C-17s for the IAF?

[Tanaji]

BTW, dont get me wrong. I am not a great fan of C-17 either. But if thats the class of heavy lifter they want, there is really no other option. Pity, given that its too expensive.

[Sanku]

As I said, it is a matter of probabilities that one assigns to decide who is believable. In this case, you reject 3 independent press reports saying there is no official statement from IAF. But on the nuke thread, you reject an official statement from GoI, the DAE and APJK and tend to believe Santhanam who does not make official policy.

As I said, its a matter of probabilities.

Well nuclear matters are very different kettle of fish, and Sanatham is not a third party hack.

Here the very well laid rules in IAF would have sent alarm bells ringing in shape of a CAG report or a parliamentary committee report for Il 76 maintaince (the case in point being AN shortfall)

IF for nuclear matters as well, there existed such mechanisms, I would trust the word of GoI far more, and quite frankly Santhanam would be laughed out of town. The issue is that DAE is pretty much a insulated agency reporting directly to the PMO, thus exempt from the checks and balances.

In fact the above was as much a issue raised during those debates as the yields themselves

Here in this case -- I attribute unsubstantiated stuff to sensationalism or lifafa.

[Sanku]

Viv S, wake me up when you have proof, I am not interested in your interpretations of how X actually means Z....

The funny thing is, even when such comments of yours are throughly rubbished by one and all (the wonderful, CII wants lot of FDI statement, and 40 tonner will be replaced by 70 tonner) you still dont learn or want to learn.

Quite tiring these interpretations frankly.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

Absolutely no issues with a direct quote -- now engage your superior extrapolation methods to show how the above statement also means

1) Il 76 has 25 % serviceability rates.
2) IAF is not happy with Il 76.

<SNIP>

I'm in complete agreement with you on this (This must be a rarity. May be we can ask mods to save this post for posterity )

There is no need to show IL-76 in bad light - neither is IAF doing so. If anything, IAF has always showered praise on the a/c and many articels on BR itself are testimony to this. The problem from IAF's perspective may be strucutural in nature - the whole supply chain and after sales support structure in place at the Russian end. And I have a feeling, and this is strictly a conjecture, that Russians have become hard-core "show me the money" kind....more short term view than long term. One can raise a valid argument that cannot the IAF do more to sort out this issue versus spending humongous amount of $$$ to purchase the C-17. Honestly, we don't have enough data points to argue for or against it.

This problem of supply chain has affected every piece of equipment in IAF - from MiG-21 to MiG-29....there are known reports (on BR itself) and public data of the uptime of MiG-21 and MiG-29 fleet fell to absymally low levels. But we have rectified this to no-problem level. Gilles raised a valid point about finding the real reason for this low serviceability in IAF.

However, I cannot except the argument that IAF may be deliberately showing IL-76 in bad light to get fancy toys. We know Indian Armed Forces do not work in this manner.

[Viv S]

Viv S, wake me up when you have proof, I am not interested in your interpretations of how X actually means Z....

The funny thing is, even when such comments of yours are throughly rubbished by one and all (the wonderful, CII wants lot of FDI statement, and 40 tonner will be replaced by 70 tonner) you still dont learn or want to learn.

Quite tiring these interpretations frankly.

First of all, please take a dispassionate look at the last ten pages on this thread and then decide who's comments have been 'thoroughly rubbished by one and all'. Secondly, on the unrelated FDI issue(that you insist on dragging here), my statement was 'the CII wants FDI limit hiked', a claim that has been backed up with links and remains true today.

On the issue of replacing the IL-76 with the C-17, you may want to close your eyes, but the fact remains the C-17's fuel efficiency is the better than the IL-76MD, which means it can carry out all the same missions and more at the same sortie cost.

And since we're flinging mud - I wonder if you still claim that we can knock down a MBT in two parts, ship them by IL-76 separately and assemble them in the field?



And this debate doesn't change certain solid established facts

1. The IAF requested the C-17 acquisition, ergo it wants the C-17 (and the IL-76MF was evaluated).
2. The IAF ordered the A330 instead of the already-in-service cheaper IL-78 at least partly because of maintenance concerns.
3. Retired IAF officers have been supportive of the deal.



Whenever confronted with these facts on the thread, you've either ignored them or rubbished the sources quoted. In fact the paucity of supporting evidence you've quoted would suggest you believe most of the media consists of liars, the IAF of ignoramuses and the MoD of sellouts.

[arnab]

I know some folks have been advocating a theory that GOI is giving 'free money' to US / Boeing for some vague unstated reason (presumably a pay back or an attempt to peddle influence). But do note that the primary customer of US Military Industrial complex are the US armed forces. IAF is negotiating for 10 C 17s while USAF operates 225 of them. A value of less than 5 %. This is not enough of a 'payback' and nor would it buy you a lot of influence. But note that Boeing reacts violently when Airbus tries to enter the USAF refueller market. Because that is where their money comes from.


OTOH, since the mid-1990s, the Russian Military Industrial complex survived because of India. We operate more T-90s than they do. We have kept their shipyards humming and their aircraft industry functional. Even for IL 76, India operates more than 20 % of the proportion of the Russian airforce.

So to get a perspective here - Russians have a far greater 'incentive' to ensure that India stays in the fold so to say.

First of all, please take a dispassionate look at the last ten pages on this thread and then decide who's comments have been 'thoroughly rubbished by one and all'.
(

I agree, repeating statements like 'I have trashed all your arguments and it is plain for every one to see' is kinda pointless. Why be both the executioner and the jury? Let others decide no? It reminds me of that famous quote:

The more he spoke of his honesty, the faster we counted the spoons

[Aditya_V]

Arnab,

but the key is many of 225 were ordered long back and built for the USAF. the ones now will keep the factory open and running. Besides the $580 million price tag is much higher than what the USAF paid and certainly way higher than a IL-76 alternative. Besides the Indian Public has not been explained what is the need for the IAF to spend $5.8 billion on 10 transport aircraft when the force right now does not have adequate fighter strength, one would think the MMRCA contract or Phalcon orders, or ordering larger number SU-30's etc would be more of a priority.

When was the RFI, RFP etc. issued for these orders.

Not enough explanation has gone into the C-130J order either as to why we need them unlike the P-8I acquisition which seemed came through after exploring options of TU145 upgrades, IL-38 upgrades were tried out.

Would MOD realease $5.8 billion for the LCA, or Akash or Indegenous AWACS so quickly , I doubt it.

Yes I agree we supported Russian MIL industrial complex through the 1990's, Indegenous development cannot swell the foreign accounts of agents, Media, Babus and Politicos.

[Nikhil T]

A cool $220 million (3.8% of $5.8bn) for the US Govt.!

