C-17s for the IAF?

[Philip]

It is why I posted many moons ago details of a new Rusian light tank about 40/45t with the same gun as that of a T-90/T-72.Ideal for use in high alt mountainous terrain.I frankly wonder how we will support logistically and maintain MBTs at such high alts.Equipping the ground forces with bunker busting ATGW/man portable missiles,and having enough artillery assets,which can fire over mountaintops as we saw at Kargil,would be more useful than MBTs.Light armoured vehicles with good firepower that can traverse the mountain roads need to be as some have said,permanently stationed in key sectors.I'm sure that the existing heavy transports will be able to airlift them to base camps.

[Singha]

what you describe is barely adequate to hold the line. operational groups to disrupt the PLA rear areas and (re) take areas of aksai chin will take heavy armour and mobile arty because thats what the PLA will put in the theater. in a bare deserty area with good LOS and lots of open areas to play in, we all know what will happen if a light force meets a heavy force.

in nubra valley also there is high desert. tour operators offer bactrian camel rides there.

next time there must be no Kargil with going behind the lines banned for any reason. deeper you can disrupt the enemy's lines of advance the better.

[Philip]

Just a thought,did I mention it earlier? This thread has been going strong for so long that I can't remember!

If NATO forces can lease AN-124s from E-European owners,why can't we also "lease" a goodly number of C-17s if they are so desperately needed? I say this because in the voluminous info available on the USAF's C-17 inventory,the 180 aircraft are "more than what we require",has been a repeated statement in opposing any further buy by Gates,Congress & co.The US has enough of them and all the lobbying in the world has seen even the White House warn of any attempt to continue production through the back door.A few of the extra numbers that the USAF have could easily be "long leased" by us,in a far cheaper alternative to buying them.We are doing something similar with the 10 yr. lease of the Akula-2/3 sub.We could save approx. $5 billion on the "lease".This would be to me a far more acceptable arrangement and the money saved go into other more critical programmes.

[Pratyush]

Philip,

Just 2 questions.

Is the C17 available for lease?
Why will the arguments made against leasing the AN 124 on this thread not be applicable against leasing of the C17?

[rohitvats]

Rohit , but isnt it a case that at high altitude you are better of with good firepower and better mobility at the cost of reduced protection.

The heavy tank engine could take its own toll in a atmosphere which could not be oxygen rich as plains of Punjab or Rajasthan , assuming the fuel used remains the same ?

Say for eg If you could get an Arjun Gun on a 20 T tank with a high round of first kill probability but that needs a engine of low power ( 600 hp ) and weight but better mobility , then it is just a question of who hits first one who hits first will win no matter what the armor protection could be.

Austin, I cannot comment on the derating of the engine and overall impact. But derating has to happen. Happens with all other IA vehicles and MBT engine will also need to follow the laws of Physics.

As for choice of armor protection - like I said earlier, you need muscles to take on muscles. And more so in case of IA versus PLA - we need good armor protection to with stand multiple hits. While ratios are unlikely to be in league of NATO:Warsaw, still IMO, we need systems which can take on much larger PLA even in reduced numbers.

IA had inducted T-72 to Ladakh and same were then de-inducted. Internet chatter tells me that the experience was not worth the effort - but I have a different take. IMO, signing of Sino-Indian Accord(93?) cooled down things and IA deinducted the much required T-72 equipped Regiment for deployment in plains. Remember, these were the times when Services were short of every damn equipment.

As for the road and rail network thing - we are talking about some of the most difficult terrain in the world. India has only now started work on Rohtang Tunnel - this will make the portion of Himachal Pradesh beyond Rohtang Pass accessible even during winters. Contrary to popular belief - the Manali-Leh Road will not become all-weather round the year road. For a simple reason that there are three other passes on the road - Baralacha La 4,892 m (16,050 ft), Lachulung La 5,059 m (16,598 ft) and Taglang La 5,325 m (17,470 ft). While it is said that last two are manageable even in winters (low snowfall in Ladakh Region)...there is still Baralacha La which is considered a difficult pass.

We are good 6-8years away from the kind of connectivity that will permit the kind of movement PLA might enjoy in Tibet and permits us to move large objects like MBT as one piece from plains to these areas.

