Bharat Rakshak

The paratrooper capacity of the IL-76 and of the C-17 are close for the following reason:

Their cabins are almost the same length, 20 meters for the Il-76 and 20,78 for the C-17.

In paratrooper configuration, the IL-76 is loaded like this, but without the upper deck.



The C-17's is similar:



They both use the same configuration of 4 rows of paratroopers, two along the sidewalls, and two in the center, back to back. So since both cabins have the same length and there are 4 rows of paratroopers on each aircraft, they carry about the same in paratrooper configuration.

the IL76 config looks like a mumbai local at 9am. the C17 has enough room to permit a more comfortable ride. for carrying regular troops it can carry lots of bags and stuff along the aisles.

for india, the addl comfort may not matter as our para flights will be like 500km from base to dropzone.

Apart from transport of war materials the IAF uses transports day in and day out for tasks that are boring by BRF jingo standards. Most of the time heavy transport is not required.

But if anyone is interested here is a documentary spread into parts

SAC 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTXGiTxz6c


SAC 2/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC-KAF8wQo8


SAC 3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyPeZxa5asY

GD. Loose stuff along aisles is bad news in an aircraft although it is OK for Mumbai local. Otherwise the C17 could accommodate 200 more men as standing passengers.

This pdf has a description of what happens to loose, unstowed, untethered objects in an aircrat cabin
http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_reposito ... -SEQ10.pdf

I could write a more graphic description though. Imagine a 20 kg bag hitting someone in the chest at 50 kmph due to turbulence. That is the energy of a 1 kg (2 pounder) shell at 1000 kmph.

Any reason why IAF would replace 100 odd fleet of An-32 that can carry 6T to ~2500 km with 45 odd MTA that can carry 20T at the same range ?

So fewer aircraft with better payload and better maintenance/uptimes are better then larger fleet of small aircraft ?

The logic is not very clear if the IAF actualy wants to replace the An 32 with the MTA. As I understand that a smaller fleet of MTA even if capable of lifting more. Will not be covering as much ground as a larger fleet of lesser capable aircraft.

Also in this analysis we are completely missing the replacement needs of 60 (??)odd Hs 748s currently in service with the IAF. They will also be needing replcacement. So it is possible that the IAF will end up having more then 45 MTAs.

But that still leaves open the question of a smaller fleet and how much ground it can cover at one time.

The pictures posted above show just how wide the body of the C17 truly is. Looking at the picture it seems that the C 17 has enough space to add two more rows of seats. Not to mention a second deck with 3/4 rows:P

If it is to get as congested as the IL 76. in the pictire posted above.

they could squeeze in one more row probably and still have enough room for folks to walk to the restroom.

Some will be taken up by the C-27 I guess.

This is a very good reason to get the RTA (military) version to come up ASAP.

The An 32 was designed by Russia for Russian needs (as the An 26) and up-engined and offered to India as the An 32. The MTA on the other hand has an Indian design demand element. AFAIK. So it might not be a direct one to one replacement.

I asked my unkal googal and he was unable to tell me if either C-17 or Il 76 have a toilet for paratrpoops.

But I guess portable toilets can be there.
http://arkansasleader.blogspot.com/2010 ... e-and.html

Shiv Ji,

This reminds me of the debate for the C 17 numbers needed. When it was in the process of replacing the C 141. Initialy 130 + 14 for the SOC C 17s were planned to be build to replace approx 270 + 14 C 141s. The agrument presented was that a smaller fleet of 17s can lift as much as the larger fleet of the 141s.

The counter argument was that it cannot be at the number of places the 141s can be at any one time. That more 17s were orderd to reach the current numbers is probably a result of the debate.

My concern is that the MTA though more capable and capable of lifting almost 2.5 times more then the 32s cannot cover as much ground as the lessor lifting 32s can. In times of need.

