C-17s for the IAF?

[Gilles]

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.

1) A C-17 has a service life of 30,000 hours. The An-124-100 is 24,000 but that was to be increased for new production aircraft.
2) A C-17 costs over $45000 an hour to operate. Commercial An-124s can be rented wet for between 25 to $30,000 an hour. Which is cheaper to operate you think ?
3) C-17s have landed at ONE rough field in Afghanistan, Camp Rhino, which was 7000 feet long. Period. And that was in 2001. Not since. What a benchmark!
4) The An-124 is unpaved field capable and certified. It says so here on the website of the factory that built them http://www.aviant.ua/eng/an-124.html Its just that the civilian airlines that fly them chose not to go to such fields with them. The unpaved runways the C-17s use are specially built to suit "unpaved" runways that allow C-17 operations.
5) The An-124 isn't in production?. Well I suspect there will be a time in the not too distant future when the C-17 plant will be closed and the An-124 plant will be running, Why? There is a high demand for civilian An-124s and none for civilian C-17s. Does that not tell you anything ?

[Sanku]

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"

Terribly sorry Dmuphy ji, as I have am now tired of pointing out, he said no such thing -- what is being touted as his statement is ONE blogs take on a year old statement he made, a paraphrase of his statement.

The problem is, I have been around so long that I have seen these kinds of games in the media long enough. Too many speculations come and go. In fact full range of "statements" have been quoted from various sources to justify C 17, right from

Il 76 being replaced (huh!!)

Il 76s have poor uptime (since CAG had a report on An 32 uptimes no less)

IAF wants a C 17 class of vehicle.

IAF wants C 17 for rough field.

IAF wants C 17 to ferry heavy airlift to regular airbases like Il 76.

All of the obviously contradictory statements based on same one or two quotes.

Perhaps IAF does really want it, in which I would love to hear their reasons (though I may still have contrarian views), but I just hope some one in IAF directly comes up and speaks about it rather than these guessing games of attributed statements, on BRF and else where.

Meanwhile note -- I have already posted statements by Shri Antony on the EXTREMELY IMPORTANT need to have a broad based requirements such that multiple candidates can be considered.

That is also the context isnt it

[Dmurphy]

Terribly sorry Dmuphy ji, as I have am now tired of pointing out, he said no such thing -- what is being touted as his statement is ONE blogs take on a year old statement he made, a paraphrase of his statement.

Link

The Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief of Staff, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, said 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 for its ageing fleet of Soviet vintage IL-76 transport jets.

I rest my case here.

[Tanaji]

Terribly sorry Dmuphy ji, as I have am now tired of pointing out, he said no such thing -- what is being touted as his statement is ONE blogs take on a year old statement he made, a paraphrase of his statement.

Link

The Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief of Staff, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, said 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 for its ageing fleet of Soviet vintage IL-76 transport jets.

I rest my case here.

You are wasting your time. Sanku refuses to accept any news papers, blogs or any other sources that attribute or report what the IAF has said, even if they are direct quotes. For him, nothing less than a video tape, signed in blood and preferably DNA matched by the IAF chief, accompanied by 3 bottles of blood by the Raksha Mantri will do.

[Viv S]

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?

Lifting outsized cargo upto intercontinental distances.

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?

Nope. Just an assumption that the An-124's operating cost is similar to the C-5's. Which isn't unreasonable.

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

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

I don't. Assumption again. Though Gilles puts it at about $25-30,000 which is just slightly higher than the C-5.

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?

Its not. The C-17 can be used for the same purpose, which is why the USAF will eventually replace the C-5s with the C-17. Difference is if you're airlifting very heavy cargo or rolling stock, the An-124/C-5 works out to be less expensive than the C-17. For lighter cargo, the C-17 is cheaper.

"During congressional testimony, Gen. Schwartz explained that costs associated with transporting Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to Iraq were about $130,000 per MRAP for both C-5s and An-124s — and less expensive than moving them on C-17s."

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA486488

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?

Just repeating what I read -

"Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik is quoted by the India Strategic defence magazine as saying that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study because of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, long range, and ease of operation."

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 04806.html

The IL-76 hasn't had to perform a rough field landing in IAF service, but for an aircraft serving till 2045-50, I can see why the IAF would want that capability. The USAF hasn't used it on a dirt strip in wartime either but it still specified that requirement during the design stage.

[Viv S]

[
1) A C-17 has a service life of 30,000 hours. The An-124-100 is 24,000 but that was to be increased for new production aircraft.
2) A C-17 costs over $45000 an hour to operate. Commercial An-124s can be rented wet for between 25 to $30,000 an hour. Which is cheaper to operate you think ?
3) C-17s have landed at ONE rough field in Afghanistan, Camp Rhino, which was 7000 feet long. Period. And that was in 2001. Not since. What a benchmark!
4) The An-124 is unpaved field capable and certified. It says so here on the website of the factory that built them http://www.aviant.ua/eng/an-124.html Its just that the civilian airlines that fly them chose not to go to such fields with them. The unpaved runways the C-17s use are specially built to suit "unpaved" runways that allow C-17 operations.
5) The An-124 isn't in production?. Well I suspect there will be a time in the not too distant future when the C-17 plant will be closed and the An-124 plant will be running, Why? There is a high demand for civilian An-124s and none for civilian C-17s. Does that not tell you anything ?

