Transport Aircraft for IAF

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Singha »

there is no example of a successful military airlifter than functions as a civilian plane except in siberia and maybe parts of africa where they use IL76 to remote locations. the high wings, strong single floor, gondola wheel wells are all optimized to goods not passengers and luggage.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

Pl. read the highlighted part of the official report on the JV posted much earlier.By the way,the Boeing 737 is now being used as the P-8! As I said before,what dif. is there from cargo variants of civvy airliners? Our DO-228s were used as passr. aircraft as well as light MRP/AEW birds too.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:Fortunately decisions are taken by the professionals who want the MTA.
Who are these 'professionals' and why have they continued to defer the MTA for nearly a decade now?
The C-130 is a poor substitute for it and the C-295 falls far short of its performance.
Why exactly is the C-130J is a 'poor substitute'?

C-130J:

- it carries more cargo,
- it carries more passengers
- its far cheaper to operate
- its delivery schedules are far more reliable
- its operational availability is proven
- its better suited to operate from high altitude bases
- its got better rough field performance (turboprops less susceptible to grit & dust)
- it already has proven tanker, EW & gunship variants
- its enjoys logistically commonality with the existing IAF fleet


MTA/Il-214

- its faster by 150kph
- ?
Why bring in the Sukhoi Superjet for the passr. role? That aircraft has no mil capability at all. It is relevant only if there is yet another requirement for a civil airliner. The MTA satisfies both mil and civil needs,it is enough.
The Russians already have an efficient in-production domestic civilian aircraft that can carry 100 passengers (i.e. SSJ-100). Why would they (or anyone else) want to buy a civilian variant of the MTA?
The problem is that DRDO/HAL's ambitions are beyond its design capacity. Some years ago it was trying to woo back ex-employees. Some time ago it added the FGFA responsibility onto the IJT team for want of enough scientific manpower! Just look objectively at all its ambitious programmes starting from the BTT,IJT,LCA,FGFA,etc. Its inability to deliver the goods has required roping in foreign entities to sort out HAL's design deficiencies like the IJT/BAe. There is a major shortfall in human resources and its "dog-in-the-manger" attitude was evident when it tried hard to sabotage even the LTA programme,not wanting it to go to the pvt. sector. More JVs with firang manufacturers is on the cards if HAL fails to deliver. With billions of investment pouring into the aerospace sector,the sunshine industry in the country,the floodgates must be opened for the pvt. sector.HAL has enough on its plate with the highest value tkts. in the form of the LCA,FGFA,AMCA,Jag/MIG-29/M2K UGs apart from LCH,ALH,LUH,etc. Mahindras tying up with Airbus for tendering for naval helos is another excellent development.
So HAL is incompetent, overambitious, devious and very short on critical human resources. And this is the reason why the govt should provide financial sanction for HAL's participation in the MTA/Il-214 development?
Last edited by Viv S on 08 Jul 2015 17:01, edited 4 times in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:Fortunately decisions are taken by the professionals who want the MTA.
Who are these 'professionals' and why have they continued to defer the MTA for nearly a decade now?
[urlhttp://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/life-or ... n-mta.html]Feb, 2015 :: Life Or Death For Indo-Russian Multirole Transport Aircraft[/url]
Tucked away in a corner of HAL's generously spaced pavilion at Aero India 2015 is a non-descript little stall with a couple of tables, a few chairs, two small aircraft models and little else. This is immediately strange, given how in-your-face the HAL-UAC Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA) programme usually is at shows (enough that HAL has proudly showed it off at the land forces show DefExpo too). As it happens, the low profile reflects the headwind that the MTA currently faces
FYI Only.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

The set of problems:
For 15 months, HAL has been in conversation with the Indian Air Force, a process that hasn't been smooth. The IAF's concerns centre around the twin Aviadvigatel PD-14M turbofan engines intended to power the platform. Sources say the IAF has indicated four major critera in engine performance on paper that don't match stated performance requirements in terms of altitude, re-light characteristics (the official I spoke to requested that Livefist did not report specifics). It hasn't helped that late last year, the United Aircraft Corp. reported a rise in project cost, suggesting that HAL would need to be in for more than the $300 million initially agreed upon when the programme kicked off. Never good. A six-man team from HAL leaves for Russia early next month for what officials described as 'resolutionary discussions'
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

And, the usual FUD:

Russia nudges India on multi-role transport aircraft
Speaking to media persons at the Paris International Air Show, Slyusar said, "The Indians have agreed to the PS-90. The project itself will replace the Antonov group of airplanes which in the near future will begin to leave service en masse."
Indians at HAL perhaps hava agreed. I am not so sure about the Indians at the IAF.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:Pl. read the highlighted part of the official report on the JV posted much earlier.By the way,the Boeing 737 is now being used as the P-8! As I said before,what dif. is there from cargo variants of civvy airliners? Our DO-228s were used as passr. aircraft as well as light MRP/AEW birds too.
Passenger/personnel transport:

- The MTA will never be as efficient as a civilian type like the SSJ-100. You might be able to strong-arm Air India into buying a few, but no company will ever do so voluntarily.
- As far an IAF aircraft involved in evacuation missions are concerned, add a seating pallet to the C-130J and it'll carry more passengers than the MTA.

