Transport Aircraft for IAF

[Tanaji]

We should at least be investigating the use of newer airships or "zeppelins" for moving heavy cargo at least in the trunk routes that are far away from the border. Slower, yes, but far cheaper to operate. Given that our weather is fairly predictable apart from the monsoon months, I would think the airships would fit in well.

[member_20317]

We should at least be investigating the use of newer airships or "zeppelins" for moving heavy cargo at least in the trunk routes that are far away from the border. Slower, yes, but far cheaper to operate. Given that our weather is fairly predictable apart from the monsoon months, I would think the airships would fit in well.

There are nearly ready solutions from the Amrerican stable on this front. There is no real strategic threat associated either (sanctions etc.)

But it would require an establishment that can think different and a political leadership that knows how to drive and protect risky decisions. Indians are as a rule risk averse (not meant as a criticism, merely an observation). The costs would work out probably the same as road transport in difficult terrain with no lateral connectivity or probably a little higher but would give a lot of flexibility in ops.

I see the airships as a solution to the Border roads problem not as a solution to the transport aircrafts. So I guess it would strictly speaking be OT.

[brar_w]

Oh wait Brar just admitted that the F-16,18 are junk and couldn't work out of Leh

Its amazing how much nonsense the mods allow you to post.

Anyways, as it appears the F-16 and F-18 could not meet the High payload and altitude requirements of the IAF. Even if they could i still wouldn't have favored them for the MRCA program and have let my reservations known months ago.

Lockheed Martin will confiscate your card.

Keep on trolling.

Even with low availability rates, the An-124 could be a cost-effective option. This means that the An-124 is likely a cost-effectiveoption; however, there are still significant problems associated with the procurement of such a platform

Ever bother looking into what sort of options the USAF wished to use the AN-124 for?

But surely NATO, who have both the A-400M and the C-17 could have nothing but harsh words for the An-124?

If you had any sense you would not have compared the C-17 to thee An-124 which does not even compete in the same class. Why not compare the AN-124 to the C-130?

IF you had read that article carefully, it says: SHORT TERM STRATEGIC AIRLIFT (in fact all in CAPS!!!), followed by

Would it make any difference? He has confused a technology demonstrator with a full blown operational aircraft just recently, do you think he'll know the difference?

Meanwhile I am still waiting for a CPFH figure on his favorite russian transport birds.

[brar_w]

We should at least be investigating the use of newer airships or "zeppelins" for moving heavy cargo at least in the trunk routes that are far away from the border. Slower, yes, but far cheaper to operate. Given that our weather is fairly predictable apart from the monsoon months, I would think the airships would fit in well.

There are nearly ready solutions from the Amrerican stable on this front. There is no real strategic threat associated either (sanctions etc.)

But it would require an establishment that can think different and a political leadership that knows how to drive and protect risky decisions. Indians are as a rule risk averse (not meant as a criticism, merely an observation). The costs would work out probably the same as road transport in difficult terrain with no lateral connectivity or probably a little higher but would give a lot of flexibility in ops.

I see the airships as a solution to the Border roads problem not as a solution to the transport aircrafts. So I guess it would strictly speaking be OT.

I wouldn't call the NG or the Lockheed designs near ready. At least a decade away if committed for by a customer after all is said and done. Then comes the thing about speed and getting from point A to point B. They work very well for long term known transport, not for transport during war with near peer adversary when they can be shot down or need to get from point A to point B in rapid time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isJRgEu7DQo

As claimed by one of the engineers in the video they are comparable to a "fast ship" rather than a "slow aircraft". Suitable for hauling known periodic non time critical payloads over very long distances (cross continents) but definitely not a substitute for strategic airlift which is usually time-critical

[Bharath.Subramanyam]

See the column in Pioneer:

ECONOMICS 101 FOR THE MILITARY
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/ ... itary.html

The HS-748 and the Antonov An-32 carry between five and 7.5 tonnes of payload. Once the backbone of the transport fleet, the HS-748 has been relegated largely to communication and liaison roles after the larger, more capable and more versatile An-32s came online. The An-32s also retired the venerable DHC-9 Caribous.

Hence, the current procurement of a replacement for the HS-748 does not make sense, as the original had to be retired anyway, having already been replaced in its primary role. The HS-748’s current role — that of communications — is performed much better by other aircraft manufactured indigenously like the Dornier Do-228. Effectively, the Indian Air Force is seeking a replacement for an already-replaced aircraft, and duplicating roles.

If this procurement goes through, we will have three different aircraft doing three different roles,........

