C-17s for the IAF?

[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?

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.

Very rightly so! Sorry Gilles for the confusion. I was saying the same thing and discussing US and India. All I mean to say is that branding US as a taboo like many here do (with valid reasons from the past) shouldn't hold us from getting stuff which we might need! I don't believe getting stuff form the US will suddenly make us sanction-prone, spying-prone, switch-prone, poodle-prone etc etc.

[Bharadwaj]

Very rightly so! Sorry Gilles for the confusion. I was saying the same thing and discussing US and India. All I mean to say is that branding US as a taboo like many here do (with valid reasons from the past) shouldn't hold us from getting stuff which we might need! I don't believe getting stuff form the US will suddenly make us sanction-prone, spying-prone, switch-prone, poodle-prone etc etc.

Indeed- if the c-17 is the only piece of kit that fulfills a key requirement, there should not be too much concern about where it comes from and to a certain extent even what it costs. It does have certain capabilities that are not found in the alternatives.

[Philip]

Famous saying that frogs in a well cannot comprehend what the ocean is.The same with the C-17 buy when we can buy an even better aircraft like the AN.124 with even greater capability,which the US has realised.I repeat ad nauseum that the C-17 deal is scandalous, just to bail Boeing out with this 10 billion dollar deal,and one which can make a goodly profit for vested interests. No wonder there is so much of push for the aircraft by so many entities in India ,as if war in Iceland ,with the volcano is about to break out! The IAFs priorities are warped,or perhaps its leadership is made of lesser metal like Sam and other military men of his generation who could say NO to the highest in the land and remain in their posts.AS some have said,these days the decisions are not made in the HQs of the services or MOD but in the PMO.

[Bharadwaj]

Famous saying that frogs in a well cannot comprehend what the ocean is.The same with the C-17 buy when we can buy an even better aircraft like the AN.124 with even greater capability,which the US has realised.I repeat ad nauseum that the C-17 deal is scandalous, just to bail Boeing out with this 10 billion dollar deal,and one which can make a goodly profit for vested interests. No wonder there is so much of push for the aircraft by so many entities in India ,as if war in Iceland ,with the volcano is about to break out! The IAFs priorities are warped,or perhaps its leadership is made of lesser metal like Sam and other military men of his generation who could say NO to the highest in the land and remain in their posts.AS some have said,these days the decisions are not made in the HQs of the services or MOD but in the PMO.

Unkil ka maal has to be at the bottom of the list but is there a choice here? One keeps hearing aout An 124 production restarting-the latest with unkil as part of the setup- http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100518/159058236.html Can the IAF wait while the process drags?

[Philip]

True,we have to put the volcano out and restore air travel!

[Bharadwaj]

True,we have to put the volcano out and restore air travel!

I agree that there is a haste for the c-17 order but given a genuine requirement what is the choice? Wait while the dithering over the an-124 goes on?

[Gilles]

True,we have to put the volcano out and restore air travel!

I agree that there is a haste for the c-17 order but given a genuine requirement what is the choice? Wait while the dithering over the an-124 goes on?

But would there be any dithering over the An-124 production if India had placed a firm order?

[Bharadwaj]

But would there be any dithering over the An-124 production if India had placed a firm order?

I guess that would depend on the size of the order. BTW with unkil apparently now being approached for a full joint venture by the Russians one wonders if the an-124 will be subject to the same issues of all other unkil maal.

[Indranil]

So many who couldn't see a use for a 65 T payload, suddenly see the 150 T fitting in perfectly well. Speaking about being unbiased ....

AN-124 is no doubt a wonderful plane!

[Viv S]

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.

'Strictly speaking'... but 'forces can suggest'. I see you've covered your bases.




I've posted this earlier but for benefit once again....



- All Capital Acquisitions shall be based on Services Qualitative Requirements (SQRs). The SQRs should lay down the user’s requirements in a comprehensive, structured and concrete manner.

- The SQRs would be drafted by the user directorate at SHQ.

- In order to seek Acceptance of Necessity, the Service Headquarters would prepare a Statement of Case as per format at Appendix ‘A’ to the DPP -2008. Four copies of the Statement of Case would be prepared, justifying the procurement proposal. One copy each would be forwarded to DDP, DRDO, MoD (Fin) and Administrative Branch of MoD.

-Once the SQRs have been finalised, the sources of procurement of the weapon system/stores shall be ascertained and short-listing of the prospective manufacturers/suppliers carried out by the SHQ.