1. The appearance of new production aircraft onto the market is still iffy.
2. $45,000! This 2008 report for the Congress puts it at $11,330. Over its lifetime that works out to be a difference of $450-500 million per aircraft. Assuming(optimistically) that cost of aviation fuel doesn't increase.
3. I didn't bring it up as benchmark. The An-124 hasn't flown from the Camp Rhino so that negates Sanku's statement.
4. Maybe you're right about that then. With regard to the C-17's professed capability, its coming to India for trials at the end of this month. If its specs are indeed fictional as you claim, the IAF will reject it.
5. Its still very much serves a niche market for oversize cargo. I don't expect it to have anywhere near the production numbers of the C-17.

[Sanku]

"Sanku">>Terribly sorry Dmuphy ji, as I have am now tired of pointing out, he said no such thing -- what is being touted as his statement is ONE blogs take on a year old statement he made, a paraphrase of his statement.

Link
I rest my case here.

You are wasting your time. Sanku refuses to accept any news papers, blogs or any other sources that attribute or report what the IAF has said, even if they are direct quotes. For him, nothing less than a video tape, signed in blood and preferably DNA matched by the IAF chief, accompanied by 3 bottles of blood by the Raksha Mantri will do.

Very funny folks; however if he had said it, one direct quote and the original source that the quote was made to would be forthcoming would it not be?

Not too much to ask for?

[Indranil]

4) The An-124 is unpaved field capable and certified. It says so here on the website of the factory that built them http://www.aviant.ua/eng/an-124.html Its just that the civilian airlines that fly them chose not to go to such fields with them. The unpaved runways the C-17s use are specially built to suit "unpaved" runways that allow C-17 operations.

I am big fan of the An-124. But just a nitpick here. Gilles you wouldn't take Boeing's word when it says C-17 is certified for "unpaved"-"rough" or whatever! But Aviant's word for An-124 would do! Unfair, isn't it!

And there are logistical things as you move higher on the chain. The operating cost is not just the fuel consumption! You have to have bigger hangars, lengthier checks, etc etc. Construction, maintenance everything would move one notch up. Won't it?!

What if we don't have a requirement to move 150T in one go! Why operate such a huge aircraft!

And the talk about An-124 lines being open is new. Till recently, even Russia were not quite sure what would happen of the An-124 lines. So give the IAf sometime to react. These are big toys and big decisions. They can't have knee jerk reactions like us!

[Samay]

1. The appearance of new production aircraft onto the market is still iffy. its already there
2. $45,000! This 2008 report for the Congress puts it at $11,330. Over its lifetime that works out to be a difference of $450-500 million per aircraft. Assuming(optimistically) that cost of aviation fuel doesn't increase.
3. I didn't bring it up as benchmark. The An-124 hasn't flown from the Camp Rhino so that negates Sanku's statement.flying from camp rhino is important for induction?
4. Maybe you're right about that then. With regard to the C-17's professed capability, its coming to India for trials at the end of this month. If its specs are indeed fictional as you claim, the IAF will reject it. well ,they have already accepted it ,like they did with t90.Its nothing more tan a white elephant,$ 1bn a piece,huh,and that too for a fictional strategic lift scenario !!
5. Its still very much serves a niche market for oversize cargo.go to previous page please,thats why I have pasted some pics there I don't expect it to have anywhere near the production numbers of the C-17.lets leave that matter to the russians

A lot of assumptions viv ji.

And there are logistical things as you move higher on the chain. The operating cost is not just the fuel consumption! You have to have bigger hangars, lengthier checks, etc etc. Construction, maintenance everything would move one notch up. Won't it?!Someone said that c17s maintenance cost is a black hole

What if we don't have a requirement to move 150T in one go! Why operate such a huge aircraft! are you saying that for strategic lift ,we will always require 70 T?

And the talk about An-124 lines being open is new. Till recently, even Russia were not quite sure what would happen of the An-124 lines. So give the IAf sometime to react. These are big toys and big decisions. They can't have knee jerk reactions like us! I guess they have already made their decisions,thats why senators are jumping in us congress.

The data indicates that the basic military aircraft, built at Boeing’s Long Beach facility outside Los Angeles, California, costs about US $350 million. An additional US $150 million per aircraft goes on spare engines, maintenance spares, electronic protection systems, and logistics. Finally, Boeing’s global maintenance network for the C-17 --- called the Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership, or GSP --- charges US $75 million every three years --- i.e. US $25 million per year --- to ensure that each aircraft covered in this plan remains flying, functional and available almost 90% of the time.

The US $580 million tag could become even bigger if India buys secure communications (COMSEC) and Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation aids, by signing two safeguard agreements that US law demands but New Delhi has so far rejected: the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA); and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA). The recent Congress notification indicates that India’s C-17s will not be fitted with COMSEC equipment; GPS security devices; and certain “Government Furnished equipment”.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... e-cut.html

According to Begert, the USAF official said the database is unreliable for calculating actual maintenance costs. The official added that the business case analysis shows the C-17 is more expensive to maintain under Boeing's PBL contract than the older Lockheed C-5 fleet, which is maintained under the air force's control at the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia.

