C-17 Globemaster III (IAF)

[Vijyes]

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.

C17 has wider fuselage because it is bigger than IL76. And as you mentioned,the only advantage is that MBT can be transported due to wider fuselage. But it has no bigger advantage.

Moreover, the huge weight of the aircraft makes it expensive to operate. It is a fuel guzzler and consumes 5 times as much fuel as Su30 for every trip even with 30-40 ton payload.

India couldn't buy 16-17 C17s as USA itself found out that C17 is tactically wasteful and stopped its production. USA even had another Lockheed starlifter which was even bigger but that too stopped production.

So, definitely,India going for C17 is due to USA pressure to reduce trade surplus and hence requirement is being artificially invented

 

[aditya10r]

So is having a 70+ tonne capable strategic airlifter pointless given how fuel consuming and expensive it is to operate and purchase???

Is The elongated 4 engine kawasaki c-2 answer to our strategic airlift needs????

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[Deathstar]

C17 has wider fuselage because it is bigger than IL76. And as you mentioned,the only advantage is that MBT can be transported due to wider fuselage. But it has no bigger advantage.

Moreover, the huge weight of the aircraft makes it expensive to operate. It is a fuel guzzler and consumes 5 times as much fuel as Su30 for every trip even with 30-40 ton payload.

India couldn't buy 16-17 C17s as USA itself found out that C17 is tactically wasteful and stopped its production. USA even had another Lockheed starlifter which was even bigger but that too stopped production.

So, definitely,India going for C17 is due to USA pressure to reduce trade surplus and hence requirement is being artificially invented

IL76MDs which India operates has capacity of 48 tonne while C17s have capacity of 78 tonne so that is almost 1.5 times. India has some 17 IL76s so 10C17s are definitely not only a political buy

 

[Vijyes]

IL76MDs which India operates has capacity of 48 tonne while C17s have capacity of 78 tonne so that is almost 1.5 times. India has some 17 IL76s so 10C17s are definitely not only a political buy

The 48 tons come close to the 40 ton I have been saying. The difference between 78 and 48 tons is quite large and I can't understand how you are comparing the two as equivalent.

The additional payload capacity of C17 is useless unless India intends to transport tanks. But as I said before, it is foolish to take 1 tank per trip. So, the additional payload capacity is simply a cause for fuel guzzling. It increases the size of the plane, increases weight and hence increases operational costs.

The main reason why India would buy C17 is due to pressure to alleviate trade surplus.

So is having a 70+ tonne capable strategic airlifter pointless given how fuel consuming and expensive it is to operate and purchase???

Is The elongated 4 engine kawasaki c-2 answer to our strategic airlift needs????

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Japan is unlikely to sell its Technology considering its past precedence and the fact that Japan is not independent country but its foreign policy is dictated by USA.

Secondly, C2 has turbofan engines which makes it difficult to make. C2 engine is also GE engine which it is unlikely to give TOT. In comparison, A400M of Airbus is better option. It has 37T payload and 4 turboprop engine. The payload is acceptable while turboprop makes it easier to manufacture.

 

[Deathstar]

The 48 tons come close to the 40 ton I have been saying. The difference between 78 and 48 tons is quite large and I can't understand how you are comparing the two as equivalent.

The additional payload capacity of C17 is useless unless India intends to transport tanks. But as I said before, it is foolish to take 1 tank per trip. So, the additional payload capacity is simply a cause for fuel guzzling. It increases the size of the plane, increases weight and hence increases operational costs.

The main reason why India would buy C17 is due to pressure to alleviate trade surplus.


.

C17s can be easily used to transport troops and supplies to Leh and other difficult terrains in less time. C17s came much later hence its but obvious that their engines are refined and efficient than soviet made IL76s engines.
C17s have a range of 4500km for 72 tonne while IL has 4500km for 45-48 tonne , same range
So both have their definite use here
IL76s advantage is they can land on rough runways

 

[Vijyes]

C17s can be easily used to transport troops and supplies to Leh and other difficult terrains in less time. C17s came much later hence its but obvious that their engines are refined and efficient than soviet made IL76s engines.
C17s have a range of 4500km for 72 tonne while IL has 4500km for 45-48 tonne , same range
So both have their definite use here
IL76s advantage is they can land on rough runways

What do you want to say? C17 can transport troops and so can Il76. Even A400M can transport almost equal number of troops.