AEW&C & EW

- ERJ-145I for a smaller type
- A330 for larger type

Maritime Patrol & ASW

- C-295 for medium range, low altitude role
- P-8I for long range, medium/high altitude role

Aerial Tanking

- A330 for heavy tanker role
- KC-130J for medium tanker role (zero development cost + cheaper to operate than the MTA)

_________________________________

So what niche exactly does the MTA slot into?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

I don't want the MTA,its the GOI/MOD/IAF who want it! I like the SSJ,the interior mockup at a previous Aero-India showed class.It will be a winner in any market esp. as it comes with only European engine options. But too close to the EMB designs and it would mean yet another programme.Economy of scale,etc.,etc.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Viv S »

It is interesting though Philip, that on the AMCA thread you were advocating that the AMCA project should be scrapped in favour of the Russian FGFA (and a 6th gen science project). If I may quote your exact words -
Philip on 05/07/15 wrote:Why 5th-gen? When the US is already developing "6th-gen" tech! Since the FGFA programme seems to be a done deal in some measure,even limited acquisitions,why reinvent the wheel?
And yet here on the 'Transport' thread, we have a passionate defence from you in favour of 'reinventing the wheel'. Curious this - 1. cancel the AMCA, 2. vigorously pursue the MTA.

Hmm... clearly I'm missing some common thread.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:I don't want the MTA,its the GOI/MOD/IAF who want it!
:shock:

(Given that it still exists only as a plastic (papier mache?) model after a decade, the GoI/MoD/IAF 'wanting' it seems somewhat in doubt.)
like the SSJ,the interior mockup at a previous Aero-India showed class.It will be a winner in any market esp. as it comes with only European engine options. But too close to the EMB designs and it would mean yet another programme.Economy of scale,etc.,etc.
With a 'winner in any market' in their hand, why would the Russians want to buy a civilian variant of the MTA i.e. 'loser in any market'?
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by putnanja »

As I mentioned earlier, engines are a big achilles heel of Russia. And there is no way IAF is going to accept PS-90 based on NRao's link above.

There is no long term plan in public domain by IAF which would give an insight into its plans for transport fleet. MTA has been dragging on for so long, I doubt even anyone in Russia or India think its going to be a viable project.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

ToI reporting that the CNC is processing 6 more C-17s.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2914
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Cybaru »

MTA seems like its stuck on two different things.

1. India doesn't seem to want a russian engine.
2. India doesn't want us to fund the whole project and have it made in Russia or have no work share.

If we are going to fund the whole thing, lets just get consultants and pick a western engine and work with Airbus/Embraer as consultants and start on it. This is kinda lame and boring.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

IAF, not India, does not want the Russian engines. BUT, the last time I checked there are no engines to satisfy the IAF. I could be wrong, they may need to make new engines to satisfy the IAF (and certainly the Russians do not qualify for that, the AL-55 has left a bad taste).

And, the MTA will be made in India + exported. I would imagine India would get a MRO too - so support from India in the long run.

My sense is that the Indian agencies wanted the experience of designing/manufacturing/etc - so they are backing the MTA. And, the IAF seems to want no part of the MTA. That is where I think it is stuck - the IAF is not willing to sign on the dotted line. ??????
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Austin »

They already mentioned in recent paris airshow that IAF has agreed to use PS-90 engine

http://in.rbth.com/news/2015/06/15/russ ... 43683.html
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

Expansion of Austin's post.8 years have passed since the initial agreement. Of course we can attribute the delay to the incompetence of the UPA/Cong and AKA who were in charge during the "lost decade".This govt. is working at supersonic speed by comparison. The design could as mentioned earlier be also used for specialised variants. If the first flight is going to take place ,the latest by 2018,then production will start only from 2020.
News
Russian-Indian Multi-role transport aircraft to receive Russian engine
15/06/2015 RIA Novosti

India has agreed to install the Russian PS-90 engine on the multi-role transport airplane which the two countries are developing, United Aircraft Corporation (OAC) head Yuri Slyusar told journalists on Monday.

"The Indians have agreed to the PS-90. The project itself will replace the Antonov group of airplanes which in the near futures will begin to leave service en masse ", said Slyusar at the Aviation salon at Le Bourget (France).

