Transport Aircraft for IAF

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Feb 2015 20:19

Akshay,there was a mention of it in the media not too long ago.Shall try and find it.Overloaded with info right now. Was talking to one of the boffins in charge at the DRDO pav. where a large model of a wide-bodied Airbus configured as an AEW aircraft was displayed. There was some mention of the extra aircraft requirement,need for an in-between aircraft between the Phalcons,and AEW EMBs. The med. sized bird is not immediately in the offing though talks are on to find the suitable platform. It would then make sense for acquiring 2 more AWACS as any future med. AEW aircraft would take several years to fructify,strengthening of the fuselage,etc. for mounting the radome.The availability of a "proven platform",A-50/IL-76-90, was mentioned.

arun · Post by **arun** » 22 Feb 2015 20:48

NRao wrote:
Aero India: MTA project fails to meet requirements

........... {Snipped} ..................

........... {Snipped} .................. ‘There is a specific performance requirement for the aircraft which is that it needs to be operated at 4.5 km altitude and without the engine stopping. Currently there is no such engine in the world market which would meet this requirement. Existing engines provide only about 3.2 kms.’ ........... {Snipped} ..................

Looks like the IAF requirement is for the MTA to be able to fly into Fukche Advanced Landing Ground which is at an elevation of 4176 Metres.

Daulat Beg Oldie on which our C-130J landed is at an elevation of 5065 meters and clearly is not being planned to have the MTA dropping in.

The yet to developed 15,600 kgf PD-14M version of the in-development PD-14 Turbofan is presumably the engine that will deliver the capability.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Feb 2015 21:24

India has been searching for an engine, for the MTA, in the West for some time now. So, I very much doubt that a Russian engine is an alternative - unless, the West is not willing to provide one within a certain cost. (Cannot find any new news on MTA engine from the West.)

MTA is meant for transport, 20 T at that.

Anything beyond that - tanker, AWACS, etc is a icing, but clearly in the TBD category. A very long way off and i very much doubt that those are options right now. However, IF the MTA does come to pass, what India gets is not just a transport, but how to design a transport.

But, if we are to believe the news feeds from the past few days, the *Indian* MTA is at least a year out, if not 3+ years.

I think the Russians are ready to rock-n-roll. Indian recs seems to be holding them back.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 22 Feb 2015 21:55

Nrao,

The price has probably gone up due to this new engine requirement. I think we should avoid russian engine at all costs. CFM has their new leap-1C or CFM56-5C4 for 78 to 80 ton AUP class of airplanes. Perhaps that would be a perfect fit for the 68 Ton MTA. Going with a new engine and paying for it has its usual downsides. We should pick something off the shelf and get this puppy in the air. I think the dalals will try and scuttle and delay this as much as possible. Something the russians have to keep in mind. Once we order another class of planes, this project will end up getting shelved.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 23 Feb 2015 00:49

Thank you for the input Philip. I think the media report you are referring to is livefist. However I doubt very much that this is correct.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Feb 2015 03:12

CY,

There are two aspects, as far as I am concerned. And, assuming I have covered the major news items, they are: Learn how to design/build a "transport" (not sure if this is a single category that covers light, medium, heavy - I suspect not) and provide a viable transport for the IAF.

Tracking this deal I have found that the Russians were ready to move to the "next phase" about a year+ ago. India was then hunting for an engine in the West. However, this is the first time I have found a reason for this delay from the Indian side - not surprised.

From the data points out there I think the goal "to learn" is about 60-80% done. Chakravyuha ............... needs completion.

But this cannot progress without the need/s for the IAF being designed/built ............. engine (the bane of Indian air MIC?) (seems to me that India better invest MOST in engines - Indian needs in an engine are so unique that even combined efforts of majors will not suffice without huge funds from India. ?????)

??????

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Feb 2015 05:13

Nrao.

You are going to lose performance in the extremes. I think IAF should request a plane that meets 70% of its operational needs and then tweak it to meet the other goals. It doesn't have to fly with a full fuel load when flying from Delhi to LEH or something. They can always vary the fuel and the payload to meet most of the demand to those sectors. Also one plane doesn't have to meet all the requirements. If all the design parameters are needed, then it may not be a 20ton class. So if it needs a plane to land with 20tons at 15000 feet at lahsa airport then, it may need a plane that is designed for 30 tons as normal operations. It will become uber expensive pretty soon the way IAF operates. It may not be able to use these gold plated machines due to budgetary constraints. Look at number of C-17s that are earmarked for storage in USAF.

IAF needs to specify use cases and operational scenarios along with how many times they have not been able to meet that requirement with current fleet and what percentage of flights these comprised of. 1%, 2% etc.

