Transport Aircraft for IAF

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Nov 2015 07:46

Whats the point. We will still assemble it. We learn nothing by such transfers.

Get CFM Leap 1A which is 33000 pounds of thrust. It won't be the 34000 pounds that pd-14m is but will be far more reliable and will give us far greater range. The russians can use pd-14m for their orders. We need to get a western engine. Otherwise we will continue to have low uptimes for this fleet as well.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Nov 2015 08:03

leap would be great. it is the current uber spec among commercial engines. chinese are running with it for C919 which just rolled out.

http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/engines/leap

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Nov 2015 10:47

Leap/PW/PD-14 are commercial engine optimised and built for narrow body aircraft , these wont be used on military aircraft not at this early stage of their life , HAL as mentioned they would use PS-90-A76 for MTA which is a military variant of civil PS-90

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2015 12:39

Austin wrote:Leap/PW/PD-14 are commercial engine optimised and built for narrow body aircraft , these wont be used on military aircraft not at this early stage of their life , HAL as mentioned they would use PS-90-A76 for MTA which is a military variant of civil PS-90

They dropped the plan to employ the PD-14 because the IAF declared it to be ineffective. The same doesn't necessarily apply to the CFM product. And as a rule of thumb a western engine will be superior in terms of reliability and service life.

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). - Link

The bone of contention is the Aviadvigatel PD-14M Engine which has been offered by Russian company United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) to power Multi-Role Transport Aircraft (MTA) aircrafts. IAF see the performance of PD-14M Engine inadequate for operations in Mountain terrain of Himalayas and wants a much more powerful engine with better Maintenance cycle.

IAF and HAL are also still contemplating the choice of engine and might prefer a Western-made engines over the Russian power plant. - Link

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2015 12:47

HAL as mentioned they would use PS-90-A76 for MTA which is a military variant of civil PS-90

Outside of A Russian source, do you have a URL for that?

I have not checked recently, but there were no engines to fit the Indian specs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Nov 2015 13:01

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:Leap/PW/PD-14 are commercial engine optimised and built for narrow body aircraft , these wont be used on military aircraft not at this early stage of their life , HAL as mentioned they would use PS-90-A76 for MTA which is a military variant of civil PS-90
They dropped the plan to employ the PD-14 because the IAF declared it to be ineffective. The same doesn't necessarily apply to the CFM product. And as a rule of thumb a western engine will be superior in terms of reliability and service life.

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). - Link

The bone of contention is the Aviadvigatel PD-14M Engine which has been offered by Russian company United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) to power Multi-Role Transport Aircraft (MTA) aircrafts. IAF see the performance of PD-14M Engine inadequate for operations in Mountain terrain of Himalayas and wants a much more powerful engine with better Maintenance cycle.

IAF and HAL are also still contemplating the choice of engine and might prefer a Western-made engines over the Russian power plant. - Link

PD-14 is just under test cycle and PD-14M is not even on the horizon so accepting or rejecting a product thats not even under development is out question , Not to mentioned Military Engine will have to be ruggedised and proven over thousand of hours.

IT would be PS-90-A-76 if they decide to go with MTA project , even the current IL-76 will be upgraded with PS-90A76

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Nov 2015 13:02

NRao wrote:
HAL as mentioned they would use PS-90-A76 for MTA which is a military variant of civil PS-90
Outside of A Russian source, do you have a URL for that?

I have not checked recently, but there were no engines to fit the Indian specs.

There is interview on MTA from HAL chief if I find it will post it

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Nov 2015 13:22

Austin wrote:Leap/PW/PD-14 are commercial engine optimised and built for narrow body aircraft , these wont be used on military aircraft not at this early stage of their life , HAL as mentioned they would use PS-90-A76 for MTA which is a military variant of civil PS-90

Is that really right? The only reason it's used on narrow body is that it is low thrust engine. Everything is almost designed around two engines these days. You just need higher thrust class engines for the double aisle planes. LEAP 1A can very well be used for the MTA.

