Transport Aircraft for IAF

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Dec 2012 08:30

hnair wrote: Since Gen Sundarji's thoughts on an airborne division, there always was a requirement for a large transport.

hnair-ji; I understand those needs, my complaints are not in the sense of "why do we need large airlift" -- in that sense I agree we do.

Also my complaints with C 17 has never been

over whether C17 can carry tanks etc.

It will almost never carry planes, except in perhaps some dire need, or show case operation. Not the main stay.

My point has always been what you also mention:

It is a super pricey plane and we will see how it pans out.

I would have like more MRCA like approach to this fairly large purchase, to get the best bang for the buck and also try various options out --> what also makes the dal look black (no corruption before anyone gets the wrong idea, merely favors to US for the deal) --is that Il 76 mid life upgrade was deliberately held back for 4-5 years during the same period, the same would have cost much less and would have created the space that was necessary to carry out the suitable trials etc.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Dec 2012 08:36

Singha wrote: I am sure none of the avionics , and DK30 engine parts were ever made in india.

The mid life upgd should substantially change the avionics etc, and therefore the maintainability should definitely improve. That has been the An 32/Mig 29 etc type experience.

Unfortunately, unlike C 17, the imminently practical and much needed mid-life upgd, costing hardly anything, was not fast tracked from zero to herrow in 2 years type of deal, for a lot of money.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Dec 2012 09:33

Singha wrote:Iaf called for a global tender from anyone who could maintain its ilyushins. I wonder what came of it.

Well the article provides some reasons why it was delayed, but let us be clear on one thing : the IL-76s were not meant to be around for more than 10 more years (from around 2010ish).

'India to buy more than 16 C-17 airlifters'

IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik wrote: He said that IAF's existing Soviet-vintage IL-76 heavy-lift aircraft would last approximately another 10 years, and the induction of the C-17 Globemaster IIIs during this period would be a timely replacement. India has less than 20 IL-76 in a dedicated transport role, while there are six midair refuellers designated Il-78, and another three to house the Israeli Phalcon AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control Systems).

Also, the IAF's proposed tender:

global tender to provide its Il-76/78 fleet "service support to ensure IAF requirements to maintain present airworthiness standards" for a period of five years, extendable to ten

Direct quote from the tender wrote: The primary requirement of the contract is to ensure a minimum serviceability of 70% of number of [aircraft] included in the contract during the currency of contract. Period of contract shall be five years, further extendable for another five years. The vendor is required to meet this requirement by providing all the required maintenance and product support." It further stipulates that, "on any single day the serviceability of each fleet (IL-76 and IL-78) should not fall below 50% of total number of ac included in the contract.

Their TTL ended around 2005 and the IAF is seeking 5 years for sure and perhaps 5 more after that.

No mention so far of India and the new IL-476. Given the production rate I do not see it happening.

BTW, those numbers (70% and 50%) are pathetic expectations. That is what the Russian company that seems to have won the contract will have to meet.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Dec 2012 09:53

Singha wrote:with only 20 something airframes, it would never make any sense to make the special parts ourselves when Rus was operating 100s of the same type. some 750 IL76 were produced and most ended in soviet union service.
I am sure none of the avionics , and DK30 engine parts were ever made in india.

BS expectations. This tender expects bare minimum as the 75/50% figures clearly indicate. What avionics and engine upgrades? They were never in the picture. Clean the dust from the wings, grease a few parts and make them fly for 5 years.

IAF to shell out Rs 88 cr more for IL-76 overhaul

Operative word: Overhaul.

NOT: Upgrade.

The article never mentions "upgrade", neither do any of the other articles.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2012 09:56

somehow the US has been able re-engine its old KC135 family crates and even the B52 and keep them flying 40 yrs after production. the B52 is allegedly planned to be in service until 2040 (90 yrs after airframe production). Sure they have a lot of airframes, so even at 60% uptime they can generate considerable sorties, but they take it seriously as global power lives by its logistics.

I wonder if we do a deep overhaul of the IL76 to replace worn out parts, and get the PS90A engine as on the Phalcons, why cant they be kept in service another 20 yrs...they are not that old really , around 20-25 yrs range, same as many of our Jaguars and M2Ks which are being upged and expected to serve 15 yrs more.

so I dont understand why IL76 upg did not choose deep overhaul option.

C17 is super costly, we cannot afford in the numbers we need.

