First C-17 to arrive in India shortly

[soumya1989]

May 20, 2013: The Indian Navy isn't the only service that gets the bask in the glow of a brand new American-built bird. The IAF will soon welcome to India its first Boeing C-17 Globemaster-III heavy-lift transport aircraft, due to arrive shortly. The window of arrival is May-June, so teams are all set to ferry the first bird back to homebase, Hindon AFS.

All ten aircraft will be delivered by the end of 2014, but which time operations will already be in full swing. Batches of Indian pilots and loadmasters have been undergoing training with the USAF at Altus, Oklahoma and will be the lead teams that bring in the C-17 into Indian service. Once deliveries begin this month or the next, the Indian Air Force will rapidly begin a process to determine whether it plans to buy 6-10 more aircraft from Boeing. Such a decision will need to be quickly made since manufacturing operations will begun winding down at Boeing's Long Beach facility towards the end of 2014, and it will need firm orders to keep such a massive facility open. Sources indicate the IAF has already conveyed to the government that it would require at least 20 C-17s for meaningful operations on the type, and given its responsibilities.

SP's Aviation - SP’s Exculsive

 

[Abingdonboy]

@sancho this must be your worst nightmare eh- 20+ C-17s in IAF service!!

 

[sancho]

@sancho this must be your worst nightmare eh- 20+ C-17s in IAF service!!

Of course not, because it's a good aircraft, but it's a waste of money for India to procure so many of them and IAF would be way more effective with the A400M.

 

[selvan33]

hmmm good news. 20 C17's. but i don't know how i fall in deep love with her(A 400M).

@sancho @Abingdonboy. Any news regarding its future IAF colour.

 

[deep hacker here]

Of course not, because it's a good aircraft, but it's a waste of money for India to procure so many of them and IAF would be way more effective with the A400M.

CANT U BE QUIET ON SOME TOPICS WHOSE KNOWLEDGE U DONT POSSES
FED UP WITH UR SMART THOUGHTS A 400 LOLOLOLO

 

[Abingdonboy]

Of course not, because it's a good aircraft, but it's a waste of money for India to procure so many of them and IAF would be way more effective with the A400M.

Lol- if I remember back, you claimed I had bought too much into Boeings claims wrt the CH-47 and now you are the one advocating the A400 above everything else!!


Lol- I'm just kidding, I can see where you're coming from and it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a few A400s knocking around in IAF service just in case certain missions came up.

@sancho @Abingdonboy. Any news regarding its future IAF colour.

Mate- how do you mean "its future IAF colour"?

 

[livingdead]

CANT U BE QUIET ON SOME TOPICS WHOSE KNOWLEDGE U DONT POSSES
FED UP WITH UR SMART THOUGHTS A 400 LOLOLOLO

fix your keyboard first mate....
I dont know much about either of these two birds, can you tell which is better for India and why?

 

[nomi007]

nice selection by indians

 

[Abingdonboy]

fix your keyboard first mate....
I dont know much about either of these two birds, can you tell which is better for India and why?

There is no "better" or "worse" in this instance- they are two different a/c of different weight classes and with different aims in mind. The C-17 is very much a stragic airlifter with the ability to transport 70+ tons (MBTs for instance) whilst the A400 is marketed as a stragic airlifter but has much more tactical credibility and has a maximum payload of ~ half the C-17 (just a bit over).

 

[sancho]

Lol- if I remember back, you claimed I had bought too much into Boeings claims wrt the CH-47 and now you are the one advocating the A400 above everything else!!

You did, because you belived their PR and thought that the heavy lift procurement has anything to do with the tactical advantages the Ch 47 offers, or with the way US forces operates them, the reality for India however is different!
I am saying for years that IAF needs something in the A400M class, which includes the AN 70, or the Kawasaki XC2 to offer more tactical and strategic advantages. Sadly the latter is not on offer for exports and the AN 70 delayed in developed in it's latest version, which logically leaves only the A400.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Depending on your needs and specific mission one will be may be suited to you in some cases and in other situations the other will come in handy.

