Transport Aircraft for IAF

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Oct 2011 10:39

we will need the addl 6 also, since the IL76's are not being upgraded and will likely retire all by 2020. that would match nearly 1:1 our current IL76 holding.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 20 Oct 2011 04:05

Singha wrote:we will need the addl 6 also, since the IL76's are not being upgraded and will likely retire all by 2020. that would match nearly 1:1 our current IL76 holding.

IMHO we will not even stop at the 20 number desired by IAF, at a minimum i envisage 30 C17s, probably later tranches will be MKIsed! IL76 will also go through a MLU, IAF will not give up on these birds so soon, they probably might get seconded for conversion to MIRs.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Oct 2011 04:15

Juggi G wrote: Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne told India Strategic in an Interview

Air Chief Marshal Browne said that IAF had actually planned to acquire 20 aircraft but right now,
it had the approval for 16 aircraft from the Ministry of Defence,
10 in the first lot and then Six more after the first few of the aircraft are received.

The aircraft had done well during the rigorous tests for short takeoffs and night operations,

Just a few pointers from the article to be referenced later when the usual insinuations about the IAF being forced to induct the C-17 in order to save Boeing jobs and the C-17 not being tested by the IAF are made by the usual suspects.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Oct 2011 06:03

Shrinivasan wrote: IMHO we will not even stop at the 20 number desired by IAF, at a minimum i envisage 30 C17s, probably later tranches will be MKIsed! IL76 will also go through a MLU, IAF will not give up on these birds so soon, they probably might get seconded for conversion to MIRs.

Per both CAS's the IL-76 are out around 2020. MLU for them were done just a few years ago - including removing the rear turret, for what that is worth.

Singha wrote:we will need the addl 6 also, since the IL76's are not being upgraded and will likely retire all by 2020. that would match nearly 1:1 our current IL76 holding.

A rough comparison:

Plane :: Max load :: Max distance @max load :: Max load * Max Dist
C-17 585,000 lbs :: 4482 Kms :: 2.621 Units
IL-76MD 346,000 lbs :: 3650 Kms :: 1.264
IL-476 400,000 lbs :: 4000 Kms :: 1.600

So roughly, in my estimation, 2 MDs = 1 C-17, and 5 476's = 3 C-17s.

Just for grins.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Oct 2011 06:51

No we need atleast 1:1 unit ratios to match the number of sorties....its not always that full load could be carried and lots of places need to be serviced at less-than-full-load. #units matters.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Oct 2011 07:14

Anything HAL can contribute to C17, not from cost saving angle, but technology learning aspect?
nice video of C17 III.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nmij2WdAKc

and the C130 blast take off and thrust vectored landing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fv ... KCl3lfAx1Q

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 22 Oct 2011 11:36

Singha wrote:No we need atleast 1:1 unit ratios to match the number of sorties....its not always that full load could be carried and lots of places need to be serviced at less-than-full-load. #units matters.

Looks to me we need 5 types of aircraft for lift/ transport;
Dornier class < AN-32 class < C-130 < IL-76 class < C-17

We can assume Dornier's replacement will be Saras.

For 2nd type we can either look at;
1) Import option - C-27J. Uses same engine as C-130J, helps in logistics and maintenance
2) Ask NAL to design an air frame around the same engines as C-130J

For type 3, since need is not very immediate, ask NAL/ HAL to design an airframe around the same engines as C-17.

For either indigenous efforts, task GTRE to come up with turbo-prop and /or turbofan replacement as MLU 25-30yrs down the line.

My 2 cents.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2011 12:03

No one has said that the C-17 is a lousy aircraft.Whether we need "20" of such expensive heavy-lifters is the big Q.We are planning for 20 (almost as much as NATO forces have!)because Boeing will end production in the near future and if we have only 10,will have to look for another aircraft.The thin end of the wedge has now swelled the order to 20! This deal placed in indecent haste and a lower priority than other acquisitions,leapt to the top of the list as it was engineered to suit and save Boeing,which was planning to shut down production after Gates said "no more".As part of the quid-pro-quo,Dr.Obliging Singh kept his part of the bargain in unmentioned promises attached to the N-deal,to buy more US military hardware.Washington tried to do the same with the MMRCA ancien birds,but this was too much for the IAF who preferred to have a large heavy-lifft transport aircraft "gifted" to then rather than old hags with too much of make-up!

We can live with the C-17.It is a far lesser evil than the two US MMRCA birds.How cost-effective they would be is the Q when cheaper IL-476s,upgraded versions of a type already in service,is a moot point.If the first batch meet our requirements in the field and are easy to operate,etc.,the sooner the second lot is acquired the better.Boeing will charge us a lot more if we stretch out the order,and this could be implied from the CAS's statement.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2011 14:48

.Philip please let go of the mith of a new built 76 md is in service. There is a huge difference in announcing the intention to do some thing and beeng able to diliver the end result. Just because the Russians have announced the project to build 76 in ruse, cannot be taken to mean that a new build aircraft can become available.

