Transport Aircraft for IAF

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 27 Oct 2011 20:09

The news of quid pro quo is hardly surprising since it was always known the IUCNA will have a payback. The only fear was that we will be saddled with something we don't really want. That's not the case so far.

We resisted the pressure to give the MMRCA to the yanks nor have we given in yet to the pressure for dilution on the civil liability clause in nuclear sector that 'prevents' them from partaking in our nuclear pie. So what is the whining and I-told-you-so about?

The C-17 came in when the IL-476 was deemed incapable of meeting our requirements. By requirements, I don't just mean technical parameters but factors like availability of spares, timely delivery, offsets, etc. The IL-76 assembly line has been dormant for years and will not be in a position to fulfill our orders for ages to come as deliveries are supposed to begin only from 2012, that too for the RuAF. Ours will presumably begin much later. The C-17 order in contrast will be extending the life of the assembly line of Boeing so we will get the orders pretty much in time. So please give the IL-476 bogey some rest!

Same thing with the attack helos, the Mi-28 is recent introduction which has not been produced in sufficient numbers to feel confident about its performance. With regards to their better performance in regional conflicts, the Apache has got a lot of it as well in the Iraq & Afghan conflicts. Do see the below quote on what the Russians think about the result.

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economi ... _russia-0/

Alexander Mordovin, an expert for combat aviation:

"We have a serious problem with avionics. Unlike the US competitor, there was no serial production for the Mi-28H for a very long time. It is an open secret that the flaws, which were not noticed during the testing period, are found and removed during the process of serial production. Russia had only 16 Mi-28H helicopters before 2008. In 2011, the Russian armed forces were supposed to receive 28 Mi-28H choppers, although the serial production of this aircraft could be launched more than ten years ago. Of course, India could choose the Apache just because the helicopter demonstrated its excellent performance during the recent conflicts. Therefore, the advantages of the Russian aircraft are only theoretical."

India has decided to take a more pragmatic view in its arms procurement policies and show Russia some tough love. The Russians can whine, crib and moan about it but there isn't much they can do about it. Their recent behaviour in defence deals leaves a lot to be desired and it's time they realize that customer is king. Not that I'm advocating an all-out shift into the US or EU camp for military gear but a graduated and well thought out (partial) shift to the other side will only helps us get the best of what's on offer.

It goes without saying that there is no substitute to home-made and home-grown products.

member_20029 · Post by **member_20029** » 27 Oct 2011 20:22

I think that India should do what it does best:
buy a C-130J production license, and custom-build it's entire fleet at home.
That way, avionics suites and separate systems can be used which meet IAF spec, and less protocol modification would be necessary.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2011 03:31

The Apache attack heli decision is yet another one in the US's favour,though I personally prefer it to the Russian hello,as it has had more experience in the recent regional conflicts.

Thanks.

You need to think a wee bit before posting fodder such as this!!

IF the Apache (as compared to the Mil) has proved itself in "conflictS". What to talk of a C-17 (as compared to the IL-476) then?

(Sir there is NO comparison then. By your own logic!!) (just BTW, Canadians, none the less, have stated that they have made trips that would make it into a Boeing brochure!)

Appreciate your vote of confidence. Condi shall be duly notified that the concerns of the US were badly misplaced.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 28 Oct 2011 03:32

DSCA Announces Possible Sale of Six C-130J Aircraft to India

19:35 GMT, October 27, 2011 WASHINGTON | The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified U.S. Congress Oct. 26 of a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to the Government of India for six Lockheed Martin C-130Js and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $1.2 billion.

I am confused is this new news or old news? Look at the date and time stamp for the post!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2011 03:36

^^^^^

These six are the options from the first purchase.

Looks like India has exercised the option.

Just indicates that the IAF is very happy with the SpOps C-130J!!! So, what else is new?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2011 03:52

Simple truth

Found this to be the funniest. Title: :IL-76 production within Russia will move to China".

Why would India buy a Chinese made air craft?

But on a more serious note (very difficult to be serious on this topic!):

Oct, 2011 :: Where Goes the Sino-Russian Arms Relationship?

The IL-476 - IMVVHO - can be saved ONLY by China.

I do not believe that Russia can sustain funding MOST of these technologies.

