Transport Aircraft for IAF

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Jul 2015 03:16

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

When did Jane's > common sense?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The ministry of defence of the Russian Federation and OJSC United Aircraft Corporation concluded a contract for supply of 39 IL-76MD-90A transport aircraft. The amount of this contract is 140 billion rubles.

- NPO Nauka press release, 11 Oct 2012

(NPO Nauka is the Russian factory that manufactures the Il-76.)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You can find the dollar-ruble rate as of Oct 2012 HERE. Run your cursor over the chart till you get to Oct 2012.

Divide 140 billion by the answer. Divide it again by 39. Use a calculator. And then tell me whether the final figure was closer to $120 mil or $60 mil.

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

Shouldn't you know the actual cost by now? It was $4.1 billion for 10 C-17s, signed mid-2011. This is an all-inclusive figure including spares, support and a performance-based logistics contract with the OEM guaranteeing 85% serviceability.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The contract signed with NPO Nauka described just the flyaway cost. The analogous figure for the 10 IAF C-17s is $2.16 billion, or $216 million each.

Contract issued to the Boeing factory at Long Beach on Feb 2012 -

Boeing confirms $1.78 billion contract for India C-17s

Add to that another $380 million contract with Pratt & Whitney (signed Dec 2011).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Jul 2015 03:30

To sum that up

IL-76MD-90A

Built at NPO Nauka

Unit Flyaway Cost - $120 mil (Oct 2012)
Lifetime Support Cost - unknown
Cargo Volume - 220 cu.m

C-17

Built at Boeing, Long Beach

Unit Flyaway Cost - $216 mil (Feb 2012)
Lifetime Support Cost - $190 mil
Cargo Volume - 430 cu.m

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 Jul 2015 03:32

Viv S, please refrain from bringing facts to the table when Russian wares are being peddled.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Jul 2015 03:49

Philip wrote:Reliability:Op Cactus
An emergency cabinet meeting followed and the go ahead was given to the IAF and Army to rush a Para force to the Maldives for the rescue of President and also to counter the mercenaries. Thus 2 IL- 76 of No 44 squadron was ordered to be got ready for the assault along with paratroops of the Indian army.

So.. 2 out 17 Il-76s were ready to fly within 6 hours of notification. And in your wisdom, what figure for operational availability did you extrapolate from this nugget?

And since you insist of pursuing this line of argument, let me just pull up some interesting factoids -

IAF has been facing the problem of serviceability of the IL-76s. Availability of spares for the four-engine IL-76 s has also been a major issue after the Soviet Union broke up.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article ... 00656f0300
__________________________________________________________________

India’s two IL-76 squadrons and five AN-32 squadrons have poor serviceability record of less than 50 per cent.

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp ... EFENCE.asp
__________________________________________________________________

The offer from the American company may prove to be a boon to IAF which has been having massive serviceability problems with its Russian supplied short and medium haul transport aircraft which are forced to be grounded due to shortage of spares.

The IAF's two IL-76 squadrons and five AN-32 squadrons have been besieged with poor serviceability record of less than 50 per cent, meaning the fleet was available to the Air Force for less than half their intended utilisation and a huge shortfall in their assigned tasks and performance, mainly due to non-availability of spares and inadequate maintenance.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/lockh ... e/597650/0
__________________________________________________________________

Hampered by the lack of spare parts and serviceability issues, India is increasingly looking West for its military transport aircraft fleet, even as it beefs up its presence along its borders.

The serviceability of the IL-76 has also been called into question. Since the aircraft is manufactured in Uzbekistan, there is a constant lack of spare parts, adding to IAF woes. "The spares availability of the IL-76 is not good. We have to get them from Russia, and that takes a lot of time, and additionally, they are not easily available. Secondly, it is not economically viable to set up an overhauling facility for the IL-76 in India. So, it is not the best situation to be in," Mr Chengappa said.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... t-aircraft
___________________________________________________________________

While IL-78 tankers acquired from Uzbekistan are relatively new, IL-76s were inducted from Russia in mid-1980s. Serviceability of IL-76s, which perform crucial strategic air-lift work for IAF, has been quite a problem.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ers-mig-29
___________________________________________________________________

Seemingly exasperated by low-availability/serviceability for years as a consequence of what it has described unofficially as "unpredictable Russian support" and the country's apparent unwillingness to honour after-sales commitments, the Indian Air Force is looking for the first time beyond Russia for long-term maintenance and product support of its fleet of Ilyushin-76 heavy transports and Ilyushin-78M tanker transports at Agra, Chandigarh, Delhi and Nagpur.

