Transport Aircraft for IAF

[Gilles]

. As far as I know the upgrades for the IL-76MDs are done.

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.

[shiv]

Here is another related subject:

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

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

[NRao]

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.

[nrshah]

THAT plane will be GONE around 2020!!!

Nine more years. That is it.

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

RuAF has come to the rescue

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.

[nitinr]

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.

[Singha]

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

[Pratyush]

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.

[Gilles]

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.

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

Re-engining
All KC-135s were originally equipped with Pratt & Whitney J-57-P-59W turbojet engines which produced 10,000 lbf (44 kN) of thrust dry, and approximately 13,000 lbf (58 kN) of thrust wet......... The second modification program re-engined 500 aircraft with new CFM International CFM56 (military designation: F108) engines produced by General Electric and Snecma. The CFM-56 turbofans are capable of producing approximately 22,500 lbf (100 kN) of thrust, nearly a 100% increase in thrust compared to the original J-57 engines. The re-engined tanker, designated either the KC-135R or KC-135T, can offload up to 50% more fuel (on a long duration sortie), is 25% more fuel efficient, costs 25% less to operate and is 96% quieter than the KC-135A (sideline noise levels at takeoff were reduced from 126 to 99 decibels).
The KC-135R's operational range is 60% greater than the KC-135E for comparable fuel offloads, providing a wider range of basing options.
No longer in consideration, upgrading the remaining KC-135E into KC-135R would have cost about three billion dollars, about 24 million dollars per aircraft. According to Air Force data, the KC-135 fleet had a total operation and support cost in fiscal year 2001 of about $2.2 billion. The older E model aircraft averaged total costs of about $4.6 million per aircraft, while the R models averaged about $3.7 million per aircraft. Those costs include personnel, fuel, maintenance, modifications, and spare parts.

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 re-engined aircraft was designated the KC-135R. The CFM56 brought many benefits to the KC-135, decreasing takeoff distance by as much as 3,500 ft (1,100 m), decreasing overall fuel usage by 25%, greatly reducing noise (24 dB lower) and lowering total life cycle cost. With those benefits in mind, the United States Navy selected the CFM56-2 to power their variant of the Boeing 707, the E-6 Mercury, in 1982. Additionally, in 1984 the Royal Saudi Air Force selected the CFM56-2 to power their E-3 Sentry aircraft (also related to the 707 airframe). The CFM56-2-powered E-3 also became the standard configuration for aircraft purchased by the British and French.

By the end of the 1970s, airlines were considering upgrading their aging Douglas DC-8 aircraft as an alternative to buying new quieter and more efficient aircraft. Following the French KC-135 order in 1978, the April 1979 decision by United Airlines to upgrade 30 of their DC-8-61 aircraft with the CFM56-2 was important for securing the development of the CFM56; GE and SNECMA were two weeks away from freezing development had that order not materialized. This decision marked the first commercial purchase (rather than government/military) of the engine, and Delta Air Lines and Flying Tiger Line soon followed suit, giving the CFM56 a firm footing in both the military and commercial realms.

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.

[Singha]

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)

[GeorgeWelch]

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.

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.

they normally fly 1000 hours per year each

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

The overhaul period of the Il-76 airframe was stipulated as 5,000 flying hours whereas that of the engine was 2,000 hours or 10 years

Which gives an estimate of 200 hours per year

[Sanku]

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.

[GeorgeWelch]

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.

[Sanku]

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.

[GeorgeWelch]

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 . . .

[Austin]

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.

[Singha]

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.

[Sanku]

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..

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

[Philip]

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..

[Surya]

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

assuming engine parts were the only issue. unfortunately not so

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

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.

[Gilles]

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.

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.....

[GeorgeWelch]

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

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

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.

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?

[GeorgeWelch]

but the deal to upgrade includes bringing in additional 25 years of operating life the the aircraft post upgrade

I have only seen references to 10 years post upgrade

[Gilles]

http://www.defencenow.com/news/206/iaf- ... craft.html

Apparently, the nine IAF Ilyushins which will be undergoing overhaul and total life extension at the time the contract is expected to be awarded will not be included.

I wonder what this total life extension is all about ?

[Austin]

but the deal to upgrade includes bringing in additional 25 years of operating life the the aircraft post upgrade

I have only seen references to 10 years post upgrade

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

link

Russia will complete the upgradation of Indian Air Force's 60 MiG-29 fighters by 2013 which will extend their service life by another 15 years.

[GeorgeWelch]

Russia will complete the upgradation of Indian Air Force's 60 MiG-29 fighters by 2013 which will extend their service life by another 15 years.

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

[Austin]

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.

[Gilles]

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.

[arnab]

[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.

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

[Surya]

arnab

what to do?? habits are hard to break

[NRao]

For what research is worth, instead of speculating:

June 2010 :: India readies to evaluate C-17 airlifter

IL-76 transport jets as also to augment its strategic lift capability in the coming years.

Air Marshal Ashok Goel (retd), who had flown in the first IL-76 from the Soviet Union to India in April 1985, says that the acquisition of the C-17, as also that of Lockheed Martin’s C 130J Super Hercules are timely.

The IL-76, which had given IAF strategic lift capability, and the smaller AN 32, would last another 10-12 years although as per the manufacturers’ specifications, they are at the end of their lives. IAF has not used them fully and there is substantial residual life in them.

Jun 2011 :: 'India to buy more than 16 C-17 airlifters'

The IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik told India Strategic defence magazine (www.indiastrategic.in) in an interview that while the government had accorded approval earlier this month to buy 10 aircraft, the air force was now processing a case for six more of these airlifters. At a later date, "we will add some more," he disclosed but did not specify the number.

