C-17s for the IAF?

[alexis]

After so many pages, the discussion has not reached anywhere!

There are valid arguements from both sides but none has been able to convince the other side the merit of their arguements. It is better to stop now rather than deteriorating to personal attacks.

[GeorgeWelch]

3) For heavy lift, despite the presence of many options including a 60 tonne Il 76 with new engines (not even Il 476) IAF finds itself unable to send a RFI and is willing to hand over 5.8 billion $ to the Americans.

Even if it lifted 100 tons, there are still many army vehicles it cannot carry simply because they do not fit through the door.

And with the growth trend in modern military vehicles, the future does not look promising for Il-76 sized aircraft.

[negi]

I wonder if IAF has even mentioned anywhere that they have a requirement for a heavy lift transporter in class of C-17 or even IL-76 to land within 3000 feet on an unpaved runway with full service load.

The point to note is C-17 deal is yet another single vendor deal i.e. there was no RFI/RFP floated to multiple parties (at least DDM did not report any) , it clearly indicates that this is yet another Trenton and C-130J like acquisition.Most of the acquisitions from US based suppliers are being taken up via FMS channel and they are being expedited at a lightening speed as far as Gobermund standards are concerned.

[Tanaji]

It would be instructive to follow the money as they say or who benefits? In case of a typical contract (overwhelming of which are with the Russians), there are a plethora of middlemen who provide ancillary "services" both during and post sales phases. It is rumored that post sales, the role of such middle men is even more prevalent and lucrative... The expense of funding such "middle men" is never reflected in the original cost price, but needs to be for fairness case. It is inconceivable that this cost is negligible considering the wealth of the likes of Nandas etc...

So, in a FMS route, are such middle men done away with? And with the C17 case, with a massive support contract, such middle men may be cut out completely, leaving them with no avenue to skim off the tax payer.... And if yes, is that the reason why there is so much on this sale?

[Tanaji]

I wonder if IAF has even mentioned anywhere that they have a requirement for a heavy lift transporter in class of C-17 or even IL-76 to land within 3000 feet on an unpaved runway with full service load.

Negi, from the earlier page of this thread: (it does not mention the 3000 feet number, but does mention the *requirement* for a very heavy lift transporter.

And due to popular demand... A direct quote from ACM Naik. In an interview with NDTV. Note the question

http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/india_up ... o_ndtv.php

NDTV: Air Force has expeditionary capabilities. How are you looking at that? You might have an out of area contingency requirement in coming years as we grow, how are you equipping yourself with that kind of capabilities?

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik: Our PM said some years ago that India's interest has grown from Hormuz to Malacca. I would not like to call it expeditionary capabilities but strategic reach to meet the country's aspiration. I would definitely want that for which we need long range aircraft, we need air-to-air refullers, we need to ensure that we can reach there. The UN missions are probably going to increase so we need to take our people there, bring them back, which we do by chartering aircraft at the present moment. If Air Force had that capability, we could do that too. So projection of power over large distances in keeping with the country's aspirations is something we are definitely looking at. We need very heavy transport aircraft, the v hi-tech variety of the C-17 class.

So according to ACM, he needs very high tech aircrafts like C-17s for India's strategic reach and aspirations.

Now hopefully we can end this silly debate about whether C-17s are needed or whether they are hi technology aircrafts.

Feel free to dismiss this as "trolling" or irrelevant.

[negi]

Tanaji I am aware of those that is why I included IL-76 too in my statement when it comes to 3000 feet mark as it is not capable of landing within that distance.

My question was how relevant is 3000 feet part unless we know that IAF has such a requirement in first place ? Because as far as specs go no one would deny that C-17 has an advantage over IL-76 when it comes to STOL capability.

Btw have you even followed my posts on this thread ? I have never opposed C-17 acquisition .

Here my initial posts on the topic. I have been a patient listener as far as this thread is concerned.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=120

As far as trolling is concerned I have never been in favour of 'labeling' anyone as troll nor do I believe in those stupid grease monkey scripts those all are crutches for those who do not have what it takes to argue their case.

[negi]

Btw the FMS part was a data point not an opinion; the reason to highlight this was UPA gobmint has on more than one occasion developed cold feet over Arty acquisition because the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) forbids single vendor situations in the name of preventing foul play or irregularities and all this when Bofors emerged as a clear winner in IA's field trials and this was a multi vendor competition.

But for some reason Trenton, C-130js, P-3c , C-17s have been exempted from such scrutiny.

[Tanaji]

Negiji, apologies if I have offended, this thread is quite "hot" at the moment.

