C-17s for the IAF?

[Kakarat]

President Awards Standards to 47 SQN, TACDE at Gwalior
The President of India and the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Smt Pratibha Devisingh Patil conferred the Presidential Standards to two premiere combat units of the IAF - No. 47 Squadron and Tactics and Air Combat Development Establishment (TACDE) at an impressive presentation parade held at the Gwalior airbase, today.

The Standards were received in the presence of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal PV Naik by Commanding Officer of No. 47 Squadron (Black Archers) Wing Commander Vikas Sharma and Commodore Commandant Air Vice Marshal Arup Raha, and subsequently by Commandant TACDE Group Captain Surat Singh and Commodore Commandant Air Marshal S Mukerji, , respectively.

An impressive parade comprising air warriors from both units as well those from the Gwalior airbase followed the Standard presentation. The President also released a First Day cover and a Brochure on the occasion.

A fly-past comprising AWACS flanked by two Su-30 MKI, a single Mig-21 (T-77), a vic each of three Mig-21s(T-96), Mig-27s, Mig-29s and Su-30 MKIs enthralled the onlookers. The IAF’s helicopter display team – Sarang undertook a captivating display while a single Mirage-2000 fighter aircraft, the mainstay of the Gwalior airbase, displayed low-level aerobatics.

The President later interacted with the air warriors of the two Units and others from the airbase. Among the senior dignitaries present included Madhya Pradesh Governor Rameshwar Thakur, Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Marshal of the Indian Air Force Arjan Singh. Several other senior serving and retired officers of the two units were also present at the ceremony.

Later, addressing media persons on the sidelines of the Standards presentation, Air Chief formally announced the proposed flight of the President on a Su-30 MKI at Pune airbase on Nov 25.

[krishnan]

Later, addressing media persons on the sidelines of the Standards presentation, Air Chief formally announced the proposed flight of the President on a Su-30 MKI at Pune airbase on Nov 25.

Is this customary or some kind of tit for tat

[arun]

Not sure if this was posted in the past so here goes this undated submission.

Lockheed Martin on its website has a page exclusively devoted to India’s C-130J:

India’s Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules Airlifter

[Gilles]

Not sure if this was posted in the past so here goes this undated submission.

Lockheed Martin on its website has a page exclusively devoted to India’s C-130J:

India’s Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules Airlifter

The C-130J carries 128 combat troops!!!!

Different standards ?

Or maybe there are "skinny" battalions that travel on C-130s and "fat" battalions that travel first class on C-17s.

[Kanson]

^^^

The Indian Air Force’s new Super Hercules will be the longer fuselage or "stretched" variant of the C‑130J, similar to those being delivered to the U.S. Air Force.

The CC-130J, formerly known as the C-130J-30, is a stretch version, adding 15 feet to fuselage, increasing usable space in the cargo compartment, which translates to 30 percent more usable volume for increased seating, litters, pallets or airdrop platforms. This bigger cargo compartment can accommodate up to 7 pallets, 2 more than C-130J, and up to 92 paratroopers or 128 troops and their equipment, 28 more than C-130J.

http://www.deagel.com/Military-Transpor ... 26006.aspx

[KiranM]

My 2 cents,

May be the 200+ trooper figure is justified when we add an 'upper berth' in C-17. Garib Rath ishtyle

Ducking for cover..

[Gilles]

IL 76 vs C17
@ http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/

I think our freind Gilles is the one maintains that blog.

Yep, you guessed right, it's my Blog......

It's original purpose was to fight the C-17's purchase by Canada. Now that they were purchased, I keep it alive in the hopes that our Auditor general will find useful information there when she decides to investigate the C-17 acquisition process, as she told our Parliament she would.

I thought Canada was well served by chartered Airlift and our own Hercules fleet. Unlike India we're a "small" country (30 million people) with a small military. We cant even field 5,000 combat troops. We have more generals than tanks. Before we bought these C-17s, we spent about 118 million dollars a year, chartering civilian Il-76s and An-124s. That amount included the planes, the fuel, the crews, the maintenance and even insurance. And the only reason we were spending that much was because we were temporarily involved in Afghanistan. What are we going to do with these aircraft once we pull out of Afghanistan? They found all sorts of reasons to justify the purchase, most of which were false. To save 118 million dollars a year over a 5 year period, we invested 3.4 Billion dollars, not counting fuel, crews and other expenses.

