C-17s for the IAF?

[Rahul M]

cockpit upg is already part of the proposed IL-476, I don't see why that substantial a modification is required.
perhaps my loose use of the term widebody is the source of the confusion, what I mean is simply an widening that can accommodate all foreseeable armoured vehicles. a cargo compartment that is ~ 20% wider would do. that does not call for a very major restructuring that could be called a new aircraft.


rohit, I don't deny that it is an excellent aircraft but perhaps with a little more footwork we could have got double that number of a little less capable aircraft for the same price ? another 10 would take the total valuation right up there with the MRCA and might even exceed it, for a total number of 20 and no tech inflow that's beyond exorbitant.

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.

hope the MTA comes on time for that. though I would have hoped that its specs were upped a little to cater for future ICV's in the 20-25 t bracket.

p.s. yeh sir kyun bhai ?

[Cain Marko]

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.

Rohitgaru,

I understand that you'd want your lifter to lift the Arjun etc! But saar $ 5.8 billion investment (added l8r - that too prone to sanctions) for a 1% op requirement? Does the almost marginal requirement justify such a cost/risk? It is like saying that the IAF will buy the pricey birds only for this particular requirement. Also, what about the requirement to land/TO from rough strips, seems like the C-17 is not such a great performer here.

If they try some mods with the IL-76, it may very well be possible to fit a tank in there; a "stretched" version connotes the creation of greater space and volume - if they can fit a bloody chapati on it, why not manage a T-90 type inside? Have studies been done that conclusively demonstrate that this is not possible?

However, there might be a sunnier side to this deal despite ahem, to borrow Philip's words, the "indecent" cost/haste. Increasingly one gets the impression that this is part baksheesh for the NSG waiver, and a token of India's willingness to partner militarily with the U.S. Chances are that the MRCA is likely to be non-US. Hopefully this means - No F-16/F-18, no MiG-35; it leaves just the E'canards - not bad.

There is a built in safety net by letting US purchases be somewhat hedged with similar performing hardware within the inventory. It allows for the necessary political maneuvering and sweetening of relationships, matches some operational requirements, and does not allow the Armed forces' fighting ability to be critically neutered. Of course, there is a price to pay, but it seems as though India can afford it.

CM.

[Karan M]

$ 5.8billion - think of how many NVG, Bullet proof jackets, radios, proper boots, gun sights - that would purchase...are those being funded with the same priority? I hope so

[GeorgeWelch]

cockpit upg is already part of the proposed IL-476, I don't see why that substantial a modification is required.

As you pointed out, it hasn't been done, it is only proposed. As to why a cockpit upgrade would be needed? Well different engines, civilian traffic control standards so it can fly at prime altitudes, and oh yeah, none of the parts for the old cockpit are manufactured anymore.

what I mean is simply an widening that can accommodate all foreseeable armoured vehicles. a cargo compartment that is ~ 20% wider would do. that does not call for a very major restructuring that could be called a new aircraft.

Quite simply you are wrong.

ANY widening of the airframe is a MAJOR undertaking. You cannot simply scale parts, it does not work like that.

If it was so easy and minor, other people would have done it. Instead I cannot find a single instance of it ever happening.

another 10 would take the total valuation right up there with the MRCA and might even exceed it

The $5.8 billion is the max cost if all options are exercised and a lot of that is 'startup costs' with simulators, initial trainer training, setting up repair facilities and whatnot. Subsequent addons (if any) would be cheaper.

[Cain Marko]

The $5.8 billion is the max cost if all options are exercised and a lot of that is 'startup costs' with simulators, initial trainer training, setting up repair facilities and whatnot. Subsequent addons (if any) would be cheaper.

Does that mean that a subsequent order is a MUST to make the purchase a little more justifiable and cost-effective?
CM.

[Indranil]

Rahul da I agree with everything you say, except this:

a cargo compartment that is ~ 20% wider would do. that does not call for a very major restructuring

Leave everything else, just think of the cross section of plane at the wing join. There will be a requirement for major changes there as the wings are not mere tangents. Based on the new join lines that will emerge, it almost a given that the wing joins would have to be redesigned, which might have an effect on the wing's sweep and the ripple will follow! So it will not be a trivial task to widen the Il-76s. I am not saying it couldn't have been done. I am just saying that it would not have been trivial.

Another alternative would have been to make the cross section of the IL-76 shaped more like a pear rather than a circle (something more like the C-5s and the AN-124)! Though this would not require any wing changes, but the fuselage will have to be redesigned. which would have been easier, but still not trivial. And then building and flying a prototype, certification and induction.

GWelch does have a point, hardly do we hear about widening a plane's body, even though a stretched version is quite common. For the stretched version with more load carrying capacity all the basic structural changes like strengthening the wing joins, use of more powerful engines are already taken care of. Given that these structural basics are in place, it will almost always be the case that operators will like wider body planes rather than longer (for bigger spectrum of cargo, generally widening the plane gives more height, load balancing is easier during operations etc etc).

