C-17s for the IAF?

[amit]

Gilles,
You really don't get it do you?. Leh is considered the most difficult airstrip by the IAF on account of it's elevation and strong headwinds. You don't need unpaved runways to make landing difficult. To IAF Leh is the ultimate test.

Also nice pic of the AWACS. Now why don't you find out where it was built.

[Gilles]

Gilles,
You really don't get it do you?. Leh is considered the most difficult airstrip by the IAF on account of it's elevation and strong headwinds. You don't need unpaved runways to make landing difficult. To IAF Leh is the ultimate test.

Also nice pic of the AWACS. Now why don't you find out where it was built.

You don't get it. I've been claiming that the C-17 does not have the short unpaved runway performance it claims to have, And you write that the ultimate test will be on a long paved runway......

They claim they can land on unpaved 3500 foot runways with 160,000 pounds of cargo in the hold.. They should be tested on an unpaved 3500 foot runway with 160,000 pounds of cargo in the hold........

I am not the one who says that this capability is important to the IAF

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads

Leh, with its 10,100 foot runway (3000 meters), is no short runway.

I know exactly where that A-50 came from. KW-3552, serial number 2093421730 was built as a IL-76MD with D-30KP engines at the TAPO plant in Tashkent Uzbekistan and made its first flight in June 2005. It was then flown to the Beriev Aircraft company at Taganrog, Russia, where the A-50 airframe modifications were made (Radome, nose modications, air to air refuelling etc but not the RADAR electronics) and where it was upgraded with Perm PS-90 engines. Once that was done, it was flown to Tel-Aviv, in Israel, where the Phalcon AWACS related electronics were installed.

The basic aircraft still came from that semi-abandoned Shell of a factory Surya was referring to.

[Karan Dixit]

Sanku,

There is difference between "testing" and "study". The first lesson in comprehension.

Actually the first study in comprehension is to read.

The actual statement was "chosen after thorough study to replace Il 76"

I got ya. You were mocking the DDM not ACM. My apology if I hurt your feelings.

[Surya]

wow gilles

so now are you saying the ACM does not know what he is talking about if he says it was tested on short runways with load.



Does it have to be the test you are looking for because you have a chip on your shoulder??

Since you do not know didly squat about what the IAF has checked or needed - shouldn't you by now clam up. Initially you would say (paraphrasing you) - that the IAF better test and make sure it does what they need. That was a perfectly agreeable statement from you.

But now it seems it needs to match your demand.

Seriously - get over it

[geeth]

>>>so now are you saying the ACM does not know what he is talking about if he says it was tested on short runways with load.

Did they test it on short runways? How short was the runway and where was it? Did I miss something??

>>>Does it have to be the test you are looking for because you have a chip on your shoulder??
>>>Since you do not know didly squat about what the IAF has checked or needed - shouldn't you by now clam up. Initially you would say (paraphrasing you) - that the IAF better test and make sure it does what they need. That was a perfectly agreeable statement from you.
>>>But now it seems it needs to match your demand.

If you can throw more light on what IAF has done, please share it. If the Boeing claim is that the plane can land with a load of 160,000 Pounds on unpaved runways, and if the IAF wants to check it, then it should do exactly that. Testing at Leh has no correlation with this. For all you know, the IAF may be testing how much load the plane can carry to Leh. It may not have any bearing the ability to land on unpaved runway with full load. Least of all, it has no bearing on Gilles Knowledge or Demand.

Once more, If it is 3500 Ft Unpaved / 160,000 Lb, it is that and only that. Check also whether the Brochure says at sea level or at a certain altitude. Anything else is a different test for different capability of the aircraft.

The controversy about bofors was not about whether the gun was good or not. It was about why a superior gun was ignored and bofors selected at the last minute - In short, a controversy about the process of selection.

[Gilles]

wow gilles

so now are you saying the ACM does not know what he is talking about if he says it was tested on short runways with load.



Does it have to be the test you are looking for because you have a chip on your shoulder??

