C-17 Globemaster III (IAF)

[Blackwater]

With no more Globemasters what are the options India has?? I m sure price wise it can get IL 76 or An 124 cheaper but are they worth buying??

Il76 is cheap to buy but expensive to maintain

 

[Punya Pratap]

But then again what

Il76 is cheap to buy but expensive to maintain

I know but what are the options left now that Globemaster is out of the equation?
I sometimes feel whether this red tape and government procedures should be suspended for cases such as the Globemaster or the M777

 

[pmaitra]

With no more Globemasters what are the options India has?? I m sure price wise it can get IL 76 or An 124 cheaper but are they worth buying??

Ilyushin-76 has always been the mainstay of IAF. C-17 is more fuel efficient and cheaper to operate. However, IAF never planned to replace the Ilyushin-76 with C-17, because, at the time of war, C-17 could face sanctions and refusal of spares, but not Ilyushin-76. C-17 is meant to be used in peace time troop transport or disaster assistance, where day to day usage of Ilyushin-76 becomes expensive.

 

[Blackwater]

But then again what


I know but what are the options left now that Globemaster is out of the equation?
I sometimes feel whether this red tape and government procedures should be suspended for cases such as the Globemaster or the M777

May be america or ruus come up with new plane soon?? In the mean time we should increase number of C-130 to 50 in different configuration.

 

[salute]

Ilyushin-76 has always been the mainstay of IAF. C-17 is more fuel efficient and cheaper to operate. However, IAF never planned to replace the Ilyushin-76 with C-17, because, at the time of war, C-17 could face sanctions and refusal of spares, but not Ilyushin-76.. C-17 is meant to be used in peace time troop transport or disaster assistance, where day to day usage of Ilyushin-76 becomes expensive.

india really needs to get that mta thing going,
also better engine tech of indias own because russian engines always gonna be less fuel efficient and less reliable than american engines.

 

[pmaitra]

india really needs to get that mta thing going,
also better engine tech of indias own because russian engines always gonna be less fuel efficient and less reliable than american engines.

This is smaller than Ilyushin-76.

MTA HAL-Ilyushin-214

 

[Blackwater]

india really needs to get that mta thing going,
also better engine tech of indias own because russian engines always gonna be less fuel efficient and less reliable than american engines.

 

[Yumdoot]

But then again what


I know but what are the options left now that Globemaster is out of the equation?
I sometimes feel whether this red tape and government procedures should be suspended for cases such as the Globemaster or the M777

If both the UPA & the NDA don't care much for Globemasters, then perhaps they have intentionally put the red tape and government procedures in the way .

What is to say that IAF is justified in its demands and GoI is not justified in its?

 

[blue marlin]

With no more Globemasters what are the options India has?? I m sure price wise it can get IL 76 or An 124 cheaper but are they worth buying??

below il76-ps90

a400m

iaf is getting the il-76/78 refurbished and also with new engines. as far as getting another platform theres not much out there, well theres the a400m but thats to expensive and it does not carry as much as the c17. other than that they could be more il76-ps90' so a400m or il76-ps90

