C-17s for the IAF?

[Indranil]

Russia very recently was willing to sell Ils to China for under 30 million a pop.

I do not know what you mean by buying the IP of a plane.

I actually did say.

Design + manufacturing data + right of use and modification in future, added consultancy. At least for the airframe, if not avionics and engines.

Examples are China buying the Israel design after they were forced to stop working on it by USA.

An and Ils have lovely birds in their stable, but which may not be made if they dont get orders, those IPs could be considered.

In fact China pretty much did the same with Su 27 too during the brief period of madness during the melt down in 90s.

Things are not that bad in Russia but they still have designs they can sell us rather than see us buy C 17s.

There's lot of filtered information in there!

China ordered the 34 Il-76s and 4 Il-78 (AFAIK) in 2005. By 2007 Ukraine/Russia had asked for quite a higher price re-negotiations. The Ukranian plant had said that they can not build the ILs anymore for want of financial and other resources. Russia provided 3 alternatives, each of which meant most of the production would be in Russia. China put its acquiring on hold since. They have complained about the quality of the Russian equipment and the after sales service. Are we new to any of these! May be the reason why IAF didn't want the IL-76 for the refuellers. Just a thought, anyways...

What China did with Su-27 is not buying, but reverse engineering, and by poaching the Russian engineers in those years.

As far as IP goes, needless to say IP for a plane is very huge. The IP can help us build one model. What after that. IP is not all written down. It is knowhow. That's why designers are always kept busy with new designs which may not see the light of day (often sighted critical mistake between Marut and LCA). It's passed from generation to generation of engineers which moves and dies out if there is a gap. It the same as operating nuclear submarines or a CBG. Nobody wants a gap! It is plethora of knowledge of what works and what all doesn't. It is just an accumulations of successful and failed experiments. We can probably buy the design of one plane, but we can never buy how to design or make a plane thereafter! We have to do our own experiments. There is no shortcut to that! So I do believe that HAL is going the right way with MTA. I would only have loved a little more urgency!

[Karan Dixit]

So they invented the 3500 foot runway with 150 foot "overurns" on either end to maintain a semblance of attaining the 3500 foot target. The author of the report was correct to call a duck a duck when he called that runway a "4100" foot runway, which is what it is.

3500 + 150 + 150 = 3800

Am I correct? So, why did he call it a 4100-foot runway? I am just curious.

[Gilles]

So they invented the 3500 foot runway with 150 foot "overurns" on either end to maintain a semblance of attaining the 3500 foot target. The author of the report was correct to call a duck a duck when he called that runway a "4100" foot runway, which is what it is.

3500 + 150 + 150 = 3800

Am I correct? So, why did he call it a 4100-foot runway? I am just curious.

Thank you for catching that. The "overruns" are each 300 feet in length.

[Karan Dixit]

Leh will not be any test at all for C17 to prove its prowess. There are civilian airlines that land at Leh several times a day. I strongly believe the real test will come on much smaller runways. I do not know which runways though.

But, I do know following things from reading open source news:

1.Indian soldiers are currently stationed at high altitude military bases that require logistics support
2.A majority of these bases are supplied with heavy lift transport helicopters because IL76s cannot land there

So, will it not be nice if there were an aircraft which could land on 3000 to 4000 feet long runway with an effective load?

[Sanku]

Russia very recently was willing to sell Ils to China for under 30 million a pop.

Yes there is a lot of confusion around the number, but the range is actually from 20-30 million a pop depending on different reports, the max asked by Russia and the actual deal signed.

So, a 40-50 for new Il today is a very believable number.

I do not know what you mean by buying the IP of a plane.

On purchase of IP......!

Well all those points are valid, but in the end of the day, are not a big deal. Buying IP and outsourced manufacture has been done before.

And it is not my case that it will magically enable HAL to become a Airbus overnight, what it will do are two things
1) Provide a immediate contender for VHLT
2) Provide a chance to acquire IP while doing it.

This would then need to be worked upon, considering that this is in the same space as MTA, HAL can leverage one for the other too.

[Kanson]

Before going on discussing this.. one should know what they mean by short, austere or unimproved landing areas....AFAIK, C-17 can land on unpaved runways and not unimproved sites. So one must start defining what is unpaved and unimproved.

What GAO tries to call as 'austere, short' is the one less than 3000 meters (I assume that was a typo and you meant "feet"). The only aircraft in the USAF than can land on austere field is C-27J as per the linked document. and what was the minimum runway length recommended for this....again from the document...2000 ft ( Page 35) C-130H/J-30 requires 3000 ft as minimum runway length; they are not considered for landing in 'austere' type field and for C-17 minimum is 3500 feet.

And what are the technical solution being looked for the JFTL.... as per the document.."large tiltrotor, vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, and a versatile fixed wing, short takeoff and landing aircraft, respectively". Pls note fixed wing design is being considered last only. Just to indicate the complexity and requirement being looked for landing a Stryker type vehicle. And obviously C-17 cannot fit in this role. So saying C-17 cannot do this is as good as beating a lame duck.

I still looking forward to see any credible document which says C-17 cannot land in those 3500 feet and accepts Boeing was wrong in the calculation.

To my understanding 300 feet overrun on either side of 3500 feet runway is for the pilot error in landing the craft within the recommended 150 feet limit of the runway. And length of the aircraft is around 150 feet.

Sir, in aviation there is no such thing as overruns on either end of the runway. There is sometimes a stop-way meant to accommodate aircraft in the case of an aborted take-off but its not used for landing aircraft. As for the under-run, the part before the landing threshold, that never exists. This is a concept invented by the C-17 people to make people believe that the C-17, which was originally designed to operate from 3000 foot runways and which missed that target, could now operate from 3500 foot runways. It missed that target too. So they invented the 3500 foot runway with 300 (edited later) foot "overurns" (on either end to maintain a semblance of attaining the 3500 foot target. The author of the report was correct to call a duck a duck when he called that runway a "4100" foot runway, which is what it is.

