C-17s for the IAF?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 22 Jun 2010 08:50

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 (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.

So, your disbelief about the attainable min. runway length is not based on aircraft capabilities but on the pilot abilities ? Is my reading of your statement right ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 08:57

Gilles wrote: about black out landings

You are right about blackouts landings been done before using night vision.

I can not be absolutely sure about the C-17s landing demo. It might have been done it with night vision as well.

But atleast in the C-130J, the IDS is a different system. In the C-130J, it is from Raytheon, namely An/AAQ-26. the package is different from night vision. From Raytheon:

The AAQ-26 features a second-generation focal plane array, electronic image stabilization, local area processing, and an adaptable interface.

It is compatible with both goggles and digital video output! Besides pilots from the IAF have already been chosen to undergo training for para-dropping which might entail terrain hugging flight and black-out landing. I have already posted links for the same.

The AAQ-26 has been deployed on the AC-130 Gunship aircraft replacing AAQ-17.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... design.htm

The AC-130H/U, AAQ-26 Infrared Detection Set (IDS) Upgrade program modifies the optics on the AN/AAQ-17 Infrared Detection Set (IDS) currently installed on 13 AC-130U and 8 AC-130H Gunship aircraft to the AN/AAQ-26 configuration. The AC-130U wiring, Operational Flight Program (OFP), Control Displays Program (CDP), Trackhandle, bus multiplier (BMUX), control panels, and variable slow rate feature will be modified. The AC-130H will also be modified. Support equipment, spares, and tech data for both aircraft will be modified as required to support the AN/AAQ-26 configuration. Mission requirements dictate a significant enhancement in target detection, recognition, and identification ranges to decrease aircraft vulnerability. A sole source fixed price incentive contract was awared to Raytheon for design, modification, and installation; with directed sub to Lockheed Aerospace Systems Ontario (LASO) for integration of the AN/AAQ-26 on the AC-130H and Rockwell for software integration of the AN/AAQ-26 on the AC-130U.

Also here:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ott/natibo/Borde ... llance.pdf

Developed from the SAFIRE/Star SAFIRE™ AN/AAQ-21/22 family, the BRITEStar combines a high-resolution 3-5 μm indium antimonide (InSb) Focal Plane Array (FPA) IR imager, a CCD TV camera and an eye safe laser designator/range finder. It is a cost-effective, military-qualified, multisensor laser designation system that incorporates an advanced third-generation thermal imager, a TV camera, a laser designator and a laser designator/rangefinder. Options include an autotracker, a target accumulator; laser spot tracker, digital video output and night vision goggle compatibility.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 22 Jun 2010 09:35

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote:.......
Frankly looks like a lot of definition and redefinition for god knows what purpose.

Yes, i must have advised/warned what i written is not for everyone. My bad.

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

As you mentioned, 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?

Speaking from my understanding, damages depend on type of operation/mission you like to perform and the type of runway available to operate. As you know, soil nature changes from place to place, so the damages. For ex, let say, US joint command expects 100 passes over the runway as a min requirement before any repair, Aluminium/cement matted semi-prepared/unpaved runway can support 100 passes without any repair but for the compacted soil semi-prepared/unpaved runway, the no. passes before repair could be 40. Requirement for IAF, if it operates C-17, may differ and every mission doesnt require so many passes. So the question boils down to on what type of soil, & with what type of material the runway is semi-prepared and what type of mission it is expected to operate. ETL_97 (the document which i linked), which stipulates the min. length requirement as 3500 feet, calculated the Short take-off landing performance in semi-prepared surface by using only one sixth of the soil sample available world over.

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.

My statement can be understood as, though there is min. runway length mentioned, the aircraft can be operated below that. BTW, the min. length mentioned is 3500 feet.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 09:41

indranilroy wrote:
Gilles wrote: about black out landings
You are right about blackouts landings been done before using night vision.

I can not be absolutely sure about the C-17s landing demo. It might have been done it with night vision as well.

But atleast in the C-130J, the IDS is a different system. In the C-130J, it is from Raytheon, namely An/AAQ-26. the package is different from night vision. From Raytheon:

The AAQ-26 features a second-generation focal plane array, electronic image stabilization, local area processing, and an adaptable interface.
It is compatible with both goggles and digital video output! Besides pilots from the IAF have already been chosen to undergo training for para-dropping which might entail terrain hugging flight and black-out landing. I have already posted links for the same.