............The second issue, flowing from the first, is of economics. By no stretch of industrial, infrastructural or financial logic, will the manufacture of 57 aircraft in India lead to the creation of either economies of scale or any meaningful transfer of technology and industrial equipment. Instead, rationalising all three fleets of aircraft (Dorniers, Avros and Antonovs) creates a replacement programme for well over 150 aircraft.

Experts: Does it made sense to club the requirements of Dorniers, Avros & Antonovs, so that economies of scale are used to set up a solid manufacturing base in India for Transport aircrafts?


One Dilli person told me that most of the time the transport aircrafts are used to move senior army, air force & navy officials within country. He said the usage of transport aircraft for the movement of 'material' & 'men' in border, from one base to another base etc, are comparatively small. He felt India can save money by giving a contract to some commercial airline for a dedicated set of aircrafts & its usage (exclusive for the usage of movement of senior defense officials). He felt then we can focus on building a dedicated military transport aircraft.

[Manish_Sharma]

I wouldn't call the NG or the Lockheed designs near ready. At least a decade away if committed for by a customer after all is said and done. Then comes the thing about speed and getting from point A to point B. They work very well for long term known transport, not for transport during war with near peer adversary when they can be shot down or need to get from point A to point B in rapid time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isJRgEu7DQo

As claimed by one of the engineers in the video they are comparable to a "fast ship" rather than a "slow aircraft". Suitable for hauling known periodic non time critical payloads over very long distances (cross continents) but definitely not a substitute for strategic airlift which is usually time-critical

What's the speed of this zepplin? Even if its the speed of a bullet train that's 300 to 400 kms. it could even be used instead of bullet trains. If you can reach Delhi to Pune in 7 - 8 hours at the cost of a/c train ticket; not bad.

No need to create those expensive rails etc.

[abhik]

The 'Avro replacement' programme has been specially contrived to create private sector player in the aviation sector. But rather than go the screw assembly of imports I think it would have been better to let them manufacture indigenously developed product like say the rustom UAV.

[srai]

See the column in Pioneer:

ECONOMICS 101 FOR THE MILITARY
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/ ... itary.html

The HS-748 and the Antonov An-32 carry between five and 7.5 tonnes of payload. Once the backbone of the transport fleet, the HS-748 has been relegated largely to communication and liaison roles after the larger, more capable and more versatile An-32s came online. The An-32s also retired the venerable DHC-9 Caribous.

Hence, the current procurement of a replacement for the HS-748 does not make sense, as the original had to be retired anyway, having already been replaced in its primary role. The HS-748’s current role — that of communications — is performed much better by other aircraft manufactured indigenously like the Dornier Do-228. Effectively, the Indian Air Force is seeking a replacement for an already-replaced aircraft, and duplicating roles.

If this procurement goes through, we will have three different aircraft doing three different roles,........

............The second issue, flowing from the first, is of economics. By no stretch of industrial, infrastructural or financial logic, will the manufacture of 57 aircraft in India lead to the creation of either economies of scale or any meaningful transfer of technology and industrial equipment. Instead, rationalising all three fleets of aircraft (Dorniers, Avros and Antonovs) creates a replacement programme for well over 150 aircraft.

Experts: Does it made sense to club the requirements of Dorniers, Avros & Antonovs, so that economies of scale are used to set up a solid manufacturing base in India for Transport aircrafts?


One Dilli person told me that most of the time the transport aircrafts are used to move senior army, air force & navy officials within country. He said the usage of transport aircraft for the movement of 'material' & 'men' in border, from one base to another base etc, are comparatively small. He felt India can save money by giving a contract to some commercial airline for a dedicated set of aircrafts & its usage (exclusive for the usage of movement of senior defense officials). He felt then we can focus on building a dedicated military transport aircraft.

We have suggested and discussed this a while ago on this forum. HS-748 (65+) and An-32 (100+) could be lumped together to create a firm order for around 170 planes.

Do-228 is in a completely different category. There are around 100 units of this type in the Indian armed services. I would think Saras could be a replacement for these in the movement of officials and small cargo. They may be a bit small for maritime surveillance roles.

[deejay]

One Dilli person told me that most of the time the transport aircrafts are used to move senior army, air force & navy officials within country. He said the usage of transport aircraft for the movement of 'material' & 'men' in border, from one base to another base etc, are comparatively small. He felt India can save money by giving a contract to some commercial airline for a dedicated set of aircrafts & its usage (exclusive for the usage of movement of senior defense officials). He felt then we can focus on building a dedicated military transport aircraft.

It is true that one important work of the transport fleet is communication. The movement of senior IAF, IA, Navy officers is part of this. There is also the movement of the men proceeding from the East towards Delhi, Chandigarh, Bangalore and from Srinagar or Leh to these places.

