That is rather out of proportion. Id hardly say that the 124 is hardly the sie of 2 C130s never mind 5. And regarding landing area. It isnt so large that it cant land on the airfields pakistan has. Its merely a beefed up Boeing 747. But Strategically, u have not given the downfal of using a number of C130 where the 124 can do the same job single handedly. The downfall is the considerable amount of fuel. And over time, this would be cost critical is the option to 124s was dropped. And regarding vulnerable to attack. Yes it is a factor, but it is very rare for a cargo aircraft to fly within a war zone due to lack of speed and also records dont show many such aircraft being dropped.
Possible C130 Replacement?
- Thread starter umair
- Start date
I'm setting the proportion to show the scenario opportunity. eg 124's were used in Afghanistan. There were delays in the delivery slot due to some of the factors mentioned prev. OTOH, other med lifters could have gone in with less risk as they were not seen as a "delectable target". Its a bit of a berlin blockade syndrome, saturated landings reduces the risk overall.kilo_4que said:
There can be a downside in the issue of fuel, but I'm assumung that the strategic requirement outweighs the capex (that would have a higher priority in a non threatened environment)
If you look at recent conflicts in the last 5 years where airlift was required, all of them involved threatened theatres, Kosovoa, Bosnia, Albania, East Timor, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Angola and some locations closer to home for the majority of the posters who visit this forum. There is substantial evidence of lifters being ventilated.
Strategic necessity is diff from non combat necessity. Hence the need for a balanced force. It all gets back to strategic requirements. If the environment is benign, then yes, the 124, C17 etc are ideal lifters.
Outside of that and you are starting to add EW, pods and arrange CAP and CARS. The requirement would then favour a dilution of risk by using more lifters than just 1 uber lifter.
I'm not in a strong position to argue on local politics, but from a peripheral perspective, I would argue that Pakistan may well have a problem with guerilla warfare in the near future. I'd use the example of Pres Musharraf having numerous attempts on his life. That indicates dissent, and it also indicates idealogical committment by some internal forces to establish change by violence and force if possible.kilo_4que said:
The nature of internal guerilla warfare is that there is a fine line between blowing up a presidential cavalcade to blowing up politically significant targets to blowing up soft asymetrical targets.
But unprovoked attacks as such are very rarely committed by guerillas. In this instance, it is within self politics that attacks are occuring, there are no rebelouse groups wanting to overpower him via physical attack. This is blatant. History shows that it would be very weak to say that pakistan is suffering against guerilla warfare. However, on the contrary this is not true in case of the indians who do have to put up with it.
That may be so (which is why I qualified my analysis)kilo_4que said:
I'm not saying that Pakistan has a history of guerilla warfare, I'm saying that the embryonic seedlings of dissent can end up as an oak tree. In that situation, if a terrorist organisation does not think that it is winning in getting its message across, it starts to embrace other communication methods such as attacks against the state, then attacks against the population as a force multiplier.This is way beyond our initial discussion about how and what to transport military forces in a heavy lifter, but it's been more interesting.
Back to the topic, I have a strong aversion to the purchase and committment of singularly large assets unless the environment is benign and you have theatre mastery. Although there are cost ratios involved, the redundancy that smaller platforms brings to the table is a sufficient compensator for me to dilute my carrying capacity to provide delivery redundancy.
I'd rather lose one small unit with maybe 30% of my overall package than lose 100% and lose an uncommon but valuable asset.
Still I think you are taking vulnerability of attack a little too simple. If aircraft are made to adapt to a certain environment i.e. in this case a environment of war then taking attacks as a reason to part from purchasing such an aircraft is not a priory. Furthermore, with regards to it being the case that such aircraft are prone to attack. Then u are 100% correct that ud rather have a loss of 30% as opposed to 100%.
Nevertheless, I dont think this is an effecting factor though you have to also remember, Are Russia willing to sell such arms if not any?
Nevertheless, I dont think this is an effecting factor though you have to also remember, Are Russia willing to sell such arms if not any?
Do you mean that I am over compensating on an aircraft decision due to the stability issue of the environment? If thats so then yes, you are probably right.kilo_4que said:
My decision making is based on the current evolving situation which is not a true reflection of how acquisition decisions are normally made. If this was a decision to be made in a completely safe zone of airspace etc then I guess we wouldn't have this conversation. My priority at this level is force protection (that includes making sure the pilots have the best chance of survival, as does their load). In a sense I'm overstating theatre "negatives" to show situational extremis.
As for the Russians, I'm not even sure whether the production line is still active. If it is though, they will sell to the most available bidder. In the case of a transport there is no political fall out, its not as if a 124 can be converted into a "spectre" platform - if that was a political consideration at all.
At the end of the day, airlift is about having access to the most relevant capable pallet/product shifter. Force and platform protection is a subset of consideration that should not disproportionately effect the selection process.
