Jagan, hmmm looks like you have a specific reason behind your doubt

Jagan,

May I request you to revisit the MKI page as well? The specs for the range on internal fuel seems incorrect - 3000km on 5200kg of fuel (Normal load) seems too high. OEM pages put the range @ 3000km with full internal fuel for the MKI. Makes sense, the MiG-35/29K with more than 5200kg of fuel has a range of only about 2000 odd km, and it is much lighter than the Rambha.

CM.

SUJAN DUTTA
An Ilyushin 76

New Delhi, Nov. 2: Indian Air Force headquarters was today thinking of grounding its Ilyushin 76 fleet and has asked the manufacturers for advice after Russia ordered the heavy transport planes back to hangars following a crash.

The IAF operates two squadrons of the aircraft (17) in its transport fleet that ferries troops from difficult terrain — Kashmir and the Northeast — almost daily, and was also used last month to move paramilitary forces for counter-Maoist operations in Maharashtra.

Grounding the aircraft will severely impact the air force’s daily maintenance operations. Hundreds of Indian Army soldiers are dependent on courier services run by the IAF on its IL-76 aircraft.

Variants of the aircraft are also the basic platforms for surveillance missions by the Aviation Research Centre — an intelligence agency — and are also operated as mid-air refuellers and for India’s only airborne early warning and command system.

IAF authorities told The Telegraph the transport directorate at air headquarters was in touch with the two makers of the aircraft — Ilyushin Aviation Complex Joint Stock Company, Moscow, and Tashkent Aircraft Production Corporation in Uzbekistan.

“We are waiting for communication from the companies. We are checking out what has happened,” an IAF source said.

Sources in air headquarters said the authorities were worried after the Russian Air Force reported two IL-76 mishaps in less than a month.

On October 7, one of the four huge D30KP turbofan engines of an IL-76 fell off as it was preparing to take off. There was no casualty. The Russian Air Force had grounded the IL-76 after that incident but the IAF did not.

But on Sunday, another IL-76 doing duty for the Russian interior ministry crashed in Siberia, killing all 11 crew and passengers (troops) on board.

News reports from Russia said the aircraft failed to gain height though it was being powered on full throttle.

Its highly improbable that after so many years of service all over the world the Il-76's have suddenly developed a catastrophic flaw that would require the IAF to replace ASAP. I doubt the IAF would replace the airframe any time with C17. Its crazy to do so and I hope there is somebody in the Defense ministry who hasn't drunk the Boeing Kool-Aid!

Numbers wise, a brand new top of the line Il-76's come about $50-$70 million each while a new C-17 would cost $250 million+ . Thats almost FIVE Il-76's for ONE C17! By considering the C17 its like they have forgotten that the average Indian is working 18 hour days to pay their taxes! The idea that they would consider the C17 is quite astounding no matter the bells and whistles it comes with ! Payload wise the IL-76 can carry about 50 tonnes while the C17 can carry about 77 tonnes, so it's more economical to buy TWO of even THREE Il-76's than a single C17 in capital costs alone. And add to these costs to man, fuel, repair and service the C17 compared to already established logistics of servicing and crewing IL-76's !

The C17 is a bad deal and I hope the IAF sees it for what it is!

Absolute tonnage is not the best way to assess the aircraft.

The problem with current spec IL-76 is that it cannot ferry a T-90 MBT to Ladakh, let alone Arjun. I doubt even the latest T-72 Rhinos can be airlifted to Ladakh. OTOH C-17s were able to deploy even Canadian Leopard-1s to Afghanistan.

IAF should consider PS-90 upgrade option on IL-76 + provide IFR capability. These measures will give it relative parity with C-17.

Viz-a-viz flight safety IL-76 has always had a poor record in the world, except in IAF. Although there was a scare once on a new IL-78 and pilot was given gallantry award for landing the bird.

On cost front, when Mirage-2000 was acquired it was at least 10 times the average MiG-21 cost, but look at the stellar service it has given.

^^"I think what you fail to understand here is that IL76 is basically a 1970s design..."LOL. I think what you fail to understand is that other future IAF aircrafts like the C130 is basically a 1950s design. As with the C-130, what you do is take a solid design and continuesly upgrade it with better engines and avionics to arrive at a contemporary solution. The Il76MF with PS-90 is one such solution.

