Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 29 Jan 2014 19:52

Vipul wrote:India close to $1.65-bin military aircraft deal with Japan.

Useless buy, what's with the sudden urge to increase the foreign aircraft inventory ???

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 29 Jan 2014 20:16

Sagar G wrote:
Vipul wrote:India close to $1.65-bin military aircraft deal with Japan.
Useless buy, what's with the sudden urge to increase the foreign aircraft inventory ???

More of a strategic step than pure military--- Japan is also going to invest (Hopefully) heavily into infra sector

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 29 Jan 2014 20:30

Prithwiraj wrote:More of a strategic step than pure military--- Japan is also going to invest (Hopefully) heavily into infra sector

Ch**tiya step to say the least, Japan is one of the 3.5 friends of pottystan and before we put money in hands of japs I would like to see their serious commitment towards India. Helping India out in aeroengine development will count as a serious commitment for me and no more bakseesh to pottyland.

The next government must cancel this deal and negotiate a better one before we buy anything from Japan.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jan 2014 02:06

Can't agree with you. Japan has invested heavily in our infrastructure. And it will be great if it continues to do so.

Also the amphib requirement is not made specifically for US-2. IN floated an RfP for amphibs to ShinMaywa, Canada's Bombardier (CL-415), Russia's (Be-200), and US/German's (Seastar CD2) in 2010. The coast guard was looking for amphibs from even before. Unfortunately for them, Japan would get the contract because of geopolitical reasons. It is 2-bird-with-1 stone situation for India. Thankfully, the US-2 happens to be the best among all the competitors too.

Amphibians are required near Andaman and Nicobar islands. They offer great flexibility. In fact, IAF wanted to 6 of these for reconnaissance and rescue in 2011. CG wanted them for MRMR even before that.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Jan 2014 02:50

^I think NRao ji had posted something that US2 can land and take off in more volatile sea conditions than others too. So capability-wise also its a good deal.

vic · Post by **vic** » 30 Jan 2014 07:31

KrishnaK wrote:
vic wrote:Anyway, if Japan wants to tie up with India then they can start asking Japanese scientists and engineers to help DRDO programs.
They're actually thinking of letting DRDO buy up their top technology companies.

Source?

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 30 Jan 2014 10:09

Dear Me, I remember a lot of talk on BR especially from the Mods on clamping down on nukkadization of the Mil Issues thread - yet to read some of the posts.

Let's not kid ourselves, the US-2 Shinmaywa is not some "search and rescue" type asset. It's the IN's baby (Check out who Shinmaywa has appointed as CEO of their India operations) and will be suitably "configured" for not only conventional ISR roles but also very likely ELINT/SIGINT stuff.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 Jan 2014 22:44

indranilroy wrote:Can't agree with you. Japan has invested heavily in our infrastructure. And it will be great if it continues to do so.

Also the amphib requirement is not made specifically for US-2. IN floated an RfP for amphibs to ShinMaywa, Canada's Bombardier (CL-415), Russia's (Be-200), and US/German's (Seastar CD2) in 2010. The coast guard was looking for amphibs from even before. Unfortunately for them, Japan would get the contract because of geopolitical reasons. It is 2-bird-with-1 stone situation for India. Thankfully, the US-2 happens to be the best among all the competitors too.

Amphibians are required near Andaman and Nicobar islands. They offer great flexibility. In fact, IAF wanted to 6 of these for reconnaissance and rescue in 2011. CG wanted them for MRMR even before that.

So what if Japan has invested in our infrastructure ??? Are you saying that by doing so they were being charitable and we should be indebted for that ???

Are you sure that it was an RFP and not an RFI ??? From what I read is that IN floated an RFI and now we are in discussion with the japs and IN will send out an RFP soon. When you are suffering from brochureitis then coming up with an RFP isn't exactly tough. If you have the RFP or RFI then please post the links for the same since I have been unable to find any one of them, I would love to take a look into what the IN/IAF wanted in their amphibious aircraft. The lack of competetion tells a story in itself.

We don't have to bend over backwards and spend $ 1.65 billion to walk the extra mile for a paper strategic partnership. Pray tell me what did the IN/IAF wanted that only US-2 fits the bill ???

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 Jan 2014 23:14

Sagar G wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Can't agree with you. Japan has invested heavily in our infrastructure. And it will be great if it continues to do so.

