doing so will increase costs on an already expensive sanction prone aircraft.

--- In my next post - we will compare maintainence and its complications.

[GeorgeWelch]

Rohit,

Per those dimensions of the IL 76 even the T72 wouldn't fit in since its width is 3.59 m not 3.46m

Why do you say it's not 3.46m?

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-72bm.html - 3.46m
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72.htm - 3.46m
http://www.imprintmodels.co.uk/pdf/5/56 ... ations.pdf - 3.46m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT - "The BMPT is based on the chassis of the well-known T-72 MBT" - 3.46m

[Shalav]

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/de ... rmor_id=22 - 3.59m
http://www.howstuffworks.com/t-72-main- ... /printable - 3.6m
http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks ... 70001.aspx - 3.6m

[Gilles]

I think this discussion is about tanks with and without skirts. Sometimes the tank width is measured with the skirts, sometimes they are measured at the tracks with skirts removed.

[GeorgeWelch]

http://yfrog.com/bct72p

Scan from the Concord book 'T-72 Soviet Main Battle Tank'

Basic width: 3.46m
Width with skirts: 3.72m

[Shalav]

In that case

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm - 3.46m

I am assuming without skirts. That means no problems on the IL76 then.

[Gilles]

I just found this pretty recent article about testing the C-17 for unpaved runways.

http://www.afcesa.af.mil/shared/media/d ... 14-101.pdf

Things readers should note:

1) Why are they still doing tests to improve the C-17s un-improved runway performance 15 years after the aircraft was inducted into the USAF and at the end of its production run ? Perhaps, just perhaps, they came to realize they had something lacking on that front ?

2) Readers will notice that they didn't perform any of these tests on existing un-surfaced runways, of which there are hundreds if not thousands in the United States, but on 4 specific runways that were customs built to perform those tests. Why ?

[GeorgeWelch]

In that case

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm - 3.46m

I am assuming without skirts. That means no problems on the IL76 then.

You look for the exception, I'll look for the consensus.

And the consensus is that the T-90 is significantly wider than the T-72, however you measure it

[Gilles]

Well it seems that there are only 3 alternatives to C-17:

An 124
Il 76
A400

So is there really an alternative?

There is the An-70.
[img]
http://spotters.net.ua/files/images/000 ... small.jpeg[/img]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70
http://www.antonov.com/products/air/tra ... ?locale=en

It is flying and close to production. It can fit a T-90 in its cabin and can haul 47 tonnes on short hauls.

And for those who doubt that production will begin, here is s/n 4 at the plant

http://spotters.net.ua/file/?id=24296

Here is s/n 5

http://spotters.net.ua/file/?id=24301

Cockpit with Head Up Display Screens visible

http://spotters.net.ua/file/?id=12401

[GeorgeWelch]

I just found this pretty recent article about testing the C-17 for unpaved runways.

http://www.afcesa.af.mil/shared/media/d ... 14-101.pdf

Things readers should note:

1) Why are they still doing tests to improve the C-17s un-improved runway performance 15 years after the aircraft was inducted into the USAF and at the end of its production run ? Perhaps, just perhaps, they came to realize they had something lacking on that front ?

2) Readers will notice that they didn't perform any of these tests on existing un-surfaced runways, of which there are hundreds if not thousands in the United States, but on 4 specific runways that were customs built to perform those tests. Why ?

I'm not sure how you can so clearly misunderstand what's going on.

1. They aren't modifying the C-17 in any way. They are merely performing envelope expansion tests.
They have done the calculations and know it should behave in a certain way, but that's not enough. To certify it for certain conditions they actually have to go and test it in those conditions.

Such tests are expensive and time consuming and until recently the AF felt no need to expand the envelope beyond what had already been certified.

Again, any the issue is with the limits of the CERTIFICATION, not the limits of the PLANE

2. Because the tests were designed for specific conditions, so creating new runways allowed them to be tailored specifically to the tests being run.

[Shalav]

How does that matter? One can't cherry-pick the consensus one wants, especially since there seems to be different consensus' (sp?).