Having said all this, I don't know whether redesigning the IL-76s and getting 10 of them would have cost 5.8 billion. Ofcourse, as you said it could have brought in valuable expertise. All these days I had been waiting for somebody to point out an alternative to the C-17 and only now I see it. But then are there any production lines of the IL-76 open?

PS. Godspeed the MTA! Otherwise the 130Js will flow !

[Rahul M]

indra da, the wings in IL-76 is attached to the top of the fuselage and in the front half of the cargo compartment. it should be possible to do a modification in the fuselage without necessitating a re-design of the wing section.


secondly, if you compare the dimensions of a tank(consider the largest one we have, the arjun) with that of the cargo compartment, one can see that only the lower part of the cargo section needs widening, that would mean a deviation from roundish cross-section but still maintain necessary structural strength. unless one actually does the maths, I'm not going to be convinced by arguments like "it's just not correct". AFAIK many modern cargo and passenger aircraft do not have perfectly circular fuselage sections, I don't see why it would all be hugely different for IL-76.
granted, it's much more involved work than simply lengthening the fuselage, where you add a couple of sections and take care of the CG and landing gear and you are done. (exaggerating, of course )

btw, widening of fuselages are rare but not unheard of, may be it has not been done that regularly because people have not found a need for it ? how many aircrafts really need to carry extra wide cargo anyway ? passenger aircraft too can hardly seat more than the number of passengers they currently do. (it's already too much if you ask me)
the civilian airliner versions of the Tu-16 and the Tu-95 both underwent widened fuselage mods. Tu-114, the Tu-95 civil version was also a very successful jetliner. over in the US, the B-707 features a fuselage that is wider than its KC-135 cousin. nearer in time, the X-55 research aircraft of USAF is a Do-328 with its fuselage widened, among other modification. most probably there have been other instances I'm unaware of.

the other points raised are mostly irrelevant, of course the avionics and cockpit instruments will need to upgraded, this is a 70's era plane we are talking about !! we might as well discuss the the C-130's inherent weaknesses since it no longer uses it's original 'cool' and 'retro' 50's instruments !

As you pointed out, it hasn't been done, it is only proposed. As to why a cockpit upgrade would be needed? Well different engines, civilian traffic control standards so it can fly at prime altitudes, and oh yeah, none of the parts for the old cockpit are manufactured anymore.

am I to interpret this as that the original cockpit instruments of the C-130(for example) are faithfully manufactured to this day ?

why would one care if the older instruments are manufactured or not ?

[GeorgeWelch]

As you pointed out, it hasn't been done, it is only proposed. As to why a cockpit upgrade would be needed? Well different engines, civilian traffic control standards so it can fly at prime altitudes, and oh yeah, none of the parts for the old cockpit are manufactured anymore.

am I to interpret this as that the original cockpit instruments of the C-130(for example) are faithfully manufactured to this day ?

You may recall this little project called the C-130J.

Actually the C-130J is an interesting comparison. It updated the venerable Herc with new engines, new avionics and increased use of composites. Even without changing the basic shape of the plane, over 70% of the parts were new. It also had a very long, drawn out and painful gestation.

why would one care if the older instruments are manufactured or not ?

Because if they're not manufactured you can't use them, thus forcing a new cockpit.

As you say, of course the Il-76 will need a new cockpit so I'm sort of confused as to what you're getting at.

[Gilles]

the civilian airliner versions of the Tu-16 and the Tu-95 both underwent widened fuselage mods. Tu-114, the Tu-95 civil version was also a very successful jetliner. over in the US, the B-707 features a fuselage that is wider than its KC-135 cousin. nearer in time, the X-55 research aircraft of USAF is a Do-328 with its fuselage widened, among other modification. most probably there have been other instances I'm unaware of.

You are aware. You just forgot.

The Beluga which is a modified Airbus 300-600R




And this modified B-747-400

[Indranil]

^^^ Gilles sir. Of all people, I think that you know that the Beluga and the Dreamliner have no widening at wing joint! In fact they have almost zero change to the lower part of their respective aircrafts they were designed out of!!!

None of them were designed for carrying heavier payloads. They were designed to carry "awkward" shaped cargo. For example the Dreamlifter was designed to carry fuselage sections of the dreamliner. Actually in one of the Boeing tours, I was lucky enough to have seen them unloading the green bodies.

[Rahul M]

indranil, same applies to IL-76 too doesn't it ? the current payload capacity of 60 t is fine and neither does it need widening at wing joint.

_____________________________

Because if they're not manufactured you can't use them, thus forcing a new cockpit.

that's a really overspinning way of saying that they are upgrading the instruments. why on earth would anyone want to continue with a decades old avionics and moreover why would the lack of 70's instruments spun as something negative on the program.
btw, I'm sure you didn't mean that lockheed still fits the C-130 with the original i.e the 50's avionics set. your post gives that impression.