It also needs to see what the cost of adding these features are and what it could cost an extra plane or two for those sectors to meet those demands without adding those features. It might be cheaper to have two to three planes to these sectors to move payload rather than requiring one plane to meet all these demands and incurring extra cost for the whole fleet.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Feb 2015 06:27

for operations upto Leh, even palletized A320 cargo planes can do part of the work if the iaf be willing to lease or buy a 2nd hand fleet and pay a little for cargo conversion.
in the plains such a.c will definitely have superior economics to IL76/C17. to Leh the commercial planes operate with less baggage and fuel than normal so maybe the dedicated cargo planes are superior but our il76 fleet have the old engines.

instead of trying to find unique a.c and engines to fly into ALGs we should look at enlarging the ALGs to take C17 if possible or atleast the C130 and get more C130.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 23 Feb 2015 09:02

India should ask for indigenous manufacture and ToT of PD-14M

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 23 Feb 2015 13:49

Gyan wrote:India should ask for indigenous manufacture and ToT of PD-14M

Just like AL-55I? So we can pay $300mln to get it 'developed' and then receive screwdriver ToT 8 years later and in the meantime find out that the engine needs to be taken apart every 10 hrs due to it's unbelievable 'reliability' as it's 'comparable to the best'.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Feb 2015 14:31

Modi saheb, has tagged Russia for "energy". Not by accident. Enough said.

On the MTA, Indians had not even considered a Russian engine, ever, IIRC.

No matter who makes engines, it takes time and *funds* ......... there are no exceptions to that rule. Outside of the US who has had the urgency to invest in such resources? Catching up is never going to be easy. Saying so and promising is a different matter. I think and hope India has learnt from her experiences.

But, with an engine for the MTA or the FGFA, do not carry too much hope. IF it happens GREAT.

CY,

I think the IAF needs to develop a "Plan B" mentality!!!!

Not having one hurts everyone.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Feb 2015 18:40

Nrao,

IAF always has a plan B:- "IMPORT"

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Feb 2015 11:47

MTA detailed pics AI-2015

http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/987838.html

vipins · Post by **vipins** » 01 Mar 2015 17:39

MTA Specs

KumarA · Post by **KumarA** » 03 Mar 2015 12:34

A while ago, the gentleman form Lockheed Martin had mentioned that if India purchased more than 40 C-130J aircraft, he would be willing to transfer the entire production line to an JV Indian company. Since then, all one can see is a contract for six aircraft last year, one aircraft this year and Air Chief's statement that he may need more in future. Why can't IAF develop a futuristic planning capability and facilitate transfer of aerospace production infrastruture to Indian shores, by adequate orders and inncentives?

No wonder, Indian Air Force is ridiculed so much in western think tanks !!!

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 Mar 2015 13:56

They'd be willing to transfer the production line for 1 aircraft too. Just at what cost, is the question. I can assure you that the domestic job compulsions will not allow US to "transfer" any production line even if we're the only country buying the stuff.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Mar 2015 15:11

they would merely agree to a assembly line here if we ordered 150, like airbus has a line in tianjin. but rest assured all the 1000s of parts including the engine would 95% be sourced from vendors in amrika alone. it is simply not cost effective to locally produce all such parts unless its a local project where the vendors are already here and have supplied parts for the protos - like the Tejas ecosystem or Dhruv ecosystem.

thats why its important to develop domestic products from the ground up, it carries along and scales up tens of vendors who can help with later projects.

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 03 Mar 2015 15:56

Post by JTull » 03 Mar 2015, 13:56
They'd be willing to transfer the production line for 1 aircraft too. Just at what cost, is the question. I can assure you that the domestic job compulsions will not allow US to "transfer" any production line even if we're the only country buying the stuff.

Very true. Ameerikhans think they need no one unless the actual need arises and when it does they know very well how to "Use (GUBO) and Throw".

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Mar 2015 16:47

It has been a while that I have seen such a high level of TFTA ness on the forum.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Mar 2015 16:55

>>No wonder, Indian Air Force is ridiculed so much in western think tanks !!!

Unlike the air forces of countries entirely dependent on them, no doubt.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Mar 2015 18:12

JTull wrote:They'd be willing to transfer the production line for 1 aircraft too. Just at what cost, is the question. I can assure you that the domestic job compulsions will not allow US to "transfer" any production line even if we're the only country buying the stuff.