The IAF has been improvising plenty to keep the heavy jets airworthy, but does not believe it can continue to do so without solid support. The Russian OEM, apparently, cannot be relied upon.

Nine IAF Ilyushins which will be undergoing overhaul and total life extension at the time the contract is expected to be awarded will not be included. An additional unspecified number of Ilyushins has remained grounded indefinitely "for want of spares/aggregates which have become unserviceable or expired their TBO/TTL".

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/pe ... ia-to.html
___________________________________________________________________

The Indian Air force (IAF) has been put off by Russia’s dithering attitude when it comes to providing spares and service to India and has decided to look support from elsewhere since the Russian original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is not forthcoming.

http://www.defencenow.com/news/206/iaf_ ... craft.html
___________________________________________________________________

The heavy-lifters are seen as critical to the IAF's needs as it looks to replace its Soviet-era IL-76 transport aircraft fleet, which have been dogged by a lack of serviceability and spares, and are also coming to the end of their operational lifespan.

"The IL, which is a 40-tonne plus aircraft, as a fleet has served us very well, but it is aging now. So, one strategy is their up-gradation and overhauling, but they do not have too much life left. The other strategy is the purchase of the C-17 aircrafts, which carries twice the load of an Ilyushin, and has the advantage of landing on shorter air strips," Naik.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... operations
____________________________________________________________________

Given the limited serviceability of the IL-76 fleet on account of paucity of spares as well as time and cost factors associated with their overhaul by foreign vendors abroad, it was felt prudent to maintain a single establishment of this fleet. Since the IL-76 planes based here were employed for logistic support to army formations in Jammu & Kashmir, additional aircraft would enhance the air maintenance effort.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110815/cth1.htm
____________________________________________________________________

According to Russian and foreign media sources, India refused to buy Russian Il-78 fuel tanker aircraft. Indian officials motivated this decision with the non-conformity of planes to the customer’s requisitions. The spare parts supply and the after-sales service were also mentioned.

“After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia alternated its approach to the handling of the defense business. Nowadays we are facing problems with spare parts, the support of manufacturers and the delays conditioned by the centralized structure of their defense corporations”, Fali Homi Major, the Commander-in-Chief of Indian Air Force told RIA Novosti. Instead of Russian planes India is likely to buy Airbus A330 MRTT manufactured by the European company EADS.

http://www.defencetalk.com/india-russia ... nce-19245/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Jul 2015 04:10

Viv_S: Saar, you do realise you are beating a dead horse right? I echo Nachiket's statement. Facts, stats and figures have no place here. They are falling on deaf ears. Remember, according to him... Russia is a superpower

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 16 Jul 2015 06:05

Rakesh wrote:Remember, according to him... Russia is a superpower

That little gem still cracks me up

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jul 2015 06:47

A nugget.

Jul 8, 2015 :: Delays have squandered options for joint Indo-Russian aircraft

Among other air crafts, this nugget on the MTA:

In November 2012, an office was opened for the joint enterprise MTA Ltd (MTAL) in Bangalore (state of Karnataka); its founders were the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) (25%), Rosoboronexport (25%) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) (50%). Instead of launching the first flight tests in 2013 as expected, MTA had only developed a preliminary design by autumn that year. According to that design, the length of the aircraft was to have been 33 m; wingspan - 30 m; maximum takeoff weight - 55-60 tons; load carrying capacity - 18.5 tons; flight range - 2,000 km; and cruising speed - 800 km. However, this draft design has still to be approved. This made Y. Slusar, president of the UAC call on the Indian side to “maximally speed up all procedures for the approval and acceptance of the results of the preliminary stage (design)” in June 2015.

Dhuuram.

Check out the status of other crafts.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jul 2015 13:43

Il-76s were built in Uzbekistan not Russia.After the collapse of the USSR probelsm were experienced in support,spares,etc. The IL-476s are now being built completely in Russia. Ck your facts.

The facts remain that the C-17s are exceptionally expensive ,out of production,when compared with other options (IL-476s) available today.

The MTA's fate remains to be seen. Who squandered time? The UPA/Cong regime led by one AKA,alias the "Saint"!

