Transport Aircraft for IAF

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Feb 2013 09:08

You don't ask,you won't get! I am sure that if we want the IL-476,deliveries can be hastened.Anyway that is speculative.Hard facts.

this one is a keeper

Yes we could have asked them Fedex it - much faster deliveries

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Feb 2013 10:43

All the more if C-17 was the plane to be ordered, the Higher price, there has been no reduction in Boeing price from the Original USD 5.8 Billion, only special communication equipment removed and the USD 4.1 Billion does not include GPS, which we will probably do on an annual basis

Then there is the Boeing, Are we going to be paying USD 250 million a year for 90% availability under GPS. that is without fuel and what is not covered under GPS. Then it going really eat into the IAF revenue budget.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Feb 2013 18:19

Aditya_V wrote:All the more if C-17 was the plane to be ordered, the Higher price, there has been no reduction in Boeing price from the Original USD 5.8 Billion, only special communication equipment removed and the USD 4.1 Billion does not include GPS, which we will probably do on an annual basis

Then there is the Boeing, Are we going to be paying USD 250 million a year for 90% availability under GPS. that is without fuel and what is not covered under GPS. Then it going really eat into the IAF revenue budget.

Where do you get your figures from? They are all new to me, which is why I ask. TIA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Feb 2013 18:54

Surya wrote:
You don't ask,you won't get! I am sure that if we want the IL-476,deliveries can be hastened.Anyway that is speculative.Hard facts.

There have been umpteen reports, for years now, that the Russians are in talks with India - and far more seriously with China. Neither have borne any fruits so far. Clearly the poster is not well informed.

In fact it was the Russians that identified Indian needs for a newer heavy air lift capability and pegged it at 25 IL-476s. This was around 2004-5ish.

Whatever made the IAF go down the C-17 path, cost was not a factor. I am not saying that is right or wrong, but, it is not something that should factor into a our discussion, again right or wrong. The IAF/Indian MoD has clearly - for reasons best known to them - have put their money where their mouth is.

I have not followed the IL-476 for a few months now, but, my feel is that the IL-476 is itself a white elephant. At least as far as the IAF is concerned. IMVVVHO of course.

On the 90% availability, please recall that when the IAF had sent out a tender for spares/support for the Russian planes (from non-Russian sources) they have expected a 50% for the Russian planes. IIRC the IL-76s were down to 2-3 (out of whatever they had at that point in time). Supporters of Russian attributed this to the plight of teh Russian industry after the break-up of the USSR. What has that go to do with 50% I am not sure. IAF planes have to fly no matter what predicament Russia is in.

The fact that RuAF - an AF AND a nation MUCH larger than India is buying JUST 39 IL-476s also needs to be factored in. RuAF has not received a new frame for some 20+ years.

The $100+ mill per copy of IL-476 paid by RuMoD will not be the price paid by India. That is an arm twister price. The manufacturers did not have any place else to go to and does NOT reflect a properly negotiated price. I do not expect the IL-476 to be priced badly (rleative to the C-17), but, that is not the price on which we can base our discussions.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2013 12:29

The engines and service pkgs of the ruaf 476 will be priced separately for sure.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Feb 2013 14:57

On Oct 4th 2-12,the Russian pres.Putin was test shown the aircraft,After this demo an official contract signing took place for 39 IL-476-90As at around 140bill roubles ($4.5B).More orders are expected with the Russian requirement alone being about 100 aircraft before 2020.A production rate of 18 per year is being aimed at within 5 years time,all aircraft to be built at Ulyanovsk.I've given in an earlier post the upgrade performance data,chief being payload up from 47t to 60t and new engines giving a fuel efficiency /range from 4000km to 5000km and a 10% reduction in landing/TO run.

In March 2006, the Australian government announced that the Australian Defence Forces would acquire up to 4 new Boeing C-17 external link Globemaster III strategic airlift planes and associated equipment for A$ 2 billion ($1.49 billion then conversion). In April 2011, Australia upped their order to 5 aircraft, and will soon add a 6th plane to their fleet.

Australia: C-17 Related Contracts & Events

Note that C-17 support is provided under a global support partnership with Boeing, which is covered separately. It’s also important to note that contract figures may not match government announcements. That’s because C-17 contracts with Boeing don’t include items like engines (another $35-38 million per plane), some internal equipment, accompanying spares, etc.

