C-17s for the IAF?

[shiv]

Do they have gunship version of the C-17 as it might come handy if Hoodobhoy's dream come true and Paki abduls decided to walk toward Wagha for asylem or jihad?

Prem the C 17 is far too big for that role. It is gi-normous and flying low it would be a great target for an RPG. After all the guns that "gunships" use are hardly effective over 1500 meters and the plane would have to circle overhead at 1000 meters or less (to be effective). That would be a huge target for someone on the ground.

[Surya]

shiv




range is not an issue - it would carry 40 mm and 30 mm and maybe 105 mm in gunship mode

speed maybe an issue

[NRao]

The C-130 has a gunship version (AC-130), with plenty of fire power. Why would someone convert a C-17 when the C-130 has been there?

[shiv]

range is not an issue - it would carry 40 mm and 30 mm and maybe 105 mm in gunship mode

speed maybe an issue

Surya - even 30 and 40 mm have range issues. Above 1500 meters things get really dicey in terms of aim. 105 mm is worse because it fires only one shell at a time. I think this gunship business has been overrated - if you look at Vietnamese accounts. This stuff is best against Hollywood style massed horsemen and infantry. Against groups of men in 2s and 4s taking cover behind terrain features it is not a cost effective solution.

A C-17 sized aircraft at 1000 meters or less offers a huge target and unless you are loaded with C 17s you are willing to use and lose, the loss of even one c 17 to Mujahid fire is a far greater than the handful of men that would be killed by firing off 10,000 rounds. In Vietnam men avoided injury by merely circling around trees keeping the gunship on the other side of the tree, Rocky outcrops would serve just as well.

The flying gunship belongs in the category of American air war rhetoric that sounds more dangerous than historic records prove - along with "rolling thunder" and "carpet bombing". Helicopter gunships are a better option.

[Singha]

I had propesed the AN32G concept a few years ago. but its large props and engines relative to
size might be restrictive of firing out the sides. firing out of the rear ramp is not easy given the pilot it seeing everything ulta and needs to point the tail rather than nose or wing of a/c at the target area...which means be cannot revolve around the target.

and none of the transports are great performers at high alt.

so only beating up some maoist camp or hijacked ship is their niche role. ok for khan, not cost effective for india.

[Surya]

shiv

the 40 mm has a theoretical range of 7000 mtr

1000 mtr is literally medium machine gun range

The C 130s have been able to provide fire few hundred yards away - not heard of anyone scared of a AC 130s firesupport

Note: I am not saying a C 17 is needed in that role (and ( have no interest in it - its mostly a rich mans air force need)

just saying range is not the issue

[VijayKumarSinha]

I don't know how many of you have seen this but those that were interested in this were probably so because of this video.

AC-130 in opeation in Afghanistan:

so only beating up some maoist camp or hijacked ship is their niche role. ok for khan, not cost effective for india.

I thought India had a policy of not using the Air Force against the Mao wannabes?

In Vietnam men avoided injury by merely circling around trees keeping the gunship on the other side of the tree, Rocky outcrops would serve just as well.

I think from the video it was possible to make out talibs running into trees and caves for cover. The soldiers watching them could also make out at which point they were crawling and ducking for cover. So, I think in Vietnam they didn't use thermal imaging to target enemies.


But, I would imagine that in order to use something like this we would need to have absolute air-superiority with a guarantee that the enemy forces do not have any SAM’s or AA guns. I don’t see either of that happening in our context so I don’t see what use it would be to us.
Ofcourse, it can be used against 3rd world countries to great effect but I don’t see India attacking Burundi or Lesotho anytime soon.

Unless, GW would like to convince us otherwise.
But, then again we have Gilles to save our souls in that situation.

[KiranM]

But, I would imagine that in order to use something like this we would need to have absolute air-superiority with a guarantee that the enemy forces do not have any SAM’s or AA guns. I don’t see either of that happening in our context so I don’t see what use it would be to us.
Ofcourse, it can be used against 3rd world countries to great effect but I don’t see India attacking Burundi or Lesotho anytime soon.
Unless, GW would like to convince us otherwise.

FYI.. USAF lost one AC-130 to SAM during Operation Desert Storm. Battle of Kafji IIRC.