The AAQ-26 has been deployed on the AC-130 Gunship aircraft replacing AAQ-17.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... design.htm

The AC-130H/U, AAQ-26 Infrared Detection Set (IDS) Upgrade program modifies the optics on the AN/AAQ-17 Infrared Detection Set (IDS) currently installed on 13 AC-130U and 8 AC-130H Gunship aircraft to the AN/AAQ-26 configuration. The AC-130U wiring, Operational Flight Program (OFP), Control Displays Program (CDP), Trackhandle, bus multiplier (BMUX), control panels, and variable slow rate feature will be modified. The AC-130H will also be modified. Support equipment, spares, and tech data for both aircraft will be modified as required to support the AN/AAQ-26 configuration. Mission requirements dictate a significant enhancement in target detection, recognition, and identification ranges to decrease aircraft vulnerability. A sole source fixed price incentive contract was awared to Raytheon for design, modification, and installation; with directed sub to Lockheed Aerospace Systems Ontario (LASO) for integration of the AN/AAQ-26 on the AC-130H and Rockwell for software integration of the AN/AAQ-26 on the AC-130U.
Also here:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ott/natibo/Borde ... llance.pdf
Developed from the SAFIRE/Star SAFIRE™ AN/AAQ-21/22 family, the BRITEStar combines a high-resolution 3-5 μm indium antimonide (InSb) Focal Plane Array (FPA) IR imager, a CCD TV camera and an eye safe laser designator/range finder. It is a cost-effective, military-qualified, multisensor laser designation system that incorporates an advanced third-generation thermal imager, a TV camera, a laser designator and a laser designator/rangefinder. Options include an autotracker, a target accumulator; laser spot tracker, digital video output and night vision goggle compatibility.

All those are for surveillance and targeting, not landing the plane.

This is what C-17 pilots use.

http://www.nightvision.com/products/mil ... _avs-9.htm

You see, you can walk off the C-17 with it and sit in any other aircraft that has a n NVG compatible flight panel

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Jun 2010 10:12

Sanku wrote:without resorting to Amit/Arnab like behavior

What kind of poster needs to drag in the names of other posters who are not participating in a debate in order to prove some lame point, when, as usual, facts desert him?

Its a pity some old and respect posters don't come to BRF anymore. At this point, good old Rye would have probably said:

Never feed a troll

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Jun 2010 10:22

arnab wrote: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.

Arnab, Viv,

This interoperability thing is bumpkin, it's been discredited at least a dozen times on this thread.

The funny thing is the same folks who claim that even the Nato forces and US allies rely on the Russian planes to transport heavy stuff to Afghanistan, in order to dish the C17 also claim this interoperability nonsense. As if its not an issue for the countries who have boots on the ground in Afghanistan but is a major reason for India spending $$$ to buy the C17.

Another point, which I think everyone who's posting on this thread agrees to, expect the great Sanku ji, is the fact that any heavy transport which the IAF buys and which would be in service for the next 40 years at least needs to be able to carry one of India's two MBTs.

The IL76, or the mythical offshoots of the plane, like IL478, or IL76/8 MKI or whatever, cannot do that and the reasons have been discussed threadbare on this thread.

Of course one can be of that school of thought which thinks MBTs are made of Lego blocks and can be dismantled and packed in a IL76 and quickly reassembled on the frontline with a couple of screwdrivers...

And we hear allegations about Strawmen. Sheeh!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 10:54

Okay so apart from showing a marked ability to not able to understand basic airspace instrumentation and stuff, is there any other hypothetical great advantage of C 17?

And please ALL, if you do not have the capability to understand basic instrumentation details of a aircraft feel free to NOT have a strong opinion. It is okay if you do not know, what is not okay is to not know and yet be confident.

It is also ok to change your mind because you have been later given correct information.

To not change your mind and persist with FALSEHOODs EVEN when corrected shows
1) Lack of honesty and or a agenda
2) A weak mind.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 11:02

Kanson wrote:
Gilles wrote:
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.
So, your disbelief about the attainable min. runway length is not based on aircraft capabilities but on the pilot abilities ? Is my reading of your statement right ?

My reading is that people need to either brush up their English or morals, I am not sure which.

What is BEING CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY SAID is that there are conditions under which a SYSTEM will work well, there are conditions under which a SYSTEM will not work well and if tried will result in a damage in 8/10 cases.

After all let us (for the people who just love the US goodies) consider the statement -- C 17 lands on 1500 feet.

Now what is magical about 1500 feet? Can it not even not LAND on 1400 feet? EVER? What is 1500 feet -- at what sea level? At what load? What run way conditions?

When people try to answer these questions about a aircraft they will realize that C 17 can land at 2500 feet is not one of the 10 Commandments. It is a operating rule.

No laws of physics will be violated if a a/c which lands at 1500 feet also lands at 1400 feet.

