C-17s for the IAF?

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 03 Jul 2010 20:54

Is there any other aircraft which India can think of as an alternative to C-17? Anything as rugged or proven *(and of course in production)??

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 04 Jul 2010 01:16

Kanan wrote:Is there any other aircraft which India can think of as an alternative to C-17? Anything as rugged or proven *(and of course in production)??

RA-76950, an IL-76TD-90 delivered brand new in 2006.
4K-AZ100, an IL-76TD-90 that was delivered brand new in May 2007
RA-76951, an IL-76TD-90 delivered brand new in Sept 2007
4K-AZ101, an IL-76TD-90 delivered brand new in July 2008
KW-3551, an A-50, delivered brand new in May 2009.
4K-AZ70, an IL-76TD delivered brand new in June 2009
KW-3552, an A-50, delivered brand new in March 2010.
RA-76952, an IL-76TD-90 delivered brand new in April 2010

I'll be the first to admit that this is not mass production, but these are a lot of new deliveries for an aircraft that is "no longer in production". Several more are being built and/or prepared, including one A-50 for the IAF and several IL-76TD-90s for Volga-Dnepr and 2 IL-76MDs for the Venezuelan Air Force.

Ever since 2006 when Canada purchased its 4 C-17s, I've been reading that the Il-76 no longer exists and that the C-17 is the only alternative. How many IL-76 deliveries does it take for the IL-76 to be considered "in-production"

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 04 Jul 2010 16:39

Havent we been through this umpteen times? The question is not whether Il76 is available or not (as opposed to Il476 or An124-100 which are clearly NOT available), it is whether it can carry the same load as C17 in one ferry. For whatever reason IAF wants something that can carry as much as a C17. To what purpose, no idea...

I am sure even you agree that the C17 can carry more than the Il76, if we ignore runway lengths for the moment.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Jul 2010 18:19

round and round we go again

and also the fact that at least some of these IL 76s were finished up from components which existed. (at least the IAF ones0

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 05 Jul 2010 03:50

Tanaji wrote:Havent we been through this umpteen times? The question is not whether Il76 is available or not (as opposed to Il476 or An124-100 which are clearly NOT available), it is whether it can carry the same load as C17 in one ferry. For whatever reason IAF wants something that can carry as much as a C17. To what purpose, no idea...

I am sure even you agree that the C17 can carry more than the Il76, if we ignore runway lengths for the moment.

I was replying to a person who insinuated that the IL-76 was not available. I replied to that and that only.

I am quite certain that the C-17 can take off from shorter runways than the IL-76. For landing distance they are probably close if used in the same manner. For runway pavement strength, the IL-76 outdoes the C-17. For price, the IL-76 is much cheaper. For fuel burn the IL-76 with PS-90 engines is better.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jul 2010 16:59

Latest AWST says that Russia is to restart production of the AN_124,IL-76s and other smaller transports all in Russian production centres,after working out modalities with the former Soviet bloc nations were they were earlier produced,with the first AN-124s arriving within 3 years time.So of we want,we could just wait till 2014,leasing thesame aircraft just as NATO is doing until our own birds arrrive....but Boeing's interests must come first and India must leap to the rescue of Boeing and save the C-17 production line which bad boy Gates wants to shut down immediately!

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 05 Jul 2010 17:56

We have been hearing many stories on how the An124 line is going to be restarted. There is talk... and more talk... and more talk. Places for manufacture include anywhere from Russia to Boeing facilities. Which just goes to show how "concrete" such talk is.

BTW, if An124 is indeed manufactured with Boeing help, then Philip, will you protest vehemently against its acquisition given your statement as follows:

but Boeing's interests must come first and India must leap to the rescue of Boeing

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Jul 2010 18:04

LOL

yeah that will be funny if the An 124 is produced with Boeing help.

