C-17s for the IAF?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 26 Jul 2010 07:24

Can it carry an arjun?? if not bah humbug

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 26 Jul 2010 08:45

A400M carrying an Arjun? No way when its maximum payload is 32T and that's a big stretch at that.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 28 Jul 2010 08:29

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/27 ... asualties/

Michael Goentgens, a spokesman for Lufthansa's cargo division in Germany said the flight was carrying about 90 tons of unspecified cargo.

Holy guacamole! That is more than what a C17 can carry.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 29 Jul 2010 08:46

A C-17 has just CRASHED at Elmendorf AFB
http://nycaviation.com/2010/07/28/c-17- ... in-alaska/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2010 13:01

CF-18 crashed,now a C-17 "showing off" on a training flight,what gives? This is ure to be a dampener towards a"quick fix" decision by the GOI,unless we've sold our soul to the US.The reasons for the accdent must be investigated completely if we are to by this bird,being bought to satisfy vested interests, soley to please Boeing and Uncle Sam.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 29 Jul 2010 13:34

C-17 Cargo Plane Crashes at Military Base in Anchorage, Alaska, with 4 on Board

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2010 18:06

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 38311.html
Excerpt:

'No survivors' after military cargo plane crash
Thursday, 29 July 2010

A military cargo plane carrying four people on a training run has crashed at an air force base in Alaska, the US Air Force said today.

Witnesses reported seeing a ball of fire rising hundreds of feet high near downtown Anchorage. Access to the crash site at Elmendorf Air Force Base has been closed.

The C-17, from the 3rd Wing based at Elmendorf, had been carrying four people doing a training demonstration for an upcoming weekend air show, Lieutenant General Dana Atkins said.

Lt Gen Atkins said the plane was not an ejection aircraft, and said no one is expected to have survived. "It's likely there are fatalities involved in this mishap," he added.

Anchorage Fire Department Captain Bryan Grella described seeing the crash from a downtown fire station about two miles away.

"It was a big, grey plume of smoke, and I saw a fireball go up," he said, adding that the plume went about 750 feet in the air.

A board of officers will investigate the crash.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 29 Jul 2010 18:47

oh my god there was also an Airbus crash. What gives?/ Ban Indian low cost airlines from buying Airbuses

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 29 Jul 2010 20:13

Just ban airbus? Why one should also ban Boeing, esp after the Lufthansa MD-11 crash in Saudi yesterday. Afterall Boeing now owns MD.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 29 Jul 2010 20:40

yes Yes - I agree

this could be the artillery saga all over again

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 29 Jul 2010 21:15

You are not patriotic enough. I demand that HAL design a Airbus 340 replacement and a Boeing 787 replacement in 6 years. All airlines must buy this replacement. Along with the C-17 replacement that HAL will build.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 29 Jul 2010 21:32

Tsk Tsk

true patriotism demands we co design with the Russians

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Jul 2010 22:59

Philip wrote:CF-18 crashed,now a C-17 "showing off" on a training flight,what gives? This is ure to be a dampener towards a"quick fix" decision by the GOI,unless we've sold our soul to the US.The reasons for the accdent must be investigated completely if we are to by this bird,being bought to satisfy vested interests, soley to please Boeing and Uncle Sam.

Philipji, I don't want to do any moral-policing, but sir four people died in that accident. Please show some amount of refrain!

Besides, the C-17 has an enviable safety record. Harping on that might not be the best argument against the C-17.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2010 14:32

Sad though the accident is where 4 onboard died,the report did say that the aircraft was to have taken part in an air show ,hence the phrase "showing off",and perhaps the pilots very unwisely in retrospect,fatally in fact,performed a dangerous manoeuvre.We have seen this happen in the past at air shows around the world,where pilots try stunts to wow the crowd.It happened with the Russian "Concordski" at Paris remember,and a few other Russian fighters who demonstrated the superb performance of their zero-zero ejection seats! One of our own top pilots sadly died when his Mirage-2000 crashed at an Air Force demo too some years ago.