Since you do not know didly squat about what the IAF has checked or needed - shouldn't you by now clam up. Initially you would say (paraphrasing you) - that the IAF better test and make sure it does what they need. That was a perfectly agreeable statement from you.

But now it seems it needs to match your demand.

Seriously - get over it

I'm afraid you are the one who does not know what he is talking about, in addition to being rude, impolite and dishonest. Any aircraft can land in Leh. I am 100 per cent certain the C-17 can land and take-off from Leh. So if that is what it is coming to India for, spare us the circus.

This video is taken from the cockpit of a Boeing 757 (a regular civilian twin engine jet) that now does regular scheduled flights into LinZhi Airport, Tibet, with passengers, just 15 km on the north side of the India-China Border. LinZhi is just a few hundred feet lower in elevation than Leh is.

[youtube]VXJ-UZH998U&feature=related[/youtube]

Now with RNP-1 RNAV approches, aircraft can do these approches in cloud, at night, on autopilot. Just the landing needs to be done manually if the runway has no ILS.

[Surya]

yawn - t

Did the IAF say that landing at Leh was the short landing test it conducted?

Please point that out in ACM's statement.

[Gilles]

if he says it was tested on short runways with load

Why don't you point out where he said that? Everyone but you seems to be under the impression that the tests are to take place later this month.......

Anyway, you crossed the line, I am done with you.

[Surya]

Awww so you could not point out what the ACM said and yet implied it was Leh.

I am content with his statement that it was tested for short landing with load. (referenced above in the quote)


What and where the test was IS NO BUSINESS of yours unless the IAF makes it open source.

So stop peddling bullcrap


geeth

just saw your post.

regarding ACM quote I just referenced it from previous post - i am content with it and have no intention of knowing more on it.

If you can throw more light on what IAF has done, please share it

Regarding the tests. well nothing which is open source which I can quote here.

Note: lets seperate capabilities from cost -

[Gilles]

Mods, this is front page news in all of Canada's papers today because a Canadian Federal Inquiry into the 1985 bombing of Air India is to be tabled later today. I think it might be of interest to some people on BR but couldn't really find where to post it. Please move it to the appropriate thread or delete it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1599350/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le1606325/

[arnab]

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads]

I think people are a bit confused with this statement. ACM Naik does not imply that the tests have been carried out in India. He is saying that since the C-17 is a bird which actually exists (unlike mythical IL 476s) and has been in service for a while, the IAF has been able to study its capabilities. I assume the IAF consists of competent people who can evaluate the capabilities of an aircraft based on its performance all over the world.

The second issue is with the word 'chosen'. It simply means that it has been selected by the IAF, and if it meets IAFs own criteria after testing (and if MoF agrees), they would want to acquire it. They could have used the word 'short listed'. But by definition that implies a 'list'. And since no other aircraft in that particular category exists or meets IAF's criteria - it has been 'chosen'. It does not mean that the IAF has chosen to buy the aircraft without testing it.

Hope this clarifies.

[Sanku]

Reminder -- we have NO idea what ACM said, we only know what India strategic said.

There are no quotes.

[Aditya_V]

Simple question, when IAF wanted to Buy 126 M-2000-5's, they said go to MMRCA tender which has stuck for the last 6-7 years and more. But the C-17's there is no RFI, the RFP. Why is Transport aircraft more of a priority rather than FIghter aircraft or case with additional order for Phalcons?

It seems the US is mroe intrested in weaponary which not gives offensive Punch against our neighbours to the West, while giveing them a back full of goodies.

[Sanku]

Yes Aditya there is no good answer to that question which is raised over and over again and that is the root of the issue.

[geeth]

Surya,

This is from your last post

Quote

wow gilles

so now are you saying the ACM does not know w hat he is talking about if he says it was tested on short runways with load.

Does it have to be the test you are looking for because you have a chip on your shoulder??

Unquote

In the next post you say this..

Quote

yawn - t

Did the IAF say that landing at Leh was the short landing test it conducted?

Please point that out in ACM's statement.

Unquote

and in the last post you say this...

Quote

Awww so you could not point out what the ACM said and yet implied it was Leh.