Also the amphib requirement is not made specifically for US-2. IN floated an RfP for amphibs to ShinMaywa, Canada's Bombardier (CL-415), Russia's (Be-200), and US/German's (Seastar CD2) in 2010.
Are you sure that it was an RFP and not an RFI ??? From what I read is that IN floated an RFI and now we are in discussion with the japs and IN will send out an RFP soon. When you are suffering from brochureitis then coming up with an RFP isn't exactly tough. If you have the RFP or RFI then please post the links for the same since I have been unable to find any one of them, I would love to take a look into what the IN/IAF wanted in their amphibious aircraft. The lack of competetion tells a story in itself.

In this this case, an RFP to all vendors might not have been justified. The CL-415 and Be-200 are primarily fire-fighting aircraft. The Be-200 can also be used as a transport but being jet engined its likely unsuitable for low altitude loiter and landing in rough waters. The Seastar CD2 is very small passenger aircraft with commensurate payload.

The US-2 appears to be to be only aircraft meeting the Indian Navy's RFI -

The amphibian RFI calls for an aircraft with twin or multiple engines, preferably turboprops, equipped with full authority digital engine control and a range of at least 800nm. The aircraft must also be capable of short take-offs and landings from both the ocean surface and runways.

Other roles the aircraft will perform are supplying spare parts to naval units at sea, visual and radar surveillance of coastal areas and islands, and rapid response missions for humanitarian assistance. A cargo door capable of handling an inflatable rescue dingy is also required.

Notably, the RFI outlines an extensive electronic warfare suite, including forward-looking infrared sensor, sideways looking airborne radar, radar warning receiver and missile approach warning system.

Flight Global

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Jan 2014 23:35

Sagar G wrote:<SNIP>We don't have to bend over backwards and spend $ 1.65 billion to walk the extra mile for a paper strategic partnership. Pray tell me what did the IN/IAF wanted that only US-2 fits the bill ???

Since you've been holding court about US-2 being a useless purchase, why don't you do the needful and tell us why we DON'T need the same? Forget all this gyaan about strategic relationship and all that. Simply focus on why purchasing an amphibian aircraft of US-2 type - or US-2 even - is a bad idea and how the expenditure can be avoided through some other route.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 Jan 2014 23:50

Viv S wrote:In this this case, an RFP to all vendors might not have been justified. The CL-415 and Be-200 are primarily fire-fighting aircraft. The Be-200 can also be used as a transport but being jet engined its likely unsuitable for low altitude loiter and landing in rough waters. The Seastar CD2 is very small passenger aircraft with commensurate payload.

The US-2 appears to be to be only aircraft meeting the Indian Navy's RFI -

The amphibian RFI calls for an aircraft with twin or multiple engines, preferably turboprops, equipped with full authority digital engine control and a range of at least 800nm. The aircraft must also be capable of short take-offs and landings from both the ocean surface and runways.

Other roles the aircraft will perform are supplying spare parts to naval units at sea, visual and radar surveillance of coastal areas and islands, and rapid response missions for humanitarian assistance. A cargo door capable of handling an inflatable rescue dingy is also required.

Notably, the RFI outlines an extensive electronic warfare suite, including forward-looking infrared sensor, sideways looking airborne radar, radar warning receiver and missile approach warning system.

Thanks for the link but no Viv S none of what you have quoted disqualifies any other amphibious aircraft (not considering the Seastar one) other than US-2 itself if we consider the third para regarding all the bells and whistles having been asked for since what Japs are offering is a stripped down civilian version as posted in the article posted a few posts above.

Regarding low altitude loiter and ability to land in rough waters I don't see them being explicitly mentioned as a necessary requirement in the link given by you. Do keep looking for the RFI though I want to go through that.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 00:04

rohitvats wrote:Since you've been holding court about US-2 being a useless purchase, why don't you do the needful and tell us why we DON'T need the same? Forget all this gyaan about strategic relationship and all that. Simply focus on why purchasing an amphibian aircraft of US-2 type - or US-2 even - is a bad idea and how the expenditure can be avoided through some other route.