Just a comparison with the OZ acquisition,which appears to show at least $100mill less per aircraft,that too for half the number.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2013 15:31

Nobody is disputing the il476 could turn out to be a great plane and vfm as well.

But for delivery in 2012 not starting 2018 there was no game in town bar c17

Ilysuhin failed to provide proper spares and vendor support for our existing fleet of il76 and that led to grounding of part of the fleet and iaf looking for a third party would could guarantee some uptime. This when rosboronexport is supposed to be a fms type govt entity with everything under control. Everything sure was not under control these last few yrs.

Will ilyushin recover and start providing the level of service we need for existing fleet? That will decide if they ever get any further orders. Iaf has sent a message that just flyaway cost being low is not enough.

For reasons of secrecy the uptimes of our vital awacs and midas fleet is not being mentioned in same breath as the cargo haulers , but if they are facing a acute issues with spares so are these second lot and so are the chinese and paki il76

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Feb 2013 19:45

I don't dispute the timing of the C-17 order-it is somewhat similar to the Arjun/T-90 situ,when orders for the T-90s were placed Arjun hadn't yet made it.Russia similrly was in a transitional stage in getting the IL-476 production started at home instead of Tashkent ,now in independent Uzbekistan,which was the problem,spares,etc.The IL-476 hadn't flown at that time.

What I am on about is the misplaced priority-since we don not have an inter-continental mil. role to play at all unlike the UIS and NATO, and the cost.Priority-the speed,the indecent haste with which the deal was done,suiting and solving Boeing's immediate crisis,when we've seen how the artillery and sub situ gets worse by the day and the huge cost.Reading between the lines,we seem to have made a deal with the US in agreeing to buy US mil eqpt. in large qtys. after the N-deal was finalised.This best explains the several def. contracts going to the US in recent times,as we've seen with the AW,it is easy to manipulate the specs which will benefit a particular product best.The US also expected that the MMRCA deal was in their pocket and were livid with us after both its birds were dumped at stage 1.The US ambassador immediately resigned in protest.There are v. strong undercurrents out to scupper the Rafale deal and the AW helo scandal is the "foot in the doorway".Here,kudos to the IAF in particular for drawing up the entire technical selection process,which made it v. difficult for political considerations to manipulate the outcome.

Rather than banning suppliers,It would be preferable to have huge financial penalties imposed in case evidence of kickbacks/bribes are found later on.These penalties must be in the agreements signed which will hold in any international arbitration.If a ban must be imposed,it should be for that particular item/tender- a disqualification,not the entire list of wares which def. MNCs produce today.As some have said,a time will come when we will be banning all def. suppliers to our detriment!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Feb 2013 20:01

Here is the latest I could find as far as the RuAF is concerned:

Feb 5, 2013 :: Russian Air Force to receive 48 Il-476 heavy transport planes

PanARMENIAN.Net - The Russian Air Force's Military Transport Aviation (MTA) will receive a total of 48 Ilyushin Il-476 heavy transport planes by 2020, rather than the previously stated 39, its commander Col. Gen. Vladimir Benediktov said, according to RIA Novosti.

The Russian Defense Ministry said last October it had signed a contract worth about 140 billion rubles ($4 billion) with Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) for the delivery of 39 Il-476 planes by 2020.

“The MTA will receive its first series-produced [Il-476] planes by 2014, and a total of 48 by 2020,” Benediktov said.

The Il-476, (also known as the Il-76-MD-90A) is a significantly modernized variant of the Il-76 Candid transport plane, featuring a fully-digital flight control system, new avionics and PS-90A-76 engines with improved fuel efficiency systems.

A prototype of the plane carried out a maiden flight from the Aviastar plant in Ulyanovsk in September and will undergo a comprehensive test program for another year.

The Russian military has not received significant numbers of new large transport planes in the past 20 years.