US Congress approves C17 aircraft sale to India

WASHINGTON/NEW DELHI: The US Congress has cleared the sale of C-17 Globemaster III strategic aircraft for India, ahead of the crucial Cabinet-level Strategic Dialogue between the two countries.

The Obama Administration had in April notified the US Congress of the potential sale of 10 C-17 aircraft to India and sought approval in this regard.

"We are pleased that India's intent to buy 10 C-17 Globemaster III has received U.S. congressional approval," Dr Vivek Lall, Vice President and Country Head, Boeing Defence, Space and Security, India, told PTI in New Delhi.

With this, the Indian government is one step closer to acquiring the C-17 which we believe is ideally suited to meet India's airlift needs for military and humanitarian purposes, he said.

"The submittal of the Letter of Acceptance to the Government of India will be the next step towards finalizing the Foreign Military Sale," Lall said.

"The aircraft are being sold to India under the US Government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme, with the maximum package value of USD 5.8 billion. That includes the 3.8 per cent administrative fee that the government charges to ensure timely delivery and guarantee the supplies," reported India Strategic in its latest issue.

A senior Obama Administration official William Burns had yesterday defended arms sale to India by arguing that this commensurate with New Delhi's expanding role as well as America's own interest.

[arnab]

Arnab,

but the key is many of 225 were ordered long back and built for the USAF. the ones now will keep the factory open and running. Besides the $580 million price tag is much higher than what the USAF paid and certainly way higher than a IL-76 alternative. Besides the Indian Public has not been explained what is the need for the IAF to spend $5.8 billion on 10 transport aircraft when the force right now does not have adequate fighter strength, one would think the MMRCA contract or Phalcon orders, or ordering larger number SU-30's etc would be more of a priority.

When was the RFI, RFP etc. issued for these orders.

I think we can reasonably agree that 'maintenence programs' under the C-17 global sustanence will continue to provide a large amount of funds for Boeing. so maintaining 225 C-17s will be more lucrative than maintaining 10. India's C-17 order will keep the production line open for at most 2 more years.

Regarding the 'critical need' for Transport. Here is an article published on BRF on the topic in 2009

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today ... ntury.html

During last the Kargil operations last year, transport pilots were the unsung heroes of the war - flying day in and day out to maintain an uninterrupted air-bridge to the world's highest battle zone. Indeed post-Kargil the transport squadrons are logging almost 30% more hours than their counterparts in the fighter stream. India's airlift capabilities are significant. The ability to airlift the equivalent of a brigade plus their equipment at a time easily gives the IAF the largest military lift capability in Asia.

Two squadrons of IL-76 provide the IAF with its heavy lift capability, some 1,080,000 kg in all. These aircraft regularly operate out airfields in Ladakh situated at over 10,000 ft above sea level. The IAF is considering replacing the engines of these aircraft with western engines with a view to increasing operating efficiency. Increased logistical commitments in the aftermath of Kargil have caused the IAF to revive plans to add to its IL-76 fleet.

I believe the RFIs were issued in 2008 (somebody had posted).

Whether MoD (MoF) would release funds for LCA is not really material, but do note that MoF refused clearance for the Airbus refuellers on the ground that they were more expensive than the IL 78s (IAF had to point out that these are not being manufactured any more). So whether MoF clears this deal is yet to be seen.

[Sanku]

................

Yawn.....

[Sanku]

I'm in complete agreement with you on this (This must be a rarity. May be we can ask mods to save this post for posterity )

Actually rohit, I agree with you more often than not, and seriously speaking also value your immensely sensible and knowledgeable posts. We can debate or disagree on occasions still, but they or specific details pretty much.

And I have a feeling, and this is strictly a conjecture, that Russians have become hard-core "show me the money" kind....more short term view than long term. One can raise a valid argument that cannot the IAF do more to sort out this issue versus spending humongous amount of $$$ to purchase the C-17. Honestly, we don't have enough data points to argue for or against it.

Again, I have no difference with you, the supply chain on Russian end went through a transformation, from literally freebies in 80s to "I have no idea whats happening" in 90s to "Money for friends" in 2000s.

However as we see IAF and other Indian forces are still willing to deal with Russian on a variety of topics, including FGFA, MTA etc... so while Russian issues bring in their costs and will be a factor, it is clearly not a overwhelming factor to make a clear cut decision (purely from a IAF/non political end)

However, I cannot except the argument that IAF may be deliberately showing IL-76 in bad light to get fancy toys. We know Indian Armed Forces do not work in this manner.

This I agree with, the IL paint job is being done by "vishvast sutra" of the lifafa media, lifafa's from Boeing.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

On the issue of replacing the IL-76 with the C-17, you may want to close your eyes, but the fact remains the C-17's fuel efficiency is the better than the IL-76MD, which means it can carry out all the same missions and more at the same sortie cost.

Please answer the following:

(a) How can a 65+tonnes aircraft be a replacement for a 40tonnes aircraft? Are the mission profiles going to be the same? Does each time a IL-76 sortie takes place, it carries absolute 45 tonnes? And are we looking at a situation of replacing X number of IL-76 sorties with Y number of C-17 sorties where X>Y?

(b) What happens to the absolute number of aircraft required (and not only the tonnage)? Given the fact that IL-76 and C-17 are the only a/c which IAF will have above AN-32 (7.5 tonnes), what do we do for load requirements above 7.5 tonnes? If I take your argument that C-17 are replacement for IL-76, then I'd need to run a 65+tonnes capacity aircraft to do errand boy jobs? And how will 10 aircraft stack up against this requirement - where the number of aircraft and not the airlift requirement is the limiting factor?

(c) What about the relatively poor manpower lifting ability of C-17 compared with IL-76? You need more C-17 to airlift the same number of troops when compared with IL-76. So, when the next Op. Cactus occurs, how many troops can you lift in one go in 3 C-17s?

And this debate doesn't change certain solid established facts

1. The IAF requested the C-17 acquisition, ergo it wants the C-17 (and the IL-76MF was evaluated).
2. The IAF ordered the A330 instead of the already-in-service cheaper IL-78 at least partly because of maintenance concerns.
3. Retired IAF officers have been supportive of the deal.

1. Where does it say the IL-76MF was evaluated? We have yet to evaluate the C-17 and you're talking about IL-76MF?
2. Which is not same as ordering C-17 - because these are not replacement for IL-76.
3. Which again does not show IL-76 in bad light.

Don't invent arguments for the sake of it.

[Philip]

Arnab,if memory serves me right,both the Pakis and the PLAF were trying to order/ordered IL-78 tankers last year.I can't remember the source,it might've been Janes'.

[Sanku]

Don't invent arguments for the sake of it.

No he is right, roughly speaking its all the same.

