Transport Aircraft for IAF

[NRao]

But to think that it will take Arjuns to ALGs or operate from unpaved ALGs regularly is frankly asking too much ... All I am asking is that we should set our expectations right.

No problem.

I would like to get to know what your idea is about a C-17 using an Indian ALG, specifically?

Can it use it at all? Use it with 25% load, 50%, 75%...? And, perhaps, how many times (per whatever you decide - day/week/month/year). What is your idea of "set our expectations right"? You seem to agree that the C-17 can take an Arjun (as an example only) to an ALG push-comes-to-shove. Am I right?

TIA.

[Austin]

The C-17 take off and landing video of Afghanistan is indeed impressive.

Did the IAF actually landed or took off with the C-17 at an Indian ALG as part of trials with useful load ?

[Singha]

from pix of the indian C130 we had known it was the stretched 130J-30 model because the floor base is longer before the ramp begins. all of them were equipped with special ops gear (incl replacements for the cases where cismoa etc meant we did not want the american kit). so while its not the exact MC130J that their socom has, its adequate for para/SF unit ops in all sorts of weather and AGL one hopes. in a cargo role it would have the highest volume of the variants as noted.

we should lay in around 52 of the cargo -30 version but equipped with night flying kit and doppler weather radar for flying into the mountains in rain, snow and fog....to operate upto the ALGs in all weather. these could supplement the upg AN32 and equip 4 squadrons of 12 each and 4 for training command. looking at american production rates, they could likely deliver everything in a 5 yrs timeframe...we could form a new squadron every yr.

[Rahul M]

we would need to scrap the MTA to fund that.

[Prasad]

Isn't the MTA as yet only on paper with absolutely no work being done towards it at all?

[Sanku]

Sanku,

Take a look at this video and there is plenty of open source material to add to this on the C-17 and ALG. It might make more sense before you post something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfI4gSz4RJk

Let me add:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnc_w2X ... re=related

The IAF is not run by a bunch of idiots. There is a reason why this plane was purchased and no matter the arm chair analysis that goes on this forum, ultimately, they know what they are doing.

Sorry boss, you are late to the party. What is that video? What does it say?

What was the load of the a/c? How many sorties? What runway length?

Does any one have answer to the question?

Did the IAF actually landed or took off with the C-17 at an Indian ALG as part of trials with useful load ?

The problem is not that IAF is run by idiots, the problem is that the country is run by those who seem to show a disproportionate interest in serving US intrests over ours.

Weapon purchases are as much political decisions as functional right.

There are idiots too no doubt but they are elsewhere.

[vic]

I think I need to clarify as to what I am saying about MRTA.

First, I want to point out that MRTA is not in the category of An-32. It is around 4 times larger aircraft.
Now if IAF categorically states that it does not need An-32 type aircraft then it is end of discussion. But the reference to replacement of Avro basically means that we still need An-32 category aircraft. This need is also demonstrated by interest in C-27 by various wings of Indian Para military and Military forces.
The replacement of Avro, An-32 would be C-27, CASA, An-140 or IL-112.
Turboprop 50-70 seater RTA would have been near that category but this design has been scrapped in favor of 70-100 seater NCA.
Which leads us back to the issue that we still need 20 ton MTOW aircraft. We should start developing now so that there is no crisis 10 years down the road.
Second issue I wanted to make that for better rough field handling and landing on forward airfields on Chinese border heavier turboprop makes better sense and MRTA is more suitable to Russian environment. We need to 4 engine turboprop version of MRTA.

[Austin]

First, I want to point out that MRTA is not in the category of An-32. It is around 4 times larger aircraft.

IAF could have decided to rationalise its transport fleet and come to 18 - 20T figure as most appropriate for its need , there is also a question of serviceability and uptimes , if the An-32 can give you a uptime of 60 to 70 % and MRTA around 90 % then you can do more with less.

So a replacepment for An-32 need not be another An-32 class.

Now if IAF categorically states that it does not need An-32 type aircraft then it is end of discussion.

Actually it was stated by HAL chairman in interviews to Force magazine.

Turboprop 50-70 seater RTA would have been near that category but this design has been scrapped in favor of 70-100 seater NCA.

Civilian and Military needs do go hand in hand , NCA is not dictated by IAF needs else it might fail before it starts

MRTA is more suitable to Russian environment. We need to 4 engine turboprop version of MRTA.