A very agreed view u have posted my friend but the only thing remains is that I doubt russia are willing to negotiate deals in transport carriers as well as all other arms deals as such carriers are used within military usage as well as wellfare projects. If india are upset then russia lose out on a more predominate profit, where by india being their largest arms buyers
In that case, there is the option of the chinese, they are eventually going to build their own aircraft (and have been building up the capability by having involvement with CDK's of Sukhoi, Boeing and Airbus)kilo_4que said:
They have already developed light transports, I wouldn't think that they are too far away from going to the next stage.
There will be less restriction on engine choices for civilian construction as well, so the opportunity to make a decent transport is quite high.
China doesn't have to worry so much about its Indian relationship when it comes to civilian transport sales (and they aren't that worried about backlash from selling front line fighters either..
)If the Y-8 could be developed into a rear ramp loader, then it would open up new possibilities. Obviously this assumes that the Y8 has sufficient girth to warrant a conversion.
The other option is to buy stretched Hercules (as has been done in the past). Add a body plug and you have a heavier lifter. (and there are commercial units available on the private market)
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #31
Well guys after reading suggestions about wether Antonovs would be feasible and wether Russia would sell them or not.I went and dusted off some old refference books of mine.Turns out all An series are made in Ukraine, that removes any political speed bump :roll .
But there stil is the question of the tactical viability of operating such a behemoth.As gf said even if one of these gets taken out the operating force would not merely loose an aircraft but a chunk of it's transport & logistics capability.
I think that a combo of C-130Hs/AN12 Cubs(also known as Y-8 in Chinese production) and Aeritalia G111/Transall C-160/Airtech CN-235 is more feasible.
But there stil is the question of the tactical viability of operating such a behemoth.As gf said even if one of these gets taken out the operating force would not merely loose an aircraft but a chunk of it's transport & logistics capability.
I think that a combo of C-130Hs/AN12 Cubs(also known as Y-8 in Chinese production) and Aeritalia G111/Transall C-160/Airtech CN-235 is more feasible.
My preference would be the Hercs. Very long development cycle, very trustworthy planes and very competent airframes for modification.umair said:
Most people in here would know my opinion of russian/ukrainian engines. If you want russian or ukrainian, quality control it savagely and get brazilian or french engines instead. Otherwise issue everyone with parachutes...
The Transall is a fine lifter as well, I think the 235 is just a fraction too small for large hops and carrying capacity ratios etc...
Regarding China gf. Yes china are in the process of such aircraft but the reason i didnt mention china is for one thing. Pakistan have been gargling over the issue regarding Su-27s for a long time now. China have mentioned umpteen times that they shall provide russian tech to pakistan and this lead to pakistan dropping a supposed deal with ukrain which consisted of squadrons of Mig-29s as well as the good old Su-27s. Likewsie, the outcome hasnt been very positive so i guess, Pakistan need to start takin responsibilities in their own hands and not rely too much on China.
Also this may prove ure point regarding russian engines. From what sources tell us, the Chinese versions of the Su-27s are supposed to be much better technically and also the fact that they are using different avionics could result in this.
Also this may prove ure point regarding russian engines. From what sources tell us, the Chinese versions of the Su-27s are supposed to be much better technically and also the fact that they are using different avionics could result in this.
The chinese are supposed to have had assistance with some of the electronics suites etc... by the Israelis.
Certainly the Israeli F15's, F16's are considered far more capable than their USAF counterparts with respect to EW and weaps systems.
How would that impact on a pakistani purchase?
At the risk of sounding offensive, China is attempting to fast track its military, it is undergoing its own RMA. That means that they will look for partnerships with countries that will sell them superior existing capability.
I would hazard a guess that Israel has had access to weaps systems through china, so that they can modify them if approp.
Certainly the Israeli F15's, F16's are considered far more capable than their USAF counterparts with respect to EW and weaps systems.
How would that impact on a pakistani purchase?
At the risk of sounding offensive, China is attempting to fast track its military, it is undergoing its own RMA. That means that they will look for partnerships with countries that will sell them superior existing capability.
I would hazard a guess that Israel has had access to weaps systems through china, so that they can modify them if approp.
Yes indeed they have something going with one another and I would say good on them. From this pakistan can benefit as we all know that China does supply undercover arms etc which is not clear to the open world. Furthermore, purchasing direct Israeli tech would not be possible by pakistan as Pakistan supposedly hold their heads up high and say out loud that they dont accept Israel as a Nation. It would be rather embarrasing for them to purchase any arms of any sort direct from Israel or even with interferance of china.
Fun da Mental
New Member
AIRBUS A-400M
Hi friends !
PlzZz check it..... :arrow:
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery.html
French AirBus Industries
Croatia is planing to buy this bird..
Hi friends !
PlzZz check it..... :arrow:
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery.html
French AirBus Industries
Croatia is planing to buy this bird..