From Transport Aircraft to Bomber: India's C-17 Fleet Could Turn Into Cruise Missile Bombers

The Indian Air Force (IAF), already operating the world's second-largest fleet of C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift aircraft, may be considering a dramatic expansion of the aircraft's role. This potential shift comes as the US Air Force (USAF) explores converting its own C-17s into offensive weapons platforms.

The USAF's "Rapid Dragon" program aims to use C-17s to deploy large numbers of air-launched cruise missiles against enemy targets. This would provide a standoff strike capability against adversaries with sophisticated air defenses, allowing strikes from outside the range of those defenses.

Although the IAF has not publicly announced similar plans for its C-17 fleet, the potential benefits are significant. India, like many US allies, does not operate a dedicated long-range bomber force. Converting C-17s into cruise missile carriers could fill this capability gap, significantly enhancing the IAF's power projection, especially in the Indian Ocean Region.

By following the USAF's lead, India could add a potent offensive capability to its existing C-17 fleet. This would leverage existing aircraft and logistical support, potentially saving time and resources compared to developing an entirely new bomber capability.

However, converting the C-17 into an offensive platform presents challenges. Technical modifications would be needed to carry and deploy cruise missiles, and IAF crews would require specialized training. Additionally, while potentially devastating, the concept of a C-17 "mini-bomber" has not yet been battle-tested.

Should the IAF move forward with a C-17 conversion program, it would potentially shift the strategic balance of power in the region. Such a capability would give India a long-range strike option it currently lacks, bolstering deterrence and increasing its ability to influence events within its areas of interest.

The IAF has not yet released an official statement on its plans for the C-17 fleet. The potential for the aircraft to operate in an offensive capacity, however, it holds the possibility of being a true game-changer in regional power dynamics.

 

[Anuj]

Please go for it and optimize use of every platform.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

I heard about Rapid dragon some time ago. We should develop our own version, since we dont use american cruise missiles.

 

[SK]

As the article itself points out, India lacks the numbers for such a project to be successful.

The best solutions is for Indian-Govt to encourage Airbus to form JV with Indian companies to manufacture these Aircraft in India:-

1. Airbus A320 => Civil, VIP, ISR, AWACS & MPA roles
2. Airbus A330 => MRTT, VIP, Civil & AWACS roles

The focus should be development of Indian Aerospace industry & creating high-end technical employment.

 

[Anant]

Just do note that while India has the second largest C-17 fleet globally, we have a grand total of 11 C-17s, while the US has 222. That said, the idea does hold merit, especially if we could use a similar idea on other transport aircraft as well. The C-130 is also planned to be capable of such operations, but imagine if we could do some variation of this on the C-295 or the new MTA.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

Bajaj Chetak when used as a main battle tank would also be a game-changer, especially on mountainous terrain along LAC.

The articles on Defence.in are getting funnier by the day.

The number of C-17 that we have is already not sufficient and the IAF is kicking itself in the foot for not having ordered more before the assembly line of C-17 closed.

Next, a transporter is not the same as a bomber. Typically bombers are smaller aircrafts with very high endurances to be able to travel large diatances, drop their payload and then return back to their airbase. Their range often exist in excess of 5000 Kms and closer to 10000 Kms (B-52 can do 14000 Kms unrefuelled. C-17 can do 4400 Kms but is a much larger aircraft)

A transporter on the other hand is more about payload. They travel shorter and at much lower altitude to travel to a point quickly and deliver (exp. Service ceiling of B-52 bomber is 50000 feet whereas that of C-17 is 45000 feet).

Simplified:-
Bomber mission are point-A to point-A, whereas a trasporter missions are point-A to point-B.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

Just do note that while India has the second largest C-17 fleet globally, we have a grand total of 11 C-17s, while the US has 222. That said, the idea does hold merit, especially if we could use a similar idea on other transport aircraft as well. The C-130 is also planned to be capable of such operations, but imagine if we could do some variation of this on the C-295 or the new MTA.

Endurance, my friend endurance.

Bombers are specialty deaigned with large fuel reserves to be able to enter an enemy airspace, drop payload, perform manoeuvering to avoid interception (i.e. travel at much higher altitude) and then return back to home airbase.

 

[GMR]

Endurance, my friend endurance.

Bombers are specialty deaigned with large fuel reserves to be able to enter an enemy airspace, drop payload, perform manoeuvering to avoid interception (i.e. travel at much higher altitude) and then return back to home airbase.

And altitude.. Bombers need to operate in a higher altitude to avoid SAMs ...

 

[beencensured]

The jokers had a perfect bomber the tu-142 based on tu-95 bomber, but they threw it away as it would have been strategically advantages on American advise as having eight of them. The S#1t head planners at navy and MOD threw away a 29 year old aircraft with perfect service record when most bombers like b-52 have sixty plus service life.

Yes, c-17 can be used as bombers too, and gun ships and can support laser/ DEWs weapons. They need to increase fuel capacity to make real bombers.