C-17s for the IAF?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 14:14

Lalmohan wrote:perhaps we should just decide if we want to form an autonomous republic within the russian federation or the 52nd state of the united states
then arguement phinish no?
we should move the cargo discussion to the indian mil aviation thread, keep this for tracking the C17 order which is pretty much a done deal

How about making the US/ Russia the 27 th or was it th 31st state of the union

Aint I an optimist.

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Oct 2010 14:16

Pratyush wrote:Amit,

I think you ment, "the receiving officer on the US side must give his consent or commit suicide! ". Instead of, "The receiving officer on the US side will give his consent before committing suicide! "

Actually I meant what I wrote.

Maybe the word shortly in front of before would make it clearer!

The single mindedness of Philip Saar's postings have to admired and could be used as a weapon of mass destruction.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2010 14:53

Amit,guys,I wasn't touting the A-400 as an alternative to the C-17/AN-124,but given our rapidly expanding logistic responsibilties in the IOR and Asia-Pacific,as a transport in between the strategic heavylifter/IL-76 and the AN-32.Our C-130Js are supposed to be meant for special forces primarily and will be too little to be of any significance for the logistic requirement.The MTA project has just taken off and the prototype will fly only in a few years time,we require about 50 of them,whereas the A-400 is flying and can be considered in the interim should we need such a transport.In any case it takes 37 months to manufacture a C-17,says Boeing, along time in coming.Both IL-76s and AN-32s will be in the process of upgrading and we may experience a temporary shortfall in medium transports.Since the A-400 has been offered to us,all I'm saying is take a look if the priority for transports is that essential!

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 Oct 2010 15:01

How does 2018 timeframe = 6 years translate to "interim" but 37 months = 3 years translate to "a long time"?

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Oct 2010 15:32

Philip wrote:Amit,guys,I wasn't touting the A-400 as an alternative to the C-17/AN-124,but given our rapidly expanding logistic responsibilties in the IOR and Asia-Pacific,as a transport in between the strategic heavylifter/IL-76 and the AN-32.Our C-130Js are supposed to be meant for special forces primarily and will be too little to be of any significance for the logistic requirement.The MTA project has just taken off and the prototype will fly only in a few years time,we require about 50 of them,whereas the A-400 is flying and can be considered in the interim should we need such a transport.In any case it takes 37 months to manufacture a C-17,says Boeing, along time in coming.Both IL-76s and AN-32s will be in the process of upgrading and we may experience a temporary shortfall in medium transports.Since the A-400 has been offered to us,all I'm saying is take a look if the priority for transports is that essential!

Boss,

First of all, as Tanaji says, we wouldn't get a A400 before 2018 even if we ordered one tomorrow. In fact the plane is still being tested. So where does this "it takes 37 months to manufacture C17" come into the picture? Even if we place an order for the C17 one year later, we'd still have a few of them flying before we'd even get a look into the A400.

The second point where your logic goes awry, is how the heck do you place the A400 below the IL76 in terms of strategic lift capacity? The ones we have have a 42 ton lift capacity and the A400 has 37 tons, a difference of just five tons? Sorry but you are wrong. Both the IL76 and the A400 are in the same category - that is a mid weight transport. The very heavy lifters are the C17 and An124. Since the An124 is not available, the only alternative in the very heavy lift capacity at the moment is C17.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2010 15:55

It is precisely why the heavyweights are in demand and lack of enough numbers that the Russians are planning to restart production of both AN-124s and IL-76/476s,announced by Medvedev,other reports in recent AWST issues-posted earlier.As for leasng tankers,tankers are far more integrated into supporting offensive operations,refuelling fighters,etc., and a lease would be impractical,but as for heavweight transports,why not? I've given enough instances above where even Boeing are leasing AN-124s to transport their outsized engines for the 777s and Germany and 18 countries are doing so as well as NATO! how come no one is challenging these hard facts? A strategic transport like the C-17/AN-124 can be bought or even leased.If the US wants a "strategic" relationship with India,why not lease out a few miserable transports-nothing offensive about it,of which it has almost 200 of the same! If you don't ask you them won't get anything and that includes those delectable birds with skirts flying on this thread,He!He!