India IMHO is lost to the 476. Time will tell ................................ as I have always said.

Happy Halloween.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 28 Oct 2011 10:00

This is the progress of the IL-476 in July 2011.

And this is a picture of Jordan's new IL-76MF taken in Germany a few days ago.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Oct 2011 10:13

the IL76 factory appears to be derelict....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Oct 2011 10:23

The IL-76MF looks the most prettier among all IL-76 variant

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2011 10:25

A picture speaks a thousand words,and the fact that we are to obtain another 3 AWACS aircraft which use the IL-76 as the radar's platform,is enough evidence that the aircraft is available if anyone wants to buy it! Secondly,one can't compare apples and oranges,as new attack helos arriving from Russian stables have languished for some time and the US/western attack helos have had more recent experience in the hot spots.The medium utility role that the MI-8/17 has played has been universally acknowledged as being the best available,why even NATO forces are leasing them in Af-Pak and why we have ordered them by the dozens."Horses for the courses" should be our endeavour.whatever anyone might say,the C-17 deal was fabricated in Washington for Delhi's dhobi-mark.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Oct 2011 10:29

^^^Only in the convulated logic emanating from father land champions can Mi-17 performance can be used as an indication of Russian Gunship's abilities...sigh!!! and I thought I had seen it all.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2011 10:38

^^^^^

Very nice picture of the IL-76MF.

Il-76MF: Stretched military version with a 6.6 m longer fuselage, PS-90 engines, maximum take-off mass 210 t and lift capability of 60 tonnes. First flew in 1995, not built in series so far,[1] just built for Jordan.

Just to be sure: two were ordered and delivered to Jordan. JUST two - so far.

Il-76TF: Civil transport stretched version with Aviadvigatel PS-90 engines. It is the civil version of the Il-76MF (none produced).

That is NONE.
RuAF: None?

So all told I could find a grand total of 2 (two) IL-76MFs.

The plane was offered to the Indian Air Force as recently as 2010.

RIP, MF.

Unless Canada wants it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2011 10:59

Hey G,

Nice of you to drop by.

On the 476 pic, is there a recent update - like a picture from Oct, 2011. Just thought it would be nice to compare the two.

I think these pictures are about 1.5-2 year old pictures of the same plane. Nice progress.

IL is more than capable of producing 5-10 of these a year.

Enough said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2011 11:11

Dated 8/2010:

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Oct 2011 11:29

the production line appears to be in deep freeze - no trace of people, tools, parts, the general look of a place that is in use. seems more like aerospace museum to me...and that too not visited by many...more like a abandoned warehouse.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Oct 2011 11:46

Singha wrote:the production line appears to be in deep freeze - no trace of people, tools, parts, the general look of a place that is in use. seems more like aerospace museum to me...and that too not visited by many...more like a abandoned warehouse.

Perfect for purchase and reinstall in India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Oct 2011 11:50

and what about the 100s of subsystem suppliers who have melted away into the desert? either they need revival / funding or new subsystem suppliers (preferably western) need to be found and laboriously qualified again for IL76.
so its no surprise it will take a while to restart production in russia even if putin personally takes a interest.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Oct 2011 11:56

Marut/Surya wrote:The news of quid pro quo is hardly surprising since it was always known the IUCNA will have a payback..

Well not quite; any number of America Rakshaks have graced this board telling us SDREs how IUCNA was US attempt to raise India to its "rightful" place (at uncle Sam's feet that is) -- out of the sheer good will of heart that US of A, the great white hope, oozes from all its pores.

Also, there have been fanboys going, "ooh look C 17 can land with a Arjun in its belly on a 3000 feet runway day in and day out since Boeing's brouches said so (and never mind that C 17 actually never has operated from a unprepared runway for 25+ years of its long venerable life, barring some isolated photo ops and emergencies)"

So clearly I am personally glad that at least the above two canards are deemed to be indefensible any more.

Quite clearly this is step two of Uncle Sam's scalping operation, it took off a part with a deeply unequal and biased IUCNA and for us submitting to a flawed regime, we are now supposed to be grateful and payback with hyper priced objects of questionable use in Indian context. Scalp two.

So the white man has scalped the Injun now -- twice.

