C-17s for the IAF?

[Gilles]

>>>Now I'll wait for the next round of Polemics!

here are a couple of them...

1) After the 'strategic airlift', I would like to know how many runways within and outside India can take this plane with its full load, without damaging itself?

2) When they say the max possible price is $5.8 billion, what are things India can discard to reduce the price, without affecting the operational readiness of the plane..? The point I want to make is, if we say we don't want the spares and after sales service, is there any escape from paying this price at a later date? Or, is it either we pay now with the cost of the plane or later?

1) The C-17 is weight restricted when flying out of unpaved runways.
2) If it does land on mosts unpaved runways, even at the restricted weight, its most likely the runways that will be damaged, not the aircraft.
3) This aircraft is subject to ITAR which is why India will be compelled to sign the maintenance contact with Boeing. Most major maintenance tasks, Indians will not be allowed to do.
4) The only optional items will be the DAS which is aftermarket (a few million per aircraft)

[Gilles]

Well first with respect to turnaround time; based on empirical evidence, the C-17 comes out tops.

Operating cost:- I don't know what the C-17's maintenance costs is relative to the Il-76, when employed by the same service/company. I've only taken into account fuel costs, which do happen to comprise the of the bulk of the operating cost. There is a huge disparity within the ranges of the two aircraft for the same load(I took it as 45 tons) despite the fact that their fuel capacities are comparable. Computing the figures I pulled of the net, the Il-76's fuel efficiency turned out to be almost half that of the C-17. That leads to me to conclude that the C-17 would have a much lower operating cost than the Il-76.

But you are comparing the NEW C-17 with the OLD Il-76 that the Indian Air Force operates?

If India had ordered new Il-76s instead of the C-17, would it be old IL-76s or new ones?

The upgraded IL-76TD-90 hauls 50 tonnes, vs 45 for the old. It burns 7.2 tonnes an hour, versus 9.0 tonne/hr for the old.

I just noticed that Volga-Dnepr is about to take delivery of its third brand new IL-76TD-90 since 2006. I guess they like them.

Bottom line: according to the airlines, IL-76 = money maker. BC-17 = losing money.

What does that tell you about cost ? Some people used as arguments the number of crew to compute cost. Its ridiculous. I do not know the cost of an IAF crew member. But for argument's sake, lets use $50,000 per year per crew member. If the C-17 has 3 and the IL-76 has 5. There are 2 extra in the IL-76 ( F/E and a Navigator). Thats $100,000 more per year. Multiply by 30 years. Its 3 million dollars. Is that an argument for buying a 250 million dollar aircraft over a 50 million dollar aircraft?

Lets compare the fuel burn of the OLD IL-76 (the model that the IAF has now) to the C-17s. The IL-76MD burns 1.2 tonnes an hour more than the C-17. If these aircraft each fly 500 hours a year over 30 years, thats 18,000 tonnes of extra fuel that the IL-76 will burn over the course of its lifetime. At today's price, the tonne of Jet fuel is 705 dollars. That is about a 13 million dollar difference. Does that justify spending 250 million instead of 50 million? (By the way the new IL-76 burns less than the C-17)

Just to tell you that these "cost saving arguments" cannot justify the decision. So its best to leave them out.

I look at it as though I was the manager of a commercial airline that had to make a choice of aircraft. If one has a proper maintenance organization, plenty of spares and and good technicians, one can have very high dispatch reliabilities with just about any aircraft. I've been in the airline business for many many years now and there is one thing I learned long ago. The more an airplane flies, the more reliable it becomes if it is maintained properly. The nice shinny and new aircraft that sits in the hangar all the time is the most likely to break down.

How much does the IAF spend on IL-76 maintenance today? How much is the IAF about to spend on the C-17 contarct?

I do not have those figures. But I am willing to bet money that the amount that is about to be allocated per aircraft for the upkeep of the C-17s is several times what the IAF is now spending per IL-76. The IL-76 were purchased for peanuts. I don't know, but possibly as low as 20 to 30 million. So there is a reluctance to spend big amounts of money on their upkeep. That is human nature. The C-17s are about to be purchased for an arm and a leg. So we are more willing to spend big bucks maintaining them.
Buy a Hyndai and you are unwilling to spend $500 on a new muffler. Buy a Mercedes Benz and you don't flinch at spending $2000 for the muffler.

I suspect that if the IAF were to spend a mere 25% on Il-76 maintenance of what it is about to spent on C-17 maintenance, the IL-76 would have some of the best dispatch reliabilities in the world.

