C-17s for the IAF?

[rohitvats]

And on what basis did you arrive at this conclusion?

I was referring solely to the IAF requirement for a very heavy lifter and not otherwise.

The IAF does perfectly fine right now with its Il76, and probably meets almost of its requirements with it. However, it evidently thinks that it requires a very heavy lifter that has a greater carrying capacity than the IL76. For what reason, I dont know, IAF has not deigned to tell us.. and thats the whole point. Saying IAF is wrong and it should stick with Il76 is second guessing it. One can second guess someone if one knew the reason and hence propose alternatives, but not otherwise.

IAF requirement for VHAL aircraft is not a commentary on the the role of IL-76 in its service - the procurement needs to be seen in context of airlift requirement of IAF+IA - which itself is dynamic ( to meet present and proposed requirements). The mistake here is to see C-17 and IL-76 in "or" scenario. As it is, we're grossly deficient in the airlift arena. So, it is not IL-76 category (40tonner) is not able to meet the airlift requirement and hence, C-17 - both of those a/c are required to augment the airlift capacity.

The only sticking point is, at present, we don't know whether the IAF will go for a 40 tonner in future - so, no need to second guess the IAF on this account as well and use the C-17 as IL-76 replacement argument. I've written before on the need for staggered airlift requirement and a 40tonner and 65+ tonner can exist together.

PS - I've never said IAF is wrong - I don't give a damn if the RFI was floated to 1 or 10 companies or whether PMO called up Boeing and asked for these a/c. We need airlift and need it as of yesterday.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

It's pretty obvious that, at least the ACM doesn't think the Il76 is of the C17 class as he also said something else in the same statement which seems to have been missed. And that is:

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.

So despite having Il76s in its inventory the IAF has to charter planes to send our jawans on UN missions. Why? Is it because the Il76 is too narrow to carry the equipment without which the jawans are toothless? I think that's a valid point to ponder, especially in light of the "We need... C17 class" quote from the ACM.

<SNIP>

You're again going into speculation territory here - and deducing only that assertion which you're comfortable with.

Where has ACM said that IL-76 as an aircraft is lacking in capability here? Could it not be as simple as "IAF lacking in airlift capacity and hence, we need to charter civilian airplane" - Let me tell you a secret - MOD also leases IA planes to ferry troops from Leh to Chandigargh - used to be a regular thing, I don't know present situation. Is that again, a commentary on the IL-76 or the airlift capacity of IAF?

And oh! BTW, which equipment do you think the soldiers on UN Mission require that IL-76 cannot carry? I'm yet to come across an instance of T-90 deployed on UN Mission - so, the charter thingy cannot be taken in that context also. IL-76 can carry everything IA needs into those areas. Let us not speculate for the sake of it.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

If, hypothetically, the IAF did want to land the C17 at the ALG mentioned, what would be the constraints?

a) Altitude?
b) Length of Runway?
c) Quality of the Runway?

If it's (a) then its a intractable problem, C17 would never be able to land there. But if it's either (b) or (c) or both then, as Kanson mentioned, if the IAF really wanted to land the C17, as it wanted in the case of An32, then it should be possible right? Of course, this assumes that there's enough flat land there to lengthen the runway.

Also, the point is if the C17 arrived at the ALG even half full, that would still be considerably more cargo carrying capability than that of a full load An32, right?

amit, I'm no expert on these matters - whatever I know is through reading on this thread and some google gyaan. I comment only as far as I know - and I make doubly sure about the facts before posting. That is all I ask of everyone - otherwise, it becomes slugfest.

As for your questions -

(a) Alt. is not an issue - we've been operating IL-76 from Thoise for donkey years now.
(b) I've no idea - a little reading on the net tells me that the same will be function of payload, altitude and runway condition. No open info on the same from IAF.
(c) That is an open ended question - what is the quality of runway presently in Nyoma or ****** or DBO? There is some literature on these on BRF itself - but I do not have technical knowledge to assess. Gilles may be able to deduce some information and relate it to C-17.