Cheen needs some 50 IL476 asap nd will pay cash upfront to lock up that production line for 5 yrs.

rest of cupboard worldwide is quite bare. resumption of AN124 line is a mirage at this point. sometimes you see it, sometimes not (As u get closer!)

one option is getting mothballed MD-11 and 767/A330 type cargo planes from world market or boneyards as basic cargo planes taking pallets, and relieving the fewer number of real mil lifters to non-pallet cargos and destinations that really need them. eg. suppose a planeload of SU30 parts needs to go from Nasik or Koraput to Tezpur...NO reason why a IL76 is needed - a 767 will do the job. same goes for a battlion and light gear airlift from agra to leh

for cost, time, pragmatism about Rus overhaul and production rates and many other reasons I believe thats the only long term option - IAF to split its transport fleet between civilian model pallet and people movers , and smaller number of mil cargo haulers, backed by the AN32/MTAghost. it could be structured as a JV with Air India - using their parking, repair crews and spares but flown by IAF transport command pilots and loaders. this will ensure cheaper repair than IAF creating a whole new parallel infra. choose some types already in service like 737 and A330 if needed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Dec 2012 10:06

I wonder if we do a deep overhaul of the IL76 to replace worn out parts, and get the PS90A engine as on the Phalcons, why cant they be kept in service another 20 yrs...they are not that old really , around 20-25 yrs range, same as many of our Jaguars and M2Ks which are being upged and expected to serve 15 yrs more.

Original TTL was 20 years (see above article). So the EOL was around 2005+.

so I dont understand why IL76 upg did not choose deep overhaul option.

That is a very good question. I am not too sure. My guess is that at that point in time the IAF had enough with the Russian support. Even the latest is not much - 5 and MAY BE 10 year extension.

C17 is super costly, we cannot afford in the numbers we need.

Sure. However, IIRC, the Russians had estimated that India would need some 25 IL-76s. That is about 16 C-17s. Even the 476 has one more person per plane. We will need to wait a wee bit more to see the final stats of the 476 to make a comparison.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Dec 2012 10:08

Singha wrote:somehow the US has been able re-engine its old KC135 family crates and even the B52 and keep them flying 40 yrs after production. the B52 is allegedly planned to be in service until 2040 (90 yrs after airframe production). Sure they have a lot of airframes, so even at 60% uptime they can generate considerable sorties, but they take it seriously as global power lives by its logistics.

so I dont understand why IL76 upg did not choose deep overhaul option.

C17 is super costly, we cannot afford in the numbers we need.

one option is getting mothballed MD-11 and 767/A330 type cargo planes from world market or boneyards as basic cargo planes taking pallets, and relieving the fewer number of real mil lifters to non-pallet cargos and destinations that really need them. eg. suppose a planeload of SU30 parts needs to go from Nasik or Koraput to Tezpur...NO reason why a IL76 is needed - a 767 will do the job. same goes for a battlion and light gear airlift from agra to leh
[/b]

for cost, time, pragmatism about Rus overhaul and production rates and many other reasons I believe thats the only long term option - IAF to split its transport fleet between civilian model pallet and people movers , and smaller number of mil cargo haulers, backed by the AN32/MTAghost. it could be structured as a JV with Air India - using their parking, repair crews and spares but flown by IAF transport command pilots and loaders. this will ensure cheaper repair than IAF creating a whole new parallel infra. choose some types already in service like 737 and A330 if needed.

Such options do not generate adequate amount of bribe money and commissions; therefore nobody has interest to pursue it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2012 10:22

leaving out tanks, a combi fleet of civilian cargo planes and the stretched C130J version(non SF model) would likely cover all that the IL76 is presently doing, with less uptime hassles. it will also cover the MTA problem, until such time in distant future when MTA emerges.

if we want new, might as well get 50 new C130J and 25 second-hand civilian cargo haulers(will be cheap and these planes fly worldwide daily for DHL/fedex)

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 07 Dec 2012 15:02

Still we are better off acquiring upto 40 C-17s with probably the only customer and very slow production rate, a multi year buy that is spread over 10 years some where till early next decade, we should be able to afford it with 4 deliveries per year. I think with such a large buy we could get the numbers for around 18 billion including significant amounts of local manufacturing of spares and such to maintain for years to come. A part of these could be stored in strategic storages with period flights in rotation during peace time. I think we could operate such a fleet for over 50 years without issues.