But the circumstances of the crash must be thoroughly examined by the IAF if we are to buy the C-17.It doesn't augur well for the aircraft -a bad omen.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 30 Jul 2010 17:35

At this point I am not longer sure whether to laugh or cry when Philip posts.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jul 2010 10:26

Philip wrote:Sad though the accident is where 4 onboard died,the report did say that the aircraft was to have taken part in an air show ,hence the phrase "showing off",and perhaps the pilots very unwisely in retrospect,fatally in fact,performed a dangerous manoeuvre.We have seen this happen in the past at air shows around the world,where pilots try stunts to wow the crowd.It happened with the Russian "Concordski" at Paris remember,and a few other Russian fighters who demonstrated the superb performance of their zero-zero ejection seats! One of our own top pilots sadly died when his Mirage-2000 crashed at an Air Force demo too some years ago.

Sirji, when an American aircraft crashes you start questioning its (by and large) excellent safety record, but when a Russian aircraft crashes, you're comment is solely to praise the quality of ejection seats!!
What gives.

But the circumstances of the crash must be thoroughly examined by the IAF if we are to buy the C-17.It doesn't augur well for the aircraft -a bad omen.

Fear not. We shall make sure a Ganesh puja takes place before the C-17 is inducted into the IAF.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Jul 2010 21:19

Philip wrote: But the circumstances of the crash must be thoroughly examined by the IAF if we are to buy the C-17.It doesn't augur well for the aircraft -a bad omen.

Um...are you aware that there hasn't been a single fatal crash or even a hull-loss incident of a C-17 till now? It has even survived a SAM hit over Baghdad. Now one aircraft out of 212 built crashes and it suddenly doesn't augur well for the aircraft!

You are no noob, and know very well that there are literally thousands of reasons and their combinations that can cause an aircraft to crash It does not immediately point to a design flaw. It is pretty clear that the only reason for your childish comments is because you hate the fact that the IAF is making the cardinal sin of buying American instead of Russian.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Aug 2010 11:51

Laugh and cry both guys! I have great faith in omens.Maggie Thatcher slipped and fell when entering the Great Hall of the People on her China visit.She left with the Chinese "taking away" Hong Kong on their terms after discussions! The Chinese place great store on them and so do I from experience. I can give you dozens of such omens,but it is outside the scope of this thread.If the aircraft has crashed,there must be an enquiry to find out the cause.When one of our Flankers crashed,the rest were grounded for a while.If we are to waste $10 billion on buying these flying dinosaurs,at least let's find out how safe the aircraft is!

Back to the meat of the issue.Look,I've said before and now for the record,the issue is not buying American or Russian transports.I am against buying ANY strategic airlifter so hastily because we really do not need it this desperately.This is a totally needless buy,very low on the list of priorities for the IAF and the services as a whole.Our IL-76s were perfectly adequate to ferry technicians and support staff and spares to Alaska and the UK for our SU-30MKIs in exercises with the US and UK air forces.The indecent haste with which we are buying it is solely to fatten Boeing's coffers and 40+ US states who supply C-17 components to Boeing.Robert Gates,the US Def.Sec. wants production stopped "immediately",so unless Boeing can armtwist India into ordering these planes very soon,it will not be able to supply them given the pressure on it in the US to end production right now!

When the combined strength of NATO air forces,plus US allies worldwide amount to just 25 aircraft,why on earth is India which has NO globo-cop role buying 10 plus another 10 as well from latest reports! Moreover,it also binds us into the logistic chain of US allies who operate the aircraft thus making us a US ally through the back door,where the US can dicatate to India how the aircraft's support facilities should be used and who can use it .

This is another insidous scam just like the CWG and the truth will eventually come out one day.