The project is currently at the stage of the adoption of the preliminary design, observed the head of the corporation. He said that the OAC had "high hopes" to sign a contract on the transition to the stage for a detailed design by the end of the year.

The international agreement on the joint development and construction of a Multi-role/Medium Aircraft was signed by the Russian and Indian governments back in 2007. Over the past few years the future partners have agreed that the Russian and Indian partners would share the company 50:50 Aircraft manufacturing would be located both in Russia and in India.

The production plans envisage hat 205 aircraft will be produced, of which 30% can be exported to other countries. If everything goes to plan, then the first MTA flight will take place in 2016-2018.

The Russian Ministry of Defense expects to order 100 aircraft of this type, India – 45. This will reach the break-even level of production. The total international market potential for the MTA is estimated at 390 aircraft taking into account civil transport aircraft.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

Two things:

* First

as I implied "India" is not a homogenous entity. The "India" the Russians seem to refer to is HAL - and I think HAL is in agreement with the Russians. HAL cares for the process of designing and manufacturing - the experience she lacks. And, without the next step HAL gets nothing out of this deal.

* Second

There is a clear diff between Russian and Indian reports. Russian web sites are a lot more positive about the relationship, while Indian web sites are a lot less:

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/ ... n-mta.html

or from SJha these
March 5, 2015 wrote:
Saurav Jha
‏@SJha1618

According to HAL, the Indo-Russian MTA program is held up on account of the designers not being able to find an engine ..

that can meet the IAF's rather exotic requirements which includes engine re-light at a never done before altitude.
0 retweets 1 favorite
Or

http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 76923.html

I am inclined to believe the Indian reports and specifically not the ones from that web site.

More Delays expected in Indo-Russian Multi-Role Transport Aircraft (MTA) Project
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

Austin wrote:They already mentioned in recent paris airshow that IAF has agreed to use PS-90 engine

Russian-Indian Multi-role transport aircraft to receive Russian engine

Russia's UAC asks HAL to speed up joint aircraft project

Same event, headlines totally diff, content is about the same, but emphasis is totally diff.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

Viewing the mountain from 2 diff. sides! Anyway,one way or the the other the Nov. visit should sort out the issues pending on a wide range of projects.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

Philip wrote:Viewing the mountain from 2 diff. sides! Anyway,one way or the the other the Nov. visit should sort out the issues pending on a wide range of projects.
True on the mountain stuff, but that is an indicator that the engines for the MTA is not a done deal so far.

"Nov" is another indicator too.

On Nov, was it moved from July to Nov? I thought there was enough movement to call it a done deal in July. The PAK-FA at least. Guess not.
vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by vaibhav.n »

NRao wrote:ToI reporting that the CNC is processing 6 more C-17s.
We need 6 more to form 2 squadrons for north and east each. Wonder where will the last airframe come from?

This was Apr 2015:
Indian Air Force has initiated a proposal to purchase three more Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft from the US for about Rs 8,700 crore, impressed as it is by the cargo carrier's varied utility. The IAF has pressed the case for three more C-17s after being informed that only five of the heavy lift aircraft are left for sale as the US defence and aerospace firm has closed down the production line, officials said.
Link:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 063979.cms
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by nachiket »

NRao wrote:ToI reporting that the CNC is processing 6 more C-17s.
At this point though, they may be "processing an order" for non-existent aircraft. I don't think there are six unclaimed C-17's left to buy.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

This is what I've been saying for a v.long time.The C-17 prod. line will be closed down,the iAF will be up the creek for additional new aircraft.There are only two long term options.Short/long lease on old C-17s (why even NATO has leased/used Russian/Soviet AN-124s,IL-76s,MI-8/17s,MI-26s in the Afghan conflict),or explore buying new Il-476s series production well under way which will carry on into the late 2020s,much improved over the older IL-76s and come in at a cost of approx. 1/3rd that of a new C-17. They also have a smaller 3-man crew,whereas a C-130J needs 5.With the aircraft in production,spares,logistic support will be available for decades.

Privitisation of many logistic ops is taking place in the western world.We've seen the beginning of it in India too with SVs for naval logistic purposes supporting Ru warships/subs. Even some civil airline cos. use only leased aircraft. We're already leasing an Akula SSGN<so why not C-17 leasing instead of expensive buying?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Singha »

amrika has 120 C17, why not we get 6 from them. there was some aspect of pork barrel politics in US arms procurement wherein congress to keep jobs in their home constituencys would allocate purchase money to stuff the forces said they did not really need.
with any luck usaf has a few c17 to spare.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:much improved over the older IL-76s and come in at a cost of approx. 1/3rd that of a new C-17.
Wrong. Same cargo volume as the older IL-76. 1/2 the cost of a new C-17. Making it more expensive on a per kg basis.

