C-17s for the IAF?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Jun 2010 13:58

arnab wrote: 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).

A serious advice - please research the topic at hand.

While quoting example of IL-76, did you bother to research on the status of the a/c and how many IL-76MF are in service? And that there is a variant with more advanced engines and 50 tonnes capacity which is operational?

As for the shift - 8 nations in Europe have ordered total of 184 A-400M aircraft. There is similar story with C-130J - and that too with airforces which have also ordered A-400M. So, which shift are we talking about?

The airlift requirement is peculiar to a nation - no need to generalize it.

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

Where again, we don't know wether an IL-76 takes of each time with max.payload or volume utilized.

(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.
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'.

Let me repeat what I said - "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."

In case you failed to notice, there are a/c in <10, 15-20, 30-50 and 60+ category. So, the argument is not academic but based on practical aspects.

We need AN-32 because there are ALG in north and nort-east were nothing else can land. We need MTA as bulk of your airlift requirement are going to be in that range - the fact that we've ordered 45 in advance is testimony to that. And we need something like A-400M or AN-70 or IL-76 to ensure we can do the airlift role between the super heavy C-17 and MTA. The good thing which MTA will do is ensure that we don't tax our 40tonnes capacity to hilt and can do with lesser numbers.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 04 Jun 2010 14:27

>>>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.

I can't think of any cargo that IAF uses which will fill the cargo volume...except may be relief material like used rags etc. For that you don't need a C-17, I hope. Can you help me out in this regard?- name a cargo which can be carried only by the C-17s and not IL-76 at such large quantities, justifying the purchase.

Containers are used basically for ease of operation. and there is a limit on weight for each size. so extra large cargo hold may be of help, if the sizes don't match the standard size of the containers.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Jun 2010 14:39

geeth wrote: I can't think of any cargo that IAF uses which will fill the cargo volume...

Food, Tents, clothing, maps, books, people, fuel.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jun 2010 14:59

rohitvats wrote:
Viv S wrote:
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.

Well if you factor in acquisition costs, it becomes uneconomical to import the IL-76 as well, when multiple MTAs could perform the same 30ton airlift at a lower price. Why do you believe a multi-tier aircraft inventory is preferable to a two tier one - tactical (medium lift MTA), strategic (IL-76)? I'm not rejecting that opinion, just interested in the reasoning.

But, we're getting off-topic here, question was can the C-17 replace the IL-76. Officially the IL-76's role was long range heavy lift, so in that capacity yes. Practically speaking the IL-76 ended up performing medium lift missions(<30tons), so in that capacity no. That role's best left to the MTA.

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.

I don't believe I've passed my opinion on that as the last 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.

So, the average payload for the IAF is likely to be 20 tons or lower - the MTA seems to an adequate solution for it, if that's the case.

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.

The need for an airlifter obviously exists. The question is how often does the IAF need to lift something in the 25-35 ton range and can that be carried out by the MTA?

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.

But, how often will the IAF be required to perform something like Op Cactus? Is the requirement significant enough to buy a cheaper more suitable aircraft or will the MTA and C-17 suffice?

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?

I believe Jordan is to take delivery of two IL-76MFs in 2011. With regard to a re-engined MD being inducted by the VVS -

Russian air force presents Il-76MD-90 airlifter
By Vladimir Karnozov

The Russian air force unveiled its Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 strategic airlifter at the Moscow air show in August (Flight International, 28 August-3 September). It is a standard Il-76MD refurbished with Perm PS-90A76 turbofans replacing NPO Saturn D-30KPs.
The aircraft also features improved Leninets Kupol-76M avionics. Cruise speed is increased to 445kt (825km/h), maximum take-off weight to 210,000kg (460,000lb) and payload to 60,000kg, while fuel efficiency is up by 8-10%. The aircraft also meets International Civil Aviation Organisation Chapter 4 requirements.
A more advanced version of the aircraft is on the way. To be produced by VASO, the Il-476 - or "fourth-generation Il-76" - will feature PS-90A76s, a glass cockpit, and a further 13-17% improvement in fuel efficiency. Separately, an Il-76 is being used as a testbed for Kuznetsov NK-93 ducted fan engines.

