C-17s for the IAF?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2010 19:29

From the link I had posted before more data (just in case some one does not decide to go through it all)

Better avionics for all round operations
What is known about the avionics apart from the secrets? As we know, the IL-78 is at
least equipped with an integrated (automated) flight control and aiming-navigation
system including a compass system, ground surveillance radar, a central digital
computer, automatic monitoring system, automatic flight control system short-range
radio navigation and landing system, IFF-transponder optical/infrared aiming sight
and a ground collision warning system installed from the factory. More specific and
partly Western avionic features are distance measuring equipment (DME), dual VHF
navigation/communication and X-band colour weather radar of HAL central in the
nose(while the Koopol navigation radar is inside the blister under the noose). Other
instruments are Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), Global Positioning
System (GPS), cockpit voice recorder/flight data recorder, Instrument landing System
(ILS) and Tactical aid for navigation (TACAN), but not all features have been unveiled
to foreigners. Israeli avionics are fit on Indian specifications and ELTA systems is
supporting Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) and Defence Research and Development
organisation (DRDO) with co-developing of new avionics. IAF keeps up the best
available abilities smartly. Recently during overhauls a new Reduced Vertical
Separation Minima (RVSM)-suite is installed, a mandatory requirement if aircraft are
to fly above 29.000 feet. IAF officers said the vertical separation between two aircraft
flying above 29.000 feet have been reduced from 2000 to 1000 feet by an
international consortium. The suite is highly accurate and gives a warning for every
300 feet change in altitude. More important is that the suite permits the aircraft to fly
at higher levels and thereby consumes less fuel.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 21 Jun 2010 19:36

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

Again, has a Il76/An124 demonstrated a complete night out landing? It may have, but your links do not show it.

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

Exactly, so given that as per you the Il76/An124 should be a contender, it should display this capability *right now* isn't it?
Your links dont seem to support that assertion.

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

By "alternatives" you mean paper mythical planes such as An124-100 and Il476, then yes, there are. But the IAF prefers to look at planes that are available *right now*. I know, silly of them eh?

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

Yes, the same policy that allowed for more flexibility and ad hocism (your words) before it was made as rigid it is now. MoD couldnt find ways to get a multi vendor situation for T90. Right.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2010 19:42

Tanaji, I posted a report which talks at length about the Il 78s execptional avionics suite, giving it a all weather, all condition operation ability.

I dont how my links dont demonstrate that; if some of you find the obvious truth so hard, perhaps you should avoid discussing all together rather than say

Again, has a Il76/An124 demonstrated a complete night out landing? It may have, but your links do not show it.

AFTER links are posted on how

Operations for the Il-78 are possible under all
weather day and night circumstances

Sheesh....

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 21 Jun 2010 19:52

Sanku wrote:Tanaji, I posted a report which talks at length about the Il 78s execptional avionics suite, giving it a all weather, all condition operation ability.

I dont how my links dont demonstrate that; if some of you find the obvious truth so hard, perhaps you should avoid discussing all together rather than say

Again, has a Il76/An124 demonstrated a complete night out landing? It may have, but your links do not show it.
AFTER links are posted on how

Operations for the Il-78 are possible under all
weather day and night circumstances
Sheesh....

Lets look at your links shall we:

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

Merely states that Il76 landed at night in Leh. Where does it state that it landed in night out conditions? Do you really think IAF will make Il76s land at Leh in peace time without any runway lights?

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-286919.html

The plane landed at midnight under foggy conditions at CFB Trenton. This is a routine Silkways flight at an Airforce base bearing cargo. Do you really think that this is night out conditions? Are you seriously stating that CFB Trenton had no lights?

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

Where, does it state night out? As I said a Cessna can land at night. Does it mean it can land in night out conditions?

In short, your links only state that the Il 76 is equipped for night flying. No one disputes that.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2010 19:53

What is so difficult about the words

Operations for the Il-78 are possible under all weather day and night circumstances

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 21 Jun 2010 19:58

Sanku wrote:What is so difficult about the words

Operations for the Il-78 are possible under all weather day and night circumstances

A Boeing 747 lands at night at Mumbai airport. Is it night out certified? You tell me!

If as per you Il 78 is "night out" capable, why is the IAF "impressed" when the C17 displayed this since they would have been familiar with this capability before?

What is so difficult in accepting that the C17 is a very capable plane with the best avionics around?

Or is the article a "lie"?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2010 20:04

Tanaji wrote:
A Boeing 747 lands at night at Mumbai airport. Is it night out certified? You tell me!

There are commercial boeings certified to for landing for all conditions all weather landings (commercial context) in those case they do say "can operate in all weather conditions"

Yes.

There are Boeing which land at night with out either, then it does not say "can operate in all weather conditions"

If as per you Il 78 is "night out" capable, why is the IAF "impressed" when the C17 displayed this since they would have been familiar with this capability before?

Or is the article a "lie"?

This will not be the first time when people have hard sold a obvious product. Frankly neither the capablity is any thing big, neither are all the statements about "greatest things since sliced bread"

And anyway its Arnab's statement that you are trying to argue, not even a article, and less said about how accurate he has been about technical matter the better.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 21 Jun 2010 20:17

Sanku wrote:
There are commercial boeings certified to for landing for all conditions all weather landings.

Yes.

There are Boeing which land at night with out either.

You are fudging the issue. Here is what you stated regarding "night out" capability:

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.

None of the 3 articles that you have posted show any proof that the Il 78 can land in these conditions. You yourself have stated some very specific conditions in your earlier posts that define "night out". I have pointed out that none of the articles that you linked state that the Il78 did land under those conditions. You are now equating night flying with night out. I suggest that you adopt the same high standards of proof that an article must provide that you have when you dismissed the articles regarding IAF's unhappiness over Il76.

