C-17s for the IAF?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Nov 2010 11:09

Craig Alpert wrote: A crew of six support personnel is required that can tie down (with huge chains) a M1 every 20-30 minutes. . . 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)

1. You go from 20-30 minutes for tie down to 1-2 hours. Rather strange.

2. If you have 60 personnel, which is one 6-man team per plane, why do you assume they are all working sequentially?

So while plane 1 is loading, the other 54 people are just kicking back and shooting the breeze?

No! You don't need parallel runways to load the tanks in parallel, thus the total time to load the tanks is 20-30 minutes or 1-2 hours, depending on which of Craig's estimates you believe, plus however long it takes to get them all down the runway and into the air.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Nov 2010 11:18

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

I was only trying to highlight the fact that maximum payload numbers are qualified for the type of cargo i.e. pallets/men or heavy vehicles/tanks; it is not necessary that an AC capable of hauling up Xtonnes of pallets/men would be able to haul up a denser payload weighing Xtonnes unless stated/qualified by the manufacturer (modern MBT(60 tonnes) exerts anywhere around 12-15+ PSI it is not same as say 100 pallets weighing 600kg each evenly spread across the cargo compartment ).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Nov 2010 11:24

war is best avoided - "show of force" things like a massive strategic airmobile capability in airborne brigades, airlifters and Mi26T/CH53X, long range artillery and tactical MLRS/155mm are good dissuasive tools. if india can build up rapidly in response, PRC will back down without a shot.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Nov 2010 11:26

amit wrote: 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.
.

There is no pop math here. That is only your imagination.
Here the upper limit of the price list are taken and calc. All the other stuff is extra and they can charge even upto 30-35% of the price list.

There is no discount on the spare and maintenance contracts.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 10 Nov 2010 11:34

Hmm, unless the ACM is as 'adarsh' as some of his army colleagues, he did say that tests and evaluation have been carried out and the C-17s best suits the IAF's requirement (infact it was a direct quote). He could of course also be an expert physiogamist and figured out from MMS's expression that he wanted C-17s selected, but probably he was not smoking something really special to send RFIs to HAL for a C-17 class of aircraft

However, the important query is - why do we assume that 10 C-17s will carry out only 1 sortie each and lift only 10 Arjuns (if required)? How about if they each carry out 10 sorties and push a 100 arjuns into the sector? Will that influence the course of battle? In a hot war isn't it better than relying on non-existent all weather roads?

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Nov 2010 11:37

Acharya wrote:
amit wrote: 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.
.
There is no pop math here. That is only your imagination.
Here the upper limit of the price list are taken and calc. All the other stuff is extra and they can charge even upto 30-35% of the price list.

There is no discount on the spare and maintenance contracts.

Hmm,

Boeing itself says that $580 million is the upper limit, including all extras. Yet you come up with the figure $658 million ($329X2 for the extras). Could you give a source for that figure?

I'm sorry I don't have a hyper active imagination, I'd rather deal with tangibles.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Nov 2010 11:40

Why speculate about the costs now ? As it is the way we go about going our deals Acharya ji's estimate looks conservative to me. Hawk, Scorpene, Gorshkov wait what was the cost of toilet paper roll in CWG village ?

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Nov 2010 11:41

arnab wrote:Hmm, unless the ACM is as 'adarsh' as some of his army colleagues, he did say that tests and evaluation have been carried out and the C-17s best suits the IAF's requirement (infact it was a direct quote). He could of course also be an expert physiogamist and figured out from MMS's expression that he wanted C-17s selected, but probably he was not smoking something really special to send RFIs to HAL for a C-17 class of aircraft

However, the important query is - why do we assume that 10 C-17s will carry out only 1 sortie each and lift only 10 Arjuns (if required)? How about if they each carry out 10 sorties and push a 100 arjuns into the sector? Will that influence the course of battle? In a hot war isn't it better than relying on non-existent all weather roads?