-A TEC(Technical Evaluation Committee) will be constituted by the SHQ for evaluation of the technical bids received in response to RFPs, with reference to the QRs, under an officer from the SHQ.

[Philip]

Isnt this being set up or proposed by the MOD and GOI.Therefore why the indecent haste in the C-17 order.The reason is that Gates has given the thumbs down to Boeing on future orders and they have to dump the production line unless new orders are placed hence the IAFs buy! With the revelations that the US wants the AN-124 <why couldnt they buy more C.17s,cant compete with the capability of the AN.124!>,so too should the IAF look at the aircraft.

[rohitvats]

Famous saying that frogs in a well cannot comprehend what the ocean is.The same with the C-17 buy when we can buy an even better aircraft like the AN.124 with even greater capability,which the US has realised.I repeat ad nauseum that the C-17 deal is scandalous, just to bail Boeing out with this 10 billion dollar deal,and one which can make a goodly profit for vested interests. No wonder there is so much of push for the aircraft by so many entities in India ,as if war in Iceland ,with the volcano is about to break out! The IAFs priorities are warped,or perhaps its leadership is made of lesser metal like Sam and other military men of his generation who could say NO to the highest in the land and remain in their posts.AS some have said,these days the decisions are not made in the HQs of the services or MOD but in the PMO.

Can you tell me how a 100+ ton airlift aircraft in the same league as C-17? And how the former becomes alternative buy for latter? Do you see Russians discarding IL-76 (and newer versions in 50-60tons range) and opting to buy only the AN-124?

[Indranil]

Isnt this being set up or proposed by the MOD and GOI.Therefore why the indecent haste in the C-17 order.The reason is that Gates has given the thumbs down to Boeing on future orders and they have to dump the production line unless new orders are placed hence the IAFs buy! With the revelations that the US wants the AN-124 <why couldnt they buy more C.17s,cant compete with the capability of the AN.124!>,so too should the IAF look at the aircraft.

Philip saar! C-17 and AN-124 have no comparision. One carries 2.5 times the other. They have different roles. Why do you keep comparing them?!!

Of course, you can say that India should go for An-124 rather than the C-17s! Please suggest some points why AN-124 is better for India. It will make for good reading and discussions. What is the use of such broad statements?

P.S. I was late. Rohit beat me to it!

[Philip]

Several posts have compared the C-17 and the IL-76.For our current ops,there is no task that the IL-76 cannot do when compared with the C-17.In addition,it has proven itself admirably,is still in production,upgraded versions and unbeatable,the word used by a former distinguished AM,who flew our galaxy of VVIPs,headed an IAF command,etc.The C-17 is admittedly marginably larger,but if we really as is being espoused are ready to fight wars far outside India,guaranteeing the sovereignity of friendly nations like the Maldives,Mauritius,Lanka,etc.,then a larger aircraft like the Antonov whose sterling virtues have been discovered by the USAF,which is why they want more AN-124s than any more C.17s,proven in recent times with massive logistic suppoprt for the US wars of today, is sufficient answer.Why did we then many years ago go in for the MI-26,the worlds largest helo-because it could carry the most .The same holds good with the AN-124,whose size can also carry some of our missiles in addition to any of our armoured vehicles,helos,etc.If we really want a super-heavywieght transport then we should go in for the best.To me it makes no difference whether it comes from Russia or the US as long as it does not come with strings,like the C-17 logistic arrangement where US allies all pool in their support sytemes for each other.

However,I still think that we can lease such aircraft when needed,just as the west is doing right now,as we have other more urgent priorities like perfecting the LCA MK-2,finalising on the choice for the MMRCA and a fast development of the Indian version of the PAK-FA for the IAF than purchasing a heavyweight lifter.The reason is too well known for the indecent haste!

[Viv S]

Several posts have compared the C-17 and the IL-76.For our current ops,there is no task that the IL-76 cannot do when compared with the C-17.

Airlifting an Arjun/T-90 to Leh? On any mission the C-17 carries more and carries further than the Il-76. Its got a quicker turnaround time and even while transporting jeeps, its wide-body allows it to carry twice as many as the Il-76.

In addition,it has proven itself admirably,is still in production,upgraded versions and unbeatable,the word used by a former distinguished AM,who flew our galaxy of VVIPs,headed an IAF command,etc.

Almost 1000 people have died to date in Il-76 crashes.