I quote the same source you quote and it states 3.46m for both tanks. If you want me to accept that 3.46m width of the T72 and you use a particular source as a reference point. You must also accept its statement on the width of the T90 which is also 3.46m.

[bhavani]

An-124 line is Open Currently. Deliveries are also being made to Dnepr and two other cargo transporters. INfact there were plans by Uk Mod and germans to lease upgraded An-124-210's.

[GeorgeWelch]

How does that matter? One can't cherry-pick the consensus one wants, especially since there seems to be different consensus' (sp?).

I quote the same source you quote and it states 3.46m for both tanks. If you want me to accept that 3.46m width of the T72 and you use a particular source as a reference point. You must also accept its statement on the width of the T90 which is also 3.46m.

The difference is I didn't quote that one source in isolation.

As you are doing.

[rohitvats]

Rohit,

Per those dimensions of the IL 76 even the T72 wouldn't fit in since its width is 3.59 m not 3.46m

However per the images in this article and the article itself we know the IAF did get the T72 on the IL76 and transported them to Jaffna and Leh.

Furthermore per that image - I see more than 4 cm on either side of that T72 - which should accommodate the width of the T90.

Just so that we are clear about a distance of 4 cm - it is ~width of 4 adult fingers - There more than 4 fingers of space on BOTH sides of the T72 in that image - plenty to accommodate the T90.

I do not see a need to spend an extra $ billion and a half on sanction prone equipment when it can be done at half the price with equipment we already have, and more importantly which is not sanction prone

Anyway I would like to hold the C17 to the same standard of proof its supporters are asking of its competitors. I see no photograph of the Arjun on the C17 and see no evidence that the C17 is certified to carry the Arjun. Holding the C17 camp to the same standard of proof, lets see some images of the Arjun on the C17.

Lets see the certification of the C17 to load and carry the Arjun, even an image will do..........

You do realize that this is not "my Sh^*@ bigger than yours" kind of debate? Is it so difficult to accept the facts?

Did you read through my post clearly? I myself had raised the question of T-72 [email protected] meter and compared the same with usable width of IL-76 Cargo hold. So, don't educate me on that. But did you see the pic of the T-72 I posted (from the same article by Gp. Capt. Bewoor) and the obvious fact that the side skirts had been removed?So, which argument is likely to hold true - T-72@skirts:3.59M and without:3.46M? Because skirts or no skirts, no one can fit a cargo with dimension greater than the width of Cargo hold. And as for the authencity of data, Vasiliy Fofanov's site on Russian Armor is as authentic as they come. He is moderator on tank-net.org which is considered as an apex board when it comes to technical and factual discussions on tanks.

And as for the 4inches thing, did you even read the article completely or my post? How did you forget to take this into account:

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.

If there is so much issue with carrying the T-72, how do you suppose the T-90 is going to fare?

And btw, how does one tackle this (from the same Bewoor article):

Another severe limitation in the T-72 induction is that the fuel reserve has to be very low and in full violation of regulations. The reason is that the max AUW for landing is 140 tons. With 90 tons as the basic wt and 43 tons of cargo, the landing fuel at Jaffna could to be not more than 7 tons. The dilemma was not the 7 tons at landing, it was that to fly from Jaffna to Chennai we needed at least 7 tons of fuel at take off from Jaffna. Refuelling on the island was prohibited so we had to land at Jaffna at an AUW of 147 tons, or 7 tons above permissible AUW, to ensure that we had at least 14 tons on take off. That too was not enough considering holding and delays due to civil traffic

Inducting tanks is not a routine operation as many would like to believe. With only a bare 12 inches between the steel track and the inner skin of the ac, many aircraft were damaged requiring repairs. To decrease the chances of damage to the aircraft because of the 'jhatka' or jerk, when the tracks are engaged to the engine, the tension on both tracks was made as equal as possible. This equalising is achieved by the tank crew using of all things, a plumb line. The cavalry are used to plus / minus 10 feet in accuracy of manoeuvrability. We wanted plus / minus 2-3 inches!

C-17 was designed to carry outsize cargo as a rule. Something, they weres supposed to do as a routine.