Lets see what Gilles has to say...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2010 20:41

Tanaji wrote: None of the 3 articles that you have posted show any proof that the Il 78 can land in these conditions.

Tanaji I think you are being deliberately obtuse, because I do not know how a very specific statement

Operations for the Il-78 are possible under all weather day and night circumstances

is unfathomable?

It clearly says that Il 78 can operate in ALL conditions. ALL.

Very low/zero visibility is ONE small subset of ALL possible set of conditions.

And I posted ANOTHER example of how a IL 76 was landing WITH FULL LOAD in nearly ZERO visibility, and survived a incident of airfield fence getting in the way.

And these are few on MANY reports that you CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF if you google.

And what do you have to support that IAF was impressed with C 17s whatever?

Nothing, IAF will never come out and say what exactly did C 17 do which was outstanding. Generic platitudes will be mouthed.

COMPARED TO SPECIFIC examples for Il 76/78

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 21 Jun 2010 21:03

And I posted ANOTHER example of how a IL 76 was landing WITH FULL LOAD in nearly ZERO visibility, and survived a incident of airfield fence getting in the way.

And you very well know that nowhere does it mention that the runway lights were out, one of the requirements as per YOU to qualify for night out condition. Indeed it is very likely that the runway lights were on given that its CFB Trenton, and a commercial flight.

Who is the one that is obtuse now?

It clearly says that Il 78 can operate in ALL conditions. ALL.

Very low/zero visibility is ONE small subset of ALL possible set of conditions.

Eh, again fudging the issue. Flying at night is different and landing with no nav aids and runway lights are off, is different. The article makes no mention of the latter.

You are the one who posted the requirements for "night out". The articles you posted make no mention of these requirements.

As I keep saying, currently there is no alternative to the C-17.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2010 21:10

All

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all

Thank you very much...

and for a change, I would like you to come up with

Where does it say that IAF is happy with whatever of C 17

Yes there is no alternative to C 17, there is no other way of spending 6 billion $ for something which can be done by other a/c for 2 billion best case.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jun 2010 22:28

Gilles wrote: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).

I am just clearing my doubts. What was changed at Tarin Kowt especially for the C-17? It seems to be a regular gravel runway of 6000ft. I read reports that C-17s were used quite frequently there as it is the only airport for supply lines near Kamp Holland.

Edited later

Thank you very much for that report. It is a good read for everybody who is debating to and fro for the rough landing abilities of the C-17. In the report however, at no times has the author questioned C-17s ability to work from Small Austere Air Fields (SAAF). And I must say he is awfully knowledgeable of what he is writing! Sustained operation of the C-17 form a semi prepared airstrip is what he raised his questions about. Most of the problems he said were because of rutting (compressing of soil underneath the wheel). He also does say that C-17s operated on runways with 18 inch ruts, when technically a airstrip should be taken out at 3.

This brings me to a question. Will this happen with any aircraft of this weight which is tried to stop within 5000-6000 feet?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jun 2010 23:04

Sanku ji ... IL-76 and IL-78 are not certified for black-out operations, AFAIK. At least I couldn't find anything which points to that. Neither has been there a precedent. "All weather or time" and black out are not the same things.

As Gilles can confirm, it would be a very scary proposition for any pilot to land such a huge plane with no navigational aide. A very recent example was the Polish crash. Even before the ill fated flight an IL-76 tried made several attempts to land at the same airport, but couldn't and hence the ATC was asking the Polish plane to divert. Also in your example IL-76 couldn't land without visibility. Yes it is a testament that IL-76 is a robust plane. But it is also some luck that that wall was not higher or made out of bricks and mortar.

You can contend that we can install it on the IL-76 or IL-78, but contending that it already has it is not the same thing IMVVHO!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2010 23:29

indranilroy wrote:....

Why dont you do a few things,

1) Post a link saying what does night out mean.

2) Post a link saying how and why all weather and all time operation does not mean night out operation can be done.

3) Post a link saying that C 17 can do night out operation.

Right now both you and Tanaji are kite flying based on a totally random statement by Arnab saying C17 can fly one one wing (or something similar)

I have consistently posted links to fairly reliable sources (govt or semi-govt) and not some paid hacks on fun trip to Boeing factory.

Can I expect a modicum of same standards by others in that debate?

4) And then show why what C 17 can do is nothing more than a piece of avionics that can be purchased and slapped on pretty much any other aircraft?

Please exact answers, too many kite flying statements have been made on this thread.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 21 Jun 2010 23:30

----edited----

never mind

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Jun 2010 23:37

Shalav wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Sanku ji... A very recent example was the Polish crash. Even before the ill fated flight an IL-76 tried made several attempts to land at the same airport, but couldn't and hence the ATC was asking the Polish plane to divert.
That was a Tu154 not a IL-76

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_154

I know that the ill fated flight was a Tupolev. But before that flight there an IL-76 tried landing at the same airport.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ation.html

Sixteen minutes before the accident, the Yak-40 crew relayed the 400m figure and added that the vertical visibility was just 50m. Another aircraft, an Ilyushin Il-76, had made two approaches to Smolensk before aborting its approach and diverting to an alternate airport.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2010 23:45

Uhh, a Il 76 can be flying with 1970 avionics or could be a Il 78 level tanker....

The airframe itself has demonstrated robustness of being able to operate in all conditions. Seen literally, which it has done with even 70s era avionics successfully (as shown by links)

the same air craft upgraded with latest engines and avionics is really a massive beast in terms of being able to operate anywhere, do anything and live to tell the tale.

As we see from the glowing description of Indian Il 78 MKI in European circles (posted)

THAT my friends is THE route to GO. A MKIzed wonder based on essentially robust platform.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jun 2010 00:13

Why dont you do a few things,

1) Post a link saying what does night out mean.