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 16 Jul 2015 15:37

The OEM provided maintenance support of C-17s is at the cost of USD 25 Million per annum (at present for new aircraft). I wonder what you can get for IL-76 if you pay that sort of money.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jul 2015 17:00

Is $25M for all 10 aircraft or per aircraft? Should be the former. That's $2.5M per bird per year.What about inflation of a lifespan of say 20-30 years.If you buy say just 3 IL-476s,it will work out to just $180M,say even $200M.you will still have a minimum of $200M to put into the bank and live happily off the interest reg. OEM whatever!,since just one C-17 costs upwards of $400M!

I think that we should write to the DM with these figures .A lot of money can be saved and used for more Rafales,MKIs,whatever instead.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Jul 2015 18:15

Question is..What kind of uptime and capacity you get if you put the kind of dollars that were invested in the C17 for the 476..? Btw, any news on the tanker purchase?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 16 Jul 2015 21:40

USD 25 million per aircraft per annum

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jul 2015 21:56

Sept 27/11 wrote: A not-to-exceed $469 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, covering India’s initial entry into the C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership Program’s “virtual fleet” (FA8614-04-C-2004, PO 0436).

For 10 C-17s. The number of years was never disclosed by either sides - at least I am not aware of it.

India is the only C-17 customer that opted to not go through FMS for the support - rest all are and Boeing through the USAF provides them the required support. I think the Indian agreement includes a MRO facility within India.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Jul 2015 22:16

The UK Pays around $5-6.5 Million per aircraft per year for a total of 25-35 Million pounds per annum for its fleet of 8 under GISP.

That's $2.5M per bird per year.What about inflation of a lifespan of say 20-30 years.If you buy say just 3 IL-476s,it will work out to just $180M,say even $200M.you will still have a minimum of $200M to put into the bank and live happily off the interest reg. OEM whatever!,since just one C-17 costs upwards of $400M!

You are using Russian flyaway cost of the IL vs the commercial or FMS cost of the C17? If you want to do a true apples to apples comparison compare the respective developer fly away costs..Pick the C-17 cost from the SAR if you want to.

Then figure out the lifetime cost of spares, maintenance, depot and overhaul cost of the IL for the fleet to get a high operational availability. The PBL/GISP takes a per year flight hour figure from the end user and takes care of the rest while offering a guaranteed high availability rate..

To put cost in proper perspective treat this aircraft as an airlifter and with "airlifter" like flight hours. Using the UK as an example (since we have their stats readily available) we find that they aim at flying around 8000 fleet hours annually and have exceeded that by around 15% due to higher utilization - 1200 hours per year per aircraft. . Essentially you are looking at a per hour per aircraft cost of around $5000 for the PBL portion, and that takes care of your depot level work, spares, maintenance essentially all of the heavy operational work to maintain high availability outside of fuel and crew.

The cost equation with heavy lifters, or even cargo aircraft is a lot different from fighter aircraft. Fighters cost a lot upfront, with the operational cost per hour spread over 6000-10,000 hours so with some exceptions (MLU's, SLEP's and some long air frame life fighters like the F-15E). Airlifters on average will fly for 4-5 times longer in terms of hours, and cost more to fly per hour as well in terms of fuel. The C-17 burns on average 9000+ kg of fuel (per hour with USAF level average payload)..Much more than the entire internal capacity of most fighters including the heavies. Therefore much like commercial aircraft, the real cost of a heavy lifter is not upfront but through the 30,000 hours of operating it and that includes maintenance, spares, logistics, depots and FUEL.

If I were you, i'd have a lot lot more hard facts on numbers and other operational data in my hand before I go about writing a letter to the DM.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Jul 2015 23:14

Cain Marko wrote:Question is..What kind of uptime and capacity you get if you put the kind of dollars that were invested in the C17 for the 476..? Btw, any news on the tanker purchase?

You'd get almost twice as many Il-76s that can almost carry the same cumulative payload.

1 C-17 = 2 x Il-76MD in terms of both cost and payload.

Gyan wrote:USD 25 million per aircraft per annum

That's an absurd figure.

brar_w wrote:You are using Russian flyaway cost of the IL vs the commercial or FMS cost of the C17? If you want to do a true apples to apples comparison compare the respective developer fly away costs..Pick the C-17 cost from the SAR if you want to.

Actually he's still insisting that the flyaway cost of the Il-76 is $60 mil. In the hope, apparently, that constant repetition will bestow some legitimacy on a dis-proven argument.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Jul 2015 23:24

Rakesh wrote:Viv_S: Saar, you do realise you are beating a dead horse right? I echo Nachiket's statement. Facts, stats and figures have no place here. They are falling on deaf ears. Remember, according to him... Russia is a superpower

Fortunately, I have expert testimony from an unimpeachable witness. Philipji himself.