As you say, of course the Il-76 will need a new cockpit so I'm sort of confused as to what you're getting at.

you tell me, you raised this issue of "new cockpit only because the dinosaur era avionics is no longer produced"(bad bad russians, they don't even allow you to apply the stereotypes as producers of obsolete goods), not I.

[chetak]

you tell me, you raised this issue of "new cockpit only because the dinosaur era avionics is no longer produced"

Rahul M ji,

If the IL 78 is flying with upgraded avionics, can the IL 76 be far behind?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... l=en&gl=in

A blink inside
Very few Westerners have been inside the airplane due to few occasions and
restrictions. When you enter the IL-78 cockpit, they will not tell you very much
because the MKI stands for a combination for subsystems from France, India and
Israel and is a quite unique combination in the world. It feels strange to look in a
Russian designed aircraft and read on a panel TCAS in proper English language.
The cockpit had in the first IL-76 a purely analogue lay out but since the involvement
of Israel, France and the own avionics industry of India there has been some
evolution parallel to improvements in Chkalov mounted on Russian aircraft in the
same period. Some strips and displays are secret, and delivered by ELTA, Israel or
Thales Airborne from France and are not to be photographed in detail. Two pilots are
sitting in the cockpit and directly behind them is the seat of the flight engineer and in
the outer corner the seat of the communications officer. The navigator is sitting
separated one deck below in the glass nose. He has a chair on a rail and can move
downwards under an angle to reach instruments centrally in the glass section while
his normal position is something more inside. The vertical stairs between the decks
give you the feeling to be aboard of a ship. The same feeling occurs when you walk
through the cargo bay into the turret over rubber steps on the metal fuselage to reach
the turret house.
Better avionics for all round operations
What is known about the avionics apart from the secrets? As we know, the IL-78 is at
least equipped with an integrated (automated) flight control and aiming-navigation
system including a compass system, ground surveillance radar, a central digital
computer, automatic monitoring system, automatic flight control system short-range
radio navigation and landing system, IFF-transponder optical/infrared aiming sight
and a ground collision warning system installed from the factory. More specific and
partly Western avionic features are distance measuring equipment (DME), dual VHF
navigation/communication and X-band colour weather radar of HAL central in the
nose(while the Koopol navigation radar is inside the blister under the noose). Other
instruments are Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), Global Positioning Page 4

DUTCH AVIATION SUPPORT
Chamber of Commerce: 08106154
Piloot en Vliegtuig – Aranysas – Cockpit – TopguN – Fuerza – Aeronautica&Difesa - AirFan
System (GPS), cockpit voice recorder/flight data recorder, Instrument landing System
(ILS) and Tactical aid for navigation (TACAN), but not all features have been unveiled
to foreigners. Israeli avionics are fit on Indian specifications and ELTA systems is
supporting Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) and Defence Research and Development
organisation (DRDO) with co-developing of new avionics. IAF keeps up the best
available abilities smartly. Recently during overhauls a new Reduced Vertical
Separation Minima (RVSM)-suite is installed, a mandatory requirement if aircraft are
to fly above 29.000 feet. IAF officers said the vertical separation between two aircraft
flying above 29.000 feet have been reduced from 2000 to 1000 feet by an
international consortium. The suite is highly accurate and gives a warning for every
300 feet change in altitude. More important is that the suite permits the aircraft to fly
at higher levels and thereby consumes less fuel.
Combat ready if necessary
The IL-76M/IL-78 has a defensive counter measures system, comprising a radar
warner/jammer with six antennas in small blister fairings arranged around the aircraft
to give 360 degrees coverage. The antennas are located between the centre
windows, at front of the navigators compartment, on each side of the front and each
side of the rear fuselage and there are infra red flare cartridges with packs of
ninety/six 50 mm IRCM flares on landing gear fairings and/or sides of the rear
fuselage and a chaff dispenser. Of course, the best defending mechanism are the
fighters in the surrounding. Being vital for them to come home, the tanker is a High
Value Air Asset (HVAA). The IL-78 is in India called a ‘force multiplier’ and this
indicates the far enhanced capabilities

[Indranil]

@GWelch: Sir, I am pretty sure you know that the cockpit up-gradation is not going to be that difficult a task!

@Rahulda: the pear shape (for low and wide cargo) as I had myself marked out earlier, would not need changes to the wing joint. But if you have to widen the circular body, you would have work. The wings are not exactly a single tangent, they are an anhedral. Hence widening the body would send the wing joins going further from each other. This would require strengthening of the cantilever! The cantilever is critical to the wing and a lot of parameters depend on it.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

rohit, I don't deny that it is an excellent aircraft but perhaps with a little more footwork we could have got double that number of a little less capable aircraft for the same price ? another 10 would take the total valuation right up there with the MRCA and might even exceed it, for a total number of 20 and no tech inflow that's beyond exorbitant.

