First C-17 to arrive in India shortly

[janon]

Of course not, because it's a good aircraft, but it's a waste of money for India to procure so many of them and IAF would be way more effective with the A400M.

The A-400M cannot perform many critical tasks for the IAF, like transporting our MBTs. Both the Arjun and the T-90 are too heavy to be transported by A-400.

A-400M will bring more bang for the buck purely as a troop transport or regular cargo transporter. But we need an aircraft to perform certain niche tasks during battle, which the C-17 can and the A-400M can't. Surprise deployment of armor or heavy artillery, carrying heavy missiles and their launch tubes, and so on.

So the only question is whether IAF should have a small number of C-17s and then a slightly bigger number of A-400Ms. That would be wasted expenditure, not just from a monetary perspective, but also from logistics, maintenance, training perspective. Pilots, loadmasters, ground crew, paratroopers will all have to be trained on both. Instead it is better to just go ahead with 16 or 20 C-17s, since we need ten of them anyway to perform critical tasks that A400M can't. Ten C-17s and another ten A400s just don't make sense.

 

[AADHAAR]

^^^ Correct.

 

[sancho]

The A-400M cannot perform many critical tasks for the IAF, like transporting our MBTs. Both the Arjun and the T-90 are too heavy to be transported by A-400.

That's one task and let's be honest, does anybody really expect IAF to use it's full C17 fleet, to carry just 10 to 20 x MBTs? It's good to know that it could, but it's not really likely, since it not an effective transport solution, when a MBT corp includes dozens of tanks. Anything else can be transported by an A400, AN 70, Kawasaki XC2, or IL 476 too.
The C17 are meant mainly for strategic transport roles, so long distance disaster relief, troop transport for UN missions, or cargo transport for exercises. Within India their main advantage is, the high payload they can carry to high altitude areas, that's why it's good to have 10 of them on order to support our operations there.

. But we need an aircraft to perform certain niche tasks during battle, which the C-17 can and the A-400M can't. Surprise deployment of armor or heavy artillery, carrying heavy missiles and their launch tubes, and so on.

That's exactly why we need such aircrafts, because the can carry vehicles, bigger howitzers, or even helicopters, unlike MTA for example, but can do more niche roles too, like the tanker or MEDIVAC roles.

So the only question is whether IAF should have a small number of C-17s and then a slightly bigger number of A-400Ms. That would be wasted expenditure, not just from a monetary perspective, but also from logistics, maintenance, training perspective. Pilots, loadmasters, ground crew, paratroopers will all have to be trained on both. Instead it is better to just go ahead with 16 or 20 C-17s, since we need ten of them anyway to perform critical tasks that A400M can't. Ten C-17s and another ten A400s just don't make sense.

It's 2 x A400Ms for a single C17 and don't expect the C17 beeing used for paradrops when even the C130Js can carry nearly as many and the A400 can even carry more than the C17. That's where tatical aircrafts are used and not strategic aircrafts, especially when our battlefields are next door and not 1000s Km away, like in the case of the US. That's as usual the biggest mistake people make, looking at US arms and automatically think that they will be used in Indian forces the same way as the US forces use them, but that is not the case, since we have totally different requirments!

 

[janon]

That's one task and let's be honest, does anybody really expect IAF to use it's full C17 fleet, to carry just 10 to 20 x MBTs? It's good to know that it could, but it's not really likely, since it not an effective transport solution, when a MBT corp includes dozens of tanks. Anything else can be transported by an A400, AN 70, Kawasaki XC2, or IL 476 too.
The C17 are meant mainly for strategic transport roles, so long distance disaster relief, troop transport for UN missions, or cargo transport for exercises. Within India their main advantage is, the high payload they can carry to high altitude areas, that's why it's good to have 10 of them on order to support our operations there.



That's exactly why we need such aircrafts, because the can carry vehicles, bigger howitzers, or even helicopters, unlike MTA for example, but can do more niche roles too, like the tanker or MEDIVAC roles.




It's 2 x A400Ms for a single C17 and don't expect the C17 beeing used for paradrops when even the C130Js can carry nearly as many and the A400 can even carry more than the C17. That's where tatical aircrafts are used and not strategic aircrafts, especially when our battlefields are next door and not 1000s Km away, like in the case of the US. That's as usual the biggest mistake people make, looking at US arms and automatically think that they will be used in Indian forces the same way as the US forces use them, but that is not the case, since we have totally different requirments!

If we have the C-17s, they will be used for paradrops as well. We won't buy such an expensive multirole aircraft and then not utilize some of its capabilities. So our airborne troops will be qualified to jump from C-17s, C-130s, and MTAs. Just like currently they are all trained and qualified to jump from Il-76 and An-32s.

You agree that we need the C-17 for some capabilities, like carrying Arjuns and T-90s into the battlefield. As I said, once we agree on the need for a few C-17s, then the only question is whether to have 10 C-17s and 10 A-400Ms, or only 16 (or 20) C-17s. The latter makes more sense. If it is agreed that 10 C-17s are needed to give a new capability, then it follows logically that we should get 16 of them, rather than have ten of them AND a few A400s.

The ability to transport an MBT or a couple of IFVs or four APCs into the battlefield is something that the IAF wants, and only the C-17 can do (or the antonov behemoth, which was not available when we decided to purchase the C-17). Sure, the other vehicles can be transported by other aircrafts, using more sorties (which means higher cost, and in battle, higher risk). But none of them can carry MBTs.

It all boils down to this - only the C-17 can carry MBTs, and we decided to get a few of them, a few years back. So now it is better to go for a few more of those, than get a new type of aircraft, to completely fulfill our heavy transport needs.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

C-17 has 3 critical advantages.More operational range,way more load that can carry armour and most important for the iaf the ability to land on rough areas with minimal airstrips.This last consideration is very important in operations in NE.