But seriously is this what we want to rely on. Bits and pieces here and there. Only the IAF knows the headaches they had just getting the present IL 76 variations.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jul 2010 18:21

A strategic airlifter,whether C-17 or AN-124 should not be such a high priority right now.We need ASAP to perfect the LCA,find/build a basic trainer-what a fiasco indeed! Then an IJT,another delayed project,Hawk production-delayed again, so that the fundamentals of training our pilots is taken care of.Equally important is adding to the number of aircraft that can serve the IAF ,with the best option to buy more of what we have,easiest method to absorb from every point of view,training,maintenance/logistic support,weaponry,blah,blah-which should result in more MIG-29/35s,Sukhois,Mirages (if cheap ones are available and upgrade them as is planned for those in service),plus extra upgraded Jaguars.Along with large numbers of LCAs,these aircraft should be able to serve our requirements both in quality and quantity most efficiently.To me the MMRCA 4+ tech aircraft acquisition programme is at the moment running parallel to the 5th-gen fighter,which is flying right now and will be in production within 5 years.It would be more cost-effective to put our money into the 5th-gen programme instead of acquiring yet another type with all the problems of induction,support,spares,new weaponry,etc.The 5th-gen fighters,Super-Flankers (Brahmos SU-30s),LCAs and the other existing types in service upgraded,should suffice.

The US in wargaming has discovered that larger numbers of inferior Chinese aircraft can defeat its F-22s operating in the Pacific and would not be able to prevent a "Chinese Takeaway" of Taiwan.Numbers in the end do matter and they have their own "qualitative" effect.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2010 18:54

Granted that the LCA and the basic trainer are "fiasco", however, not buying a C-17/An-124 will not or cannot impact the LCA or the basic trainer program Philip. OR, may be I am missing something and you can tell me what I am missing.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Jul 2010 20:50

>>>To me the MMRCA 4+ tech aircraft acquisition programme is at the moment running parallel to the 5th-gen fighter,which is flying right now and will be in production within 5 years.It would be more cost-effective to put our money into the 5th-gen programme instead of acquiring yet another type with all the problems of induction,support,spares,new weaponry,etc.

If you are investing money, your financial advisor might say, if you are in 20s then invest all your money in shares, you can take all the risks... but in 40s better invest 50% in shares and 50% in bonds...

So better get both and increase the no. Atleast there is a guarantee that the MMRCA is an 4+ gen tech aircraft...but there is no guarantee that what is passed of as an 5th gen aircraft might indeed be an 5th gen..........

>>>Any news from the IAF C-17 trials?

There is an unwritten rule that if there is no news then the trials are Ok...

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 05 Jul 2010 21:55

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/j ... _1_n.shtml

IAF completes C-17 test-flight

Leased from the US Air Force (USAF), the C-17 successfully touched down at Gaggal's 1317 m-long runway, some 500 km north of New Delhi, IAF officials said.

IAF officials told Jane's that the Gaggal landing "completed the C-17 trials" insisted upon by the air force, despite there being no other aircraft competing for the contract.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2010 18:31

NR,where are the priorities? We are hell bent upon acquiring the C-17,despite it not being high on the IAF's list of priorities,and I've stated the vested interests at work,being acquired solely to please the US and Boeing and whoever benefits monetarily from such a massive order,while the LCA languishes 27 years on.Here's the Parliamentary Committee on Defence's latest views made just as AKA speaks to the contrary (during the naval LCA rollout) about the LCA and its sceptics!

Which is the more vital programme for the IAF and the nation,an indigenously designed fighter for the future or a foreign acquired freighter for the sake of filthy lucre?

http://thehindu.com/news/national/article398254.ece
Excerpt:
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence on Thursday strongly recommended that problems with the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) ‘Tejas' project be sorted out to make it operational within the stipulated timeframe, without further cost overruns.

With over Rs.13,000 crore sanctioned for the project during the last 27 years, the Committee, in its latest report tabled in Parliament, said the problem with the engine should be expeditiously sorted out either by importing it or persisting with the existing one.

The project was sanctioned in 1983 with the original cost of Rs.560 crore. Its first phase was completed in April 2004 at a cost of Rs.2,188 crore, including the original sanctioned estimate, it said.

For the second phase, a sum of Rs.3,301.87 crore was sanctioned with a probable date of completion of December 31, 2008. It is now likely to be finished by 2012 with an additional fund of Rs.2,475.78 crore.

In November 2009, the project was accorded sanction to continue full-scale engineering development till December 2018 with an additional cost of Rs.5,302.98 crore.

As regards problem with the engine, the Committee was informed that it had been decided to import a suitable engine to replace Kaveri and technical evaluation of offers received was being conducted. (According to reports, GE 414 and Eurojet were in the race to provide the engine).

“…the Committee concluded that this is a very sorry state of affairs. Even when 27 years have passed since LCA was sanctioned it has still to see the light of the day,'' the report noted.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Jul 2010 18:49

Philip, what is the point of posting a April 2010 report and trying to juxtapose AKA statement(s) during NLCA roll-out?

