C-17s for the IAF?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Jul 2010 11:58

Philip wrote:<SNIP>

Why on earth then have we signed on with Russia for designing and developing the same when the Russians have alternatives flying,AN-70 and the Europeans have their long delayed A-400M finally flying now and at Farnborough.We could've ideally joined the Europeans instead and fast tracked the MTA acquisition by buying the A-400.Is this another sop to the DRDO and PSU's reinventing the wheel?

<SNIP>

Well, Sir, not only are you biased in your POV, you're also twisting facts here - By what yardstick of imagination do the A-400M and AN-70 fall in the category of envisaged MTA? Who is making a new 15-120 tonnes category a/c? The only good option is to go for the new C-130J a/c. So, why paint everything as a conspiracy only?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2010 12:22

Please, the Russian help and assistance for the ATV and Akula acquisition has taken decades and 10+ years respectively! They were not made last year! In addition no one else was willing to help us,there were no other alternatives as far as nuclear sub tech was concerned.The T-90 was acquired in haste because the Pakis got the T-80UD from Ukraine when the SU collapsed and Arjun was nowhere on the horizon.Here also there were few options.
In our recent acquisitions,there IS a discernible tilt to the US by this govt.,it is unmistakable and the great danger is that our entire defcne forces are being shoehorned into interoperability with US/NATO forces so that their dirty wars can be fought by our forces in the future,or used to their advantage.If we do need extra transports and need them now and in the immediate future to deal with looming threats ,we do have alternatives and have had them available for some time.

Look at the manner in which Dr.Singh is peddling the nuclear liability bill with all its shortcomings despite the burning issue of Bhopal! Just study his track record and statements,not to mention our ridiculous foreign policy of endless meaningless "talks" with Pak because of US pressure.Immediately after the latest disaster,what did the US mouthpieces say,that we and Pak should continue to talk.Whom does this benefit,especially when the US is arming and aiding favourite rent-boy Pak? Read Hillary's latest paens of praise for Pak.Why have we not taken even the smallest diplomatic slap on the wrists to Pak despite all its perfidy to India? Do the lives of the Indian people and armed forces matter so little to this dispensation? We seem to be unable to take major foreign policy decisions without getting White House approval,just look at how we have lost Iran! It now appears that the major military decisions too are being heavily influenced by the US to its benefit.

PS:Boeing is talking now at Farnborough about a more "fuel efficient" C-17,"narrower" in size too by "several feet" than those in current production and lighter with more use of composites! Is this the version that we're planning on buying?

http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416133050&o=ext

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2010 13:40

Another MTA transport option from Embraer.The KC-390 which will be "up and running" buy 2016.MTOW 72t,80 soldiers capacity.

http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416133050&o=ext

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Jul 2010 20:11

Philip wrote:Please, the Russian help and assistance for the ATV and Akula acquisition has taken decades and 10+ years respectively!

It's not the length of the program, it's how long it took to commit to a program. The decision-making process is what you were complaining about after all.

Philip wrote:In addition no one else was willing to help us,there were no other alternatives as far as nuclear sub tech was concerned.The T-90 was acquired in haste because the Pakis got the T-80UD from Ukraine when the SU collapsed and Arjun was nowhere on the horizon.Here also there were few options.

*shrug* You make excuses for the Russian acquisitions, I can make excuses for the US acquisitions.

But the common theme is the lack of alternatives. When there is only one choice, the decision becomes easier.

In areas where there is competition, I don't see any sudden rush to buy US. Witness the SH and Apache.

Philip wrote:being shoehorned into interoperability with US/NATO forces so that their dirty wars can be fought by our forces in the future,or used to their advantage.

1. The idea that a transport has anything to do with 'interoperability' is hillarious, especially considering the Il-76s and An-124s in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. So the C-17 would increase NATO interoperability but your 'ideal' A400M wouldn't?

Philip wrote:If we do need extra transports and need them now and in the immediate future to deal with looming threats ,we do have alternatives and have had them available for some time.

What alternatives? Nothing smaller than the C-17 can do the job, nothing bigger than the C-17 is available.

Philip wrote:PS:Boeing is talking now at Farnborough about a more "fuel efficient" C-17,"narrower" in size too by "several feet" than those in current production and lighter with more use of composites! Is this the version that we're planning on buying?

