Transport Aircraft for IAF

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 19 Aug 2015 22:03

India should stop getting more C-17, and focus on C295 production, replace avro and try to maritime version of it in service. the 8000 Cr can be made to good use to build indigenous capability. for now 10 C-17 and several IL-76 would suffice.

More C-17 can be revisited when USAF is ready to reduce inventory for C-17, at a second hand price.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Aug 2015 22:29

India had options on the original order. The need for more C-17 was always there. They had issues with funds for them, which seems to have been resolved.

Besides there is substantial diff between the new and old planes cockpits. Second hand that they are. Perhaps Boeing will need to refurbish them

And the IL-76s are due to be retired starting in about 7 years.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 20 Aug 2015 10:08

Is this the official twitter account of IAF ???

Because it says this

Looking for solution on C-17 dilemma....May look for alternative lifters like A400M or Antonov
#IAF #AirForce

https://twitter.com/IAF_INDIA

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 20 Aug 2015 10:16

If there is a big market for the C-17s maybe we can just buy the entire manufacturing infra and export for cheap and better maintain the aircraft in our own inventory. They should be going strong for another 2-3 decades at least.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 20 Aug 2015 10:59

tushar_m wrote:Is this the official twitter account of IAF ???

Because it says this
Looking for solution on C-17 dilemma....May look for alternative lifters like A400M or Antonov
#IAF #AirForce
https://twitter.com/IAF_INDIA

It's a Fanboy account ..which was already discussed somewhere here

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2015 11:41

usaf has 125 C17. its inevitable that number will come down imo and we should put our name in line to get some 2nd hand ones later.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Aug 2015 14:22

RoyG wrote:If there is a big market for the C-17s maybe we can just buy the entire manufacturing infra and export for cheap and better maintain the aircraft in our own inventory. They should be going strong for another 2-3 decades at least.

The reason that the production line has been shut is because they have largely met all that demand.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Aug 2015 14:46

Singha wrote:usaf has 125 C17. its inevitable that number will come down imo and we should put our name in line to get some 2nd hand ones later.

225. Probably go down to about 180 in the long run, barring a new major overseas campaign.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Aug 2015 17:08

IAF moves Rs 4,000-crore proposal to upgrade IL76/78 transport fleet

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 27 Aug 2015 06:56

Austin wrote:IAF moves Rs 4,000-crore proposal to upgrade IL76/78 transport fleet

Good move to keep them around since C-17 won't be coming easily in the future.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2015 09:45

Inevitable.

How many 476s can that amount buy?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 28 Aug 2015 02:06

Antonov proposes An-188, an An-70 variant with turbofans instead of turboprops

http://www.janes.com/article/52287/pari ... t-aircraft

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 30 Oct 2015 19:45

Up!

. Tata C295 - no news
. IL76/78/Midas/Phalcon engine and avionics upgrades

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 30 Oct 2015 19:52

JTull wrote:Up!

. Tata C295 - no news
. IL76/78/Midas/Phalcon engine and avionics upgrades

Phalcon already uses upgraded engines (PS-90) and avionics. Not sure if Israelis will be happy to fly it back to Russia with all their gizmos on it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Oct 2015 23:00

Parrikar going to Russia to finalise deals for Modi to sign in December

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar, on the eve of his departure to Russia, says he hopes to "prepare some [contracts for signing during] Prime Minister Narendra Modi's annual summit visit to Russia in December.

.....................................................

The proposal for India and Russia to co-develop two major aircraft - the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) and the Multi-Role Transport Aircraft (MRTA) - has been in trouble for some time. Parrikar spelt out the problems in both projects.

"As for the FGFA, negotiations will proceed further and we have halted ourselves to establish things clear in our minds. But with the Multi-Role Transport Aircraft, there are serious issues needing clarification, let me be frank. There are some serious observations which need to be clarified and reviewed properly," said the Indian defence minister.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Oct 2015 23:58

Now that we have 10 ton enabled C295W. Is that 20 tons still a valid use case of the Airforce? Or has that changed now?

If they push for 25-28 tons, won't it allow IAF to not worry about extra C17s class plane and be satisfied with what we have the 10/11? Now that C17 line is shut, will it force the IAF to review it's requirement?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Oct 2015 01:01

To some extent it has forced the IAF to reevaluate: "Upgrade" the already upgraded IL-76s.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 31 Oct 2015 01:06

I think the upgrades were always there, just hidden to make demand and reason for purchase of C17s. We still flog the mig-21..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Oct 2015 01:21

If that is true, then what is there to reeval? The IAF got what they wanted: Plan B.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 31 Oct 2015 06:19

By Manu Pubby

Manohar Parrikar's Russia visit: Military transport aircraft project on mind

NEW DELHI: On his first visit to Russia, defence minister Manohar Parrikar's biggest challenge will be to rescue a joint project to develop a new generation military transport aircraft that is rapidly steering towards cancellation.

