First C-17 to arrive in India shortly

[sancho]

@sancho I believe that IAF has capable people deciding what they need, somehow we seems to question every decision our military makes. What I heard was C-17 was capable of landing on Leh with full load. Also while A400 is bigger in size it can carry less weight than C-17, just read somewhere, not sure if true.

That's the duty of the public, to question what the government or in this case the forces does with taxpayers money, or for the defence of the country. Not to mention that the forces not always get what they want, or can do what they want. IAF wanted M2K-5s and years later they might get Rafale based on government decisions / requirements. The C17 procurement could have been a political choice too, since it was the only deal in the last years that wasn't based on any evaluations, or a competition, however, my point here is only about usefulness of a follow deal.

Btw, the A400 is not bigger than the C17:

A400

Length: 45.1 m
Wingspan: 42.4 m
Height: 14.7 m
Empty weight: 76,500 kg

C17

Length: 53 m
Wingspan: 51.75 m
Height: 16.8 m
Empty weight: 128,100 kg

Adding 10 more C-17 is the most logical choice according to me. One thing we forget that Indian armed forces are not looking for just replacement of Soviet era systems. They are planning to replace it by more capable systems in even more quantities. So, 25 C-17 is not a far fetched idea. Same can be said about C-130Js..

It is when you compare cost vs requirements, 25 x C17 costs over $10 billions and that although we don't have an operational capability to operate main parts of our forces abroad, or with 77t loads. Similarly, more C130Js makes only sense if there is a requirement for it, either for tanker, or special varients that MTA won't offer. Otherwise we only reduce the order of MTA and reduce the benefit of the money we spend in that development.

 

[nair]

@sancho I have followed your post related to IAF.... You seems to have good knowledge of IAF..... Are you a professional related to IAF?

 

[selvan33]

It is when you compare cost vs requirements, 25 x C17 costs over $10 billions and that although we don't have an operational capability to operate main parts of our forces abroad, or with 77t loads. Similarly, more C130Js makes only sense if there is a requirement for it, either for tanker, or special varients that MTA won't offer. Otherwise we only reduce the order of MTA and reduce the benefit of the money we spend in that development.

This what am saying dude. We need 16-20 NO's of C17 but not more than that. But surely we need 24-36 A4OOM which will increase strategic airlift capability but i don't know why peoples are always against it. With the money of buying one C 17(410mil$0, we will buy 2 A400M's and also it LC cost is very less when compared to C 17(damn hard to maintain).

 

[sancho]

@sancho I have followed your post related to IAF.... You seems to have good knowledge of IAF..... Are you a professional related to IAF?

No I'm not a professional.

This what am saying dude. We need 16-20 NO's of C17 but not more than that. But surely we need 24-36 A4OOM which will increase strategic airlift capability but i don't know why peoples are always against it. With the money of buying one C 17(410mil$0, we will buy 2 A400M's and also it LC cost is very less when compared to C 17(damn hard to maintain).

I don't think we need even 16 x C17s for the mentioned reasons, but what we need is the capability to move vehicles and heavier cargo as fast as possible, to as many airstrips as possible, within and around India and to do this, we don't only need the capabilities but also a good number of aircrafts. That's why I think the costs-capability comparison of the A400 is more suitable to the operations of Indian forces, than a few addition C17s at very high costs.
And if we play it smart, we could get excellent price and conditions at the moment, since German and Spain will sell parts of their orders. So there is no better time to go for it, or even to go for deeper relations to EADS in return for our orders.

 

[Hulk]

That's the duty of the public, to question what the government or in this case the forces does with taxpayers money, or for the defence of the country. Not to mention that the forces not always get what they want, or can do what they want. IAF wanted M2K-5s and years later they might get Rafale based on government decisions / requirements. The C17 procurement could have been a political choice too, since it was the only deal in the last years that wasn't based on any evaluations, or a competition, however, my point here is only about usefulness of a follow deal.

Btw, the A400 is not bigger than the C17:

A400

Length: 45.1 m
Wingspan: 42.4 m
Height: 14.7 m
Empty weight: 76,500 kg

C17

Length: 53 m
Wingspan: 51.75 m
Height: 16.8 m
Empty weight: 128,100 kg




It is when you compare cost vs requirements, 25 x C17 costs over $10 billions and that although we don't have an operational capability to operate main parts of our forces abroad, or with 77t loads. Similarly, more C130Js makes only sense if there is a requirement for it, either for tanker, or special varients that MTA won't offer. Otherwise we only reduce the order of MTA and reduce the benefit of the money we spend in that development.

