C-17s for the IAF?

[Lalmohan]

Gilles - higher incidents of dust and bird strikes in india than temperate northern climes... aren't there similar problems in iraq operations (particularly dust abraision?)

[tsarkar]

5 engines + extra spares will certainly help in the event of unforseen sanctions. Maybe this accounts for the higher cost, that hopefully is not for soyabean oil

The 123 deal required a payback, and these deals are a part of the payback. To be fair, the services are trying hard to make the best of these deals while dodging contentious issues like CISMOSA (hope I got the acronym right).

The C-17 also bodes well for the Arjun.

[Gilles]

^^^ Cool it guys Lets discuss the C-17.

What other counter measure does the C-17 have except for chaff dispensers? Looks like we are going for the AN/ALE-47. Have towed decoys been used for C-17s (or anyother transport plane) before?

The Standard C-17 defense kit is the AAR-47 and AN/ALE-47 combination. The former is a missile warning system (some models detect laser also) and the latter a countermeasure dispenser for chaff, flares and jammers.

As an add on to the standard system, is LAIRCM, which consists of several turrets on the belly of the aircraft which contain lasers, which when a missile is detected, direct a high energy beam at the incoming Missile's seeker, which disables it.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/con ... 32b-02260/

[venku_Raj]

India may have to pay more for C-17 air-lifters: Boeing

[Craig Alpert]

The C-17 also bodes well for the Arjun.

NEGATIVE! For the BILLIONTH TIME, Arjun in C-17 is NOT FEASIBLE!!!!!

Abrams which weigh close to 70 tons DO NOT USE C-17's for Transport. Sure you can pull a pic of one in Afghan dirt, but that is ONLY FOR PHOTO-OP. TRUST ME, to get M2's Sea & Ground lanes are used WORLD WIDE. C-17's might be able to carry the tonnage, but it can't balance the load. Second, the higher the elevation, the more problmatic it becomes for the air-craft from maintenance and cost ascept, not to mention the amount of fuel the beast contains. It is VERY VERY EXPENSIVE to use C-17 for transporting TANKS!!!! (any be it Arjun or Abrams). The US ARMY does not do it, and nor will the IA.

[Juggi G]

India may have to Pay More for C-17 Airlifters : Boeing

[Sanku]

India will have to pay a LOT more for the C 17s, a whole huge amount more. The $ price is only the icing.

Hope MoD really teaches Boeing the value of chai and biskoot.

[Viv S]

The C-17 also bodes well for the Arjun.

NEGATIVE! For the BILLIONTH TIME, Arjun in C-17 is NOT FEASIBLE!!!!!

Abrams which weigh close to 70 tons DO NOT USE C-17's for Transport. Sure you can pull a pic of one in Afghan dirt, but that is ONLY FOR PHOTO-OP. TRUST ME, to get M2's Sea & Ground lanes are used WORLD WIDE. C-17's might be able to carry the tonnage, but it can't balance the load.

The C-17 has been used to airlift the M1A2 many times. IIRC before the USAF accepted it, Boeing had to demonstrate an Abrams airlift. What do you mean by not being able to 'balance' the load?

Second, the higher the elevation, the more problmatic it becomes for the air-craft from maintenance and cost ascept, not to mention the amount of fuel the beast contains. It is VERY VERY EXPENSIVE to use C-17 for transporting TANKS!!!! (any be it Arjun or Abrams). The US ARMY does not do it, and nor will the IA.

The maintenance for aircraft like the C-17 will take place at its home base, in this case Agra. I don't see how transporting an Arjun is more expensive than airlifting 60 tons of everyday supplies. Its expensive relative to rail transport, but then again.. that applies to soldiers as well (but paratroopers still remain an essential part of any modern army). The Arjun/T-90 will be airlifted when time is essential or when alternate means aren't available (for example if a rail-link gets severed in an airstrike).

[ramana]

When do they start arriving and which squadrons will have them? Is the plan to locate them all over the different commands or in one place?