And more importantly - is the C-17 purchase any way linked to delay in the LCA Programme? Or is the LCA Programme going to be further delayed because C-17 is going to suck out the funds? How are these related?

Because, unless it is, these statements of yours like the one above make nosense - except to bash an import because it is American. Reasoning be damned....

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 06 Jul 2010 23:31

^ x2

Totally irrelevant! I guess no noise would have been made if someone did a "Search & Replace" on C-17 to any russki maal!

rohitvats wrote:Philip, what is the point of posting a April 2010 report and trying to juxtapose AKA statement(s) during NLCA roll-out?

And more importantly - is the C-17 purchase any way linked to delay in the LCA Programme? Or is the LCA Programme going to be further delayed because C-17 is going to suck out the funds? How are these related?

Because, unless it is, these statements of yours like the one above make nosense - except to bash an import because it is American. Reasoning be damned....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2010 11:53

Look,we can't buy/obtain every piece of eqpt. all at the same time.WE have to establish priorities.The pressing need for the IAF/PSUs is to perfect and get the LCA into active service asap,since 27 yrs. have elapsed and even an engine has not been developed! The parliamentary standing committee on defence has made its voice loud and clear on the subject.Secondly,the crisis in that we have now no basic trainer is simply scandalous! Some want a "rescue parachute" fiotted onto the HT-32 to save the aircraft and pilots when the engine conks out as it is prone to do,the Hawk local production is far too slow and the IJT is also undergoing delays for a variety of reasons,the delay in the Russian engine's arrival being one fo them.Upgrades of existing aircraft should also be higher priorities than acquiring a "strategic transport",when we hyave NO strategic role at the moment whatsoever! Modrnising and upgrading the AN-32s and IL-76s would be more relevant.With all the facts available,the indecent haste with which the aircraft is being "tested",I am simply dumbstruck why some on BR cannot see the real reason why the C-17 is being press-ganged into IAF service.

amit · Post by **amit** » 07 Jul 2010 12:39

Philip wrote:Look,we can't buy/obtain every piece of eqpt. all at the same time.WE have to establish priorities.The pressing need for the IAF/PSUs is to perfect and get the LCA into active service asap,since 27 yrs. have elapsed and even an engine has not been developed! The parliamentary standing committee on defence has made its voice loud and clear on the subject.Secondly,the crisis in that we have now no basic trainer is simply scandalous! Some want a "rescue parachute" fiotted onto the HT-32 to save the aircraft and pilots when the engine conks out as it is prone to do,the Hawk local production is far too slow and the IJT is also undergoing delays for a variety of reasons,the delay in the Russian engine's arrival being one fo them.Upgrades of existing aircraft should also be higher priorities than acquiring a "strategic transport",when we hyave NO strategic role at the moment whatsoever! Modrnising and upgrading the AN-32s and IL-76s would be more relevant.With all the facts available,the indecent haste with which the aircraft is being "tested",I am simply dumbstruck why some on BR cannot see the real reason why the C-17 is being press-ganged into IAF service.

Philip,

You neatly sidestepped what Rohit said.

Let's take for the moment what you say about the LCA programme is true. But can you prove that the delays are due to a funds crunch? Can you prove that whatever figure between the $2.2 billion to $5.8 billion the IAF will spend on 10 C17s is going to further delay the LCA programme due to lack of money?

If you can't then I don't see the point of all this chest beating.

Finally: Can you point to a single piece of equipment for any of the three services which has not been bought due to lack of funds over the past 5-6 years?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2010 13:39