[rohitvats]

It is why I posted many moons ago details of a new Rusian light tank about 40/45t with the same gun as that of a T-90/T-72.Ideal for use in high alt mountainous terrain.I frankly wonder how we will support logistically and maintain MBTs at such high alts.Equipping the ground forces with bunker busting ATGW/man portable missiles,and having enough artillery assets,which can fire over mountaintops as we saw at Kargil,would be more useful than MBTs.Light armoured vehicles with good firepower that can traverse the mountain roads need to be as some have said,permanently stationed in key sectors.I'm sure that the existing heavy transports will be able to airlift them to base camps.

The Russian light tank is dead - was cancelled by Putin along with the famous T-95.

And why should we have problem maintaining MBT in Ladakh? We carry thousands of tonnes of material every year for winter stocking of Ladakh and Indian Army. What is the problem with carrying spares for a MBT?

In case people don't know their history - IA inducted tanks in 1962 war in Ladakh because Chinese were thought to have armor and Spanggur Gap offered enough real estate through which PLA armor could have moved in towards the Indus Valley. This is 2010...I think we can do better.

[Pratyush]

Rohit,

I have the following questions for you WRT the PLA capability.

As I understand from the previous posts, the engines of the IA vehicles will derate. The same constrain will aslo apply to the PLA, Right? In that situation how effective the will the PLA Armour be in concerned theater.

Also, how useful jeep mounted ATGM and 106 RCLS be against the PLA armored thrust, if they (PLA armour) can get to the theator of operations.

[rohitvats]

^^^Well, like I said earlier, I cannot comment on the exact extend of derating and how big a handicap will that be. But again, that did not prevent us from taking tanks upto Zoji La in 1948 and Eastern Ladakh in 1962. So, IMO, the efficacy remains and it is not that serious a handicap.

As for the ATGM and RCL - AFAIK, RCL are out of service and have been replaced by ATGM. All Infantry units are equipped with them and these are their organic defence elements against enemy armor. The usefullness will be same as fighting TSPA Armor in the plains....IMO, high altitude should not have -ve impact on the performance of ATGM. The operating temprature range would factor such a deployment in high altitude and very low temprature.

[neerajb]

Contrary to popular belief - the Manali-Leh Road will not become all-weather round the year road. For a simple reason that there are three other passes on the road - Baralacha La 4,892 m (16,050 ft), Lachulung La 5,059 m (16,598 ft) and Taglang La 5,325 m (17,470 ft). While it is said that last two are manageable even in winters (low snowfall in Ladakh Region)...there is still Baralacha La which is considered a difficult pass.

Rohit, There are two additional passes in between Barlachla and Tanglangla. Sequence is Rohtang pass > Barlachla > Nakeela > Lachungla > Tanglangla > Leh. Barlachla had enough snow even during July, no other pass had that much of snow even though Tanglangla and Khardungla are higher than Barlachla but it's an easy one with gradual climb and relatively wide roads. Tanglangla is pretty steep with narrow roads. All in all, the highway is pretty narrow to facilitate any effective movement of tank carrying trucks. One land slide can gaurantee that nothing reaches Leh for couple of days, Manali-Leh road cannot gaurantee timely movment of tanks there. All that all weather road is crap, they'll have to make 500+ km long tunnel for acheiving that. IMVHO all the heavy lifting should be left for C-17 type aircrafts and the Manali-Leh road dependence should be limited to supplies/troop movement only.

Cheers....

[tsarkar]

Battle of Chushul is a must read for anyone studing our military history. AMX-13 tanks were inducted via An-12 and played a critical role. The tide had started to turn after this battle and Rezang, and IA had started dominating the PLA, using better strategy to counter Chinese superiority in men and material.

Its all there on BR http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-3/lns.html

Incidentally, after Zorawar Singh's death, the Chinese were soundly defeated there in 1842 as well and Ladakh became a part of India.

[Philip]

The lease option only if it saves us money.The US has enough and more C-17s,which is why production is being halted with no more orders whatsoever for the USAF as Gates has said.Unless there are further substantial orders,like a dozen or so,Boeing will have to shut down the facility pronto.If it can save us about $5 billion,it is certainly worth it.That's half the cost of the MMRCA deal which in my view is far more important than the C-17 right now.Our inventory is dangerously low with block obsolescence having arrived with the older MIG-21s that cannot be upgraded and Pak receiving new F-16s and JF-17s,not to mention the hords of Chinse "locusts" in Tibet.Air power and its use will be decisive in the first days of any future war with Sino-Pak.

