U.S. Approves Boeing C-17 Globemaster Sale to India

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

one of my friends was covering startegic airlift deal and following are the observations noted by him:

1. reliability of C-17 was much better as compared to other aircrafts.
2. They compared the MTBF (mean time between failure) and MTBO (mean time between overhaul) of several aircrafts. C-17 fared much better in these analysis.
3. fuel economy of C-17 was much better then IL-476.
4. A small crew (05) is needed for C-17 ops. where as russian planes rquires 08 people to take flight.
5. C-17 has got powerfull engines which shortens its take off.

even crew which had gone for flight evaluation trials had recommended that c-17 is much better option then russian ac.

 

[sancho]

So you disagree with your air chief and think you know better than the head of your air force?

I disagree with him, not because I know it better, but because a "comprehensive evaluation" needs at least 2 aircrafts!
In this case instead, they sent RFI only to Boeing, fielded trials only for C17 and sent an RFP only to Boeing.
So what they did was possibly a "comprehensive evaluation" of the C17, but not of all available aircrafts and that's a big difference!

Still in a 1 on 1 comparison the C17 is the most capable aircraft, but for these high costs, there were better alternatives for Indias needs!
When we get them for the $410 millions each, one could justify them at least on costs, but Boeing already stated that this figure is not real.

 

[sancho]

My take on a comprehensive evaluation of C17, or alternatives to replace IL 76!


To make it clear once again, I am not against the C17 in general, but besides the questionable way this deal was pushed through, I don't see how they can be the best for our forces, at such high costs!

The main roles of these transport aircrafts in IAF are cargo, troop/paratroopers and vehicle transports, mainly in India itself, but sometimes also abroad. For example in exercises (Red Flag, Garuda), or desaster relief missions, even in war szenarios that requires a rapid troop build up like we saw during the Maldive crisis in 1988 ( 1988 Maldives Coup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

The latter could also be needed in a hypothetical Indo – Chinese crisis, for rapid troop build up alongside the north eastern borders and that's why the capability to land and to take off from unprepared airstips might be important for IAF.
IA already expressed interest in lighter and air transportable equipment, like new wheeled and tracked IFV / tank destroyers, as well as self propelled howitzers like the Stryker, or the Archer artillery system (although I would suggest the Patria AMV, CV90 and the Atillery Gun Module / Donar, like I meantioned here: http://www.defence.pk/forums/1336834-post43.html), not to mention that we already have big numbers of BMPs in various versions and they they seems to be a focus on lifting MBTs in such situations too.

So if we take these points as the most important requirements and compare the IL 76MD that we have right now, with possible replacements like C17, or the A400, it looks like this:

As we can see here, the IAF IL 76 neither can take off, or land on unprepaired airstrips, nor can it carry MBTs. The C17 instead can do it, but the difference in general lift performance is rather small, because the maximum payload is not the only factor that decides about the lift performance, but the size of the cargo hold too!
An IL 76 can carry the weight of the T90, but the cargo hold is not wide enough (T90 width 3.78m / IL 76 cargo hold width 3.45m), on the other side an A 400 has STOVL capabilities and the cargo hold has the size to carry T90, but it doesn't have the payload. So the biggest advantage of C17 is, that it combines it all in one, STOVL, high payloads and a big cargo hold!

However, does this justify these high costs of around $580 million each? Imo no, because like the comparison also shows, IAF could get 2 x A400 for 1 x C17, can still safe more than $100 million and would get even better lift performance in nearly all fields, except MBTs carrying capability (I know that means more crew is needed too, but I will explain it later)!
Moreover, the C17 is a dedicated transport aircraft only, while the A400 is a multi role aircraft, designed for the same roles like the C130J, but capable enough to fulfill the strategic lift roles similar to C17 too! That means 2 x A400 can be used for the same transport role as a C17, but if not needed, can be used in the mid air refuelling role (for fighters, transport, or AWACS aircrafts and even helicopters), for special ops, or as a MEDIVAC too.

The tanker capability is a very interesting point here, although an A400 tanker can't replace a dedicated tanker like an IL 78, or A330, it can refuel helicopters and IAF has expressed interest in aircrafts for these roles too. That means buying A400 MRTTs safes money to buy dedicated tankers for the helicopter refueling role.
We also have to keep in mind, that IAF seems to be happy with the 48t payload, that the IL 76 offered so far, because even when they send spares, supplies and ground crews to exercises like Red Flag, or Garuda, IAF send only a single IL 76 alongside IL78 tankers (Singapore Airforce send a tanker and a C130 only). So how often does IAF really need the full 77t payload of the C17 and how often does they have to fly with half load only?
In this case, 2 x A400 would give them way more flexibility for transports, numbers of available aircrafts and would be more cost-effectiveness too, beacause even if we have to send one of them abroad, we still have enough of them at home and wasn't insufficient numbers of aircrafts the real problem for IAF?