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

IAF TO ACQUIRE 3 MORE C-17 GLOBEMASTERS

After getting the delivery of 10 C-17 Globemaster aircraft under the biggest ever defence deal with the US at the cost of USD 5.4 billion, the Indian Air Force has expressed its willingness to buy three more heavy lifters, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha has confirmed.
"We have initiated a case to procure three additional C-17 aircraft," the Air Chief said, in an interview to Vayu Aerospace defence journal.
The contract to buy 10 C-17 from Boeing Company of US was signed sometime in 2011 with the first aircraft landing in India in June 2013. All the 10 aircraft have been delivered to the IAF on schedule, which are stationed at Hindon Airbase in Ghaziabad.
Incidentally, the IAF is the largest operator of C-17s after the US Air Force which is operating 222 such heavy lifters in its fleet.
Boeing is also supposed to support the IAF C-17 fleet through the Globemaster III Integrated Sustainment Program (GISP) Performance-Based Logistics contract. The GISP "virtual fleet" arrangement ensures mission readiness by providing all C-17 customers access to an extensive support network for worldwide parts availability and economies of scale.
Talking about the progress on the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for joint development andproduction of Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) with Russia, the Air Chief said the agreement was signed on October 18, 2007 between the two countries.
"The IGA had envisaged equal participation and funding by Indian and Russian sidesin this project. There are certain issues involving technical features, cost and delivery timelines, which are being addressed at the highest level," he said.
To a question, how the IAF is going to bolster its strength of fighter squadrons, Air Chief Marshal Raha said, "presently, IAF has 35 active fighter Squadrons against Government authorised strength of 42 Squadrons. The shortfall in fighter aircraft strength is planned to be made good through induction of the remaining contracted Su-30MKI, LCA, Rafale and other suitable fighter aircraft."
He made it clear that the IAF was not contemplating any additional procurement of Su-30MKI aircraft over and above the numbers already contracted for.
Instead, he said the IAF was looking forward to the development of Advanced MediumCombat Aircraft (AMCA), which will be India's indigenous fifth generation fighter aircraft.
"The AMCA would be able to execute multiple roles. Since obsolescence management as well as capability enhancement is a continuous process, the AMCA is planned to be inducted whensome of our current fourth and earlier generation fighter aircraft are phased out,"he added.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20151016/2703730.html

 

[SajeevJino]

.

really from where ...?

my 30 char

 

[Illusive]

.

really from where ...?

my 30 char

Maybe from the US reserves, they are stored in brand new state.

PS: 30 character trick : put lot of spaces and then a fullstop or anything you wish

 

[V_Force]

IAF GIGANTIC WORKHORSE C-17 GLOBE MASTER PLANES SHOULDERING EACH OTHER IN THE HEART OF THE COUNTRY, BEAUTIFUL SCENE. JAI HIND

 

[Illusive]

IAF GIGANTIC WORKHORSE C-17 GLOBE MASTER PLANES SHOULDERING EACH OTHER IN THE HEART OF THE COUNTRY, BEAUTIFUL SCENE. JAI HIND

View attachment 6340

But should be in a shelter .

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

But should be in a shelter .

USAF keeps them under sun. ...

 

[uoftotaku]

But should be in a shelter .

Do you realize how big these birds are??

The only criticism I make of this arrangement is that it is strategically foolish to place our entire fleet in a neatly targetable line at one of our most important air bases. What a tempting first strike target for any enemy...

 

[Abhi9]

C-17 in the beautiful leh valley

 

[abingdonboy]

Anyone else notice how, since the induction of the 3rd/4th C-17, every SINGLE time the IAF/nation has needed a rapid response airlifter for crisis (Yeman Evac, Maldives water crisis, SL cyclone, Fiji cyclone, Nepal earthquake etc etc etc I literally could go on and on) they have turned to the C-17 and NOT the other "heavy" airlifter that outnumbers it 2:1 in the IAF's fleet; the IL-76?

Yes, the C-17 is expensive many will say but it is literally paying for itself by the service it is putting and its life cycle costs are FAR lower than the IL-76's. I will put a lot of this down to the simple fact that Boeing is legally bound to provide the IAF with (at least) 85% availbility of their fleet at any one time whilst the IL-76s are well known to be "Hanger queens" within the IAF.

Thusly, this raises the serious issue of how limited the fleet is. It was projected that the IAF wanted a fleet of 26-30 but at least 16 however with the closing of the production line in Long Beach a few years back now the IAF is forever limited to just 10. Where does the IAF go from now? In 10-15 years 66% (Il-76s) of the heavy lift fleet will begin to be phased out and with the demands on the Indian military only set to grow with the expansion of the economy and threat enviroment, the 10 a/c C-17 fleet will in no way be sufficent- not even close. By 2030 the IAF will easily require 50++ Heavy lift a/c but there is no real subsitute for the C-17 around. I can just hear the IL-416 being pushed now but the IL-416 is little more than an upgraded IL-76 which despite having improved engines (with FADEC?) and greater autonomous features will still be inferior to the C-17 in almost every paramotor barring cost of course but that really should not be the prime consideration at this point. Do not forget that by 2025 India will easily be the 3rd largest economy in the world and by 2030 will be spending >$160BN USD on defence a year.

