C-17s for the IAF?

[Raveen]

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.

I agree. Although faster wear could result from such opertaion (I assume) it should def not be once or twice a year. It should be capable of doing this on a regular basis at the cost of a little more wear/service if that.

[Rahul M]

guys, please do not make this a contest on claims of what the C-17 can do !
I'll be forced to edit/delete/warn in that case.

someone please answer me this question,

can the C-17 land with an arjun(or even T-90) at the high altitude airfields in ladakh and the NE ?

height and runway length is widely available on the net.

for that is the raison detre of the proposed C-17 induction by IAF, AFAWK.
and if we can't answer this question, what exactly are we discussing ??

let me remind people that discussion of any other country's experience is relevant ONLY IF it is relevant to the IAF's needs.
else it should be discussed in the international aerospace thread.
regards everyone.

[negi]

Airfield in Leh is over 9000 feet long and I believe is made of Asphalt just like most of the civilian airports in India. I know Jet airways operates Boeing 737s (700s) between Delhi and Leh , ACN for 737 is in vicinity of 40 when fully loaded. I guess C-17 should not have issues airlifting Arjun/T-90s to Leh.Operations from Dibrugarh and Tezpur too are feasible.

[Rahul M]

leh can take it quite well, what I'm interested about if any of the ALGs can be transformed to accommodate large transports.

[Jagan]

leh can take it quite well, what I'm interested about if any of the ALGs can be transformed to accommodate large transports.

I have never read anything or heard anything about heavy transports like Il-76s being ever used for ALGs (Like Mechuka or Vijaynagar). So the discussion about C-17s operating at ALGs may go nowhere.

Leh and Thoise are probably the only ones that will ever be used by these big birds.

[Rahul M]

I was wondering if any of the ALGs could be expanded to higher standards. (they won't be ALGs anymore in that case !)

[Gilles]

leh can take it quite well, what I'm interested about if any of the ALGs can be transformed to accommodate large transports.

I found Fukche on Google Earth. Its around 9000 feet long. This is going to be very interesting.

[rohitvats]

leh can take it quite well, what I'm interested about if any of the ALGs can be transformed to accommodate large transports.

I found Fukche on Google Earth. Its around 9000 feet long. This is going to be very interesting.

There are no know reports in public of IL-76 landing on any of the three ALG in Ladakh (DBO,Nyoma, Fukche), so how is C-17 going to to do that? And of course, what happens to the airstrip after the C-17 lands on the same? We do about the report of effect that C-17 has on the such unpaved runways.

[rohitvats]

leh can take it quite well, what I'm interested about if any of the ALGs can be transformed to accommodate large transports.

I have never read anything or heard anything about heavy transports like Il-76s being ever used for ALGs (Like Mechuka or Vijaynagar). So the discussion about C-17s operating at ALGs may go nowhere.

Leh and Thoise are probably the only ones that will ever be used by these big birds.

Just to re inforce what Jagan said, the STOL capability from unpaved runways is not even a criterion that will work in C-17s favor (in case of India). There is no place such an a/c can land and sustain an air bridge. As it is, the main benefit of C-17 is the ability to carry heavy load and outsize cargo,not even troops, between theaters.

If the desire is to carry higher loads to ALGs than carried by AN-32, we might as well induct 30-40 C-130X which have a proven rough field capability and can operate from ALG like DBO/Nyoma on sustained basis. Buying C-17 for this is like using hammer to squat a fly.

[Singha]

we do we admit defeat at the sight of dry hills when PRC can send oxygen pressurized trains at 12000ft ASL into Lhasa and spend 20 yrs hacking out karakoram highway to khunjerab pass?

why cant we properly expand our ALGs, concrete them and even build a
few caves in the adjoining hills to stash away stuff? DBO looks like decent
dry terrain to make a proper airbase, easier than thoise it looks like - thoise has hill on one side, river on the other.

the situation in arunachal is even worse I think, miles and miles of
roadless terrain which puts people in border towns out of reach except
the occasional AN32 that steams in. I was reading in outlook traveller,
the Miao-vijaynagar road had been abandoned in 197x after a wildlife
park was formed...makes for a brutal trek per the writers who did it.
that road has become a narrow jungle path now.