The airlift capability has come under criticism during the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, when NSG commandos had to be airlifted from Manesar near New Delhi where NSG are based but were delayed due to non availability of large aircraft there at that time and an IL-76 was called from Chandigarh...

IAF?s strategic airlift capability:

 

[sancho]

Part 2:

Another important point imo is, that although we would be the biggest foreign operator of C17s, we still would be a simple buyer for Boeing only, whereas the launch customers of A400 get involved into the production line of all A400s:

More here:

Customer Base

That would have been a big advantage for our industry, especially by the fact that we have good knowledge with composite materials and the A400 makes extensive use of it. Not to forget that the C17 production line is about to close, while the A400 just starts and more export orders in the future are likely. So this could have been a long term commitment, for companies like HAL, TATA...

At the moment, AFAIK IAF has 17 x IL 76MDs and 16 x C17s are meant to replace them, but imo it wouldn't be a good choice to procure so many very heavy lift aircrafts and limit ourselfs on these limited numbers. It would be better to have a flexible multi role capable mix of aircrafts, that includes some C17s like this:


16 x A400 MRTT (Multi Role Transport Tanker)
6 x A330 MRTT
6 x C17

The A400 and A330 could used in different roles, like transport, refuelling (A400 can carry 37t of payload, the A330 MRTT 45t, during a refuelling mission), MEDIVAC, or troop transport roles, while the C17s could be used in dedicated heavy lift roles, like vehicle / MBT transport. This mix would give IAF the following advantages:

- the total number of aircrafts in the transport role could be increase from 17 to 28

- at the same time, the total number of crews will be reduced from 119 to 84

- the lift performance that are mentioned above for the IL 76, would be clearly increased through the new fleet mix

- the main strategic lift and refueling fleet (A400 / A330) would be multi role capable and would be accompanied only by special aircrafts for dedicated refuelling, or transport roles (6 x IL 78 and 6 x C17)

- IAF can react more flexible in all possible transport roles, be in inside, or outside of India, with dedicated airstripes available, or not, with 30t, or 70t of payload, lifting all kinds of IA MBTs, or even future medium to heavy vehicles

- IAF can refuel all kinds of aircrafts, be it with hose, or boom refuelling (C17 & P8I), be it fighters, bigger aircrafts, or even helicopters

and all this for just $20 million more than the 16 x C17 would cost !!!


16 x C17 ($580M) = $9.28 billions

16 x A400 ($222M) = $3.55 billions
+
6 x A330 ($378M) = $2.27 billions
+
6 x C17 8$580M) = $3.48 billions

=> $9.30 billions



The bottom line is, that the C17 is undeniably a very good aircraft, but not for such high costs and not neccesarily for a country that does not carry large payloads to long distances like the USAF does for example. They (or other NATO countries) have a lot of troops far away from their homeland, while our are placed mainly around our borders, so moving payloads from one point to another inside of India, should be most important for IAF. The C17 in such situations, would simply be an overkill, while an A400 could handle it more effectively!


Sources:

Specs
Military Transport Airplane IL-76MD
http://www.unitag.co.il/upload/il-76.gif
Boeing: C-17 Globemaster III - Technical Specifications
Specifications
Platform

Costs
India may have to pay more for C-17 airlifters: Boeing
EADS and 7 buyer nations agree on price top-up for A400M | Earth Times News
Indian Refuelers Cancellation Concerns Industry | AVIATION WEEK

 

[sudhir007]

My take on a comprehensive evaluation of C17, or alternatives to replace IL 76!


To make it clear once again, I am not against the C17 in general, but besides the questionable way this deal was pushed through, I don't see how they can be the best for our forces, at such high costs!