<bang head against wall icon>

[arnab]

Please answer the following:

(a) How can a 65+tonnes aircraft be a replacement for a 40tonnes aircraft? Are the mission profiles going to be the same? Does each time a IL-76 sortie takes place, it carries absolute 45 tonnes? And are we looking at a situation of replacing X number of IL-76 sorties with Y number of C-17 sorties where X>Y?

(b) What happens to the absolute number of aircraft required (and not only the tonnage)? Given the fact that IL-76 and C-17 are the only a/c which IAF will have above AN-32 (7.5 tonnes), what do we do for load requirements above 7.5 tonnes? If I take your argument that C-17 are replacement for IL-76, then I'd need to run a 65+tonnes capacity aircraft to do errand boy jobs? And how will 10 aircraft stack up against this requirement - where the number of aircraft and not the airlift requirement is the limiting factor?

Don't want to get into a discussion between you and VivS. But this query makes me curious. I would expect most of the load carried by Transporters (food, clothes, ammo, light weapons) to be 'fungible'. By which I mean - a 45 ton transporter can carry 45 tonnes of stuff and a 80 tonner can carry 80 tonnes of it. The amount of load is only limited by the logistic storage capacities of the forward bases. So in 'peace time' 80 tonner aircraft would have to make less sorties to complete a task of say carrying 500 tonnes of load (6 sorties) compared to a 45 tonner aircraft (11 sorties). So would mission profiles between a 45 tonne aircraft and an 80 tonne aircraft be vastly different?

And if you had to carry say 20 tonnes (for whatever reason) - may be use 3 An-32s?

The critical factor would come from what an 80 tonner can do and what a 45 tonner can't - lift an Arjun for instance.

Am I missing something?

[Sanku]

Am I missing something?

Yes, you have missed the complete discussion on these items in the previus pages.

[arnab]

Am I missing something?

Yes, you have missed the complete discussion on these items in the previus pages.

May be - but I wanted a more informed view

[Sanku]

arnab>>
Am I missing something?

Yes, you have missed the complete discussion on these items in the previus pages.

May be - but I wanted a more informed view

Well that statement tells me how much of prior posts of ANYONE you have read on those pages.

To learn there is a basic necessity -- the willingness to do so. Ah well....

[rohitvats]

Don't want to get into a discussion between you and VivS. But this query makes me curious. I would expect most of the load carried by Transporters (food, clothes, ammo, light weapons) to be 'fungible'. By which I mean - a 45 ton transporter can carry 45 tonnes of stuff and a 80 tonner can carry 80 tonnes of it. The amount of load is only limited by the logistic storage capacities of the forward bases. So in 'peace time' 80 tonner aircraft would have to make less sorties to complete a task of say carrying 500 tonnes of load (6 sorties) compared to a 45 tonner aircraft (11 sorties). So would mission profiles between a 45 tonne aircraft and an 80 tonne aircraft be vastly different?

And if you had to carry say 20 tonnes (for whatever reason) - may be use 3 An-32s?

The critical factor would come from what an 80 tonner can do and what a 45 tonner can't - lift an Arjun for instance.

Am I missing something?

(a) The Cargo hold volume of IL-76 in IAF service will max out at 33 tonnes. Only in case of high density items like T-72 does the 45 tonnes gets used up. This is from an articel on BR itself by ex-IAF TpT Officer. We don't know the same number for C-17 but considering the boxy cross section of it's cargo hold, the number (as a percentage of max. payload) should be higher.

(b) IMO, bulk of airlift requirements for IAF are going to be in the 20+ tonnes category. Caution: This is conjecture for I don't have exact or even rough figures for this. But what I do know is that the average load carried by C-17 in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Eduring Freedom was in the range of 19-21 tonnes. This is a number for an Air Force and Army which transports a whole lot of stuff across continents and on a regular and sustained basis. What does this tell you? That there are requirements (like ferrying troops and associated supplies) which will tax the cargo hold volume of an aircraft much earlier than the max. payload one. And that these types are going to be bulk of your airlift requirement. So, do you need only C-17 or 65 tonner whatever to do this role?

(c) You can plan for max payload flights when the requirement is fixed or know in advance. Something like the winter stocking of Ladakh and furhter air-maintenance missions (more in winter than summer). Here, IAF can substitude 2 IL-76 sorties with single C-17 sorties (assuming 33 tonnes per IL-76). But this assumes that each time a IL-76 flies, it carries max. cargo volume. But are we going to fly C-17 only in these circumstances? What if the bulk of sorties flown by IL-76 are in the 20-30 tonnes range? What about the regular Assam courier roles of ferrying men and material from locations across the country? Do you need C-17 for these roles? When we know that they do a really bad job when moving troops. A 40tonnes a/c carrying 20tonnes of troops is one thing; but a 65+tonner carrying 20tonnes of troops and supplies?

(d) If I use the 3 X AN-32 for 20 tonnes load example, can't I apply the same to IL-76 and C-17 argument? Two IL-76 for one C-17? Similarly, even IL-76 are not required. The thing is, it is never this simple.The planners will know the airlift requirement (tonnage), type of payloads, distances, nature of airfields etc. That is why one has staggered airlift capacity. You need the AN-32 and MTA and IL-76 and C-17. There is a reason that IAF has already shown interest in getting 45 of 18.5 tonnes MTA in advance.

Hope this helps.

PS: I'm all for C-17 - even if the short and unpaved/rough runway quality is controversial. We've a great deficit in airlift requirement and any and all help is welcome. Also, I consider it important that IAF's apex airlifter be able to carry Arjun or T-90 - no matter how miniscule that requirement is. The most critical parameter is the massive payload capability of this a/c - this in itself is more than enough to justify a purchase. These a/c in decent numbers like, say 20, will help IAF and IA to acheive a lot more in terms of rapid reaction forces.

But that does not mean that C-17 is the magic bullet for all IAF's airlift requirement. Also, I am of the opinion that this a/c is being handed down to IAF - but you won't see me complaining on that ground.

[Sanku]

@rohit

I would have said good post to that bit and would have said it should be educational; if not for this post

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 47#p871847

already made by a informed person.

Nearly identical if you see.

[Viv S]

<SNIP>

On the issue of replacing the IL-76 with the C-17, you may want to close your eyes, but the fact remains the C-17's fuel efficiency is the better than the IL-76MD, which means it can carry out all the same missions and more at the same sortie cost.

Please answer the following:

(a) How can a 65+tonnes aircraft be a replacement for a 40tonnes aircraft? Are the mission profiles going to be the same? Does each time a IL-76 sortie takes place, it carries absolute 45 tonnes? And are we looking at a situation of replacing X number of IL-76 sorties with Y number of C-17 sorties where X>Y?

Couple of pages back, we compared the fuel efficiencies of both aircraft(the biggest contributor to operating cost). After some correction by Gilles, the C-17 turned out to have a comparable efficiency to the IL-76 for the same payload.

