Transport Aircraft for IAF

[Shrinivasan]

. I have a much larger video of 6:38 sec which shows the same bird, landing, unloading it cargo and taking off (no refueling). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pmZNrQp ... re=related

At 2:54 in the video you see a ground crew connecting the refuelling hose in the refuelling receptacle on the the right side of the aircraft.

Thanks Gilles, i didn't realize that they were refuelling... Was this mission undertaken to prove a point for Boeing? because that Cargo could have been delivered by other means too (Say a C130 or a C27 or equivalent)

[Gurinder P]

Here's another little memory refresher:

The ENTIRE basis of your claim was that the RAMP was not rated for its weight.

Clearly if they loaded it onto the plane, the ramp survived and your entire argument was DISPROVED.

So you claim to ignore that an item can be loaded onto an aircraft without being rolled over the ramp ? Its funny how ignorant you make yourself to be when it suits your purpose yet you can become so knowledgeable at other times.
In 2009, the An-225 broke a world record by hauling a 187.6 tonne generator. You think that generator was rolled across the aircraft's ramp ?

http://www.an124.com/wp-content/uploads ... C06634.JPG

Enough! here is a video of a M1 tank being loaded via the RAMP, onto a C 17.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDxIE13oprA

Go to 1:21 to see the action start.

Both of you, please end this mindless buffoonery.

[Gilles]

Enough! here is a video of a M1 tank being loaded via the RAMP, onto a C 17.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDxIE13oprA

Go to 1:21 to see the action start.

Please end this mindless buffoonery both of your.

Sir, you seemed to have missed the earlier part of this discussion. We all agree the M-1 can and has been flown on C-17s. However, the M-1 exceeds the structural weight capacity of the C-17s' ramp and because of this, the USAF and US Army had to obtain a waiver from Boeing to allow the M-1 tank to be loaded onto the aircraft. The document I had referenced here on this Forum that explained this issue, also stated that the waiver in question was for the M-1 tank and the M-1 tank only. This is not to infer that no waivers could be obtained for other tanks, but to my knowledge, none have been obtained to date and no other heavy tank other than the M-1 has ever been carried on a C-17. This is why when Canada deployed 44 tonne Leo 1s to Afghanistan, they used C-17s for a short part of the haul (Manaus to Kandahar), but when they later deployed 60+ tonne Leo IIs, they had to resort to An-124s. The Brits which also own heavy tanks have yet to haul any in any C-17 (granted they might not had the need to to do so, but the fact is that they haven't). Mr GW refers to a poster on another forum who earlier claimed a Challenger tank had been loaded onto a RAF C-17 but that the aircraft had not taken-off with it.

The only reason I brought this up, is that earlier in the BR C-17 thread, heavy emphasis was placed on an alleged the IAF requirement to haul Arjuns in the C-17 (which may not be a requirement at all, as far as I know).

[chetak]

Enough! here is a video of a M1 tank being loaded via the RAMP, onto a C 17.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDxIE13oprA

Go to 1:21 to see the action start.

Please end this mindless buffoonery both of your.

Sir, you seemed to have missed the earlier part of this discussion. We all agree the M-1 can and has been flown on C-17s. However, the M-1 exceeds the structural weight capacity of the C-17s' ramp and because of this, the USAF and US Army had to obtain a waiver from Boeing to allow the M-1 tank to be loaded onto the aircraft. The document I had referenced here on this Forum that explained this issue, also stated that the waiver in question was for the M-1 tank and the M-1 tank only. This is not to infer that no waivers could be obtained for other tanks, but to my knowledge, none have been obtained to date and no other heavy tank other than the M-1 has ever been carried on a C-17. This is why when Canada deployed 44 tonne Leo 1s to Afghanistan, they used C-17s for a short part of the haul (Manaus to Kandahar), but when they later deployed 60+ tonne Leo IIs, they had to resort to An-124s. The Brits which also own heavy tanks have yet to haul any in any C-17 (granted they might not had the need to to do so, but the fact is that they haven't). Mr GW refers to a poster on another forum who earlier claimed a Challenger tank had been loaded onto a RAF C-17 but that the aircraft had not taken-off with it.

The only reason I brought this up, is that earlier in the BR C-17 thread, heavy emphasis was placed on an alleged the IAF requirement to haul Arjuns in the C-17 (which may not be a requirement at all, as far as I know).

Captain Giles,

Please go ahead and continue to post freely as you always do in an illuminating and thoughtful manner.

We at BRF stand to gain from your keen insight on matters aviation and your own wide professional exposure.