How is that so that something is more suitable for Russia and not for India when its a JV based on needs of both Airforce , it might then just be the case that An-70 might be more suitable for IAF then for RuAF since its 4 engine turboprop

[Austin]

The problem is not that IAF is run by idiots, the problem is that the country is run by those who seem to show a disproportionate interest in serving US intrests over ours.

Weapon purchases are as much political decisions as functional right.

There are idiots too no doubt but they are elsewhere.

Obviously the C-17 decision has a political dimension to it , else there were more urgent deal in the words of IAF like AJT that took 20 years and MMRCA thats 10 years and going strong, C-17 in that background ( i never heard any IAF chief say there was urgent need for large transport aircraft ) had a much smooter approach if you look at our procurement procedure and time lines for big ticket purchase.

Having said that I am not opposed to C-17 deal as long as its not thrust upon the IAF , what i am more keen to know is does C-17 meets the needs of the IAF like its ability to land at ALG with useful loads did they test that in trials in India ? ) and other requirements of a large transport aircraft

[arnab]

Having said that I am not opposed to C-17 deal as long as its not thrust upon the IAF , what i am more keen to know is does C-17 meets the needs of the IAF like its ability to land at ALG with useful loads did they test that in trials in India ? ) and other requirements of a large transport aircraft

I think the ACM did say that tests were conducted by the IAF at ALGs and high altitude airfields. He is on record saying that the IAF needs the C-17s (unless he is also pushing US interests, in which case why bother ).

However here is the USAF tests on the C-17s capabilities in semi prepared airfields like Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan

AMC testing for semi prepared runway ops increases C-17's deployed capabilities

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123169948

This summer, AMC officials conducted SPRO testing at numerous undisclosed locations around the world using the C-17 platform. In their results, they found the C-17 is able to take off and land on 65 percent of the world's soils, whereas previously it was only able to take off and land on 6 percent.

Testing also evaluated C-17 takeoffs and landings in dry and various wet conditions, and increased the aircraft's operating weight capacity by 41,000 pounds.

(a bit more than a moongphali, I imagine )

[vic]

I think I need to clarify as to what I am saying about MRTA.

First, I want to point out that MRTA is not in the category of An-32. It is around 4 times larger aircraft.
Now if IAF categorically states that it does not need An-32 type aircraft then it is end of discussion. But the reference to replacement of Avro by IAF Chief through Private Sector led JV basically means that we still need An-32 category aircraft. This need is also demonstrated by interest in C-27 by various wings of Indian Para military and Military forces.
The replacement of Avro, An-32 would be C-27, CASA, An-140 or IL-112.
Turboprop 50-70 seater RTA would have been near that category but this design has been scrapped in favor of 70-100 seater NCA.
Which leads us back to the issue that we still need 20 ton MTOW aircraft. We should start developing now so that there is no crisis 10 years down the road.
Second issue I wanted to make that for better rough field handling and landing on forward airfields on Chinese border heavier turboprop makes better sense and MRTA is more suitable to Russian environment. We need to 4 engine turboprop version of MRTA.

Pls see bold part. It is difficult to believe that with 150 An-32/Avros, IAF will not need this category of aircraft in future and has a doctrine which is different from Russia, USA, Europe, NATO, China etc. Argument that Bigger aircraft will mean less sorties is like saying that all bikes and cars should be replaced by trucks. Both are required.

My Argument in favor of Turboprop MRTA is given above

[Austin]

Look a replacement for An-32 need not be an exact An-32 spec , Much like a replacement for Mig-21 is not an exact Mig-21 specd aircraft , it could be some thing else like the LCA.

IAF must have done a cost/benefit analysis to arrive at an appropriate tonnage of aircraft needed to replace the An-32 and that tonnage could be in the range of 18 to 20 tons , it is possible that a higher sortie and availability rate coupled with lager tonnage will compensate of the number and reduce the types operated.

About the Avro replacement let us see when it reaches the MOD table and when there is an approval for that type , knowing our procurement policy it may never happen or it could happen after 2 decades.

[Sanku]

Having said that I am not opposed to C-17 deal as long as its not thrust upon the IAF , what i am more keen to know is does C-17 meets the needs of the IAF like its ability to land at ALG with useful loads did they test that in trials in India ? ) and other requirements of a large transport aircraft

I think the ACM did say that tests were conducted by the IAF at ALGs and high altitude airfields. He is on record saying that the IAF needs the C-17s (unless he is also pushing US interests, in which case why bother ).

