You don't ask,you won't get! I am sure that if we want the IL-476,deliveries can be hastened.Anyway that is speculative.Hard facts.
this one is a keeper
Yes we could have asked them Fedex it - much faster deliveries
You don't ask,you won't get! I am sure that if we want the IL-476,deliveries can be hastened.Anyway that is speculative.Hard facts.
Where do you get your figures from? They are all new to me, which is why I ask. TIA.Aditya_V wrote:All the more if C-17 was the plane to be ordered, the Higher price, there has been no reduction in Boeing price from the Original USD 5.8 Billion, only special communication equipment removed and the USD 4.1 Billion does not include GPS, which we will probably do on an annual basis
Then there is the Boeing, Are we going to be paying USD 250 million a year for 90% availability under GPS. that is without fuel and what is not covered under GPS. Then it going really eat into the IAF revenue budget.
There have been umpteen reports, for years now, that the Russians are in talks with India - and far more seriously with China. Neither have borne any fruits so far. Clearly the poster is not well informed.Surya wrote:You don't ask,you won't get! I am sure that if we want the IL-476,deliveries can be hastened.Anyway that is speculative.Hard facts.
In March 2006, the Australian government announced that the Australian Defence Forces would acquire up to 4 new Boeing C-17 external link Globemaster III strategic airlift planes and associated equipment for A$ 2 billion ($1.49 billion then conversion). In April 2011, Australia upped their order to 5 aircraft, and will soon add a 6th plane to their fleet.
Just a comparison with the OZ acquisition,which appears to show at least $100mill less per aircraft,that too for half the number.Australia: C-17 Related Contracts & Events
Note that C-17 support is provided under a global support partnership with Boeing, which is covered separately. It’s also important to note that contract figures may not match government announcements. That’s because C-17 contracts with Boeing don’t include items like engines (another $35-38 million per plane), some internal equipment, accompanying spares, etc.
So, per the latest info we have:PanARMENIAN.Net - The Russian Air Force's Military Transport Aviation (MTA) will receive a total of 48 Ilyushin Il-476 heavy transport planes by 2020, rather than the previously stated 39, its commander Col. Gen. Vladimir Benediktov said, according to RIA Novosti.
The Russian Defense Ministry said last October it had signed a contract worth about 140 billion rubles ($4 billion) with Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) for the delivery of 39 Il-476 planes by 2020.
“The MTA will receive its first series-produced [Il-476] planes by 2014, and a total of 48 by 2020,” Benediktov said.
The Il-476, (also known as the Il-76-MD-90A) is a significantly modernized variant of the Il-76 Candid transport plane, featuring a fully-digital flight control system, new avionics and PS-90A-76 engines with improved fuel efficiency systems.
A prototype of the plane carried out a maiden flight from the Aviastar plant in Ulyanovsk in September and will undergo a comprehensive test program for another year.
The Russian military has not received significant numbers of new large transport planes in the past 20 years.
We are not the ones to determine what the IAF's priorities are and whether they are misplaced or not. We can only speculate as chair marshals. And C-17 is not only for intercontinental roles--it is similar to Il-76 but can do a few things the 76 cannot.Philip wrote:What I am on about is the misplaced priority--since we don not have an inter-continental mil. role to play at all..
So, what you are telling me is that a chaapa from Putin will not do? Aysse kayse ho sakta hai bhai jhan? Jindagi ayse kaise chal sakti hai? People who have direct connection with Putin say so. Ex-admin, expert in .......... Jaara to socho. They all trump published reports.Singha wrote:the IL476 to be considered must pass trials in India and make sure to remove all the payload and temp restrictions the present IL76 suffers from in Leh and Thoise ops. and its inability to airlift even a T72 without a 2 hr wiggy wiggy and no can do for the wider T90/Arjun/various TELARs limits its utility in moving high value cargo unlike the wider belly of C17.
Broucherties suddenly became fashionable on BRF? \NRao wrote:So, what you are telling me is that a chaapa from Putin will not do? Aysse kayse ho sakta hai bhai jhan? Jindagi ayse kaise chal sakti hai? People who have direct connection with Putin say so. Ex-admin, expert in .......... Jaara to socho. They all trump published reports.Singha wrote:the IL476 to be considered must pass trials in India and make sure to remove all the payload and temp restrictions the present IL76 suffers from in Leh and Thoise ops. and its inability to airlift even a T72 without a 2 hr wiggy wiggy and no can do for the wider T90/Arjun/various TELARs limits its utility in moving high value cargo unlike the wider belly of C17.
There can be no comparative trials with an imaginary aircraft. Comparative performance with existing IL76 has already been published by Broadsword. The C17 and the AW101 deals are in no way similar, given what each brings to the table, whatever hafta paid notwithstanding.Sanku wrote:Broucherties suddenly became fashionable on BRF? \
Have a test done of C 17 vs Il 476 vs Airbus XXX and decide the winner.
If it could done for refullers, why not for others?
This thing stinks, just like AW story.
The MRCA had at least two even more imaginary a/c, the Gripen and Mig 35. Not to mention that the configurations that US teens had were also not the standard configurations.KrishnaK wrote: There can be no comparative trials with an imaginary aircraft. Comparative performance with existing IL76 has already been published by Broadsword. The C17 and the AW101 deals are in no way similar, given what each brings to the table, whatever hafta paid notwithstanding.
