Transport Aircraft for IAF

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jun 2012 09:30

Surya wrote:
It also requires the presence of two engineers from the Bell-Boeing company on every ship to ensure that everything works smoothly
that by itself would not be anything new - ie the Osprey is not unique in this respect.

i have come across many people who in careers with lockheed, boeing etc were sent for support duties to ships, aircraft etc.

People have flown multiple missions on Orions and other aircraft trying to debug intermittent problems reported bythe user

also many of these guys are ex service folks themselves

Yes. And these are the men who will operate on an Indian ship if we use the V-22. But aside from that I think the Osprey may be too big to be accommodated on any Indian carrier. What is the size of the lift in the Vikramaditya? How much internal floor space and deck space is available? I think the Osprey was designed taking into consideration the size of US carrier deck space and lifts.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Jun 2012 09:36

Yes. And these are the men who will operate on an Indian ship if we use the V-22.

If something relatively new - unavoidable at least in peace time

we have Israelis in our UAV bases, Russians at the nuke sub ,

Anyway I am not sure we need the cost and complexity of the V 22 at this stage

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2012 09:38

why not get over the limitations of the KA31 by using a EH101 Italian navy variant for AEW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EH101-112ASuW.jpg

it has around 1km higher ceiling than Ka31 and twice the range (5 hrs endurance)..also a much bigger cabin and power budget probably (3 engines). and it will be around in basic form for decades unlike say Kamov

our two carriers can do it.

also LM has a vigilance program using SH60 showcases to malaysia and even the NH90 has some belly radar albeit smaller than AW101

http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?356-O ... mmes/page3

AW101 looks the best bet if our carrier lifts can take it - each can carry 2-3 as needed. its a LOW RISK choice as all flight tests and induction issues would have been borne by the italian brothers, we need to just spec it to our needs, install new IFF and EW etc and should be set to roll.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jun 2012 09:52

Surya wrote:
Yes. And these are the men who will operate on an Indian ship if we use the V-22.
If something relatively new - unavoidable at least in peace time

we have Israelis in our UAV bases, Russians at the nuke sub ,

Anyway I am not sure we need the cost and complexity of the V 22 at this stage

In fact we have Chinese in HAL, as per what i have heard. Every single one of these "collaborations" is a choke point that will kick in at wartime. These are all peacetime deals which will be of dubious, variable value in war.

I would rather see UAVs as a naval AWACS than the Osprey.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 04 Jun 2012 10:08

yeah, the EH101s would probably do the job far better than Ka31. Plus our babus can go smiling to the Swiss banks.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 04 Jun 2012 10:14

shiv wrote: I would rather see UAVs as a naval AWACS than the Osprey.

But sir, UAVs can only host the radar, who will provide the Command & Control function of the awaCs? Will ship based GCI be sufficient?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2012 11:40

the Sukhoi zond uav shown in AEW config would be plenty large - radar needs power and generally weights some. so big long wings and fuel tanks would be needed for endurance if you envisage them flying off carriers , wingspan might become an issue - u need folding wings. nobody has proven it can work so far because nobody with the means and money has tried. Khan is happy using the E2 and thats where state of art lies. AW101 is the next most powerful dog in the fight. ..quality of its radar and control system is a big unknown since its never been used even against Munna enemies like libya...but knowing the general level of thales/marconi/signaal in EU it can be made plenty good with right inputs and funds. its big and 3 engined which is a big plus for onboard power availability. more power and same tech generally equates to better radar performance and more onboard toys.
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/projects/bpla/complex/

E2 needs catapults and considerable deck. ADS1 is on the margins for it. Vikky is likely too narrow for the desired clearances.

AW101 _can_ fly off Vikky and Vikrant most likely. some degree of airborne control will be available.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jun 2012 14:16

Nick_S wrote:
shiv wrote: I would rather see UAVs as a naval AWACS than the Osprey.
But sir, UAVs can only host the radar, who will provide the Command & Control function of the awaCs? Will ship based GCI be sufficient?