Which does not mean that if it lands at 1400 feet once the real length becomes 1400 feet and a statement can be made that a a/c can land at 1400 feet.

Anyway all these figures are test condition figures -- a AF knows of itself in reality what the a/c can actually do.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 22 Jun 2010 11:05

Sanku wrote:Okay so apart from showing a marked ability to not able to understand basic airspace instrumentation and stuff, is there any other hypothetical great advantage of C 17?

You mean the kind of 'basic instrumentation and stuff' knowledge that is unable to distinguish between a 'night landing' and 'black out' landing?

I think now the 'level' of discussion has descended to 'What the C-17 already has , can be retrofitted on to other aircrafts - so there !!' So are we now supposed to be having a discussion on the relative merits of airframes? Apart from the fact that this can be true for almost anything and completely obviates the need for any new acquisition !!

As an aside, way back in 2002 (post Kargil), the IAF was considering retrofitting the IL 76s with western engines to improve operational efficiency. Somebody obviously pointed out the pointlessness of installing new engines on 20 year old air frames.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 11:43

Gilles wrote: All those are for surveillance and targeting, not landing the plane.

This is what C-17 pilots use.

http://www.nightvision.com/products/mil ... _avs-9.htm

You see, you can walk off the C-17 with it and sit in any other aircraft that has a n NVG compatible flight panel

You may be right. I am not too sure about the C-17. Also I know about the surveillance and targeting part (read FLIR).

But LM seems to connect IDS with precision low-level flying, airdrops, and landing in blackout conditions.
From LM: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... index.html

Equipped with an Infrared Detection Set (IDS), the aircraft will be able to perform precision low-level flying, airdrops, and landing in blackout conditions.

We know that the AAQ-26 (IDS on the C-130J) is not night vision. It looks like this
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rt ... aq26_1.jpg

I think it has been coupled as a landing aide during blackouts.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 12:03

Gilles, you were right about the NVG. I found videos of the herc being flown at night with NVG. But there seem to be other aides developed to help the pilot land the plane with only onboard avionics.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categor ... 12734.html

a system is being developed to provide a precision approach capability wholly from on-board avionics. It is said to offer instrument landing system (ILS)-like accuracy. Called IPRA (independent precision radar approach), this capability will allow the C-130J to land in marginal weather conditions at airfields without sophisticated ground landing systems. By providing latitude and longitude of the intended touchdown zone, the mission computer can fly the aircraft down to Category II minimums (100-foot altitude, 1/4-mile visibility) without ground radio equipment.

The C-130J is also night vision goggle (NVG) compatible. And, like the C-17 strategic airlifter, the new Herc has a SKE (station keeping equipment) automated formation positioning system. Using the HUD for guidance and engaging the autothrottles, the system helps to automatically position and maintain the aircraft in formation, eliminating much of the pilot’s workload.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 12:17

Ok Indranil are you now convinced that there is no magic to night landing? Or do you still have issues?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 12:49

Errata: the FLIR on the C-130J for India seems to be the AAQ-22 Star Safire III
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... 130js.html

1. Is FLIR the IDS?
2. If not, what is? NVG? why would LM seek credit for it?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 13:11

Sanku wrote:Ok Indranil are you now convinced that there is no magic to night landing? Or do you still have issues?

You mean landing in blackout conditions a.k.a without any ground aide.

If it comes down to only NVGs, I surely would. If not, I am entitled to my view, right!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 13:44

However all the displays in the cockpit, and for the loadmaster, must be compatible for Night vision.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... index.html

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... index.html

.
I am not sure but are the IL-76/78 instrument panel NVG compatible? The reason I ask is because, I searched a lot but couldnt find that capability anywhere. If it is, then we should be able to land it in complete black-out too!

Just an update: Almost C-17 pilots seem to be getting trained to fly with goggles
http://www.airforcetimes.com/legacy/new ... 983866.php.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 13:54

Sankuji, here is a link, naming a officers and then quoting them, where it is clear that IAF was "impressed" by landing during black-outs. I got confused with the C-130 and the C-17s. But none-the-less, here's proof that it is still not done in India.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _93318041/

Air Force mission commander Lt. Col. Greg Buterbaugh, who also commands the 1st Special Operations Squadron, said, "Their [the Indians'] basic airmanship and checklist discipline impressed me. They opened their cockpits to us and allowed us to fly along. We showed them a few things of interest as well."

Like blacked-out, night-vision landings.

"It was terrifying," said Warrant Officer Op Singh, a flight engineer with India's 4th Wing. "From another plane, I watched the silhouette of the [MC-130H] Talon descend until it fell below the tree line. I was sure it was gone until I saw it emerge into the moonlight on the other side of the runway."

