C-17 Globemaster III (IAF)

[Deathstar]

There is no direct alternative to the C-17 except the IL-476 and Chinese Y-20 which are close in terms of lift capacity but not in terms of the wide range of operational parameters.

A-400 is far too expensive (costs slightly more than what a new C-17 used to cost) and delivers far too little of its promised capabilities and has absolutely rubbish reliability. As with all the products of the "Euro" defense zone, it is a deeply flawed industrial work share puzzle where preservation and distribution of jobs was more important than bringing the best performing product to the market.

C-295 is a totally different category...more in line with AN-32 replacement. You would need a full sqd of those to lift the same payload as a single C-17

AN-70 would have been a superb addition to the IAF if anyone had bothered to support its development when Antonov was hunting for money. Now its quite impossible given the political situation vis a vis Ukraine and Russia and Antonov themselves have sold their soul to China (guess who helped them design the Y-20?)

C-130J has limitations when it comes to carrying high volume equipment but has undeniable qualities. Here too IAF missed a beat as LM had officially offered to open a local production line (JV with Tata IIRC) if they got an order for at least 40 air frames. If you look at the IAF, CAPF & MOH together they could have easily combined their requirements and come out with a 56-60 air frame block order...but no...everyone insisted on (and still insists) scatter shot orders of 4-6 birds at a time with independent RFQ/Tenders spaced years apart (I understand there are budgetary issues but these can be solved if the forces work together to get real financing structural reform and pursue multi-year procurement planning)

KC-390 was a great option for AN-32 replacement for MTA if our babu's had woken up and did a JV with Brazilian govt but sadly no chance now as EMB is pretty much under unofficial blacklist. Even then, KC-390 looks to be an excellent product for their needs and is a perfect long term C-130 replacement (especially now since Boeing has taken over EMB and they will try to kill of LM)

C-2 presents the best choice for India simply because in my opinion the Japs are always more than willing to work with India on industrial collaboration. All the companies involved in that project have a long history in India and have established industrial partnerships and local production lines...they have experience working here so won't be "deer in the headlights". More importantly the Japs are desperate for export sales and establishing their brand in the world defense market. They will be willing to play ball. The aircraft itself is also a masterpiece of design...can take off from a 900m runway with more payload than a C-130! ...travel at Mach .84 with full payload....the cargo area allows for carrying almost anything in the military inventory short of MBT. The ONLY foreseeable problem would be a US ITAR veto since it uses GE CF-6 engines but heck..if you don't ask the question then you won't know the answer.

I remember we had a JV with Russia to develop a strategic airlifter i guess , i dont remember the name but it fell apart afterwards.
If Antonov is still alive we should also hire them like the Chinese did for their Y20.
Indigenous airlifter is a must as its a base for logistics. Also with this maintenance and spare parts would cost less. Do we hve any indigenous program for this???
We shouldn't go for Ukranian airlifters atleast l. Our An 32 upgrade has suffered due to unreliability.
I agree C2s are good and probably only turbofan alternative to C17s.
Anyways do the Americans have any plans for successor to C17s???

 

[Suryavanshi]

Indian Gov needs to wake up to the need of Aerospace industry or else even in futures we would have to depend upon Exports for Trainers and Carriers planes.
The helicopter sector is also quite pathetic. No foresight regarding helicopter engine.
Any country prioritises development of engine first and foresmost but we feel proud of ourselves just making the outer shell of the helicopter. Pathetic really.

There's still time continue improving kaveri and start a parallel project for another turbofan engine. With the expertise we have gained from Kaveri making another engine from scratch shouldn't be that hard.

If we ignore this need now then we would still be begging for engines infront of USA, France and Russia.

 

[asianobserve]

Let's ask japanese to help us build a bigger version of C-2, double the payload.
I know it will take forever to develop it(following tender and stupidity so that CORRUPTION WILL NOT HAPPEN) , but atleast........ a try in right direction.

Unless you want to order 200 units, that would make sense. The better option would be to wsit for the US to come up with their C-17 replacement which i think will come in the next 10 years.