Great Brittan, before Canada, had a pretty controversial C-17 acquisition process also. It stunk just as much as Canada's.

I wrote about it here: http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/10/c ... nited.html

Or you can read about it on the UK Parliamentary website here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/c ... irst_match

It was all brushed under the rug, because right after the C-17s were leased, the "war on terror" begun, which finally made the C-17s look like a good idea. It doesn't change the fact that the Process that led to their acquisition, was, well, peculiar with ever changing goalposts.

[rohitvats]

MTA is in same league as C-130?

This is one aircraft we can surely do in more numbers with for tactical airlift.

[Katare]

C17 has wider/Big-dia body/fuselage to accommodate large size cargo like MBT tanks. When troops are carried it leaves a large head room unutilized.

In other words this is the trade off of C17 - It can carry Arjun and T90s with their Jeeps and operators but can't carry proportionate (to its volume) number of troops.

C17 is optimized for cargo, especially outsize heavy cargo but not very efficient in carrying troops because its large/wide/big dia fuselage

C130J Highly optimized for troop transport but not suitable for large cargo because of its long and narrow fuselage

Il76 - Somewhere in the middle

IAF would decide where/If C17 fits in its scheme and how many it needs.

[rohitvats]

Yep, you guessed right, it's my Blog......

It's original purpose was to fight the C-17's purchase by Canada. Now that they were purchased, I keep it alive in the hopes that our Auditor general will find useful information there when she decides to investigate the C-17 acquisition process, as she told our Parliament she would.

I thought Canada was well served by chartered Airlift and our own Hercules fleet. Unlike India we're a "small" country (30 million people) with a small military. We cant even field 5,000 combat troops. We have more generals than tanks. Before we bought these C-17s, we spent about 118 million dollars a year, chartering civilian Il-76s and An-124s. That amount included the planes, the fuel, the crews, the maintenance and even insurance. And the only reason we were spending that much was because we were temporarily involved in Afghanistan. What are we going to do with these aircraft once we pull out of Afghanistan? They found all sorts of reasons to justify the purchase, most of which were false. To save 118 million dollars a year over a 5 year period, we invested 3.4 Billion dollars, not counting fuel, crews and other expenses.

Your blog was the first link that I checked on the web when I set out to evaluate the C-17 requirement. That is when I set out to build the scenarios (admittedly simplistic). I'm in perfect unison with all your arguments when it comes to purchase of C-17 by Canada. Yes, I did read the UK acquisition program issues as well.

I believe that C-17 is a great aircraft. But as all things American and Russian (earlier), the weapon system has been designed to fulfill the requirement of strategies as set by the armed forces of these countries. C-17 fits perfectly well with the Strategic Airlift requirement of US Army. Here again, it is not a silver bullet. The final planned number of 200+ itself is not with out controversy. US Congress has evaluated alternate options (C-17/LMRS/Forward deployment) which meet 90+ capability of fleet of C-17 (2XX).

But the worst part is the argument advanced in favor of C-17 - Short Take off from unpaved runway. This is (a) not relevant to us (b) still not proven.

The biggest asset of the aircraft is the ability to carry the outsize cargo like our T-90, Arjun and SP Artillery. The number 10
is i think all IAF is looking at to augment the IL-76 fleet (we need more of these ASAP) and not replace them.

[Rahul M]

by all accounts the IL-476 will have a payload of 60 tonnes and a stretched body to carry more men if needed. the payload is enough to carry even the arjun.

question is, can they come up with a wide body version that can take the tanks ? if so, we may see many more IL-76 inductions in the future.

[NRao]

What are we going to do with these aircraft once we pull out of Afghanistan?

Lease them to India?

Perhaps help carry some parts for those nuclear reactors to India?

When all that ice, up north - really up north - melts I think Canada will need them then?

[Kartik]

PART II

I have already demonstrated in an earlier post the non-requirement of C-17 category aircraft for the regular and major percentage of work undertaken by the IAF Transport fleet. If anything is required at all, it is more IL-76s to augment the existing fleet level for the TSR roles.

which makes sense. For the current roles and requirement, the IL-76 and An-32 should suffice, with the An-32 being supplemented and finally replaced by the MTA (whenever that thing sees the light of day).