Now the justification is

The only fear was that we will be saddled with something we don't really want. That's not the case so far.

Actually in doing US a favor, we have already been saddled with something we do not need. It would be good to have a multi-vendor competition and get the max bang for buck but we have not done that.

So yeah, we already have something we dont need -- because we decided that we were going to offer Americans money -- before we decided what our needs are.

What we will have -- is post facto -- finding a need for this white elephant.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Oct 2011 11:58

Singha wrote:and what about the 100s of subsystem suppliers who have melted away into the desert? either they need revival / funding or new subsystem suppliers (preferably western) need to be found and laboriously qualified again for IL76.
so its no surprise it will take a while to restart production in russia even if putin personally takes a interest.

That would be the investment we need to get a completely Indian transport a/c operations set up locally. Create the eco-system.

Much like Mahindra and Tata route with their first vehicles (and HAL's combat a/c's)

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Oct 2011 15:33

The rar rah continues....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2011 16:12

I have a few on the "ignore list" (modern way of attaining Nirvana!! At the press of a button), but, the suggestion to move any manufacturing to India will not work. For a number of reasons:
* India herself needs about 10-15 more (after the 10 C-17) (Russia had estimated 25 for the 76MF build)
* Original estimates were to include 38 for China.

Imagine Chinese in 'luru negotiating 476s. Russia is running out of luck with the Chinese (who seem to have approached the Ukaranians?), India ........................
* The absolute worst thing that can happen is Russia promises to buy 65 planes and after the first 10 tells India they cannot pay. Which is what I am betting will happen to IL in Russia
* India no way inherits that messy, antiquated manufacturing method

More l8r.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Oct 2011 18:01

Well not quite; any number of America Rakshaks have graced this board telling us SDREs how IUCNA was US attempt to raise India to its "rightful" place (at uncle Sam's feet that is) -- out of the sheer good will of heart that US of A, the great white hope, oozes from all its pores.

Well not me but then there will be extremes just like you and Philip saar represent the other extreme!!!

Also, there have been fanboys going, "ooh look C 17 can land with a Arjun in its belly on a 3000 feet runway day in and day out since Boeing's brouches said so (and never mind that C 17 actually never has operated from a unprepared runway for 25+ years of its long venerable life, barring some isolated photo ops and emergencies)"

Once again the summary of my view is that IAF tested it for its needs and it was satisfied. The IL 76s were worn out and were becoming a nightmare to maintain. There was no other alternative other than mythical 476s and 124s and assorted nonsense.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 Oct 2011 18:30

@Surya ^^^

+1

Some BRFites are really into buying 'hidden value' used /partially built FSU junk that can be turned into gold through jugaad. As long as India does not buy from unkil, any FSU junk will do.

"Give me your tired, your poor rusting juggernauts ,
Your huddled masses of yesteryear hulks yearning for our money,
The wretched refuse of your silent factories.
Send these, the orphans of your former glory to me,
I open my wallet to you my beloved FSU “

Damn those pesky IAF/IA types! what do they know?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 29 Oct 2011 05:30

IAF requests US for 6 more C-130J airlifters

New Delhi/Washington: India has asked the United States for another six Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules special operations aircraft under a government-to-government foreign military sales (FMS) deal.

The request was conveyed recently, and in Washington, the Department of Defence (DoD) notified the US Congress Oct 27 for approval as mandated by law for any FMS delivery of weapon systems. The proposal is likely to be cleared within a month as both the Democratic and Republican parties have extended bipartisan support to strengthening India-US relations.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) chief, Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne, told India Strategic defence magazine (http://www.indiastrategic.in) in an interview that he expected a formal agreement with the US by January 2012.
:
He also disclosed that five of the six C-130Js ordered in 2008 had already been received, on or before scheduled delivery time, and the last and sixth was expected before November 11 in less than two weeks time.

The first aircraft arrived in February 2011, and pilot training was completed before that.

According to the DoD notification, issued by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) which negotiates and executes military sales, the deal could be around $1.2 billion, covering six aircraft with six spare engines, eight AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems (two of them spares), eight AN/ALR-56M Advanced Radar Warning Receivers (two of them spares), eight AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems (two of them spares), eight AAQ-22 Star SAFIRE III Special Operations Suites (two of them spares), eight ARC-210 Radios (Non-COMSEC), and 3,200 Flare Cartridges.