I dont disagree with any of your points. I think GoI is happy going FMS route with Americans but not with other vendors, no idea why.

My main beef is when people run down the C17 and claim alternatives are available *right now* that meet IAF requirements (very high load capacity) when there arent any.

[negi]

None taken boss, developed a thick skin after all the flogging over all these years or mellowed down due to age catching up.

[Gilles]

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

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

I wrote this a few days ago, but I might have been wrong. Boeing is now considering manufacturing a slimmed downed version of the C-17 to bid for the JFTL, the aircraft that is supposed to fill the gap between the strategic C-17 and the Tactical C-130.

Well how about a 150 to 200 tonne C-17 with an IL-76 sized fuselage (and probably more wheels)


http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/mil-log/ ... eeds/6602/

I find it ironic that poster on this Forum were talking of making a wide body IL-76 to match the C-17 and its the opposite that may occur: Boeing is going to make a narrow body C-17

[ravar]

IAF test lands C-17 Globemaster

A pic is also given on top of the page

[Sanku]

My main beef is when people run down the C17 and claim alternatives are available *right now* that meet IAF requirements (very high load capacity) when there arent any.

Tanaji, you do not have a right to have a beef, there are options, no one can claim otherwise unless a RFI was sent to main manufacturers.

Common sense and Google reports and sources report is NOT the way systematic procedural transparent systems work.

There is only one way for IAF or any of us to know if there were alternatives or not; and that would be to send RFIs.

This would at most take 6 months (RFI) -- IAF could have had answers in the same time frame Boeing responded to the RFI it was sent.

Sorry, the lack of RFI is unforgivable, under any circumstances.

[shukla]

^^^^ Quote from above link..

If the deal materialises, it would be worth about Rs $2.5 billion, the sources stated.

Thats sounds more reasonable than $5.8 billion..only if its reliable (but still no 'concrete' news on what inclusions IAF is interested in apart from sporadic news reports)..

[amit]

^^^^ Quote from above link..

If the deal materialises, it would be worth about Rs $2.5 billion, the sources stated.

Thats sounds more reasonable than $5.8 billion..only if its reliable (but still no 'concrete' news on what inclusions IAF is interested in apart from sporadic news reports)..

Shukla,

The $2.5 billion is probably not the correct figure, it's likely to be higher. From available reports, just the plane costs $220 million a pop, that is $2.2 billion for 10. The extra money is for the life time services contract. The $2.5 billion would seem to indicate that India would buy just the planes without the contract. Is that what the IAF going to do? I doubt it.

But one thing is sure the deal will not cost $5.8 billion - that's the outer limit, that is if India buys into the full service contract with all goodies included.

JMT

[amit]

IAF test lands C-17 Globemaster

A pic is also given on top of the page

A quote from the report:

The Gaggal domestic airport strip is just 4,500-ft-long and is fit for landing 50- seater aircraft.

Another confirmation of the length of the strip

Gaggal Airport, located in (or close to) Dharamsala has 1 runway, which is 4620 feet (1408 metres) long. The geographic coordinates of this airport are 32 degrees, 9 minutes, 54 seconds north (32.165118) and 76 degrees, 15 minutes, 48 seconds east (76.263417). Gaggal Airport is 2525 feet (770 m) above sea level.

[shukla]

The $2.5 billion is probably not the correct figure, it's likely to be higher. From available reports, just the plane costs $220 million a pop, that is $2.2 billion for 10. The extra money is for the life time services contract. The $2.5 billion would seem to indicate that India would buy just the planes without the contract. Is that what the IAF going to do? I doubt it.

JMT

Thanks Amit! So the cost is going to end up falling betwee $2.2 - $5.8 billion depending upon what 'add-on's' IAF chooses to have on board.. So all that talk about it being too expensive is speculative, as there is no 'clear' indication of the choice and extent of add-on's by to be included by IAF..

[amit]

Thanks Amit! So the cost is going to end up falling betwee $2.2 - $5.8 billion depending upon what 'add-on's' IAF chooses to have on board.. So all that talk about it being too expensive is speculative, as there is no 'clear' indication of the choice and extent of add-on's by to be included by IAF..

Precisely boss. If the $5.8 billion price was etched in stone, why would there be a price negotiation? All reports say that after the tests in Indian conditions the two sides will enter price negotiations.

One needs to note that it will still be a very expensive plane. However, if IAF thinks it fulfils its strategic objectives then I for one find nothing wrong with its acquisition. As has been proven over these pages, the plane is a high tech and very capable piece of equipment.