If the links are secure multiple UAVs and networked ship and ground based control should work well but this is OT for this thread. No country other than the US has the resources for this kind of ship based AWACS and none of the ship based ones come anywhere near close to land based AEW&C

I find that a lot of our discussions end up in trying to mimic the US (usually because the US is claimed to set the standard) rather than coming up with solutions that we can create based on our own innovation and resources. Problem is, as I see it, if we are not fighting the US then we need not seek US level capability. If we are fighting the US or nations whom the US might support, then we should be looking at how we can degrade US style capability. Not mimic it.

koti · Post by **koti** » 04 Jun 2012 14:21

Shiv saab, replyed in IN thread.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2012 14:29

well Shiv sir, the harsh reality is we do not at present have the tech to make a global hawk type heavy uber-endurance rated autonomous UAV that can go out and patrol days over a fleet area. and if we did there is the problem of it being defenceless in a tail chase compared to a manned AWACS type that can turn tail at 900kmph. its too big to fly from ships. and if we make it small the payload and endurance will suffer....it will be hard put to be more utility than the KA31.

the US sets the std for a good reason - they had the means and money to try everything out first and settle on a working solution not because they cant think straight but because they wanted a certain capability at a certain cost in a certain reasonable time. so its usually a good yardstick of what works. something else may work, but since we are behind the Khan technologically it has to be some clever step that Khan missed or something thats not as capable as Khan like the AW101.

neither do we have a domestic 12t helicopter or even a long range small helicopter UAV to play games with.

we missed the boat in getting started with UAV programs in the early 1990s about when israel was putting all resources on it after the Lavi cancellation.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Jun 2012 15:19

The problem with mimicking another nation is that you end up stifling your own innovations and your own way to approach and solve a problem. You end up being a follower and worse you end up building something worse than they did.

If we end up following the US then every success that US has with their program will begin to seem like doable and every failure US has will be a full stop for us .......eventually over period of years and decades our R&D folks will start thinking and doing exactly like they do and it will shape our thinking.

In the end its not only about money , its about a problem and how you go about solving it in a most cost effective manner thats were innovation comes into picture and that can only come with original thought process and innovation.

Only if Israel would have thought there is no better solution for reconnaissance then manned aircraft as most countries in 70's did and would have not pursued UAV program then they wouldn't have been leaders in UAV systems today and similarly if Russians would have thought the only answer to a US fighter would be better fighter then they wouldnt have been leaders in SAMs/Radars system today.

If one just goes back a decade from today , every aviation magazine promoted F-22/JSF has the killer solution to all Air Superiority/Ground Attack problem , fast forward a decade from then and we know both aircraft have serious problem of their own and suddenly Eurofighter , Rafale or advanced Flanker looks more like a cost effective solution.

We will have to figure out what is the best way to deal with a specific problem and stop worrying what US or Russia did to deal with their own problem , its possible many a times we might end up with similar solutions , its possible on quite a few occasion we might get something better and cost effective and thats how we too would become leader in some niche area may be a decade or two from now.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jun 2012 15:53

Singha wrote: the US sets the std for a good reason - they had the means and money to try everything out first and settle on a working solution not because they cant think straight but because they wanted a certain capability at a certain cost in a certain reasonable time. so its usually a good yardstick of what works. something else may work, but since we are behind the Khan technologically it has to be some clever step that Khan missed or something thats not as capable as Khan like the AW101.

neither do we have a domestic 12t helicopter or even a long range small helicopter UAV to play games with. .

This is precisely why copying the US or seeking capability in the same way that the US implements it is a game that is lost even before we start. I will stop here. We have had this discussion before.

koti · Post by **koti** » 04 Jun 2012 16:00

Austin wrote:The problem with mimicking another nation is that you end up stifling your own innovations and your own way to approach and solve a problem. You end up being a follower and worse you end up building something worse than they did.

It might not be true all the time saab.
Can you put up an example of your point with a tangeble system like Akash or Vik.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Jun 2012 16:32

I think Agni system is a good example of innovation from DRDO , since we had no choice we went ahead and developed many technologies for Agni program which was quite unique ( all carbon fiber RV without metal backup and MaRV stuff ) for similary many technologies for different Agni variant.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2012 16:36

the Akash pgm gained a lot from copying the working airframe of the SA6 with our own C3I and back end radars.
the Agni family used the lessons of old and didnt try anything radical as yet in design, we had to manage sanctions also - we are still to get 1st stage composite.
the prithvi used reliable old liquid fuel tech
I think only with the astra (again derisked using agat seeker), AAD, prahaar, pinaka and newer missiles like nirbhay we have left past behind and starting to innovate more and more.
our BMD system backend is also substantially new albeit based on israeli LR radars.

likewise in aircraft and helicopters we will have to go through a similar learning curve, Tejas trying to learn lessons from M2K and rafale, MTA based on some Ilyushin design, ..... our missile pgm is much further ahead on that curve imo.

in ships we started out copying leander class and now have P17...yet P17A will again be based on a foreign design, likewise the ADS is based on upsized Cavour.

only with lots of projects and continual funding does the gap close.

koti · Post by **koti** » 04 Jun 2012 16:51

Austin wrote:I think Agni system is a good example of innovation from DRDO , since we had no choice we went ahead and developed many technologies for Agni program which was quite unique ( all carbon fiber RV without metal backup and MaRV stuff ) for similary many technologies for different Agni variant.