[Rahul M]

rohit, my point wasn't about the C-17 or the Il-76 particularly but more in line with what singha ji says.

[Singha]

If the desire is to carry higher loads to ALGs than carried by AN-32, we might as well induct 30-40 C-130X which have a proven rough field capability and can operate from ALG like DBO/Nyoma on sustained basis.

thats what I also said. we need more C130 class planes not C17. for indian
landmass, the C130 also provides semi-strategic airlift albeit with less payload than a true strategic lifter (not so for US needs).

they are also ideal for moving airborne brigades and 105mm artillery pieces.

and dont come with a heavy price tag.

[KrishG]

There are no know reports in public of IL-76 landing on any of the three ALG in Ladakh (DBO,Nyoma, Fukche), so how is C-17 going to to do that? And of course, what happens to the airstrip after the C-17 lands on the same? We do about the report of effect that C-17 has on the such unpaved runways.

Il-76 are often chartered by countries to supply their Antarctic expeditions. The average altitude in Antarctica is 3000 m ie almost 10000 feet above sea level. The Il-76s land here on ice sheets.

Leh is about 11,000 feet above sea level. Although the Il-76s wouldn't be carrying full load on their supply missions it without doubt shows that Il-76 is capable of landing at high altitudes.

[youtube]dMw8Jsqrnaw&feature=related[/youtube]

[GeorgeWelch]

The average altitude in Antarctica is 3000 m ie almost 10000 feet above sea level

. . .

it without doubt shows that Il-76 is capable of landing at high altitudes.

Might want to recheck those figues . . .

McMurdo - 5 m
Patriot Hills - 884 m
Novo - 500 m

Also Antarctica has the advantage of always being cold. Cold and high is interesting, hot and high is more interesting

[KrishG]

The average altitude in Antarctica is 3000 m ie almost 10000 feet above sea level

. . .

it without doubt shows that Il-76 is capable of landing at high altitudes.

Might want to recheck those figues . . .

McMurdo - 5 m
Patriot Hills - 884 m

Also Antarctica has the advantage of always being cold. Cold and high is interesting, hot and high is more interesting

I was talking about the average elevation. That doesn't necessarily mean that there no comparitively lower areas. I haven't found the details of the exact landing in this particular video.

[rohitvats]

rohit, my point wasn't about the C-17 or the Il-76 particularly but more in line with what singha ji says.

The post was not a reply to your statement. It was a general observation as we seem to be splitting hair on the STOL capability of C-17 (considering last few posts)

What you say with respect to upgrading the ALGs is desirable. But what Google Earth tells me is that apart from Nyoma, the other two ALGs (DBO/Fukche) are in comfortable artillery range of PLA. So the strategy behind upgrading these ALGs will be to quickly induct troops into the area as the things are hotting up. It should be taken as given that these airfields will be put out of action as the shooting match starts. This way (inducting troops), we do not maintain troops up front in the sector.

But for this, the formations to be airlifted will have to be conviniently located in plains close to AFB and would have trained for this quick airlift kind of role. And what about the strength of troops to be airlifted? Brigade/Division/Tank Sqn./Armored Regiment? And once you decide to quantify the troop strength, my gut feel tells me (I have no numbers as of now), that it is better to have troops positioned in the area than airlift them. Somewhere in IA discussion I had argued that we need Divisions each for Chusul and Dhemchok. Will it be not advisable (financialy/militarily) to locate these divisions in Chusul-Dhemchok than fly them in? May be, we will fly in a Bde worth of troops and rest will come by road. But airlifting a Bde itself is huge task. What about cost of doing so (aircraft strength/fuel) versus maintaing the Bde. up close to LAC and rest of Division moving in from other location by road?

Another important advantage of upgrading the ALG is their use during winters. Most of the passes are closed and we cannot send in re inforcement by road. A fully functional airfield will be the only way to induct and maintain troops. But that again begs the question, why not station the troops 24*7 in the area?

The situation is different in AP. We sure need to upgrade the ALG there. Please correct me if I'm wrong, for I think we cannot physically exapand the ALG due to area limitation.