[Gilles]

4) The An-124 is unpaved field capable and certified. It says so here on the website of the factory that built them http://www.aviant.ua/eng/an-124.html Its just that the civilian airlines that fly them chose not to go to such fields with them. The unpaved runways the C-17s use are specially built to suit "unpaved" runways that allow C-17 operations.

I am big fan of the An-124. But just a nitpick here. Gilles you wouldn't take Boeing's word when it says C-17 is certified for "unpaved"-"rough" or whatever! But Aviant's word for An-124 would do! Unfair, isn't it!

And there are logistical things as you move higher on the chain. The operating cost is not just the fuel consumption! You have to have bigger hangars, lengthier checks, etc etc. Construction, maintenance everything would move one notch up. Won't it?!

What if we don't have a requirement to move 150T in one go! Why operate such a huge aircraft!

And the talk about An-124 lines being open is new. Till recently, even Russia were not quite sure what would happen of the An-124 lines. So give the IAf sometime to react. These are big toys and big decisions. They can't have knee jerk reactions like us!

You are correct in a way. But that the An-124 is unpaved runway certified is a fact. That the C-17 is certified as such is also a fact. So is the C-5 Galaxy by the way. All are certified for unpaved runways. There are just not that many unpaved runways in the world that can accommodate such aircraft on a routine basis. But unlike Boeing C-17 salespeople, the Antonov and Lockheed-Martin don't make that capacity a major selling point of their aircraft. To do so would be dishonest.

The An-124 burns more fuel than the C-17. About 14 tonnes an hour vs 8. It has more crew-members, about 6 vs 3. But they were purchased 30 to 50 million dollars each. Which is why those who purchased them can afford to rent them out for $30,0000 an hour. On the other hand, NATO created a C-17 pool called SAC, which purchased 3 C-17s, based in Hungary, and operates them for about 10 NATO members on a cost-sharing basis. SAC members each pay in excess of $45000 for each hour of C-17 operation. I documented those figures here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 9b5cd4d5c1

The Dutch published their cost. They signed up for 500 hours of annual use of C-17 over 30 years. That cost them 130 Million Euros down payment plus an annual payment of 15 million Euros (18.3 million dollars at today's rate) The annual amount alone comes out at $36,600 per hour of flight (for 500 hours). Then you must add the 158 million down payment divided by 15,000 hours (500 hours multiplied by 30 years) which comes out to another 10,500 dollars per hour, for a grand total of $47,000 an hour.

An An-124 with double the capacity is rented for $30,000 an hour. Which is why one still sees a lot of An-124s flying to Afghanistan for the Dutch......



I do not claim that the IAF should or should not buy An-124s. Perhaps the C-17 is what they really need and what is best for them. Just don't expect to see any offloading tanks at the Advanced Landing Grounds........

By the way, the re-opening of the An-124 production line is still toss. It may never happen. But again, an IAF order would weigh a lot in the Russian's decision. The production line and all the jigs are still is there but they are not active..

An April 2010 picture.......
http://spotters.net.ua/file/?id=28633

[Gilles]

1. The appearance of new production aircraft onto the market is still iffy.
2. $45,000! This 2008 report for the Congress puts it at $11,330. Over its lifetime that works out to be a difference of $450-500 million per aircraft. Assuming(optimistically) that cost of aviation fuel doesn't increase.
3. I didn't bring it up as benchmark. The An-124 hasn't flown from the Camp Rhino so that negates Sanku's statement.
4. Maybe you're right about that then. With regard to the C-17's professed capability, its coming to India for trials at the end of this month. If its specs are indeed fictional as you claim, the IAF will reject it.
5. Its still very much serves a niche market for oversize cargo. I don't expect it to have anywhere near the production numbers of the C-17.

1) Correct, I agree.
2) You are also correct. But that figure does NOT include the cost of acquisition, only the direct operating cost. In the same box where you read the $11,330 figure, just above it, it is written that the average C-17 acquisition cost was 280 million dollars. The aircraft has a service life of 30,000 hours. Divide 280 million dollars by 30,000 hours and you come up with 9,333 dollars which is to be added to the $11,330. Then there is the interest on the loans.....
3) Its difficult to compare CIVILIAN An-124s to MILITARY C-17s. The An-124 had never been to war yet. Who knows where a military operated An-124 would have landed.
4) I can't wait. I just hope they won't make a big secret about it. One thing for certain, a C-17 that lands anywhere on an unpaved runway in India does not go un-noticed. The IAF will reject it only if unpaved runway capability is really important to them. It may not be important all all. The UK and Canada both hyped that STOL C-17 capability while they were in the acquisition stages. None made use of it once the aircraft were purchased and inducted. Australia did fly a few times to one custom-made-for-C-17 "unpaved" runway in Afghanistan.
5) Correct. The C-17 is the equivalent to the USSR's IL-76 of which 950 were built. The An-124 is to be compared to the C-5. The difference I was making though, is that both the IL-76 and the An-124 are attractive to commercial operators. The C-17, the C-141 and the C-5 were not. Not because they were not good aircraft, but because of their very high cost.