You have a reference for that?

[Sanku]

This summer, AMC officials conducted SPRO testing at numerous undisclosed locations around the world using the C-17 platform. In their results, they found the C-17 is able to take off and land on 65 percent of the world's soils, whereas previously it was only able to take off and land on 6 percent.

Testing also evaluated C-17 takeoffs and landings in dry and various wet conditions, and increased the aircraft's operating weight capacity by 41,000 pounds.

(a bit more than a moongphali, I imagine )

This still does not mean much. It is one thing to carry out a certification run in 2009 (after 30 years+ of its life) claiming that C 17 can use 65% of worlds soil (as opposed to piddly 6% earlier) and to actually meaningfully deploy C 17s in that role.

As discussed numerous times before, the ground pressure of a C 17 tears up most unprepared surfaces very quickly -- hence the plane can be made to jump through hoops to obtain a certification but is pointless as far as practical deployment is concerned.

Also C 17 can land on such airstrips at massive cost to maintenance of the a/c in terms of extra loading and stresses, FOD and what not.

So not only such operation damage the airfield, they damage the aircrafts.

Net-net this is a purely academic exercise -- quite like the examples quoted where in Canada Boeing/US jumped hoops to take C 17 for one victory run on a remote icy airfield, had a horrid time doing it, and after they did it at great pains, declared yet another magical capability of C 17 -- which they never used again.


C 17s are not meaningfully deployed in any other role than carrying large amounts of cargo over very large distances (longer than any practical distance within India) -- it is a dumb truck to service large far flung expeditionary nodes of US -- and that is its only meaningful role.

[Austin]

Now the IAF might have interest in this Stealthy C-130 successor link

[Indranil]

C 17s are not meaningfully deployed in any other role than carrying large amounts of cargo over very large distances (longer than any practical distance within India) -- it is a dumb truck to service large far flung expeditionary nodes of US -- and that is its only meaningful role.

Not entirely true Sankuji, the C-17 truly has STOL capabilities, it has design elements specifically for STOL ... I will list the prominent ones:
1. The C-17s use externally blown flaps ... this enormously increases lift decreases approach speeds ... the effect is somewhat similar (and albeit much stronger) to that of turboprop planes being able to increase lift by just increasing thrust ... I know of only the A380 other than the C-17s (in their weight category) which have strong enough flaps to do this. In those conditions the coefficient of lift is almost double of that seen on conventional jet transport planes. It is not easy to build blown flaps for planes with engines of this thrust.

2. The ability of the C-17s to use thrust reversers in flight at idle-reverse for added drag can lead to extreme descent-rates. This is critical for our ALG operations.

3. Very strong landing gear which is able to withstand 15 feet/sec sink rate.

All these are going to be very important criteria in deciding the load that the C-17s can carry into ALGs. So India does need planes like C-17s.

P.S.
1. It obviously holds the record of Short TakeOff and Landing (STOL) mark in which the C-17 took off in less than 1,400 feet (427m), carried a payload of 44,000 pounds (19,958kg) to altitude, and landed in less than 1,400 feet (427m).

2. Nearer to home as part of the IAF FET, a C-17 did fly in and out of Gaggal airport (4500 feet runway which only handles turboprops).

[Indranil]

Also, I have no reason to believe why The C-17 can not be used to transport T-90s and Arjuns as roll-on and roll-off to well prepared runways and at heights where their weight is within the design payload limit of the C-17s.

Having said that I am all with you Sankuji when you say, "please leave out the austere field crap" ... I mean yes the C-17s can be flown in there ... but for all practical reasons NOBODY would fly the C-17s or any plane of that size regularly onto those strips unless he has fields of gold or that he has absolutely no other option.

[Sanku]

C 17s are not meaningfully deployed in any other role than carrying large amounts of cargo over very large distances (longer than any practical distance within India) -- it is a dumb truck to service large far flung expeditionary nodes of US -- and that is its only meaningful role.

Not entirely true Sankuji, the C-17 truly has STOL capabilities, it has design elements specifically for STOL ... I will list the prominent ones:.

I have "design abilities" to be the PM of India (not the Manmohan variety though) -- what are the chances of my being the PM?

So yes, we agree

all practical reasons NOBODY would fly the C-17s or any plane of that size regularly onto those strips unless he has fields of gold or that he has absolutely no other option.