The movement of senior officers is part of the military work. On an AN 32 one may have two seats (proper back rest seats) fitted, also called VIP seats, and the rest of the aircraft full of men and material for such trips. Only at C-in-C and parallel levels would a dedicated aircraft be provided. Even here the need of the hour can reduce the dedication of the aircraft. The movement of men is more welfare in nature as given the remote locations and paucity of reservations over long journeys, the IL-76 couriers would often make trips to various places almost as a scheduled airline service.

In total, the above missions would be around 15% of total flying logged (IMO as do not have data) since the vast majority of flying is Operational. These include max load, para drop missions in both Glacier and North East. These sorties are the cargo sorties which is the real bulk of flying. An early morning at Chandigarh, Agra, etc till about noon is full of action and it is often hard to find an aircraft free for communication roles. Apart from these there is a fair amount of training flying, which includes training with the Para troopers.

The part of your post high lighted in bold says 'most' and here your source is wrong and needs to be shown the light as Shri George Fernandes would show.

[Rien]

Aug 16, 2014 :: No More An-124s On The Way

Done!!!

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/boei ... ction.html

Boeing to close C-17 line three months earlier than anticipated

Early closure in mid 2015 affects 2,200 California workers and will cost the company $50 million.

For the same reasons you said, cancel the C-17 order. It's no longer in production. For the An-124 it's a very good thing that the Russians need us. With the loss of Ukraine, they need a replacement. We can step in. This is our very best chance to get technology. Technology. Technology. No country will ever give us technology, unless they are in a poor position to refuse us. Russia can't say no! That means YES to me.

[Rien]

Anyways, as it appears the F-16 and F-18 could not meet the High payload and altitude requirements of the IAF. Even if they could i still wouldn't have favored them for the MRCA program and have let my reservations known months ago.

You've grown as a human. Perhaps some day you will be able to realise that countries besides the US make good gear.
Mods, the JSF brigade keeps disrupting threads with posts about their favourite hardware. Besides myself, other posters have already complained. You're going to keep receiving complaints.

Even with low availability rates, the An-124 could be a cost-effective option. This means that the An-124 is likely a cost-effectiveoption; however, there are still significant problems associated with the procurement of such a platform

If you had any sense you would not have compared the C-17 to thee An-124 which does not even compete in the same class. Why not compare the AN-124 to the C-130?

That's an arbitrary distinction. For that matter, how do you justify a specific number like 77 tons? Why not 20 tons? Or 5?
And the DoD, Salis and UK parliament think it makes sense.

Meanwhile I am still waiting for a CPFH figure on his favorite russian transport birds.

Those numbers were already provided. Read the links. US Department of Defence, NATO SALIS, and the UK parliament. They all concluded compared to the C-17 that the An-124 was superior on capability and cost. Incidentally, the civil aircraft market is owned by Antonov. C-17s are not used by anybody outside of the military. It's very clear that cost doesn't favour the C-17. UK stated 42%. Half price.

[brar_w]

You've grown as a human. Perhaps some day you will be able to realise that countries besides the US make good gear

And you are still a troll. One of my first few posts on this forum was about how rafale is the best option for the MRCA and how the F-18 and F-16 were not.

Mods, the JSF brigade keeps disrupting threads with posts about their favourite hardware. Besides myself, other posters have already complained. You're going to keep receiving complaints.

And you will keep on coming into arguments making totally baseless points backed by logic that is borderline ridiculous.

That's an arbitrary distinction. For that matter, how do you justify a specific number like 77 tons? Why not 20 tons? Or 5?

I don't , the IAF apparently does as most AF's do. What is also important is what is the minimum load over a particular class of an airfield. As it turns out in hot and high conditions of leh the C-17's could get 30T out while IAF's IL76's couldn't even land empty.

Those numbers were already provided. Read the links. US Department of Defence, NATO SALIS, and the UK parliament. They all concluded compared to the C-17 that the An-124 was superior on capability and cost. Incidentally, the civil aircraft market is owned by Antonov. C-17s are not used by anybody outside of the military. It's very clear that cost doesn't favour the C-17. UK stated 42%. Half price

Read the article again and see what the cost was comparing it too. Where are the privately owned C-17's that can go into the leasing market? Whats the CPFH of the 76? Come out with a number. Also tell me the 30-40K hour O&S cost for a fleet of OWNED IL76's. Pre-made russian aircraft would always be better leasing options since the USAF would have had to build the C-17's to lease them and then factor in early retirement if they are not required long term. Leasing and operating over lifetime are totally different things.