I'm all for expanding the ALG and having new fully equipped airstrips but we need to look at them in operational context. We have only two fully functional airfields for whole of Ladakh Sector. One in Thoise may not be of help when the shooting match starts as Khardungla receives attention of PLA. These will be required for sustaining the operations as well as for providing AD Cover to own troops. It will be tough contest to keep these airfield in operation

Apart from these, we have airfields in Srinagar/Udhampur/Pathankot. The distance, as the crow flies, from Srinagar/Udhampur/Pathankot to the LAC is 350-400kms. Are we going to rely on these airfields to conduct CAS and maintain CAP for the Ladakh Sector?

The surface communication will for sure be severed, at least along the Manali-Leh Highway. Unless, of course we can provide dense AD cover. With current AD assets and the situation wrt the airfield I just mentioned above, I do not know how we are going to do that.

What we need is fully fledged air strips in hinterland of Ladakh which can sustain operations, air and land, in the sector. I know, given the terrain of Ladakh, this is easier said than done. Biut as Singha pointed out, Chinese have done some amazing things and I do not see a reason for us not being able to do so.

[GeorgeWelch]

I was talking about the average elevation.

Average doesn't matter, only where the airfields are.

Vostok is high, but I can't find any evidence of Il-76s landing there, only C-130s (Il-76s airdrop supplies there)

[rohitvats]

There are no know reports in public of IL-76 landing on any of the three ALG in Ladakh (DBO,Nyoma, Fukche), so how is C-17 going to to do that? And of course, what happens to the airstrip after the C-17 lands on the same? We do about the report of effect that C-17 has on the such unpaved runways.

Il-76 are often chartered by countries to supply their Antarctic expeditions. The average altitude in Antarctica is 3000 m ie almost 10000 feet above sea level. The Il-76s land here on ice sheets.

Leh is about 11,000 feet above sea level. Although the Il-76s wouldn't be carrying full load on their supply missions it without doubt shows that Il-76 is capable of landing at high altitudes.

You have interpreted by post incorrectly. The question is not on the ability of IL-76 to land and take off from high altitude area, I know IL-76 is life line of Ladakh, it is about landing and taking off from the semi prepared airstrips of Advanced Landing Grounds (ALG) as functional in DBO/Nyoma/Fukche? That is something, as per public information, IL-76 has not done.

[rohitvats]

If the desire is to carry higher loads to ALGs than carried by AN-32, we might as well induct 30-40 C-130X which have a proven rough field capability and can operate from ALG like DBO/Nyoma on sustained basis.

thats what I also said. we need more C130 class planes not C17. for indian
landmass, the C130 also provides semi-strategic airlift albeit with less payload than a true strategic lifter (not so for US needs).

they are also ideal for moving airborne brigades and 105mm artillery pieces.

and dont come with a heavy price tag.

Great minds think alike .

[vasu_ray]

prepared runways may not be available during wartime, it has to be few among a lot of pre surveyed locations which can be prepared in under 24 hours, at best one can airdrop runway preparation equipment or use AN-32/C-130J for that purpose

the runway touchdown section can be hardened with quick fix concrete the same way that runway damage is repaired. So, for a IL-76/C-17, after touchdown the tires can be partially deflated for the rest of the run to avoid creating grooves on unpaved runways, one can service tires more often

[KrishG]

You have interpreted by post incorrectly. The question is not on the ability of IL-76 to land and take off from high altitude area, I know IL-76 is life line of Ladakh, it is about landing and taking off from the semi prepared airstrips of Advanced Landing Grounds (ALG) as functional in DBO/Nyoma/Fukche? That is something, as per public information, IL-76 has not done.

My post was also aimed at showing that the IL-76 can land on semi-prepared air strips at high altitudes. Ice is afterall a semi-prepared surface. But, if I am correct then, Ladakh is dry and cold meaning that the airstrips are dirt-tracks rather than ice.

[Singha]

the C-130J retails at around $60mil / plane. if we could lay aside around $1.5b, we could potentially get 20 of these birds to supplement the An32 and tide over situation until we (finally) get the MTA online.

[Aditya G]

the C-130J retails at around $60mil / plane. if we could lay aside around $1.5b, we could potentially get 20 of these birds to supplement the An32 and tide over situation until we (finally) get the MTA online.

IAF spec CC-130Js are perfect for us. I will repeat, we should acquire at least 1 whole sqn of these birds.