 

[sancho]

If we have the C-17s, they will be used for paradrops as well. We won't buy such an expensive multirole aircraft and then not utilize some of its capabilities. So our airborne troops will be qualified to jump from C-17s, C-130s, and MTAs. Just like currently they are all trained and qualified to jump from Il-76 and An-32s.

You didn't think about the reasons why we currently need 2 platforms! The AN 32 can carry only around 40 paratroopers, an IL 76 over 120, so you will logically need 3 aircrafts for the same ammount of paratroopers. The difference between a C130J-30 and a C17 on the other hand is just 10 x paratroopers (92 vs 102). Even MTA will be able to carry around 80 x paratroopers too and the fact that C130s and MTAs will be deployed at more air bases around the country, makes them the logical choice for paradrops, since you have a suitable aircraft nearby and don't have to call the C17s and wait for till one is available (26/11!!!).

You agree that we need the C-17 for some capabilities, like carrying Arjuns and T-90s into the battlefield.

No, I agree that it has this capability, but that doesn't mean we would use this as part as our normal cargo operations. Tanks will be moved in higher numbers via road or rail transports. That's why we have dedicated wagons for Arjun, to transport via rail. The C17 can only carry a single Arjun and even if we occupy the whole C17 fleet, we would need a very long time to transport a useful number of tanks around, while no aircraft would be available for other missions. That's why this will be a very rare solution, in case road and rail links are destroyed for example and not a common policy.
The C17 is not a C5 or AN124, which are meant to carry higher numbers of MBTs. Even if we have to transport MBTs abroad for UN missions, we wouldn't use the C17s and would either lease an AN 124s, or ship them over => see recent Afghanistan, or Mali conflicts as well.

Again, the main purpose of C17s for India are long range strategic transports and high payload transports to high altitude areas. That are othe only roles where the C17 will have a decisive advantage over other aircrafts and for our requirements.
In any short to medium range, or medium payload missions, within or around India on the other side, the A400 class aircrafts are as useful, or even better.

then the only question is whether to have 10 C-17s and 10 A-400Ms

Nope, the the real question would be, do you add 6 more strategtic transporters, or 12 x A400 multi role transport tankers for example, for the same costs?
The earlier would further improve the strategic transport roles, the latter the tactical, the strategic and the tanker roles and that in twice the numbers and no additional costs!!!

You have to see it like this, the C17 in IAF would be like the C5 in USAF (strategic transport), while the A400 in IAF would be like the C17 and the KC130J in USAF (tactical and strategic transports + tanker roles).
The US have to transport everything far away, be it tanks, or paratroopers, while Indian air force mainly is used in and around India, so range is not the important point, but efficient transports of payloads in different landscapes and climates, to dedicated air bases or unpaved airstrips and if possible with multi role capablities.

So the addition of A400 to the C17s, would offer:..

...more numbers (for the same costs)
...more variety of roles
...more available airstrips for operations around India
...more support capability (Tanker, special ops, paratrooper roles)
...more industrial benefits (because we still could take over parts of the production)...


While the addition of more C17, just offer more of the same capabilities in the same roles.

 

[Abingdonboy]

It's 2 x A400Ms for a single C17 and don't expect the C17 beeing used for paradrops when even the C130Js can carry nearly as many and the A400 can even carry more than the C17. That's where tatical aircrafts are used and not strategic aircrafts, especially when our battlefields are next door and not 1000s Km away, like in the case of the US. That's as usual the biggest mistake people make, looking at US arms and automatically think that they will be used in Indian forces the same way as the US forces use them, but that is not the case, since we have totally different requirments!

@sancho you are correct the Indian forces have their own needs and operating procedures. However let me tell you for a fact that the C-17s will be used for para drops of supplies and paratroopers. I know this 100% from info I have got.


Also considering the C-17s are set to replace the IAF's IL-76s which are used to para drop supplies and troops today why would the IAF's C-17s not be used in the same way?

 

[Die Hard]

It is a real strategic airlift muscle. Some reports say India will operate the largest no. of C17 outside USA, that means close or over 20, what do you think?

 

[Koovie]

It is a real strategic airlift muscle. Some reports say India will operate the largest no. of C17 outside USA, that means close or over 20, what do you think?

India is a huge country with a diversity of different terrains and many parts which are difficult to get into, thus a large transport fleet makes sense and is absolutely required.

 

[Abingdonboy]

It is a real strategic airlift muscle. Some reports say India will operate the largest no. of C17 outside USA, that means close or over 20, what do you think?

Already with India's first order of 10 units the IAF has become the single largest operator outside of the US. And yes there is an option for 6 follow-on units and there is a lot of talk of getting a fleet totalling atleast 20-25 units.

 

[Mitro]

20 C-17 Good for Quick troops mobilization and to implement Cold Start Doctrine Good Choice.

 

[sancho]

@sancho you are correct the Indian forces have their own needs and operating procedures. However let me tell you for a fact that the C-17s will be used for para drops of supplies and paratroopers. I know this 100% from info I have got.


Also considering the C-17s are set to replace the IAF's IL-76s which are used to para drop supplies and troops today why would the IAF's C-17s not be used in the same way?

Paradroping supplies or vehicle is another issue, but even that will be done by MTA too, if the C27J, or the C295 will be selected they could do it as well, the difference is only the payload. However all this would be done in India and not in another country far away, like the US or NATO countries does it. Not to mention that an A400M could do the same, so again nothing that would be specific for the C17 only.

 

[Oldman1]

The C17 is capable of dropping almost 160 paratroopers.

 

[Hulk]

@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.

 

[jha]

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..