[GeorgeWelch]

Let me share an example - USAF acheived Average Payload of 20.4 STONS per mission during Operation Enduring Mission and 19.4STONS during Operation Iraqi Freedom on their C-17. For an aircraft which was cleared to carry 45 STONS during these missions (based on range and other factors), that is 50% payload utilization.

You cannot translate weight into payload utilization. Cargo usually cubes out before it grosses out. So even though a cargo might only use 50% of the max available weight, it might use 100% of available space.

[Gilles]

Let me share an example - USAF acheived Average Payload of 20.4 STONS per mission during Operation Enduring Mission and 19.4STONS during Operation Iraqi Freedom on their C-17. For an aircraft which was cleared to carry 45 STONS during these missions (based on range and other factors), that is 50% payload utilization.

You cannot translate weight into payload utilization. Cargo usually cubes out before it grosses out. So even though a cargo might only use 50% of the max available weight, it might use 100% of available space.

Or it was used as a troop transport, a use for which it is very inefficient with all that wasted ceiling space.

A C-17 with a full load of soldiers with all their gear (about 130 troops) carries just about 20 tonnes.......

[Viv S]

But you are comparing the NEW C-17 with the OLD Il-76 that the Indian Air Force operates?

If India had ordered new Il-76s instead of the C-17, would it be old IL-76s or new ones?

The upgraded IL-76TD-90 hauls 50 tonnes, vs 45 for the old. It burns 7.2 tonnes an hour, versus 9.0 tonne/hr for the old.

I just noticed that Volga-Dnepr is about to take delivery of its third brand new IL-76TD-90 since 2006. I guess they like them.

Bottom line: according to the airlines, IL-76 = money maker. BC-17 = losing money.

Well first of all lets exclude the An-124 and C-5 from the discussion altogether. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Hindi term 'jugaad', but basically the IAF isn't interested in economizing by buying second-hand(unless its a stop-gap arrangement) or leasing aircraft.

What does that tell you about cost ? Some people used as arguments the number of crew to compute cost. Its ridiculous. I do not know the cost of an IAF crew member. But for argument's sake, lets use $50,000 per year per crew member. If the C-17 has 3 and the IL-76 has 5. There are 2 extra in the IL-76. Thats $100,0000 more per year. Multiply by 30 years. Its 3 million dollars. Is that an argument for buying a 250 million dollar aircraft over a 50 million dollar aircraft?

I agree, crew cost is irrelevant. The IAF isn't short of manpower.

Lets compare the fuel burn of the OLD IL-76 to the C-17s. The IL-76MD burns 1.2 tonnes an hour more than the C-17. If the aircraft each fly 500 hours a year over 30 years, thats 18,000 tonnes of extra fuel that the IL-76 will burn over the course of its lifetime. At today's price, the tonne of Jet fuel is 705 dollars. That is about a 13 million dollar difference. Does that justify spending 250 million instead of 50 million? (By the way the new IL-76 burns less than the C-17)

But for what payload are you comparing those figures? I assume its for the MTOW. For the same 45 ton payload the C-17 travels almost twice as far per litre of jet fuel as the Il-76D. Even assuming the newer aircraft are more efficient the C-17 still ends up with far better figures. Also, I don't think we can take today's prices are a yardstick for fuel costs. Case in point - jet fuel used to cost a quarter of today's price two decades ago.

[GeorgeWelch]

What your suggestion means is that for anything requiring to be moved above the 7.5 tons, IAF will have to either deploy multiple AN-32 or single C-17.

India will supposedly have the MTA by the time the Il-76 is retired.

[GeorgeWelch]

Or it was used as a troop transport, a use for which it is very inefficient with all that wasted ceiling space.

Agreed that using the C-17 as a troop transport isn't the best use of its capabilities, but then that wasn't what we were talking about either.

Good old Gilles, always trying to muddy the water.

PS: Even ignoring the extra height, it also has >60% more floor space than the Il-76.

[rohitvats]

Let me share an example - USAF acheived Average Payload of 20.4 STONS per mission during Operation Enduring Mission and 19.4STONS during Operation Iraqi Freedom on their C-17. For an aircraft which was cleared to carry 45 STONS during these missions (based on range and other factors), that is 50% payload utilization.

You cannot translate weight into payload utilization. Cargo usually cubes out before it grosses out. So even though a cargo might only use 50% of the max available weight, it might use 100% of available space.

