Bharat Rakshak

^^^ I completely agree to this. Actually part of my enthusiasm is based on the fact that this is going to be a public/private endeavour.

I just hope this private partnership comes in with some real stake in the project which is either pvt player chipping in financially or in other commitments like building infrastructure to manufacture , if the private player just come in as NAL/CSIR invitee and has no stake in it , then it would serve no purpose.

Its a green field project for NAL and Pvt player so the scope they can contribute it is also very limited , they will have to rope in global majors for most of the task as lead consultants , its a very realistic way to go ahead, Even Embrarer sources most of its stuff from global majors , so does Sukhoi , plus the latter co-opted the Italians as partners and co-developed with Snecma engines for Superjet program.

Competitors for NCA-90

Embraer E-170 and 175 ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_175#E-170_and_175
Bombardier CRJ900 ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CRJ700
Superjet -----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100
Comac ARJ21-700 ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMAC_ARJ21

If it is "Committee" ruled,it will suffer the same fate as many other projects still being pursued in the "national interest".The GOI PSUs like HAL, will sabotage any serious entrant from the pvt. sector,as long as there is a govt. at the centre that wants mediocrity to rule.If we are truly serious to develop a 90-seater for our civilian needs,then the fastest way is to invite an international partner,a competition,perhaps from the list given,which will hugely shorten the lead time.If not,by the time NAL or whoever develops,tests and gets certification for the aircraft,the Indian market will have been largely closed with pvt. airlines buying what's already on the shelf.We have absolutely NO experience in aero-engines,the key tot he aircraft both for payload and economy and will have to shop from the same aero-engine manufacturers that the existing manufacturers are getting for theirs.Though we've made progress in composites,how far we are from cutting edge tech for the same is an unknown.Aircraft internals like seating and other accessories will also have to be sourced from abroad,our volumes will be too small to develop economically,plus avionics,glass cockpits,radars,commns. eqpt. are other areas where part will still be sourced from abroad.In the final analysis,how "indigenous" will the aircraft be?

Phillip sir,

100% indigenous is better than 80% indigenous is better than 40% indigenous is better than 20% indigenous is better than imported.

Isn't it? Why don't we let our scientist play? There can be no research without a dream to be achieved. Why build so many cobwebs?

Let us try with belief and conviction. If after that we fail , I will have no remorse.

Indranil -

Brazil did not leapfrog to a 90 seater

its quite a task to get something for the civilian market with certification. ..


very slim chance of success with our present experience, structure etc

But not being the first to invent the wheel has its advantages!

we could have said the same for the Kaveri but look at the pain we are going through there

plus we have to keep the plane reasonably modern if it has to compete - The IAF can purchase only so many.

Someone like Kartik can better explain the nitty gritty

Even the Russians do not have too many EASA or FAA certified planes without which you can forget selling in the main markets

Superjet I think is going to apply this year- will be interesting

I am not saying it is going to be easy ... or there are going to be shortcuts.

I don't plan on seeing the plane before 15 years. But it is not impossible. For every Kaveri, we have Arjun, LCA, Agni, K-X, Arihants, P-17s, P-15s. WE have to start one day.

Also building a 60 seater turboprop plane is not much easier than 90-seater turbofan plane, when we are going to import the engines anyway.

I am sure that India has done a great deal of research into designing and building a 90 seater plane.

However, if this plane is to make an appearance 15 years from today - give and take a few years - either it must be a dynamite plane that beats the others in sales, OR India has figured out that most, if not all, other competitors will vacate this 90-passenger-plane. If the Sitara is an indicator I would venture to guess that this plane would make it much, much earlier than that.

However, I have a greater concern, something I had said about 10 yearish earlier. India has NO infrastructure to make such planes a reality - approach roads to an airport, airports with enough facility to house a larger clientele - restaurants, water fountains, toilets, space for people, shops, plumbing for all that, electricity for every airport and more, lighting the approach roads, draining water along approach roads, etc. As an ex urban planner (of one of the largest SMSAs) forget designing, even buying a large number of planes from the US/Europe/Russia/China, I can tell you, is not a joke. It is very, very, very challenging. The challenge goes waaaaaaay beyond just engines, composites, etc when it comes to a civilian plane. A military aircraft is totally different.

Russia was the very first nation to use planning as a tool, India was the first among democratic nations. Yet India lags badly when it comes to "plans" - total absence of PM at the political level.

Best of luck with the 90-seater. BUT, please plan AND implement the infrastructure. Else there will be not enough space on aprons to even park these pups. Demand will be there, but no supply outside of a 90-seater. It will be total disaster. The entire package HAS to go hand-in-hand.

FYI: History is repeating itself.

Added l8r:

Designing and constructing a 90-seater (civilian plane) is about 5-10% of the problem.

I suggest we stick to military aviation in such threads. A civilian plane poses a problem that most people in aeronautics have no ability to grasp the entire problem. They just cannot.

you reminded me of a good lesson today ... I keep forgetting the importance of urban infrastructure development ... you couldn't be more right.

Even then I am an optimist ...