KC390 uses the IAE 2500 engines which is 33000 pounds of thrust. It has three ton higher lift capacity than proposed MTA. There are other engines out there. We need to skip the russian engines.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2015 13:34

Austin wrote:PD-14 is just under test cycle and PD-14M is not even on the horizon so accepting or rejecting a product thats not even under development is out question , Not to mentioned Military Engine will have to be ruggedised and proven over thousand of hours.

By that logic the entire MTA program should be rejected. Whichever way you cut it, fact still remains the PD-14M for all its flaws will be ready long before the MTA's airframe is.

As to the second point, most civilian engines are designed to operate for extremely long periods and the majors (RR, PW, GE) all field an array of proven products. Also 'ruggesiding' an engine for military operations isn't quite the chore you're making it out to be.

Case-in-point: Boeing 757's PW2000 engines which power the C-17 under the F117 designation, with the only major difference being incorporation of thrust reversers on the latter.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Nov 2015 13:41

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:PD-14 is just under test cycle and PD-14M is not even on the horizon so accepting or rejecting a product thats not even under development is out question , Not to mentioned Military Engine will have to be ruggedised and proven over thousand of hours.
By that logic the entire MTA program should be rejected. Whichever way you cut it, fact still remains the PD-14M for all its flaws will be ready long before the MTA's airframe is.

As to the second point, most civilian engines are designed to operate for extremely long periods and the majors (RR, PW, GE) all field an array of proven products. Also 'ruggesiding' an engine for military operations isn't quite the chore you're making it out to be.

Case-in-point: Boeing 757's PW2000 engines which power the C-17 under the F117 designation, with the only major difference being incorporation of thrust reversers on the latter.

The PD-14 was never in consideration for MTA because the PD-14 engine is designed for MS-21 and then retrofitting the existing PS-90 engine flying on civil aircraft. PD-14 is one generation ahead of PS-90 both in fuel consumption and noise.

Even in PS-90 , they have many variants PS-90A/A2/A3 but the PS-90A-76 is for military variant the rest are for civil types , there is difference because civil engine are certified for ETOPS standard and the noise standard etc has to be met.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Nov 2015 13:43

From recent statements,the MTA prog. has a lot of work before all issues are sorted out . I don't think that this prog. is going to be sealed in Dec. when Mr.M visits.One wonders why so much time over the last 5 years was lost in not sorting out issues one way or the other.At the infamous "5-yr plan rate" that ahs afflicted India since Independence,babus simply while away time ,passing the buck until their draw their pensions and post super-annuation perks,get back onto the gravy train heading some govt. or quasi-govt. entity! Tragicaly.most of our defence acquisitions are knee-jerk reactions to shortfalls,dereliction of duty like the lost decade of Snake-Oil Singh and his whiter-than-white St.AKA,who saw nothing,heard nothing and signed nothing.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Nov 2015 13:45

It seems like more work for civil if they have to be certified for etops, noise, emissions etc.. It by no means says anything about ruggedness of the engine. I agree with Viv S that most are straight transplants to military with some software modifications for over riding max thrust in emergency.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Nov 2015 13:46

Philip,

5 years? It's been longer than that. I remember seeing ads for RB715 for MTA 15 years ago in TOI. RR was pushing for that engine when the program took on an acronym.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Nov 2015 13:49

MTA was definitely on info boards in NDA1 period i.e. pre 2004. its 10+ yrs already with nothing in sight.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Nov 2015 13:50

Cybaru wrote:Is that really right? The only reason it's used on narrow body is that it is low thrust engine. Everything is almost designed around two engines these days. You just need higher thrust class engines for the double aisle planes. They could very well be used for the MTA.

KC390 uses the IAE 2500 engines which is 33000 pounds of thrust. It has three ton higher lift capacity than proposed MTA. There are other engines out there. We need to skip the russian engines.

The entire certification of engine with aircraft takes a lot of time effort and money not a trivial task , An aircraft is also build around an engine , changing the existing engine will also involving changing some aspect of aircraft design to accomodate a new engine.