True saab.
However, if we were able to make a copy of some Sovier IRBM in the 70's maybe it would have brought the A5 by 1987 for us.
I am not sidelining the importance home grown innovation but am unable to see it as the basic necessity by shutting off to our competetion or in the case in context, our prospective partners.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Jun 2012 17:01

Every single one of these "collaborations" is a choke point that will kick in at wartime. These are all peacetime deals which will be of dubious, variable value in war.

True and thats we have to strive to get to a point where it will be DRDO \some local Tata\Reliance guys providing onsite support for equipment designed and developed by us

but thats a whole diff topic

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Jun 2012 17:35

Singha,

There is incremental innovation at the system level, and then that extends to innovation at the platform level, and then there is disruptive innovation at the overall technology level itself (e.g. stealth as versus earlier systems, the introduction of radars etc).

The point is India has already moved up the curve @ level 1 and even at level 2. Level 3 - i.e. coming up with new concepts and technologies that are the first/define in their class is underway.

You mentioned Prithvi using LF engines from the earlier Project D which then used Indian variants of the SA-2 system. But also note the Prithvi's innovation in not being a conventional BM but able to maneuver to the target based on preloaded waypoints, rendering it a pain for even ABM. That makes the missile future proof to a large degree. The choice of a LF engine also compensated for the fact that then missile propellant tech. (solid) was a challenge in terms of moving over hard terrain & there were concerns about fracturing etc. So Prithvi used subsystem level innovation.

The same requirement is taken forward in the Shourya (avoiding future defences) but in an entirely new manner. Thats platform innovation.

Another example of subsystem level innovation is the Akash. While the basic airframe for the missile was inspired by the SA-6, using the earlier lessons from the SA-2 in mind (i.e. keep the airframe similar for logistics and handling concerns, change everything within!), take a look at the enabling equipment. Uses a PESA Rajendra (enabling multi target FCR capability with very high ECCM) and a long range surveillance radar. Which like the Rajendra went onto create a family of radars, with the latest Army TCR being a Rohini derived system. This means the original Dutch TCRs have been supplanted by Indian system. That too is innovation as it means the developers kept the long term view in mind. For the overall Akash, they replicated a simpler system but put in place enablers that made it potent even for the future.

Trishul - many innovative features. In fact, one too many, with the program becoming far too ambitious and hence unable to meet requirements in time. Even today, though, if it were to be fielded it would be a severe threat to any modern aircraft. The choice of radar (Flycatcher) driven in part by its hard to jam band, but coupled with a missile with dual thrust propulsion (which is now being used for LRSAM, as further developed). Plus the use of a single radar, launcher, missile combo. that could be used across all three services and handle all sorts of targets (instead of "navalizing" an existing system as was often the vogue earlier). Finally proven in trials, but by then the AF and Army wanted F&F systems.

Similarly - Agni. Which other nation, without even a single BM in production would have developed a missile with a MaRV.

The BMD program - again, pretty unique and tailored to Indian requirements. Instead of fielding multiple systems - US etc style, we just developed one & are extending it further to handle higher, faster targets. The hardware for the BMD, even with Israeli assistance is unique and we were the first to recognize the need for and develop a LRTR class system. The Israelis followed thereafter with the Super GreenPine.

Point is India with its recognized limitations (funding and technology-industrial base) has been innovating for quite a while now. A perfect example of desi-jugaad, when we wanted to test the Prithvi warhead/s for checking whether the design worked, we put them on a helicopter sling and dropped them to see what was what! Worked. Such innovation @ development level also exists.

Now, the final stage, where the US, Russia etc have been consistent at, the disruptive across the board game changing systems. We are getting there. The latest AWST (for once useful) carried a piece on India exploring multi static radars with the AWACS (follow on to the current EMB-145 system) networked with many other systems. In the recent past we have had repeated references to reusable hypersonic platforms/missiles which can deploy their own submunitions/payloads.