So, per the latest info we have:

1) The current thinking is 48/6 = 8 planes per year. That is THE figure we have to go by - Russian source that too. Any other figure would be dis·in·gen·u·ous - but that is something to be expected from some
2) They have gone from a grand total of 39 to 48. As I stated, for such a large country and an equally large starved AF, even 48 is nothing. Meh, even the RuAF is not serious. (But that does not mean some Russian would not arm twist or bribe India into a deal)
3) More than India I would have expected China to jump into a deal. They had ordered a ton of IL-76s and backed out (for good reason). Nothing so far. Not saying it will not happen, but, the fact we are not hearing anything what so ever (except some Chinese web sites) has to count for some thing as we post/type
4) Nothing from Indian side that I have ever seen. Russians have mention "talks with India" but nothing more.

My feel:
a) India will look at the life-cycle-cost, not what was the last sale price as mostly quoted here. The price paid by Russia does NOT count
b) India will check out the after sales efforts already in place. It is too early to expect a good supply chain in place for the IL-476 and that by itself will influence the IAF. And rightly so
c) IF (Big if) the IAF orders any more C-17s then IMHO the IL-476 path will close. I think the IAF has options for 6 more, on the current contract. If at all that should happen a few months after the IAF gets the first 1/2 C-17s, whenever that is
d) IF cost is the sole consideration the Russians should have picked up pretty much every tender that is out there. Clearly there are other factors - what they are I do not know and nor do I know if they are totally fair. I expect some politics to enter the picture and some skewed accounting - buy 40 MKIs to account for the help India got for a nuke sub ................ something like that

Sunilchurchill · Post by **Sunilchurchill** » 18 Feb 2013 10:07

Does An70 make a logical addition to IAF stable...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Feb 2013 10:43

Is there anything that nicely fits in the AN-70 but not in the C-130J? The IAF has till now showed no interest in the A400M.

If not, AN-70 IMHO is too much of a problem child to adopt. Besides there is a chance of being reliant on the Chinese for its spares in the future.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2013 11:44

Will quote again later from another Russian source about 18 per yr. production to be ramped up before 2018.100 expected to be the req. by the same time.Anyway,the point is that the bird is now in production in large orders.any takers?!

PS:AN-70 also being upgraded and modernised.More on this later.

srin · Post by **srin** » 18 Feb 2013 13:08

The IL-76 had a lot of logistical restrictions when it came to high-altitude deployments. Just two examples: here and here

You can't land in Thoise if temperature is about 15 C, which means you can only land in early mornings.
You can't carry a T-72 tank and have fuel to come around.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Feb 2013 14:58

The IL-476 should be able to satisfy most if not all needs. Just that the C-17 should do it better when life cycles are taken into account.

Conspiracy theories and in-built biases notwithstanding, the 476 is still an unproven plane - just a fact. Contrary to some oft repeated statementS it is not in production (at least that I know of).

And why even china has not shown any interest remains to be explained.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2013 18:30

Look, for "doubting Thomases",I have full details with me.It "is" in production.The first official flight of the revitalised 476 took place on Sept 22nd 2012 at 1530 hrs.with ,"Honoured test pilot,Hero of Russia, Nikolai Kuimov" at the controls.On 4th Oct. the aircraft was presented to Pres. Putin who specially visited the Aviastar plant at Ulyanovsk.

In congratulating the team,Putin also said that," The event we have witnessed today is not a mere flight of a revitalised il-76 aircraft .Effectively,it is a drastically upgraded aircraft by 70% .We have got an advanced aircraft with cutting edge characteristics in terms of range,reliability,efficiency and lifting capability.I am certain this aircraft will be in demand both in this country and with our partners abroad."

Following the flight was a ceremony where the Russian Def. Min. signed a contract for 39 aircraft for $4.5B ($115M per unit).Putin's chief of staff Sergei Ivanov also said that this was the largest aircraft contract for Russian industry.It will also serve in a new tanker version to replace the IL-78 and in several specialised versions ,with the Russian Vice-Premier Dimitry Rogozin saying that according to the "2020 Acquisition Programme for State Armament",more than 100 IL-476 -90As will be required.From 2018 production will touch a high of 18 per annum.

The test aircraft was made as far back as 2005 (c/n 81-05) to test the PS-90A-76 turbofan,as well as new avionics now being made in Ulyanovsk.Further flight tests were made in 2011 and 2012 .The tanker derivative will be known as IL-78MK-90s.

AN-70 upgrades:
Maiden flight,27th Sept.2012.
Specs are for both Russian and Ukranian def, ministries.
Powerplant.Propfans SV-27 replaced,Space between front and rear props increased by 300mm.FADEC,aux power,blah,blah,etc.New avionics.