Just provide me the CPFH for the IL76 ..then we can compare O&S costs based on that number alone (should be about 80% of the total O&S or near about)

[brar_w]

60th year for the C-130

[youtube]jpnhQwF5Ndk&list=UUJWcF0ex7_doPdIQGbVpDsQ[/youtube]

[Rien]

<snip>

I don't , the IAF apparently does as most AF's do. What is also important is what is the minimum load over a particular class of an airfield. As it turns out in hot and high conditions of leh the C-17's could get 30T out while IAF's IL76's couldn't even land empty.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html

Two Squadrons of Tanks move into Leh : The MBT into Leh.

In Jan 88 the Chief of Army Staff, Gen K Sundarji was about to retire. In a strategic plan that he had for mechanised forces in Ladakh, the T-72 was missing. The BMP's and BRDM's, along with fuel bowsers had already been put into Leh and Thoise by No.44 Squadron. It was now the turn of the T-72s of the Indian Army to make its presence felt above 10,000 ft in the sandy deserts of Ladakh. The experience of IPKF had prepared both Maj Babbaya and the Flt Gunners of No.44 Squadron for this formidable task. We were to induct 28 AFV's and 2 ARV's into Leh within the shortest possible time starting mid Jan 88, and certainly before the Army Chief retired. The regiments chosen for this honour were the 91 Independent Recce Squadron of Scinde Horse, commanded by then Maj Rajinder Singh, and No 1 Armoured Recce Squadron of 7 Cavalry commanded by Maj D P Singh.

The tanks with their crew, ammunition and those 400 ltr barrels these tank guys strap on for extra range, arrived in Agra Cantt. For a week we held trials and training on the tarmac for the tank drivers and our Flt Gunners. Tension on both tracks was equalised with that plumb line. Fascinating is it not, the T-72 had Laser range finders, but it's tracks were adjusted by a good old plumb line! The EME team was also present to fine tune the tank engine and adjust it for starting and operating at Leh, 10,000 ft above mean sea level (amsl). A very large number of loadings and off loadings were actually done to hone the skills of the drivers and our Gunners. The drill was perfected till everyone was satisfied with every ones else's level of proficiency. The aim was that there should be no delay in off loading the tank at Leh. Neither the engine, nor the track nor the sleepers or planks should be an impediment to quick off loading of the T-72. The temperatures by day would be close to zero deg C and the faster things moved, the better. For an IL-76, a night halt at Leh was unacceptable.

http://www.reachladakh.com/600-passenge ... /2359.html

So that's the overwhelming case. Even though they airlifted tanks and passengers, the C-17 is needed for hot and high conditions. In cold, snowy Kashmir. The C-17 deal makes no sense. It especially makes no sense to replace the versatile IL-76 when we continue to have AWACS and refuellers that are IL. From the standpoint of the IAF on rationalizing aircraft types, it makes a lot of sense to get rid of the C-17 and standardize on the IL. I do advocate for the An-124, but that's to gain a considerable advantage, not to merely meet the requirements, which are more modest.

[NRao]

IF the latest from this CAS is true, then the IL series is history with the IAF. IF they find the funds, he wants the number of C-17 to go from 16 to 24, no less. The last IL-76 in the IAF will be retired around 2022 - as planned (after their recent upgrades). IL has too many problems for a modern AF.

[brar_w]

As has been pointed out by KiranM the IAF will most likely move away from the 76 (in the medium-long term) and towards commercial airliners for the refueling and AWACS programs, as is standard practice pretty much with most of the world that has access to modified airliners. 737, 767 and the A330 are all much better options for both the refueling mission as well as the AWACS mission and have been popular for such projects globally ( 737 AWACS operational with multiple air forces, 767 tanker and awacs operational and the A330 MRTT selected etc). Many options would be possible from new build to refurbished used airframes (The Israelis have been offering 767's taken from the used market and modified for different purposes). It makes a lot of sense for the IAF to take the A330 and use it as an AWACS for commonality purposes with the refueling fleet. Many SI OEM's can emerge at different price points.

[merlin]

Except that the A330 has never been used as an AWACS, so its not a quick hack job. Modifying and certifying by OEM will take quite a while.

[brar_w]

It would take time (the SI job) but that is why i explicitly mentioned medium-long term goal.