US-2 type is one thing and US-2 is another, frankly speaking I don't debate regarding the superior capability of US-2 but what does the IN/IAF actually want and that's what raises my suspicion regarding this purchase being sold of as best thing after sliced bread. Since after asking for the RFI we are directly negotiating with the japs when alternatives are present. Take a look yourself

BE 200

MTOW - 41 t
Range - 3300 km
Power Plant - twin-turbofan
Cruise Alt.- 7986 m
Cruise Speed - 560 km/hr
Take of distance (on water) - 1000 m
Landing Distance (on water) - 1300 m
Unit Cost - $ 30-41 million US

CL-415

MTOW - 19.8 t
Range - 2426 km
Power Plant - Twin-turboprop
Cruise Alt.- 3048 m
Cruise Speed - 278 km/hr
Take of distance (on water) - 814 m
Landing Distance (on water) - 665 m
Unit Cost - $ 32 million Canadian dollar

US 2

MTOW - 47.7 t
Range - 4500 km
Power Plant - Four turboprop
Cruise Alt.- 6000 m
Cruise Speed - 480 km/hr
Take of distance (on water) - 280 m
Landing Distance (on water) - 330 m
Unit Cost - $ 100 million US

Now if you see the portion of RFI posted by Viv S then it's clear that both BE-200 and CL-415 make the cut and that too at much less cost plus their are no strings attached with them in the form of constitutional roadblock back in their country of origin.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 00:27

Sagar G wrote:Thanks for the link but no Viv S none of what you have quoted disqualifies any other amphibious aircraft (not considering the Seastar one) other than US-2 itself if we consider the third para regarding all the bells and whistles having been asked for since what Japs are offering is a stripped down civilian version as posted in the article posted a few posts above.

Regarding low altitude loiter and ability to land in rough waters I don't see them being explicitly mentioned as a necessary requirement in the link given by you. Do keep looking for the RFI though I want to go through that.

Turboprop engines. Short take-off and landing.

Be-200 doesn't have the first; a jet engine is not something they'd want to operate during a SAR mission in rough waters. Both fail on the second requirement and by huge margins too.

And what you've posted is just off Wikipedia. The actual responses to the RFI will likely be a lot more thorough. Given that both the Be-200 and CL-415 are fire-tenders, it would hardly be surprising that they weren't found suitable for military operations (they do most of the 'scooping' from placid waters).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Jan 2014 00:30

Sagar G wrote: So what if Japan has invested in our infrastructure ??? Are you saying that by doing so they were being charitable and we should be indebted for that ???

Are you sure that it was an RFP and not an RFI ??? From what I read is that IN floated an RFI and now we are in discussion with the japs and IN will send out an RFP soon. When you are suffering from brochureitis then coming up with an RFP isn't exactly tough. If you have the RFP or RFI then please post the links for the same since I have been unable to find any one of them, I would love to take a look into what the IN/IAF wanted in their amphibious aircraft. The lack of competetion tells a story in itself.

We don't have to bend over backwards and spend $ 1.65 billion to walk the extra mile for a paper strategic partnership. Pray tell me what did the IN/IAF wanted that only US-2 fits the bill ???

1. You read much more than what I said. There is a big difference between welcoming investment and bending over backwards.

2. RFIs are not issued without requirement. They cost a lot of money and time.

3. I can't find the Navy, IAF, and CG RFI/RFPs now. However there are many reports. Here is a consolidated list of requirements that I gathered:

Code: Select all

a. search and rescue missions, 
b. inter-island communication, 
c. rapid response duties and reconnaissance of islands,
d. STOL performance,
e. surface attack, 
f. environmental monitoring, 
g. medical evacuation with 3 intensive care stations.

Preference was given to

Code: Select all

a. turboprop aircraft (for better STOL performance) 
b. with a range of at least 800-nm, 
c. cruising speed of about 200 knots, and 
d. state-of-the-art avionics and EW kit, including RWR/MAWS.
e. air-to-air and maritime surveillance radars (providing 360 degree coverage using AESA radar) to counter airborne and seaborne threats and also help in locating, identifying and tracking the target.

