Indian Military Aviation

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Indian Military Aviation

Postby bhavani » 18 Jun 2009 21:32

shiv wrote:Folks - let me state my personal view.

The IL 76 had its first flight in 1971 and production was stopped in 1997

Production of the C-17 really took off only in the late 1980s. The C-17 uses technologies that cannot be applied to the Il 76. The C 17 uses flap blowing (a type of thrust vectoring) to achieve lift at very slow speeds.

It also has thrust reversing that makes it possible to back up and reverse in small airfields. And the Il 76 is incredibly noisy.

And (I need to confirm this) - the C 17 has a cargo cabin wide enough to accommodate even the Arjun. Those of you who have read the story (on BR) of how the IAF transported T 72s to Leh in the Il 76 will know how dicey it was. Imagine an a/c that can do that with relative ease.


Finally the C 17 slow speed performance up close is superlative. Check the video (from Aero India) - watch those flaps taking the exhaust gases and diverting them down 2 min 30 onwards



Shiv,

Just my 2 cents.

C-17 is a great aircraft and it offers a plethora of great neat features. It is one of the most flexible air lifter ever.

But the C-17 is hideously expensive. It offers all these features at such a high price. US capped the production at 191 rather than the original 280. UK could not acquire more than 6, Australia acquired 4, and some others in few numbers. These purchases were done under US pressure to keep the C-17 line alive. They even launched a C-17 Sustainment program. Each plane costs nearly 225 million dollars (2006 prices). With spares and other stuff it is coming to nearly 340 million dollars a plane.

In fact there was huge criticism in UK, that for the short term strategic lift, they could have used the AN-124 which was certified one year before the C-17. The brits bought C-17 because of US pressure.


90% of C-17's features are hardly ever used. The back up capability was shown to work on paved surfaces and causes engine damage on grass or dirt. Even though C-17 is marketed as being able to perform tactical operations, but in reality it is more of a strategic lifter than tactical lifter. If we wanted to buy a huge strategic lifter, we might as well go for a few An-124. which are way cheaper than C-17


Infact at this price C-17 seems to suffer from some disadvantages compared to low technology aircrafts like the An-124 in the strategic realm. Although the AN-124 has greater payload, greater range, greater volume, greater floor area, greater cabin ceiling, greater cabin width than a C-17 and costs half the price, it seems that the sole area in which the C-17 can claim an advantage over the AN-124, the runway performance, was sufficient to disqualify the AN-124 in favour the C-17. Its runway performance compared to An-124 is better at gross loads which is 70 tonnes for C-17 and 120 for An-124.

For tactical transport, We should have gone for more just plain jane less expensive C-130 or upgraded IL-76 . I dont know how many C-17 we can afford.

In fairness, for a while it was looking like C-17 would be a dead programme. If it wasn't for the dribs and drabs of orders Long Beach has managed to eke out from the Canadians and others, the line would have been closed by now given the reluctance to give USAF any more a few years back. There was news in 2007, that C-17 line would end in 2009, I think now we are keeping american jobs alive.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlein ... panyNews-2

At 300 million dollars we can buy a brand new phalcon, or about a regiment worth of S-400's or probably equip a brand new Su-30MKI squadron. I just hope they spend these dollars on some thing worth while. I smell something wrong in the C-17 deal. When all the great friends of US did not buy it in any reasonable numbers whay are we buying them.

Daal me kuch kala hai. Guys dont get angry
Last edited by bhavani on 18 Jun 2009 22:05, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2009 21:44

bhavani,

Counter thinkin is most welcome when it is based on logic/URLs/etc. No one will get angry with that post.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 780
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Shameek » 18 Jun 2009 21:47

bhavani wrote:I smell something wrong in the C-17 deal. When all the great friends of US did not buy it in any reasonable numbers whay are we buying them.

Daal me kuch kala hai. Guys dont get angry


This is the only part I would request you to not speculate about. We have enough problems getting equipment on time with half the deals getting stuck with some corruption/scam and years of precious time getting wasted. Lets hope this is not another of those.

sam_kamath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 57
Joined: 23 Sep 2008 22:53

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sam_kamath » 18 Jun 2009 22:32

bhavani wrote:
shiv wrote:Folks - let me state my personal view.

The IL 76 had its first flight in 1971 and production was stopped in 1997

At 300 million dollars we can buy a brand new phalcon, or about a regiment worth of S-400's or probably equip a brand new Su-30MKI squadron. I just hope they spend these dollars on some thing worth while. I smell something wrong in the C-17 deal. When all the great friends of US did not buy it in any reasonable numbers whay are we buying them.

Daal me kuch kala hai. Guys dont get angry


Quick question Sir... can you land the AN-124 at Leh VS can you land the c-17 in Leh...
Check out the take off and landing distances for the 124 compare them with the 17 you will get the answer.