2) Post a link saying how and why all weather and all time operation does not mean night out operation can be done.

3) Post a link saying that C 17 can do night out operation.

Amazing sir

#1: We are not debating that at all. YOU are the one who posted what "night out" means. For your benefit here it is:

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.

We are not disagreeing at all

#2: Why sir? You are the one who wants everything spelled out in black and white. By your high standards, the ones by which you refuse to accept any article that doesn't explicitly say a particular thing, the very links that you have posted do not come even close to saying IL78 supports night out operations as per the definition YOU have stated.

#3 http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/features/c ... fm?id=1544

with a photo no less and no runway lights.

The airframe itself has demonstrated robustness of being able to operate in all conditions. Seen literally, which it has done with even 70s era avionics successfully (as shown by links)

the same air craft upgraded with latest engines and avionics is really a massive beast in terms of being able to operate anywhere, do anything and live to tell the tale.

As we see from the glowing description of Indian Il 78 MKI in European circles (posted)

THAT my friends is THE route to GO. A MKIzed wonder based on essentially robust platform.

Yes sir, thats the way. Except that:

This Il 78 MKI is a mythical beast that does not exist and is not available now and no one knows when it will be.
Even if it were, it will not carry the same load over the same distance as C17
It does not meet IAF requirements

Yes sir, IAF must spend money on a paper plane.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 00:37

Sanku wrote: Why dont you do a few things,

Aye aye sir!

Sanku wrote: 1) Post a link saying what does night out mean.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123173825

Such landings can be conducted in blackout conditions in which aircrews wear night vision equipment to see special lights defining the runway. It could be compared to landing on an aircraft carrier at night, except that the runway is a lot longer and is not pitching and rolling.

Sanku wrote: 2) Post a link saying how and why all weather and all time operation does not mean night out operation can be done.

I think you would better read up on the kind of navigational tools which are used to enable a plane to land at night (or zero visibility). All weather is a term loosely used to mean different things based on the type of plane. It would mean different things for an interceptor, different things for a bomber, and different things for a cargo carrier.
When one says that a plane can be operated at night, it is based on what instruments are there on the plane which complement the navigational aides on the ground, so as to help the pilot safely land the plane. Here's a starter for navigational aides:
http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/casestudy/al ... er-landing
Also there are many instruments which automate taxiing and take off. Besides, here is a list of ILS categories used at airports. May be it will help understand what night-operations mean.
http://www.avsim.com/geoffschool/airlin ... lscats.htm

Sanku wrote: 3) Post a link saying that C 17 can do night out operation.

The word is black-out. Anyways, here are many links which specify that the C-17 can do so:
http://thetension.blogspot.com/2009/10/ ... sault.html
http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/ ... ead-69292/
Please see the picture on the right to understand what a black-out looks like.
http://www.visualintel.net/USAF/Weapon- ... 4766_dRDkb

Sanku wrote: 4) And then show why what C 17 can do is nothing more than a piece of avionics that can be purchased and slapped on pretty much any other aircraft?

I did not contend with this part. Though it is not as easy as being slapped on any plane. Infact what I said was:

indranilroy wrote: You can contend that we can install it on the IL-76 or IL-78, but contending that it already has it is not the same thing IMVVHO!

Sanku wrote: Right now both you and Tanaji are kite flying based on a totally random statement by Arnab saying C17 can fly one one wing (or something similar)
I have consistently posted links to fairly reliable sources (govt or semi-govt) and not some paid hacks on fun trip to Boeing factory.
Can I expect a modicum of same standards by others in that debate?

You insinuated 3 posters! Arnab was not making a random statement! And please prove me wrong in whatever I said. I could have asked the same from you when you went on ranting, trying to prove your point without knowing the differences. In what light does it leave your modicum of posting after baseless insinuation of 3 posters and trying to prove something which is not there? I do not contradict others unless I know what I am speaking of. I consider that part of decency. And yes I have been to many Boeing tours too, but that doesn't make me a moose. I give credit where it is deserved. I hope I have been maintaining a good level of posting and not finger pointing.

Added later:
One might ask why would the IAF be impressed by such a capability. Imagine landing at Port Blair after a natural disaster!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 00:43

Sanku wrote:Uhh, a Il 76 can be flying with 1970 avionics or could be a Il 78 level tanker....

The airframe itself has demonstrated robustness of being able to operate in all conditions. Seen literally, which it has done with even 70s era avionics successfully (as shown by links)

the same air craft upgraded with latest engines and avionics is really a massive beast in terms of being able to operate anywhere, do anything and live to tell the tale.

As we see from the glowing description of Indian Il 78 MKI in European circles (posted)

THAT my friends is THE route to GO. A MKIzed wonder based on essentially robust platform.

You still didnt answer what would have happened if instead of a barbed wire there was a tree or a stronger wall.

Nobody ever contends whether IL-76 is a robust platform or not. We were discussing a capability and you seemed to be proving that IL-76 already had it under the blanket of "all weather all time".

Edited later:
P.S. On second thoughts, I feel this is a futile discussion. Sankuji, I leave it to you to believe what you believe. I rest my case.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 22 Jun 2010 00:55

I Finding I
a. Defence Science Board task force which advises the DOD/Pentagon establish that C-17 can land and take-off from the runway as short as 3000 feet.

One of the mission profile of C-17 is to land M1A1 in a austere field close to the battlefield described as direct delivery into the theatre.

b. Boeing website describes that with more specification:

Take off from a 7,600-ft. airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight and land in 3,000 ft. or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield in day or night.