The tanks we inducted into Leh decades ago were Shermans if I remember corrctly,far smaller than current MBTs! The Q is how many MBTs does one expect to be loitering in the Himalayas permanently? It will be a major maintenance exercise.Inducting smaller lighter tanks that can traverse smaller roads and man portable missiles and eqpt. is far easier to operate.If you induct heavy tanks then you also have to induct tank recovery vehicles,etc.The terrain where these tanks can operate have to be identified and we must then induct them now in peacetime,see how well they fare in the worst weather conditions,iron out all operational problems,instead of a kneejerk airlift when the sh*t hits the fan! As we saw in Kargil,air strikes with PGMs and artillery were the keys to victory.If MBTs are also going to make a difference in the Army's opinion then so be it.

We are now engaged in upgrading and renovating the old WW2 airstrips,the ones from which IL-76s and larger aircraft like C-17s and AN-124s (these can also be leased in a crisis even if we do have a few C-17s in service,let us not keep out options closed when we renovate our airfields,let's make them as versatile as possible)
can operate from.The next step is to have motorable roads for the heavy vehicles to move into the forward areas and potential battle zones from the airbases. For this we need to induct the heavy road building eqpt.also.This seems to be the major problem with our attempts to build a netwrok of roads that lead to the border,as such eqpt. can only be airlifted by helos,requiring more heavy helos like the MI-26s.Establishing forward repair facilities for MBTs.etc., will also pose a logistic problem but will have to be met.The possibility of excavating large caverns in the mountainside where large numbers of tanks,etc. can be safely based along with the maintenance/repair eqpt. is a must.Thes eshould also be safe from landslides,ect.The flash floods at Leh was deadly and totally unexpected .

Like Hannibal taking his elephants over the Alps,let's not limit our innovative thinking though and emulate him if need be!

[svinayak]

Rohit,

I respect your knowledge in these matters so I don't want to challenge your contention that the T90 "can also be lifted" by the Il-76 without a wider fuselage.

However, this site states that the width of a T90S is 3.78 metres. The WiKi T90 site also gives this width.

Thank you for the kind words.

As for the dimensions - the real dimension figure that you should be looking at (and which I tried to find out and could not and gave up) is the width of T-90 with-out side skirts.

The width of T-72 is 3.59 meters. So how did they fit the tank into IL-76 - which as per your own numbers has Cargo hold width of 3.4 meters? The answer to this question is removal of side skirts.

Amit it is better to leave this to the experts who do this and this is their day job. Civilians will look like fools if we comment on things we dont have experience.
These tanks can be stripped any number of ways and transported and assembled at the forward base.

[Viv S]

Amit it is better to leave this to the experts who do this and this is their day job. Civilians will look like fools if we comment on things we dont have experience.
These tanks can be stripped any number of ways and transported and assembled at the forward base.

Acharya,

The article accompanying that photo explains what a major challenge loading the T-72 onto the IL-76 was.

Quoting from it:-

The max wt of cargo in the IL-76 is 43 tons, so with a T-72 inside, the IL-76 cannot carry even an empty condensed milk tin. The driver now has to follow very precisely the instructions of the Load Master who is standing in front of him and marshalling the tank forward. It is done with hand signals, no other gunner can give inputs. It's all between the driver and the Load Master. As the driver engages the tracks to the engine, the tank jerks and our hearts pop into our mouths. In fact this heart popping goes on throughout the loading / off loading exercise, and is a cardiologists delight. The reason for this cardiac-thorax link is that, there is less than a foot of space between the steel tracks of the T-72 and the cargo compartment skin. And, right behind the aircraft skin run the hot air ducts for pressurising and heating the ac. If the tank moves sideways by more than a foot, the steel tracks break the duct.