I am content with his statement that it was tested for short landing with load. (referenced above in the quote)

What and where the test was IS NO BUSINESS of yours unless the IAF makes it open source.

So stop peddling bullcrap

Unquote

Can't you see the contradiction in your own statements? Looks like you are posting something just to discredit Gilles. Are you an American with an assumed Indian name?

>>>regarding ACM quote I just referenced it from previous post - i am content with it and have no intention of knowing more on it.

Fine if you are contented, but don't tell others to just shut up.

>>>Regarding the tests. well nothing which is open source which I can quote here.

Alright. And you know things which you don't want to put in the open..?

>>>Note: lets seperate capabilities from cost –

That's hilarious..Cost and capabilities are inter-related. How can you separate it?

[arnab]

Reminder -- we have NO idea what ACM said, we only know what India strategic said.

There are no quotes.

Well Hindustan Times also reports this in todays news:

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=13025

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.

But no quotes - I agree

[geeth]

>>>>I think people are a bit confused with this statement. ACM Naik does not imply that the tests have been carried out in India. He is saying that since the C-17 is a bird which actually exists (unlike mythical IL 476s) and has been in service for a while, the IAF has been able to study its capabilities. I assume the IAF consists of competent people who can evaluate the capabilities of an aircraft based on its performance all over the world.

I am curious to know what is this 'study' ..study the brochure? Study the aircraft? Study the experience of other users? Study of all of the above? What is so special about these kind of study? Isn't a routine matter that before every purchase, people conduct a study? Are we talking about purchase of a fridge or TV, that you study the brochures, ask your neighbours, see it in the showroom and purchase? For an outlay of Billions of Dollars, Just a study (of any kind) is enough?

>>>The second issue is with the word 'chosen'. It simply means that it has been selected by the IAF, and if it meets IAFs own criteria after testing (and if MoF agrees), they would want to acquire it. They could have used the word 'short listed'. But by definition that implies a 'list'. And since no other aircraft in that particular category exists or meets IAF's criteria - it has been 'chosen'. It does not mean that the IAF has chosen to buy the aircraft without testing it.

Now, are these tests of the aircraft planned as an after thought, after question were being raised about the purchase? Was there any original plan to conduct tests, when the Air Chief declared that India has decided to purchase 10 C-17s? Was there any such tests conducted in India by IAF before they signed the order for C-130 Hercules? Or did they just accepted the words of U.S?

[arnab]

I am curious to know what is this 'study' ..study the brochure? Study the aircraft? Study the experience of other users? Study of all of the above? What is so special about these kind of study? Isn't a routine matter that before every purchase, people conduct a study? Are we talking about purchase of a fridge or TV, that you study the brochures, ask your neighbours, see it in the showroom and purchase? For an outlay of Billions of Dollars, Just a study (of any kind) is enough?

***
Now, are these tests of the aircraft planned as an after thought, after question were being raised about the purchase? Was there any original plan to conduct tests, when the Air Chief declared that India has decided to purchase 10 C-17s? Was there any such tests conducted in India by IAF before they signed the order for C-130 Hercules? Or did they just accepted the words of U.S?

I think if you research the past pages you would find that an RFI was sent in 2008. IAF had a chance to evaluate it many times during Red Flag exercises and when Boeing brought it to India in 2008 and 2009. It also includes demonstrated experiences and its capabilities in other air forces. Now it has to be tested with respect to IAF's criteria.

I don't think the IAF chief has ever indicated that they wer going to purchase the aircraft without testing or price negotiations.

[Surya]

geeth

good lord - you see contradictions in that ???

lets make it simble for you

- The quote says the ACM says

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads

Somewhere in that the estimed gilles brought in Leh???? and said its not a short load test
here his is quote

Quote:
Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads


Leh, with its 10,100 foot runway (3000 meters), is no short runway.

So all I asked him is why this assumption on Leh as the short load test field?? and if continues to blabber about 160000 pounds on 3500 foot unpaved runway iirespective of whether the IAF needs that then he has to clam up.