[negi]

60 tonnes of cargo is not same as 60 tonnes of high density payload like a MBT, having said that if C-17 has carried a M1A2 before then there is no reason why it should not be able to haul up Arjun as it is we guys are jugaadu types. Also it is better to buy an AC without all bells and whistles versus a fully loaded one with strings attached (read CISMoA and LSA).

[Indranil]

^^^ Negi sahab, I don't understand what you mean by carrying highly dense payload is more difficult or tricky of sorts.

I always heard the other side where not dense enough things would not use up the whole tonnage of the aircraft.

However, I have doubts that the C-17 will be able to carry 60T to Leh.

[Craig Alpert]

The C-17 has been used to airlift the M1A2 many times. IIRC before the USAF accepted it, Boeing had to demonstrate an Abrams airlift. What do you mean by not being able to 'balance' the load?

Viv,
Like I said there are plenty of pics available for PHOTO-OP. Reality is quite the oppostie. Good luck trying to find any unit out in theatre expecting or is using C-17 for transporting tanks. Sure it can transport a tank, but HOW MANY?? The magic number is ONE, Two at best under exterme conditions.

When I used the word balanced - I referred to it in terms of center of gravity for the aircraft. Taking off and landing on runways and ensuring that the load does not move to the front or back of the plane is critical. Hence due to this requirement it can ONLY transport ONE tank at a time. There is a saying in the US Army, that US Airforce FAILED in doing their job. What was their job? Transporting Tanks, they are not capable of transporting Abrams out in front line and we have to rely on ground and sea lanes!

The maintenance for aircraft like the C-17 will take place at its home base, in this case Agra. I don't see how transporting an Arjun is more expensive than airlifting 60 tons of everyday supplies. Its expensive relative to rail transport, but then again.. that applies to soldiers as well (but paratroopers still remain an essential part of any modern army). The Arjun/T-90 will be airlifted when time is essential or when alternate means aren't available (for example if a rail-link gets severed in an airstrike).

Hmm, trasporting 60 ton of materials and ONE 60 ton Tank is NOT the same. different setups are needed, while one can maximize the use of a c-17 transporting supplie, you can't do that with transporting a tank. Supplies can be further air-dropped, tanks however CANNOT. hence more stress on the aircraft. Logistically it is a nightmare if you want a C-17 to deliver Arjun in Daulat Begi Oldie. But hey if money and fuel aint a problem & you have Billions lying around, be my guest! If my understading is correct, DBO is at a higher altitude than Khandhar air field and it is a NIGHTMARE to have C-17 load up ONE M1A2's to support FOB/mini-FOB at those altitude let alone feasible. Even for supplies mules and asses are preferred as oppose to flying a C-17, but when a C-17 does fly out, it is MAXED out to ensure the maximum bang for our buck!

[GeorgeWelch]

Hence due to this requirement it can ONLY transport ONE tank at a time.

So . . . . your complaint is that it can only transport 1 tank at a time

they are not capable of transporting Abrams out in front line and we have to rely on ground and sea lanes!

Incorrect, they are perfectly capable of transporting tanks with the C-17. But moving tanks by air isn't the most EFFICIENT method. Thus if there is time, ground + sea is the preferred method.

BUT in an emergency, efficiency takes a very distant back seat to operational imperatives. So if 10 tanks need to be moved by air, then 10 tanks will be moved by air.

If my understading is correct, DBO is at a higher altitude than Khandhar air field and it is a NIGHTMARE to have C-17 load up ONE M1A2's to support FOB/mini-FOB at those altitude let alone feasible. Even for supplies mules and asses are preferred as oppose to flying a C-17, but when a C-17 does fly out, it is MAXED out to ensure the maximum bang for our buck!

The C-17 max payload is 170,900 pounds.

The M1A2SEP weighs 139,000 pounds
The Arjun weighs 117,000 pounds

With the Arjun, the C-17 has 53,900 pounds of 'excess capacity' to deal with performance degradation at altitude.