Due to addition of over 90K more soldiers now and porbably more to come in the next decades, the eventual strength of the infantry will be well over 400 battalions. Our needs are about to grow. Hence 60 C-27J, 30 C-130J and 70 MTA are required numbers keeping in mind the next 50 years.

With the proposed joint spec ops command, it provides a significant advantage to be able to deploy numbers quickly. C-17 is bound to be the workhorse as it has proven to be, its use during war and peace would be enormous. From helos, supplies, ammo, tanks, howtizers and even Pinaka/Nirbhay/Brahmos/ Prahaar missile launchers, perhaps even the Agni-5 could be carried on board, weight is not the issue as long as the missile launcher's length can be accomadated.

A transport fleet of 200 aircraft is ideal to take on all comers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2012 15:55

indeed. USAF operates around 120 C17 iirc and its their workhorse given the C5 has some serviceability issues(but still essential to very long range missions and payloads the C17 cannot take). so the spares and uptime issue will be good for decades to come.

would love to see 80 C130J vanilla model being ordered in lieu of the MTA. I don't expect any much design work or knowledge will come via the MTA proj under current struct. the engine again cannot be desi because there is no desi engine in that segment. HAL can spend equal time making the MTA under Russian direction as the C130J under American control...atleast American manuals and QC will be better and more user friendly

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 07 Dec 2012 18:18

50 C-130J and 100 MTA is also a good number, I think MTA should be available in refueler version as well, being jet propelled, it should be faster than the Herc which could be useful. since they work from scratch, perhaps they can design a stealthy MTA based a bit on this one

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... c-130.html

http://www.google.be/imgres?imgurl=http ... Ag&dur=881

http://www.google.be/imgres?imgurl=http ... Aw&dur=547

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 07 Dec 2012 20:00

Septimus P. wrote:Still we are better off acquiring upto 40 C-17s with probably the only customer and very slow production rate, a multi year buy that is spread over 10 years some where till early next decade, we should be able to afford it with 4 deliveries per year.

The C-17 line can't run that slow. If you want that many, you'll have to take deliveries quicker than that.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 07 Dec 2012 20:31

Currently they produce upto 10 per rate, they slowed down the rate from 15, I think they can slow it down further to perhaps 8 and hopefully get more customers for it. Would be nice if we could spread out production little longer, the production for 40 would run for 5 years without any other customers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Dec 2012 04:43

somehow the US has been able re-engine its old KC135 family crates and even the B52 and keep them flying 40 yrs after production. the B52 is allegedly planned to be in service until 2040 (90 yrs after airframe production).

It was not the aircraft that dictated the enhanced life, it was the precision bombs (in the case of the B52) that forced the issue. If they had not improved the accuracy of delivering these bombs we would not see the B52 in action at this stage. PC wars are the in thing - perhaps rightfully so.

Cost being a major, if not THE, factor, we will see a huge change in the way air forces operate. India (and China) have the funds to do things the traditional way, the USAF/USN is compelled to rethink everything.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 11 Dec 2012 02:24

Even during the 90s the B52's were supposed to have been re-engined with COTS engines of high reliability (reducing the number of engines from 8 to 4). But they did not do it. I am sure it was not cost of the upgrade nor lack of budget. But probably something else that only khan knows.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2012 07:14

from fas.org - you are right they still carry the old engines

An unsolicited proposal for reengining 94 aircraft in the B-52 fleet was submitted to the Air Force by Boeing North American, Inc. in June 1996. Boeing proposed modernizing the B-52 fleet by replacing the current TF-33 engines with a commercial engine through a long-term leasing agreement, and providing fixed-cost, privatized maintenance based on the number of hours flown each year. Boeing's proposal included modernizing the B-52 fleet by replacing the TF-33 engines with the Allison/Rolls commercial RB-211 engine through a long-term leasing agreement and providing a fixed-cost, privatized maintenance concept through a "power-by-the-hour" arrangement. Boeing initially projected reengining cost savings of about $6 billion, but later revised the projected savings to $4.7 billion to reengine 71 B-52s. An Air Force team formed to study Boeing's proposal analyzed the lease and purchase alternatives and concluded that both options are cost prohibitive compared to maintaining the existing TF-33 engines. The General Accounting Office estimated that Boeing's unsolicited proposal to reengine the B-52 fleet would cost the Air Force approximately $1.3 billion rather than save approximately $4.7 billion as Boeing projected.