Difference of course is the proven reliability & availability of the C-17 vs the historically shoddy Russian after-sales support.
They also have a smaller 3-man crew,whereas a C-130J needs 5.With the aircraft in production,spares,logistic support will be available for decades.
Wrong. Both the C-17 and C-130J can be operated with a 3-man crew.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Viv S »

Singha wrote:amrika has 120 C17, why not we get 6 from them. there was some aspect of pork barrel politics in US arms procurement wherein congress to keep jobs in their home constituencys would allocate purchase money to stuff the forces said they did not really need.
with any luck usaf has a few c17 to spare.
Bingo. 220 C-17s actually. Reposting news from Dec 2014 -

Two C-17 squadrons to shut down
USAF inactivating two C-17 squadrons

That's 8+8=16 planes available to us, half of which are just a decade old.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by nachiket »

Viv S wrote: Bingo. 220 C-17s actually. Reposting news from Dec 2014 -

Two C-17 squadrons to shut down
USAF inactivating two C-17 squadrons

That's 8+8=16 planes available to us, half of which are just a decade old.
This is good news for us if the IAF takes a serious look at them. If they insist on new ones though, getting even 3-4 may be difficult considering how long it takes for us to go from "processing" the order to actually ordering stuff.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

I've posted cost comparisons much earlier and stand by my statements. As I've said earlier,if commonality is the key factor,then simply lease/buy from the huge amt. of available C-17s. From such a large qty. we could pick and choose the ones best suited to us,both condition and cost. If we considered buying second-hand M2Ks,why not transports? The other alternative saving even more money is to lease when required just as NATO/US did in the recent conflicts.

PS the options:IL-476s have 20% greater payload than the older IL-76s,60t,greater range and greater payload,virtually a new aircraft with a large amt. of composites used..This is a 3 yr. old report,first deliveries have already been made.The cost is also around just $60M.In 2010 a C-17 cost around $190M,3 times as much,so as I said,approx 3 times as much.
:http://rt.com/news/il-476-military-cargo-ready-542/
Worth the weight! New transport plane takes to sky (VIDEO, PHOTOS)
Published time: October 04, 2012
Il-476.(Photo from russianplanes.net user Anton Petrov)

Download video (12.41 MB)

A new take on an old workhorse, the Ilyushin Il-476 has passed all its tests. The major modernization of the classic Il-76 four-engine transport plane, still used in 38 countries worldwide, is airborne at last.

­The long-anticipated air transport has extended range, payload and a fully-computerized airborne system.

The long-anticipated turboprop has finally made its first flight, though six months behind schedule. The aircraft is designed to become the Russian Air Force’s main strategic air-lifter and, like its predecessor the Il-76, is expected to be used extensively as a commercial freighter.

The preorder for the air-lifter from the Russian military alone reaches 100 aircraft, Dmitry Rogozin, deputy prime minister in charge of the military-industrial complex, told the audience at the Russia Calling annual investment forum.

“We’ve put the Il-476 into the air. It is 70 per cent newer than previous versions. It has a new composite wing, new powerplant [engines PS-90A-76] and digital electronics. In fact, this is a new aircraft – and it will have great civilian uses too,” Rogozin reported.

The Il-476 has an advanced aircraft navigation system, sophisticated avionics, new landing mechanisms and computerized cockpit, featuring revolutionary windshield glazing. The aircraft more fuel-efficient and its operation range has been increased by 25 per cent. The payload of the new Ilyushin is 60 tonnes – 20 per cent more than the older Il-76.

The deputy PM specified that production of the aircraft is fully localized in Russia, whereas the Il-76 in Soviet times was assembled in the Republic of Uzbekistan, at the Tashkent Aviation Production Association. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the aircraft factory in Tashkent quickly deteriorated, halting production in 1997.

In 2006, a decision was made to transfer the production of the future transporter from Tashkent to Ulyanovsk. The relocation of the production line has created new jobs and spurred the modernization of the Aviastar aircraft factory, which now has brad new assembly-line for the construction of the Il-476.

Reportedly, apart from the initial two Il-476s that took part in testing, the factory has already started production of four more planes.

The Ilyushin Il-476 has large export potential. Starting from 2009, when construction of the first testing aircraft was only initiated, India began negotiating a contract for six of the planes. Now that the transport aircraft is set to undergo final testing, China, a traditionally large market for Russian aircraft, will also likely express interest in the new air-lifter.
But this is what we paid! Even if the fig. of $4B+ is correct,without the extra "miscellaneous expenditure" for 10 aircraft,each C-17 has cost us $400B a pop.That is almost 5-6 times more than a single Il-476. ($60M) If it is indeed $5.8B,then we would be able to get almost 10,yes 10,IL_476s for the price of just one C-17!

http://www.stratpost.com/iaf-c-17-price ... -clarified
IAF C-17 price confusion clarified

The amount of USD 4.1 billion 'more closely represents the case value in its current state and that figure only includes the options India is actually considering', according to a US Government source.