With regard to the IAF's opinion, its the same IAF that recommended the C-17 purchase to the MoD. And most retired IAF commentators have viewed the purchase positively.

The C-17 is admittedly marginably larger,but if we really as is being espoused are ready to fight wars far outside India,guaranteeing the sovereignity of friendly nations like the Maldives,Mauritius,Lanka,etc.,then a larger aircraft like the Antonov whose sterling virtues have been discovered by the USAF,which is why they want more AN-124s than any more C.17s,proven in recent times with massive logistic suppoprt for the US wars of today, is sufficient answer.

The USAF could easily have ordered more C-5's if it felt they were necessary. The An-124's were leased(as a stop-gap) because unlike the C-5's they're available in the civilian market. The IA hires civilian trucks for transport particularly in border areas, but that doesn't imply it should start replacing the Stallion with Tata's 6x2s.

Why did we then many years ago go in for the MI-26,the worlds largest helo-because it could carry the most .The same holds good with the AN-124,whose size can also carry some of our missiles in addition to any of our armoured vehicles,helos,etc.If we really want a super-heavywieght transport then we should go in for the best.To me it makes no difference whether it comes from Russia or the US as long as it does not come with strings,like the C-17 logistic arrangement where US allies all pool in their support sytemes for each other.

The C-17s are for IAF's use only. The allies pool their resources because they are all working within the NATO or ISAF unlike the IAF.

However,I still think that we can lease such aircraft when needed,just as the west is doing right now,as we have other more urgent priorities like perfecting the LCA MK-2,finalising on the choice for the MMRCA and a fast development of the Indian version of the PAK-FA for the IAF than purchasing a heavyweight lifter.The reason is too well known for the indecent haste!

This isn't an either or situation. The choice of the IAF's next aircraft doesn't hinge on the Tejas Mk2 or FGFA.

[Gilles]

Airlifting an Arjun/T-90 to Leh?

You seem to take for granted that the C-17 can do that. You are maybe correct. But I will believe it when I see it.

Almost 1000 people have died to date in Il-76 crashes.

Thats a pretty dishonest remark.

763 fatalities is the real number. It includes 66 that died in the 9 Il-76s that were shot down. It also includes 275 people that died in a single Iranian IL-76 accident. None died in 25 years of IAF service.

2809 people have died in C-130 Hercules crashes.
3937 people have died in Boeing 737 crashes.

Do those figures represent valid arguments for anything ?

[Viv S]

Airlifting an Arjun/T-90 to Leh?

You seem to take for granted that the C-17 can do that. You are maybe correct. But I will believe it when I see it.

What makes you believe it can't?

Almost 1000 people have died to date in Il-76 crashes.

Thats a pretty dishonest remark.

You've missed the context in which I made that statement. Point wasn't that its an unsafe aircraft, point was the reliability or safety can't be touted as its USP vis-a-vis its competition.

[JimmyJ]

Globemaster will be flown to India for trials in June

“Unlike many other countries that have brought these aircraft, the Government of India insists on trials, and we will be there in June,” Tommy Dunehew, vice-president, Business Development, Boeing, told The Hindu.

If it is so, will the trial report be considered botched, otherwise there lives some papers which a future government can look at and cry foul.

[Sanku]

Viv S>>
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.

'Strictly speaking'... but 'forces can suggest'. I see you've covered your bases.[/quote]

When dealing with GoI the first thing that you learn is that the papers are written to cover all bases.


That is how things are, forces can only suggest, the choice is not theirs. As you have yourself so correctly quoted

-Once the SQRs have been finalised, the sources of procurement of the weapon system/stores shall be ascertained and short-listing of the prospective manufacturers/suppliers carried out by the SHQ.

Thank you.

[Sanku]

Globemaster will be flown to India for trials in June

“Unlike many other countries that have brought these aircraft, the Government of India insists on trials, and we will be there in June,” Tommy Dunehew, vice-president, Business Development, Boeing, told The Hindu.

If it is so, will the trial report be considered botched, otherwise there lives some papers which a future government can look at and cry foul.

Well at least some measure of transparency is happening. Good. Let the IAF see for themselves what they are being asked to buy.

[Viv S]

When dealing with GoI the first thing that you learn is that the papers are written to cover all bases.


That is how things are, forces can only suggest, the choice is not theirs. As you have yourself so correctly quoted

-Once the SQRs have been finalised, the sources of procurement of the weapon system/stores shall be ascertained and short-listing of the prospective manufacturers/suppliers carried out by the SHQ.