 

[uoftotaku]

@Deathstar

I remember we had a JV with Russia to develop a strategic airlifter i guess , i dont remember the name but it fell apart afterwards. --- MTA Program for replacement of AN-32. 12-15 Ton Payload Aircraft so well short of C-17 level. Program is alive in Russia as Illyushin IL-112M and in Ukraine as AN-178 (both designs spun out from MTA initial plans)

If Antonov is still alive we should also hire them like the Chinese did for their Y20. --- Antonov are basically finished as a Ukrainian entity. They have sold off all their future designs to China and are in process of establishing production line there. All their top engineers have been given well padded pay + honey packages by China and are mostly living in Shenyang now

Do we hve any indigenous program for this??? Nothing for now. It is anyway a fruitless endeavor as neither the IAF nor the MoD have any kind of long term strategic outlook about how many heavy air lifters they need or how to integrate these assets into the joint force structure. We are not in any way a military built for power projection over strategic distances. Unless the GOI undertakes a paradigm shift in the way it views the role of the armed forces and plans to equip them for a global role (like what US is now and what China is working towards) these kind of programs will never bear fruit. China went ahead with Y-20 because they have decided they need between 250-300 of them in various roles for their various military / paramilitary / govt branches plus another few to be given / sold to "allies" like Prok. What is the IAF's requirement? Last mention we had was 16 C-17's which didn't make sense as we have some 24-28 IL-76/78 to replace eventually. But therein lies the problem, even the IAF themselves don't have the habit of thinking in long term and expressing honestly their full requirements. They keep coming up with bit part RFQ's every few years requiring new Tender circus every time. I know for a fact that IAF will need between 60-80 strategic heavy lifters of C-17 size by the year 2030 in order to fulfill the requirements of the new IBJ concept and revised Strike Corps force structure on both Eastern and Western fronts plus the soon to be updated Special Forces and Airborne Brigade ORBATs. If they had given any hint of this to Boeing then maybe we could still be having C-17s. Heck Boeing made 10 extra C-17s FOR US just because they KNEW we wanted them AND STILL OUR FOOL BABUS COULDNT MOVE ON TIME!!!!

We shouldn't go for Ukranian airlifters atleast l. Our An 32 upgrade has suffered due to unreliability. ----Not true. AN-32 is one of the most reliable workhorses in the IAF. Has a comparatively good safety record considering the size of the fleet and how hard they are run. The recent losses have been due to combination of obsolescence and bad weather. The only reason upgrade has stalled is due to Russia-Ukraine tension (our contract is through Russia not direct with Ukraine) and HAL's usual inability to conduct themselves in a professional and timely manner. In fact Antonov really deserve credit for the way they completed their allocated 40 aircraft despite crippling financial situation and their open war with Russia (they delivered the last 20 birds to us in the middle of the conflict while HAL in all its wisdom limped through only 15 frames in total before stalling completely)

Anyways do the Americans have any plans for successor to C17s??? ----Not in the near future. Current C-17 fleet will be in service for at least another 30 years. C-5 fleet has just undergone M upgrade which will keep them around another 20 years. That's the reason why USAF was comfortable with C-17 line getting shut down as they do not envision any further requirements right now. They even have stated they have surplus C-17's right now (the last 35-40 frames were added by Congress into defense bills to keep Boeing afloat and the USAF vehemently opposed taking those on as they were not required) The next gen of US air-lifters will in all likelihood be UAV based looking at the replacement timelines. IAF simply can't afford to wait that long

 

[IndianHawk]

All this discussion going on about c17 and it's alternative. Does anybody actually know how many c17 iaf actually wants? What is doctrine for their operational use?

C17 or equivalent heavy lifter cost a bomb to operate. They are strategic assets for specific use and power projection . Not daily mud movers.
most cargo transport is smaller but more frequent . Hence a small number of c17 is sufficient . What we need more is medium lift aircrafts . We need them in huge numbers.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[uoftotaku]

All this discussion going on about c17 and it's alternative. Does anybody actually know how many c17 iaf actually wants? What is doctrine for their operational use?

C17 or equivalent heavy lifter cost a bomb to operate. They are strategic assets for specific use and power projection . Not daily mud movers.
most cargo transport is smaller but more frequent . Hence a small number of c17 is sufficient . What we need more is medium lift aircrafts . We need them in huge numbers.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Well just break down how the IAF uses its current fleet of IL-76 / C-17 lifters.

The entire fleet is currently engaged full time in ensuring constant supply of material into Leh. IIRC there are between 6-8 loads going in every day, which required around 18 IL-76 to be operational previously but is now being done by combo of 6-8 C-17 + 8-10 IL-76 working in tandem as they are also being utilized into Srinagar. That leaves around 2 C-17 + 4-6 IL-76 on hand for the entire needs of the rest of the military which is not enough to do anything. The moment HADR is required, the Leh air bridge planning has to move into contingency mode.