C17 can carry 78 tons but it is impractical to transport that much. There is volume limits too. Only very dense items can make that much weight. This means transporting MBT. This is useless. So, what is the point of having 78 ton payload? Other than wasting fuel, it is of little value.

It is not obvious that C17 has more efficient engine. The turbofan of transport aircrafts are high bypass ones and hence don't really have much scope in increasing efficiency. Mere increase of 3-4% efficiency is of little value considering that the size increase of 80% will still mean much more fuel consumption despite minor efficiency improvement

 

[IndianHawk]

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

So we are short of 6 c17 . That is 6*70= 420 tonnage of lifting capabilities.

Or almost 21 c130-j30 could full fill it at 20 ton each. It won't be same as c17 can lift at once but it will get the job done without adding a new type to arsenal.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[uoftotaku]

So we are short of 6 c17 . That is 6*70= 420 tonnage of lifting capabilities.

Or almost 21 c130-j30 could full fill it at 20 ton each. It won't be same as c17 can lift at once but it will get the job done without adding a new type to arsenal.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Actually we are short of at least 13 C-17.

The C-17 was purchased with intent to gradually replace the IL-76 fleet 1-for-1 with a better capacity and availability platform providing incremental improvement in overall lift capabilities.

There were 24 IL-76 in service but these had been purchased in several batches so the regimented mindset IAF also split its replacement plans into batches to correspond to the fixed retirement dates of the IL-76 fleet as per service life guidelines.

So 10+6 initially with intent for follow on 8 as separate purchase. They neither anticipated nor reacted to the closing of the C-17 line so finding themselves in hole of their own making

As you mentioned, in terms of just lift capacity in weight, any aircraft can be used to replicate. However, it is simply not cost effective. 1 C-17 = 4 C-130 in lift but whats the acquisition and operating cost of 4 C-130 vs 1 C-17? Plus of course the C-17 is able to carry that additional 30% of outsized cargo that is physically beyond most other aircraft especially C-130 category.

You cannot just compare apples to oranges...especially when what you really need is a melon

 

[asianobserve]

C17s can be easily used to transport troops and supplies to Leh and other difficult terrains in less time. C17s came much later hence its but obvious that their engines are refined and efficient than soviet made IL76s engines.
C17s have a range of 4500km for 72 tonne while IL has 4500km for 45-48 tonne , same range
So both have their definite use here
IL76s advantage is they can land on rough runways

C-17 can land on rough runways:


Can an IL76 do it? I don't think so.

A400 can also do dirt landing:


Look at this fantastic C-130J dirt landind that created a dust strom:

 

[Aaj ka hero]

C-17 can land on rough runways:


Can an IL76 do it? I don't think so.

A400 can also do dirt landing:


Look at this fantastic C-130J dirt landind that created a dust strom:

Here, TAKE-OFF
You really are man, a true American Ally, soviet aircrafts were designed from ground ups to be used from DIRTS and..... Yes they don't publicize it.

 

[asianobserve]

Here, TAKE-OFF
You really are man, a true American Ally, soviet aircrafts were designed from ground ups to be used from DIRTS and..... Yes they don't publicize it.

I was responding to a claim above that the advantage of IL76 over C-17 is that it can land on rough surfaces. Obviously, that's not true.

BTW, A400M is not American. It's made by Airbus by Europeans.

 

[Deathstar]

What do you want to say? C17 can transport troops and so can Il76. Even A400M can transport almost equal number of troops.

C17 can carry 78 tons but it is impractical to transport that much. There is volume limits too. Only very dense items can make that much weight. This means transporting MBT. This is useless. So, what is the point of having 78 ton payload? Other than wasting fuel, it is of little value.

It is not obvious that C17 has more efficient engine. The turbofan of transport aircrafts are high bypass ones and hence don't really have much scope in increasing efficiency. Mere increase of 3-4% efficiency is of little value considering that the size increase of 80% will still mean much more fuel consumption despite minor efficiency improvement

How is it impractical?C17 can transport 102 troops ,how many can Il76 can?
And 78 tonnes is not useless at all and isnt only reserved for MBT , 78 tonnes of supplies cna be transported in just one trip

 

[Vijyes]

How is it impractical?C17 can transport 102 troops ,how many can Il76 can?
And 78 tonnes is not useless at all and isnt only reserved for MBT , 78 tonnes of supplies cna be transported in just one trip

What will you dow ith 102 troops? Even a simple Airbus 330 can carry 180 people.