Thank you.

It very obvious from the quoted text that no product can be finalized without the concerned service vetting it. And its already known that the Il-76 was evaluated for the requirement and rejected. And seeing as the SHQ assigns the TEC entirely, except in cases where ToT or licence production is involved, its evident the IAF was completely on board.

The thrust of your argument is pretty obvious and very wrong. You want to believe that some hanky-panky happened behind the scenes, to justify a purchase that you're convinced is a fraud. And of course being a jingo like the rest of us, you'd like to believe the IAF's hands were clean of the muck.

Well it doesn't work that way. The MoD can accept or reject the IAF's recommendation, but it wasn't involved in the framing of the SQR, the technical evaluations or the upcoming flight trials. Bottom-line is, the IAF knows what the alternatives are, what its airlift requirements are, and its decided this aircraft is its best option. If someone disputes that, they're going to have to come out and say the IAF is wrong.

[Gilles]

Globemaster will be flown to India for trials in June

Very good news. They will show the IAF what the aircraft can do.

Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, some people with decision power actually read this Forum?

By the way, in the USAF, the Captain and loadmaster of a C-17 just don't have the authority to take it upon themselves to load an Arjun, a T-90 or anything else in the back of a C-17 unless the USAF Air Transportability Test Loading Agency has certified the load.

This agency is located here: http://engineering.wpafb.af.mil/attla/attla.asp

Their Website informs us that :

ATTLA certification is required for items exceeding any one of the following limits:

* Length: 20 ft
* Height or Width: 8 ft
* Weight: 10,000 lbs
* Load concentration: 1600 lbs per linear foot
* Floor contact pressure: 50 psi
* Axle loads: 5000 lbs
* Wheel loads: 2500 lbs
* Or, any item which requires special equipment or procedures for loading.

In this page http://engineering.wpafb.af.mil/attla/a ... nsport.asp they inform us:

Any item to be airlifted by USAF transport aircraft that exceeds specific limitations (see list of requirements above) must be certified by ATTLA. The first step in the certification process is for the agency that owns or is developing the item to send a written certification request to ATTLA, along with a description of the physical characteristics of the equipment.

After the request is received, ATTLA conducts an analysis of the item's air transportability at no cost to the requesting federal agency. If the item meets requirements, ATTLA returns a certification memo; otherwise, ATTLA recommends changes that will allow the item to meet those requirements.

If analysis alone cannot positively determine the transportability of the item, then a test loading must be performed. Test loadings are done when the transportability is uncertain. They require a formal test report and usually are conducted as Special Airlift Missions. Though occasionally required, ATTLA attempts to avoid test loadings due to the high costs associated with them.

So if the IAF requires that the C-17 carry a T-90, an Arjun or any other Indian equipment that exceeds ATTLA requirements and had not already received ATTLA certification, ascertain in advance with the C-17 Demo team that they will have ATTLA certification for whatever they will have to fly during the demo. Because I think most will agree, doing a C-17 demo with nothing in the aircraft's cargo hold is not a real demo.

[JimmyJ]

Gilles, I think it is a standard procedure by the armed forces in India. Members could you please confirm this.

Here is the other equipment soon to come in the FMS route that is to undergo testing.

India to test M777 lightweight howitzer

[Rahul M]

Gilles, some decision makers do read, whether they act on that is a different question altogether.

Jimmy, I didn't get the point, are you saying that testing is a formality in case of FMS ?

[Sanku]

The thrust of your argument is pretty obvious and very wrong. You want to believe that some hanky-panky happened behind the scenes, to justify a purchase that you're convinced is a fraud. And of course being a jingo like the rest of us, you'd like to believe the IAF's hands were clean of the muck.
.

Sigh.......

No Viv, the hanky panky, is your term, I have not made that particular argument at all.

[Viv S]

Gilles, I think it is a standard procedure by the armed forces in India. Members could you please confirm this.

Here is the other equipment soon to come in the FMS route that is to undergo testing.

India to test M777 lightweight howitzer

I think what he's trying to say is, its possible an Arjun/T-90 airlift may not be a part of the flight trials unless the concerned authority clears the tank, since the aircraft is still owned by the USAF.

On the other hand, details of the trials are usually forwarded well in advance, so unless the system is very bureaucratic, Boeing would probably be able to get a waiver from the ATTLA.