As for what kind of runways the C-17 was intended for, just click on this link please and read any of the numerous links that will appear.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1 ... =&gs_rfai=

Thanks for the correction, Gilles. It is 3000 ft. As you indentified yourself as a pilot, i guess you might be knowing these...

1. It is mandatory to have 1000 ft overuns for the civilian types. If the TO&L is from both ends, both ends must have 1000 ft overuns in addition to the runway. On exact information pls check with FAA. And some news...http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... tech_x.htm. So 300 ft overuns for C-17 is not something peculiar to C-17 alone.

2. What is quoted as minimum runway length for C-17/C-130/C-27 is for the peaceful operations only. I doesnt mean that C-17 cannot perform in less than 3500 ft in times of necessity. Though C-130J minimum runway length is quoted as 3000 ft, it was operated in lesser lengths in full load. You can check with the records.

[Gilles]

2) Tests have demonstrated that the C-17 uses much more runway when the surface is wet than when it is dry. That is true of all aircraft, but in the case of the C-17 it is significantly higher.

Sir in which way you are saying it is higher. You are comparing to the C-17 performance against ?....you mean all the airfract

Actually Sir, I went over some figure again. When I compared wet and dry landing distances of other commercial jets for normal landings , there a was a small difference. But when I compared the maximum effort landing distance charts (full braking etc), there was about a 70% difference between the dry and and wet landing distances, very similar to what is shown for the C-17.

So here, you have a point.

[Gilles]

Posted in error

[Gilles]

Thanks for the correction, Gilles. It is 3000 ft. As you indentified yourself as a pilot, i guess you might be knowing these...

1. It is mandatory to have 1000 ft overuns for the civilian types. If the TO&L is from both ends, both ends must have 1000 ft overuns in addition to the runway. On exact information pls check with FAA. And some news...http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... tech_x.htm. So 300 ft overuns for C-17 is not something peculiar to C-17 alone.

2. What is quoted as minimum runway length for C-17/C-130/C-27 is for the peaceful operations only. I doesnt mean that C-17 cannot perform in less than 3500 ft in times of necessity. Though C-130J minimum runway length is quoted as 3000 ft, it was operated in lesser lengths in full load. You can check with the records.

Like I was saying before, the "overrun" before the runway does not exist. If you go for example on GoogleEarth and look at the thresholds of runways 22 and 13 at New York's LaGuardia airports, you will see that they are both right on the water's edge.

The area at the far end of the runway, which some runways have, is called a stopway. This is how the FAA defines it

Stopway means an area beyond the takeoff runway, no less wide than the runway and centered upon the extended centerline of the runway, able to support the airplane during an aborted takeoff, without causing structural damage to the airplane, and designated by the airport authorities for use in decelerating the airplane during an aborted takeoff.

It is not mandatory by any means to have a stopway and here is why. If a runway is to be constructed somewhere and there is 6000 feet of real estate available, what is better? Laying a 6000 foot runway, or being restricted to laying a 5000 foot runway with a 1000 foot stopway at the end ?

If you have a 5000 runway with a 1000 foot stopway at the end, you have a Take off run (TORA) available of 5000 feet and an Accelerate-Stop Distance (ASDA) of 6000 feet. The Landing distance available (LDA) is still 5000 feet because the stopway is not counted for landing aircraft, it is only taken into account for aircraft taking off, in the event of an aborted take-off.

If you have a 6000 foot runway with no stopway at the end, you still have an ASDA of 6000 feet like for the above example, but however you now have a TORA of 6000 feet and a LDA of 6000 feet.

The very idea of a having a stopway, by the way, is to save money by not having to pave it (runway standard pavement is very expensive). You add in a cheap gravel security factor. So the idea of having a stopway on a gravel runway ridiculous. But US Air Force manuals for making gravel runways for C-17s, call for the laying of a 300 foot overrun at either end of the gravel runway. It further says that the overruns must be built to the same standards as the gravel runways. I know this sounds so ridicoulous that it looks like I made it up. But its here, black on white.

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFETL/etl_97_9.pdf

The Documents is called "Criteria and Guidance for C-17 Contingency and Training Operations on Semi-Prepared Airfields"

Here, its made clear that these are the minimum runways for Contingency operations (conflicts and emergencies). So unlike what you wrote, these figure are the wartime figures, not the peacetime ones.

Contingency operations are normally short term operations connected with conflicts or emergencies. Airfields for contingency operations can be paved or unpaved. Since operations are limited, structural requirements are not as great. In addition, higher risk to aircraft and personnel may be justified, so requirements such as clearances, are not as stringent.

3.2.1. Length. For a semi-prepared runway located between sea level and 6,000 feet pressure altitude, the minimum length requirement for C-17 operations is 3,500 feet with 300-foot overruns on each end. This length requirement, based upon an RCR of 20, assumes an ambient temperature equal Standard (1962) plus 31 ºF, and a landing gross weight of 447,000 pounds. Based upon these same temperature and weight assumptions, the runway length will vary with different RCRs as follows:

The overruns must be constructed to the same standards as the runway. Overruns for mat surfaced runways must also be constructed with mat.

On page 139 of that document is a table that shows the length of runway required according to a friction factor called the "RCR". 3500 feet (plus the two 300 foot sections at either end) is only available when the RCR is 20 or more for runways up to 6000 feet MSL. On page 144, in the section that explains how to compute RCR, it shows that when the runway is wet or damp, an RCR of 4 must be used. GO back to the table, and you see that with an RCR of 4, the minimum runway length un to 2000 feet MSL is 6000 feet (plus the 600 feet of overruns). For an airport located at 6000 fet MSL, the minimum runway length for a wet runway is 7600 feet (7000 plus the 600).

I didn't make any of this up. AFCESA, who wrote this document is the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency http://www.afcesa.af.mil/

[Gilles]

....

I am asking a simple question, amn't I? What do you (I mean any poster) think is a fair price for 10 C-17s and the 30 year contract!

I didn't ask whose prerogative, who dictates etc. etc. they all lie in the rhetoric. I asked a simple question!