There is no doubting that if IAF and more so, IA is looking for C-17 to land next to forward troops, the same will be done. The question is - then why tom-tom the mythical short and unpaved runway performance of C-17? Based on what Gilles has posted, IL-76 has better performance in these aspects than C-17. So, why harp on it. By virtue of it's load carrying capacity - C-17 is good enough. No reason to invent "capabilities" to push the sale. We need airlift capacity and we need it now. More the merrier.

As for the AN-32 and C-17 and payload thing - now you've hit the nail on the head. Yes, if we can get C-17 to land next to DBO/Fukche/Nyoma - nothing like it. Even if we have to prepare runways for it. The end result matters - not the means in this case. But remember - this does not mean we bach IL-76 for whatever reasons and belabor the "Short and unpaved runway" performace of C-17. I personally think, the airlift capability of that a/c is merit enough to warrant the purchase.

[amit]

You're again going into speculation territory here - and deducing only that assertion which you're comfortable with.

Rohit,

In case you didn't notice, here is the full quote of what the ACM said in the NDTV interview in the context of the UN missions and the need for C17.

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.

I don't know about you, but this certainly doesn't sound like the ACM is saying that we need to charter aircraft because we can't spare Il76s that we have to do the job.

Why would he says "if the Air Force had the capability..." if it was just a case of logistic bottleneck?

I do note that you've changed the word capability to capacity. IMHO the two words have different meanings

"IAF lacking in airlift capacity and hence, we need to charter civilian airplane"

I think the ACM has sufficient command over the English language to know in which context to use capability and when to use capacity.

If it's just a question of the number of aircraft being the constraint (which would be implied if we use the word "capacity") why is the ACM so specific about the C17s in this context (remember he's talking here about power projection)? He could very well have said we need more transport aircraft without categorically specify which type/model?

If you think that's speculation to assume, in view of the ACM comment, that perhaps for whatever reasons the IAF feels the Il76s can't do the job, then what can I say?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

My comment about the MBT was made in the context of IPKF operations.

The point is simple and IMO worth considering. The last time we sent an expeditionary force (IPKF) we had the capability to fly in to the frontline our then MBT, the T72.

Now in the context of whether buying the C17 or more Il76s - the whole crux of this messy debate - it's, IMO important to remember that our current MBTs, which I assume will be around in different variants over the next 30 years or so, don't fit in a Il76, in whatever configuration unless the fuselage is widened.

So buying the Il76 instead of the C17 would mean we will lose the capability to haul our own MBTs to the front line with our own aircraft in case in some future date (I'm assuming that whatever aircraft we buy today will be in service for at least 30 years) India decides to send another expeditionary force somewhere. Surely this is also not speculation?

[amit]

Rohit,

I just saw your response to Tanaji. Let me say I think it makes a lot of sense.

[Gilles]

C-17 Study guide and Quick reference handbook located here. Contains a lot of interesting info. Can be downloaded in PDF file.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33295081/C-17 ... ugust-2008

[rohitvats]

Rohit,

In case you didn't notice, here is the full quote of what the ACM said in the NDTV interview in the context of the UN missions and the need for C17.

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.

I don't know about you, but this certainly doesn't sound like the ACM is saying that we need to charter aircraft because we can't spare Il76s that we have to do the job.

Why would he says "if the Air Force had the capability..." if it was just a case of logistic bottleneck?

I do note that you've changed the word capability to capacity. IMHO the two words have different meanings

"IAF lacking in airlift capacity and hence, we need to charter civilian airplane"

I think the ACM has sufficient command over the English language to know in which context to use capability and when to use capacity.

If it's just a question of the number of aircraft being the constraint (which would be implied if we use the word "capacity") why is the ACM so specific about the C17s in this context (remember he's talking here about power projection)? He could very well have said we need more transport aircraft without categorically specify which type/model?

If you think that's speculation to assume, in view of the ACM comment, that perhaps for whatever reasons the IAF feels the Il76s can't do the job, then what can I say?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm quite sure of what I wrote and I am aware of the whole statement by ACM. What I do not know is the exact question asked of him.

Again, please don't use this hairsplitting line of argument to forward your argument - C-17 purchase has enough merits on its own to not warrant these arguments. Look at the bigger picture and overall context of airlift requirement of the Indian Armed Forces.

