C-17 Globemaster III (IAF)

[p2prada]

the problem is russia would surely mind but if you read the report correctly the choice is not yet made IAF has just shortlisted and made its choice public the deal is not yet signed and further formalities are yet to be done also russia would think twice because the production line for indian supplies are full till 2020 so noway they can supply anything quickly and on time so i think IAF has made an excellent choice the next job would be for the PR guys to explain the situation with the russian officials and i think surely they can make this work

No need of any big explanation. All we need to do is tell them that the IL-76 sucks compared to C-17 and Russia needs to fast track the development of the MRTA. Else.......

 

[Daredevil]

The IAF's new Very Heavy Transport Aircraft?

The IAF's new Very Heavy Transport Aircraft?

Reports suggest the IAF has chosen the C-17 Globemaster III as its Very Heavy Transport Aircraft (VHTAC). It plans to order ten.

 

[Pintu]

Another image of C-17 Globemaster III (Image : Wikipedia)

General characteristics

* Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster
* Capacity:
o 102 troops with standard centerline seats or
o 134 troops with palletized seats or
o 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients or
o Various cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank
* Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix of palletized cargo and vehicles
* Length: 174 ft (53 m)
* Wingspan: 169.8 ft (51.75 m)
* Height: 55.1 ft (16.8 m)
* Wing area: 3,800 ft² (353 m²)
* Empty weight: 282,500 lb (128,100 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 585,000 lb (265,350 kg)
* Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each
* Fuel capacity: 35,546 US gal (134,556 L)

Performance

* Cruise speed: Mach 0.76 (450 knots, 515 mph, 830 km/h)
* Range: 2,420 nmi (2,785 mi, 4,482 km)
* Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
* Max wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
* Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277
(Wikipedia)

C-17 Globemaster III taking off:

YouTube - C-17 Globemaster Take Off - SCEL

Regards

 

[John]

c17-1-767768.jpg (image)

c17-2-768544.jpg (image)

SLF08-00324-039-766587.jpg (image)

it can carry a lot though, upto 70 tons in cargo, pretty good, we should go ahead and order, good buy.

 

[nitesh]

roger that, i think we need at least 30 to 50 of these.

You looking for liberating Tibbet or what :2guns:

 

[VayuSena1]

the problem is russia would surely mind but if you read the report correctly the choice is not yet made IAF has just shortlisted and made its choice public the deal is not yet signed and further formalities are yet to be done also russia would think twice because the production line for indian supplies are full till 2020 so noway they can supply anything quickly and on time so i think IAF has made an excellent choice the next job would be for the PR guys to explain the situation with the russian officials and i think surely they can make this work

Russia has to do something in order to compete with the C-17. While the Globemaster has an excellent reputation of a very heavy lift cargo aircraft, the Il-76 cannot carry that level of payload. In order for Ilyushin to challenge Boeing straight, they will have to consider soming on the lines of An-124.

Considering that with expanded clout, India needs more high tech. Il-76 has served the us very well however its payload limits overshadow its class. I do hope that Russia does something about coming up with newer and more efficient designs in order to retain its losing edge on USA. First China reduced its dependency on Russia and now India is doing it. Also, arm-twisting is no way to retain markets especially India because we follow an independent policy. Russia has to keep its aerospace capabilities on the edge with better technology and more efficient aircraft.

While Russian aircraft have 2 main problems of tought maintenance and high fuel consumption, I will not deny that they are beastly powerful.

 

[VayuSena1]

No need of any big explanation. All we need to do is tell them that the IL-76 sucks compared to C-17 and Russia needs to fast track the development of the MRTA. Else.......

Il-76 doesn't "suck". The only problem with them is that they have a limited payload as compared to C-17 and well, they have to really do something about the short take-off. The Ils have a strong endurance and can take a lot of punishment in hostile airfields.

The simple reason why Globemaster is chosen is because Ilyushin has not come up with something new while the former is constantly updated with newer and more efficient systems.

 

[Energon]

These aircrafts are freaking huge. I saw a couple of them in Hawaii last year.

 

[Antimony]

I am not sure I understand the philosophy of use. This is a fixed wing aircraft so obviously it needs ground infrastructure to be porperly operated, unless we get the new version which can land on beaches, even then, I cannot thinik of any situaion where we would ned to make a beach landing to deliver troops.

This may be ok for the Power projection role that Nato or the US plays, but wouldn't some Mil MI-26 helis serve our needs better?