And wrt the bolded part in your post quoted by me, it is not even worth arguing on. If inspite of obvious facts, you do not want to accept reality, then nobody can help you.

[Gilles]

For normal aircraft, the main factor is not the soil type at all but the soil strength.

You're confusing runway strength with braking distance.

The distance an aircraft takes to brake on a certain runway most certainly does depend on soil type and condition.

An aircraft takes longer to brake on wet clay than dry loam. How much longer? Well you have to test to find out.

There again, the US Air Force does not need to re-invent the wheel by building 4 runways. Runway braking action is measured in every country of the world when contaminants are present with a sort of deccelerometer installed on a vehicle. In the northern hemisphere, all airports are so equipped to measure the braking index and all aircraft have charts to compute landing distance according to reduced braking index.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/publi ... -0.htm#1-6

The table to correlate between friction index and landing distance is here inTable 1:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/publi ... .htm#1-6-6

Even the US Air Force has its method: see

http://www.cecer.army.mil/td/tips/docs/ ... ent_r3.doc

"6. FRICTION INDEX

The US Air Force uses the Grip Tester or Mu-Meter to determine the friction characteristics of runways. A rating system for friction characteristics for different friction equipment is shown in Table 2. "

All that of course is applicable to all aircraft in the world except for one, which seems to require new improved procedures......

[GeorgeWelch]

There again, the US Air Force does not need to re-invent the wheel by building 4 runways. Runway braking action is measured in every country of the world when contaminants are present with a sort of deccelerometer installed on a vehicle. In the northern hemisphere, all airports are so equipped to measure the braking index and all aircraft have charts to compute landing distance according to reduced braking index.

That's for PAVEMENT.

Such measures do not work off pavement.

Or rather, they have to be calibrated to the plane in question, which is what these tests were about.

Pavement is not altered by plane landing on it, so its friction remains constant so one measurement suffices.

For soft surfaces that get deformed, friction is very much dependent on what's landing. The heavier the object, the more the surface gets deformed, the greater the friction.

[Gilles]

That's for PAVEMENT.

Such measures do not work off pavement.

Or rather, they have to be calibrated to the plane in question, which is what these tests were about.

Pavement is not altered by plane landing on it, so its friction remains constant so one measurement suffices.

For soft surfaces that get deformed, friction is very much dependent on what's landing. The heavier the object, the more the surface gets deformed, the greater the friction.

Thats really strange because Canadian Aviation Regulations stipulate that CRFI (Canadian Runway Friction Index) measurements have to be provided by all airport operators where scheduled turbojet aircraft operate, including those with gravel runways. Why would the law require an airport operator to provide a measurement that is not valid for gravel? Mmmmm........?????

For example, we have scheduled Jet service to Nanisivik (CYSR), with one 6,400 gravel runway, and to Resolute Bay (CYRB), an airport with one 6,500 foot gravel runway. I can assure you that both airport are required by law to report CFRI readings, and they do.

[VishalJ]

An-124 line is Open Currently.

U sure ?
Can you please the link where i can confirm this because as far as i know its NOT open but i'll be the happiest to be proven wrong / see it re-open.

[GeorgeWelch]

Thats really strange because Canadian Aviation Regulations stipulate that CRFI (Canadian Runway Friction Index) measurements have to be provided by all airport operators where scheduled turbojet aircraft operate, including those with gravel runways. Why would the law require an airport operator to provide a measurement that is not valid for gravel? Mmmmm........?????

And you complain about 'specially prepared' runways. A proper gravel runway is practically as hard as pavement and certainly doesn't 'give' to any appreciable degree.

The C-17 tests were for something else entirely, soft runways with minimal preparation.

The dynamics of such things are completely different than true hard-surfaced runways.

[Gilles]

Thats really strange because Canadian Aviation Regulations stipulate that CRFI (Canadian Runway Friction Index) measurements have to be provided by all airport operators where scheduled turbojet aircraft operate, including those with gravel runways. Why would the law require an airport operator to provide a measurement that is not valid for gravel? Mmmmm........?????

And you complain about 'specially prepared' runways. A proper gravel runway is practically as hard as pavement and certainly doesn't 'give' to any appreciable degree.