I get what you're saying. When you want to transport a 5 ton load from A to B you don't use a C-5 Galaxy because its not an economical solution. Not when an An-32 could do it for a tenth of the cost. But, that argument is not applicable to the IL-76 and C-17.

(b) What happens to the absolute number of aircraft required (and not only the tonnage)? Given the fact that IL-76 and C-17 are the only a/c which IAF will have above AN-32 (7.5 tonnes), what do we do for load requirements above 7.5 tonnes? If I take your argument that C-17 are replacement for IL-76, then I'd need to run a 65+tonnes capacity aircraft to do errand boy jobs? And how will 10 aircraft stack up against this requirement - where the number of aircraft and not the airlift requirement is the limiting factor?

I agree even after 10 C-17s, the IAF may still require more heavy lift aircraft, which is why I believe we may see a second order placed(not unusual). For the 10+ ton capacity, there is the MTA at 20 tons and in a pinch the C-130J at 24 tons. There does remain a shortfall in the 25-35 ton range with the absence of a Tu-330/An-70 class aircraft. Then again, perhaps it may be more cost-effective to cater for with a higher number of MTAs or more C-130Js.

(c) What about the relatively poor manpower lifting ability of C-17 compared with IL-76? You need more C-17 to airlift the same number of troops when compared with IL-76. So, when the next Op. Cactus occurs, how many troops can you lift in one go in 3 C-17s?

Depends. They can both carry a similar number of paratroopers(more than recommended with 'adjustment'). But, if just troop capacity is an issue for the IAF -

C-17 Systems Program Office experts gave the new C-17 palletized seating system a "thumbs up" during a recent egress test, potentially enabling the aircraft to increase its troop-transport capability from 102 to 189.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... mcns01.htm

So that's about 570 troops from 3 C-17s. About a SF battalion plus two platoons.

And this debate doesn't change certain solid established facts

1. The IAF requested the C-17 acquisition, ergo it wants the C-17 (and the IL-76MF was evaluated).
2. The IAF ordered the A330 instead of the already-in-service cheaper IL-78 at least partly because of maintenance concerns.
3. Retired IAF officers have been supportive of the deal.

1. Where does it say the IL-76MF was evaluated? We have yet to evaluate the C-17 and you're talking about IL-76MF?
2. Which is not same as ordering C-17 - because these are not replacement for IL-76.
3. Which again does not show IL-76 in bad light.

Don't invent arguments for the sake of it.

1. I've posted the Aviation Week article that said an 'advanced variant' of the IL-76 was considered and rejected. The C-17 has already been picked subject to the verification of its performance. I guess it depends on how you define 'evaluation', but point was the IAF was cognizant of an alternative from Ilyushin being available and the C-17 was an informed choice.

2. No it is not the same as ordering the C-17, but it doesn't change the fact that the IAF opted for a higher performance, more expensive aircraft over the venerable IL-76 platform. The sortie-generation rate was probably the overarching concern.

3. The IL-76 has served the IAF very well for two and a half decades. The IAF opting for a different aircraft for the future shouldn't be interpreted as a criticism of the IL-76. The T-72 is a fine tank that has served the IA well, but its successor needn't be the ideal choice for the future.

[Gilles]

(a) The Cargo hold volume of IL-76 in IAF service will max out at 33 tonnes. Only in case of high density items like T-72 does the 45 tonnes gets used up. This is from an articel on BR itself by ex-IAF TpT Officer. We don't know the same number for C-17 but considering the boxy cross section of it's cargo hold, the number (as a percentage of max. payload) should be higher.

I am not certain you are aware of this, but you can fit inside the cabin of an IL-76 a 40 foot maritime container AND and 20 foot maritime container at the same time, and that does not even use up the space on the rear ramp. Do you know how much cargo fits inside a 40 foot container when its full ?

[rohitvats]

(a) The Cargo hold volume of IL-76 in IAF service will max out at 33 tonnes. Only in case of high density items like T-72 does the 45 tonnes gets used up. This is from an articel on BR itself by ex-IAF TpT Officer. We don't know the same number for C-17 but considering the boxy cross section of it's cargo hold, the number (as a percentage of max. payload) should be higher.

I am not certain you are aware of this, but you can fit inside the cabin of an IL-76 a 40 foot maritime container AND and 20 foot maritime container at the same time, and that does not even use up the space on the rear ramp. Do you know how much cargo fits inside a 40 foot container when its full ?

And how does it matter how much cargo can fit in the above mentioned containers? If the IAF experience shows that Cargo Hold Volume will normally max out at 33 tonnes, what are you going to acheive with those container? When the bigger container, the Cargo Hold of the IL-76, itself cannot take more than 33 tonnes?

[rohitvats]

Please answer the following:

(a) How can a 65+tonnes aircraft be a replacement for a 40tonnes aircraft? Are the mission profiles going to be the same? Does each time a IL-76 sortie takes place, it carries absolute 45 tonnes? And are we looking at a situation of replacing X number of IL-76 sorties with Y number of C-17 sorties where X>Y?

Couple of pages back, we compared the fuel efficiencies of both aircraft(the biggest contributor to operating cost). After some correction by Gilles, the C-17 turned out to have a comparable efficiency to the IL-76 for the same payload.

I get what you're saying. When you want to transport a 5 ton load from A to B you don't use a C-5 Galaxy because its not an economical solution. Not when an An-32 could do it for a tenth of the cost. But, that argument is not applicable to the IL-76 and C-17.

How is the fuel efficiency pertinent to dicussion at hand? And how does it answer my question about whether C-17 (65+tonnes a/c) is being bought in as replacement for IL-76 (40 tonnes a/c)? And how is the bolded part not applicable to this debate? You've side stepped the question completely.

(b) What happens to the absolute number of aircraft required (and not only the tonnage)? Given the fact that IL-76 and C-17 are the only a/c which IAF will have above AN-32 (7.5 tonnes), what do we do for load requirements above 7.5 tonnes? If I take your argument that C-17 are replacement for IL-76, then I'd need to run a 65+tonnes capacity aircraft to do errand boy jobs? And how will 10 aircraft stack up against this requirement - where the number of aircraft and not the airlift requirement is the limiting factor?

I agree even after 10 C-17s, the IAF may still require more heavy lift aircraft, which is why I believe we may see a second order placed(not unusual). For the 10+ ton capacity, there is the MTA at 20 tons and in a pinch the C-130J at 24 tons. There does remain a shortfall in the 25-35 ton range with the absence of a Tu-330/An-70 class aircraft. Then again, perhaps it may be more cost-effective to cater for with a higher number of MTAs or more C-130Js.

Again, the question was not about the absolute tonnage but about the no. of TpT a/c - because IMO, most of the requirements are going to be in the 15-25 tonnes range. We need aircraft with legs and room to ferry troops and other mundane stuff across the length and breadth of this country - I don't need to spend USD 220million on an a/c to do the job of courier boy - which will be a case if Il-76/(30-40tonnes) capacity is not build.