What cargo of 78 ton will you Carry? There is nothing that is that heavy and needs to be carried on flight in such short notice.

 

[IndianHawk]

Actually we are short of at least 13 C-17.

The C-17 was purchased with intent to gradually replace the IL-76 fleet 1-for-1 with a better capacity and availability platform providing incremental improvement in overall lift capabilities.

There were 24 IL-76 in service but these had been purchased in several batches so the regimented mindset IAF also split its replacement plans into batches to correspond to the fixed retirement dates of the IL-76 fleet as per service life guidelines.

So 10+6 initially with intent for follow on 8 as separate purchase. They neither anticipated nor reacted to the closing of the C-17 line so finding themselves in hole of their own making

As you mentioned, in terms of just lift capacity in weight, any aircraft can be used to replicate. However, it is simply not cost effective. 1 C-17 = 4 C-130 in lift but whats the acquisition and operating cost of 4 C-130 vs 1 C-17? Plus of course the C-17 is able to carry that additional 30% of outsized cargo that is physically beyond most other aircraft especially C-130 category.

You cannot just compare apples to oranges...especially when what you really need is a melon

Well so they screwed up and now c17 line is gone! Buying a new type will be extra expensive .

We only operate 17 IL 76 rest 6 are tankers.

Anyway 17 il76 MD give us 17*48= 816 ton lifting while 11 c17 give us 11*77= 847 ton .

So we are better off still although not as much as we'd want to be!

What can be done now? Double down on IL 76 if they are still building?

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Vijyes]

Well so they screwed up and now c17 line is gone! Buying a new type will be extra expensive .

We only operate 17 IL 76 rest 6 are tankers.

Anyway 17 il76 MD give us 17*48= 816 ton lifting while 11 c17 give us 11*77= 847 ton .

So we are better off still although not as much as we'd want to be!

What can be done now? Double down on IL 76 if they are still building?

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

For us, C130 itself is enough. We are not going to take 40+ ton payload to any place in a plane. 40 ton payload will not fit in C17 unless it is some dense item. If loose items with lot of packaging is sent, then the weight will not exceed 20-25 ton. C130 is good enough for that.

It is wrong to calculate the payload as 11x78 or 17x48 tons. Payload doesn't work like that. We won't be using full capacity and the operational needs are also not there. Most of the items to normal places are carried in trains, trucks or ships. Only exceptional cases like Leh, Siachen needs airlift on regular basis. For all other places,it is more important to bring supply from trains, trucks or ships as the volume carried can be much more than planes and there is significant operatiomal flexibility

 

[uoftotaku]

Well so they screwed up and now c17 line is gone! Buying a new type will be extra expensive .

We only operate 17 IL 76 rest 6 are tankers.

Anyway 17 il76 MD give us 17*48= 816 ton lifting while 11 c17 give us 11*77= 847 ton .

So we are better off still although not as much as we'd want to be!

What can be done now? Double down on IL 76 if they are still building?

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

The current fleet is 15 IL-76MD and 6 IL-78 which spend vast majority of their time in transport role rather than tanker. The rest have been stood down.

The current fleet availability rates are pathetic...hovering well below 50%...most of the birds are on their last flight hours...they desperately need a life extension or replacement immediately. IL-76 itself not produced but Ilyushin make a modernised derivative called IL-476 which the IAF have repeatedly rejected as unsatisfactory (don't ask me why...I genuinely don't know)

 

[Immanuel]

The C-17s can carry 1 tank sure, but it can carry more 3 Styker size APCs, 2-3 helos, MRLS, Brahmos, Shaurya Launchers, Akash SAMs, QR-SAM, MR-SAM, Spyder SAM, 1 Agni-5 laucnher and even S-400 launchers. That is where this beauty comes alive.

C-17 can deploy 102 paratroopers along with 8 equipment bundles which is essentially plenty of kit, ammo etc.

In pure passenger mode, it can carry 188 passengers quite comfy.

IAF can easily use another dozen, ideal fleet size should have been 24-30, perhaps we can get some nearly new second hand aircraft from USAF.

It's laughable to say it is not used, it's the back bone when it comes to USAF airlift capability, over 200 are in use. Perhaps they don't mind parting with a dozen or more.

