Trials over, Boeing awaits IAF decision on $5.8 billion C-17 deal

[gubbi]

If IL 76 and C-17 III are In same class, Why Would India want to replace IL-76 with C-17? Well The Point is, C-17 Is More than A strategic Air lift Aircraft,as it has a Weaponized Platform , So C-17 is Much Preferred. And the rest is left open for debates....Iam Trying to Be as Argumentative as I can

C-17 Globemaster a weaponized platform? Can you elaborate please?

 

[IndianArmy]

C-17 Globemaster a weaponized platform? Can you elaborate please?

Thats Why I have clearly mentioned above, I have Left it open for debate, Naah, I am Not going deep into it

 

[Dash]

C-17 is worth buying. I have no issues with the cost.
An 124 with Ge engine upgrade will be coming we can see it then.

 

[sancho]

If IL 76 and C-17 III are In same class, Why Would India want to replace IL-76 with C-17? Well The Point is, C-17 Is More than A strategic Air lift Aircraft,as it has a Weaponized Platform , So C-17 is Much Preferred. And the rest is left open for debates....Iam Trying to Be as Argumentative as I can

As I pointed out, because C17 offers more versatility for missions, has some more payload, is more reliable when it comes to spare supply (at least in non sanction times), needs only a crew of 3, the IL needs twice as much and there are for sure some more advantages, but the key here is, are they worth paying that much?
For example in the tanker competition we had a similar situation, with A330 MRTT nearly 4 times more expensive than IL 78, but the fact that the MRTT can refuel and act as a troop/cargo transporter at the same time, or that it also can refuel INs P8Is, which the IL 78 can't are key advantages that would make the costs worht it. My question is, does the C17 also offer such key advantages?

Btw, what "Weaponized Platform" are you talking about?

 

[gubbi]

Thats Why I have clearly mentioned above, I have Left it open for debate, Naah, I am Not going deep into it

As far as the sources are concerned, there is no weaponized C-17. No C-17 gunships either. Arent those C-17 for Heavy Lift transport purposes only?
Weapoizing such a platform by the IAF would not be included in the EULA. Neither does anyone see a role for such a platform in the IAF.

C-130 is another story. But Indian C-130H's are for airlift of special forces (correct me if I am wrong here).

 

[flanker143]

an 124 wud surely have muchlonger takeoff and landing distances(considering full payload ) that our current airstrips cannot offer , maybe thats why IAF didn't take it ......

i may be totally wrong !!!!

 

[sancho]

As far as the sources are concerned, there is no weaponized C-17. No C-17 gunships either. Arent those C-17 for Heavy Lift transport purposes only?
Weapoizing such a platform by the IAF would not be included in the EULA. Neither does anyone see a role for such a platform in the IAF.

C-130 is another story. But Indian C-130H's are for airlift of special forces (correct me if I am wrong here).

That's true, AFAIK there are only C130 gunships and I don't think they are on offer for exports, so if we go for C17 it will be for the lift role.

 

[lilaspr]

i think india should buy at-least 20 C17. it is best in its class. Reliability and maintainability are two outstanding benefits of the C-17 system.

 

[sudhir007]

PHOTO: C-17 Snapped Over Delhi Recently When It Arrived For IAF Trials

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@ Sancho
"The biggest advantages of C17 are the short take off an landing capabilities, which makes them much more versatile, especially when strategic airlift of troops, or tanks is the aim. "

You got it right, that is the real reason for the purchase.

"The interesting question to me is, are these meant as an tactical addition to the IL 76 fleet, or as real replacements for them? "

IMO, they are not replacing the IL-76s, only supplanting them. Both the C-17s and C-130s look like the ideal workhorses for movements in the Northern direction. The USP of both A/Cs is 'hot/high' performance as well as the ability to operate nearly anywhere (STOL). The paucity of roads and railroads in that region restricts rapid deployment of troops/weapons as required. Recall the news items regarding slow progress of road building. Now juxtapose that with the newly built rail-link and network of roads on the Tibetan plateau.
As for the AN-124 Condor, we will not see them in Indian colors, even if the production line is kept open. Unless there is need for intercontinental movements........ Even then the C-17s can do the trick.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@ flanker143
"an 124 wud surely have muchlonger takeoff and landing distances(considering full payload ) that our current airstrips cannot offer , maybe thats why IAF didn't take it ......

i may be totally wrong !!!! "

Absolutely correct.

 

[Tshering22]

C-17 is worth buying. I have no issues with the cost.
An 124 with Ge engine upgrade will be coming we can see it then.

You know that An-124 is much larger than C-17s, don't you? It would mean more troop-carrying capabilities. If Ukraine had been a bit more prompt in developing latest variants of the An-124, we could have been ordering that instead of Globemasters.

 

[jha]

You know that An-124 is much larger than C-17s, don't you? It would mean more troop-carrying capabilities. If Ukraine had been a bit more prompt in developing latest variants of the An-124, we could have been ordering that instead of Globemasters.

Ukraine is not in a position to do it on its own..Russia is also a partner in An-124..Now that US is planning to join the project , we may see some of these in our IAF colors as now this will have much more advanced avionics and revival project will take less time..

 

[sudhir007]

Ukraine is not in a position to do it on its own..Russia is also a partner in An-124..Now that US is planning to join the project , we may see some of these in our IAF colors as now this will have much more advanced avionics and revival project will take less time..

jha ji we dnt need heavy transport plane urgently we are not a NATO member or NATO ally we have only to enemy both are our neighbor so i dnt think to buy such HLTP. our urgent need fighter plane. artillery, more ship helicopter, F-INSAS etc ......
One more think Russia buy 20 an-124 so if we need HLTP we can get though russia it will come cheaper also i read in fourm that USA also want to partner in An-124 plane. at that time we have money it does not mean that we buy anythink.

Russia may purchase 20 An-124 transport planes before 2020 | Defense | RIA Novosti
The Russian Defense Ministry may purchase some 20 An-124 Ruslan (Condor) heavy-lift transport aircraft according to the 2011-2020 state arms procurement program, a senior official said on Monday.

"We are now working on this issue... We intend to buy about 20 such aircraft," said Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin, who is in charge of arms procurement.

He said an agreement on the modernization of the Ruslan planes which are currently in service had been signed earlier this year.

"We plan to modernize two planes annually, and starting from 2015-2016, if the manufacturers are ready, we will start purchasing them," he added.

In June, Boeing said it may conduct the final assembly of Russian-Ukrainian An-124 Ruslan heavy-lift transport planes for the U.S. market - a move which drew much criticism from the Ukraine-based Antonov Design Bureau.

Russia and Ukraine reached a preliminary agreement to resume production of the An-124 in April 2008.

The An-124, which can be used both for domestic and military purposes, was designed by the Antonov Design Bureau in 1982, and was produced in Ukraine's Kiev and Russia's Ulyanovsk until 1995. The plane has a maximum payload of 150 metric tons with a flight range of around 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles).

The cargo jet is the world's third largest after the An-225 and the Airbus A380F.

 

[KEETARP]

C17 order is expected to reach 10+10 , so I guess that rules out An124 party .