There are two main benfits that I see of buying the C-17:
--Contigency situation: Where we are trying to airlift a division size force post haste.Something like airlifting the entire 6 Mountain Div to Leh in 1987. As the load (tonnage) one needs to carry increases, the utility of C-17 comes to fore.

--Transporting outisize cargo like T-90 and Arjun in case of crisis. This is one capability which no number of IL-76 can give you. In case IA decides to haul a Battle Group of 50(I) Para Bde+Mix Squadron of T-90/BMP-II, there is no replacing the C-17.

This is the most compelling part of any argument that the IA and IAF can have for going for C-17s- the ability to carry out-size loads that the IL-76 and its IL-76MF variant cannot carry, come what may. BMPs are not a problem for the IL-76 and even light tanks (which the IA now is going to float a tender for as per Shiv Aroor) should be alright. However, if India needs to carry tanks and place them where roads/railways and ships cannot reach in an emergency, without another heavy transport, this capability is out of the question.

Of course it would prudent (and necessary) to have the USAF demonstrate that its possible to do it with the C-17, to carry a T-90 or Arjun to a forward air base at high altitude like Thoise. If they don't ask for demonstrations, then it would really piss me off, considering how they've asked DRDO to demonstrate every single advertised capability, and that too multiple times with hardly any margin for error.

[Gilles]

[
Of course it would prudent (and necessary) to have the USAF demonstrate that its possible to do it with the C-17, to carry a T-90 or Arjun to a forward air base at high altitude like Thoise. If they don't ask for demonstrations, then it would really piss me off, considering how they've asked DRDO to demonstrate every single advertised capability, and that too multiple times with hardly any margin for error.

I wrote to the Canadian Minister of Public Works (who was in charge of the actual purchase and of making sure the C-17 met the Canadian Forces requirements) to tell him that he purchased a C-17 although it did not meet the Specs:

Here is part of his reply:

The C-17 aircraft was evaluated through a careful review of its technical documentation. Operations have been conducted with Canadian C-17 exchange pilots flying with the United States Air Force operating into Afghanistan on runways of 4,000 feet at approximately 3.000 feet above mean sea level. The C-17 Operational training unit at Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma, where Canadian Forces pilots learn to fly the C-17, has a runway specifically built 3,500 feet by 90 feet to train pilots for assault landings. Additionally, pilots are routinely trained for short runway operations with the C-17 at Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Centre where the auxiliary field is 3,500 feet in length with a few hundred feet available for overrun.

1) I have have found no evidence of any C-17 landing in any 4000 foot runway in Afghanistan, let alone one located at 3000 feet MSL. This Statement is just plain false. If anyone knows about such a runway in Afghanistan that has hosted a C-17, I would appreciate the name of that airport.

2) The 3,500 foot runway at Altus Air Force base is asphalt and has 500 foot overruns on either end: its basically a 4,500 foot runway with a 3,500 foot asphalt section in the middle that they aim for when practising assault landings (just type "Altus Air Force Base" on Google Earth) It was custom-made to train C-17 pilots. It is not a 3,500 foot runway like those found in the world which do not have a 500 foot overrun at either end.

3) The one in Camp Shelby, Mississippi, is a little trickier. The satellite image resolution is low, which is done when the US does not want prying eyes to be able to see too many details in a certain area. The runway is still visible, although one cannot see what the surface is made of. It can, however, be measured: it's about 5,000 feet long, with 500 foot overruns at each end. It is probably used for practice assault landing but is not a 3,500 foot runway

4) I found that Hagler Army Airfield, at Camp Shelby Mississippi is an asphalt 5,000 foot runway. They pain a target make-believe 3,500 foot runway on it.

So, good luck on the demo...........

"We don't need to demonstrate that, we do it on a routine basis in Afghanistan" will be the reply.

[Vivek K]

Gilles, have you seen a C-17 land yourself? I have at close range. I will not say where, but I can confirm (having seen it first hand) that it can perform as claimed. Also, I was at Oshkosh in 2007 and saw a C-17 perform "aerobatics".

[Raveen]

2) The 3,500 foot runway at Altus Air Force base is asphalt and has 500 foot overruns on either end: its basically a 4,500 foot runway with a 3,500 foot asphalt section in the middle that they aim for when practising assault landings (just type "Altus Air Force Base" on Google Earth) It was custom-made to train C-17 pilots. It is not a 3,500 foot runway like those found in the world which do not have a 500 foot overrun at either end.