[Singha]

imo with the miniaturization of modern aesa radars gathering pace...might be possible to have the Wedgetailish 737 platform as long term awacs. there is a limit beyond which having more onboard console and rest areas does not make too much sense...maybe 10-12 console operators is enough?
endurance is claimed as 9 hrs at 500km from base without AAR which should be adequate for us, though the A330 with a similar radar and people might pull 18-22 hrs with no refueling due to the massive 110 tons of fuel I think it carries and infact with hose kits the AWACS itself can refuel its fighter escorts or any recovering fighters passing by (the 330MRTT has nothing in passenger area just uses its normal tanks) .

japan 767 awacs endurance is 9 hrs , 707 Sentry as 11 hrs (22 hrs with refueling for engine oil limit).

so the wedgetail is in the ballpark.....only question is whether the balance beam config is fine or we still want a triangle.

A330 is in its own league wrt to range with light payloads...one of them did a test flight from london to sydney nonstop in 22 hrs and held the WR for a while until I think a 777-200LR in a similar test config broke it later. only some bizjets with few suitcases can rival that kind of range.

[NRao]

Apr, 2014 :: India Wants Long-endurance Awacs

Although India already operates two types of airborne early warning aircraft, the country’s air force is pressing ahead with a program to procure a third platform with extended range, longer endurance and higher operational altitude performance. A request for proposal (RFP) has been released to original equipment manufacturers by the Ministry of Defence’s Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS) for the supply of six “aircraft with necessary structural modifications, power and endurance adaptations and equipment installation/installation provisions for the Awacs (airborne warning and control system)(India) role, and certified as per FAR 25 or equivalent.” The bids will be opened on July 15.

With CABS leaning toward civilian platforms that will give a maintenance advantage, the two likely contenders are the Airbus A330, which India has selected for a tanker role, and the Boeing 767, which has already been converted for Awacs in the form of Japan’s E-767. However, with production lines of the KC-46A aerial refueling tanker (modeled on Boeing’s 767 jetliner) busy with an order for replacement of the U.S. Air Force’s KC-135 Stratotankers, it is not clear if aircraft can be made available from the production line, said an aerospace engineer.

According to an official associated with the CABS project, field trials will start by year-end. “This project will move fast, as $1.2 billion has already been released,” an MoD official told AIN on condition of anonymity. Non-recurring costs for the project will be paid by India.

The RFP stipulates OEM responsibility for design and manufacture of the 10-meter-diameter antenna dome attachment (pylon) structure and installation, provision for installing external and internal elements of mission systems, power source and distribution circuits, structures for mounting the mission system, and installation of customer-furnished equipment, amounting to an additional 20 tons of weight. “Vendors willing to support the buyer in the installation of the mission systems on the aircraft alone will be considered,” said the RFP.

Interestingly, though wind tunnel tests can be performed in India, AIN has learned from sources close to the program that the air force is concerned about safety and is likely to assign the task to the OEM. Early attempts by CABS to enter the Awacs field ended in the crash of its HS.748 twin-turboprop testbed in 1999, killing scientists involved in the project.

Bangalore-based CABS, a wing of the MoD’s Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), is mandated to develop technologies and infrastructure for indigenous airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) systems. A contract signed in 2008 with Embraer for three EMB-145s—two for the Indian Air Force and one for CABS—included platform improvements by Embraer for in-flight refueling and increased power generation and cooling. CABS mission systems that include primary and secondary radars, satcom/Comint/Elint and countermeasures systems were to be integrated in the aircraft. The second aircraft is expected to be inducted by year-end.

The Indian Air Force also operates three Ilyushin Il-76s upgraded with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Phalcon radar and mission control systems with a platform designation of A-50EI.

[brar_w]

imo with the miniaturization of modern aesa radars gathering pace...might be possible to have the Wedgetailish 737 platform as long term awacs. there is a limit beyond which having more onboard console and rest areas does not make too much sense...maybe 10-12 console operators is enough?
endurance is claimed as 9 hrs at 500km from base without AAR which should be adequate for us, though the A330 with a similar radar and people might pull 18-22 hrs with no refueling due to the massive 110 tons of fuel I think it carries and infact with hose kits the AWACS itself can refuel its fighter escorts or any recovering fighters passing by (the 330MRTT has nothing in passenger area just uses its normal tanks) .

japan 767 awacs endurance is 9 hrs , 707 Sentry as 11 hrs (22 hrs with refueling for engine oil limit).

so the wedgetail is in the ballpark.....only question is whether the balance beam config is fine or we still want a triangle.

A330 is in its own league wrt to range with light payloads...one of them did a test flight from london to sydney nonstop in 22 hrs and held the WR for a while until I think a 777-200LR in a similar test config broke it later. only some bizjets with few suitcases can rival that kind of range.