A lot of math viz-a-viz fuel load and cargo load is required for Himalayan sorties. Thanks to mid air refueling the CC-130J can land in ALGs with little fuel and more cargo. Unload the cargo and then refuel in air to reach home.

The aircraft is also mid air refueler. Heck the aircraft can land with onboard fuel tank and refuel POL tanks and go back (these aircraft are equipped with two refueling pods too).

Only thing to check if CC-130J can land at same strips as An-32, else An-74 is the way to go. Purchase Chinooks with IFR and we have heavy helicopter lifeline to the ALGs.

[Aditya G]

The whole rough field capability of C-17 is moot.

We established that C-17 is not IL-76 replacement; so what is - IL-76-90, A400M, CC-130J? Air Marshal Goel had written in Article it is only time before these birds develop serious problems (based on An-12 experience) and troubles with An-32.

[Baldev]

The whole rough field capability of C-17 is moot.

how many time IAF used an32,il76 on rough surfaces and short take offs?
so same will be true for C17.

[Baldev]

the C-130J retails at around $60mil / plane. if we could lay aside around $1.5b, we could potentially get 20 of these birds to supplement the An32 and tide over situation until we (finally) get the MTA online.

unfortunately that retail rate proved to be 200million to us.

[Singha]

I referred the basic cargo version and did not include the $150-200 mil spares, training and support contract that gets added on to deals.

[Baldev]

I referred the basic cargo version and did not include the $150-200 mil spares, training and support contract that gets added on to deals.

so this is also true for C17 which might cost as much as 500-600 million each

[GeorgeWelch]

the C-130J retails at around $60mil / plane. if we could lay aside around $1.5b, we could potentially get 20 of these birds to supplement the An32 and tide over situation until we (finally) get the MTA online.

unfortunately that retail rate proved to be 200million to us.

Those were spec-op birds with lots of highly specialized and expensive equipment.

Regular C-130Js are significantly cheaper.

[rohitvats]

The whole rough field capability of C-17 is moot.

how many time IAF used an32,il76 on rough surfaces and short take offs?
so same will be true for C17.

AN-32 and IL-76 were not sold to IAF because of claimed STOL and unpaved runway capability. And none have been used in that role. C-17 has been bandied around claiming STOL and unpaved runway capability - which is clearly not a done thing. Hence, the debate on the C-17 wrt this claimed capability.

Not that IAF will mind the capability - nothing like a C-17 landing on ALGs in Ladakh with even 40% load (>25 tonnes). Adds completely new capability.

[rohitvats]

The whole rough field capability of C-17 is moot.

We established that C-17 is not IL-76 replacement; so what is - IL-76-90, A400M, CC-130J? Air Marshal Goel had written in Article it is only time before these birds develop serious problems (based on An-12 experience) and troubles with An-32.

Can you please point link to the article for AM Goel. Thanx.

[Aditya G]

here http://airmarshalashokgoel.blogspot.com ... sport.html

The whole rough field capability of C-17 is moot.

We established that C-17 is not IL-76 replacement; so what is - IL-76-90, A400M, CC-130J? Air Marshal Goel had written in Article it is only time before these birds develop serious problems (based on An-12 experience) and troubles with An-32.

Can you please point link to the article for AM Goel. Thanx.

[Baldev]

AN-32 and IL-76 were not sold to IAF because of claimed STOL and unpaved runway capability. And none have been used in that role. C-17 has been bandied around claiming STOL and unpaved runway capability - which is clearly not a done thing. Hence, the debate on the C-17 wrt this claimed capability.

Not that IAF will mind the capability - nothing like a C-17 landing on ALGs in Ladakh with even 40% load (>25 tonnes). Adds completely new capability.

so if IAF has not used il76 and an32 for STOL or unpaved runways so its highly likely that they will not use C17 for this purpose if aircraft is to be kept in good shape for 30 years

debate of STOL capability of C17 arise only if ladakh has no space for long runway but actual situation is opposite.

[Baldev]

Those were spec-op birds with lots of highly specialized and expensive equipment.