While Parrikar is expected to discuss several major acquisitions, including a possible purchase of two new Kilo class submarines and the S 400 air defence system, the biggest concern is on the Multi Role Transport Aircraft (MTA) project that was firmed up in 2009.

Sources told ET that serious differences have cropped up in the project that was being slotted to replace the An 32 transport fleet of the Air Force. While as part of the initial offering, the MTA was to have futuristic technology including a full authority digital engine control ( FADEC) system. However, Russia has not been able to convince the Indian side that it would be able to incorporate this and other systems into the aircraft. "We have several questions that need to be answered and if there is no satisfactory response, a quick decision on the future of the project needs to be taken," a senior Defence Ministry functionary told ET. Questions are also likely to be raised by the Indian side on the progress of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project which is awaiting the next step of signing of a firm contract.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2015 12:48

like all heavy haulers in mil domain, esp soviet kit, the Ruslan AN124 has low pressure ample number of wheels and a very economical takeoff and landing run even at max payload.

Take-off run distance (maximum take-off weight): 2,520 m (8,270 ft)
Landing roll distance at maximum landing weight: 900 m (3,000 ft)

way I see it , if 2nd hand c17 cannot be got cheaply, let us also join the bandwagon for the new AN124T line ... the russians despite it being a ukrainian owned now, are extensively using it to support the Latakia presence.

2ndly, we need to stop pissing around and make the necessary changes/aprons needed to fly C17 and AN124T into the new ALGs all along the line. there will be no time and space to trickle feed supplies in a crisis using An32 and C130. cheen is well aware of the limitations of such places.

a few C17/An124 sorties with heavy pallets of ammo and ICVs/truck artillery can mean the diff between winning and losing contested places.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 31 Oct 2015 13:25

Singha wrote:like all heavy haulers in mil domain, esp soviet kit, the Ruslan AN124 has low pressure ample number of wheels and a very economical takeoff and landing run even at max payload.

Take-off run distance (maximum take-off weight): 2,520 m (8,270 ft)
Landing roll distance at maximum landing weight: 900 m (3,000 ft)

way I see it , if 2nd hand c17 cannot be got cheaply, let us also join the bandwagon for the new AN124T line ... the russians despite it being a ukrainian owned now, are extensively using it to support the Latakia presence.

2ndly, we need to stop pissing around and make the necessary changes/aprons needed to fly C17 and AN124T into the new ALGs all along the line. there will be no time and space to trickle feed supplies in a crisis using An32 and C130. cheen is well aware of the limitations of such places.

a few C17/An124 sorties with heavy pallets of ammo and ICVs/truck artillery can mean the diff between winning and losing contested places.

That is a minimum 3000mtrs runway requirement plus overrun areas on both approach and takeoff. That is a long runway. I don't know of any ALG in the hilly areas which have that kind of luxury in space. Heck most IAF airfield I have operated from will fail the length requirements for Max Take off weight sorties. Reduced cargo can utilise An 124.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 31 Oct 2015 14:44

If we're giving this large order for C-295, can't we get Tatas to partner EADS to develop this intermediate lifter?

Also, one of the oft-ignored challenges building a purely domestic airlifter is the lack of certification experience as we blindly passport FAA/JAA/EASA certificates. IMO Saras suffers from some of these aspects, and MTA will no doubt face the same challenges although Russians have more experience than us. Working with Europeans will also get us access to better western engines and off-the-shelf components, which can then be indigenised incrementally after due certification. This will anyway have to undertaken with C-295 supply chain.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2015 18:09

I suppose even reduced weight but volumetric payloads like Akash system, radars could be lifted by C17/An124

but good aprons will be required not a dusty field.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Nov 2015 17:58

I don't know how this media report was missed.OK given for the upgrade of ALL 27 IL-76 aircraft,including the IL-78 tankers and AWACS variants.This will add another 15-20 years to their life.The upgrades will include new engines,avionics,etc.,probably bringing them upto 476 std.with a smaller 3 man crew. This is a very sensible decision as new C-17s are not available,production ended and if we want new aircraft,the IL-476 is the obvious bird,available at v.reasonable cost too. With so many aircraft in the inventory,it would be worthwhile for an overhaul and support entity to be set up in India .In fact after the first batch of IL-76s are upgraded,the rest could be upgraded in India. 2 more Phalcon AWACS are in the pipeleine and who knows,perhaps more new-gen IL-78 tankers may be acquired if their costs are significantly lower than the A-330s.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 01 Nov 2015 18:33

Philip wrote:if we want new aircraft,the IL-476 is the obvious bird,available at v.reasonable cost too.