It says whether unpaved or paved to land in 3000 ft or less with 160,000 pounds payload. So far it confirms with Defence Science Board finding.

c. Further, the evaluation done by USAF matches the figure as it is less than 3000 feet
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.

II Finding II
a. While there is somekind of convergence on this 3000 feet figure till now, ETL distributed by 1997 which acts as guidance for engineers mentions for contingency operation, min. requirement of runway length as 3500 feet + 2 * 300 feet overruns.

b. while the ETL doesnt describe about the contingency operation, other documents and Defence Science Board, air mobility report describes the operation as landing in a min. of 3500 foot runway with Maximum Total Landing Weight (MTLW) of 447,000 pounds in unpaved runway or MTLW of 502,100 pounds on paved runway.

c. This document, specifies the splitup of the payload for the kind of operation.
447,000 C-17 Max Gross Weight for SPR Ops
-280000 C-17 Operating Weight
167,000 Usable cargo and fuel weight
-136400 Combat-Ready M1A1
30,600 Max fuel weight
-16000 Required Overhead Fuel
14,600 Usable Fuel

The only major difference between the two findings seem to be the min. runway length changes from ~ 3000 feet to 3500 feet. How to reconcile the differences ? While no one considers Boeing as paragon of integrity; no one believes in Boeing maligning their own reputation by publishing the wrong data in their website, which mentions less than 3000 feet for the payload of 160,000 pounds. In the sameway, Defence Science Board, an advisory committee to Pentagon, cant expected to give two different values. The only explanation for this discrepancy is that 3000 feet measurement measures the demonstrated distance between touchdown point by the C-17 on the runway and the point where the aircraft comes to stop, known as 'stoping distance'.

Runway 'Landing Distance' of an aircraft is calculated as 'stoping distance' + touchdown variation.

If 3500 feet is the runway length and stoping distance is 3000 feet, touchdown variation has to be 500 feet.

This 500 feet figure as touchdown zone can be confirmed from this document. This proves my earlier assertion that 3000 feet landing is attainable while 3500 feet is with extra safety margin.

For Civil airports, the touchdown zone is normally around 3000 feet of the runway. Recent Magalore accident happened becoz the Boeing aircraft missed the touchdown zone while landing.

III
https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q ... nginespage

The ability of AM-2 matted runways to support C-17 operations was initially tested at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) in Twenty-nine Palms, California during DT&E in September 1994. The objectives of the testing were to evaluate the ability of the C-17 to operate on the Strategic Expeditionary Landing Field (SELF - 8,000 feet by 150 feet) and the Expeditionary Air Field (EAF 2000 – 3,840 feet by 72 feet) carrying up to 160,000 of cargo and enough fuel to fly 300 NM following offload. These requirements are outlined in the C-17 Operational Requirements Document (Fucci, 1993).

This further clarifies the doubt expressed in the discussion of considering 2 300 feet overruns as part of the runway for the contigency operation. The 3840 feet could possibly represents 3500 feet min. runway length + 1 300 feet overrun (for TO&L from one side).

For those interested can dig further deep to understand the nuisance of the requirement and testing carried out in establishing the min. runway requirement and can validate them with the above finding.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 01:25

Good folks;

Now that it is clear to you all what night out is please go back and read on Il 78 avionics suite and instrumentation which lets its claim that Il 78 can work in all weather all day and all night conditions.

Unfortunately it is not "loosely" defined at all.

When people say that Il 78 can work in all weather all day and all night conditions it means *just* that.

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

Better avionics for all round operations
What is known about the avionics apart from the secrets? As we know, the IL-78 is at
least equipped with an integrated (automated) flight control and aiming-navigation
system including a compass system, ground surveillance radar, a central digital
computer, automatic monitoring system, automatic flight control system short-range
radio navigation and landing system, IFF-transponder optical/infrared aiming sight
and a ground collision warning system installed from the factory. More specific and
partly Western avionic features are distance measuring equipment (DME), dual VHF
navigation/communication and X-band colour weather radar of HAL central in the
nose(while the Koopol navigation radar is inside the blister under the noose). Other
instruments are Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), Global Positioning
System (GPS), cockpit voice recorder/flight data recorder, Instrument landing System
(ILS) and Tactical aid for navigation (TACAN), but not all features have been unveiled
to foreigners. Israeli avionics are fit on Indian specifications and ELTA systems is
supporting Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) and Defence Research and Development
organisation (DRDO) with co-developing of new avionics. IAF keeps up the best
available abilities smartly. Recently during overhauls a new Reduced Vertical
Separation Minima (RVSM)-suite is installed, a mandatory requirement if aircraft are
to fly above 29.000 feet. IAF officers said the vertical separation between two aircraft
flying above 29.000 feet have been reduced from 2000 to 1000 feet by an
international consortium. The suite is highly accurate and gives a warning for every
300 feet change in altitude. More important is that the suite permits the aircraft to fly
at higher levels and thereby consumes less fuel.

That folks is the entire shebang of avionics suite on IAF refullers today, as seen by aviation professionals from Europe on Operation Garud.

So sorry boys, C 17s can land in the dark? So can Il 78.

Next?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 01:27

And yeah, apart from some kite flying I still have not seen any reference saying how IAF was impressed by C 17 night landing.

Frankly a weird statement. Its not a big deal. I dont think IAF would be impressed.

But oh anything to justify C 17, if it can even overfly leh I suppose some will be distributing sweets and great show.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 01:29

So any other mythical claims that C 17 can do which others cant? Frankly apart from costing a bomb?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 02:26

Kanson wrote:.......

Frankly looks like a lot of definition and redefinition for god knows what purpose.

Further more there are two parts about a aircraft landing on unpaved surfaces --

1) Can the a/c make it -- yes C 17 has demonstrated that it can make it, with whatever load, but it can

2) Does the pressure/footprint of the a/c so damage the runway that it can not be used in a practical manner.