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jun 2010 14:50

Regrettably we seem to have been side tracked over the whole night out thing. Whether Il76/78 can do it or not is irrelevant. The facts are quite simple and they are:

Il76 cannot carry the same load as the C17
IAF wants a load carrying capacity more than the Il76/78 can
Mythical planes like Il476 and An124 100 are not available right now.

The IAF wants a plane that is available *now* . The touted "alternatives" are not available. Ergo, its only the C-17!

Anything else is just fluff.

BTW, how come everyone else but Sanku is expected to provide documents that have been affidavited and signed in their support, but Sankuji can put out statements that "C-17 is being bought to provide interoperability with NATO" without a shred of evidence in support?

The funny thing is the same folks who claim that even the Nato forces and US allies rely on the Russian planes to transport heavy stuff to Afghanistan, in order to dish the C17 also claim this interoperability nonsense. As if its not an issue for the countries who have boots on the ground in Afghanistan but is a major reason for India spending $$$ to buy the C17.

Good catch.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 14:54

Indranil, Boeing and in general American products use fancy words to define basic operations, this means nothing more than "can you read the instruments with goggles on?" This basically has to just fix the lighting in the cockpit.

The other stuff, FLIR etc is not needed for landing, but for offensive operations. You can read it here
http://mod.nic.in/reports/report01/cap5.pdf
Section 5.15 on Mi 35 operations on page 40
Section 5.24 Cheetah and NVG operations

http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html

For NVG use the helicopter’s external and
internal lighting is adapted by means of special
optical filters suppressing illumination in the
goggles’ operational waveband.

The above combined with the fact that NVG assisted operations have existed since 1990s. I do not see "compatibility" issues in any Il 76/78 per se. Just a matter of having it on board.

As Gilles said, yes Il 76 can land with NVGs etc.

Heck its making its way into An 32 upgrade too for gods sake.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28375583/Comm ... s-Feb-2010

The avionics of the An-32 will also be replaced. According to sources, the IAI-ELTA developed package, including a full glass cockpit with standard MFD’s and a control unit is the front- runner. This avionics package also includes a digital moving map, full NVG capability, in flight mission rehearsal options, HUD for both pilots. The significantly new advanced EWS in the package will feature a radar warning receiver, the fourth generation EL/M-2160 missile approach warning system, laser warning receiver and conventional countermeasures. Flight safety features being incorporated into the upgrade will include an advanced terrain avoidance warning system (TAWS) and an enhanced traffic collision avoidance system. (ETCAS)

So yes the 25 year old Ils wont be NVG compatible, but the new ones will be.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 15:00

Tanaji wrote:
The IAF wants a plane that is available *now* . The touted "alternatives" are not available. Ergo, its only the C-17!

Simply untrue, repeating it a 1000 times is not going to cut it.

And IAF wants to carry more than Il 76 is passe.. how much more 10 grams? 100 grams? Forget Il 476, NEW Il 76 MF/MD can carry up to 60 tonnes.

So then you will say no IAF wants a cargo hold this big, but not not An 124 because its too big.

But no that wont do because it HAS to carry 77 tonnes. Unless you define your project to be exactly lik C 17 how can you buy it.

The question is why does IAF ONLY want a 77 tonne carrier (not a gram more or less) but that we can not ask because IAF wants it.

If people think that interoperability means, being able to land at the same airstrip, I wont even waste my time with them. Its like talking to 2nd grader about calculus.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 15:04

The side tracking is deliberate because there are simple questions

Does C 17 have a capability which is not present in ANY of the modern air lifters -- NO.

Does C 17 production line which is about to be closed (If no IAF order) any different from other production lines -- NO

Can any one come with a magical requirement which will be met only at 77 tonnes but not more or less? -- No

Is there a tearing hurry to get C 17s failing which IAF is doomed and cant take out 6 months for a RFI? -- NO

Sorry boys -- you want India to pay through its nose for gold plated stuff which can be done in much better ways. Good for you, dont expect any one else to believe that though.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jun 2010 15:07

Simply untrue, repeating it a 1000 times is not going to cut it.

Its being repeated because you don't seem to get it.

So then you will say no IAF wants a cargo hold this big, but not not An 124 because its too big.

But no that wont do because it HAS to carry 77 tonnes. Unless you define your project to be exactly lik C 17 how can you buy it.

The question is why does IAF ONLY want a 77 tonne carrier (not a gram more or less) but that we can not ask because IAF wants it.

Again , a canard that you are cleverly spreading. An124 is not in contention because it is not available right *now*. An 124 100 is the plane that is a remote contender (unless of course you want old avionics), and there is no known date when the production line will start up.