Aha, Arnab but, but you overlooked the obvious alternative. Just break up the Arjun into two or more parts, ferry the parts in two or more IL76 and just stick them together in the airfield. I'm sure the Chinis or Pakis or whoever we are fighting will be gentlemen enough to wait till we finish that before attacking.

That, my friend is pure unadulterated snake oil, Russian moreover, why are you looking at Americani stuff?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Nov 2010 11:52

Craig Alpert wrote:
tsarkar wrote: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.

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Nov 2010 11:55

negi wrote:Why speculate about the costs now ? As it is the way we go about going our deals Acharay ji's estimate looks conservative to me. Hawk, Scorpene, Gorshkov wait what was the cost of toilet paper roll in CWG village ?

Now, now Negi bhaiya you are indulging in a bit of spin bowling yourself.

Boeing themselves have said the list price is $580 million with all bells and whistles. Yet Acharya is touting a figure much higher than that?

And all this before negotiations have even taken place. Yet you are comparing with the Goroshkov (which was plain and simple arm twisting aka Mafia style) and Scorpene (a case of very bad/corrupt? negotiation on the part of the Govt babus) and Hawk which was another case of stupid negotiation.

Let the negotiations happen and price be fixed before sending in your Chinamen?

Meanwhile, if you need I can ship you subsidized toilet paper at much cheaper rates than the CWG ones.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Nov 2010 12:03

Where is the spin ? you misread the flight it was a straighter one.

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Nov 2010 12:07

negi wrote:Where is the spin ? you misread the flight it was a straighter one.

A straight one which jumps from $580 million to $658 million and beyond even before negotiations started. I do believe, not only did I miss the flight, so did the wicketkeeper and everyone else and the ball landed on the boundary ropes for an unnecessary boundary. A lot of

faces around as a result!

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Nov 2010 12:18

^ Boss why digress ? Read my original post point to the statement that has this alleged spin . 580 to 658 million ? bas , How much extra did we pay for Gorshkov ? What are we now paying for Scorpenes ? Do the math the % increase is higher than 100%. First lets start with underarm delivery onlee.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Nov 2010 12:21

negi wrote: bas , How much extra did we pay for Gorshkov ? What are we now paying for Scorpenes ? Do the math the % increase is higher than 100%. First lets start with underarm delivery onlee.

When people do not know what the real world is they keep going round and round

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Nov 2010 12:31

Acharya,

Isnt the world round, going round the sun etc,etc.

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Nov 2010 12:34

negi wrote:^ Boss why digress ? Read my original post point to the statement that has this alleged spin . 580 to 658 million ? bas , How much extra did we pay for Gorshkov ? What are we now paying for Scorpenes ? Do the math the % increase is higher than 100%. First lets start with underarm delivery onlee.

Look I don't know how you can decide even before negotiations have started that there will be an increase in the negotiated price for the C17.

Since you want to keep at it,

, let me just point out a crucial difference between your Scorpene and Goroshkov example and the C17 which you may have overlooked. And that is in both cases (Scorpene and Goroshkov) the contract involved building the product, the submarine in India, restarting a dead production line (for subs) and in the case of Gorshkov an extensive refit and rebuild almost as complicated an building a new ship. In both cases there was/is a lot of intangibles like tech transfer and what to fit on ship and what not.

In C17's case, however, we will be just buying off the shelf. Boeing says it's upper limit price for the birds is $580 million with all bells and whistles on offer. The base plane cost around half as much.

Now IMO what the negotiations between Boeing an IAF will centre on is what IAF wants and doesn't want and how lower it can take the price of the final package that it wants?

In such a situation how can you say that the final price will be higher (100 per cent? That would make each plane cost more than $1 billion!

) than what Boeing itself is saying is the upper limit in the price?

The only way that can happen is if for eg, the IAF wants to buy a lot of extras like say, an entire spare CKD for a C17 for every one it purchases (for spare parts etc). Now has the IAF given any indication that it wants to do something like that? The report is pretty clear, 10 C17, plus five engines and 10 self defence suits (sorry I forgot the name, its in the earlier pages).