Also, the replacement of much older fleet of the 748 is not on the visible horizon. Perhaps the RTA can take care of this need. But, the time frame during which it becomes available to the IAF is unknown.

What I am trying to say is even if the MTA lifts more then the 32s. We need a lot more then the 45 planned by the IAF.

The capability to lift and transport at least 50k troops and eqpn rapidly is required.

Pratyush - I have been following the MTA saga for at least 7 years now (from Aero India 2003 I think). Perhaps you have followed it too.

One of the early arguments that were made (from the Indian side) was that India must follow the tried and tested method of "risk reduction" using partnerships the way Brazil did with its Embraer. This is why I think India and Russia are in this partnership and they have both quoted estimated numbers of aircraft which I think reflect the minimum commitment from both sides to make the project viable.

I suppose you do remember that the originally quoted number of Su-30 MKIs for India was 140. What is the current number? 250? So I think the MTA program has inherent business risksand those risks must be accounted for when the initial numbers are quoted. There was a recent article by AM Philip Rajkumar who did the An-32 testing that Russia first wanted a commitment from India about buying the aircraft before they actually got it ready for India.

Shiv Ji,

Actualy, I remember 40 MKIs in 97, growing to 140 in 2001 and 270 in 2010. So yes it is possible that the MTA will have more then 45 as planned today.

I just have this fear & parhaps it will remain until the first one takes off and the IAF orders a whole lot more then 45. That IAF will limit it self to 45.

India's aviation industry has a huge hole -and that is in the manufacture of civil aircraft. That hole must be plugged. India must be the only country in the world that is talking 5th gen combat aircraft without having designed and produced a 3rd gen airliner/freighter.

Shiv,

Lets not get bogged down with lost chances. I will start crying over the HF 73 the RTA 70 proposed by the HAL in the 70s and the lost geenration if we do.

But yes, the civilian aircraft capability is needed.

Perhaps, the GOI can guide and prevale upon the stalwerts in the Pvt industry to create an Aerospace consortium and take upon the task of building a domestic airliner with a portion of the budget to be contributed by the GOI as subsidy. With the HAL concentrating upon the needs of the IAF.

But its just a dream.

Pratyush I think there are serious plans afoot actually. Saras will fly and give us a feederliner. The MTA will be a new experience. And somewhere out there - there is an Indian airliner waiting to be built. Plugging the airliner gap is a must.

it wont happen with NAL in charge - they made heavy weather of the puny Saras and had to pull in italian and russian help to iron out the defects that crashed the 1st proto.

HAL has to be involved and pvt industry too from the word go - perhaps with a successful foreign partner like Embraer on airframe design, honeywell on control systems, sextant on avionics and GE/PW on engine...thats the route Panda is taking to make its plane a success....1st tranche will have lot of imported systems, but goal is 3rd tranche will be much more pandafied incl a local engine.

if we start to reinvent every nut and bolt it will never happen - because of skill gaps, timelines, lack of people etc etc .

and the goal should be minimum 100 seater, not yet again some "smallest lightest" 30 seater!

both have permanent lavatories

Thanks. Is that for the crew alone or to cater to 100 plus troops on a 3 hour flight?

Well that would be a matter of policy, not a physical limitation.

It is there.

However they want to use it is up to the organization.

That said, I doubt they would refuse its use to troops in need.

The development of Civil Aircraft has a long and sleepy history , I remember it was during Aero India 1996 that Deve Gowda out of the blue announced a project to develop a 50 seater and a 100 seater civil aircraft project , a budget of 100 cr was announced for both. It was a blot from blue announcement and every one was taken by surprised.

There were reports in past 10 years that we would lic manuf some ATR type for 50 seater and develop 100 seater but nothing happened on those front till date there has been little development on both these project now NAL seems to be interested in developing an 80-100 seater and this on face looks like a serious venture.