 

[p2prada]

Il-76 doesn't "suck". The only problem with them is that they have a limited payload as compared to C-17 and well, they have to really do something about the short take-off. The Ils have a strong endurance and can take a lot of punishment in hostile airfields.

The simple reason why Globemaster is chosen is because Ilyushin has not come up with something new while the former is constantly updated with newer and more efficient systems.

Sir, we young guns like to use the word "suck" to mean inferior.

There are 2 other Russian planes that can carry a lot. The An-124 and the An-225 (in the future). The Numbers indicate the amount of max payload they can carry.

One other American plane called the C-5. All 3 planes can lift way more than the C-17.

The Globemaster is a more recent development. Had the An-225 been ready, India could have gone for that(but we may have runway problems).

So, does anyone know if we are getting the STOL version(C-17 B) for use on Siachen?? The C-17B is built for tactical lift.

(Currently the An-225 is bigger than the Airbus A-380.)

 

[Antimony]

I think there is another thread on this subject (mods, can you merge) and I will ask the same questions that I asked there

I am not sure I understand the philosophy of use. This is a fixed wing aircraft so obviously it needs ground infrastructure to be porperly operated, unless we get the new version which can land on beaches, even then, I cannot thinik of any situaion where we would ned to make a beach landing to deliver troops.

This may be ok for the Power projection role that Nato or the US plays, but wouldn't some Mil MI-26 helis serve our needs better?

If we need to go American, wouldn't Chinooks be better than the fixed wing type?

 

[jackprince]

Mi-26 is a rotary wing heavy lift a/c which can operate on almost any terrain but with far less payload, range and speed than that of any heavy lift fixed wing a/c like C-17/Il-76. Both type of a/c has their own utility and niche in IAF and they are hardly complimentary to each other or even remotely comparable.

C-17 has very short take-off and landing distances as well it can operate on poor run-way conditions which IMO is ideal as many airfields in India is small or poorly maintained. C-17 can come very handy in any military opreration or a humaintarian one when it doesn't have any proper airfield to work from.

 

[jackprince]

@MOD PLEASE DELETE MY OTHER POST ON "The IAF's new Very Heavy Transport Aircraft?" thread which is almost identical.


^^
Mi-26/Chinook is a rotary wing heavy lift a/c which can operate on almost any terrain but with far less payload, range and speed than that of any heavy lift fixed wing a/c like C-17/Il-76. Both type of a/c has their own utility and niche in IAF and they are hardly complimentary to each other or even remotely comparable.

The beach landing capability means C-17 has very short take-off and landing distances as well it can operate on poor run-way conditions which IMO is ideal as many airfields in India is small or poorly maintained. C-17 can come very handy in any military operation or a humanitarian one when it doesn't have any proper airfield to work from.

Also, IAF needs a good fleet of heavy transport a/c if and when our defense forces need to be transported and deployed quickly from a distant place. We already have a shortage of heavy transport a/cs considering our force size. Having a good transport arm is hardly any sort of power projection. just think a fleet of 10 or so C-17 can transport a battalion of infantry to a 1000 km distance in about 1.5 hours, which will take more than a day by train or by road; or it would take 3 times the number of Mi-26 and time.

 

[p2prada]

I think there is another thread on this subject (mods, can you merge) and I will ask the same questions that I asked there

I am not sure I understand the philosophy of use. This is a fixed wing aircraft so obviously it needs ground infrastructure to be porperly operated, unless we get the new version which can land on beaches, even then, I cannot thinik of any situaion where we would ned to make a beach landing to deliver troops.

This may be ok for the Power projection role that Nato or the US plays, but wouldn't some Mil MI-26 helis serve our needs better?

If we need to go American, wouldn't Chinooks be better than the fixed wing type?

So, does that mean we are getting the C-17B.

The C-17B lands on mountain terrain too, Siachen. We may not have to land them on beaches, but small runways in the mountains is the equivalent.

As for the Chinook, it has a speed of 200+ kmph, carries 13 tons to a distance of 2000km. The C-17 has a speed of 800+kmph, carries ~80tons to a distance of 5000km(at max load out). So, you tell me which is better for strategic lift.

 

[Rahul Singh]

So C-17 followed C-130. No wonder if F-18/16 will follow next......... India is finaly in USA pocket........... Soon this golden feeling will leave way for worst.

 

[Rage]

India starts negotiations for C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft

India starts negotiations for C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft

The C-17 took part in a joint air-lift exercise in India.