New production at KAZAN with components made at Ulyanovsk and Kiev (Antonov).production rate of 12 per yr. by 2020.However,oders will be placed only after the culmination of the test programme later this year.

AN-148 in commercial production.Interesting snippet.2 VIP (not VVIP!) aircraft for presidential duties for Prs. Putin have been ordered."2 seats in the comfortable main pass. cabin with a sofa,12 seats in Business class and 25 in economy class".This is a 76 seater pass. capacity aircraft.There are also 2 new IL-96 VIP airliners for the pres. detachment,meant for top govt. officials.

Some MTA info:
20t payload,or 140 troops/90 paras,80 casualties,MTO 68t with a 20t paylOAd,range 2000km.4000k with 12t payload.Ferry range 7000+km with 25t fuel.3,300m max. operating airfield alt.cargo hold lateral cross section 3.45 X 3.4M.First flight 2017,production in 2018.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 18 Feb 2013 18:56

the thing is that we need more than 16 heavy lifters for transport roles where we need to fulfill our needs

c17 maybe a good transport aircraft but we can't afford it in a large number.

what we need is maybe get the 16 c17 for sure & then order il476 near about 2015-2016 when the russian plane became operational & prove itself in duty.

1 c17 == 4-5 il476 (approx)

what we need is support & spare's & Russians are not gonna scew-up this time when they know that we can get what we want money is not a problem nor is any restrictions by any other state.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Feb 2013 19:57

the IL476 to be considered must pass trials in India and make sure to remove all the payload and temp restrictions the present IL76 suffers from in Leh and Thoise ops. and its inability to airlift even a T72 without a 2 hr wiggy wiggy and no can do for the wider T90/Arjun/various TELARs limits its utility in moving high value cargo unlike the wider belly of C17.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 18 Feb 2013 20:49

Philip wrote:What I am on about is the misplaced priority--since we don not have an inter-continental mil. role to play at all..

We are not the ones to determine what the IAF's priorities are and whether they are misplaced or not. We can only speculate as chair marshals. And C-17 is not only for intercontinental roles--it is similar to Il-76 but can do a few things the 76 cannot.

Besides, the Il-476 has a completely new wing design—the most critical thing in an airplane. I am sure the IAF will watch as the RuAF tests and proves it for at least a decade.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Feb 2013 20:50

Singha wrote:the IL476 to be considered must pass trials in India and make sure to remove all the payload and temp restrictions the present IL76 suffers from in Leh and Thoise ops. and its inability to airlift even a T72 without a 2 hr wiggy wiggy and no can do for the wider T90/Arjun/various TELARs limits its utility in moving high value cargo unlike the wider belly of C17.

So, what you are telling me is that a chaapa from Putin will not do? Aysse kayse ho sakta hai bhai jhan? Jindagi ayse kaise chal sakti hai? People who have direct connection with Putin say so. Ex-admin, expert in .......... Jaara to socho. They all trump published reports.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Feb 2013 20:59

NRao wrote:
Singha wrote:the IL476 to be considered must pass trials in India and make sure to remove all the payload and temp restrictions the present IL76 suffers from in Leh and Thoise ops. and its inability to airlift even a T72 without a 2 hr wiggy wiggy and no can do for the wider T90/Arjun/various TELARs limits its utility in moving high value cargo unlike the wider belly of C17.
So, what you are telling me is that a chaapa from Putin will not do? Aysse kayse ho sakta hai bhai jhan? Jindagi ayse kaise chal sakti hai? People who have direct connection with Putin say so. Ex-admin, expert in .......... Jaara to socho. They all trump published reports.

Broucherties suddenly became fashionable on BRF?

\

Have a test done of C 17 vs Il 476 vs Airbus XXX and decide the winner.

If it could done for refullers, why not for others?

This thing stinks, just like AW story.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 18 Feb 2013 21:37

Sanku wrote:Broucherties suddenly became fashionable on BRF? \

Have a test done of C 17 vs Il 476 vs Airbus XXX and decide the winner.

If it could done for refullers, why not for others?

This thing stinks, just like AW story.