PS:Instead of buying the C-17 class of transports,what would better our wants is for the IAF to buy more medium sized transports that can land on the Himalayan airstrips where supplying our troops is such an arduous affair given our poor road infrastructure.The MTA is going to take a long while before it arrives and instead we could examine buying the A-400,just arrived or even more C-130Js,which we are buying and have proved their worth worldwide for decades.There are several other medium sized transports available too from European and other manufacturers,even the AN-70 is available.Extra medium and larger helos will also greatly assist the logistic effort.Just as we are doing with almost all out fighters in service and the 100+ AN-32s,being sent to the Ukraine for upgrades,the entire fleet of Il-76s should also be upgraded just as Russia plans to do.In fact the Russians as noted before are to resume production of large transports like the IL-76/476and ,AN-124,etc.There are alternative options and a careful cost-effective study should be made instead of just plumping for one type only.As some have pointed out earlier,even NATO is "leasing" AN-124s for its Afghan ops! The CAG has just heavily criticised the IN's LUSH upgrade,unduly favouring the Israelis,where the Derby missile couldn't meet the desired BVR range,just 50% only and the manufacturer refuses to assure us of its performance,chosen without any competition (just as is being done in this instance),wait in the future for the CAG to comment upon this deal too.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 04 Aug 2010 20:49

India to buy six more C-17 airlifters from US

The Indian Air Force has submitted its Field Evaluation Trials (FET) report of Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA) to the Government, and expects selection of the fighter jet within a year. Air Chief Marshal P V Naik has told India Strategic that these aircraft would also be purchased through the Government-to-Government route under the US Government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme.

Discussions between the two governments to finalise the IAF’s onboard equipment requirements, spares and service support and their duration – possibly over the lifetime of the aircraft – are still being held but likely to be finalized soon.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 04 Aug 2010 22:14

Any way India is not buying any thing junk here. Even if they are buying C-17 to keep 100's of American jobs, it gives us a little leverage, to tilt American Defence companies towards us. But I agree that this is all internal scam to keep US happy. Same way Saudi (proxy behind Pakistan) does, they buy all this flashy US gadgets just to gain a little leverage, US keeps its mouth shuts even when ISI does all its mischief against them, becas they know Saudi and China are behind Pakistan. well thats how world politics work.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Aug 2010 22:52

shukla wrote:India to buy six more C-17 airlifters from US

<SNIP>

You forgot to highlight the most important (and heart wrenching

) part of the news report -

The Indian Air Force (IAF) will buy six more C 17 Globemaster III transport aircraft in addition to the 10 already being acquired.

Air Chief Marshal P V Naik has told India Strategic that these aircraft would also be purchased through the Government-to-Government route under the US Government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme.

Asked if IAF would buy more C 17s, Air Chief Marshal Naik said that a decision could only be taken after some time, depending upon the requirement.

The dirty american imperialistic designs on the bening Indian democracy seem to be succeeding......time for Jeehaard.....get them stingers, I say...

PS: As was opined by this abdul many moons ago, IAF has gone for more C-17s. While my guess was that the deal will be for 10+10...10+6 is not bad. Wheels of Karma are turning and turning for sure......

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Aug 2010 22:59

^ You might even get your C-27 Spartans.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Aug 2010 23:17

Which brings me to the conclusion that IAF is looking to expand the airlift capacity at the bottom of the pyramid - a quick look-see on google tells me that AN-26/32 is not available. Also, C-27J sports the same engine as C-130J we're buying which making logistics that much easier.

PS - I'm waiting for Philip to find out about AN-72 and then the fun and games can begin all over again....

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 05 Aug 2010 01:53

Not much is available on this in public realm, so speculative:

Philip wrote: PS:Instead of buying the C-17 class of transports,what would better our wants is for the IAF to buy more medium sized transports that can land on the Himalayan airstrips where supplying our troops is such an arduous affair given our poor road infrastructure.

More than wartime, I suspect the C17s will be used to build up and supply "islands of military infrastructure" in the Himalayas during peace time. If we build excellent roads or rail from the plains (as the chinese are doing on their side) to these islands up in the hills, we are allowing a more bigger spender (PLA), who is crazy about vast numbers in their arsenal to have an advantage over us when they need to roll. This airbridge way is a bit unconventional, but we can learn new stuff and deploy some serious number of troops far from our shores, as a side benefit. At the same time, use the Himalayas' ageless natural protection to our benefit