Just a simple answer with a quote and the reasons behind that quote is a good post in IMVVVHO.

The asking price of a basic C-17 with engines should be in the area of 200 to 250 million. I'm am not claiming that Boeing is gouging anyone but asking these prices. That is the price of a large, heavy 4 engine jet these days. Look at Airbus 340-600 and B-747-400 prices.

As for the contract, who can say, no details are known.

[Gilles]

Leh will not be any test at all for C17 to prove its prowess. There are civilian airlines that land at Leh several times a day. I strongly believe the real test will come on much smaller runways. I do not know which runways though.

But, I do know following things from reading open source news:

1.Indian soldiers are currently stationed at high altitude military bases that require logistics support
2.A majority of these bases are supplied with heavy lift transport helicopters because IL76s cannot land there

So, will it not be nice if there were an aircraft which could land on 3000 to 4000 feet long runway with an effective load?

The An-32 will continue to soldier on. Perhaps the C-130Js will also find a role, although I think I've read they are mostly to be used by Special forces. Beyond that, do not expect the C-17 to go to too many places the IL-76 can't.

If the IAF wants something bigger than the C-130J that can go where the An-32 goes, there will be 2 choices: the A-400M or the An-70.

[Manish_Sharma]

Do the capabilities of C 17 differ regarding throwing stuff down with parachutes? Can they make a difference by making low flying sorties over/near small airfields and paradropping essential supplies in tonnes? I mean if C17 can para drop 70 tons of supplies instead of 10 An32s for the same amount that would be a huge boost to the forces.

[Gilles]

Do the capabilities of C 17 differ regarding throwing stuff down with parachutes? Can they make a difference by making low flying sorties over/near small airfields and paradropping essential supplies in tonnes? I mean if C17 can para drop 70 tons of supplies instead of 10 An32s for the same amount that would be a huge boost to the forces.

Very good point. A document that covers C-17 airdrop is available here.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf

But Il-76 does it very well too.

[Kanson]

Thanks for the correction, Gilles. It is 3000 ft. As you indentified yourself as a pilot, i guess you might be knowing these...

1. It is mandatory to have 1000 ft overuns for the civilian types. If the TO&L is from both ends, both ends must have 1000 ft overuns in addition to the runway. On exact information pls check with FAA. And some news...http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... tech_x.htm. So 300 ft overuns for C-17 is not something peculiar to C-17 alone.

2. What is quoted as minimum runway length for C-17/C-130/C-27 is for the peaceful operations only. I doesnt mean that C-17 cannot perform in less than 3500 ft in times of necessity. Though C-130J minimum runway length is quoted as 3000 ft, it was operated in lesser lengths in full load. You can check with the records.

Like I was saying before, the "overrun" before the runway does not exist. If you go for example on GoogleEarth and look at the thresholds of runways 22 and 13 at New York's LaGuardia airports, you will see that they are both right on the water's edge.

The area at the far end of the runway, which some runways have, is called a stopway. This is how the FAA defines it

Stopway means an area beyond the takeoff runway, no less wide than the runway and centered upon the extended centerline of the runway, able to support the airplane during an aborted takeoff, without causing structural damage to the airplane, and designated by the airport authorities for use in decelerating the airplane during an aborted takeoff.

It is not mandatory by any means to have a stopway and here is why. If a runway is to be constructed somewhere and there is 6000 feet of real estate available, what is better? Laying a 6000 foot runway, or being restricted to laying a 5000 foot runway with a 1000 foot stopway at the end ?

If you have a 5000 runway with a 1000 foot stopway at the end, you have a Take off run (TORA) available of 5000 feet and an Accelerate-Stop Distance (ASDA) of 6000 feet. The Landing distance available (LDA) is still 5000 feet because the stopway is not counted for landing aircraft, it is only taken into account for aircraft taking off, in the event of an aborted take-off.

If you have a 6000 foot runway with no stopway at the end, you still have an ASDA of 6000 feet like for the above example, but however you now have a TORA of 6000 feet and a LDA of 6000 feet.

The very idea of a having a stopway, by the way, is to save money by not having to pave it (runway standard pavement is very expensive). You add in a cheap gravel security factor. So the idea of having a stopway on a gravel runway ridiculous. But US Air Force manuals for making gravel runways for C-17s, call for the laying of a 300 foot overrun at either end of the gravel runway. It further says that the overruns must be built to the same standards as the gravel runways. I know this sounds so ridicoulous that it looks like I made it up. But its here, black on white.

As this discussion started to reason with the overruns for C-17 on both ends of the runway, we tried to see what commerical airports have..

From FAA...http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/new ... ewsId=6279

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that commercial airports, regulated under Part 139 safety rules, have a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) where possible. At most commercial airports the RSA is 500 feet wide and extends 1,000 feet beyond each end of the runway. The FAA has this requirement in the event that an aircraft overruns, undershoots, or veers off the side of the runway. The most dangerous of these incidents are overruns, but since many airports were built before the 1,000-foot RSA length was adopted some 20 years ago, the area beyond the end of the runway is where many airports cannot achieve the full standard RSA. This is due to obstacles such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, and populated areas or severe drop-off of terrain

I think, the document cannot be more specific than these...So the case of C-17 is not peculiar and cannot be said as 'aberration'.

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFETL/etl_97_9.pdf

The Documents is called "Criteria and Guidance for C-17 Contingency and Training Operations on Semi-Prepared Airfields"

Here, its made clear that these are the minimum runways for Contingency operations (conflicts and emergencies). So unlike what you wrote, these figure are the wartime figures, not the peacetime ones.

Contingency operations are normally short term operations connected with conflicts or emergencies. Airfields for contingency operations can be paved or unpaved. Since operations are limited, structural requirements are not as great. In addition, higher risk to aircraft and personnel may be justified, so requirements such as clearances, are not as stringent.