Service Life Return to Top

Updated with modern technology, the B-52 will continue into the 21st century as an important element of US forces. There is a proposal under consideration to re-engine the remaining B-52H aircraft to extend the service life. B-52 re-engine plans, if implemented, call for the B-52 to be utilized through 2025. Current engineering analysis show the B-52's life span to extend beyond the year 2040. The limiting factor of the B-52’s service life is the economic limit of the aircraft's upper wing surface, calculated to be approximately 32,500 to 37,500 flight hours. Based on the projected economic service life and forecast mishap rates, the Air Force will be unable to maintain the requirement of 62 aircraft by 2044, after 84 years in service

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Dec 2012 07:45

While we are at it:

5/12/2012::Global Strike Command leader previews B-52 upgrades

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2012 09:50

other than the DC3 dakota which is still in use, no other a/c can perhaps lay claim to potentially such a long service life.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 12 Dec 2012 18:12

The First Indian Air Force C-17A (F-253/IAF-1) CB-8001

The First Indian Air Force C-17A (F-253/IAF-1) CB-8001 is bathed in the bright white light of the flight ramp flood lites on December 7, 2012 just hours after emerging from the production hanger at Long Beach Airport.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Dec 2012 05:40

Nov, 2012 :: Indian Air Force starts C-17 Globemaster III operational training

US Air Force's 373rd Training Squadron Detachment 5 instructors have begun training 100 Indian Air Force (IAF) airmen to operate the Boeing-built C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift transport aircraft at Joint Base Charleston in South Carolina, US.

US Air Force 373rd TRS Detachment 5 electrical environmental instructor technical sergeant Paul Higgins said the training will help the airmen in maintenance of the C-17 Globemaster, when the initial aircraft arrives in India.

"Every specialty we have on the C-17, we are teaching here. We have electrical environmental, communication, navigation and general crew chief functions, just to name a few," Higgins added.

Provided through specialty-specific classes to a batch of four students each, the training includes both classroom time and hands-on work during which the new maintainers will apply the skills they learn on simulation training aircraft for four to six weeks.

Indian Air Force junior warrant officer Prakash Chand said: "We are learning the basics of the aircraft as well as the technical manual, which is quite helpful in learning the part numbers and other technical aspects of the C-17."

Ten C-17 Globemasters were ordered by the IAF under a $4.1bn deal from Boeing in June 2011, to help replace its outdated Russian IL-76 airlifter fleet.

The aircraft are expected to be operated in support of military and humanitarian airlift operations from Hindon Air Force Base in New Delhi, India.

Boeing has already started production of the first aircraft at its Long Beach manufacturing facility in August 2012, and is scheduled to deliver all the ordered airlifters between 2013 and 2014.

The IAF is also expected to place an order for additional six aircraft before 2013.

The C-17 Globemaster III is a large military transport aircraft designed to conduct rapid strategic airlift of troops and supply palleted cargo to main operating bases or forward operating bases worldwide.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Dec 2012 08:50

If we get 16 c17 confirmed, my spider feel is iaf will not waste any more money to extend life of il76 and will retire them in phases, cannibalizing them for cheap parts or selling off to paf or central asia.

Does not ofcourse preclude il476 orders if things look good in a few yrs.

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 15 Feb 2013 01:03

vic wrote:Actually I have repeatedly posted on BRF that MRTA is actually a 80-90 ton MTOW aircraft. It is neither a replacement for An-32, nor suitable for us and nor are we getting any technology/work. C-130 s are more suitable. But it seems MRTA is a done deal. Now C-130 s are targetting to get deal of 56 LTA which while being called Avro replacement will actually be An-32 replacement. Now C-27 is most suitable for this role. TATA has JV with both lockheed and Alenia. The best combination for IAF would have been C-130 s plus C-27 s. But it seems it will be melange of MRTA & C-130s for medlift, LTA perhaps C-27s for light role and heavy mix of C-17s & old IL-76s. So IAF will look like :-

Heavy C-17 and older IL-76
Medium C-130s and later MRTA
Light something like C-27
Lighter still Dornier and Saras
Thereafter hopefully NM-5 s

Does anyone know who got the contract finally and whether the Indian partner has been identified? Whether work has begun? This is one chance to relocate production in India and should not be missed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Feb 2013 02:22

X-posting from the Corruption td.

IL-476/76-MD-90A details.

