C-17s for the IAF?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 26 Feb 2010 19:59

Surprising that the aircraft is not pressurised. IL 76 is pressurised.

AN 32 is not pressurised and damn noisy. At the end of the journey, one can't hear a damn and the head pains!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Feb 2010 20:08

RayC wrote:Surprising that the aircraft is not pressurised. IL 76 is pressurised.

AN 32 is not pressurised and damn noisy. At the end of the journey, one can't hear a damn and the head pains!

Also, have a concern for the fatigue of the aircrew!! AN 32 also has a very high vibration level. All the instruments and avionics are mounted on tuned shock mounts.

With no pressurization the operating height is limited to 10,000 feet.

It can climb higher provided oxygen masks are provided to all on board.

But in the event we went in for the AN-124, we could have it pressurized for the IAF provided sufficient numbers were ordered.
This is not beyond the capability of the designers albeit at the cost of a little more weight.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 26 Feb 2010 20:19

chetak wrote:
RayC wrote:Surprising that the aircraft is not pressurised. IL 76 is pressurised.

AN 32 is not pressurised and damn noisy. At the end of the journey, one can't hear a damn and the head pains!

Also, have a concern for the fatigue of the aircrew!! AN 32 also has a very high vibration level. All the instruments and avionics are mounted on tuned shock mounts.

With no pressurization the operating height is limited to 10,000 feet.

It can climb higher provided oxygen masks are provided to all on board.

But in the event we went in for the AN-124, we could have it pressurized for the IAF provided sufficient numbers were ordered.
This is not beyond the capability of the designers albeit at the cost of a little more weight.

The pilots cabin is always pressurised. Even An 12 pilots cabin was pressurised and senior officers were invited to sit there when being ferried from Chandigarh to Leh while others were in the cargo compartment! What a horrific experience!!

True, one could have ordered pressurisation if we went for it.

I wonder why we did not!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 26 Feb 2010 20:42

Rien wrote:The Russian/Ukrainian An-124 can carry 1.5 times heavier payload, cargo that is more than twice as large, and it can travel almost 1,500 km further than the C-17 with a similar load.

The question was never the An-124's raw payload/distance (strategic) capability

It was (and is) about it's tactical capability, its ability to operate from small fields surrounded by high mountains. Is it simply too big to get into a lot of places it would need to go?

Carrying all the payload in the world does you no good if you can't land it where it needs to go.

That said, the An-124's tactical capabilities appear to be decent, but I still would be slightly cautious about relying on a plane that big to go everywhere you need.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 26 Feb 2010 20:54

An-124 wont allow for tail gate jumping though. I wonder how equipment drops are done with An-124?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 26 Feb 2010 21:15

Tanaji wrote:An-124 wont allow for tail gate jumping though. I wonder how equipment drops are done with An-124?

The An-124 does indeed allow airdrops out the back

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 26 Feb 2010 21:57

I posted time and again why An-124 is our best option for a big lifter. An-124 is really cost effective and has a huge carrying advantage over C-17. It is also not obsolete by any standard.

They expect it to be in service for atleast the next 25-50 years. The British Ministry of defence has plans to lease more advanced version of An-124 with uprated engines and more lift.

a few lines from this canadian article comparing C-17 to An-124
http://www.casr.ca/id-antonov-2.htm

"The purchase price for the An-124-100 is about US $25M – approximately 15% of the C-17 purchase price (at an averaged US $185M ). But, the CF will need fewer An-124s than C-17s. So, based on cost and capacity, or a value comparison, the An-124-100 price is equivalent to 7.5% of the purchase price of a new Boeing C-17."

http://www.vectorsite.net/avantgt.html

The qualities of An-124

-- Is not uber expensive
-- hauls way more than C-17
-- has rough field landing capability
-- Can airdrop
-- production line is open , russian Airforce will receive about 20 of these giants http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... osti01.htm
-- Can probably haul an upgraded Arjun at 60 tons or may be it can lift 2 of them.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 26 Feb 2010 22:06

bhavani wrote: -- Is not uber expensive
. . .
-- production line is open , russian Airforce will receive about 20 of these giants http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... osti01.htm

A couple of cautions,

1. They have reached an agreement (possibly) to reopen the line, however the line is NOT open at the moment

2. Quoting from the article,

He said the cost to build one aircraft was around $200 million.