Issue 2 was also raised and debated. I do not see anything about that in the Boeing definition and redefinition. So the question is, did I miss something or is there nothing.

Since you have no doubt read what you have posted, can you please post the relevant bits about airfield impact too?

Further more the "attainable" figure is frankly misleading at best, the only meaningful figure is the real operational lengths. Which are 3900.

The attainable figures will never really be attained except once under test conditions for purposes of writing it in a manual.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 02:37

Sanku wrote:Good folks;

Now that it is clear to you all what night out is please go back and read on Il 78 avionics suite and instrumentation which lets its claim that Il 78 can work in all weather all day and all night conditions.

Unfortunately it is not "loosely" defined at all.

When people say that Il 78 can work in all weather all day and all night conditions it means *just* that.

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

Better avionics for all round operations
What is known about the avionics apart from the secrets? As we know, the IL-78 is at
least equipped with an integrated (automated) flight control and aiming-navigation
system including a compass system, ground surveillance radar, a central digital
computer, automatic monitoring system, automatic flight control system short-range
radio navigation and landing system, IFF-transponder optical/infrared aiming sight
and a ground collision warning system installed from the factory. More specific and
partly Western avionic features are distance measuring equipment (DME), dual VHF
navigation/communication and X-band colour weather radar of HAL central in the
nose(while the Koopol navigation radar is inside the blister under the noose). Other
instruments are Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), Global Positioning
System (GPS), cockpit voice recorder/flight data recorder, Instrument landing System
(ILS) and Tactical aid for navigation (TACAN), but not all features have been unveiled
to foreigners. Israeli avionics are fit on Indian specifications and ELTA systems is
supporting Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) and Defence Research and Development
organisation (DRDO) with co-developing of new avionics. IAF keeps up the best
available abilities smartly. Recently during overhauls a new Reduced Vertical
Separation Minima (RVSM)-suite is installed, a mandatory requirement if aircraft are
to fly above 29.000 feet. IAF officers said the vertical separation between two aircraft
flying above 29.000 feet have been reduced from 2000 to 1000 feet by an
international consortium. The suite is highly accurate and gives a warning for every
300 feet change in altitude. More important is that the suite permits the aircraft to fly
at higher levels and thereby consumes less fuel.
That folks is the entire shebang of avionics suite on IAF refullers today, as seen by aviation professionals from Europe on Operation Garud.

So sorry boys, C 17s can land in the dark? So can Il 78.

Next?

Sankuji, you have decided to go round in circles

.

I for one never dished out the IL-78. I never said that they are obsolete, not robust etc. etc. But I don't know how to attribute a certain capability to the IL-76/78 for which there is no proof present in public domain. If you know the gadgets that have been listed, none of them point to the ability of landing in a complete blackout situation. And quite a lot of them are found on commercial aircrafts. Besides, generally the classified suites are air defense suites, so I don't think this capability would have been classfied.

I can make out that you did not read what I posted, in spite of you asking for it. So I will let it pass. The very IAF that operates the IL-78, wanted the C-17. They have cited reasons which we don't want to buy. And oh I forgot, it is not the IAF, it's the MoD which is shoving it down IAF's throat, so IAF has to make a case for itself.

. Nothing more shall come from me on this point, except that instead of just dismissing posters (who write anything in favour of the C-17), please read through what they write. Kanson had pointed out articles. Again which you don't seem to have read completely, from contents of your rebuff of his post! Every poster has his reputation here on the line. It may be so that they might have done some research themselves, before posting!

Anyways, lets all decide to agree:
1. IL-78 can do everything that the C-17 can do.
2. C-17 can not do almost most of the things that its designers say, others evaluated.
3. Buying C-17 is a MoD decision, IAF is just picking up its Christmas gifts.
4. IAF is being taken for a ride by the Boeing marketing people.
5. IAF is putting up a show in the C-17 tests to hoodwink the taxpayer in collusion with the MoD.

Right. Done.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 02:53

Indranilroy, if you want to debate normally, without resorting to Amit/Arnab like behavior I will strongly advise you to refrain from straw men and flame baits like

And oh I forgot, it is not the IAF, it's the MoD which is shoving it down IAF's throat, so IAF has to make a case for itself

This does a few things
1) Takes the discussion downhill, since I WILL respond in kind
2) Tells me you are frustrated since you are loosing that your points are countered.
3) Tells me that you are not really a good person to debate too.

So basically avoid.

To make it clear -- what I said was -- IAF wants the C 17s not because of the reasons being touted by Boeing and its messengers, but because of two very specific NEW requirements placed on it
1) Interoperability with US forces
2) A rapid increase in force projection capabilities to help with US operations.

These in turn are nothing but a fig leaf to basically give goodies to US.

-----

Now you may or may not agree with me, but at least show the decency to agree or disagree with what I said and not go off on a tangent?

Savvy?

Good.
------

Now to come to the point that you dont seem to be getting about night landings, let me say it shortly

NOT A BIG DEAL

and no IAF would not be "impressed" if C 17 did it. It would be strange.

Now specifically w.r.t. Il 78 article -- the list is exhaustive and covers all known navigation equipment and aids. A third party (European) aviation professional group has no issues in declaring that Il 78 can operate in all weather conditions.

Now if that is not a solid enough third party validation god knows what is, certainly much better than Boeing's word about itself.

You make the claim that these gadgets are not enough to handle a black out, but
1) You dont list what gadgets are needed to make it so?
2) You call them gadgets as opposed to equipment which tells me you really are not aware of what these are.

And yes, a lot of them ARE found on commercial aircraft as is expected. Since there is a huge overlap there too.