George, it would have been great if you had qouted the whole para of which the above section is the part. It would have at least made the context clear. For sake of reference, let me quoye myself:

Let me share an example - USAF acheived Average Payload of 20.4 STONS per mission during Operation Enduring Mission and 19.4STONS during Operation Iraqi Freedom on their C-17. For an aircraft which was cleared to carry 45 STONS during these missions (based on range and other factors), that is 50% payload utilization. This was the utilization for a nation which has the largest fleet of C-17 and greatest demand for Air Lift. What does that tell you? That while the average payload lifted per mission can be improved with better planning, there are airlift requirements which will not tax the given aircraft to the maximum - even for a nation like USA.

What is the point of your post about the Cargo Hold Volume maxing out even at far lower loads? Does it shed some new ight or bring forth a fact that is somehow contrary to my assertion that even for a nation like USA with expeditionary forces, there is requirement that will not tax the full potential of aircraft? And that while there are going to be cases of such High Volume-Low Weight cargo load, US needs to absolutely have C-17 given the range requirement?

You're preaching to choir here with these posts. You can do better.

[rohitvats]

What your suggestion means is that for anything requiring to be moved above the 7.5 tons, IAF will have to either deploy multiple AN-32 or single C-17.

India will supposedly have the MTA by the time the Il-76 is retired.

Which means that IAF will continue to use IL-76 to do the errand boy job beyond the 7.5 ton category for High Voume-High Weight items. If there is something IAF needs post haste, it is more C-130J. C-17 have their role - but let us not make it to be the "Silver Bullet"

[geeth]

>>>Agreed that using the C-17 as a troop transport isn't the best use of its capabilities, but then that wasn't what we were talking about either.

Check a few pages back and see for yourself what yourself have said, along with others.

[GeorgeWelch]

Does it shed some new ight or bring forth a fact that is somehow contrary to my assertion that even for a nation like USA with expeditionary forces, there is requirement that will not tax the full potential of aircraft?

So only weight counts?

Both volume and weight are important, and if either one is maxed out, you're 'taxing the full potential of the aircraft'.

If there is something IAF needs post haste, it is more C-130J.

Separate issue, if you want to start a thread about buying more C-130Js for the IAF, feel free.

C-17 have their role - but let us not make it to be the "Silver Bullet"

As you say, C-17s have their role, so what's wrong with getting them?

>>>Agreed that using the C-17 as a troop transport isn't the best use of its capabilities, but then that wasn't what we were talking about either.

Check a few pages back and see for yourself what yourself have said, along with others.

We've covered just about everything over the last several pages, but the point is he wasn't replying to any of that.

[Gilles]

Or it was used as a troop transport, a use for which it is very inefficient with all that wasted ceiling space.

Agreed that using the C-17 as a troop transport isn't the best use of its capabilities, but then that wasn't what we were talking about either.

Good old Gilles, always trying to muddy the water.

PS: Even ignoring the extra height, it also has >60% more floor space than the Il-76.

Muddying what waters? One of the reasons the C-17 weight statistics are so low is precisely because the C-17 is often used to haul people instead of freight and every flight with a full complement of about 130 troops goes down as a flight "with 20 tonnes of payload".

How is that reply not related to what was being said? Unless I'm stupid.

[Gilles]

For the same 45 ton payload the C-17 travels almost twice as far per litre of jet fuel as the Il-76D.

I am very interested to know how you came up with that conclusion. May we see your formula ?

[geeth]

>>>I am very interested to know how you came up with that conclusion. May we see your formula ?

Heard of going supersonic? Thats it

[GeorgeWelch]

For the same 45 ton payload the C-17 travels almost twice as far per litre of jet fuel as the Il-76D.

I am very interested to know how you came up with that conclusion. May we see your formula ?

It's in the bottom of this post

I'm pretty sure it's wrong simply because the Il-76 is lighter, however for the specifics as to where it wrong, I'll leave it as an exercise for Gilles.

[rohitvats]

George, I'm curious - did you read the series of posts before the one you quoted was made and maybe would have made yourself aware of the context? Or do you pick on anything which even in slightest manner shows the C-17 in bad light?

OK. Now answer a simple question - Will IAF need 35-40 tonnes category aircraft post the retirement of IL-76 or not? And do share some reasons and data points.