I agree that it is more a lack of critical decision making and file pushing that is hampering acquisition of weapon systems more than a lack of money.Yet,every year,the unspent money goes back to the kitty despite the services /MOD's wish that the unspent funds earmarked are added to the annual budget.This results in another round of "urgent" ad hoc acquisitions,to meet critical requirements in a crisis,requiring more file pushing.Therefore,some projects do suffer despite technically there being funds because there is lethargy at work and if indifference at the top exists.It is here where the ability of the service chiefs and babus to impress upon the Deaf Min.,sorry...Def. Min.,the urgency and need of the hour.The issue of the fast declining sub fleet is a case in point.We are years behind in delay from achieving Adm.Bhagwat's masterplan for the IN to acquire/build 24 conventional subs,with two lines of indigenous contruction from the West and Russia.Despite the continous pleas of several naval chiefs since Bhagwat,why is the decision to build or acquire the second line languishing and for so long? The fiasco in the fine print regarding the Scorpene contract has not seen any heads roll! The Scorpene project is already many years behind schedule and even Malaysia has got its second Scorpene.In my opinion,the service chiefs should come out and criticise the GOI when such inordinate delays are not dealt with and if all other means of getting the GOI/Deaf Min. off its lazy backside fails.They owe it to the nation to educate the people as to why such delays are taking place and who are responsble.One additional reason is the delay and failure of our PSU's to design,develop and produce in time what eqpt. they've promised the services which results in buying from abroad and the usual round of long-winded evaluation,etc.,etc.,taking years.The two helo contests-attack and light helo,being cancelled and re-tendered are a case in point. There is absolutely NO accountability on the MOD and baudom whatsoever for such delays and incompetence which is why India suffers.

Now in the case of the LCA and the search for a more powerful engine,it is now 18 months since the last Aero-India and still no decision has bene taken for an engine for Mk-2! Unless the decision is taken in time,as redesign of the fuselage may be required and another regime of flight testing has to be undertaken,the MK-2 might arrive long after the 5th-gen fighter is in prodcution which is flying right now! Why is this happening? Some have hinted that vested interests are at work,who want to sabotage the LCA and get the IAF to buy a certain MMRCA from the west which is being shoved down our throats in the name of a "strategic partnership".That is why even though the EJ engine appears to be the best choice,and which will be sanction free,attempts are being made to delay the decision as long as possible,as a decision on the LCA could have ramifications for the MMRCA as the same engine will be offered for the Typhoon.I can also name the huge artillery shortfall for the IA,light helos,basic and intermediate jet trainers for the IAF apart from the IN's sub crisis and (while agreeing that progress is being made today much faster than in the past) the LCA programme,of which not a single aircraft has been inducted into service even after 27 years.

Tangential big ticket items like the C-17 have sprouted from virtually nowhere,surprising, as we do not have any global strategic role to play now or in the future beyond the IOR for which our IL-76s have proven themselves.I've said before,Gates wants to close down the C-17 production immediately and by acquiring C-17s,we will automatically get trapped into the logistic network of US military allies who operate the same bird.Please ask yourselves,which programmes are most important right now and which decisions have to be taken immediately regarding the three services and where must the available funds in the def. budget go first?

PS:As to allegations as to my anti-US eqpt. stance,I have not ranted against the P-8I acquisition (though I did trash the thought of acquiring P-3 Orions),very urgent indeed as our LRMP numbers are inadequate,though still have a Q mark about the eqpt. aboard the aircraft (same as P-3s) and inability to fly "low and slow" required to prosecute subs.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 07 Jul 2010 13:50

India's Ambassador To U.S. To Visit Pratt & Whitney

India's ambassador to the United States is scheduled to meet Thursday in East Hartford with executives of United Technologies Corp. and Pratt & Whitney, and later with members of the Machinists union.

In a visit arranged by U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-1st District, Ambassador Meera Shankar is scheduled to tour a Pratt facility and review an F-117 engine, which powers the Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft. India hopes to buy 10 of those planes, which could mean hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work for Pratt.

the U.S. government is brokering a sale of 10 new C-17s to India. If that deal goes through, it could extend the production line into the fall of 2013, according to Boeing. The company has delivered 199 C-17s to the U.S. Air Force so far. The United Kingdom also has six, with a seventh on order. Absent more orders, Boeing would shut down its C-17 production line in the fall of 2012.

Pratt assembles F-117s at its Middletown factory. The company has consistently refused to say how many jobs depend on that program. Connecticut exports about $110 million worth of goods to India annually, according to Larson's office. Shankar became India's ambassador to the U.S. last year.

amit · Post by **amit** » 07 Jul 2010 13:52

Some time ago a rhetorical question was asked on this thread. I don't remember the exact words but the questions was to the effect: "What can the C17 do that the Il76 can't?"

One of the responses was the C-17's wide body gives a lot more choices when it comes to what can be carried in its belly and what can't. However, it's difficult to visualise this unless one sees a concrete example.

Now look at the picture of a truck coming out of the belly of a Il76 on Shiv's blog:

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/07/ph ... id-to.html

Note: Not linking the picture directly as it's horribly big, please click on the link and then on the picture.

