Bharat Rakshak

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

Now:



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.

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.

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.

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.

^^^

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

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.

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.

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.




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.




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.

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!

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?


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.



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.

Here is another related subject:

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

As far as I know, one of the modifications the IAF has been doing on its IL-76s, is removing the tail gunner turret, so any IAF IL-76MD that still has a tail gunner turret installed, such as the one below (March 2011 picture), is one that has yet to be upgraded. Of course, this does not apply to the IL-78Ms, since the tail gunner turret in those aircraft have been modified into the refueller position, so they are forced to keep them.

Hmm - that seat and control column do not appear deliberately designed for the petite Indian woman.

Man!!!!!!

Gilles,

Listen up.

THAT plane will be GONE around 2020!!!

Nine more years. That is it.

BTW, I have some very good news for you. Seems the RuAF has upped their quota for the IL-476, from 50 to a cool 100. IL has also upped their expected sales number to a cool 150. However, only one civilian client has approached IL - do not know -yet - how many they would like to buy/lease. RuAF also is expecting 100 by 2020 !!!!!

On the flip side, China is nearly out for good. They talk of talks with India, but nothing more than that. It is real good news that the RuAF has come to the rescue. Would hate to see such a clean air craft not flying any more.

Just like Bisons, floggers, fulcrums and M2k (latter 2 b y 2025), but we don't stop discussing them, do we?



Just like USN and gates came for Boeing. What is the point? It is only our IAF/IA which does not rescue domestic products, every one else do.

regarding 476.
Will it be available in the timeline C-17's are supposed to come in. I guess C-17 are coming 2013 onwards.
Will 476 complete all certifications and will be in serial production in that timeframe. As they say a bird in hand is better than 2 in the bush.
476 might be a very good transport as and when it comes online. But it was / wont be available in the IAF timelines. This might also matter when a decision was taken after rigorus tests of C-17.

476 can still try for next batch of Phalcons, refuelers and desi-JSTARs.

Let the 476 fly first and enter service with the Rusi Air force. Before we start having wet dreams of it entering service with the IAF in any capacity.

The C-17s are signed for, the deal is concluded, the aircraft will be delivered as of 2013, so that issue is moot.

That does not, however, prevent the IAF, which as a fleet of 17 IL-76MDs, 6 IL-78MKI and 3 A-50-90 (a total of 26) from upgrading its present fleet of aircraft if it determines that is makes sense to do so (The A-50s need no upgrading). The upgrades would have to be cost effective, reduce maintenance and operating costs, increase the service life and the dispatch reliability of the aircraft and increase their performance. By changing the engines on the IL-76s and IL-78s, the fuel burn alone decreases by 2 tonnes an hour per aircraft. Assuming the 23 aircraft that have D-30 engines are upgraded and that they normally fly 1000 hours per year each, that would represent 46000 tonnes a year savings, at $1011.7/tonne (today's price), that's 46 million dollars per year saving, in fuel alone, not to mention other advantages (runway performance, high altitude performance, payload, range, maintenance savings and dispatch reliability). Over the extended life of the aircraft (say, 15 years), that could represent 690 million dollars in savings. Of course, installing new engines on 23 aircraft would probably cost 460 miilion dollars....

Does re-engining old aircraft make sense? If there is service life left in the airframes, or if these can be overhauled at reasonable price in order to extend the service life, the answer is yes. Here is what Wikipedia tells us about the KC-135 fleet of the US Air Force:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker



The KC-135s were actually re-engined twice. In the early 1980s, they went from the original KC-135A to the KC-135E, when they replaced the original J-57-P-59W engines with Pratt & Whitney TF-33-PW-102 from retired B-707 airliners. They later re-engined 500 KC-135A and KC-135E to KC-135R standard with the CFM engine. In 2001, the USAF determined that the second generation KC-135E cost 4.6 million dollars per aircraft to fly, and that the third generation KC-135R cost 3.7 million dollars per year to fly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56



The PS-90 is to the IL-76 what the CFM56 was to the KC-135, the E-3s and the DC-8s. That is why I think that what is going on with IL-76 development in Tashkent and Russia concerns the Forum "Transport Aircraft for IAF". Unless someone wants to change the name of this thread to "C-17 for IAF".

Here is a picture of USAF KC-135A 38004 taken in 1980. This aircraft was built in 1963 and was 17 years old when this picture was taken.