An excerpt from Philip's post from 15th Feb 2013 -

Philip in Feb 2013 wrote:Now for sceptics out of touch with events,the IL-476-aka the IL-76MD-90A is being built by Aviastar in Ulyanovsk,Russia.The first flight of the new version took place in Sept.2012.In Oct.Putin viewed the aircraft and ordered an initial batch of 39 for a cost of only $4.5billion.That works out to just over $110million per aircraft

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2015 03:31

Viv S wrote:
Philip in Feb 2013 wrote:Now for sceptics out of touch with events,the IL-476-aka the IL-76MD-90A is being built by Aviastar in Ulyanovsk,Russia.The first flight of the new version took place in Sept.2012.In Oct.Putin viewed the aircraft and ordered an initial batch of 39 for a cost of only $4.5billion.That works out to just over $110million per aircraft

That was when the exchange rate was 0.032. Today it is 0.018.

56% more bananas.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 17 Jul 2015 18:50

A new term "cost per flying aircraft" should be coined when it comes to Russian aircraft whether fighters or transports. While as Philip says the IL-476 or the SU30 may cost half as much as the C17 or the Rafale respectively, only about 50% of them can be in the air at any time because of poor serviceability issues. So in reality the cost of each "serviceable" SU30 or IL76/476 is double the purchase cost. Aircraft sitting on the ground for lack of spares or maintainance and therefore out of service are of no use either for training or war.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2015 19:35

Still a minimum of 4 IL-476s for just 1 C-17 even by the "Bank of NR" rouble rate! With a lower rouble rate,it would actually work out better for India as we could pay in the rupee-rouble equiv. The aircraft could be even cheaper. Please give stats for IL-476 aircraft for support,spares,maintenance,etc /annual maintenance contracts to justify the "50%" fig. Let's have some IAF figs even for older Il-76s which are now 20+ years old still flying v.well and are being upgraded.If they were such gas guzzlers and so heavy on operational costs,the IAF would surely have pensioned them off some time ago and not sought upgrades.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jul 2015 20:27

You do realize that what a developer pays for an aircraft varies considerably from what another operator pays for the same aircraft? sine the logistical train is a part of the contract? If you truly were interested in an apples to apples coparison, you would take what Russia pays for spanking new IL's and compare that overall program acquisition cost to the USAF's cost for its C-17's. Then if you were truly interested in actually finding the overall acquisition costs, you'd look at data from the Russian side on how much maintenance per year, these aircraft consume to get to a high mission availability rate. Use that historic data and then see what it costs over 30,000 airframe flight hours. Factor in things like inflation. Thats how an LCC acquisition process actually works, and as I have shown that component of the C-17 for the UK was around $5000 per flight hour for the PBL and that took care of all maintenance (small to heavy) in order to "GUARANTEE" a mission availability rate that was 80+%. You can also use your cost/pound type of cargo industry tools and can download excel files on the calculations..You would still need your data, and so far you have brought absolutely ZILCH on the russian transporter while we know exactly what the GISP guarantee is in availability rates and what some customers pay for that when they operate close to 1200 hours per aircraft every year.

Let's have some IAF figs even for older Il-76s which are now 20+ years old still flying v.well and are being upgraded.If they were such gas guzzlers and so heavy on operational costs,the IAF would surely have pensioned them off some time ago and not sought upgrades.

Why would you do that? All legacy aircraft are harder to maintain compared to spanking new ones, does this mean the older aircraft are retired off before their end of service life? The deal was about new aircraft, and what would be the best LCC solution. The only time when it makes sense to pension off aircraft and recapitalize the fleet by retiring aircraft with life left in them is if the cost of maintenance is prohibitively expensive on account of a lack of a hot spares production line. This happens in some cases where you have to essentially make a ton of capital investment in buying spares for your remaining fleet life. The US is doing that with the JSTARS right as we speak.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2015 21:46

Data point.

Here is an article by Jha (respected on BR?), from March, 2015, that does not even mention the IL-76/476. Would imagine that is a pretty good indicator of the thinking within the IAF.

Transport aircraft futures for the Indian Air force

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2015 21:52

Indian AF Transport Program Hits Hurdle

There is more than this quote, but .................

No Air Force official would publicly comment on the priority list under preparation, but an Air Force source said one reason that buying aircraft to replace the Avros could be viewed as a low priority is because India is negotiating joint production and development of medium transport aircraft with Russia's United Aircraft Corp. (UAC). It has also purchased US transports.