3.2.1. Length. For a semi-prepared runway located between sea level and 6,000 feet pressure altitude, the minimum length requirement for C-17 operations is 3,500 feet with 300-foot overruns on each end. This length requirement, based upon an RCR of 20, assumes an ambient temperature equal Standard (1962) plus 31 ºF, and a landing gross weight of 447,000 pounds. Based upon these same temperature and weight assumptions, the runway length will vary with different RCRs as follows:

The overruns must be constructed to the same standards as the runway. Overruns for mat surfaced runways must also be constructed with mat.

On page 139 of that document is a table that shows the length of runway required according to a friction factor called the "RCR". 3500 feet (plus the two 300 foot sections at either end) is only available when the RCR is 20 or more for runways up to 6000 feet MSL. On page 144, in the section that explains how to compute RCR, it shows that when the runway is wet or damp, an RCR of 4 must be used. GO back to the table, and you see that with an RCR of 4, the minimum runway length un to 2000 feet MSL is 6000 feet (plus the 600 feet of overruns). For an airport located at 6000 fet MSL, the minimum runway length for a wet runway is 7600 feet (7000 plus the 600).

I didn't make any of this up. AFCESA, who wrote this document is the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency http://www.afcesa.af.mil/

Though at present I'm not able to get my hands on exact payload information and landing length that i referred for C-130 to justify the lesser runway length for the wartime opertations, i got some information regarding the same for the C-17.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 152088.pdf

The C-17 Operational Requirements Document specifies a wartime landing performance
capability of landing on a 3,000-foot long by 9@foot wide paved runway.
According to an Air Force official, all C17 pilots will be trained for the
wartime performance landing capability. Normal landing performance is
defined as safe and routine landings on a paved runway 4,000 feet long by
90 feet wide.

4000 feet here refers to 3500 min + 2 300 feet overruns, i guess.

Addtl. info.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... istory.htm

As part of the wartime phase, several Globemaster IIIs filled with 125,000-pound Army M1A1 main battle tanks flew from North Carolina to California's Mojave Desert, then stopped on a short dirt runwayin less than 2,800 feet.

As i see it, the runway criteria for the C-17 is more or less the same..

[Gilles]

As this discussion started to reason with the overruns for C-17 on both ends of the runway, we tried to see what commercial airports have..

From FAA...http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/new ... ewsId=6279

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that commercial airports, regulated under Part 139 safety rules, have a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA)....... I think, the document cannot be more specific than these...So the case of C-17 is not peculiar and cannot be said as 'aberration'.

Though at present I'm not able to get my hands on exact payload information and landing length that i referred for C-130 to justify the lesser runway length for the wartime operations, i got some information regarding the same for the C-17.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 152088.pdf

The C-17 Operational Requirements Document specifies a wartime landing performance capability of landing on a 3,000-foot long by 9@foot wide paved runway.
According to an Air Force official, all C17 pilots will be trained for the wartime performance landing capability. Normal landing performance is defined as safe and routine landings on a paved runway 4,000 feet long by 90 feet wide.

4000 feet here refers to 3500 min + 2 300 feet overruns, i guess.

Addtl. info.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... istory.htm

As part of the wartime phase, several Globemaster IIIs filled with 125,000-pound Army M1A1 main battle tanks flew from North Carolina to California's Mojave Desert, then stopped on a short dirt runwayin less than 2,800 feet.

As i see it, the runway criteria for the C-17 is more or less the same..

Here is another ICAO ducument that explains the Runway Safety Area. This area goes all around the runway.

Lets not confuse things. See this FAA document

The Runway Safety Area that you refer to, is a flat area, clear of obstacles and ditches where the aircraft would not encounter things that would severely damage it and make it break up in case of runway excursion. IT IS NOT an area on which aircraft can routinely roll to land, take off or taxi. In fact, very often, an aircraft that would roll out into an Runway Safety Area would require repairs and inspection at the very least.

The Stopway however, is an area that can support the weight of the aircraft in all weather. An aircraft that overshoot a runway into the confines of a stopway, will just taxi back to the runway, if his brake temperature allows it. An aircraft that goes out into the Runway Safety Area will need heavy equipment.

In the case of the C-17, the 300 feet they require on either end, is neither a Runway Safety Area or a Stopway. It is an area of the same width as the runway and built to the same standards as the runway itself.

The overruns must be constructed to the same standards as the runway. Overruns for mat surfaced runways must also be constructed with mat.

I provided you with a US government publication that says that the runway dimensions that are provided inside of it are "contingency" runways, and in the same document "contingency" is defined as wartime and times of emergency.

The 3000 foot runway you mention is the OLD C-17 requirements, the one they were supposed to have in the early days and were unable to meet. Many older publications still have that 3000 feet.

The old C-17 landing specifications are listed on page 10 of this document

Then they made a deal.

As we recently testified, DOD has proposed lowering the C-17's payload/range
specifications. DOD has also proposed relaxing the aircraft's contracted short field landing specifications to levels that the C-17 can probably achieve.

The requirement was then changed to 3500 feet, and that again, the C-17 was unable to meet. Which is why the 300 foot "underruns" and "overruns" were invented by clever people who didn't want to say that the minimum wartime requirements for a fully loaded C-17 was actually 4100 feet, for a sea level DRY runway.

An the document I referenced earlier clearly states that every time a runway length is mentioned, the two 300 foot overruns have to be added.

Note: The runway lengths do not include under/overruns.

The Mojave Desert landing example is significant in that the airport is not named, nor is the runway length given. It just said that the aircraft landed in "under 2800 feet".

I have not researched the C-130 and cannot comment on it.

[Kanson]

Here is another ICAO ducument that explains the Runway Safety Area. This area goes all around the runway.

Lets not confuse things. See this FAA document

The Runway Safety Area that you refer to, is a flat area, clear of obstacles and ditches where the aircraft would not encounter things that would severely damage it and make it break up in case of runway excursion. IT IS NOT an area on which aircraft can routinely roll to land, take off or taxi. In fact, very often, an aircraft that would roll out into an Runway Safety Area would require repairs and inspection at the very least.