This is a Tata truck and from what it appears to me it fits nicely with two or maybe three feet of gap on both sides.

Now look at the sketch of the C17 carrying four Ashok Leyland trucks:

Now AFAIK the Ashok Leyland trucks depicted in the drawing are bigger than the Tata truck. But let's assume they are the same size. What's interesting is that two of them can fit side-by-side inside a C17.

Apart from the fact that C17 has a larger tonnage capacity than the Il76, its also has more volume inside which can be used for storage - I think Rohit and others pointed this out before - here's a visual example of what a difference that mankes.

Even if we get a 60 ton lift capacity Il76 (made possible with better engines), two trucks will not fit side-by-side unless the fuselage is widened. And there is no talk anywhere of the Russians planning a wide-bodied Il76 - heck why the hell should they do so when they'd rather get the An124-100 on the production line with the help of Boeing?

Now I'm sure the IAF is not buying C17s just to haul trucks all over the place. However, I'm also sure that the IAF has plans to make full use of the extra lift capacity and volume and maybe this is why they are so keen on these birds?

There have been some suggestions here of lifting missiles to the North-east forward areas at short notice, say during when tension builds up with China. That would certainly be a nice way to use C17s and IMO such a capacity would justify the steep price we are likely to pay for them.

JMT

Note: Fixed some typing and language errors.

amit · Post by **amit** » 07 Jul 2010 14:07

Philip wrote:I agree that it is more a lack of critical decision making and file pushing that is hampering acquisition of weapon systems more than a lack of money.Yet,every year,the unspent money goes back to the kitty despite the services /MOD's wish that the unspent funds earmarked are added to the annual budget.This results in another round of "urgent" ad hoc acquisitions,to meet critical requirements in a crisis,requiring more file pushing.Therefore,some projects do suffer despite technically there being funds because there is lethargy at work and if indifference at the top exists.It is here where the ability of the service chiefs and babus to impress upon the Deaf Min.,sorry...Def. Min.,the urgency and need of the hour.

Damned if you don't do and also damned if you do?

You say the service chiefs need to impress upon the Deaf Min on the urgency and need of the hour of a critical piece of equipment. Yet when the IAF moves "fast" on the very heavy transport order (fast is a relative term it's been more than two years since the first articulation of this requirement was made), you say this:

Philip wrote:...We are hell bent upon acquiring the C-17,despite it not being high on the IAF's list of priorities,and I've stated the vested interests at work,being acquired solely to please the US and Boeing and whoever benefits monetarily from such a massive order,...

Who is going to decide what is IAF's list of priorities? The ACM and his team or "experts" who post on Internet forums?

I would think that the ACM is a better judge of what the IAF needs and in what priority. And unless there's more to your allegation "whoever benefits monetarily from such a massive order", I would think you'd feel the same.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Jul 2010 17:56

whats wrong with you Amit??

If you want more trucks - put a road or a railway.

both are cheaper.

fanboi

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 07 Jul 2010 19:03

Amit...The civilian Tata truck was most likely being used for unloading supplies closer to the Ilyushin. Highly improbable that the IAF trains for roll on-roll off operations carried out by a civilian Tata. This particular Tata model are not even within the armed forces MT inventory. However with respect to the higher capabilities of the C17. That's another matter!!

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 07 Jul 2010 19:48

It would be interesting to know what the IAF required of the C-17 during the late June trials and especially what the IAF did not require of the C-17. It would lay to rest all the theories that were written on this forum about the real reasons the IAF may or may not want to C-17 for.

1) Was the C-17 required to land on any unpaved runways in India? If not we can forget about all this talk about any ALG landings since if any such operation had been seriously considered by the IAF, it would have been demonstrated.

2) Was the C-17 required to demonstrate the ground loading of an Arjun ? We have all read the excellent and interesting article "Inducting T-72 tanks by air into Jaffna" by Group Captain A G Bewoor:

During our ground training, that lasted well into Nov 84, we sought much info from our Soviet trainers. One was how to load the T-72 into the IL-76. "Yes", they said, "the IL-76 was designed in the 70's specifically to carry the Soviet tanks of the 80's". Terrific, the T-72's are already in India, we would fly in the IL-76's by Apr 85 with full knowledge on how to airlift India's MBT. We were disappointed. Not once did we see a demo of how it done. We were aware that IL-76's and AN-22's of Ivanovo took Soviet armoured vehicles to Afghanistan via some place in Uzbekistan or Kazakastan. But how did they go about loading the metal giant into the belly? We returned totally ignorant in 1985.