There can be no comparative trials with an imaginary aircraft. Comparative performance with existing IL76 has already been published by Broadsword. The C17 and the AW101 deals are in no way similar, given what each brings to the table, whatever hafta paid notwithstanding.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Feb 2013 22:47

KrishnaK wrote: There can be no comparative trials with an imaginary aircraft. Comparative performance with existing IL76 has already been published by Broadsword. The C17 and the AW101 deals are in no way similar, given what each brings to the table, whatever hafta paid notwithstanding.

The MRCA had at least two even more imaginary a/c, the Gripen and Mig 35. Not to mention that the configurations that US teens had were also not the standard configurations.

And broadswords comparative analysis doe not count for anything, its just a blog, we have done such on BRF which are more belivable. And this without hafta, you put in his "BOEING" banner that he carries everywhere (not to mention track II and his desire to see MRCA cancelled) his analysis is worse than useless, its positively dangerous.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Feb 2013 22:51

Sanku wrote: Have a test done of C 17 vs Il 476 vs Airbus XXX and decide the winner.

If it could done for refullers, why not for others?

This thing stinks, just like AW story.

How many times does this need to be posted? There wasn't a single Il-476 airframe available when the IAF tested and evaluated the C-17. There wasn't even any official word at the time about when it would be built. The C-17 was tested in Leh by the IAF and its performance was found satisfactory. The C-17 deal was signed in June 2011 when the IL-476 was still a paper plane. The first flight of the IL-476 was in September 2012. And first flight does not mean it is ready for evaluation by the IAF. It made its first long test flight on Jan 29 2013: Link

The IAF would have needed a time machine to do the comparative evaluation.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Feb 2013 23:09

IL-476 Production Video ( in russian )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHNxGw3fx-4

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2013 23:16

I agree with Nachi and others.The IL wasn't available when the evaluation was done.Even for future orders,the aircraft must be tested and evaluated.We are doing no nation a favour,business must be business.I've always maintained the policy,"horses for courses".

My points about the C-17 deal are different.To me the govts. priorities are lopsided.We do Boeing a huge favour in jalthi quick time,as I've pointed out chronologically,and that appears to be a political decision more than a military one (though I'm sure that anyone in the IAF is not beaming at the bonus!),but fiddle and f*rt about artillery,subs,etc. Even the LCA staggers on year after year,with seemingly little nurturing from the GOI.I was reading a lengthy piece about the LCA by a former Air Cmde.,the time taken for MK-1,the time to be taken for MK-2-which will be one metre longer,requiring greater modifications and another full round of testing,anyway,even he said that the problem of production had still not been resolved.We now have an official statement that we will not be asking anyone for help in production.The requirement is 200 aircraft-when will they ever arrive?

Sorry for digressing,but I'm only pointing out the knee-jerk attitude of the UPA GOI/MOD.If the Economist criticises the good Dr.Singh,he immediately ushers in FDI in retail! What will it take for our regime of the day to get off its backside and courageously take decisions on items that are crucial to the forces' capability of defending the country ? If we could resolve the lack of a heavy transport with such indecent haste,and at such high cost, (GOI's track record of decision making),then why not go the whole hog with the other infinitely long-pending decisions too? Frankly,when a man is in the twilight of his life as Dr.Singh is,and wants posterity to remember his "good deeds",he has nothing to lose by striding boldly into the future,cutting through invidious red tape and sending those responsible for inordinate delays in PSU performance ,packing,as Putin has done in Russia.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Feb 2013 23:19

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote: Have a test done of C 17 vs Il 476 vs Airbus XXX and decide the winner.

If it could done for refullers, why not for others?

This thing stinks, just like AW story.
How many times does this need to be posted? There wasn't a single Il-476 airframe available when the IAF tested and evaluated the C-17. .

This will be posted as long the basic facts are not understood -- viz --

No one can make this claim without sending a RFP to the manufacturer. Period. Just can not. Not sending the RFP itself was a criminal act. In the past there have been RFPs where people chose to opt out making it a one horse race, even then specs were changed to get more options in.

In the given time frame, it stands to reason -- Il would have easily patched together an airframe like Gripen and Mig 35 did for MRCA trials, and if they could not, time should have been given. There was no hurry?

In any case the whole "today or bust" for C 17 was done precisely to make sure that Boeing had not closed its line and Il did not have a chance to react.