Capable of short takeoff and landing from football size unpaved grounds or grassy fields, each aircraft is powered by four Royce AE 2100D3 engines.

The first six aircraft were acquired for $1.1 billion, inclusive of training, a support package, spares, some special equipment and also covered 30 per cent offset investment back into India. Under that, Lockheed Martin has set up an advanced simulator at IAF's Hindon airbase, where the C 130Js are located.

The second batch would be located at Charbatia in Orissa to serve the country's northeastern region and the Andaman and Nicobar island territories.

According to Browne, as the second batch of the aircraft is being purchased under the options clause in the 2008 contract, the basic price should be the same. There could some equipment variations or additional requirements though. Offset details could also vary.
:

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 29 Oct 2011 07:09

NRao wrote:^^^^^
That is NONE.
RuAF: None?

So all told I could find a grand total of 2 (two) IL-76MFs.

The plane was offered to the Indian Air Force as recently as 2010.

RIP, MF.

Unless Canada wants it.

According to my book, "Ilyushin IL-76, Russia's versatile Airlifter", by Dmitriy Kommissarov, the Tashkent plant built 11 stretched IL-76 airframes. The first one, the flying prototype, was actually originally built as an IL-76MD, that was later stretched and re-enginned with the PS-90s. They then built 10 stretched IL-76 aircraft, which remained un-finished and unsold for many years, until Jordan ordered two of them. These were recently finished and delivered to Jordan. If the book is correct, there are 8 such airframes still in Tashkent, in addition to the prototype, which is probably not for sale. I even have the serial numbers in the book:

2033423801 (Jordan)
2033423808 (Jordan)
The others are: 2033424812, 815, 819, 824, 825, 829, 836, and 840.

The IL-76MF and IL-76TF is the same airplane, but one with the military options, the other without. The military options are the ECM pods, the inert gas generator, the paradrop panel, computer and lights, among other things.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 29 Oct 2011 07:25

Singha wrote:the production line appears to be in deep freeze - no trace of people, tools, parts, the general look of a place that is in use. seems more like aerospace museum to me...and that too not visited by many...more like a abandoned warehouse.

This is not a production line. It is the handcrafted manufacture and assembly of IL-476 prototypes and their parts and jigs.

Here is a picture, taken earlier this month (Oct 2011) of another partial prototype of the IL-476 (center fuselage, wing box and wings), being transported to the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute named after N.E. Zhukovsky (http://www.tsagi.ru/) test center for tests:

.

I don't see why so many people are snickering about it. It's happening.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Oct 2011 10:29

Mr. Gilles,

I am not sure why it is so difficult to understand a very simple point. The IL-76MF is dead.

It took me - one who had no clue about the IL series - all of 30 minutes on google to come to the very conclusion you seem to have posted. The MF is dead. (I am not trying to poke fun at anyone, just trying to make a point that as far as the IAF is concerned there is no question about getting these fine pups. Just no way. That is all.)

But, thanks for QEDing my point. (I sincerely hope we can bury the IL-76MF topic for good.)

Now on to the IL-476.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Oct 2011 10:51

Allow me to reverse the statement you made:

It's happening.

Good, very good that it is "happening". I mean it. It is nice to see something succeed.

I don't see why so many people are snickering about it.

Because this "happening" has been associated with the Indian Air Force. That is why I snicker.

All this about the IL-76MF and the IL-476 should go in the International Air and Space (or whatever ) thread NOT in the Transport Aircraft for IAF thread.

Now since this snake has reared her head again, some more news for you:

Russia PLANS to get 50 (it is not 100 as one "fanboy" posted) of the 476s by 2020. IL had tabbed China for 35/38 and India for another 25 - around 110 total for the main actors.

China it looks like will go the Ukrainian route, UNLESS Putin has swayed them away during his recent visit. There are no indications so far that has happened. So, for the time being at least = 110 - 35 =75 IL-476s!! Cost has gone up around 25% already.

Now, India. Of the estimated 25, 10 are gone and potentially another 6 are gone. Worst case scenario: 75 - 16 = 59. I very much doubt that India will go for the other 9, so I would confidently say that the 476 is down to 50 copies.