<OFF TOPIC>
Because I believe in one thing:
When there is money to be made, money will be made ... if that brings along national development ... national development will be brought ... such is human nature ... at the moment there is lot of money to be made in India and Indian civil aviation.

The only EASA certified jet they have till date is Superjet and they got it certified early this year.

We should take civil aviation discussion to the Civil Aviation Development & Discussion threat viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3986&start=2040

Instead of going for the direct replacement for Avros, wld have been great to see more C-130J s procured. It cld be the version without the super duper Spec-Ops add ons. With the upgraded An-32 already in service, getting shorter legged, lighter payload transports as a direct one on one replacement for older aircrafts doesn't look cost effective. Also, Air Marshal Goel in his blog had mooted the idea of operating the C-130 meant for the BSF and other agencies by IAF, with the same maintenance infra and base, to be used for the respective agencies. This IMO wld be more cost effective and wld provide IAF with more aircrafts during war time, while the aircrafts wld be used to for the respective agencies during peace!

Here's an estimate of IAF transport fleet lift capability in 2025 in comparison to today:

IAF Airlift Heavy/Medium Capacity (2012)

• 15 x IL-76 -> 675t [45t * 15 units]
• 100 x An-32 -> 750t [7.5t * 100 units]
• 30 x HS-748 -> 150t [5t * 30 units]
• 6 x C-130J -> 120t [20t * 6 units]
• 6 x IL-78 -> 270t [45t * 6 units]

Total lift tonnage (2012) -> 1,965t

IAF Airlift Heavy/Medium Capacity (2025)

• 16 x C-17 -> 1,280t [80t * 16 units]
• 12 x C-130J -> 240t [20t * 12 units]
• 45 x MTA -> 810t [18t * 45 units]
• 60 x C-295/C-27J -> 540t [9t * 60 units]
• 6 x IL-78 -> 270t [45t * 6 units]
• 6 x A330 MRTT -> 270t [45t * 6 units]

Total lift tonnage (2025) -> 3,410t

Growth: 1,445t more

srai, I thought the IL-78s have fuel tanks in their cargo hold. So their lift capacity should be counted as 0.

True.


Here are the revised numbers:

This is an estimate of IAF transport fleet lift capability in 2025 in comparison to today.

IAF Airlift Heavy/Medium Capacity (2012)

• 15 x IL-76 -> 675t [45t * 15 units]
• 100 x An-32 -> 750t [7.5t * 100 units]
• 30 x HS-748 -> 150t [5t * 30 units]
• 6 x C-130J -> 120t [20t * 6 units]

Total lift tonnage (2012) -> 1,695t

IAF Airlift Heavy/Medium Capacity (2025)

• 16 x C-17 -> 1,280t [80t * 16 units]
• 12 x C-130J -> 240t [20t * 12 units]
• 45 x MTA -> 810t [18t * 45 units]
• 60 x C-295/C-27J -> 540t [9t * 60 units]
• 6 x A330 MRTT -> 270t [45t * 6 units]

Total lift tonnage (2025) -> 3,140t

Growth: 1,445t more (~85% more)

In June, 2011, when the IAF floated an international tender for parts/support for the IL-76/78s, they had specified in the RFP that they expect a 70% serviceability and never to fall below 50%. They provided for incentives if the serviceability was higher.

So, those numbers will be fairly different if other air crafts had similar expectations. %age wise it may not chance.

Need to convert you into a realist!! One of these days.

OK. Just as a FYI, India had around 30 Million passengers in 2006. In 2025 the airline demand is expected to grow to 300 Million. The current 30 Mil is supported by some 250 air crafts (give/take some), that has to grow to at least a 1000 air crafts by 2025 (demand grows by 10X, supply by 4). THAT figure is for the major metro areas - really does not take into account feeder routes. So, for feeder routes India will need - what about 500 smaller air crafts, by 2025. And IF one were to consider rural routes (kacha runways) the supply needs to grow even further.

Figures (were?) are there!! 6 years have gone. Your 15 years NEEDS to be compressed into 13 to meet 2025.

Beauty of it all - every player can be a winner.

srai, I think another dozen or two C-130J-30 will be added. And apart from the initial 6 MRTT there is a possibility of another 12-18 will be inducted in this time frame.

IMO, with regards to the C-130J, it really depends on the MTA project. MTA and C-130J are in the same category. So if the MTA project delivers as promised within the timeframe (i.e. ready by 2016), then more C-130Js won't be ordered; it will stabilize at 12 units primarily for special operations role. I read somewhere that IAF has an option for 45 more MTA beyond the initial 45 requirements.

Agree on the MRTT, most likely another 6 more will be added on top of the 6 that will be added soon. This would bring the total AAR to 18 units.

Even Russia joined hands with the Italians to develop the SU-Superjet,which has EU engines and faster EU certification.A recent AWST had more news of its development,production.

>> if the MTA project delivers as promised within the timeframe (i.e. ready by 2016), then more C-130Js won't be ordered

the only way that will happen is if we license make the Embraer plane and call it MTA.