Lockheed is going to have to take some hard decisions as the C-130J winds down. The best way for them financially to keep it going along is to strike a Joint-venture with a private or public sector player in India for example in order to " try " (not a guarantee by any means) to reduce the price of the aircraft to spark greater interest given that they have sold a lot of them and new market capacity (by a lower cost) has to be created especially for the LM-100J. The market needs to be there, the private or public sector player needs to be willing and step up and they need to strike an agreement. This area is doable in my opinion and as good a case for being mutually beneficial (to LMA and to say a Tata) to actually come to fruition if seriously pursued. I am not saying that this is happening or even likely to happen, but if any such JV between any companies is explored in the short to medium term then it is unlikely to be as good as or better then the case for the C-130 FACO or production in India through a 50/50 JV. Another candidate for such a partnership for LMA is Turkey.

Singha wrote:they would merely agree to a assembly line here if we ordered 150, like airbus has a line in tianjin. but rest assured all the 1000s of parts including the engine would 95% be sourced from vendors in amrika alone. it is simply not cost effective to locally produce all such parts unless its a local project where the vendors are already here and have supplied parts for the protos - like the Tejas ecosystem or Dhruv ecosystem.

thats why its important to develop domestic products from the ground up, it carries along and scales up tens of vendors who can help with later projects.

The decision to setup up shop is a financial one taken after considering a host of factors. Moving 100% the component production or even sourcing them locally has a tremendous disruptive affect on the supply chain and production yields in the short-medium term and that needs to be offset by either huge demand or a huge subsidizing efforts on part of the party interested in receiving this capability. A FACO on the other hand tackles the problem of the Assembly_Man_hours and tries to control costs there to ensure a lower price thereby partially meeting the objective. You could potentially move the entire production-process to India but the entire capability would require quite a long time which in turn requires huge investments and a steady order stream to justify all that disruption. How many years has it taken the Su-30 production to become 70% indigenous? It takes a while when local partnerships, MOU's need to be signed/created and then the supplier base given time to actual reach threshold capacity and gain competency in delivering components. Another point to keep in mind is that the suppliers are likely to charge a higher price. The US suppliers made the hard-investments decades ago and have only invested in upgrading some of their facilities. As the production trickles most of their profits have been squeezed and they have a certain degree of flexibility when it comes to working with Lockheed to adjust the price down to become more competitive. A new supplier on the other hand, would have made huge investments in cash and in overcoming the learning_curve and would want to recover that over a relatively short term given the uncertainty surrounding the future export orders. If a JV can guarantee a steady production run for 15 years, then it may be worth the effort, otherwise you would have to think about a FACO and perhaps a gradual outsourcing of component production for the low-hanging fruit. The reason why the US military projects are more competitive in pricing then the European ones even though certain skilled and engineering jobs are higher paying in the US (especially after factoring in the benefits) is because there is a subsidizing effect of the massive Pentagon order. Suppliers working on projects like the C-130/C17 know that there is going to be a steady flow of orders lasting decades.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 18 Mar 2015 04:44

Last batch of IAF's AN 32 planes still stuck in Ukraine due to conflict

:
:
:
:
As per a 2009 contract with Ukraine's state-owned Ukrspetsexport Corp, India was to send 40 aircraft for upgrade over four years, starting 2011.

At least 30 of these have been returned. Another 65 of the aircraft were to be upgraded with Ukrainian help at an Indian facility in Kanpur. The upgrade would extend the service life of the transporters from 25 years to 40 years.

While several batches of the aircraft have been refurbished and flown back to India since 2011, Parrikar's statement indicates that the last batch of 5-10 aircraft that were to be completed by March 2014 are now stuck with efforts on the retrieve them.
:
:
:

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Mar 2015 22:17

Going by A330 For Indian AWACS, Tanker Deal Still In The Air, a few clarifications (sorry if already discussed in other threads):

* Are they differentiating between the Phalcon and the Indian efforts, or are they clubbing them together? Essentially, is the IL-76 (in any form) in play? (Looks to me that the IL is a dead deal)
* This has to be good news for the C295 (and Tata)
* Also, it has to be good news for additional C-17s
* And Airbus should expect thw tanker deal too

All in all, potential for 16 AWACS - is that the expectation?

Perhaps another 10-20 tankers?

13 C-17s (from where?)

Have no clue about the C295.

And the EoL for the IL series (not surprised if that happens).

2 cents:

* This AWACS choice has the highest risk

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 30 Mar 2015 01:42

C295/Tata deal is not going thru per press reports due to single vendor bidding.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 30 Mar 2015 02:17

Singha wrote:the necrophilia wrt to MTA goes on and on.

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.." By HAL (9000)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwBmPiOmEGQ

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 30 Mar 2015 03:30

VinodTK wrote:Last batch of IAF's AN 32 planes still stuck in Ukraine due to conflict

These aircrafts are a lost cause. Ukrainians are most probably utilizing them in their war effort.

We should have pulled them out first when Riots started there. Our IL 76/78/AWACs all must be running short on spares too.