[Viv S]

1. The appearance of new production aircraft onto the market is still iffy. its already there

Upgraded Soviet era aircraft. No new airframes.

3. I didn't bring it up as benchmark. The An-124 hasn't flown from the Camp Rhino so that negates Sanku's statement.flying from camp rhino is important for induction?

I mentioned it specifically in response to a post. It was not a general statement on benchmarks for performance.

4. Maybe you're right about that then. With regard to the C-17's professed capability, its coming to India for trials at the end of this month. If its specs are indeed fictional as you claim, the IAF will reject it. well ,they have already accepted it ,like they did with t90.Its nothing more tan a white elephant,$ 1bn a piece,huh,and that too for a fictional strategic lift scenario !!

They also 'accepted' the Eurocopter and the FH-77B. Until the ink dries on the document, the purchase remains theoretical. $1 bn a piece? The fictional scenario was a design requirement stipulated by the USAF and also by the VVS.

5. Its still very much serves a niche market for oversize cargo.go to previous page please,thats why I have pasted some pics there I don't expect it to have anywhere near the production numbers of the C-17.lets leave that matter to the russians

As long as one isn't counting on a large production to amortize costs and create a steady source of spares and support.

[Gilles]

Nope. Just an assumption that the An-124's operating cost is similar to the C-5's. Which isn't unreasonable.

I don't. Assumption again. Though Gilles puts it at about $25-30,000 which is just slightly higher than the C-5.

There again you have to compare oranges to oranges.

What I said was that you can rent an An-124 for 25 to 30K an hour. That includes the cost of investment, the fuel, the crew, the maintenance, the insurance, and the profits. The actual cost of flying the thing is lower, if we are to assume they do make a profit.

The $23,075 per hour that is quoted here:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA486488

for the C-5 cost of operation, is only the direct operating cost plus the amortization for the recent upgrades they made to the aircraft (read notes c and d under the box on page CRS-17). It does not include the cost of acquisition, any insurance and any profits (which the military do not have). You can rest assured that if a civilian outfit had a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy for charter, it would be 1.5 to 2 times the cost of an An-124.

[GeorgeWelch]

2) A C-17 costs over $45000 an hour to operate. Commercial An-124s can be rented wet for between 25 to $30,000 an hour. Which is cheaper to operate you think ?

You cannot compare operating costs across different organizations, different infrastructure and personnel costs

3) C-17s have landed at ONE rough field in Afghanistan, Camp Rhino, which was 7000 feet long. Period. And that was in 2001. Not since. What a benchmark!
4) The An-124 is unpaved field capable and certified. It says so here on the website of the factory that built them http://www.aviant.ua/eng/an-124.html Its just that the civilian airlines that fly them chose not to go to such fields with them. The unpaved runways the C-17s use are specially built to suit "unpaved" runways that allow C-17 operations.

Well it's landed on plenty of dirt runways, even if you like to dismiss such as being 'specially prepared'

The An-124 has never landed on dirt. What does that mean?

Its just that the civilian airlines that fly them chose not to go to such fields with them.

The Russian airforce owns quite a few. Why haven't they ever landed them on dirt?

Its difficult to compare CIVILIAN An-124s to MILITARY C-17s. The An-124 had never been to war yet. Who knows where a military operated An-124 would have landed.

if you want to have a capability during wartime, you need to practice it during peacetime

Where are the trials to determine the An-124's rough field capabilities? They've been done for the C-17 so it's rough-field capability is credible. It has been measured and demonstrated.

There is a high demand for civilian An-124s and none for civilian C-17s. Does that not tell you anything ?

You have to look at what they're being used for. The C-17 is an excellent general-purpose military airlifter. The An-124 is in demand because there are certain very massive very bulky items that need to moved by air. Unless the IAF is planning on routinely moving locomotives or generators, the civilian demand for the An-124 isn't particularly relevant.

[Indranil]

There is a high demand for civilian An-124s and none for civilian C-17s. Does that not tell you anything ?

You have to look at what they're being used for. The C-17 is an excellent general-purpose military airlifter. The An-124 is in demand because there are certain very massive very bulky items that need to moved by air. Unless the IAF is planning on routinely moving locomotives or generators, the civilian demand for the An-124 isn't particularly relevant.

Extremely valid point there!

[GeorgeWelch]

According to Begert, the USAF official said the database is unreliable for calculating actual maintenance costs. The official added that the business case analysis shows the C-17 is more expensive to maintain under Boeing's PBL contract than the older Lockheed C-5 fleet, which is maintained under the air force's control at the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia.

Well, as they say, you get what you pay for.

The PBL contract specifies certain availability and readiness benchmarks that the fleet has to (and does) meet.

The C-5 fleet is remarkably unreliable and always down for maintenance.

Now some of that is simply the C-17 is more modern, more maintainable design, but a lot of that IS the quality of support they're buying.

[GeorgeWelch]

But they were purchased 30 to 50 million dollars each.