No.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 21 Jul 2010 21:04

Another MTA transport option from Embraer.The KC-390 which will be "up and running" buy 2016.

Aaaaaand the hits keep on coming...

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jul 2010 01:57

Philip wrote:
PS:Boeing is talking now at Farnborough about a more "fuel efficient" C-17,"narrower" in size too by "several feet" than those in current production and lighter with more use of composites! Is this the version that we're planning on buying?

http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416133050&o=ext

This narrow C-17 is basically meant to correct the C-17 weak points I have been highlighting throughout this Forum. Its real STOL capability and its heavy footprint on the ground. The narrow body has one goal and one goal alone: reduce weight. By reducing weight, they will improve runway performance and reduce the footprint.

The C-17FE is supposed to have more powerful engines, more advanced flap design, an engine-out control systems (V-mcg is a major limiting factor in runway performance in this aircraft), and a tire deflation system for allowing landings on rougher runways (which the IL-76 already has). Basically, the C-17FE is moving towards an IL-76-size aircraft . It still will only have 14 wheels compared to the Il-76's 20.

I think the IAF would gain a lot to upgrading and overhauling its IL-76 with new engines, new avionics, glass cockpits, reduced crew and getting rid of the 1000 Kg useless tail gunner position on those of the IL-76s that are still fitted with one.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 22 Jul 2010 02:16

Gilles wrote:The narrow body has one goal and one goal alone: reduce weight. By reducing weight, they will improve runway performance and reduce the footprint.

The other major goal is to reduce the cost, both acquisition and operating.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 22 Jul 2010 03:48

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:The narrow body has one goal and one goal alone: reduce weight. By reducing weight, they will improve runway performance and reduce the footprint.
The other major goal is to reduce the cost, both acquisition and operating.

It has one goal and one goal only and that is to meet requirements of "Joint future theater lift" program. You have identified a weight problem in a super heavy aircraft

and now you are looking for validation/solvation in C17EF. Neither there was a weight/landing problem nor anyone is trying to solve it.

Number of wheels doesn't mean anything, what matters is contact area of landing gear wheels. C17 is made for USAF requirements and it meets those with the wheel number and weight it is. It seems IAF found after testing that it meets its requirements too.

Stop twisting and misrepresenting facts/events.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 22 Jul 2010 07:39

Both the Apache and the Chinook were brought to India by C-17 aircraft, Possibly to Quietly Underline the Capabilities of the Strategic Lifter,
Ten of which are also being considered for purchase by the IAF, after it underwent trials last month.

Link

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Jul 2010 08:45

Katare wrote: Stop twisting and misrepresenting facts/events.

You forgot to add that the C-17 that the IAF selected after throughout study, can land on un-improved runways as short as 3000 feet with a 160,000 pound payload.

How is that for a fact that is not twisted ?

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 22 Jul 2010 09:33

I am all for upgrading IL76s if the parts are available. Because we simply need every aircraft we can get our hands on. I am also for purchasing C17s. Upgrade of IL76s has nothing to do with purchase of C17s.

If I were calling shots:

1. I would go with C17s for strategic and tactical heavy lifts
2. I will give Russians the contract for 126 air superiority fighters. Because we can license produce another couple of hundreds in India. It is much better deal.
3. I will also go with Mi28s for our attack chopper needs. Once again because we have option of licensed production.
4. We should consider Chinooks for our heavy lift chopper needs.

That is just my humble opinion.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 22 Jul 2010 10:05

Gilles wrote:
Katare wrote: Stop twisting and misrepresenting facts/events.
You forgot to add that the C-17 that the IAF selected after throughout study, can land on un-improved runways as short as 3000 feet with a 160,000 pound payload.

How is that for a fact that is not twisted ?

That is correct as claimed by Boeing and tested by its customers.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 22 Jul 2010 11:15

Katare wrote:
Gilles wrote:You forgot to add that the C-17 that the IAF selected after throughout study, can land on un-improved runways as short as 3000 feet with a 160,000 pound payload.

How is that for a fact that is not twisted ?
That is correct as claimed by Boeing and tested by its customers.