Main question, since An32 upgration is almost a dead deal (no upgradation kits from Ukraine) what we will do with our transport fleet? We havent bought new ones and old ones will start falling soon.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 30 Mar 2015 05:56

The story gets even more ridiculous
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /70441446/

The last five of 40 AN-32 aircraft being upgraded in Ukraine have become "untraceable," the official said, and the local upgrade of the remaining 64 AN-32s has halted as Ukraine engineers departed and supplies of spares stopped.

However, only 35 aircraft, upgraded at Kiev-based Antonov State Co. facilities in Ukraine, have returned, while the last five remain stranded due to the conflict.

"These five aircraft are almost lost as it is difficult to trace them and diplomatic efforts to find their whereabouts have failed," the Air Force official said.

A diplomat from the Ukraine Embassy said Antonov must resolve this issue with the Indian Air Force, and that the government cannot help. Antonov officials were unavailable for comment.

sum · Post by **sum** » 30 Mar 2015 07:25

^^ Wow....thats quite a blow for the transport fleet. Loosing five at a time!

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 30 Mar 2015 08:13

Just wondering as to what will happen Pakistan tank fleet?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Mar 2015 09:30

They probably used it in the war and lost it or perhaps canabilised it for spares. Happens all time in Fog of War. Ukr should provide monetary compensation for the 5 , Feel sorry for them.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Mar 2015 10:10

Austin wrote:They probably used it in the war and lost it or perhaps canabilised it for spares. Happens all time in Fog of War. Ukr should provide monetary compensation for the 5 , Feel sorry for them.

Fat chance of that happening. Ukraine has no money to pay their own debts.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 31 Mar 2015 06:53

Austin wrote:They probably used it in the war and lost it or perhaps canabilised it for spares. Happens all time in Fog of War. Ukr should provide monetary compensation for the 5 , Feel sorry for them.

Did you read that report ? The Ukrainians true to their nature already washed off their hands.

A diplomat from the Ukraine Embassy said Antonov must resolve this issue with the Indian Air Force, and that the government cannot help. Antonov officials were unavailable for comment.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 31 Mar 2015 07:41

the air force needs to stop this MTA and Avro replacement nonsense and just plan on the AN 32 replacements.

they are really crucial and the end is going to come very quickly compared to our planning and then GOI will get a request for the only plane available with no Plan B

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 31 Mar 2015 12:38

ze planes, le not missing.

just parked and ujeless.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Mar 2015 12:59

imo the C130J can fly in and out of all places the AN32 can. albeit it is bigger and more costly.

we can go for the short chassis C130J vs the long chassis 130-J30 we got so far and make that as our replacement.

if we are ok with a jet them the Embraer transport is proceeding towards IOC.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Mar 2015 13:16

Transport aircraft futures for the Indian Air force-Saurav Jha

sum · Post by **sum** » 31 Mar 2015 13:43

^^ If they are not missing, cant we somehow try to fly back the un-upgraded planes?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Mar 2015 16:19

thanks Austin, that's another excellent article by Saurabh Jha..fast becoming the most reliable source of defence news in India.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Apr 2015 13:48

Just 5 C-17 white-tails remain now, since Australia has confirmed it is ordering 2 more C-17s. Time is running out for the IAF to increase its C-17 fleet size.

FG-Australia confirms order for 2 additional C-17s

The Royal Australian Air Force has confirmed that will acquire two additional Boeing C-17 strategic airlifters, which will bring its fleet of the type to eight.

The deal represents an investment of A$1 billion ($770 million), says the Australian Department of Defence department in a statement. Of this amount, A$300 million will be spent upgrading facilities at RAAF Amberley, where 36 Sqn is based.

Canberra’s interest in additional C-17s has been well documented. In October 2014 defence minister David Johnston confirmed that the country was interested in two to four additional C-17s.

The announcement about two additional aircraft reduces the number of ‘white-tail’ C-17s to five aircraft, says a Boeing spokesman.

With production of C-17s to end in 2015, Boeing decided to build 10 aircraft prior to signing up buyers. Of these aircraft, one was obtained by Canada, bringing its fleet to five aircraft, and two were ordered by an undisclosed customer in the Middle East.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Apr 2015 21:52

from a telegraph article about Op Rahaat.

>> "We returned from Jamnagar (Gujarat) where we had parked after ferrying evacuees from Djibouti to Mumbai just this morning, at first light, because of a technical snag," says Reddy. Mumbai does not have enough parking space. The "technical snag" is classified as normal for the squadron. The blades of the jet engines' fans get "nicked" and the need to change them at an average of once every two sorties in the current operation make the aircraft return here. This is the longest operation the squadron has clocked so far.

is this because of the airstrip condition at sana'a or a problem with the C17 itself ?