Look,the A-400 is flying,and has been offered.In a holistic perspective of ALL our required transport requirements,we require a variety which can land on small airstrips in the high Himalayas to huge heavyweights which can transport Arjuns,MBTs,heavy vehicles,plus our tactical ballistic missiles like Prithvi,Brahmos,etc.Between the heavywieghts (C-17/AN-124/IL-76s and the AN-32s,the MTA is supposed to fill the gap,50 required,but the ink is barely dry on the agreement.It is going to take some time before produyction starts.We may need an A-400 class transport and there is no harm carefully examining the offfer.No need for an immediate decision.Let the aircraft be tested and evaluated and then let's see if it is cost-effective and meets our requirements.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 16:01

Philip,

If we are going to take a look at the A 400. Lets take a look at the IL 76 as well. As they are in the same catagory. If the proposed line for the new build Il 76 ever materialises.
JMT

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Oct 2010 16:03

Sigh!

Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush, Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush...

Lal Mullah, need to turn the discussion back to the real topic: Lal-chicks!

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Oct 2010 16:06

Pratyush wrote:Philip,

If we are going to take a look at the A 400. Lets take a look at the IL 76 as well. As they are in the same catagory. If the proposed line for the new build Il 76 ever materialises.
JMT

Boss,

Do you now understand why I wrote that the US interlocutor would agree to lease US Air Force C17s shortly before committing suicide?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 16:13

Hey at least in this catagory we can have real kampitishun and the phormality por the RFI be completed.

Or are you going to go for a single vedor deal again hain ji.

Or I should try and find the lovely Manipur police ayshea I saw during the CWG with black SLR straped accross her chest and a dangerous attitude and try to get my self halaled in front of her.

Will that please you.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 16:15

Amit,

look at the bright side you need only 82 posts to reach ur 2000

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Oct 2010 16:25

Pratyush wrote:Hey at least in this catagory we can have real kampitishun and the phormality por the RFI be completed.

Or are you going to go for a single vedor deal again hain ji.

Or I should try and find the lovely Manipur police ayshea I saw during the CWG with black SLR straped accross her chest and a dangerous attitude and try to get my self halaled in front of her.

Will that please you.

Actually the RFP phase is more interesting and dangerous than the RFI phase. It seems that you only went thru with the RFI phase with the Manipur police ayesha, you should have been bold and asked for an RFP and see what proposal came out.

BTW I do think Lal-mullah went for a single vendor approach for the Lal-chicks. He did not send out RFIs and RFPs to other ayeshas including the ghagra choli wearing ones. And the gori chicks burning the track!

Now we can have a 89 page discussion on the (de)merits of Lal-mullah's single vendor approach. Hainji?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2010 16:31

Prat.The IL-76s are jet engined,while the A-400 uses turboprops.The IL-76 can be used in a strategic transport role better than the A-400.

Here is a good link with a recent comprehensive look at all transports and helos available.Worth looking at.Some snippets.

http://www.armada.ch/php/Ammunition_sub ... ticleid=80

The Russian Air Force remains committed to the Ilyushin Il-76 series with Perm PS-90A engines. Some 14 Il-76MDs are being given PS-90A powerplants, and four are combining re-engining and a 6.6-metre fuselage stretch to produce Il-76MFs.

Although it satisfies neither the cabin width nor the airfield performance requirement, the 210-tonne Il-76MF is being promoted in South Africa as a substitute for the A400M. Russia is proposing to develop an Il-76 maintenance base in Africa, and its location could prove crucial to this campaign.

The ‘fourth generation’ Il-476 will combine PS-90As with a lighter wing and a ‘glass’ cockpit. A prototype built by Aviastar should fly before the end of 2010. The Russian Air Force plans to buy 38 Il-476s by 2020.

Another transport that plays a major role in supporting current military operations is the 392-tonne Antonov An-124-100. Aside from individual charters, six Volga-Dnepr/Antonov Airlines An-124s are available to 18 Nato and EU nations.

For years there has been talk of restarting An-124 production at Aviastar in Ulyanovsk, and in 2009 Russian President Medvedev approved the latest proposal. This relates to construction of the An-124-500, with Motor Sich D-18T engines and a glass cockpit. However, the programme depends on Moscow investing $ 500 million in the plant, and on finding a launch customer

The first A400M had its maiden flight on 11 December 2009. A five-aircraft test programme is planned to allow delivery of the first aircraft (to the French Air Force) in July 2013 . Malaysia is currently the only export customer, with four aircraft on order, but South Africa may well renew its contract for eight (plus four options), which was cancelled in April 2009. In late 2009, at the request of US Air Force Air Mobility Command, Airbus Military submitted a proposal to supply 118 A400Ms, apparently in the context of the JFTL (Joint Future Theater Lift) project.