Even with MTA around, we'll need the 25-35 tonnes airlift capability - which is what the IL-76 fulfils and may be AN-70 or A-400M will do in the future.

The reasons for increment in the absolute airlift tonnage are different.

(c) What about the relatively poor manpower lifting ability of C-17 compared with IL-76? You need more C-17 to airlift the same number of troops when compared with IL-76. So, when the next Op. Cactus occurs, how many troops can you lift in one go in 3 C-17s?

Depends. They can both carry a similar number of paratroopers(more than recommended with 'adjustment'). But, if just troop capacity is an issue for the IAF -

C-17 Systems Program Office experts gave the new C-17 palletized seating system a "thumbs up" during a recent egress test, potentially enabling the aircraft to increase its troop-transport capability from 102 to 189.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... mcns01.htm

So that's about 570 troops from 3 C-17s. About a SF battalion plus two platoons.

So, do I need a USD 220million plane to do this? So, is using 65+ tonnes airlifter for 20tonnes mission an optimal situation? The good old IL-76 (and any new variant) can do this much better and at lower cost. Even the C-130J is much better at doing these things.

You still think C-17 are a replacement for IL-76? Or can be?

1. Where does it say the IL-76MF was evaluated? We have yet to evaluate the C-17 and you're talking about IL-76MF?
2. Which is not same as ordering C-17 - because these are not replacement for IL-76.
3. Which again does not show IL-76 in bad light.

Don't invent arguments for the sake of it.

1. I've posted the Aviation Week article that said an 'advanced variant' of the IL-76 was considered and rejected. The C-17 has already been picked subject to the verification of its performance. I guess it depends on how you define 'evaluation', but point was the IAF was cognizant of an alternative from Ilyushin being available and the C-17 was an informed choice.

2. No it is not the same as ordering the C-17, but it doesn't change the fact that the IAF opted for a higher performance, more expensive aircraft over the venerable IL-76 platform. The sortie-generation rate was probably the overarching concern.

3. The IL-76 has served the IAF very well for two and a half decades. The IAF opting for a different aircraft for the future shouldn't be interpreted as a criticism of the IL-76. The T-72 is a fine tank that has served the IA well, but its successor needn't be the ideal choice for the future.

1. Simple fact that C-17 is capable of lifting Arjun or T-90 is a criterion enough to rule out IL-76MF. Which does not mean that IL-76MF is lacking as an a/c. It simple might not have met our requirement. There is no point dissing the other system without any proof or support argument.

BTW, considered and evaluated are different words and have different conotation.

2. How do you know that sortie generation rate of brand new IL-76 platform is lesser than A-330? It could have been as simple as verstality of the aircraft and more bang for buck or the exp. of IAF with Russian supply chain in this case...let us not speculate without any data points.

3. Again, no relevance of analogy to the case at hand. But will let this pass.

[Viv S]

Couple of pages back, we compared the fuel efficiencies of both aircraft(the biggest contributor to operating cost). After some correction by Gilles, the C-17 turned out to have a comparable efficiency to the IL-76 for the same payload.

I get what you're saying. When you want to transport a 5 ton load from A to B you don't use a C-5 Galaxy because its not an economical solution. Not when an An-32 could do it for a tenth of the cost. But, that argument is not applicable to the IL-76 and C-17.

How is the fuel efficiency pertinent to dicussion at hand? And how does it answer my question about whether C-17 (65+tonnes a/c) is being bought in as replacement for IL-76 (40 tonnes a/c)? And how is the bolded part not applicable to this debate? You've side stepped the question completely.

Because its the fuel efficiency that determines the ideal choice among available aircrafts for a mission. In 2015 the IAF will have the C-17, IL-76, AN-32 and perhaps even the MTA. The cheapest means to fly a 5 ton load to Leh from Jammu or Delhi is the AN-32, but the IL-76 is not necessarily the cheapest solution to lifting a 40 ton load to Leh.

Is the C-17 being introduced to replace the IL-76 - only an IAF's statement holds any credence really. One can only make an assumption from the fact that the IL-76's are approaching the end of the service life while the C-17 is being trialled, with no stated plan to acquire any other medium/heavy lifter.

I agree even after 10 C-17s, the IAF may still require more heavy lift aircraft, which is why I believe we may see a second order placed(not unusual). For the 10+ ton capacity, there is the MTA at 20 tons and in a pinch the C-130J at 24 tons. There does remain a shortfall in the 25-35 ton range with the absence of a Tu-330/An-70 class aircraft. Then again, perhaps it may be more cost-effective to cater for with a higher number of MTAs or more C-130Js.

Again, the question was not about the absolute tonnage but about the no. of TpT a/c - because IMO, most of the requirements are going to be in the 15-25 tonnes range. We need aircraft with legs and room to ferry troops and other mundane stuff across the length and breadth of this country -

How did you come by the 15-25 ton figure? Assuming that's true, the MTA with its 20ton payload seems well suited to carry that out.

Even with MTA around, we'll need the 25-35 tonnes airlift capability - which is what the IL-76 fulfils and may be AN-70 or A-400M will do in the future.

I don't need to spend USD 220million on an a/c to do the job of courier boy - which will be a case if Il-76/(30-40tonnes) capacity is not build.

Maybe. No figures for the IAF's actual airlift trends(or the content of a typical payload) are available publicly, so I can't make an informed reply to that. The IAF will have to weigh the cost of acquiring a new platform against the cost of an increased MTA/C-130J order as a substitute.

Depends. They can both carry a similar number of paratroopers(more than recommended with 'adjustment'). But, if just troop capacity is an issue for the IAF -

C-17 Systems Program Office experts gave the new C-17 palletized seating system a "thumbs up" during a recent egress test, potentially enabling the aircraft to increase its troop-transport capability from 102 to 189.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... mcns01.htm

So that's about 570 troops from 3 C-17s. About a SF battalion plus two platoons.

So, do I need a USD 220million plane to do this? So, is using 65+ tonnes airlifter for 20tonnes mission an optimal situation? The good old IL-76 (and any new variant) can do this much better and at lower cost. Even the C-130J is much better at doing these things.

Point was the C-17 would not have been at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the IL-76 during Op. Cactus. As I see it, the C-17's advantage would lie in higher sortie generation rate and quicker turnaround time in a crisis besides the higher available tonnage and wide-body.

You still think C-17 are a replacement for IL-76? Or can be?

1. On the question whether the C-17 can replace the IL-76 -

The IL-76MF aircraft is a modification of a mass manufactured IL-76MD military transport aircraft, and it is designed for the same tasks as the basic model of the aircraft.
http://ilyushin.org/eng/products/military/76mf.html

The IL-76MF has a 60ton payload (though whether that can be effectively utilized is another question) and succeeds the IL-76MD in the VVS.