One week (well not one week, maybe 6 months, but the point is same) and the picture would have changed.

This is precisely like "VIP must stand up to use the loo" type of critical requirements that were added to turn the VIP helo into one Heli show.

A country which cant get Arty guns and combat a/cs for decades cant wait for a week to buy trucks. Wah ji wah.

The whole claim that "C 17 was the only a/c is bogus because "C 17 was the only a/c which was considered by RFPs" obviously C 17 was the only a/c is a tautologically true.

C 17 came first in a competition where only C 17 was invited. Amazing achievement I say.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Feb 2013 23:33

Butting in here.

Forget the time when the C-17 was contracted. Even today, is the IL-476 ready for trials? I don't know what Sanku ji means by Airbus XXX (if he meant Airbus 400M, I have nothing to say) ready for trials today.

Then why this kolaveri?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Feb 2013 23:33

No one can make this claim without sending a RFP to the manufacturer. Period. Just can not. Not sending the RFP itself was a criminal act. In the past there have been RFPs where people chose to opt out making it a one horse race, even then specs were changed to get more options in.

So why didn't the IAF send an RFP to SUkhoi as part of the MMRCA saga? That must be a criminal act as well I guess. After all the IAF could not make the claim that all the fighters Sukhoi built were too big to fit into the IAF's "medium" requirement without sending the RFP, as per you.

As for your second point, isn't that exactly what is at the center of the whole AW101 scam?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Feb 2013 23:34

There wasn't a single Il-476 airframe available when the IAF tested and evaluated the C-17

Is there a production one available even now? 2104 is the earliest. Putin excluded.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Feb 2013 23:37

nachiket wrote:
No one can make this claim without sending a RFP to the manufacturer. Period. Just can not. Not sending the RFP itself was a criminal act. In the past there have been RFPs where people chose to opt out making it a one horse race, even then specs were changed to get more options in.
So why didn't the IAF send an RFP to SUkhoi as part of the MMRCA saga? That must be a criminal act as well I guess. After all the IAF could not make the claim that all the fighters Sukhoi built were too big to fit into the IAF's "medium" requirement without sending the RFP, as per you.

As for your second point, isn't that exactly what is at the center of the whole AW101 scam?

Should the RFPs be send to Su? Wrong analogy
1) They already had 6 contenders
2) Su 30s are already being inducted (unlike Il 476 or Airbus XXX)

Yes the C 17 and AW scams are almost exact.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Feb 2013 23:40

indranilroy wrote: Even today, is the IL-476 ready for trials?

Hush you unbeliever!

But seriously, you have to understand why these arguments are being made. They would have never come up had the IAF bought a Russian aircraft in a single vendor deal instead of an American one.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Feb 2013 23:45

Sanku wrote: Should the RFPs be send to Su? Wrong analogy
1) They already had 6 contenders
2) Su 30s are already being inducted (unlike Il 476 or Airbus XXX)

So what? Sukhoi makes other aircraft too, like the Su-35BM. And the whole point is that the IAF can't tell without RFPs whether or not Sukhoi has anything to sell us for the MRCA. As per your logic of course.

Yes the C 17 and AW scams are almost exact.

Uh, no. Specs were changed in the AW scam to keep one vendor from being disqualified. If the IAF had changed specs or timeline requirements to include an imaginary aircraft, then the IL-476 deal would have been a real scam.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Feb 2013 23:57

From a pure blooded source (I swear):

Jan 29, 2013 :: IL-476 Airlifter Makes First Long Test Flight

NIZHNY NOVGOROD, January 29 (RIA Novosti) - A prototype Ilyushin Il-76MD-90A (also known as the Il-476) heavy-lift transport plane completed its first prolonged test flight on Tuesday, its manufacturer Aviastar said. {Sorry NOT Putin}

The flight, which lasted four hours and 25 minutes at altitudes of up to 10,000 meters (33,000 feet), was designed to assess the performance of its onboard avionics, engines, automated control system, and other characteristics, Ulyanovsk-based Aviastar said.

The prototype will soon be sent to the Zhukovsky flight test center near Moscow for further trials.