[Indranil]

I have "design abilities" to be the PM of India (not the Manmohan variety though) -- what are the chances of my being the PM?

If your only arguments are tangential examples, then let us just say that the argument is settled in favour of your logic and move on.

[Sanku]

I have "design abilities" to be the PM of India (not the Manmohan variety though) -- what are the chances of my being the PM?

If your only arguments are tangential examples, then let us just say that the argument is settled in favour of your logic and move on.

Cant one make a pun now then? What?

[Indranil]

If your only arguments are tangential examples, then let us just say that the argument is settled in favour of your logic and move on.

Cant one make a pun now then? What?

Sorry

Anyways my take on C-17s are:
1. I believe India would do well to get the C-17s as a reliable and available heavy lifter.
2. C-17s STOL performance will come in handy at ALGs with paved runways (the long legs of the plane would be helpful for not needing to refuel at the ALGs)
3. C-17s will give us the option to carry armour easily (through roll-on and roll-off) in times of contingency.
4. We should not expect C-17s to operate from ALGs with unpaved runways on a regular basis.

[Hitesh]

Not entirely true Sankuji, the C-17 truly has STOL capabilities, it has design elements specifically for STOL ... I will list the prominent ones:.

I have "design abilities" to be the PM of India (not the Manmohan variety though) -- what are the chances of my being the PM?

[/quote]

Again your astounding "logic' is on display. Care to share any more nuggets of your "wisdom"?

Try to give Boeing engineers more credit. After all they are much more grounded in reality than you give them credit for.

[Sanku]

Not entirely true Sankuji, the C-17 truly has STOL capabilities, it has design elements specifically for STOL ... I will list the prominent ones:.

I have "design abilities" to be the PM of India (not the Manmohan variety though) -- what are the chances of my being the PM?

Again your astounding "logic' is on display. Care to share any more nuggets of your "wisdom"?

Try to give Boeing engineers more credit. After all they are much more grounded in reality than you give them credit for.[/quote]

I am tired of folks stalking me around because they get crossed on other threads. Dont take being corrected personally, that way you will never learn.

For example here what is the relationship of Boeing engineers to Marketing yarns and trying to find suitable "friends" to bless with wares (for a fee of course)? Have you no exposure to a large mil-ind corporates and the games of international "persuasion"

Kindly avoid trying to create a argument for the sake of proving personal points, if need be with bizarre points.

=================

And learn to understand puns as well.

[Anant]

Hitesh,

He's done the same thing in other threads also, the nuclear one comes to mind. I just ignore that cognitive dissonance. The basic thesis of this thread is five fold: 1) The C-17 is overrated. 2) It cannot possibly do the job advertised (although there is ample evidence to rebut this hypothesis). 3) Russian planes like the IL-76 and its successor are cheaper, equally capable and available. 4) The US is a untrustworthy ally and therefore we cannot and should not buy American equipment. Add to this, someone in upper echelons of the Indian Government or Indian Air Force received kickbacks. 5) The Russians are omniscient, true friends of India and would never ever do anything untowards India and practice good faith and fair dealing. It pretty much encapsulates where this thread is going.

[Sanku]

Hitesh,

He's done the same thing in other threads also, the nuclear one comes to mind. I just ignore that cognitive dissonance. The basic thesis of this thread is five fold: 1) The C-17 is overrated. 2) It cannot possibly do the job advertised (although there is ample evidence to rebut this hypothesis). 3) Russian planes like the IL-76 and its successor are cheaper, equally capable and available. 4) The US is a untrustworthy ally and therefore we cannot and should not buy American equipment. Add to this, someone in upper echelons of the Indian Government or Indian Air Force received kickbacks. 5) The Russians are omniscient, true friends of India and would never ever do anything untowards India and practice good faith and fair dealing. It pretty much encapsulates where this thread is going.

I am glad you got most of the message, allow me to correct a few things you have still not gotten

2) It cannot possibly do the job advertised (although there is ample evidence to rebut this hypothesis)

There is ZERO evidence. ZERO.

Unless the person happens to be a Boeing salesman, they may have the "evidence" that is necessary.

Add to this, someone in upper echelons of the Indian Government or Indian Air Force received kickbacks

Tcchhh Kickbacks are passes this is not done for kickbacks, there are bigger games, and I have not said IAF has any role in it, other than jumping with joy when GoI suggested if they wanted more hardware.