The reverse heart stopping process is repeated to offload the mighty T-72. The driver now moves in reverse gear, still taking his cues from the fingertips of the outstretched hands of the Load Master. Like a caterpillar, he brings his tank to the loading sill where the cables can be connected, and the tank can be winched out onto the ground. No wonder it took over 3 hours at times to load one T-72, and another 3 hours to off load it. We were learning, along with the tank crew. All this happened in the first few days of Oct 1987.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... oor01.html


The factor to be noted here is that the T-90 is about 20cms wider than the T-72.

These tanks can be stripped any number of ways and transported and assembled at the forward base.

Doubt it. AFAIK hull/chassis cannot be disassembled. Also, in (or close to) wartime a quick mobilisation requires a high tempo. Heavy engineering works in the field are a no-no.

[nachiket]

Acharya ji, If you would have read earlier pages of this (rather long) thread you would have notidced that no one has questioned the fact that the T-72 can be carried by the Il-76(albeit with lots of difficulty as the article mentions). What amit and others are debating is whether it can carry the T-90 which is wider than the T-72.

[Viv S]

The original interview with ACM Naik is well worth a watch.

He talks about the C-17 at 08:35 -

"The aircraft was chosen after a very detailed study. All the existing and developing aircraft were considered."

"The C-17 was chosen over 8 or 10 other aircraft. It was not that it was American so we chose it."


http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/i ... /167850?hp

(His opinion on the defence acquisition process also seems quite optimistic. He believes a good deal of reform has happened in the last few years.)

[Juggi G]

The Air Force also Recently decided to Exercise Options with Israel for Two More Phalcon AWACS, though the Platform is Likely to be a Business Jet Rather than the Ilyushin-76, a Platform that Remains Plagued by Maintainability, Availability and Spares Problems at its Home Base in Agra.

New Indian Airborne Early Warning Aircraft Nears Trials
Aviation Week

[Singha]

Russia used the An22 "Cock" as its strategic airlifter and airborne division support before the AN124 came online. not sure if An22 is still in service but it could carry some road mobile ICBM TELARs / missile also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-22

[amit]

Amit it is better to leave this to the experts who do this and this is their day job.

Exactly Acharya ji!

It's good that an experienced and well-respected poster such as yourself pointed this out. I hope less-experienced and less-knowledgeable posters take note of this.

I also hope folks now will understand why IMVVVHO ACM Naik's comment that C17 was chosen after carefully looking at all options should be taken as the last word. If, I'm not mistaken he takes these kinds of decisions during his day job.

Civilians will look like fools if we comment on things we dont have experience.
These tanks can be stripped any number of ways and transported and assembled at the forward base.

Yes indeed civilians posting on Internet fora run the risk of looking like fools. I'll explain in more detail why later.

However, the point to note here is when you have more than 80 pages worth of discussions on a subject, you pretty much cover the entire gamut of various possibilities. It is indeed very foolish to jump in suddenly into the discussion without looking at the context and previous discussions on this matter. But I'm sure a senior BFRite such as yourself understands this very well.

If you had cared to read the previous pages of this thread you would have found out that actually you could transport a T90 in the much smaller An32 plane; you wouldn't need a huge aircraft like the Il76. Well just to clarify it would take three An32 to transport one T90 and of course you'd have to build the T90 like a structure made out of Lego bricks, that is easily assembled (in the frontline, perhaps under enemy fire) and disassembled. But I'm sure these are small matters for those who do these kind of things as their Day jobs and it would be foolish for us civilians to comment on the practicality of that during a war time situation.

And yes regarding the T90 inside a Il76, I also happen to know (surprise, surprise!) that the skirting of the T72 was removed before it was fitted into the cargo hold, a job that took 3 hours and another 3 hours to take out. Considering the fact that the T90 is wider, I would think that it's not wide just because the skirtings are wider but the body is as well since it's armour is more thicker than that of the T72. But then as you said this is a point for the experts who do these kinds of things as their Day job (perhaps someone like ACM Naik?).

For civilians like us and others who post on Internet fora on a variety of subjects ranging from history, politics, astrology, military strategy and socio-cultural issues, to name just a few, it's like constantly walking on the edge of a precipice. There's always the risk of falling off and looking/acting or more precisely writing stuff that makes you look like a fool.

That's why IMVVVHO one should pause and read before hitting the Submit button.

JMT and I hope I did not make a fool of myself.