Realistically, the full fleet of 16 C-17 (if they had bought them) would have single handedly kept the air bridge open allowing the IL-76 fleet to be stood down.

What about the Eastern Front? Well the IAF currently does not have enough heavy lift assets to be able to mount an air bridge across the chickens neck. Nor do they have any plans to have those assets. IF they had planned for it then another 16 C-17 would be required to be dedicated.

Then the airborne forces. Currently we have the 50th in Delhi and the Para(Airborne) guys. We got the C-130's for them but 6+6 is nowhere enough to move a full Brigade element. At least 4+2 C-17 are required to be assigned to carry heavy equipment and materials if the airborne forces are to be actually deployed.

We also have UN commitments. Currently there are 4 IL-76 permanently assigned to ferry men and material for UN missions. Those would need 1-for-1 replacement if we are continuing to support.

Then R&AW has 2 IL-76 assigned to it for their use. These are technically supposed to be at the disposal of the SFF so replacement with C-17 is tricky due to US End User agreements.

So calculating that:

16 for Northern Sector
16 for Eastern Sector
4 for Airborne / Special Forces
2 for R&AW
4 for UN / HADR standby

Total : 42 air frames just to fulfill currently known MINIMUM requirements. As I mentioned in previous post, if you actually look at future force structures and go beyond MIN then those numbers can easily be doubled. For true strategic comfort by 2030 these are my calculations:

24 for Northern Sector
24 for Eastern Sector
8 for Airborne Forces
8 for combine Special Forces / R&AW / SFF
8 for UN
4 for Ministry of Home Affairs (NDRF / CAPF air wing)
4 for Training, Spare Capacity & Reserve

 

[Deathstar]

@Deathstar

I remember we had a JV with Russia to develop a strategic airlifter i guess , i dont remember the name but it fell apart afterwards. --- MTA Program for replacement of AN-32. 12-15 Ton Payload Aircraft so well short of C-17 level. Program is alive in Russia as Illyushin IL-112M and in Ukraine as AN-178 (both designs spun out from MTA initial plans)

If Antonov is still alive we should also hire them like the Chinese did for their Y20. --- Antonov are basically finished as a Ukrainian entity. They have sold off all their future designs to China and are in process of establishing production line there. All their top engineers have been given well padded pay + honey packages by China and are mostly living in Shenyang now

Do we hve any indigenous program for this??? Nothing for now. It is anyway a fruitless endeavor as neither the IAF nor the MoD have any kind of long term strategic outlook about how many heavy air lifters they need or how to integrate these assets into the joint force structure. We are not in any way a military built for power projection over strategic distances. Unless the GOI undertakes a paradigm shift in the way it views the role of the armed forces and plans to equip them for a global role (like what US is now and what China is working towards) these kind of programs will never bear fruit. China went ahead with Y-20 because they have decided they need between 250-300 of them in various roles for their various military / paramilitary / govt branches plus another few to be given / sold to "allies" like Prok. What is the IAF's requirement? Last mention we had was 16 C-17's which didn't make sense as we have some 24-28 IL-76/78 to replace eventually. But therein lies the problem, even the IAF themselves don't have the habit of thinking in long term and expressing honestly their full requirements. They keep coming up with bit part RFQ's every few years requiring new Tender circus every time. I know for a fact that IAF will need between 60-80 strategic heavy lifters of C-17 size by the year 2030 in order to fulfill the requirements of the new IBJ concept and revised Strike Corps force structure on both Eastern and Western fronts plus the soon to be updated Special Forces and Airborne Brigade ORBATs. If they had given any hint of this to Boeing then maybe we could still be having C-17s. Heck Boeing made 10 extra C-17s FOR US just because they KNEW we wanted them AND STILL OUR FOOL BABUS COULDNT MOVE ON TIME!!!!