KC390 would have been designed around IAE 2500 and would get cetified for it eventually but if they want to say build a KC390 around a LEAP or some other engine it wont be a trivial task involing as much time and effort as certifying with the IAE engine

Unless you are a civil liner with say 1000 plus aircraft order book under your belt , then you can offer customer the choice of engine , even then its not there on many types. AFAIK only Wide Body Market offer such choices

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Nov 2015 13:58

Austin wrote: An aircraft is also build around an engine , changing the existing engine will also involving changing some aspect of aircraft design to accomodate a new engine.

Isn't that true when you build an aircraft around the engine like a fighter aircraft? It's more plug and play then you are making it sound for commercial, otherwise you could never have re-engined Saras, AN-32 etc.

Austin wrote: Unless you are a civil liner with say 1000 plus aircraft order book under your belt , then you can offer customer the choice of engine , even then its not there on many types. AFAIK only Wide Body Market offer such choices

That's not true. Here is from 319 page. I am sure I can find other references as well. Most airlines choose the predominant engine they support. Makes logistics easier. When AA chose 319 they went cfm-56b

"The A319 seats 124 passengers in a typical two-class cabin layout over a range of up to 3,750 nm/6,950 km., powered by V2500-A5 or CFM56-5B engines."

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Nov 2015 14:08

I mean if they really want wicked commonality and butt load of extra thrust, they can opt to go with F117 as well. 40,000 pounds of thrust, military certified and will be be able to carry another 4-6 tons of payload. It will be a 25-26 ton payload bird then.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Nov 2015 14:45

Cybaru wrote: Isn't that true when you build an aircraft around the engine like a fighter aircraft? It's more plug and play then you are making it sound for commercial, otherwise you could never have re-engined Saras, AN-32 etc.

Yes certification of engine takes lots of time effort and money , An-32 got the same engine but uprated by soviets for hot and high condition

That's not true. Here is from 319 page. I am sure I can find other references as well. Most airlines choose the predominant engine they support. Makes logistics easier. When AA chose 319 they went cfm-56b

"The A319 seats 124 passengers in a typical two-class cabin layout over a range of up to 3,750 nm/6,950 km., powered by V2500-A5 or CFM56-5B engines."

Airbus are giant if they cant make money on one program they will make it in others same for Boeing , Plus commerical program work on their own paradigm cant compare to military program

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Nov 2015 15:09

Some news for the doubters,about Il-476/478 production/orders.
http://www.janes.com/article/55643/avia ... 90a-tanker

Aviastar nears completion of Russia's new Il-78M-90A tanker
Nicholas de Larrinaga, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
29 October 2015

The joining of the wing and the fuselage of the first Ilyushin Il-78M-90A tanker aircraft for the Russian Air Force at Aviastar SP's facility in Ulyanovsk on 28 October Source: United Aircraft Corporation

Russia's new Il-78M-90A air-to-air refuelling (AAR) aircraft is nearing completion, images released by United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) indicate.

The prototype, also known as the Il-478, was shown having its wing and fuselage joined at the Aviastar SP plant in Ulyanovsk. The aircraft is an extension of the Il-76MD-90A (Il-476) transport aircraft programme for the Russian Aerospace Forces.

According to UAC the Il-78M-90A is fitted with the same PS-90A-76 as the Il-76MD-90A, which it states offers a 12-14% reduction in fuel consumption over the D-30KP engines of the original Il-78 'Midas' tanker. It also features two additional fuel tanks to increase the fuel capacity of the tanker over the earlier model. The Il-78M-90A also likely shares the same aerostructure and avionics improvements as the Il-76MD-90A, although this was not specified by UAC.

Construction of the prototype aircraft at the Aviastar SP began in February under a development contract from the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD). Reports indicate that its first flight will occur in 2016, after which a production contract for the type will be placed. UAC stated in 2013 it was hoping for an order of 31 new Il-78-type tanker aircraft from the Russian MoD.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Nov 2015 20:21

Hoping for orders are not real orders.

Philip wrote:Some news for the doubters,about Il-476/478 production/orders.
http://www.janes.com/article/55643/avia ... 90a-tanker
Aviastar nears completion of Russia's new Il-78M-90A tanker
Nicholas de Larrinaga, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
29 October 2015

The joining of the wing and the fuselage of the first Ilyushin Il-78M-90A tanker aircraft for the Russian Air Force at Aviastar SP's facility in Ulyanovsk on 28 October Source: United Aircraft Corporation

Russia's new Il-78M-90A air-to-air refuelling (AAR) aircraft is nearing completion, images released by United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) indicate.