You are keenly followed here.

The C-17 is a new bird to us and we are thankful for your efforts.

We are not unaware of the american capacity for perfidy seeing it play out first hand in our own neighborhood.

[Gurinder P]

Sir, you seemed to have missed the earlier part of this discussion. We all agree the M-1 can and has been flown on C-17s. However, the M-1 exceeds the structural weight capacity of the C-17s' ramp and because of this, the USAF and US Army had to obtain a waiver from Boeing to allow the M-1 tank to be loaded onto the aircraft. The document I had referenced here on this Forum that explained this issue, also stated that the waiver in question was for the M-1 tank and the M-1 tank only. This is not to infer that no waivers could be obtained for other tanks, but to my knowledge, none have been obtained to date and no other heavy tank other than the M-1 has ever been carried on a C-17. This is why when Canada deployed 44 tonne Leo 1s to Afghanistan, they used C-17s for a short part of the haul (Manaus to Kandahar), but when they later deployed 60+ tonne Leo IIs, they had to resort to An-124s. The Brits which also own heavy tanks have yet to haul any in any C-17 (granted they might not had the need to to do so, but the fact is that they haven't). Mr GW refers to a poster on another forum who earlier claimed a Challenger tank had been loaded onto a RAF C-17 but that the aircraft had not taken-off with it.

The only reason I brought this up, is that earlier in the BR C-17 thread, heavy emphasis was placed on an alleged the IAF requirement to haul Arjuns in the C-17 (which may not be a requirement at all, as far as I know).

I read all that I needed to know, and I would have thought the video would be enough to put the "tank in the C 17" dilemma to a rest. I read the Boeing stats on the C 17, and it states the ramp load rating is 20 tons, however to video proves otherwise.

Oh, since being from Canada, I can say this. The Leo II's were deployed via the AN 124 because they were leased and modded from Germany and being part of SALIS, allowed them to have access to the Slav Beasts, however, the C 17's were on standby just in case.

[NRao]

Dayton Air Show is really good for those that need to touch-n-feel. However, most static displays are of older model. More on that in another thread.

However, I wish I had followed the discussion on the ramp part. Could have brought up that with the C-17 folks. Will try and resolve that issue (from a US PoV of course) in the future.

But from here

C-17. The operational weight limit for loading tracked vehicles across the C-17'sramp is 130,000 lbs. A waiver was granted to allow loading of an M1 Abrams tank weighing up to 135,000 lbs. This waiver was based on a structural analysis by the C-17 System Program Office (SPO) and McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) that showed the load distribution of M1 did not detrimentally affect the ramp.

C-5A/B. The operational weight limit for loading tracked vehicles across the C-5's ramps is 129,000 lbs. The ramps have an operational waiver that allows loading of an M1 Abrams tank weighing up to 134,000 lbs. This waiver was based on structural analysis of the M1 load distribution on the ramp and was granted by the C-5 Program Office at Warner-Robins AFB, Georgia.

Seems like two different authorizing entities provided these waivers for two different air crafts.

[GeorgeWelch]

And the weight of the Arjun is 129,000 lbs.

No waiver needed.

[rohitvats]

^^^Thanks for the clarification.

For a moment I was wondering how simply getting 'clearance' allows 55+tonnes beast to use a 20 tonnes only ramp!!!

As it is, ar 130K lbs rating, it should not be a problem for Arjun.

[NRao]

And the weight of the Arjun is 129,000 lbs.

No waiver needed.

If I may add to that:

I did not read my own post properly.

The waiver is for the loads to exceed the "The operational weight limit for loading tracked vehicles".

The "operational weight limit" HAS to be way below the designed load ................ the two cannot be even close to each other - just no way that can happen.

I bet the designed capacity is somewhere around 170,000 lbs. Perhaps even more.

And, then I bet the tested capacity is even beyond the designed capacity.

This waiver is a no-brainer. A non-issue. However, the process or requesting and providing a waiver is part of the game - needed.

(Just BTW: bridges and highway ramps have the same philosophy when it comes to weights and speeds. When the ramp speed is 35 mph and one does 40 - one is being granted a waiver. PLEASE do NOT test this out.)

[Shrinivasan]

^^^Thanks for the clarification.
For a moment I was wondering how simply getting 'clearance' allows 55+tonnes beast to use a 20 tonnes only ramp!!!
As it is, ar 130K lbs rating, it should not be a problem for Arjun.

Groud pressure and speed would also be a major factor in deciding on the "safety factors" to be considered for loading a tank on to a transport aircraft.