The C-17 tests were for something else entirely, soft runways with minimal preparation.

The dynamics of such things are completely different than true hard-surfaced runways.

You always go off on a tangent? Every time I reply, you leave the subject at hand and go off on something else.

Although B-727s and B-737s land on these very regular gravel runways, Canadian C-17s have never been to Nanisivik or Resolute Bay and probably never will because they will damage these runways if they do. Thats the simple truth.

The C-17 cannot just use soil strength for off-airport landings and CRFI readings for computing contaminated and wet runway landing distance like other aircraft do. Its just not adequate. Because of this, some sort of rocket science had to be developed to study what braking effect the deep ruts these planes make in the gravel runways they land on, have on landing performance when wet. It was discovered long ago that C-17s used A LOT of runway when landing on anything that isn't a dry hard surfaced runway and rocket science has to be called upon to attempt to reduce the required runway.

I know that you will never admit that this is the simple truth and will alway try to come up with some argument to try to attempt to discredit me, even if all the evidence in the world backs me up.

In its planned "STOL" C-17B, Boeing added an extra centre gear, added variable wheel pressure, is modifying the flaps. The USAF is spending time and money trying to tweak a few less feet from this machine's unsurfaced runway wet landing performance because they way it stands now, this performance is just no there.......and nothing you will write here will change that. ITS A FACT! I documented it numerous times with US documentation.

[Gilles]

An-124 line is Open Currently.

U sure ?
Can you please the link where i can confirm this because as far as i know its NOT open but i'll be the happiest to be proven wrong / see it re-open.

I have found no evidence of An-124 going into production. For now its all intentions and talk. There is a Web site that covers An-124 news.

http://www.an124.com/

[MN Kumar]

Did IAF evaluate the An70. Chk this pic below:


The jeep and the people around look Indian.

[rohitvats]

^^^They look distinctly Russian/CIS...there is nothing Indian in that pic..

[Rien]

I have found no evidence of An-124 going into production. For now its all intentions and talk. There is a Web site that covers An-124 news.

http://www.deagel.com/news/Antonov-An-1 ... 02272.aspx
http://www.deagel.com/news/Antonov-An-1 ... 02272.aspx

The new An124-150 m upgraded version has been award certification two years ago. And here is the official confirmation from an airline customer itself. The AN-124-150 model, which is the upgraded version, is in production. This is a much newer, more upgraded aircraft with superior technical specs to the C-17.

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/ ... ing_an124/

[GeorgeWelch]

You always go off on a tangent? Every time I reply, you leave the subject at hand and go off on something else.

It's not a tangent, it's the truth.

You keep pretending the civilian standards for well-prepared runways apply to all the situations a C-17 could be flying into.

They don't.

[RayC]

One of the first assignments on Mehar Singh's task list was the relief of Poonch. Poonch was an isolated garrison which was cut off from motorable roads due to enemy incursions, and it was left to Mehar Singh to supervise the air relief of Poonch. Mehar Singh personally flew a Harvard aircraft and landed it at Poonch airstrip which was newly constructed. The very next day, Mehar repeated the feat, this time flying a Dakota. Soon after Dakotas started bringing in supplies, evacuating causalities and when the necessity arose, flying down the Mountain Howitzers of the Hazara Mountain Battery for the defence of Poonch.

Mehar Singh's flight to Leh in Ladakh has been well chiseled into annals of the Indian Air Force's legend. When the remote district of Ladakh was in a danger of being cut off and overrun by a Pakistani force from Skardu along the Shyok Valley, a decision was taken to fly troops by air to Leh, which had an airfield at an altitude of 11,540 feet. flying an uncharted route, over hills and peaks ranging from 15000 feet to 24000 feet, Mehar Singh flew the first Dakota to Leh and landed it at the highest airstrip in the world. The faith in this man was re-imposed by none other than the commander of land forces in the Srinagar Valley sector, Major General K.S. Thimmayya, DSO, who accompanied Mehar Singh on the pioneering flight.