The C-17 replaced the IL-76 class C-141 in the USAF. It can lift a 30ton payload at the same cost as the IL-76MD.


2. On the question of whether it will replace the IL-76 -

The IL-76s are getting old and I haven't heard anything about the IAF either going in for a substantial life extension or an alternative order for the Tu-330 or An-70. That's leads me to believe the MTA will be the IAF's sole medium lift aircraft. And even if they are subsequently ordered the C-17 will still remain the sole strategic airlifter in IAF service.

1. Simple fact that C-17 is capable of lifting Arjun or T-90 is a criterion enough to rule out IL-76MF. Which does not mean that IL-76MF is lacking as an a/c. It simple might not have met our requirement. There is no point dissing the other system without any proof or support argument.

1. Lacking or not, is a judgmental statement. The IAF finds the C-17s more suitable for its requirements. I don't think any dissing was involved per se.

2. How do you know that sortie generation rate of brand new IL-76 platform is lesser than A-330? It could have been as simple as verstality of the aircraft and more bang for buck or the exp. of IAF with Russian supply chain in this case...let us not speculate without any data points.

Point is all those apply to the C-17 acquisition as well. I'm don't know that its got a lower sortie generation rate, I'm assuming its so since the IAF went public with service problems with Russia.

[arnab]

(b) IMO, bulk of airlift requirements for IAF are going to be in the 20+ tonnes category. Caution: This is conjecture for I don't have exact or even rough figures for this. But what I do know is that the average load carried by C-17 in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Eduring Freedom was in the range of 19-21 tonnes. This is a number for an Air Force and Army which transports a whole lot of stuff across continents and on a regular and sustained basis. What does this tell you? That there are requirements (like ferrying troops and associated supplies) which will tax the cargo hold volume of an aircraft much earlier than the max. payload one. And that these types are going to be bulk of your airlift requirement. So, do you need only C-17 or 65 tonner whatever to do this role?

I understand what you are saying. In an 'ideal' world it would be nice to have a mix of transport aircrafts to carry a range of requirements (based on weight and type of goods). And if your conjecture is correct about the bulk of IAF airlift requirements being in the 20+ tonne category, then of course it might mean than an IL 76 is more 'efficient' than a C 17. However, I notice that even the IL planes in their newer models are moving towards increased capacity. The first models of the IL 76 were designed to carry a max weight of 27 tonnes, while the IL 76 MF is reported to have a max capacity of 60 tonnes. This tells me that airforces of the world are increasing their airlift capacity requirement with some reasonable efficiency requirements on fuel and runway length. Thus what airforces are gearing up to do is possibly have planes which are 'downwardly compatible' in a 'normal' world (where you may not be able to have aircrafts of multiple capacity due to funding or logistics issues).

(c) You can plan for max payload flights when the requirement is fixed or know in advance. Something like the winter stocking of Ladakh and furhter air-maintenance missions (more in winter than summer). Here, IAF can substitude 2 IL-76 sorties with single C-17 sorties (assuming 33 tonnes per IL-76). But this assumes that each time a IL-76 flies, it carries max. cargo volume. But are we going to fly C-17 only in these circumstances? What if the bulk of sorties flown by IL-76 are in the 20-30 tonnes range?

Which was why I specifically used a 'peace time' sortie example.

(d) If I use the 3 X AN-32 for 20 tonnes load example, can't I apply the same to IL-76 and C-17 argument? Two IL-76 for one C-17? Similarly, even IL-76 are not required. The thing is, it is never this simple.The planners will know the airlift requirement (tonnage), type of payloads, distances, nature of airfields etc. That is why one has staggered airlift capacity. You need the AN-32 and MTA and IL-76 and C-17. There is a reason that IAF has already shown interest in getting 45 of 18.5 tonnes MTA in advance.

[/quote]

One can of course flip this argument and ask - then why only have 7.5 tonnes, 18 tonnes, 45 tonnes and 70 tonne aircrafts ? For most 'efficient' allocation as far as delivery of goods are concerned - one may need to also have a 25 tonne and a 35 tonne aircraft (if such things exist). IMO such permutations are endless and this becomes largely an academic exercise. So the forces would have to choose a few aircrafts which best suit their requirements and are able to 'multi-task'.

Which is why the IAF chief has said that C 17s are essentially being considered because the IL 76s are fast approaching end of life. This does not mean that the IL 76s are bad aircrafts or that they would be mothbolled the moment the C 17s arrive

[geeth]

>>>And how does it matter how much cargo can fit in the above mentioned containers? If the IAF experience shows that Cargo Hold Volume will normally max out at 33 tonnes, what are you going to acheive with those container? When the bigger container, the Cargo Hold of the IL-76, itself cannot take more than 33 tonnes?

I don't think you have understood the significance of his question...

IIRC, A 40 Feet container can carry about 30-35 Tons max cargo inside and a 20 Feet unit about 16 Tons max. So, together, they can carry more than 45 Tons of Max Cargo, with the added advantage of ease of operation with containerized cargo. There will still be some more space left after that in the cargo hold.

[Sanku]

I don't think you have understood the significance of his question...

IIRC, A 40 Feet container can carry about 30-35 Tons max cargo inside and a 20 Feet unit about 16 Tons max. So, together, they can carry more than 45 Tons of Max Cargo, with the added advantage of ease of operation with containerized cargo. There will still be some more space left after that in the cargo hold.

The problem here is different, essentially density, if IAF primarily transports cotton bales, (say) then come what may, containers or not, it can not load more than 10 tonnes before the volume is filled up.

OTOH if IAF transports iron shaving all the time the cargo hold volume will be filled up at 90 tonnes.

So what does IAF really transport -- and here's where the statistics quoted by Rohit are relevant -- statistically speaking most sorties would be around 15-20 tonnes.

[Sanku]

Arnab, I applaud your skills, you are a master at mixing two pieces together, one correct one blatnatly incorrect and try and pass of the blatantly incorrect on the wings of correct.

For example

One can of course flip this argument and ask - then why only have 7.5 tonnes, 18 tonnes, 45 tonnes and 70 tonne aircrafts ? For most 'efficient' allocation as far as delivery of goods are concerned - one may need to also have a 25 tonne and a 35 tonne aircraft (if such things exist). IMO such permutations are endless and this becomes largely an academic exercise. So the forces would have to choose a few aircrafts which best suit their requirements and are able to 'multi-task'.

Yes of course, ideally you will have a A/C for each specific tonnage, but in reality only a few bands are used.

Which is why the IAF chief has said that C 17s are essentially being considered because the IL 76s are fast approaching end of life. This does not mean that the IL 76s are bad aircrafts or that they would be mothbolled the moment the C 17s arrive

Which is completely unrelated to the previous statements on need to have banded or stepped capabilty.