3) The one in Camp Shelby, Mississippi, is a little trickier. The satellite image resolution is low, which is done when the US does not want prying eyes to be able to see too many details in a certain area. The runway is still visible, although one cannot see what the surface is made of. It can, however, be measured: it's about 5,000 feet long, with 500 foot overruns at each end. It is probably used for practice assault landing but is not a 3,500 foot runway

The overruns are for trainees so that a less than perfect landing would not result in a more than tolerable expense. Note words training and practice.

I have have found no evidence of any C-17 landing in any 4000 foot runway

Using the same logic, have you personally observed the overruns being used?

[Gilles]

Gilles, have you seen a C-17 land yourself? I have at close range. I will not say where, but I can confirm (having seen it first hand) that it can perform as claimed. Also, I was at Oshkosh in 2007 and saw a C-17 perform "aerobatics".

I have too. It can land very very very short on long runways (with nothing in the hold and minimal fuel in the tanks, a highly trained SOLL II pilot at the controls and on a perfectly dry runway) . I can attest to that. Its true.

But since it can do that on a routine basis, why has it NEVER EVER landed on a real short runway in real life ? Why cant they take a C-17 to some remote outpost in the Himalayas and land it on a 3,500 gravel runway with an Indian tank in the back. Hey, if they really want to impress me, do it with patches of snow on the runway and at night with NGVs'. (I laugh because the CF bought NVGs to go with their C-17s)

[Raveen]

Why cant they take a C-17 to some remote outpost in the Himalayas and land it on a 3,500 gravel runway with an Indian tank in the back... do it with patches of snow on the runway and at night with NGVs'.

By this we can establish one thing without a shade of doubt; you are a hard man to please.

Please enlighten me, which A/C is capable of the this feat that will please you (an A/C landing with an Indian tank on a 3,500 ft gravel runway at high altitude with (I assume you meant ice and not snow) ice and (I assume you meant NVG and not NGV) NVG) ?

[putnanja]

Why cant they take a C-17 to some remote outpost in the Himalayas and land it on a 3,500 gravel runway with an Indian tank in the back... do it with patches of snow on the runway and at night with NGVs'.

By this we can establish one thing without a shade of doubt; you are a hard man to please.

Please enlighten me, which A/C is capable of the this feat that will please you (an A/C landing with an Indian tank on a 3,500 ft gravel runway at high altitude with (I assume you meant ice and not snow) ice and (I assume you meant NVG and not NGV) NVG) ?

Er, Giles is just asking to prove the claims being made about C-17, not pulling it out of his hat.

[Raveen]

By this we can establish one thing without a shade of doubt; you are a hard man to please.

Please enlighten me, which A/C is capable of the this feat that will please you (an A/C landing with an Indian tank on a 3,500 ft gravel runway at high altitude with (I assume you meant ice and not snow) ice and (I assume you meant NVG and not NGV) NVG) ?

Er, Giles is just asking to prove the claims being made about C-17, not pulling it out of his hat.

Ok, in that case maybe Giles could provide me a link where it was claimed (officially of course) by either Boeing, or some other person/entity representing Boeing that the C-17 was capable of landing with an Indian tank on an icy 3,500 ft gravel runway in the Himalyas (thin air) using NVG.

To add humor, basically show me where what you (RaviBG sir) claim he (Giles) is claiming was claimed (by Boeing or a representative), was actually claimed. Otherwise, he just pulled it out his...hat

While Giles is at it, maybe he could also point me to another A/c that is capable of something like that. After all, if the C-17 and is joined in this failure to fulfill Giles' fantasy by every other manmade A/c (I want to leave the room open for UFOs) ever made, then I must say, the C-17 is in some very impressive company.
Thank you in advance Giles.
Thank you RaviBg sir.

[KrishG]

Why cant they take a C-17 to some remote outpost in the Himalayas and land it on a 3,500 gravel runway with an Indian tank in the back... do it with patches of snow on the runway and at night with NGVs'.

By this we can establish one thing without a shade of doubt; you are a hard man to please.

Please enlighten me, which A/C is capable of the this feat that will please you (an A/C landing with an Indian tank on a 3,500 ft gravel runway at high altitude with (I assume you meant ice and not snow) ice and (I assume you meant NVG and not NGV) NVG) ?