Now for sceptics out of touch with events,the IL-476-aka the IL-76MD-90A is being built by Aviastar in Ulyanovsk,Russia.The first flight of the new version took place in Sept.2012.In Oct.Putin viewed the aircraft and ordered an initial batch of 39 for a cost of only $4.5billion.That works out to just over $110million per aircraft. Compare this with what we are paying for 12 C-17s $580 mil per aircraft (5.8B for 10)!

At least 100 will be built before 2020.The aircraft was earlier in its IL-76 avatar built at Tashkent Uzbekistan during Soviet days,by the Tashkent Aircraft Prod. Co.( TAPC). that built a staggering 900 of the type in 4 decades! Production was transferred to Russia after the financial health of the TAPC and dependence upon a foreign country saw the change in production being shifted to Russia take place.

Some key improvements:
The basic upgrade includes new engines,PS-90A-76 turbofans,a "heavy update in avionics" and a glass cockpit.A new wing with the same aerofoil ,but diff. structural design resulting in a significant weight saving.

The TO weight is now increased to 210t from 190t.Max payload now 60t up from 47t. A 12% fuek efficiency now has given a range increase from 4,000km to 5,000km.TO run now only 1600m from 1750m.3 aircraft are under production with deliveries in 2014.A production rate of 18 per year is planned by 2018.The aircraft is now capable of unrestricted international commercial flights due to its advanced powerplant (4 X 16,000 kgf thrust ) and upgraded avionics.The crew has been reduced from 7 to 6.

The new IL will also serve as the basis for a new tanker to replace the Il-78.

Here's some figs/data for the C-17 acquisition:

$580-million tag for IAF's C-17 aircraft can be cut: Boeing
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/05/5 ... e-cut.html

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 15 Feb 2013 02:39

Phillip,
This has been posted already, but fyi

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.

That from Boeing’s uncertainties create C-17 deadline for IAF

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Feb 2013 03:20

Now for sceptics out of touch with events,the IL-476-aka the IL-76MD-90A is being built by Aviastar in Ulyanovsk,Russia.The first flight of the new version took place in Sept.2012.In Oct.Putin viewed the aircraft and ordered an initial batch of 39 for a cost of only $4.5billion.That works out to just over $110million per aircraft. Compare this with what we are paying for 12 C-17s $580 mil per aircraft (5.8B for 10)!

At least 100 will be built before 2020.The aircraft was earlier in its IL-76 avatar built at Tashkent Uzbekistan during Soviet days,by the Tashkent Aircraft Prod. Co.( TAPC). that built a staggering 900 of the type in 4 decades! Production was transferred to Russia after the financial health of the TAPC and dependence upon a foreign country saw the change in production being shifted to Russia take place.

For our friends who are in la la land

We have a C 17 en route in delivery phase.

An IL 476 is in first flight mode
Gazillion orders are all fine BUT when will actual deliveries take place for us

plus the fact that it has a totally different capability to what the 476 has and the IAF feels it needs it

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Feb 2013 03:31

3 aircraft are under production with deliveries in 2014.A production rate of 18 per year is planned by 2018.

The IAF is going to get all 10 C-17s by the end of 2014. With Russian orders still unfulfilled there is no telling when the IAF would have got IL-476 deliveries if it had been chosen.

More importantly, there were no IL-476 airframes available which could be flight tested by the IAF when it was evaluating the C-17. It was simply not an option. Now do Philip and co. want the IAF to buy an aircraft without testing it?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Feb 2013 03:36

Delivery of 476s is nto a problem

Haven't you seen the timely progress on all other projects??

IL 76s for AWACS, Gorshkov etc etc

stop doubting it- Putin has mandated

it will happen

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Feb 2013 03:40

LOL!! Sarcastic Surya at his best!

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 15 Feb 2013 08:05

srin · Post by **srin** » 15 Feb 2013 09:03

Phillip saar ... we'll have to procure more of the transport aircraft then, because we'll have to cannibalize some of them to get spares

Or are you saying we don't have a spares availability problem ? We got so fed up that we were trying to deal with Ukraine for spares !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Feb 2013 09:25

imo a small fleet of around 7 AN124T when available will serve us better ...only doubt being whether it can operate from Leh in terms of runway and apron area/turning space.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Feb 2013 10:13

There's no issue with the C-17's capabilities.Just two points.Huge cost per aircraft.Secondly,the IL-476 is in production.Upgrades of existing IL-76s which still have life in them should be done,just as we are extending the lifespan of fighter aircraft.They are still useful assets.