That, Sir, is a cost escalation of a 100%.

How far can this "happening" go to, is the question I have.

IF you think my math or assumptions are wrong please let me know. IMVVHO, the RuAF cannot sustain funding this fine air craft.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2011 10:59

china has a undelivered order of around 30 IL76....not sure if they will bite or work with Ukraine to operationalize the AN70 design they have purchased. they might infact do both to meet short and long term needs in parallel.
they have already established a production line of the top-end version of Mi17v to beef up their woeful helicopter inventory

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Oct 2011 11:08

Now:

This is not a production line. It is the handcrafted manufacture and assembly of IL-476 prototypes and their parts and jigs.

is proof enough that the IL-476 is not seeing - today - the funding it needs to speed it up. The Russians are FAR more capable than to produce "handcrafted" and "prototypes" at this point in the game. Recall that the IL-76MF first flew in 1995. 16 years ago. IF there was a real demand for these pups IL could very easily ramp up to 10 planes a year if not more.

Oil will have to go to $200 per barrel for Russia to sustain funding for this plane. IMHO of course. And, that is not going to happen.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Oct 2011 11:11

Singha wrote:china has a undelivered order of around 30 IL76....not sure if they will bite or work with Ukraine to operationalize the AN70 design they have purchased. they might infact do both to meet short and long term needs in parallel.
they have already established a production line of the top-end version of Mi17v to beef up their woeful helicopter inventory

I can see the IL-476 "happening" IF China or some other player picks up the 25 tabbed for India.

Even then there are a couple of other issues that will keep India out. It is nothing against the IL as much as it is for the C-17.

Added l8r:

No matter what I would like to see this "happening" taken to the other (International) thread. Neither of these planes belong to this thread. For the time being at least.

IF the IAF decides to take a look at the IL-476 then, sure, bring it back to this thread.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Oct 2011 11:25

NR,

A piece of advice. The 17 deal is happening regardless of IL fan boys say. Please accept regardless of what you say about the 476 being DOA. You will not convince any one. Even if the 476 flies in 2100 or 3100 for that matter. It will be seen a victory by the fan boys.

While they complain about accommodation of the Khan and indecent haste WRT the deal. The simple point escapes them. That if the 17 was not ordered when it was. IT would have become same class as the 476 and the MF. ie a stuff legends are made off.

But nothing will convince them.

Please leave them be in the delusion of getting the 76. But the IAF has voted with its money and has asked for the 17. That is good enough for me & I suspect that it is for you as well.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Oct 2011 11:30

When it comes to SU-30 MK buy, the story is that Chinese did not want to buy untested technologies. Now they are investing in un built aircraft.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Oct 2011 11:36

^^^

What to do the PLAF is a disciple of Sun Tse onlee.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Oct 2011 14:10

Oh I wasn't talking about PLAAF. I was talking about so called "Chinese" Anal - yeast. The morons used to once howler that an air craft carrier was waste, now it has become national symbol for power. While the Anal - yeast were deriding India of colossal waste (read aircraft carrier), which can be easily sunk, the PLAN was studying how India (among others) manages its carrier.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Oct 2011 16:18

Well I can understand the angst and name calling, when after vehement arguments as to how C 17 was being purchased for IAFs requirement and what not, there come direct words from folks like C Rice talking about the quid pro quo.

OK folks get some basics right

1) C 17 was quid pro quo -- basically payment to US -- that it can be also used somewhat is entirely incidental. That was never the real reason of any meaning in any serious discussion.

Calling others names or what ever is not going to change things.

2) C 17 is happening, that is obvious, so is 2 G spectrum allocation on a flawed basis.

Just because something is happening DOES NOT MEAN ITS RIGHT.

So yes, it is happening and it is WRONG and some of us will continue to say it -- and hey I am aware that folks seemingly defending C 17 purchase also know really speaking that its a sub-optimal solution -- that is why pointing out the obvious causes so much pain.

So India has now two great things

A crappy IUCNA

for which we paid additionally by

High-prices white elephants.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 30 Oct 2011 01:57

NRao wrote: No matter what I would like to see this "happening" taken to the other (International) thread. Neither of these planes belong to this thread. For the time being at least.