So the vision is there.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 13 Jun 2012 09:30

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION, C-17A, T/N 07-7189. FOB SHANK, AFGHANISTAN, 23 JANUARY 2012

A C-17 overruns a 7,425 foot runway which is located at 6,600 MSL. It was considered pilot error since the captain failed to compensate for the fact that the runway was wet at the time of landing. He computed the landing distance for dry runway, which would have required 6,047 feet. It was carrying 50 tonnes of cargo at the time.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCo ... ummary.pdf

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jun 2012 18:06

Pictures of first assembled PD-14 Engine

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 17 Jun 2012 19:20

OEMs Hit Roadblocks in Indian Transport Tender

A requirement for a military transport to replace 56 HS.748 twin turboprops operated by the Indian Air Force (IAF) is raising procedural problems for potential bidders. India released a Request for Information last December inviting OEMs to bid only if they could find private Indian partners. But candidate Indian companies are reluctant to commit to the project. The Airbus Military C-295 and the Alenia C-27J are the most likely contenders.

The few Indian manufacturers capable of involvement say they need a commitment for at least 200 aircraft from the Ministry of Defense. “We need a business case before we invest money in the project,” one of them told AIN. Indian companies that are believed to have shown interest include the Tata Group, Larsen & Toubro and Reliance Industries.
...

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Jun 2012 21:46

VinodTK wrote:OEMs Hit Roadblocks in Indian Transport Tender
A requirement for a military transport to replace 56 HS.748 twin turboprops operated by the Indian Air Force (IAF) is raising procedural problems for potential bidders. India released a Request for Information last December inviting OEMs to bid only if they could find private Indian partners. But candidate Indian companies are reluctant to commit to the project. The Airbus Military C-295 and the Alenia C-27J are the most likely contenders.

The few Indian manufacturers capable of involvement say they need a commitment for at least 200 aircraft from the Ministry of Defense. “We need a business case before we invest money in the project,” one of them told AIN. Indian companies that are believed to have shown interest include the Tata Group, Larsen & Toubro and Reliance Industries.
...

If the IAF was to replace both 105 An-32 and 56 HS.748 with either C-295 or C-27J, then that would total to 161 aircraft. But it looks like MTA is replacing An-32.

The main difference between C-27J and C-295 is the cargo hold dimensions. C-27J' hold space has the width and height same as C-130 whereas C-295's cargo space has the width and height same as CH-47 Chinook.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2012 06:01

VinodTK wrote:OEMs Hit Roadblocks in Indian Transport Tender
The few Indian manufacturers capable of involvement say they need a commitment for at least 200 aircraft from the Ministry of Defense. “We need a business case before we invest money in the project,” one of them told AIN. Indian companies that are believed to have shown interest include the Tata Group, Larsen & Toubro and Reliance Industries.
...

Naturally. The private sector are in it for the profit and need to ensure that it makes business sense. Defence unfortunately is never for direct profit. Either we have to make orders bigger and more profitable for the private sector or keep sinking money into the public sector to make small volume items. This is an age old dilemma in India.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Jun 2012 10:11

VinodTK wrote:OEMs Hit Roadblocks in Indian Transport Tender
A requirement for a military transport to replace 56 HS.748 twin turboprops operated by the Indian Air Force (IAF) is raising procedural problems for potential bidders. India released a Request for Information last December inviting OEMs to bid only if they could find private Indian partners. But candidate Indian companies are reluctant to commit to the project. The Airbus Military C-295 and the Alenia C-27J are the most likely contenders.

The few Indian manufacturers capable of involvement say they need a commitment for at least 200 aircraft from the Ministry of Defense. “We need a business case before we invest money in the project,” one of them told AIN. Indian companies that are believed to have shown interest include the Tata Group, Larsen & Toubro and Reliance Industries.
...

The Other best way would be to start a Public–private partnership company and list them in the market

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 18 Jun 2012 15:52

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

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

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 18 Jun 2012 19:53

HS-748s are used only for communications and transport training nowadays so why not reconfigure the Dorniers for this role. It would make the existing Do-228 line more economical and simplify the logistical infrastructure for the IAF. There is something screwy about expecting the private sector to respond to a tiny order.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 18 Jun 2012 20:38

Victor wrote:HS-748s are used only for communications and transport training nowadays so why not reconfigure the Dorniers for this role. It would make the existing Do-228 line more economical and simplify the logistical infrastructure for the IAF. There is something screwy about expecting the private sector to respond to a tiny order.

Perhaps we can combine the IAF order with IN MRMR order to generate additional numbers.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jun 2012 22:20

shiv wrote:Naturally. The private sector are in it for the profit and need to ensure that it makes business sense. Defence unfortunately is never for direct profit. Either we have to make orders bigger and more profitable for the private sector or keep sinking money into the public sector to make small volume items. This is an age old dilemma in India.