You're mixing two issue here -

(a) Supporting UN Missions by India
(b) Force projections and intervention

WRT (a), it can very easily mean capability in terms of numbers of aircraft available - I've already given you example of MOD hiring Indian Airlines for transporting troops with-in India, forget UN Missions. There is nothing I can think of which IA might require for UN Missions which IL-76 cannot carry. The T-90 example is not applicable here - as the same have not been deployed abroad, so chartering a/c because of this reason is also ruled out. We maintained IPKF using these very IL-76 -something which required far more and varied kind of equipments.

The deficiency is in terms of absolute tonnage and number of a/c. That is where the new a/c come in. And not because IL-76 cannot fulfil the requirements to which IA/IAF might subjected - save for the MBT factor.

WRT (b), we need the absolute tonnage bought in by C-17. Range is not even an issue - more so with IL-78MKI. IL-76 is better troops and paratroopr carrier but looses out on raw tonnage, which will be required to sustain operations in case of interventions.

My comment about the MBT was made in the context of IPKF operations.

The point is simple and IMO worth considering. The last time we sent an expeditionary force (IPKF) we had the capability to fly in to the frontline our then MBT, the T72.

Now in the context of whether buying the C17 or more Il76s - the whole crux of this messy debate - it's, IMO important to remember that our current MBTs, which I assume will be around in different variants over the next 30 years or so, don't fit in a Il76, in whatever configuration unless the fuselage is widened.

So buying the Il76 instead of the C17 would mean we will lose the capability to haul our own MBTs to the front line with our own aircraft in case in some future date (I'm assuming that whatever aircraft we buy today will be in service for at least 30 years) India decides to send another expeditionary force somewhere. Surely this is also not speculation?

At the expense of repeating myself upteem number of times - IL-76 and C-17 are not part of zero-sum game. They are different aircraft and in different categories. Only variable here is that we don't know if IAF will induct future 35-45 tonner in service in future -at present only C-17 is coming in and we are assuming that they are in lieu of IL-76. That is speculation. And the red herring every one is chasing

20 IL-76 are better option than 10 C-17 - if we plan to give up the 30+ tonnes capability of IL-76. For a simple reason that we need the aircraft in number as well as tonnage. Adding one and phasing out another is not helping in augmenting the airlift capacity. In the words of ACM, C-17 is the Very Heavy Airlift Aircraft - this simple definition means that it is not a replacement for IL-76 or the capability which this superb aircraft represents.

As for the MBT airlift requirement - yes, the apex carrier in IAF service should be able to meet this requirement, to cater to some contigency and out-of-area operations. But that is not THE REASON for the purchase - IA can pre-position tanks at any place where there might be requirement. We're not buying C-17 to airlift MBT - that is incidental to the tonnage and Cargo Volume of the aircraft.

[amit]

I'm quite sure of what I wrote and I am aware of the whole statement by ACM. What I do not know is the exact question asked of him.

Rohit,

Here is the exact question which NDTV asked the ACM:

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?

For ready reference here's the Link again.

You'd notice that the question was very explicit about IAF's expeditionary capability and included a direct question about an out of area contingency. The ACM's response should be viewed in that context and not any other.

Now what I find puzzling is that if in response to this specific question the ACM says lack of capability, and I conclude that by that he means in terms of ability, it's speculation on my part. Yet if you think/say by capability he actually meant capacity and not in terms of ability it is not speculation on your part?

Again, please don't use this hairsplitting line of argument to forward your argument - C-17 purchase has enough merits on its own to not warrant these arguments. Look at the bigger picture and overall context of airlift requirement of the Indian Armed Forces.

There is no question of hairsplitting on my part. The zero sum game approach to this whole debate started when some posters started to claim that there's no need to buy C17 because the Il76 can do all the stuff which the C17 can do and moreover it is readily available at a much cheaper price point. (I'm sure you've been following the debate).

After reading posts from learned posters such as yourself, I also think that the ideal situation is a tiered approach to transport with C17 sitting in the apex, the Il76 in the middle and the An32 at the bottom with the MTA in future getting into the mix.

And it seems the IAF also thinks along the same lines and that is why the ACM talks about acquiring (new) capability while talking about the C17.