Rahul da, as far I am concerned, this is a done deal...hence, I've not argued on the opportunity cost perspective. Many on this forum have confused the utility of the aircraft versus the opportunity cost of spending $5.8billion - just wanted to highlight that the a/c has it's role. Another set of posters would have us believe that C-17 is the magical answer to all the Strategic Airlift requirement of the IAF+IA; without defining what Strategic Airlift means or understanding the present nature of airlift commitments of IAF and requirements of IA.

hope the MTA comes on time for that. though I would have hoped that its specs were upped a little to cater for future ICV's in the 20-25 t bracket.

As I've maintained that bulk of airlift requirement is in 15-25 tonnes category. Is it a surprise that MTA is in this bracket?And we need aircraft with relatively longer fuselage - this is must to allow for lare troops carrying ability.

p.s. yeh sir kyun bhai ?

- kabhi kabhi chalta hai dada

[rohitvats]

Rohitgaru,

I understand that you'd want your lifter to lift the Arjun etc! But saar $ 5.8 billion investment (added l8r - that too prone to sanctions) for a 1% op requirement? Does the almost marginal requirement justify such a cost/risk? It is like saying that the IAF will buy the pricey birds only for this particular requirement. Also, what about the requirement to land/TO from rough strips, seems like the C-17 is not such a great performer here.

As I said in reply to Rahul's post - this is a done deal and hence, no whining from me. In case someone asks that should India go for it - my arguments would have been on similar lines as above.

But having said that, let us not miss the forest for trees, sir. Ever since this MBT airlift capability has been brought forth, we've been harping on the oportunity cost angle wrt only this capability. What we forget that these 10 C-17 have more airlift capability that the current fleet of IL-76. And the Cargo Volume angle that I mentioned above is of great importance - a IL-76 Voulme maxes out at 33 tonnes. That is 73% of the payload capability. While I don't have similar figure for C-17, but given the boxy nature of it's Cargo Hold, this percentage should be higher. These aircraft can help us achieve true heavy airlift capability.

However, there might be a sunnier side to this deal despite ahem, to borrow Philip's words, the "indecent" cost/haste. Increasingly one gets the impression that this is part baksheesh for the NSG waiver, and a token of India's willingness to partner militarily with the U.S. Chances are that the MRCA is likely to be non-US. Hopefully this means - No F-16/F-18, no MiG-35; it leaves just the E'canards - not bad.

There is a built in safety net by letting US purchases be somewhat hedged with similar performing hardware within the inventory. It allows for the necessary political maneuvering and sweetening of relationships, matches some operational requirements, and does not allow the Armed forces' fighting ability to be critically neutered. Of course, there is a price to pay, but it seems as though India can afford it.

CM.

Wonderful analysis and fresh angle to the whole argument.

[rohitvats]

What would be the likely cost of funding a 50 ton IL-76 with larger width of Cargo Hold? The reason I ask is that sometime in future, it is either going to be these modified IL-76MKI or A-400M...

[Gilles]

What would be the likely cost of funding a 50 ton IL-76 with larger width of Cargo Hold? The reason I ask is that sometime in future, it is either going to be these modified IL-76MKI or A-400M...

There has been a rumour that China is pursuing a similar route with the An-70. That aircraft has the required cabin dimensions:

The cabin length is 18 meters without the ramp, 21 meters with the ramp. It is 4 meters wide at the floor level and 4,1 meters high. The problem with that aircraft is that it was designed as a tactical aircraft with a payload that limited to 47 tonnes, on short segments. Rumour had it that China was looking at that aircraft and thinking of replacing its 4 turboprops with 4 turbofan engines, thus increasing its max take-off weight and payload to something that would allow heavier payloads.

[Gilles]

^^^ Gilles sir. Of all people, I think that you know that the Beluga and the Dreamliner have no widening at wing joint! In fact they have almost zero change to the lower part of their respective aircrafts they were designed out of!!!

None of them were designed for carrying heavier payloads. They were designed to carry "awkward" shaped cargo. For example the Dreamlifter was designed to carry fuselage sections of the dreamliner. Actually in one of the Boeing tours, I was lucky enough to have seen them unloading the green bodies.