"India has procured the US-made C-17s and C-130Js to satisfy its transport requirements. Although these aircraft come under the heavy-lift category, for now they have reduced the operational exigency of procuring new transport aircraft, which may also be why India has been dragging its feet on the Airbus C-295 and transport aircraft program," said another Air Force officer.

That is a quote.

Dunno. Looks like, exchange rate will not matter. (I may have to close my bank before it opens?)

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 17 Jul 2015 22:10

An old article dating back to 2006 about the service issues relating to the IL-76:

Jumbos on the ground, Airforce rejigs fleet

The IAF has a fleet of 14 IL-76 aircraft. Only five were fully operational. Six aircraft were being overhauled and three others were due for maintenance needs

A newer article from 2015 relating to the SU-30 MKI:

SU-30 MKI.......plagued by engine trouble

Another problem area that senior Air Force officers point out is serviceability. "Serviceability of the aircraft is about 50 per cent only," an officer said. It means at any given time, roughly half out of a fleet of 200 jets are available for operational purposes. This becomes crucial in times of emergencies like war.

So "cost per flying aircraft" is at least double the purchase price for Russian aircraft.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Jul 2015 23:46

Philip wrote:Still a minimum of 4 IL-476s for just 1 C-17 even by the "Bank of NR" rouble rate! With a lower rouble rate,it would actually work out better for India as we could pay in the rupee-rouble equiv. The aircraft could be even cheaper.

And that would have been very nice if the principles of economics actually worked that way. Unfortunately, there's this little thing called inflation. The Eurozone facing a stagnation or even deflation has the advantage of improving cost-competitiveness as the value of the Euro plummets. The same doesn't apply to Russia for obvious reasons. The Indian Rupee went from 40 to the dollar to 65 to the dollar. Did our exports explode with massive improved competitiveness? Did our imports shrink, unable to compete with local products?

We paid about $350 million each for the Talwar class frigates in 2006. By your logic, they should cost less than $200 million today. The actual bill for the new ships is, surprise surprise... $1 billion per unit.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 18 Jul 2015 12:32

Viv S wrote:
We paid about $350 million each for the Talwar class frigates in 2006. By your logic, they should cost less than $200 million today. The actual bill for the new ships is, surprise surprise... $1 billion per unit.

No, we paid 1.6bn for the 2006 order. That makes it $530 mn. Doubling cost in 10 years with local manufacture is reasonable.

Source

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Jul 2015 15:19

Nikhil T wrote:
Viv S wrote:
We paid about $350 million each for the Talwar class frigates in 2006. By your logic, they should cost less than $200 million today. The actual bill for the new ships is, surprise surprise... $1 billion per unit.
No, we paid 1.6bn for the 2006 order. That makes it $530 mn. Doubling cost in 10 years with local manufacture is reasonable.

Source

Yeah that should be $530 million (not 350). Typo.

Doubling in ten years implies is perfectly reasonable, except that the Shivalik still remains a more cost-effective solution than the Talwar. In any event, my basic point was that the inflation factor still is at work, which also applies to the Il-76. There is simply no way that its available for 3.6 bn rubles each in 2016 to an export customer.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jul 2015 22:38

IL-476 cost/orders for Russia are available.Even at the highly inflated cost of $100M,when it has been ordered in the rouble equiv of $60M,one still gets 4 Il-476s for just 1 C-17. earlier IL-76s which have been serving us v.well for over 2 decades were built in Uzbekistan not Russia.After the collapse of the USSR all Soviet era weapon systems suffered spares/support problems because the Soviets spread out their manufacturing units across the country.The problem with marine engines from the UKR for Russian warships is an issue today. Today the IL-476 is built entirely in Russia ,and will be in production for at least a decade or two.There should be little issue reg. spares/support,etc. The GOI has also in recent given the maintenance/logistic support to dedicated entities for Russian naval and aircraft who will maintain adequate stocks od spares,etc. instead of the service in Q having to maintain a huge inventory.
The "R" co. were hoping for this task as well for the Rafale.

10 C-17s and around 20 upgraded IL-76s really seem adequate for our heavy-lift needs.We don't have expeditionary warfare ambtions. We actually require a few more C-130 aircraft and heavy-lift helos like MI-26Ts ,Chinooks,etc. for Himalayan duties and to lift heavy engineering eqpt. for building our border roads and infrastructure,behind schedule and much inferior to what the Chinese have on the other side in Tibet. The C-295s should be acquired/built,as there are both mil and civil requiremetns,unless the 100 or so AN-32 upgrades are adequate for the task for the moment. It looks like the IAF is pretty short in the pocket for cash,esp. funds earmarked for transports when big-tkt items like Rafales are the lust of the times.One has to "cut one's coat according to the cloth".