Which is about the same as a C-17.

And of course that's the estimate now, before any work has actually started on it. Expect that number to rise . . .

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 26 Feb 2010 22:33

A piece from the following Article

http://www.casr.ca/id-antonov-costs.htm

The total of newly-acquired An124-100s in last five years is eight aircraft. These airframes originated from either the KiGAZ “Aviant” (Kiev State Aircraft Plant) factory in Ukraine, or from Russia’s Aviastar-SP in Ulyanovsk (S.E. of Moscow).

1) The three new aircraft purchased from the Ukrainian KiGAZ “Aviant” plant.

• 2 x An-124-100, Libyan Air Cargo, purchased and delivered in 2001/2002.
Civil registration/construction numbers: 5A-DKL, c/n 19530502761/301 and
5A-DKN, c/n 19530502792/302.
Prices: at the level of US $22-to-$25 Million per aircraft

• 1 x An-124-100, United Arab Emirates, purchased and delivered in 2004
Civil registration/construction number: UR-ZYD [1], c/n 19530502843.
Price: final price of US $38 Million

So the average cost of acquiring this giant in the last few years has been around 38-40 million. If our dumb babus had purchased a small number 3-5 at a cost of around 200 million.

It would have added tremendously to our lift capability. which would given us the capability to lift a couple of T-90's to leh in a matter of hours. The main runway in Leh is 07L/25R which is 2,755m long and a An-124 can land easily on that.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 26 Feb 2010 23:17

bhavani wrote: • 1 x An-124-100, United Arab Emirates, purchased and delivered in 2004
Civil registration/construction number: UR-ZYD [1], c/n 19530502843.
Price: final price of US $38 Million

An interesting side note is that after purchasing 1 An-124, the UAE went on to buy SIX C-17s.

Many possible reasons for passing on additional An-124s, but interesting nonetheless.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 26 Feb 2010 23:26

bhavani

thats not the only criteria to determine if an AN124 can land in Leh.

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 27 Feb 2010 01:13

http://www.an124.com/an124-ruslan/an124-technical/

An excerpt from this link on An-124 techincal details

Maximum speed: 865 km/h (467 kn (537 mph))
Cruise speed: 750-850 km/h (430 kn (490 mph))
Range: 5,400 km (2,900 nm, 3,360 mi (5,410 km))
12,000 km with 40t
15,700 km maximum
Service ceiling 12,000 m (35,000 ft)
Cruise level 9,100-11,100 m
Wing loading: 365 kg/m² (74.7 lb/sq ft)
Thrust/weight: 0.41
Take-off run distance: 2,520m with normal take-off weight
3,000m with maximum take-off weight
Landing roll distance at max landing weight: 900 m
Required runway length: 3,000m

george

Regarding UAE purchase the Unkil's machinery has been trying its best for selling the C-17 but till now the going has been tough. The success of C-17 in exports compared to Il-76 or C-130J shows its real capabilities.

UAE's purchase has more to do with Politics than capabilities

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 27 Feb 2010 01:14

Surya,

I may be wrong in taking runway length as the only criteria, but would'nt you agree that it would have been a great idea to pick at least 3-5 An-124 at the price of 40 mil. It would greatly add to ur capabilities.

A blog on C-17

An Excerpt from the Blog about C-17's capability to land on unfinished runways

The C-17's Maximum landing Weight of 202.7 tonnes is spread out to 14 wheels (to average approx 14.48 tonnes per wheel)

The Il-76's Maximum landing Weight of 155 tonnes is spread out to 20 wheels (to average approx 7.75 tonnes per wheel)

(To compare with what is known in the "West", the C-130H Hercules, with its Max landing weight of 59 tonnes spread out to 6 wheels, comes out to 9.83 tonnes per wheel. The CF's CC-150 Polaris, which is a converted A-310-304, has a 10 wheels and a Maximum Landing Weight of 124 tonnes: that comes out to 12.4 tonnes per wheel, so very close to the Boeing C-17's footprint !. You can check the scientific numbers, called Aircraft Loading Tables on Transport Canada's website )

so the whole deal of C-17 being able to land on lots of runways is just plain false.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 27 Feb 2010 10:16