Added later: The ACM specifically said:

We need heavy transport of the 50-60 tonne class

[/End addition]

If the Il76 line is reopened after relocating in Russia from Uzbekistan, maybe the IAF will order more of these aircraft, or it may opt for the Airbus A400 as a replacement for the IL76. All that IMO is in the future.

You're mixing two issue here -

(a) Supporting UN Missions by India
(b) Force projections and intervention

WRT (a), it can very easily mean capability in terms of numbers of aircraft available - I've already given you example of MOD hiring Indian Airlines for transporting troops with-in India, forget UN Missions. There is nothing I can think of which IA might require for UN Missions which IL-76 cannot carry. The T-90 example is not applicable here - as the same have not been deployed abroad, so chartering a/c because of this reason is also ruled out. We maintained IPKF using these very IL-76 -something which required far more and varied kind of equipments.

I'm curious why the ACM made the comment about UN Missions to a specific question about IAF's expeditionary abilities.

However, I'm not too sure the MOD hiring the IA for transporting troops within India is a good example for UN Missions. For all we know the MOD may find the use of IA to be a cheaper option than to operate IL76s. However, for UN Missions, how much is cost a factor considering, if I'm not mistaken, the financial aspect of such missions are taken care of by the UN?

I'm sorry boss but the question still remains as to why the ACM said the IAF would like to discontinue charting aircraft for UN missions if it had the capability to transport them on its own. I don't see why he wouldn't have said it was a capacity constraint if that's what he meant.

As for the MBT airlift requirement - yes, the apex carrier in IAF service should be able to meet this requirement, to cater to some contigency and out-of-area operations. But that is not THE REASON for the purchase - IA can pre-position tanks at any place where there might be requirement. We're not buying C-17 to airlift MBT - that is incidental to the tonnage and Cargo Volume of the aircraft.

Let me just repeat for the sake of record. I fully agree with you that there's a place in the IAF for both the C17 and Il76 as there is for the AN32. And yes the apex transporter of the IAF should have the ability to carry India's MBT but that should not be the only reason for the purchase.

However, having said that I find it rather confusing as to how IA can pre-position tanks in any place where there may be a requirement? The whole idea of the ability to launch an expeditionary force is the ability to deploy at short notice in a theatre of operation where a contingency may arise, right? And we would only be able to pre-position something as strategic as an MBT only if we have a overseas military base, otherwise how?

The IPKF deployment came after several years of fighting between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army, yet before the deployment did the IA ever consider that its tanks should be pre-positioned in Sri Lanka as one day they may need them there?

And given our sphere of influence is from the Straits of Hormuz to the Straits of Malacca, how many countries are we going to pre-position our MBTs?

[Sanku]

Rohit just a word of advice, you are wasting your time in a quick sand of slight of hand where 25% is just a number between 0 and 100 and is not important etc...

I have a humble suggestion, stick to countering facts and not discussing "it depends on how do you define the word XYZ" and other such imaginative exercises (on lines of "war is peace"), a lot of time there has been an attempt to redefine the word itself when the original word did not pass muster.

Just a friendly warning.

[amit]

^^^^^^^^^


It is these kinds of emotion-filled outbursts that makes BRF such a fun place!

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

You'd notice that the question was very explicit about IAF's expeditionary capability and included a direct question about an out of area contingency. The ACM's response should be viewed in that context and not any other.

That would be a mistake - you don't buy planes to deal with out-of-area-contigencies alone. Domestic requirements are more important - the application of a particular system to situations like out of area contigencies are desirable.

Now what I find puzzling is that if in response to this specific question the ACM says lack of capability, and I conclude that by that he means in terms of ability, it's speculation on my part. Yet if you think/say by capability he actually meant capacity and not in terms of ability it is not speculation on your part?

Please answer this for the benefit of everyone - how is capacity and capability different here? OK. Let me give you an example - IAF needs to deploy Brigade Sized Force (assume 50(I) PARA Brigade) to some Island in Indian Ocean. Now, we know that IAF cannot do that ( for ease, rule out use of AN-32) - simply because we don't the airlift required. Is this a case of lack of Capacity or Capability? Are the two different?

Again, please don't use this hairsplitting line of argument to forward your argument - C-17 purchase has enough merits on its own to not warrant these arguments. Look at the bigger picture and overall context of airlift requirement of the Indian Armed Forces.