IMO the single most important criteria for military cargo plane would be the ability to take off from short runways, followed by ruggedness. Then the cost and so and so..If the cost is prohibiive, then the plane would become something like the soviet heavy lift helo we purchased, which can lift about 20 tons. But it is sparingly used because of the heavy operating cost and maintenance issues.

.....Even with a C-17 you could only take 1 tank at a time and a few tanks are not really going to make a whole lot of difference in Ladakh. You would need a couple of battalions to make an impact..... The IAF can just as easily hire a An-125 and fly Tanks to Ladhak and do it for a fraction of the cost of buying a $250 million dollar Boeing dinosaur.

The Mirage 2000 compared to the Mig 21 is a whole different story because they dont even fill the same roles. That would be like comparing apples and oranges while the Il-76 and the C17 fulfill pretty much the same roles. With a upgrade to the Il-76's engines and maybe avionics there is no real reason why it can't be safer and cheaper to operate than the C17s. Besides with so many Il-76's flying all over the world, spares and servicing etc would not be a problem at all besides the IAF is already tooled and equipped to service these planes. There really is no point spending the cost of 5 Il-76's to be able to fly one tank at a time! .....

Well what about spares and serviceability, will the IL-76 fleet which has already shrunk from 25 - 15 due to serviceability issues even today be serviceable 20 years from now even with newer engines? And what will be the cost of supporting these aircrafts, please remember they weren't license manufactured in India, hence, when the factories churning up spares dry up, we will be struggling to keep it airborne, .....

not all missions need the low floor and bulbous volume + paradrop abilities of C17/Il76. a bunch of used but reliable A330 cargo planes even leased from holding cos could take over many of the missions the IL76 are flogged for on a daily basis. cargo is mostly in pallets anyway...all one needs is a forklift truck on ground.

Please tell exactly what are the dramatic improvements that had happened to C-130J compared to C-130 - a transport plane with a cargo hold, cockpit, tyres and engines.

The C-130J is the newest version of the Hercules and the only model still in production. Externally similar to the classic Hercules in general appearance, the J model is a very different aircraft. These differences include new Rolls-Royce AE 2100 D3 turboprops with Dowty R391[2] composite scimitar propellers, digital avionics (including Head-Up Displays (HUDs) for each pilot) and reduced crew requirements (two pilots, one load master, and one Crew Chief—no navigator or flight engineer).

The aircraft can also be configured with the "enhanced cargo handling system". The system consists of a computerized loadmasters station from where the user can remotely control the under floor winch and also configure the flip floor system to palletized roller or flat floor cargo handling. Initially developed for the USAF, this system enables rapid role changes to be carried out and so extends the C-130J's time available to complete taskings.[3] These combined changes have improved performance over its C-130E/H siblings, such as 40% greater range, 21% higher maximum speed, and 41% shorter take-off distance

not all missions need the low floor and bulbous volume + paradrop abilities of C17/Il76. a bunch of used but reliable A330 cargo planes even leased from holding cos could take over many of the missions the IL76 are flogged for on a daily basis. cargo is mostly in pallets anyway...all one needs is a forklift truck on ground.

but nevertheless airpower alone does not win wars. ..If it were so, the USA would have won in

By then, the fifth generation fighters would be entering the air forces of the world.

The question is whether our national security planners in the prime minister's office, ministry of defence and IAF have thought their way through on issues that will inevitably confront us when we are making choices?

..that flawed article!?

just for one:-


flaw: its all USA centric analysis. Take for example Kargil, and decide for yourself.

unfortunately soldiers lives were cheaper than cost of LGBs

Stealing Lollipops from Babies
India's military has long suffered from flawed, inconsistent contracting
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi November 3, 2009, 0:58 IST

If India’s Military Eventually Plumps for primarily American Equipment, a major reason will be: soldiers, sailors and airmen are completely Sick of being Gypped through poorly-framed acquisition contracts that entirely favour the foreign suppliers.

Take India’s contract with BAE Systems, UK, for 66 Hawk Advanced Jet Trainers (AJTs), a billion-dollar procurement that took 18 years to finalise. That contract, it now emerges, was framed so poorly that today — with HAL Bangalore blaming BAE Systems for failing to properly transfer technology — India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) can do nothing to twist BAE Systems’ tail.

