Search results

That deal is hanging as these C 295 are replacement for AVROs, Which have life in them .. MTA is meant to replace AN32 and reinforce C-130J fleet, But that too is now uncertain ..

HAL was producing gud number of Hawker Siddeley HS 748, After it ceased the IAF and Goverment should have gone for BAe 146M or Russian AN-22 for same license production, There would be lesser stress now ..

There was no alternative back then, Even now we don`t have ..

I cannot find the source but its the spare availability and soaring maintenance cost which cause IAF to look for C-17 in mass ..

IL-76MD may be cheaper but are more expensive to keep that is its maintenance over time and delays, In this way C-17 might have higher unit cost but has lower maintenance cost and with full supply of spares in time unlike Russians ..

Lets hope for the best for now .. :)

IAF Should get as many as C17 they can .. These are invaluable to move troops and logistics ..

A-330MRTT can do, IL-78 are only good for fighters and C-130J..

There is port over the head for inflight refueling...

IAF's second and third C-17s at Boeing's Long Beach production facility CB-8002 & CB-8003 Originally Posted by Randy

I agree, we should not scrap them, rather a joint fleet of both IL-76 and C-17 would be beneficial in days of war..

C-17 are selected for there short landing and take off capability mainly, there are small runways and unit based there need large supply.. C-17 does better than IL-76 there..

Two Abrams ?

Yes only one Abrams tank ( 70 tons ) plus due to this weight its range is deducted.. C-17 can carry at-least two T-90S tanks..

One of very first PS.. Bad indeed..

Random find at FB, PS..

Livefist: The Veiled Vipers Due to the Prob the Airflow over the Head of C-130 is not streamlined, Hence it create Drag, The Drag cause pressure on Engines hence Engines use more RPM to maintain average speed, Hence more Fuel consumption..