A C-17 ready for delivery to the United States Air Force (USAF) at Long Beach earlier this year.
The confusion over the price for the sale of ten C-17 aircraft to the Indian Air Force (IAF), about which US President Barack Obama made a preliminary announcement, has been clarified.

News reports on Wednesday indicated a difference in the price of USD 4.1 billion quoted by the White House on one hand and the manufacturer Boeing, which cited a figure of USD 5.8 billion, also one which had been conveyed by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in its notification to the US Congress, last April.

A US Government source, who declined to be named for purpose of this report, clarified to StratPost on Wednesday, that the amount of USD 5.8 billion could ‘include as many potential case options as might realistically be considered’, like support equipment and unique engineering requirements.

A statement issued by the US Embassy in New Delhi at the time of the notification also said of this amount, “This represents the highest possible estimate for the sale, and includes all potential services offered,” adding, “The actual cost will be based on Indian Air Force (IAF) requirements and has yet to be negotiated.”

This higher-side estimate was quoted keeping in mind the possibility that the IAF may also choose to purchase training equipment, spare and repair parts, test equipment, ground support equipment, equipment for training for aircrew and maintenance personnel, services like technical assistance, engineering services, logistical and technical support, as well as unique modifications specific to the requirements of the IAF.

“The danger in estimating low during the Congressional Notification (CN) stage is that if the case value lands up as (even) USD 01 higher, the case has to be returned to Congress for additional approvals or the case scope must be adjusted to bring the value down,” explained the source to StratPost.

“USD 4.1 billion more closely represents the case value in its current state and that figure only includes the options India is actually considering,” he clarified, adding further, “Additionally, the US Government waived non-recurring engineering costs, which saved the Government of India a significant amount of money on the aircraft. These costs had been included in the CN value.”

The IAF completed the flight trials of the aircraft last summer. The commercial negotiations remain to be completed.

The April notification by the US DSCA to the US Congress said the IAF had requested a package that included ten Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft, 45 F117-PW-100 engines (40 installed and 5 spare engines), ten AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems, ten AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems, spare and repairs parts, repair and return, warranty, pyrotechnics, flares, other explosives, aircraft ferry and refueling support, crew armor, mission planning system software, communication equipment and support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, US Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.
In simple English,we could replace the entire fleet of 20 Il-76s with brand new IL-476s for just $1,2B,ok,stretch it even upto $2B,the cost of the planned but of 4 C-17s!
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:I've posted cost comparisons much earlier and stand by my statements.
'Statements of opinion' don't equate to 'statements of fact'. And the fact is, the domestic contract for Il-76s signed with UAC in Oct 2012 was valued at a unit flyaway cost of RUB 4.6bn or $120 mil at the then exchange rate (i.e half of the C-17's $200-250 mil). The cost to an export customer would have been substantially higher (eg. Su-30SM v Su-30MKI). And this is not including support contracts, which are independent figures.
PS the options:IL-476s have 20% greater payload than the older IL-76s,60t,greater range and greater payload,virtually a new aircraft with a large amt. of composites used..This is a 3 yr. old report,first deliveries have already been made.The cost is also around just $60M.In 2010 a C-17 cost around $190M,3 times as much,so as I said,approx 3 times as much.
:http://rt.com/news/il-476-military-cargo-ready-542/
A new-build Il-476 available for with full support and spares available for less than the flyaway cost of a (mass produced) Su-30MKI? You can't tell me you honestly believe that bilge?

As for payload, the IAF's legacy Il-76 usually maxes out at about 30 tons of payload because of volume limitations. So how do you propose to stuff another 30 tons of payload into the same unchanged cargo volume? 60 tons in theory equals 30 tons in practice.
As I've said earlier,if commonality is the key factor,then simply lease/buy from the huge amt. of available C-17s. From such a large qty. we could pick and choose the ones best suited to us,both condition and cost. If we considered buying second-hand M2Ks,why not transports? The other alternative saving even more money is to lease when required just as NATO/US did in the recent conflicts.
Leasing of aircraft is only feasible as a short-term/stop-gap option, and that too for peacetime usage. Purchase of used C-17s on the other hand, is a perfectly viable solution, and cost-effective to boot.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

Janes :: June 15, 2015 :: Russia reduces orders for new Il-476, upgraded Il-76 transporters

Reduction on two fronts:

* The number of purchases of the IL-476 down from 39 to 30, and
* The planned upgrade of existing IL-76s from 41 to 30-35

I have to assume that both these reductions are finance based - which is fair enough.