There is no question of hairsplitting on my part. The zero sum game approach to this whole debate started when some posters started to claim that there's no need to buy C17 because the Il76 can do all the stuff which the C17 can do and moreover it is readily available at a much cheaper price point. (I'm sure you've been following the debate).

The zero-sum game started when people on this forum started alluding that C-17 are replacement for IL-76.M Others were questioning, rightly or wrongly, the need for very purchase of C-17.

<SNIP>

And it seems the IAF also thinks along the same lines and that is why the ACM talks about acquiring (new) capability while talking about the C17.

Added later: The ACM specifically said:

We need heavy transport of the 50-60 tonne class

[/End addition]

Thank you posting this - for once and all, let it be clear that C-17 represents a capability in addition to IL-76 - it will allow IAF to do more than what it could earlier. Though, we still have a long way to go.

<SNIP>

I'm curious why the ACM made the comment about UN Missions to a specific question about IAF's expeditionary abilities.

However, I'm not too sure the MOD hiring the IA for transporting troops within India is a good example for UN Missions. For all we know the MOD may find the use of IA to be a cheaper option than to operate IL76s. However, for UN Missions, how much is cost a factor considering, if I'm not mistaken, the financial aspect of such missions are taken care of by the UN?

I'm sorry boss but the question still remains as to why the ACM said the IAF would like to discontinue charting aircraft for UN missions if it had the capability to transport them on its own. I don't see why he wouldn't have said it was a capacity constraint if that's what he meant.

There we go hairsplitting again - again, how is capacity contraint dissimilar from capability in context of IAF Airlift capability? If you want answer to your questions, do a simple excercise.

Try answering a question (at broad level) - what is strength of IA contingent in UN Missions (generally)? And what additional equipments are required - like AFV? What range does the a/c need to fly? And can IL-76 do the needfull - as in, airlift the required troops and equipment and over the required range?

The answer is simple - IL-76 can do this and some more. The problem is the domestic requirement for IL-76 and how many are available to be spared for such missions.

<SNIP>

However, having said that I find it rather confusing as to how IA can pre-position tanks in any place where there may be a requirement? The whole idea of the ability to launch an expeditionary force is the ability to deploy at short notice in a theatre of operation where a contingency may arise, right? And we would only be able to pre-position something as strategic as an MBT only if we have a overseas military base, otherwise how?

The IPKF deployment came after several years of fighting between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army, yet before the deployment did the IA ever consider that its tanks should be pre-positioned in Sri Lanka as one day they may need them there?

You forget - I very clearly mentioned out-of-area-contigencies for MBT airlift. For fighting the PLA or TSPA, if IA forsees armored warfare, we can push tanks into those areas.

[amit]

I'm sorry Rohit, you are speculating that the ACM meant capacity when he said clearly said capability. I'm speculating that the ACM specifically used the word capability because he meant it in terms of (existing) ability and it's no coincidence that he said this in the context of the UN missions.

Now since we're both speculating, only the ACM can clarify who's speculation is correct. Since it's unlikely that the ACM will clarify for our benefit, let's just agree to disagree on this, especially since it seems that we are in broad agreement on most other aspects of this debate.

Incidentally the ACM also said this in that long response to that specific question from NDTV:

We may need to transfer troops from north to south for some reason, from east to west or west to east. So all these capabilities we need to develop and we are looking at the aircraft [referring to the C17] to increase there strength as far as air force inventory is concerned.

I agree totally with this comment of yours:

... for once and all, let it be clear that C-17 represents a capability in addition to IL-76 - it will allow IAF to do more than what it could earlier. Though, we still have a long way to go.

I think the way forward on this thread should be to try and figure out how the IAF can best use the C17 if it finally purchases it.

JMT

[Sanku]

The C 17s will be the prima donna hangar queens of IAF after they are inducted, IAF will soon realize that what were they really transport (the avg load is around 30 tonnes) can be just as easily be done by other alternatives and will be done by other alternatives.

C 17 operations will be SO expensive that they will be "saved" (just like paveway kits were sparingly/not used during Kargil and many other such examples) for "when it is really needed" and will only run a few regular mail routes to keep the skills fresh. One example where they WILL be used for is in post Tusnami operations and/or UN airlift never mind that we are actually pulling back other assets from UN ops because we dont have enough IAF assets to meet internal needs. Both such eventuality should present itself for critical National interest issues roughly once in a year, if not less.