Cost and capabilities are seperate for the reason - that I may agree on the capabilities but disagree on the cost.

So I may be on one side of this debate on capabilities but on other side with respect to cost.

PS: yes I am an American with an indian name

[Surya]

Now, are these tests of the aircraft planned as an after thought, after question were being raised about the purchase?

Nope

[Sanku]

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.

But no quotes - I agree

Its a case of everyone quoting everyone else without anyone having the real data.

Chinese whispers....

[amit]

Simple question, when IAF wanted to Buy 126 M-2000-5's, they said go to MMRCA tender which has stuck for the last 6-7 years and more. But the C-17's there is no RFI, the RFP. Why is Transport aircraft more of a priority rather than FIghter aircraft or case with additional order for Phalcons?

It seems the US is mroe intrested in weaponary which not gives offensive Punch against our neighbours to the West, while giveing them a back full of goodies.

Aditya,

Your simple questions has a simple answer/explanation.

The IAF/MoD procrastinated for a long time of the Mirage deal and finally there were issues about pricing and the fact that the French wanted to close the line. And then selection criteria and what the IAF wanted out of the aircraft changed and hence the IAF decided to go for a RFI/RFP as there were several contenders for the MRCA contract and it made sense to evaluate several aircraft before selecting the one that IAF thinks it best fits its need.

Now please note this point several contenders. By that I mean existing or in-development aircraft of which there are/is actual examples which Indian test pilots can fly and evaluate. And they did precisely that during the evaluation trials.

Now in the case of the VHTAC can you reel off the names of planes that fit the criteria? Do note the IAF already operates the Il76 and its pretty obvious they want to change platform, for whatever reason.

Unfortunately this is the biggest stumbling block that folks who have been opposing this C17 deal have faced on this thread. Because they cannot readily reel off the names of contenders, we've witnessed some fantastic suggestions.

For example:

1) A 37 ton Airbus transport - that is still in the developmental stage - can do the job of a VHTAC despite the fact that there is a 184 plane order backlog; or
2) Alternatively a 150 ton An124 can do the job, once the Russians decide to resume production. And the Russian themselves are saying that the production is likely to resume only if the US military wants it.; [Note a 37 ton plane and another which is four times bigger can do the same job! ]
3) Fund Ilyusin to develop a widebodied and bigger version of the Il76 capable of carrying Indian MBTs - and do that for a 10 or perhaps 20 plane order;
4) Buy the mythical Il476 that may soon be produced; and my favourite
5) Send a RFI to HAL so as to push it on the path whereby its offshoot can become a $20 billion aerospace company. (Of course it's not clear why the MoD which owns HAL and has management control, needs to send a Request for Information to it to find out if it can make, or collaborate with someone, to make such a plane. Silly me I would have thought it would have been a simple management decision if at all HAL wanted/needed to go down that path).

Please note here that the biggest grip against the C17 is cost. Yet nobody can say with certainty that these five alternatives would be cheaper, can they? At lease we have the lower and upper price range of C17 from Boeing itself - $220 million for just the plane to $580 million with full service contract over the plane's lifetime. Does anyone have such a fixed price range for any of the above? We've only heard vague assertions that these will be cheaper!

So you see to cut the chase there seems to be no worthwhile alternative to the C17 at present which can be tested in a competition similar to the MRCA one. And hence its a rather hard choice as C17 is an horribly expensive plane. But the point is whom do you send a RFI/RFP to? Do you send one just for forms sake or do you send one only if you know something worthwhile will come out of it?

And also note it makes no sense to invest in co-building or more precisely funding (in the billions of dollars) the reopening of Russian lines for a 10 or 20 plane order, don't you think; that would only benefit the Russians and not India, why should we do that?

JMT

[Sanku]

Adtiya while you can make your mind about the simple answer as given above I would like to point out out two things

too many incorrect data points above, simply plain incorrect, and that is best that can be said about it.

To take just one such example

The IAF/MoD procrastinated for a long time of the Mirage deal and finally there were issues about pricing and the fact that the French wanted to close the line.