BUT, upgrading the IL-76s is not a good indicator. They claim that it costs the VTA about 50% less than to buy a new IL-476.

Then about a year ago IL proposed to hit the drawing board and come up with an entirely new line of military transports - all classes. No takers so far.


So, actually, there should be about 9 IL-476s if the IAF *really* wants them. But the fact seems to be that the IAF wants more C-17s.

The use of the C-17s should postpone the retirement date of the existing IL-76s with the IAF. 2022 was the start of their retirement, so, perhaps 20205ish?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

These aren't my "opinions",they're hard facts. There are enough reports,websites,open source info about the specs and costs of the two transports .
By your argument,even a C-17 then can only carry half its payload. Do you have access to IAF IL-76 operations? Please prove your point about the ILs only carrying half their specs load.

Your post with figs about Russian orders simply prove the point that the aircraft is in production,unlike the C-17, and the IL-76 upgrades also prove that the aircraft is a tough bird whose longevity can be increased at reasonable cost.We have had an excellent record of using the Il-76 in IAF service without a single accident for over two decades.

If the IAF want more C-17s so be it,but at what cost? The DM/MOD should take a long hard look at the costs of the two aircraft esp. as the C-17 is no longer in production.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

If the IAF want more C-17s so be it,but at what cost? The DM/MOD should take a long hard look at the costs of the two aircraft esp. as the C-17 is no longer in production.
The IAF + MOD have had some 10 years to think about the situation. The IL-476 was mooted some 10 years ago. And despite the costs and production topics the IAF + MoD have opted for the C-17. I do not know why., but they apparently have some info that you and me do not.

Add to that the current predicament of the Russians - who are showing a declining interest in their own products. From an IAF + MOD point of view, it is almost like "I told you so".
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:These aren't my "opinions",they're hard facts. There are enough reports,websites,open source info about the specs and costs of the two transports .
They're not 'hard facts'. Your $60 mil figure stands somewhere between guesswork and total fiction. In contrast, I directly quoted the actual figures of the 39 Il-76 contract signed by the Russian state in Oct 2012.
By your argument,even a C-17 then can only carry half its payload. Do you have access to IAF IL-76 operations? Please prove your point about the ILs only carrying half their specs load.
- Volume of the cargo almost always maxes out before its weight does.
- The C-17's cargo volume (430 m³) is twice that of the Il-76 (220 m³).

Now what part of this are you not comprehending? Its blatantly obvious that the C-17 carries twice as much as the Il-76. (And no, the C-17 doesn't carry 77 tons of cargo in practice either.)
Your post with figs about Russian orders simply prove the point that the aircraft is in production,unlike the C-17, and the IL-76 upgrades also prove that the aircraft is a tough bird whose longevity can be increased at reasonable cost.We have had an excellent record of using the Il-76 in IAF service without a single accident for over two decades.
Yes, the Il-76 is in production but its too late now. We've already standardized on the C-17, and have the option of doubling the fleet by inducting ex-USAF units. As for the other point, if the Il-76 had had an 'excellent record', the IAF wouldn't have pursued the C-17 instead. (Not crashing a Russian cargo plane should not be a matter of pride.)
If the IAF want more C-17s so be it,but at what cost? The DM/MOD should take a long hard look at the costs of the two aircraft esp. as the C-17 is no longer in production.
Cost remains the same. And as proven above the C-17 is cost-competitive with the Il-76, bringing other factors into play -

- reliability
- operational availability
- turnaround time
- out-sized cargo carrying capability
- operating cost per unit cargo
- extent of logistical compatibility with existing fleet
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

I don't see orders of 30-40 new IL-476s a "declining" interest at all! Naturally the IAF will want more of the same for efficiency,but as I said,they're now up the creek with C-17 production ended and have acquired the aircraft at exceptional cost.Had the order been smaller,the funds saved could've gone into acquiring more of the MMRCA/Rafales,a more urgent priority and critical need. Transports could always be leased as NATO and the US have themselves shown.Tanker variants are also on the cards as this Janes' report says,where 2 civil IL-98s will be converted into tankers.
However, Russia has been expected to eventually replace the Il-78 with the ll-478, a suggested tanker version of the Il-76MD-90A (also known as the Il-476), Russia's latest update to the Il-76 design.

Whether Russia is intending to operate a dual future fleet of Il-96 and Il-76MD-90A-based tanker aircraft is currently unclear. It does appear unlikely, given the significant investment that has been made in developing the Il-76MD-90A, that a tanker version of that aircraft will not also be pursued.