Hard to believe Babus decided everything without asking IAF?

 

[faithfulguy]

Nice to have c-17s.

I do hope the fresh order goes thru.. US transports are indeed the best, and we're a huge distance away to build such things at home, currently.

Yes, lets hope India orders more. These are indeed money well spend and shows its politician know how to buy things correctly sometimes.

 

[AADHAAR]

Yes, lets hope India orders more. These are indeed money well spend and shows its politician know how to buy things correctly sometimes.

Lets hope we can arm twist the americans to give full technology transfer and license production of these planes in India, like we do for Su-30MKI and which is a condition for Rafales too.

 

[selvan33]

Lets hope we can arm twist the americans to give full technology transfer and license production of these planes in India, like we do for Su-30MKI and which is a condition for Rafales too.

And no way for that complete ToT. yes we got little tech transfer in C17 order(i doudt this too whether actually we got it or not) and they are not russians who are ready to give technology to everyone who pays money. But USA won't give even to their closest allies.

 

[AADHAAR]

And no way for that complete ToT. yes we got little tech transfer in C17 order(i doudt this too whether actually we got it or not) and they are not russians who are ready to give technology to everyone who pays money. But USA won't give even to their closest allies.

I was just having some fun with faithlessguy.

C-17s are a good buy for now.

Indian will develop its own transports, eventually.

 

[jha]

Hard to believe Babus decided everything without asking IAF?

No They did not.

This was one plane which IAF had specifically asked for. Thats why no competition was held as there is no other option available. And thats why IAF will order more of these.

Comparing an unproven plane like A-400 with C-17 is of no use. We must not forget that A-400 has its own share of issues with nations cancelling/reducing orders. Plus A-400 is yet to be inducted in any AF and going by its record, I am not sure when and how fast will they provide us our order.

 

[sancho]

Hard to believe Babus decided everything without asking IAF?

Let's say they left IAF without a choice, otherwise common procedure for procurements is to at least send out RFIs / RFPs to manufacturers, which was not done and the fact that US government pressured Boeing to reduce the price was also pretty telling.
In MMRCA industrial benefits were more important than fast replacement of Migs, which again left IAF with no choice than accepting the new competition.

as there is no other option available

Which is not correct, the IL 76-MD90s and AN70 (older version) were avilable, A400 was already conducting trials..., not to mention that half of the MMRCA were not available...(your Gripen for example), so that's a lame argument.
IN also asked Dassault and Boeing for infos on Rafale M and F18SH till the Russians combined the fighters with the carrier.

Plus A-400 is yet to be inducted in any AF and going by its record, I am not sure when and how fast will they provide us our order.

You should check the news, the first A400 will be inducted this year in the French air force, the next will be delivered to Turkish air force, we could easily take over orders from Germany and Spain with deliveries in 2014/15, so that is no issue either. Especially not if we would consider them now instead of follow orders of C17.

 

[cloud]

@sancho and other members, I'm not much informed about the air-lifters, But Why don't we talk about IL76 or 476, instead of A400, Going by the internet information, IL76 comes out at almost half the price of A400, but with better capability in India's perspective(even considering the maintenance cost, its hard to digest that the maintenance cost itself will be more then the procuring cost, unless Il76 is so useless for high altitude areas(I guess the most important one)?? Is it so?), In today term, I'm guessing that we are talking about 3 IL76 for the price of one C17. While a few C-17s are good for us. the additional requirement should be fulfilled with much greater numbers and this is where I would prefer 20 IL76, then 10 A400 or 6 C17s, irrespective of their maintenance cost as we have already operated them in bigger numbers, when we could afford less.

 

[sancho]

@sancho and other members, I'm not much informed about the air-lifters, But Why don't we talk about IL76 or 476, instead of A400, Going by the internet information, IL76 comes out at almost half the price of A400, but with better capability in India's perspective(even considering the maintenance cost, its hard to digest that the maintenance cost itself will be more then the procuring cost, unless Il76 is so useless for high altitude areas(I guess the most important one)?? Is it so?), In today term, I'm guessing that we are talking about 3 IL76 for the price of one C17. While a few C-17s are good for us. the additional requirement should be fulfilled with much greater numbers and this is where I would prefer 20 IL76, then 10 A400 or 6 C17s, irrespective of their maintenance cost as we have already operated them in bigger numbers, when we could afford less.