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.

None of is the final word. Like most other posts on the forum it is an opinion, just as most criticism of the C-17 acquisition is an opinion. And if the IAF places an order for more IL-76s, I will change my opinion.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Jun 2010 15:06

geeth wrote:
I can't think of any cargo that IAF uses which will fill the cargo volume...except may be relief material like used rags etc. For that you don't need a C-17, I hope. Can you help me out in this regard?- name a cargo which can be carried only by the C-17s and not IL-76 at such large quantities, justifying the purchase.

Containers are used basically for ease of operation. and there is a limit on weight for each size. so extra large cargo hold may be of help, if the sizes don't match the standard size of the containers.

A clarification - you're assuming the absolute volume of the Cargo Hold and trying to figure the payload which can fill this volume and still be around 33tonnes. The 33 tonnes number is based on exp. of IAF and would have been based on the kind of stuff they regulary carry.

There are many such payloads possible - 200 odd soldiers with associated gear plus some supplies will weight 20-25 tonnes
or carrying couple of Bofors guns or a BMP-II and crew or 6 Jeeps plus stores.

As for the C-17 requirement - I'm not arguing to contrary of your position. But they do have their usefulness.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Jun 2010 15:30

Oh just a aside -- ignorance is not a point of view, neither is inability to understand the basic truths when presented.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 04 Jun 2010 16:15

>>>A clarification - you're assuming the absolute volume of the Cargo Hold and trying to figure the payload which can fill this volume and still be around 33tonnes. The 33 tonnes number is based on exp. of IAF and would have been based on the kind of stuff they regulary carry.

The Difference Between the cargo carrying capacity by weight is around 25 tons. A less dense cargo like cloth, medicine food stuff etc would not require a lifting capacity of 70 tons in one go - even if it requires in an extreme situation, it may be (say) once a decade affair, and it may happen that though the capacity is available, ground situation doesn't allow you to use such an aircraft. So the only 'useful' purpose with this aircraft I can see is, that it can lift a Arjun tank. But then, in all these pages, people had been arguing why it is such a 'useless' proposition.

Back to square one.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Jun 2010 16:18

geeth wrote:.
Back to square one.

What ever for?

This continues to be the first of the many puzzling questions about C 17.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 04 Jun 2010 16:30

>>>This continues to be the first of the many puzzling questions about C 17.

Which one? Arjun??

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Jun 2010 16:52

geeth wrote:>>>This continues to be the first of the many puzzling questions about C 17.

Which one? Arjun??

No in general its role, I have not yet been convinced that C 17s are indeed for moving T 90s (let alone Arjun's for the moment.) If we have it we can use it for those, sure, that part I agree with, but is that a reason to buy C 17s?

Heck you can make a new plant for Arjuns in NE and churn out 1000 Arjuns for that money.

I dont see a role unless the real reason is interoperability with US forces, and building capacity in India to host C 17s from other countries.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jun 2010 16:53

geeth wrote: The Difference Between the cargo carrying capacity by weight is around 25 tons. A less dense cargo like cloth, medicine food stuff etc would not require a lifting capacity of 70 tons in one go - even if it requires in an extreme situation, it may be (say) once a decade affair, and it may happen that though the capacity is available, ground situation doesn't allow you to use such an aircraft. So the only 'useful' purpose with this aircraft I can see is, that it can lift a Arjun tank. But then, in all these pages, people had been arguing why it is such a 'useless' proposition.

Back to square one.