The Stopway however, is an area that can support the weight of the aircraft in all weather. An aircraft that overshoot a runway into the confines of a stopway, will just taxi back to the runway, if his brake temperature allows it. An aircraft that goes out into the Runway Safety Area will need heavy equipment.

In the case of the C-17, the 300 feet they require on either end, is neither a Runway Safety Area or a Stopway. It is an area of the same width as the runway and built to the same standards as the runway itself.

The overruns must be constructed to the same standards as the runway. Overruns for mat surfaced runways must also be constructed with mat.

Let me ask a simple question. When take-off and landings are taking place from both ends, would not stopways be constructed on the both ends of the runway, if allowed ?

For the question of why the overruns for C-17 be of same grade as that of the normal runway..you answered the question yourself. When C-17 is operating in remote areas where is the question of using heavy equipment to haul back the aircraft to runway ? It has to move on its own.

If you are interested in the jargon - why it is not a stopway? When the runway length is quoted as minimum it doesnt include stopway. RSA for overruns is not compromised for the stopway(the document you linked is explicit). So it is called overrun.

I provided you with a US government publication that says that the runway dimensions that are provided inside of it are "contingency" runways, and in the same document "contingency" is defined as wartime and times of emergency.

The 3000 foot runway you mention is the OLD C-17 requirements, the one they were supposed to have in the early days and were unable to meet. Many older publications still have that 3000 feet.

Ok first thing. If 3000 feet criteria is a old one, how is the same document talks abt for peacetime requirement as 4000 feet ?

Lets for timebeing accepts that the Contigency requirement is 3500 feet + overruns. As the Contigency is defined by the same document as,
"Contingency operations are normally short term operations connected with conflicts or emergencies. Airfields for contingency operations can be paved or unpaved. Since operations are limited, structural requirements are not as great. In addition, higher risk to aircraft and personnel may be justified, so requirements such as clearances, are not as stringent.",
pls tell me what is the runway requirement for the non-contigency operations. If there is document for the contigency then there should be document for the non-contigency, right ? As you cannot operate the C-17 always in contigency mode, pls link the doucment and share with us the non-contigency runway requirement.

The requirement was then changed to 3500 feet, and that again, the C-17 was unable to meet. Which is why the 300 foot "underruns" and "overruns" were invented by clever people who didn't want to say that the minimum wartime requirements for a fully loaded C-17 was actually 4100 feet, for a sea level DRY runway.

Ok, as US is a open country, definitely more than one person who was an official must have shared a similar view, if this is true. If it is so, is it possibe to quote an official/ex-official, who is/was linked with C-17 program, view on this ?

The Mojave Desert landing example is significant in that the airport is not named, nor is the runway length given. It just said that the aircraft landed in "under 2800 feet". .

Airport is not named becoz, it landed on the dirty runway - so there is no airport and I dont remember any airport constructed of dirt. What addtl information you were expecting more than "under 2800 feet".

[Gilles]

Ok, as US is a open country, definitely more than one person who was an official must have shared a similar view, if this is true. If it is so, is it possibe to quote an official/ex-official, who is/was linked with C-17 program, view on this ?

The old C-17 landing specifications are listed on page 10 of this document

Then they made a deal.

As we recently testified, DOD has proposed lowering the C-17's payload/range specifications. DOD has also proposed relaxing the aircraft's contracted short field landing specifications to levels that the C-17 can probably achieve.

Many short runways of the world have no stopways. That is a fact.

If a C-17 can officially land and take off from a 3500 foot runway on the condition that it has 300 foot overrurns at either end, and a particular 3500 foot runway has no such stopways, will the C-17 be able to land there or not ? A runways is not required to have stopways at either end. The rules you mentionned govern only runways that are served by scheduled airline passenger service.

And again, a stopway is meant to accommodate an aircraft taking off and that need to abort the take-off. It is not considered part of the landing distance available. No aircraft is allowed to consider the existance of a stopway at the end to justify a landing it would otherwise have not attempted.

The old creterias were I guess 3000 and 4000 feet. Now they must be "3500" (plus the 600 feet) and ?

I have no idea about the regular landing performance. Although Boeing publishes the performance for its civilian aircraft on its website, it has not done so for the C-17. Feel free to write to them and ask them.

You actually think the C-17s landed on a short runway ? I can't find videos of those C-17s landing in the Mojave desert but let me show another aircraft landing probably in the same place:



Edwards Air Force Base, which has the longest (unpaved) runway in the World, is in the Mojave Desert

[Gilles]

Look at this IL-76 do a runway excursion that would have destroyed most aircraft. It was towed back unto the runway, seemingly intact......

[Kanson]

Ok, as US is a open country, definitely more than one person who was an official must have shared a similar view, if this is true. If it is so, is it possibe to quote an official/ex-official, who is/was linked with C-17 program, view on this ?

The old C-17 landing specifications are listed on page 10 of this document

Then they made a deal.

As we recently testified, DOD has proposed lowering the C-17's payload/range specifications. DOD has also proposed relaxing the aircraft's contracted short field landing specifications to levels that the C-17 can probably achieve.

Have you read the document that you referred here completely ?

The doucment you linked is a report carried out in 1993-1994. To the questions raised by the report, DOD's reply was added in the same document.

DOD's position in commenting on a draft of this report is that (1) the role of the C-17 has not changed, (2) the C-17 can and will perform routine direct delivery and intratheater shuttle missions, and (3) the airfield accessibility advantage of the C-17 over the C-5 is significant.

Changes are listed in another document..