Oh dear, you just gave Gilles an excuse to beat his favorite dead horse again

In the end, it doesn't matter. India conducted their own trials so they know its true capabilities. If they're happy with the results, that's all that matters.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jul 2010 13:03

...and I am all or buying everything available as we appear to have inexhaustible financial reserves and couldn't care a damn about the hundreds of millions of poor unfortunates below the poverty line! PC's latest statement in the media shows that he has left their fate to the Maoists!

Just another quote from a CNS,after Adm.Arun Prakash's remarks posted earlier on our decisionmaking babus and politicos,this time,the man in the hot seat,Admiral Verma. in VAYU in the article on "Defence Acquisitions".
This was part of his keynote address at the "National Seminar on Defence Acquisitions" held in April this year.It clearly shows that there is a "tilt" in favour of buying from the US by the Politico-babu nexus.

With increasing procurement of defence material including those via the US Foreign Military Sales (FMA) route,he however cautioned that "India would like ts general interests as promoted by the Defence Procurement Procedure SECURED in the face of the provisions under which the FMA are conducted ,which are generally SKEWED SHARPLY in favour of the other country (read USA).

No less than the CNS is warning us about the "skewed" nature of FMAs under which US systems are being acquired and wants our interests "secured".Adm.Prakash also writes in another feature on Indian Carrier Aviation about the "absence of vision at the political level and the mindless obduracy of the bureaucracy..."

It is this ad-hoc atitude of the two arms of the "triad" of our defence establishment,the political bosses and their babus,who keep the armed forces out of thre strategic and decision making loop despite their ignorance and inability to understand military matters.As said before the services welcome any toys they get,"beggars can't be choosers" seems to be the attitude of their civilian bosses,however,if they've asked for let's say a bicycle as top priority,for heaven's sake let them not be given "roller skates" instead,and that too from the US through "skewed" agreements!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2010 13:29

Philip,

A retd Admiral once told me that its not the vision of politicians. Politicians don't understand weapons. Same as babu.

pankaj · Post by **pankaj** » 22 Jul 2010 14:19

GeorgeWelch
Post subject: Re: C-17s for the IAF?
Katare wrote:
Gilles wrote:
You forgot to add that the C-17 that the IAF selected after throughout study, can land on un-improved runways as short as 3000 feet with a 160,000 pound payload.

How is that for a fact that is not twisted ?

That is correct as claimed by Boeing and tested by its customers.

Oh dear, you just gave Gilles an excuse to beat his favorite dead horse again

In the end, it doesn't matter. India conducted their own trials so they know its true capabilities. If they're happy with the results, that's all that matters.

C-17 was landed on a Airport located at altitude of 2525 ft , well connected by commercial flights .

Will it be able to connect ALG ‘s located at altitude of 9000 ft to 13000 ft & how much can it carry ?

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Jul 2010 14:43

pankaj wrote:C-17 was landed on a Airport located at altitude of 2525 ft , well connected by commercial flights .

Will it be able to connect ALG ‘s located at altitude of 9000 ft to 13000 ft & how much can it carry ?

Pankaj,

Multiple press reports have indicated that the IAF carried out the C17 tests at the air strip in Gaggal in Himachal.

Could you please inform us which commercial flights take off from Gaggal and what class of planes (in terms of size/weight) fly in and out of "well-connected" Gaggal?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jul 2010 14:57

The question is not whether C17 can take off , its a question of runway length and quality.

pankaj · Post by **pankaj** » 22 Jul 2010 15:00

By Air

The nearest Airport is at Gaggal, 13 Kms from Dharamshala and 8 Kms from Kangra Town.

Time Airlines Days Schedule Flight Num
12:30 Dep. Dharamshala Kingfisher Daily IT-4352
14:00 Arr. New Delhi

10:40 Dep. Delhi Kingfisher Daily IT-4351
12:05 Arr. Kangra

http://hpkangra.nic.in/access.htm

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jul 2010 15:10

Amit, Kingfisher flies ATR42/72 on that route

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR_72

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Jul 2010 15:11

Tanaji wrote:The question is not whether C17 can take off , its a question of runway length and quality.

Tanaji,

If your post was meant for me, let me say I agree wholeheartedly with this point.