All these cannot be provided on a small airframe (these are not my word, but quotes from people who were sent the RFIs). Shinmaywa, Beriev and Bombardier replied to the IAF RFI. Beriev had been showcasing the aircraft from 2007 on wards at Aero India. BE-200 and CL-415 had failed the trials for CG's RFP (from 2009) for 6 MRMR aircrafts! Japan wasn't sure of whether it wanted to sell the US-2 based on its self imposed ban. THE RFI/RFP tamasha went on for so long that CABS issued a tender for modified airframes to fit the CG requirements with 6 aircrafts being provided immediately, 3 later and possibly 10 more thereafter. So, stop saying that this requirement was built to pacify the Japs.

4. The US-2s are not expensive. They were always expecting 12 planes to cost about 1 billion (in 2010 itself).

P.S. Before issuing your condescending diagnosis of brochureitis, read around a little. It will save others the effort and time to spoon feed your "patriotic and all-knowing" ego.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 00:46

indranilroy wrote:4. The US-2s are not expensive. They were always expecting 12 planes to cost about 1 billion (in 2010 itself).

You need to take a look at the cost per unit figures posted by me and then try and make a case of US-2 not being expensive.

indranilroy wrote:P.S. Before issuing your condescending diagnosis of brochureitis, read around a little. It will save others the effort and time to spoon feed your "patriotic and all-knowing" ego.

Unfortunately your self acclaimed awesome post only goes on to show that what the IN wanted is not what it's getting but India willingly bending over backwards for a paper strategic partnership when other cheaper altenatives are present without strings attached. So instead of delivering lectures try to understand the viewpoint of the other party as well. I didn't ask you or anyone to spoon feed me so if you don't like my views then go ahead and put me on your ignore list the rest of the mods can very well do their job without you having to lose your sleep.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Jan 2014 01:03

I don't think you read my posts. Be-200 and CL-415 failed CG's trials.

P.S. CL-415 and the US-2/Be-200 are not in the same class. By the way, take that price of the Be-200 with a pinch of salt. In 2013, the Russians bought another 6 for $268 millions dollars (a mere 10% increase over the price they paid in 2010). For us, annual inflation of 10% per annum and friendly overheads will apply.

Additionally, the US-2 and C-130J sharing the same engine and props is another huge plus.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 01:09

If that is so then why did IN send them an RFI ??? Were the parameters of IN and CG the same ???

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jan 2014 01:23

IIRC wave height was another factor: 3 M for the Japanese machine, the other two were below 2 M.

Combine that with the very short take-off/landing, it makes a good deal of diff.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Jan 2014 01:27

Sagar G wrote:If that is so then why did IN send them an RFI ??? Were the parameters of IN and CG the same ???

Because there are no other amphibian planes. Japan was not selling the US-2 at that time. Now that it is willing to, we should buy these planes. The others don't come anywhere near its performance. In and around the Andaman and Nicobar islands, where they have the tri-services command, they should go for one aircraft for IAF/Navy/CG and the US-2 is ideal aircraft for it.

John · Post by **John** » 31 Jan 2014 02:05

Fyi

http://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/english/prod ... html#list3

Shinmaywa site has pretty good comparison with other competing amphibians.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 02:09

indranilroy wrote:Because there are no other amphibian planes. Japan was not selling the US-2 at that time. Now that it is willing to, we should buy these planes. The others don't come anywhere near its performance. In and around the Andaman and Nicobar islands, where they have the tri-services command, they should go for one aircraft for IAF/Navy/CG and the US-2 is ideal aircraft for it.

What are you smoking ??? No other amphibian planes !!!! What are Be-200 and CL-415 then ??? And this is not an answer to what I asked you are now just pleading for US-2. Off course it is superior to other amphibs but why shall we pour in extra money when the other aircraft will do the job as well and at half the cost ??? The money saved can be better utilized elsewhere (read research). The $ 1.65 billion US is the takeaway cost and that too of a civil variant we don't know whether we would have the freedom to upgrade it to a military one with all the bells and whistles that IN wants. An aircraft which costs so much upfront will be a burden on the exchequer over it's lifetime as well.

Well no matter what the deal isn't going through before the election and I doubt that the next government will be willing to sign such one sided deal.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 02:11

NRao wrote:IIRC wave height was another factor: 3 M for the Japanese machine, the other two were below 2 M.

Combine that with the very short take-off/landing, it makes a good deal of diff.

Did IN mention that these two are critical/absolutely necessary factors for selection ???