In January 1995, DoD, Congress, and McDonnell Douglas agreed to decrease the payload requirement. If the C-17 were to carry a 160,000-pound payload using short-field take-off and landing capability with the weight of the plane and the required fuel, it needed more powerful engines. Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, had produced more powerful engines, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, John M. Deutch, said changing to more powerful engines was too costly. He preferred to reduce payload specifications rather than change engines, especially since the C-17 did not need to carry a greater payload to perform its mission.
...
The C-17 program successfully completed a rigorous Reliability, Maintainability and Availability evaluation in July 1995. Topping the list of statistics were launch reliability, the plane's on-time departure rate, which exceeded 99 percent; a mission capable rate of 90 percent; and a fully mission capable rate of 84 percent. The aircraft posted outstanding maintenance rates as well. The evaluation, built to compare actual aircraft performance with design requirements and goals, put the aircraft through operationally realistic scenarios, including a week of wartime activities. As part of the wartime phase, several Globemaster IIIs filled with 125,000-pound Army M1A1 main battle tanks flew from North Carolina to California's Mojave Desert, then stopped on a short dirt runway in less than 2,800 feet. Additional wartime flights were made to RAF Mildenhall, England, and Fort Irwin, CA. All total, the 437th Airlift Wing and its Reserve partner, the 315th Airlift Wing, flew 513 sorties and 2,252 flying hours.

So my request is still valid. You have to give the document proof for changing the wartime runway length requirement of 3000 feet to 3500 feet and then 4100 feet. On the contrary i gave you a document proof for my claim. And peacetime length matches with the latest data quoted.

Many short runways of the world have no stopways. That is a fact.

If a C-17 can officially land and take off from a 3500 foot runway on the condition that it has 300 foot overrurns at either end, and a particular 3500 foot runway has no such stopways, will the C-17 be able to land there or not ? A runways is not required to have stopways at either end. The rules you mentionned govern only runways that are served by scheduled airline passenger service.

And again, a stopway is meant to accommodate an aircraft taking off and that need to abort the take-off. It is not considered part of the landing distance available. No aircraft is allowed to consider the existance of a stopway at the end to justify a landing it would otherwise have not attempted

I talked abt the stopway as you were fixated on the stopways. As i said before, minimum length doesnt include stopway. Further, overruns cannot be considered as stopways.

I have no idea about the regular landing performance. Although Boeing publishes the performance for its civilian aircraft on its website, it has not done so for the C-17. Feel free to write to them and ask them.

Why sir, i should do that. Sir, you are the one claiming this, so is it not fair from your part to clarify your stand? You are quoting all the runway length for wet conditions, dry conditions, different altitudes and for different resistances. So Boeing/USAF has provided so much information. If there is so much information is provided by them, why there should not be information on runway requirement for non-contingency operations ? Beocz, as i said before you are reading the document wrongly. Your information on runway requirement is not exactly correct.

You actually think the C-17s landed on a short runway ? I can't find videos of those C-17s landing in the Mojave desert but let me show another aircraft landing probably in the same place

[/quote]
Sir, whether you or me not finding or finding the video doesnt alter the status of C-17, as you very well know.

[Indranil]

Look at this IL-76 do a runway excursion that would have destroyed most aircraft. It was towed back unto the runway, seemingly intact......

Gilles, frankly I don't think it would have destroyed most aircrafts of this class .The landing gears of most modern day aircrafts can easily take that kind of abuse. In fact in modern day aircrafts they are the second most complex and expensive things on a aircraft after the engine! The amount of stress a landing gear takes when the plane lands is far more than when it goes off and goes over some shrubs after the airbrakes have been on for 10-15 seconds. Also FOD in the form of leaves and twigs when a plane is almost stationary isn't its biggest test. You atleast would know that the biggest test is when a blade itself is dislodged at full speed. Ofcourse, that totals the engine. Probably you can search youtube over Jaguar's off-road take off demos. There it goes against patches of unprepared and prepared strips. That is quite a challenge at the edges of non-prepared to prepared strips.

Infact a critic would ask why did the plane veer of course on a perfectly dry strip. There seemed to have been no apparent huge crosswinds apparent before touchdown! I do not know what went wrong. The pilot seemed to try to correct the direction before it finally went off.

I have been saying this for quite some time. There are posters, and you are one of them, who have made excellent posts in the past. People follow their word. It would be more appropriate for them to scrutinize their own posts to greater detail before posting!

[Gilles]

.........

I give up. For some reason any argument I provide, no matter how well documented falls on deaf ears and you find a way of twisting anything I write to go off on never ending tangents.

So you are correct my dear friend, C-17s can land on short unpaved runways of 3000 feet. You win. I lose. What can I say?

[Gilles]

Probably you can search youtube over Jaguar's off-road take off demos. There it goes against patches of unprepared and prepared strips. That is quite a challenge at the edges of non-prepared to prepared strips.

I found th Jaguar video. Very impressive!

[Kanson]

>>no matter how well documented falls on deaf ears

Problem is sir, I'm not able to understand what your stand is. While trying to counter the 3000 feet figure, you are providing the proof of 3500 feet + overruns as counter data but at the sametime you casted doubt on the 3500 figure in the previous discussion.

>>you find a way of twisting anything I write to go off on never ending tangents.

I can provide explanation for my statements. While you are willing to believe an Indian officer observation of IAF using Il-76 in the less than approved runway length, you are not inclined to give such credit to C-17. As you are in the business, i'm sure you must come across references of waiving 3500 min length requirement from the authorities if situation warrants.

3500 figure is not based upon the aircraft capabilities but how much USAF willing to consider as safe to operate. In one of the documents which compared the C-17 and C5, while the manufacture gave an assurance to operate the C5 in less than 3000 feet length, USAF rejected that claim as they are not comfortable with. All this could change based on further testing. The following excerpt is from report dated 2002...

"Current guidance indicates that the minimum size semi-prepared runway for C-17 operations is 4,100 feet long by 90 feet wide (AFCESA/CES, 97). This includes the 3,500 foot landing surface and two 300 foot overruns on each end of the runway. Given current procedures, a 4,100 foot runway would only be of use during dry runway conditions since planned stopping distance increases greatly under wet conditions when using an RCR of 4 as discussed previously. The Engineering Technical Letter, which provides guidance to civil engineers indicates that C-17s require a 7,000 foot runway during wet runway operations (AFCESA/CES, 1998). Obviously the requirement for an SBA could arise in any type of climate and weather and the ability to find 4,100 feet of useable surface is easier to find than 7,000 feet. Maintaining a 4,100 foot runway is also monumentally easier than maintaining a 7,000 foot runway. Further aircraft testing could possibly refine these calculations to something closer to the wet pavement RCR value. This could reduce the calculated landing distance from 5,370 feet to approximately 3,820 feet, a more manageable distance."