Risky, restrictive and defensive, but can be made to work. So I would think 20 C17s are just a part of a bigger machine. Of course, one would not be happy at this, as all standard peeves on khan's lame ass policies and sanctions still stand. But one has to move on and what khan *might not do* during peace time is as important as what khan *might* do during wartime, when it comes to his equipment sold to us.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 05 Aug 2010 03:03

Size of our armed forces are relativel very small for size of our country and size of Pakistani and Chinese army. One way to counter this is to have extra good airlift capability. I think this C17 is (and should be) right on top of IAF/IA's list

A fleet of 60 C17 and 100 C130 and 100 upgraded An32 by 2025 is bare minimum size IMO to make fighting war at two and half front a viable solution. Infantary mechanization is so 20th century, in 21st century armed forces with substantial integral airlift capacity would dominate battlefields by creating local numerical superiority at place and time of choosing while quickly neutralizing enemy's anymove to concentrate troops or firepower.

Deal should be clinched ASAP and followon offer placed within a year of first.......

Sorry Philip you are dead wrong!!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Aug 2010 03:24

Laugh and cry both guys! I have great faith in omens.Maggie Thatcher slipped and fell when entering the Great Hall of the People on her China visit.She left with the Chinese "taking away" Hong Kong on their terms after discussions!

OMG you seriously think a third rate power had any chance other than aface saving "giving back Hong kong" at that point in time? If you do can i have what you are inhaling

PS - I'm waiting for Philip to find out about AN-72 and

rohit - to be fair to him he said AN 124s etc. Etc covers everything else available barring C 17

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Aug 2010 14:07

The numbers mentioned of strategic airlifters is just absurd.Even the US,with all its global responsibilities to NATO,the Asia-Pacific countries has 220+ only! We simply do not have a trans-continental agenda for which these aircraft are meant for! Do qe have ambitions of becoming America's "poodle" as Britain was (during the Blair era?). In all our operations thus far in the IOR,the IL-76s have proved adequate.If at all we want larger aircraft a small number of perhaps 3 would suffice,not 10+ 10 as envisaged.

Pray,where are the airfields in the Himalyan heights where such large aircraft can operate? Plus,our ground forces have widely dispersed bases all across the country and have stockpiled the required equipment,weaponry and ammmo strategically.It is far easier to transport large amounts of eqpt. and troops from the depots by rail than by air,given our excellent rail network.Yes,more transports are required,but as I said,smaller medium sized transports that can land anywhere and enough large and medium sized helos to supply troops where airfields cannot be established.That makes sound commonsense rather than acquiring these flying dinosaurs!

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 05 Aug 2010 14:28

If this is all about airlifting to the Himalayas, wouldn't it be better to invest 5 billion dollars in investment to infrastructure development in Sikkim, Arunachal, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarkhand, Bihar, West Bengal and Jammu Kashmir. Even the people of those states would benefit a lot.

I am not claiming that we do not need a strategic air lifter nor discouraging the purchase of C-17, but why is it that we don't have will and money to spend on border infrastructure when we are eager to create mothers and fathers of all defense deals. It would be music to my ears the day Indian government announce that 10-15 billion dollar has been ear marked in the budget for border infrastructure development.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Aug 2010 15:37

JimmyJ wrote:If this is all about airlifting to the Himalayas, wouldn't it be better to invest 5 billion dollars in investment to infrastructure development in Sikkim, Arunachal, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarkhand, Bihar, West Bengal and Jammu Kashmir. Even the people of those states would benefit a lot.

I am not claiming that we do not need a strategic air lifter nor discouraging the purchase of C-17, but why is it that we don't have will and money to spend on border infrastructure when we are eager to create mothers and fathers of all defense deals. It would be music to my ears the day Indian government announce that 10-15 billion dollar has been ear marked in the budget for border infrastructure development.

A very concerted effort to improve infrastructure in border regions is on. And like most investment in infrastructure, there is a gestation period. But rest assured, the govt. and army aren't oblivious of the situation.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Aug 2010 22:52

50 million for an il-76MF or about 10-20% more for the new version of il-476 when it comes out in a year or so. Why are we paying 380 million a pop for those american planes ? One C-17 vs 7.5 Il-76MF ????

