Transport Aircraft for IAF

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 20 Aug 2014 19:20

24 C-17s, now that a worthy buy.

IL-76 is hardly flying , its availability sucks ass in comparison to the C-130J. The C-17 is at the high end but reliable enough to land in a lot of harsh areas, it has also done LEH landings with full payload, there really is nothing to prove, timely deliveries, good availibility, no wonder IAF is looking for more of both types. Also the the price of the aircraft for the first 10 was 1.78 Billion, cost of engines an additional 400 million for 40 engines i.e 2.2 Billion which is 220 Million per aircraft, FMS also has admin charges, + cost of maintenance + service charges over life time amount & offsets to 4.1 Billion. Considering we are about to be paying roughly 200+ million for a single Rafale (without weapons) over a life time of service, it is actually expected that a bigger bird costs more to operate.

MTA whenever it comes will fill the gap, the way I see it, first flight is planned for 2016, it will atleast 2018 before any production is possible, I hope we have local assembly with considerable TOT and more importantly customization, the bird would be great to have them as Refueling tankers, perhaps a gunship variant, a DRDO phalcon style awacs, sea-hercules style maritime recon aircraft etc. By 2025 it would be nice to have plenty of variants of the MTA in service with the IN and IAF. I assure you these too will not come cheap.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Aug 2014 19:25

Despite its size the CPFH of the C-17 is extremely competitive given its capabilities..The only area where it costs more compared to tactical fighters (a totally wrong comparison but wth) is O&S but thats because it lasts nearly 4 times longer.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 20 Aug 2014 19:49

Septimus P. wrote: MTA whenever it comes will fill the gap, the way I see it, first flight is planned for 2016, it will atleast 2018 before any production is possible, I hope we have local assembly with considerable TOT and more importantly customization, the bird would be great to have them as Refueling tankers, perhaps a gunship variant, a DRDO phalcon style awacs, sea-hercules style maritime recon aircraft etc. By 2025 it would be nice to have plenty of variants of the MTA in service with the IN and IAF. I assure you these too will not come cheap.

We need to explore buying the C130J line as a back up. I feel C130J + C27J (as An-32 replacement) will be better bang for the buck. C27J (which we will need in hundreds) will also be a good opportunity to get a private company like Tata into military aviation.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Aug 2014 20:02

LM had offered a C-130 (military or civilian) line IF India ordered more than 40.

India has already ordered 13 so far.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Aug 2014 22:57

We're already in a co-production deal with Russia for the MTA,

Pleaseeeee - MTA agreements have been signed and signed and nothing but some photo ops

its not going anywhere

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2014 08:16

for the last time, I am going to ban anyone who says the MTA word.

say what you want but never the MTA word. gives me a rash all over my body.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 21 Aug 2014 11:15

Singha wrote:MTA
IAF is not going to re-engine the IL76 fleet...they will retire within this decade one by one.
the AN32s are being overhauled in Ukraine, but most are 80s made, already 25 yrs old....maybe another 10 yrs lifespan.
how much the IL76-400 will succeed is anyone's guess. Russia had 700 IL76MD but certainly cannot order so many now. unless production orders are high, costs will be high.
the AN124 is even more niche product. lets not get into a Mi26 type deal where we and russia operate a few airframes and thats it.

the C17 will remain in service until 2050 for sure with one re-engine. american airframes even from 1950s era like KC135, C130, B52, B707 have proved immensely durable in global deployment and long duty cycles. there is nothing left to prove there. sure they need proper upkeep but all modern kit does.

What's the issue with the MTA? It sounded good from what I read about it. Explain a bit more please.

And if popularity is your metric then IL-476 is the winner.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/il- ... rts-07569/

HAL Nasik already is setup to produce Russian engines. We can get ToT exactly as we did for the Mig-29. The Mig29 has great uptime and serviceability, because the servicing is done here. The C-17 production shuts down in 2015. That's a strong argument against the C-17 besides cost. We cannot guarantee to keep the C-17 flying. Nothing protects us in the case of nuclear tests or war against Pakistan from sanctions.

Likewise our refuellers and AWACS are ILs. It doensn't make any sense, when our pilots are trained to fly Russian gear to switch types. We've already paid through the nose and haven't even received all our Phalcons which are ILs. We can't afford two different types.

