India Seeks To Bolster Transport With 10 C-17s
By vivek raghuvanshi
Published: 5 Nov 2009 17:07
Print Print | Print Email

NEW DELHI - The Indian Defence Ministry is negotiating the purchase of C-17 heavy-lift Globemaster aircraft from the United States through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, say ministry sources.

reported on http://www.defensenews.com

This is really silly - why would you spend money on something that is clearly too much money.

another humble opinion - formed following various discussions on our beloved site - is that it seems our vulnerability seems highest right now (With servicablity and low nos of IL 76, delays in MTA's and pending completion of AN 132 upgrades) and should be lesser in a decade - given all the upgrades/inductions/developments underway - both technologically and numerically. May be our planning needs to account for the immediate term - next 10 years - wonder if leasing aircraft could be a short term solution.

WARTON, UK --- After completing a flight development contract for the Indian Air Force (IAF), BAE Systems has delivered the 24th and final UK built Indian Hawk.

Following a 3,000 mile journey across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, the aircraft, flown by BAE Systems test pilots, arrived safely at Air Force Station Bidar to join the rest of the Hawk fleet in delivering fast jet training to the IAF.

The aircraft, HT001, which was actually the first IAF Hawk to be built, has, for nearly three years served as a flight test platform and proving ground for the integration of new systems and capabilities onto the IAF Hawk fleet .

As well as development and acceptance flights, HT001 was also a key component in the programme which saw Indian Air Force flying instructors training to teach student pilots on the Hawk. This programme took place prior to the delivery of Hawks to India allowing the Indian training programme to start at the earliest opportunity.

Michael Christie, Senior Vice President, India for BAE Systems Military Air Solutions, said: “Hawk has brought a step change in pilot training capabilities for the IAF and this aircraft, which was the first India Hawk to be built, has been a key part of developing further capabilities for the Indian Air Force.

“During its time here at BAE Systems, HT001 has proven to be extremely reliable, delivering excellent service from its time as a training platform for Indian Air Force instructors, through to the on-time and to budget completion of the recent flight development programme.

“The first Hawk was delivered to the IAF in November 2007 and other than this final development aircraft, deliveries were completed in 2008. Whilst this marks the completion of aircraft deliveries by BAE Systems to the Indian Air Force, we continue to provide support services to the IAF, and work closely with our industrial partners, HAL, in meeting the fast jet training needs of the Indian Air Force.”

In arriving at Air Force Station Bidar, the home of the Indian Hawk fleet, HT001 becomes the 860th Hawk delivered across the globe.

BAE Systems is the premier global defence, security and aerospace company delivering a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, information technology solutions and customer support services. With approximately 105,000 employees worldwide, BAE Systems' sales exceeded £18.5 billion (US $34.4 billion) in 2008.

I don't want to take sides in this discussion about the C-17 and whether or not its required or not, considering its cost. I would like to see those who suggest the IL-76 option, to show that its in production, and that there is a program to further develop its avionics to match modern standards of numbers of flight crew and workload on each of them.

MAK Ilyushin has developed a modernized Il-476 project with a new wing, avionics and engines with Perm PS-90A-76. The Il-476 or 'fourth-generation Il-76' will feature PS-90A76 engines, a glass cockpit and a further 13 to 17 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency. As of mid-2008 the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Factory was preparing for the production of a brand-new version of the Ilyushin Il-76, called the Il-476. The Ilyushin Il-476 is equipped with a full numerical flight-control system, a glass cockpit and a new-generation PS-90 engine. The factory will need to upgrade its equipment to manufacture the Ilyushin Il-476, as initially only 20 percent of the necessary equipment was ready. Fortunately, the Ilyushin Group had sufficient financial capability to organize the production.

Remember, the next transports the IAF buys will last at least another 25-30 years.

what exactly is so revolutionary in the C-17 (for example) that can't be achieved by the Il-76 with major modifications.

Normally, what the Army wants to put inside an IL-76, is far in excess of what can actually be accommodated.