So only weight counts? Both volume and weight are important, and if either one is maxed out, you're 'taxing the full potential of the aircraft'

Does the volume max out of the Cargo Hold floor space max out? If bulk of what I need to carry "taxes" only the floor space of the a/c, might as well use a 40 tons aircraft - where may be per flight cargo may be around 15 tonnes? But then what is better - using a 75 tonnes a/c for lifting 20 tonnes load or 40 ton a/c for 15 tonnes cargo?

Is the Air Force Buying C-17 to haul 20 tonnes something load or as a Very Heavy Airlift (VHAL) aircraft? Which part of the "full potential" of C-17 is the USP for which the IAF is buying? Volume or Payload? What use is the massive Gross Cargo Hold Volume of C-17 if for most of the time, all I'm using is the fraction of it? Might as well use a 40 ton airlifter in those roles, no? Especially, when the range offered by a 40 ton a/c in not an issue?

Separate issue, if you want to start a thread about buying more C-130Js for the IAF, feel free.

No exactly - If C-17 become the only heavy airlift category aircraft beyond AN-32, the lack of 20 tonnes capacity becomes that much acute.

As you say, C-17s have their role, so what's wrong with getting them?

Again, can you show a single post anywhere on this thread where I've said C-17 are not required? If anything, I've tried to qualify the use of C-17 in Indian context and present and potential employment. My interest is the overall airlift requirement of IAF and C-17 is just part of the equation - which I was trying to solve. But that again, does not mean that C-17 are "be-all and end-all"...there are other requirements as well. Requirements which mean that a 20 and 40 ton aircraft is must for IAF.

[G Trevize]

Indian Air Force (IAF) Pending Order For 10 Boeing C-17s Not at Risk as Suggested; Timing of Long Beach Strike Suspect | PressReleasePoint

Colleagues: Some may find the content of this release somewhat unsettling, but rest assured it far from being an opinion piece, and contains solidly supported analysis... in my view.

And to colleague Gilles, whose well structured comments we respect, it would have been appropriate for you to note the reply to THE DEWLINE's Steve Trimble's "BC-17, Dead Already, Dies Again", which essentially neutralized his assessment. Lastly, your provision of the Wikipedia CAMAA narrative demonstrates that you strive for objectivity, which is refreshing. Indeed, we have found this to be the case for not a few of BR's readership.

Summary of Release:

"The drumbeat of anti-C-17 commentary in Indian, Pakistani and other global news mediums; a strike at Boeing Long Beach by Union workers and the observably large leap in logic suggesting Globemaster III will be terminated as a result, appear to be part of a well coordinated effort -- again -- to render as self-fulfilling prophecy SECDEF Robert Gates' unfounded insistence on ending production of the world's most successful strategic/tactical airlifter."

[G Trevize]

Indian Air Force (IAF) Pending Order For 10 Boeing C-17s Not at Risk as Suggested; Timing of Long Beach Strike Suspect | PressReleasePoint

Colleagues: Some may find the content of this release somewhat unsettling, but rest assured it far from being an opinion piece, and contains solidly supported analysis... in my view.

And to colleague Gilles, whose well structured comments we respect, it would have been appropriate for you to note the reply to THE DEWLINE's Steve Trimble's "BC-17, Dead Already, Dies Again", which essentially neutralized his assessment. Lastly, your provision of the Wikipedia CAMAA narrative demonstrates that you strive for objectivity, which is refreshing. Indeed, we have found this to be the case for not a few of BR's readership.

Summary of Release:

"The drumbeat of anti-C-17 commentary in Indian, Pakistani and other global news mediums; a strike at Boeing Long Beach by Union workers and the observably large leap in logic suggesting Globemaster III will be terminated as a result, appear to be part of a well coordinated effort -- again -- to render as self-fulfilling prophecy SECDEF Robert Gates' unfounded insistence on ending production of the world's most successful strategic/tactical airlifter."

[Dmurphy]

IB4TL...my first one since the quick reply facility was turned on! It certainly helps!

[ticky]

IB4TL...my first one since the quick reply facility was turned on! It certainly helps!

Hainji
Wrong thread saar, maybe quick reply was too quickly used

[Gilles]

Indian Air Force (IAF) Pending Order For 10 Boeing C-17s Not at Risk as Suggested; Timing of Long Beach Strike Suspect | PressReleasePoint

Colleagues: Some may find the content of this release somewhat unsettling, but rest assured it far from being an opinion piece, and contains solidly supported analysis... in my view.