To put that in perspective, that is more than the max payload of a C-130.

I don't think the Arjun will pose any particular challenge for the C-17.

[Craig Alpert]

So . . . . your complaint is that it can only transport 1 tank at a time

No pun intended, but clearly you are not an Engineer. Let's do the math with the numbers you provided.

The C-17 max payload is 170,900 pounds.

The M1A2SEP weighs 139,000 pounds

By your numbers if 140,000 pounds + 140,000 pounds equals LESS than 170,900 pounds then YES you can transport MORE than ONE tank!

Incorrect, they are perfectly capable of transporting tanks with the C-17. But moving tanks by air isn't the most EFFICIENT method. Thus if there is time, ground + sea is the preferred method.

BUT in an emergency, efficiency takes a very distant back seat to operational imperatives. So if 10 tanks need to be moved by air, then 10 tanks will be moved by air.

AGAIN, incase you didn't get a chance to read my entire post, I'll summarize it for you. I NEVER said that a TANK CAN'T be transported by C-17 or if 10 tanks were needed @ the front line, 10 sorties wouldn't be provided! We are talking about cost effectiveness in doing this. If you have been out in Theater you'll know that when needed even diesel has been flown it, but at what expense??? how do you suppose the costs of fighting Afghan war ballooned all of a sudden? you think Congress needed more money to pay up Haji?

The Arjun weighs 117,000 pounds

With the Arjun, the C-17 has 53,900 pounds of 'excess capacity' to deal with performance degradation at altitude.

To put that in perspective, that is more than the max payload of a C-130.

I don't think the Arjun will pose any particular challenge for the C-17.

Again, not disagreeing or saying that C-17 CAN'T do it but if you assume it to carry TWO Arjun simultaneously you need to share whatever you are getting high off. COST is a significant factor in any armed forces. Logistically it is a nightmare if you have to make ten sorties to transport 10 Arjuns, but hey like I said earlier and as you rightly pointed out, if there is a lack of infrastructure or if cost goes out the window with matters of National Security then hell, MORE POWER TO Globemasters III!!!!

[putnanja]

Price tussle over largest defence deal with US

...
However, a tussle has now broken out over the price of the deal with the IAF unhappy over the “unrealistic” estimate for 10 C 17 Globemaster III aircraft. The aircraft manufacturer Boeing too seems to be in the dark over the expected price of the deal, with a top executive holding that the $ 4.1 billion tag excludes certain costs like engines and spares.
..
...
Both these figures make the C 17 the most expensive military aircraft in mass production, surpassing even the top line F 22 Raptor fighter. The IAF, on the other hand, was looking at a much lower estimate. Sources said that the IAF did not expect the aircraft to cost much over $ 3 billion.

While the IAF may need to re-draw its expenditure budget, a top Boeing executive hinted that the price of the deal would be much over $ 4.1 billion. Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft said on Tuesday that the $ 4.1 billion price would not include things like engines, support and spares. However, he clarified that the deal was still under discussion between the two governments and it would be too early to comment on the final price.

[Surya]

maybe its just me but I am getting the feeling that Lockheed and Boeing are getting a little too cocky with India?

[GeorgeWelch]

No pun intended, but clearly you are not an Engineer. Let's do the math with the numbers you provided.

The C-17 max payload is 170,900 pounds.

The M1A2SEP weighs 139,000 pounds

By your numbers if 140,000 pounds + 140,000 pounds equals LESS than 170,900 pounds then YES you can transport MORE than ONE tank!

yes, 1.2 tanks.

But I'm not sure of the usefulness of transporting one fifth of a tank

The C-17 was designed from the beginning to transport ONE Abrams plus have enough headroom to handle future growth, hot+high conditions, additional support gear for the tank, etc.

I truly don't understand your criticism of it 'only' transporting one tank. It does exactly what it was designed to do.

