IAF clears proposal to buy three C-17; Boeing says only one plane left to sell

[Abingdonboy]

That would be so sad. We'll be adding another entirely different aircraft type with all it's different operating procedures, infrastructure and training facilities, so much more time & money would be lost to achieve the same level of airlift capability as before.

And all because the governing bodies sat on the approval papers for so long. They should have went ahead with the whole order of 26 C-17s when they had the chance (the knowledge of the fact that C17 production would be closed soon has been around for almost half a decade now), even if it means opening a credit line...because these aircraft are indispensable.

Indeed, 26-30 C-17s would have been ideal but that is the way the cookie crumbles- the IAF got unlucky with the timing of the C-17's production line closure but we should be grateful they even got 10 (if not 13)- the second largest fleet outside the US.

About the alternatives, yes, the A400M looks like the only option now (I had been vocally against acquiring the A400M because we already had C17, IL76 and the MRTA projects underway, but now the situation is different). The other option would be IL-476, which may actually help cut down on the new infrastructure and training costs as we already operate IL-76, but it remains to be seen if IAF wants it or not.

It is perfectly understandable that the IAF is reluctant to go for the IL-476 given the issues they have had in keeping their Il-76s airworthy to date and there seems to be no reason that this would have changed, in fact it may be worse now that Russia is facing sanctions and Ukraine will not be cooperating (they helped a lot in Russia's transport fleet needs), in fact this has affected the IAF's An-32RE upgrades and the MRTA projects already. Now that the IL-76s are on their way out and the IAF has invested heavily in setting up infrastructure for the C-17 so the Il-476 hardly offers incredible cost benefits to the IAF.

In the long term, I don't see there being a better option than the A400M and with TATA teaming up with Airbus Military and having won the Avro-Replacement project who knows what industrial benefits we can expect to see for India with such a deal.

One thing that is certain is that the IAF's strategic airlift demands are only increasing day by day and 10-13 C-17s is just not going to cut it. Right now the IAF has around 25 heavy airlifters (IL-76 and C-17 fleet) and with the IL-76s on their way out within the next 5-7 years the IAF is facing a nightmare situation in the near future.

when all american c17 become old after 2 decades, will they start production line again?

No, they are likely to start looking at a C-17 replacement in the next two decades as their C-17 fleet gets tired but their C-17s will be around for a long, long time (perhaps even in 40+ years like their C-5s).

 

[surya kiran]

The a400m is nowhere close to the c17 in terms of payload and speed.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I think this option should be explored

It is, BY FAR, the best option on the table.

 

[ravindra1455]

View attachment 248264 View attachment 248265

The a400m is nowhere close to the c17 in terms of payload and speed.

so beautiful

 

[Echo_419]

Indeed, 26-30 C-17s would have been ideal but that is the way the cookie crumbles- the IAF got unlucky with the timing of the C-17's production line closure but we should be grateful they even got 10 (if not 13)- the second largest fleet outside the US.



It is perfectly understandable that the IAF is reluctant to go for the IL-476 given the issues they have had in keeping their Il-76s airworthy to date and there seems to be no reason that this would have changed, in fact it may be worse now that Russia is facing sanctions and Ukraine will not be cooperating (they helped a lot in Russia's transport fleet needs), in fact this has affected the IAF's An-32RE upgrades and the MRTA projects already. Now that the IL-76s are on their way out and the IAF has invested heavily in setting up infrastructure for the C-17 so the Il-476 hardly offers incredible cost benefits to the IAF.

In the long term, I don't see there being a better option than the A400M and with TATA teaming up with Airbus Military and having won the Avro-Replacement project who knows what industrial benefits we can expect to see for India with such a deal.

One thing that is certain is that the IAF's strategic airlift demands are only increasing day by day and 10-13 C-17s is just not going to cut it. Right now the IAF has around 25 heavy airlifters (IL-76 and C-17 fleet) and with the IL-76s on their way out within the next 5-7 years the IAF is facing a nightmare situation in the near future.


No, they are likely to start looking at a C-17 replacement in the next two decades as their C-17 fleet gets tired but their C-17s will be around for a long, long time (perhaps even in 40+ years like their C-5s).

We should get as much C-17s as we can get & on the A-400 front I think that too is a good option specially when the Russians are facing so much trouble

 

[Abingdonboy]

View attachment 248264 View attachment 248265

The a400m is nowhere close to the c17 in terms of payload and speed.

Indeed, but it is better than nothing and will be a relatively decent compliment to the IAF's C-17s:

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Indeed, but it is better than nothing and will be a relatively decent compliment to the IAF's C-17s:

Apparently the IAF thinks differently, the A400 is considered to be too expensive to buy and operate. Until that thinking changes.......
For the foreseeable future, look at the Transport a/c types already there, plus the replacement for Avros whenever that happens. From Airbus, the only aircraft on the radar is the MRTT, if it also makes the cut as a platform for the future AEWACs.

 

[Indian Patriot]

True, but its uncommon for tanks to be loaded on board even on C-17. Its pretty rare. Don't expect India to put tanks on the mountains.

Railways or shipping routes are used for mobilisjg tanks. A NATO tank on average weighs 60 tonnes and transport aircraft have their weight limit. It makes it a financial waste and impractical solution for transporting tanks via planes (unless of course there is a critical emergency).

 

[Capt.Popeye]

They really planned to do that?

There seems to be a misconception that the Himalayan Ranges consist only of "sky-piercing mountains". That is not so, there are parts which are high mountain plateaus and large enough to operate Tanks. But do not expect massed Tank battles. Already Tanks and IFVs are deployed there.

They really planned to do that?

There seems to be a misconception that the Himalayan Ranges consist only of "sky-piercing mountains". That is not so, there are parts which are high mountain plateaus and large enough to operate Tanks. But do not expect massed Tank battles. Already Tanks and IFVs are deployed there.

 

[Oldman1]

Railways or shipping routes are used for mobilisjg tanks. A NATO tank on average weighs 60 tonnes and transport aircraft have their weight limit. It makes it a financial waste and impractical solution for transporting tanks via planes (unless of course there is a critical emergency).

Only if we need heavy armor units overseas that cannot be transported quickly by ship or rails in a short time. Like for example, North Korea invading the South and pushing quickly before American reinforcements arrive. But thats not India's problem.