Well, if no aircraft can accomplish that particular task then why should we be paying 250 million USD for a plane which doesn't have the capability to do so. While agreeing on the point that Leh will not be the only place where C-17 s would serve, it's STOL capability is of very high importance because most runways in the north-east and many other parts are not bituminous and quite short. If the C-17 won't be able to land or takeoff carrying it's quoted payload then what's the use of buying them when there are cheaper alternatives ??

[Surya]

Krish

what are those alternatives which can carry T90\Arjun as Rohit\Rahul pointed out??

essentially outsize pieces??

[Sriman]

Ok, in that case maybe Giles could provide me a link where it was claimed (officially of course) by either Boeing, or some other person/entity representing Boeing that the C-17 was capable of landing with an Indian tank on an icy 3,500 ft gravel runway in the Himalyas (thin air) using NVG.

While Giles is at it, maybe he could also point me to another A/c that is capable of something like that.
Thank you in advance Giles.
Thank you RaviBg sir.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... /index.htm

The C-17's ability to fly long distances and land in remote airfields in rough, land-locked regions make it a premier transporter for military, humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. It can:

* Take off from a 7,600-ft. airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight and land in 3,000 ft. or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield in day or night.

Yes, i know there is no mention of Himalayas or ice here. I'm just stating what Boeing claims.

[KrishG]

Krish

what are those alternatives which can carry T90\Arjun as Rohit\Rahul pointed out??

essentially outsize pieces??

My post meant - If C-17 is incapable of demonstrating STOL capability on a non-bituminous runway with full load or near load why buy those when they can't do the job they are being bought for.

The payload capacity of C-17 will be most useful when IA needs to airlift tanks or ICVs to some inaccessible part. But if the place is inaccessible through roads or railway, then it would be safe to assume that the runways there wouldn't be like the ones we have in our airports. So, the STOL capability of C-17 is very important.

[Raveen]

Krish

what are those alternatives which can carry T90\Arjun as Rohit\Rahul pointed out??

essentially outsize pieces??

My post meant - If C-17 is incapable of demonstrating STOL capability on a non-bituminous runway with full load or near load why buy those when they can't do the job they are being bought for.

The payload capacity of C-17 will be most useful when IA needs to airlift tanks or ICVs to some inaccessible part. But if the place is inaccessible through roads or railway, then it would be safe to assume that the runways there wouldn't be like the ones we have in our airports. So, the STOL capability of C-17 is very important.

I never said it is incapable of STOL, I am, although questioning Giles fantasy. I believe no man made machine has achieved that yet!
C-17 can not be blamed. That in no way means it is incapable of STOL on unpaved runways, please read what my argument was very carefully. There exists sufficient videographic/photographic/eye witness proof of STOL capabilities of the C-17 on short unpaved runways.

It is undoubtedly capable of STOL from unpaved runways.

What it is incapable of is what no other man made aircraft has ever been capable of.
Land with full load and fuel in the thin air of Himalyas on a short gravel run way with ice in the middle of the night. That is all I was saying.

[Raveen]

Ok, in that case maybe Giles could provide me a link where it was claimed (officially of course) by either Boeing, or some other person/entity representing Boeing that the C-17 was capable of landing with an Indian tank on an icy 3,500 ft gravel runway in the Himalyas (thin air) using NVG.

While Giles is at it, maybe he could also point me to another A/c that is capable of something like that.
Thank you in advance Giles.
Thank you RaviBg sir.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... /index.htm

The C-17's ability to fly long distances and land in remote airfields in rough, land-locked regions make it a premier transporter for military, humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. It can:

* Take off from a 7,600-ft. airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight and land in 3,000 ft. or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield in day or night.

Yes, i know there is no mention of Himalayas or ice here. I'm just stating what Boeing claims.

Yes, perfect!
So Boeing does not make those tall claims that Giles was claiming they made.
If anything, they say:
1. They need 7600ft to take off with 160,000lbs (since nothing is mentioned one must assume NTP)
2. They can land on 3000ft unpaved runway at night and again since nothing is mentioned we must assume NTP.

So, they never claimed anything about these feats being possible at high altitude let alone the extreme altitude (think air) and cold temps of the Himalyas and never said anything about low traction aka icy conditions. The floor is yours Giles.

[putnanja]

Raveen, Krish has already explained it and Sriman has provided the links. I don't think you are getting it. Where else in the plains will you need use the C-17 for short unprepared runways?? Please read it in context and don't take Giles' statement literally!