The MoD now finds that the Hawk contract contains no provisions for liquidated damages in case BAE Systems defaults on its obligations. And, in an act of inexplicable generosity, India’s MoD paid BAE Systems an unprecedented “up-front” amount of 30 per cent of the contract value; such a payment seldom, if ever, exceeds 15 per cent. Now, with more jet trainers needed and the production line facing delays, fresh inquiries have gone out to global manufacturers, restarting procurement afresh.

Why do such fiascos routinely occur? Astonishingly, because the MoD does not have the legal experts needed for negotiating and framing complex defence contracts. The MoD’s forlorn Legal Cell, manned by 10-12 lawyers on deputation from the Ministry of Law, comes up during the framing of every defence contract against a battery of specialised contracting experts, an integral part of the establishment of every global arms vendor.

This year, the Indian MoD’s beleaguered and inadequate legal team will oversee capital expenditure of more than Rs 50,000 crore. When the MoD finalises its choice of medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), these less-than-legal-eagles will have to negotiate and frame a single contract worth Rs 50,000 crore. Supplementary contracts will be needed for governing offsets worth half that value again.

Within the MoD, alarm bells have long been sounding. The Solicitor General and the Attorney General have been approached for help in accessing top-class legal advice. But, so far, there has been no response.

The complexity of a defence contract is virtually unparalleled. A “standard contract” is rarely feasible because the usage of each piece of equipment is radically different. Being an international contract, reaching agreement on arbitration is always difficult, especially considering confidentiality and non-disclosure arrangements. Defining force majeure is extremely important, especially when governments can invoke national interest during the execution of a contract. The MoD’s civil servants deal routinely with such issues, but without the benefit of solid legal advice.

India’s military has long suffered from flawed and inconsistent contracting, especially with Russian suppliers. Since the early 1980s, India’s strike corps — the tank units that would spearhead a thrust into Pakistan during war — have faced frustrating shortages of on-board fitment equipment that an ethical defence vendor would supply as a part of the contract. In an instance that generated much resentment, India’s first T-72 tanks were supplied by Russia without the tarpaulin covers that keep out dust and rain. When the military asked for tarpaulins, Russia demanded a supplementary contract, eventually supplying them at highly inflated prices.

In some contracts, especially those involving the supply of “strategically important” equipment, the vendor has the leverage to ignore his contractual obligations. Russia’s shakedown of India over the cost of the Gorshkov is an example of the limitations of any contract. Linking the Gorshkov sale with the transfer of nuclear submarine technology, Russia dismissed the initial price as “unreal, a mistake”, and demanded a renegotiated price. But, in most defence procurements, a good contract guarantees satisfactory supply as well as a healthy buyer-seller relationship.

US defence companies are confident that the experience of contracting with them — with no hidden costs, superb product support, and a “partnership” approach towards the Indian users — will make a big impact on the Indian military. So far, contracting with the US has been relatively smooth, but it is still too early to tell.

The MoD’s lack of capability in defence contracting is just one, especially worrisome, dimension of a broad systemic incompetence in procuring defence equipment. As a Group of Ministers in April 2000, numerous committees and, most recently, an excellent CAG report pointed out, the MoD has failed to put in place a functionally specialised acquisition organisation to handle a task that is clearly far beyond current capabilities.

But instead of a coherent system, procurement continues under 13 different agencies, each reporting to a different functional head. Contracts, after they are concluded, are managed by four different agencies with very little co-ordination among them.

http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2009/11/3329
Hitting an air pocket

good one ....

Aditya Sir, A well phrsed post... Couldn't agree with you more.. My only gripe about the Heavy Lift deal is did we not find any other suitable military transporter for the role.. I mean there is no way that there is only aircraft that suits the category... Also on the no of tank battalions in ladakh region, I guess we won't be needing more than say 3-4 squadrons in the whole theater... As they are mostly holding forces not offensive forces... JMHO...

Usually launched from ground- or sea-based canisters, the “Harop” can be also be adapted for air-launch. The Harop is a vehicle launched, UAV controlled by a remote operator and capable of flying more than 1,000 kilometers and loitering for hours with a 51 pound warhead. Like the autonomous Harpy, the UAV is primarily geared toward the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) role. It features two modes of guidance to the target. One is homing-in on radio emissions with its anti-radar homing system, or unlike the Harpy, have its operator select static or moving targets with the drones electro-optical (TV) sensor. Using the operator mode, targets can be hit regardless of whether they emit signals or not. This line of sight capability can be used at ranges up to 150 kilometers or
longer using relays built into each weapon.