All large airforces need stepped capability -- and the bands are

0-5
5-10
10-20
20-40
40-80
80-160

A nice little series for those mathematically oriented (and advance apologies to the school which considers 25% same as 99% because they are both numbers)

Il 76 are not going anywhere, just as the need for 40 tonne air lifter is not going anywhere.

[Sanku]

I guess it depends on how you define 'evaluation', but point was the IAF was cognizant of an alternative from Ilyushin being available and the C-17 was an informed choice.

I love such posts. Now we will need to redefine evaluation to suit C 17 eh.

Yes the world becomes substantially easier once we have the freedom to define what words mean at will.

Since roughly speaking its all the same anyway.

[arnab]

Which is completely unrelated to the previous statements on need to have banded or stepped capabilty.

All large airforces need stepped capability -- and the bands are

0-5
5-10
10-20
20-40
40-80
80-160

A nice little series for those mathematically oriented (and advance apologies to the school which considers 25% same as 99% because they are both numbers)

Il 76 are not going anywhere, just as the need for 40 tonne air lifter is not going anywhere.

Well based on your bands (40-80) - IL 76 and C-17s fall in the same category. Incidentally any source for those bands?

Added later: Also if you could point out as to which of my statements was 'blatantly incorrect'.

[rohitvats]

>>>And how does it matter how much cargo can fit in the above mentioned containers? If the IAF experience shows that Cargo Hold Volume will normally max out at 33 tonnes, what are you going to acheive with those container? When the bigger container, the Cargo Hold of the IL-76, itself cannot take more than 33 tonnes?

I don't think you have understood the significance of his question...

IIRC, A 40 Feet container can carry about 30-35 Tons max cargo inside and a 20 Feet unit about 16 Tons max. So, together, they can carry more than 45 Tons of Max Cargo, with the added advantage of ease of operation with containerized cargo. There will still be some more space left after that in the cargo hold.

On the contrary my dear freind, Gilles and you've not understood the probem.

The question is not about the tonnage but about volume. If the stuff that IAF carries normally on these sorties is such that Volume maxes out before the tonnage, how is using container going to do anything? On the contrary, using container will lead to still lesser tonnage utilization as it's volume is lesser than the Cargo Hold Volume on IL-76.

[Sanku]

Well based on your bands (40-80) - IL 76 and C-17s fall in the same category. Incidentally any source for those bands?

These bands is a word I used, the source of the data is a look at all the airlifters (I had posted links before) they essentially are around
5
10
20
40
80
Tonnes lift

Incidentally I had posted this here before
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 39#p865539

Which you had seen since there is a post by you immediately afterward

Added later: Also if you could point out as to which of my statements was 'blatantly incorrect'.

Actually I had already this is the blatantly incorrect quote

Which is why the IAF chief has said that C 17s are essentially being considered because the IL 76s are fast approaching end of life. This does not mean that the IL 76s are bad aircrafts or that they would be mothbolled the moment the C 17s arrive

IAF chief has not said the above -- what AVM Pandey has said is

A major responsibility of the IAF in the future would be in the area of strategic airlift. Internal security compulsions will place growing demand for the movement of quick reaction as also regular security forces within the country on short notice. Given its emerging regional power status and the newly forged strategic partnership with the US if not abrogated by the incoming administration, India may be called upon to project power in the region which may involve airlift of large military forces to areas of interest of either of the partners in the region outside our borders and to provide sustained logistic support. Strategic airlift capability of the IAF would therefore need to be built up practically from scratch as the existing fleet is fast approaching the end of its total technical life. At the tactical level, the IAF should be equipped with a fleet of medium tactical transport aircraft and helicopters capable of speedy response with special forces over shorter ranges.

Where he ALSO talks about US partnership

Which incidentally is also discussed with you here.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 37#p865537

Unless you can bring up a statement by ACM which shows what you said.

I have proved in the above
1) You are incorrect
2) You have been shown that you have been incorrect before on exact same points.

So while you keep repeating the exact same incorrect statements over and over again, in the fond hope that some how saying the same false hood a hundred times may convince others its not true.

I will all the hundred times, interject with exact quotes as well all 100 times ask for proof of assertions.

Hard luck.

[arnab]

Well based on your bands (40-80) - IL 76 and C-17s fall in the same category. Incidentally any source for those bands?

These bands is a word I used, the source of the data is a look at all the airlifters (I had posted links before) they essentially are around
5
10
20
40
80
Tonnes lift



Unless you can bring up a statement by ACM which shows what you said.

I have proved in the above
1) You are incorrect
2) You have been shown that you have been incorrect before on exact same points.

So while you keep repeating the exact same incorrect statements over and over again, in the fond hope that some how saying the same false hood a hundred times may convince others its not true.

I will all the hundred times, interject with exact quotes as well all 100 times ask for proof of assertions.

Hard luck.

OK

The Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief of Staff, Air Chief Marshal P V Naik, had told India Strategic last year that IAF was looking for 10 plus 10 C 17s, described in its parlance as VHTAC, or Very Heavy Transport Aircraft, as a replacement of its ageing fleet of Soviet vintage IL 76 transport jets.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories602.htm

So based on your bands - are you now of the view that c17s and IL 76 are the same? (roughly speaking)
So again which of my statement is 'blatantly incorrect'?

[Sanku]

Not a direct quote... we are talking a direct quote.... too many lifafas paraphrasing what was said "last year"

The Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief of Staff, Air Chief Marshal P V Naik, had told India Strategic last year

And no Il 76 and C 17s are in different bands... India will continue to need a 40 tonnes or thereabout lifter in addition to (if needed) a 70-80 tonne one.

[arnab]

Not a direct quote... we are talking a direct quote.... too many lifafas paraphrasing what was said "last year"

The Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief of Staff, Air Chief Marshal P V Naik, had told India Strategic last year

And no Il 76 and C 17s are in different bands... India will continue to need a 40 tonnes or thereabout lifter in addition to (if needed) a 70-80 tonne one.

Good god - you are really clutching at straws here aren't you And I thought 'lifafas' usually attributed quotes to unnamed officers. Not the ACM by name.

[Philip]

Guys,regardless of the merits,etc. of the C-17 vs the IL-76,facts are that the Il-76s are getting on in age and need new engines,glass cockpits,etc.Upgraded IL-76s and C-17s are two options for the IAF's future heavy transport needs.The mix of med.,heavy and super-heavy aircraft that the IAF needs is another issue. The moot point in this debate is whether the C-17 is that desperately needed by the IAF,where does it come in the list of priorities and decisions to be made and the big Q marks-given the speed of decision making when the MOD is so lethargic over more important other issues,that is this deal being thrust upon us fundamentally by Boeing which has to close down production in the US (Gates' directive),thus wanting to further its own interests at massive expense to India? Secondly,by buying thr C-17,are we also getting into the US's military network by the back door given the multi-national agreement on logistic partnerships by all C-17 users? These are the two most important issues here and the issue is not a simple academic one of buying a super-heavylifter like the C-17 vis-a-vis the IL-76.Don't "miss the wood for the trees" please.