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Aug 2010 23:01

50 million for an il-76MF or about 10-20% more for the new version of il-476 when it comes out in a year or so.

any source?!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Aug 2010 23:06

after all the Ramanyan we are back to who is Ram and who is sita

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 05 Aug 2010 23:07

Philip wrote: Plus,our ground forces have widely dispersed bases all across the country and have stockpiled the required equipment,weaponry and ammmo strategically.It is far easier to transport large amounts of eqpt. and troops from the depots by rail than by air,given our excellent rail network.

I would think we might need to quickly transport large sized tubular things and parts in a flexible way in the next few years. Especially in far flung hilly regions. And that is something we have not done yet. So there is a need for a large craft. The numbers, I guess if you buy 3 or 20, the infrastructure required to be built up would be the same.

Regarding rails and roads, they can be prone to be used against us too. Particularly if the opponent's current approach is to throw large numbers at something it want to achieve. Yes, we need rails and roads. But from a civilian perspective and I believe they are doing good work nowadays on that. Particularly around the periphery.

I repeat, I personally am uneasy of any khan-maal, but I think we need to keep going forward through khan's landscape for our own reasons. That doesnt mean being a poodle or munna.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 06 Aug 2010 00:43

Yeah and Philip, your rail and trucks gonna run at 900KM/hour, right?

How would you acquire land and get environmental clearance for building roads and railway?

How long those trains and trucks took in deploying troops to much easier and well developed borders in western sector during operation Parakram?

We don't have airbases because we didn't have aircrafts, once we get aircrafts we'll build airbases too.

Britain, Japan and poodle-company became poodle so they don't have to buy C17 or its counterparts, master covers for them. Buying large number of strategic lifters is non-poodlish move.

If we buy three C17s as you suggest than that would definately mean that you want India to become another poodle of US like Britain

Decide what you want -

buy 3 C17 and you'll be a poodle, buy 60 and you'll be a massa with may be a couple of poodle's of your own.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 06 Aug 2010 04:47

It appears that 50 years of Russian arms .. oops poodlegiri does not seem enough for the gentleman who loves the IL-476.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Aug 2010 08:07

IL476 is a good plane but its slated to enter first service in 2012 per web reports, and Rus will be producing it in russia not tashkent chlakov factory it seems.
all the old soviet era supply chain for new build IL76 + the new add ons has to be restored into full rpm and reliability.

once it proves itself with 5 yrs of solid service in russia, it will be good option for the next phase of IAF strategic mobility buildup.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Aug 2010 16:39

The 476, may be a good aircraft, but how much will it lift. I will not talk about the rough field capability of the aircraft. But how much will it lift, say from Mohali to Leh. It is able out lift the C 17 then by all means I will support the waiting for and purchase of 476. If not then I will support the purchase of the C 17.

Ideally, I will want a newbuild AN 124 with western engines for the IAF in terms of heavy lifting.

Perhaps when a new 124 is buld for the Russian air force then we could bandwagon for 124.

In the absence of the same, the C 17 is the best decision for the IAF.

JMT

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Aug 2010 17:26

I think the argument was though IL76-future will lift less than todays C17, the cost of acquisition is likely to be much lower....so buy more of IL76 planes at equal cost. but that has its own price in opex - engines, crews, fuel...

AN124-mki would be good soln only if Russia restarts production line and itself orders a good number like 50.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Aug 2010 17:31

And what will we do with An-124? We need to remember that C-17 was developed with a specific requirement - to be able to carry troops from CONUS directly to theater of operation. Earlier they had a two step approach - CONUS - Europe (via C-5) and Intra theater by C-130. USAF wanted C-17 to be able to carry troops directly to theater of operation.

Unless, we have massive outsize cargo requirements, I don't see the need for An-124 in IAF service. As it is, the numbers are going to be low - so why add another logistic headache?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Aug 2010 17:37

are you sure the C17 can fly from midwest to middle east or korea with a full load. imo it will need refueling to make it while C5 could manage it alone?

about AN124, I dont know .... perhaps cool 25,000lb MOAB-munna bombs or something....