I'm sure you can understand what they are trying to say. It clearly gives an indication....indication that the 3500 figure is based on what USAF considered as safe operation. And it doesnt anyway represents the capabilities of the aircraft.

[shiv]

Look at this IL-76 do a runway excursion that would have destroyed most aircraft. It was towed back unto the runway, seemingly intact......

Off topic - but it looks like high winds affected the aircraft while landing.

[negi]

Gilles any idea about the runway length (paved/semi or un paved) required for operating IL-76 family in dry conditions ?

[Gilles]

Look at this IL-76 do a runway excursion that would have destroyed most aircraft. It was towed back unto the runway, seemingly intact......

Off topic - but it looks like high winds affected the aircraft while landing.

He looked like he was in trouble throughout the landing but I have too much expperience in aviation to speculate on the cause without any more data. People who speculate on the cause of a crash right after it happens are most often wrong.....I have been.

[Gilles]

Gilles any idea about the runway length (paved/semi or un paved) required for operating IL-76 family in dry conditions ?

I recently found the IL-76 manuals (and others) on-line but they are in Russian. Il will try with the help of a friend to decipher it. Unless your Russian is better thasn mine

They are here. http://civilavia.info/

When I go on this site, my computer warns me of possible viruses but I went anyway and had no problems,

One thing I know for certain is that IL-76s land on a routine basis on 5500 foot gravel runways in Greenland, on a runway called Station Nord. Its Russian and Ukrainian civilian Il-76 that go there several times a year for the Danish Army to resupply a military base there. Shorter than that, I doubt it. I know of one case of a Russian Air Force IL-76 landing on a 4200 foot runway on an Island belonging to Chile where only C-130s had been before, but he probably took a big risk.



This is the kind of video that is suspiciously absent from the Internet when it comes to C-17s.

One Canadian C-17 did land on Canadian Forces Station Alert, a 5500 foot gravel runway,but it landed empty and had to refuel to leave, although the precious fuel they have there is brought in with C-130s. The reason the C-17 didn't tear up the runway was because at -25 Celcius, the gravel becomes as hard as concrete.

[Indranil]

7ENWi9ttcD0

This is the kind of video that is suspiciously absent from the Internet when it comes to C-17s.

I am surprised that you say so. Did you mean on some dirt runway which is 3,500 feet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diX3x6ff ... =1&index=7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO5PvGOj ... playnext=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfI4gSz4 ... playnext=3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnc_w2X ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVHZzjRz ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LXggl2u ... re=related

I know they would have done with almost no load. But it surely is very nice demo .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuzWhQxQ ... re=related

[Anthony Hines]

Yesterday, we had a family day here at Udvar Hazy Air Museum at Dulles Unt'l Airport. One of the participating planes was a C17 from Charleston AFB. I spoke to the pilot and some of the discussion centered around minimum length required for full load landing - he said that he'd landed at Bagram with an M1 Abrams (about 70 tons). He also mentioned that landing in about 3-4 inches of slush within capability although the takeoff run / weight compromise would be required. Typically he'd takeoff with min. fuel and do ai-air refuel..

[Gilles]

Yesterday, we had a family day here at Udvar Hazy Air Museum at Dulles Unt'l Airport. One of the participating planes was a C17 from Charleston AFB. I spoke to the pilot and some of the discussion centered around minimum length required for full load landing - he said that he'd landed at Bagram with an M1 Abrams (about 70 tons). He also mentioned that landing in about 3-4 inches of slush within capability although the takeoff run / weight compromise would be required. Typically he'd takeoff with min. fuel and do ai-air refuel..

Bagram has a 10,000 foot concrete runway


http://www.worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?runway=AF5069321

[Gilles]

7ENWi9ttcD0

This is the kind of video that is suspiciously absent from the Internet when it comes to C-17s.

I am surprised that you say so. Did you mean on some dirt runway which is 3,500 feet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diX3x6ff ... =1&index=7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO5PvGOj ... playnext=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfI4gSz4 ... playnext=3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnc_w2X ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVHZzjRz ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LXggl2u ... re=related

I know they would have done with almost no load. But it surely is very nice demo .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuzWhQxQ ... re=related

But in real operations, C-17s NEVER land on unpaved runways except those that have been custom-built or custom-upgraded specifically for C-17 operations (Tareen Kwot in Afghanistan is the only one I know of).

Here are the Australians bragging about landing there:

www.aviationnews.eu/2009/07/16/air-forc ... hanistan/

On this Blog http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking ... arin-kowt/ its written:

"Tarin Kowt is the only operational dirt strip taking C-17s in the world".

Otherwise the C-17 is only used on hard surfaced runways. The only exception I found was Camp Rhino in 2001. There, army engineers first thought that the Afghan gravel runway was going to be able to sustain hundreds of C-17 landings. The runway had to undergo major repair work every day after just 8 C-17 landings.......

Ref : http://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_ ... nginespage

[Sanku]

Leh will not be any test at all for C17 to prove its prowess. There are civilian airlines that land at Leh several times a day.

The question is not about landing at LEH, the question is about landing with the required and claimed Load. If C17 cannot land at LEH with the promised load, its as good as a failure.

True, but that pretty low standards in a sense isnt it. C 17 is certainly *not a failure* in any sense, and hence should do fine in Leh (heck 25 year older a/c do that perfectly well)

Thats setting the bar too low IMVHO.

[arnab]

True, but that pretty low standards in a sense isnt it. C 17 is certainly *not a failure* in any sense, and hence should do fine in Leh (heck 25 year older a/c do that perfectly well)

Thats setting the bar too low IMVHO.