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Jan 2014 02:26

Sagar G wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Because there are no other amphibian planes. Japan was not selling the US-2 at that time. Now that it is willing to, we should buy these planes. The others don't come anywhere near its performance. In and around the Andaman and Nicobar islands, where they have the tri-services command, they should go for one aircraft for IAF/Navy/CG and the US-2 is ideal aircraft for it.
What are you smoking ??? No other amphibian planes !!!! What are Be-200 and CL-415 then ??? And this is not an answer to what I asked you are now just pleading for US-2.

Scroll up and know what I am smoking.
indranilroy: I don't think you read my posts. Be-200 and CL-415 failed CG's trials.
Sagar G: If that is so then why did IN send them an RFI ??? Were the parameters of IN and CG the same ???
indranilroy: Because there are no other amphibian planes. Japan was not selling the US-2 at that time.

So, should I repeat that "Be-200 and CL-415 failed CG's trials"?

Sagar G wrote: Off course it is superior to other amphibs but why shall we pour in extra money when the other aircraft will do the job as well and at half the cost ??? The money saved can be better utilized elsewhere (read research). The $ 1.65 billion US is the takeaway cost and that too of a civil variant we don't know whether we would have the freedom to upgrade it to a military one with all the bells and whistles that IN wants. An aircraft which costs so much upfront will be a burden on the exchequer over it's lifetime as well.

Well no matter what the deal isn't going through before the election and I doubt that the next government will be willing to sign such one sided deal.

The problem is that for you reasoning given by others sound like "pleading", whereas a completely unrelated faith in the next govt. seems to be a perfectly well reasoned answer to a technical discussion!

1. $1.65B for 15 planes of this caliber is not high (How much does each C-130J costs?). Unfortunately, you seem to know much more knowledgeable and patriotic than everybody in the IAF/IN/CG/MoD!
2. And what about the billions doled out by China to Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar. Don't they have research to do?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 02:30

Sagar G wrote:Did IN mention that these two are critical/absolutely necessary factors for selection ???

They certainly would have done so.

Wave height of 1.2m (Be-200) and 1.8m (CL-415) can hardly be acceptable for SAR, unless we intend to carry out SAR missions only in placid waters. Nor should a SAR aircraft have to taxi in half a kilometer and then run another km for take-off.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Jan 2014 02:35

Sagarji, Please educate us on the requirements of IAF/IN/CG and how Be-200, CL-415 can fulfill those requirements.

Other posters, please cooperate. Let us give Sagarji a proper audience. Please don't post on this topic till he does. Let us hear him out first.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 31 Jan 2014 08:17

Viv S wrote:
Sagar G wrote:Did IN mention that these two are critical/absolutely necessary factors for selection ???
They certainly would have done so.

Wave height of 1.2m (Be-200) and 1.8m (CL-415) can hardly be acceptable for SAR, unless we intend to carry out SAR missions only in placid waters. Nor should a SAR aircraft have to taxi in half a kilometer and then run another km for take-off.

A joint team tried to find out how it can fit the role.

My question in general is (not specifically Viv S) what were the options if Japan had not offered to sell these planes? wouldn't we have purchased the other options?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 31 Jan 2014 10:12

As Sagar ji is MIA... I am posting some of the features of this bird...

1) It can land in seas with wave height of 3M
2) At just 10M height, it has very low observability, this is very valuable in SAR situations where the Enemy might be lurking around.
3) STOL capabilities: Takeoff and landing approx 300M
4) Flies Higher
5) Flies Further
6) Flies Faster
7) Spray Suppression : Prevents water from impacting engines and props, thus prolonging their life and increasing the mean time between service and MTBF

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jan 2014 10:48

Well, CJ, this plane *really* does not meet the specs (as specified in many articles during the RFI era).

So, Mar 17, 2010 :: EXCLUSIVE: IAF Floats Tender For Six Amphibious Aircraft

The IAF has set down a preference for a twin turboprop craft with a range of at least 800-nm. The IAF has also said it wants an aircraft with a short take-off capability, a cruising speed of about 200 knots and state-of-the-art avionics and EW kit, including RWR/MAWS.

I am not too sure, but the US-2 is a *plain* plane. I doubt if it has "EW kit, RWR/MAWS". India, I would think, would install it on her own.