The IL-476 was not/has not been tested yet in Indian conditions.If for over two decades we've been happy with the IL-76s overall performance,why not evaluate this improved version,of type which we already are used to,which also comes in at a 20-25% cost of a C-17? Simple logic.

Third,with the aircraft being built entirely in Russia now,the earlier problem with the Tashkent AC for spares and support no longer exists.During Soviet days,the SU spread its def. manufacturing units all over its various republics to keep people employed and for strategic reasons too.When it collapsed,many of these facilities went to the wall or gradually deteriorated like the TAC which actually had an order book of 38 aircraft ,including Il-78 tankers.Most of these will now be built in Russia at the new facility .

I think that a holistic look at a whole range of transports should be made.Right from little DO228s to C-17s.There are a number of new aircraft that could easily slot in between these two extremes.The upgraded Antonovs,Airbus' A-400s,Alenia's Spartan 27J (perhaps now a problem with the AW scam,which will affect Italian cos.),which uses the same engines as on the C-130J Hercules.The MTA will arrive only 5 years from now.Apartf rom the IAF,the IN,CG and specialist aircraft for ELINT,SIGINT,AEW,etc. will be needed.The Embraer /CABS AEW bird is great,but fitted on a longer legged aircraft,which can carry more consoles and EW operators would be an advantage.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Feb 2013 10:25

the MTA will take around 10 yrs for IOC. until then we will certainly place some follow on order for C130J. ukraine is upging our AN32 very fast, in lots of around 10 each time..by next yr I read it will all be done!

IAF will likely observe the stability and production volume of IL476 line before buying any. as for the current ones, been used heavily and residual useful life even with upgrade may not be deemed worthwhile if service stds not good.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 15 Feb 2013 10:37

The question is not the why the C-17 Buy, but why UK gets them at USD 225 million a piece but we pay 417 million a pop plus engines. What explains our higher price tag. First time buyer, inflation, spares.

BUt our purchase price seems a bit high for C-17 and C-130J, something which does not add up. Definitely purchasing C-17 over the IL-476 is justifiable, but why has there been no discussion in Media, GOI like MMRCA purchase? After all these were not small deals.

I think the P-8I buy by the Navy was an extremely good decision

X posting RajitO post quote from Corruption thread

quote="RajitO"]
$580-million tag for IAF's C-17 aircraft can be cut: Boeing
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/05/5 ... e-cut.html

Business Standard has examined requests, placed to the US Congress over several years, for C-17 sales to NATO, Canada, Australia, UAE and Oman to determine how Boeing’s ex-factory price of US $200-220 million for each unfitted C-17 Globemaster escalates to US $580 million for each of the fully-kitted military aircraft that India is buying.

The data indicates that the basic military aircraft, built at Boeing’s Long Beach facility outside Los Angeles, California, costs about US $350 million. An additional US $150 million per aircraft goes on spare engines, maintenance spares, electronic protection systems, and logistics. Finally, Boeing’s global maintenance network for the C-17 --- called the Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership, or GSP --- charges US $75 million every three years --- i.e. US $25 million per year --- to ensure that each aircraft covered in this plan remains flying, functional and available almost 90% of the time.

Boeing has confirmed that India is joining the GSP and that the notification to the US Congress includes that cost.

Once India’s planned procurement of 10 Globemaster IIIs is completed, it will be the largest C-17 user outside the US, which operates 198 Globemasters. Other users are the UK (6 aircraft); Australia and Canada (4 aircraft); Qatar (2 aircraft) and NATO (3 aircraft).

[/quote]

[/quote]

Everyone else has paid around USD mil 225 and Base aircraft to us is priced at USD 350 Mil?? this can't be just inflation

And how many years GSP did we get, does it mean the fleet is going to cost USD250 Million which will be adjusted upwards per year for GSP. This is without fuel and repairs not covered by GSP. So operating cost of the fleet would be USD 500 mil a year? what is the IAF total budget like USD 7 Billion??

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Feb 2013 11:11

Its simple, if a situation is single vendor, especially after 2004, in case where there exist options, not even trying for multi-vendor reeks of wrong doing.

All the strum and drang would be unnecessary if IAF did indeed carry out comparative trials like for MRCA and like it was earlier envisaged for a this purchase too.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Feb 2013 11:42

Surya wrote:Delivery of 476s is nto a problem

Haven't you seen the timely progress on all other projects??