The crew in spite of being aware of the threat of SAM chose to provide Air Support to besieged Marines on the ground. All of the crew were lost.

[VijayKumarSinha]

FYI.. USAF lost one AC-130 to SAM during Operation Desert Storm. Battle of Kafji IIRC.

The crew in spite of being aware of the threat of SAM chose to provide Air Support to besieged Marines on the ground. All of the crew were lost.

Kiran, I did know that and which is my point exactly.
Iraq was NOT a 3rd world country during Desert storm.
It had everything that money could buy in terms of non-American equipment.

[Gilles]

But, I would imagine that in order to use something like this we would need to have absolute air-superiority with a guarantee that the enemy forces do not have any SAM’s or AA guns. I don’t see either of that happening in our context so I don’t see what use it would be to us.
Ofcourse, it can be used against 3rd world countries to great effect but I don’t see India attacking Burundi or Lesotho anytime soon.

How true. You know the same is true for UAVs. It's a helpless and vulnerable machine that can easily be detected and shot down by any power with AA and can only be used against third world powers with no AA or against soft targets in an area where air superiority has been attained. Or in the case of Pakistan, if their Air Force decides to ignore the intrusion and looks the other way.

Ever wonder why Pakistan was able to shoot down an Indian drone (http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-P ... ckage.html), yet US drones seem to be able to enter and leave Pakistani airspace unmolested day after day?

[Singha]

the iraqi batallion/brigade who entered Khafji probably didnt have much AA assets and were unable to reinforce much since the road leading back to Iraq must have been swarming with F-solahs.

[Kanson]

But, I would imagine that in order to use something like this we would need to have absolute air-superiority with a guarantee that the enemy forces do not have any SAM’s or AA guns. I don’t see either of that happening in our context so I don’t see what use it would be to us.
Ofcourse, it can be used against 3rd world countries to great effect but I don’t see India attacking Burundi or Lesotho anytime soon.

It was for air support much like A-10. How many field units are expected to be equipped with AA or SAM. It was used like a air mobile tank. Just like a tank which needs support elements to function efficiently, it was operated in circumstances with support elements. JMT

[Kanson]

China is buying 40, not just 10 or 20, 40 Il-76 for the price just 1.5 billion USD. We on the contrary looking for 10 C-17 for 1.7 billion or more. Such a lopsided deal. Unless IAF conceived a plan to use each and every thing that C-17 offer, i guess it will be a waste of money. Or may be it is just that India figured it out as the easy way to please many US lawmakers in a single shot and we may end up operating the next big lot of C-17 after US.

[Manish_Sharma]

China is buying 40, not just 10 or 20, 40 Il-76 for the price just 1.5 billion USD. We on the contrary looking for 10 C-17 for 1.7 billion or more.

What a rip off!

[Singha]

*cough cough* anyone see any similarities to a certain large ship here?

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2009/ ... 6-buy.html

pdate on China’s IL-76 buy.

According to the $1.5 billion contract signed in September 2005, Russia would deliver 34 IL-76 military cargo planes and four IL-78 Midas refueling tankers in 2006 (here).

The time-frame for this delivery was pushed by Rosoboronexport citing production and cost related issues. The Chinese government suspended the contract after Rosoboronexport attached an additional $400 million USD to the contract. (here)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... osti01.htm

It’s coincidental that Rosoboronexport is reopening negotiations after the recently announced Chinese 200 ton heavy military transport prototype (here).



TAPOiCh Creating Problems with Contract to Deliver Il-76 and Il-78 Airplanes to China

Source: 23.11.09, Avia.RU

Problems with realization of the contract for the delivery of Il-76 military transport airplanes and Il-78 tankers to China have been caused by the Tashkent Chkalov Aviation Production Association's (TAPOiCh, Uzbekistan), to fulfill its obligations, ARMS-TASS reports.

In particular, as regards Russia, the contract is being implemented and will be implemented; however, the Russian side is not bearing and will not bear responsibility for the factual failure of the fulfillment of this project by its third participant, the Uzbek side in the person of TAPOiCh, an informed source in the Russian defense industrial complex reports.

An announcement has been made in connection with the forthcoming 14th meeting of the Russo-Chinese mixed inter-governmental commission for military and technical cooperation in Moscow on 25 November.

