If A400 and IL-78 can be used as refuling tankers why not C-17. It has the same fuel carring capacity as Airbus 330 MRTT (about 130 tons). The only critism of C-17 can be its short range compared to A330(owing to its aerodynamic profile) which may be OK with us since we do not need inter-continental range. Having a common platform as a heavy lifter and FRA provides greater operational flexibility. We are already doing that with IL-76/78.
There's no "operational flexibility". It is an excuse to convince the MoD to buy *anything* for IAF, the roles of a refueler (and its aircrew) are vastly different than that to cargo guys/gals.
A dedicated IFR platform is best, and A330 is the best platform in the world right now. A400 will make sense as a cargo paltform, but EADS are having huge problems. Let them build it, beta test on European customers, then we can buy it.
before throwing your comment why there is no c17 tanker read below
india buying 6 a330 mrtt for 1.3 billion dollars or 216.67 million including training,ground based infrasructure
and india paid 1.2 billion dollars for 6 c130j which cost 200 million dollars including training/ground based infrastructure
but 216 million is the the price of c17 not to forget there is training and ground based infrastructure extra which is to be paid in addition to 216 million
australia bought 4 c17 for 1.4 billion dollars or 350 million dollars per c17 including training/ground based infrastructure
now comapre the price of a330 MRTT to the price of c130j
and if c130j costing this much so its obvious that c17 tanker won't cost less than 400 million dollars
so which is cheaper and also not to forget a330 has 2 engines so better fuel efficiency compared to
To Anon@4:53 PM: You really didnt offer any logical explaination.
To Anon@5:38 PM: Your logic is flawed. Where did C130J come in here. Both A330 and C-17 cost the same. If there is additional cost involved it is because C-17 offers the additional advantage to be used as a heavy tactical transport. I believe additional cost will be involved in case of A330 as well since IAF has no ground support facilities for this type either. Operational flexibility is the key to overcome unpredictable nature of war. You may need more tankers in the initial phases of war when the focus is on air strikes. In the later half additional transport capability may be required to support a ground offencive.
how do you came to know that c17 and a330 mrtt cost same
a330 mrtt based on a330-200 civilian version which cost 175-185 million but india paying 216 million so its pretty obvious that extra 40 million is for ground based infrastructure
there is no additional cost for ground support facilities involved in a330mrtt contract, its included in 1.3 billion dollars
and same for c130j the cost of ground infrastructure was included in 1.2 billion initial cost
if there was additional cost for ground based infrastructure then each c130j cost 70 million then the cost of 6 c130j will be 420 million then why india paying 1.2 billion,it means the cost of ground based infrastructure is included
as shiv already posted that 6 a330mrtt going to cost 1.3 billion dollars which includes training and ground based infrastructure as well
so its 216.67 million per a330mrtt aircraft including training and ground based infrastructure
now australia bought 4 c17 for 1.4 billion US dollars which cost 350 million dollars for each c17 which includes training and ground based infrastructure
now compare the cost of per c17 which is 350 million US dollars to 216.67 million cost of per a330 mrtt,which one is cheaper
also india procured 6 c130j for 1.2 billion dollars so its 200 million dollars for each c130j which includes training and ground infrastructure
now compared the cost of each c130j which is 200 million with 216.67 million price of each a330mrtt
c130j is much smaller than a330mrtt and a330mrtt is of the same size of c17,despite being of smaller size c130j cost as much as a330mrtt so just imagine yourself how much c17 tanker version would cost
"You really didnt offer any logical explaination."
It doesn't matter, logic is quite beyond your peabrain anyway.
Yes, turboprops are "more efficient", but they are also much slower. On most missions you'll be sending out the refueler two hours ahead of the fighters (unescorted) so that they reach the refueling point at the same time. Pretty desperate, use the A330 instead, it can fly mach 0.84 econmically all day.
EADS are using every last excuse to 'talk up' the A400 program, since it is in such troubles. But that does not mean we lose our head in their marketing push.
To Anon@11:14 PM: Now that we have already decided to acquire C-17 as a heavy lift the initial cost on setting up training ang ground support facilities is already being bourn. The initial acquisition cost is a one time expense. Now its just a matter of acquiring additional C-17 in place of A330 MTTR. Also keep in mind that C-17 can provide the facility of two aircraft in one while computing unit cost.
"Efficiency and performance are two different things."
Now we know, for the wise man has spoken! What good is efficiency when the aircraft does not offer the performance for its primary role. Hey, why not throw in a Cirrus SR20 in the discussion as well? That would make a pretty "efficient" platform.
Really Jcage, you should be going back to BR. They tolerate you there, and mods delete any posts that challenge the collective (and mostly flawed) "BR wisdom". Play there, with yourself.
This is not Jcage, whoever that is. Neither C-17 nor A300 is a turboprop. Nobody is discussing A400 here and the question on efficiency someone asked was an unrelaterd one. Comments not invited from morons.
Artist’s impression of an Airbus A400M refuelling two French Air Force Mirages.
If A400 and IL-78 can be used as refuling tankers why not C-17. It has the same fuel carring capacity as Airbus 330 MRTT (about 130 tons). The only critism of C-17 can be its short range compared to A330(owing to its aerodynamic profile) which may be OK with us since we do not need inter-continental range. Having a common platform as a heavy lifter and FRA provides greater operational flexibility. We are already doing that with IL-76/78.