[shukla]

Precisely boss. If the $5.8 billion price was etched in stone, why would there be a price negotiation? All reports say that after the tests in Indian conditions the two sides will enter price negotiations.

Gotcha.. makes sense. hope our babus are able to get us a good deal...

[amit]

Gotcha.. makes sense. hope our babus are able to get us a good deal...

Yes I hope so too.

But the point is, it depends on what is the definition of a good deal.

If, hypothetically, $580 million per aircraft, not only gets us the plane but the service assurance of 80 per cent (this figure has been mentioned on these threads) availability over 20 or 30 years, then the bean counters may figure that a higher upfront payment may be cheaper in the long run.

Again, they may think that it's better to get the plane and just a bare services contract.

We can only speculate what would be the priorities, IMO.

[amit]

The Gaggal airport landing by the C17 is an important piece of news IMO. That would seem to indicate that the C17 would probably be able to land on any airstrip where the An32 can land.

That could possibly include the Nyoma ALG near the Chinese border where an AN32 landed last year. Link

IMHO, if this is true, then it opens up huge strategic possibilities in case of conflict/tension with China.

Disclaimer: I'm speculating on the basis of press reports.

[Anabhaya]

Sorry, the lack of RFI is unforgivable, under any circumstances.

The RFI was sent in 2008!

And I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread earlier. But do carry on, Sankuji.

[Sanku]

Sorry, the lack of RFI is unforgivable, under any circumstances.

The RFI was sent in 2008!

And I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread earlier. But do carry on, Sankuji.

Obviously the issue is lack of RFI to multiple vendors because I clearly said so many times including in the post that you picked up ONE random statement from --

Tanaji, you do not have a right to have a beef, there are options, no one can claim otherwise unless a RFI was sent to main manufacturers.

Common sense and Google reports and sources report is NOT the way systematic procedural transparent systems work.

There is only one way for IAF or any of us to know if there were alternatives or not; and that would be to send RFIs.

This would at most take 6 months (RFI) -- IAF could have had answers in the same time frame Boeing responded to the RFI it was sent.

Comprehension issues or intellectual dishonesty on your part?

You decide.

Yes carry on, after all this is the only way C 17 nonsense can be defended.

[Sanku]

Gotcha.. makes sense. hope our babus are able to get us a good deal...

Sirjee A K Antony is on record beseeching everyone (MoD/Forces) to do multi-vendor because it is the ONLY WAY TO GET A GOOD DEAL.

His words.

Of course we may hope that if the procedure designed to get a good deal is overridden we will still get a good deal.

No harm in hoping, because frankly in this case thats about the best thats going to happen. "hoping for a good deal"

[Surya]

you silly fanboys

was the C 17 carrying an Arjun??

No then fail

Did the runway have marks??

Yes then fail

You see IL 476 can do all this:)

[amit]

you silly fanboys

was the C 17 carrying an Arjun??

No then fail

Did the runway have marks??

Yes then fail

You see IL 476 can do all this:)

Nice one boss!

[Sanku]

I just want IAF to send RFIs to multiple folks?

Too much to ask for?

(after all T 90 and Arjun comparisons were a good thing right and we all agree)

[pankaj]

The Gaggal airport landing by the C17 is an important piece of news IMO. That would seem to indicate that the C17 would probably be able to land on any airstrip where the An32 can land.

That could possibly include the Nyoma ALG near the Chinese border where an AN32 landed last year. Link

IMHO, if this is true, then it opens up huge strategic possibilities in case of conflict/tension with China.

Does landing a C-17 on a Airport located at altitude of 2525 ft qualifies it to land at altitude of 13300ft ( Nyoma ALG) !

[amit]

Folks to whom RFIs should have gone to:

Antonov, Ilyushin and Tupolev Fading Away

The disintegration of the Soviet Union not only destroyed centuries of Russian empire building, but tore apart the Russian civil aviation industry. After 1991, the Soviet Union was replaced by a much reduced Russia, and 14 new nations that had been part of the old empire. The dissolution deal had whatever Soviet assets were in the new nation, belonging to it.

Most of the civil aircraft manufacturing facilities were outside of Russia (in Ukraine and Uzbekistan). Of the three major aircraft manufacturing firms, Antonov was headquartered in Ukraine, Ilyushin in Uzbekistan and only Tupolev in Russia. Russia has managed to persuade (via cash and help with sales) Ilyushin to move a lot of manufacturing back to Russia. Tupolev is being merged with several military aircraft manufacturers, as part of the United Aircraft Corporation. Antonov may be forced to reconnect with Mother Russia as well, given their inability to design and manufacture aircraft that can compete with AirBus and Boeing (not to mention many smaller Western firms).