[NRao]

On further thinking and having sat on one of these ramps and knowing Indians, I bet India would have built some simple ramps (like the ones that one uses to elevate a car to work under) and placed them under the normal C-17 ramps - to act as supports below the original ramp. Custom fit them, bolt them. Do whatever is needed to get the Arjun inside.

IF an Arjun has to go from point A to point B it has to go. Waivers be damned.

[UBanerjee]

Unfortunately C-17 deal has gone through and all the nautanki and posturing from certain actors has been to no effect.

[GeorgeWelch]

warned for flaming in view of the non-existent response.

Err, sorry, never saw your edit of my post.

There really should be some sort of automated system to alert people because it's entirely too easy to miss such things.

Also it would be helpful if I could at least PM mods . . .

As far as an explanation, he only comments on 2 aircraft (C-17 and 787, both that happen to be made by Boeing), taking extremely negative views on both that are far beyond the bounds of reasonableness. My point was even if he did have a legitimate gripe against Boeing (they killed his mother for instance), his views and arguments still can't be justified.

I would have been happy to edit it if asked (but of course I can't do that now that too much time has passed. . .)

[Sanku]

Unfortunately C-17 deal has gone through and all the nautanki and posturing from certain actors has been to no effect.

So has 123 deal, does it mean its a good thing?

Clearly the C 17 is something which may be of "some" limited use to IAF (heck IAF being IAF they will use Canberra's usefully still) -- that does not mean that a deal primarily done for political reasons is a "good" thing.

Gilles's points are all very valid, the C 17s capability as discussed here are mostly "mythical", it will be a expensive air truck, no more, no less.

And no its not going to equip IAF with any capability** that money spent similarly on other systems would not have done as well, or better.

** It will be more useful than other systems if we had a Unkil model of large distributed bases all over the world, but since we dont, and will not have it for any foreseeable future, the plane remains a less than optimal fit, for Indian needs.

[Singha]

what other systems are you referring to? unfortunately there are no other comparable systems at this point and unlikely for the next decade - (the AN124T and IL476). the AN70 is purchased by the chinese and is not in serial production. the A400M is too small.

if we need to move bulky loads like SAM systems (Akash, spyder, tunguska,zsu), radars, Pinakas, Brahmos TELARs on short notice the C17s can help, as well as lots of palletized cargo like ammo and missiles.
it can also move the T90 for sure, should the mountain strike corps settle on that.

ofcourse I hope we obtain the necessary clearances for arjun and the ramp mods to do it in a sustained manner, but in the end the mountain corps might settle for the smaller T90

[GeorgeWelch]

ofcourse I hope we obtain the necessary clearances for arjun

There are no clearances required for the Arjun

[Sanku]

what other systems are you referring to? unfortunately there are no other comparable systems at this point and unlikely for the next decade - (the AN124T and IL476). the AN70 is purchased by the chinese and is not in serial production. the A400M is too small.

Gurudev, much as I am aware of, and admire, your views on the need to bulk up Indian defence systems, often literally, in shape of "heavies" of various nature, I am personally not sure whether that option is something we can achieve in reality, in time frames which are meaningful for discussion (next 10-20 years)

Personally, I think our efforts for transportation should be far more directed towards "last mile connectivity" that is, fleets in the range of 20-40 (give or take) tons, with both Helo's and fixed wing aircrafts working of a large distributed Kaccha network.

C 17 type of aircraft can only service "large" nodes; Leh, Guwhati et al. Considering that we can anyway get substantial tonnage to Leh through various means, I am not sure how C 17 provide a qualitatively different edge than a bunch of smaller aircrafts.

After all, Leh et al dont have to be supplied from long distances, only short hauls from Chandigarh, Barielly etc. (Similarly for N-E sector) C 17s are most useful when large amounts have to be shipped to large distances, for us, that not really a requirement.

Also C 17s and other heavies, need a large airstrip, large aprons and large staging facilities. We have few of those, and not many seem to be available in next 20 year time frame either.

In such a scenario, a fleet of medium-heavy smallies actually give greater flexibility etc.

if we need to move bulky loads like SAM systems (Akash, spyder, tunguska,zsu), radars, Pinakas, Brahmos TELARs on short notice the C17s can help, as well as lots of palletized cargo like ammo and missiles.