Shiv, where are the articles about the lca & the osprey man? Hurry up plz waiting with bated breath.
There's no "operational flexibility". It is an excuse to convince the MoD to buy *anything* for IAF, the roles of a refueler (and its aircrew) are vastly different than that to cargo guys/gals.
A dedicated IFR platform is best, and A330 is the best platform in the world right now. A400 will make sense as a cargo paltform, but EADS are having huge problems. Let them build it, beta test on European customers, then we can buy it.
to anon at 3:14 PM
before throwing your comment why there is no c17 tanker read below
india buying 6 a330 mrtt for 1.3 billion dollars or 216.67 million including training,ground based infrasructure
and india paid 1.2 billion dollars for 6 c130j which cost 200 million dollars including training/ground based infrastructure
but 216 million is the the price of c17 not to forget there is training and ground based infrastructure extra which is to be paid in addition to 216 million
australia bought 4 c17 for 1.4 billion dollars or 350 million dollars per c17 including training/ground based infrastructure
now comapre the price of a330 MRTT to the price of c130j
and if c130j costing this much so its obvious that c17 tanker won't cost less than 400 million dollars
so which is cheaper and also not to forget a330 has 2 engines so better fuel efficiency compared to
To Anon@4:53 PM: You really didnt offer any logical explaination.
To Anon@5:38 PM: Your logic is flawed. Where did C130J come in here. Both A330 and C-17 cost the same. If there is additional cost involved it is because C-17 offers the additional advantage to be used as a heavy tactical transport. I believe additional cost will be involved in case of A330 as well since IAF has no ground support facilities for this type either. Operational flexibility is the key to overcome unpredictable nature of war. You may need more tankers in the initial phases of war when the focus is on air strikes. In the later half additional transport capability may be required to support a ground offencive.
are these propellor engines efficient ??
Turboprops are more efficient to turbofans.
to anon at 8:05 PM
how do you came to know that c17 and a330 mrtt cost same
a330 mrtt based on a330-200 civilian version which cost 175-185 million but india paying 216 million so its pretty obvious that extra 40 million is for ground based infrastructure
there is no additional cost for ground support facilities involved in a330mrtt contract, its included in 1.3 billion dollars
and same for c130j the cost of ground infrastructure was included in 1.2 billion initial cost
if there was additional cost for ground based infrastructure then each c130j cost 70 million then the cost of 6 c130j will be 420 million then why india paying 1.2 billion,it means the cost of ground based infrastructure is included
as shiv already posted that 6 a330mrtt going to cost 1.3 billion dollars which includes training and ground based infrastructure as well
so its 216.67 million per a330mrtt aircraft including training and ground based infrastructure
now australia bought 4 c17 for 1.4 billion US dollars which cost 350 million dollars for each c17 which includes training and ground based infrastructure
now compare the cost of per c17 which is 350 million US dollars to 216.67 million cost of per a330 mrtt,which one is cheaper
also india procured 6 c130j for 1.2 billion dollars so its 200 million dollars for each c130j which includes training and ground infrastructure
now compared the cost of each c130j which is 200 million with
216.67 million price of each a330mrtt
c130j is much smaller than a330mrtt and a330mrtt is of the same size of c17,despite being of smaller size c130j cost as much as a330mrtt so just imagine yourself how much c17 tanker version would cost
"You really didnt offer any logical explaination."
It doesn't matter, logic is quite beyond your peabrain anyway.
Yes, turboprops are "more efficient", but they are also much slower. On most missions you'll be sending out the refueler two hours ahead of the fighters (unescorted) so that they reach the refueling point at the same time. Pretty desperate, use the A330 instead, it can fly mach 0.84 econmically all day.
EADS are using every last excuse to 'talk up' the A400 program, since it is in such troubles. But that does not mean we lose our head in their marketing push.
To Anon@11:14 PM: Now that we have already decided to acquire C-17 as a heavy lift the initial cost on setting up training ang ground support facilities is already being bourn. The initial acquisition cost is a one time expense. Now its just a matter of acquiring additional C-17 in place of A330 MTTR. Also keep in mind that C-17 can provide the facility of two aircraft in one while computing unit cost.
To Anon@3:33 AM: If you have nothing logical to contribute to this discussion refrain from throwing abuses at others.
For your "peabrain": Efficiency and performance are two different things.
The question asked was specific to efficiency.
Also keep in mind that C-17 can provide the facility of two aircraft in one while computing unit cost.
———————
so does the il76
To Anon@5:22 PM: Aren't we discussing C-17 vs A330?
"Efficiency and performance are two different things."
Now we know, for the wise man has spoken! What good is efficiency when the aircraft does not offer the performance for its primary role. Hey, why not throw in a Cirrus SR20 in the discussion as well? That would make a pretty "efficient" platform.
Really Jcage, you should be going back to BR. They tolerate you there, and mods delete any posts that challenge the collective (and mostly flawed) "BR wisdom". Play there, with yourself.
This is not Jcage, whoever that is. Neither C-17 nor A300 is a turboprop. Nobody is discussing A400 here and the question on efficiency someone asked was an unrelaterd one.
Comments not invited from morons.
Nobody is discussing A400 here
Jcage, is this another example of your illiteracy or is the obnoxiousness a cover to avoid further humiliation?
Comments not invited from morons.
So you are going to quit posting here, Jcage. Good.