Which isn't particularly relevant when the new ones are supposed to be $200 million each. And that's before any work has started on the line at all. Inevitably cost increases will push that even higher.

A lot of your cost estimates are based on old figures which are no longer relevant. If we're assuming India would buy new-build planes, you have to start with the new-build price.

[Gilles]

Well it's landed on plenty of dirt runways, even if you like to dismiss such as being 'specially prepared'

Well they are certainly not the thousands of dirt runways that are located across the United States, Canada and Australia are they ? And they will also not be the dirt runways that are in India, unless of course the US Army Corp of Engineers do like they did in Australia at Bradshaw airfield, go down to India and build a C-17 capable runway.

The An-124 has never landed on dirt. What does that mean?

The Russian airforce owns quite a few. Why haven't they ever landed them on dirt?

Do you know that as a fact or you have never seen it ?

if you want to have a capability during wartime, you need to practice it during peacetime

Where are the trials to determine the An-124's rough field capabilities? They've been done for the C-17 so it's rough-field capability is credible. It has been measured and demonstrated.

All I said was that the An-124, like the C-5 are unpaved runway certified. The C-141 was not. Antonov is not aggressively advertising its An-124 as unpaved runway capable.

You have to look at what they're being used for. The C-17 is an excellent general-purpose military airlifter. The An-124 is in demand because there are certain very massive very bulky items that need to moved by air. Unless the IAF is planning on routinely moving locomotives or generators, the civilian demand for the An-124 isn't particularly relevant.

Locomotives and generators ? How many locomotives and generatos have An-124s carried into Afghanistan ? Not very many. Yet they are there on a regular basis aren't they. They carry helicopters, armoured vehicles, fuel trucks, vehicles, and tons of other stuff. An An-124 can carry 4 MI-8s, 8 LAV-25s. They haul the same cargo the C-17s haul. Just more of it.

[Indranil]

Locomotives and generators ? How many locomotives and generatos have An-124s carried into Afghanistan ? Not very many. Yet they are there on a regular basis aren't they. They carry helicopters, armoured vehicles, fuel trucks, vehicles, and tons of other stuff. An An-124 can carry 4 MI-8s, 8 LAV-25s. They haul the same cargo the C-17s haul. Just more of it.

You made me sound like a fool . What a counter point. In India we say Wah-Wah!

The only whimper that I can muster is that non-military commercial users are generally locomotives and generators. But ofcourse An-124 has proven itself as a very worthy military lifter! I don't think anybody can question that!

[Nikhil T]

Indian Air Force to begin C-17 trials by month-end

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is likely to begin trials of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift transport aircraft, of which it intends to purchase 10, by the end of the month, an official said.
"It should happen in the next two weeks," the official told IANS on condition of anonymity.
"The trials should last about 10 days," he added of the evaluation process of the aircraft, which has a carrying capacity of 75 tonnes.
The trials are likely to be conducted in the same manner as the IAF is evaluating the six combat jets in contention for an order for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft.
This means the C-17, which can take off from unprepared airstrips as short as 3,000 metres, will be put through its paces in the icy heights of Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir, the deserts of Rajasthan and the humid conditions of south India.
Price negotiations will begin after the trials and the first aircraft should arrive within two years of Boeing receiving a letter of acceptance, the official said.
Asked how long it would take for IAF pilots to convert to the C-17, the official said: "Pilots who have done a reasonable number of hours on the Il-76 (the IAF's current heavy lift aircraft) can convert to command status in a few months."
The US Congress has cleared the sale of the C-17 to India. The Obama administration had notified Congress April 23 of the potential sale of 10 aircraft and sought objections or approval.
The aircraft are being sold to India under the US government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme, with the maximum package value of $5.8 billion. This includes the 3.8 percent administrative fee the government charges to ensure timely delivery and guarantee the supplies.
The actual cost of the C-17 aircraft would be less as India would not be buying all the options that are offered with it and the 3.8 percent fee would be payable only on the actual amount of the deal. In some countries, the administrative fee ranges up to 18 percent.
The IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, had said last year that it was looking for ten C-17s, described in its parlance as VHTAC, or Very Heavy Transport Aircraft, as a replacement for its ageing fleet of Soviet vintage IL-76 transports. He also spoke of a repeat order for 10 more aircraft.
The US Air Force has ordered 223 C-17s, of which 198 have been delivered. The aircraft, which first flew in 1991, was inducted in 1995.
Boeing plans to continue production for about five years to ensure deliveries to the US Air Force (24), the United Arab Emirates (six), Britain (seven) and India (10).

Hope the IAF tests the C-17 on unpaved runways too.

[GeorgeWelch]

Locomotives and generators ? How many locomotives and generatos have An-124s carried into Afghanistan ?

You were specifically trying to make a point about civilian demand proving how great it is and I was explaining that the referenced civilian demand wasn't particularly relevant.

If you want to compare military applications, fine, but the civilian component doesn't really transfer.