So apart from the C 17 fan club who go ga ga over the fact that C 17 can fly, those of us not enamored by it can say, yes C 17 does a bunch of things, SO what, So can a whole bunch of other a/cs, and cheaply too.

Which unfortunately in the real fact

And yes, I wont get it, because I dont want to take it on a matter of faith.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 03:56

Sankuji, you leave me with nothing else to do.

Frankly I am frustrated, but not at loss of points, but at the futility of this discussion. You ask for proof, but would not accept anything barring what you say! Even your recent question of what instruments are required for a black out operations were given in the links I produced earlier. But you didn't read it. Once again, it is called the IDS or Infrared Detection Set.
Here's what is written about the C-130J being the first plane to be able to do tactical airdrop and landing in blackout conditions.

http://www.indian-military.org/news-arc ... india.html

Equipped with an infrared detection set (IDS), the aircraft for the first time will provide the IAF an ability to conduct precision low-level flying operations, airdrops and landings in blackout conditions.

Same report here:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... index.html
http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/ ... dia-69136/

Lets let it pass, sir. I never contended that it can not be installed on the IL-78. But presently it is not. I never contended that the IL-78 MKI is not impressive. You seem to be proving that! Ofcourse it is, but were we discussing that in first place?

And I am sorry if I infuriated you, but frankly the way you dismiss whatever you don't approve of might hurt other posters. In my case it did. But it is ok!

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 04:34

Kanson wrote:Gilles,

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

I am not certain I understand your question.

In the civilian world, this is how runway length is determined:

Extensive tests are done by the manufacturers' test pilots in different conditions and at different weights. Charts and graphs are drawn to arrive at minimum landing distances. These are maximum effort landings, meaning maximum full braking at touchdown, but no use of reverse thrust (for jets).

The landing distance, by the way, is the distance covered by an aircraft from the moment it passes over the runway threshold at a height of 50 feet, to the time it comes to a complete stop.

Once that distance has been determined, it does not mean the aircraft can use runways of that length. A "regulatory margin" is built-in for safety, for the imperfect landing, the imperfect pilot, the imperfect runway, the imperfect brakes and the imperfect tires. The minimum length from the graph or table is multiplied by 1.67 for dry runways, and another 15% is added if the runway is WET (corrected later) (so multiply by 1.92)

For example, the large passenger jet I fly has a computed landing distance of 930 meters (3020 feet) at maximum gross landing weight on a dry runway. We use 1.67 plus 15% (for wet) to come up with 1786 meters (5858 feet) which my boss decided to round up to 6000 feet which is the minimum runway length we fly into. This is for planning purposes.

All of the above concerns airlines (civilians). The military not only have lower regulatory margins, but also use lower wartime numbers and higher peacetime numbers. I do not know what they are. They also probably approach closer to the stall speed (civilian aircraft approach at VRef, which is 1.3 times the stall speed (Vso)). They also consider the use of reverse thrust which civilians do not. I think they also use 35 feet over the threshold instead of 50 feet because they approach at a 4 degree flight path angle while civilians do it at 3 degrees.

That is as much as I can tell you on the subject (if I understood your question). The actual safety buffer used by the military is unknown to me.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jun 2010 04:53

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote: Hold on!!! Back up there. AK Antony? But he's the boss of the MoD!! The same MoD that's ~~arm-twisting~~ coercing the IAF into buying these lemons. Surely he's not advocating foregoing a wide-body requirement(till 2040) in favour of concessions allowing the Russians to participate?
Did I say MoD was arm twisting the IAF to buy it?

I am saying nothing more than the following --

The highly preferred process has been short circuited, especially for a product which was not even talked about more than 2 years back and by all available estimates will cost 5.8 Billion $ for 10 planes.

This is very irregular and can only be explained if there was a directive from the very top for two things (in combination)
1) An interoperability with US forces
2) A very specific goal to IAF from the political bosses, something like (ex) prepare within next few years to be able to operate in Afg with a extended airlift capacity.

Thats it.

On both counts - interoperability & deployment in Afghanistan - the IL-76 would have sufficed. So that isn't something that would prompt the IAF to purchase the C-17 instead. IL-76s operate out of most airbases in Afghanistan routinely while under lease to the ISAF.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 05:00

Tanaji wrote:
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).

Gentlemen, the blackout landings (which are landings made at night with no runway lights) are made with a device that the pilot wears on his head called Night Vision Goggles (NVG). Pilots can train to do this on any aircraft. Minor mods have to be done to the panel to allow the pilot wearing the device to be able to see the panel although her wears the goggles. I've seen old C-130Hs with dial panels do touch and goes in the dark back around 1980 at an air base in Florida.

In 1979, the CIA sent a Twin Otter to the desert in Iran to map out a runway and install runway lights for the C-130s that were going to attempt the US hostage rescue. The CIA Twin Otter landed in the Iranian Desert at night with NVGs. There is no aircraft more low tech than a twin Otter. The pilot, however that did this was highly trained.

Il-76 can do it just as well. However, training pilots to achieve such proficiency in any large aircraft is extremely expensive. It is so expensive that the US Air Force only has a few dozen pilots qualified for it on the C-17. They are called "SOLL II" qualified pilots.