C 130 J in reality would most often operate with all their fancy stuff stripped out and the aircraft used as a air truck. Il 76 will under go a mid life upgrade and do the bulk of real transport needs.

Anyway the above is both obvious and irrelevant since C 17s are not being bought for IAF purposes but are a PMO driven purchase for other reasons and hand me downs (nice phrase thanks rohit) to the IAF.

[Tanaji]

^^^ Ah, Sanku the fortune teller!

[Sanku]

^^^ Ah, Sanku the fortune teller!

With a knack of making the right predictions....

[Surya]

every snake oil peddlar says the same

[Sanku]

every snake oil peddlar says the same

Well the history of making past correct predictions are critical.

And we know who peddles snake oil here dont we.....

[Surya]

Well the history of making past correct predictions are critical

.

in one's own head

[Sanku]

Well the history of making past correct predictions are critical

.

in one's own head

Dont be upset, its okay.

[Surya]

too old to get upset by

after all if the armoured thread could not do it what will a C 17 thread do

[Sanku]

Speaking of which I hope people remember that my four year old predictions came right just on dot.

[JimmyJ]

Well then there is a new prediction on a 3rd depression by Paul Krugman. C-17 could be real hangar queens if that too happens. I wished I had the ability of looking at the crystal ball while trading my few penny on Sensex

[Surya]

not really

but lets not derail this thread

[Viv S]

Viv S, spare me the figures pulled out of your Musharraf. Real figures and references have been posted by Gilles and me and frankly in light of what ever has been posted, the less said about your figures the better.

Either get some references or stop polluting the threads with your dream world.

'Gilles and me'? Taking credit for Gilles' work are we...

As references go, ask Gilles if you like, whether -

i) the An-124 is in production.
ii) the IL-76 can airlift the Arjun-II/FMBT


and then decide --

"Does C 17 have a capability which is not present in ANY of the modern air lifters"

[Sanku]

Yawn......

[Gilles]

http://www.stratpost.com/iaf-begins-c-17-trials

Major Schueler says the aircraft also carries the TCAS or Traffic Collision Avoidance System as well as a Missile Launch Warning System. He says the C-17 has never had a fatal crash and the few accidents that have taken place have been due to pilot error. The C-17 can take-off from an airfield 7,000 feet long (a little more than two kilometers) with a payload of almost 165,000 pounds (a little more than 73 tons), fly 2,400 nautical miles (almost 4,500 kilometers) and land on an airfield as long as 3,000 feet (less than a kilometer) or less.

When are they going to stop telling us about it and demonstrate this awesome capability?

I want to see a C-17 loaded with 165,000 pound in the hold, land on a 3000 foot (or even 3500 foot) runway.

Do they intend to do any unsurfaced demonstration landings in India (with payload) ?

[Kersi D]

The C 17s will be the prima donna hangar queens of IAF after they are inducted, IAF will soon realize that what were they really transport (the avg load is around 30 tonnes) can be just as easily be done by other alternatives and will be done by other alternatives.

..............

Anyway the above is both obvious and irrelevant since C 17s are not being bought for IAF purposes but are a PMO driven purchase for other reasons and hand me downs (nice phrase thanks rohit) to the IAF.

Come on Mr Sanku. Please do not be sooo pessimestic.

It may be possible that the AVERAGE load is say 30 MT. But it does not mean that IL 76 may be able to carry it. The load may be voluminous and hence too big for IL 76 but still yo may have to use C 17.

Remember that the SU 30s were also shoved down IAF throat to save the Russian aviation industry. But IAF took a very positive view and converted it into one of the finest fighters today.

Once the IAF gets it they may find ways to make the best use.

Regards
Kersi

[Surya]

Kersi

don't take that seriously -

The IAF knows what it needs with the C 17 and will look for it.