[amit]

The Air Force also Recently decided to Exercise Options with Israel for Two More Phalcon AWACS, though the Platform is Likely to be a Business Jet Rather than the Ilyushin-76, a Platform that Remains Plagued by Maintainability, Availability and Spares Problems at its Home Base in Agra.

New Indian Airborne Early Warning Aircraft Nears Trials
Aviation Week

Reports on the availability of spare parts and high maintenance costs have been constantly doing the rounds and I believe that was one major reason the IAF wanted Airbus mid-air refuellers.

It shouldn't be surprising when you consider the mess the company is in. Who's in charge of supplying the spares? Ukraine or Russia?

[amit]

The original interview with ACM Naik is well worth a watch.

He talks about the C-17 at 08:35 -

"The aircraft was chosen after a very detailed study. All the existing and developing aircraft were considered."

"The C-17 was chosen over 8 or 10 other aircraft. It was not that it was American so we chose it."


http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/i ... /167850?hp

(His opinion on the defence acquisition process also seems quite optimistic. He believes a good deal of reform has happened in the last few years.)

Viv,

Good catch! So according to the ACM IAF did consider 8 or 10 other aircraft. Considering the models that fit the bill I'm sure that covers all the usual suspects including the favourites of some folks here.

However, despite that the IAF has not passed the credibility test demanded on this thread.

No RFPs were issued! Must be a PMO decision!

[Singha]

wrt tatarstan ilyushin plan I recall reading somewhere Rus was in process of moving the facility to somewhere in mainland russia. the PS90 engine is made in Perm russia. not sure Ukraine has a hand in IL76.

Antonov is the one which is based in Ukraine. so IAF AN32s are being upged in Ukraine now.

unless the IL-476 enters serial production, the situation will not stabilize. $300 mil phalcons sitting
on ground for lack of spares is not good.

[amit]

^^^^^^^^^

As of now the Il76 plant is still officially in Tashkent.

Here's useful link with lot's of information.

However, the mass production of IL-76 family at TAPO in early 2000s fell into serious problems. This is mainly due to reductions in the factory: If at the end of the 1980's in the TAPO employed 50 thousand people, by 2005 it was less than 10 thousand This has affected the performance of a number of contracts. In particular, for a year and a half was delayed assembly of three Il-76MD-90 for the manufacture on the basis of their long-range radar detection aircraft A-50EI for India. Only in January 2008 (instead of summer 2006), the first of three cars went to Israel to install its Phalcon radar and onward transmission to the Indian Air Force.

Since the report on spare parts problem is specific to the Phalcon, see the bolded portion.

[amit]

Another link

Moreover, into diagram of cooperation on Il-476 developed by OAK entered the previous final assembly plant for the Il-76 - the Tashkent production association of the name of Chkalov ([TAPOiCh]). The next step became the solution about the entry of the Uzbek tAPOiCh into OAK. It allowed the management of OAK to obtain political dividends, since was consistent with the Kremlin policy of the integration of post-Soviet space, and to also decrease the risks connected with the fluctuations of Ukrainian policy. The place of the An-70 was engaged by the Il-476, and instead of the regional An-140 the work now is done by the Russian-Uzbek Il-114. Instead of monopolies in the IL-76 tashkenttsy receive a stable order for spare parts and the role of supplier of IL-114 for government customers in Russia. In turn, Russian aviaprom not only expanded through the Tashkent aviation, but also solves the problem of the main turboprop liners for local airlines. Earlier this role, claimed the An-140, but Kiev in no hurry to respond to Russian proposals on the integration of OAK and aircraft concern in Ukraine.

The first IL-476 rises into the air in 2010 and during the year will be flight-tested. This project is very complicated because it involves the transfer of the factories in Voronezh and Ulyanovsk on a technological basis. Despite the difficulties, the project is implemented in accordance with established deadlines.

The first test IL-476 must be assembled to "Aviastar-SP" in 2010-2011, and by 2015, this machine should be completely replaced older versions. By 2015 OAK was planning to gather in Ulyanovsk least 25 Il-476s.

Of course I need to put a disclaimer that I don't know how reliable this link is. Note that its Oct 2010 and as far as I know we haven't seen the IL-476 take to the air

[Kanson]

are those indian or PLA units in the photos?

even if T90 fits by a whisker, it still needs additional pre and post time to deal with the side skirts and extreme care in loading and unloading
to avoid damaging the plane. the C17/An124/C5 offers a drive in and drive out model for T90 and Arjun without such hassles.

