Pictures : Globemaster carrying Tejas

[Indo-guy]

 

[jaiind]

mummy placing tejas under its belly ....

 

[Dandpatta]

Story please.

 

[Indo-guy]

Story please.

Got it after some patient internet search !


" In the picture below, the C-17 shows its versatility by bringing back to HAL, a Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). While the Tejas weighs in only at about 7 tons (about an eleventh of the C-17′s 77 ton lifting capacity), it is quite a sight to see it being carried in this massive aircraft "

Indian Air Force C-17 unloading a LCA

 

[Soumitra]

mummy placing tejas under its belly ....

 

[GORKHALI]

Actually an old pic ,C 17 carrying Tejas for republic day parade.

 

[ptltejas]

Where are wings? Without wings or wings are folding in fighter jets

 

[abdulrauf akhtar]

A fighter who can't fly 1000 km ,what will be it's performance in the war theater ?

 

[GR!FF!N]

A fighter who can't fly 1000 km ,what will be it's performance in the war theater ?

carrying war equipment directly to the war zone is not new.its all about efficiency.a Tank can be sent to anywhere in India using road or rail link.but we choose air,because its faster and efficient.

equipment C-17 can carry.


by the way,the pics is just for demonstration purpose perhaps.Tejas can fly some 3000 km(Ferry Range),thus can reach anywhere in India as its own.its better to know that Tejas now can be sent directly for test flight at other places without flying.I'm simply amazed to see the utility of the C-17.

 

[sancho]

While the Tejas weighs in only at about 7 tons (about an eleventh of the C-17′s 77 ton lifting capacity), it is quite a sight to see it being carried in this massive aircraft "

The marked part is actually the important part of this, which shows what a waste of money that actually is, to operate such a big aircraft with so limited capacity. Air India did the same nonsense, by using Boeing 747 Jumbos for flights within India, with not even half of the capacity.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The marked part is actually the important part of this, which shows what a waste of money that actually is, to operate such a big aircraft with so limited capacity. Air India did the same nonsense, by using Boeing 747 Jumbos for flights within India, with not even half of the capacity.

In this instance it is not about weight but volume, the C-17's cargo hold is large enough to take the LCA but what other, smaller, air lifters could do that? A400 perhaps but even still the A400 are additionally very large a/c and the 7 ton weight of the LCA would only be around one 5th of the A400s lifting capacity. There's no way you would get the LCA in a commercial a/c's cargo hold. The very dimensions of this special shipment would mean almost any airlifted to speak of would be lifting well below its lifting capacity. To be honest sir, I think this is a moot point.

 

[sancho]

In this instance it is not about weight but volume, the C-17's cargo hold is large enough to take the LCA but what other, smaller, air lifters could do that?

That's why I talked about it's capacity, which includes both, because a single LCA surely won't fill the cargohold of a C17 just by size either.
The IL 76 can do it, A400, AN70, just as the Kawasaki C-2, since the cargoholds are big enough when wings or rotors of aircrafts are not mounted. But most of them are far cheaper to operate than the C17, especially with such lighter loads and at low distances and that is the crucial point!
IAF simply doesn't have a large requirement of high payloads to long distances transports, but mainly medium or oversized loads to short and medium distances. That's why they weren't used for example in the disaster relief missions to the Philippines for example, where they hardly could get the payload for a C130J, which lacks strategic range again.
The one simply is often too much, the other not capable enough and that's exactly where the A400 or the C-2 fill both gaps for India, in a more cost-effective or operationally efficient way!


The C130J is a great aircraft for special ops and for basic medium class transports, just as the C17 is a great aircraft for strategic long range and heavy transports, but both are only showing the extreem ends of IAF's operations, not the bulk. That's why IAF must reconsider and add A400 or C-2 class of aircrafts, to gain operational advantages. Higher numbers of aircrafts, that can transport oversized machinery, vehicles, howitzers or aircrafts, to short or medium distances, in and around India, with low operational costs!

Btw, wasn't that the transport to the Bahrain air show, which was a big waste of money for the taxpayer anyway (DRDO AWACS making a pointless flight show)?

 

[sancho]

Some real life comparisons:

C-130J In Flood Relief Operations

C130J refuelling a fuel bowser, that was lifted by the Mi 26, because the C130J can't carry larger vehicles or oversized loads to the effected areas.

VS

Indian Air Force sending one of its @LockheedMartin C-130Js with humanitarian supplies to Philippines via Port Blair for typhoon relief.

VS

C130J needed to fly 640Km more to refuel at Port Blair, at slower speeds (643 km/h vs 780 km/h of A400) and can carried less and limited sized loads only.

The Indian Air Force (IAF)'s C-17 Globemaster III Strategic Airlifter Transport Aircraft delivered relief materials including specialist army vehicles and ambulance from bases in central India to Bhubaneswar, ahead of the arrival of cyclone Phailin.

vs

In and around India, the C17 can carry the same humanitarian loads as the A400, just in higher numbers, but at higher operational costs.