I didn't say otherwise. There is also a couple Lockheed C-5s that were modified into C-5C. These aircraft were modified internally to allow the loading of NASA booster rockets that did not fit in conventional C-5 Galaxys. The structural mods are mostly interior and are not really visible from the outside I was told except for a modified rear cargo door. Wikipedia informs use:

The C-5C is a specially modified variant for transporting large cargo. Two C-5s (68-0213 and 68-0216) were modified to have a larger internal cargo capacity to accommodate large payloads, such as satellites for use by NASA. The major modifications were the removal of the rear passenger compartment floor, splitting the rear cargo door in the middle, and installing a new movable aft bulkhead further to the rear.[58] Modifications also included adding a second inlet for ground power, which can feed any power-dependent equipment that may form part of the cargo. The two C-5Cs are operated by U.S. Air Force crews on the behalf of NASA, and are stationed at Travis AFB, California. 68-0216 completed the Avionics Modernization Program in January 2007.[59]

[rohitvats]

What would be the likely cost of funding a 50 ton IL-76 with larger width of Cargo Hold? The reason I ask is that sometime in future, it is either going to be these modified IL-76MKI or A-400M...

There has been a rumour that China is pursuing such a route with the An-70. That aircraft has the required cabin dimensions:

The cabin length is 18 meters without the ramp, 21 meters with the ramp. Its 4 meters wide at the floor level and 4,1 meters high. The problem with that aircraft is that it was designed as a tactical aircraft with a payload is limited to 47 tonnes. Rumour had it that China was looking at that aircraft and thinking of replacing its 4 turboprops with 4 turbofan engines, thus increasing its max take-off weight and payload to something that would allow heavier payloads.

But with C-17 being a done deal plus expected 10 more (my guess), I don't think IAF needs another 60-80 tons lifter. At 47 tons Max Cargo and $65-70 million, AN-70 can very well fill in the shoes of IL-76.

[Rahul M]

chetak ji, of course ! no one is going to buy anything today with old fashioned dials.

rohit, the modern IL-76 family is powered by the PS-90 and that anyway takes their payload to 60t, any IL-76 or 78 IAF buys in the future will belong to that category. the IL-76MF also has a much longer cargo bay, which bodes well for carrying more soldiers. http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/military/76mf.html
the issue of production in russia is still a question mark though.
p.s. I know C-17 is a done deal, it was more in the line of 'what if' and an alternative line of thought. for all we know there might have been insurmountable difficulties we have no idea of. I just hope, someone did look into that possibility before committing for the C-17.

[rohitvats]

chetak ji, of course ! no one is going to buy anything today with old fashioned dials.

rohit, the modern IL-76 family is powered by the PS-90 and that anyway takes their payload to 60t, any IL-76 or 78 IAF buys in the future will belong to that category. the IL-76MF also has a much longer cargo bay, which bodes well for carrying more soldiers. http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/military/76mf.html
the issue of production in russia is still a question mark though.
p.s. I know C-17 is a done deal, it was more in the line of 'what if' and an alternative line of thought. for all we know there might have been insurmountable difficulties we have no idea of. I just hope, someone did look into that possibility before committing for the C-17.

Sirji, I did check on the various options (but missed the AN-70 ). As for evaluating the options from IAF side, that could have happened only if IAF was looking for one. This one is like those stories on BR-IAF Section - where some MOD Babu had Durandals handed over to IAF with them not having asked for it.

BTW, that AN-70 looks a good options then even the IL-76XY

[Rahul M]

rohit, how so ? carrying an MBT would be the min requirement if you ask me ! there it loses out to C-17.
but I agree it's an excellent aircraft otherwise.

[rohitvats]

rohit, how so ? carrying an MBT would be the min requirement if you ask me ! there it loses out to C-17.
but I agree it's an excellent aircraft otherwise.

Sirji, I'm talking about AN-70 from a 40 ton airlifter perspective. The payload spec of 47 tons was taken from Wiki. But another set of figures I got from net is 35-47 tons.It seems the standard payload is 30 tons while upto 47 tons can be carried in case of operations from paved runway(s) and to a "reduced" range of 3,000kms (which in our case will not be a problem). I think this stems from the Soviet/Russian desire for operations from unprepared airstrips.

Also, the Cargo hold dimensions are same league (or better?) than A-400M.

[Indranil]

IMHO, it seems logical that the replacement for the 76 (when they retire) will be the 476 or the 76-MFs (logistically and cost wise). Alas, none of them is wider than the candid. An-70 though more expensive is considerably wider and that's what the Chinese are modifying. Their turbofan totting An-70-600s would be even larger and should haul more. Probably that was the gung-ho somedays back of their 200T plane (must be MTOW). If not, as some feel, it might be a merge of the IL-76 and the C-17, then well well...

Coming back to the IAF, would the IAF operate 2 kinds of planes in the same load range, i.e. C-17 and IL-76xx? HMMM...

Also will it operate another one at the 40-50T range when it would have planes at the 60-65T range. Unlikely, because the operating cost of a 60T plane loaded at 45T will be almost the same as a 50T plane carrying 45T. I hope the IAF is planning carefully! I wish there was a wider plane the IL-76 available for a cheaper price than the C-17s!