Here the same aircraft, 38004, now a KC-135R with new engines, taken in 2010. This aircraft is now 48 years old.

the differences could be
- US builds its a/c to last a longish time looking at 707 and B52 longevity , vs soviet policy of use and throw (I mean they went through 300 nuclear subs in a couple of decades...nobody talks of the Mig27 lasting till 2025 while its assumed for M2k types)
- US has had continuous and stable funding to have the manufacturers provide a proper pipeline of service and spares
- US has boneyards were rare spares can be salvaged from, huge boneyards in dry, desert conditions unlike soviet snowbound boneyards
- US has a lot of these a/c so duties can be rotated and load shared across a huge fleet....they have 100s of refuelers
- US maintainence practices are a lot lavish than Russian (someone had posted on BR about a A-10 unit, even for minor issues the engines would be pulled out and factory certified new ones dropped in, more cash strapped AFs like India, Russia have to attempt inplace repairs)

That assumes the aircraft are desired at all. Given the persistent reports of the difficulty in obtaining spares and keeping them flying, I can understand their hesitation to invest substantial sums in a platform that may not even be operational in a few years.



I find that . . . unlikely. The US C-17 fleet averages 1,250 hours, but that's with high availability and many long trans-atlantic flights with active campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to support.


http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircr ... Il-76.html



Which gives an estimate of 200 hours per year

IL 76s are on for mid-life upgrade, they will last at least till 2025, worst case. And then some. Reports are posted, including statements by IAF.

IAF has ALWAYS used all its a/cs much longer than most other airforces.

Il 76s are not going anywhere.

Yes, the Il-76 are expected to last 10 years after upgrading, but that's 2000 hours which may not be enough time to recoup the cost plus there is the risk that they WON'T actually last 10 years if the spare situation gets worse or the IAF gets all 20 C-17s and decides it no longer has a need for the Il-76 at all.

And if a comet strikes earth tomorrow we will all be dead. Yes, that is also possible.

Which is more likely: spare shortage making Il-76 unmaintainable OR extinction-level comet strike

hmmm . . .

If i am not wrong during any upgrade part of the deal includes to bring back the life of its airframe back to zero , so that you can double the life of the aircraft over what it was designed for, the Mig-29 upgrade involves something similar , these aircraft are all major FSU built ones where as we are told it was of the use and throw types , but the deal to upgrade includes bringing in additional 25 years of operating life the the aircraft post upgrade and M2K deal involves similar number i.e. 25 years and these are Western build last to long longer types. So both aircraft after upgrade gives it 25 years of operational life !

See no reason if the IAF choose to upgrade the IL-76 it will remain operational for atleast 20 years and then the PS-90 engine would makes sense to make logistics easier and yes the significant cost savings that Gilles has shown

Even the FSU built AN-32 adds atleast 15 years of additional life to its airframe after a modest upgrade.

I am very skeptical if the current Mig29 and M2k in IAF have equivalent uptimes. sure the Mig29 might "last" 25 more years after upg if used sparingly and if all OEM spares were available but will likely last only 10 more as we intensively use them..mostly a section would be retired and then cannibalized to keep some others flying until finally all are retired perhaps in 10 yrs when ample number of MRCA and Tejas will be there, with PAKFA also coming online.

by 2015 I am not expecting a single instance of M2K, Mig29, Mig27, An32, Mig21, IL76MD in the IAF.

if we look back at the past, MirageIII and MirageV are still being flown by the pakis using cannibalized spares from a bunch of mothballed libyan planes they purchased , but dassault still makes the original spares and the pakis wanted to save $$ on that. same cannot be said for mikoyan going forward perhaps - what is their future? other than the one off IN deal what other products and plans they have for RuAF? fate of Klimov is also uncertain as its Saturn-Salyut who are doing the 5th gen engine and also equip the flankers.

though our Mig27s were all around 20 yrs old, the IAF chose to upg only the last batch of 40 perhaps because it didnt expect the venture to be cost effective for the new life of the older ones. our M2Ks are older, but are all being upged at great expense...perceived value is more.

Those are two different points, any a/c will last less longer when used more intensively, the life is measured in flying hours rather than static hours.

Usually the flying hours is on the critical path as compared to "static hours" since the flying hours are used up more frequently, to the extent that the static hours is not even meaningfully used metric anywhere.

All life times that are talked about are w.r.t. to a standard model of number of flying hours per year. Now with that, any a/c can be simply measured by the flying hours it has, before and after upg etc. Aviation folks use static life time in years in interviews to press more as a more lay-man easy to understand terms.