From IAFs perspective, it is perfectly fine to have expensive white elephants now rather than wait for the right hardware after 15 years of trials. I dont blame them -- if I was in IAF I would make the same choice. But I am not, and hence can pontificate on the bigger picture.

5) The Russians are omniscient, true friends of India and would never ever do anything untowards India and practice good faith and fair dealing

Incorrect, in my view Russians are muddling through a fairly significant crises, pretty much like most of the world right now.

Also there are now true friends or enemies in the politics of power -- but yes, there is substantial congruence of interest with them which is missing elsewhere.

And only a fool believes in "good faith and fair dealings" when it comes to such matter. And ditto for bringing it up as a possible issue either which way.

[Cosmo_R]

Hitesh,

He's done the same thing in other threads also, the nuclear one comes to mind. I just ignore that cognitive dissonance. The basic thesis of this thread is five fold: 1) The C-17 is overrated. 2) It cannot possibly do the job advertised (although there is ample evidence to rebut this hypothesis). 3) Russian planes like the IL-76 and its successor are cheaper, equally capable and available. 4) The US is a untrustworthy ally and therefore we cannot and should not buy American equipment. Add to this, someone in upper echelons of the Indian Government or Indian Air Force received kickbacks. 5) The Russians are omniscient, true friends of India and would never ever do anything untowards India and practice good faith and fair dealing. It pretty much encapsulates where this thread is going.

+1

[Victor]

For reference, these are the 3 faces of our "C-130J-30" aircraft:

All of them say only "C-130J" on the nose.

[Mort Walker]

Anant,

Ignore Sanku. He knows nothing about anything (particularly about science or engineering) and is here for comic relief like a Johnny Lever character, without being funny. There can be no rational discussion with any semblance of logic and you will be contributing to "Sakufying" this thread to make it useless. Which has the effect of wasting time and bits.

To ignore: Go to upper right of page and click on the "User Control Panel", on the left side under "Options" click on "Friends & Foes", click on "Manage Foes", in the "Your foes" box type "Sanku" which is case sensitive.

[NRao]

^^^^^

Worth every penny.

_______________________________________________________________________

Folks,

2 cents:

The landing/take-off strips fall very broadly under the fallowing: unprepared, semi-prepared, prepared and paved.

What is very critical to understand is that the length and intensity of usage dictates what level they leave the strip at. However, one thing is for certain – unprepared is used under two circumstances: first time or emergency use and very temp use (a day or two max). Beyond that they HAVE to upgrade to one of the higher levels, no option there.

The reason for the upgrade is the cost associated with not doing so.

Which brings me to the other dimension: capability, emergency usage and normal usage. The C-17 is more than capable in landing/take-off from short, unprepared strips. This capability is rarely needed (as I had mentioned a few pages ago), so one does not find many easy references for it (more later on this). And, of course, thankfully there does not seem to be much too much controversy on the plain usage aspect of this air craft – to be sure there are some.

So, I am not too sure who said what to trigger the following (and I could have missed some thing), but, the air craft is technically capable to deal with the following situations, IF circumstances demand it:

But being able to land and being able to land over and over again are very different ... nobody will abuse such important assets in that manner.

Again, it can take a tank “regularly” IF the circumstances demand it. BUT, most circumstances do not, so one does not see many references to it:

But to think that it will take Arjuns to ALGs or operate from unpaved ALGs regularly is frankly asking too much

A few observations:

1) Could not find any instances (does not mean they are not there) of C-17 lugging tanks, etc into Iraq. I suspect there was no need – the war was well planned and had adequate land and sea options
2) Afghanistan is a different animal. Land locked and in need to act immediately at the start of the war, this war has plenty of instances when assets were air lifted to get the work done. If not tanks, they had to lug dozers, levelers, fuel, spares, etc. The C-17 provided a lot of assistance to lift a whole lot of stuff to rather remote areas – on a regular basis, but since the idea was to stay for years, the air strips upgraded to runways over time. But, for rather long period of time (6+ weeks) the plane took a beating landing at low grade air strip. Yes, they did pay dearly for that – but accomplished what they had to
3) There is plenty out there on this topic. Plenty. There is even one that has written a thesis on this topic. No, not a Boeing sales person
4) And, just BTW, the US first used the C-17 to land at an unprepared air strip (lake bed actually) in 2001!!! In a war scenario that is (NOT in Iraq as far as I could tell)
5) Today, in Afghanistan, the C-17 does not even land most of the time. It air drops supplies - cheaper