The question of effective utilization of payload is valid for all transport aircraft, not just the C-17. If the aircraft is not carrying fuel or ammunition, its the volume that's the limiting factor, the ratio of the IL-76's cargo volume/floor area to C-17 is even more skewed. In general the medium lift transport aircraft will do the bulk of airlift. Under usual circumstances, the IAF doesn't need to be operating any heavy lift aircraft. But when a requirement arises, the IAF cannot be running around looking for an An-124 to hire.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 04 Jun 2010 19:58

Boeing Offers to Reduce C-17 Cost

It may be noted that India has rejected the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation. Hence, it has been notified that India’s C-17s will not be fitted with secure communications (COMSEC) equipment Global Positioning System (GPS) security devices and other equipment. However, Boeing has confirmed that India was joining the Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership (GSP) for the maintenance of the C-17 and that the notification to the US Congress included that cost.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 04 Jun 2010 20:00

Me thinks that C 17 is for transportation missiles, Agni 1/2/3/4/5/6/7, Surya ? etc form the manufacturing plants or "warehouse" to forward deployments in north, north east and west.

Any comments

K

Nesoj · Post by **Nesoj** » 05 Jun 2010 19:06

As I understand 'capacity' in the Commercial Airline Industry is NOT based on either the weight or volume, reasons being :-
- in case one loads gold ingots, probably a couple of pallets would equal the max take off weight
- in case one loads foam pillows, the whole plane would be filled with less than a ton of pillows.

To get around this problem the Airlines have something called 'Volume Weight' and if ever you have shipped air cargo, you would have been charged based on the 'volume weight' ( not nett weight or volume)

Volume Weight is defined as "-

The normal calculation for volume weight in Air Freight is : 6 cubic meters per metric ton, i.e. 1 cubic meter = 166667 kgs chargeable weight.

When talking about 'capacity', Commercial Airlines are referring to the 'volume weight'.By any chance are Air Forces also following this practice ?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 07 Jun 2010 05:06

Sanku wrote:
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?

Umm whether to give a "quote" or to report it in third person is just a part of editorial policy, one needn't see a huge conspiracy in this. IOW, For example, I don't see any difference between a line which says:

Talking to India Strategic, ACM Naik said - "We are planning to acquire C-17s to eventually replace the ageing IL-76s"

and

Talking to India Strategic, ACM Naik said that the IAF is planning to acquire C-17s to eventually replace the ageing IL-76s

Yes anybody can attribute a quote to anyone. Similarly anyone can attribute a direct quote to anyone as well. It is just using these - ".." (Even to this people often say that we have been misquoted). So we should actually ask for video evidence (but of course videos can be doctored). So essentially what you are saying is that you will believe nothing as long as it contradicts your point of view. That's fine - but let us not apply big words like 'logic' and 'against the grain of accepted knowledge' to such views.

The important thing is that the person making the quote has been identified and since the ACM has not contradicted it. So, hence, therefore....

You on other hand have been asserting for a while now that the IL 76s will be replaced by a similar aircraft (we will currently ignore your 'bands' for the moment, since they seem to suggest that is what is happenning) So please provide quotes to back up your statements (even indirect ones would do)

As an aside - somehow your insistence for 'proof' reminds me of the paki govt's insistence for proof of Hafiz Saeed's involvement in Mumbai - Whatever is provided appears to be 'not enough'

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Jun 2010 11:23

Arnab, I dont feel any need to have to undergo serious contortions to show a single point. The need for contortions themselves prove a point.

Thanks

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 09 Jun 2010 17:34

Just in case if we are really looking fora 'STRATEGIC LIFT',there some are other alternatives as well
from wiki>
C17

General characteristics

* Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster
* Capacity:
o 102 troops with standard centerline seats or
o 134 troops with palletized seats or
o 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients or
o Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank, three Strykers or 6 M1117 Armored Security Vehicles
* Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix of palletized cargo and vehicles
* Length: 174 ft (53 m)
* Wingspan: 169.8 ft (51.75 m)
* Height: 55.1 ft (16.8 m)
* Wing area: 3,800 ft² (353 m²)
* Empty weight: 282,500 lb (128,100 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 585,000 lb (265,350 kg)
* Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each
* Fuel capacity: 35,546 US gal (134,556 L)