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Jul 2015 23:07

IL-476 cost/orders for Russia are available.

And so is the cost of the C-17 to the USAF. Point? Comparing what Russia paid to acquire a system to a system which the US developed but India acquired is not a fair comparison. Developers buy at damn close to fly-away cost because the infra. and logistical costs are dealt with elsewhere in the budgets. FMS or commercial customers buy the aircraft, training, and everything required to develop a capability to deploy the aircraft. If you want to do an apples to apples comparison, compare what the USAF paid for its last C-17 batch to what the Russians paid or expect to pay for the IL-476.

After the collapse of the USSR all Soviet era weapon systems suffered spares/support problems because the Soviets spread out their manufacturing units across the country.

Don't care about history, but what I would like to know is the O&S cost to support each one of those birds for 30,000 hours. Millions of dollars per year for a PBL (GIIISP) comes to just $5000 per flying hour when you divide it for an operator's fleet utilization, and do note if you fly less you pay less. As mentioned before the upfront cost is only one portion, a minority portion of the cost. @ $25,000 per hour (an example) an aircraft costs $750 Million to operate over its designed life. A mere 20% increase in O&S cost adds $150 million. This is the same equation that is used in cargo aircraft and why Airbus and Boeing rule the skies!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Jul 2015 23:52

Philip wrote:IL-476 cost/orders for Russia are available.Even at the highly inflated cost of $100M,when it has been ordered in the rouble equiv of $60M,one still gets 4 Il-476s for just 1 C-17.

The IAF's C-17 costed $216 million flyaway - $178 mil for the aircraft, $38 mil for the engines. Links posted. Scroll upwards.

So, the C-17 costs only twice as much as the Il-76. And carries twice as much as well.

Philip wrote:earlier IL-76s which have been serving us v.well for over 2 decades were built in Uzbekistan not Russia.After the collapse of the USSR all Soviet era weapon systems suffered spares/support problems because the Soviets spread out their manufacturing units across the country.

Every Russian aircraft in the IAF's fleet has been headache when it comes to reliability, with the sole exception being the first-rate Mi-17. And while blaming the Soviet collapse might work where the older aircraft are concerned, post-Soviet acquisitions haven't been much better. Case-in-point Su-30MKI & MiG-29K.

Philip wrote:The problem with marine engines from the UKR for Russian warships is an issue today. Today the IL-476 is built entirely in Russia ,and will be in production for at least a decade or two.There should be little issue reg. spares/support,etc. The GOI has also in recent given the maintenance/logistic support to dedicated entities for Russian naval and aircraft who will maintain adequate stocks od spares,etc. instead of the service in Q having to maintain a huge inventory.
The "R" co. were hoping for this task as well for the Rafale.

Its an established fact that the Russian after-sales support has been nothing short of atrocious -

_________________________________________________________________________________________

“After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia alternated its approach to the handling of the defense business. Nowadays we are facing problems with spare parts, the support of manufacturers and the delays conditioned by the centralized structure of their defense corporations”, Fali Homi Major, the Commander-in-Chief of Indian Air Force told RIA Novosti. Instead of Russian planes India is likely to buy Airbus A330 MRTT manufactured by the European company EADS.

Seemingly exasperated by low-availability/serviceability for years as a consequence of what it has described unofficially as "unpredictable Russian support" and the country's apparent unwillingness to honour after-sales commitments, the Indian Air Force is looking for the first time beyond Russia for long-term maintenance and product support of its fleet of Ilyushin-76 heavy transports and Ilyushin-78M tanker transports at Agra, Chandigarh, Delhi and Nagpur.

Russians Give Indian Navy Big MiG-29K Induction Troubles

Hardly surprising anymore. Sources indicate that the MiG-29K induction experience is proving to be a real nuisance, with the Russians nitpicking over contractual provisions and delaying smooth operations at the Black Panthers squadron in Goa.

I've been requested by my sources not to put down the precise nature of the problems, though suffice it to say that the Indian Navy is not in the least pleased with how the Russians are executing and following up on the K contract.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Philip wrote:10 C-17s and around 20 upgraded IL-76s really seem adequate for our heavy-lift needs.We don't have expeditionary warfare ambtions.