The above is BS. IAF made a proposal in 2001-2002 to purchase Mirages to support the dwindling fleet, this idea made a lot of sense because the Gwalior base was under utilized (as has been pointed out) Then the Mirage line was open and would have stayed open if IAF wanted.

However MoD took a look at the total bill and decided that it does not make sense to have a ad-hoc money wasting purchase but have a well thought out deal and went for MRCA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_competition

The IAF was keen on buying the Mirage 2000-5, after it was impressed by the Mirage 2000's capabilities during the Kargil War. However, due to the upcoming manufacture of the Dassault Rafale and lack of orders, the Mirage production lines were to be closed down. French officials stated that they could be kept open if India had made a firm commitment. However, the Indian Government decided to go in for a multi-vendor tendering process. Requests for Information (RFI) were issued in 2004. The RFIs were initially sent to four vendors: Dassault (Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2), Lockheed Martin (F-16C and D), Mikoyan (MiG-29OVT), and Saab (JAS 39 Gripen).

-------------

PS> I am sure we can all make our own decisions based on facts, but things which are false need to be countered.

Satyamev Jayate

[amit]

However MoD took a look at the total bill and decided that it does not make sense to have a ad-hoc money wasting purchase but have a well thought out deal and went for MRCA

Sanku,



I thought I'd ignore you but you're too hilarious man!

You support the MoD for not wasting money (and correctly too!) to keep the French Mirage line open. But your gung-ho to India pumping in money (in the billions range) to reopen the Ilyusin and or Antonov lines. And for what? A 10 plane order. Do note the entire investment would have to be amortised over only 10 planes!

Jai Ho!

PS: I also see the only "hole" you could pick in my post was the Mirage example. But hey the subject matter is the C17 purchase right?

[geeth]

>>>Somewhere in that the estimed gilles brought in Leh???? and said its not a short load test
here his is quote

No, when I went through the previous posts, It was Amit who said the tests were going to be conducted at Leh. Here is it...

Quote

**********************************************
amit wrote:

Karan Dixit wrote:
Can a C17 land on much shorter runway than IL76 or AN124? If the answer is yes, then it is going to be C17 because long runways are the luxuries we cannot afford on the mountain range with peaks as high as 28K feet.


Boss as per reports the IAF is going to test the C17 in Leh. That will be interesting.

Gilles wrote:
That should be easy enough, Leh is hard surfaced.......
*********************************************
Unquote

>>>So all I asked him is why this assumption on Leh as the short load test field?? and if continues to blabber about 160000 pounds on 3500 foot unpaved runway iirespective of whether the IAF needs that then he has to clam up.

I don't think he was assuming Leh would be the short load test field..He was only saying, testing at Leh will not be sufficient to prove that the C-17 can take off from a 3500 Ft unpaved runway with 160,000 Lb load (in case Amit assumed so)..and he made it clear from his subsequent post, which I quote below.

Quote
*********************************************

amit wrote:
Gilles,
You really don't get it do you?. Leh is considered the most difficult airstrip by the IAF on account of it's elevation and strong headwinds. You don't need unpaved runways to make landing difficult. To IAF Leh is the ultimate test.

Also nice pic of the AWACS. Now why don't you find out where it was built.

Gilles Wrote:
You don't get it. I've been claiming that the C-17 does not have the short unpaved runway performance it claims to have, And you write that the ultimate test will be on a long paved runway......

************************************************
Unquote

And this 160000Lb/3500 Ft is not a blabber from Gilles..It is the claim of Boeing. IF, as Gills says, the aircraft is not able to perform this act, why Being Claims so? Why shouldn't IAF demand for what is claimed by the manufacturer, particularly when it is desirable?

>>>Cost and capabilities are seperate for the reason - that I may agree on the capabilities but disagree on the cost.

Cost is generally associated with capability in a fair deal..the more capable/sophisticated the aircraft, more costly it is. Of course, western systems costs more due to exchange rates. That is why we bought Russian things heavily.

>>>PS: yes I am an American with an indian name

Thanks for confirmation. I Appreciate it.