We shouldn't go for Ukranian airlifters atleast l. Our An 32 upgrade has suffered due to unreliability. ----Not true. AN-32 is one of the most reliable workhorses in the IAF. Has a comparatively good safety record considering the size of the fleet and how hard they are run. The recent losses have been due to combination of obsolescence and bad weather. The only reason upgrade has stalled is due to Russia-Ukraine tension (our contract is through Russia not direct with Ukraine) and HAL's usual inability to conduct themselves in a professional and timely manner. In fact Antonov really deserve credit for the way they completed their allocated 40 aircraft despite crippling financial situation and their open war with Russia (they delivered the last 20 birds to us in the middle of the conflict while HAL in all its wisdom limped through only 15 frames in total before stalling completely)

Anyways do the Americans have any plans for successor to C17s??? ----Not in the near future. Current C-17 fleet will be in service for at least another 30 years. C-5 fleet has just undergone M upgrade which will keep them around another 20 years. That's the reason why USAF was comfortable with C-17 line getting shut down as they do not envision any further requirements right now. They even have stated they have surplus C-17's right now (the last 35-40 frames were added by Congress into defense bills to keep Boeing afloat and the USAF vehemently opposed taking those on as they were not required) The next gen of US air-lifters will in all likelihood be UAV based looking at the replacement timelines. IAF simply can't afford to wait that long

Thank you so much sir for a detailed answer

 

[asianobserve]

There is no direct alternative to the C-17 except the IL-476 and Chinese Y-20 which are close in terms of lift capacity but not in terms of the wide range of operational parameters.

A-400 is far too expensive (costs slightly more than what a new C-17 used to cost) and delivers far too little of its promised capabilities and has absolutely rubbish reliability. As with all the products of the "Euro" defense zone, it is a deeply flawed industrial work share puzzle where preservation and distribution of jobs was more important than bringing the best performing product to the market.

C-295 is a totally different category...more in line with AN-32 replacement. You would need a full sqd of those to lift the same payload as a single C-17

AN-70 would have been a superb addition to the IAF if anyone had bothered to support its development when Antonov was hunting for money. Now its quite impossible given the political situation vis a vis Ukraine and Russia and Antonov themselves have sold their soul to China (guess who helped them design the Y-20?)

C-130J has limitations when it comes to carrying high volume equipment but has undeniable qualities. Here too IAF missed a beat as LM had officially offered to open a local production line (JV with Tata IIRC) if they got an order for at least 40 air frames. If you look at the IAF, CAPF & MOH together they could have easily combined their requirements and come out with a 56-60 air frame block order...but no...everyone insisted on (and still insists) scatter shot orders of 4-6 birds at a time with independent RFQ/Tenders spaced years apart (I understand there are budgetary issues but these can be solved if the forces work together to get real financing structural reform and pursue multi-year procurement planning)

KC-390 was a great option for AN-32 replacement for MTA if our babu's had woken up and did a JV with Brazilian govt but sadly no chance now as EMB is pretty much under unofficial blacklist. Even then, KC-390 looks to be an excellent product for their needs and is a perfect long term C-130 replacement (especially now since Boeing has taken over EMB and they will try to kill of LM)

C-2 presents the best choice for India simply because in my opinion the Japs are always more than willing to work with India on industrial collaboration. All the companies involved in that project have a long history in India and have established industrial partnerships and local production lines...they have experience working here so won't be "deer in the headlights". More importantly the Japs are desperate for export sales and establishing their brand in the world defense market. They will be willing to play ball. The aircraft itself is also a masterpiece of design...can take off from a 900m runway with more payload than a C-130! ...travel at Mach .84 with full payload....the cargo area allows for carrying almost anything in the military inventory short of MBT. The ONLY foreseeable problem would be a US ITAR veto since it uses GE CF-6 engines but heck..if you don't ask the question then you won't know the answer.

The US will not veto an Indian purchase of C-2 based on C-2s American engine since it's a commercial engine. In fact, this engine makes C-2 more practical since this engine is built in numbers for commercial aviation.

 

[uoftotaku]

The US will not veto an Indian purchase of C-2 based on C-2s American engine since it's a commercial engine. In fact, this engine makes C-2 more practical since this engine is built in numbers for commercial aviation.

Definitely. But with Trump at the helm their reaction is not entirely predictable. Anyway, all this is speculation since IAF seems to be unaware of C-2's existence

Would genuinely love to see it in service though. C-2 has some very cool features in it...had the privilege of getting a "guided" walk through of an operational JASDF bird last year...was very impressed by the level of attention they have paid to practical everyday usability and the extensive deep study they performed to ensure that 90% of ALL the equipment in common use by the JSDF is able to fit inside the cargo area.