Be realistic about cost. Training and infrastructure is already setup. The only problem with the IL-476 is reliability. ToT fixes that just like it did for the Mig29.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Aug 2014 11:34

HAL has been displaying a of the MTA in Aero India etc for eons but even after so many years the plain remains only on paper/PPT/trade show model. In the same timeframe Embraer started development on the KC-390 and it is scheduled to take its first flight this year.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Aug 2014 19:05

The first inter-government agreement for MTA was inked around 10-15 years back, and other than a few "talks" between HAL and Rosonoboroexports, nothing much has progressed beyond them. Just a timepass project

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2014 19:39

I think the MTA is on slow boil.

It is making very, very slow progress. Each nation has invested $300 million, the Russians have selected their engine, India as of March 2013 had not. India has the urgency and the JV is HQed in B'luru.

However, what I find interesting is that the this project is of interest to India and yet India is expected to pick up 45, while Russia will pick up a cool 100. Then the project expects to "export" - if that does not happen, then the whole project could be in the red.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Aug 2014 19:59

The whole point of the (unmentionable) is to torpedo any non-PSU transport development. This charade has been going on for so long, it's amazing we haven't smelled the coffee yet.

We (actually, HAL) have been making the HS-748 for over 50 years and the Do228 for over 30, along with their engines, but our cumulative practical naalidge in plane-building to date still doesn't allow a relatively simple plane like Saras to break out of development mode after decades of trying despite the cost in money and lives. In any country but India it would be considered absurd if not insane that we doggedly keep doing the same thing over and over, project after project and then consider handing over India's transport future to this 'system'.

The simple fact is that the C-130 is the most robust transport in the world and the existing infrastructure around it make it the cheapest to operate and maintain. So much so that the USAF found this cost to be only $10,000 per day vs $9,000 for the C-27 which is half the size. There is no contest in operational availability. Plus there is no airfield that the Spartan can land on that the Hercules cannot and it may meet our needs for the next 30-40 years. Tata already supplies C-130 parts to LM who is open to setting up a plant in India. What are we missing? This is such an open/shut case.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Aug 2014 20:20

The CPFH of the C-130J is very competitive even when comparing it to a Commercial airliner like a 737.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 21 Aug 2014 20:51

Victor wrote:What are we missing? This is such an open/shut case.

It seems old habit continues

. Even the PM mentioned that the Chalta hai attitude should go.
But on the topic, yes if LM is ready to setup assembly line for C-130 with min. 40 aircraft order and plan for MTA is 45 then C-130 seems a much better bet. LM combines with a private partner and setup the assembly line and serves as a support hub for Asia.
Wiki does not mention any extra capability that MTA provides compared to C-130.
Curious to know as to why this proposal was never considered and why HAL should be lead partner and principal integrator for this.
HAL can focus on Tejas /MMRCA/ FGFA while Avro replacement and Transport aircraft requirement goes to pvt. industry.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 21 Aug 2014 21:24

Mahindra have shown interest in developing wings, building transports thru Australian acquisitions. If they are willing to make the initial investment then we should buy remaining C130's through a JV between LM and Mahindra (or any other Indian pvt player).

MTA through HAL collaboration with Russia will be nothing more than a PAK-FA repeat, no point in taking the risk and subsidizing another foreign agency when we will be just assembling eventually.

It will be a good wake up message for HAL!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Aug 2014 22:32

From a commercial stand point, if the C-130 civilian varient actually sells well lockheed martin and a private desi company can make that investment on their own. Haven't seen a market outlook for the L-100 but if its half decent then the economies of scale could be realized (40+ commercial sales) and the reduced cost of doing business in India (labor mostly) will make the product even more competitive. If something like this is proposed (or rather re-proposed) and taken seriously my wish would be to let the private players deal with the JV on their own according to their own commercial considerations.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Aug 2014 22:42

I am a big fan of what Mahindra Aerospace is doing with GippsAero. But they are not at the stage where they can build or assemble a C-130J. Tata is closer to be able to manufacture to blueprint at scale and size. But even Tata has no experience in creating the global supply lines of a plane as big and complicated as the C-130J. Neither does it have assembling experience. I really want to see how the Do-228NG project pans out. Earlier, I was interested to see how its JV with Augusta Westland would pan out in licence-manufacturing the AW119Ke. But that project is all but gone now (to India's loss, if I may add).