In a sign of increasing Indo-US military ties and India's increasing defence budget, India has started negotiating the purchase of C-17 Globemaster aircrafts from the US government in a deal worth approximately US$1.7 billion.

As Akshay Kumar of the India-based online news service 8ak (8ak - Indian Defence News), a media partner of defpro.com, reports, Wing Commander Raghu Rajan (retd) says that the induction of the C-17 would enhance India’s capability to mobilise more number of troops in a short-span of time, since they are bigger than the IL-76 aircrafts we presently use. He further adds that the ability of a nation to win wars depends on two factors: decision making and swift mobilisation of resources, hence it is in the second aspect that this aircraft would prove to be an invaluable asset for the IAF and India.

As a part of its modernisation program and to counter the growing threat perception from its big neighbour China, the IAF has initiated a slew of measures like opening three new advanced landing grounds (ALG) in the past two years and going in for large scale acquisitions. The latest being Nyoma in eastern Ladakh, just 23 kilometres from the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China, which was opened in September this year. The other two ALGs are Daulat Beg Oldi, the world's highest airfield at 16,200 feet, in May last year and Fuk Che in November that year. The C-17 have better ability to land in remote, lesser developed forward air-bases that would be critical to stop any Chinese advances in places like Arunachal. Separately, India is trying to catch up with China's lead in building rail and road infrastructure that would help the local economy and also to mobilise troops and equipment quickly.

US troops inside a Heavy Hauler C 17 Globemaster​

The heavy lift aircraft was recently in India to take part in the joint air-lift exercise, which was held in Agra between 19 and 23 October. The deal, which is expected to be finalised by early 2010 would be Boeings second largest deal with New Delhi, US$ 2.1 billion agreement in January this year to purchase eight P-8 maritime patrol aircraft being the largest.

The US aircraft had also show-cased it’s flying abilities at the Aero India in February earlier this year. It has drawn favours from the Indian establishment for its ability to operate from runways as short as 3,500 feet and as narrow as 90 feet besides this, the C-17 has been equipped with thrust reversers that can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three-point turn manoeuvre.

The IAF has also placed the orders for six C-130J aircraft from the United States, the deliveries for which will commence in 2011 and is in the process of finalising the orders for 126 multi role combat aircrafts, apart from the 197 Light Utility Helicopters it is looking to procure.

Brazil manufactured Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) radars were also received by the IAF earlier this year. The picture for the IAF due to its ambitious modernisation plan looks good, however, we need to step-up the pace because the mainstay of air forces fixed wing transport division the An-32 AND IL-76 aircraft have completed their calendar life as per the Soviet manufacturer’s specifications. Both are on their extended lives, and could go on for another 10 to 15 years.


defence.professionals | defpro.com
Avionews

 

[A.V.]

what other choices does the IAF have ?
the production lines for the russian transports are closed
also the medium transport aircraft will be here by 2020 to replace the IL and AN but heavy category ones are needed to transport tanks and huge loads
i would say good choice if globemasterIII is chosen but its costly and strings attached is the big issue

 

[Rage]

For those not in the loop, the C-17 is capable of a whooping maximum payload of 170,900 pounds, and a maximum gross takeoff weight of 585,000 pounds; an unfuelled range of 5,200 nautical miles at 130,000 pounds and initial cruise altitude of 28,000 feet; and four fully reversible P&W engines each capable of 40,900 pounds of thrust.

One good advantage of the C 17 is its ability to operate from short, narrow airfields: as short as 3,000 ft. and as narrow as 90 ft. wide, and to negotiate a three-point star turn even on such airways. Even better, is the ability of the rugged rotating components to guide airflow upward and forward to minimize the ingestion of debris, dust and pebbles, which we seem to have a lot of on our airfields, and to tolerate higher engine inlet distortion limits.

A notable disadvantage, and this is crucial, is the high maintenance it exacts: these include 18.6 aircraft maintenance manhours per flying hour, and full and partial mission capable rates of 74.7 and 82.5 percent respectively for a mature fleet with 100,000 flying hours.

 

[icecoolben]

With boeing's investment in india it can handle offsets effectively and hence lower costs dramatically by world standards. Also supply of spares won't take a heavy beating. Since it would be part of offsets handled by the boeing subsidy in india. In case relations with Us turn cold during war time. V can nationalise the company's holdings and produce spares to keep our forces afloat until, relations get soothed again.

 

[Quickgun Murugan]

Can anybody tell what is the use of transport aircraft? Like it is used for transporting weapons like tanks,jeeps and ammunition to war region?