I am asking again, if the 50's C-130 can endure so many iterations and modifications and still emerge as a 'contemporary' aircraft into the 20th century, why can't the much more modern Il-76 do the same ? why does it absolutely have to be a de novo design ?
I would really want to understand this point.

btw, if the IAF is going for only 1 sqn/10-12 odd samples of the C-17, I would guess it is for some different unique requirement and NOT as a replacement for the IL-76.

Stung by the controversy surrounding the high maintenance bill for the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) fleet of MiG-29N Fulcrum fleet, the Russian defence industry is to roll out a thorough “life support” for RMAF’s newly acquired Sukhoi multi-role jets. Defence industry sources told Malay Mail that the programme would ensure that RMAF’s Sukhoi Su-30MKM Flanker fleet would not suffer the same fate as the 15-year-old Fulcrums. The Fulcrum will be retired from service by end of next year, some 10 years before its scheduled date of retirement. And unlike the Fulcrum, the Sukhoi support contract would be on a government-to-government basis.
The support contract was part of the off-set programme of the RM3.1 billion deal for the Flankers, signed in 2003. Another off-set programme was training of Malaysian astronauts.

“The support contract was mutually insisted by the RMAF and the Russians during negotiations prior to contract signing. Both parties acknowledged the problems faced by the MiG fleet,” the sources added. They said the new arrangement was designed to ensure that the cost of maintaining the 18 Flankers, already delivered to RMAF, would not become prohibitively expensive, unlike the Fulcrums, that was cited as the main reason for its premature retirement. The service centre is expected to completed by the middle of next year at the RMAF Gong Kedak air base on the border of Kelantan and Terengganu, where the Flanker squadron is located.

Defence Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi on Wednesday told Parliament that the government was expected to save RM260 million annually by phasing out the MiG-29N Fulcrum fighter jets on Dec 31, next year. In 1993, the government paid some RM1.3 billion for 18 Fulcrums, 16 single-seater and two twin-seater. The aircraft were delivered in batches from 1995. Ahmad Zahid said the fighter jets were being phased out as it was difficult and costly to maintain some old components and systems for the fighter jets. “The weaponry for the jets has reached the end of its lifespan and extending the lifespan would be costly and not be viable,” he told the Dewan Rakyat. Ahmad Zahid said this when replying to Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud) who wanted to know the rationale for phasing out the Russian-made fighters. According to Ahmad Zahid, each MiG also needed to undergo preventive and restoration work that would cost RM10 million, and RM7 million for engine overhaul every year after completing flights between 1,000 hours and 4,000 hours. He said the cost of maintaining the MiGs was also high as the jets needed to be sent to Russia for overhaul.

The Flankers are expected to assume the role of the Fulcrums.

On the need to send the planes to Russia, the sources said it was not economical for the overhaul or upgrading work to be done locally.
“Only India, that operates a large number of MiG-29s, has the capability to do such programmes in their own country,” the sources said, adding that the issue had actually cropped about four years ago when the Fulcrum fleet celebrated its 10th year anniversary,.

The sources also said the cost of maintenance was not included in the original Fulcrum procurement contract, unlike the contracts for Western-made aircraft. That was the main reason that the Fulcrums initial procurement cost was about three times cheaper than its Western-made counterparts. The sources said back in 1993, Russian arms exporters had not reached the level of sophistication of Western arms manufacturers.

“They (Russians) relied mostly on Soviet-style support system that unfortunately caused a lot of problems to non-traditional clients like Malaysia”. The problem was exacerbated by the Malaysian government procurement policy that only limited the spares and parts suppliers to local companies. Some 20 local companies were involved in supplying parts and spares to RMAF and its authorised maintenance organisation, ATSC Sdn Bhd.

“Everybody wanted to make money and in the end, it was the air force that ended up with high repair bills. The MiG-29s remain in service in many poor countries including Myanmar, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cuba and Peru. Some of these countries are operating even older versions of the Fulcrum.”