In many ways they are complimentary process and not rivals and in fact to many C-17 operating nations the A400 has been marketed as such.

 

[selvan33]

Lol- if I remember back, you claimed I had bought too much into Boeings claims wrt the CH-47 and now you are the one advocating the A400 above everything else!!


Lol- I'm just kidding, I can see where you're coming from and it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a few A400s knocking around in IAF service just in case certain missions came up.


Mate- how do you mean "its future IAF colour"?

OH i missed the word about in front of it. About its future IAF colour dude. whether will IAF buy it(any news) or its need is must in IAF(but i think its must because of its strategic and tactical airlifting capability which surely fullfills IAF needs and also its payoad).

 

[AADHAAR]

Nice to have c-17s.

I do hope the fresh order goes thru.. US transports are indeed the best, and we're a huge distance away to build such things at home, currently.

 

[soumya1989]

General characteristics(Airbus A400M Atlas)

Crew: 3 or 4 (2 pilots, 3rd optional, 1 loadmaster)
Capacity: 37,000 kg (81,600 lb)
116 fully equipped troops / paratroops,
up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel
Length: 45.1 m (148 ft 0 in)
Wingspan: 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)
Height: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
Empty weight: 76,500 kg (168,654 lb) ; operating weight
Max takeoff weight: 141,000 kg (310,852 lb)
Fuel capacity: 50,500 kg (111,330 lb) internal fuel
Max landing weight: 122,000 kg (268,963 lb)
Powerplant: 4 × Europrop TP400-D6 turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,060 hp) each
Propellers: 8-bladed, 5.3 m (17 ft 5 in) diameter

Performance

Cruising speed: 780 km/h (485 mph; 421 kn) (Mach 0.68–0.72)
Initial cruise altitude: at MTOW: 9,000 m (29,000 ft)
Range: 3,298 km (2,049 mi; 1,781 nmi) at max payload (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,540 km (2,450 nmi)
Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,390 km (3,450 nmi)
Ferry range: 8,710 km (5,412 mi; 4,703 nmi)
Service ceiling: 11,300 m (37,073 ft)
Tactical takeoff distance: 980 m (3,215 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)
Tactical landing distance: 770 m (2,526 ft) (as above)
Turning radius (ground): 28.6 m


General characteristics(C-17)

Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster
Capacity:
102 paratroopers
158 troops with palletized and sidewall seats or
53 troops with sidewall seats (allows 13 cargo pallets) only or
36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients or
Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank,three Strykers, or six M1117 Armored Security Vehicles
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 U.S. gal (134,556 L)

Performance

Cruise speed: Mach 0.74 (450 knots, 515 mph, 830 km/h)
Range: 2,420 nmi[174] (2,785 mi, 4,482 km) ; 5,610 nmi (10,390 km) with paratroops
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
Max. wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277
Takeoff run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,316 m)
Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,060 m

 

[sancho]

@sancho @Abingdonboy. Any news regarding its future IAF colour.

No, since IAF didn't showed interest in any bigger aircraft other than the C17 in recent years and the sad thing is that they didn't even evaluated alternatives at least. But IAFs evaluation process other than in MMRCA (which was very comprehensive) seems to be very poor (not including future helicopters in the HLH competition, not including lifecycle costs in the tanker competition, poor planing in the Jaguar engine competition...), so that isn't a big surprise.

In many ways they are complimentary process and not rivals and in fact to many C-17 operating nations the A400 has been marketed as such.

They are rivals, because they are meant to do the same in first place! Transporting heavy and big loads to long distances, something medium or lower class aircrafts like the C130, MTA, C27J, or C295 can't.
But this class of aircrafts is often aimed to do more than strategic transports only and that's where the other advantages in different roles come in as a multiplier.