I was also told "off the record" that a larger, stretched fuselage version is very much possible with a 35% larger cargo volume and a lift capacity close to 50T, equipped with the 80E version of the CF-6 (72k thrust vs the 59k of the current)

 

[aditya10r]

Definitely. But with Trump at the helm their reaction is not entirely predictable. Anyway, all this is speculation since IAF seems to be unaware of C-2's existence

Would genuinely love to see it in service though. C-2 has some very cool features in it...had the privilege of getting a "guided" walk through of an operational JASDF bird last year...was very impressed by the level of attention they have paid to practical everyday usability and the extensive deep study they performed to ensure that 90% of ALL the equipment in common use by the JSDF is able to fit inside the cargo area.

I was also told "off the record" that a larger, stretched fuselage version is very much possible with a 35% larger cargo volume and a lift capacity close to 50T, equipped with the 80E version of the CF-6 (72k thrust vs the 59k of the current)

Can C-2 be elongated to bring it on par with C-17 Globemaster.

Because 50 tonnes just doesnt cut it for the kind of 80-tonne cargo the c-17 can carry.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

But yeah i do believe that we should start working on C-17 esque aircraft,we wont need it today but in 10 years from now with the retirement of il-76 or them falling of the sky will deplete our transport capacity.

 

[uoftotaku]

Can C-2 be elongated to bring it on par with C-17 Globemaster.

Because 50 tonnes just doesnt cut it for the kind of 80-tonne cargo the c-17 can carry.

Don't think so for 80T. Too much of a jump from the current 37T...to reach 80T with a simple stretch.

Yes 50T doesn't cut it for C-17 type cargo...but that's what the C-17 exists for. From the conversation I had with the JASDF Major and the rep from Kawasaki, for their purposes they analyzed how often they carry a single unitary cargo load of more than 35T and concluded that it was so rare that it did not warrant the expense of developing an airlifter with capacity to carry such loads. For the majority of their day to day needs, they decided that 37T was sufficient with upgrade to 50T in future built into the engineering. But that's JASDF...for the IAF they have to do their own studies and make their own conclusions (I'm not entirely certain if such as ever been done).

Basically if you look at what our C-17 and IL-76's carry regularly, they also very very rarely carry unitary heavy loads like MBT which are over 50T. The vast majority of loads are pallet cargo which collectively is in the 40-45T range (due to volume limit on the available cargo floor space). This is where I personally feel that the IAF are missing a beat. With our now limited fleet of C-17's being basically "under-utilized" for carrying loads far below their capacity, an aircraft like the C-2 can very easily take over the day-to-day cargo runs into Leh and Srinagar for 70-80% of the missions. The C-17's can step in for the rare occasions when large unitary loads are taken in but for everyday provision, ammo and personnel transfers, the C-2 even in its current 37T version can do the job for far less cost as it is much cheaper to operate as a C-17.

 

[aditya10r]

Don't think so for 80T. Too much of a jump from the current 37T...to reach 80T with a simple stretch.

Yes 50T doesn't cut it for C-17 type cargo...but that's what the C-17 exists for. From the conversation I had with the JASDF Major and the rep from Kawasaki, for their purposes they analyzed how often they carry a single unitary cargo load of more than 35T and concluded that it was so rare that it did not warrant the expense of developing an airlifter with capacity to carry such loads. For the majority of their day to day needs, they decided that 37T was sufficient with upgrade to 50T in future built into the engineering. But that's JASDF...for the IAF they have to do their own studies and make their own conclusions (I'm not entirely certain if such as ever been done).

Basically if you look at what our C-17 and IL-76's carry regularly, they also very very rarely carry unitary heavy loads like MBT which are over 50T. The vast majority of loads are pallet cargo which collectively is in the 40-45T range (due to volume limit on the available cargo floor space). This is where I personally feel that the IAF are missing a beat. With our now limited fleet of C-17's being basically "under-utilized" for carrying loads far below their capacity, an aircraft like the C-2 can very easily take over the day-to-day cargo runs into Leh and Srinagar for 70-80% of the missions. The C-17's can step in for the rare occasions when large unitary loads are taken in but for everyday provision, ammo and personnel transfers, the C-2 even in its current 37T version can do the job for far less cost as it is much cheaper to operate as a C-17.

Yeah.

Thanks for the insight on Cargo details.

My main concern is il-76,which is on its way out in 2030s and given increasing influence in the region i do believe that we need at least 80 c-17 type cargo aircraft for the IAF alone and then there are other requirements which the C-2 type platform can fulfill is MARS and AWACS.We plan to build an AWACS based on Airbus a330 and also wish to acquire MARS also based on airbus a330.