So thats another point that has been proved wrong.

If people think that interoperability means, being able to land at the same airstrip, I wont even waste my time with them. Its like talking to 2nd grader about calculus.

Instead of insults, why not follow your own lofty standards and provide an article or link from the IAF or the MoD that explicitly states that the C-17 is being bought for "inter operability". You ask others for signed and dated articles, why not follow your own ideals for a change?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 15:10

What you guys dont realize is that if you define requirement as

77 tonne, 5400 km in shortest possible time.

Answer will be C 17.

So you guys have taken a C 17 and are curve fitting requirements to it.

The problem is that approach means that C 17 is chosen and requirements invented.

Which is exactly the case.

--------

If some one started with generic requirements (a general heavy lifter, in a certain class, with certain features, planned and discussed with multiple vendors in advance) the options are many. Any could be chosen.

Barring two (taken together)
1) Interoperability
2) Immediate jump in capability

But that risk clearly could not be taken by GoI.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jun 2010 15:11

Sanku wrote:The side tracking is deliberate because there are simple questions

Does C 17 have a capability which is not present in ANY of the modern air lifters -- NO.

Does C 17 production line which is about to be closed (If no IAF order) any different from other production lines -- NO

Can any one come with a magical requirement which will be met only at 77 tonnes but not more or less? -- No

Is there a tearing hurry to get C 17s failing which IAF is doomed and cant take out 6 months for a RFI? -- NO

.

The first part of your post has been replied to umpteen times. You simply refuse to accept it even when proved wrong.

Sorry boys -- you want India to pay through its nose for gold plated stuff which can be done in much better ways. Good for you, dont expect any one else to believe that though

Hmm, you didnt have a problem when you paid through the nose for the T90... I suppose when the Russians benefit for the largesse its okay, when the Americans do its not.

I have been saying from day 1: both deals are a fraud on the exchequer and are payoffs for something or the other. The AMericans realized there is money to be made, and more importantly , expect a payoff for the nuclear deal support. They have just cut out the Russians completely (no thanks to their own behaviour) and their supporters are going

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 15:36

Tanaji wrote:
Simply untrue, repeating it a 1000 times is not going to cut it.
Its being repeated because you don't seem to get it.

No because every time I bring up the facts and all you guys start smarting.

Again , a canard that you are cleverly spreading. An124 is not in contention because it is not available right *now*.

Says who? Did you send a RFI? Did IAF? How do they know its not available without sending a RFI?

Did the Boeing CEO come in someones sleep and inform him of that?

In a month if Boeing did not get the money from India it would have been exact same state.

So thats another point that has been proved wrong.

Proven.

Your say so is proof.

Instead of insults, why not follow your own lofty standards and provide an article or link from the IAF or the MoD that explicitly states that the C-17 is being bought for "inter operability".

Of course since I am the ONLY one living up to the standards, btw this has been discussed many times before.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009 ... uture.html

Given its emerging regional power status and the newly forged strategic partnership with the US if not abrogated by the incoming administration, India may be called upon to project power in the region which may involve airlift of large military forces to areas of interest of either of the partners in the region outside our borders and to provide sustained logistic support.

You can not partner on a sustained basis unless you are interoperable. Your logistic chains overlap, your a/c can be mended at their bases, you can mend their a/c etc etc....

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 15:39

Tanaji wrote: I have been saying from day 1: both deals are a fraud on the exchequer and are payoffs for something or the other.

I am glad that you agree that C 17 purchase is a fraud. For me that is good enough.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jun 2010 16:22

Says who? Did you send a RFI? Did IAF? How do they know its not available without sending a RFI?

Did the Boeing CEO come in someones sleep and inform him of that?

In a month if Boeing did not get the money from India it would have been exact same state.

Er most of us are clever enough to know when a particular aircraft is currently in production or not. Please credit IAF and MoD with some sense. An124 100 is planned with no dates on availability. But you already know this, and are simply sticking your fingers into your ears and refusing to hear facts because they dont agree with your cause.

As Shiv would say, cognitive dissonance.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009 ... uture.html

Ah, another link that never proves anything, par for the course. As per your own claims, the IAF and MoD do not lay down policy, it is the government. So can we please have a link that explicitly states "C17 are being bought for interoperability with NATO", sourced to either the Raksha Mantri or the PM. All we ask is that you follow the same standards that you ask of others.

How many times on thread have we asked you to prove something using the same standards that you yourself has posted? End result is always unrelated fluff.

I am glad that you agree that C 17 purchase is a fraud. For me that is good enough.