IF the IAF decides to take a look at the IL-476 then, sure, bring it back to this thread.

This thread is called "Transport Aircraft for IAF". The IAF operates the IL-76 (as transports), the IL-78 (same aircraft with a AAR kit) and the A-50 (same aircraft with the AWACS kits) yet you think that info about IL-76 development does NOT belong in this thread? Yet, some IAF Il-76 aircraft are still being upgraded as I write these words. The IAF A-50s came with the PS-90 engines that were first installed on the IL-76MF prototype, and later installed in the IL-76TD-90 and IL-76MD-90, an upgrade even the Russian A-50s don't have. Present IL-476 development will have a possible impact on existing IL-76 fleets (spare parts, service, upgrades) I think all IL-76 news is very relevant to the IAF and to this thread.

NRao wrote:Now:

This is not a production line. It is the handcrafted manufacture and assembly of IL-476 prototypes and their parts and jigs.
is proof enough that the IL-476 is not seeing - today - the funding it needs to speed it up. The Russians are FAR more capable than to produce "handcrafted" and "prototypes" at this point in the game. Recall that the IL-76MF first flew in 1995. 16 years ago. IF there was a real demand for these pups IL could very easily ramp up to 10 planes a year if not more.

Oil will have to go to $200 per barrel for Russia to sustain funding for this plane. IMHO of course. And, that is not going to happen.

This shows your lack of understanding how aircraft are made. The fact that the IL-476 is not called IL-76XX but IL-476 is because it is not considered a new version of the old IL-76 but a new type of aircraft requiring new certification tests. To manufacture a new aircraft, several prototypes first have to be manufactured, tested and eventually modified according to test results before the final certified version is put in serial production. A static model is also built for static tests. The fact that the center fuselage section, wing box and wing are being sent to tsagi indicates new wing and wing box that need to be tested before they are put into production.

Obviously this project goes well beyond just moving the Il-76 plant from Uzbekistan to Russia. The Tashkent plant not longer manufactures new IL-76s but is finishing and selling the last of the airframes it has. Then new orders will be delivered by Russia.

NRao wrote:
Now since this snake has reared her head again, some more news for you:

Russia PLANS to get 50 (it is not 100 as one "fanboy" posted) of the 476s by 2020. IL had tabbed China for 35/38 and India for another 25 - around 110 total for the main actors.

China it looks like will go the Ukrainian route, UNLESS Putin has swayed them away during his recent visit. There are no indications so far that has happened. So, for the time being at least = 110 - 35 =75 IL-476s!! Cost has gone up around 25% already.

Now, India. Of the estimated 25, 10 are gone and potentially another 6 are gone. Worst case scenario: 75 - 16 = 59. I very much doubt that India will go for the other 9, so I would confidently say that the 476 is down to 50 copies.

That, Sir, is a cost escalation of a 100%.

How far can this "happening" go to, is the question I have.

IF you think my math or assumptions are wrong please let me know. IMVVHO, the RuAF cannot sustain funding this fine air craft.

Your math assumptions are wrong Sir because you left out a very big part of the equation. Unlike the C-17, the IL-76 is certified as a civilian aircraft and it is safe to assume that the IL-476 will be also. What you left out are the civilian orders that the IL-476 may attract, which they certainly will since it will be the only aircraft in the world in that category available to airlines. If the IL-476 turns into a 210 tonne MTOGW stretched IL-76 with a better wing, more fuel-efficient engines, higher payload (60+ tonnes ?), two man glass cockpit, and if it sells at a price similar to comparable sized aircraft (150 million or under), it will have takers for it will be a money maker. I don't think they will sell by the hundreds, but they will sell.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Oct 2011 02:16

Gilles,

All said & done, the IAF is facing challenges with the sustainment of its Il-76s. There are multiple reports to that effect. Any AF requires decent mission capable rates (upwards of 80%) and the Russian Supply Chain system is either too bureaucratic or convoluted. The reasons may be many - including the fall of the Soviet Union, but as the end user, the IAF wants less trouble.

Coming to the the C-17, it meets their needs. So they went for it. The IAF is not exactly a keystone cops organization (nor do I mean to state that you have said words to that effect) but one which procures equipment which meets its stated needs.