I am plenty tired of India sitting around a long dead corpse , invoking mantras and hoping it will suddenly come to life again...even the dogs have eaten the flesh down to the bone and wandered away to sleep under the banyan tree in the afternoon heat...yet we continue to punish ourself when a hot brazilian girl lounging in the cabana has invited us for lunch and swim and promised us a good time

Some details on PD-14 Engine for MTA released in recent Engine 2012 show
http://www.take-off.ru/pdf/ENGINES_2012_gazeta-01.pdf

IAF Air Power At Exercise Shoorveer

Air Armada

Click Pic for the Larger Version


Chak diyan gey Phatte

didn't know il78mki has reverse thrust just as c17 have found out posting the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71QUKePyQQs

How do you spot reverse-thrusters ?

At the end of the video, after the IL-78 lands, you can see the thrust reverses deployed in the two outboard engines.

Very, very good catch.

However, note that they were deployed (in that vid) only on the outer two engines. That roll is rather long too.

Some good info on IL-476 program but use translator

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-632.html

Good update from AW&ST on Brazil KC-390 Transport Aircraft and over all Brazil Aviation Industry program , we need to develop along similar lines

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416219812&e=true

on monday, a C130J from Hindon made a direct flight to car nicobar establishing this route and marking a new milestone in our C130J use.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 611735.cms

IAF sent a strong signal over the 572-island archipelago by conducting its first-ever landing of a C-130J 'Super Hercules' military transport aircraft at the Car Nicobar airbase on Monday, just days before the Navy commissions its first naval air station at Campbell Bay next week. It marks a big leap for IAF in projecting its strategic reach with the C-130J flying straight to the remote and far-flung island base directly from Hindon airbase on Delhi's outskirts.

Configured for special operations, the C-130J can swiftly transport combat-ready troops over long distances,'' said an officer. Under the overall island development plan'', which includes new naval air station at Campbell Bay, the existing runways at Campbell Bay and Shibpur are being extended, while three more (OTR) operational turn around bases for warships are being established in the archipelago. Moreover, new airstrips will come up at Kamorta and Little Andaman, while the existing two main runways at Port Blair and Car Nicobar are also being upgraded.

The Army, too, is moving to add another battalion to the 108 Mountain Brigade based there.

what ever structure they build must have 20ft above sea level and let the water through them.

elevated run ways, buildings, facilities.

Can't predict 20ft is enough ...

As a tsunami aftermath, the IAF made a decision not to base permanent squadrons at A&N. It will only detach flights there from time to time. However, the infrastructures are being built up to quickly allow deployment of reinforcements (troops, aircrafts, and other equipments) at short notice.

Possibly naive question: If the MTA preliminary design is going to begin now how come we have had a very consistent set of images and models put out on websites and in air shows since 2007 (since 2001 if you include this)? And since 2009 the external appearance has definitely been constant.

general consensus on BRF has been this is a dead duck due to russian unwillingness to devote money & finances for it. plus the design was already long frozen based on some ilyushin plane.

HAL would be quite interested because its gives them guaranteed new build and repair work without the need to design it or test it.

similar to the PAKFA - we will play no role in its design or testing even if it happens, the way I see it playing out.

We are going to have hardly any inputs as far as the design of the MTA goes. Same also with the engines for the plane.

We will only contribute towards some of the avionics and the cabin instrumentation etc.

would rather say that we should buy the entire C-27 assembly line from Italy and produce these in numbers.
Unkil has already cancelled the C-27 program and is not going to procure more of these. Given the state of the Economy in Europe, I don't think many of those nations are going to be spending big on a military transport. We might be able to get a good deal for tech transfer and assembly line transfer of the C-27 planes, if Unkil gives his nod. if we get the tech transfer, maybe we can tinker with it to improve its high altitude performance.

Add a dozen more C-130s apart from 100-150 C-27s and that should be decent replacement for the Avros and An-32s.

yes the C27 or Embraer will atleast get us a product on time and near the budget.

But why should C-27 replace An-32?
The upgraded An-32 are yet to be delivered in full and why do we need the An-32's to replace them already?

The Spartan costs around 50 Mil a piece. 100 C-27 will cost us 5-Billion, a cost IMO IAF will not spend on a Transport fleet.

On the other hand the An-32 with a 7.5 ton payload cost us around 10 million a piece.

Anyone knows what the cost of each MTA is expected to be?

>> The upgraded An-32 are yet to be delivered in full and why do we need the An-32's to replace them already?

without caring for any particular product its a fact that a country of our size and frontage needs a much bigger air transport fleet . maybe even restarting AN32 production line in ukraine is an option if its reliable and costs are low?

I am actually more in favour of scrapping the MTA and just getting more C-130J (long and short models) without involving HAL in licensed production. if US has any C130 lying in the boneyard, they could also be refurbished with new engines and avionics and put to use - all need not be shiny desi-JSOC std like the initial ones we got.

^^^Makes sense. 40-60 C-130 in IAF Colors will make hell lot of difference to TpT Capability.