Antonov’s An-158T-100 may compete directly with the 68-tonne Russo-Indian MTA (Multi-role Transport Aircraft). The latter is to be designed and developed as a 50:50 joint venture by Ilyushin and Hindustan Aeronautics (Hal).

The go-ahead for the MTA was reportedly given at a meeting between Rosoboronexport, UAC (United Aircraft) and Hal in December 2009. First flight is scheduled for 2014. Russia is expected to order up to 100 MTAs and India 40.

India has signed a contract with Antonov over the upgrading of 105 of its remaining An-32s. Some 40 are to be refurbished and modernised in Kiev, and 65 in Kanpur (northern India).

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2010 16:38

Actually the RFP phase is more interesting and dangerous than the RFI phase. It seems that you only went thru with the RFI phase with the Manipur police ayesha, you should have been bold and asked for an RFP and see what proposal came out.

Amit,

You will never know, how much I miss not doing that. But considering her attitude, it seems that cowardice was a better part of valour.

Any way if lal mullah went single vendor

he broke the processes. The long arm of cag must be reaching him any time now.

Philip,

On a serious note, It makes little diffrence if the aircraft is jet engined or not. If the design is ment to have roughfield capability then the choice of engine is immaterial.

The MTA will have the PS 90 and it seems to me that it will have the same rough field capability as the C 130.

Moreover, on this very thread the rough field capabilities of Il 76 have been beaten to death. So in that regard the IL 76 ought to be able to compete with the A 400. What say you. So there is no reason why the compitition should not take place.

Alternatively, how about the An 70 and MKIing them.

JMT.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 22 Oct 2010 16:40

C-17 in the States :-

The Image above but in Higher Resolution
C-17 National Economic Impact

How the C-17 Scores Over the C-5A Galaxy

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Versus the Lockheed C-5A Galaxy

Note: This is the C-5A Galaxy & Not the Latest Highly UpGraded & Modernised C-5M Super Galaxy or the C-5B or C-5C Variants

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Oct 2010 17:10

For the nth time can an AN 124 land in those airports where the C17 is required to land??

what about maintenance (we know the story with our MI 26)

when I was younger I used to want us to have AN 124s too but there is a reason why its mostly used for charter rather than owned

Meanwhile I love the faith in these restarted production lines with supply chains that work only till the last cheque runs out

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 22 Oct 2010 17:28

Kersi D wrote:
Avid wrote:
Now for the comparison of IL-76/C-17 -- they are complements not substitutes!

C-17
Payload ~78 tons
Range ~4,500 km (max payload)
Cargo compartment: Length 26m; Width 5.5m; Height: 3.76 to 4.11m

IL-76D
Payload ~45-47 tons (earlier versions ~40 tons)
Range ~3,000-3,500 km (max payload)
Cargo compartment: Length 24.5; Width 3.5; Height: 3.4m
Cargo Volume: 321 m^3
So WHY ARE WE TALKING SO MUCH !!!!

That was precisely my point. The discussion is deliberately being obfuscated by people continuing to categorize IL-76 with AN-124 and thereby creating false substitution possibilities with C-17.

There isn't another proven platform in same category as C-17, which has seen lot of action in rough environment (hot, high altitude, poorly prepared strips -- read Iraq and more importantly Afghanistan).

Kersi, From length point of view -- C-17 does not hold much advantage (except payload). Though the cargo compartment width of additional 2-meters gives it remarkable edge at carrying big bulky (and heavy!) items. For example it can carry 1 Arjun + 1 BMP-2; where IL-76 would not be able to airlift even 1 Arjun.

This significantly changes the logistics for Arjun's deployment -- from limited theater level, to an ability to mix/match Arjuns with T-72s and T-90s.

If anything, with cold-start doctrine, we are likely to see increased numbers of C-17 (imagine Philip's poor fluttering heart and dismay!)

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 22 Oct 2010 17:39

Surya wrote:For the nth time can an AN 124 land in those airports where the C17 is required to land??

what about maintenance (we know the story with our MI 26)

when I was younger I used to want us to have AN 124s too but there is a reason why its mostly used for charter rather than owned

Meanwhile I love the faith in these restarted production lines with supply chains that work only till the last cheque runs out

Excellent points Surya.