If you insist on making a comparison I think you should compare with the Akula transfer. We pay $1 billion for 10 year lease and take the equipment (submarine) with what it comes with. Clean and clear-cut.

I hope you get what I want to say now, with out bringing comparisons with poor Trevour Chappell, lets just stick to cricket.

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Nov 2010 12:37

** Edited out, OT **

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Nov 2010 12:47

I think that's spin doctoring the discussion.

Very funny

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Nov 2010 13:01

**Nah, Edited out.**

Your right Indranil, it's OT and provides no value.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Nov 2010 13:01

Where are we going with the last few posts?!!

Utterly OT

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Nov 2010 13:04

indranilroy wrote:Where are we going with the last few posts?!!

Utterly OT

We are going in a straight line from $300 million (IAF's figure) to $410 million (Obama's staff figure) to $580 million (Boeing's figure) to $658 million (Acharya's figure) to $1 billion (now I'm even scared to write whose figure that is)!

And you call this OT?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Nov 2010 13:10

^^^ When nobody knows and the prices are not fixed, then why speculate so hard!

3.0 (IAF expectancy) < x < 5.8(Boeing quoted max price).

Why this tamasha and spin and what not ... have we reached the end of discussing the C-17?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Nov 2010 13:18

Amit had made some clear distinctions between the above-mentioned deals,very relevant points.The Gorshkov deal (which took years to decide upon) is a repair and renovation/upgradation job,very complicated,volume and cost of work underestimated perhaps by taking into account costing of revamping the Viraat as a guide;the Scorpene deal abysmally contracted-one cannot understand how for new subs which are in production in France and Spain can the price was revised upwards thrice!

As to pricing for the P-8s and C-17s,if they aren't to come with key US eqpt. because we will not sign controversial agreements,then the aircraft must come in at base price or equiv.One key difference between the P-8s and the C-17s is that the P-8s are being built on the same lines as the 737s,whose production will continue for a long time (Spicejet have just ordered 33),whereas the C-17 specialist production line is gasping for oxygen, and has been on the ventilator for quite some time.The IAF's order has given it a life extension for a few years more,and 40 US states and their representatives will be popping champagne thanking obama and MMS for the same.Therefore,the number of aircraft ordered by the IAF and "spread out" according to sources as what we prefer,is exactly the opposite of what Boeing wants.They want a quick fast run to build the lot and close the line down pronto.So spacing out the Indian order will also come with "spaced out" overheads in keeping the line open for small proiduction batch.This is where the "extra" billions will go,not into the manufacturing of the aircraft-raw materials,etc.,but in salaries for Boeing's workforce and top execs!

Look,a few tanks airlifted by either C-17s or IL-76s are not going to make much of a difference in any Himalayan War.Sanku has said it right.Rail and sea (Lanka) are the ways to go if one wants to move an armoured regiment,etc.In the sub-continent,rail movment of tanks is the established norm.I can understand the need to airlift "light tanks" and other required eqpt. that would be able to operate in such inhospitable terrain.One must also remember the distance from an airstrip where a C-17 can land might be far off from the actual location where armoured vehicles are required and can operate.Imagine the logistics required to set up maintenance facilities for MBTs at such high alts! It is logistic support where the C-17/IL-76,etc.,are required most,since our road infrastructure is stiull so inferior to that of the PRC.The Chinese (I strongly suspect) might even have had more than a little part in the infamous Kargil gambit that Gen,Bandicoot orchestrated.Spread across the disputed Indo-China border,we could see China playing a game of several "Kargils" in the future,simultaneous operations from east to west along the Himalayas to keep our forces guessing and divided,as they probe sector by sector,complicating our counter-attack strategy and tactics.

I do forsee though that we will also have to move at short notice tactical missiles in large numbers,which might be problematic if permenantly deployed in hostile terrain.It is why we also more urgently need heavy-lift helos (MI-26 and Chinooks being evaluated),which require only helipads to lift such payloads,thus having a far wider operational capability than fixed wing aircraft..