What I want to know is about is how "well-connected" Gaggal airport is. Since you have read the reports that were linked earlier, I think you know why.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jul 2010 15:13

No, it was meant at Pankaj.

It seems only Kingfisher flies to that airport. 2 flights daily.

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Jul 2010 15:16

Tanaji wrote:Amit, Kingfisher flies ATR42/72 on that route

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR_72

Tanaji,

Our posts crossed. I've flow on one of these planes, of course not to Gaggal but between Hyderabad and Chennai.

Length: 27.16 m

Wingspan: 27.05 m

Max take off weight: 22,500kg

Take off run at Max weight: 1,290 m

Now we all know the numbers for C17 so no point in repeating them.

Comes back to this point "well-connected" is a misnomer. Of course this is not say the IAF could have/should have tested the C17 from an AGL but if they think that's not needed then?

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Jul 2010 15:17

Tanaji wrote:No, it was meant at Pankaj.

It seems only Kingfisher flies to that airport. 2 flights daily.

Aha noted. Thanks!

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Jul 2010 15:19

pankaj wrote:By Air

The nearest Airport is at Gaggal, 13 Kms from Dharamshala and 8 Kms from Kangra Town.

Time Airlines Days Schedule Flight Num
12:30 Dep. Dharamshala Kingfisher Daily IT-4352
14:00 Arr. New Delhi

10:40 Dep. Delhi Kingfisher Daily IT-4351
12:05 Arr. Kangra

http://hpkangra.nic.in/access.htm

Pankaj please see my post about the dimensions of the plane flown by Kingfisher and then please look up the dimensions of the C17. And also look at the length of the Gaggal strip. All of this has been linked earlier on this thread and discussed down to the bone.

And by your own post you've nailed the phrase "well-connected". Hope you note that!

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 22 Jul 2010 20:27

pankaj wrote:
GeorgeWelch
Post subject: Re: C-17s for the IAF?
Katare wrote:
Gilles wrote:
You forgot to add that the C-17 that the IAF selected after throughout study, can land on un-improved runways as short as 3000 feet with a 160,000 pound payload.

How is that for a fact that is not twisted ?

That is correct as claimed by Boeing and tested by its customers.

Oh dear, you just gave Gilles an excuse to beat his favorite dead horse again

In the end, it doesn't matter. India conducted their own trials so they know its true capabilities. If they're happy with the results, that's all that matters.
C-17 was landed on a Airport located at altitude of 2525 ft , well connected by commercial flights .

Will it be able to connect ALG ‘s located at altitude of 9000 ft to 13000 ft & how much can it carry ?

IAF must have test landed at places where it wants C17 to operate. Media only talked about one landing but that doesn't mean that it was landed only on Gaggal airfield in India. Which by the way is used for 50 seater 27 ton weight aircrafts, 1/10th of C17 .

Also why do you think that IAF would want to land a 77ton payload aircraft at ALGs? We have never really operated even Il76s at those ALGs although Il76 have better rough field capabilities than C17 due to its smaller size and sturdier landing gears.

If we must than it is neither too expansive nor technologically challenging to upgrade a few of those air fields to operate C17s/Il76s. It could be as easy as throwing a few tons of Portland cement on dirt and compacting it with rollers, given that length is not an issue. Airfields are custom designed and certified for particular aircraft classes and Aircrafts are designed for certain baseline airfield ratings. Also this issue of landing at high altitude is blown out of proportion. Remember that those ALGs were built by USA/Brits during WW2 for landing troops and supplies using WW2 era planes.

For US it is different because it plans to land its forces on enemy territory which limits its ability to modify those airfields for its heavy aircrafts. USAF solves that problem by landing airfield strengthening equipment and material in first wave of landings

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Jul 2010 20:31

katare-ji, yes the fields were built in WW2, but then they had piston engine planes that needed less takeoff run space too and carried far lower loads

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 22 Jul 2010 20:41

Lalmohan sahib,

Today's aircrafts would outperform WW2 aircrafts by a large margin for almost any performance parameter. It is given that you cannot land or take of with full load on small and high altitude airfields or in bad weather. There are other planes like C130J and Il76 that can do the job if your biggest aircraft can't land on your smallest and weakest ALG.