At least I am logically consistent, unlike someone who is willing to accept fraud from the Russians but not from the Americans. Your act of "scandalized outrage" would be more believable if it was uniformly applied and not selective.

Bah, I think this thread is not going anywhere...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 17:04

Yes as I said you and I already agree on most items, so its all right, no need to bash the semantics of "availability".

Meanwhile not to debate, but the first reports on a strategic airlift purchase mentioned that IAF would send RFI to multiple vendors including C 17. It was direct statement from IAF IIRC. However later the multiple part disappeared from scene, wonder why?

Was the RFI ever sent to all why/why not?

At least I am logically consistent, unlike someone who is willing to accept fraud from the Russians but not from the Americans. Your act of "scandalized outrage" would be more believable if it was uniformly applied and not selective.

Actually that "open shirt torn fly"

Each item has to be discussed on its individual merits, including these two, they also have to be discussed in terms of the context of their times.

2010 is not 2000 ten years has been a long time, the world has changed.

I see no reason to even attempt a comparison.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 18:01

indranilroy wrote:However all the displays in the cockpit, and for the loadmaster, must be compatible for Night vision.

I did say so a couple posts ago.

Here is a reference document. This particular one Canadian Transport Canada Document on how to get a helicopter NVG approved. It explains how to make the flight panel NVG compatible. Its something that can be done on just about any aircraft.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/c ... 11-943.htm

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 18:17

indranilroy wrote: Just an update: Almost C-17 pilots seem to be getting trained to fly with goggles
http://www.airforcetimes.com/legacy/new ... 983866.php.

Correction: All C-17 pilots receive NVG training. Very few become NVG qualified for blacked out landings. There is a world of difference between landing a C-17 at night in a fully equipped airport such as Kandahar and landing same in a Blacked-out dirt field in the desert with no facilities such as they did at Camp Rhino.

Kandahar has ILS, TACAN, VOR/DME and Precision Approach Radar (PAR) in addition to landing lights, approach lights and VASIS. This is where the run of the mill NVG-trained C-17 pilot can land.

Camp Rhino on the other hand had .....nothing. It was a gravel runway with no lights, no approach aids, no RADAR. To land there at night, you have to be the cream of the crop. IN the case of the US Air Force, they are called the SOLL II pilots (Special Ops Low Level NVG Qualified)

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 19:32

US cautions Pakistan over gas deal with Iran

US special envoy Richard Holbrooke has warned Pakistan against committing itself to a gas pipeline project with Iran because of anticipated American sanctions against Tehran.

The original plan was to carry gas from Iran to Pakistan and then to India, but Delhi withdrew from the project due to differences over prices and transit fees, and also apparently due to pressure from the US.

Pakistan FM vows to implement Iran gas pipeline project despite U.S. warning

The pipeline was initially mooted to carry gas from Iran to Pakistan and on to India. India withdrew from negotiations last year after signing a nuclear deal with the United States, but has kept open the option of rejoining the project at a later stage.

Imagine for example if India was warning the US not to import gas from Mexico because India was planning sanctions legislation against Mexico.

How about if the US warned the European Union to stop buying gas from Russia?

This seems off subject at first glance, but is it ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 20:27

Gilles wrote:
indranilroy wrote: Just an update: Almost C-17 pilots seem to be getting trained to fly with goggles
http://www.airforcetimes.com/legacy/new ... 983866.php.
Correction: All C-17 pilots receive NVG training. Very few become NVG qualified for blacked out landings. There is a world of difference between landing a C-17 at night in a fully equipped airport such as Kandahar and landing same in a Blacked-out dirt field in the desert with no facilities such as they did at Camp Rhino.

Thank you the picture is clearer in my mind

.

Gilles wrote: It was a gravel runway with no lights, no approach aids, no RADAR. To land there at night, you have to be the cream of the crop. IN the case of the US Air Force, they are called the SOLL II pilots (Special Ops Low Level NVG Qualified)

Yes I was reading an article by a SOLL instructor. It seems to be like threading a needle. Exact, speed, exact glide path, exact amount of flaps, exact touchdown point. It is obviously plane specific. I am actually surprised that there is no aide till now to help the pilots, especially given the fact that the GPS coordinates of the ends of the runway should be available.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 20:33

Gilles wrote:US cautions Pakistan over gas deal with Iran

US special envoy Richard Holbrooke has warned Pakistan against committing itself to a gas pipeline project with Iran because of anticipated American sanctions against Tehran.