I am not so sure about this, in the sense, yes, in principle, in short notice we can air dash a couple of pieces of critical equipment, but I am not so sure

1) How much C 17 can actually handle in real world terms (for example theoretically C 17 can move M-1 class tanks, in reality it has only moved a few M-1s very few times)
2) How much moving a few pieces to Leh under duress help the war effort. Note that so far the "successful" ingress of game changing forces has been on road in India (tanks in 47, Arty during Kargil) or light airdrops (Srinagar in 47, Op Chequerboard) -- the fact that we have not relied on heavy airlift to change the game (even as Il 76s were available) suggests that moving arty pieces by air is not a sustainable scaleable model for real world needs.

Sure it can take in a few pieces, but then who moves it out from Leh? And how long is that window really open after hostility breaks out?

ofcourse I hope we obtain the necessary clearances for arjun and the ramp mods to do it in a sustained manner, but in the end the mountain corps might settle for the smaller T90

Singha-ji considering that C 17 has been around forever, and none of its operator has undertaken more than token show case mods (like Il 76 moving T 72) and show case use -- I am extremely doubtful that the past 30 year old pattern can/will change for us.

C 17s should not be expected to do anything more than what they have done all their life -- which is lug large volumes of general military cargos around large distances to supply US army nodes.

Big trucks for long distance replenishment of strung out expeditionary forces. Thats their USP thats what they were made for, and thats why no one but Unkil has ever used it in any meaningful numbers.

Just not the optimum fit for India. For Unkil yes. For India NO.

[chetak]

C 17s should not be expected to do anything more than what they have done all their life -- which is lug large volumes of general military cargos around large distances to supply US army nodes.

Big trucks for long distance replenishment of strung out expeditionary forces. Thats their USP thats what they were made for, and thats why no one but Unkil has ever used it in any meaningful numbers.

Just not the optimum fit for India. For Unkil yes. For India NO.

I have just the teeniest of suspicions that uncle may be trying to position the C-17 for his own intermittent use in some long term strategic game plan not yet revealed to us. They could go the lease route for their own use, leasing the IAF assets as some sort of military FedEx so to speak.

I do not know why I have not been able to shake of this feeling, ever since the C-17 ordered numbers have drastically started increasing.

In our terrain the "last mile connectivity" is of vital importance. Are we looking at acquisition of heavy lift heli assets from uncle to bridge this vital gap? Is uncle going to tempt us to replace our worn out ruskie assets?

[Sanku]

I do not know why I have not been able to shake of this feeling, ever since the C-17 ordered numbers have drastically started increasing.

I quiet share your feelings Sir.

[Singha]

for shorter distances (within india), the C17 does have advantage of moving its full theoritical payload, which is obviously more than the IL76 payload.

one of the complaints about C17 I read long time back it could not move its full payload from continental US to far flung outposts of the Empire and hence limited nos of C5 were also needed for that role. that maybe the reason by C5 is still there, inspite of huge nos of C17 being produced.

but for indian landmass it should be ok.

[Sanku]

for shorter distances (within india), the C17 does have advantage of moving its full theoritical payload, which is obviously more than the IL76 payload..

True, but I dont think the economics would work out, based on discussion so far , that is, it would cheaper to use a smaller aircraft for most sorties, with greater flexibilities of load.

Still not a particularly impressive addition.

[Vashishtha]

I got a question.. Would we have to 'take permission' from the US for every sortie of the C17/130? There was some discussion on the MRCA thread long time back about US EUMA's(End user monitoring agreement)...

[Sanku]

What we need is a bulk up of transport to places like Thoise,

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Chart ... er/819756/

From all available reports this is the area where we hurt, badly. As chetak said, last mile connectivity. And no C 17s are going to be of any use.

[NRao]

Sorry I have not followed this thread until a day or so ago.

Just not the optimum fit for India. For Unkil yes. For India NO.

Granted. So, what would an alternative be? (Not that it matters any longer, but i would like to get a feel for your thinking. Thx.)

I have just the teeniest of suspicions that uncle may be trying to position the C-17 for his own intermittent use in some long term strategic game plan not yet revealed to us. They could go the lease route for their own use, leasing the IAF assets as some sort of military FedEx so to speak.

The USAF leases ANs too. They lease from EU too. (You can them parked in the open, nothing to hide.)

Whatever they need to get the job done they do. Right or wrong, there is a war going on.

In our terrain the "last mile connectivity" is of vital importance. Are we looking at acquisition of heavy lift heli assets from uncle to bridge this vital gap? Is uncle going to tempt us to replace our worn out ruskie assets?

Yes, there is a tender out for such a rec. A US and a Russian have sent their proposal. IIRC the eval should have been completed (someone can correct me here).