The main roles of these transport aircrafts in IAF are cargo, troop/paratroopers and vehicle transports, mainly in India itself, but sometimes also abroad. For example in exercises (Red Flag, Garuda), or desaster relief missions, even in war szenarios that requires a rapid troop build up like we saw during the Maldive crisis in 1988 ( 1988 Maldives Coup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

The latter could also be needed in a hypothetical Indo – Chinese crisis, for rapid troop build up alongside the north eastern borders and that's why the capability to land and to take off from unprepared airstips might be important for IAF.
IA already expressed interest in lighter and air transportable equipment, like new wheeled and tracked IFV / tank destroyers, as well as self propelled howitzers like the Stryker, or the Archer artillery system (although I would suggest the Patria AMV, CV90 and the Atillery Gun Module / Donar, like I meantioned here: http://www.defence.pk/forums/1336834-post43.html), not to mention that we already have big numbers of BMPs in various versions and they they seems to be a focus on lifting MBTs in such situations too.

So if we take these points as the most important requirements and compare the IL 76MD that we have right now, with possible replacements like C17, or the A400, it looks like this:

As we can see here, the IAF IL 76 neither can take off, or land on unprepaired airstrips, nor can it carry MBTs. The C17 instead can do it, but the difference in general lift performance is rather small, because the maximum payload is not the only factor that decides about the lift performance, but the size of the cargo hold too!
An IL 76 can carry the weight of the T90, but the cargo hold is not wide enough (T90 width 3.78m / IL 76 cargo hold width 3.45m), on the other side an A 400 has STOVL capabilities and the cargo hold has the size to carry T90, but it doesn't have the payload. So the biggest advantage of C17 is, that it combines it all in one, STOVL, high payloads and a big cargo hold!

However, does this justify these high costs of around $580 million each? Imo no, because like the comparison also shows, IAF could get 2 x A400 for 1 x C17, can still safe more than $100 million and would get even better lift performance in nearly all fields, except MBTs carrying capability (I know that means more crew is needed too, but I will explain it later)!
Moreover, the C17 is a dedicated transport aircraft only, while the A400 is a multi role aircraft, designed for the same roles like the C130J, but capable enough to fulfill the strategic lift roles similar to C17 too! That means 2 x A400 can be used for the same transport role as a C17, but if not needed, can be used in the mid air refuelling role (for fighters, transport, or AWACS aircrafts and even helicopters), for special ops, or as a MEDIVAC too.

The tanker capability is a very interesting point here, although an A400 tanker can't replace a dedicated tanker like an IL 78, or A330, it can refuel helicopters and IAF has expressed interest in aircrafts for these roles too. That means buying A400 MRTTs safes money to buy dedicated tankers for the helicopter refueling role.
We also have to keep in mind, that IAF seems to be happy with the 48t payload, that the IL 76 offered so far, because even when they send spares, supplies and ground crews to exercises like Red Flag, or Garuda, IAF send only a single IL 76 alongside IL78 tankers (Singapore Airforce send a tanker and a C130 only). So how often does IAF really need the full 77t payload of the C17 and how often does they have to fly with half load only?
In this case, 2 x A400 would give them way more flexibility for transports, numbers of available aircrafts and would be more cost-effectiveness too, beacause even if we have to send one of them abroad, we still have enough of them at home and wasn't insufficient numbers of aircrafts the real problem for IAF?



IAF?s strategic airlift capability:

Hi sancho can you make comparison C-17 with An-124 I dnt know about unprepared airstips ability of An-124 but otherwise it will be better option then C-17 much more payload more range and too lower price compare to not only C-17 but all the western airlifter.

 

[TankGirl]

The globemaster is suitable for India for one simple reason. It is the best available and India can afford it with it's present economic situation.

This aircraft is not simply a cargo plane, it is a force projection platform unlike any other. With this machine, you can land the entire squadrons of the largest tanks you have anywhere in the world. The impact of having tanks on the ground within hours of securing the airspace is immense and the strategic advantage cannot be overstated.

India cannot hope to overwhelm it's enemies by numbers alone. In some cases, quality has an immense advantage over quantity. That is the whole reasoning behind the c17. If you can afford the best, why settle for less?

 

[Bose-the great]

The globemaster is suitable for India for one simple reason. It is the best available and India can afford it with it's present economic situation.

This aircraft is not simply a cargo plane, it is a force projection platform unlike any other. With this machine, you can land the entire squadrons of the largest tanks you have anywhere in the world. The impact of having tanks on the ground within hours of securing the airspace is immense and the strategic advantage cannot be overstated.

India cannot hope to overwhelm it's enemies by numbers alone. In some cases, quality has an immense advantage over quantity. That is the whole reasoning behind the c17. If you can afford the best, why settle for less?

SORRY..
C-17 can carry one single MBT at a time..
India has ordered only ten of them..
Wat the use of transporting 10MBT's..?