[Viv S]

The thrust of your argument is pretty obvious and very wrong. You want to believe that some hanky-panky happened behind the scenes, to justify a purchase that you're convinced is a fraud. And of course being a jingo like the rest of us, you'd like to believe the IAF's hands were clean of the muck.
.

Sigh.......

No Viv, the hanky panky, is your term, I have not made that particular argument at all.

So what happened? If its some doctrinal change, do tell. Its been established on the thread that the IAF doesn't need the C-17, in particular, for foreign deployments or for operating within a western coalition. How does the MoD go about getting the IAF to recommend this purchase?

[Sanku]

So what happened? If its some doctrinal change, do tell. Its been established on the thread, the IAF doesn't need the C-17, in particular, for foreign deployments or for operating within a western coalition. How does the MoD go about getting the IAF to recommend this purchase?

Sir no interest to repeat the Ramayan.



Meanwhile your post is fully expected.

[Viv S]

So what happened? If its some doctrinal change, do tell. Its been established on the thread, the IAF doesn't need the C-17, in particular, for foreign deployments or for operating within a western coalition. How does the MoD go about getting the IAF to recommend this purchase?

Sir no interest to repeat the Ramayan.

I'm not surprised you don't have an answer. And for the record, you haven't in the numerous posts you've made on the thread once answered that question. The fig leaf of 'interoperability' has been addressed on the thread by others as well. An-124s and Il-76s routinely operate out of Afghanistan and will continue to do so for a long time. You've managed to side-step every query on that front.

Meanwhile your post is fully expected.

The 'Ramayana' post didn't contribute to the quality of the thread either.

[Sanku]

I'm not surprised you don't have an answer.

The 'Ramayana' post didn't contribute to the quality of the thread either.

Viv S, you manage to amaze me every so often.

To translate for your benefit -- the answer has been given more than once -- if you dont understand or agree. No skin off my nose.


What is, is.

[Viv S]

I'm not surprised you don't have an answer.

The 'Ramayana' post didn't contribute to the quality of the thread either.

Viv S, you manage to amaze me every so often.

To translate for your benefit -- the answer has been given more than once -- if you dont understand or agree. No skin off my nose.

What is, is.

Still no answer. Can't say I'm amazed.

'The decision is made mostly by MoD but sort of by IAF', 'the IAF didn't want to buy C-17, they just sort of wanted it', 'the IAF doesn't need an 80 ton airlifter, because there hasn't been any public debate on the issue', 'the MoD has managed to stifle that public debate', 'tanks can be dismantled and shipped, if one does enough googling'.....

[Sanku]

Dear Viv, I know that some specific posters on the forum have made a art of trying to attack me by first "attributing" statements to me and then debating. (and by taking two statements from two different posts separated by 10 pages and combining them)

As it stands -- I consider that abhorrent in extreme. It is my statement that question is precisely the debate over many 10s of pages now. If you cant find the answer, not my problem.

But do not presume to attribute statements to me !!

[JimmyJ]

Gilles, some decision makers do read, whether they act on that is a different question altogether.

Jimmy, I didn't get the point, are you saying that testing is a formality in case of FMS ?

Nope. It was actually a question too. I believe under the procedure testing is mandatory irrespective of whether it is FMS or not. And if the requirement states that T-90/Arjun needs to be transported then IAF would test that too.

I really love our kind of democracy, the first year of any new government and under a different party is to figure out how to hold the previous as a culprit and unearth the bad maal in any purchases. UPA is well aware of that.

[Kartik]

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.

Rahul, putting a plug and increasing the fuselage length is one thing, but increasing the fuselage diameter is as good as a new aircraft. George is right about that. It would require very significant effort and at that point it may not make sense to keep the same wing design anymore either..

[Kartik]

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.

20% or 10%, it doesn't matter. You'd need to re-design, re-analyse and re-certify every fuselage part like the bulkheads, the stringers, the floor beams, etc and the wing-body joints, plus the wing box. . It’s a very significant amount of effort. You can use the existing designs as templates for the updated ones, but nevertheless you do have to do all the grunt work all over again. Is there one existing aircraft that you know of which was had a variant whose fuselage diameter was increased ? If it was that simple then Boeing and Airbus would've taken their 737 and A-320 designs and simply enlarged the fuselage diameter, added a fuselage plug, reengined them for the added weight and voila ! you'd have an aircraft that would all of a sudden seat 4 abreast instead of 3 and carry more passengers and cargo as well due to the plug and the increased cabin volume.