Performance

* Cruise speed: Mach 0.76 (450 knots, 515 mph, 830 km/h)
* Range: 2,420 nmi[118] (2,785 mi, 4,482 km)
* Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
* Max wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
* Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277
* Takeoff run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,316 m)[118]
* Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,060 m)

in comparision with
AN-124-100

Key Data:
Crew
An-124 - 7
An-124-100 - 4
An-124-100M - 4
An-124-210 - 3
Capacity: 88 passengers or the hold can take an additional 350 on a palletised seating system
Weights:
Maximum Take-Off Weight
392t
Load Carrying Capacity
Using a 2,800m runway (2,300m for An-124-210)
Load Carrying Capacity
150t using a 3,000m runway (2,500m for An-124-210)
Engines:
Quantity
4
Turbofan Engines
An-124-100 - D-18t turbofans
An-124-100M - D-18t series 3
An-124-210 - RB211-524H-t
Thrust
229kN (264kN for An-124-210)
Performance:
Speed
800km/h to 850km/h
Cruise Speed at an Altitude of 9km
750km/h to 800km/h
Altitude
Up to 12,000m
Ferry Range With Maximum Fuel
13,300km (15, 250 for An-124-210)
Range With 40t Payload
10,960km (12,730km for An-124-210)
Range With 120t Payload
5,030km (5,950km for An-124-210)
Runway Length
3,000m (2,420m for An-124-210)
Take-Off Run on Concrete Runway
2,520m (2,050m for An-124-210)
Landing Roll on Concrete Runway
900m
Cargo Capacity:
Cargo Hold Floor Length Including Ramps
36.5m
Width at Floor Level
6.4m
Height
21.08m
Volume
1,270m³
http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... specs.html

also if someone has doubts,here comes a bombshell

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/nat ... ore-02128/On March 23, 2006, NATO put a multinational airlift contract into effect. As things stand now, 6 giant Antonov An-124-100 strategic air lifters will be available to NATO members Belgium (just added), Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden are also part of the “Strategic Airlift Interim Solution” (SALIS), so named because it is designed as a gap-filler until new A400M tactical airlift planes or other airlift options can be deployed in numbers by around 2025 or so.

Details of this arrangement, the Antonov’s exceptional commercial success in contrast to its American counterpart, and some future possibilities are all covered below….

AN-124 aircraft are slightly larger than the USA’s gigantic C-5A Galaxy, but unlike the Galaxy or the C-17 they have found new life and exceptional success in the civilian and contract cargo market. The AN-124-100M-150 is an operationally improved version of the AN-124 outsize and heavyweight cargo aircraft, capable of transporting single or multiple pieces of cargo weighing up to 150 tonnes (330,000 pounds) as well as outsize cargo. On the outsize cargo front, the AN-124 is the only aircraft that can carry the Boeing 777’s new GE90 engines. Its cargo capacity is roughly double that of a C-17 Globemaster III’s 77 tonnes (170,000 pounds), all at a significantly lower cost per aircraft.

added later: price per aircraft approx. $ 100-200 mn
http://www.casr.ca/id-antonov-costs.htm

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jun 2010 17:50

Glorious!All India needs to do is to organise a similar leasing arrangement with the Russians for the AN-124.If its good enough for NATO and demonstrably far better than the C-17,it should be the way to go if the IAF /GOI put India's interests first and not Boeing's.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 09 Jun 2010 17:57

^^^^^^^^
Sir, am not too sure whether during emergencies and war, cargo planes will be available like taxis at a street corner!

Thre is such a thing called sanctions that are applied on countries like India!!

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 09 Jun 2010 17:59

Probably they were looking to impress obama during his India visit, to present with a multi billion dollar contract 5.7 bn for globemaster + 2 nuke plants (+ mrca?) that is unnecessary and against the common man, margins from which goes back to democrats.
hence the hurry to finalize it
now the su%$rs are saying that some bargaining is expected

It is strange that we are justifying c17 purchase in comparison with IL76 !!