The Bombardier stood a decent chance. The BE was not certified in the West - do not know if that would made a diff with the IN, but that could have caused a problem.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Jan 2014 10:56

Which engine the US 2 uses. If it is an American one, then we may face issue wrt the export clearance to the Japanese for exporting it to India.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 31 Jan 2014 11:21

same engine as the c130, doubt that will be an issue as america does not manafacture a competing platform

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 31 Jan 2014 11:24

Pratyush wrote:Which engine the US 2 uses. If it is an American one, then we may face issue wrt the export clearance to the Japanese for exporting it to India.

US 2 uses Rolls Royce engine, wonder why people think it is the same engine as the C130???

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 31 Jan 2014 11:52

Shrinivasan wrote:As Sagar ji is MIA...

Après moi le déluge

NRao wrote: I am not too sure, but the US-2 is a *plain* plane. I doubt if it has "EW kit, RWR/MAWS". India, I would think, would install it on her own.

That is:

a) To expedite Japan's own restrictive red tape when it comes to export of "military" hardware.
b) India's own admirable desire to jugaad its own built-to-spec kit inside the plane. Especially, as all circumstantial evidence points to a Dornier IW-like offspring -be very unlikely if there would be open source attribution of ELINT/SIGINT fitments. Do keep an eye out for any parallel "Israeli" announcements.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 31 Jan 2014 11:53

All the three overshoot the basic specs. I see US-2 superior in specs based on wiki figures. Engines are RR. Good this plane offer came at right time.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 31 Jan 2014 13:25

Shrinivasan wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Which engine the US 2 uses. If it is an American one, then we may face issue wrt the export clearance to the Japanese for exporting it to India.
US 2 uses Rolls Royce engine, wonder why people think it is the same engine as the C130???

Both uses RR engines, although with little difference. But its the same family of engine.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_AE_2100

C-130 J - Engine - Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3
Propeller - Dowty R391 6-bladed propeller.

US-2 - Engine - Rolls-Royce AE 2100J
Propeller - Dowty R414 6-bladed propeller.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 17:14

chackojoseph wrote:A joint team tried to find out how it can fit the role.

My question in general is (not specifically Viv S) what were the options if Japan had not offered to sell these planes? wouldn't we have purchased the other options?

The other options would be the MH-53 and NH90. Possibly the MV-22 as well. Rotor wash will be a concern in all three cases, particularly with the MV-22. All three will cost as much as the US-2 or more, but they are still rugged military grade platforms with reliable support.

Another option is to acquire more light helicopters for SAR and additional C-130Js while building several more rough field in the Andamans. This will require a greater number of air frames, flight time to pickup will be much higher and it will not be possible to exfiltrate with heavy loads.

The 415 MP doesn't have any STOL capability, the payload is low and the fuselage is narrow (just 7 ft across) limiting the size of the payload. Also being designed primarily for fire-fighting, its efficiency is transport is likely to be inferior to the long range US-2. The Be-200 is total non-starter, unsuitable for operations on the high seas.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2014 19:41

if the idea is to be able to set down on the ship(helis) or on the sea, in support of CG/IN ops, SF ops....the C130 obviously does not qualify. the MV22 cannot operate off the decks of DDG due to heat of engine and rotor diameter issues probably.
and the US-2 outranges even the merlin by a huge margin. it has long legs. it can probably land a troop of saboteurs right near a maldivian jihadi camp , flying out of vizag and loiter out of sight until its time to extract the marcos unit.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 19:55

indranilroy wrote:Scroll up and know what I am smoking.
indranilroy: I don't think you read my posts. Be-200 and CL-415 failed CG's trials.
Sagar G: If that is so then why did IN send them an RFI ??? Were the parameters of IN and CG the same ???
indranilroy: Because there are no other amphibian planes. Japan was not selling the US-2 at that time.

So, should I repeat that "Be-200 and CL-415 failed CG's trials"?

Interesting you quote me but still don't answer the questions asked, I'am highlighting them for his majesty's convenience.

Also tell me on which parameters did both of them fail and does the IN RFI mention the same parameters ???

indranilroy wrote:The problem is that for you reasoning given by others sound like "pleading", whereas a completely unrelated faith in the next govt. seems to be a perfectly well reasoned answer to a technical discussion!