I NEVER said that a TANK CAN'T be transported by C-17 or if 10 tanks were needed @ the front line, 10 sorties wouldn't be provided! We are talking about cost effectiveness in doing this.

And I pointed out that in a war, winning is far more important than cost effectiveness. No one expects tanks to be routinely shuttled around on the C-17. But the capability is there for when you need it.

If you have been out in Theater you'll know that when needed even diesel has been flown it, but at what expense???

Winning a war is expensive. Losing a war is even more expensive.

Again, not disagreeing or saying that C-17 CAN'T do it but if you assume it to carry TWO Arjun simultaneously you need to share whatever you are getting high off.

I never made any such statement. Obviously it couldn't carry two, it was never designed to and was never sold as being capable of such.

Logistically it is a nightmare if you have to make ten sorties to transport 10 Arjuns

You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Of course transporting 10 Arjuns by air would be expensive, but there would be nothing 'nightmarish' about it. Drive the tanks on, chain them down, take-off, fly to destination, land, unchain, drive off.

but hey like I said earlier and as you rightly pointed out, if there is a lack of infrastructure or if cost goes out the window with matters of National Security then hell, MORE POWER TO Globemasters III!!!!

I think moving tanks is only a very small (but still important) part of the justification of the C-17. In the broader picture, during a conflict, all sorts of supplies will need to be moved by air. And the IAF is woefully lacking in its total airlift capability. The C-17 is a very efficient airplane at being able to deliver the maximum amount of supplies in a given amount of tarmac space.

[GeorgeWelch]

maybe its just me but I am getting the feeling that Lockheed and Boeing are getting a little too cocky with India?

They are just countering an erroneous media report (although it did come from the White House, which is somewhat disturbing). There is no indication that the actual Indian negotiators have in any way been caught off-guard by last minute price hikes or surprises or anything like that.

[Katare]

Ability to transport MBTs is a unique capability which may come handy in war but it is not going to be the norm for tank transport or deciding factor in buying C17 IMO. I would expect it to be used in special conditions like -

1) Induction and deinduction in places where roads can't handle tank transport or no roads exist
2) Emergency requirements to augment defense in phase of enemy armor breakthrough or to support highly successful Indian attack.
3) Tactical surprises by achieving localize armor superiority

This capability with India would require both Pak and China to take it in account and provide extra cover/insurance in there battle plans. It'll add that extra bit of uncertainty in enemy mind or give that extra edge to our forces.

But people need to understand that C17 not only can carry an MBT but also can carry ~48 troops, a light vehicle, fuel and a couple of ton of ammunition all in the same flight. Ability to just drive in drive off would mean IAF and IA crew would be well prepared and trained to use this capability if needed.

Also when carrying max-load a C17s won't necessary have to carry fuel for maximum range. They'll also have an option to takeoff with low fuel and get refueled in-flight if they need to fly far or need fuel for return flight.

If it is FMS sale than what are they negotiating?

[amit]

The $4.1 billion figure could be a slip on the part of the Obama team and the figure could possibly reflect the bottomline price which Boeing is agreeable to. And with that figure out, Boeing's negotiation position is weakened and hence all this rearguard action on their part. That's my reading of this unusual statement from Boeing. I could be wrong.

Regarding the transporting of tanks on C17, Craig seems to have forgotten that the Indian Army flew in T72s to Jaffna which is only a couple of hours boat ride from India in IL76s.

The point is that India's current MBTs, the T90 and Arjun will not fit into a IL76. The T90 may if it is dismantled to a certain extent but that would degrade its capacity to drive out and join the battle as it is likely to have to do to warrant a shipment by air.

So if IAF buys C17s it will bring back the capability to airlift MBTs to the frontline. Will it be used routinely? Very unlikely. However, if say the Chinnis launched a surprise attack in Arunachal and the Army needed to augment its heavy stuff, of course the C17 will be used to transport T90s and/or Arjuns. And to hell with logistics cost.

I think that should be pretty obvious.