Having said that, I have long said that there should be a common replacement for the An-32s and the Avros. And if the C-27J is chosen, then it would make sense to move the C-130J manufacturing line for 30-40 odd planes (for domestic requirements). The MTA should be buried. Anyways, I favour this outcome, greatly as we will have competition in the global market against the KC-390 and the C-295 with well proven aircraft. Also, I don't know if C-130Js (LM-100J) or the C-27Js can be modified into efficient civilian versions.

On the other hand, if the C-295 is chosen, we can get a plane which can be easily modified into an RTA. The MTA should be continued to provide the 20-tonner requirement (which I have come to believe will never happen, and we will witness the KC-390 being sold in great numbers).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2014 22:54

And if the C-27J is chosen, then it would make sense to move the C-130J manufacturing line for 30-40 odd planes (for domestic requirements). T

Why?

They are unrelated.

Perhaps the shorter version of the 130 should suffice for the 27?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Aug 2014 23:21

LM and Alenia got together to make the two very similar. Therefore they have similar engines, propellers, cockpit displays. But then of course, once the C-130s and the C-27s were pitted against each other, LM withdrew from the JV and Alenia curtailed "commonality with C-130J" line.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 22 Aug 2014 00:09

Off topic - Tata or Mahindra should be considered for NAL-Saras manufacturing

I have not done enough homework here but believe both companies can turn this in to a big export product given their track record. Prefer Mahindra as this will be a good extension for GippsAero product line.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Aug 2014 00:18

HAL will ask "Why not me, as originally envisaged?"

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2014 01:16

Not the biggest of deals, but just for clarity, the two do have diff bodies. Right? It is teh engines, props and cockpit instruments (and perhaps a few other things). So, a "line" for the C-130 - in India - would mean that the C-130 would roll out, but for the C-27J to roll, they will have to get help from the Italians - perhaps in the form of getting the entire rest of the plane from Italy.

?????

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Aug 2014 02:50

1. Yes, they have two different fuselages, which will require two different lines. But as you know fuselage is only one part in this great jigsaw puzzle which a modern aircraft is. Having common suppliers and parts greatly eases the supply-chain management and lowers operating costs.

2. After the initial 16, the rest of the Avro/An-32 replacements will be built in India. And "built in India" means, some parts will be built in India, some will not. But they will all be assembled into a complete plane in India (like what Embraer, Boeing, Airbus, Bobardier and literally every aircraft manufacturer does). And I really hope that the kinds of Rajat Pandit (whose only news item is: actually x% indigenous instead of y% and z years behind schedule) can be sidelined by a more educated reader base.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Aug 2014 15:29

Why not consider the C 130 as MTA and order whatever numbers that are required. With a condition that they will be build by a greenfield pvt sector plant.

This will give us 2 pvt sector lines. One for Avro Replacement and another for C 130.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 22 Aug 2014 16:09

abhik wrote:HAL has been displaying a of the MTA in Aero India etc for eons but even after so many years the plain remains only on paper/PPT/trade show model. In the same timeframe Embraer started development on the KC-390 and it is scheduled to take its first flight this year.

That does sound like a good point, except every aircraft development project has been delayed and overbudget. Look at the 1.5 trillion dollar JSF for an example. Also we already signed the contract and paid the money. So far most of the JV's with the Russians have been very successful. Brahmos and MKI for examples. So based on prior track record we can hope for success.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 22 Aug 2014 16:16

putnanja wrote:The first inter-government agreement for MTA was inked around 10-15 years back, and other than a few "talks" between HAL and Rosonoboroexports, nothing much has progressed beyond them. Just a timepass project

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... aero-india

“About 150 designers now are working on the MTA draft design,” explained Ilyushin general director Victor Livanov. “It will be a brand-new airplane. The core of the Russian engineering and design team is formed by employees of Ilyushin Aviation Complex. We hope that the aircraft will have its first flight in 2017 and that deliveries will commence in 2018 to the Indian air force and the Russian air force.”

Good news, looks like they have finished their chai-biskoot and are ready. Which means the US maal doesn't make sense financially or otherwise.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 22 Aug 2014 17:14

Rien wrote:
abhik wrote:HAL has been displaying a of the MTA in Aero India etc for eons but even after so many years the plain remains only on paper/PPT/trade show model. In the same timeframe Embraer started development on the KC-390 and it is scheduled to take its first flight this year.
That does sound like a good point, except every aircraft development project has been delayed and overbudget. Look at the 1.5 trillion dollar JSF for an example.