The Il-76s could be replaced by very reliable & well supported ex-USAF C-17s for a fairly good price.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2015 00:26

A simple quote:

"India has procured the US-made C-17s and C-130Js to satisfy its transport requirements.

Although these aircraft come under the heavy-lift category, for now they have reduced the operational exigency of procuring new transport aircraft, which may also be why India has been dragging its feet on the Airbus C-295 and transport aircraft program," said another Air Force officer.

"Costs" have been taken into account and only then were they bought.

QED.

* So, IAF is not even looking at the 476 and for good reasons
* And, the upgrades for the 76s are complete (I bet the IAF upgrade allowed the RuAF to upgrade their at a veyr low cost - as it happens)

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 04 Aug 2015 06:58

This is an extremely interesting article on the MTA. Thanks to Austin for posting it on keypubs.

http://www.aex.ru/docs/7/2015/7/3/2266/ (article in Russian)

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... rev=search

Today, as the base defined PS-90, which provides and high, and work in a hot climate, the more that these engines are already in operation in India and well shows.

- But still lays in the future re-engine?

- In the future, of course. This may be a PD-14, and I think that motorists will go on, and the engine may appear higher bypass ratio. Our plane is vysokoplan that allows to experiment and do what all the world strive to achieve - bypass 1 to 15. However, the aircraft will be used to the new engines ....

How will be divided between the parties to the production function?

- From the outset, it is seen that we are, and India will carry out final assembly.

- A kit?

- The issue of components is great potential for the development of Russian-Indian cooperation in the aircraft industry. You can consider any component parts as the object soproizvodstva. This also applies to on-board systems, and any other components that might be made in India. It should be noted that India has achieved considerable success in the series production of aircraft and, in part, in some areas has a very good achievements. That is, Russia is not going to act as an elder brother, and as an equal partner.

- But India wants to obtain not only technology, but also the intellectual property rights.

- Under the agreement, both parties have the right to use all the technologies developed under the project. The developer is a Russian-Indian enterprise «Multirole Transport Aircraft Ltd» (MTAL), it will be entitled to all rights. I do not exclude that in the future it may grow into a powerful Russian-Indian aircraft company, similar to Airbus, which will develop and produce a wide range of aircraft ....

3. The aircraft meets the requirements of both countries to ensure independence from political risks of military transport capabilities. (For example, the Brazilian aircraft KC-390 has all the basic components of American or Western Europeans production. And this political risks with which we are familiar and Indian partners, and dozens more countries. The result of such risks clearly demonstrated in Indonesia, where the crashed C 130, the park which for many years has been deprived of the right to supply spare parts for appropriate sanctions. These political risks are unacceptable to the armed forces of a country that wants to maintain independence in decision-making.)

4. You can not consider this program as a program of the aircraft. This program, which is developed on the basis of a system of relations in the aviation industry between us and India, the system of relations in the military-technical cooperation. The process involves both industry and the Ministry of Defence and the government and legislative bodies of both countries. So far in India, defense industry only joint venture "BrahMos" and «MTAL» have an equal share of the Indian and Russian shareholders in the capital of companies - 50%. This privilege is a great responsibility. Indian legislation (a company registered in Bangalore) is not limited by one company's product. Developing competencies and acquiring joint experience with stage Bookmarks requirements for aircraft to stage the serial production and logistics components for the assembly of the organization, it makes sense to expand the product range, which by the way "Brahmos" is already doing. From «MTAL» can grow large joint aviation company. What is the next product will design and build the company depends on how fast we move over to the first product - the aircraft MTS. A proposal is already there.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Aug 2015 08:02

This is an extremely interesting article on the MTA

Nothing new there. But it is an incomplete post. What is of importance is :

Do I understand correctly that for Russia the question is solved, and the project will be implemented in any case, with or without India?

- Yes, today in Russia there is no medium military transport aircraft.

So, the project, after all that talk, is still up in the air.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Aug 2015 12:14

The MIG-29K engine problems at Goa was found due to the poor condition of the Dab runway (debris ingestion) which had to be repaired every year.Media reports have already been posted. If there are still problems,then MIG will have to "do the business"! Same rule for all suppliers. Look at Barak-8,a few years of delay ,affecting the combat capability and delivery of our frontline warships,and the IN have asked for tests first on an Israeli warship before venturing a test on one of ours.