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Nov 2010 13:20

indranilroy wrote:^^^ When nobody knows and the prices are not fixed, then why speculate so hard!

3.0 (IAF expectancy) < x < 5.8(Boeing quoted max price).

Why this tamasha and spin and what not ... have we reached the end of discussing the C-17?

That's the equation, the figure x is the key. However, as you've pointed out I reckon the x will trend within 3.0 and 5.8. Boeing will try to push it close to the max, Indian babus will try to trend it more towards 3.0. And I think by leaking the 4.1 figure the US trip managers have put Boeing in a bit of a spot as far as their negotiating line goes, hence the noises that it made about pricing.

I have no problems if folks speculate what x is likely to be. In fact since all possible discussions about the merits or demerits of C17 vis a vis other planes have been exhausted and since it has also been conclusively proven that IAF wants a heavy lift capacity, then IMO the only way this thread will be kept alive is by discussing what x could/will be and what goodies will the C17s be equipped with at that (x) price.

However, I have a problem in comprehension and credulity if someone pulls out a figure which makes x>5.8, with hints that it can be even twice as greater without any credible proof!

I think that's spin doctoring the discussion.

JMT

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Nov 2010 13:50

Sanku wrote:
niran wrote: 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.

...

The important point is having that flexibility to lift a MBT into a semi-prepared forward operating base on a short-notice. It is likely be never used for that role per se, but having that option is much more desirable than not having one.

Besides, why just MBT ... why not think about Stryker-type of mobile vehicles IA recently sent an RFI for. One C-17 can carry up to 4 Stryker-type ICVs or 10 HMMWV-type of vehicles. So a fleet of 10 C-17s could lift 10 Arjun-type MBT, or 40 Stryker-type vehicles, or 100 HMMWV-type vehicles in one lift. If IAF goes for a full fleet of 16 C-17s, then that would be 16 Arjun-type MBT, or 64 Stryker-type ICVs, or 160 HMMWV-type vehicles in one lift. (Or any mixture of these vehicle types.) Now do this for a repeated round-the-clock sorties for a theatre emergency and it is possible to see how much lift-capability IAF will be gaining in the next decade.

Example 1: 10 C-17s carrying a mixture of vehicles (in one lift)
4 x C-17s -> 4 x Arjun-type MBT
4 x C-17s -> 16 x Stryker-type ICV
2 x C-17s -> 20 x HMMWV-type vehicles

Example 2: 16 C-17s carrying a mixture of vehicles (in one lift)
7 x C-17s -> 7 x Arjun-type MBT
6 x C-17s -> 24 x Stryker-type ICV
3 x C-17s -> 30 x HMMWV-type vehicles

Note: But rather than numbers like these, it is more likely the airlift will focus more on getting a complete combat company/battalion/brigade of the IA and their supporting elements (such as artillery, anti-tank, medic, engineering, reconnaissance, C2 etc) into an area of operation.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Nov 2010 16:07

Srai-ji, I am only saying that obsessing about air lift of tanks is missing the point. Your above discussion of "net possible payload per sortie" is very different from "C 17 rocks because it can lift XYZ tanks yeah baby, go go go..." type of fan-boi discussion.

Is IAF likely to take a C 17 decision based only on whether they can lift XYZ tank (allegedly)?

Is IAF decision likely to incorporate many factors (including political directives of what they are supposed to prepare for in what time frame)

Trying to focus on just one aspect of the matter and not looking at the whole matter holistically usually means that something is amiss in arguments.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Nov 2010 19:10

Ref C-17 price.

We have to know what we are talking about when we mention C-17 price.

There is the price of the basic aircraft, which often does not include engines which are built by a different company.

Sometimes the aircraft is purchased in one manner (Direct Commercial Sale for example) and the engines are purchased in another way (FMS for example) in a separate contract.

Then there is the in service support contract (ISS) which all C-17 buyers have purchased so far. What level of service does it include? What is not included? For how long is it signed? What are the provisions? This contract alone can double the apparent price of the C-17, according to what it includes and for how long it is signed.