Russia's obligations for this contract concern only the manufacture and the deliveries to China of engines and the auxiliary power plants for the Il-76 and Il-78 airplanes, and these obligations are being fulfilled. The Tashkent aircraft plant, who is actually has abrogated the contract, is supposed to produce the airframes themselves for these airplanes, in accordance with the contractual obligations they took on.

"Apparently, some kind of supplement to the contract will be signed as a way out of this situation in which new schedules for its fulfillment will be defined," a source in the Russian defense industrial complex said.


Possibly, the transfer of the order for production of the Il-76 and Il-78 airframes from the Tashkent aircraft plant to the Ul'yanovsk plant when the latter gets up to speed will be one of the variants.

According to the Russian Federation defense ministry, the contract, signed in Sochi in 2005 during the 12th meeting of the Russo-Chinese mixed military and technical cooperation intergovernmental commission, provides for the delivery of 38 medium Il-76 military transport airplanes and 4 long-range Il-78 tankers to China. The total cost of the deal is nearly one billion dollars.

Source: 23.11.09, Avia.RU




Senior Chinese military official meets Russian defense chief on cooperation
www.chinaview.cn 2009-11-25 18:49:09

MOSCOW, Nov. 25 (Xinhua) -- Vice chairman of China's Central Military Commission Guo Boxiong reached broad consensus with Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov here Wednesday on furthering cooperation between Chinese and Russian armed forces.


Guo said this year marked the 60th anniversary of the establishment of China-Russia diplomatic ties and the China-Russia strategic partnership of cooperation had kept its momentum of dynamic development.

Leaders of the two countries met several times this year and reached broad consensus on efforts to deepen such a partnership, said Guo.

Thanks to intensive attention from both leaders, the relationship between Chinese and Russian armed forces -- as one major part of their bilateral relations -- had been continuously enriched and enhanced in recent years, he said.

Guo said both armies have maintained frequent high-level exchanges, with their cooperation in various fields being pragmatic and thorough.

The Peace Mission-2009 joint anti-terror military exercises in July had once more demonstrated to the world the close collaboration between China and Russia on anti-terrorism, as well as their determination to face up to new threats and challenges together, he said.

Against the backdrop of complicated international situations, Guo noted, the reinforcement of interactions and cooperation between their armed forces was not only in keeping with the fundamental interests of China and Russia and their two peoples, but also conducive to safeguarding peace and stability of the region and the world.

Serdyukov agreed with Guo, saying the two countries and the two armies had kept close interactions and timely communication with each other on major global and regional issues.

Each had also supported the other on major issues concerning core interests, which reflected the advanced development of their strategic partnership of cooperation, he noted.

Russia was ready to join hands with China in pushing forward their friendly and cooperative links in all fields, he said.

Guo is leading a Chinese government delegation on a five-day visit to Russia, which started Monday.

Editor: Fang Yang
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 538385.htm

[Singha]

all said and done my guess is the PRC would have to shell out around $70 mil for the plane and more money for stuff like spares and such that some deals tend to include. the Russians make the engines and will also extract their own pound of flesh on all small, but hard to duplicate items.

does anyone know how much we paid for the IL78 tankers?

[bart]

I like the idea of an AC-130 Spectre in IA/IAF/Special Forces service, however one wonders when, if ever it will be used. At war time, it will not be able to operate in areas where strong air defenses are still standing, which rules it out from the initial portion of the war, perhaps it is useful for mopping up operations afterwards.

It's main use is against insurgents, and though we have plenty of them, eg. Maoists, given our pissful nature and hazaar self-styled human rights activists, our govt is yet to launch an offensive against them even on foot.

You know the same is true for UAVs. It's a helpless and vulnerable machine that can easily be detected and shot down by any power with AA and can only be used against third world powers with no AA or against soft targets in an area where air superiority has been attained. Or in the case of Pakistan, if their Air Force decides to ignore the intrusion and looks the other way.

Not necessarily, remember that UAVs can be of many varied types, for example too small to be spotted, low-flying enough to slip under radar, high-altitude and out of the reach of AA or Manpads, etc. Besides the UAV might be unobtrusive and tries to go about it's duties unannounced, besides stealth features are being added to most modern UAVs. Not so with the AC-130 since it has to plunge headlong into the battle zone, and is used for close-in support unlike some UAVs that can operate at standoff range. So the AC-130 is a much bigger target, probably can be shot down even by guys with rocket propelled grenades.