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

By the way, before they received their C-17s, some pilots had been trained to do it with the C-5 Galaxy and the C-141.

http://www.specialoperations.com/USAF/S ... efault.htm

Can the IL-76 do it ? Of course. If India needs that capability and wants to invest in it. You are all familiar with the glass nose and that radome that hangs under the chin of the IL-76. The glass nose contains a navigator and one of the tools at his disposal is a RLS-P Koopol ground mapping radar which is what that radome in the chin houses.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jun 2010 05:02

Gilles,

While I don't know much about airfield specifications for accommodating heavy aircraft, Kanson's link explicitly states the C-17 was able to land with an M1 tank within 2800ft (doesn't say anything about the length of the runway). Does that not imply that it can land with an Arjun tank within 3000 ft (though it would take a longer section in high altitude areas)?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 05:21

Viv S wrote:Gilles,

While I don't know much about airfield specifications for accommodating heavy aircraft, Kanson's link explicitly states the C-17 was able to land with an M1 tank within 2800ft (doesn't say anything about the length of the runway). Does that not imply that it can land with an Arjun tank within 3000 ft (though it would take a longer section in high altitude areas)?

OK. I fly a wide body passenger aircraft. I have often landed it in about 3500 feet (light aircraft, strong headwinds, chance perfect landing), although I never slammed on the brakes (I would scare my passengers and cause complaints). My flight manual states that my aircraft can land in 930 meters at maximum landing weight (3050 feet). Does that mean I would ever risk landing it on a 3200 foot runway ? If you lent me your aircraft and paid me to do it, with no consequences for me, yes I would try it. But if I failed, I would say "Sorry, I tried my best. Your airplane is in the ditch at the end of the runway". If I succeeded and you asked me to do it again, I might succeed a couple times but would eventually make the slightest mistake that would lead me into the ditch.

So I am not saying that the C-17s in the story did not land in 2800 feet with a M-1 in the cabin. What I am saying, and I am certain of that, is that the runway he tried it on, was not 3000 or 3500 feet long.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 22 Jun 2010 05:27

Sanku wrote:So any other mythical claims that C 17 can do which others cant? Frankly apart from costing a bomb?

Sigh, Sanku is a living example of 'Opinions being inversely proportional to Knowledge'. The only way he tries to gas his way out of every thing is by calling uncomfortable facts - 'chinese whispers'

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jun 2010 05:32

Gilles wrote:
Viv S wrote:Gilles,

While I don't know much about airfield specifications for accommodating heavy aircraft, Kanson's link explicitly states the C-17 was able to land with an M1 tank within 2800ft (doesn't say anything about the length of the runway). Does that not imply that it can land with an Arjun tank within 3000 ft (though it would take a longer section in high altitude areas)?
OK. I fly a wide body passenger aircraft. I have often landed it in about 3500 feet, although I never slammed on the brakes (I would scare my passengers and cause complaints). My flight manual states that my aircraft can land in 930 meters at maximum landing weight (3050 feet). Does that mean I would ever risk landing it on a 3200 foot runway ? If you lent me your aircraft and paid me to do it, with no consequences for me, yes I would try it. But if I failed, I would say "Sorry, I tried my best. Your airplane is in the ditch at the end of the runway". If I succeeded and you asked me to do it again, I might succeed a couple times but would eventually make the slightest mistake that lead me into the ditch.

So I am no saying that the C-17s in the story did not land in 2800 feet with a M-1 in the cabin. What I am saying, and I am certain of that, is that the runway he tried it on, was not 3000 or 3500 feet long.

Again the idea behind saying that it land on a 3000 ft. runway is to indicate the aircraft's short airfield performance. In real life the engineer detachment will not stop preparing the airfield after 3000 ft unless circumstances demand an urgent landing. Most fighter aircraft can pull 9Gs(some can go up to 11Gs FCS permitting), but that doesn't mean it will actually pull that in regular flight. The point I'm making is that the C-17 can be used to airlift an Arjun/T-90 to an ALG particularly in a higher altitude area while the IL-76 can't.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 22 Jun 2010 05:54

Viv S wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Did I say MoD was arm twisting the IAF to buy it?

I am saying nothing more than the following --

The highly preferred process has been short circuited, especially for a product which was not even talked about more than 2 years back and by all available estimates will cost 5.8 Billion $ for 10 planes.

This is very irregular and can only be explained if there was a directive from the very top for two things (in combination)
1) An interoperability with US forces
2) A very specific goal to IAF from the political bosses, something like (ex) prepare within next few years to be able to operate in Afg with a extended airlift capacity.

Thats it.
On both counts - interoperability & deployment in Afghanistan - the IL-76 would have sufficed. So that isn't something that would prompt the IAF to purchase the C-17 instead. IL-76s operate out of most airbases in Afghanistan routinely while under lease to the ISAF.

And to reiterate what Amit had pointed out earlier - what would the IAF have used when Advani ji was getting ready to deploy Indian troops to Iraq at the request of the US govt in 2003-04?

Yes C-17s can / may be used for force projection beyond India's borders, but this has nothing to do with US asking India to 'project force' in Afghanistan. India wants to keep the Indian ocean and surrounding rim as her own backwater. It will obtain whatever equipment it needs to preserve that. India could not do it in the 1990s due to the economic conditions and political reality - Now it can.

From one of Gilles' links I recall that - the US army showed that it was able to land a brigade level force (including 4 Abrams and 4 Bradley armoured vehicles) in Afghanistan in 20 sorties of C-17. Thats the kind of lift power India needs. Il 76s won't meet such requirements.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 07:12

indranilroy wrote:
Gilles wrote: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).

I am just clearing my doubts. What was changed at Tarin Kowt especially for the C-17? It seems to be a regular gravel runway of 6000ft. I read reports that C-17s were used quite frequently there as it is the only airport for supply lines near Kamp Holland.

Edited later

Thank you very much for that report. It is a good read for everybody who is debating to and fro for the rough landing abilities of the C-17. In the report however, at no times has the author questioned C-17s ability to work from Small Austere Air Fields (SAAF). And I must say he is awfully knowledgeable of what he is writing! Sustained operation of the C-17 form a semi prepared airstrip is what he raised his questions about. Most of the problems he said were because of rutting (compressing of soil underneath the wheel). He also does say that C-17s operated on runways with 18 inch ruts, when technically a airstrip should be taken out at 3.