The problem here is that the delay is not because of a developmental issue, but because there is no visible real development at all. As you have said it seems they have been doing chai-biskoot till. I suspect the problem is that HAL doesn't have the capacity to develop the plane on its own and the Russian don't seem to really interested in it.

Also we already signed the contract and paid the money. So far most of the JV's with the Russians have been very successful. Brahmos and MKI for examples. So based on prior track record we can hope for success.

Brahmos and MKI were derived from mature products. The MTA is a 100% new design and it JV is more like the one for the Barak-8/MR SAM. If the project is not a priority for the lead designing country then delays are unavoidable. At the end of the day a call has to be taken.
Also the C-130 is not the only game in town. We can also look at the Embraer KC-390, Kawasaki C-2 even the Airbus A400.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2014 17:45

^^^^^

google does have features that allows one to locate article by date: one can specify the day in that feature. And, yet people pluck article that support their own view and post out here.

Aug 4, 2014 :: ANALYSIS: India's air force modernisation challenge

HAL's effort to co-develop and produce a multirole transport aircraft (MTA) with Russia's United Aircraft Corporation has run into delays, and a programme definition phase that was to have been completed by September 2013 has still not been declared as complete. This has delayed contract signature for the detailed design phase, which once launched should be followed by first flight within approximately four years. As a result, the debut flight of the MTA is now expected to take place around 2019-2020.

India's MTAs will eventually replace its air force's upgraded Antonov An-32REs in service. A total of 104 of the updated medium transports are being completed, under a $400 million deal placed in 2009, with an additional $110 million spent on upgraded Motor Sich AI-20 engines. Delivery of the last batch of five aircraft to India later this year will complete the upgrade of 40 of the type in Ukraine. The remaining 64 aircraft are to receive their modifications at Kanpur in by 2017-2018.

HAL has been kept out of the HS 748 replacement contract for 56 transports to replace the obsolete Avro, which was produced under license at Kanpur. The selected foreign original equipment manufacturer will deliver 16 aircraft, and an Indian production agency from the private sector will supply the remaining 40 under license. India's bid submission deadline has been extended until 28 August, with Airbus Defence & Space and Alenia Aermacchi respectively offering their rival C295 and C-27J tactical transports.

The MTA is the generic method used by India: try and kill two birds with one stone - get a product that the IAF wants *and* at the very same time force a "JV" to transfer knowledge with the express intent of filling gaps within the India Lab Community.

To the "JV" end they give the BrahMos as an example. At times I wonder, if this project has really provided solid knowledge, what would happen if the Russians were to walk out of this "JV" - right now, like turning a light switch off.

The MKI did nothing from a "JV" point of view - it was not meant to be a "JV".

Meanwhile, they have spent $300 million on the "MTA" (or will be spending) and they have spent $500+ million to upgrade the 110 An-32REs.

"JV" for you.

Filed under BTW:

The MTA will be a largely conventional aircraft, with minimal use of composites for structures such as the empennage. The choice of engine for the Indian version has yet to be decided, with two candidates under consideration. There will be a 60:40 workshare split between Russia and India, and the total development cost of $600 million is to be shared equally between the partners.

Guess who they (engines) may be?

Also note that the JV partners contribute equally into the kitty, but the work share is not the same. The cost of Learning: $60 million.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2014 20:14

russia will obviously force one of their engines into this. perish the thought of a more efficient western engine.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Aug 2014 23:33

We should opt for a workhorse Turboprop engine , it has potential dual use in the sense that we can use the same to power an AC with amphibious capabilities say one capable of operating from the Pangong Tso lake.

In any case for small/medium sized transport AC turboprops are more efficient C-130, A 400 and C 27 all are turboprops.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 23 Aug 2014 02:41

Would someone kindly elaborate on our ability to build a turboprop engine based on the knowledge gained building the Kaveri engine and the gearbox for the Dhruv? I gather the TET of a turboprop engine wouldn't be a challenge given what we've achieved with the Kaveri but the gearbox would presumably be more of a challenge than building the Dhruv's gearbox was.

Negi ji's post seems so elegant in its simplicity that reading it inspires another one of those BR "But, of course!" moments.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Aug 2014 05:54

Well HAL is building a Turboshaft (1000-1200 kW). They will probably be fielded by 2025. On their website they also say that they are building a turboprop for trainers. These two should be complementary.