Do you know we get the deliveries of SU 30's in a An-124 and we get the deliveries from rusia only at pune.. do you know why...find out the answer and you will know why we are getting the c-17.. however if i was you and wanted to really compare i would compare it with the A-400

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby KrishG » 18 Jun 2009 23:00

Singha wrote:P8 can carry all of 4 harpoons I think. there is no way it can carry brahmos.

Tu142 allegedly needs around 30 hrs of downtime for 1 hr in the air. its a evolutionary dead end hence the P8.

among active planes the B1, B2, B52 and Tu160 have the internal bomb bays for
long and heavy weapons.


That reminds me! Some reports had surfaced at the end of last year about India being in talks with Russia to buy the Tu-160 blackjacks. There haven't been reports of any progress if at all any talks had taken place.
I really doubt it considering the very slow production of Blackjacks, but, is there any clause in NPT which doesn't allow export of Strategic Bombers ??

Akshut
BRFite
Posts: 353
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 15:06

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Akshut » 18 Jun 2009 23:09

Vivek K wrote:
Akshut wrote:
GOD!! This is embarrassing.... :x


Why is it embarrassing?


Why is it not embarrassing?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Vivek K » 18 Jun 2009 23:26

Akshut wrote:Why is it not embarrassing?

OK let me rephrase my question - what do you feel is embarrassing about the crash? Is the accident rate per number of flying hours over an embarrassing limit? Are you embarrassed that a Mig has crashed and it reflects poorly on the IAF? Can you be specific about what you thought was embarrassing?

I see nothing embarrassing about the crash. It means that IAF has to look into its causes and prevent such happenings in future. I would have been embarrassed say if a mechanic had just repaired the aircraft and left a screw-driver in the engine causing the crash? The Mig-21 has been much maligned (please read the article on BRF) by DDM even though it has served the nation well for several decades.

Per DDM, the aircraft that crashed was not a bison. That is good news as the bisons have a pretty good flight safety record by now. The pilot survived the crash and that is something to be happy about.

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby bhavani » 18 Jun 2009 23:26




Quick question Sir... can you land the AN-124 at Leh VS can you land the c-17 in Leh...
Check out the take off and landing distances for the 124 compare them with the 17 you will get the answer.

Do you know we get the deliveries of SU 30's in a An-124 and we get the deliveries from rusia only at pune.. do you know why...find out the answer and you will know why we are getting the c-17.. however if i was you and wanted to really compare i would compare it with the A-400


Boeing claims the C-17 can take-off in 2400 meters at max gross weight but the AN-124-100 needs 2800 meters at its gross weight. Its true. But the Boeing does this with a payload of 77 tons while the AN-124-100 carries a 120 ton payload at its gross weight.

Coming to landing distances please read this

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/03/number-trick.html

At full load, the landing run of C-17 is very similar to any startegic lifter, only when lightly loaded can it land in very short lenghts. It is a real good numbers game and ad-campaign run by Boeing.

Omar
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 07:03
Location: cavernous sinus

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Omar » 18 Jun 2009 23:28

I smell something wrong in the C-17 deal. When all the great friends of US did not buy it in any reasonable numbers whay are we buying them.


IMHO I don't think the motivation for purchasing the C-17s is that sinister. Back in 2006, IAF sent a delegation of Il-76 pilots to Hawaii who presumably received training on C-17 and demonstrate capabilities of Il-76 to USAF pilots. I think (don't have any proof) it was a result of this interaction, the probably favorable comparision of the C-17 with the Il-76, and the IAF's requirement for a new transport a/c that resulted in the shortlisting of the C-17.
Last edited by Omar on 18 Jun 2009 23:54, edited 1 time in total.

Omar
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 07:03
Location: cavernous sinus

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Omar » 18 Jun 2009 23:40

Bhavani, you made a convincing argument about C-17 cost (purchasing it vs. a Phalcon vs. squadron of new Su-30 MKIs) , but I think your figures about production numbers are off.

US capped the production at 191 rather than the original 280.


This is from a briefing given by Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

Tenth, with regard to airlift, we will complete the production of the C-17 airlifter program this fiscal year. Our analysis concludes that we have enough C-17s, with the 205 already in the force and currently in production.


Link: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ ... iptid=4396

Also, I think the original production run of C-17 was supposed to be for 210 aircraft not 290.

Further, the Air Force announced a requirement for 210 C-17s (total aircraft inventory) destined to replace the aging C-130 and C-141 systems in the late 1990s.


Link: http://rtoc.ida.org/rtoc/open/briefings ... nnednd.pdf

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby bhavani » 18 Jun 2009 23:59

Thanks Omar, i was wrong over program numbers.