The sources said if Malaysia could sell the planes, the Fulcrums could theoretically remain in service for another 15 years.The sources admitted that the Fulcrum saga had seriously damaged any future prospects of arms purchases from Russia. Indeed, Ahmad Zahid told reporters, the ministry was looking to France, United States, Sweden and United Kingdom for its next fighter jets.

The C-130 is still relevant WITHIN ITS CATEGORY.

It could certainly be viewed as a 'silver-bullet' fleet of sorts to handle missions the Il-76 can't. ...

err, where did I say anything about making the Il-76 relevant OUTSIDE its category ??
the herc is relevant within its category after mods.
perhaps same can be done for the Il-76 'within its category' ?

george, I appreciate your efforts to inform me with info from the very website this forum is a part of !
could it be that I'm aware of those articles ?
anyway, my comments were directed at people who were advocating replacing the Il-76 with the C-17 and should be read in that context.

The C-130 is still relevant WITHIN ITS CATEGORY.

exactly, in which case there will be no justification to replace all your lead bullets with silver ones at golden prices, that too a much lower number than you originally had !

if you've read that article Rahul, then pray, tell me how does the IAF transport the 46.5 tonne T-90 tanks when as Group Cpt Bewoor said "The max wt of cargo in the IL-76 is 43 tons, so with a T-72 inside, the IL-76 cannot carry even an empty condensed milk tin" ?

if you've read that article Rahul, then pray, tell me how does the IAF transport the 46.5 tonne T-90 tanks when as Group Cpt Bewoor said "The max wt of cargo in the IL-76 is 43 tons, so with a T-72 inside, the IL-76 cannot carry even an empty condensed milk tin" ?

{please spare me the redundant information kartik, what makes you think I'm not aware of that article ?
where have I said that the Il-76 can carry the T-90 ?}
or should the IA just keep a fleet of T-72s for another 25-30 years only for the eventuality of needing to transport them to proper air bases under short notice, not to mention theaters like Ladakh ?
{where does this come from ? strawman arguments really don't suit postors of your stature. if you had cared to read the thread you might have noted this :
(quoting from a post of mine)

}
Its actually a very valid point that is raised here by George Welch. forget the much heavier Arjuns, the current IAF transport fleet cannot even transport what the IA will be using as its workhorse, the T-90. unless the re-engined IL-76 or IL-476 sees a big increase in cargo capacity AND sees some features that allow for quick loading and un-loading of tanks, introducing tanks and artillery into faraway places inaccessible by road and trains will be out of the question.

{which incidentally is quite in line with what I was saying in the previous posts. why then the show of serious disagreement accompanied by ponderous strawmen ?}


and does it say anywhere that the IAF is planning on replacing the IL-76 with the C-17 ? they are only talking of a purchase of 10 C-17s, so its hardly equal to replacing all the IL-76s. re-engined, upgraded and modernised IL-76s could be used by the IAF for another 25 years at least without any problems for whatever tasks they're used for currently.

{what's 'it' in this case ? surely not IAF's long term plans ? since we are not privy to it, certainly not on open forum.
the 'it' I responded to was some posts in this thread that have argued for the C-17 in place of the Il-76. in fact, had you read my reply to georgewelch before posting (2-3 posts above yours) you might have known that.}


agree with you here. a small fleet of C-17s might be all that the IAF may be looking at, similar to the C-130Js which cannot numerically replace all the An-32s even if they're better.

it 'can' fly in hurricanes which translates to zero visibility conditions and turbulence

it would be incredible if other bigger transports could do this stuff

I really dont understand why members are cribbing about the possible c-17 buys.
Nowhere have i seen any evidence of the Il-76 being presently in production or in the future(I take Russian promises of doing so with more than a pinch of salt).So if you cant buy a new one , where is the question of it being 5x times cheaper. ......