ALGs:

1) Two ALGs have been activated in Ladhak area. A third was not, but that choice is there
2) One of these two is to be upgraded to an air base – with a proper runway (to accept even MKIs)
3) The other will also be upgraded from a unprepared to whatever
4) The present CAS stated THEN, he was part of the first landing team last year, that both ALGs (I took it to mean then) can accept the C-130 and the C-17
5) I do not think the C-17 landed at either during the test runs last July. IIRC it landed at Leh
6) There is no expectation of using either of these two – under normal circumstance – to land planes with tanks. BUT, that capability exists if need be
7) A C-17 = 3*C-130 (AN-32 too I guess). So, it is rather cost effective to fly a C-17 provided the load being lugged is large enough

The C-17 is BOTH a strategic as well as tactical asset. Within India it will be used most likely as a tactical asset. As a tactical asset, India still has a treaty signed with Iran to potentially open a front with Pakistan. And, my favs: it will be used against China in TAR – as a tactical asset and I would urge its use to get hold of the Horn of Africa.

A word on the rest:

During my web travel, here is what I found reading the tea leaves:
1) IL-76: fine plane, IAF I think has given up on it. Naik made a statement about that
2) IL-476: chatter associating it with IAF seems to have died. THEREFORE, I do not see much there – it could change
3) MTA: India has set up a JV office and is busy setting up facilities to manufacture it. SO, I for one have high hopes for it. Designed in Russia, made in India. That too tells me that India will more than like be the bigger user of this air craft (too?)

[shiv]

To continue on the parallel discussion that I have been conducting mostly with myself on this thread - there are a few more data points about which we have no real information.

One is serviceability and spares. Ultimately any fleet of aircraft is dependent on serviceability and spares and we have no idea how either the Il-76 or the C-17 are going to shape up in future. I have heard no major complaints about the Il-76 in the past, but the future is what we have to look at inevitably.

The second point is that the USSR has humongous numbers of far flung unprepared airstrips and they designed their aircraft with that in mind. The rugged An-2 actually had variable pressure tyres whose pressure could be changed from the cockpit for unscheduled landings in unprepared strips. I think the Il-76 has this feature too. This was typical Soviet innovation on the lines of common tractor/MiG 21 tyres and disposable limited use GSh-23.

I am sure the Americans too have learned a few tricks over the years. I might be mistaken but while Boeing dominated the civilian skies the world over - the Illyushins ended up with a lot more air forces than any large American military transport. I am no one to judge the technical merits of the C-17, but I loved the airshow demos that I saw.

[vic]

C 17s are not meaningfully deployed in any other role than carrying large amounts of cargo over very large distances (longer than any practical distance within India) -- it is a dumb truck to service large far flung expeditionary nodes of US -- and that is its only meaningful role.

Not entirely true Sankuji, the C-17 truly has STOL capabilities, it has design elements specifically for STOL ... I will list the prominent ones:
1. The C-17s use externally blown flaps ... this enormously increases lift decreases approach speeds ... the effect is somewhat similar (and albeit much stronger) to that of turboprop planes being able to increase lift by just increasing thrust ... I know of only the A380 other than the C-17s (in their weight category) which have strong enough flaps to do this. In those conditions the coefficient of lift is almost double of that seen on conventional jet transport planes. It is not easy to build blown flaps for planes with engines of this thrust.

2. The ability of the C-17s to use thrust reversers in flight at idle-reverse for added drag can lead to extreme descent-rates. This is critical for our ALG operations.

3. Very strong landing gear which is able to withstand 15 feet/sec sink rate.

All these are going to be very important criteria in deciding the load that the C-17s can carry into ALGs. So India does need planes like C-17s.

P.S.
1. It obviously holds the record of Short TakeOff and Landing (STOL) mark in which the C-17 took off in less than 1,400 feet (427m), carried a payload of 44,000 pounds (19,958kg) to altitude, and landed in less than 1,400 feet (427m).

2. Nearer to home as part of the IAF FET, a C-17 did fly in and out of Gaggal airport (4500 feet runway which only handles turboprops).

How does these features compare with IL-76/476. Also would it be safe to send such a costly asset to forward areas once fighting breaks out?