 

[MST]

SORRY..
C-17 can carry one single MBT at a time..
India has ordered only ten of them..
Wat the use of transporting 10MBT's..?

Multiple sorties...

4 - 5 sorties in a day of these 10 C-17will put almost a whole Tank regiment up on the forward Areas. At the end of the day there is no beating the combination of MBT carrying capacity and landing on unprepared tracks. And its a good deal even if we are paying a fortune for it.

Remember we will not be fighting tank war in cities with airports but forward areas with just landing strips.

 

[sancho]

Hi sancho can you make comparison C-17 with An-124 I dnt know about unprepared airstips ability of An-124 but otherwise it will be better option then C-17 much more payload more range and too lower price compare to not only C-17 but all the western airlifter.

Hi sudhir, the AN 124 of course is more capable in term of lift capabilities, compared to an C17, because it is in a even higher class, more comparable to the C5. So when the aim is, to lift huge payloads, a lot of vehicles, or even MBTs, the AN 124 is clearly the better choice, that's why even the US and other NATO countries lease them to transport tanks to Afghanistan for example.
The problem is that it can't be used at unprepared airstrips and needs dedicated air bases, not to mention that it would be en even higher overkill, to replace an IL 76 with 48t of payload, with an AN 124 with 150t.
Another problem is, that it is not in production now and although Russia and the Ukraine are in negotiations about a restart of the production, with upgraded features (even the US wants to buy more of them), nothing is decided now.
An 124 would be a good addition, just like I suggested the C17s only as an addition, but we also could simply lease them from Russia if needed during war times for example.

The globemaster is suitable for India for one simple reason. It is the best available and India can afford it with it's present economic situation.

This aircraft is not simply a cargo plane, it is a force projection platform unlike any other. With this machine, you can land the entire squadrons of the largest tanks you have anywhere in the world. The impact of having tanks on the ground within hours of securing the airspace is immense and the strategic advantage cannot be overstated.

India cannot hope to overwhelm it's enemies by numbers alone. In some cases, quality has an immense advantage over quantity. That is the whole reasoning behind the c17. If you can afford the best, why settle for less?

That's exactly what I meant, because you point out the requirements of the US, or NATO forces that needs to project force around the world, but India don't need that!
We need an aircraft, or better a fleet, that fulfills our needs in and mainly around India, not around the world. We can afford it, but don't have to waste that much money if we could buy way more aircrafts that suits our needs way better.

 

[sancho]

SORRY..
C-17 can carry one single MBT at a time..
India has ordered only ten of them..
Wat the use of transporting 10MBT's..?

Multiple sorties...

4 - 5 sorties in a day of these 10 C-17will put almost a whole Tank regiment up on the forward Areas. At the end of the day there is no beating the combination of MBT carrying capacity and landing on unprepared tracks. And its a good deal even if we are paying a fortune for it.

Remember we will not be fighting tank war in cities with airports but forward areas with just landing strips.

Hi, actually you both hit the spot, because the only point of carrying a single MBT in each C17 is, in the during war times for rapid troop build up at forwared areas. During peace time it would be a big waste of using the whole heavy lift fleet to move MBTs from point A to B, not to mention that it is way more cost-effective to use road, or railway transport routes.

MST, you are right that this capability is not meant for tank wars, but for fast movement of credible fire power, to forwarded bases, even without a real airstrip. But I don't think that IA would really use heavy Arjuns for these roles, in small numbers, not to forget that it is more difficult to follow them with supplys. With all reports and the interest of them in wheeled and tracked tank destroyers, I think that they will focus on these kind of vehicles in higher numbers, to support ground troops.

Would 16 x Arjuns (transported with 16 x C17s) provide better fire support than 6 x Arjuns + 16 x wheeled, or tracked tank destroyers (transported with only 6 x C17s and 16 x A400s) like these?:

Personally, I would even let the MBTs completely out and would use the same fleet to carry tank destroyers and mortars, self propelled howitzers and IFV, maybe even like the Abhay that DRDO proposed.

The same fleet of aircrafts could carry:

16 x tank destroyers
4 x mortar carriers
4 x self propelled howitzers and
6 x Abhay IFV with troops

=> 30 x very mobile vehicles, with high fire power, that can be air transported within a short time, anywhere in, or around India!

 

[TenjikuKensei]

Multiple sorties...