It is an alternative, but it has several disadvantages compared to the other candidates, be it higher maintenance and operational costs, be that you need roughly twice the crew, or that the cargo hold has big size limitations.

IL76 vs A400 vs C17

lenght without ramp: 20m / 17.71 m / 20.78 m
width: 3.45m / 4m / 5.49 m
height: 3.4m / 4m / 4.50m

With the limited height and width the IL is not able to carry MBTs, no matter how much payload the latest version have. The A400 has the cargo hold size, but lacks the payload, but it can carry light tanks or tank destroyers just like the IL too. The K9 SPH that L&T offers in the howitzer competition is 3.4m wide, which hardly fits in the IL, while it won't have any issue in the A400... ... ...,
Even in tanker role, the IL is in disadvantage, because it needs internal fuel tanks, which occupies the cargo hold, the A400MRTT on the other side carries most of the fuel in the wing tanks and carries only a single internal fuel tank, which still leaves room for cargo. For short take off and landing capabilities, the A400 should be the perfect choice as well, which gives us the availability of more possible air strips in and around India, compared to the other too.
The IL 476 is a modernised, but mainly stretched version of the IL 76 we already have, but the width and height limitations remains the same.

 

[Abingdonboy]

It is an alternative, but it has several disadvantages compared to the other candidates, be it higher maintenance and operational costs, be that you need roughly twice the crew, or that the cargo hold has big size limitations.

IL76 vs A400 vs C17

lenght without ramp: 20m / 17.71 m / 20.78 m
width: 3.45m / 4m / 5.49 m
height: 3.4m / 4m / 4.50m

With the limited height and width the IL is not able to carry MBTs, no matter how much payload the latest version have. The A400 has the cargo hold size, but lacks the payload, but it can carry light tanks or tank destroyers just like the IL too. The K9 SPH that L&T offers in the howitzer competition is 3.4m wide, which hardly fits in the IL, while it won't have any issue in the A400... ... ...,
Even in tanker role, the IL is in disadvantage, because it needs internal fuel tanks, which occupies the cargo hold, the A400MRTT on the other side carries most of the fuel in the wing tanks and carries only a single internal fuel tank, which still leaves room for cargo. For short take off and landing capabilities, the A400 should be the perfect choice as well, which gives us the availability of more possible air strips in and around India, compared to the other too.
The IL 476 is a modernised, but mainly stretched version of the IL 76 we already have, but the width and height limitations remains the same.

@sancho AFAIK the MRTT modification hasn't been specified by any customer as of yet for service AFAIK.


Looking at orders for the A400 though France and Germany are set to get 50 each! That's some serious air lift capability!!


However I have been reading up and it seems that out of 53 units the Germans plan to sell off 13 A400s to a third party although no one has come foreward yet. I wonder if the IAF could swoop in and bag itself a bargain?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The IAF’s Rs 22,800 crore ($4.12 billion) purchase of 10 C-17s will make it the largest operator of C-17s outside the US. The aircraft will allow the army to swiftly reinforce threatened sectors along the remote, Himalayan, northern border. It can fly 74 tonnes of stores over 4,500 kilometres, landing on a one-kilometre stretch of hard, unpaved MUD. The C-17 can also deliver paratroopers on to an objective. Since its full load of 134 fully equipped paratroopers weighs less than 10 tonnes, the aircraft’s range increases to over 10,000 kilometres. A company of paratroopers can be delivered without refuelling as far as London, or the Australian city of Darwin.

The C-17 will replace the obsolescent Russian IL-76 airlifter, which has served the IAF since the early 1980s but is now UNRELIABLE. The IAF is impressed with the C-17’s abilities, especially after June 20, 2010. During trials in Ladakh, in the oxygen-thin air of that hot summer day, the IL-76 was UNABLE TO LAND EVEN WITHOUT A PAYLOAD. The C-17, to the IAF’s delight, landed and took off with 30 tonnes on board.

A novelty in India’s C-17 purchase is a “PERFORMANCE BASED LOGISTICS” contract that the IAF has signed with Boeing.

This binds Boeing to ensure that some 85 PER CENT of the C-17 fleet is always available and ready for operations. Boeing will position spares and maintenance personnel for this, drawing not just on depots in the US, but on a “virtual fleet” that includes the six other forces that operate the C-17.

Just the above 3 features make this aircrAft a superb choice for IAF,i'm hoping we go for 10 more and slowly phase out older il-76s.