JMT

[ramana]

If Boeing expects more than the agreed to price they can think it over. IAF wont pay a cent over the $4.1B for 10 aircraft.

[niran]

So if IAF buys C17s it will bring back the capability to airlift MBTs to the frontline. Will it be used routinely? Very unlikely. However, if say the Chinnis launched a surprise attack in Arunachal and the Army needed to augment its heavy stuff, of course the C17 will be used to transport T90s and/or Arjuns. And to hell with logistics cost.

I think that should be pretty obvious.

JMT

C17 will carry one tank at a time, IAF is getting 10 C17s, assuming all 10 of them are available, they will be carrying just 10 tanks, my question
what difference will transporting measly 10 tanks achieve in a full scale war? except self back and head patting for the team, of course.

[svinayak]

India ordering US Military aircraft & weapons:

(10) C-17A Globemaster 3 and also buy 6 more. Each cost $329 million but double on trainings and others.

(6) CC-130J Super Hercules and option for 6 more. Each cost $66 million

(6) E-2D Advance Hawkeye. Each cost $207 million

(8) P-8I Poseidon and order 4 more. Each cost $262 million

(24) Harpoon Block 2. Each cost $7.0 million

$329 X 16 = $5264 X 2 = $10, 528 for C17

[amit]

C17 will carry one tank at a time, IAF is getting 10 C17s, assuming all 10 of them are available, they will be carrying just 10 tanks, my question
what difference will transporting measly 10 tanks achieve in a full scale war? except self back and head patting for the team, of course.

Niran,

Your problem is you are thinking in terms of a routine military logistics build up. The air transport of tanks are not for that. It would be used only in situations where the existing armour needs augmentation real quick due to several factors such as degradation.

If say a unit on the frontline has, as a random example, 15 tanks. Now five of them are damaged/destroyed in fighting. And they need replacements to hold the line.

Now to replace them via road it could take one week (as an example). However, if you send the tanks by air to the nearest airfield, then they could drive to the front line in a few hours time.

Now guess what works and what does not.

[amit]

India ordering US Military aircraft & weapons:

(10) C-17A Globemaster 3 and also buy 6 more. Each cost $329 million but double on trainings and others.

(6) CC-130J Super Hercules and option for 6 more. Each cost $66 million

(6) E-2D Advance Hawkeye. Each cost $207 million

(8) P-8I Poseidon and order 4 more. Each cost $262 million

(24) Harpoon Block 2. Each cost $7.0 million

$329 X 16 = $5264 X 2 = $10, 528 for C17

Boss your calculation is way off.

To do an accurate and realistic calculation of the cost to IAF you have to quantify the "trainings and others" - that is the stuff IAF will take and the cost of those that it won't take.

For example if you take the Boeing figure of $5.8 billion for 10 planes, which includes all the gee whiz that they sell along with the actual frame then the cost of each plane is $580 million. Yet as you yourself pointed out the basic plane (including the engines, I presume! ) costs $329 million. That means the extras come to as much as $251 million as the upper ceiling. How much of that will IAF bite?

Unless you can get that number you're calculations are just academic number crunching.

If we take the $4.1 billion figure that is being touted, then cost of 10 planes at $329 million a pop is $3.29 billion.

So the IAF appears to be interested in only $81 million worth of "trainings and extras", that is only 32 per cent of what is on offer.

Again if we take the $410 million as the base price IAF is willing to pay then cost of 16 planes comes to $6.56 billion and not over $10 billion that you calculate.

[Craig Alpert]

You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Of course transporting 10 Arjuns by air would be expensive, but there would be nothing 'nightmarish' about it. Drive the tanks on, chain them down, take-off, fly to destination, land, unchain, drive off.