[amit]

Indian Air Force to begin C-17 trials by month-end

"The trials should last about 10 days," he added of the evaluation process of the aircraft, which has a carrying capacity of 75 tonnes.
The trials are likely to be conducted in the same manner as the IAF is evaluating the six combat jets in contention for an order for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft.
This means the C-17, which can take off from unprepared airstrips as short as 3,000 metres, will be put through its paces in the icy heights of Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir, the deserts of Rajasthan and the humid conditions of south India.
Price negotiations will begin after the trials and the first aircraft should arrive within two years of Boeing receiving a letter of acceptance, the official said.

Hope the IAF tests the C-17 on unpaved runways too.

Nikhil,

unprepared airstrips=unpaved runways??

But more importantly this report throws up some important points IMVHO.

However before pointing them out, please let me add a caveat that the report, even though they use the magical quotes attribute, does not name the official quoted.

So, taking into consideration the expert opinion that anyone can write anything and attribute it to anyone because there is no such thing as accountability and attribution/defamation laws, it can be argued that this report is false.

With that caveat emptor out of the way, the points:

1) From this report its pretty obvious the decision to look at the C-17 was not a handed down directive from the UPA government as otherwise there would be not need of tests. (Of course, again, it can be argued that all this is eyewash because the IAF jumps through a loop at the bidding of the MoD which in turn does the same on the bidding of PMO which on its part...)

2) It's not a "hasty" decision without trials. The aircraft would go through the same process of trials that the MRCA competition just concluded. Pity there are no new build (with new capabilities) Il76 or An124 bodies available otherwise I'm sure there could have been/would have been a multi-vendor trials, aka the MRCA.

3) Price negotiations are going to start after the trial process. That means the jumping up and down over the US$5.8billion price tag that we've been seeing over the past 58 pages were perhaps a tad premature?

4) Finally it seems to me that the IAF is following standard evaluation procedures for the C17. And can we conclude no other aircraft were/are being trialled because the IAF already knows the capabilities of its Il76s and there are no new and improved Il76s to test?

Incidentally, I find it very amusing that folks who a couple of dozen pages ago were arguing that the C17 was not required because the extra lift capacity that it provided vis a vis the Il76 was not worth it (remember, tanks are like lego bricks, can be disassmbled, sent on a plane and assembled in a jiffy) are now championing the An124 vis a vis C17.

And why? Of course because see how much more lift capacity it gives over the C17 - the more the better!

Rahul_M hazard a guess that a wide-bodied version of the IL76 that could carry tanks would cost around US$150million versus the US$50 million (also guesswork?) for a standard Il76. That's a working number even though that would mean just $1 billion (amortized over 10 planes, same as C17; the Russians have shown no interest in a wide bodied Il76 - they have the An124s- and so presumably they would do it only on Indian request) cost for a major, aerodynamic as well as mechanical overhaul, something that has never been attempted in a in production plane before.

But nevertheless I appreciate Rahul's effort to pin a $ number on the cost. Could anyone do the same for the new An124 that Russia would presumably build with the US?

Please remember that the working figure here is the US$220 million that just a C17 costs - the rest is services.

I think that would take this discussion forward, instead of reeling out reams of stats about what the An124 can do and cannot do as it sounds too much like yet another case of brochureitis.

JMT

[Philip]

Just 10 days of trials for an order worth approx. $10 billion! Why hasn't the IAF approached Antonov for a proposal for the AN-124 either? How cavalier can the GOI/MOD/IAF get.It took more than two decades for the Hawk to be selected and surely the aircraft must be tested in winter as well as summer in the high alt airstrips where its supposed heavylift capability is most sorely needed.The "10 days" trials are a farce meant to quickly wrap up the decision for Bopeing before Gates calls the plug on further manufacture of an aircraft that no one else (except loyal serf India) wants

[GeorgeWelch]

It took more than two decades for the Hawk to be selected

You want to hold up the Hawk as a model to follow?

Perhaps they learned a valuable lesson from the Hawk, namely paralysis by analysis helps no one.

The other difference is that the Hawk wasn't critical in the sense you could still train pilots without it.

Some of the things the C-17 can move and do can't be done by anything else in the IAF inventory, so there is a little more urgency.

And don't forget that the An-124 restart hasn't even been finalized yet. It will be years and years before any planes are ready for India. But you wait and wait and wait and finally there is the great flyoff between the C-17 and An-124. And then the IAF chooses the C-17 anyways.

[Aditya_V]

If IAF tests the C-17's like the LCA for all operating requirements and it does whatever it is supposeed to do like carrying stuff leh, thoise, NE forward bases etc, then most Jingos will be more than happy with it. The only worry is that these $5 Billion order should not take away funds from other projects, since India desperately needs lot of fighters

[Sanku]

Aditya_V

There are two points

1) Can C 17 do what it advertises -- thankfully at least thats happening now.
2) Can another airlift do pretty much the same at much lower costs and better integration?

[Gilles]

Locomotives and generators ? How many locomotives and generatos have An-124s carried into Afghanistan ? Not very many. Yet they are there on a regular basis aren't they. They carry helicopters, armoured vehicles, fuel trucks, vehicles, and tons of other stuff. An An-124 can carry 4 MI-8s, 8 LAV-25s. They haul the same cargo the C-17s haul. Just more of it.