The original plan was to carry gas from Iran to Pakistan and then to India, but Delhi withdrew from the project due to differences over prices and transit fees, and also apparently due to pressure from the US.
Pakistan FM vows to implement Iran gas pipeline project despite U.S. warning

The pipeline was initially mooted to carry gas from Iran to Pakistan and on to India. India withdrew from negotiations last year after signing a nuclear deal with the United States, but has kept open the option of rejoining the project at a later stage.
Imagine for example if India was warning the US not to import gas from Mexico because India was planning sanctions legislation against Mexico.

How about if the US warned the European Union to stop buying gas from Russia?

This seems off subject at first glance, but is it ?

Seriously OT
If you are speaking of US playing Big Daddy, there is nothing new.

But if you are speaking of a conspiracy theory of why India pulled out of the pipeline. India had very legitimate concerns of pipeline coming through Pakistan. Also there were financial aspects about the charges. We are still in talks with Iran of alternative paths, including one underneath the sea, which was considered prohibitively expensive till now.

Don't just go by one report. There are many more.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20100525/159145917.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 021888.cms
http://dailymailnews.com/0510/27/FrontP ... tPage2.php

And India is not a poodle country, it has been sufficiently vocal about Iran.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 955410.cms

Lets get back to the C-17!

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jun 2010 22:11

indranilroy wrote: Yes I was reading an article by a SOLL instructor. It seems to be like threading a needle. Exact, speed, exact glide path, exact amount of flaps, exact touchdown point. It is obviously plane specific. I am actually surprised that there is no aide till now to help the pilots, especially given the fact that the GPS coordinates of the ends of the runway should be available.

There are some things on the aircraft. The instruments, can compute a virtual touchdown point, based on GPS and IRS, can compute a final approach path to that point and also a virtual glide path that can be either displayed on the instrument panel or on the Heads Up Display when one is available such as in the C-17.

Even the IL-76's navigator station has a device that creates waypoints and final approach courses for the pilots such as a desired touchdown point. I think it is That keyboard-looking device with the blue keys in this picture. I do not know if the IL-76 has the virtual glide path capability.

What all these on board instruments do is bring the aircraft to a point where it is lined up to the runway at low altitude. From that point, the pilot has to use his NVGs to land.

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

Gilles wrote:
indranilroy wrote: Yes I was reading an article by a SOLL instructor. It seems to be like threading a needle. Exact, speed, exact glide path, exact amount of flaps, exact touchdown point. It is obviously plane specific. I am actually surprised that there is no aide till now to help the pilots, especially given the fact that the GPS coordinates of the ends of the runway should be available.

There are some things on the aircraft. The instruments, can compute a virtual touchdown point, based on GPS and IRS, can compute a final approach path to that point and also a virtual glide path that can be either displayed on the instrument panel or on the Heads Up Display when one is available such as in the C-17.

Even the IL-76's navigator station has a device that creates waypoints and final approach courses for the pilots such as a desired touchdown point. I think it is hat keybaord looking device with the blue keys in this picture. I do not know if the IL-76 has the virtual glide path capability.

What all these on board instruments do is bring the aircraft to a point where it is lined up to the runway at low altitude. From that point, the pilot has to use his NVGs to land.

Thanks Gilles. I did read about the waypoints somewhere else too.

Sankuji, when you say latest IL-76 in the IAF are NVG-compatible, do you know it for sure. If yes, please point me to whatever you know. I tried to find out, but couldn't find anything. Thanks in advance!

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 22 Jun 2010 22:34

KC-130J would be a FLYING SWISS ARMY Knife

The U.S. Marines know as well as anyone that there is never enough airborne video in Afghanistan to watch over forward bases, convoys and patrols. Listening to the feedback from the field, Marine planners in 2008 realized that their KC-130J aerial refueling planes might be able to double as ISR and strike planes. Last year, the service reprogrammed millions of dollars from an avionics initiative to assemble ISR and weapons kits for its refuelers, and within weeks the Marines hope to start flying the first KC-130J equipped with the cameras, computers and missiles.
A big challenge for engineers has been to prove that installation of the equipment will not detract from the KC-130J’s primary refueling mission.
The Lockheed Martin-designed kits, called Harvest Hawks for High Altitude Weapons Kit, are the latest example of the U.S. effort to put all eyes on the battlefield in the counterinsurgency war against the Taliban. Ground crews would be able to install or remove combinations of the weapons and ISR equipment in the field in no more than eight hours. The Marines could beam video to the ground while a KC-130J transferred fuel to an MV-22 tiltrotor, helicopter or fighter; in between refuelings, they could launch small missiles armed with just a few pounds of explosives, the kinds of weapons that can minimize civilian casualties in a counterinsurgency.If the kits pass their field tests and reach Afghanistan as planned, they will answer “an urgent universal needs statement from deployed Marines” for more persistent surveillance and close-air support, said Marine Corps Maj. J.P. Pellegrino, the KC-130 requirements officer.
Each KC-130J would become “a flying Swiss Army knife,” with the Marine task force commander deciding on the mix of weapons and ISR equipment that the planes should carry on specific sorties, Pellegrino said by e-mail.
The plane’s right wing would be unchanged, but the left wing could be converted to a platform for an ISR camera and weapons. The aerial refueling pod would be removed in the field to accommodate Hellfire missiles. Field crews also would be able to remove the plane’s fuel tank on that side and attach a dry fuel tank modified to carry a camera pod. Commanders could choose to load pallets of small Viper Strike bombs and Griffin missiles by rolling them up the planes’ cargo ramps before takeoff. The ground crew would lash down the pallets and the air crew would open the aft cargo doors to fire the weapons. The work stations to operate the video and control the weapons would be rolled up the same way as the pallet-mounted munitions.
...............................