I believe in the Exercise Cope India 09, the C-17 demonstrated landing under 'black out' conditions by using night vision equipment (which impressed the IAF). There are a whole host of technological issues involved, not least - availability, capacity, range and short, and under-prepared runway use capability.

[Sanku]

True, but that pretty low standards in a sense isnt it. C 17 is certainly *not a failure* in any sense, and hence should do fine in Leh (heck 25 year older a/c do that perfectly well)

Thats setting the bar too low IMVHO.

I believe in the Exercise Cope India 09, the C-17 demonstrated landing under 'black out' conditions by using night vision equipment (which impressed the IAF). There are a whole host of technological issues involved, not least - availability, capacity, range and short, and under-prepared runway use capability.

I dont see what the above has to do with landing at leh, in any case I am sure any modern a/c can demonstrate that today.

None of them is particularly scintillating.

Further more availability is not a technological issue, why do you keep making these mish mash statements with one object from here and completely unrelated object from else where, makes you post look as is they come from some one who is confused on the very basics.

[Kanson]

Gilles,

What is the possible touchdown vairation allowed for the C-17 pilots in contingency/assault landing ?

[Tanaji]

dont see what the above has to do with landing at leh, in any case I am sure any modern a/c can demonstrate that today.

None of them is particularly scintillating.

Further more availability is not a technological issue, why do you keep making these mish mash statements with one object from here and completely unrelated object from else where, makes you post look as is they come from some one who is confused on the very basics.

How many landings in night out conditions has An 124 and Il 76 made ? (I ask because they are the ones that are touted to be replacements on this thread... we will leave out A400 for now since that is not available yet).

[Sanku]

How many landings in night out conditions has An 124 and Il 76 made ? (I ask because they are the ones that are touted to be replacements on this thread... we will leave out A400 for now since that is not available yet).

An OLD Il 76

http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_unit.php?ch=36

Night Operations at Leh and Udhampur

Successful operations to Leh and Udhampur airfields by night requiring a very high level of proficiency have been carried out by the IL-76 and AN-32 aircraft of the squadron. The first landing by night at Leh was carried out by the AN-32 in Jul 96 and by IL-76 in Jan 97.

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-286919.html
6th August 2007, 10:24
From Avweb

Close Call For Russian Cargo Plane
It was a testament to the ruggedness of the IL-76, but we’ll let others decide what it says about the crew flying it. According to a Transport Canada incident report published by Canadian Defence and Geopolitics, the Silk Way Airways plane was headed for Canadian Forces Base in Trenton, Ontario, in early June when it encountered poor visibility (half mile in fog, vertical visibility 500 feet, RVR 600, temperature and dew point 12 degrees Celsius) at the military base. The crew elected to try an instrument approach. The massive plane, loaded with military hardware from the Canadian Forces operation in Afghanistan, hit a perimeter fence, taking out 150 feet of it, touched down briefly 430 feet short of the runway and then managed to climb out, trailing part of the fence from its landing gear and peppered with damage to its belly. However, that wasn’t enough to prompt the crew to declare an emergency. According to the report, the crew climbed the airplane, still trailing barbed wire, to 3,000 feet and entered a hold for an hour. They then decided to divert to fog-free Ottawa, about 100 nm away. Ottawa officials were notified that the airplane had hit a fence and rolled emergency gear for the landing. The IL-76 landed uneventfully and went directly to an FBO. There, with help from the emergency workers, the crew untangled the barbed wire and took off again for Trenton, where the cargo was unloaded. In Trenton, it was revealed the aircraft had "substantial damage" and the events were classified by the Transportation Safety Board as an accident rather than an incident.

http://www.dutchaviationsupport.com/Art ... saders.pdf

Operations for the Il-78 are possible under all
weather day and night circumstances. Tire pressure can be adjusted from 2,5 to 5
atmosphere to deal with different types of airfields

And on and on and on and on....

Its just a simple matter of putting the latest avionics after all, no big deal, the aircraft itself is more than robust for any kind of operation.

[Tanaji]

Is landing at night == night out condition? I am not a pilot so I dont know, but I have reservations.

By that logic any aircraft landing at night satisfies the criteria. Heck, I have landed in a two seater Cessna at night, does that mean its night out qualified?

The article mentions that "IAF was impressed" by night out capability of the C17. If this is already developed by Il76, why would IAF "be impressed"?

Unless of course, the news article is a lie (as you often state for inconvenient articles).

Its just a simple matter of putting the latest avionics after all, no big deal,

Hmm, so by this logic, the DARIN upgrade, the BISON upgrade are "no big deals" at all. Or better still we should by a F16 Block 20 aircraft, and upgrade it, since its no big deal.

Fact of the matter is the Il76 probably does not have this capability (Gilles can clarify), it will take additional time and effort and cost to get the equipment fitted, test it and certify it.

As I keep saying, there is NO aircraft available right NOW that meets IAF requirements as they stand. They may be worded so to only qualify the C17, just as the T90 fraud was foisted on the exchequer, but it is what it is.

[Sanku]

Is landing at night == night out condition? I am not a pilot so I dont know, but I have reservations.

No it does not, night out conditions means landing at night without any navigation lights on the runway to aid the pilot, and/or very low/zero visibility landing.

That is why I made three examples, mentioning different types of landing and conditions with different types of Il 76/78

In short any modern a/c better be able to do that. I would consider it a minimum requirement.

Yes DARIN is not a big deal if you consider that EVERY MRCA contestent would have something like DARIN.

The Il 76s that India has today are flying with 25 year old instruments and STILL doing a stellar job, obviously any body would be impressed if they compared 25 year old instruments with today's.

And given your dislike (unreasonable and misplaced but deep nevertheless) for T 90, you make my point if you compare T 90s with C 17s


Except that T 90s were purchased in 2000 when India had not mandated its NEW acquisition policy in 2003

And NO there are alternatives to C 17. People may not like it but that is the fact.

[Sanku]

And oh google, there are many discussions on Il 76 instrumentation and night landing capabilities.