You made me sound like a fool . What a counter point. In India we say Wah-Wah!

The only whimper that I can muster is that non-military commercial users are generally locomotives and generators. But ofcourse An-124 has proven itself as a very worthy military lifter! I don't think anybody can question that!

In the case of Afghanistan, the An-124s are all civilian commercial operators. The customers are mostly military. In the case of civilian customers, The An-124 mostly carries bulky things, like aircraft engines, aircraft parts (wings, tails, fuselages) for aircraft manufacturers, rocket boosters (devoid of fuel). These cargos are not generally heavy, just bulky.

[Gilles]

Locomotives and generators ? How many locomotives and generatos have An-124s carried into Afghanistan ?

You were specifically trying to make a point about civilian demand proving how great it is and I was explaining that the referenced civilian demand wasn't particularly relevant.

If you want to compare military applications, fine, but the civilian component doesn't really transfer.

Things are a little confusing since a lot of the customers of civilian An-124 operators are military and these civilian An-124 engage in the transport of military cargoes. The civilian An-124s operators who have ordered more An-124 will continue to rely on military charters from smaller countries who can not afford their own strategic airlifters. A large part of non military cargo they carry is related to the aviation industry. Thats their bread and butter. The 120 tonnes generators and locomotives are the exception which have tendency of making the news when they do occur....

Once again I do not claim the IAF needs An-124s. I just correct people when they make what I think are incorrect arguments, in favour or against a machine.......

[GeorgeWelch]

A large part of non military cargo they carry is related to the aviation industry. Thats their bread and butter. The 120 tonnes generators and locomotives are the exception which have tendency of making the news when they do occur....

I have no clue what you think you're arguing against.

In my original comment, I mentioned both very bulky and very heavy cargoes.

Yes, the An-124 is used for very bulky items like aircraft parts as well as very heavy items.

And again, unless the IAF plans to get into the aircraft fabrication business, my point still stands.

Civilian demand for the An-124 just isn't relevant to the IAF, which is the connection you tried to make earlier.

[Gilles]

A large part of non military cargo they carry is related to the aviation industry. Thats their bread and butter. The 120 tonnes generators and locomotives are the exception which have tendency of making the news when they do occur....

I have no clue what you think you're arguing against.

In my original comment, I mentioned both very bulky and very heavy cargoes.

Yes, the An-124 is used for very bulky items like aircraft parts as well as very heavy items.

And again, unless the IAF plans to get into the aircraft fabrication business, my point still stands.

Civilian demand for the An-124 just isn't relevant to the IAF, which is the connection you tried to make earlier.

Please read the threads so you can see what I wrote in context. Its all there...... You and a couple others have a tendency to just pounce on me whenever I write ANYTHING.

Based on civil An-124 demand, the An-124 (and the Il-76 for that matter) may be back in production in the future after C-17 line shuts down.....that would be ironic......

[Brahmananda]

Aditya_V

There are two points

1) Can C 17 do what it advertises -- thankfully at least thats happening now.
2) Can another airlift do pretty much the same at much lower costs and better integration?

no, no other aircraft in thge c-17 class, no other aircraft can carry 78 tons. There is no question of another aircraft doing the same at a lower cost and better integration.

[Karan Dixit]

In my humble opinion the need of the IAF is to supply the Indian Army bases in North West and North East Himalay mountain range. And, by supply I do not mean hauling tanks, I am talking about simple stuffs like ration, ammunition, clothes and personnel. If C-17 can haul tons of goods and some kids who want to see their daddy posted up at 15K feet then it is good enough. Also, C-17 can somewhat defend itself from the hostile fire. That in itself is a big bonus.

In my opinion we need about 100 IL76s, 25 C17s and about 5 AN124s to meet our airlifting needs. But whether the budget would allow it is a different story.

[Sanku]

Aditya_V

There are two points

1) Can C 17 do what it advertises -- thankfully at least thats happening now.
2) Can another airlift do pretty much the same at much lower costs and better integration?

no, no other aircraft in thge c-17 class, no other aircraft can carry 78 tons. There is no question of another aircraft doing the same at a lower cost and better integration.

Whats magical about the 78 tons number?

Its is also one of the most expensive aircraft's as shown on this thread -- India does not work on the basis of spending 5.8+ Billion $ so that some mail can be hauled.

We have much much better uses for that money.

[Gilles]

Aditya_V

no, no other aircraft in thge c-17 class, no other aircraft can carry 78 tons. There is no question of another aircraft doing the same at a lower cost and better integration.

Whats magical about the 78 tons number?

Its is also one of the most expensive aircraft's as shown on this thread -- India does not work on the basis of spending 5.8+ Billion $ so that some mail can be hauled.

We have much much better uses for that money.

I think the C-17 payload is actually in the 74 tonne (metric) area. The current production C-17 has a slightly lower payload than the original ones after additional fuel tanks and other mods were made to the aircraft to increase its range.