Also, was thinking with the MTA replacing the An-32s, we would be making a 20T capable plane haul 7T! It might be that there is no category at the 7T as such. It was just carved out because that is where the Cline/Avros max out! But if there is indeed a niche there, can our RTA-70/90 be modified to something akin to the Il-112? It is touted as highly cost effective! Besides it is already a high wing aircraft which is ideal for transport role! It will have engines similar to the PW-150 which has almost the same power output as the Cline! It is "capable of reliable and safe operation from airports with minimal infrastructure and instrumentation facility under all-weather conditions." And they have 15 years to do this!!!! I read that HAL might look into the military transport variant, but nothing beyond that. Hope it comes true!!!

[Viv S]

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 ?

Well reposting the relevant part of my previous post on the matter. Its pretty rough, but its best I could find.

I tried to calculate the C-17's fuel consumption relative to the Il-76. For the same payload (45 tons), the C-17 has 2.3 times the range of the Il-76 with a fuel capacity that's 1.2 times that of the Il-76. That works out be 1.9 times higher fuel efficiency for the C-17. Even assuming the newer Il-76 variants are more fuel efficient, that's still a huge plus for the C-17. That's in addition to higher performance limits, wide-body and quicker turnaround time.

Informations probably not accurate but good enough for a rough estimate.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/ ... 40f993.png [y axis - 10 ton, x axis - 1000nm]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globe ... .28C-17.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_I ... 8Il-76D.29
http://www.azfreighters.com/planes/il76.pdf

[Gilles]

Well reposting the relevant part of my previous post on the matter. Its pretty rough, but its best I could find.

I tried to calculate the C-17's fuel consumption relative to the Il-76. For the same payload (45 tons), the C-17 has 2.3 times the range of the Il-76 with a fuel capacity that's 1.2 times that of the Il-76. That works out be 1.9 times higher fuel efficiency for the C-17. Even assuming the newer Il-76 variants are more fuel efficient, that's still a huge plus for the C-17. That's in addition to higher performance limits, wide-body and quicker turnaround time.

Informations probably not accurate but good enough for a rough estimate.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/ ... 40f993.png [y axis - 10 ton, x axis - 1000nm]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globe ... .28C-17.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_I ... 8Il-76D.29
http://www.azfreighters.com/planes/il76.pdf

It does not quite work like that. I assume you are talking about the Il-76MD like the ones in the IAF?

They have an empty weight of about 90 tonnes (according to this article : http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html)

Their Max Take-off weight is 190 tonnes. So If you add 45 tonnes of payload to a 90 tonne aircraft, you come up with a zero fuel weight of 135 tonnes. That leaves just 55 tonnes for the fuel. You cannot fill up the tanks. With 55 tonnes, an Il-76 can fly about 1950 NM if you need a reserve and an alternate airport (I added 30 minutes of reserve fuel and an alternate located 30 minutes flying time away)

A C-17 weighs empty around 128 tonnes. Add 45 tonnes of payload and you get a Zero Fuel Weight of 173 tonnes. Its Max Take Off Weight is 265 tonnes. So there is room for 92 tonnes of fuel. Its tanks can contain 111 tonnes, so it cannot take full fuel either, but it can carry 37 tonnes of fuel more than the IL-76MD. A C-17 with that amount of fuel can fly close to 4000 NM.

It we were to make the same exercise with a modern IL-76MD-90.
The weights are similar but the IL-76MD-90 can take 5 tonnes more fuel, thanks to its 195 tonne Max Take off Weight. So it could carry 60 tonnes of fuel. It burns 7.2 tonnes per hour instead of 9 tonnes/hour. So with that 60 tonnes of fuel, it will travel about 2800 NM, 850 NM more than the IL-76MD with the same payload.

C-17 can only carry 32 tonnes of fuel more than the Il-76MD-90 more, but this time the IL-76MD-90 burns less than the C-17, so the C-17's advantage in range shrinks a bit.

Lets do the An-70 while we are here.

The An-70 weighs 66 tonnes empty. Add 45 tonnes of payload and you get a Zero Fuel Weight of 111 tonnes. Its Maximum Take off Weight is 145 tonnes, which leaves us only 34 tonnes for fuel. However, it only burns 4.4 tonnes per hour (less than half what an IL-76MD burns). With reserve and an alternate airport, it can fly about 2400 NM under these conditions.

[Sanku]

Viv S, since the discussion has moved ahead on a different note quite a bit. I wont dredge up old posts and trash it out, but do note that IAF or any forces HAVE no bearing on whether a purchase needs to go via a FMS route or not (note a FMS route is not opposite of multi-vendor, a single vendor may or may not be FMS)

What its says is that forces can come up with a requirement in overwhelming exceptional circumstances which result in SQR where only one product fits the bill.

This does not say that the decision of FMS, single/multi vendor is forces prerogative.

Please reread what you posted once again.

[Viv S]

It does not quite work like that. I assume you are talking about the Il-76MD like the ones in the IAF?