[amit]

http://www.stratpost.com/iaf-begins-c-17-trials

Major Schueler says the aircraft also carries the TCAS or Traffic Collision Avoidance System as well as a Missile Launch Warning System. He says the C-17 has never had a fatal crash and the few accidents that have taken place have been due to pilot error. The C-17 can take-off from an airfield 7,000 feet long (a little more than two kilometers) with a payload of almost 165,000 pounds (a little more than 73 tons), fly 2,400 nautical miles (almost 4,500 kilometers) and land on an airfield as long as 3,000 feet (less than a kilometer) or less.

When are they going to stop telling us about it and demonstrate this awesome capability?

I want to see a C-17 loaded with 165,000 pound in the hold, land on a 3000 foot (or even 3500 foot) runway.

Do they intend to do any unsurfaced demonstration landings in India (with payload) ?

Three interesting pictures from the link posted by Gilles.

[Kersi D]

Can somebody help me ?

What are the dimensions (length breadth and width) of a Prithiv and Agni I/II/III/IV launchers and resupply vehicles ?

Can these be transported by any exisiting IAF aircraft i.e. IL 76 ?

Could ONE of the reasons of buying C 17 be that they can airlift the Prithvi and Agni launchers, missiles and supply support vehicles, which cannot be done by any existing aircraft ?

Regards
K

[Kersi D]

Speaking of which I hope people remember that my four year old predictions came right just on dot.

Yes fortune teller. Can you please tell me your 4 year old prediction ? I do not recollect anything.

K

[Kersi D]

Major Schueler says the aircraft also carries the TCAS or Traffic Collision Avoidance System as well as a Missile Launch Warning System. He says the C-17 has never had a fatal crash and the few accidents that have taken place have been due to pilot error. The C-17 can take-off from an airfield 7,000 feet long (a little more than two kilometers) with a payload of almost 165,000 pounds (a little more than 73 tons), fly 2,400 nautical miles (almost 4,500 kilometers) and land on an airfield as long as 3,000 feet (less than a kilometer) or less.

When are they going to stop telling us about it and demonstrate this awesome capability?

I want to see a C-17 loaded with 165,000 pound in the hold, land on a 3000 foot (or even 3500 foot) runway.

Do they intend to do any unsurfaced demonstration landings in India (with payload) ?

Three interesting pictures from the link posted by Gilles.

From the graph I conclude that C 17 could be an good long range bomber. Maybe the IAF has already thought of it !!!

K

[Sanku]

Speaking of which I hope people remember that my four year old predictions came right just on dot.

Yes fortune teller. Can you please tell me your 4 year old prediction ? I do not recollect anything.

K

The number of Arjun's which will be ordered when Avadi met its current target. I am afraid I cant pull out a link for that though.

[Sanku]

Come on Mr Sanku. Please do not be sooo pessimestic.

Remember that the SU 30s were also shoved down IAF throat to save the Russian aviation industry. But IAF took a very positive view and converted it into one of the finest fighters today.

Once the IAF gets it they may find ways to make the best use.

You are right about the Su 30 Sir, however I am not sure if EUMA, CISMO and other alphabet soups will let us, use C 17s the way we did with Su 30.

There are additional problems with US kits after all.

Unlike the Su, C 17s will be pretty much the FIRST big ticket experience of IAF with USofA, the dynamics are likely to be different.

But then you are definitely right in one respect that IAF has amazingly knack of turning anything around to use wonderfully. So yes IAF may yet put C 17s to use after all. Lets see, I am being a pessimist here.

[Sanku]

Kersi

don't take that seriously -

The IAF knows what it needs with the C 17 and will look for it.

And with that we close BRF, ta da daaaa.......

[Gilles]

A bit of reality:

Here is a graph for Critical Field length for the C-17. The critical field length is the runway length required for take-off. This graph is for a HARD SURFACED and DRY runway.
I obtained them from here