 

[Deathstar]

The C-17s can carry 1 tank sure, but it can carry more 3 Styker size APCs, 2-3 helos, MRLS, Brahmos, Shaurya Launchers, Akash SAMs, QR-SAM, MR-SAM, Spyder SAM, 1 Agni-5 laucnher and even S-400 launchers. That is where this beauty comes alive.

C-17 can deploy 102 paratroopers along with 8 equipment bundles which is essentially plenty of kit, ammo etc.

In pure passenger mode, it can carry 188 passengers quite comfy.

IAF can easily use another dozen, ideal fleet size should have been 24-30, perhaps we can get some nearly new second hand aircraft from USAF.

It's laughable to say it is not used, it's the back bone when it comes to USAF airlift capability, over 200 are in use. Perhaps they don't mind parting with a dozen or more.

Absolutely true , i gave up debating with a member who claimed whats use of transporting 102 troops when A330 can carry 180 people , how can u even compare

 

[Vijyes]

The C-17s can carry 1 tank sure, but it can carry more 3 Styker size APCs, 2-3 helos, MRLS, Brahmos, Shaurya Launchers, Akash SAMs, QR-SAM, MR-SAM, Spyder SAM, 1 Agni-5 laucnher and even S-400 launchers. That is where this beauty comes alive.

C-17 can deploy 102 paratroopers along with 8 equipment bundles which is essentially plenty of kit, ammo etc.

In pure passenger mode, it can carry 188 passengers quite comfy.

IAF can easily use another dozen, ideal fleet size should have been 24-30, perhaps we can get some nearly new second hand aircraft from USAF.

It's laughable to say it is not used, it's the back bone when it comes to USAF airlift capability, over 200 are in use. Perhaps they don't mind parting with a dozen or more.

Why would anyone carry 1 agni 5 launcher? Moreover, the weight of Agni 5 is 50 ton. I wonder how will such big missile fit in C17.

About carrying other missile like Akash missile, QR SAM, S400, MRSAM, why will someone transport 1 single system of these to any place? These things need networked radars and large power station. They aren't something one can just carry around arbitrarily. They may be mobile platforms with onboard generators but even then they work in a networked manner. So, they still need a set of radars and other systems to work.

Seriously, why would anyone carry 2 helicopters in a transport plane? What is the great need to do that in the first place? Similarly, transporting 2-3 APC is not a good move tactically. APC can't be used unless their path is secured by other means. And these also need to be present in large quantities. Moving 2-3 APC is tactically unsound strategy.

C17 can do many fancy things but the main question is about its real tactical utility.

Absolutely true , i gave up debating with a member who claimed whats use of transporting 102 troops when A330 can carry 180 people , how can u even compare

I know the difference. I was just telling that you are over exaggerating the troop carrying and payload carrying capabilities. Even C130 with 33ton payload can have 64 airborne troops. So, Il76 can definitely have close to 100 paratroopers. You were simply exaggerating the ability to carry 102 troops and putting down Il76 without any basis. So, I just made off the cuff remark about Airbus carrying that many people.

By the way, your justification for 80 ton payload still is invalid. 100 troops would weigh at best 10tons. So, why 80 ton payload is needed?

Secondly, mass airborne Operations are obsolete due to advancement of radars and weaponry. It is now considered suicide to simply paradrop in enemy territory as done in WW2. IN WW2, countries didn't have SAM or other anti air weapons. But in today's era, things are very different. Also, these slow moving transport planes are highly susceptible to radar guided AAA guns too. So, carrying paratroopers is not really priority

 

[Deathstar]

I know the difference. I was just telling that you are over exaggerating the troop carrying and payload carrying capabilities. Even C130 with 33ton payload can have 64 airborne troops. So, Il76 can definitely have close to 100 paratroopers. You were simply exaggerating the ability to carry 102 troops and putting down Il76 without any basis. So, I just made off the cuff remark about Airbus carrying that many people.

By the way, your justification for 80 ton payload still is invalid. 100 troops would weigh at best 10tons. So, why 80 ton payload is needed?

Secondly, mass airborne Operations are obsolete due to advancement of radars and weaponry. It is now considered suicide to simply paradrop in enemy territory as done in WW2. IN WW2, countries didn't have SAM or other anti air weapons. But in today's era, things are very different. Also, these slow moving transport planes are highly susceptible to radar guided AAA guns too. So, carrying paratroopers is not really priority

No sir , i was just telling that C17 wasn't just a political buy but it has its own role to play