There are strong indications that the USAF may be looking at an 737 (or even smaller) solution for the JSTARS replacement. I don't expect them to switch platforms from this requirement if and when they launch an E-3 replacement although for them the economies of sale with the Pegasus would make the 767 equally viable. The Wedgetail AESA configuration is purely a function of the requirement laid out by Northrop grumman's customer for it since it is not a USAF requirement although the E-10 was supposed to adopt a similar configuration but with a different radar.

737 or A320 based AWACS offer a lot of economy, a very large logistical supply chain and plenty of airframes in the second hand market to pick up for a bargain compared to new builds. I don't think the workstation limit is a significant challenge to them replacing the 767 sized aircraft for the same role. I expect Japan to choose that size way out into the future as well for its 767 AWACS replacement.

A330 is in its own league wrt to range with light payloads...one of them did a test flight from london to sydney nonstop in 22 hrs and held the WR for a while until I think a 777-200LR in a similar test config broke it later. only some bizjets with few suitcases can rival that kind of range.

Indeed. The 7772LR broke the B-52's distance record with its 22+ hour flight

[Manish_Sharma]

Why C-17 can't be considered for this, with its super rugged body humngous space, even somebody mentioned how it can even do someaerobics like F-18, which means it has more envelope in flight then others. In emergency it would even land in shorter unmade runways!

[brar_w]

Why C-17 can't be considered for this, with its super rugged body humngous space, even somebody mentioned how it can even do someaerobics like F-18, which means it has more envelope in flight then others. In emergency it would even land in shorter unmade runways!

Its bad from the economy aspect. Lets assume an A320 or 737 based awacs. Just look at the potential air bases and airports this thing can operate from. You would normally not require an AWACS to take off from a rough field or in the forward deployed sector. The AWACS/AEW stays further back and makes up for this through its excellent TOS. The goal is to provide a fixed orbit for X number of hours and then be done with it. AWACS are required for continues SA over a potential area of interest and not be in an interceptor like readiness state where they have to rush out from unprepared air fields and run ops at a moments notice.

A decent used 738 can probably be had for 40-60 million dollars per and has a very extensive supply of spares etc. Why would you want to convert a transporter with 70 tons of carriage capability when a simple 2 engine airliner can do the same job? Then comes the question of CPFH. Despite the C-17 having a very competitive CPFH for its size and mission, the bottom line is that it is still a strategic lifter designed to haul up to 70 tons of load with a set rough field requirement. It will never be able to compete with a CPFH of a 737/320 that is designed around near 100% dispatch reliability and a very very efficient CPFH built around the CASM/RASM model. Virtually all the air-forces around the world that have access to the capability and SI (converting an airliner to a military Tanker or AEW) have made the call of going in for an efficient airliner for long term availability and sustainability - and for good reason !

@ Singha -

[Viv S]

<snip>

I don't , the IAF apparently does as most AF's do. What is also important is what is the minimum load over a particular class of an airfield. As it turns out in hot and high conditions of leh the C-17's could get 30T out while IAF's IL76's couldn't even land empty.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html

So that's the overwhelming case. Even though they airlifted tanks and passengers, the C-17 is needed for hot and high conditions. In cold, snowy Kashmir. The C-17 deal makes no sense.

The T-72 airlift was carried out in January. The Il-76's mission failure at Leh on the other hand happened in the month of June. The latter is defined as hot and high conditions and ability to operate therein was a critical requirement for the IAF. 'Cold snowy Kashmir' (Srinagar/Avantipur) didn't enter the picture.

[brar_w]

^^ Indeed, Hot and high is something that puts a great strain on aircraft especially at a critical time when supplies need to go into a theater. This affects commercial airliners too. If the C-17 can land with 30T of cargo (Leh) in the dead summer it would be able to land and take off with a better payload in the winter..

As far as snowy ops are concerned, its not like the C-17 can operate from snowy conditions..









Kicking it up a notch -

[rohitvats]

<SNIP> So that's the overwhelming case. Even though they airlifted tanks and passengers, the C-17 is needed for hot and high conditions. In cold, snowy Kashmir. The C-17 deal makes no sense. It especially makes no sense to replace the versatile IL-76 when we continue to have AWACS and refuellers that are IL. From the standpoint of the IAF on rationalizing aircraft types, it makes a lot of sense to get rid of the C-17 and standardize on the IL. I do advocate for the An-124, but that's to gain a considerable advantage, not to merely meet the requirements, which are more modest.

Let me put this very straight to you.

Your posts are bordering on complete gibberish here lacking even basic understanding of the topic. You post articles supposedly helping your case but then don't even bother to read them completely to understand the full picture. This happened in the helicopter discussion thread on Apache (the ridiculous extrapolating of helicopter accidents in Afghanistan) and is happening here as well.