[Sanku]

Sorry I have not followed this thread until a day or so ago.

Just not the optimum fit for India. For Unkil yes. For India NO.

Granted. So, what would an alternative be? (Not that it matters any longer, but i would like to get a feel for your thinking. Thx.)

Oh I said that just a few posts above.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1135354

A fleet built around light-medium airlifts; tackling the last mile connectivity.

[rohitvats]

What we need is a bulk up of transport to places like Thoise,

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Chart ... er/819756/

From all available reports this is the area where we hurt, badly. As chetak said, last mile connectivity. And no C 17s are going to be of any use.

Can you define last mile connectivity for me? And what bases you have in mind?

[GeorgeWelch]

It's not an either/or situation. You need the right plane for the job.

India will have the spectrum covered with An-32RE for small, MTA for medium and C-17 for heavy.

[NRao]

Oh I said that just a few posts above.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1135354

A fleet built around light-medium airlifts; tackling the last mile connectivity.

OK. Cool. Let me take a closer look at that, but, I already see a boo-boo. The C-17 does NOT need a long runway. On the contrary. It also is good on unpaved runways.

I recall reading an article, in the past few days, that the C-17 is equal to some 5 other air crafts. I am assuming with very similar capabilities.

[Sanku]

Can you define last mile connectivity for me? And what bases you have in mind?

By last mile connectivity I refer to actually providing the front line troops with the necessary materials. All ALGs would be such "bases"; there would simple Helipads too.

To make it easy (for me) let me be lazy and cross refer -- I am sure you would have read the parts of Vivek's story where troops in Bhutan are supplied through make shift Helipads.

In the context of Singha-ji's scenario, in my view a pre-existing network of such pads and ALGs (multiple) would be what would be critical in ensuring that sufficient Arty and other support material reach the theater of war quickly.

[Sanku]

OK. Cool. Let me take a closer look at that, but, I already see a boo-boo. The C-17 does NOT need a long runway. On the contrary. It also is good on unpaved runways.
.

This has already been discussed to be case of broucheritis. No known data point of C 17 working off short unpaved runways has been seen its entire 30 year old life.

The last page itself had yet another case where the claims of Boeing did not quiet come out right.

[GeorgeWelch]

This has already been discussed to be case of broucheritis. No known data point of C 17 working off short unpaved runways has been seen its entire 30 year old life.

On the contrary, they did a whole series of tests to determine exactly that.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf

[Anuj A]

Just because the C-17 is American and more expensive than, now, outdated USSR junk doesn't mean that India is now lost out. The C-17 is an awesome platform that fulfils the IAF's "super heavy-lift" requirement. It can take larger loads further and land on a penny. It offers unique capability that India as a rising power needs- the IAF aren't idiots they know what they want/need more than some arm chair generals. The costs alone speak for themselves- less maintenance, less manpower, digital FBW, greater fuel effiency, cheaper life cycle costs etc.


As a rising power also needs to have the capability to get large amounts of supplies/troops/equipment to anywhere in the world. IL-76s have taken aid to SL,Japan, US, Congo and China. Like Hilary clj ton said- India needs to step up to its role in the world.

[NRao]

This has already been discussed to be case of broucheritis. No known data point of C 17 working off short unpaved runways has been seen its entire 30 year old life.

The same people who brought up the waiver issue?

However, would these suffice as starters?



[youtube]caoGes86Nso&feature=related[/youtube]

The last page itself had yet another case where the claims of Boeing did not quiet come out right.

Will try and go back and check it out. It would help if you provided a little more info on what you want me to look for. The one that I know that blew up was the waiver and that too was on the last page.

[NRao]

Oh, forgot. The link I provided above, has this to say:

About the C-17s, Air Chief Marshal Naik observed that a key advantage of this aircraft is that despite being a huge airlifter with 75-tonne capacity, it can operate from very short and unpaved grassy airfields. As IAF has several small airfields all around, this is a decisive factor in acquiring the C-17, the other being a long-range global capability with mid-air refueling.

I guess someone forgot to tell the CAS that there is a memo coming his way that informs him that that is just from some brochure.

AND, that the topic was discussed on BR and the discussion came to the conclusion that it is not true.

As for short landing and takeoff, this capability of the C-17 was demonstrated during the aircraft's trials in 2010. Boeing test pilot Col. Kelly Latimer, a former USAF pilot whose laughter matches the respect she commands in flying this huge aircraft, actually landed and took off in less than 3,000 feet from a small airfield in the mountains.