I know secretly all BRFites would like to avoid Ahuja sir's scenario's of outgunned namica and BMP units supported by a handful of Dhruvs mounting a desperate defence in places like DBG and outskirts of leh! all of you jingoes want to see a arjun division with helicopter gunships and BMps unleashed onto the high plateau to deal with chinese armour and div-MSRs!! and supported by a couple of airborne brigades using uprated AN32s, Mi26 to establish vietnam style 'fire bases' at chokepoints. go on - admit your dark side...XM777s lined up hubcap to hubcap and unleashing bombardment on vehicular convoys ... and the smoky white trails of pinaka and smerch rockets crossing the sky from blue horizon to blue horizon...beautiful and serene but deadly

Singha, the 3rd Division has an integral Battalion of Mechanized Infantry - these are most likely BMPs from same Battalion

As for the ease of operations with T-90 and IL-76/476 - you're bang on target. The C-17 offers drive in and drive out facility without raising the spectre of damaging the skin of Cargo Hold

As for the Armor in Ladakh - ideal scenario is a dedicated Corps HQ for Eastern Ladakh with two Divisions and integral Armor Group with each..may be something like two RAPIDs but with 3 instead of 2 Infantry Brigades plus an Armor Brigade. Corps HQ can hold the composite Aviation Brigade of a Squadron each of Dhruv, WSI Dhruv and LCH.

Another thing - build infrastructure to quickly induct I Strike Corps in case of any serious threat from PLA.

I understand that the C 17 "type" ac are necessary to airlift all the heavy hardware, AND WE MUST HAVE THEM.

But we are missing one VERY important point. Why don't we have the roads and infrastructure to simply drive the Arjuns and T Xyz ? Airlift can be used in a emergency situation or where it just may not be feasible to have a road. It is too much to rely on 10 - 20 C 17s to save Ladakh or even J&K.

Kersi

Its been the general impression that the purchase of C-17 is to compensate for the poor state of infrastructure based on contemporary knowledge. May be we should ask with more than adequate road & rail infrastructure, can we do away with this C-17 or such heavier transport aircraft purchase? It is not as per my understanding. Govt. is explicit in reviving the Op. Falcon. Under the circumstances, these are mutually exclusive. In short, C-17 can be used for offensive purpose. And this could be about adding that capability.

The reverse heart stopping process is repeated to offload the mighty T-72. The driver now moves in reverse gear, still taking his cues from the fingertips of the outstretched hands of the Load Master. Like a caterpillar, he brings his tank to the loading sill where the cables can be connected, and the tank can be winched out onto the ground. No wonder it took over 3 hours at times to load one T-72, and another 3 hours to off load it. We were learning, along with the tank crew. All this happened in the first few days of Oct 1987.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... oor01.html


The factor to be noted here is that the T-90 is about 20cms wider than the T-72.

Whether it is T-90 or T-72, it is precisely for these reasons that IL-76 is more to be considered as strategic aircraft and C-17 as both strategic as well as tactical aircraft. If we want to deliver tanks or such heavy equipments in our context, directly into the war zone or behind the enemy lines, then it is more possible with C-17 than IL-76. If i'm not wrong, Op. Falcon is exactly about adding this capability.

[Kersi D]

Why do we need to drive or fly the tanks to Ladaakh? Why not station a regiment or two permanently there like what we did with T-72s?

Cheers....

That's what I meant to say.

But we need a 4 lane all weather roads all over the border and other "strategic" areas, in north as well as north east. But don't forget that the equipment based there would have to be periodically sent to some base for (major) repairs, upgrades etc. So we cannot just base the equipment and forget about them. (Too strong words !!)

This infrastructure would also give a big boost to tourism and the local revenues will increase. With increase in local revenues and participation we also rule out any external sponsored local agitation.

If only our "rulers" can see beyond UP / Bihar / West Bengal and start a massive road and rail track construction program !!

Kersi

[Avid]

Roads/Railways/etc. are for logistics and build up that takes time.