Talking about AN-124

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 27 Feb 2010 11:11

>>>The C-17's Maximum landing Weight of 202.7 tonnes is spread out to 14 wheels (to average approx 14.48 tonnes per wheel)

>>>The Il-76's Maximum landing Weight of 155 tonnes is spread out to 20 wheels (to average approx 7.75 tonnes per wheel)

This is exactly what I had mentioned in one of the posts few pages before in the same thread..

It only needs some basic engineering knowledge and common sense to distinguish between bluff and truth - no need to have vast experience on strategic airlift. No need to get into the aircraft as well.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Feb 2010 11:18

bhavani

I don;t know. We do not know what the IAF is looking for.

Is it a specific airlift ability?
Is it range?
Is it a long term plan to safeguard against an iffy supply chain?
or is it toaugment??

Thats the frustration of the whole argument

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Feb 2010 11:43

landing in Leh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZpZ5RDUglE

Ladakhi flight and approach Leh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_JWNKa-6F8&NR=1

IAF Transport Jet On Final Descent to LEH Airbase
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y3gv7m0 ... re=related

This can happen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X_7Xt2g ... re=related

Crazy Landing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHmrcCfd ... re=related
Not to sure if it is Leh, but it looks it.

Nubra Valley - Hunder, Leh - Ladakh, India
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo5onZnp ... re=related
Just for info.

Landing in Leh is not that easy because of the mountains over which the circuit has to be done and also the high crosswind, apart from the air density.

I am sorry I don't know how to 'patch' youtube onto a thread. I have tried everything and checked in preview and it comes out as blank!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Feb 2010 11:56

Surya wrote:bhavani

I don;t know. We do not know what the IAF is looking for.

Is it a specific airlift ability?
Is it range?
Is it a long term plan to safeguard against an iffy supply chain?
or is it toaugment??

Thats the frustration of the whole argument

True on does not know the Air Force Requirement.

However, it is not frustrating since such information cannot be shared with the general public for obvious reasons.

One can only conjecture.

1. The Para Bde is a strategic asset. I am sure there are plans for the same in the War Book maintain at the DHQ. They have to be lifted with minimum number of aircraft so that they can be delivered quickly and get activated in the shortest period of time.

2. In a mobile op, there might be a requirement for an Airhead. Larger and less aircraft can not only ensure that the same is secured at the earliest with adequate troops inserted at one time, but also airland or airdrop adequate war matériel at the shortest span of time.

3. In ops like supporting Siachen troops, a large aircraft that can operate on rough and ready airfield or on PSP would be more economical since the payload will be more and fuel consumption less as only one aircraft in comparison to many would be employed. Maintenance and other allied factors would also be less and the loading and unloading less cumbersome, time consuming and by deploying less personnel for the tasks at both the loading and unloading points.

4. In a two front war, switching forces would be easier and faster if there was large aircrafts with longer range than many smaller ones and it would be economical.

5. Moving large cargo at one time for natural calamities or assistance to foreign govts in similar situations.

6. Transporting UN forces of Indian contingent with less number of aircrafts.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 27 Feb 2010 12:05

the main reason for selecting C-17 is to allow interoperability between Indian and us special forces including change of aircrew - ammo everything seamlessly and not on technical nitty gritty -sooner or later we will have to join us forces in Afganistan -that is the real price for the nuclear deal we have signed

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Feb 2010 12:16

Shankar wrote:the main reason for selecting C-17 is to allow interoperability between Indian and us special forces including change of aircrew - ammo everything seamlessly and not on technical nitty gritty -sooner or later we will have to join us forces in Afganistan -that is the real price for the nuclear deal we have signed

I am sure you have good reasons to believe so.

My here is my take:

So we change the fighter, helicopter and armed helciopter fleet also for interoperability?

We must give the Air Force some modicum intelligence, if nothing else.