Russia does have a policy of purchasing aircraft in order to keep production lines open, as much as for any specific military requirement - something it is by no means unique in doing. With no Il-96s rolling off the production line in 2014 it is possible that the order from the Ministry of Defence for the two tanker aircraft is simply designed to keep the aircraft's production line open, or is intended as a temporary measure to increase Russian AAR capabilities until the Il-478 enters production.
The C-17 deal was Snake-Oil Singh's promise to "India loves you" Dubya B.in exchange for the N-deal. It was nowhere an IAF priority and was done to keep Boeing and US manufacturers happy,extending the production line for a few more years,an issue in the US political forum.

PS:IL-476 costs:Not imagination not fiction at all. From your poorly-informed and researched statements,Janes' and other renowned global defence analysts must be smoking some sort of weed!

http://www.deagel.com/Military-Transpor ... 68004.aspx

Il-476
Initial Operational Capability (IOC): 2015
Maiden Flight: September 2012
Total Production: 39
Production Cost: RUB140 billion (USD$2.3 billion)
Unitary Cost: RUB3.6 billion (USD$59 million)
Also Known As: Il-76MD-90A
Origin: Russia
Corporations: Aviastar-SP, Ilyushin Aviaton Complex and UAC* (*) lead contractor

Russia reduces orders for new Il-476, upgraded Il-76 transporters
Karl Soper, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
16 June 2015
Russia's Military-Transport Aviation (VTA) will receive 30 Il-476 (Il-76MD-90A) transport aircraft by 2020 rather than the 39 originally planned, the service's commander told Russian media in early June.

VTA commander Lieutenant General Vladimir Benediktov also said some 30-35 existing aircraft - rather than 41 - will be modernised to Il-76MDM standard. Both programmes are under the state programme of armaments (GPV) 2011-2020.

A contract for the Il-476 announced in late 2012 called for 39 aircraft at a cost of RUB140 billion (USD2.6 billion).

Produced by Aviastar-SP in Ulyanovsk, the Il-476 has more powerful and efficient engines, redesigned wings, and reinforced landing gear.
40 aircraft for $2.6B says Janes'.That works out to almost exactly what I said,$60M/aircraft! QED.
Take a placebo NR.

Oh! Here's another titbit from Janes' about the IL-476.
http://www.janes.com/article/46098/russ ... -airlifter
Russia to develop A-100 AWACS based on upgraded Il-76MD-90A airlifter
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
Russia is to begin developing a prototype Airborne Warning And Control System (AWACS) aircraft based on the upgraded Ilyushin Il-76MD-90A (Il-476) airframe, it was announced on 21 November (2014).

Although plans to do so were first introduced in 2011, the first Il-76MD-90A airframe to be converted into an AWACS prototype arrived at the Taganrog-based Beriyev Aviation Scientific-Technical Complex (TANTK) on the shore of the Sea of Azov on the same day as the announcement, the TASS news agency reported.

The Il-76MD-90A-based platform will be designated the A-100 (the current Il-76 based AWACS, of which there are 20 currently in service with the Russian Air Force [VVS], is designated the A-50 'Mainstay').

While few details pertaining to the A-100 have been released, it has been revealed that it will be built around an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, as opposed to the mechanically scanned radar of the A-50.

IHS Jane's has previously reported that this new AESA will likely be the JSC REC 'Vega' Premier radar that is scanned mechanically in azimuth and electronically in elevation. As with the A-50, the A-100's radar antenna will be mounted in a rotating dorsal rotodome

While the AESA radar will provide a dramatic improvement in the platform's ability to detect and track both airborne and land-based targets, as well as making for a more reliable and easier to maintain solution, the move to the Il-76MD-90A airframe will bestow advantages from the new avionics (reduced crew workload), and improved fuel efficiency (cheaper to operate, and with increased time on station).

According to TASS, once developed and fielded, the A-100 will replace the A-50 in VVS service, although no timelines were disclosed. The VVS currently has 39 Il-76MD-90A airlifters under contract, but is understood to have a requirement for 100. It is likely that any A-100 order would be in addition to these airlifters.

According to TASS, the manufacturing cycle for one Il-76MD-90A aircraft is two years, and there are currently 13 such aircraft on the production line.

Related articles:
•Russia flies first radar- and avionics-upgraded Tu-160 bomber
•MiG-31 interception near North America suggests Russia changing offensive air ops
Reliability:Op Cactus
By the time the paras, led by Brigadier Farooq Balsara, had begun to plan the operations, naval reconnaissance aircraft were already over Maldives, sending back pictures of the Hulule airstrip which was to be the paras' launching pad. Within six hours of the Cabinet's approval, the first giant Il-76, carrying two companies of paratroopers along with brigadier Balsara and Bannerjie, rumbled off from the Agra airstrip. Immediately as the engines were cut at Hulule, the rear hatch of the Uyushin opened, disgorging the paras and their jeep-mounted recoilless guns. India Today report.