His majesty seems to be having trouble even comprehending simple sentences I will highlight parts of my post for his majesty's convenience again

Sagar G wrote:Well no matter what the deal isn't going through before the election and I doubt that the next government will be willing to sign such one sided deal.

Regarding technical discussion aspect I would also like to highlight his majesty's immense contribution for the greater good such as

indranilroy wrote:Can't agree with you. Japan has invested heavily in our infrastructure. And it will be great if it continues to do so.

Also the amphib requirement is not made specifically for US-2. IN floated an RfP for amphibs to ShinMaywa, Canada's Bombardier (CL-415), Russia's (Be-200), and US/German's (Seastar CD2) in 2010.

indranilroy wrote:4. The US-2s are not expensive. They were always expecting 12 planes to cost about 1 billion (in 2010 itself).

P.S. Before issuing your condescending diagnosis of brochureitis, read around a little. It will save others the effort and time to spoon feed your "patriotic and all-knowing" ego.

Wow wow such quality wow much technical wow wow.

indranilroy wrote:1. $1.65B for 15 planes of this caliber is not high (How much does each C-130J costs?). Unfortunately, you seem to know much more knowledgeable and patriotic than everybody in the IAF/IN/CG/MoD!

Highlighting "technical" contribution from his majesty for the greater good and now regarding the non technical part where does C-130 J come into picture ??? Is it an amphibious aircraft ??? AFAIK both of these requirements have different roles to fulfill with different set of capabilities. You still haven't shown any data from the IN RFI which goes on to show that only US-2 is the sole aircraft capable of fulfilling the needs of IN. The IN RFI asks for military equipments to be installed but what Japan is offering is a civilian variant only. Plus you logic about the price being not high is a non starter since spec wise the US-2 falls in a different league altogether and only the BE-200 comes close to it so when it doesn't have any competitor matching it's specs how can you say with authority that the price is not too high ???

indranilroy wrote:2. And what about the billions doled out by China to Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar. Don't they have research to do?

Funny that you talk about China when it is pretty well known the resolve of Chinese in investing in R&D while their being a larger economy is probably a non issue for you I guess.

indranilroy wrote:Sagarji, Please educate us on the requirements of IAF/IN/CG and how Be-200, CL-415 can fulfill those requirements.

Indranilroy ji when whatever public info regarding the RFI is available has been posted then what else remains to be said ??? You were scoffing about "spoon feeding" and now do a 180 to ask for the same to be done !!!!

Look at the data posted by yourself and Viv S and tell what makes them ineligible. Ironically if these parts of the RFI are considered

Notably, the RFI outlines an extensive electronic warfare suite, including forward-looking infrared sensor, sideways looking airborne radar, radar warning receiver and missile approach warning system.

d. state-of-the-art avionics and EW kit, including RWR/MAWS.
e. air-to-air and maritime surveillance radars (providing 360 degree coverage using AESA radar) to counter airborne and seaborne threats and also help in locating, identifying and tracking the target.

then I don't think a civilian variant of US-2 will have these military equipments.

srai · Post by **srai** » 31 Jan 2014 20:01

^^^

The two sides are entrenched in their own positions and have fallen into a trap where no one wants to back out. Let's stop counter arguing about minuscule details. Both sides have made their point. It is up to the forum readers to make up their own minds.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 20:04

Viv S wrote:
Sagar G wrote:Did IN mention that these two are critical/absolutely necessary factors for selection ???
They certainly would have done so.

Wave height of 1.2m (Be-200) and 1.8m (CL-415) can hardly be acceptable for SAR, unless we intend to carry out SAR missions only in placid waters. Nor should a SAR aircraft have to taxi in half a kilometer and then run another km for take-off.

From whatever little has been posted their is no indication for that.

Are you saying that IOR is under permanent sea state 5 that only makes Us-2 capable of operating their ??? I don't see any runway problem at sea which disqualifies the other two.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2014 20:11

People here think that US-2 is cheap so let me post the figures for the big three in Indian Rs.

US 2 - Rs. 6,88,93,00,000 per unit ($ 110 million US)
Be 200 - Rs. 2,56,78,30,000 per unit ($ 41 million US)
CL 415 - Rs. 1,79,13,60,000 per unit ($ 32 million Canadian)

Be-200 comes close to US-2 specs and costs less than half of US-2.