I guess you haven't had the opportunity of seeing a M1A2Sep get dismounted for transport on board the Globemaster! Only if it were that easy!!!
To give you a quick rundown, to get a tank say from Fort Hood to Long Beach, the DoD has a specific set of flat cars rated to load the tanks. A crew of six support personnel is required that can tie down (with huge chains) a M1 every 20-30 minutes. As to the battlefield - its the Heavy Equipment Transport Company (HET) using the M1070 HET Tractor and the M1000 trailer. These transportation companies are the primary haulers for long distances. You have to realize that tank track wears out very fast in a desert, and being that they are delivered as combat-ready means you need to have the support staff in place! with 6 personnel required for loading/unloading with 1-2 hour in getting the tank on and off the plane here's the scenario. 10 tanks to transport, 60 personnel to spare and 0 parallel runways, 6-12 hours to get 1/4 of IA tank regiment (think they have 40 tanks in one regiment) you get my point on why it is a nightmare!

Bottom line is, C-17 are used for rapid strategic airlift of troops and cargo to main operating bases or forward operating bases throughout the world. It has the ability to rapidly deploy a combat unit to a potential battle area and sustain it with on-going supplies. The C-17 is also capable of performing tactical airlift, medical evacuation and airdrop missions. Transporting combat ready tanks is a secondary role, not envisioned in their initial Ops plan.

[amit]

Transporting combat ready tanks is a secondary role, not envisioned in their initial Ops plan.

Craig,

If the IAF buys the C17, that is exactly what it will used for, as a secondary role of rapid transport of tanks in cases of emergency.

So I fail to understand what's your point. Nobody said the IAF is interested in the C17 for the sole purpose of transporting tanks. Right now in IAF inventory there is no aircraft capable of lifting an Indian MBT. The C17 restores the capability that the IAF used to have (IL76 airlifting the T72).

Don't you think that's a useful backup to have?

[svinayak]

Again if we take the $410 million as the base price IAF is willing to pay then cost of 16 planes comes to $6.56 billion and not over $10 billion that you calculate.

It is going to be more than $10B

[putnanja]

For example if you take the Boeing figure of $5.8 billion for 10 planes, which includes all the gee whiz that they sell along with the actual frame then the cost of each plane is $580 million. Yet as you yourself pointed out the basic plane (including the engines, I presume! ) costs $329 million. That means the extras come to as much as $251 million as the upper ceiling. How much of that will IAF bite?

Unless you can get that number you're calculations are just academic number crunching.

If we take the $4.1 billion figure that is being touted, then cost of 10 planes at $329 million a pop is $3.29 billion.

So the IAF appears to be interested in only $81 million worth of "trainings and extras", that is only 32 per cent of what is on offer.

Again if we take the $410 million as the base price IAF is willing to pay then cost of 16 planes comes to $6.56 billion and not over $10 billion that you calculate.

If you look at the article that I posted earlier, the IAF too thinks that 4.1 billion is too high. They were expecting the 10 aircraft to cost around $3 billion. If one searches on the web, the cost of C-17 is around 200-225 million apiece. The rest is for training, spares etc.

[amit]

Again if we take the $410 million as the base price IAF is willing to pay then cost of 16 planes comes to $6.56 billion and not over $10 billion that you calculate.

It is going to be more than $10B

Perhaps its foretold.

I accept your prediction.

[svinayak]

Thank you

[amit]

If you look at the article that I posted earlier, the IAF too thinks that 4.1 billion is too high. They were expecting the 10 aircraft to cost around $3 billion. If one searches on the web, the cost of C-17 is around 200-225 million apiece. The rest is for training, spares etc.

Boss I have not issue with that. Acharya took some random figures and did some pop mathematics, I just wanted to point out there are other numbers (supplied by the White House no less!) that show holes in his calculations.

The actual figure which IAF pays to Boeing, me thinks will be decided after much chai and biskoot. These are (Boeings $5.8 billion figure and IAF's $3 billion figure) IMO, just the opening shots in a serious price haggle.