Then there is the stock of spare parts. How much money of spares are included in the quoted purchase price ?

There is the ground service equipment. Does this aircraft need special ground servicing equipment which needs to be purchased and is that included in the price ?

Then there is maintenance tooling, service software etc. How much is that and what is included?

There is the subscription to software updates. Modern Flight Management Computers such as installed in C-17 contain databases of world airports, world navigation data, world terrain and obstacles for the EGPWS. These are constantly updated and have to be uploaded into the aircraft. Where is that data going to come from and how much will it cost ? Is it going to be secure ? (Do you imagine that an Indian Military aircraft is going to be uploading foreign supplied-data in its flight computers every month?)

Then there is the training of air crew and maintenance technicians. Is that included in the price or is it extra ?

Is the purchase and installation of a full flight simulator included or not ? Where will IAF pilots have to go to learn to fly the C-17? Where will they do their annual proficiency checks (civilian pilots do it every 6 months, I am assuming IAF pilots have one every year)? If they all have to fly to California every year to re-qualify on the aircraft, is the cost of flying them back and forth, their hotels and per-diems included in the cost?

Then there are the different bells and whistles which are add ons which can be added to the aircraft: secure communications radios, mission equipment and software, defensive suites, armor, night vision equipment. Is it included ?

All this is why discussing price of C-17 is useless when we do not mention what we are talking about. $170 million may be true, but it might mean an aircraft with no engines and just basic avionics. $500 million or more may be true, but it may include a C-17 with engines, all the bells and whistles, training for 100 pilots and 100 mechanics for 10 years, and a contract for 20 years of in service support that included everything but fuel, oil and tires. So discussing price without mentioning what we are talking is quite useless. Maybe all of you are wrong, and maybe all of you are correct, depending on what is and what is not included.

In Canada, when the government announced 3.4 Billion for 4 aircraft it came out to $850 million dollars per aircraft but that included the aircraft, the engines, many bells and whistles, spare parts, a spare engine, training, a 20 year In Service support contract that probably includes most of the maintenance and it even included the construction of new ramps and hangars at Canadian Air Force bases (that money goes to Canadian construction companies).

What it did not include was the interests on the payments, the expendables which are not included in the In Service Contract etc.

I loved that Canada included all that in one lump amount for it made evaluating the cost of operating the C-17 quite easy.

Divide the total cost by the number of aircraft. Divide by 30,000 hours of service life.

Add fuel (8.5 tonnes an hour of fuel at about $750/tonne at todays' price = $6375 dollars/hour of flight)

Add the cost of the Indian Air Force crews and maintenance personnel.

For a total cost of ? per hour of flight.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Nov 2010 19:13

Gilles, that is precisely why any comparison between any options to C 17 is JUST not possible till a fixed RFI/RFP followed by price estimates for that fixed RFI was sent to multiple vendors.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 10 Nov 2010 19:21

Boeing To Sell 10 Pratt-Powered C-17 Transport Aircraft To India

The Boeing C-17 military aircraft is powered by four Pratt & Whitney engines. India is expected to buy about 45 engines, including extras.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 10 Nov 2010 19:40

GeorgeWelch wrote:
1. You go from 20-30 minutes for tie down to 1-2 hours. Rather strange.

2. If you have 60 personnel, which is one 6-man team per plane, why do you assume they are all working sequentially?

So while plane 1 is loading, the other 54 people are just kicking back and shooting the breeze?

No! You don't need parallel runways to load the tanks in parallel, thus the total time to load the tanks is 20-30 minutes or 1-2 hours, depending on which of Craig's estimates you believe, plus however long it takes to get them all down the runway and into the air.

