Almost all landing surfaces are Standard around those are not build in a way that pose danger to airplanes so the problem is solved you should be familiar with Airport Runway building standards all runways are built on international standards.
Firstly, can you break your sentences up? They're not very clear.
Also, you don't seem to have understood the jist of my post. You're right, the IL-78 can probably land on all of Pakistan's runways. What it can not do is operate off a beach strip in the Ran of Kutch, or off an unprepared desert strip in Baluchistan or a mountainous plateau in the Karakorum like the C-130 can. The PCN refers to the strength of the pavement/runway surface.
C-130 costs more then IL-76/IL-78 having said that IL-78 for its size is great when it comes to price tag. An extra 3 IL-76/78 are not cost over burdens otherwise you'll need to procure 3 C-130s for every 1 IL-76/78 the cost of maintenance is nullified you'll spend close to that on IL-76/78 as much as on 3 C-130s. IL-76/78 are reliable Transport with its flight history dating back to early 1971-82 till date.
Read my post again. I wasn't referring to new off-the-line C-130Js. If Pakistan was to purchase new, they would cost in excess of $60 million a piece. C-130H models manufactured in the 70-80s would be much cheaper, vastly more capable than the -E models that PAF mainly have, and would still have a lot of life left.
For our overall Transport activities-purposes IL-78 fullfills that role greatly efficiently.
Not true. I thought I would pull up some fuel burn numbers to further my points:
IL-76/-78 equipped with PS-90 engines (PAF are equipped with PS-90) and operating at MSP will burn 8-9000 kg/hr. That's more than a 380t Airbus A340-600
http://www.skylineaviation.co.uk/downloads/IlyushinIL-76.pdf
A C-130H operating at MSP will burn around 2-2500 kg/hr (about the same as an F-16!)
In airlines, fuel costs make up around 40% of running costs. Given the fact that most airforces own their aircraft, that would push fuel to over 50% of operating costs.
Furthermore, you imply that due to the maturity of the IL-76 being around since the 70s that it is a very reliable airframe. By that logic, surely this means that the C-130 which has been around 20 years longer is even more reliable?
Also, even the most reliable machines need maintenance. The T-56 and PS-90 both have very similar TBO for the engines:
Metallurgy and other upgrades since the 1970s have made the T56 a more reliable engine. The Coast Guard will let the Air Force go first on the next upgrade, hoping to learn from the larger services experience.
We expect the T56 to stay on for 20 more years, as long as the C-130Hs, Miller said. Our turbines are getting close to 6,000 hours and compressors are pushing toward 9,000 hours. They are getting more reliable, or at least we are not seeing any decline in reliability. ♦
Engine Maintenance
Also, perhaps you would care to look into the cost of the recent overhaul of the Mil-17 operated by the Punjab Govt and the difficulties and costs they faced in acquiring spare parts (An overhauled TV3 engine will set you back over $500 000).
The extremely poor supply chain logistics offered by Russian/ ex-CIS states is a huge issue and is one of the reasons why few to none Western airlines operate such aircraft types (I seem to recall a very long red flag thread regarding the Indian Air Force in the US and the difficulties they had in obtaining spare parts for their Sukhois).
I think there are no Negatives attached with IL-78 specially when the number is 4 and might increase to 4 more in future or should.
Take off the rose tinted glasses.