-----------------------

If we are talking about modifying transport aircraft....

What we need more than anything else is not AC-130 but something like a B52, that can carry massive payload in smart bombs/missiles, has huge range and can loiter around the battlefield for hours so it can respond quickly to requests from the ground. And also can deliver daisy cutters and other goodies to Tora Bora type Paki hideouts.

[Gilles]

all said and done my guess is the PRC would have to shell out around $70 mil for the plane and more money for stuff like spares and such that some deals tend to include. the Russians make the engines and will also extract their own pound of flesh on all small, but hard to duplicate items.

does anyone know how much we paid for the IL78 tankers?

For many years Ilyushin was unable to sell its yellow tail Il-76s because there were tons of used ones on the market dumped as surplus by several Air Forces after 1991, and as of 2002, the chapter II civilian IL-76 was barred from Western Europe, north America, and many other airspace. For a while, Ilyushin was dumping its remaining new IL-76s. I think this is when India bought its IL-78s and when the Chinese deal was signed. Then in 2006, the PS-90 powered, Chapter IV compliant IL-76TD-90 was certified and that made the civilian IL-76 attractive again. In 2007, ILyushin delivered two new IL-76TD-90 and two more in 2008. In 2009, it delivered the PS-90 powered A-50 to India.

I heard that new IL-76s were selling as low as 15 million dollars before 2006. Now one can find used 1997-era Il-76s with about 10,000 hours since new, for under 2 million dollars.

Its just a guess on my part, but I think that these new deliveries of IL-76TD-90 made Ilyushin reluctant to liquidate the stock of unsold IL-76s it still had on hand at low price as it had intended to do before, which is why it attempted to renegotiate the deal with the Chinese to the price of what it was selling the new IL-76TD-90, which I think is in the 50 million dollar bracket. China does not want the new engines and avionics and wants the old Il-76s with the old engines at the old price.

I may be wrong. Its just my take on things.

[Johann]

range is not an issue - it would carry 40 mm and 30 mm and maybe 105 mm in gunship mode

speed maybe an issue

Surya - even 30 and 40 mm have range issues. Above 1500 meters things get really dicey in terms of aim. 105 mm is worse because it fires only one shell at a time. I think this gunship business has been overrated - if you look at Vietnamese accounts. This stuff is best against Hollywood style massed horsemen and infantry. Against groups of men in 2s and 4s taking cover behind terrain features it is not a cost effective solution.

A C-17 sized aircraft at 1000 meters or less offers a huge target and unless you are loaded with C 17s you are willing to use and lose, the loss of even one c 17 to Mujahid fire is a far greater than the handful of men that would be killed by firing off 10,000 rounds. In Vietnam men avoided injury by merely circling around trees keeping the gunship on the other side of the tree, Rocky outcrops would serve just as well.

The flying gunship belongs in the category of American air war rhetoric that sounds more dangerous than historic records prove - along with "rolling thunder" and "carpet bombing". Helicopter gunships are a better option.

AC-130s provide a particular service - they provide *extremely* accurate, continuous fire support to light forces during the hours of darkness in places where your side has already achieved air superiority. In that role they have no equal.

Attack helicopters just don't have the same kind of loiter time because of fuel and ammunition limitations. Many apart from those like the AH-64D lack the sensors to provide that kind of pin-point fire support even in bad weather.

However, attack helicopters are far more survivable in daylight because of their maneuverability. AC-130s in close support after dawn, or before sunset - very, very vulnerable to unguided weapons. Now with the growing proliferation of NVGs among insurgents they face serious risks.

[VijayKumarSinha]

Ever wonder why Pakistan was able to shoot down an Indian drone (http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-P ... ckage.html), yet US drones seem to be able to enter and leave Pakistani airspace unmolested day after day?