However, for a C-295 equivalent they would have to put 4 engines on each plane (which might not be the most efficient configuration).

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 23 Aug 2014 12:21

Thank you, Indranil!

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 24 Aug 2014 17:55

KiranM wrote:
Rien wrote: I am suggesting we replace Ukraine as the partner. We can make things cheaper than even China. It's a win/win for both sides. Russia gets more orders and cheaper costs, we get technology and better plane than anything else available on the market.
And I guess the 'replacement' will happen out of thin air with no capital needed to set up facilities, tooling, training and supply chain of Ukraine's share in a different continent. This is assuming Russians are going to gift us the 'technology'.
If not, all the talk of An-124 being cheaper than C-17 is just hot air.

We do not need Heavy lift aircraft in numbers to necessitate developing ourselves or partnering with someone. We need at the most <50 and best way is to buy it from a line which is available as of now with good life cycle support. There are other ways to ensure or workaround this support during testing times like sanctions. That is why I trust IAF when they choose to pick Khan's maal for transports and not for fighters.

A.) Both the Russians and us are on the Eurasian continent. North America is another continent, which has made very few sales of C-17s. The enormous costs the C-17s exceed any potential competitor on the market.Even more so when you factor in Rupee-Rouble trade, which is the deal we are in the last stages of negotiating with Russia.

I stated that the price of the An-124-150 m was vastly superior on a Cost Benefit Analysis basis. The same goes for the IL-476. We are going to continue to have refuellers and AWACS on IL. The enormous cost of having multiple types is something you have not factored in your analysis. We can't afford two different types or to train pilots on two different types. The cost advantages of standardizing on one type are too huge.

Cheaper, not free. You've constructed a straw man argument. Khan's maal is obsolete. It makes no sense to spend billions to buy 1970s vintage hardware. For the same price as Khan Maal, we can purchase our way into a heavy lift program on par with the US and the entirety of NATO. This is the airlift capacity of a superpower! Vastly superior to Chinas.

GoI policy, according to Modi Sarkar is joint production. 50% indigenization. Likewise, from the PAK-FA, Su-30 MKI, Sukhoi Superjet, and the Irkut MS-21, we are already fully integrated into the Russian Military/Civil Industrial Complex.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2013/10/07 ... 29977.html

It makes no sense to waste billions on purchasing US maal, that grants us no new technology nor meets an existing need when we already have the IL-476 AND the An-124-150m as alternatives. We have two great alternatives for lower cost and superior capability that are modern technology compared to obsolete junk. Any product made in Bharat/Russia will be far cheaper than a US made product. We have cheaper inputs of skilled/unskilled labour, cheaper titanium, magnesium and all aerospace materials etc. The US product cannot compete on cost. And given it is obsolete, it can't even compete on capability.

To sum up, Rupee-Rouble trade, cost, technology, and official GoI policy on joint co-production and 50% offsets are all great arguments against the C-17, And I haven't even touched on sanctions.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Aug 2014 18:02

I have till date not received any firm CPFH or mission availability numbers on either of the 2 Russian birds (having asked those claiming an advantage multiple times )without which any long term cost analysis or any back of the envelope " cost benefit analysis" would not be possible. I would also like to know where the obsolesce comes from. With transport aircraft for strategic lift the CPFH and a high mission availability is a very important metric in capability that comes with high technology implementation. The C-17 landed at Leh with a mission payload. The IAF has the exact numbers. Any product that makes the C17 obsolete would most likely have to deliver a 25-30% CPFH reduction compared to the C-17 which according to most studies is not going to be possible before mid to late 2030's, and this is why the USAF which is done with the C-17 acquisition is going to concentrate for the next decade on the C-130 replacement with technologies coming from the JFLT which is also tasked with a C-17 replacement for the long term. Transport and Cargo aircraft work on O&S costs and not acquisition costs. Same with airliners..Even in the commercial fleets planners will willingly pay a high acquisition cost if in return they get near 100% dispatch reliability coupled with a very low CPFH. The Boeing 787 and Airbus A-350 are perfect examples here as is the 748 freighter. The C-17 has a proven CPFH and a mission reliability both in peacetime and wartime - and is backed by a warranty (85% fleet availability).