Special Forces don't require to be airdropped in Brigade Loads or have airdrops that C 17 can deliver!

Must we not think strategic!

US will think twice of India joining in the Afghanistan effort. Pakistan will just cut off all cooperation and the US needs them badly!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Feb 2010 13:26

Shankar wrote:the main reason for selecting C-17 is to allow interoperability between Indian and us special forces including change of aircrew - ammo everything seamlessly and not on technical nitty gritty -sooner or later we will have to join us forces in Afganistan -that is the real price for the nuclear deal we have signed

You have hit the nail on the head.

We will be paying for their free ride.

Its obama economics and theories on outsourcing.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Feb 2010 13:30

RayC wrote:Surprising that the aircraft is not pressurised. IL 76 is pressurised.

AN 32 is not pressurised and damn noisy. At the end of the journey, one can't hear a damn and the head pains!

RayC,

I have to confirm that the AN 32 is fully pressurized.

The IL-76 is also capable of differential pressurization and temperature in the cockpit and cargo area.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Feb 2010 13:56

RayC wrote:
Shankar wrote:the main reason for selecting C-17 is to allow interoperability between Indian and us special forces including change of aircrew - ammo everything seamlessly and not on technical nitty gritty -sooner or later we will have to join us forces in Afganistan -that is the real price for the nuclear deal we have signed
I am sure you have good reasons to believe so.

My here is my take:

So we change the fighter, helicopter and armed helciopter fleet also for interoperability?

Interoperability does not mean only hardware saar.

We seem to be in the process of signing some communications and logistics agreement and other protocols with the amrekis.

All this goes towards the interoperability business.

The GOI has a great many ways of fooling its people.

Remember how during the gulf war, a very great brouhaha was made about amreki cargo planes refueling in Bombay?

The GOI "bowed" to the wishes of the "people" (commies mostly) and its vote banks by summarily forbidding the amreki cargo planes from refueling at Santacruz. Macho tigers!! The commie lot would definitely have received a hefty payoff.

The amrekis meekly accepted and refueled in colombo, instead!!

The actual issue, not disclosed by the GOI, was one of OVERFLIGHT by american military planes over Indian territory and not simple refueling in Bombay.

If the amrekis had to avoid Indian territory all together, their payload would would have drastically reduced because of increased fuel burn and block times would have increased very significantly resulting in a much greater air effort to deliver the same payload.

They were very glad to refuel in colombo anyway because the turn around times there are much faster as facilities are significantly better. ( Not to mention better opportunities for R&R compared to staid Bombay!!)

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 27 Feb 2010 14:02

I am sure you have good reasons to believe so.

My here is my take:

So we change the fighter, helicopter and armed helciopter fleet also for interoperability?

We must give the Air Force some modicum intelligence, if nothing else.

Special Forces don't require to be airdropped in Brigade Loads or have airdrops that C 17 can deliver!

Must we not think strategic!

US will think twice of India joining in the Afghanistan effort. Pakistan will just cut off all cooperation and the US needs them badly!

that will come if we follow the same policy

we will know for sure when MRCA deal is finalized
if it f-16/18 well then you dont need any further argument
if typhoon or Rafael even then they are standard NATO type so no problem

recently if I am not mistaken euro copter deal was canceled -so bell can bid may be

US forces are now routinely training on Mi 17 /Il 76 with our paras

US knows they will need our support if they are to win Afghanistan -so allowed nuclear deal to go through - that is allowed us to buy from Russia and France the equipment and some classified technology

If you look at US special forces /MATO special forces operation they use C-17 type to set up a base in a nearby country and then use C-130 type to do the actual insertion /operation with armed helicopter /fixed wing support from carriers

we have already the C-130J which us special forces are quite familiar with .

extending the logic P-8 are on their way in which are fully compatible to operate with us carrier groups and will be used for blockade /maritime patrol of the Indian ocean /Persian gulf region .Also this will allow us effectively support the USN aircraft and USAF aircraft in Indian bases far from Afghanistan

Pakistan will cease to be any importance to US once we come on board -Afganistan will be the main springboard of action - expect this to happen in less than a year

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Feb 2010 15:30

Shankar wrote:
Pakistan will cease to be any importance to US once we come on board -Afganistan will be the main springboard of action - expect this to happen in less than a year

The amrekis want to eat their cake and have it too. They have their hooks too deep into our neighbor to let go without violent backlash on the US mainland.