They have an empty weight of about 90 tonnes (according to this article : http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html)

Their Max Take-off weight is 190 tonnes. So If you add 45 tonnes of payload to a 90 tonne aircraft, you come up with a zero fuel weight of 135 tonnes. That leaves just 55 tonnes for the fuel. You cannot fill up the tanks. With 55 tonnes, an Il-76 can fly about 1950 NM if you need a reserve and an alternate airport (I added 30 minutes of reserve fuel and an alternate located 30 minutes flying time away)

A C-17 weighs empty around 128 tonnes. Add 45 tonnes of payload and you get a Zero Fuel Weight of 173 tonnes. Its Max Take Off Weight is 265 tonnes. So there is room for 92 tonnes of fuel. Its tanks can contain 111 tonnes, so it cannot take full fuel either, but it can carry 37 tonnes for of fuel more than the IL-76MD. A C-17 with that amount of fuel can fly close to 4000 NM.

It we were to make the same exercise with a modern IL-76MD-90.
The weights are similar but the IL-76MD-90 can take 5 tonnes more fuel, thanks to its 195 tonne Max Take off Weight. So it could carry 60 tonnes of fuel. It burns 7.2 tonnes per hour instead of 9 tonnes/hour. So with that 60 tonnes of fuel, it will travel about 2800 NM, 850 NM more than the IL-76MD with the same payload.

C-17 can only carry 32 tonnes of fuel more than the Il-76MD-90 more, but this time the IL-76MD-90 burns less than the C-17, so the C-17's advantage in range shrinks a bit.

You're right. I should've thought of that. After including that part in the C-17 ends up with just a 10-15% advantage in fuel economy.

Lets do the An-70 while we are here.

The An-70 weighs 66 tonnes empty. Add 45 tonnes of payload and you get a Zero Fuel Weight of 111 tonnes. Its Maximum Take off Weight is 145 tonnes, which leaves us only 34 tonnes for fuel. However, it only burns 4.4 tonnes per hour (less than half what an IL-76MD burns). With reserve and an alternate airport, it can fly about 2400 NM under these conditions.

Well seeing the Russians have withdrawn from the project the An-70 is going to end up far more expensive than originally expected. Also, the turbofan An-70-600 which the IAF may still have been interested in, is being co-developed with China. Plus there is the same payload limitation as the Il-76MD.

[Viv S]

Viv S, since the discussion has moved ahead on a different note quite a bit. I wont dredge up old posts and trash it out, but do note that IAF or any forces HAVE no bearing on whether a purchase needs to go via a FMS route or not (note a FMS route is not opposite of multi-vendor, a single vendor may or may not be FMS)

Agree completely. The acquisition/negotiation is handled by the MoD.

What its says is that forces can come up with a requirement in overwhelming exceptional circumstances which result in SQR where only one product fits the bill.

It doesn't say or imply 'overwhelming exceptional circumstances' are necessary for such a recommendation.

This does not say that the decision of FMS, single/multi vendor is forces prerogative.

Please reread what you posted once again.

FMS is not the forces prerogative. But, identifying the possible vendors is. And for an American product, FMS is always preferable to DCS.

BTW the article that I posted was apparently lifted of Flight Global

India has previously expressed its interest in the C-17 by issuing a request for information last year. One US Air Force example participated in the Aero India exhibition at Yelahanka airbase near Bangalore last April and was used to conduct demonstration flights for air force and defence ministry officials. An advanced version of the Il-76 was also considered to meet future requirements, but Indian defence ministry sources say the C-17 was the preferred choice.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ports.html

Then they're other sources:-

The defence ministry has in principle approved the purchase of US firm Boeing’s C-17 heavy lift aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF), which is hoping to replace its ageing fleet of Russian IL-76 transport aircraft, an official said Friday.
“The IAF had shortlisted the aircraft on the basis of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads. Now the defence ministry has approved in principle the acquisition and has sent a letter to the US authorities seeking formal offer for the aircraft,” a senior IAF official told IANS.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/bus ... 77603.html

[Gilles]

Well seeing the Russians have withdrawn from the project the An-70 is going to end up far more expensive than originally expected. Also, the turbofan An-70-600 which the IAF may still have been interested in, is being co-developed with China. Plus there is the same payload limitation as the Il-76MD.

I read that the Russians had begun once again the fund the remainder of the An-70's certifications flights. They have committed to seeing the certification through but have not yet committed to ordering any. Here is a picture of the An-70 taking off. It was taken this morning.

http://spotters.net.ua/file/?id=29444

[Sanku]

FMS is not the forces prerogative. But, identifying the possible vendors is.

Not even that. IA can just write the specs needed, identifying vendors is MoD domain again (strictly speaking) although forces can suggest.