The prototype, also known as the Il-478, was shown having its wing and fuselage joined at the Aviastar SP plant in Ulyanovsk. The aircraft is an extension of the Il-76MD-90A (Il-476) transport aircraft programme for the Russian Aerospace Forces.

According to UAC the Il-78M-90A is fitted with the same PS-90A-76 as the Il-76MD-90A, which it states offers a 12-14% reduction in fuel consumption over the D-30KP engines of the original Il-78 'Midas' tanker. It also features two additional fuel tanks to increase the fuel capacity of the tanker over the earlier model. The Il-78M-90A also likely shares the same aerostructure and avionics improvements as the Il-76MD-90A, although this was not specified by UAC.

Construction of the prototype aircraft at the Aviastar SP began in February under a development contract from the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD). Reports indicate that its first flight will occur in 2016, after which a production contract for the type will be placed. UAC stated in 2013 it was ***hoping*** for an order of 31 new Il-78-type tanker aircraft from the Russian MoD.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2015 22:22

Cybaru wrote:Hoping for orders are not real orders.

Some news for the doubters,about Il-476/478 production/orders.
http://www.janes.com/article/55643/avia ... 90a-tanker
Aviastar nears completion of Russia's new Il-78M-90A tanker
Nicholas de Larrinaga, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
29 October 2015

The joining of the wing and the fuselage of the first Ilyushin Il-78M-90A tanker aircraft for the Russian Air Force at Aviastar SP's facility in Ulyanovsk on 28 October Source: United Aircraft Corporation

Russia's new Il-78M-90A air-to-air refuelling (AAR) aircraft is nearing completion, images released by United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) indicate.

The prototype, also known as the Il-478, was shown having its wing and fuselage joined at the Aviastar SP plant in Ulyanovsk. The aircraft is an extension of the Il-76MD-90A (Il-476) transport aircraft programme for the Russian Aerospace Forces.

According to UAC the Il-78M-90A is fitted with the same PS-90A-76 as the Il-76MD-90A, which it states offers a 12-14% reduction in fuel consumption over the D-30KP engines of the original Il-78 'Midas' tanker. It also features two additional fuel tanks to increase the fuel capacity of the tanker over the earlier model. The Il-78M-90A also likely shares the same aerostructure and avionics improvements as the Il-76MD-90A, although this was not specified by UAC.

Construction of the prototype aircraft at the Aviastar SP began in February under a development contract from the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD). Reports indicate that its first flight will occur in 2016, after which a production contract for the type will be placed. UAC stated in 2013 it was ***hoping*** for an order of 31 new Il-78-type tanker aircraft from the Russian MoD.

The contract for the hopeful 31 is yet TBD. After 2016.

A lot of time.

But, in all fairness, this is for the IL-478 (NOT the IL-476).

But I think the IL-476 is facing some problems, do not know what.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2015 22:27

Austin,

I don't understand your assertion. Today's civilian engines are almost as reliable, rugged and powerful as military ones. There are many cases of engines used for both civil and military aircrafts. I don't favour western designs, but their large operational numbers and cumulative flying hours does allow them to have more RnD funds, and iron out design, manufacture and MRO problems.

Besides, are there any specific benefits of using Russian engines?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2015 22:34

NRao wrote: But I think the IL-476 is facing some problems, do not know what.

What's the point of such a speculative line NRao sahab? Can it be put down as anything else but bias?

If Russians do order the military heavy transports/tankers/AWACs, they will be IL-476-based. What else? Just writing derogatory lines when they are just at the cusp of flight testing is unjustified IMHO. Let them build the plane(s), test them, and use them. We will evaluate their experience and based on their our needs, we will look at them as a possibility, or may be not. No decisions to make now!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 03 Nov 2015 22:35

Even the Russian civil aircraft program Sukhoi Superjet is using Western engines. Many of the Russian engines are not fuel efficient, nor do they meet the noise requirement at various airports across the world.