[Sanku]

Aditya, for all the truth challenged people which are making a big deal of production lines and paper planes and what not

In 2004 when RFIs for MRCA were sent out

Rafale had *just* been introduced.
Mig 35 did not exist
Gripen NG is still considered a paper aircraft

Also for the people who are habitually grossly inaccurate, who keep flogging the lie that all MRCA candidates are some similar but not C 17s to others I present just one data point from the chart in above link

Maximum payload:

9,500 kg (21,000 lb)
7,500 kg (16,500 lb)
7,800 kg (17,200 lb)
8,050 kg (17,750 lb)
6,000 kg (10,000 lb)
6,000 kg (13,200 lb)

And this is such common knowledge that it is on Wiki, So it cant be ignorance that leading to such blatantly incorrect statements.

So what is it?

[Sanku]

>>>Somewhere in that the estimed gilles brought in Leh???? and said its not a short load test
here his is quote

No, when I went through the previous posts, It was Amit who said the tests were going to be conducted at Leh. Here is it...

Geeth good show, I know its frustrating but there is a lot of plain falsification going on here. Plain, in your face falsification.

We may not be able to influence GoI but at least what we can influence we should strive for keeping the truth alive.

[Sanku]

However MoD took a look at the total bill and decided that it does not make sense to have a ad-hoc money wasting purchase but have a well thought out deal and went for MRCA

You support the MoD for not wasting money (and correctly too!) to keep the French Mirage line open. But your gung-ho to India pumping in money (in the billions range) to reopen the Ilyusin and or Antonov lines. And for what? A 10 plane order. Do note the entire investment would have to be amortised over only 10 planes!

Disclaimer -- Amit statement has ZERO relevance to my views, it is at best misinformed and poor comprehension and at worst deliberate effort to misconstrue.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 45#p889345

[Surya]

Oh is it a shocker that any Transport bought by the IAF will not be tested at Leh.

Even in your quote of Amit - he did not mention it as short test - he said it was ultimate and it will be tested there.

The reference to short runway and test at Leh in one sentence is purely Gilles.

The short unpaved runway is Gilles pet peeve and he brings it in every post.

Why shouldn't IAF demand for what is claimed by the manufacturer, particularly when it is desirable?

The IAF will demand that they prove what it needs. If they overlap with claims - then great but why would it demand if it doen not have that need or knows to seperate marketing claims from reality??

[amit]

The stuff people have to do to preserve H&D!

Added later: Sanku this post was meant for you. So you can give your standard disclaimer. Be a sport and do so!

[amit]

Oh is it a shocker that any Transport bought by the IAF will not be tested at Leh.

Even in your quote of Amit - he did not mention it as short test - he said it was ultimate and it will be tested there.

The reference to short runway and test at Leh in one sentence is purely Gilles.

The short unpaved runway is Gilles pet peeve and he brings it in every post.

Why shouldn't IAF demand for what is claimed by the manufacturer, particularly when it is desirable?

The IAF will demand that they prove what it needs. If they overlap with claims - then great but why would it demand if it doen not have that need or knows to seperate marketing claims from reality??

Thanks for point that out Surya. I only thought one poster here has the habit of taking something one poster said out of context and then mixing it with something another poster said and then present an opinion on the mix and match.

My comment was simple. Leh is one of the highest airfields in the world and it would be interesting to see how the C17 would perform in the rarefied atmosphere and strong headwinds given its tonnage class.

How that got turned into landing with 160,000 pounds on a short runway, I really don't know.

[amit]

You support the MoD for not wasting money (and correctly too!) to keep the French Mirage line open. But your gung-ho to India pumping in money (in the billions range) to reopen the Ilyusin and or Antonov lines. And for what? A 10 plane order. Do note the entire investment would have to be amortised over only 10 planes!

Disclaimer -- Amit statement has ZERO relevance to my views, it is at best misinformed and poor comprehension and at worst deliberate effort to misconstrue.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 45#p889345

Dear Sanku,

Is it a coincidence that you left out the most important part of my post?