How many times does this need to be posted? There wasn't a single Il-476 airframe available when the IAF tested and evaluated the C-17. There wasn't even any official word at the time about when it would be built. The C-17 was tested in Leh by the IAF and its performance was found satisfactory. The C-17 deal was signed in June 2011 when the IL-476 was still a paper plane. The first flight of the IL-476 was in September 2012. And first flight does not mean it is ready for evaluation by the IAF. It made its first long test flight on Jan 29 2013: LinkSanku wrote: Have a test done of C 17 vs Il 476 vs Airbus XXX and decide the winner.
If it could done for refullers, why not for others?
This thing stinks, just like AW story.
This will be posted as long the basic facts are not understood -- viz --nachiket wrote:How many times does this need to be posted? There wasn't a single Il-476 airframe available when the IAF tested and evaluated the C-17. .Sanku wrote: Have a test done of C 17 vs Il 476 vs Airbus XXX and decide the winner.
If it could done for refullers, why not for others?
This thing stinks, just like AW story.
So why didn't the IAF send an RFP to SUkhoi as part of the MMRCA saga? That must be a criminal act as well I guess. After all the IAF could not make the claim that all the fighters Sukhoi built were too big to fit into the IAF's "medium" requirement without sending the RFP, as per you.No one can make this claim without sending a RFP to the manufacturer. Period. Just can not. Not sending the RFP itself was a criminal act. In the past there have been RFPs where people chose to opt out making it a one horse race, even then specs were changed to get more options in.
Is there a production one available even now? 2104 is the earliest. Putin excluded.There wasn't a single Il-476 airframe available when the IAF tested and evaluated the C-17
Should the RFPs be send to Su? Wrong analogynachiket wrote:So why didn't the IAF send an RFP to SUkhoi as part of the MMRCA saga? That must be a criminal act as well I guess. After all the IAF could not make the claim that all the fighters Sukhoi built were too big to fit into the IAF's "medium" requirement without sending the RFP, as per you.No one can make this claim without sending a RFP to the manufacturer. Period. Just can not. Not sending the RFP itself was a criminal act. In the past there have been RFPs where people chose to opt out making it a one horse race, even then specs were changed to get more options in.
As for your second point, isn't that exactly what is at the center of the whole AW101 scam?
Hush you unbeliever!indranilroy wrote: Even today, is the IL-476 ready for trials?
So what? Sukhoi makes other aircraft too, like the Su-35BM. And the whole point is that the IAF can't tell without RFPs whether or not Sukhoi has anything to sell us for the MRCA. As per your logic of course.Sanku wrote: Should the RFPs be send to Su? Wrong analogy
1) They already had 6 contenders
2) Su 30s are already being inducted (unlike Il 476 or Airbus XXX)
Uh, no. Specs were changed in the AW scam to keep one vendor from being disqualified. If the IAF had changed specs or timeline requirements to include an imaginary aircraft, then the IL-476 deal would have been a real scam.Yes the C 17 and AW scams are almost exact.
The source. Extrapolated from this are posts above (in production, will buy 100, Putin said, I have information, Putin's sidekick said, etc).NIZHNY NOVGOROD, January 29 (RIA Novosti) - A prototype Ilyushin Il-76MD-90A (also known as the Il-476) heavy-lift transport plane completed its first prolonged test flight on Tuesday, its manufacturer Aviastar said. {Sorry NOT Putin}
The flight, which lasted four hours and 25 minutes at altitudes of up to 10,000 meters (33,000 feet), was designed to assess the performance of its onboard avionics, engines, automated control system, and other characteristics, Ulyanovsk-based Aviastar said.
The prototype will soon be sent to the Zhukovsky flight test center near Moscow for further trials.
The Il-76MD-90A is an extensively modernized version of the forty-year-old Il-76 military transport aircraft, fitted with a new wing, fuel-efficient high-bypass Aviadvigatel PS-90A turbofans, and a modernized cockpit with so-called "glass cockpit" displays, allowing the flight crew to be reduced to three people.
Russia's Defense Ministry signed a contract last October for delivery of 39 Il-76MD-90As, to be built before 2018.
Aviastar hopes to build up to 100 such aircraft by 2020 for Russian state customers, the company has previously said.
This is the newest version of legendary IL-76, a plane that is known all over around the world for its reliability, enormous load capacity and high speed. New version of "ilyushin" - the IL-476, received 4 new "Aviadvigatel PS-90" Russian made high-bypass commercial turbofans rated at 16000 kgf (157 kN, 35,300 lbf) of thrust. These engines are developed to satisfy the demands for economy, performance and exhaust emissions. It represented a huge advance over previous generation engines and is almost double the efficiency of its predecessors as well as being a worthy competitor to current generation of western engines.
Design features
It incorporates many firsts in a Russian engine with advanced technology features such as:
High-bypass turbofan design for economy
Integrated exhaust with exhaust mixer for good efficiency
Acoustically treated exhaust duct for low noise
Full-authority digital engine control (FADEC)
Long service life based on on-condition maintenance
Modular design for ease of maintenance
It was first certified in 1992 and has been in service since.
40 of these planes are currently on order, but the number might raise due to the popularity of IL-76 that is used 38 countries including western-Europe and the United States.
The THRUST of his argument is to get LIFT for Illusion 476 aircraft which some consider a DRAG on IAF resourcesindranilroy wrote:Philip ji,
Why are you pushing for IL-476?
Sir you may have a point there the 476 should fit in nicely with the existing 76-90 airframes as the will share the PS90s. Having said that though I would think the same could be true for the 330s as well if IAF brings em in as Tankers first. Question is no operational 300s modified as AWACS so that cost needs to be taken into account but the life cycle costs and fleet commonality are big pluses then as well.hnair wrote:On the bright side, we got a newer and nicer AWACS chapati carrier