They will string along the pakis, arm them and (arm us too) to keep us in check while they (the amrekis) go about their oil grabbing business.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 Feb 2010 15:38

GeorgeWelch wrote:
bhavani wrote: • 1 x An-124-100, United Arab Emirates, purchased and delivered in 2004
Civil registration/construction number: UR-ZYD [1], c/n 19530502843.
Price: final price of US $38 Million
An interesting side note is that after purchasing 1 An-124, the UAE went on to buy SIX C-17s.

Many possible reasons for passing on additional An-124s, but interesting nonetheless.

Maximus Airline from the UAE bought an An-124 (the last new one that was delivered I think). The 6 C-17s are ordered by the UAE Air Force. Two unrelated purchases since the C-17 is not certified as a civilian aircraft and cannot do what Maximus does with its An-124.

But you knew that GeorgeWelch. That was a cheap shot

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 Feb 2010 15:57

bhavani wrote: 1) The three new aircraft purchased from the Ukrainian KiGAZ “Aviant” plant.

• 2 x An-124-100, Libyan Air Cargo, purchased and delivered in 2001/2002.
Civil registration/construction numbers: 5A-DKL, c/n 19530502761/301 and
5A-DKN, c/n 19530502792/302.
Prices: at the level of US $22-to-$25 Million per aircraft

• 1 x An-124-100, United Arab Emirates, purchased and delivered in 2004
Civil registration/construction number: UR-ZYD [1], c/n 19530502843.
Price: final price of US $38 Million[/i]

So the average cost of acquiring this giant in the last few years has been around 38-40 million. If our dumb babus had purchased a small number 3-5 at a cost of around 200 million.

It would have added tremendously to our lift capability. which would given us the capability to lift a couple of T-90's to leh in a matter of hours. The main runway in Leh is 07L/25R which is 2,755m long and a An-124 can land easily on that.

Although those prices are all correct, these aircraft were all completed with previously manufactured fuselages that had been sitting there for years. That is why they were so cheap. Try buying any of those aircraft today from Maximus Airlines (UAE), or Lybian Arab cargo and see how much they ask for them.
Except for an AN-225 fuselage wich is still in an Antonov hangar in Kiev, there are no more of them to be completed. Any new An-124 will have to be built from scratch.
Its also why the IL-76-90 at 50 million is a bargain. Once the TAPO factory in Tashkent runs out of IL-76 fuselages and has to build IL-76s from scratch, the price will double or triple, which is why I am surprised companies dont fight each other to buy those that are left. There are no western aircraft of that size that can be purchased in the world for commercial purposes......

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Feb 2010 16:21

Gilles wrote: Its also why the IL-76-90 at 50 million is a bargain. Once the TAPO factory in Tashkent runs out of IL-76 fuselages and has to build IL-76s from scratch, the price will double or triple, which is why I am surprised companies dont fight each other to buy those that are left. There are no western aircraft of that size that can be purchased in the world for commercial purposes......

Gilles ji,

IL-76s are unwelcome in very many western airports because they are noisy and cannot fulfill the legal noise abatement requirements.

They are not permitted to land.

I remember the first time the IAF IL-76 went to the US via japan, they were not allowed to land in japan.It was only after much diplomatic pressure that the permission came through. It was primarily because of the noise to which the japs objected.

Incidentally that was the also the first time ever a non US military aircraft of any description was allowed land in japan.

The IL-76 generally services the gulf and african markets among others where noise is seldom the issue.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Feb 2010 16:32

^ Boss was that with older IL-76 versions powered with Soloviev D-30 non after burning LBP TF (the AF version powers the Mig-31

). The newer one's as IAF's AWACS are powered by quieter HBP TF Aviadvigatel PS-90 . And then IL-76 is a military transport AC .