[VishalJ]

Boeing may assemble An-124 transport planes

Boeing Proposes Asia Consortium For C-17s

Boeing, C-17 workers reach tentative labor pact

Boeing Co. and C-17 assembly workers in Long Beach have reached a tentative labor agreement that could end a strike that has shut down Southern California's last remaining major airplane factory for nearly a month.
More here - http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 4395.story

[amit]

Boeing may assemble An-124 transport planes

Vishal,

Thanks for posting this piece of news. It has some very interesting nuggets.

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

This would explain American interest in the AN124. The plane is looked on as a replacement for the C-5 which is no longer in production.

Although there are no An-124s being built at present, Russia and Ukraine have reportedly agreed to resume production in the future.

I suppose we can wait till some time in the "future" when the Il76 and the An124 are back in production before we go for procurement of a heavy lift transporter. Afterall we MUST have a multi-vendor face off na? That's more important than IAF's immediate requirements as articulated by various officials according to articles posted on this thread.

And if you read this report it's pretty obvious the An124 would come back into production only if the US military wants it. So our equipment needs need to be tagged to the needs of the US. And some folks were claiming that PMO is forcing the C17 down IAF's throat so as to have interoperability with the US.

Russian experts believe that the future project could become reality only if a "political" decision is made to manufacture An-124 for the U.S. military. The civilian use of the plane is very limited, while the cost of up to $250 mln would require the production of a large number of such aircraft to make it profitable.

So a base model An-124 without any service contract would cost more than a base model C17 ($220 mln)?

The Russian proposal has already drawn severe criticism from Ukrainian aircraft industry officials. The Antonov design bureau owns the rights for the design of the An-124 and the Motor Sich company builds engines for the plane and the Ukrainians do not want to lose their share of the profits to potential U.S. competitors.

This could imply that the An124 for the Americans is not a done deal yet.

I must point out to the school of thought that thinks anyone can print anything they want on the Internet, that this report does not appear on any blog. It appears in the Russian International News Agency which is State-owned.

[Gilles]

Boeing Proposes Asia Consortium For C-17s

Now they are going to create an Asian Consortium from scratch, just so they can sell C-17s to it. But this is going to be a bit complicated. The C-17 has no civilian certification so it can not be registered as a civilian aircraft in any country. NATO is a military organization and SAC was created under NATO's umbrella. So the SAC C-17s are military aircraft.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 690554.jpg

But I trust they will find a way. Asian nations will soon be operating C-17s,under the umbrella of a soon to be created Asian military alliance.

I was laughing at the fact that fake unpaved runways were being created to accommodate C-17s. Then they created a new NATO squadron and and an expensive organization to accommodate just 3 C-17s. Now they are going to create Pan-Asian military organizations from scratch, to create a market for more C-17s.

And I am certain they will succeed. Soon, the Seychelles, Vanuatu and the Marchall Islands will each own a share of a C-17. So they can send much needed aid when the next Tsunami strikes.

[amit]

Boeing Proposes Asia Consortium For C-17s

Now they are going to create an Asian Consortium from scratch, just so they can sell C-17s to it. But this is going to be a bit complicated. The C-17 has no civilian certification so it can not be registered as a civilian aircraft in any country. NATO is a military organization and SAC was created under NATO's umbrella. So the SAC C-17s are military aircraft.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 690554.jpg

But I trust they will find a way. Asian nations will soon be operating C-17s,under the umbrella of a soon to be created Asian military alliance.

I was laughing at the fact that fake unpaved runways were being created to accommodate C-17s. Then they created a new NATO squadron and organization to accommodate C-17s. Now they are going to create Pan-Asian military organizations from scratch, to create a market for more C-17s.

And I am certain they will succeed. Soon, Vanuatu and the Marchall Islands will each own a share of a C-17.

Gilles,

Sorry to say but your post reads like a Strawman.

Where did the report say that the C17 would be used for civilian operations and hence needs civilian certification in Asia?

I hope you did not read this:

The requirement in the Asian region is based on major civil disasters like the tsunami, earthquakes and peacekeeping missions.

... to imply civilian use!

The report clearly talks of the aircraft being under the ASEAN umbrella. I suggest you read up a bit about ASEAN to find out why it's not as far-fetched as you seem to think. ASEAN already runs a lot of multi-nation military operations, especially anti piracy ones.

Besides almost 100 per cent of earthquakes and tsunamis in Asia occur in the ASEAN region countries and each time either India, the US or Australia send in the big planes with supplies (note all of these are military-humanitarian operations). It might make sense for the ASEAN nations to have their own dedicated aircraft, they certainly can afford it.

Boss I would suggest that your dislike for the C17 shouldn't cloud your objectivity - a lot of your posts have very good and useful information and I certainly learned a lot from them.

[Samay]

DELETED.

[Samay]

Georgewelch, and others above..
C17 should not be compared with IL76...
and all that discussion about AN 124 is just to show that there is one comparable aircraft ,with much better payload capacity than c17,which could be easily used for military as well as other strategic purposes.

I think there are some people who are trying to wrap up this deal as fast as possible, get the $s and fly away before people start shouting that a mega corrupt deal in defence had happened.

This may turn another bofors for kanngress ,sure there are huge kickbacks involved in this deal, as its speed of purchase and biased approach in this no-war season shows that money is the single biggest factor for choosing c17s