The C-17 will replace the obsolescent Russian IL-76 airlifter, which has served the IAF since the early 1980s but is now unreliable. The IAF is impressed with the C-17’s abilities, especially after the performance it demonstrated on 20th June 2010, during trials in Ladakh. In the oxygen-thin air of that hot summer day, the IL-76 was unable to land even without a payload. The C-17, however, landed and took off with 30 tonnes on board.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Aug 2014 22:05

brar_w wrote: The C-17 will replace the obsolescent Russian IL-76 airlifter, which has served the IAF since the early 1980s but is now unreliable. The IAF is impressed with the C-17’s abilities, especially after the performance it demonstrated on 20th June 2010, during trials in Ladakh. In the oxygen-thin air of that hot summer day, the IL-76 was unable to land even without a payload. The C-17, however, landed and took off with 30 tonnes on board.

The same shit happened to F-18 and F-16 during MMRCA competition, they couldn't take off with payload that Raffy and Effy took off easily with. The american platform supporters still go on putting that down nothing important.

I think C 17 is a wonderful platform much superior to Il 76 and glad the IAF has it, just the same way Raffy is a wonderful platform and much much superior to american birds. IAF should have it.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Aug 2014 22:24

The same shit happened to F-18 and F-16 during MMRCA competition, they couldn't take off with payload that Raffy and Effy took off easily with. The american platform supporters still go on putting that down nothing important

Of course it mattered then as it does now. If your basic aircraft cannot even land with any payload whereas the other test aircraft landed with 30 tons it makes a difference. The entire purpose of having a strategic air lifter is to transport stuff from point A to point B.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 25 Aug 2014 12:01

brar_w wrote:
The same shit happened to F-18 and F-16 during MMRCA competition, they couldn't take off with payload that Raffy and Effy took off easily with. The american platform supporters still go on putting that down nothing important
Of course it mattered then as it does now. If your basic aircraft cannot even land with any payload whereas the other test aircraft landed with 30 tons it makes a difference. The entire purpose of having a strategic air lifter is to transport stuff from point A to point B.

Oh wait Brar just admitted that the F-16,18 are junk and couldn't work out of Leh.

Lockheed Martin will confiscate your card.

In reply to your costs post.

Even with low availability rates, the An-124 could be a cost-effective option. This means that the An-124 is likely a cost-effectiveoption; however, there are still significant problems associated with the procurement of such a platform

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... MG1238.pdf

That well known band of Communist sympathizers, the US Department of Defence

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30685.pdf

The An-124 Condor is a strategic lift aircraft larger than, but comparable to, the
C-5. As below illustrates, the Air Force has spent $170 million since
FY2002 for An-124 missions. It also appears that the number of An-124 missions is
accelerating. FY2007 figures already are on par with FY2005 figures, and the fiscal
year is not yet half over. While the C-5 may not be as modern as the C-17, or able to
operate from as many runways, the fact that DOD has to outsource missions to
Russian aircraft indicates that the C-5 still offers important capabilities that other
U.S. aircraft may not be able to satisfy

But surely NATO, who have both the A-400M and the C-17 could have nothing but harsh words for the An-124?

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... ns-on.html

In theory, as implied by the Interim title, this solution is a stopgap until the A400 cargo aircrafts are delivered to the various NATO countries which ordered it. The SAC initiative was also meant as an alternative to SALIS (the charter costs are quite high), but the reality is that no A400, no C17 and not even the C5 of the USAF can deliver the payloads and performances that the AN124 offers. SALIS is likely to continue for many more years regardless of both C17 and A400 availability, as these planes simply will not be able to haul some of the payloads needed.

So far both NATO and DoD, Russia hostile organizations have admitted the An-124 is superior to the C-17 and even the C-5 on capability. But what about cost?

At the time of the constitution of the NATO Heavy Airlift Wing it was estimated that buying 4 C17s (then down to 2 plus one offered by the USAF…) collaboratively would cost to the 10 partner nations in the HAW initiative some 13 million dollars a year. If all those countries had acquired a single C17 for themselves, they would have had less capability at a annual cost of at least 11 millions more.

The UK also found the An-124 to be superior on cost grounds to the C-17, even though they picked the inferior American plane. Same considerations as here. The US maal was preferred because of politics, not a merit based assessment.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 011719.htm

The Air Foyle bid was an all-inclusive package with no loose ends, and with a cost of £210 million over the seven year contract, ie 42 per cent of the allocated budget

The US DoD, UK, and NATO all agree that the An-124 is superior on cost(50% average), and capability(carries more for further). The obsolete C-17, whose production run ends in 2015 was not a choice based on technical merit.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2014 13:17

Aug 16, 2014 :: No More An-124s On The Way

Done!!!