[Kartik]

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.

Rahul, please don't get carried away with Gilles posts on the Beluga and Dreamlifter. I know how big a program it was to modify the 747-400 into the Dreamlifter or the Large Cargo Freighter in Boeing terms. If you add the time and costs for such a development and eventual production of the Il-76 and the risks associated with such a program being delivered on time and cost (and we've seen in the recent past how many aero programs haven't delivered in this regard), then its far better to go with a proven C-17 design. Just managing such a project, keeping oversight over it all and getting all the technical issues resolved is way beyond the technical and program capabilities of HAL and maybe even the Ilyushin Bureau in Russia in their current state. We'll end up seeing the same cost and time overruns that the Gorshkov project is seeing.
What I'm wondering is why are people coming up with these suggestions on such major mods to an aircraft without considering how much additional risk and costs that incurs. How come suddenly everyone has so much faith in their current industrial capability and ability to design and deliver on time ? Is Ilyushin in any condition whatsoever to take up such a design ? And all this mods for just improving tank carrying capability ? Even with the additional width carrying an Arjun may be beyond the Il-76's capabilities unless its payload is increased..
Boeing could do the DreamLifter and Airbus the Beluga because their business model dictated such a freighter..is there any Air Force that has funded or operated such a surgically enhanced freighter just so that it can save maybe $50-60 million per copy ? We'll likely end up the only users and with that will come all the associated troubles..

[Gilles]

Rahul, please don't get carried away with Gilles posts on the Beluga and Dreamlifter. I know how big a program it was to modify the 747-400 into the Dreamlifter or the Large Cargo Freighter in Boeing terms. If you add the time and costs for such a development and eventual production of the Il-76 and the risks associated with such a program being delivered on time and cost (and we've seen in the recent past how many aero programs haven't delivered in this regard), then its far better to go with a proven C-17 design. Just managing such a project, keeping oversight over it all and getting all the technical issues resolved is way beyond the technical and program capabilities of HAL and maybe even the Ilyushin Bureau in Russia in their current state. We'll end up seeing the same cost and time overruns that the Gorshkov project is seeing.
What I'm wondering is why are people coming up with these suggestions on such major mods to an aircraft without considering how much additional risk and costs that incurs. How come suddenly everyone has so much faith in their current industrial capability and ability to design and deliver on time ? Is Ilyushin in any condition whatsoever to take up such a design ? And all this mods for just improving tank carrying capability ? Even with the additional width carrying an Arjun may be beyond the Il-76's capabilities unless its payload is increased..
Boeing could do the DreamLifter and Airbus the Beluga because their business model dictated such a freighter..is there any Air Force that has funded or operated such a surgically enhanced freighter just so that it can save maybe $50-60 million per copy ? We'll likely end up the only users and with that will come all the associated troubles..

I already mentioned how the C-5A Galaxy was structurally modified internally into the C-5C to carry NASA rockets, rockets that could not fit in regular C-5s. It did not require a new fuselage. Or a new wing. So I don't see why you are attempting to ridicule this idea. It's worth looking into.

As for payload: The IL-76MD-90 takes off at 195 tonnes, 5 tonnes more than the IL-76MD, allowing a 50 tonne payload. The IAF IL-78MKI takes off at 210 tonnes. So we know that present engines and wing allow a 210 tonne take-off weight. The stretched IL-76MF is also advertised with a take off weight of 210 tonnes and with a payload of 60 tonnes. What modification was included in the IL-76MF to allow the zero fuel weight increase which itself allowed the 60 tonne payload? Can that same modification be done to existing IL-76MDs and at what cost?

I do not know if its possible to modify an IL-76 to carry a T-90 or an Arjun. Maybe, maybe not. But to claim that its easier to spend 5.8 Billion on C-17s requires a little investigation.

An Arjun is 3.5 meter wide without the skirts. An Il-76 is 3.56 meters wide at floor level. That allows for 3 cm on each side without internals mods (And who know, internal mods may be possible to gain a few more cm on each side). It makes driving a tanks inside a very delicate operation. But how about if a sled with tracks and rollers is custom built to load an Arjun? Mount the Arjun on a roller-fitted sled on tracks, and winch the thing straight into the cabin. It wont move sideways.

Maybe possible, maybe not, but don't say right off the bat it's impossible because you want C-17s no matter what. It's easier to spend 5.8 Billion on C-17s than to consider a possibly small Il-76 mod? Yeah, right.