The way to use it is simple. You first need to come up with a take-off weight. Its quite easy. The C-17 empty weight is about 128 tonnes (varies from model to model). Then you add payload. Let use 60 tonnes, for a total of 188 tonnes. Then you add fuel. It burns about 8 tonnes an hour but burns at least 10 tonnes the first hour for take-off and climb. So for a 4 hour flight (about 1500 NM) one needs 10 tonnes plus 24 tonnes for a total of 34 tonnes plus reserves. For the reserve fuel, we need enough to take off and go 300 NM, so about another 12 tonnes, for a total of 46 tonnes of fuel. That brings the C-17 to a take-off weight of 234 tonnes. You have to enter the graph from the top where 234 tonnes is and draw a vertical line going down. The vertical line will intersect four curving black lines. They represent four airport altitudes : Sea Level, 2000 feet, 4000 thousand feet and 6000 feet. Although no lines are provided for higher airport elevations, one can easily see the pattern and deduct where the 8000, 10,000 foot and 12,000 foot lines would be.
One we intersect our desired airport altitude line, we have to move horizontally to find the Critical Field Length for that weight and airport Altitude. At right, the required runway length is provided in meters, at the left it is provided in feet.

To come back to my example, a C-17 taking off at 234 tonnes will require about 4300 feet at Sea Level and 7000 feet at a 6000 foot airport. Leh looks like it would need about 9500 feet.

Again this is for DRY runways and Hard Surface. Unpaved and WET require longer runways.

Here is a graph for the landing distance for the C-17



This document defines Landing Distance as:

Landing distance is the total distance from a 50 foot height to a point where the aircraft can be brought to a full stop.

There are no safety margins. Again this is for DRY runways only.

Lets assume our 234 tonnes C-17 has flown its four hours, burned the fuel and is now landing at destination. It now weighs (128 tonnes empty weight + 60 tonnes paylaod + 12 tonnes fuel.) 200 tonnes.

We enter the graph at the top at the 200 tonne line and go straight down. Again we must choose the altitude of our landing airport. At Sea Level, the landing distance is about 3,300 feet. At a 6000 foot MSL airport, its is about 3700 feet.

Again, this is for DRY airports only and this figure does not include any margin for error. Which is probably why they will never demonstrate it.

When the runways are wet, this document tells us on page 4 and 29 that the C-17 crews need to use an RCR of 12 (correction coefficient). In the early C-17 days, this used to be 4, they have now brought it up to 12.

This same document also tells us that

For Semi Prepared Runway Operations, C‐17 maximum gross weight is restricted to 486,000 pounds and (447,000 if runway is wet).

There is an 18 tonne penalty if runway is wet.

This document has a table on page 11 that explains how an RCR of 12 affect runway length. For runways up to 2000 feet MSL, it increases it by 500 feet, for runways between 2001 and 5000 feet MSL it increases it by 1000 feet, and for runways from 5001 to 6000 feet MSL it increases it by 1500 feet.

Using ZERO margin for error and the same method as the C-17 (full braking on landing) , an Air India Airbus 310 can land shorter than a C-17.

[Kersi D]

Speaking of which I hope people remember that my four year old predictions came right just on dot.

Yes fortune teller. Can you please tell me your 4 year old prediction ? I do not recollect anything.

The number of Arjun's which will be ordered when Avadi met its current target. I am afraid I cant pull out a link for that though.

I take thy word for it.

K

[Victor]

Could ONE of the reasons of buying C 17 be that they can airlift the Prithvi and Agni launchers, missiles and supply support vehicles, which cannot be done by any existing aircraft ?
K

AFAIK, there is no other way to get the Prithvis into Arunachal Pradesh. Narrow, winding roads and lack of railways makes it impossible to get them much beyond a rail head in Assam. With 150-300 km range, they can only do damage inside Tibet from deep inside AP. Neglect of AP infrastructure in spite of Chinese openly building up on their side for years is coming back to bite us in the @ss.

[Kersi D]

Could ONE of the reasons of buying C 17 be that they can airlift the Prithvi and Agni launchers, missiles and supply support vehicles, which cannot be done by any existing aircraft ?
K

AFAIK, there is no other way to get the Prithvis into Arunachal Pradesh. Narrow, winding roads and lack of railways makes it impossible to get them much beyond a rail head in Assam. With 150-300 km range, they can only do damage inside Tibet from deep inside AP. Neglect of AP infrastructure in spite of Chinese openly building up on their side for years is coming back to bite us in the @ss.

More so to go for C 17s for airlifting the Agnis into AP and then drive them into a the pre determined launch sites.

K

[Gilles]

Any news from the IAF C-17 trials? News reports state the C-17 arrived in India on June 19 and that the trials were to begin on June 22 and last about one week.