Shiv, the C-130 isn't specially strengthened to fly into hurricanes, it can, may not be with full payload though

about the scary videos on rockets, if we trust the FCS and rocket engines to take astronauts into space, we should be able to do similar things within aircraft's safety limits using its own FCS. Btw, the retro rockets aren't a good idea.

if the transports we are buying are of any help, we should hear less about issues such as altitude or seasons or runway length limiting payloads; weather or mountains not permitting landings especially in the NE and Himalayan region. Should be able to haul heavy equipment with enough safety margins.

After all the An 32 does not need RATO/JATO to take off from the highest airfields generally operated by any Air Force in the world - i.e. those in India. I don't think any aircraft in the world currently can operate at full payload from some of the airfields used by the IAF.

when asked what type of airlifter India needs, the answer is simply 'more'.

India's transport fleet requires an ability to fly and operate in combat zones BUT 95% of the job done by the transport fleet has little to do with combat zone flying. So what India requires is an ability to do 95% of the job well, with combat zone "capability" in 100% of the fleet, plus a dedicated small fleet that can be reserved for combat zone work alone, with the rest of the fleet adding to combat capability if required.

Shiv Sir, If you don't mind could you please explain this??? I am not able to grasp your point here... Thanks in advance sir...

India's transport fleet requires an ability to fly and operate in combat zones BUT 95% of the job done by the transport fleet has little to do with combat zone flying.

have great fuel economy because that is what burns money every day.

The job of injecting material into a combat zone (flying low and slow over a field) or fly around with machine guns in the side mowing down insurgents, or transporting T 72 or T 90s to a battle zone are roles that occupy only 5% or less of the work done by the IAF's transport fleet. If the IAF needs to do this they need only a small fleet of extra aircraft dedicated to this role.

For "really heavy lift" an add on fleet of say 4 or 6 c 17s would be good (IMO) and a squadron of C-130 type aircraft fro special ops.

in fact taking charter of civilian aircraft from the civil transport co's for mundane works could be an idea that can be looked at, freeing up the military a/c for more specialised jobs like re-supplying ALGs, handling sensitive cargo etc.

The C-17 will hopefully be squashed by MOD. It is an unnecessary expenditure. Il-76 MF would be ideally suited for IAF requirements and budget. If outsized cargo needs to be carried then 4-6 An-124 should be purchased. For the price of 10 C-17's IAF can easily procure 4 Condors and 20 Il-76's or just 30 IL-76's. The C-17 was a mistake that only USAF can afford. Even UK and AUS can only manage a meager handful. Most of the time they just charter the condors.

But . . . you cannot let it affect your fleet sizing.

Thus you must be able to meet ALL transports requirements with your organic fleet.

The full payload of a tiny aircraft is still tiny.

When I started looking at the transport capability of the IAF I was truly shocked.

I know you don't appreciate comparisons to the US and the US has different needs than India and I have resisted making such comparisons in the past, but this time the sheer difference in scale is mindboggling.

In one year (FY10) the US will purchase more airlift capability than is in the entire IAF

17 C-17 * 77.5 tonnes = 1317.5
11 C-130J * 19.9 tonnes = 218.9
8 C-27J * 11.5 tonnes = 92
35 V-22 * 6.8 tonnes = 238 (it can fly like an aircraft so I'm including it )
1866.4 tonnes US FY10 order

103 An-32 * 7.5 tonnes = 772.5
15 Il-76 * 47 tonnes = 705*
40 Do 228 * 2.3 tonnes = 92
28 HS 748 * 5.1 tonnes = 142.8**
1712.3 tonnes Total IAF capability


*15 Il-76 is per that post by srai, if it's actually 24 then the final Indian number would be 2135.3

**best info i could find is 60 total with 32 in storage

Admittedly this is a very crude way of just adding up the payload capabilities of the different planes. But if you start getting more sophisticated with ton-miles per day, it would look even worse for India.

Yes I realize that India doesn't have any need for the globe-spanning air-bridge the US has, but the point, to me anyways, is that when asked what type of airlifter India needs, the answer is simply 'more'.