If they are dead serious on this project then they should first explore the market ( to start with local ) and then do a business assessment and justification to go ahead with this ( no nonsense scientific sloganeering like there is a need of 4000 aircraft in the world and we can capture 1/3 of it ) , there is no point in building a 80 seater if there is no domesticl civil market for such project. Ofcourse you can ask/force the military to commit to some numbers but a military needs can differ significantly from Civil needs for the latter profitability is the key to operate these types.

Just a casual look at the civil aviation scene revels that most of the state owned airlines and all the private airlines in low cost arena operate the 150-200 seater A320/B737 , probably the passenger demands and profitability dictates that they operate these types in most routes. There is the odd ATR and An-148 but these are very small number and perhaps they fly in non-profit making route , if the requirement is too small then it difficult to even achieve break even for such projects.

Once they see the need to develop such an aircraft based on say certain projections its good to start with a captive market which mean sign up for x number of 80 seaters with State/Private airlines , it gives a good boost to the project if they have certain captive market , makes the project feasible from design stage and since investor money is involved there is constant pressure to deliver on schedule and budget , china has started their own C919 venture ( 150-190 seater ) with a committed customer for 100 aircraft on domestic routes.

Its good that HAL leads the project while NAL does the back end support task like scientific studies ,scout for technologies,feasibility studies etc , HAL has some exposure international market and some experience it is in a best position to deliver the project than any body.

Finally there is no need to reinvent the wheel just take what is available,competitive and deliverable by indian organisation/industry and scout for rest of the technologies around the world e.g engine , project consultancy ,avionics etc what ever it takes that can deliver the project on time and keep it competitive against establisher players in the market like Bombardier ,Embraer will mean the project will have a good chance to succeed.

If India can develop a small but globally competitive civil aircraft industry it will have a cascading and positive effect on the way we go about developing military aircraft.

All 100+ AN-32s are going to be upgraded and the MTA's will add to the airlift capability,as much as the C-17s are supposed to add to the IL-76s supposedly also to be upgraded.They arer too valuable to be pensioned off early and have at least another decade of life left in them.See how venerable US B-52s and Russian TU-142s are still operational !

>> Deve Gowda out of the blue announced a project to develop a 50 seater and a 100 seater civil aircraft project , a budget of 100 cr was announced for both.



without confirmed captive initial order from indian airlines and IAF/BSF domestic airliner project would have no future at all. In effect the GOI (i.e. we) must fund the first 50 or so a/c to make sure it stands on two feet, production issues worked out and the supply chain validated. money breakeven point could be well over a decade+ from FOC certification.

What never fails to amaze me is the chutzpah of many nations who want to reinvent the wheel without the resources to do so.There are only two countries who have been able to design and manufacture the entire range of aircraft on their own,the US and Soviet Union/Russia.All other major successful programmes have been collaborative efforts.Take Airbus for example.A galaxy of European manufacturers working together.So many great names in aviation industry have merged.You now have EADS,BAe,etc.,etc.When it comes to smaller narrow body aircraft Embraer and Bombardier have been reasonably successful.The proposal for India to manufacture its own 100 seater civilian aircraft espoused some time ago will be another white elephant project,when it would've been far better to have tied up with either Embraer,Bombardier or even Sukhoi,whose 100-seater Superjet will fly with European engines.Below 100 seater aircraft,their are a host of manufacturers around the globe who have made some excellent aircraft like Dornier,and we could've tied up with some others or even bought them out; opportunity missed with Dornier and Fokker.I don't see Saras succeeding given its stated weight problems,etc. The sad state of affairs is nowhere more visible than our desperate call for international manufacturers for 150+ basic trainers for the IAF,with one idea being to provide our indigenous HT-32s to be provided with rescue parachutes in case of engine failure!