Really, the IAF's transport as a whole is rather sick, right from the bottom to the top tier (as discussed above). The MTA is now offically DOA, no replacment has been suggested (forget about the RIL-Antonov talks). The An-32 fleet is limping along but about 30-40% of the fleet has been cannibalised and what of the C-295s to replace the Avros? Where is that deal??

Chronic under0investment and criminal mismanagment (oon the part of the MoD, the IAF has planned its needs well but the MoD have not allowed them to execute them) has ensured the IAF is walking into ANOTHER disaster situation (first the fighters, now this and the rotary wing isn't exactly that healthy).

And as usual no media outlet is even remotely interested in this brewing storm and the polticans are busy fighting imaginery fires elsewhere and dithering on non-issues, in a few years they may catch on when X amount of the transport fleet is grounded but the righting is on the wall today.This kind of regressive mindset from the people in positions of power will ensure India remains out of the "true" power "club" and a semi-regional power at best for the forseeable future.


+ the story of the C-130J-30 is VERY similar, it has been employed in countless emergency operations and for such a small fleet (now just 5) it is massively over represented in recent operations.


@Gessler @PARIKRAMA @pmaitra @Kunal Biswas @HariPrasad-1 @AnantS @Screambowl @Blackwater @Indx TechStyle @Abhi9 @Illusive @illusion8 @raya @Singh @SajeevJino @Lions Of Punjab @LETHALFORCE @sayareakd @Srinivas_K @Navneet Kundu @brahmastra11 @bhramos @sasum @archie @cobra commando @gadeshi
@Shaitan @Anupu @south block @Navneet Kundu @psri

I'd be VERY interested to hear everyone's views.

 

[Gessler]

Anyone else notice how, since the induction of the 3rd/4th C-17, every SINGLE time the IAF/nation has needed a rapid response airlifter for crisis (Yeman Evac, Maldives water crisis, SL cyclone, Fiji cyclone, Nepal earthquake etc etc etc I literally could go on and on) they have turned to the C-17 and NOT the other "heavy" airlifter that outnumbers it 2:1 in the IAF's fleet; the IL-76?

Yes, the C-17 is expensive many will say but it is literally paying for itself by the service it is putting and its life cycle costs are FAR lower than the IL-76's. I will put a lot of this down to the simple fact that Boeing is legally bound to provide the IAF with (at least) 85% availbility of their fleet at any one time whilst the IL-76s are well known to be "Hanger queens" within the IAF.

Thusly, this raises the serious issue of how limited the fleet is. It was projected that the IAF wanted a fleet of 26-30 but at least 16 however with the closing of the production line in Long Beach a few years back now the IAF is forever limited to just 10. Where does the IAF go from now? In 10-15 years 66% (Il-76s) of the heavy lift fleet will begin to be phased out and with the demands on the Indian military only set to grow with the expansion of the economy and threat enviroment, the 10 a/c C-17 fleet will in no way be sufficent- not even close. By 2030 the IAF will easily require 50++ Heavy lift a/c but there is no real subsitute for the C-17 around. I can just hear the IL-416 being pushed now but the IL-416 is little more than an upgraded IL-76 which despite having improved engines (with FADEC?) and greater autonomous features will still be inferior to the C-17 in almost every paramotor barring cost of course but that really should not be the prime consideration at this point. Do not forget that by 2025 India will easily be the 3rd largest economy in the world and by 2030 will be spending >$160BN USD on defence a year.

Really, the IAF's transport as a whole is rather sick, right from the bottom to the top tier (as discussed above). The MTA is now offically DOA, no replacment has been suggested (forget about the RIL-Antonov talks). The An-32 fleet is limping along but about 30-40% of the fleet has been cannibalised and what of the C-295s to replace the Avros? Where is that deal??

Chronic under0investment and criminal mismanagment (oon the part of the MoD, the IAF has planned its needs well but the MoD have not allowed them to execute them) has ensured the IAF is walking into ANOTHER disaster situation (first the fighters, now this and the rotary wing isn't exactly that healthy).