It's not that the former Soviet aviation firms have not tried. Two years ago, after two years of stalling, Russia agreed to put up the needed $300 million to revive the An-70 transport aircraft development program. Venezuela also tried to help Antonov with this four years ago, by offering to buy a dozen of their new An-70 transports. But Russia, which was having political problems with Ukraine at the time, refused to go along.

Oh why can't India replace Venezuela?

Meanwhile, Russia is moving Il-76 production from Uzbekistan to Russia. This process got rolling four years ago, when China placed a $1.5 billion order for 38 Il-76 transport planes and Il-78s (tanker versions of the Il-76). Similar to the older American C-141, the Il-76 is only manufactured in Uzbekistan.

Russian commercial aircraft survived during the Cold War partly because they had a captive market (the former Soviet Union, the East European nations the Soviets dominated), and were attractive to a few other nations looking for cheap, often free, and rugged aircraft. While many old Soviet transports still serve on in secondary markets, these designs are not competitive with new aircraft. Western models, while more expensive, are cheaper and easier to operate. {Remember, this is precisely the argument put forth by IAF when it wanted Airbus tankers} The old Soviet era aviation firms have tried hard to compete, but that competition will eventually kill off most of the Soviet era producers, leaving only a few who managed to catch up with the rest of the world, or found a specialized niche.

Any heavy transport plane bought today, would be in service for the next 30 years at least. It's pretty sure that Boeing would be around in 30 years time. But can one guarantee that The Open Joint Stock Company «ILYUSHIN Aviation Complex» will be around 30 years from now? What happens to servicing and spares if a company closes down?

Of course these things don't matter when one is typing away to glory in front of computer screen. However, unfortunately, in the real world where people take decisions which could affect the nation, these things matter a lot.

[amit]

The Gaggal airport landing by the C17 is an important piece of news IMO. That would seem to indicate that the C17 would probably be able to land on any airstrip where the An32 can land.

That could possibly include the Nyoma ALG near the Chinese border where an AN32 landed last year. Link

IMHO, if this is true, then it opens up huge strategic possibilities in case of conflict/tension with China.

Does landing a C-17 on a Airport located at altitude of 2525 ft qualifies it to land at altitude of 13300ft ( Nyoma ALG) !

Pankaj I have no idea. That's why I added the disclaimer:

Disclaimer: I'm speculating on the basis of press reports.

But this much I'm pretty sure, if you take the altitude factor away, the C17 can land on pretty much the same airfield (in terms of length) that a An32 can land. Now compare the size of the two aircraft.

[Manish_Sharma]

...

Gilles I would be grateful if you can answer or give a wild guess about these:

How much tonnageyou think C17 can carry and land on Airfields at the height of around 9000 to 14000 feet on 3500 feet runway:
a.) Paved
b.) Semi paved
c.) Unpaved

PS: Please even your wild guess would be welcome.

[amit]

Another interesting link for timepass

The An-70 is intended to replace An-12 and Ilyushin Il-76 (Candid) aircraft currently in service.

[Sanku]

Yes yes, all the russians are dying, Airbus is made by french Only unkils toys can be purchased....

standard snake oil

whats new.

[amit]

Yes yes, all the russians are dying, Airbus is made by french Only unkils toys can be purchased....

standard snake oil

whats new.

I'm sure the Airbus transport, when it comes into production, will be an excellent plane with latest in technology.

However, the small problem - in the context of India's requirements as articulated by the IAF - is it can only haul 37 tons. That does not qualify it for being a very heavy lift aircraft.

And Oh yes, if you have issues with the Strategypage article you can always label it as a liffafa article.

[rohitvats]

Pankaj I have no idea. That's why I added the disclaimer:

Disclaimer: I'm speculating on the basis of press reports.

You've no idea about Gagal Airport nor did you bother to do some research - but did make a statement, which has no logic behind it. Nor did you bother to check that Nyoma or DBG or Fukche are not your regular runways but dirt strips which have been compacted (?). Brilliant.

But this much I'm pretty sure, if you take the altitude factor away, the C17 can land on pretty much the same airfield (in terms of length) that a An32 can land. Now compare the size of the two aircraft.

On the one hand you claim you know nothing and yet you continue with "if you take altitude factor away"....why should anyone take altitude factor away? What importance does landing on "same length" airfield has? Unless, you know the payload of the aircraft under the test conditions? And how do you know that IL-76 cannot land on the same runway?

