Transport Aircraft for IAF

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2012 21:16

compared to military, the civilian side and bulk dry cargo (fedex,DHL,UPS) are a much bigger market.
perhaps the landing gear and ground clearance is not enough for some of the rougher places that mil birds need to get into
perhaps some other certification wrt hot / high is not there
perhaps the floor is not stressed enough for high point loads of mil nature like field guns or 4x4 vehicles

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jun 2012 22:29

Ah, I see.

So, where does the IL-476 testing stand?

Is IAF interested in more (expensive?) C-17s?

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 10 Jul 2012 00:41

Boeing receives engines for Indian Air Force planes.

US aircraft engine maker Pratt and Whitney today said it has delivered the first four F117 engines to Boeing to power strategic heavylift C-17 Globemaster III transport planes being manufactured for the Indian Air Force.

India has signed a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) deal worth over USD 4.1 billion with the US government for procuring 10 C-17s. The delivery of the planes will start from next year.

"Pratt and Whitney is pleased to deliver the first four F117 engines for the Indian Air Force's C-17 programmme," it's Vice President (Military Programs and Customer Support) Bev Deachin said in a statement. "We look forward to a continued partnership with India as we complete the remaining F117 engines to fulfill this contract," he added.

The aircraft will be used by the IAF for strategic lift requirements and carrying heavy equipment to far flung areas.The IAF intends to deploy these aircraft at the Hindon air base near New Delhi where it has also based its C-130J Hercules transport aircraft.

The IAF has already inducted six C-130Js and is in the process of acquiring six more which will be deployed at Panargarh in West Bengal.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 24 Jul 2012 04:23

Def Min clears Rs 12,000 cr proposal for 56 aircraft.

The Defence Ministry today cleared a proposal worth over Rs 12,000 crore to procure 56 transport aircraft for the Air Force to replace its fleet of vintage Avro planes.In a meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) headed by Defence Minister A K Antony, the IAF proposal to issue a global tender for procuring these aircraft was cleared, Defence Ministry sources said here.

The first 16 aircraft will be procured off-the-shelf from foreign vendors who will have to partner with a local private or public sector firm, they said.
The next 16 aircraft will have to have 30 per cent indigenous component while the remaining 24 planes will have 60 per cent locally-procured and produced items.

Asked why the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was not be involved in the project, they said the PSU was already burdened with projects such as the SU-30MKI production and upgrades of IAF aircraft fleet including the Mirage, MiG 29 and Jaguar aircraft.

HAL has a vast helicopter division and will also be involved in the forthcoming M-MRCA project for producing 126 combat aircraft, the sources said.

They said the 56-aircraft project would help in developing a domestic aerospace industry and capability to undertake such projects.The IAF fleet of Avro aircraft was inducted from the 1960s and are used for transporting men and material. The aircraft can carry loads of upto 7-8 tonnes.

The DAC also cleared a proposal to create a new Defence Offsets Management Agency (DOMA) which will replace the existing Defence Offsets Facilitation Agency (DOFA).

Sources said the new agency will be under the Department of Defence Production (DoDP).The meeting approved the inclusion of transfer of technology and critical technologies as defence offsets.

Under the Defence Procurement procedure (DPP), any foreign vendor bagging contract worth over Rs 300 crore has to reinvest at least 30 per cent of the money back in Indian defence, civil aerospace or homeland security sector.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 24 Jul 2012 05:19

C27J is best choice--it beats C295 in almost all specs. US retired their C27Js because inspite of their commonality with the C130Js, they cost too much to base in groups of 3-4 all over the place compared to the Hercs big bases. At a time when budgets needed to be cut, the C27Js were an easy target. Our needs and situation are different and it looks like gorment is really (finally) serious about developing a private sector aviation industry. The Baby Herc is best way to plug into the most well oiled MIC around. Hopefully gorment will provide whatever is needed to achieve this.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Jul 2012 05:40

Victor wrote:US retired their C27Js because inspite of their commonality with the C130Js, they cost too much to base in groups of 3-4 all over the place compared to the Hercs big bases.

Actually the C-27J cost less than the C-130 anyway you looked at it and now Congress is slightly irritated at the USAF for lying to them.