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 09 Jun 2010 18:01

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

The United States is considering a Russian proposal on the joint production of An-124 Condor heavy-lift transport aircraft, a Russian deputy prime minister said.

The An-124 was designed by the Antonov Design Bureau in 1982, and was produced in Ukraine's Kiev and Russia's Ulyanovsk plants until 1995. Although there are no An-124s being built at present, Russia and Ukraine have reportedly agreed to resume production in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jun 2010 19:23

Xposting. Not recommending the C-17, but the NEED for a strategic airlift:

sathyaC wrote: Army and navy plan to set up a marine brigade

The navy and army have sent a proposal to the government seeking permission to transport a 5,000-strong armed infantry and special forces troops, tanks and weapons - an independent brigade group (IBG) - on foreign shores for active operations. This capability has both been controversial and strategically provocative.

It has been learnt that after years of consultations, the army and navy have finally started seeing eye to eye on the modalities required to incrementally build up the capability to deliver a full brigade-strength contingent of troops - including two special forces units - with arms, ammunition, vehicles and weapons outside the Indian mainland.

"The need to move forces is in keeping with the expanded security focus on India's island territories and the ability to deliver forces expeditiously for humanitarian relief operations," navy spokesperson Commander PVS Satish said.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 09 Jun 2010 19:25

Neglecting The Navy Could Threaten Russia's Sovereignty

Russia plans to spend 13 trillion rubles ($417 billion) on its rearmament program through 2020, Gen. Oleg Frolov, acting chief of armaments at the Defense Ministry, reported to the State Duma on June 3

What can the Russian armed forces expect to receive under the program?
Military transport aviation will get funding to maintain existing planes (Il-76, An-22 and An-124 Ruslan) and buy a number of new ones, in particular Il-476, Il-112B, An-70, An-124 Ruslans, production of which is to resume soon, and possibly other types of aircraft.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jun 2010 19:37

Folks,

Can we post non India or India-C-17 related articles in the right threads please?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 09 Jun 2010 22:04

rohitvats wrote:
geeth wrote:
I can't think of any cargo that IAF uses which will fill the cargo volume...except may be relief material like used rags etc. For that you don't need a C-17, I hope. Can you help me out in this regard?- name a cargo which can be carried only by the C-17s and not IL-76 at such large quantities, justifying the purchase.

Containers are used basically for ease of operation. and there is a limit on weight for each size. so extra large cargo hold may be of help, if the sizes don't match the standard size of the containers.
A clarification - you're assuming the absolute volume of the Cargo Hold and trying to figure the payload which can fill this volume and still be around 33tonnes. The 33 tonnes number is based on exp. of IAF and would have been based on the kind of stuff they regulary carry.

There are many such payloads possible - 200 odd soldiers with associated gear plus some supplies will weight 20-25 tonnes
or carrying couple of Bofors guns or a BMP-II and crew or 6 Jeeps plus stores.

As for the C-17 requirement - I'm not arguing to contrary of your position. But they do have their usefulness.

Me thinks that the C 17 may be THE ONLY AVAILABLE aircraft which could airlift Agni 1/2/3/4/5. Surya, Shaurya etc form their production centres to thier bases in north / north east / western India.

K

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 09 Jun 2010 23:39

Kersi D wrote:
Me thinks that the C 17 may be THE ONLY AVAILABLE aircraft which could airlift Agni 1/2/3/4/5. Surya, Shaurya etc form their production centres to thier bases in north / north east / western India.

K

why only c17?

http://www.antonov.com/news/photo/c-photo-1.jpg

United Launch Alliance contracts the An-124 to transport the Atlas V launch vehicle from its facilities near Denver to Cape Canaveral. Two flights are required to transfer each launch vehicle (one for the Atlas V main booster stage and another for the Centaur upper stage).

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

Rolls-Royce contracts the Antonov An-124 to transport the Trent family engines to and from their test facilities worldwide.

getting an-124 will be a strategic decision in case of strategic air lift need in the future when c17 would be obsolete in terms of our increasing requirements ,like we need something more than IL76.
I think the american case is an example.
why to waste money 2 times?