Because, they will be inviting the wrath of god if they did so. So instead they are using the “brilliant” strategy of using Americans to do the dirty work for them and take all the blame. But, the Americans are only too wise and they see Pakistan for the two faced beast that it is. In the end all that Pakistan has got is an antagonized public at home and unhappy Americans who are now only too happy to arm twist them even more to accede to their demands.

the iraqi batallion/brigade who entered Khafji probably didnt have much AA assets and were unable to reinforce much since the road leading back to Iraq must have been swarming with F-solahs.

That is true, 3 gunships were deployed to stop the reinforcement to Khafji. The one that was shot down was the last one on the scene and stayed back a bit longer to target a missile battery. But, it is my understanding that a lot of tanks are equipped with AA guns. But, of course the 130 attacked at night so the Iraqi’s were probably not able to target it until the break of dawn.

It was for air support much like A-10. How many field units are expected to be equipped with AA or SAM

As per this article a man portable SAM was used to take down the AC-130:
http://www.specialoperations.com/Memorial/spirit.html
It says:

Soon after eliminating the target designated by the Marines, a lone Iraqi hoisted an SA-7 "Grail" manportable surface-to-air missile to his shoulder. In the dawn of the early morning light, the form of the large AC-130 slowly became visible in the skies over Khafji. The decision to remain behind to support the Marines cost the pilots and crew of Spirit 03 their best defensive weapon - darkness. The Iraqi pointed the weapon at the aircraft, and fired. The missile found its target and at 0635 hours the aircraft sent out a "mayday" distress call and then crashed into the waters of the Persian Gulf. All 14 crewmembers were killed.

So, it didn’t even matter that they didn’t have full fledged SAM batteries, a man-portable SAM was enough to bring one down. And now a days with the proliferation of night vision goggles I can only imagine that it would be possible to fire such SAM’s even at night. So, the usefulness of this machine now is even more suspect.

I like the idea of an AC-130 Spectre in IA/IAF/Special Forces service, however one wonders when, if ever it will be used.

If it is not too much sir could you please ask the Air force to buy one for me. My requirement is that it should be fully equipped with laser guided nip*le twisters and Standoff weggie makers. I will use it to great effect for hunting small game in the countryside.

[shiv]

Ever wonder why Pakistan was able to shoot down an Indian drone (http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/other-P ... ckage.html), yet US drones seem to be able to enter and leave Pakistani airspace unmolested day after day?

That is because Predator-djinns are the national bird of Pakistan

[Rahul M]

So, it didn’t even matter that they didn’t have full fledged SAM batteries, a man-portable SAM was enough to bring one down.

I find this quite surprising. MANPADS are by no means big missiles, in afghanistan in many cases the much smaller su-25 survived manpad hits. for a large aircraft like the C-130 the chances of a critical hit seems very low, unless there were sympathetic explosions on board.

[Singha]

it would home in on a engine being IR sensor. maybe the impact spread to a fuel tank via fuel lines?

frogfoot/A10 types have armour in vulnerable areas to contain damage and designed from day1 to lessen risk of catastrophic failures. not so C130.

[pgbhat]

^^
Speaking of A-10 armor.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)

On the ground it was discovered that her A-10 had sustained damage to one engine and to the redundant hydraulic systems, disabling the flight controls, landing gear and brakes, and horizontal stabilizer. A detailed inspection revealed hundreds of holes in the airframe and that large sections of the stabilizer and hydraulic controls were missing.[5]

"She's one of the few pilots who ever landed the A-10 in the manual mode," said General Richard Myers, USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[6]

Can C-17 or C-130 or for that matter IL-76 get away with such damage?

[Kanson]

And now a days with the proliferation of night vision goggles I can only imagine that it would be possible to fire such SAM’s even at night.

It is an another myth floating around that NVG could bring AC-130 down.

AC-130 has a distinct sound thanks to its propellers. So one doesnt need NVG to tell AC-130 is around and the bearing of a/c can be identified once it starts firing. In this situation, if one cant down the a/c with manpads he cant do that with NVG. What is the effective range of NVG? I bet, in anycase, it will be less than 1000 m. This range is for the object on the land where you can expect back-scattering. For the objects in sky it will be even low.

[shanksinha]

Caught a C-17 at New Delhi IGI last week. Was on way to boarding and suddenly it came up taxing, didnt have much time and security was paranoid but managed to snap a couple of shots with my cellphone. Sorry for dismal quality.