Let me point it out to:

PS: I also see the only "hole" you could pick in my post was the Mirage example. But hey the subject matter is the C17 purchase right?

[Sanku]

The IAF will demand that they prove what it needs. If they overlap with claims - then great but why would it demand if it doen not have that need or knows to seperate marketing claims from reality??

Because here on the forum, some people who are habitually economical with truth will claim

IAF has tested === All claims are true.

They will also claim

C 17 passing the test === C 17 is clearly the best.

One is to many extrapolations.

That is why, some things though basic have to said and repeated.

I personally think that C 17 will easily pass the Leh test, I can say it before testing. Other such aircraft routinely fly from Leh.

Its hardly a big deal, no matter what the apologists say.

[Sanku]

Reminder the real issue here is that the free ride C 17 is getting since the process that is highly preferred is not being followed. Which is

Role
RFI
RFP
Test
Price negotiation.

And the whole matter is being taken at a rapid speed, where as far more critical decisions languish for decision making and penny pinching.

[pankaj]

My comment was simple. Leh is one of the highest airfields in the world and it would be interesting to see how the C17 would perform in the rarefied atmosphere and strong headwinds given its tonnage class.

If C-17 is purchased will be used for Leh only or to connect ALG in Laddakh & Arunachal too.

[geeth]

>>>Oh is it a shocker that any Transport bought by the IAF will not be tested at Leh.
>>>Even in your quote of Amit - he did not mention it as short test - he said it was ultimate and it will be tested there.
>>>The reference to short runway and test at Leh in one sentence is purely Gilles.
>>>The short unpaved runway is Gilles pet peeve and he brings it in every post.

Now you are just beating around the bush

>>>The IAF will demand that they prove what it needs. If they overlap with claims - then great but why would it demand if it doen not have that need or knows to seperate marketing claims from reality??

And you are the one to decide what IAF needs or does not need? How did you conclude that IAF doesn't need the aircraft to land in an unpaved runway of 3500 ft with load? Which professional AF will not test an aircraft to its limits? Or do you mean to say these kind of testing to the limits would be applicable only to DRDO products?

[Sanku]

My comment was simple. Leh is one of the highest airfields in the world and it would be interesting to see how the C17 would perform in the rarefied atmosphere and strong headwinds given its tonnage class.

If C-17 is purchased will be used for Leh only or to connect ALG in Laddakh & Arunachal too.

The C 17 has never operated on a ALG anywhere with a load. The issue is that the ALG itself gets destroyed by the aircraft weight distribution.

So in short, the above will need testing to know really, off hand very unlikely.

[geeth]

>>>My comment was simple. Leh is one of the highest airfields in the world and it would be interesting to see how the C17 would perform in the rarefied atmosphere and strong headwinds given its tonnage class.

Are you the one who mentioned about Leh testing, or was it Gilles??

>>>How that got turned into landing with 160,000 pounds on a short runway, I really don't know.

You can get an answer for that from Surya. He does the mix & match to perfection..

[amit]

The C 17 has never operated on a ALG anywhere with a load. The issue is that the ALG itself gets destroyed by the aircraft weight distribution.

Proof Buddy! Use your own standards. Remember anyone can write anything on the Internet. Direct quotes and no paraphrasing please. Unless you give proof, it's a lot of hot air onlee.

A related but general question: Has the Il76 ever done a ALG landing with significant load?

[amit]

>>>My comment was simple. Leh is one of the highest airfields in the world and it would be interesting to see how the C17 would perform in the rarefied atmosphere and strong headwinds given its tonnage class.

Are you the one who mentioned about Leh testing, or was it Gilles??

>>>How that got turned into landing with 160,000 pounds on a short runway, I really don't know.

You can get an answer for that from Surya. He does the mix & match to perfection..

Geeth,

Surya can speak for himself. But if your interested to know what I said and didn't say, you can check the previous pages to find out the conversation I had with Karan.

I find it strange you need to bring Surya into that. Even if he did get it mixed up, is that an excuse for you to do the same?