An emergency cabinet meeting followed and the go ahead was given to the IAF and Army to rush a Para force to the Maldives for the rescue of President and also to counter the mercenaries. Thus 2 IL- 76 of No 44 squadron was ordered to be got ready for the assault along with paratroops of the Indian army. The Illusion 76 is a Russian aircraft and can carry 45 tones and troops. It is a long range aircraft and an excellent adjunct to a nation’s quest for super power status. The command of the paratroops was handed over to Brigadier ‘Bull ‘Bulsara. Unfortunately he is no more now, but his action of leading the men on a mission 2000 miles in the Indian Ocean will live for long.

The Indian Intervention

The aircraft based at Agra were got ready in record time, as time was of fundamental importance. At the same time President Gayoom was told that help was on the way and he must hold on for a few hours till then. The two IL-76 took of for Agra for the Maldives for an operation to rescue the President and the island nation from the grip of the insurgents.

From the time the President rang the Indian Prime Minister the IAF and Indian Army were ready and landed in the Maldives in a record 12 hours. The flight was uneventful as the troops got ready. It was decided that in case the airfield was in the hands of the rebels, then the troops would be airdropped around the airfield.

As the massive jets with the troops neared the airfield the rebels who were about 80 in number were unnerved and tried to melt away. Thus a decision was taken to land the aircraft replete with the paratroops. The IL 76 landed on the runaway and the Para troops disembarked and spread out into the city. Some brief fighting took place and about 20 rebels were shot dead. Only one Indian soldier was injured.

Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/734093_o ... z3fyTtFaOJ
Last edited by Philip on 15 Jul 2015 20:13, edited 1 time in total.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:The C-17 deal was Snake-Oil Singh's promise to "India loves you" Dubya B.in exchange for the N-deal. It was nowhere an IAF priority and was done to keep Boeing and US manufacturers happy,extending the production line for a few more years,an issue in the US political forum.
The C-17 purchase was requested by the IAF. This has been confirmed by none other than ACM P.V. Naik, who also confirmed that an 'advanced variant' of the Il-76 was considered (and rejected).
PS:IL-476 costs:Not imagination not fiction at all. From your poorly-informed and researched statements,Janes' and other renowned global defence analysts must be smoking some sort of weed!

http://www.deagel.com/Military-Transpor ... 68004.aspx
So, you're finally accepting the RUB 140bn figure that I've been posting for two years now? Perhaps its time to move to phase two of the lecture then. That price FYI is valid at the then prevailing exchange rate, not the current exchange rate.

1. RUB 140 bn divided by 39 units. Divided by 30 (1 USD = 30 RUB). Gives $120 million/unit.
2. That is the flyaway price quoted to the Russian state. Unfortunately, export customers don't get it at the same cost.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

Let us move on.

This is getting nowhere. IF at all anything the C-17s will come.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

Please.please.don't reinvent mathematics! Your rouble-dollar rate may be that of the "NR Bank",but "Janes' clearly says "$2.6B".What does that work out to for approx. 40 aircraft? $60+M/aircraft not $120M.

And what was the cost of our order for C-17s as I posted earlier? Varying from $4+B to $5.8B,for just 10 aircraft! Even at the lower figure,it works out to $400M/aircraft. You can buy not less than 6 IL-476s for the price of just 1 C-17 if it is the lower figure and almost 10 if it the higher one.facts and figures indisputable.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

Sigh!!!!!!
40 aircraft for $2.6B says Janes'.That works out to almost exactly what I said,$60M/aircraft! QED.
Take a placebo NR.
We have been through this before ..... umpteen times.

Those numbers are the take-it-or-leave-it prices for the RuAF. 1) IAF wil never get them at that price - never. 2) IL is not making any money at those prices - they were forced upon them by their MoD

Just like the Rafale, IL is expected to make money via exports, the state can no longer afford to support them financially (this since around 2011ish).

There is a lot more to a "price" than just the fly away or any other price. I do not know all that goes into that "price", but what I/we do know is that C-17 has been selected and since it SEEMS to be a zero sum game, the IL is out. Simple as that.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by NRao »

Philip wrote: but "Janes' clearly says "$2.6B".What does that work out to for approx. 40 aircraft? $60+M/aircraft not $120M
That is for the RuAF.

Do you have a quote for the IAF?

Not that it matters. IAF has opted for the C-17 and the paperwork seems to be in the pipeline for an additional 6.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by putnanja »

The IAF deal also includes a comprehensive maintenance package, if I remember the details properly.

As pointed out multiple times before, IAF has decided to move on to other platforms from Illyushin aircrafts. IAF evaluated Il-476 too and rejected them. For the tankers, IAF has decided to not buy additional Il-78(Il-76 variant) inspite of commonality with existing Il-76s and Il-78s and instead go for A330-MRT.
Post Reply