[VijayKumarSinha]

So, it didn’t even matter that they didn’t have full fledged SAM batteries, a man-portable SAM was enough to bring one down.

I find this quite surprising. MANPADS are by no means big missiles, in afghanistan in many cases the much smaller su-25 survived manpad hits. for a large aircraft like the C-130 the chances of a critical hit seems very low, unless there were sympathetic explosions on board.

it would home in on a engine being IR sensor. maybe the impact spread to a fuel tank via fuel lines?

frogfoot/A10 types have armour in vulnerable areas to contain damage and designed from day1 to lessen risk of catastrophic failures. not so C130.

This link actually says the same thing that both you guys have said: http://www.aviation.ru/Su/25/Su-25.html

First time VVS encountered Stinger, they lost four Su-25 in one or two days (two pilots were killed). The defense and ECM were specialized for Red Eye and the Soviet first generation shoulder launched missile (SA-7 Grail). Sukhoi figured that upon impact Stinger shreds the rear fuel tank which is located right above the jet exhaust. This starts fire which kills both engines eventually. They installed few millimeters thick steel plate below fuel cell to give an extra protection. Another modification was a steel plate (I think 10 or 15 mm thick) between engine bays. After this modification no Su-25 were lost to Stinger according to Sukhoi team. Only 22 Su-25s were lost in nine(!) years of combat operations in Afghanistan.

So, Su-25 was quickly modified to survive Stinger hits. I don't know if the Americans modified the AC130 similarly after the Khafji loss and I don't know if C-17 has armor that protects it, just in case it is hit near landing or takeoff in a hostile area. Also, Maybe multiple manpad hits brought down the AC130.

It is an another myth floating around that NVG could bring AC-130 down.

AC-130 has a distinct sound thanks to its propellers. So one doesnt need NVG to tell AC-130 is around and the bearing of a/c can be identified once it starts firing. In this situation, if one cant down the a/c with manpads he cant do that with NVG. What is the effective range of NVG? I bet, in anycase, it will be less than 1000 m. This range is for the object on the land where you can expect back-scattering. For the objects in sky it will be even low.

I don’t know the range of NVG’s I tried looking it up and I didn’t get any specific results. But, what I got is this:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/f ... n_688.html

With night vision goggles (NVGs) pilots can see terrain and objects close to the ground that can't be perceived by the naked eye. At higher altitudes they also can see flares at up to 100 miles (160 km), aircraft lights at up to 50 miles (80 km), and vehicle headlights at 20 to 50 miles (32 to 80 km).

From what I understand, it means that with that equipment at high altitude a pilot can see AC lights from 80 km away (He is viewing it against the sky) I can only imagine that similar NVG’s would allow personnel on ground to see at least 5-6 km in the sky which would be enough to spot a 130 before it arrives at its target – which is the whole point. It’s not sufficient to spot it once it starts firing as was visible in that video all you can do when it starts firing is run for your life and pray that it doesn’t spot you. Also, if you watch the footage of both the gulf wars you will see that in the Night Vision view it was possible to see a very long distance both up in the sky and straight on the ground.

If all else fails resort to divya drishti to spot the enemy.

[Hitesh]

Have you ever tried looking in through a NVG? You don't have depth perception nor have the peripheral vision. That means, you have to constantly swivel your head around and that will cause you motion sickness because your eyes have to be locked in one place in order to get maximum viewing effect. You will not get sharp and clear picture like a HDTV show but will come across as somewhat grainy and fuzzy so how the hell can you make out details of something that is 5 or 6 miles away?

No, you still need to use your eyes unaided in order for to search something in the sky. Even hearing the plane will not help that much since it will be hard to pinpoint the direction and bearing it comes from.

[RayC]

Have you ever tried looking in through a NVG? You don't have depth perception nor have the peripheral vision. That means, you have to constantly swivel your head around and that will cause you motion sickness because your eyes have to be locked in one place in order to get maximum viewing effect. You will not get sharp and clear picture like a HDTV show but will come across as somewhat grainy and fuzzy so how the hell can you make out details of something that is 5 or 6 miles away?

No, you still need to use your eyes unaided in order for to search something in the sky. Even hearing the plane will not help that much since it will be hard to pinpoint the direction and bearing it comes from.

Initially, it is quite disconcerting as you state.