The Il-76MD-90A is an extensively modernized version of the forty-year-old Il-76 military transport aircraft, fitted with a new wing, fuel-efficient high-bypass Aviadvigatel PS-90A turbofans, and a modernized cockpit with so-called "glass cockpit" displays, allowing the flight crew to be reduced to three people.

Russia's Defense Ministry signed a contract last October for delivery of 39 Il-76MD-90As, to be built before 2018.

Aviastar hopes to build up to 100 such aircraft by 2020 for Russian state customers, the company has previously said.

The source. Extrapolated from this are posts above (in production, will buy 100, Putin said, I have information, Putin's sidekick said, etc).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Feb 2013 00:13

Making of a new Russian military cargo plane IL-476

Posted six days ago, but has a good deal of info on the new engines;

This is the newest version of legendary IL-76, a plane that is known all over around the world for its reliability, enormous load capacity and high speed. New version of "ilyushin" - the IL-476, received 4 new "Aviadvigatel PS-90" Russian made high-bypass commercial turbofans rated at 16000 kgf (157 kN, 35,300 lbf) of thrust. These engines are developed to satisfy the demands for economy, performance and exhaust emissions. It represented a huge advance over previous generation engines and is almost double the efficiency of its predecessors as well as being a worthy competitor to current generation of western engines.

Design features
It incorporates many firsts in a Russian engine with advanced technology features such as:
High-bypass turbofan design for economy
Integrated exhaust with exhaust mixer for good efficiency
Acoustically treated exhaust duct for low noise
Full-authority digital engine control (FADEC)
Long service life based on on-condition maintenance
Modular design for ease of maintenance
It was first certified in 1992 and has been in service since.

40 of these planes are currently on order, but the number might raise due to the popularity of IL-76 that is used 38 countries including western-Europe and the United States.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 19 Feb 2013 03:08

On the bright side, we got a newer and nicer AWACS chapati carrier

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Feb 2013 03:32

One prototype is known as the "endurance prototype".A structural component set was sent to Zhukovsky (Moscow area) from Ulyanovsk for static tests at TsAGI.There are two prototypes ,c/n-01 and c/n-02.Roll out of the first was 15th Dec 2011.Flight testing is continuing both for production and because there are a number of derivatives to come as well.The derivatives include quick redeployment of the multi-function versions,for airdrop of heavy vehicles,cargo and paratroops.The baseline version can be tailored for fire-fighting,flying hospitals,airborne command posts,and AEW &C versions.

The first flying prototype was to have flown to Zhukovsky (Moscow) in late Jan,early Feb.where further flying tests would continue.

According to the Aviastar-SP Dir-Gen. Sergei Dementyev,three production std. aircraft are under manufacture,since 2010,two to be completed in 2013,with deliveries in 2014.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Feb 2013 03:38

Philip ji,

Why are you pushing for IL-476?

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 19 Feb 2013 04:19

indranilroy wrote:Philip ji,

Why are you pushing for IL-476?

The THRUST of his argument is to get LIFT for Illusion 476 aircraft which some consider a DRAG on IAF resources

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Feb 2013 04:32

Philip and Natasha have an understanding

. You bad boy you !

http://brucemctague.com/wp-content/uplo ... tasha3.jpg

Just kidding of course, I'm waiting for you to launch into your siren song about Beriev seaplanes being an alternative to CVNs.

Where is Shankarovsky and his "for the love Mother Russia' stuff?

More seriously, Rosoboronexport’s Komardin is one big russkie idiot. His blast at AI is not just at the media as he claims but against SDREs in general. How dare you little people NOT give us your money?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 19 Feb 2013 05:20

hnair wrote:On the bright side, we got a newer and nicer AWACS chapati carrier

Sir you may have a point there the 476 should fit in nicely with the existing 76-90 airframes as the will share the PS90s. Having said that though I would think the same could be true for the 330s as well if IAF brings em in as Tankers first. Question is no operational 300s modified as AWACS so that cost needs to be taken into account but the life cycle costs and fleet commonality are big pluses then as well.

On another note in the last month or one before cant remember both AFM and ACM monthly's had a para stating that the IAF has identified a new requirement for Heavy transport and the 476 is the likely candidate. It does also mention that this reqirement is beyond the C17 acquisition. Not sure how true it is but if this materialises IAF will end up with a effing huge strategic airlift capability onlee me thinks.