The lack of strategic long term vision in forces and the MoD is mind boggling.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[IndianHawk]

Well just break down how the IAF uses its current fleet of IL-76 / C-17 lifters.

The entire fleet is currently engaged full time in ensuring constant supply of material into Leh. IIRC there are between 6-8 loads going in every day, which required around 18 IL-76 to be operational previously but is now being done by combo of 6-8 C-17 + 8-10 IL-76 working in tandem as they are also being utilized into Srinagar. That leaves around 2 C-17 + 4-6 IL-76 on hand for the entire needs of the rest of the military which is not enough to do anything. The moment HADR is required, the Leh air bridge planning has to move into contingency mode.

Realistically, the full fleet of 16 C-17 (if they had bought them) would have single handedly kept the air bridge open allowing the IL-76 fleet to be stood down.

What about the Eastern Front? Well the IAF currently does not have enough heavy lift assets to be able to mount an air bridge across the chickens neck. Nor do they have any plans to have those assets. IF they had planned for it then another 16 C-17 would be required to be dedicated.

Then the airborne forces. Currently we have the 50th in Delhi and the Para(Airborne) guys. We got the C-130's for them but 6+6 is nowhere enough to move a full Brigade element. At least 4+2 C-17 are required to be assigned to carry heavy equipment and materials if the airborne forces are to be actually deployed.

We also have UN commitments. Currently there are 4 IL-76 permanently assigned to ferry men and material for UN missions. Those would need 1-for-1 replacement if we are continuing to support.

Then R&AW has 2 IL-76 assigned to it for their use. These are technically supposed to be at the disposal of the SFF so replacement with C-17 is tricky due to US End User agreements.

So calculating that:

16 for Northern Sector
16 for Eastern Sector
4 for Airborne / Special Forces
2 for R&AW
4 for UN / HADR standby

Total : 42 air frames just to fulfill currently known MINIMUM requirements. As I mentioned in previous post, if you actually look at future force structures and go beyond MIN then those numbers can easily be doubled. For true strategic comfort by 2030 these are my calculations:

24 for Northern Sector
24 for Eastern Sector
8 for Airborne Forces
8 for combine Special Forces / R&AW / SFF
8 for UN
4 for Ministry of Home Affairs (NDRF / CAPF air wing)
4 for Training, Spare Capacity & Reserve

Your calculations are good. But that's not the point. The point is what is official iaf requirement of c17? What number did iaf officially demanded?



Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[vampyrbladez]

Yeah.

Thanks for the insight on Cargo details.

My main concern is il-76,which is on its way out in 2030s and given increasing influence in the region i do believe that we need at least 80 c-17 type cargo aircraft for the IAF alone and then there are other requirements which the C-2 type platform can fulfill is MARS and AWACS.We plan to build an AWACS based on Airbus a330 and also wish to acquire MARS also based on airbus a330.

The lack of strategic long term vision in forces and the MoD is mind boggling.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Unless JV production is the norm and not the exception, we will have problems.

 

[IndianHawk]

Yeah.

Thanks for the insight on Cargo details.

My main concern is il-76,which is on its way out in 2030s and given increasing influence in the region i do believe that we need at least 80 c-17 type cargo aircraft for the IAF alone and then there are other requirements which the C-2 type platform can fulfill is MARS and AWACS.We plan to build an AWACS based on Airbus a330 and also wish to acquire MARS also based on airbus a330.

The lack of strategic long term vision in forces and the MoD is mind boggling.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You are projecting you're ideal force structure on iaf. But what does iaf wants?

Has iaf projected a requirement of such huge numbers ? Does anybody have any authentic data about what iaf wants in future transport capabilities.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[aditya10r]

You are projecting you're ideal force structure on iaf. But what does iaf wants?

Has iaf projected a requirement of such huge numbers ? Does anybody have any authentic data about what iaf wants in future transport capabilities.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

IAF currently operates some 15 il-76 and 10 c-17 for transport,having talked to many Former and serving personnel,they all agree that some 10-15 more strategic airlifters with 50+tonne category will really help.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[uoftotaku]

Your calculations are good. But that's not the point. The point is what is official iaf requirement of c17? What number did iaf officially demanded?



Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Official IAF req as per their last concluded RFQ was 10+6 C-17, of which we will get only 11. There has been no indication of what if anything the IAF is preparing to do to address the shortfall in the planned C-17 fleet nor if they plan to upgrade the remaining 15 IL-76's with PS-90 engines and extend their service life

Zilch

 

[Vijyes]

Don't think so for 80T. Too much of a jump from the current 37T...to reach 80T with a simple stretch.