In what might be the boldest decision, developmental flight tests are being conducted concurrently with operational tests.

..................................
The Harvest Hawk-equipped KC-130Js would be flown at the same altitudes where the planes perform their aerial refueling missions. “For instance, an aircraft could take off from an airfield with a sensor and Hellfire missiles, and set up its refueling track directly over a forward operating base,” Pellegrino said.
Because the system is modular, the equipment could be mixed and matched. “If desired, only the targeting ISR sensor could be loaded for an ISR-only mission. The targeting ISR sensor plus Hellfire could be loaded if the ramp is required for another mission. The sensor and ramp launcher could be loaded if both aerial refueling pods are required. Or, the sensor with the full complement of munitions and the cannon if a more traditional gunship role is desired,” Pellegrino said.
Firing weapons would not be easy, however. “When ready for launch, the aircrew will depressurize the aircraft, lower the ramp, launch the munitions, close the ramp, and then repressurize the aircraft,” Pellegrino said. Future modifications would enable the aircraft to fire weapons without depressurizing the ramp area. Once the first three kits are delivered, later versions would have a 30mm camera that would be fired from the left side door, Pellegrino said.
.....................

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 22:54

Indranilroy, my answer would be nuanced, NVG compatibility is a kit which can be added on to any a/c, its for the user to want it.

It is available for An 32 upgrade. It will be on those Il 76s for which the customer would want it, the commercial users may not want it.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 22:58

Craig Alpert wrote:KC-130J would be a FLYING SWISS ARMY Knife

Sorry Craig to have drawn you all to a discussion on C-130J on this thread. I think the right thread for your post would have been the "Indian Military Aviation" thread or the "International Military Discussion" or the "International Aerospace Discussion".

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2010 23:07

Sanku wrote:Indranilroy, my answer would be nuanced, NVG compatibility is a kit which can be added on to any a/c, its for the user to want it.

It is available for An 32 upgrade. It will be on those Il 76s for which the customer would want it, the commercial users may not want it.

It's not kit. It is whether you can read your displays with the NVG on. Please read Gilles's link on the certification process.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/c ... 11-943.htm

Modifications to the aircraft, or to on-board equipment, to achieve NVG compatibility with a particular aircraft is considered a major modification

NVG are extremely sensitive to the light emitters and reflectors installed in and on the aircraft. The details of the cockpit configuration, cabin configuration, and external lighting and configuration are critical to the NVG compatibility of each individual aircraft. Since aircraft internal and external configurations differ between individual aircraft, the certification of an aircraft for NVIS is for an individual aircraft, or a group of aircraft with identical internal lighting, avionics display and configuration, and external lighting and configuration.

So either the present IL-76 cockpit is NV compatible or it is not. It will not become compatible by adding a kit. If the IL-76 cockpit is not NV compatible, then it might need modifications of displays. Also please read about landing in a blackout. There is no way a pilot can do that without accurately reading his instrument panel with the NVG on.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jun 2010 23:32

By "kit" I mean a series of steps which can be carried out on any aircraft. AFAIK that the new Il 76 for military specifications do have NVG capability, but yes I will have to get you a link.

Meanwhile we can all agree that An 32 are NVG capable given that I have already provided a link, right?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jun 2010 23:55

Sanku wrote:
Meanwhile we can all agree that An 32 are NVG capable given that I have already provided a link, right?

Er, as per your link, they are NVG capable only after a complete overhaul of displays and the instrument cluster, not otherwise. Which is basically what indranilroy is saying : you require a major modification.

The current Il76 are NOT , unless one does an overhaul. If one wanted that capability on new builds, one would have to work with the manufacturer to get it installed and certified. Which is more cost and delay.

Again irrelevant because the Il76 does not carry as much as the C17 which is what the IAF wants.