Sriman's links clearly states Boeing saying the weight limit and the unpaved runways that C-17s can take off from. So if the weight limit includes IA's tanks and the unpaved runways indicate strips in the NE.

[Raveen]

Raveen, Krish has already explained it and Sriman has provided the links. I don't think you are getting it. Where else in the plains will you need use the C-17 for short unprepared runways?? Please read it in context and don't take Giles' statement literally!

Sriman's links clearly states Boeing saying the weight limit and the unpaved runways that C-17s can take off from. So if the weight limit includes IA's tanks and the unpaved runways indicate strips in the NE.

I must appologize sir, I was taking everything literally since Giles didn't say anythng to lead me to believe he was not serious in his demands for fully loaded C-17 landings in the Himalyas @ night on a 3500ft runway with ice.

I must point out, Boeing makes it's claims about wt and runway conditions and length based on NTP not Himalyas. It is common knowledge that high altitudes would reduce these capabilities.

To Sriman and Krish's post: Boeing claims (as Sriman posted) and videos/eye witnesses/pics show that the C-17 is capable of STOL (7000ft take-off and 3000ft landing) with full load (160,000 lbs) on unpaved runways. Just not @ the extreme altitude of the Himalyas. This is not a short coming of the C-17, but a reality of Physics and aero-dynamics.

[putnanja]

Everyone understands the limitation of physics and also those of brochures If someone claims that they can carry x tonnes and land/takeoff from short dirt runways, people reserve the right to ask them to prove it in realistic conditions. Now, the question is whether it can do all those or one of those at a time that needs to be answered.

[Baldev]

C17 empty weight 128 tons
total thrust of 4 engines 720kN
so its 5.63kN per ton

A330 MRTT empty weight 125 tons
total thrust of 2 engines 640kN
so its 5.12kN per ton

IL76MD empty weight 92 tons
total thrust of 4*D30 engines 472kN
so its 5.13kN per ton
but when fitted with 4*PS90A engines total thrust 628kN
so it becomes 6.83kN per ton

IL78 empty weight 72 tons
total thrust of D30 engines 472kN
so its 6.56kN per ton
when fitted with 4*PS90A engines with total thrust 628kN
so its becomes 8.72kN per ton.

just my poor thought

[GeorgeWelch]

It would be worthwhile to compare with the Il-76's high-altitude performance because we know it's not getting full specs either . . .

[Raveen]

Everyone understands the limitation of physics and also those of brochures If someone claims that they can carry x tonnes and land/takeoff from short dirt runways, people reserve the right to ask them to prove it in realistic conditions. Now, the question is whether it can do all those or one of those at a time that needs to be answered.

They have proved thier claims in realistic conditions that they used to come up with the claims in the first place. They just have not proved it in extreme conditions that others want them to, defying physics, aero-dynamics while creating history.
When someone says I can carry x tonnes and land/takeoff from short dirt runways, then thats what they are saying, they are not saying I can do the same thing in any condition, at any altitude and any weather. Next thing you know Giles asks for his fantasy to be fulfilled during tropical storm strength gusts. Boeing is not out to prove Giles right or wrong, they stated certain capabilities under NTP and thats that!

[Raveen]

C17 empty weight 128 tons
total thrust of 4 engines 720kN
so its 5.63kN per ton

A330 MRTT empty weight 125 tons
total thrust of 2 engines 640kN
so its 5.12kN per ton

IL76MD empty weight 92 tons
total thrust of 4*D30 engines 472kN
so its 5.13kN per ton
but when fitted with 4*PS90A engines total thrust 628kN
so it becomes 6.83kN per ton

IL78 empty weight 72 tons
total thrust of D30 engines 472kN
so its 6.56kN per ton
when fitted with 4*PS90A engines with total thrust 628kN
so its becomes 8.72kN per ton.

just my poor thought

Then in that case I guess the IL76 must have pretty bad aero characteristics. Even with the additional thrust if it can not match or exceed the C-17's STOL performance it has to be the result of a poor aero design, and considering the vintage of the aero design, that wouldn't surprise me. After all, it was made before CAD and CFD were available about 50 years ago.

It would be worthwhile to compare with the Il-76's high-altitude performance because we know it's not getting full specs either . . .

That would make sense, despite the other cosiderations such as discussed before like big sized cargo that the C-17 can carry but the IL can not.