With Cold Start doctrine (which GoI officially denies, but appears to be becoming more prominent), it is the speed with which strike formations can be redeployed and assembled. This allows for less aggressive posture, but rapid strike (not just air) and redeployment/reinforcement possibilities at initiation of hostilities. Think of deploying artillery/armor from Ambala to Arunachal (hypothetical).

The speed of deployment/redeployment can and will completely change the dynamics of the two fronts. It is also the cause for re-activating the border airfields. China cannot redeploy with such speed so close to the front. For all practical purposes, any deployment of theirs so close to the border is locked in for duration of the conflict. Any deployment not done, will be too slow to come. OTOH, the speed with which the Indian side can mobilize and move artillery, armor, special forces can make significant difference to their (Pak/China) calculations.

Look at this way -- if they do not know where Indians will mobilize to and it takes them 72 hours to bring up a force of 5000+ and sufficient armor + artillery to any of these 10 points -- how/where will they hold their pieces? Deploy enough to counter at all 10? or hold back so they can react appropriately, or a strategy in between.

IL-76, C-130J, C-17 are all in different class/purpose/conditions of airlift. DDM and foreign media has in general spun this to make it sound like IAF is choosing to buy one over the other. First they said we bought C-130J instead of IL-76, now C-17 instead of IL-76. None of these acquisitions are substitutes. Together they are broad purpose fleet of aircraft for logistics.

These acquisitions augment road and rail, they do not substitute. Similarly they augment/compliment each other and do not substitute.

[Austin]

The aircraft was chosen after a very detailed study. All the existing and developing aircraft were considered

Fair enough to the Chief , To make things more transparent the MOD should place these study/conclusion ( atleat the non-classified part ) to the Parliament and through it to the people of the country so that every one is equally aware these are just fair and square deal done based on recommendation of IAF considering billions of dollars of tax payers money go into such deals and no one gets a clue beyond MOD/GOI

Similarly they should also put the other deals recently done like F-414 engine selection , MMRCA and others to be scrutinized by Parliament if all norms were observed and it was done in a fair manner as per guideline set out.

[Philip]

Reg.AWACS,the aircraft are hugely expensive and we need significant numbers.The Conformal radars on the Israeli Gulfstreams,which will also resemble the Embraers which the DRDO is using as aplatform for the indigenous AEW aircraft,will come in much cheaper than the IL-76 platforms.This is poss.the main reason rather than maintenance,etc.But I would still advocate buying 2 more,to make a total of 5 large AWACS,apart from about a dozen smaller AEW aircraft on Gulfstreams/Embraers.

If we are able to lease/reduce C-17 numbers the money can easily be found! Which is a more pressing priority?

[Bihanga]

Reg.AWACS,the aircraft are hugely expensive and we need significant numbers.The Conformal radars on the Israeli Gulfstreams,which will also resemble the Embraers which the DRDO is using as aplatform for the indigenous AEW aircraft,will come in much cheaper than the IL-76 platforms.This is poss.the main reason rather than maintenance,etc.But I would still advocate buying 2 more,to make a total of 5 large AWACS,apart from about a dozen smaller AEW aircraft on Gulfstreams/Embraers.

If we are able to lease/reduce C-17 numbers the money can easily be found! Which is a more pressing priority?

C-17 in large number is certainly a pressing priority, as IAF need to undertake many mission of transporting food, ammunition, medicine to sustain Disaster mission and maintain logisitical supply chain open to our frontiers. Many Military Post in Northen regions in Himalayan range are still largly dependent upon Air Transport support. Most importantly, in the last four decades, only lifeline for our northern Himalayan supply chain was totally dependent upon Airtransport. Either we should increase Road and Rail connection to connect this military Post or start getting more and more Transport plane.

All over the world, Air Transport is the only medieum through which necessary airdrop can be transported in Time sensitive enviornment.

[vic]

I think if India has decided to give a political deal to USA/Boeing then I am all for it. Frankly is is better to have some hardware rather than paper in our account.

In any case, except in super emergency, a tank is stripped of turret, modular armour, ammunition, most of fuel, side skirts etc before being airlifted and it re-assembled after unloading & transportation to the launch "base". Re-assembly will take only a few hours.