[shiv]

How does these features compare with IL-76/476. Also would it be safe to send such a costly asset to forward areas once fighting breaks out?

vic-ji with respect do you seriously believe that a "cheap asset" like an Il-76 will be sent to a "forward area" where it can take a hit with an artillery shell or RPG?

I read this series of terrific books about men at war. For the logistics man who is receiving supplies from inland - he is the "frontline" and the rest is rear. For the artillery position that is receiving supplies from this logistics man they are "frontline" and the store is "rear". For the commander who is further forward coordinating the real hot fighting - the artillery, logistics etc are all "rear areas". For the soldier taking cover from withering enemy machine gun fire in the thick of battle, everyone else is "rear".


Guess how far transport aircraft will be sent, unless it is for a para drop?

[koti]

How does these features compare with IL-76/476. Also would it be safe to send such a costly asset to forward areas once fighting breaks out?

IL-76 has the minimum takeoff lengths as around 850 mts. And the landing field length of around 450 mts.
This again will change depending on the payload.

I believe IAF IL-76's are equipped with D-30KP engines. If we get an upgrade of engines to PS-90A(~30% more thrust) or the like the take off length can be further reduced.

[vic]

Re Shiv

I think that Neither Il-76/476 or C-17s will be sent to forward areas when fighting breaks out as as these assets are tooo valuable.

[Singha]

its the days and hours leading upto imminent hostility and who can reinforce and move faster and wider which decides the week1 of contest.

week1 of the contest decides who loses face and either has to escalate or back off in week2.

[Sanku]

Anant,

Ignore Sanku. He knows nothing about anything (particularly about science or engineering) and is here for comic relief like a Johnny Lever character, without being funny. There can be no rational discussion with any semblance of logic and you will be contributing to "Sakufying" this thread to make it useless. Which has the effect of wasting time and bits.

To ignore: Go to upper right of page and click on the "User Control Panel", on the left side under "Options" click on "Friends & Foes", click on "Manage Foes", in the "Your foes" box type "Sanku" which is case sensitive.

Personal attacks have never substituted for knowledge and debate.

[Sanku]

2 cents:

The landing/take-off strips fall very broadly under the fallowing: unprepared, semi-prepared, prepared and paved.

What is very critical to understand is that the length and intensity of usage dictates what level they leave the strip at. )

Rather than writing reams of pages about how "if we look at it in the right perspective a cement runaway and unprepared run away are not quite different yada yada yada yada"

It would be much better to make a quote --

"Look at example of Airbase XYZ, it has 2000 ft length, is gravel and flies 10 C 17 sorties a day with average loads of 50 Tonnes per flight"

Since we dont have real data of what C 17 does, all the painfully long posts meaning nothing are rehashed over and over.

Tcch.....

[Sanku]

To continue on the parallel discussion that I have been conducting mostly with myself on this thread - there are a few more data points about which we have no real information..

True, this is the most "hot air thread" beating any other hot air thread on the forum.

Now C 17 has become a close support a/c -- in time it will become battlestar gallactica.

Oh what tangled webs we weave.....

[Viv S]

One is serviceability and spares. Ultimately any fleet of aircraft is dependent on serviceability and spares and we have no idea how either the Il-76 or the C-17 are going to shape up in future. I have heard no major complaints about the Il-76 in the past, but the future is what we have to look at inevitably.

No specific data points but the overall picture doesn't look rosy.


IAF has been facing the problem of serviceability of the IL-76s. Availability of spares for the four-engine IL-76 s has also been a major issue after the Soviet Union broke up.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article ... 00656f0300


India’s two IL-76 squadrons and five AN-32 squadrons have poor serviceability record of less than 50 per cent.

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp ... EFENCE.asp


The offer from the American company may prove to be a boon to IAF which has been having massive serviceability problems with its Russian supplied short and medium haul transport aircraft which are forced to be grounded due to shortage of spares.

The IAF's two IL-76 squadrons and five AN-32 squadrons have been besieged with poor serviceability record of less than 50 per cent, meaning the fleet was available to the Air Force for less than half their intended utilisation and a huge shortfall in their assigned tasks and performance, mainly due to non-availability of spares and inadequate maintenance.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/lockh ... e/597650/0


Hampered by the lack of spare parts and serviceability issues, India is increasingly looking West for its military transport aircraft fleet, even as it beefs up its presence along its borders.