/Philip mode on.
Let Russia induct 100 of it first.
/Philip mode off.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Nov 2015 00:33

JTull wrote:If we're giving this large order for C-295, can't we get Tatas to partner EADS to develop this intermediate lifter?

EADS, or rather Airbus already has an in-production aircraft in the intermediate+ category i.e A-400M.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 02 Nov 2015 01:28

That's almost 40 tonne capacity. We're talking similar to MTA capacity of 20 tonnes.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Nov 2015 04:12

JTull wrote:That's almost 40 tonne capacity. We're talking similar to MTA capacity of 20 tonnes.

The C-295 is available in the 10 ton category. There's unlikely to be a business case for a developing an aircraft from ground-up, that will be only marginally higher on the scale. Especially in such a heavily crowded segment - C-130J, KC-390, C-2, An-178.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Nov 2015 06:51

all the small fry suffer from volumetric constraints. for eg if the IL476 has same cabin cross section as IL76 it can barely take a T72 tank with wiggy wiggy loading process, not a T90 .

A400M, AN124T and AN70 might be better options as cargo haulers.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Nov 2015 08:35

Embraer KC-390 is a better choice , much more modern almost ready , we can cut a deal with Brazil for lic production at HAL and for work share agreement with them with certain TOT and gradual indiginisation , Brazil economy is not doing great these days and we can get a good deal with negotiated well.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Nov 2015 10:37

No economy is doing well. Everyone is in the same boat.

We could share sunk costs and move further development of an70 to India. The engine needs some refining and we can provide the money and infrastructure to finish it up. We take an equity position in the project. All exports happen through India. Cant imagine Ukraine ordering more than 10 and Russia will probably continue to invest in 476 line. This cuts down development time and benefits everyone.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Nov 2015 11:05

Thakur,the Russians have already ordered 40+ with variants by 2020,100 is the fig. given.Extra payload,range and a smaller crew.The MTA fuselage cross-section and cockpit is identical to the new IL476.The IAF haven't complained about the IL-76 in over 2 decades of operations.Why all 27 in service are being upgraded.They cost a lot less than other competition.Details posted long ago.

The C-295 is needed for AVRO replacements,supposedly to be built by Tatas.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 02 Nov 2015 18:40

Philip wrote:Thakur,the Russians have already ordered 40+ with variants by 2020,100 is the fig. given.Extra payload,range and a smaller crew.The MTA fuselage cross-section and cockpit is identical to the new IL476.The IAF haven't complained about the IL-76 in over 2 decades of operations.Why all 27 in service are being upgraded.They cost a lot less than other competition.Details posted long ago.

Yes yes, Roosi systems just need promised orders while desi systems need to be inducted in hundreds before being pitched for exports.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Nov 2015 18:47

LOL, you said it regarding his brazen hypocrisy re: all things Indian vs all things Russian.

Meanwhile, why can't we just cancel the darn MTA & focus on localizing the C-130? Or the KC-390? The MTA seems to be yet another boondoggle for only Russian benefit with HAL doing next to zilch as vs original aims.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Nov 2015 21:45

For India, "Russia" implies a component of transfer of design and manufacturing. Hard to say, since we do not have visibility, but I suspect this transfer also includes some amount of access to Russian R&D data, which could take India eons to gather.

I think that is where the rub is. The two happily sign agreements, but there is a gap in their expectations. Hard to bridge that.

Meanwhile, IAF numbers will decline if action is not taken.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Nov 2015 23:13

I don't like one thing about Parrikar, he is an yes-man to Modi. Has taken the fall for him a couple of times already. But I love his decisiveness, and the fact that he is able to intervene and bring all parties to the table as the MoD should. He has made sure that LCA, HTT-40, AMCA are a success (It is all for ADA/HAL to squander away). I am betting on that capability to bring the IAF, IA and HAL to the table and chalk out a firm plan for MRTA, something which HAL/UAC can make in 6-7 years. If MRTA has to materialize, it has to be an Indian push. So let's not push for unobtainums (IAF last time asked for engine requirements which could not be met by ANY existing engine in the world). Otherwise just junk it, buy more C-295s and/or C-130Js (I suggest the latter for commonality and better high field performance).

I don't suggest the KC-390s because, there is no point of building an assembly line for screwdrivergiri of 40 odd-planes. At least with the C-130Js we will have commonality in the service, and potentially better high and hot field performance (considering 4 turboprop engines).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Nov 2015 00:52

>> I don't like one thing about Parrikar, he is an yes-man to Modi. Has taken the fall for him a couple of times already.

how so ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2015 02:24

Chander episode, Rafale deal

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 03 Nov 2015 06:48

For MRTA and IL-76/78 upgrade, India should ask for ToT of PD-14 engine series from Russia.