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 10 Jun 2010 00:15

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 10 Jun 2010 13:25

NRao wrote:Xposting. Not recommending the C-17, but the NEED for a strategic airlift:

Former navy chief Admiral Arun Prakash said it was absolutely essential that the navy built up the capacity to transport a brigade- sized group across the seas. "We have 1,200 island territories. We have energy investments worth thousands of crores far from our shores. We have huge diaspora in the Middle East. If there was a Kargil-like situation on any of our island territories, we would need adequate boots on the ground for combat. There are also other liabilities such as piracy and potential hostage situations.

rajeshks wrote: C17 may not be for the NE theatre. MTA is for that purpose, afterall 10 or 20 MBTs airlifted by C17s wont have any significance in a war with China. I think its main duty will be to support an overseas deployment. With 3 million Indians in Gulf countries such a need can come anytime. IA has one strike corps earmarked for overseas deployment, IN is coming with 2 ACs and now IAF is playing their part with heavy lift capability + Su 30 MKIs. This may be part of a larger game wherein India slowly start projecting its power in IOR.

Few months back I raised the same point in this thread while discussing about C-17. I was blasted

for another point in the same post.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 10 Jun 2010 14:10

price of antonov-124 is a fraction of c17, if we choose them instead of c17 we could have 5 times the lift capacity at the same price , that too without strings
It is still not clear why they just jumped on c17s without evaluating others.
On one hand they are taking too much time to evaluate mrca .

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 10 Jun 2010 14:18

Samay, have you thought of things other than the lifiting capacity? How about it's maintainability? Ease of use? Take off and Landing distance etc?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jun 2010 15:36

Samay wrote:price of antonov-124 is a fraction of c17, if we choose them instead of c17 we could have 5 times the lift capacity at the same price , that too without strings
It is still not clear why they just jumped on c17s without evaluating others.
On one hand they are taking too much time to evaluate mrca .

The An-124 isn't designed for the role IL-76/C-17 type aircraft carry out. If you'll look through the thread you'll find a comparison of the C-5 and C-17 done where the C-17's life-cycle cost was proven to be lower than the C-5. The An-124's operating cost is the downer here. Unless India plans to unilaterally enter a military action half the globe away requiring sustained round the year resupply in the absence of direct rail or sea links, its simply not cost effective to operate the An-124.

Also, no rough field capability, much longer turnaround time and production status - in 'being mulled over' stage.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Jun 2010 15:45

Viv S, you are parroting a bunch of unproven statements once again

C 5 != An 124

so If C 5 was clunker, it does not mean An 124 is.

Most probably An 124 would have lower cost compared to any lift aircraft but the Il.

And if C 17 has rough lift capability so has An 124, after all C 17 have landed exactly at the same places in Afg where An 124s have.

You are basically cherry picking facts to suit C 17. You want exactly a aircraft which will take 77 tonnes over 5400 kms. Exactly, nothing a little here and there would fit your plans.

In real world there is no such magical constraint, but hey you have defined the word strategic airlift by looking at C 17s specs and then say that only C 17 fit it.

This is precisely how, "Shortlisting" is done to ensure single vendor deals.

You have amply illustrated the process that I have been referring to.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 10 Jun 2010 15:53

Once again I would say that the decision for strategic airlift has to be strategic .

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 10 Jun 2010 16:05

Dmurphy wrote:Samay, have you thought of things other than the lifiting capacity? How about it's maintainability? Ease of use? Take off and Landing distance etc?

for God sake its all about purchasing a strategic lift aircraft ,used very less, ..not about fighter jets that one considers too much about operational costs/maintainability ..Also I read somewhere that new an124 has good record in maintenance ,.
if it burns 75 percent more fuel per hour than c17 ,then it also gives double lift capaciity at less than 1/3 of the price of c17 ,what else is required ...
you forgot to think about the time c17 will take to deliver the cargo in N number of flights, while AN-124 will do it in half of the available time.
Strategic airlift will be required when available time is very less .
I think they thought big when they decided to use c17 instead of IL76, but not big enough as the americans/nato are thinking .