[Rahul M]

So if IAF buys C17s it will bring back the capability to airlift MBTs to the frontline. Will it be used routinely? Very unlikely. However, if say the Chinnis launched a surprise attack in Arunachal and the Army needed to augment its heavy stuff, of course the C17 will be used to transport T90s and/or Arjuns. And to hell with logistics cost.

I think that should be pretty obvious.

JMT

C17 will carry one tank at a time, IAF is getting 10 C17s, assuming all 10 of them are available, they will be carrying just 10 tanks, my question
what difference will transporting measly 10 tanks achieve in a full scale war? except self back and head patting for the team, of course.

people here know that I'm not a big supporter of the C-17 due to its exorbitant price but the ability of transport even ten tanks is extremely useful. 10 tanks is one sub-strength squadron (14 tanks). in many armies full squadrons have that many tanks (IDF for example)
in times of crisis in a particular sector that can very well decide the outcome. moreover, even with a small early warning (which we would definitely get wrt china) a full regiment or more can be inducted fairly quickly. to understand how raw lifting capacity can come in useful you need to look at how 4 Mi-26 helicopters turned the situation in a sector on its head during the late 80's 'situation' with china.

IMHO we need 20-25 heavy lifts but the price of C-17 is still something I'm not comfortable with.

[Indranil]

^^^ Ditto

[Viv S]

The C-17 has been used to airlift the M1A2 many times. IIRC before the USAF accepted it, Boeing had to demonstrate an Abrams airlift. What do you mean by not being able to 'balance' the load?

Viv,
Like I said there are plenty of pics available for PHOTO-OP. Reality is quite the oppostie. Good luck trying to find any unit out in theatre expecting or is using C-17 for transporting tanks. Sure it can transport a tank, but HOW MANY?? The magic number is ONE, Two at best under exterme conditions.

It was designed to airlift only one tank. It would be nice if it could do two, but short of buying second hand An-124s and C-5s there are no alternatives that will give a larger airlift capability. What you're seeing in Afghanistan is a slow counter-insurgency operation. Which makes it economical to ship them to Karachi and send them by road to Kandahar. That luxury of time wouldn't be available in a hot war or when roads/railways/ships are unavailable.

When I used the word balanced - I referred to it in terms of center of gravity for the aircraft. Taking off and landing on runways and ensuring that the load does not move to the front or back of the plane is critical. Hence due to this requirement it can ONLY transport ONE tank at a time. There is a saying in the US Army, that US Airforce FAILED in doing their job. What was their job? Transporting Tanks, they are not capable of transporting Abrams out in front line and we have to rely on ground and sea lanes!

The tank is chained down in cargo hold and positioned at aircraft's CoG within the cargo hold. Its a pretty straight-forward operation. And yes it can transport only one tank, which like I said before is what it was designed to do. I haven't really heard to the USAF being criticized by the US Army for any failing in that regard. Besides the USAF has the option of the C-5 if multiple tanks are to be ferried.

The maintenance for aircraft like the C-17 will take place at its home base, in this case Agra. I don't see how transporting an Arjun is more expensive than airlifting 60 tons of everyday supplies. Its expensive relative to rail transport, but then again.. that applies to soldiers as well (but paratroopers still remain an essential part of any modern army). The Arjun/T-90 will be airlifted when time is essential or when alternate means aren't available (for example if a rail-link gets severed in an airstrike).

Hmm, trasporting 60 ton of materials and ONE 60 ton Tank is NOT the same. different setups are needed, while one can maximize the use of a c-17 transporting supplie, you can't do that with transporting a tank. Supplies can be further air-dropped, tanks however CANNOT. hence more stress on the aircraft. Logistically it is a nightmare if you want a C-17 to deliver Arjun in Daulat Begi Oldie. But hey if money and fuel aint a problem & you have Billions lying around, be my guest! If my understading is correct, DBO is at a higher altitude than Khandhar air field and it is a NIGHTMARE to have C-17 load up ONE M1A2's to support FOB/mini-FOB at those altitude let alone feasible. Even for supplies mules and asses are preferred as oppose to flying a C-17, but when a C-17 does fly out, it is MAXED out to ensure the maximum bang for our buck!