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Feb 2010 18:05

chetak wrote:

RayC,

I have to confirm that the AN 32 is fully pressurized.

The IL-76 is also capable of differential pressurization and temperature in the cockpit and cargo area.

I have flown in AN 32 in the cargo hold and I can assure you that it was not pressurised.

It is what is genuine cattle class, though better than An 12 or Fairchild Packet.

I have flown in IL 76 too and I can assure you that it was pressured.

I have flown in most military aircraft extensively as also commercial. I would like to believe I understand what is a pressurised compartment.

I am told that the Ukrainian variety of An 32 is pressurised. We have only the USSR variety to the best of my knowledge.

Experience is believing!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Feb 2010 18:19

US knows they will need our support if they are to win Afghanistan -so allowed nuclear deal to go through - that is allowed us to buy from Russia and France the equipment and some classified technology

What is the help the US expects of us?

If you look at US special forces /MATO special forces operation they use C-17 type to set up a base in a nearby country and then use C-130 type to do the actual insertion /operation with armed helicopter /fixed wing support from carriers

That is the Airhead concept in a way and it is not SF centric alone!

1. A designated area in a hostile or threatened territory which, when seized and held, ensures the continuous air landing of troops and materiel and provides the manoeuvre space necessary for projected operations. Normally it is the area seized in the assault phase of an airborne operation.

2. A designated location in an area of operations used as a base for supply and evacuation by air.

Airhead has become a significant part of nearly all contingency operations. Operations Urgent Fury, Just Cause, Desert Shield/Storm, Restore Hope, among others, demonstrate the airhead's criticality in almost every phase of mission execution. It is, therefore, essential for potential participants in any contingency, be it a low-intensity conflict, humanitarian, or any other form of force projection, to possess a conceptual understanding of the airhead, as it applies to air mobility operations.

In wars with our adversaries, if push comes to shove this concept will have to be used to reduce the logistic turn around.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Feb 2010 18:41

RayC one of the crazy landing is not Leh. the plane is AA=american airlines. could be somewhere in
south america or usa itself.

btw does anyone know how AN32 carries and releases that meaty stick of six bombs?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Feb 2010 18:51

Singha wrote:RayC one of the crazy landing is not Leh. the plane is AA=american airlines. could be somewhere in
south america or usa itself.

btw does anyone know how AN32 carries and releases that meaty stick of six bombs?

IIRC, I did wonder if it was Leh.

However, I have flown many a time to and from Leh and such type of buffeting is not unusual.

In the Youtube stuff one would feel that there is enough space between the hills when the circuit is done, but in real life, it is too close for comfort. I felt it more so when we came in by chartered commercial aircraft.

Interestingly, the aircrafts carried less passengers than capacity!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Feb 2010 19:34

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, longrange, and ease of operation.

IAF was looking at acquiring 10C 17S initially through the US Government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, and that 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.

At present India has less than 20 IL 76 Soviet-era aircraft for strategic lift, but they were acquired two decades ago. The requirement for today is for technologically better, easier to maintain and a larger number of aircraft due to the strategic scenario around India and the need to ferry troops, men and material even within India in times of contingency.

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

An IL 76 has a crew of six plus gunner in the tail.

Despite its massive size - 174 ft length, 55 ft height and about 170 ft wingspan - a pilot can fly the aircraft with simple joystick, much like a fighter aircraft which can be life saving in a battlezone as the aircraft can take off quickly and at step angles. It is powered by four Pratt & Whitney F-11-7-PW-100 turbofan engines.

The C 17 is the mainstay of the US forces for worldwide deployment and can be refueled midair. It is in fact the lifeline of US and NATO troops deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Boeing has brought the aircraft several times to India for its literal catwalk on IAF tarmacs, including Aero India 2007 and 2009 in Bangalore. Indian Military Officials and journalists have been invited for the aircraft's fighter displays during the Paris Air Show beginning June 15.

According to Boeing Company, the high wing, 4-engine, multi-service T-tailed military transport C 17 can carry large equipment including tanks, supplies and troops directly to small airfield in harsh terrain anywhere in the world day or night.