When it comes to so called indecent haste WRT the 17. Please look at your own information WRT the proposed closure of the line for the aircraft. If the order was delayed by the Indian side with the intention of placing the order in 2014 or some such date that would make you comfortable. Then my friend, the new build 17 would have become just another mith as the new build 76 to be made in Russia has become. i.e a non existent aircraft.

Its time that the detractors of the purchase accepted the buy and stopped vitiating the atmosphere.

On the other hand, I eagerly await the rebuttal from the Russi Rakshaks on the forum, as to when the new build 76 is to enter service with the RuAF and it will come so cheap that for the price of one C 17 the IAF could have a million of the 76.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Oct 2011 14:56

Saras was never designed as a cargo a/c, it cannot be a cargo a/c ..... the Do228 is not being used for cargo either.

the An32 size is where it starts. we can live with a mix of An32-upg and C-130J, gradually getting more and more C130 as the An32 phases out in blocks...the 130 is going to be in active production for quite a while methinks.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2011 15:00

Singha ji,

The Saras project has not made sense to me from day one. The design choices made, the small cabin size and the passenger capability. Just what was intended by the design team.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Oct 2011 15:17

a skill building exercise probably. its never going to enter mass production.

NAL was also quite short of the experienced people needed. some retired people had been re-hired as consultants to keep things moving. this is what scares me about the aerospace scene in India - due to lack of well paying pvt defence/civil vendor ecosystem, pretty much all the aerospace grads either migrate abroad or enter IT/MBA.
repeat the same for mechanical engg elites.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Oct 2011 18:58

Singha wrote:No we need atleast 1:1 unit ratios to match the number of sorties....its not always that full load could be carried and lots of places need to be serviced at less-than-full-load. #units matters.

No, you do not!!

We tend to look at the C-17 as a "transport" - bail-gaddi. It is a tool that optimizes space+load, a huge part of an efficient supply-chain.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 24 Oct 2011 04:17

Philip wrote:No one has said that the C-17 is a lousy aircraft.Whether we need "20" of such expensive heavy-lifters is the big Q.We are planning for 20 (almost as much as NATO forces have!)because Boeing will end production in the near future and if we have only 10,will have to look for another aircraft.The thin end of the wedge has now swelled the order to 20! This deal placed in indecent haste and a lower priority than other acquisitions,leapt to the top of the list as it was engineered to suit and save Boeing,which was planning to shut down production after Gates said "no more".As part of the quid-pro-quo,Dr.Obliging Singh kept his part of the bargain in unmentioned promises attached to the N-deal,to buy more US military hardware.Washington tried to do the same with the MMRCA ancien birds,but this was too much for the IAF who preferred to have a large heavy-lifft transport aircraft "gifted" to then rather than old hags with too much of make-up!

We can live with the C-17.It is a far lesser evil than the two US MMRCA birds.How cost-effective they would be is the Q when cheaper IL-476s,upgraded versions of a type already in service,is a moot point.If the first batch meet our requirements in the field and are easy to operate,etc.,the sooner the second lot is acquired the better.Boeing will charge us a lot more if we stretch out the order,and this could be implied from the CAS's statement.

NATO has 20 C17s and Boeing can be saved by ~$5 billion order!!!

What happened to you man! You were a treasure trove of info and pleasure to read in years goneby!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2011 04:59

If one has to compare or derive "lessons" from an C-17, it is best to compare what the IAF is getting with one that has come out in the past year or so. Anything older really does not quite cut it.

I do not know which year the Aussie C-17 in the video posted above is from, but it is radically different than the one I visited just a few months ago. And the one I visited I want to say is from around 2000ish. Night and day.

It is, therefore, not very surprising when people who had conducted research just a few years ago are out of step - like the guy who laughed at a dozer being parachuted out of a C-17. I can understand that it did not happen in "his time" - which is why he laughed at the thought.

I cannot say for sure if these are white elephants, but, what I can say is that the advertised capabilities do exist. Granted that some of the advertised capabilities are used extremely, extremely rarely and when used at great cost - which is why they are used extremely, extremely rarely!!!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2011 05:14

I do want to make a point about the IL lifters.

The last public domain article I could find about the IL-76MF+India was around a few months prior to the deal sealed for the C-17. The MF has been out for some time and for the IAF to "select" the C-17 has to mean something beyond "saving Boeing" or "appeasing the US". It has to mean a lot more than that. For sure.