In terms of time and complexity, loading a tank into the C-17 is arguably simpler than palletized goods. It can simply be driven on and strapped down. As long as the driver is competent, the loadmaster doesn't have to worry too much about division of load about the cargo area. Its true tanks can't be air-dropped, but they can be off-loaded at forward air bases. And given the excess capacity even after loading the Arjun(even more in the case of the T-90), it should be able to handle airfields at higher altitudes comfortably.

Anyway, we're missing the point which is that the C-17 does have this capability while the IL-76 does NOT (even if we neglect all the maintenance issues). And its something than the IAF has HAD to perform in the past, and would like to retain the capability to perform in the future.

[amit]

Anyway, we're missing the point which is that the C-17 does have this capability while the IL-76 does NOT (even if we neglect all the maintenance issues). And its something than the IAF has HAD to perform in the past, and would like to retain the capability to perform in the future.

Exactly!

[Viv S]

You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Of course transporting 10 Arjuns by air would be expensive, but there would be nothing 'nightmarish' about it. Drive the tanks on, chain them down, take-off, fly to destination, land, unchain, drive off.

I guess you haven't had the opportunity of seeing a M1A2Sep get dismounted for transport on board the Globemaster! Only if it were that easy!!!
To give you a quick rundown, to get a tank say from Fort Hood to Long Beach, the DoD has a specific set of flat cars rated to load the tanks. A crew of six support personnel is required that can tie down (with huge chains) a M1 every 20-30 minutes. As to the battlefield - its the Heavy Equipment Transport Company (HET) using the M1070 HET Tractor and the M1000 trailer. These transportation companies are the primary haulers for long distances. You have to realize that tank track wears out very fast in a desert, and being that they are delivered as combat-ready means you need to have the support staff in place! with 6 personnel required for loading/unloading with 1-2 hour in getting the tank on and off the plane here's the scenario. 10 tanks to transport, 60 personnel to spare and 0 parallel runways, 6-12 hours to get 1/4 of IA tank regiment (think they have 40 tanks in one regiment) you get my point on why it is a nightmare!

I'm not sure I understood all of that. Yes, the tank's crew and supplies will have to be airlifted as well but that's to be expected. Why would the tank be needed to be strapped down every 20-30 min? And why would it take 6-12 hours?

Its looks fairly straight-forward to me.




Contrast that with the IAF's major headache when the T-72's were to be airlifted to Sri Lanka.

[abhik]

Rather than tanks a much more likely class of bulky and/or heavy cargo for the C-17 is going to be radars and missile launchers for air defense and more so for missile defense. Imagine there was a sudden need to transport say a Swordfish radar (for reference the Green pine radar has an total antenna size of 3M * 9M (from wiki), no idea about weight though it is certainly not a featherweight) to an area which dose not have the best road connectivity .

[vic]

As a normal thumb rule, spare parts for around 10 years, doubles the cost notified in FMS citation

[Sanku]

C17 will carry one tank at a time, IAF is getting 10 C17s, assuming all 10 of them are available, they will be carrying just 10 tanks, my question
what difference will transporting measly 10 tanks achieve in a full scale war? except self back and head patting for the team, of course.

I dont think 10 tanks are going to change the course of war, it may come in handy in some situations, as Rahul M suggested, but counting on airlifts to transfer tanks is, I think a flawed plan. The tanks in Ladhak will go through the all weather road being planned (for eternity ) through the Manali-Rohtang-Baralacha route.

When the thread had started, very early on, Shiv had pooh pahed the idea of buying C 17s for moving tanks while still supporting the need for C 17 for usual air truck duties.

However as it becomes clear that C 17s for the mentioned prices and the conditions (no RFI/RFP/tests) were really stretching the acceptability of the aircraft of the IAF from justifications of RoI (both acquisition and use) -- the tank argument is a useful time pass for flogging the snake oil.