1) Not strange, it's the scenario. 20-30 min to tie it down, 20-30 min to untie it! That combines the time to 1 hour and another hour (combined time) to get the remaining of the tank and their equipments on and off. So for each tank the estimated time to roll on & off is 1-2 hours depending on the team of experts you have on hand.
2) With NO parallel runway, you can only have ONE plane land & take off. looking at the FOB that Indian's have in the NE, I don't think they have the luxury of docking the c-17 and load/unload while have another land/take off to do the needful. Now the 1-2hr PER plane, goes to a full time job of 6-12hr for round the clock ops. You can't expect the same six men team to work simultaneously with the c-17 crew. A 60 men team (30/30 split) is required for round the clock operation on both bases.
3) Having a parallel runway helps tremendously in turn around time, with that being said, IF you had two runways in parallel, you can have 2 c-17's land and then use one runway to unload & you see how you would require a 12 men support team, however that won't be the case with IA.

@ Amit - AGREED that C-17 will take IA the option of Air lifting ARJUN MBT. The question is if you expect to have all 10 tanks in the 0 hr that won't happen! But you are correct, it does give the enemy something to think about, as the battlefield changes completey with C-17's capabilities.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Nov 2010 20:08

Craig Alpert wrote:1) Not strange, it's the scenario. 20-30 min to tie it down, 20-30 min to untie it! That combines the time to 1 hour and another hour (combined time) to get the remaining of the tank and their equipments on and off. So for each tank the estimated time to roll on & off is 1-2 hours depending on the team of experts you have on hand.

I can MAYBE see that in an extreme worse case for LOADING if you have to be careful of balancing everything.

Unloading, which is going to be the critical factor, is always faster.

Craig Alpert wrote: 2) With NO parallel runway, you can only have ONE plane land & take off. looking at the FOB that Indian's have in the NE, I don't think they have the luxury of docking the c-17 and load/unload while have another land/take off to do the needful. Now the 1-2hr PER plane, goes to a full time job of 6-12hr for round the clock ops.

1. You're combining load and unload times, you only need to look at unload times at the FOB.

2. Assuming that the tanks are coming from a major base, parallel loading will be no problem there. So you see the bottleneck at the FOB because there is only room for one C-17 on the ground at a time. That is an extreme worst-case scenario and very unlikely because the C-17 does not require a paved area for unloading. It can essentially land and drive off the runway to make room for the next plane. This only wouldn't be possible if there wasn't any semi-flat area large enough for the C-17 beside the runway. While possible, I find it highly unlikely.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Nov 2010 20:16

can i ask a different question... how many forward bases in the himalayas would actually benefit from having heavy tanks deposited there? where would they rumble onto? how would their logistics tails be supported? if a tank battle can take place somewhere, is it not likely that it is road reachable in the first place?

otherwise mountains tend not to be good places to run around in tanks, especially big ones
(clue: is this question a red herring?)

base to base shipment will always be cheaper by train and road

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Nov 2010 21:14

Craig Alpert wrote: 3) Having a parallel runway helps tremendously in turn around time, with that being said, IF you had two runways in parallel, you can have 2 c-17's land and then use one runway to unload & you see how you would require a 12 men support team, however that won't be the case with IA.
.

That is totally wrong. Port-au-Prince Haiti has only one 10,000 foot runway with no parallel taxiway. During the Earthquake relief in January 2010, certain days, there were about 170 aircraft a day, C-17s, An-124s, IL-76s, C-130s, An-12s etc......

And that number was in not limited by runway or taxiway capacity but by RAMP capacity.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Nov 2010 21:19

GeorgeWelch wrote: That is an extreme worst-case scenario and very unlikely because the C-17 does not require a paved area for unloading. It can essentially land and drive off the runway to make room for the next plane. This only wouldn't be possible if there wasn't any semi-flat area large enough for the C-17 beside the runway. While possible, I find it highly unlikely.

In the Haiti example I quoted (I was there), they taxied and parked C-130s and US Navy S-2A Greyhounds on the grass, but C-17s were using only the paved areas to park and taxi. They never went off the pavement once.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 10 Nov 2010 21:44

Gilles wrote:
Craig Alpert wrote: 3) Having a parallel runway helps tremendously in turn around time, with that being said, IF you had two runways in parallel, you can have 2 c-17's land and then use one runway to unload & you see how you would require a 12 men support team, however that won't be the case with IA.
.
That is totally wrong. Port-au-Prince Haiti has only one 10,000 foot runway with no parallel taxiway. During the Earthquake relief in January 2010, certain days, there were about 170 aircraft a day, C-17s, An-124s, IL-76s, C-130s, An-12s etc......