He said that IAF's existing Soviet-vintage IL-76 heavy-lift aircraft would last approximately another 10 years, and the induction of the C-17 Globemaster IIIs during this period would be a timely replacement. India has less than 20 IL-76 in a dedicated transport role, while there are six midair refuelles designated Il-78, and another three to house the Israeli Phalcon AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control Systems).

[NRao]

Aug 2010 :: Russia continues to dominate Indian military aviation

Notably, as the Phalcon radars are heavy, the IL 76 airlifters have been upgraded with more powerful PS-90 engines, the cost though for them is quite high and not considered appropriate for upgrading the IAF’s fleet of less than 20 old Soviet-vintage Il 76 aircraft.

Which is why the present set of IL-76MDs will not be upgarded with the PS-90 engines.

Some of you need to do a little research before posting.

The author with CAS Naik:


Gulshan Luthra (left) and Air Marshal Ashok Goel (Retd) (right) with CAS Naik (2010)

(BTW, that is the same AM Ashok Goel who "Air Marshal Ashok Goel (retd), who had flown in the first IL-76 from the Soviet Union to India in April 1985, says that the acquisition of the C-17, as also that of Lockheed Martin’s C 130J Super Hercules are timely." in my previous post.)

[Gilles]

I found some interesting info on a Russian Website:

http://russianplanes.net/EN/ID36720

In Sept 2010, K-3000, an IAF IL-76MD delivered in March 1988, had a total time of 6470 hours, and 5630 cycles. This means that this aircraft flew an average of 287 hours per year, and that the average flight duration was one hour and nine minute.

On Jan 30th, 2008, K-2662, an IAF IL-76MD, delivered in 1985, had a total time of 6181h with 4285 cycles. It had flown 281 hours per year, with an average flight duration of 1 hour and 26 minutes.

[Singha]

the IL76MDs were mostly based in chandigarh and used for flights to Leh and other places in western region. so the flight time avg of 1:00 - 1:30 is on the mark.

[shiv]

I found some interesting info on a Russian Website:

http://russianplanes.net/EN/ID36720

In Sept 2010, K-3000, an IAF IL-76MD delivered in March 1988, had a total time of 6470 hours, and 5630 cycles. This means that this aircraft flew an average of 287 hours per year, and that the average flight duration was one hour and nine minute.

On Jan 30th, 2008, K-2662, an IAF IL-76MD, delivered in 1985, had a total time of 6181h with 4285 cycles. It had flown 281 hours per year, with an average flight duration of 1 hour and 26 minutes.

20 Il 76s with 280 hours per year means a total of 5600 hours per year or 15 hours of Il-76 flying per day. Probably half the fleet are flying 1.5 hours a day - maybe 1000 km per day (my guess).

Considering that the IAF seems to have been happy with the Illyushins I doubt if the low hours has anything to do with down time and unavailability. More likely there is spare capacity for war. How does that square up with the demands for "We need more more more"?

[Austin]

I found some interesting info on a Russian Website:

http://russianplanes.net/EN/ID36720

In Sept 2010, K-3000, an IAF IL-76MD delivered in March 1988, had a total time of 6470 hours, and 5630 cycles. This means that this aircraft flew an average of 287 hours per year, and that the average flight duration was one hour and nine minute.

On Jan 30th, 2008, K-2662, an IAF IL-76MD, delivered in 1985, had a total time of 6181h with 4285 cycles. It had flown 281 hours per year, with an average flight duration of 1 hour and 26 minutes.

Surprising Military Transport Aircraft fly so less , that figure of 287 hours per year , you would have a figure of 287 - 300 hours per month for civilian aircraft

[GeorgeWelch]

Considering that the IAF seems to have been happy with the Illyushins

Um, they're trying to replace the Il-76s with C-17s, they didn't want Il-78s for the tanker, they're talking about moving Phalcon off Il-78s ASAP, they opened a global tender for Il-76 spares because the supply from Russia has been so abysmal.

What makes you think they're happy with them?

[Sanku]

[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.

Mig 29s were called 'hangar queens' not the M-2000 Saar why are you debating?

You should not talk about things of which you have no first clue.

[Sanku]

Aug 2010 :: Russia continues to dominate Indian military aviation

Notably, as the Phalcon radars are heavy, the IL 76 airlifters have been upgraded with more powerful PS-90 engines, the cost though for them is quite high and not considered appropriate for upgrading the IAF’s fleet of less than 20 old Soviet-vintage Il 76 aircraft.

Which is why the present set of IL-76MDs will not be upgarded with the PS-90 engines.

NRao, the above link does not remotely says what you want it to say. It only says why some have been up-engined, not why others will NEVER be up-engined as you appear to be quite desperate for IAF to say.

Unfortunately it does not say that.

[Sanku]

Considering that the IAF seems to have been happy with the Illyushins

Um, they're trying to replace the Il-76s with C-17s, they didn't want Il-78s for the tanker, they're talking about moving Phalcon off Il-78s ASAP, they opened a global tender for Il-76 spares because the supply from Russia has been so abysmal.

C 17s are NOT replacing Ils, Americans would like that, but thats not happening, C 17s are money in bank for services (however shoddy) by GoTUS in NSG.

Nothing more. No need to ascribe any more to it.

What makes you think they're happy with them?

Because they are, multiple glowing reports have been posted, as recent as 2010.

[arnab]

You should not talk about things of which you have no first clue.

Umm doesn't seem to stop you