Is India going to be once again left holding the bag the day it needs to haul Arjuns in C-17s? I don't think they need to learn this lesson twice. We can assume that if no Arjun was loaded into the C-17 during the demo, it is a capability that will not be required of the C-17 in the future. If a demo was done, then it is a capability that is really on the table.

We all know by looking at dimensions, weight and C-17 payload that an Arjun easily fits inside a C-17 at first glance. So was an Arjun loaded across the ramp of a C-17, even for a ground demonstration?

3) Was the Gaggal airport the "short runway demonstration"?
Wikipedia lists Gaggal as a paved 1408 meter (4620 feet) airport located at 2500 MSL. Since the the pavement at Gaggal was really meant to support light to medium aircraft, it can be considered "semi-prepared" as far as the C-17 landing weights go. For landing on "semi-prepared" runways, the C-17 is limited to 202720 Kg. According to the landing chart I posted earlier, at that weight, a C-17 can land on a 3500 foot runway, if its dry. Gaggal with its 4620 feet should then be no problem for a 202.72 tonne C-17. How heavy was the demo C-17 when it landed in Gaggal? If Gaggal was wet, according to the charts, the C-17 could still land there but with 18 tonnes less (194 tonnes landing weight) and would need about a 4500 foot runway if located at 2500 feet MSL, as Gaggal was. What is a 194 tonne C-17? Its a C-17 with about 14 tonnes of fuel (to be able to take off again and go elsewhere, not too far, 300 miles or so) and with about 52 tonnes in the hold, since the aircraft weights 128 tonnes.
Now for take off: The same charts indicate that the C-17 should be able to take off from Gaggal, if DRY, at around 215 tonnes, meaning with 87 tonnes of fuel and payload, divided as required (for example 30 tonnes of fuel and 57 tonnes of payload, or 40 tonnes of payload and 47 tonnes of fuel) There is a penalty for wet runways, which is not available to me. It may be the same 18 tonne penalty plus another RCR related factor.

If the Gaggal demonstration was done with an empty aircraft and minimal fuel as I suspect, its purpose would be zero, nil, useless. Perhaps to woo crowds at air shows on how the new aircraft can land and take off short when flying empty from long paved runways. Like Canada which recently landed its C-17 for the first time at CFS Alert, a 5500 foot gravel runways located in the Arctic: the payload consisted of the US ambassador, about 7 other people (big brass and the ambassador's staff), a couple suitcases and several cases of coca-cola. The aircraft did not even have enough fuel to depart, and had to refuel in order to go to Thule, the closest airport, although the precious fuel at CFS Alert is flown-in at great cost inside C-130 Hercules aircraft. But nothing is to too outrageous when it comes to showing our great American friends how we put the equipment they sell us to great use. The same people and luggage of course could have been taken to Alert on a Canadian Air Force Canadair Challenger jet, but the US ambassador would not have been as pleased as he was by going there in a C-17.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Jul 2010 05:46

vaibhav.n wrote:Amit...The civilian Tata truck was most likely being used for unloading supplies closer to the Ilyushin. Highly improbable that the IAF trains for roll on-roll off operations carried out by a civilian Tata. This particular Tata model are not even within the armed forces MT inventory. However with respect to the higher capabilities of the C17. That's another matter!!

Boss,

I think you didn't check the link properly. It clearly says: IAF Il-76 Lifts Indian Aid To Kyrgyzstan.

You mean to say that IAF was training for roll on roll off operations in an airport in Kyrgyzstan? Or are you saying that the famous Tata truck is also the preferred means of transport in Kyrgyzstan, and it was send by the Kyrgyzstan authorities to pick up the aid?

If you look at the picture closely it's already fully loaded and kitted with a canvas cover over whatever the truck is carrying. You mean to say all this loading was done only a few feet away from the cargo door of the Il76?

Sorry boss it doesn't look that way, IMO the truck came in the Il76.