its wiser to go for niche products in the civil market than take on the big workhorses (B737/A320 or the B767/A330 classes) due to the huge investment and infrastructure plus the massive sales runs required to break even and then turn a profit. the chinese are venturing into teh B737/A320 market - but it will be interesting to see how they get on. they have a number of 'domestic customers' who have signed up for the launch

a more restricted feederliner or regional multi-hopper type aircraft with a very specific operational profile makes a lot more sense in terms of economic viability

I was looking at the fleet of IA/AirIndia and they both seem to have a fleet ~ 75 A320/319/321 , right now the Russians are developing the narrow body single aisle MS-21 civil airline which will be competing with the new generation Boeing/Airbus B737-900/A320 N plus the Chinese C919 in the 150 - 200 seater

The MS-21 already has a committed customer of 150 aircraft at this stage and in service date of 2016 , it uses a variant of 5 gen engine PD-14 that will power the MTA.

If we could buy a stake of 25 % in this development program it would be a good share of significant work for a competitive design ( better then making door for Airbus that HAL does now ) there is a captive market in the widely used A-320/737 replacement category in State owned and private airlines it would raise HAL competitive scale and generate revenue.

Considering MTA a military aircraft and MS-21 civil type uses the same engine there is a degree of logistics advantage.

I think it will be a good start for Transport aircraft for India in Military and Civil market with an eye to get a small scale of global market and most importantly to rise competitiveness to global standards in the next 2 decades.

Some write up on MS-21

Won't those also have competitors who are well entrenched with successful products?

An-32 are 4T payload, not 6T. There was an upgrade proposal from Ukraine to up-engine to 6.5T payload but that's not happening I think.

I think this plan is still alive. Wasn't there some recent news of India-Russia collaboration in this field? India and Russia are the two countries who can, with their own internal market, give others a run for their money.

merlin ji - yes ofcourse, e.g. embraer, dehavilland, ATR, etc. - but not necessarily one that is tailor made for very specific indian condition 'missions', plus barriers to entry are lower

we might need to make some strategic industrial choices rather than just do a me too strategy. not all nations design and build aircraft afterall

Shiv the only plan we have with Russia is to develop a military transport aircraft MTA , at a latter stage they are planning to make 100 seater from MTA but thats probably for the military/vip market.

We can give others a run for their money only if we have a competitive product that is better or equal to others in the race , else it difficult to beat Bombardier or Boeing in their game.

and the goalposts are constantly shifting....we need strategic partners thats for sure. another 'science project' run by NAL on a shoestring budget will just keep the scientists employed until retirement and having fun tinkering, but never deliver a working and reasonable cost product.
I am not criticising NAL but they are not a product house and have no track record of delivering even something like a ATR72 from scratch.

we need to pull in both desi and bideshi help and reduce risk to make a successful product. NAL can play the role of TsAGI and work on the science and physics behind the design and airframe etc.

What gets my goat is that the aircraft has not been designed with a rear loading ramp, which means that it can never see bulk service with the IAF. True that civil airlines dont have such a configuration - but maybe there could have been an innovative solution? If at all, it may replaced Do-228 the air force and navy operate.

Maybe NAL is best merged with HAL.

I'm not certain about that. Antonov advertises its An-32 at 7.5 tonnes. It think that IAF's older An-32 have a 6.7 tonne payload and that they are being upgraded to 7.5. The lighter An-26s, from which the An-32 was developed, has a 6 tonne payload.

Those numbers ^^^ are correct.

What you see on the background is the proposed cockpit of MTA ? link

MTA Specs link

Any reason why they would opt for Digital FBW with Analog backup and not a full quad FBW ?

Typically the Tu-204 too has triplex Digital FBW with Analog backup and the cockpit too looks similar if not identical

FWB requires electricity. If all you have is FWB, no matter how many systems, if you lose all electrical power, you lose control of the aircraft. Airbus aircraft have FWB redundancy but the rudder and horizontal stabilizer trim are mechanical/hydraulic, which allow the pilot to maintain control of his aircraft should he lose all FWB computers (can really only be caused by losing all electrical power)