[Gilles]

The C-17's ability to fly long distances and land in remote airfields in rough, land-locked regions make it a premier transporter for military, humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. It can:

* Take off from a 7,600-ft. airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight and land in 3,000 ft. or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield in day or night.

Boeing which has very smart lawyers on its staff, no longer claim the aircraft can land on a 3000 or 3500 foot runway. They just claim that the aircraft can "land in 3000 feet or less on a small unpaved runway in day or night" They don't indicate how "small" that runway may be.

So Boeing lets other people make the claim for them. And its found all over the internet. Its like when in 2002 and 2003 GWB mentioned 9/11 and SADDAAAM in every speech, it convinced most Americans that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t/c-17.htm

The design of this aircraft lets it operate on small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,000 feet and as narrow as 90 feet wide.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/c17/

In addition, the C-17 makes use of blown flaps, vortex generators, and thrust reversers for exceptional short field performance. The C-17 can operate from runways as short as 3,000 feet (915 meters) and as narrow as 90 feet (27.5 meters) and is maneuverable enough to reverse direction using a three-point turn.

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/c-17_facts.htm

The design of the aircraft allows it to operate through small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,000 feet (914 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters). Even on such narrow runways, the C-17 can turn around using a three-point star turn and its backing capability.

http://www.mil-embedded.com/news/db/?6637

With a payload of 160,000 pounds, the C-17 can take off from a 7,600-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles and land on 3,000-foot dirt runways.

The design of the aircraft lets it operate through small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,000 feet (914 meters) and as narrow as 90 feet (27.4 meters) wide.

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheet ... =86&page=1

The design of the aircraft allows it to operate through small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters).

Even on the Canadian Forces website:

http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/v ... ex-eng.asp

Its ability to take off and land on unpaved runways as short as 3,500 feet and as narrow as 90 feet wide during the day or night, is a very practical trait.

All these websites didn't invent the story of being able to land and take-off from 3000 foot unpaved runways, day or night. Boeing provided them that information.

See this GAO report: http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat5/150106.pdf

The original C-17 Systems Operational Requirements Document (SORD) required an aircraft capable of taking off from an 8,500 foot runway with 160,000 pounds of cargo on board and fly 2,400 NM and also capable of making routine landings on a 4,000 foot runway with 160,000 pounds of payload and still enough fuel remaining to fly 500 NM.

It further needed to be to land with a 160,000 pound payload on a 3,000 foot runway and enough fuel to fly 300NM.

So am I being hard to please, when I ask for a C-17 to land and take-off at night from a 3000 foot unpaved runway with 160,000 lbs of cargo on board?

[Raveen]

Boeing which has very smart lawyers on its staff, no longer claim the aircraft can land on a 3000 or 3500 foot runway. They just claim that the aircraft can "land in 3000 feet of less on a small unpaved runway in day or night" They don't indicate how "small" that runway may be.

So Boeing lets other people make the claim for them. And its found all over the internet. Its like when in 2002 and 2003 GWB mentioned 9/11 and SADDAAAM in every speech, it convinced most Americans that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t/c-17.htm

The design of this aircraft lets it operate on small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,000 feet and as narrow as 90 feet wide.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/c17/

In addition, the C-17 makes use of blown flaps, vortex generators, and thrust reversers for exceptional short field performance. The C-17 can operate from runways as short as 3,000 feet (915 meters) and as narrow as 90 feet (27.5 meters) and is maneuverable enough to reverse direction using a three-point turn.

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/c-17_facts.htm

The design of the aircraft allows it to operate through small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,000 feet (914 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters). Even on such narrow runways, the C-17 can turn around using a three-point star turn and its backing capability.

http://www.mil-embedded.com/news/db/?6637

With a payload of 160,000 pounds, the C-17 can take off from a 7,600-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles and land on 3,000-foot dirt runways.

The design of the aircraft lets it operate through small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,000 feet (914 meters) and as narrow as 90 feet (27.4 meters) wide.

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheet ... =86&page=1

The design of the aircraft allows it to operate through small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters).

Even on the Canadian Forces website:

http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/v ... ex-eng.asp

Its ability to take off and land on unpaved runways as short as 3,500 feet and as narrow as 90 feet wide during the day or night, is a very practical trait.

All these websites didn't invent the story of being able to land and take-off from 3000 foot unpaved runways, day or night. Boeing provided them that information.