For one, even the 476 has more people that the C-17 (granted it is better than the MD, sorry). In a transport to have a lower number of people manning the entire cycle means a ton. I can bet that the lower costing IL-476 is higher when it comes to "life-cycle cost".

Furthermore, the Russians, are playing catch up. And their ad nauseum statement of "it costs less" - I bet - does not ring right.

Here is my reasoning: the needs of the RuAF and IAF are totally different. Gone are the days, IMVVHO, when the IAF found a RU product to be too good. It is great that the IL-476 will be used for this, that and everything in the RuAF. Just that that same plane does not cut it for the IAF. And, I suspect that the cost to enhance the capabilities are too prohibitive.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Oct 2011 05:39

What happened to you man! You were a treasure trove of info and pleasure to read in years goneby!

when and in which parallel universe

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Oct 2011 09:39

NRao,

I think, that all those who are not in opposition of the C 17 deal should give up and accept that IAF fcuked up big time. The better plane is the 76 in its latest iteration.

Nevermind, that it has not flown, never mind that the IAF, has publicly stated that the C 17 is the best product in its class. Never mind that if the purchase is delayed. It will not be available 5 years down the line.

But that are a few inconvenient factors that can be ignored by the detractors of the purchase. To them the 76 or any russian maal remains the last word.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2011 10:19

meantime back in the batcave, whats cooking on the MTA?

is it ever going to start or just be a file kept somewhere? if russia needs the plane it is certainly showing no hurry in doing it?

imo we should have scrapped this file 5 yrs ago and ran with Embraer's project....its slated to be IOC'ed in a couple years and could have benefitted from our big order in terms of funding and timelines. HAL would have got its workshare just as it will get in MTA(if it ever happens). the suppliers to that project could have been useful for the NAL RTA as well.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 24 Oct 2011 10:28

Singha wrote:Saras was never designed as a cargo a/c, it cannot be a cargo a/c ..... the Do228 is not being used for cargo either.

the An32 size is where it starts. we can live with a mix of An32-upg and C-130J, gradually getting more and more C130 as the An32 phases out in blocks...the 130 is going to be in active production for quite a while methinks.

Sir ji, I am aware Dorniers and Saras cannot carry cargo. However, they can carry personnel or troops. For 6-12 people, An-32 class does not make sense. Your thoughts on why an An-32/ C-27 class is not required? I believe to carry out the regular peace time mule service, they are better.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Oct 2011 10:54

KiranM wrote:
Singha wrote:Saras was never designed as a cargo a/c, it cannot be a cargo a/c ..... the Do228 is not being used for cargo either.

the An32 size is where it starts. we can live with a mix of An32-upg and C-130J, gradually getting more and more C130 as the An32 phases out in blocks...the 130 is going to be in active production for quite a while methinks.
Sir ji, I am aware Dorniers and Saras cannot carry cargo. However, they can carry personnel or troops. For 6-12 people, An-32 class does not make sense. Your thoughts on why an An-32/ C-27 class is not required? I believe to carry out the regular peace time mule service, they are better.

Generally IMO, military transport aircrafts fall into 6 general categories, and the armed forces will need to mix-match from these for an ideal force structure.

Light (payload <5t) - Do-228, Saras, C-7, C-212
Light-Medium (5-10t) - An-32, HS-748, C-27J, C-235, C-295, V-22
Medium (10-20t) - C-130J, MTA, C-390
Medium-Heavy (20-50t) - IL-76, A400M, An-70, XC-2
Heavy (50-100t) - C-17
Oversized Cargo (100t+) - C-5, An-124, An-225

Wiki: List of Military Transport Aircrafts

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2011 11:01

other than the C17, C27J and C130J which of the others are in current production?

I can see will need to buy the XC-2 or Embraer offering in a few yrs when the hated 'corpse' word is uttered on MTA.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Oct 2011 11:17

^^^

The MTA is a dead project. The Rus will go for the An 148 derived product. While the Injuns will be left holding the MTA MOU.

This in turn will be seen as a great victory by the oppose C 17 group.

Rest will be business as usual.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2011 11:38

I guess C130J will be our future MTA lol. that is why total lack of worry from IAF side. they know can get as many stretched C130J as they want for later.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... cks-03582/

max cargo of 20t is same as proposed MTA, it exists, it works, is delivered before time, and IAF has already established aircrew and base for it. its a no-brainer - C130J-30 is the MTA

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Oct 2011 11:55

^^^

But what about the indecent haste in placing orders and the inconvenience of early delivery. While not having 2000% cost overruns.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Oct 2011 11:59

^^^And what about not sending RFP/RFI/RFQ to multiple vendors onleeee????