Secondly -- about uptimes, yes there was a period where Mig 29 uptime was an issue, but that is now long past, and Mig 29s have not had that issue since, before or after.

As a matter of fact, Mirage 2000s at one point of time were called "hangar queens" by the ground crew, so sensitive were they to heat and dust at Maharajpur, and had to stay in their a/c pens to keep them in shape.

So while Mirage 2000 might have had advantages, that also came with enormous effort, in contrast, the Mig 29s stood outside for days in Lohegaon sun without a problem.

In the end, both have/had their particular sweet spots and efficient utilization, and were shown to be so.

That however is not likely to be a similar analogy as C 17 vs Il 76 etc, since C 17 does not really do anything particularly different from Il (unlike special qualities brought by Mirages) and are practically serving the same need for IAF (which is to transport large amounts of cargo from airbase A to airbase

If you think that the IAF will dump an aircraft just because it is old,think again! It will use every aircraft it has avaliable,just as it still operates about 40-50 Avro/HS-748s.

Now examine this scenario.During this decade,C-17 production will cease,kaput,RIP.The USAF isn't buying any more and the indecent haste with which we are ordering upto 20 if affordable,is because if we want more later on it won't be possible."Last round of drinks gents",you get my point.Assuming we have the 20 optioned for,what will we do when we want more heavy-lifters later on? Upgrading the existing IL-76s to approx. 476 specs. is possible,but how many of the lot in service possible,given their remaining structural lifespan? It will be a very prudent action though,saving a lot of money if they are upgraded,just as we are doing with almost the entire fleet of aircraft in IAF service.

Now,the threat from the Sino-Paki combine is only growing by the hour and if we truly have the ghoulies to "stride forward into sea and space where no Indians have gone before",meaning establishing bases or operating assets from foreign bases,then the logistics of supporting for example an air base in Central Asia,a naval base/assets in Vietnam,the Phillipines or in any other Asia-Pacific nation,will mount enormously,leave alone our own increasing needs with the expansion of the number of mountain troop divisions to meet the dragon-pig combine.We will need much more than 20 heavy-lifters and with say,20 C-17s,plus about a dozen IL-76 UGs,the need will still be there for about another 20 more as the life-span of upgraded ILs will be fast diminishing.At that point of time the only heavy-lift aircraft in production will be the IL-476 which the Russians are ordering by the dozen! As Russian officer told AWST,"we can't need them too soon".Therefore,examining the IL-476 option for the future would be a wise one..

assuming engine parts were the only issue. unfortunately not so




Source for this please?? because I have never heard of this - they needed hangars and clean rooms for certain maintenance but not the way you describe.

If there is one thing the IAF is not known for, it is for putting all its eggs in one basket.

Let's not forget that there are civilian outfits which are operating the IL-76 at a much higher tempo than military aircraft and which and have no trouble whatsoever keeping them airworthy. The Russian Air Force still has 200+ IL-76-based aircraft on inventory and are not about to stop supporting these aircraft until a replacement has been purchased. Its not like the 26 IAF IL-76s is an orphan fleet that needs to rely on cannibalised parts to keep it in the air.....

Glad you agree that getting the C-17 was the correct decision for India



There are plenty of spares for civilian (Russian) operators and the Russian air force, but none for India.

So basically you're admitting Russia is screwing over India. Why would India invest more in such a platform and reward this behavior?

I have only seen references to 10 years post upgrade

http://www.defencenow.com/news/206/iaf-ignores-russia-floats-global-tender-for-maintenance-of-ilyushin-aircraft.html




I wonder what this total life extension is all about ?

We both seem to be wrong , the upgrade will extend life by 15 years

link

Ah, sorry, I was talking about the Il-76, not the MiG-29

I may be way off mark but it seems any upgrade to existing aircraft life of 25 years can at best add 15 more years to it post upgrade , we have seen similar figures for An-32 ,Mig-29 and M2K upgrade.

So without having any data to back up similar figures but from experience of such upgrade on other type , we can perhaps conclude that an IL-76 upgrade can add about 15 years of service life or about 1000 more hours of airframe life.

The KC-135R I mentioned earlier was re-engined around 1985, when the aircraft was about 22 years old. That was 26 years ago.

Mig 29s were called 'hangar queens' not the M-2000 Saar why are you debating? - In the early part of the debate there used to be requests for quotes that the IAF chief really wanted the C-17s, then it morphed into a demand for 'direct quotes' from the IAF chief - now 'request for sources' are dirty words I think one should let Gresham's law operate here