Mehar Singh also undertook the conversion of Dakotas into bombers. The Dakotas were modified to carry 500 lbs. bombs in their cargo bay and the cargo handlers were trained to roll out the bombs out of the door onto targets below.

So, what is good in peace is not applicable in war.

[Gilles]

http://www.deagel.com/news/Antonov-An-1 ... 02272.aspx
http://www.deagel.com/news/Antonov-An-1 ... 02272.aspx

The new An-124-100M-150 upgraded version has been award certification two years ago. And here is the official confirmation from an airline customer itself. The AN-124-150 model, which is the upgraded version, is in production. This is a much newer, more upgraded aircraft with superior technical specs to the C-17.

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/ ... ing_an124/

All this is true. The An-124-150M has been certified. Here is a picture of an Antonov design Bureau An-124-150M aircraft while it was in the final stages of its certification stages. Look at the scalloped Engine cowlings. They are just like the new Boeing 787's.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov- ... 1215444/L/

Another look at the same aircraft

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov- ... 1571910/M/

Volga-Dnepr has been pushing this project for years

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/ ... ing_an124/

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/presscen ... s/?id=5603

The 150 tonne capacity Volga-Dnepr An-124 does not have the same modified cowlings as Antonov Airlines's An-124. Don't know why.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Volga-Dn ... 1653657/L/

So the certification is there, there are some customers, but that has not so far resulted, as far as I know, in re-tooling or activity at the plant where the An-124s are to be produced.

[Surya]

The website says they want military orders so production can start??

Volga-Dnepr and its consortium partners Antonov Design Bureau and United Aircraft Corporation are hoping that the government will provide assistance in the form of an order for military versions of the freighter, a move that would allow serial production to begin.

During his tour, Medvedev also noted the potential value of working with foreign partners to move things forward

Almost looks like there is a fear of the supply chain\ or the funds for this and everyone is hedging till the Govt orders some

The other link (an124)

It is also interesting to see Mr Fyodorov referring to the necessity for a military order before the whole program can begin. With a $200 million dollar price tag and a cruising speed some 10% less than conventional aircraft due to the fundamental aerodynamics of a ramp loading airplane it is difficult to see even an upgraded An-124 being competitive in operating economics with competing aircraft.

So we complete the circle and large scale civil aircraft production is again dependent on the military picking up the tab to kick start the program. A typical US approach yet state subsidy as argued by Airbus.

[Gilles]

You always go off on a tangent? Every time I reply, you leave the subject at hand and go off on something else.

It's not a tangent, it's the truth.

You keep pretending the civilian standards for well-prepared runways apply to all the situations a C-17 could be flying into.

They don't.

But in real operations, C-17s NEVER land on unpaved runways except those that have been custom-built or custom-upgraded specifically for C-17 operations (Tareen Kwot in Afghanistan is the only one I know of).

Here are the Australians bragging about landing there:

www.aviationnews.eu/2009/07/16/air-forc ... hanistan/

On this Blog http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking ... arin-kowt/ its written:

"Tarin Kowt is the only operational dirt strip taking C-17s in the world".

Otherwise the C-17 is only used on hard surfaced runways. The only exception I found was Camp Rhino in 2001. There, army engineers first thought that the Afghan gravel runway was going to be able to sustain hundreds of C-17 landings. The runway had to undergo major repair work every day after just 8 C-17 landings.......

Ref : http://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_ ... nginespage

I encourage all who have a stake in this issue to read this report in full. Note that one problem they did not have at Rhino was wet runways. Had that runway been located in an area where it rained, C-17 operations may have not even been possible.........

[RayC]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_gXq0-A9Xxw&co ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_gXq0-A9Xxw&co ... edded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Therefore going by the loading plan of the above video, 3x C-17 loads = 1x 6 gun artillery battery. With 10x C-17s on order, in the near future, the Indian air force will be able to conduct air-lift an 18 gun M777 (with the Selex LINAPS) regiment in 9x C-17 loads, plus one C-17 load of ammo in one lift. Fyi, India's FMS notification for 145 M777 Howitzers is here. [h/t to ArtyEngineer and OPSSG and Defence Talk Forum for the video]