And as usual no media outlet is even remotely interested in this brewing storm and the polticans are busy fighting imaginery fires elsewhere and dithering on non-issues, in a few years they may catch on when X amount of the transport fleet is grounded but the righting is on the wall today.This kind of regressive mindset from the people in positions of power will ensure India remains out of the "true" power "club" and a semi-regional power at best for the forseeable future.


+ the story of the C-130J-30 is VERY similar, it has been employed in countless emergency operations and for such a small fleet (now just 5) it is massively over represented in recent operations.

I'd be VERY interested to hear everyone's views.

The best case scenario is if the production line actually re-opens. But it won't reopen for just 10-16 aircraft, the USAF itself will have to table a requirement for additional C-17s, as should some NATO partners. PKSG had said a while ago that the line will re-open, as the US itself will need more C-17s in the future.

One of the problems I see is that we are always lacking when it comes to making our ultimate requirements (total projected numbers) clear to the vendor beforehand. If we had made a clear-cut statement to Boeing at the time of the initial purchase (or during the deliveries) that we have a total projected requirement of 26-30 Globemasters, it may have just been possible that they keep the line on hold - while we work up the payment issues & methods. Not saying that this approach would have been fool-proof, but atleast we would put in a word.

But we can neither count on the line re-opening, nor just sit by watching. In the meantime, it does seem a good idea to request the purchase of some Globemasters that the US keeps in reserve/stand-by. They really wouldn't have clocked many hours and even if they do it really doesn't matter, these transports are long-serving platforms.

But we also have to look at alternatives. As you said, the Il-476 (also called Il-76MD-90A) is little more than a refurbished Gajraj with new engines. But the saving grace would be that eventhough it doesn't offer an airlift capability near that of C-17, we may actually be able to buy twice as many of these with the same money we would otherwise keep aside for C-17s. We already operate the type so getting used to it won't take as much time...as long as we can keep the spares supply lines clear and localize the maintenance as much as possible.

For some reason, the A400M in IAF looks so out of place - as if it wasn't meant to be.

 

[abingdonboy]

The best case scenario is if the production line actually re-opens. But it won't reopen for just 10-16 aircraft, the USAF itself will have to table a requirement for additional C-17s, as should some NATO partners. PKSG had said a while ago that the line will re-open, as the US itself will need more C-17s in the future.

This is a very remote possibility IMO and if it is even on the table it won't be an option for another 15-20 years at least ie much longer than the IAF can afford to wait. The USAF received their full order (plus about 20-30 extra units that they were forced to accept for poltical reasons) of >200 C-17s with the last being delivered only a few years ago. So about 50% of the fleet is relatively new <10 years old and with a life span of 30-40 years there is a LOT of life left in the USAF's fleet meaning they aren't going to look for replacements anytime soon. Furthermore, with the C-17 taken care of the USAF is firmly focused on other big ticket procurements- next gen bomber, UCAVs, F-35, AARs etc. The C-17 just isn't on their radar (excuse the pun) anymore and if it was it would be well down their priority list as they are seeing their budgets constrained by these out of control projects (the F-35 especially).

One of the problems I see is that we are always lacking when it comes to making our ultimate requirements (total projected numbers) clear to the vendor beforehand. If we had made a clear-cut statement to Boeing at the time of the initial purchase (or during the deliveries) that we have a total projected requirement of 26-30 Globemasters, it may have just been possible that they keep the line on hold - while we work up the payment issues & methods. Not saying that this approach would have been fool-proof, but atleast we would put in a word.

This is true and I don't know if the IAF/MoD ever made it clear to Boeing, I'm sure Boeing would have been receptive to a "creative" financing plan (incremental payments or these 16-20 built and mothballed" for a time when the IAF could commit the finances- Boeing wouldn't have turned down >$10BN in revenue somewhere down the line. But alas, at the time (2012/13) India had a very rigid DM and uninterested GoI who had no capacity/interest to "think out of the box" and serve their nation's interests.

At the very least Boeing could have made more than the 10 so-called "white tails" that were quickly snatched up by others.