And to colleague Gilles, whose well structured comments we respect, it would have been appropriate for you to note the reply to THE DEWLINE's Steve Trimble's "BC-17, Dead Already, Dies Again", which essentially neutralized his assessment. Lastly, your provision of the Wikipedia CAMAA narrative demonstrates that you strive for objectivity, which is refreshing. Indeed, we have found this to be the case for not a few of BR's readership.

Summary of Release:

"The drumbeat of anti-C-17 commentary in Indian, Pakistani and other global news mediums; a strike at Boeing Long Beach by Union workers and the observably large leap in logic suggesting Globemaster III will be terminated as a result, appear to be part of a well coordinated effort -- again -- to render as self-fulfilling prophecy SECDEF Robert Gates' unfounded insistence on ending production of the world's most successful strategic/tactical airlifter."

Sir,

Please Google "Global HeavyLift Holdings" and see what they stand for. As far as I was able to establish, they are nothing but a C-17 Lobby group disguised as a corporation, that make a lot of noise in the Press. As far as I know, they have no place of business, no commercial activities, no aircraft, no airline, no contracts. If you are able prove me wrong, please let me know, I am very interested into find out who they really are. They have been lobbying for the Commercial version of the C-17 for years, but who are they? GHH could very well be Mr GeorgeWelch himself as far as I know.

Now as for part of the comment made by GHH.s president under the reference article:

The Russians and Ukrainians are owed a debt of gratitude for having proved the viability of the heavy and outsized market -- so much so that the US military has to rely on them to make up for airlift shortfalls in the Iraq and Afghanistan military theaters of operation -- and it is imperative to take their accomplishment to the next level, which the BC-17 initiative represents.

His argument is that there is such a large need for oversize aircraft that the US Air Force has to resort to using commercial Russian aircraft, which proves the need for a fleet of Civil Air Reserve BC-17s.

A few facts to put all this in perspective:

1) The US Air Force has not really made much is use of the IL-76. The old ones (with D-30KP engines) are not allowed in the US, even for humanitarian missions or military contracts (I am talking about the civilian ones). Neither is the An-22. The only USAF use of Soviet Designs has been of the An-124 and the An-225.

2) The US Air Force has 111 C-5 Galaxys and a little over 200 C-17s. Thats about 315 aircraft.

3) There are only 25 commercial An-124 in the world and one An-225. These 26 aircraft fly for hundreds of customers in the world and only fly occasionally for the US Air Force whose business represents a mere fraction of their total business. Yet they use the existence of these two dozen An-124s for justifying the creation of the BC-17.

What do you think of GHH's argument now?

The reality is that the great bulk of the oversize cargo is done not by the 25 An-124 but by the 200 commercial IL-76s who are chartered for $12000 an hour and can carry 45 tonnes. Who is going to stop using these aircraft and decide to use commercial BC-17s at $45,000 an hour for a 70 tonne payload? Its cheaper to use 2 or even 3 IL-76s than one BC-17. If the load is too large for an Il-76, rent an An-124. Its larger hauls 150 tonnes and rents for about 25,000 an hour.

[GeorgeWelch]

As you say, C-17s have their role, so what's wrong with getting them?

Again, can you show a single post anywhere on this thread where I've said C-17 are not required? If anything, I've tried to qualify the use of C-17 in Indian context and present and potential employment. My interest is the overall airlift requirement of IAF and C-17 is just part of the equation - which I was trying to solve. But that again, does not mean that C-17 are "be-all and end-all"...there are other requirements as well. Requirements which mean that a 20 and 40 ton aircraft is must for IAF.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at, but I agree there should be something between the An-32 and the C-17. What exactly that 'something' should be, I'm not sure.

It may be that the MRTA (or whatever it is called today) will be sufficient post Il-76 retirement.

[GeorgeWelch]

GHH could very well be Mr GeorgeWelch himself as far as I know.

They're a bunch of loons as this quote shows:

ask any driver what ship they'd like to be in, C-5 vs C-17, in a chance encounter with a Mig-35.

Seriously? How about neither?


That said, I do agree with the part that the strike doesn't have any impact on India's order.

[Gilles]

Or it was used as a troop transport, a use for which it is very inefficient with all that wasted ceiling space.

Agreed that using the C-17 as a troop transport isn't the best use of its capabilities, but then that wasn't what we were talking about either.

Good old Gilles, always trying to muddy the water.

PS: Even ignoring the extra height, it also has >60% more floor space than the Il-76.

Here is a C-17 with about a 15 tonne payload. Yet its full



Here is a C-17 with about a 20 tonne payload. Full also:



Are your waters clear now GeorgeWelch ?