The USAF never wanted the C-27J, but joined the program in a (successful) bid to stop the Army from getting them.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Jul 2012 05:57

Looks like C 295 is superior in most things compared to C 27:

http://www.c295.ca/wp-content/uploads/C ... tmay26.pdf

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2012 06:04

C-27J. I am not sure how good they are, but this vid is worth a watch:

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Jul 2012 09:14

Manish_Sharma wrote:Looks like C 295 is superior in most things compared to C 27:

http://www.c295.ca/wp-content/uploads/C ... tmay26.pdf

To replace Avros, C-295 is a better choice as it will fulfill all that is required of it. There could be a small quantity need for C-27Js for oversized cargo in the medium-light category.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 24 Jul 2012 09:25

Thr above chart is an advertisement and while the facts presented on it may be accurate, the context may not be and it does not follow that the C295 "is superior".

The Spartan has more powerful engines which drink more petrol and is therefore more expensive to buy and operate. But this also lets it carry more cargo in greater configurations for a comparable per-pound cost and gives it far better high altitude STOL capability. The C295 has a civil-sized cargo hold based on palletization but the forces may need to transport guns, jeeps and trucks, not pallets. Finally, Spartan fits into an existing C130J logistics chain with the same engines, loaders and avionics. Not only would this be a boon for the IAF, but it would set up any private Indian company making these as a potential regional supplier and servicer for not just the Spartan but C130s also.

Just because the new plane would be a replacement for the 748 does not mean it has to mirror its role. Spartan would be the right plane for small airfields in J&K and Arunachal while also fulfilling the 748 role, some of which is now being shared by the Embraers.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jul 2012 09:27

The HS-748 that the new purchase will replace are used mainly in communication role - IAF's air taxi, if you will. But 56 number of aircraft is nor small order - whichever of the two, C-27J or C-295, we induct, we will see a significant addition to the airlift capability of the IAF. Both the planes can lift 10,000 kg worth of payload and troops/paratrooper carrying capacity is also good.

IMO, the two areas where C-27J might score are the commonality of engine with C-130 and dimension of the cargo cabin. It seems to have been designed from start to carry over sized cargo of its class.

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Jul 2012 09:46

C-27 may have been killed by USAF due to US industrial military complex trying to protect C-130s which are being procured/produced without any tender, and are assumed to be Gold Plated. Be as it may except India everybody else prefers indigenous designs. c-27Js suffered from NIH in USAF.

Further MRTA is more of 70-90 tons class aircraft, even though there is attempt to understate it's MTOW and project it as replacement of An-32 which it is not.

To cut it short, the new procurement will also have to take up some leg work being done by An-32. Hence, I think in long run we will need around 150 aircrfts of this category.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2012 10:47

I think if we intend to deal with the panda we need 100s more transport a/c of all hues starting from AN124 down .... and we need big airbases as close to the fronts as possible. its time to get cracking on the MTA with or without Rus in the ride....rope in someone else if needed.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jul 2012 13:10

A fairly balanced comparison of the C-27J and C-295M by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute -

Delivering the goods: the ADF’s future battlefield airlifter

Excerpts -

Because of its additional length, the C-295 can carry more troops for a given seat spacing than the C-27J. Again, care needs to be taken with brochure figures, as they tend to be the ‘best case’ rather than operationally realistic figures. The number of troops that can be carried depends on the amount of equipment each carries—fully-equipped paratroopers take up more space and are heavier than light infantry, for example. For comparative purposes, assuming that equipped troops weigh around 120 kg, our best estimate is that the C-295 can accommodate fifty-eight and the C-27J about a dozen fewer.
.
.
.
While the details have been redacted, the C-27J was judged to have a ‘superior military operational envelope’. This is likely to have been due to two main factors—speed and time to height (both of which are attributable to a greater power to weight ratio). The C-27J has a greater air speed (315 kts or 583 km/hr) over the significantly slower C-295 (260 kts or 480 km/hr). Both of these factors would tend to take the C-27J out of harm’s way faster in an environment where man-portable air defence systems or small arms fire were the main threat.
.
.
.
When both aircraft types were offered to the US Air Force (USAF) for its Joint Cargo Aircraft contest in 2006, the C-295 package was about 15% cheaper. In a contest for a contract to build ‘up to 78’ aircraft, the C-27J bid by L-3 came in at US$2.04 billion (2007 figures) and the bid by US firm Raytheon (partnering with Airbus) was US$1.77 billion. As usual with public cost data, caveats need to be applied to these figures. The implied unit costs of US$26 million and US$22 million respectively are likely to be airframe only costs—thus falling far short of covering the total cost of acquisition of either type.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jul 2012 13:16

Also, with regard to survivability the C-27J features an APU and a double hydraulic system.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2012 13:34

some pro-C295 comments http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.in/2012/ ... -good.html

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Jul 2012 15:01

I wonder whether 60% indigenization will include local manufacture of engines?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Jul 2012 16:09

vic wrote:I wonder whether 60% indigenization will include local manufacture of engines?