Regular C-130Js are significantly cheaper.

really
nowadays MAWS,laser warning, IR missile countermeasure,decoys and other situational awareness systems are must have systems and these don't cost tens of millions as you pointed out and should have no doubt about this

[negi]

An-32 and IL-76 were procured at a time when RU was the only supplier of Military hardware. Times have changed and India needs to diversify its supply chain. C-17's STOL capability is bandied about because it is a desired quality nonetheless ; high ACN of AC is a different matter all together (Btw last I checked most of our airports can accommodate the C-17 ). People can build zillion scenarios around a platform for or against a pov , point is how important or significant is the need for an AC which can airlift a T-90 or Arjun class tank to Leh , Tezpur or even Dibrugarh .

And yes what is more feasible and economically viable in a long term ? relaying an airfield for accommodating a heavier AC or substantially modifying an entire AC fleet to accommodate a T-90/Arjun class tank ?

And yes one is yet to compare kind of capabilities C-17 posses in areas of self protection suite and precision airdropping of men and material vis a vis the IL-76 .

[rohitvats]

so if IAF has not used il76 and an32 for STOL or unpaved runways so its highly likely that they will not use C17 for this purpose if aircraft is to be kept in good shape for 30 years

debate of STOL capability of C17 arise only if ladakh has no space for long runway but actual situation is opposite.

We both are saying the same thing. STOL is not a feature, IMO, IAF is looking at. The debate erupted becasue some posters were forwarding the claim of STOL for C-17 and how great that will be for IAF. Other and I have claimed that is one feature which may not be USP when it comes to selling to IAF.

[negi]

IAF chooses Boeing's latest C-17 for heavy-lift transport aircraft


This is dated but fwiw

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik is quoted by the India Strategic defence magazine as saying that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study because of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, long range, and ease of operation.

IAF was looking at acquiring ten C-17s initially through the US government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, and a proposal in this regard was being considered by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), he said adding that the aircraft should come in about three years after a contract is signed.

An IL-76 can carry a cargo of around 45 tonnes and has a crew of six while a C-17 can carry 70 tonnes, and is much easier to operate with a small crew of two pilots and one loadmaster (total three), thanks to its various power-assisted systems. Two observers though can also be seated.

[rohitvats]

An-32 and IL-76 were procured at a time when RU was the only supplier of Military hardware. Times have changed and India needs to diversify its supply chain. C-17's STOL capability is bandied about because it is a desired quality nonetheless ; high ACN of AC is a different matter all together (Btw last I checked most of our airports can accommodate the C-17 ). People can build zillion scenarios around a platform for or against a pov , point is how important or significant is the need for an AC which can airlift a T-90 or Arjun class tank to Leh , Tezpur or even Dibrugarh .

And yes what is more feasible and economically viable in a long term ? relaying an airfield for accommodating a heavier AC or substantially modifying an entire AC fleet to accommodate a T-90/Arjun class tank ?

And yes one is yet to compare kind of capabilities C-17 posses in areas of self protection suite and precision airdropping of men and material vis a vis the IL-76 .

Negi, the point is this - do I need to buy ten a/c to transport only tanks to locations where IA can conviniently (except Leh) pre position them. In the areas IA is likely to fight a war, it can pre-position troops and tanks.

And as for scenarios, they are not for and against an a/c. Only an objective analysis of the requirement.

And yes what is more feasible and economically viable in a long term ? relaying an airfield for accommodating a heavier AC or substantially modifying an entire AC fleet to accommodate a T-90/Arjun class tank ?

Sorry, did not get drift on this one.

[negi]

^ We are not in IAF/IA high command to build scenarios or jot down requirements ; point is to be prepared for any eventuality . Capability to airlift heavy tanks is one such point , what about other major possible requirements i.e. to be able to air drop munitions/supplies and men with high precision from both high as well as extremely low altitudes ?
How does Il-76 fair in terms of self protection suite and countermeasures when compared with C-17 ?
How important is a small crew size for IAF ?

[Baldev]

We both are saying the same thing. STOL is not a feature, IMO, IAF is looking at. The debate erupted becasue some posters were forwarding the claim of STOL for C-17 and how great that will be for IAF. Other and I have claimed that is one feature which may not be USP when it comes to selling to IAF.

very true
C17 will be more like additional aircraft in inventory

STOL is hardly needed most of the time.but again other aircraft also have thrust reversal capability.
and C17 STOL has been shown with empty aircraft.