[GeorgeWelch]

Are your waters clear now GeorgeWelch ?

The IAF isn't selecting the C-17 for its troop transport capabilities. Is that clear?

[Gilles]

That said, I do agree with the part that the strike doesn't have any impact on India's order.

I agree also.

[G Trevize]

[

quote="Gilles"]

Indian Air Force (IAF) Pending Order For 10 Boeing C-17s Not at Risk as Suggested; Timing of Long Beach Strike Suspect | PressReleasePoint

Colleagues: Some may find the content of this release somewhat unsettling, but rest assured it far from being an opinion piece, and contains solidly supported analysis... in my view.

And to colleague Gilles, whose well structured comments we respect, it would have been appropriate for you to note the reply to THE DEWLINE's Steve Trimble's "BC-17, Dead Already, Dies Again", which essentially neutralized his assessment. Lastly, your provision of the Wikipedia CAMAA narrative demonstrates that you strive for objectivity, which is refreshing. Indeed, we have found this to be the case for not a few of BR's readership.

Summary of Release:

"The drumbeat of anti-C-17 commentary in Indian, Pakistani and other global news mediums; a strike at Boeing Long Beach by Union workers and the observably large leap in logic suggesting Globemaster III will be terminated as a result, appear to be part of a well coordinated effort -- again -- to render as self-fulfilling prophecy SECDEF Robert Gates' unfounded insistence on ending production of the world's most successful strategic/tactical airlifter."

Sir,

Please Google "Global HeavyLift Holdings" and see what they stand for. As far as I was able to establish, they are nothing but a C-17 Lobby group disguised as a corporation, that make a lot of noise in the Press. As far as I know, they have no place of business, no commercial activities, no aircraft, no airline, no contracts. If you are able prove me wrong, please let me know, I am very interested into find out who they really are. They have been lobbying for the Commercial version of the C-17 for years, but who are they? GHH could very well be Mr GeorgeWelch himself as far as I know.

Gilles: Thank you for your response.

You noted in a previous post a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial ... t_Aircraft) to a Wiki narrative about CAMAA which says this:


According to a recently released internal document "The Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft (CAMAA) Program: Observations and Recommendations",[10] which was prepared at the direction of former Secretary of The Air Force Dr. James G. Roche in August 2001 by national security strategist and National Defense University (NDU) Foundation board member[11] Dr. Sheila Ronis, Director, MBA/MSM Programs Associate Professor, Management, Walsh College[12][13] (also a visioning group leader for the Project On National Security Reform)[14] and industry analyst Myron D. Stokes,[15] currently Managing Member of Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC, (GHH) the initiative was described as "an experiment in acquisition reform." GHH is a Defense Logistics Agency listed[16] entity formed in 2002 to bring together the intellectual resources to craft architecture for global infrastructure of a new US/NATO-controlled Heavy and Outsized subset of the air cargo industry utilizing new and used commercial variants of the C-17 Globemaster III designated BC-17.[17][18]

"Notably, the Ronis/Stokes paper to SECAF Roche pointed out the limitations of the CAMAA program, as originally conceived, and made recommendations to the Secretary to help ensure the program's success. These recommendations and changes were directed by the Secretary to be implemented within a revamped framework co-crafted by Ronis and Stokes in strong collaboration with USAF and Boeing personnel."

As noted on several releases:

"Founded in 2002, GHH is a strategic air transport solutions entity that was born of a multi-year public/private effort among forward thinkers in both the private sector and government to mitigate emerging and observable vulnerabilities in the U.S. industrial base global supply chain. Such vulnerabilities are represented by the fact that no ocean-borne shipping is in U.S. hands at present, thus potentially subjecting American corporations, especially automotive, and their global operations to the whims and perhaps economically hostile activities of and by foreign governments. Add to this the risk of terrorist activities, which have, according to the Department of Homeland Security, targeted maritime operations; i.e., ships, ports and ocean containers.

"Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) listed, it is the goal of GHH and its strategic partners around the planet to work with key logistics personnel within these corporations and government agencies to conceptualize, craft and structure long-term global supply chain alternative transportation methodologies through continuous -- not stop gap or emergency -- air augmentation solutions. Its most important mission, however, has been in the co-development of global architecture for infrastructure of a new American controlled industry, Heavylift, utilizing the excellent airlift performance characteristics of the Boeing BC-17."

Be well...