Local Assembly with 1st or 2nd level maintenance possible but not local manufacturing.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 24 Jul 2012 16:59

If the IAF is looking for a 'direct' replacement for the HS-748, then CN-235 is the natural aircraft.

CN-235

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Jul 2012 17:44

CN series are basically civilian aircrafts used/converted to military configuration. Hence they have longer take off & landing run, slower speed, weaker floor, less spare power. CASA will have problems in Himalayas hit high use/need.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 24 Jul 2012 20:46

Singha wrote:I think if we intend to deal with the panda we need 100s more transport a/c of all hues starting from AN124 down .... and we need big airbases as close to the fronts as possible. its time to get cracking on the MTA with or without Rus in the ride....rope in someone else if needed.

I think lots of BP medication needs to be passed around with the MTA saga. We need to go alone on this now, enough pussyfooting around. We hire Airbus as consultants and have them vette our designs. They don't have anything in this range either. I hope the specs change a little as well. 10 tons to 7000/8000 Kms would give us everything we ever wanted.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2012 21:10

are you hinting a cruise missile launch platform version?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 24 Jul 2012 21:18

Well yes and no. Every other platform we need and we do need tons of them, require a healthy AIRTIME and some payload capacity.
AEW/ASW/ASuW/ELINT/Refuelers/Special ops long range transport for insertion and extraction/cruise missile paltform.. So something that has 50/60K pounds of fuel capacity and could carry 10 tons out to 7K would be useful. The same platform would be able to do something like 24/25 tons over 2500 Kms. I think we should address this large requirement otherwise we will have to end up adding another extra long range type from outside.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2012 21:20

certain decisions like provision to carry 4 extra crew in business class seating, with 2 sleeping bunks overhead , a galley and toilet would be good from day1...leaves good scope for high endurance missions and variants.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 24 Jul 2012 21:22

Yes.. Absolutely. US AWACS has 8-10 seats bussiness class like seats along with sleeping bunks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2012 21:39

If one thinks about chips, the requirement would go 1000s and not 100s. But, such deployment and drops have to happen after some cleansing had been done by ground troupes with CAS.

I am not sure, we need to mix functionality and role into MTA., perhaps we need to come out with a different set of specs for cruise missile delivery, where it launches about 50 of them in one cycle and returns with MKI and refueller support.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2012 22:39

Saik, realistically speaking, even the ability to release 6 Nirbhays from a internal bay would be a massive force multiplier and release the heavy fighters from this mundane role of flying point A within defended airspace , dropping the payload and returning. also dont just fixate on ALCM, as pix will show these racks are multipurpose and can carry a real load of conventional 2000lb type GPS or even unguided weapons. smaller missiles like say KH31P could be carted up and fired liberally.

Cy, khan has a real exp and fetish for endurance given their long range missions and refueling needs....as a carryover even the civilian B777 has bunk beds in a chamber above the cockpit and more crew rest beds above the rear somewhere, prolly just in case they decided to make a mighty bomber conversion out of it

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03rest.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Jul 2012 22:42

The Chinese took their old H-6s, reduced some weight, put IL-76 turbofans in them, plus glass cockpit and radar and are using them as cruise missile platforms, 6 missiles per plane..

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2012 23:20

I understood, I was just imagining on..would it be impossible if could have enough space as much cruise missile on board, with a conveyer rack system to delivery beneath the fuselage? or something like tank loader role, missile loader, then pushes a button to change the rack with a new set of nirbhay racks? of course it is complex to think, but somewhere out there I am sure khaanites must be dreaming on similar lines.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 25 Jul 2012 00:20

Singha wrote:Cy, khan has a real exp and fetish for endurance given their long range missions and refueling needs....as a carryover even the civilian B777 has bunk beds in a chamber above the cockpit and more crew rest beds above the rear somewhere, prolly just in case they decided to make a mighty bomber conversion out of it

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03rest.html

That my friend is the right fetish to have. It allows so many endless possibilities! We are getting there after MKI, hope we see it everywhere. Adding ability to carry another 30,000 pounds of fuel apart from the current 30,000 pounds in the MTA means less logisctic chain required to support this platform in AIR. Less number of refueling stops, less frames required, less peeps on the ground, less everything.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 25 Jul 2012 00:23

Karan M wrote:The Chinese took their old H-6s, reduced some weight, put IL-76 turbofans in them, plus glass cockpit and radar and are using them as cruise missile platforms, 6 missiles per plane..