That is what I have been saying -- At 150 tons cargo capacity (with max recorded 190 tons), AN-124 is a beast with twice the payload capacity of C-17. It cannot operate from unpaved runway, and needs 3km long paved runway for 150t payload.

It is not even the same class, purpose, or goal as C-17. Yet Philip would have us to do this -- "use 2 IL-76 instead of 1 C-17; or use 1 AN-124 instead of 2 C-17".

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Oct 2010 17:55

Indeed An-124 is a Alpha Elephant that we will not need it , 150 T is just too much for us right now , C-17 is quite ok for the job.

Although the new An-124 is being designed to meet more of Cargo Standards then military needs so expect ICAO 4 and Glass cokpit and other ding dong you would expect to see in civil A-380F types.

I was quite surprised to learn that An-124 had quad FBW since its inception.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Oct 2010 18:00

The way US procurement is spread over many states to get Congress to sign off is ridiculous

That chart gives a good view of one such sample

Of course all these inefficiencies will be passed on the buyers - local and foreign

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 22 Oct 2010 18:02

can we have a running poll for this thread regarding is c 17 a good choice for the IAF.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 22 Oct 2010 18:07

Philip wrote: PS:Anthony H,our expanding role the in IOR,Asia-Pacific does require a larger transport fleet.DEfinitely a C-17/AN-124 strategic heavylifter would be most useful.However,the immediate priority transports wise is to beef up or logistic capability within the country on the northern borders,where according to most info.,the requirement is firstly for large and heavy lift helos,to get eqpt. to areas where the BRO are having problems with no heavy eqpt.,required to extend the road infrastructure.A string of helipads aap[rt from our small airstrips which cannot operate heavy transports,also allow supplies to the troops.As for international ops,as said before,our IL-76s have supported our Flankers in exercises as far away as Alaska! Acccording to reports,both IAF IL-76s and AN-32 s are being upgraded and the Russians are to resume production.In fact one post in the C-17 thread had details of an IL-476 delivered to a customer. If we really need on occasion a strategic heavylifter of C-17/AN-124 class ,then we could instead lease the aircraft C-17/AN-124 whatever,which will be a cheaper option,just as NATO is leasing AN-124s.I don't understand why this point has never been debated by anyone dspite my suggestion.A lease would relieve the IAF from spares,logistics,etc.,which would have to be provided by the provider of the aircraft.It is because Boeing requires immediate comnformation of orders so that it can keep its production line open,that the deal is being rushed through.I personally feel that the $5 billion+ mentioned can be more usefully spread out for the same purpose acquiring a variety of other transports and helicopters.

To prevent derailing the MRCA thread, I have moved Philip's quote here.

Philip -- for the nth time -- AN124 is not same class as C-17

And NATO leasing AN124 is a good sign that it is not in class as C-17. If it was, why would they?

The cargo payload math for airlift does not work the math in terms of addition, subtraction. There are constraints of dimensions of payload, and weight of payload.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Oct 2010 18:17

return to bullock carts please
and
lal-chix!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Oct 2010 00:39

Indian C-17 Deal Seen As Near

India may conclude its purchase agreement for Boeing C-17s early next month.

The contract is likely to be finalized during President Barack Obama’s visit to India, due to begin on Nov. 4, industry executives say. India is in talks with the U.S. government to purchase 10 airlifters at a cost of up to $5.8 billion, which includes training, ground equipment and other items.

The Obama visit will be accompanied by a series of meetings on defense industrial issues. Boeing and Lockheed Martin also are involved in the 126-aircraft Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition and other deals. Boeing, for example, hopes to sell AH-64D Apaches.

Meanwhile, calls for greater U.S.-Indian cooperation are increasing in both countries.

A report by the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank, makes the case for the U.S. and India to expand their ties.

“This will require policy changes by both the United States and India,” the report states. “Many of these changes will be difficult, and some differences may endure. But the potential gain is worth the effort. Now is a critical time in this partnership, a moment to transform past bilateral accomplishments into regional and global successes.”

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Oct 2010 09:00

Pratyush wrote:Is the US stock available for leasing?
Has the US ever leased any equipment to any one when it is still in fronline service in the recent past.