In the recent past, the IAF even chose an Airbus refueller over the Il-78 variants it already operates. That too occurred after an extensive evaluation.

The point I am making is the IAF believes - after extensive evaluation - that the C-17 meets its requirements whereas the Il-76 et al could not. Per reports, it will acquire more C-17s as well, and in fact it is the Govt of India which has only given clearance for some six more, whereas the IAF may want upto 12 more than the current numbers it has on order.

Basically, I think the position that several of us take is that its not that the Il-76 is a bad aircraft. Its just that it or its variants were not the aircraft the IAF thought would meet its requirements for the next 40 odd years.

All this stuff of politics forcing the IAF's hand is misplaced IMO (you may not have implied this, others have). Just take a look at the recent MMRCA or even the trainers - the IAF went for what it perceived to be the best product per its needs. Yes, the nuclear deal may have ensured US products got a chance to compete fairly across the spectrum (as versus keeping them out based on past issues), but the choice has been made based on operational requirements.

Having said that - I do enjoy your informative replies & hope to continue to see the same!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Oct 2011 04:42

This thread is called "Transport Aircraft for IAF". The IAF operates the IL-76 (as transports), the IL-78 (same aircraft with a AAR kit) and the A-50 (same aircraft with the AWACS kits) yet you think that info about IL-76 development does NOT belong in this thread? Yet, some IAF Il-76 aircraft are still being upgraded as I write these words. The IAF A-50s came with the PS-90 engines that were first installed on the IL-76MF prototype, and later installed in the IL-76TD-90 and IL-76MD-90, an upgrade even the Russian A-50s don't have. Present IL-476 development will have a possible impact on existing IL-76 fleets (spare parts, service, upgrades) I think all IL-76 news is very relevant to the IAF and to this thread.

No I do not.

Two CASs have stated that the IL-76 will be retired around 2020. As far as I know the upgrades for the IL-76MDs are done. I have no problem if you talk about An-32s, IL-76MDs, etc (all transports currently ro to be in IAF inventory), but IL-76MF and its upgrade the IL-476 - no. There is nothing I cna find that tell me that the IAF is even remotely thinking of these two planes -one of whihc was rejected.

Why is that you cannot take the topic to the International thread - where it rightly belongs?

This shows your lack of understanding how aircraft are made. The fact that the IL-476 is not called IL-76XX but IL-476 is because it is not considered a new version of the old IL-76 but a new type of aircraft requiring new certification tests. To manufacture a new aircraft, several prototypes first have to be manufactured, tested and eventually modified according to test results before the final certified version is put in serial production. A static model is also built for static tests. The fact that the center fuselage section, wing box and wing are being sent to tsagi indicates new wing and wing box that need to be tested before they are put into production.

Obviously this project goes well beyond just moving the Il-76 plant from Uzbekistan to Russia. The Tashkent plant not longer manufactures new IL-76s but is finishing and selling the last of the airframes it has. Then new orders will be delivered by Russia.

No problem with all that. Just pointing out that there is a corelation between need and speed. You can see it in the "other" transport that India wants and for some odd reason Russia is unwilling to move. Odd - from my point of view may be. So, IF the RuAF REALLY needed the 476 it would not move at this snails pace - granted that all those wonderful steps you mention need to be completed.

Unlike the C-17, the IL-76 is certified as a civilian aircraft and it is safe to assume that the IL-476 will be also.

Sure, thanks. I did not think ofthe civilian aspect.

However, do you know for SURE that the civilian stuff is part of the equation? Or are you just extrapolating based on some assumptions (which is OK too)?

You are aware that the issue is about the IAF buying these fine pups and we are not here to follow the development of the IL-476 (following the development should be done in the International thread).

However, even with the civilian angle - and as usual I will research that too, the IAF story will not change.

There will be no IL-76MF in IAF inventory - as far as I can see. And I doubt the 476 will be even considered by the IAF.

Time will tell.

Unlike others I am not impressed with what you bring to the table. You muffed on the tank issue and also had a half a post of emoticons on the topic of dropping dozers. Imp stuff. These posts are tame.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 30 Oct 2011 05:17

Here is another related subject:

Squadron Leader Veena Saharan (left)in the cockpit of the IL-76, with Flight Lieutenant Monica Lakshkar.