IL 76s for AWACS, Gorshkov etc etc

stop doubting it- Putin has mandated

it will happen

Surya, if India can live with delays from everything to scorpenes, to missiles to MRCA what have you. What the pressing need to go out of character for some flying trucks? By paying tons and tons?

Its like taking ages to buy guns while spending like crazy on sandbags for the gun emplacements themselves, for guns which will probably come after the emplacements are worn out.

That is the question my friend.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Feb 2013 22:11

Aditya, that price of $5.8b was the maximum possible price, quoted by Boeing, assuming IAF ordered every system that Boeing offered with the C-17. That wasn't the final price we paid after negotiations with Boeing. The final estimated price was $4.1 billion which included spares, support, training expenditure, etc.

And like I said, there wasn't a single IL-476 airframe available (or even under construction) for the IAF to evaluate when it evaluated the C-17. They just started building it last year. The C-17 deal was signed in June 2011. IAF's flight tests happened earlier. You can't do comparative testing of a real aircraft with an imaginary one.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Feb 2013 22:44

Surya, if India can live with delays from everything to scorpenes, to missiles to MRCA what have you. What the pressing need to go out of character for some flying trucks? By paying tons and tons?

Its like taking ages to buy guns while spending like crazy on sandbags for the gun emplacements themselves, for guns which will probably come after the emplacements are worn out.

That is the question my friend.

will answer in a couple of years or till something comes out in public

presently chaiwallah info onlee

btw my earlier position has been that the only thing you can dispute is cost - and there can be arguments for it from no other equivalent availability to great support etc

maybe there is quid pro quo from a political level

but the need and capability are not disputed

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Feb 2013 00:13

The numbers they are expecting from Russian orders and rate of production means India will get the first one in about 8-10 years. Besides that RuAF has not paid the price the manufacturer would have liked as a min

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Feb 2013 08:58

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 Apr.2009,Bob Gates said a big NO to further C-17s,so did Obama,as these white elephants were "too large,too costly,for wars winding down",read Iraq and Afghanistan.The 5000 jobs that would be lost represented to Boeing/US highly skilled workers and in the current eco crisis provoke a huge controversy.Few orders could be obtained from allies and NATO was actually leasing ex-Soviet AN-124s and IL-76s for Afghan duties! Boeing therefore were very desperate to find new buyers and suddenly,out of the blue,Boeing subsequently announced that it was on the verge of clinching a deal with India,a yr.later when on Jan 8th 2010, India's LOR was officially recd .In July 2011 the deal was signed,after the last air show.

Now as to prices.A new IL-476 will cost around $110M per unit for an aircraft that can carry upto 60-t. 5000km.
A C-17 that can carry around 80t costs $580M per unit! You work out which is the cheaper option.You can get 5 IL-476s for the price of one C-17.

OK,granted that when the idea was mooted the IL-476 was not in production.But why the indecent haste for such a huge order when other far more vital issues like the artillery acquisition,hanging fire for decades has not been resolved? Like the AJT which took over 20 years to decide,the IA is so fed up that it probably will accept ANY of the contenders as long as a decision is made.

Now these are also intercontinental strat. transports and the US itself feels that these are too big and smaller aircraft would suffice.We have no intercon wars to fight,have fought shy of operating a base at Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay facility,so why such a large "white elephant" at such cost,at such speed of decision,when more vital issues like artillery,subs,helos,etc. are still pending?

If you look at the whole issue of C-17 acquisitions,it is an inescapable truth that we did Boeing a big favour.Old report.Price increased later.

India’s Order Extends Boeing’s C-17 Production
June 7, 2011 by Matthew Potter

Boeing (BA) is facing the end of production for the C-17 strategic transport as the United States decided to not buy anymore of the aircraft despite its heavy use in supporting the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the last few years Congress had increased the total number of aircraft being bought for the U.S. Air Force despite its and the Defense Department requests to stop procurement.

The C-17 has seen sales to overseas customers with Australia, the United Kingdom and some Gulf States purchasing the system. Even so Boeing could see the end of production and had begun to shut down its production line in Long Beach, CA. This facility gained when McDonnell-Douglas merged with Boeing in the Nineties was destined to close when the C-17 was finished as Boeing had no other work for it.

The company and its workers received good news today as it was announced that India had agreed to sign a contract for ten of the aircraft. Not only is the deal worth over $4 billion it will keep the production line open for one more year. This buys even more time for Boeing to find other customers for the aircraft or even convince the U.S. to procure more.

Read more: http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/2 ... z2L1y72x00
/