[amit]

Guys,regardless of the merits,etc. of the C-17 vs the IL-76,facts are that the Il-76s are getting on in age and neeed new engines,glass cockpits,etc.Upgraded IL-76s and C-17s are options.The mix of med.,heavy and super-heavy aircraft that the IAF needs is another issue. The moot point in this debate is whether the C-17 is that desperately needed by the IAF,where does it come in the list of priorities and decisions to be made and the big Q mark-is this deal being thrust upon us by Boeing which has to close down production in the US (Gates' directive),wanting to fdurther its own interests at India's expense?

Actually Philip you raise a very interesting point, something that all the thunderous righteousness being displayed here is blissfully ignoring despite the "mathematical precision" of arguments.

And that is where are the birds?

I mean are there new IL76 MF or whatever nomenclature you want to put available and in production if say the IAF were to want to cancel the C17s and go back to trusted Soviet maal which so many folks here (including you) would dearly want?

All available evidence and links (I know I will be hectored here right away to instantly provide links, yet again! ) show that new IL76s are not being produced now and that Iluyshin is having problems restarting the production lines due to the fact that many of the skills, especially on the wing construction, is in Taskent.

So the point is if we were to go for IL76's would we end up funding a revival of the production line which then would nicely dovetail with China's requirement of 38 new birds?

Availability is also a criteria in evaluation of a new platform isn't it?

[rohitvats]

Because its the fuel efficiency that determines the ideal choice among available aircrafts for a mission. In 2015 the IAF will have the C-17, IL-76, AN-32 and perhaps even the MTA. The cheapest means to fly a 5 ton load to Leh from Jammu or Delhi is the AN-32, but the IL-76 is not necessarily the cheapest solution to lifting a 40 ton load to Leh.

Is the C-17 being introduced to replace the IL-76 - only an IAF's statement holds any credence really. One can only make an assumption from the fact that the IL-76's are approaching the end of the service life while the C-17 is being trialled, with no stated plan to acquire any other medium/heavy lifter.

Point one - how can you talk about an OPEX parameter without considering the CAPEX Parameter? So, I need to buy an item A at 4X the price of item B to acheive similar or better OPEX numbers than item B for similar mission profile? And what about the opportunity cost? What is more optimal - using 40 tonnes a/c to airlift 30 tonnes load or a 70 tonnes a/c? Next time you're inclined to bring in financial numbers, bear the OPEX and opportunity cost in mind.

So, since IAF has not come around with statement about requirement in 40tonnes category, you assume that C-17 are replacement for IL-76? Point is, you are entitled to your opinion - but don't pass off that as judgement or the final word.

How did you come by the 15-25 ton figure? Assuming that's true, the MTA with its 20ton payload seems well suited to carry that out.

Maybe. No figures for the IAF's actual airlift trends(or the content of a typical payload) are available publicly, so I can't make an informed reply to that. The IAF will have to weigh the cost of acquiring a new platform against the cost of an increased MTA/C-130J order as a substitute.

Based on the findings of a study that USAF C-17 average payload during OIF and OEF was in the range of 19-21 tonnes. These are numbers for an Air Force and Army which relies heavily on airlift and ships stuff across continents. Our requirement are only going to be smaller.

You don't need the actual trend numbers of IAF airlift trend - a common sensical approach will do just fine. India as a nation is connected pretty well through roads and railways and this is how bulk of goods for Armed Forces are transferred. We use IL-76/AN-32/Mi-8/Mi-17 in cases where this road network does not extend or there is periodic disruption of this link or time is of critical importance.

While bulk of stuff for Ladakh is carried by surface transport, certain 'fresh' items and troops are transported through airlift. This airlift gains momentum during winter stocking prior to onset of winters - during winters the a/c are the only way in and out for troops and for delivering the supplies. It is here that C-17 can be a great asset with it's payload capability.

In North East, the AN-32 and Mi-8/17 do the bulk of job.

Point was the C-17 would not have been at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the IL-76 during Op. Cactus. As I see it, the C-17's advantage would lie in higher sortie generation rate and quicker turnaround time in a crisis besides the higher available tonnage and wide-body.

The point is you're wasting the payload capacity of C-17 by using it for troop hauling role. If I need to bring in a Brigade worth of troops and their complementary gear, IL-76 type of a/c or even C-130J is more suitable.

1. On the question whether the C-17 can replace the IL-76 -

The IL-76MF aircraft is a modification of a mass manufactured IL-76MD military transport aircraft, and it is designed for the same tasks as the basic model of the aircraft.
http://ilyushin.org/eng/products/military/76mf.html

The IL-76MF has a 60ton payload (though whether that can be effectively utilized is another question) and succeeds the IL-76MD in the VVS.

Why do you pick and choose statements? Is IL-76MF in production? This is what Wiki says:

Il-76MF - Stretched military version with 6.6 m longer fuselage, PS-90 engines, maximum take-off mass 210 t and lift capability of 60 tonnes. First flew in 1995, not built in series so far.[1]

Gilles even posted pic of the lone variant - then how come it has replaced IL-76MD in VVS?

The C-17 replaced the IL-76 class C-141 in the USAF. It can lift a 30ton payload at the same cost as the IL-76MD.

C-17 example in USAF service is not relevant to our case - their requirement and usage philosophy is very different.

2. On the question of whether it will replace the IL-76 -

The IL-76s are getting old and I haven't heard anything about the IAF either going in for a substantial life extension or an alternative order for the Tu-330 or An-70. That's leads me to believe the MTA will be the IAF's sole medium lift aircraft. And even if they are subsequently ordered the C-17 will still remain the sole strategic airlifter in IAF service.

Again, that is an opinion and not the final word.

Point is all those apply to the C-17 acquisition as well. I'm don't know that its got a lower sortie generation rate, I'm assuming its so since the IAF went public with service problems with Russia.

You or anyone else, does not have any data point to critically evaluate and compare the IL-76 platform and A-330.....However, based on snippets of informaiton in media, one can form an opinion. However, the same is not 'the word' on the other system.

[Sanku]

Good god - you are really clutching at straws here aren't you And I thought 'lifafas' usually attributed quotes to unnamed officers. Not the ACM by name.

Uhh not clutching at straws, I just dont trust what random person comes about and pulls out of Musharaff when it goes against the grain of well documented and widely available formal knowledge.

If ACM had said so, a quote could have come no? Why so difficult?

I can also publish a blog saying ACM said this or that, whos going to check?