And btw, before you make any C-17=AN-32 arguments, do check on ALG in North-East and see if the C-17 can land over there.

[Sanku]

You've no idea about Gagal Airport nor did you bother to do some research - but did make a statement, which has no logic behind it. Nor did you bother to check that Nyoma or DBG or Fukche are not your regular runways but dirt strips which have been compacted (?). Brilliant.

Be nice to Rohit, at least this time it was said "no idea". Most of the time there is "no idea" anyway but confident statements are being made nevertheless.

[amit]

Rohit,

The C17 landed on Gaggal Airport which is a 4,500 ft-4,600 ft runaway. Fact

Now according to what the WiKi page says the AN-32 needs 1360 metres runway (approximately 4,462 feet) for max takeoff weight. Please correct me if this is wrong

Wouldn't that indicate that both planes can take off from approximately the same length runway?

But I agree the altitude factor is important as is the fact that the runway is compacted and that is why I didn't say the C17 can land in Nyoma.

In case you didn't notice this is what I wrote:

That could possibly include the Nyoma ALG near the Chinese border where an AN32 landed last year.

IMHO, if this is true, then it opens up huge strategic possibilities in case of conflict/tension with China.

This may not meet your high standards of exactitude. But hey everyone here is speculating, right?

But are you absolutely certain that the C17 cannot land on compacted runways?

Added later

What importance does landing on "same length" airfield has?

I think it has plenty of importance in terms of technology when you consider the relative sizes of the two planes.

[rohitvats]

Rohit,

The fact is C17 landed on Gaggal Airport which is a 4,500 ft-4,600 ft runaway.

Now according to what the WiKi page says the AN-32 needs 1360 metres runway for max takeoff weight.

Wouldn't that indicate that both planes can take off from approximately the same length runway?

But I agree the altitude factor is important as is the fact that the runway is compacted and that is why I didn't say the C17 can land in Nyoma.

But are you absolutely certain that the C17 cannot land on compacted runways?

Runway Length - Please tell me the max. runway length required for C-17 to take off with max. payload. Also, while you're at it, try and find out the payload which C-17 can take-off with for the same length of runway as AN-32. Unless, you've those numbers, you're statement makes no sense.

ALG Landing - Hmm, so you've changed the goal poat here. We'll let that be.

What matters is the sustainability of operations and not whether it can land or not. This is exactly what Gilles has been stressing upon. There are no known instances of C-17 sustaining operations from dirt airstrips without damaging them and requiring extensive engineering support (for the runway). And also, what payloads can be accomodated.

BTW, did you check on the ALG in the NE? Please do - next time you'd not make the AN-32=C-17 comparison.

[Kanson]

To evalute the performance the comparison has to be meanigful.

What is the max. payload of An-32 : ~7 tons and what is the payload for C-17 ?

What is the runway measurement as per the manufacturer for An-32: ~ 1500 meters that roughly comes around to 5000 feet. And this data is valid at sea level and normal ambient temp./conditions. It varies with altitude, temp, wind, climate etc. So it is for the C-17 or any aircraft.

When Nyoma was recently adapted for fixed-wing operation, engineers whet there to compact the soil suitable for An-32 operation.

For any sustained operations, even An-32 can't be used in unprepared strips w/o any manitenance. Simlalry, if need arises to land heavy-lift aircraft for sustained operations, the ground will be prepared to handle that.

[Gilles]

...

Gilles I would be grateful if you can answer or give a wild guess about these:

How much tonnageyou think C17 can carry and land on Airfields at the height of around 9000 to 14000 feet on 3500 feet runway:
a.) Paved
b.) Semi paved
c.) Unpaved

PS: Please even your wild guess would be welcome.

That was an easy question. The reply is 0 (zero)

Go back to this document which I referenced twice already in this Forum

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

This is a document made for those whose job it is to build C-17 capable runways.

Please open that document and look at page 11. I cannot copy and paste because it is a table.

This table gives the minimum runway lengths for C-17s a various altitudes and at various RCR (runway friction index) The table only goes to 6000 Mean Sea Level. Its likely that above that altitude, the runway requirement greatly increases

So a C-17 cannot even land on a runway of 3500 feet at that altitude,let alone carry any payload

[Vivek K]

I watched the C-17 at an airshow in Oklahoma City land in 1,000 ft (using the remaining distance signs as a guide) - I'm talking about wheels down to stop. And then it used reverse thrust to back up, make a 180 turn on the runway itself and go back to the parking apron. Some of the flying that the C-17 demonstrated was astounding. I have seen similar stuff from the C-17 at Oshkosh in 2007.