On a lighter side, we can ask Boeing to replace those jet engines with piston engines

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 21:30

Katare-ji, which ALG are you referring to that were build by British?

The ones in the Ladakh were made by us in 1962...same with the ones in North East. At present, AN-32 operate from these ALG...along with helicopters (Mi-8/17)

Kaalpurush · Post by **Kaalpurush** » 22 Jul 2010 21:42

Do we have any plans on A400M ? Malaysia probably would be the first Asian nation to go for the Airbus A400M.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jul 2010 21:50

Kaalpurush wrote:Do we have any plans on A400M ? Malaysia probably would be the first Asian nation to go for the Airbus A400M.

People, at least read up past posts on the topic?

Kaalpurush · Post by **Kaalpurush** » 22 Jul 2010 21:52

ummm .. I'm sorry I missed it completely

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Jul 2010 22:05

Simply put, the A400M is massively backlogged. Airbus has confirmed orders for 181 aircraft. They can make 30 aircraft per year. Our order if placed now will go into the end of the queue... you can do the math.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Jul 2010 02:56

Rohit, Check wiki/google, US supplied troops on Burma borders and in China from NE using these fields.

A400M is classified as a tactical transport aircraft. C17 is true wide body strategic aircraft. I think IA/IAF would want to upgrade to a bigger more strategic aircraft not downgrade to a smaller turboprop.

Also the program is facing ~$5.00billion shortfall and company officials are threatning to shutdown the program. It would cost much more than whatr they offered or EU would have to subsidize it.

Either way, I would want more A400M later on to agument our C130 fleet.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jul 2010 11:23

Katare wrote:Rohit, Check wiki/google, US supplied troops on Burma borders and in China from NE using these fields. <SNIP>

Katare sahab, the airfields that I could glean from net and from information about USAF ferrying stuff into China were Dinjan, Chabua, Mohanbari, Jorhat and Sookerating. Of these, Mohanbari and Chabu have IAF bases - the former has heptr squadrons while latter has fighter squadrons+detachment of AN-32. They also handle IL-76 - including the famousn Assam Courier. Jorhat is base of 2 AN-32 squadron. I'm not aware of the status of Sookerating. Dinjan is a military cantonment and close to Chabua.

These are not ALG - the true ALG (as IAF calls them) are of the like of Zero, Mechuka, Teju and Vijaynagar and it is we who made them. Only AN-32 operate to these ALG; it remains to be seen if C-130 can make it.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 24 Jul 2010 20:15

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/bus ... 01307.html

This one quotes the deal at $3.8B, which 380 million a plane

We will find out the true number only when it is signed. Just goes to show how reliable the $5.2B number is.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 24 Jul 2010 20:20

^^^ Boss, the article says 3.8 billion pounds thats over $ 5 billion.

The C-17 Globemaster deal at approximately 3.8 billion pounds is the largest Indo-US deal ever, overtaking the 1.4 billion-pound contract for eight Boeing P-8I long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft inked last year.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 24 Jul 2010 20:34

You are right. Sorry, my bad. I stand corrected.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 24 Jul 2010 21:16

^^^ No big deal my friend. I actually hope the price goes higher and the deal is rejected out of hand. GOI should not be subsidizing
Paki supporters.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 26 Jul 2010 06:52

A400M Gears Up For Unprepared Runway Trials

Airbus Military in the next few days expects to commence trials to land the A400M airlifter on unprepared runways, in the first significant step to validate some of the transport’s military performance.

The first step is for the A400M, now christened the Grizzly, to land on a runway near Toulouse, France, with chalk pellets. Those are to show how stones would ricochet and impact the A400M’s fuselage, in advance of real landings in austere environments, says Fernando Alonso, head of flight testing for Airbus.

Actual landings on unprepared surfaces are likely to occur around the end of the year.

Alonso notes that the initial part of the flight test campaign is about to wrap up. Performance is close to what models indicated it would be, he adds. Flutter testing should wrap up next month.

Also ahead are cold and hot weather trials in the coming months to assess the A400M’s ability to handle severe weather conditions. High-altitude takeoffs and landings are in the cards as well.

Alonso hopes to have the first A400M customers fly the airlifter themselves.

Guess who just opened up a can of whop a$$