Hakim sahab,

I don't agree with "Defence unfortunately is never for direct profit" part ... But other than that, this is my favourite post from you.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jun 2012 08:03

imo even the ATR72 can take over from the HS748 for transport and training purpose. its a proven and stable a/c with multiple indian users.

if anyone wants, used B747-400 are on the market for only $36 mil though a rookie transport pilot would have a heart attack graduating from Kirans to B747

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jun 2012 08:53

^^^^^

Subcontract it to Israel. They will get it done - the planes and the pilots.

Man, India has and is wasting so much time.

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 20 Jun 2012 01:05

C-130Js make a six pack in the sky (images)
Source: Tarmak
At the break of dawn early this week the Veiled Vipers (C-130J Squadron) flew six of their aircraft in a tactical formation thereby displaying the operational capability and potential of the Indian Air Force in combat airlift operations. The six aircraft Viper formation also displayed the skills of the aircrew and maintenance potential of the IAF. The C-130J, Super Hercules is the most newly inducted aircraft in the IAF inventory. It is a medium lift tactical transport aircraft capable of flying low levels undetected and landing at assault strips.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Jun 2012 01:11

Why do we need to replace the Avro with new type. Why not just add more MTA. Is there a operational reason for AVRO replacement that cannot be fulfilled by MTA ?

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Jun 2012 03:22

Cybaru wrote:Why do we need to replace the Avro with new type. Why not just add more MTA. Is there a operational reason for AVRO replacement that cannot be fulfilled by MTA ?

In order to optimize utility of a transport aircraft, IAF has to manage the minimum/maximum payload per flight/sector for cost-effectiveness. For example, it would probably be more cost effective to fly the MTA at its near maximum payload/range i.e. something like ~15t within 3,000km. To achieve this, IAF has to queue up packages till optimum weight (say 15t) for a given sector for that flight is accumulated. However, the issue is there are far smaller payloads that need to be transported, such as a 4-ton vehicle or one pallet of supplies, on an as needed basis and in high priority as per request from field commanders. These loads cannot wait till most cost-effective payload package is accumulated. So for these type of instances you need a light transport plane.

As per recent IA plans, it was looking at 5 transport plane per command. I believe above reason probably dictated that requirement. JTA (USAF and US Army) originated from this very need when USAF realized that C-130 was not cost-effective for delivering small payloads. It was more cost effective to use a smaller transport plane like the C-27J or C-295.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jun 2012 05:53

It is not just the Avro, at some point of time we will have to replace the AN-32 and Avros. Ofcourse, one wouldn't want to operate a C-130 or MRTA where a C-27 would do.

I sincerely hope that this sure-shot order for replacing hundreds of aircrafts would go abroad ... I hope CSIR reconsiders the turboprop, military variant of the NCAD project. Imagine, how many people could get enployment even if no money is saved!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Jun 2012 06:11

don't understand why wouldn't the IAF order something which is commonly used in India by civil aviation?

Even if it does not meet every criteria...

I think Sing.ha mentioned the ATR

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 20 Jun 2012 18:16

Surya wrote:don't understand why wouldn't the IAF order something which is commonly used in India by civil aviation?

Even if it does not meet every criteria...

I think Sing.ha mentioned the ATR

A rear loading ramp is a must for any military aircraft and hence ATR is ruled out.

CASA C-295 is considered a cheap choice compared to C-27J and now even as an AEW variant.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2012 19:20

ATR is very low slung...unlike a commercial freighter which needs a scissors lift to haul pallets up, the ATR can simply open a side door and take in bags and boxes.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Jun 2012 20:03

aditya

there was rear loading ramp planned for ATR

posted later

searching found a company offering a conversion

http://www.erieaviation.com/atrcargoconversion.htm

so it should not be a big issue

as Singha says its basic structure is geared towards a cargo usage (more so than the Avro )

while OT nice article .. especially operating costs
http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/p ... -vs-atr72/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2012 20:41

here is one more co offering a large cargo side door conversion
http://www.farnair.com/Html/Fleet/ATR72LCD.php

the upg AN32 will likely fly the hot and high routes to the ends of the line (incl IFG type pieces and small AA units, jeeps etc). the ATR72 should be smoothly able to handle the rest like people, small pallets, bags of provisions, trunks full of ammo and small arms, boxes of spare parts and lubricants, postal bags and parcels, air ambulance, transport for senior staff if we get creative....its operating cost and uptime should be good given its wide service worldwide and cost will be reasonable.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jun 2012 21:04

Then, is there a reason why the ATR is no used extensively as a military transport?

It has had a very limited use within the military.

The civilian side has umpteen uses for it - as a cargo plane.