Many of the western engines share lots of commonality with civilian engines and are much more efficient to operate.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Nov 2015 22:36

indranilroy wrote:Besides, are there any specific benefits of using Russian engines?

There is no disadvantage of using PS-90-A-76 , just check manuf website its as good as its western peer in its category The current IL-76 fleet has older Ukraine engine and its been upgraded with PS-90-A-76.

IAF can go for western engine but that would mean certifying it and spending extra money and time for it and considering IAF officially plans to buy 45 MRTA or so it says it wont be much incentive for IAF to certify for another type

Engine change is not as simple as plug and play , Civil avaiation does it because of competition it wants to be on cutting edge and want to out do each other and their large order makes it possible to certify for multiple types.

And they have already confirmed they would use PS-90 series

Indranil check the PS-90-A-76 series and compare it to its similar gen western peers

http://avid.ru/en/avia/?id=2

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Nov 2015 22:48

putnanja wrote:Even the Russian civil aircraft program Sukhoi Superjet is using Western engines.

Thats not the whole truth , Powejet is JV between Saturn and Snecma , you can see the Saturn and Snecma break up in the engine image

http://sdelanounas.ru/i/c/3/v/f_c3VwZXJ ... uanBn.jpeg

Even the PD-14 series is as good as LEAP or PW in all parameter be it fuel consumption or sound

http://avid.ru/en/pd14/

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Nov 2015 22:55

So lets look it another way.

Russia aint gonna order a single MTA. It's gonna be us. Why should we spend any money certifying a russian engine? I think we need to break this partnership and hire a consultancy. Ilyshin or Antonov will be good consulting houses. We make this for our own forces, if Russians want this, we can lease them the design and charge something for it. They are welcome to qualify their own engines. We are paying for all of this. MTA right from birth needs to be designed around a western powerplant.

Another issue is future improvements. West combined has far more R&D dollars invested than russia. Russia has always gotten the job done, but given where we are today, we really need to think about future and how it may pan out. RR/PW/GE/CFM all make great engines and continue to innovate. We should invest in products that have higher dollar and budget commitments and potential going forward.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2015 23:29

Austin wrote: Indranil check the PS-90-A-76 series and compare it to its similar gen western peers

http://avid.ru/en/avia/?id=2

As I said before, spec-wise a modern Russian engines is similar to its western counterparts. But in terms of operability, they still have to prove their mettle. It makes all the sense for Russia to try it out. But does it make sense for India to be part of that experiment. Probably not.

Austin wrote: IAF can go for western engine but that would mean certifying it and spending extra money and time for it and considering IAF officially plans to buy 45 MRTA or so it says it wont be much incentive for IAF to certify for another type

Engine change is not as simple as plug and play , Civil avaiation does it because of competition it wants to be on cutting edge and want to out do each other and their large order makes it possible to certify for multiple types.

And they have already confirmed they would use PS-90 series

That's not a strong argument. If I am going to fly out of Leh on two engines, I would make sure that none of them fail after I start rotating, otherwise I will not make it. The engines for Indian MRTAs have not even been finalized. We can incorporate any engine we choose. Besides, the cost of certifying the plane for alternate engines of the same class is in the 10s of millions. With 45 airplanes, you are looking at a procurement cost of about 4-5 billions. Operating costs over lifetime, probably 50-100 billion. Will the certification costs make a dent? I don't think so! Will 20% more availability make a difference? I do think so!

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Nov 2015 23:46

Isn't Snecma supplying the hot core and FADEC controller? kinda the important and more difficult bits.

There is also the question of multiple types.
AN-70 had a paper version chalked out from 4 props to two engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antonov_An-112KC.jpg

We should look at both types from ground up. Leap 1A or F117 for engine and TP400 for a turboprop version. That will pose serious competition in the market.
Then there is also this:http://www.safran-group.com/media/20150 ... lity-india

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 04 Nov 2015 01:27

There's a simple reason for the delay of the MTA project. The MTA has the potential to create an Indo-Russian version of Airbus. That would be hugely significant. I imagine that over the past 10 years, the U.S./Europe/China have been using all of their available assets (in both India and Russia) to slow the project down.