We should do something similar with the IN BEARS. Order another 18 P8I and convert the 8 Bears with Long range ASuW radars and 3-5 brahmos each with a rotary release mechanism. So move all ASW to the ilyushin and Boeing platforms.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 01 Aug 2012 04:18

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Aug 2012 21:41

C-17s will be used in tactical airlifts: S.P. Singh

The IAF would initially acquire one squadron of C-17s. It would add six more squadrons of C-130 Hercules turbo-prop driven military transport aircraft to its stable.

How many are there in a transport squadron?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Aug 2012 21:54

Is it going to be 6 hercules or 6 squadrons?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Aug 2012 21:56

I would imagine 6 hercules....maybe we have some options to exercise now that all 6 we ordered are delivered.
12 barely makes a squadron though.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Aug 2012 22:49

Or the IAF has decided that a mix of Hercules and MTA will take over the An-32 role. Not a bad idea..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Aug 2012 03:18

Six C-130J have been delivered and are stationed in ND.

The options for six more were exercised and US Accepts India's Request for 6 More C-130J Planes and these will be based in IAF to deploy new C-130J squadron in West Bengal (Panagarh).

So, that marks the end of the C-130J as we know it. Which makes the statement in that article rather intriguing.

C-17. 10 on order with six on options. I bet they will exercise that option.

I have been sporadically checking out the IL-476 - do not know where it stands.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 02 Aug 2012 04:14

NRao wrote:

C-27J. I am not sure how good they are, but this vid is worth a watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooSoCxZB ... r_embedded

Bloody hell! I have never seen a transport aircraft of that size do that kind of manoeuvres before! Watching it you'd think it's one of little planes they use for air acrobatics. And how it came in for the landing, steep dive and the short runway! Of course it's and empty aircraft, and I doubt it would be that manoeurable with even half of the max. payload but it's still impressive.

Regarding the Antonov An-32 in IAF service:

Anyone with a few working brain cells surely understands that, being the workhorse of the IAF, these aircraft will need to be replaced, a decade from now. Even after their upgrade, which includes a life extension.
Given the pace at which GoI processes requests from the Indian Armed Forces and takes the final decision, I would suggest the IAF/MoD start looking at a replacement now. Furthermore, given that the An-32 is indeed the workhorse of the IAF and the growing need for the kind of service the An-32 provides, the IAF will need more then 120 aircraft as replacement.

The suggestion to bundle the replacement for the Hawker Siddeley HS 748 with the future replacement for the An-32. This would make for a total of more then 200 aircraft. This makes it worthwhile for India, and the future partner, to co-develop a transport aircraft in this class. In any case it gives India serious purchasing power, and if India plays it right, this could lay the basis for a robust civilian/military aviation industry.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Aug 2012 05:15

^^Hmm, it did a barrel roll and a vertical loop in that demo.

First time I'm seeing a transport aircraft do either. Must keep in mind though, that the aircraft was empty during the demo and being a transport jet, importance of great maneuverability is secondary to other factors like payload and range.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 02 Aug 2012 09:14

Boeing’s uncertainties create C-17 deadline for IAF - BROADSWORD

...
The C-17 will replace the obsolescent Russian IL-76 airlifter, which has served the IAF since the early 1980s but is now unreliable. The IAF is impressed with the C-17’s abilities, especially after 20th June 2010. During trials in Ladakh, in the oxygen-thin air of that hot summer day, the IL-76 was unable to land even without a payload. The C-17, to the IAF’s delight, landed and took off with 30 tonnes on board.

The C-17 was procured through the US government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme, with New Delhi and Washington signing the contract in Jun 2011. Under this, Boeing will deliver the first five C-17s next year, with another five following in 2014. The IAF is raising a new unit --- 81 Squadron, based in Hindan, outside Delhi --- for the C-17, a decision that some criticise as lacking a sense of history.

“There is already an illustrious former squadron --- 19 Squadron --- that was number-plated (retired) twenty years ago. Why don’t they re-raise 19 Squadron, so that its history is passed on and kept alive? In Oct 1962, on the eve of the China war, 19 Squadron airlifted light tanks to Ladakh, which fought gallantly to defend Chushul. In the 1980s, 19 squadron flew over 20,000 sorties to support the Indian army in Sri Lanka,” points out IAF historian, Pushpindar Singh.
...