Boeing leased 4 C-17s to the RAF from 2000 to 2007.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Oct 2010 09:02

Tanaji wrote:All this leasing begs the question, if the An 124 is so much in demand, why hasn't production started already?

Not enough firm orders to keep the price at an affordable price.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Oct 2010 09:03

Giles,

Am aware of the UK lease. What am talking of is the USAF stock.

JMT

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Oct 2010 09:09

Pratyush wrote:Philip,

If we are going to take a look at the A 400. Lets take a look at the IL 76 as well. As they are in the same catagory. If the proposed line for the new build Il 76 ever materialises.
JMT

Its not because two aircraft can carry the same payload that they are in the same category. The A-400M and the Antonov An-70 are true tactical aircraft with some strategic abilities. They can land in places even C-130s won't go. The IL-76 and the C-17 are Strategic Aircraft with some tactical abilities. So it would make sense for an Air Force to own both the IL-76 and the An-70/A-400 even if both of these aircraft could carry the same loads. For example, an A-400 refueller can refuel helicopters, which a IL-78 cannot do.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Oct 2010 09:10

Gilles wrote:Boeing leased 4 C-17s to the RAF from 2000 to 2007.

Of course that was more a purchase-disguised-as-lease-to-sneak-past-budget-issues-that-actually-turned-out-to-be-more-expensive-than-a-straight-purchase

It certainly wasn't a traditional lease of the sort people here are talking about.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Oct 2010 09:22

Philip wrote:The Hercules C-130J is only a stretched version ......

The C-130J is an updated version of the older C-130s, with a different engines model and different avionics and systems.
Size is unrelated. There was already a stretched version of older the C-130H and many older civilian C-130s were L-100-30 with the longer fuselage. There are in fact 2 available models of the C-130J, a short one and a long one.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 23 Oct 2010 09:23

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:Boeing leased 4 C-17s to the RAF from 2000 to 2007.
Of course that was more a purchase-disguised-as-lease-to-sneak-past-budget-issues-that-actually-turned-out-to-be-more-expensive-than-a-straight-purchase

It certainly wasn't a traditional lease of the sort people here are talking about.

I agree

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Oct 2010 17:04

Tx Gilles for stating the obvious to the informed! Any nation with large responsibilities like India need "strategic,tactical and utility" transports of varying sizes.True,some of them mentioned have commonalities,but we have varying theatres of operations from the high Himalayas,with small airstrips at high alts.,to island territories and other IOR lands with whom we have security agreements with.A variety of transports are required and what is the harm in evaluating those on offer? We may find that we need some A-400s which might be better operating than IL-76s in certain scenarios. As for the An-124 vs the C-17,my argument has been that if you want a really large transport then why not evaluate the largest? The argument that some have made for buying the C-17 is that it can do what the IL-76 cannot.Similarly,the AN-124 can also do "what the C-17 cannot!".The only Q here is whether it is available at all-new build ones that is.Reports about resuming Russian production will have to be discussed with Russia for genuine information,as thus far Medvedev wants production resumed IF there is a buyer.My argument is that if NATO and the US can lease AN-124s so can we.The pros and cons of a "lease vs ownership" no doubt should be considered,whether it be C-17s or AN-124s.Unfortunately,Boeing's production woes have put enormous pressure upon the GOI for a quick deal,otherwise I'm sure that the deal would've taken more time to conclude.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Oct 2010 17:55

Tx Gilles for stating the obvious to the informed!

you want a really large transport then why not evaluate the largest?

Err my highly informed forum friend - it is just not large transport.

If it just large aircraft - please throw in the AN 225 and why not ask Airbus to offer a version of the their A 380.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Oct 2010 18:09

just how many airfields in india are even capable of handling the AN 124

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Oct 2010 19:47

WRT An 124, Any field with 10000 ft or longer runway ought to be able to accomodate the 124. But the AC does not meet the needs of the IAF.

Perhaps tommorow when the AN 124 line is nicely chuging along and new build 124s are entering service with no documented issues of aftersales service. The IAF may develop a requirement for 10 124s.

Until then the C 17 is the AC that meets the needs of the IAF.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Oct 2010 21:29

Philip wrote:Reports about resuming Russian production will have to be discussed with Russia for genuine information,as thus far Medvedev wants production resumed IF there is a buyer.

The acquisition Czar V Popkin has already stated that RuAF will purchase 20 new An-124-500 series as they are now labeled starting from 2015 , while the existing older An-124-100 of RuAF will be upgraded to -150 standards as part of 2011-2020 modernisation program.