Mr.Modi's Nov visit will see some clarity on various deals still up in the air.We'll just have to be patient.
The plus point in the MTA design to me is commonality with the IL-476,same cross-section of fuselage,cockpit layout/avionics,double-deck for paras,able to handle larger sized cargo that the much smaller C-295 cannot,which has always been mentioned officially as the AVRO replacement,not an MTA alternative.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Aug 2015 18:40

Philip wrote:The MIG-29K engine problems at Goa was found due to the poor condition of the Dab runway (debris ingestion) which had to be repaired every year.Media reports have already been posted.

So the FOD screen was a failure, I take it? Can you point me towards the media reports describing all the engine problems that the Airbuses & Boeings flying to and from Goa faced?

If there are still problems,then MIG will have to "do the business"! Same rule for all suppliers.

Which means what? The MoD has no choice but to like it or lump it. It is however more than enough incentive not to touch the MiG-29M/MiG-35 (AF variant) with a bargepole.

The plus point in the MTA design to me is commonality with the IL-476,same cross-section of fuselage,cockpit layout/avionics,double-deck for paras,able to handle larger sized cargo that the much smaller C-295 cannot,which has always been mentioned officially as the AVRO replacement,not an MTA alternative.

The C-130J can still do everything the MTA can and more, with the only downside being a marginally lower cruise speed.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 04 Aug 2015 19:35

Viv,

This is fudging the data. FOD for fighters -- entirely different intakes, takeoff runs, and engine performance -- and commercial craft can not be compared. If there were other fighters routinely taking off from the strip you would have an argument. Right now, its just false equivalence and bad mouthing an in service aircraft.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Aug 2015 19:51

Shreeman wrote:Viv,

This is fudging the data. FOD for fighters -- entirely different intakes, takeoff runs, and engine performance -- and commercial craft can not be compared. If there were other fighters routinely taking off from the strip you would have an argument. Right now, its just false equivalence and bad mouthing an in service aircraft.

Commercial aircraft AFAIK don't have any FOD protection. It would have been a false equivalence had the Airbus/Boeing engines been conking out with the MiG-29K ops running unaffected.

Also for the record, the Al-31 that's widely considered a more reliable product than the RD-33, has also been conking out at a frightening rate (69 engine failures in less than four years).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Aug 2015 20:59

Data fudging: Complex Verb. talking of FOD in ~~Goa~~ Dabolim airport when the MiG-29 has issues with engine failures serious enough for the IN to request confirmation that the MiG-29K can take off on a single engine in case a plane does not catch any of the wires on landing on the Vicky.

But then one can expect people to believe when a fudged data is presented often enough: The sun rises from the South.

Or to sneak in fudged data in the wrong thread.

Or to sneak in fudged data among clean data, so that collectively it appears to be non-fudged.

Or to sneak it in enough times till people get tired and then claim it is clean data.

Sorry, slow day. Neither the MTA nor the IL-476 has appeared on the horizon. And, of course posting 5 years old info on the PAK-FA to make it appear as the latest and denote progress. When there is none.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Aug 2015 22:25

Shreeman wrote:Viv,

This is fudging the data. FOD for fighters -- entirely different intakes, takeoff runs, and engine performance -- and commercial craft can not be compared. If there were other fighters routinely taking off from the strip you would have an argument. Right now, its just false equivalence and bad mouthing an in service aircraft.

The Harriers didn't seem to have this problem. And Viv S is right. The Mig-29's at least have a foreign object screen on their intakes (although I don't know whether it is used during taxi only or even during takeoff). The A320's and especially B737's that routinely take off from the same strip have low mounted engines and should be suffering from the same issues if the runway was that bad.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 05 Aug 2015 04:37

NRao wrote:So, the project, after all that talk, is still up in the air.

That's a strange conclusion to draw. The Russian interviewee went into great detail as to all the work that's already been completed on it (to satisfy the requirements of both India and Russia). The project will definitely proceed. Even apart from the Indian requirement, Russia urgently needs to replace its medium-lift Antonov transports, and PM Modi certainly won't turn down the business opportunity the MTA represents. I recommend re-reading the article.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Aug 2015 05:47

That's a strange conclusion to draw.

True. All that work, etc. And I hope all ends well.

The problem, as I have mentioned often, is that Russian web site tend to repeat that stuff every time they print on this topic. Nothing has happened for years now. And the supposed problem? IAF refusing to accept the engine that Indians have accepted. Ha ha ha ha.

Check the Indian sources,they are either dead or negative.

So, I have no idea how you can put on a smile and say it will happen. May be you have some info that I do not.

As far as I know this project is stuck.