Why is the Indian Air Force buying 10 C 17?

[Ray17]

IAF is said to be buying ten C 17s to replenish it ageing IL 76 and C 42 fleet.

If that is so, then merely 10 would be adequate?

It is to get C 130J in 2011.

If one looks at the operational situation, then the fleet currently held is adequate for Pakistan.

However, given the fact that the Chinese are doing provocative and aggressive actions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) could it be that C 17 is being bought for tactical lift to counter the Chinese and more so since it is claimed that it has a shorter landing runway requirement than most transporter and more so the airfield on the LAC are semi paved or even unpaved?

What are the characteristics of C 17 vs IL 76 not only in landing, take off or weight parameters on tarmac. unpaved runways?

It maybe added that C 17 is still experimenting on its landing and take off characteristics on soil conditions and soil strength of runways.

Why I have put it in this sub forum is that it affects the land battle!

[Feanor]

This is the wrong subforum, and belongs in the air force section. I understand the relevance of this to deployability of land forces. However the debate here will involve primarily the air force and it's requirements. So I'm moving it there.

[Ray17]

I would be grateful if this could be moved.

As I saw the issue, it was a combined affair and this aircraft would basically be used in support of land ops and so its utility or otherwise towards the land ops.

India is also to get six C 130J in 2011. Therefore, the interest as to why this sudden interest in heavy lifters and its effect on land ops if any, war or in peace.

[OPSSG]

The Boeing C-17 (maiden flight on 15 Sept 1991) and Ilyushin Il-76 (is an older design, with 1st flight of the prototype on 25 March 1971) are the largest cargo jets in the world, with austere and short field capabilities. These jets have both seen their fair share of operating in rugged and remote areas. While there are larger cargo aircraft like the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy and Antonov An-225 Myria), but neither plane has operated in as rugged and remote locations as the Boeing and Ilyushin jet aircraft.

Let's take a closer look between the characteristics of the C-17 (click to see USAF fact sheet) and the IL-76 (with the IL-76 data in brackets), side by side below, as a starting point for further discussion:

General Characteristics
Wingspan.: 51.75 m .....................(50.50 m)
Length......: 53.00 m ......................(45.69 m)
Height.......: 16.79 m ......................(14.76 m)
Thrust.......: 40,440 pounds each...(26,500 pounds each*)
Crew.........: Three............................(Six?)

* The thrust figures on the Indian IL-76 may not tally, as I'm not sure about Indian modernization programmes (guys, please feel free to correct, if I've got my facts wrong on the IL-76)

I've not bothered to put in the max payload as the USAF uses a term called "Allowable Cabin Load" (ACL) for its transport aircraft. It is a planning figure used to determine the optimum average load its transport aircraft would carry during deployments. Although the C-17 can carry a maximum payload of 77 to tonnes, that figure is seldom reached because the ACL figure of 40 tonnes is lower than the maximum payload. In fact, the average C-17 load during both OEF and OIF averaged just around 18 tonnes (metric) on deployments.

As a newer design, I would expect that reliability and maintainability are benefits of the C-17 - which will in turn affect sortie generation. According to the USAF, the C-17 has an aircraft mission completion success probability rate of 92%, only 20 aircraft maintenance man-hours per flying hour, and full and partial mission availability rates of 74.7% and 82.5%, respectively. The Boeing warranty assures these figures will be met.

Here's another link on news of the US$1.7b dollar ten C-17 sale.

[Ray17]

And the comparable figures for IL 76?

The issue is moving troops and load to forward areas where the airfields are paved or semi paved and not long.

IL can carry half a rifle company and C 17 a whole rifle company plus as per the glossies!

[OPSSG]

Originally Posted by Ray17

And the comparable figures for IL 76?

The issue is moving troops and load to forward areas where the airfields are paved or semi paved and not long.

IL can carry half a rifle company and C 17 a whole rifle company plus as per the glossies!

I'm really quite unsure about figures for the IL-76, as such, I'll let other members provide the answer.

However, I do have the troop lift capacity of the C-17. The C-17 is designed to carry or airdrop 102 paratroopers and equipment. The USAF fact sheet states that the C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters). Since carrying troops is lighter than the ACL, semi paved and short field performance should be excellent in such a configuration.

[swerve]

The C-17 has a significantly wider & higher cargo box (i.e. the dimensions of a hypothetical box which could fit inside the cabin). This is a valuable feature, as it allows many loads to be carried which regardless of weight, cannot fit inside an Il-76.

The A400M, which is smaller, & has much less payload, than an Il-76, has the same advantage over it. Length is rarely a limiting factor in loads, but height or width often are.

[OPSSG]

I've included this video of a C-17 doing an air-drop of two M777A2 Howitzers that I previously posted in another thread:

C-17: Two M777A2s out of the cargo ramp

C-17: Two M777A2s out of the cargo ramp

[h/t to ArtyEngineer for the video]

Therefore going by the loading plan in the above video, three C-17 loads = 1x 6 gun artillery battery. With ten C-17s on order, in the near future, the Indian Air Force (InAF) will be able to air-lift an 18 gun M777 (with the Selex LINAPS) battalion in nine C-17 loads, plus one C-17 load for the Battalion HQ, stores and ammo in one lift. Fyi, India's FMS notification for 145 M777 Howitzers is here.

Edit: I certainly think this ten C-17 purchase will enhance the capability of India to deploy her troops and respond to a variety of threat scenarios, including in some in relation to counter terrorism and humanitarian response scenarios. This will augment existing Indian strategic lift capabilities and increasingly, there seems to be a better match between InAF lift resources and Indian Army planning emphasis for equipment deployability on short notice. IMO, a more integrated planning approach will improve India's ability to win friends via influence and deter potential enemies.

[Ray17]

IL 76 carries 70 combat ready troops.

OPSSG,

Thanks for the video and and the details.

[rashed]

the indian army thinking very well to renewal the airforce instead of aging aircrafts

As to the title of this thread, I should think the answer is quite simple.

To deliver cargo or personnel wherever the Indian army may require under tactical conditions via either intra or inter-theatre lifts.

It is expensive, but it is the best at this role. Period.