Before you yap away to glory on virtues of IL-76, you should have read the article linked by you to understand the full picture. And may be, you'd have managed to see the following points:

1. DIMENSIONS - IL-76 CANNOT carry T-90, forget Arjun tanks. That Bewoor article and picture of T-72 linked there would've told you that the distance between cargo hold skin and tank tracks is under one-feet. And looking at the picture you could have deduced that the tanks were loaded by removing the side-skirts of the tracks. Now, carrying that argument forward - a look at T-90 width dimensions would tell you that T-90 is a 'bit' wider than T-72. Wikipedia gives the width of T-72 at 3.59 meter while T-90 width is 3.78 meter. And while you're at it, please also look up the dimension of the Cargo Hold of a IL-76. The internet would tell you that it is 3.3 meter. May be, that is why side-skirts on T-72 were removed to bring down the width from 3.59 meter to under 3.3 meter.

Now, can the IL-76 physically load-up the T-90?

2. PAYLOAD - The same article has a very wonderful set of data points on payload capacity. With a 43-Ton T-72 (tank weight, fuel and first line of ammunition), 'Not a tin of condensed milk' could be carried on the IL-76. This was the original T-72 tank in IA inventory. What would be the weight of CIA Ajeya which comes with additional ERA?

3. Cargo Hold Volume - As per the same article, the Cargo Hold of IL-76 maxes out at 33 ton unless we have some high density equipment like T-72. Comparing the Cargo Hold volume of IL-76 and C-17 would give you figures of 240 cubic meter and 592 cubic meters. C-17 was meant from day one to take maximum cargo both in terms of volume as well as weight.

4. Performance - C-17 landed and took-off from Leh in June 2010 with 30-tonne load; it is said IL-76 could not even take-off in these conditions.

If there is one place where IL-76 is better than C-17, it is in terms of paratrooper carrying capacity. Otherwise, it can carry heavier load to more distance. Period.

Coming to SALIS program of NATO - there is a reason it is called 'Strategic Airlift Interim Solution'; it is an interim solution before A-400M comes online and is available to member countries. They have had to go into SALIS and SAC program (with 3 x C-17) because NATO countries have no heavy-airlift worth the name. And A-400M has been delayed and Uncle Sam has his hands full.

It made sense for NATO to lease AN-124 rather than be forced to buy C-17 (which they still did in limited numbers) because of planned induction of A-400M. And by the way, the SALIS program has grand total of 2 x AN-124 on full time charter with committed usage of 2,450 flying hours per annum. More can be ordered with some advance notice.

Chartering a civilian AN-124-100 by NATO AS A CONSORTIUM is cheaper than owning a platform like C-17.

Frankly, from a pure air-lift capacity of paratroopers perspective, IAF needs far higher number of C-130 class of aircraft. C-17 is a strategic air-lifter.

[brar_w]

^^ For comparison

[Indranil]

Yes, but transporting Arjun by C-17/T-90 will just be for show off. It will not happen in practice. We have discussed it in detail 2-3 years back. There were two posters Gilles and GeorgeWelch who went to great depths to prove either sides.

[brar_w]

It wasn't about whether it would be or if it would not be. The point was about how the poster referred to as the IL76 as a superior platform because it could get a T-72 tank to Leh in january etc etc

[rohitvats]

Yes, but transporting Arjun by C-17/T-90 will just be for show off. It will not happen in practice. We have discussed it in detail 2-3 years back. There were two posters Gilles and GeorgeWelch who went to great depths to prove either sides.

It's not about transporting ONLY Arjun or T-90: Indian Army last year transported T-90 by road to Leh.

But you cannot have a situation where you simply CANNOT transport them because your prime strategic lift aircraft cannot accommodate the tank or has performance issues.

The main concern with C-17 is in terms of the price/unit and money spent in advance on hoarding the spares - but frankly, if the GOI wanted to throw money at Americans for Nuclear Deal and we got something on lines of C-17 for that, I'm not complaining.

One can argue for this money, we could have build a more robust airlift capacity - spent money on combination of new version of IL-76 and C-130; as we stand, we can't airlift a single parachute infantry battalion at one go! But such long term planning and strategic thinking is unheard of in our MOD so I'll take whatever comes my way.

[NRao]

Waddling along in the net, came across:

SUBSONIC CIVIL TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT FOR 2035

We keep talking of C-17 vs. IL-476.