[Gilles]

Global HeavyLift Holdings

They don't even have a website, or any activities other than making Press releases about the need for more C-17s. And for some reason, the Press always largely echoes whatever they have to say, as though GHH was UPS or FedEx or some large and serious corporation that owned hundreds of cargo aircraft.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

Gilles, thank you for those photgraphs and 15-20 tonnes payload example. Those snaps help to illustrate what I've been saying - requirement for lift capability in 20-40 tonnes category. The requirement can be understood as follows:

Indian Army has no Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) in it's orbat. All we have is one Parachute Brigade and we lack the capability to lift the whole of it in one go. What we need is preferably a Division sized Air Mobile Force to bolster one of sectors - on India's eastern border with China or Nothern border - with both China and Pakistan. But let us even start with a brigade sized force. Here we need to understand that India has faced such a contigency in past. Another important point - the range as afforded by C-17 or even IL-76 is not the main criterion. <2,000 kms will suffice.

So, if IAF+IA need to move a brigade sized force, C-130J/A-400M/IL-76 become important to haul the troops while C-17 are required to do the heavy payload lifting. That is why need the staggered air-lift capability. Similarly, if the idea is to para drop Brigade worth of Paratroopers, we need the ^^^ combination - using C-17 for paradrop or moving troops is doing injustice to it's capability. USA can do as C-17 is their mainstay - and range is important criterion given the expeditionary nature of their forces.

We need AN-32/C-130J or A-400M or IL-76/C-17. The arlift capability will be in form of a pyramid - with C-17 at the top. As it is, we can afford only so many C-17 - the bulk of lifting will have to be in C-130/A-400M or IL-76 category.

[G Trevize]

Global HeavyLift Holdings

They don't even have a website, or any activities other than making Press releases about the need for more C-17s. And for some reason, the Press always largely echoes whatever they have to say, as though GHH was UPS or FedEx or some large and serious corporation that owned hundreds of cargo aircraft.

Gilles: Thanks again.

Question. I've followed your comments for quite awhile, and my question is would you and George Welch consider collaboration on a comprehensive book outlining strategic and tactical airlift platforms of the nations?

Industry and government would be well served by such a publication that acknowledges the post Cold War reality of conventional and asymmetric warfare existing concomitantly.

Thoughts?

username changed to G Trevize. you can request a human sounding name of your choice provided it is not taken.
Rahul.

[G Trevize]

Rahul: Thanks.

Question. How is "ASIMOVONE" derived from science writer Isaac Asimov, any less human than say "ROHITVATS"? Asimov is of Russian origin and I assume that Rohitvats has Hindi, Gujarati or Bengali roots?

Perhaps it would have been better to separate to "ASIMOV ONE"? Would that work?

Be well.



username changed to G Trevize. you can request a human sounding name of your choice provided it is not taken.
Rahul.[/quote]

[Cain Marko]

Rohit there are Il 76 with 65 tonne lift, the Il 76 MF model.

The only IL-76MF I have ever seen is the original prototype which is a converted IL-76 TD. This one:

Since then, the PS-90 was fitted to the IL-76MD, the IL-76TD and the A-50sm and Ilyushin sold several of these models, but as far as I know, no PS-90 fitted IL-76MF has ever been built or sold.

What is the reason for this, I have no idea.

So then it is well within the realm of possibility to get a modded IL-76 that comes close to a C-17 payload within a few years. So what was the hurry?

CM

[Jagan]

Question. How is "ASIMOVONE" derived from science writer Isaac Asimov, any less human than say "ROHITVATS"? Asimov is of Russian origin and I assume that Rohitvats has Hindi, Gujarati or Bengali roots?

Perhaps it would have been better to separate to "ASIMOV ONE"? Would that work?

Be well.

G Trevize

Lets start with the guidelines

Forum members are required to register with a displayed name or username that should appear like a common human name and which does NOT feature a call sign, an abbreviation, names with numbers, ALL CAPS, or names that may carry a message or meaning that may be interpreted as inappropriate.

I would say ASIMOVONE or ASIMOV ONE fails on three counts - not a common human name, sounds like a call sign "MAVERICK ONE", "RED THEE", "FOX TWO" and finally ALL CAPS.

yes we are very anal about our guidelines..

whats wrong with I Asimov? nothing. but then we dont allow famous personalities. It is a bit distracting when an Albert Einstien or a Charles Darwin or an Arthur C Clarke is posting on BRF saying things like "why dont we nuke {your favourite country here}"... you get the point.

btw rohitvats is HIS name..