It's the same tactic that's been used with India's procurement/development of artillery, submarines, etc.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Nov 2015 02:31

Airbus isn't very profitable right now. lets hope they recover what they put in for A380.

To create a competition to something like airbus requires long term planning and significant investment to get it off the ground. Russia isn't in a position to invest to create such competition. China-India-brazil-Russia could have. But as things stand, just India and Russia will have a far more difficult time given their individual level of commitments and willingness to fund such a venture.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Nov 2015 02:45

Avarachan wrote:There's a simple reason for the delay of the MTA project. The MTA has the potential to create an Indo-Russian version of Airbus. That would be hugely significant. I imagine that over the past 10 years, the U.S./Europe/China have been using all of their available assets (in both India and Russia) to slow the project down.

It's the same tactic that's been used with India's procurement/development of artillery, submarines, etc.

Now, that's a different spin. I don't know anything about that.

I can't believe it though. So the theory is that U.S./Europe are fine with competition from China/Brazil/Ukraine but want to stifle competition from India? To me that theory fails at many many places:

1. Collaboration between Russian and Chinese is much more tangible than the paper plane that MRTA currently is.
2. Design and manufacturing capabilities of these countries vis-a-vis India.

No more on this from me.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Nov 2015 03:21

Can it be put down as anything else but bias?

If Russians do order the military heavy transports/tankers/AWACs, they will be IL-476-based. What else? Just writing derogatory lines when they are just at the cusp of flight testing is unjustified IMHO. Let them build the plane(s), test them, and use them. We will evaluate their experience and based on their our needs, we will look at them as a possibility, or may be not. No decisions to make now!

Is that true?

1) On lifters: Jane's, June, 2015 :: Russia reduces orders for new Il-476, upgraded Il-76 transporters.

2) On refuelers: Jane's Jan, 2015 :: Russia orders new Il-96 tanker aircraft

Russia has ordered two Ilyushin Il-96-400TZ air-to-air refuelling aircraft from United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) has announced.

The contract is notable as it marks the first time that Russia will convert one of its civilian wide-bodied airliners into a military air-to-air refuelling tanker aircraft.

3) Long back they used to say that there are some 1000 IL-76s - worldwide. Implying that the IL-476 could find a good market (which was a good assumption, no doubt). Has it? Outside of the 32/35 for IL-476 and some for the IL-478 (tanker) are there any orders out there? The RuAF, as noted, has actually preferred to upgrade their old IL-76s!!!!

So, what actually is wrong with my post? What is so "derogatory"/"bias"? The numbers are from Jane's and RU based sources.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Nov 2015 03:33

Here is another data point:

Jane's, Nov, 2014 :: Russia to develop A-100 AWACS based on upgraded Il-76MD-90A airlifter

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.

So, they need a 100 476s, but are ordering only 39 and have reduced that number to 32 and requested upgrading the IL-76!!!!!

Again, these are not my numbers.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Nov 2015 03:59

That's two refueling aircraft. The other reports that you cite all show a reduction in orders, because Russia is an economic problem. That does not mean that there is a problem with the aircraft. Why sisngle it out? It is going through testing just as it should!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Nov 2015 06:20

That's two refueling aircraft. The other reports that you cite all show a reduction in orders, because Russia is an economic problem. That does not mean that there is a problem with the aircraft. Why sisngle it out? It is going through testing just as it should!

Ah. Something I have posted for years now.

The PAK-FA too has the same (funding) issues.

Besides, funding is the worst type of problem to have. If in fact that is the issue, then it begs the question what are they testing. Perhaps that is why both the IAF and RuAF preferred to go with IL-76 upgrades?

Does not mean that IL did a bad job, just means that the IL-476, due to a lack of funding could eb an incomplete product at this point in time.

Anyways, I think I have made my point. However, to be clear, nothing against any one product/nation.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 04 Nov 2015 06:55

indranilroy wrote:
Avarachan wrote:There's a simple reason for the delay of the MTA project. The MTA has the potential to create an Indo-Russian version of Airbus. That would be hugely significant. I imagine that over the past 10 years, the U.S./Europe/China have been using all of their available assets (in both India and Russia) to slow the project down.