The total order are for 60 new An-124 - 500 for cargo carriers ( Denpr ,Polet etc ) mostly driven by commercial fear if they do not restart the production of An-124 they will loose the profitable market share to transport bigger cargos when the existing An-124 reaches EOL and An-124 have their own niche market in that segment and then rival Airbus have their own A-380F on the cards.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Oct 2010 04:01

Austin wrote:
Philip wrote:Reports about resuming Russian production will have to be discussed with Russia for genuine information,as thus far Medvedev wants production resumed IF there is a buyer.
The acquisition Czar V Popkin has already stated that RuAF will purchase 20 new An-124-500 series as they are now labeled starting from 2015 , while the existing older An-124-100 of RuAF will be upgraded to -150 standards as part of 2011-2020 modernisation program.

The total order are for 60 new An-124 - 500 for cargo carriers ( Denpr ,Polet etc ) mostly driven by commercial fear if they do not restart the production of An-124 they will loose the profitable market share to transport bigger cargos when the existing An-124 reaches EOL and An-124 have their own niche market in that segment and then rival Airbus have their own A-380F on the cards.

The Russian Air Force F does not need any AN-124s, nor can they afford them. They pressently own 24 of them, of which at least half (or more)are grounded, for lack of funds. Polet had already purchased a few ex Russian Air Force An-124s in the past and had them upgraded to the civilians An-124-100 standard. I'm certain the Aviastar and Aviant plants could repair and overhaul all of them, if only there was money available in the Russian Air Force budget to do this. But there isn't. They recently overhauled ONE that had been idle for years, but thats it. Many of these aircraft have been idle for many years because they reached the service life of their current configuration (7500 hours for the military An-124) and need to be upgraded to An-124-100 or -150 to get the service life extention (to 24,000 hours and I hear that 40,000 hours is now available for the An-124-100M-150). Not too long ago, there was talk that the AF would dispose of the rest of the An-124s. which they have not done so far.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... hters.html If they did, current civilian operators would likely fight over them.

In light of this, I dont see the Russian Air Force ordering any more new An-124s. The Russian Aircraft plants and the design bureau are still in the Communist era where governments looked after their marketing for them. These days are over. Unless the Russian and Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers learn the capitalist manner of marketing their wares, and financing their R&D and production without government handouts, they are going follow communism down the drain.

Yes the civilian interest in the An-124s is real and they are ready to order more, although I cant say how many. But anyone who believes the Russian AF will order new An-124s is dreaming. They have much more important things to replace before they even start thinking about Strategic Airlift, especially while they still have well over 100 airworthy IL-76 and An-22s, anout 10 An-124s and many others that can be made airworthy if required which muuch less money than it will take to order a fleet of new ones.

Kapil · Post by **Kapil** » 24 Oct 2010 04:18

Surya et al,
Am in Europe and frozen out due to the cold.
So,time for stupid questions again:
What is the CIF price for IL-76X,C-17,A-400 etc
What is the operating cost per hour for each of these birds
And more important,
which of them comes with a mobile phone charger in the cockpit?

cheers

Kaps

P.S-Am working on a business plan for the IAF operated Russki airframe charter service.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Oct 2010 05:06

Pratyush wrote:WRT An 124, Any field with 10000 ft or longer runway ought to be able to accomodate the 124. But the AC does not meet the needs of the IAF.

Perhaps tommorow when the AN 124 line is nicely chuging along and new build 124s are entering service with no documented issues of aftersales service. The IAF may develop a requirement for 10 124s.

Until then the C 17 is the AC that meets the needs of the IAF.

Antonov Airlines has flown into 6000 foot runways with theirs at reduced weight. Its funny how people alway quote the An-124 runway performance at Max Take-off weight but compare it to the runway performance of a nearly empty C-17 (3000 or 3500 feet).

Once and for all: A fully loaded C-17 needs close to 8000 feet to take-off. It can land 'in under 3500 feet" on dry runways when nearly empty. But that is a totally useless capacity for a TRANSPORT aircraft. Its like a fighter that can do Mach 3 but that can only fly supersonic if it does not carry weapons. Nice but useless.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Oct 2010 05:41

Gilles, I have come to respect you immensely as a poster. Please keep on posting in this level headed fashion. The world of forums needs you. Keep up the good work.