ADDED LATE: I would however have seen that Asim Ovone would have slipped under the breadator radar easily - its all about presentation.

[G Trevize]

Question. How is "ASIMOVONE" derived from science writer Isaac Asimov, any less human than say "ROHITVATS"? Asimov is of Russian origin and I assume that Rohitvats has Hindi, Gujarati or Bengali roots?

Perhaps it would have been better to separate to "ASIMOV ONE"? Would that work?

Be well.

G Trevize

Lets start with the guidelines

Forum members are required to register with a displayed name or username that should appear like a common human name and which does NOT feature a call sign, an abbreviation, names with numbers, ALL CAPS, or names that may carry a message or meaning that may be interpreted as inappropriate.

I would say ASIMOVONE or ASIMOV ONE fails on three counts - not a common human name, sounds like a call sign "MAVERICK ONE", "RED THEE", "FOX TWO" and finally ALL CAPS.

yes we are very anal about our guidelines..

whats wrong with I Asimov? nothing. but then we dont allow famous personalities. It is a bit distracting when an Albert Einstien or a Charles Darwin or an Arthur C Clarke is posting on BRF saying things like "why dont we nuke {your favourite country here}"... you get the point.

btw rohitvats is HIS name..

ADDED LATE: I would however have seen that Asim Ovone would have slipped under the breadator radar easily - its all about presentation.

Understood and thanks.

[rohitvats]

So then it is well within the realm of possibility to get a modded IL-76 that comes close to a C-17 payload within a few years. So what was the hurry?

CM

CM Sahab, even the newer and bigger airlift capability version of IL-76 suffers from basic limitation of IL-76MD - width of the Cargo Hold. It will not allow you to put in T-90 or Arjun. And, however miniscule and "one of a kind" be the requirement to airlift MBT, I would want my apex lifter to be able to do that.

Another point - the biggest strength of C-17 is the humungous volume (Gross and usable) of it's cargo hold.

[Rahul M]

rohit, my gripe with the C-17 is the cost, it's incredibly pricey ! I wonder if we could have funded a wide bodied IL-476 with some Indian participation and buy a couple of dozen specimens for the same cost of buying a 10 C-17's.

you will have to admit that 10 C-17's doesn't even come close to the number that IAF and IA would ideally want to have. but at that cost it's just not worthwhile to buy any more.

[GeorgeWelch]

rohit, my gripe with the C-17 is the cost, it's incredibly pricey ! I wonder if we could have funded a wide bodied IL-476 with some Indian participation and buy a couple of dozen specimens for the same cost of buying a 10 C-17's.

A 'wide bodied' version of the Il-76 would be a completely new plane. There is a reason larger versions of a plane are always 'stretches' and not 'fattenings'. The only even half-hearted proposal for such a plane that I'm aware of is the 'Fat Herc' which has gotten about zero traction. To develop a new plane like that would be far more costly than buying off-the-shelf C-17s.

[Rahul M]

george it will be a new version for sure but some structural changes in fuselage alone does not make it a completely new plane. I'm not convinced about the 'far more costly' part either.

[GeorgeWelch]

george it will be a new version for sure but some structural changes in fuselage alone does not make it a completely new plane. I'm not convinced about the 'far more costly' part either.

It's not 'some structural changes'. Practically every piece of the plane will have to be redesigned. The fuselage, the wing, the landing gear, the tail etc. You'll probably want an updated cockpit too.

And when you redesign every piece of a plane, well, it's a new plane.

[rohitvats]

rohit, my gripe with the C-17 is the cost, it's incredibly pricey ! I wonder if we could have funded a wide bodied IL-476 with some Indian participation and buy a couple of dozen specimens for the same cost of buying a 10 C-17's.

you will have to admit that 10 C-17's doesn't even come close to the number that IAF and IA would ideally want to have. but at that cost it's just not worthwhile to buy any more.

I know sir, I know. But as far as I'm concerned, it is a done deal. And the system for sure has utility - something that I've tried to highlight.

But having said that, I don't know how many we'd buy. This for sure is a political buy - IAF has been handed down this baby. May be another 10. Also, the jury is out on the final price.

That is why I've consistently maintained that IAF needs C-130J and/or A-400M. 10 or 20 C-17 will do the real heavy lift we require - should we decide to have a Rapid Reaction Force some day or move a division worth of troops and eqp. like Op. Falcon or Op. Trident. Or another Op. Cactus. For troops movement and regular hauling business, 20/40 ton a/c is must.