And that number was in not limited by runway or taxiway capacity but by RAMP capacity.

Think you misunderstood what I said. Don't care if there is a parallel runway or not, point being made is DBO airfield in the NE does not have a 10,000 ft runway, (it is unpaved, 2.1km rough strectch ~ 6800 feet) which varies depending on the ground condition and mother nature. You can't expect a C-17 to stay parked at the end of the runway and expect another to land/take off!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Nov 2010 22:03

Gilles wrote:but C-17s were using only the paved areas to park and taxi. They never went off the pavement once.

The soil right next to the ocean might be slightly different than what you would expect in the Himalayas.

Craig Alpert wrote: You can't expect a C-17 to stay parked at the end of the runway and expect another to land/take off!

Not ON the runway, OFF the runway, to the side.

edit: You were talking about DBO and I believe this is the beginning of the runway (Look for the '01' and then follow the white dashes up the screen). Admittedly it's hard to tell from satellite imagery, but it looks like there is PLENTY of room for a whole fleet of C-17s to park off to the side.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Nov 2010 22:13

Craig Alpert wrote: point being made is DBO airfield in the NE does not have a 10,000 ft runway, (it is unpaved, 2.1km rough strectch ~ 6800 feet) which varies depending on the ground condition and mother nature. You can't expect a C-17 to stay parked at the end of the runway and expect another to land/take off!

Unpaved, 6800 feet in length, located at 10,000 MSL ?

The C-17 will NOT (correction) land there, even if empty.

I have graphs on page 74 of this Forum that explain all that.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=900886

In any case, for "un-improved runways" which by C-17 definition even means certain paved runways, the C-17 is limited in landing weight to 202.7 tonnes. Since an empty C-17 weighs 128 tonnes, if one puts a 70 tonne payload on it, that leaves 4.7 tonnes for landing fuel (30 minutes flying time)
If maximum braking is required to stop within the confines of a short un-improved runway, it is recommended to decrease C-17 tire pressure to improve braking action. This reduction in tire pressure further restricts Maximum Landing weight to 197.2 tonnes. That would leave room for NO FUEL, so payload would have to be decreased by as much fuel would be required at landing (normally enough to overshoot the destination, fly to an alternate airport and have a reserve, typically 30 minutes worth)

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 10 Nov 2010 22:33

You don't get it, do you? I'm not saying that a C-17 can't land there or that a parallel runway is required. I'm mrerely saying that with the terrain that DBO is located, it is nearly impossible for it to have room where an aircraft can be docked on the side and other takes off/lands. Search around for pics on the WWW, and you'll know what i'm reffering to. the surroundings are nothing both mountains, where do you suppose they'll have room to create more flat unpaved land? Unles they start clearing the mountains it get's very challenging. Part of the initiative the IA/IAF has taken is to "upgrade" these Advance landing strips so that it can operate ALL types of aircraft. Hopefully there's a start for their transport fleet utilizing C-17s in FOB's and Mini-FOB's as probable logistics supply chains with materials being flown in from stateside.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Nov 2010 22:39

Craig Alpert wrote:I'm mrerely saying that with the terrain that DBO is located, it is nearly impossible for it to have room where an aircraft can be docked on the side and other takes off/lands. Search around for pics on the WWW, and you'll know what i'm reffering to.

From the satellite imagery I posted in my previous post, it certainly looks plausible.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Nov 2010 23:49

Gilles nice post on the cost , however the point which I made earlier was not about the cost of the platform itself we have a history of making drafting errors (well that is what official sources claim) hence the agreed upon amount more often than not becomes meaningless. We shall see how much does the deal for 10AC and 45 engines gets SIGNED for versus how much we actually end up paying.