Here is what this effort has as goals for 2035:

NASA set four targets as metrics for the design concepts: aircraft noise, engine emissions (as expressed in terms of nitrogen oxides produced during landing and takeoff), fuel burn, and runway length. The targets were aggressive; for example, a reduction of 70 percent in fuel burn for a reference aircraft and a noise goal comparable with that of the MIT-Cambridge University Silent Aircraft Initiative of several years ago, namely aircraft noise imperceptible beyond the airport perimeter. The team added a fifth metric as part of its design evaluation: the global average surface temperature change due to aircraft emissions, which reflects aviation's impact on climate change.

And, this effort is among:

The multidisciplinary MIT-Aurora-P&W team, with NASA providing the focus!!!!

[vivek_ahuja]

Waddling along in the net, came across:

SUBSONIC CIVIL TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT FOR 2035

We keep talking of C-17 vs. IL-476.

Here is what this effort has as goals for 2035:

NASA set four targets as metrics for the design concepts: aircraft noise, engine emissions (as expressed in terms of nitrogen oxides produced during landing and takeoff), fuel burn, and runway length. The targets were aggressive; for example, a reduction of 70 percent in fuel burn for a reference aircraft and a noise goal comparable with that of the MIT-Cambridge University Silent Aircraft Initiative of several years ago, namely aircraft noise imperceptible beyond the airport perimeter. The team added a fifth metric as part of its design evaluation: the global average surface temperature change due to aircraft emissions, which reflects aviation's impact on climate change.

And, this effort is among:

The multidisciplinary MIT-Aurora-P&W team, with NASA providing the focus!!!!

Funny you should bring this up. Three years ago I created a small startup that specialized in the simulations of aircraft aerodynamic performance using a surface flow vorticity solver (part of my PhD dissertation). One of the things that came out from the use of this software was a contract with NASA where I designed the flaps for the D series aircraft you see in the links above. It was both a test from them for my software as well as an analysis for them on whether this airplane would even lift off the runway considering the aggressive wing and fuselage design. We did both the steady cruise analysis as well as the flaps. Without going into details, let me just state for the record that there is much to do to achieve the goals outlined in the links above. Not least of which is things like noise which is something nobody can even claim to simulate at this point, let alone predict confidently. But its always good to aim high, no?

Off topic: I use the thing about aeroacoustics as a good test/rule-of-thumb for any new potential CFD engineer. Any student of CFD who comes and claims that they know how to do aeroacoustics with CFD software, is instantly written off!

[Karthik S]

Apologies if posted before, looks like IAF has a requirement of 14 more C 17s:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... 130js-c-17

"The IAF has projected a requirement of a second lot of eight C-17s followed by a third lot of another six. A final decision is pending. A window to order a few more C-17s is there but this may be lost if India does not exercise it soon as the factory would be closing in the near future. Boeing though has said that it has made long-term arrangements for spares and service support to the C-17 fleets around the world."

[member_23370]

IAF has 24 IL-76's looks like they want it to be replace 1 on 1 by C-17's.

[Singha]

^^ only 18 I think.

[GeorgeWelch]

The final C-17 has already begun assembly and the line is shutting down.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ns-403843/

Algeria is considering the C-17, the Airbus A400M and the upgraded Ilyushin Il-76MD90 for a possible order of between four and six aircraft.
. . .
Boeing, however, is shutting down C-17 production in June 2015, leaving only 10 unsold “white tails” available

Once those last 10 are gone, that's it.

From another forum there has been interest from Australia for up to 4 more, from Saudia Arabia for up to 4, and from Sweden and Norway for a couple.

[NRao]

IIRC when Hagel visited a month ago he had India penciled for six. IAF was keen but was looking for funds.

[NRao]

Here it is:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 49428.aspx

My recollection is that India was penciled for 6, Aussies for 4, SA, SK and one more nation , one each.

Indian interests have increased since then.

Need funds. I think Modi, who is good at this, will find funds.

[Thakur_B]

Looks like Airbus has bitten the bullet and is going with Tata group to manufacture C295 for Avro replacement.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Airbus-may-partner-Tatas-for-manufacturing-defence-transport-aircraft/articleshow/44935927.cms

[Philip]

The most urgent need of the hour is not C-17s bit strike aircraft to replace the hundreds of MIG-21s to face imminent retirement (with no large series production of the LCA in sight) and the MMRCA in whatever shape or form. Existing Il-76s due for pensioning off can easily be replaced with new IL-476s at a fraction of the cost of a C-17.In earlier posts one showed that it was almost a ratio of 3 to1 .

The Tata-Airbus tieup is very welcome and one sincerly hopes that pvt. industry will succeed in building up a parallel aviation industry to HAL and end its dominance.