One has to get used to it!

I have not tried seeing items 5 to 6 kms away though.

[Hitesh]

RayC,

Sir, does India make its own NVGs? If so, how well do they compare to western counterparts?

[Gilles]

Caught a C-17 at New Delhi IGI last week. Was on way to boarding and suddenly it came up taxing, didnt have much time and security was paranoid but managed to snap a couple of shots with my cellphone. Sorry for dismal quality.

The picture was good enough. Here is a close-up of the nose of the same aircraft:



Who are they ? The 437th Air Wing from Charleston AFB. The famous SOLL II capable unit. The only unit in the USAF that has this skill. I already referenced this document on a previous post on page 13 which talks about them:

https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/d ... 58acd64640

In short: They are the best C-17 crews the USAF has. They are used for: very difficult missions; very important missions; embassy flights; whenever they really want to impress people with the C-17 performance.

[Raveen]

In short: They are the best C-17 crews the USAF has. They are used for: very difficult missions; very important missions; whenever they really want to impress people with the C-17 performance.

Would you go to a job interview in your PJs without shaving?
It is obvious everyone wants to put thier best foot forward, marketing and advertising wouldn't exsist otherwise.
Thanks.

[Gilles]

Anyone and everyone would put thier best foot forward, and therefore Boeing's claims don't include the words "we can do all that even with a half trained chimp behind the controls". Thank you.

Would you go to a job interview in your PJs without shaving?

So any pilot who isn't a highly trained SOLL II pilot is an unshaven half trained chimp in pyjamas ?

That must include me then. I can land and take-off the aircraft I am rated on into and out of the runways that my aircraft's flight manual states that my aircraft can land and take-off from. I am not a highly trained pilot. Just a run of the mill pilot that receives the same training as the other hundreds of the run-of-mill pilots who work at my company. We can all fly all the routes our company flies, and we can all land at all the destinations our company flies to (70 or 80 destinations). No super pilots for certain runways. No un-shaven pyjama-clad half trained chimps either. One standard for all.

Of course landing at night into a blacked out runway using Night Vision Goggles is a skill that must be learned and practised, often.

However landing an aircraft in broad daylight into a runway that the aircraft manual and all other publications claim the aircraft can land on, should not require special any training or any special pilot. That is my only point.

[Raveen]

Anyone and everyone would put thier best foot forward, and therefore Boeing's claims don't include the words "we can do all that even with a half trained chimp behind the controls". Thank you.

Would you go to a job interview in your PJs without shaving?

So any pilot who isn't a highly trained SOLL II pilot is an unshaven half trained chimp in pyjamas ?

That must include me then. I can land and take-off the aircraft I am rated on into and out of the runways that my aircraft's flight manual states that my aircraft can land and take-off from. I am not a highly trained pilot. Just a run of the mill pilot that receives the same training as the other hundreds of the run-of-mill pilots who work at my company. We can all fly all the routes our company flies to, and we can all land at all the destinations our company flies to (70 or 80 destinations). No super pilots. No un-shaven pyjama-clad half trained chimps either. One standard for all.

Congratulations!
Not only do you deserve an award for misrepresenting my posts and quoting me out of context you also called yourself a chimp. What I was trying to say then (a few weeks back, where you got the frst quote from) and now is the same. Boeing is selling a product, if it uses all resources available to it to present it's product in the best light possible then that is acceptable. If they can get pilots who are specifically trained in STOL on the C-17 then so be it.

Your objection is similar in logic to someone questioning Michel Schumacher driving an F1 car; well if the car is inherently so fast then why can't I a mundane, run of the mill, shaved human drive it just as fast?

Why have special forces? just have your regular forces do the job

Welcome to the concept of specialized training (and marketing), I know, it's a blast!

These specialized training for these pilots trained specifically for STOL on C-17 can be emulated in India and we can have our own group of specialized C-17 pilots who can land these birds in tight and dangerous situations/conditions.
Thanks.

[Aditya G]

Who are they ? The 437th Air Wing from Charleston AFB.

Any idea why the aircraft fuselage also mentions 315th Air Wing? Is the same aircraft assigned to multiple units?

[Arunkumar]

In short: They are the best C-17 crews the USAF has. They are used for: very difficult missions; very important missions; embassy flights; whenever they really want to impress people with the C-17 performance.