So I am being hard to please, when I ask for a C-17 to land and take-off at night from a 3000 foot unpaved runway with 160,000 lbs of cargo on board?

In those links:
Please show me where it says full load take off from 3000ft
then show me where it says Himalyas
and then show me where it says ice

So far all the links you provided are consistent with Boeings claim of landings on 3000ft or less, unpaved runways. They also claim take-off from 7000ft runways @ 160,000lbs NPT and none of your links contradict that.

Take off from a 7,600-ft. airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight and land in 3,000 ft. or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield in day or night.

[Gilles]

In those links:
Please show me where it says full load take off from 3000ft
then show me where it says Himalyas
and then show me where it says ice

So far all the links you provided are consistent with Boeings claim of landings on 3000ft or less, unpaved runways. They also claim take-off from 7000ft runways @ 160,000lbs NPT and none of your links contradict that.

Take off from a 7,600-ft. airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight and land in 3,000 ft. or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield in day or night.

Ok. I'll content myself with landing at night in a 3,000 foot sea level unpaved field with 160,000 lbs in the hold and enough fuel to take off again and fly 300 NM. No mountains or ice required. Just like they claim they can.

I'm afraid that you will never see it. The closest you will get is a demo of a short landing on a long runway and the guy at the controls will be the best they have, not the run of the mill pilot.

[putnanja]

Raveen, you are going off on a tangent! You sound like a Boeing lawyer, trying to rat hole the discussion on words. Giles initial observation was valid, based on the scenario that India is looking at to use those aircraft. It would be better if you can explain why the aircraft will still be useful to IAF even without those abilities rather than nitpicking postor's comments to Boeing claims. Even after other people provided sufficient context, you are stuck on the ice and snow and principles of physics. Everyone understands that, so let us move on.

I don't know what your intention is here, whether to deflect the discussion to sufficiently wreck it or something else.

[Raveen]

The closest you will get is a demo of a short landing on a long runway and the guy at the controls will be the best they have, not the run of the mill pilot.

If they land within 3,000ft on a 20,000ft runway, it doesn't matter. They completed thier objectives. As far as usisng a sub standard pilot goes, well no Air Force would like to believe that thier pilots are sub-std and that they are handing over millions of dollars worth of equipment to an incomeptent pilot. Anyone and everyone would put thier best foot forward, and therefore Boeing's claims don't include the words "we can do all that even with a half trained chimp behind the controls". Thank you.

[Raveen]

Raveen, you are going off on a tangent! You sound like a Boeing lawyer, trying to rat hole the discussion on words. Giles initial observation was valid, based on the scenario that India is looking at to use those aircraft. It would be better if you can explain why the aircraft will still be useful to IAF even without those abilities rather than nitpicking postor's comments to Boeing claims. Even after other people provided sufficient context, you are stuck on the ice and snow and principles of physics. Everyone understands that, so let us move on.

I don't know what your intention is here, whether to deflect the discussion to sufficiently wreck it or something else.

Sir, my intentions are very clear; to prevent Giles from concocting stories and scenarios. I can only respond to what he types, and now that even he is convinced that his statements were invalid i am not suer why I have to explain myself to you.
I am not a lawyer (although my law prof thought I would make a good one), i am not on Boeing's payroll and I have no vested interest other than to prevent ppl from pulling stuff out of thier....hat!
Words are all one has in any case, I am not trying to deflect or wreck, to the contrary I am trying to keep ppl within the realms of reality and fact, not fantasy.
He made a ridiculous statement, and I proved that it had no basis in reality or anything that Boeing had said, my point has been proved, Giles agrees, case over. Thank you for your assistance along the way.

[putnanja]

Ok. I'll content myself with landing at night in a 3,000 foot sea level unpaved field with 160,000 lbs in the hold and enough fuel to take off again and fly 300 NM. No mountains or ice required. Just like they claim they can.

I'm afraid that you will never see it. The closest you will get is a demo of a short landing on a long runway and the guy at the controls will be the best they have, not the run of the mill pilot.

Also add to it that it won't cause any other major damages/stress on the aircraft/components. It shouldn't be that "we can land on 3000ft runway with full load, but that would mean you replacing items x/y/z at faster rate or servicing required at faster rate". It should be a matter or routine, not "you can do it only a couple of times over its life" kind of guarantee.