But leaving all that aside, does it take away from what my post was all about? Two such trucks will not fit side by side in the IL76 - that much is clear from the picture. It would, however, fit in the C17. That's the advantage of a wide-body.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Jul 2010 05:55

Gilles wrote:If the Gaggal demonstration was done with an empty aircraft and minimal fuel as I suspect, its purpose would be zero, nil, useless. Perhaps to woo crowds at air shows on how the new aircraft can land and take off short when flying empty from long paved runways. Like Canada which recently landed its C-17 for the first time at CFS Alert, a 5500 foot gravel runways located in the Arctic: the payload consisted of the US ambassador, about 7 other people (big brass and the ambassador's staff), a couple suitcases and several cases of coca-cola. The aircraft did not even have enough fuel to depart, and had to refuel in order to go to Thule, the closest airport, although the precious fuel at CFS Alert is flown-in at great cost inside C-130 Hercules aircraft. But nothing is to too outrageous when it comes to showing our great American friends how we put the equipment they sell us to great use. The same people and luggage of course could have been taken to Alert on a Canadian Air Force Canadair Challenger jet, but the US ambassador would not have been as pleased as he was by going there in a C-17.

I'm sorry but I have serious problems with speculative posts of this nature. It assumes that the IAF takes its cue from what the Canadian Air Force allegedly does to please the Americans.

But more importantly this implies that the 10-day testing conducted by the IAF was a sham and the purpose was to hoodwink people. This implies that IAF is also actively participating in a scam.

Putting If in a fancy font color is not a fig leaf to hide blatant speculation. The IAF tested the aircraft to find out if it met whatever criteria it had set for it. If that included landing empty at Gagal then so be it. We'll never know if an Arjun was or was not tucked in the belly of the plane would we?

Why this persistent effort by some posters to second guess IAF's intentions just because they have problems with US products?

You can oppose the acquisition of these planes without questioning the intentions of the IAF. A lot of posters have done that and have come out with good arguments against the C17 acquisition.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Jul 2010 06:16

It would lay to rest all the theories that were written on this forum

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Jul 2010 06:18

Surya wrote:whats wrong with you Amit??

If you want more trucks - put a road or a railway.

both are cheaper.

fanboi

Not to mention its stupid to put a road truck into the belly of an air truck!

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 08 Jul 2010 16:26

amit wrote:
vaibhav.n wrote:Amit...The civilian Tata truck was most likely being used for unloading supplies closer to the Ilyushin. Highly improbable that the IAF trains for roll on-roll off operations carried out by a civilian Tata. This particular Tata model are not even within the armed forces MT inventory. However with respect to the higher capabilities of the C17. That's another matter!!
Boss,

I think you didn't check the link properly. It clearly says: IAF Il-76 Lifts Indian Aid To Kyrgyzstan.

You mean to say that IAF was training for roll on roll off operations in an airport in Kyrgyzstan? Or are you saying that the famous Tata truck is also the preferred means of transport in Kyrgyzstan, and it was send by the Kyrgyzstan authorities to pick up the aid?

If you look at the picture closely it's already fully loaded and kitted with a canvas cover over whatever the truck is carrying. You mean to say all this loading was done only a few feet away from the cargo door of the Il76?

Sorry boss it doesn't look that way, IMO the truck came in the Il76.

But leaving all that aside, does it take away from what my post was all about? Two such trucks will not fit side by side in the IL76 - that much is clear from the picture. It would, however, fit in the C17. That's the advantage of a wide-body.

Amit, OT but do look at both the snaps.

1. In the first snap you can see it these snaps are prior to takeoff for Kyrgyzstan and that the airport in question is most likely the Palam AFS. Secondly, It also shows the Il-76's hold full with the aid relief for Kyrgyzstan.
2. In the second snap, the Civilian Truck clearly is backed out till the rear ramp of the Ilyushin.
3. I never argued otherwise on the C17's capabilities, the IAF knows what its going for and all the probables are surely not available in a public forum.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Jul 2010 16:55

vaibhav.n wrote:Amit, OT but do look at both the snaps.

1. In the first snap you can see it these snaps are prior to takeoff for Kyrgyzstan and that the airport in question is most likely the Palam AFS. Secondly, It also shows the Il-76's hold full with the aid relief for Kyrgyzstan.
2. In the second snap, the Civilian Truck clearly is backed out till the rear ramp of the Ilyushin.
3. I never argued otherwise on the C17's capabilities, the IAF knows what its going for and all the probables are surely not available in a public forum.

Perhaps you're right. But I think you'd agree that this particular photo shows the width (as well as the ramp) of the Il76 vis a vis the truck in a one is to one proportion.

And it's obvious that irrespective of whether or not the Tata truck came out of the Il76 or not, it could fit inside.

From the diagram I referred to it's also obvious that two such trucks could fit side by side inside a C17.