The massive, sturdy, long-haul aircraft tackles distance, destination and heavy, oversized payloads in unpredictable conditions. It has delivered Cargo in every worldwide operation since 1990's. It can take off from 7,600 ft airfield, carry a payload of 16,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight for longer range, and land in 3,000 ft or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield day or night.

The aircraft can also be used as aerial ambulance.

The cost of aircraft is not available but according to published reports, it was $ 237 million in 2007.

C 17 for IAF

What's up?

Good or Bad?

All I say is that any transport ac which land quickly on a short runway and takes off fast and hence stays in the combat Z for the minimum time is good.

C 17 does that? IL 76 does that? Which ac does that?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Feb 2010 19:41

thanks rayc

so now we have the reason

hopefully that answers some critics

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 27 Feb 2010 21:31

why don't the forces demand that the C-17 landing gear have increased number of wheels so that point load can be reduced? you do that with indigenous products, Arjun is over weight, existing bridges and rail wagons cannot carry it and what not?

why do they want to screw with the existing runways then? what's with hiding the cost of improving and maintaining that infrastructure especially with the remote ALG's?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Feb 2010 22:13

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, longrange, and ease of operation.

I think that should pretty much end the debate.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Feb 2010 23:00

vasu_ray wrote:why don't the forces demand that the C-17 landing gear have increased number of wheels so that point load can be reduced? you do that with indigenous products, Arjun is over weight, existing bridges and rail wagons cannot carry it and what not?

why do they want to screw with the existing runways then? what's with hiding the cost of improving and maintaining that infrastructure especially with the remote ALG's?

We will not be allowed to change anything on the aircraft because of the "C-17 Global Sustainment Partnership", meaning that they (US) want IAF C-17s to be of american standardization, with american equipment, engines and avionics so that the aircraft integrates seamlessly with their own system and can be called upon, nay summoned, in emergencies.

The US will also be able to charge us a bomb for modifications not required, wanted or even useful to the IAF. Such development costs will be fully offset by SDRE customers. Free ride on the financial shoulders of our economy.

For the pakis, everything is free of course.

War on Terror is very important onlee.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 28 Feb 2010 00:25

chetak wrote:
IL-76s are unwelcome in very many western airports because they are noisy and cannot fulfill the legal noise abatement requirements.

They are not permitted to land.

I remember the first time the IAF IL-76 went to the US via japan, they were not allowed to land in japan.It was only after much diplomatic pressure that the permission came through. It was primarily because of the noise to which the japs objected.

Incidentally that was the also the first time ever a non US military aircraft of any description was allowed land in japan.

The IL-76 generally services the gulf and african markets among others where noise is seldom the issue.

That is true only of older D-30 powered Il-76 and IL-78 such as those of the IAF. After 2006, Ilyushin began delivering PS-90 powered Il-76 which meet all ICAO chapter IV noise and pollution standards http://www.avid.ru/eng/products/civil/PS-90A-76/. These can fly into every single country in the world. India's new A-50 AWACS is one such aircraft. In addition, Ilyushin and Perm engine company offer a retrofit program allowing D-30 powered IL-76 to be re-engined with PS-90s, thus meeting ICAO Chapter IV requirements. Volga Dnepr already has 2 PS-90 powered IL-76s, and Silk Way Airlines also has 2 of them. The Russian Air Force has begun a retofit program to upgrade D-30 powered IL-76 to PS-90. India can too and should, especially IL-78s, which are much newer than the Il-76s and at 210 tonnes, take off at 20 tonnes higher gross weight than the IL-76s with the same engines. They can sure use the new engines.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 28 Feb 2010 00:33

vasu_ray wrote:why don't the forces demand that the C-17 landing gear have increased number of wheels so that point load can be reduced? you do that with indigenous products, Arjun is over weight, existing bridges and rail wagons can not carry it and what not?

why do they want to screw with the existing runways then? what's with hiding the cost of improving and maintaining that infrastructure especially with the remote ALG's?

Boeing has such an aircraft on the drawing board, with an extra center under-fuselage landing gear. Its called the C-17B.

You see, they are well aware of their "little secret". They are waiting funding to start the program.