It would have been nice if they qualified it with what kind of load it was carrying.

[NRao]

maybe he meant they both have good low speed and high AoA handling, something the AeroIndia2009 show clearly proved wrt C17....it pretty much hung motionless in the air

I am not sure if you were referring to my post.

The F-18 and the C-17 share the same computer sets and the C-17 has a "dialed down" avionic suite. In all respects the two behave very similarly, just that the C-17 takes more time to execute what the F-18 would do in a jiffy.

Hope that helps.

[NRao]

India decides against reactivating Chushul airfield

Dated July 24, 2011.

a direct quote from an Indian official:

"Such ALGs will help support our forward area policy. With helipads, say we can support only 200 troops there but with a runway, we can land supplies for over a thousand troops there," a source said.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... nistan.jpg

RAAF C-17 in A'sthan. Nice hiRes with plenty of gravel and dust (on landing).

[Shrinivasan]

for shorter distances (within india), the C17 does have advantage of moving its full theoritical payload, which is obviously more than the IL76 payload..

True, but I dont think the economics would work out, based on discussion so far , that is, it would cheaper to use a smaller aircraft for most sorties, with greater flexibilities of load.
Still not a particularly impressive addition.

Once hostilities break out, this "more number of sorties by a smaller aircraft" thing might not be possible, Many Moons ago, Ray Sahab explained in the C-17 Dhaga about Strategic Airlift. how need to move stuff quickly in strategic quantities. Imagine us being able to move a regiment of 155mm towed guns in one go to Leh/Thoise along with the Arty Gunners and Ammo. We will be able to position them quickly for a bombardment of the Pukes as against trucking them via NH1/Nh1D for days together or shuttling between Chandigarh and Thoise for 5-6 sorties. (sorry I might not be exact, but you get the idea right).

[Shrinivasan]

What we need is a bulk up of transport to places like Thoise,
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Chart ... er/819756/
From all available reports this is the area where we hurt, badly. As chetak said, last mile connectivity. And no C 17s are going to be of any use.

what makes you think so? Thoise has a 10,000 Ft Asphalt Runway and ample apron space... A fully laden C-17 would easily able to land in Thoise, disgorge its cargo and egress quickly without even switching off its engine.

[Shrinivasan]

Just because the C-17 is American and more expensive than, now, outdated USSR junk doesn't mean that India is now lost out. The C-17 is an awesome platform that fulfils the IAF's "super heavy-lift" requirement. It can take larger loads further and land on a penny. It offers unique capability that India as a rising power needs- the IAF aren't idiots they know what they want/need more than some arm chair generals. The costs alone speak for themselves- less maintenance, less manpower, digital FBW, greater fuel effiency, cheaper life cycle costs etc.
As a rising power also needs to have the capability to get large amounts of supplies/troops/equipment to anywhere in the world. IL-76s have taken aid to SL,Japan, US, Congo and China. Like Hilary clj ton said- India needs to step up to its role in the world.

I am for IAF buying C-17s, but then your logic is flawed severely. If you argue like this you'll lose a case quickly, as fast a s finishing this good prose... my grouse with your argument.
1) How is C-17 more expensive than outdated USSR junk (care to explain this USSR piece), on what basis is this comparison?
2) How does C-17 fulfil IAF's requirement?
3) What is Super Heavy lift? IHMO superheavy lift is in the category of A124 and C-5. C-17's capacity is 60T.
4)Land on a Penny? bare minimum is a 3000ft dry runway at sea level (with some payload not 60T). altitude increases distance increases, ditto for slick on the runway.
I am not arguing about other things as I don't have data points to agree / disagree (neither have you provided the same)
5) why will India need to transport troops anywhere in the world.
Research before you post.

[Shrinivasan]

About the C-17s, Air Chief Marshal Naik observed that a key advantage of this aircraft is that despite being a huge airlifter with 75-tonne capacity, it can operate from very short and unpaved grassy airfields. As IAF has several small airfields all around, this is a decisive factor in acquiring the C-17, the other being a long-range global capability with mid-air refueling. I guess someone forgot to tell the CAS that there is a memo coming his way that informs him that that is just from some brochure.

C-17 Landed in Kangra in a light drizzle with a good number of people and fuel. Kangra has 4620ft ASPHALT runway and I read that it DID NOT USE UP the whole runway. Kangra is 2524 ft above MSL. So even in a desi scenario C-17s have landed on short runways... Agreed that it was not carrying 60T, but IAF would have calculated the payload and other factors for C17 during evaluation.