The serviceability of the IL-76 has also been called into question. Since the aircraft is manufactured in Uzbekistan, there is a constant lack of spare parts, adding to IAF woes. "The spares availability of the IL-76 is not good. We have to get them from Russia, and that takes a lot of time, and additionally, they are not easily available. Secondly, it is not economically viable to set up an overhauling facility for the IL-76 in India. So, it is not the best situation to be in," Mr Chengappa said.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... t-aircraft


While IL-78 tankers acquired from Uzbekistan are relatively new, IL-76s were inducted from Russia in mid-1980s. Serviceability of IL-76s, which perform crucial strategic air-lift work for IAF, has been quite a problem.


http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ers-mig-29


Seemingly exasperated by low-availability/serviceability for years as a consequence of what it has described unofficially as "unpredictable Russian support" and the country's apparent unwillingness to honour after-sales commitments, the Indian Air Force is looking for the first time beyond Russia for long-term maintenance and product support of its fleet of Ilyushin-76 heavy transports and Ilyushin-78M tanker transports at Agra, Chandigarh, Delhi and Nagpur.

The IAF has been improvising plenty to keep the heavy jets airworthy, but does not believe it can continue to do so without solid support. The Russian OEM, apparently, cannot be relied upon.

Nine IAF Ilyushins which will be undergoing overhaul and total life extension at the time the contract is expected to be awarded will not be included. An additional unspecified number of Ilyushins has remained grounded indefinitely "for want of spares/aggregates which have become unserviceable or expired their TBO/TTL".

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/pe ... ia-to.html


The Indian Air force (IAF) has been put off by Russia’s dithering attitude when it comes to providing spares and service to India and has decided to look support from elsewhere since the Russian original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is not forthcoming.

http://www.defencenow.com/news/206/iaf_ ... craft.html


The heavy-lifters are seen as critical to the IAF's needs as it looks to replace its Soviet-era IL-76 transport aircraft fleet, which have been dogged by a lack of serviceability and spares, and are also coming to the end of their operational lifespan.

"The IL, which is a 40-tonne plus aircraft, as a fleet has served us very well, but it is aging now. So, one strategy is their up-gradation and overhauling, but they do not have too much life left. The other strategy is the purchase of the C-17 aircrafts, which carries twice the load of an Ilyushin, and has the advantage of landing on shorter air strips," Naik.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... operations


Given the limited serviceability of the IL-76 fleet on account of paucity of spares as well as time and cost factors associated with their overhaul by foreign vendors abroad, it was felt prudent to maintain a single establishment of this fleet. Since the IL-76 planes based here were employed for logistic support to army formations in Jammu & Kashmir, additional aircraft would enhance the air maintenance effort.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110815/cth1.htm



The IAF also chose the A-330 over the cheaper IL-78 because of concerns about serviceability (until the MoF threw a wrench in the works).



According to Russian and foreign media sources, India refused to buy Russian Il-78 fuel tanker aircraft. Indian officials motivated this decision with the non-conformity of planes to the customer’s requisitions. The spare parts supply and the after-sales service were also mentioned.

“After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia alternated its approach to the handling of the defense business. Nowadays we are facing problems with spare parts, the support of manufacturers and the delays conditioned by the centralized structure of their defense corporations”, Fali Homi Major, the Commander-in-Chief of Indian Air Force told RIA Novosti. Instead of Russian planes India is likely to buy Airbus A330 MRTT manufactured by the European company EADS.

http://www.defencetalk.com/india-russia ... nce-19245/

I am sure the Americans too have learned a few tricks over the years. I might be mistaken but while Boeing dominated the civilian skies the world over - the Illyushins ended up with a lot more air forces than any large American military transport. I am no one to judge the technical merits of the C-17, but I loved the airshow demos that I saw.

Until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the world's defence market was clearly demarcated into the 'buy American' and 'buy Soviet' camps with only Europeans occasionally selling to both. They never really competed on a level playing field. Also, most of the IL-76s produced were operated by USSR and its successor states. The only major operators outside of it are India, China and Algeria.

[vishvak]

Until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the world's defence market was clearly demarcated into the 'buy American' and 'buy Soviet' camps with only Europeans occasionally selling to both. They never really competed on a level playing field. Also, most of the IL-76s produced were operated by USSR and its successor states. The only major operators outside of it are India, China and Algeria.

Beg to differ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76#Operators - List of operators.

Military and civil operators in 38 countries have operated 850+ Il-76..