4 - 5 sorties in a day of these 10 C-17will put almost a whole Tank regiment up on the forward Areas. At the end of the day there is no beating the combination of MBT carrying capacity and landing on unprepared tracks. And its a good deal even if we are paying a fortune for it.

Remember we will not be fighting tank war in cities with airports but forward areas with just landing strips.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. Rapid MBT insertion into forward areas...or even areas under threat during a fluid battlefield would definitely be a plus. One could even say that such a capability might be used to support fast-thrusting movements into enemy territory...or even add considerable punch to any Airborne unit(eg paratrooper) deployment...now instead of just having to reply on anti tank weapons alone to hold onto their position while the rest of the army catches up with them, they could have MBT/AFV support.

 

[TenjikuKensei]

Hi, actually you both hit the spot, because the only point of carrying a single MBT in each C17 is, in the during war times for rapid troop build up at forwared areas. During peace time it would be a big waste of using the whole heavy lift fleet to move MBTs from point A to B, not to mention that it is way more cost-effective to use road, or railway transport routes.

MST, you are right that this capability is not meant for tank wars, but for fast movement of credible fire power, to forwarded bases, even without a real airstrip. But I don't think that IA would really use heavy Arjuns for these roles, in small numbers, not to forget that it is more difficult to follow them with supplies. With all reports and the interest of them in wheeled and tracked tank destroyers, I think that they will focus on these kind of vehicles in higher numbers, to support ground troops.

Would 16 x Arjuns (transported with 16 x C17s) provide better fire support than 6 x Arjuns + 16 x wheeled, or tracked tank destroyers (transported with only 6 x C17s and 16 x A400s) like these?:

Personally, I would even let the MBTs completely out and would use the same fleet to carry tank destroyers and mortars, self propelled howitzers and IFV, maybe even like the Abhay that DRDO proposed.

The same fleet of aircrafts could carry:

16 x tank destroyers
4 x mortar carriers
4 x self propelled howitzers and
6 x Abhay IFV with troops

=> 30 x very mobile vehicles, with high fire power, that can be air transported within a short time, anywhere in, or around India!

You do have a point here; however; I believe that the IA already has aircraft which can carry AFV's and light tanks. But one has to remember that the survivability of light tanks are very limited in a purely-defensive/retaining land taken role...as they rely on mobility to ensure survivability. In a scenario where paratrooper regiments are dropped behind enemy lines to take and hold core choke-points/places of strategic interest, I believe the addition of MBT's would create untold problems for the enemy trying to retake those areas. Also one has to keep in mind that other light tanks/AFV's might even be airdropped..but MBT's cannot.

Having said that...its probably the ability for STOL from unprepared airfields which tipped the balance in favor of the c-17(in addition to its ability to carry MBT's) as this would allow for quick insertion of troops as well as supply during war, right on the front lines.

 

[For Ever Pakistan]

s@@t nice plane iv seen 1 in the uk

 

[sancho]

You do have a point here; however; I believe that the IA already has aircraft which can carry AFV's and light tanks. But one has to remember that the survivability of light tanks are very limited in a purely-defensive/retaining land taken role...as they rely on mobility to ensure survivability. In a scenario where paratrooper regiments are dropped behind enemy lines to take and hold core choke-points/places of strategic interest, I believe the addition of MBT's would create untold problems for the enemy trying to retake those areas. Also one has to keep in mind that other light tanks/AFV's might even be airdropped..but MBT's cannot.

Having said that...its probably the ability for STOL from unprepared airfields which tipped the balance in favor of the c-17(in addition to its ability to carry MBT's) as this would allow for quick insertion of troops as well as supply during war, right on the front lines.

Yes, the IL 76 can carry IFV too, has no STOL capability like the A400, or C17 an air dropping of such vehicles is difficult too, because most of them weighs between 30 - 35t, that's why I would say STOL is important, but I disagree that it is neccesary for MBTs.

In the last war between Israel and Lebanon, several Merkava Tanks were taken out by ground forces with ATGMs, very mobile and effective against big and less mobile targets like MBTs. That's why now every country is developing active protection systems like Trophy, because the heavier amor alone won't protect the MBT in todays warfare anymore. These tank destroyers might not have the amor of an MBT, but with such systems will be protected as effectively.

 

[tallboy123]

The rugged C-17 s can even land at small forward airbases on semi-prepared runways, which will be crucial for India to counter China’s massive build-up of military infrastructure all along the 4,057-km Line of Actual Control, which includes new airfields in Tibet.

This may be the real work of 10 C-17's and another 6 if ordered...