Russia confirms that their attacks on the Ukraine have derailed future An-124 production.

Aug 16/14: Dead program. Russia’s invasion of the Crimea, and subsequent fostering of a civil war in Eastern Ukraine, appear to have killed future An-124 production. At the International Air Transport Forum 2014, Russian Deputy Industry and Trade Minister Yuri Slusar said:

“I am very sorry… The project for resuming the production and upgrade of the unique plane Ruslan is off the agenda. That’s too bad. The niches that the Ukrainians and we might have taken… Designers there and producers here…”

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2014 13:38

Rien wrote:
Even with low availability rates, the An-124 could be a cost-effective option. This means that the An-124 is likely a cost-effectiveoption; however, there are still significant problems associated with the procurement of such a platform
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... MG1238.pdf

That well known band of Communist sympathizers, the US Department of Defence

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30685.pdf

The An-124 Condor is a strategic lift aircraft larger than, but comparable to, the
C-5. As below illustrates, the Air Force has spent $170 million since
FY2002 for An-124 missions. It also appears that the number of An-124 missions is
accelerating. FY2007 figures already are on par with FY2005 figures, and the fiscal
year is not yet half over. While the C-5 may not be as modern as the C-17, or able to
operate from as many runways, the fact that DOD has to outsource missions to
Russian aircraft indicates that the C-5 still offers important capabilities that other
U.S. aircraft may not be able to satisfy
But surely NATO, who have both the A-400M and the C-17 could have nothing but harsh words for the An-124?

Both the US and NATO do use Russian/USSR planes, but only to augment in times of dire need (they use other planes too, from private orgs). It is normal to see a AN-124 sitting in a quarantine area at a USAF Base.

And, just BTW, the USAF has converted to the C-17 (from C-5) - about 2 years ago.

So far both NATO and DoD, Russia hostile organizations have admitted the An-124 is superior to the C-17 and even the C-5 on capability. But what about cost?

The UK also found the An-124 to be superior on cost grounds to the C-17, even though they picked the inferior American plane. Same considerations as here. The US maal was preferred because of politics, not a merit based assessment.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 011719.htm

The Air Foyle bid was an all-inclusive package with no loose ends, and with a cost of £210 million over the seven year contract, ie 42 per cent of the allocated budget
The US DoD, UK, and NATO all agree that the An-124 is superior on cost(50% average), and capability(carries more for further). The obsolete C-17, whose production run ends in 2015 was not a choice based on technical merit.

IF you had read that article carefully, it says: SHORT TERM STRATEGIC AIRLIFT (in fact all in CAPS!!!), followed by:

The Short-Term Strategic Airlift (STSA) procurement process ran from January 1998 to May 2000. The specified requirement was to deploy the Joint Rapid Reaction Force (JRRF) over a distance of 3,200 miles within seven days.

Followed by the kicker:

The competition was "terminated" by the Government on the advice of the Chief of Defence Procurement (CDP), Sir Robert Walmsley, in July 1999. The competition was halted because no one bidder had, in the view of the DPA project team, met the needs of the Ministry of Defence.

So, the cost estimates are *only* for that period and over that particular distance.

___________________________________________

Noticed you are making the same mistake again and again: misreading or misinterpreting and then extrapolating.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 25 Aug 2014 15:36

Rien wrote: Both the Russians and us are on the Eurasian continent. North America is another continent, which has made very few sales of C-17s. The enormous costs the C-17s exceed any potential competitor on the market.Even more so when you factor in Rupee-Rouble trade, which is the deal we are in the last stages of negotiating with Russia.

This link: http://aviationweek.com/awin/a400m-kc-3 ... ort-market, covers the potential global market for military fixed wing airlift of all types. Neither in this article nor anywhere else online are there data points to indicate any nations other than Russia, China, India, Australia, Canada, Japan and EU NATO states have military heavy airlift needs.
Among these countries Australia, Canada, Japan and EU NATO states are allies of US hence will buy first/ second hand C17s only. That leaves only Russia and PRC with heavy lift needs and not favouring C17. India will not want to truck with PRC in a venture. That leaves only Russia and India. There goes your claim of potential customers in Eurasia and North America out of the window.