Below is the snap of c-17 (0174 , 3rd WG,176WG elemdorf) that was in bangalore for aero-india. And they performed very nicely. That aircraft and the one clicked by shanksinha has changes on the sides. The areas where new protrusions have come up in the snap above , i have circled in the snap(feb-09) below. Any idea what these new bulges are.

[Niraj_D]

I can't express strong opinion to buy C-17 or IL-76 since i know less details of IL-76, to make a choice.

But, i'm making few logical guesses after long exchange of dialogues between India-US & desperate predictions about different international lobbying being set-up by.

May be we are seriously looking for better role in Afganistan, pre or post American troop withdrawal. May be Obama Administration has long strategic policy in Asia.

These 10 (or more) C-17 can be solely used to ferry troops & cargo to Afganistan.
Say peacekeeping mission, Health-care setup, Infrastructure Development (which we are contributing on some level), or IAF BASE. We cannot deny the fact that IAF is striving to find another base in Asia (after Mongolia base is not confirmed & not coming any soon)

From the India's Interest:
(1)Afganistan can act as perfect spot for IAF to dominate Asia also to flex its muscle.
(2)Hopefully if Indo-Iran Gas pipeline is approved, we need to keep an eye on Pakistan.
(3)Showing this credibility of peacekeeping, Geographical responsibilities we can bargain more effectively for UNSC Seat.

People of USA just need to told that WAR is over, & Obama will surely take care of that in next 3 yrs, Keeping India as watchdog in here.

Now it is considered that induction of C-17 is not possible before 2013, since India will engage only in post-war scenario.

Waiting for your views people.

[Gilles]

Below is the snap of c-17 (0174 , 3rd WG,176WG elemdorf) that was in bangalore for aero-india. And they performed very nicely. That aircraft and the one clicked by shanksinha has changes on the sides. The areas where new protrusions have come up in the snap above , i have circled in the snap(feb-09) below. Any idea what these new bulges are.

I think these items are components LAIRCM

http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Protecti ... 54002.aspx

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... laircm.htm

All US C-17s are fitted with countermeasures but only some are fitted this particular top-of-the-line countermeasure suite.

[Gilles]

Congratulations!
Your objection is similar in logic to someone questioning Michel Schumacher driving an F1 car; well if the car is inherently so fast then why can't I a mundane, run of the mill, shaved human drive it just as fast?

Why have special forces? just have your regular forces do the job

Welcome to the concept of specialized training (and marketing), I know, it's a blast!

These specialized training for these pilots trained specifically for STOL on C-17 can be emulated in India and we can have our own group of specialized C-17 pilots who can land these birds in tight and dangerous situations/conditions.
Thanks.

Indeed. Its just not cheap.

Lets say you have a requirement for a pedestrian bridge across a deep ravine for your army.

Acme company bids for the contract. They claim to have a cheap, reliable, maintenance-free bridge to link both side of the ravine and that your soldiers can cross safely for 20 years.

Then they throw a single stainless-steel cable across the ravine and show you a demonstration of a tightrope walker who repeatedly crosses the ravine while expertly balancing on the cable.

Convinced, you buy it. You are explained that its cheaper to train your all the soldiers who need to cross the ravine as tightrope walkers than to build a regular bridge that a regular non-tightrope-walker soldiers could cross. The small print on the contract indicates that no one should cross when the cable is wet.......

[Raveen]

...emulated in India and we can have our own group of specialized C-17 pilots...

Lets say you have a requirement for a pedestrian bridge across a deep ravine for your army.

...you are explained that its cheaper to train your all the soldiers...

Not even close to the situation being discussed, but anyhow, which part of 'group of pilots' (aka not the whole IAF or even the whole transport wing) did you not get?

A small group of dedicated C-17 pilots (similar to what you describe with the USAF) can be given specialized training to perform the same feats with the same aircraft the USAF has trained it's pilots to do to facilitate certain tasks including STOL as envisioned by the IAF for the C-17.

Neither you nor I know what specific requirement the C-17 is intended to fulfill within the IAF. Any talk of requirements assumes we know more than we actually do and that the requirements are limited to those bullet points outlined on the marketing material.