Argh, this whole situation really is an opportunity missed and it really infuriates me how unresponsive the MoD/GoI of the time was to the emerging situation- it was clear from years and years ago that the Long Beach plant was set to clsoe down and I'm sure Boeing were communicating this on a regular basis but it clearly fell on deaf ears.

But we can neither count on the line re-opening, nor just sit by watching. In the meantime, it does seem a good idea to request the purchase of some Globemasters that the US keeps in reserve/stand-by. They really wouldn't have clocked many hours and even if they do it really doesn't matter, these transports are long-serving platforms.

This to me seems like the only viable solution as of now and even getting them second hand is a non-issue as the OEMs could easily "zero hour" the airframes, avionics and engines and make the a/cs effectively brand new for the IAF.

I hope the MoD/DM is thinking along these lines, for all the talk about "strategic partnership" with the US it has ammounted to precisely zilch. THIS is the kind of innovative thinking that would help to signal such and also would confirm that Parrikar isn't just a loudmouth who promises the world and delviers nothing. There is all this talk of EMALS, F-18 production lines etc etc but why not this (relatively) simple deal?

But we also have to look at alternatives. As you said, the Il-476 (also called Il-76MD-90A) is little more than a refurbished Gajraj with new engines. But the saving grace would be that eventhough it doesn't offer an airlift capability near that of C-17, we may actually be able to buy twice as many of these with the same money we would otherwise keep aside for C-17s. We already operate the type so getting used to it won't take as much time...as long as we can keep the spares supply lines clear and localize the maintenance as much as possible.

See, this is quite typical forum/fan boy thinking- you can get 3/4/5/6Y for the same price of X but it entirely fails to take account of the inherent pros/cons of the cheap/"expensive" products. Yes, if the IL-476 was the absolute equivalent of the C-17 (or even close) then it would be no-brainer but the IL-476 is nowehre close to the C-17 in outright performance, operating costs or promised availability. Like I have said above, Boeing guarentees a minimum of 85% availability rate for the entire IAF C-17 fleet, the Russians would NEVER be able to match this. I don't know what the IL-476 could deliver but I had heard that the IAF's IL-76 fleet hovered around 35-45% availability which is truly abysmal. Furthermore, the after sales support of the Russians has been shoddy at best, whilst the IAF is now "plugged in" to the C-17 global support program that ensures spares within 2 days anywhere in the world.

You get what you pay for, as the saying goes; you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Just because you can get 3 MiG-21s for the price of 1 LCA does it mean the LCA is over-priced or the MiG-21 represents a good deal today?


I don't think the IAF has any interest in the IL-476, if they did they wouldn't have sunk funds into upgrading their current IL-76 fleet to keep them going another 10-15 years. I don't think we've heard a single peep from the IAF about being interested in the IL-476 and I think this is very telling and I think it confirms what many have said for a while; Russian equipment is of inferior quality, harder to maintain/service and FAR more expensive to operate over their life span. This Russian game has been played out now- dirt cheap unit costs with sky rocketed life cycle costs, I don't think any Indian Mil officer is inclined to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors.

Indian Mil experience of Russian equipment has continuously demonstrated this and even with their very latest tech (MKI) they are STILL facing serious issues (AL-31 flame outs). There is a reason the IAF has gone for Western equipment where possible in recent times (C-130J, C-17, P-8, CH-47F, AH-64E, A330 MRTT, Rafale etc). There is a reason that Airbus and Boeing dominate the global aerospace industry and Sukhoi is a nobody.

For some reason, the A400M in IAF looks so out of place - as if it wasn't meant to be.

The A400M is kind of a mix between the C-130 and C-17 and I know the IAF have looked at it but the fact that it is a turboprop a/c counts against it as it wouldn't be as "rapid" as the C-17 or even IL-76. It also has a considerably smaller payload capacity than the C-17 but it does have a more spacious cargo bay than the IL-76 meaning it can transport a wider variety of cargo.

It really is a mess and one that could easily have been avoided but this is India afterall, drama and messes go hand in hand with Indian culture unfortunatly.