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Oct 2011 12:09

That I had Kompletely forgotten.

Thanks for reminding me......

Single vendor deal. Down with the C 130

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2011 12:14

the MTA was not a multi vendor thing. Rus had a proposal on table and that was it. why was AVIC-1 and Chengdu not invited to bid?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Oct 2011 12:22

if we really go for C-130J as our future MTA I hope we do not buy all of them from unkil sam, that would be stupid. the bulk should be made here, preferably by someone like mahindra or tata.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Oct 2011 12:36

Rahul M wrote:if we really go for C-130J as our future MTA I hope we do not buy all of them from unkil sam, that would be stupid. the bulk should be made here, preferably by someone like mahindra or tata.

It would just be screw driver technology , they would simply get stuff in CKD and assemble it here.

It would make sense to assemble it here if its economical and the number is sufficiently over 100.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2011 12:46

it would however benefit us to get some offsets in terms of indian vendors supplying parts and assemblies...people entering the aerospace sector need such work to ramp up and get plugged into the global ecosystem before coming up with original work on their own.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Oct 2011 12:53

austin, even that would be a learning experience for the pvt co's, to prepare them for bigger things.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 24 Oct 2011 23:05

Indian Air Force C-130 Hercules (C) and two AN-32 aircraft fly past during Air Force Day parade at Air Force Station Hindon in Ghaziabad on the outskirts of New Delhi on October 8, 2011.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Oct 2011 15:13

Well what do folks say now?

http://books.hindustantimes.com/2011/10 ... ezza-rice/

‘India agreed to buy US defence products in return for deal’

The US authorities and its non-government adjuncts in the think-tanks had reacted with surprising horror to the loss of the aircraft deal saying the US might have been “over-generous” and that India didn’t deserve the nuclear deal.

Tempers have calmed down since, after India bought Boeing’s C-17 military transport planes worth over $4 bn.

I am probably wasting time here though, since those who dont want to see, wont see.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Oct 2011 17:37

Sanku,the "quid-pro-quo" has always been under the surface of the N-deal.AS you said,only those who wish to be blind will not accept this fact.The most shameful was the C-17 acquisition,after Def.Sec. Gates virtually shut down production by announcing no more USAF buys.With "obliging Singh" at the helm of the nation,and his pronounced pro-US tilt,nay prostraations,we have in effect ordering/acquiringg as many C-17s as the entire NATO forces without any equivalent trans-continental role!

The Apache attack helo decision is yet another one in the US's favour,though I personally prefer it to the Russian helo,as it has had more experience in the recent regional conflicts.One must now watch with interest the heavy-lift helo decision,where common-sense wouldd root for the upgraded MI-26,type in service,which can carry a Chinook,while the Chinook cannot repeat the favour! The naval ASW/multi-role decision is another where US helos are in the running.They meet with stiff European opposition and if the cake is to be shared,the Euros should walk away with this one.Toss-up as to the light helo decision.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 27 Oct 2011 17:43

Well the "quid-pro-quo" was with all the major countries that supported India, including Russia & France not just US. Everyone one knows it, nobody is blind, that is how international relations are done. In economics there is an old saying "there is nothing called a free lunch" ... what I fail to understand is if there is a "quid-pro-quo" with Russia or France it is perfectly fine, but if it is with US it is a sell-out .... you guys talk like the Communist Jholawalas ... grow up!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Oct 2011 18:03

Well what do folks say now?

Err most of us never denied a possible quid pro quo or the cost??

What we have said(para phrasing) is that within the parameters of what we needed to buy the IAF checked it out and got what it needed. The rest of the stuff out there is non existent.

In other words - it would not have bought a aircraft which did not perform what it needed - just for quid pro quo.

as the entire NATO forces without any equivalent trans-continental role!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Oct 2011 18:39

Simple truth,the cost! $10B+.A massive outlay for the country when other more vital needs remain undecided upon.The Army's artillery needs for example.Navy's sub requirements,etc.Had the order remained at 10,one could've argued in favour,but the 20 to be ordered is simply because Boeing wants that number to streamline its production.It is not that the aircraft does not perform well or whatever.Here in this deal,the entire deal is being otchestrated by Boeing,satisfying its needs first and then the IAFs.Tell me,which air force in the world will not accept a Diwali bonus of aircraft from its govt.When the IL-76/78 versions for the AWACS/tankers are available,especially in the upgraded IL-476 versions on order for Russia,one would like to see why this route of acquiring an upgraded type already in servcie which has performed excellently over the decades,was not attempted? For the trans-continental role,6-10 C-17s would've sufficed.20 is a luxury that suits Boeing best.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 Oct 2011 18:42

^^^There goes the broken record again.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Oct 2011 18:44