The MTA project between Russia and India requires 150 planes (45 for India, 105 for Russia) for investment to reach break even. MTA being C-130 class and your proposed AN-124-100 venture (>60 tons payload) will require far greater investment. Lets assume investment scale is same as MTA. Hence to break even will need orders of at least 150. India will have potential requirement of 30-40 more (again generous considering current IAF plans is for total of 24 heavy lift aircrafts). Please show that Russia has assured needs for at least 100 such aircrafts.

Rien wrote: We are going to continue to have refuellers and AWACS on IL. The enormous cost of having multiple types is something you have not factored in your analysis. We can't afford two different types or to train pilots on two different types. The cost advantages of standardizing on one type are too huge.

All possible indicators in media have said that IAF/ DRDO prefer to move away from IL-76 as a platform for AWACS and refuellers. Recent one being this: http://idrw.org/?p=42335
Besides it is a proven concept that commercial airliners are efficient as conventional AWACS and Refueller platforms and not military transports. This is exactly why IAF/ IN are moving towards Boeing/ Airbus platforms for AWACS, refuellers and MSR roles; to leverage the larger support hubs in the country that service the commercial airlines. There goes your claim of basing many potential uses other than transport for such new aircraft.

Rien wrote: Khan's maal is obsolete. It makes no sense to spend billions to buy 1970s vintage hardware. For the same price as Khan Maal, we can purchase our way into a heavy lift program on par with the US and the entirety of NATO.

Military aircraft is considered contemporary on 3 fronts: Airframe design, avionics and engine. It is your needs that determine if the platform is contemporary or not. Sometimes an old design can be contemporary with upgraded avionics and/or engine (like what we have done or planning to do with Jaguar DPSAs). You got it wrong, C-17 airframe design is not 70s but early 80s vintage with the latest avionics and P&W F117 engines (same as the ones used in Boeing 757, again larger client base to sustain the engine support base possibly from India itself).
On the other hand, An-124 airframe design is a 70s vintage which Russia may be looking to re-engine like they did for IL-476 (whose PS-90 engine has lesser thrust and not that wide in use like F117). So to me An-124 seems to be more 'obsolete'/ 'vintage' (from airframe design) in its current form. Any such hypothetical venture may require a new engine and new avionics (IAF is not a fan of Russian avionics anyways)

Rien wrote: It makes no sense to waste billions on purchasing US maal, that grants us no new technology nor meets an existing need when we already have the IL-476 AND the An-124-150m as alternatives.

The IL-476 (IL76-MD-90A) can have max Payload of 60 tons while C-17 can max at Payload of 77 tons for almost similar range (~4400km). So C-17 beats IL-476 on payload.
An-124 beats C-17 in payload but has lower hot & high performance. Hence, it cannot land in forward air strips like Leh with appreciable payload.
If we get into such a venture, assuming no airframe new design/ re-design, we are looking at 10-15 years timeframe for such an aircraft to be developed, tested and to start fielding. For a need which requires <50 aircrafts it makes no economics sense for India to invest capital and set up production lines 'replacing Ukraine' for An-124-100 or even into IL-476. If you claim otherwise please backup with numbers. Considering that the IAF need is in near future (<10 yrs) it very much makes sense to buy more C-17.

Rien wrote: GoI policy, according to Modi Sarkar is joint production. 50% indigenization. Likewise, from the PAK-FA, Su-30 MKI, Sukhoi Superjet, and the Irkut MS-21, we are already fully integrated into the Russian Military/Civil Industrial Complex.
http://in.rbth.com/economics/2013/10/07 ... 29977.html

There are no credible Indian sources which confirm we have any interest whatsoever for Sukhoi Superjet and the Irkut MS-21. As for PAKFA venture the recent indications from IAF are not positive if not negative. If anything current GoI has shown pragmatism with regards to M777 and on other fronts. I believe, notwithstanding your stand or mine, they will show pragmatism here as well.

Rien wrote: You've constructed a straw man argument.

Considering all your arguments are devoid of logical reasoning and/ or data points, Sir your arguments are just straws suspended in air with copious amount of gas from you know where.

For others, found a good side by side high level comparison between C-17 and An-124-100 at: http://planes.findthebest.com/compare/1 ... 00-Russian
Not sure how accurate the figures are, especially for the costs. May be we can use it as a spring board to derive such metrics from credible open source data points.