That was the while point of my post - to show the advantages of the extra width of C17.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 08 Jul 2010 17:15

Trials over, Boeing awaits IAF decision on $5.8 billion C-17 deal

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 08 Jul 2010 17:48

I seen C-17 in delhi while landing 7th july, is this related trial as weather is very bad that time in evening

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jul 2010 18:32

Since the "need of the minute" is a strategic airlifter like the C-17,why compare it with the smaller IL-76 heavylifter at all.You cannot compare "apples with oranges".Instead please do a comparison of the C-17 with the AN -124 and let's objectively see which aircraft is superior from both operational and cost factors.After all,the Antonov production is resuming with orders from the Russian AF and it is mysterious why the IAF has turned a Nelsonian eye to that aircraft which is bearing the brunt of NATO supply to the west's war in Afghanistan! It is highly suspicious from my earlier stated facts (production soon to cease,etc.) the manner in which the C-17 is being inducted in such indecent haste too when out of the blue it has become the IAF's top priority.I maintain that this has the potential to be the biggest scam since Bofors and is possibly part of a secret quid-pro-quo to the US for the N-deal,to buy huge quantities of US arms.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Jul 2010 18:35

After all,the Antonov production is resuming with orders from the Russian AF

aha change of tack.

Once again the mythical production is going to resume.

why stop at the An 124 - go on to the AN 225 - I am sure production can be resumed for that too.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 08 Jul 2010 19:42

Philip wrote:Since the "need of the minute" is a strategic airlifter like the C-17,why compare it with the smaller IL-76 heavylifter at all.You cannot compare "apples with oranges".Instead please do a comparison of the C-17 with the AN -124 and let's objectively see which aircraft is superior from both operational and cost factors.After all,the Antonov production is resuming with orders from the Russian AF and it is mysterious why the IAF has turned a Nelsonian eye to that aircraft which is bearing the brunt of NATO supply to the west's war in Afghanistan! It is highly suspicious from my earlier stated facts (production soon to cease,etc.) the manner in which the C-17 is being inducted in such indecent haste too when out of the blue it has become the IAF's top priority.I maintain that this has the potential to be the biggest scam since Bofors and is possibly part of a secret quid-pro-quo to the US for the N-deal,to buy huge quantities of US arms.

I would suggest that you go through this link and comment..

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdi/j ... _1_n.shtml

It appears that Russian's have been seeking someone / anyone to try and get the production re-started - without success so far...

Is it better to go for an a/c whose "production soon to cease, etc." or for an a/c whose production is resuming (need proof)?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jul 2010 20:06

I suggets that you also read AWST,a couple of issues ago,stating that production of several types of transport aircraft are being restarted in Russia including upgrades of the IL-76 and new AN-124s.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 08 Jul 2010 20:30

Read it Sir. the starting lines from AWST " Russia's big An-124-100 Ruslan freighter appears closer to a new lease on life, provided promised funding and commitments are forthcoming."

Further quote
"However, for the new plan to go forward, Moscow must agree to invest $500 million to retool the plant and refurbish the assembly line, and launch customers must come forward with firm commitments."

One more snippet:

"However, it is not yet clear if the defense ministry, which already has a long list of hardware purchases on its wish list, is interested in a new An-124 acquisition just now. The ministry may place higher priority on renovating the 24 An-124s currently listed in the Russian air force inventory, most of which require a major overhaul."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 121709.xml

Now, can you definitively say that An-124 should be the plane that IAF would like to buy?

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 08 Jul 2010 20:32

Philip,
I have provided the links from AWST. Can you do me the same courtesy and show me the links which establish the fact that production is ongoing?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 08 Jul 2010 21:21

Last time I checked, restarting a complex piece of assembly line for an aircraft is not the same as restarting your computer.

This thread is really going around in circles. For the nth time:

An124-100 is not available and there is no firm time line on when it will be, if at all.
Il 476, "HAL Collaboration plane" are mythical paper planes. Il 76 60 tons, there is no prototype even
A400M is hopelessly backlogged.

So, what is the alternative?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 08 Jul 2010 21:22

Surya wrote:
After all,the Antonov production is resuming with orders from the Russian AF
aha change of tack.

Once again the mythical production is going to resume.

why stop at the An 124 - go on to the AN 225 - I am sure production can be resumed for that too.

Yep.. I am surprised the people here are not harping on the An 225..