It's the same tactic that's been used with India's procurement/development of artillery, submarines, etc.
Now, that's a different spin. I don't know anything about that.

I can't believe it though. So the theory is that U.S./Europe are fine with competition from China/Brazil/Ukraine but want to stifle competition from India? To me that theory fails at many many places:

1. Collaboration between Russian and Chinese is much more tangible than the paper plane that MRTA currently is.
2. Design and manufacturing capabilities of these countries vis-a-vis India.

No more on this from me.

The Brazilian KC-390 is largely made up of Western components, in a way that an Indo-Russian MTA would not be. Is that a threat to the West? Of course. I'm puzzled that anyone would think otherwise.

One of the West's primary geopolitical goals is to prevent the emergence of Russia and India as major industrial powers. Regarding Russia, its growing technological cooperation with Europe was one of the prime reasons the U.S. decided to launch the 2014 coup in Ukraine. As is well known, the U.S. pressured Europe into the anti-Russian sanctions: the U.S. felt threatened by the collaboration between Russia and Europe, and wanted to destroy it. Sorry for going off-topic, but I couldn't respond without mentioning all of this.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Nov 2015 09:25

PD-14 engine on IL-76 flying test bed

http://russianplanes.net/images/to178000/177495.jpg

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2015 18:32

Whenever we speak of Air Force we speak of fighting and combat, and if we speak of transports at all it is about how they will assist in a combat role and how many we need for the combat roles we have from them in our minds. We almost never speak of the logistic role they play. Here is a 12 minute documentary that I edited from a longer one keeping bits that I felt were interesting and informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtWakUsfCPk

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Nov 2015 21:46

Avarachan wrote: The Brazilian KC-390 is largely made up of Western components, in a way that an Indo-Russian MTA would not be. Is that a threat to the West? Of course. I'm puzzled that anyone would think otherwise.

One of the West's primary geopolitical goals is to prevent the emergence of Russia and India as major industrial powers. Regarding Russia, its growing technological cooperation with Europe was one of the prime reasons the U.S. decided to launch the 2014 coup in Ukraine. As is well known, the U.S. pressured Europe into the anti-Russian sanctions: the U.S. felt threatened by the collaboration between Russia and Europe, and wanted to destroy it. Sorry for going off-topic, but I couldn't respond without mentioning all of this.

I don't think you are off-topic. what you are suggesting cannot be talked without discussing geopolitical motives. At least I can't think of any other way.

Also, I am not saying that the Europe/U.S. does want competition, or a stronger India than what they can handle. But this theory of MTA not getting off the ground because of external scuttling is difficult for me to digest. Russia is not dependent on anything but Indian money for its products. And they are not shying away from asking the same from China either. For example, they are planning to come up with a wide-body airliner with Comac in six years. Will that plane be on time, odds are for it. So, U.S./Europe/China are allowing that, but conspiring against India/Russia to build a 20-ton transport for which there is no interest outside India and Russia!!

Forget interest from outside, IMHO MTA is not getting off the ground because there is not enough interest within Russia or India, except for the poor HAL employees who have been placed in an ocean in a dinghy without oars. I really don't think Russia needs this plane. They want to recuperate sunk money by taking this project to fruition and retaining design skills. On the India side, IAF places unobtainable goals. The "collaboration" goes nowhere expect providing papers to sign on every time Putin/Medvedev comes to India and Dr. Singh/Modi visits Russia. You name it, everything has been signed: "intent to build", "go ahead to study", "pre-preliminary report", "preliminary report", "agreement to resolve problems", inauguration of building, "intent to send 20 employees here", "intent to bring 20 employees here". The U.S./Europe do not need to disrupt such a project even they wanted to.

If they want to build it today, it can fly in 4-5 years. Neither technology, nor money is a challenge. It is a 2 billion dollar project to build 2-3 prototypes. The initial airframe design already exists. Select an engine, strap on a goddamn existing LGs, APU etc. and start flight testing. As components get ready, replace them in the prototypes. This is standard procedure. Protoypes are always patchworks, which are replaced by actual components as development continues. YF-23 prototypes had the space-shuttles landing gears, and could never fly with MTOW.