This brings me to a question. Will this happen with any aircraft of this weight which is tried to stop within 5000-6000 feet?

The only unpaved runway Afghanistan where C-17s land is Kamp Holland, Afghanistan. First a name clarification. FOB Ripley, FOB Davis, Kamp Holland, Tarin Kwot are all different names for the same airport in Afghanistan. The only only unpaved runway where C-17 land operationally in the world.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -mcn01.htm This 2004 article explains how C-130s are hard pressed in the airport and makes no mention of C-17s. C-17s only began to land there later, around 2006 or 2007, after the runway had been upgraded for them. I will try to find the link for that.

Before then there was another airport caled FOS Carlson that was built from scratch by the US Army. But as this US Army engineer explains, it took him 2 week before a C-130 could land

The EMF continued construction, culminating with the assault landing of a C-130 after 2 weeks on the ground.

but 120 days before he could arrive at the standard required for the C-17.

By Day 120, the FOS was built to the master-plan standard, and the 27th Engineer Battalion facilitated the assault landing of a C-17.

This is the runway he is writing about. It has since been closed.

The C-17 can land at any unpaved runway that is long enough. The problem is that the combined effect of its high footprint (does not have enough wheels) and the heavy braking creates huge ruts in the unpaved surface, which soon requires heavy repairs.

You asked if any aircraft does the same thing. The IL-76 which has a maximum landing weight for unpaved runways of 135.5 tonnes spreads that weight over 20 wheels (6,8 tonnes per wheel on average). The C-17 which lands at 202 tonnes on unpaved runways, spreads its weight over 14 wheels (14.4 tonnes per wheel on average, over double the footprint of the Il-76). That is the origin of that problem. Which is why the planned Boeing C-17B was meant to have 4 extra wheels in a center landing gear.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 07:29

Posted in error

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 07:37

Viv S wrote: Again the idea behind saying that it land on a 3000 ft. runway is to indicate the aircraft's short airfield performance. In real life the engineer detachment will not stop preparing the airfield after 3000 ft unless circumstances demand an urgent landing. Most fighter aircraft can pull 9Gs(some can go up to 11Gs FCS permitting), but that doesn't mean it will actually pull that in regular flight. The point I'm making is that the C-17 can be used to airlift an Arjun/T-90 to an ALG particularly in a higher altitude area while the IL-76 can't.

The ALGs I was able to find on GoogleEarth had long runways. Are they long enough? The only tables I found about C-17 landing performance made no mention of distance required above 6 or 7000 feet and the minimum runway was 7000 feet at that altitude I think. What length is required at 10,000 feet. What load can it take ?

Why dont the Il-76s fly to the ALGs? Are they not capable ?

But another factor is can the surface of the ALGs sustain the weight of the C-17? I guess we will know in a few days wont we ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 22 Jun 2010 08:42

Gilles wrote:
Kanson wrote:Gilles,

What is the possible touchdown vairation allowed for the C-17 pilots in contingency/assault landing ?
I am not certain I understand your question.

In the civilian world, this is how runway length is determined:

Extensive tests are done by the manufacturers' test pilots in different conditions and at different weights. Charts and graphs are drawn to arrive at minimum landing distances. These are maximum effort landings, meaning maximum full braking at touchdown, but no use of reverse thrust (for jets).

The landing distance, by the way, is the distance covered by an aircraft from the moment it passes over the runway threshold at a height of 50 feet, to the time it comes to a complete stop.

Once that distance has been determined, it does not mean the aircraft can use runways of that length. A "regulatory margin" is built-in for safety, for the imperfect landing, the imperfect pilot, the imperfect runway, the imperfect brakes and the imperfect tires. The minimum length from the graph or table is multiplied by 1.67 for dry runways, and another 15% is added if the runway is WET (corrected later) (so multiply by 1.92)

For example, the large passenger jet I fly has a computed landing distance of 930 meters (3020 feet) at maximum gross landing weight on a dry runway. We use 1.67 plus 15% (for wet) to come up with 1786 meters (5858 feet) which my boss decided to round up to 6000 feet which is the minimum runway length we fly into. This is for planning purposes.

All of the above concerns airlines (civilians). The military not only have lower regulatory margins, but also use lower wartime numbers and higher peacetime numbers. I do not know what they are. They also probably approach closer to the stall speed (civilian aircraft approach at VRef, which is 1.3 times the stall speed (Vso)). They also consider the use of reverse thrust which civilians do not. I think they also use 35 feet over the threshold instead of 50 feet because they approach at a 4 degree flight path angle while civilians do it at 3 degrees.

That is as much as I can tell you on the subject (if I understood your question). The actual safety buffer used by the military is unknown to me.

Let me explain. As per the FAA, landing distance is defined as the total distance, from the runway threshold, needed for an aircraft to make a full stop during a landing operation. This distance is divided into two components: the touchdown point from runway threshold (resulted from the airborne maneuver) and the stopping distance after touchdown (achieved via ground deceleration). My question is how you compute the touchdown point variation in case of C-17. I'm sure the manufacturer of the jet you are operating might have provided the variation distance or the operator of the jet. Anway, I got the current information for the C-17 as 500 feet. But as my previous understanding it was 150 feet, that i discussed with you earlier. For Civil jets, to my understanding, the variation distance is quite high compated to 500 feet

1.67 of Landing Distance plus 15%, as you mention, are regulatory safety margins. 5 years before there was no 15% requirement and tomorrow it could vary. My direction of question is, if you are operating your own aircraft in the new born free world

without any restrictions and statutory directions, how you arrive at the landing distance, if you know the stopping distance.