The width of C-17 gives wider set of options to military planers/designers. It is a reasonable deal and not much can be read into it except that we failed to lower the price through some semi-fake tendering.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

In any case, except in super emergency, a tank is stripped of turret, modular armour, ammunition, most of fuel, side skirts etc before being airlifted and it re-assembled after unloading & transportation to the launch "base". Re-assembly will take only a few hours.

<SNIP>

First, how do you know that tanks are stripped and then airlifted? Where have you come across such an instance?

Secondly - on what basis are you saying that re-assembling the MBT is matter of 'few' hours? And btw, how 'few' are 'few' hours?

[chiru]

^^ rohit saar ive read it somewhere that IA did strip some tanks when whole tanks were not able to move along a mountain pass -- they took it part by part, transported it and then re-assembled it but im not sure if it would be feasible to do that in the present scenario or taking an advanced machine like the T-90 or the arjun part by part and re assembling it in a short span of time

[rohitvats]

^^ rohit saar ive read it somewhere that IA did strip some tanks when whole tanks were not able to move along a mountain pass -- they took it part by part, transported it and then re-assembled it but im not sure if it would be feasible to do that in the present scenario or taking an advanced machine like the T-90 or the arjun part by part and re assembling it in a short span of time

You're refering to the 1947-48 period when we launched operations against PA entrenched in Zoji La.It was called Operation Bison and tanks involved were M5 Stuart Light Tanks.

You cannot compare the same with dismantling and movement of T-90 or T-72 or Arjun.

[Radman]

Just beautiful. Equipment and para drop from a C-17. Just beautiful.

http://www.wimp.com/humveesparatroopers/

[Lalmohan]

^^ rohit saar ive read it somewhere that IA did strip some tanks when whole tanks were not able to move along a mountain pass -- they took it part by part, transported it and then re-assembled it but im not sure if it would be feasible to do that in the present scenario or taking an advanced machine like the T-90 or the arjun part by part and re assembling it in a short span of time

i seem to remember reading something similar during WW2 - post imphal in the burma hills

[vic]

<SNIP>

In any case, except in super emergency, a tank is stripped of turret, modular armour, ammunition, most of fuel, side skirts etc before being airlifted and it re-assembled after unloading & transportation to the launch "base". Re-assembly will take only a few hours.

<SNIP>

First, how do you know that tanks are stripped and then airlifted? Where have you come across such an instance?

Secondly - on what basis are you saying that re-assembling the MBT is matter of 'few' hours? And btw, how 'few' are 'few' hours?

Kindly provide your view rather than patronising remarks.

[Sanku]

When all is said and done, the fact that multi-vendor process, which was so vaunted that can hold up many many more critical cases has been short circuited here (all for good reason course) -- WILL come back and bite people, a lot of people.

The angst and fulminations and defensive seen on the thread are just indicative of that.

Sad, IAF did not need such a political mill-stone around its neck, especially when the process could have been easily followed (after all there were no options but C 17 and no vendor would have been able to respond to the RFI or pass the RFP)

[Karan M]

I hope we order more C-17s quickly and build up the fleet to at least 15-17 aircraft. Pretty much seems to be the only game in town, so we best get on it. The recently flown IL-76 variant is underwhelming, to say the least.

[rohitvats]

First, how do you know that tanks are stripped and then airlifted? Where have you come across such an instance?

Secondly - on what basis are you saying that re-assembling the MBT is matter of 'few' hours? And btw, how 'few' are 'few' hours?

Kindly provide your view rather than patronising remarks.

There is nothing patronising in my post - and these are questions and not remarks - which you seem to have missed.

And since you have claimed something - it is your duty to provide back-up.I have asked straight forward questions.

In case you have back-up for what you've claimed - please provide a proof or some anecdote or something from your experience. In case it was your opinion - please qualify your post accordingly.

[rohitvats]

I hope we order more C-17s quickly and build up the fleet to at least 15-17 aircraft. Pretty much seems to be the only game in town, so we best get on it. The recently flown IL-76 variant is underwhelming, to say the least.

Karan, I've always maintained that IAF will need staggered airlift and replacement for IL-76 will either be newer version of IL-76 or something like A-400M.

Either that or IAF goes for a very large fleet of 20-25 tonnes airlift a/c with at least 4000kms radius of operations at full load.