[Austin]

Russia, U.S. mull joint production of An-124 transport planes

"We have discussed a full-scale project, which includes the joint production of the plane, setting up a joint venture, shared rights, sales to Russian and American customers - both civilian and military - and the creation of a scheme for post-production servicing," Sergei Ivanov told reporters in Washington.

The An-124 is similar to the American Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, but has a 25% larger payload.

The aircraft has a maximum payload of 150 metric tons with a flight range of around 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles).

An-124s have been used extensively by several U.S. companies. Russian cargo company Volga-Dnepr has contracts with Boeing to ship outsize aircraft components to its Everett plant.

United Launch Alliance contracts the An-124 to transport the Atlas V launch vehicle from its facilities near Denver to Cape Canaveral.

Space Systems Loral contracts the An-124 to transport satellites from Palo Alto in California to the Arianespace spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.

According to Ivanov, the Pentagon has contracted An-124 planes for military transport purposes until 2016.

"The An-124 planes, made during the Soviet era, have been used extensively in the interests of U.S. customers. We are offering a full-scale project, rather than a simple lease," Ivanov said.

Russia plans to manufacture a total of 20 An-124 aircraft by 2020 in accordance with the state arms procurement program.

[Philip]

US to co-produce AN-125 with Russia! Ha!Ha!Ha! They US discovers the virtue of the aircraft after excessive usage of it,but want to dump the soon to be production dumped C-17 onto the IAF to make a few billions for Boeing and who else.....

[Austin]

Doing defence with Uncle Sam

[rohitvats]

US to co-produce AN-125 with Russia! Ha!Ha!Ha! They US discovers the virtue of the aircraft after excessive usage of it,but want to dump the soon to be production dumped C-17 onto the IAF to make a few billions for Boeing and who else.....

And how is AN-124 joint production a commentary on the merits or otherwise of C-17?

I hope you'll at least post some logical argument(s) and give some reasons for your above assertion. Or are we going to have to satisfy ourselves with "fan-boyism" driven one liners only?

[Indranil]

Russia, U.S. mull joint production of An-124 transport planes

I have been to the Everett plant 6 times now (only twice inside the perimeter). Never had the luck to see an AN-124! The dreamlifters are almost always there!

But it is an interesting development! US has so many C-5s that it is junking some. Yet it wants an aircraft with 25% more lifting capability that too at the 125-150T range! This is way beyond capability to carry APC, tanks, artillery etc etc. Notice the lifting capability of C-17 are 40% more than the IL-76MDs. This is at a weight range which has very viable load ranges. Even if you want to take rations to a far flung post. You can take rations for 40% longer or for 40% more soldiers. Yet we ....

Another interesting thing is the change in the world order. US and Russia co-producing!!!! The change in threat perception is larger than India-Pakistan co producing. I say this because of the military equipment that these countries field. Imagine the kind of spyware (or kill-switches or whatever) each can implant! The world seems to be realigning. Do we still need to cling on to buying from EITHER US OR RUSSIA?

[Surya]

Can an 124 land at Leh ??

[Gilles]

Another interesting thing is the change in the world order. US and Russia co-producing!!!! The change in threat perception is larger than India-Pakistan co producing. I say this because of the military equipment that these countries field. Imagine the kind of spyware (or kill-switches or whatever) each can implant! The world seems to be realigning. Do we still need to cling on to buying from EITHER US OR RUSSIA?

The SOVIET-US thing, the Cold war, was an idealogical conflict because of the Soviet Union's communist ideals. They have dropped that and become a capitalist market driven economy like the US. One might ask why NATO did not stand down when the USSR broke up but expanded instead to include ex Warsaw Pact Nations. One might wonder why the US military budget was increased after the end of the Cold War......

If fighting communism was at the root of the Cold War, what is all this military expansion there to fight now, that Communism has vanished from the territory that used to be the USSR ?

But thats for a different thread......

[Indranil]

Gilles, though for a different thread, I don't understand the inference that I should draw from your post. You seem to be insinuating the US of its post Cold War doctrines. But how does it relate to us? Why should we care?

If for anything, we should take a lesson out of it, i.e. to learn to adapt according to ONLY our needs! My observation was only about the changing times. I had written about this, as many including me have apprehensions about US policies and our "becoming dependent" on them for military supplies. Anyways, because we might end up further astray, lets let it rest!

[Gilles]

Gilles, though for a different thread, I don't understand the inference that I should draw from your post. You seem to be insinuating the US of its post Cold War doctrines. But how does it relate to us? Why should we care?

Ok, in more simple terms. US-Russia collaboration: Why not ? They are no longer enemies. Russian Airlines fly fleets of Boeings. What would be wrong with An-124s with GE engines and US glass cockpits? Its long overdue. Buts it's coming: Here is an example:

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/ ... ochure.pdf

US/Canadian/UK companies installing Honewell Glass cockpits in Russian MI-8/17 helicopters.