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Jun 2010 16:29

Look at this An-124 land in about 4000 feet (the markers on the right indicate how many thousands of feet are left when going the other way......)

http://vimeo.com/6179973

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jun 2010 16:29

Sanku wrote:Viv S, you are parroting a bunch of unproven statements once again

And here I though the 'yawn' was the end of it.

C 5 != An 124

so If C 5 was clunker, it does not mean An 124 is.

Its got less to do with the efficiency and more to do with the fact that it weighs over 300 tons loaded.

Most probably An 124 would have lower cost compared to any lift aircraft but the Il.

'Most probably' ? So what total lifetime did you assign the airframe and how did you price the operating cost?

And if C 17 has rough lift capability so has An 124, after all C 17 have landed exactly at the same places in Afg where An 124s have.

Firstly, how come Afghanistan is the benchmark of rough field performance? And secondly, you're wrong and I've posted the youtube videos earlier on that thread, that prove that. AFAIK An-124s cannot be operated from a dirt strip.

You are basically cherry picking facts to suit C 17. You want exactly a aircraft which will take 77 tonnes over 5400 kms. Exactly, nothing a little here and there would fit your plans.

In real world there is no such magical constraint, but hey you have defined the word strategic airlift by looking at C 17s specs and then say that only C 17 fit it.

This is precisely how, "Shortlisting" is done to ensure single vendor deals.

You have amply illustrated the process that I have been referring to.

The An-124 isn't in production and doesn't have any rough field capability. The IAF is interested in both. And one could be surprised at the IL-76 and C-17 getting produced at all, since they both can be replaced with the An-124 and C-5 respectively.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Jun 2010 16:30

Viv S wrote: The An-124 isn't designed for the role IL-76/C-17 type aircraft carry out.

And what was AN-124 designed for? And what are the roles that IL-76/C-17 can fullfil which AN-124 cannot?

If you'll look through the thread you'll find a comparison of the C-5 and C-17 done where the C-17's life-cycle cost was proven to be lower than the C-5.

How is that a proxy for assessment of AN-124? Do you have any number(s) for AN-124?

The An-124's operating cost is the downer here.

How do you know this? Do you any numbers to back up this statement?

Unless India plans to unilaterally enter a military action half the globe away requiring sustained round the year resupply in the absence of direct rail or sea links, its simply not cost effective to operate the An-124.

How is this different from what C-17 does in USAF service?

Also, no rough field capability, much longer turnaround time and production status - in 'being mulled over' stage.

Apart from productio status - how did you arrive at the conclusion wrt other parameters? Also, which rough field usage has IL-76 demonstrated in IAF service? And which 'rough field(s)' are C-17 going to operate from?

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 10 Jun 2010 16:48

Let me be apologetic that my knowledge on strategic airlift is a dumb O. But still,

The news reports indicate that An-124 production line is going to be active under the Russian forces modernization program, so wouldn't that be an opportunity to look at if it suites our requirement? Hire a few An-124 for the next few years till the production goes online after which we could place the order. The advantage being we would already know the bird that we are buying.

The C-17 makes me feel that for all the joint exercises to be conducted on Western soil, the C-17 would be the Transporter.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 10 Jun 2010 16:50

Sanku wrote:You are basically cherry picking facts to suit C 17. You want exactly a aircraft which will take 77 tonnes over 5400 kms. Exactly, nothing a little here and there would fit your plans.

Sankubhai, if that's your grouse, then you better take it to ACM PV Naik. He's categorically said to the media "We need C-17 class of air lifters"

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Jun 2010 16:51

JimmyJ wrote:
<SNIP>

The C-17 makes me feel that for all the joint exercises to be conducted on Western soil, the C-17 would be the Transporter.

Any Transport aircraft in IAF service with legs and room to reach the so called exercise area will be used for the role - it does not matter if Adam or Evan makes them.