Great thing happen when people have a "can do attitude". People with a "Can not do attitude" often have an agenda......

[Indranil]

I already mentioned how the C-5A Galaxy was structurally modified internally into the C-5C to carry NASA rockets, rockets that could not fit in regular C-5s. It did not require a new fuselage. Or a new wing.

Was the internal diameter increased at the wing joins?

In the late-1980s, NASA had two C-5As (#68-0213 & #68-0216) modified to accommodate complete satellite and space station components. In each aircraft, the troop compartment, located in the aft upper deck, was removed and the aft cargo-door complex was modified to increase the dimensions of the cargo compartment's aft loading area.

An Arjun is 3.5 meter wide without the skirts. An Il-76 is 3.56 meters wide at floor level. That allows for 3 cm on each side without internals mods (And who know, internal mods may be possible to gain a few more cm on each side). It makes driving a tanks inside a very delicate operation. But how about if a sled with tracks and rollers is custom built to load an Arjun? Mount the Arjun on a roller-fitted sled on tracks, and winch the thing straight into the cabin. It wont move sideways.

Really!!! Would you like to fly a plane at its maximum load made of dense heavy metal with 3 cms on each side? Forget all austere landing conditions etc etc. Even on a paved runway. And what about the loading and unloading time? Here's something from your C-5C example..

Spacecraft , such as the space station node, are transported in a special canister, call the Space Container Transportation System (SCTS), which was built to fit into a military airplane, specifically a specially modified C-5C. ... The C-5C carrying the SCTS frequently arrives late at night, with offload immediately after arrival. Offload from the C-5C is an operation which can take about six hours to complete. The clearance between the SCTS canister and the walls/ceiling of the plane is about one inch. Moving the canister requires very slow, precise movements; basically it is inched out of the cargo bay.

1 inch is roughly 2.5 cms on each side!

I am not saying that we shouldnt look for the viability of other solutions. But we should put up examples which are viable solutions for rugged military operations which can be used swiftly!

Gilles, I have a question for you. Leave aside the belugas and C-5c whose compartments have not been widened at the wing joints and whose weight bearing capacity was unaltered. Just as a aviation guy, do you believe a plane whose capacity is increased and has a widened fuselage would most probably need rewinging or not?

[Viv S]

An Arjun is 3.5 meter wide without the skirts. An Il-76 is 3.56 meters wide at floor level. That allows for 3 cm on each side without internals mods (And who know, internal mods may be possible to gain a few more cm on each side). It makes driving a tanks inside a very delicate operation. But how about if a sled with tracks and rollers is custom built to load an Arjun? Mount the Arjun on a roller-fitted sled on tracks, and winch the thing straight into the cabin. It wont move sideways.

Maybe possible, maybe not, but don't say right off the bat it's impossible because you want C-17s no matter what. It's easier to spend 5.8 Billion on C-17s than to consider a possibly small Il-76 mod? Yeah, right.

Great thing happen when people have a "can do attitude". People with a "Can not do attitude" often have an agenda......

This from an article about the IAF's airlift of T-72s.

"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!"

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


The Arjun is almost a foot wider than the T-72. And the Mk2 variant may well exceed 60 tons(Mk1 is 58.5+), as may the IA's FMBT. Whatever equipment is ordered will be required to overcome all challenges till 2045 at the very least.

BTW do you happen to know the Il-76's mission availability rate and man-hours required for maintenance per flying hour?

[Gilles]

Gilles, I have a question for you. Leave aside the belugas and C-5c whose compartments have not been widened at the wing joints and whose weight bearing capacity was unaltered. Just as a aviation guy, do you believe a plane whose capacity is increased and has a widened fuselage would most probably need rewinging or not?

The width problem is at floor level, not at the wing joint which in the case of a high winged aircraft like the IL-76, is at the ceiling level. The wing joint can stay where they are. In the case of the Super Guppy, the Beluga etc, the modified aircraft were low winged aircraft, with the wing joint below floor level. All mods thus had to be done above floor level. In the case of a high winged aircraft, to avoid same problems, all mods need to be done below the wing spar, which is in the ceiling of the cabin where width is not an issue.

The rockets that the C-5A carry are empty of fuel and are very very delicate pieces of flimsy metal that you could bend by kicking it. Not so for a tank. Plus, once a tank is loaded and chained down in an aircraft, it does not move, not even by a 10th of a mm.