Yes 50T doesn't cut it for C-17 type cargo...but that's what the C-17 exists for. From the conversation I had with the JASDF Major and the rep from Kawasaki, for their purposes they analyzed how often they carry a single unitary cargo load of more than 35T and concluded that it was so rare that it did not warrant the expense of developing an airlifter with capacity to carry such loads. For the majority of their day to day needs, they decided that 37T was sufficient with upgrade to 50T in future built into the engineering. But that's JASDF...for the IAF they have to do their own studies and make their own conclusions (I'm not entirely certain if such as ever been done).

Basically if you look at what our C-17 and IL-76's carry regularly, they also very very rarely carry unitary heavy loads like MBT which are over 50T. The vast majority of loads are pallet cargo which collectively is in the 40-45T range (due to volume limit on the available cargo floor space). This is where I personally feel that the IAF are missing a beat. With our now limited fleet of C-17's being basically "under-utilized" for carrying loads far below their capacity, an aircraft like the C-2 can very easily take over the day-to-day cargo runs into Leh and Srinagar for 70-80% of the missions. The C-17's can step in for the rare occasions when large unitary loads are taken in but for everyday provision, ammo and personnel transfers, the C-2 even in its current 37T version can do the job for far less cost as it is much cheaper to operate as a C-17.

You are correct. Carrying MBT in 1-2 numbers is really wasteful. For tanks to function, there must be a full brigade of them. That is better carried by trains and ships than by planes. C17 doing 10 round trips to carry 10 tanks is really annoying and unnecessary.

India, however will need 2 types of transport planes - small one with 10 ton payload and large one with 40 ton payload. Considering the complexity involved in making turbofan engine, the best option available are C295 for 10 ton payload and A400M for 40 ton payload. Both of these are turboprop planes. India must try to get Technology transfer of these designs or develop planes on these lines too have indigenised transport planes.

C17 is a bit too big. Il76, though it is smaller than C17, is also bigger than needed size. So, aim must be to develop planes which are practically useful ones and not unnecessarily gigantic ones.

 

[Vijyes]

Official IAF req as per their last concluded RFQ was 10+6 C-17, of which we will get only 11. There has been no indication of what if anything the IAF is preparing to do to address the shortfall in the planned C-17 fleet nor if they plan to upgrade the remaining 15 IL-76's with PS-90 engines and extend their service life

Zilch

Could these requirements be under USA pressure? India has known to make such requirement based on political pressure. Why is India not giving generic requirement of 16 heavy lift planes which can include even Il76? Why is only C17 the required plane?

Yeah.

Thanks for the insight on Cargo details.

My main concern is il-76,which is on its way out in 2030s and given increasing influence in the region i do believe that we need at least 80 c-17 type cargo aircraft for the IAF alone and then there are other requirements which the C-2 type platform can fulfill is MARS and AWACS.We plan to build an AWACS based on Airbus a330 and also wish to acquire MARS also based on airbus a330.

The lack of strategic long term vision in forces and the MoD is mind boggling.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Indian AEWACS will be mounted on C295 planes, not A330. A330 was proposed as combined tanker and AEWACS. But I don't see that idea floating around anymore. So, in all likelihood, the idea of combining Tanker and AEWACS has been dropped. So, most likely AEWACS will be on C295. This doesn't mean that heavy transport plane of 40 ton payload is not needed. But it won't be needed for AEWACS

 

[uoftotaku]

Could these requirements be under USA pressure? India has known to make such requirement based on political pressure. Why is India not giving generic requirement of 16 heavy lift planes which can include even Il76? Why is only C17 the required plane?

S

The C-17 has definite performance advantage over the IL-76 in all parameters. And its wider fuselage and taller allows for carriage of a much larger range of cargoes compared to the IL-76 too.

IIRC the IAF pitched for C-17 by publicising its ability to carry fully loaded MBT into Leh. A tactically irrelevant ability as you pointed out in your earlier post, but a "shiny" Gucci point that can be used to fool feeble minded politicians and babus.

I'm entirely sure some other political factors were involved as you guess...no Indian defence procurement is entirely clean after all...but what cannot be denied is that at the end of the day, the forces received a much needed and capable platform...albeit the IAF messed up by not following through to complete the full purchase.