Coming to runway use.

http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/152088.pdf

Initially boeing stated that the C-17 can use 6500 more airfields that C-5 Galaxy(roughly An-124 equivalent), but it did not take the load classification numbers into consideration. Infact LCN of C-5 is lower than C-17's. When considering runway dimensions and their load ratings, the C-17's worldwide runway advantage over the C-5 shrank from 6,400 to 911 airfields. So i really doubt if C-17's airfield performance compared to Il-76's would be really that great.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21845
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby chetak » 19 Jun 2009 00:47

sam_kamath wrote:


Quick question Sir... can you land the AN-124 at Leh VS can you land the c-17 in Leh...
Check out the take off and landing distances for the 124 compare them with the 17 you will get the answer.

Do you know we get the deliveries of SU 30's in a An-124 and we get the deliveries from rusia only at pune.. do you know why...find out the answer and you will know why we are getting the c-17.. however if i was you and wanted to really compare i would compare it with the A-400



Leh is at a height of 3300 meters or 10 827 feet. Altitude affects performance and load carrying capacity

You will ideally need detailed performance charts to make a fair comparison.

Such documents may not be available open source.

AN-124s land regularly at Bombay and Bangalore HAL airport and at many other airports in India carrying mundane commercial cargo.

What is your point regarding these aircraft landing at Pune ?

Akshut
BRFite
Posts: 353
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 15:06

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Akshut » 19 Jun 2009 01:12

Vivek K wrote:
Akshut wrote:Why is it not embarrassing?

OK let me rephrase my question - what do you feel is embarrassing about the crash? Is the accident rate per number of flying hours over an embarrassing limit? Are you embarrassed that a Mig has crashed and it reflects poorly on the IAF? Can you be specific about what you thought was embarrassing?

I see nothing embarrassing about the crash. It means that IAF has to look into its causes and prevent such happenings in future. I would have been embarrassed say if a mechanic had just repaired the aircraft and left a screw-driver in the engine causing the crash? The Mig-21 has been much maligned (please read the article on BRF) by DDM even though it has served the nation well for several decades.

Per DDM, the aircraft that crashed was not a bison. That is good news as the bisons have a pretty good flight safety record by now. The pilot survived the crash and that is something to be happy about.


I will put it as simple as possible. I am embarrassed about the NUMBER of crashes.
.
Vivek Sir you are going into the reasons for the crash of which I am not thinking of. Does it even matter whether it was a mechanic's fault or the pilot's? Damage is done. I am just embarrassed of the consequence - The crash - The total NUMBER of accidents that happen.
.
And if you were so surprised by my question, then kindly explain why shouldn't I be embarrassed at all? And yes, I am happy that pilot was saved.
Last edited by Akshut on 19 Jun 2009 01:40, edited 1 time in total.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 19 Jun 2009 01:25

Akshut wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Why is it not embarrassing?
OK let me rephrase my question - what do you feel is embarrassing about the crash? Is the accident rate per number of flying hours over an embarrassing limit? Are you embarrassed that a Mig has crashed and it reflects poorly on the IAF? Can you be specific about what you thought was embarrassing?

I see nothing embarrassing about the crash. It means that IAF has to look into its causes and prevent such happenings in future. I would have been embarrassed say if a mechanic had just repaired the aircraft and left a screw-driver in the engine causing the crash? The Mig-21 has been much maligned (please read the article on BRF) by DDM even though it has served the nation well for several decades.

Per DDM, the aircraft that crashed was not a bison. That is good news as the bisons have a pretty good flight safety record by now. The pilot survived the crash and that is something to be happy about.


I will put it as simple as possible. I am embarrassed about the NUMBERS of crashes.
.
Vivek Sir you are going into the reasons for the crash of which I am not thinking of. Does it even matter whether it was a mechanic's fault or the pilot's? Damage is done. I am just embarrassed of the consequence - The crash - The total NUMBER of accidents that happen.
.
And if you were so surprised by my question, then kindly explain why shouldn't I be embarrassed at all? And yes, I am happy that pilot was saved.

yes its embarrassing that mig21 and mig27 have crashed but mig21/27 have no fly by wire and lots of gauges to look and thats why harder to fly and lower safety level

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby putnanja » 19 Jun 2009 01:44

Akshut wrote:I will put it as simple as possible. I am embarrassed about the NUMBER of crashes.
.
Vivek Sir you are going into the reasons for the crash of which I am not thinking of. Does it even matter whether it was a mechanic's fault or the pilot's? Damage is done. I am just embarrassed of the consequence - The crash - The total NUMBER of accidents that happen.
.
And if you were so surprised by my question, then kindly explain why shouldn't I be embarrassed at all? And yes, I am happy that pilot was saved.


Number of crashes compared to what? Are you embarrassed because you hear only about IAF crashes and not about other countries? What is there to be ashamed/embarrassed about crashes? Crashes happen, it is not immune to any country. Just like accidents happen on the road and no one is embarassed about it, so are air crashes.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 780
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Shameek » 19 Jun 2009 01:45

All discussions about crashes/numbers should be moved to the flight safety thread. It gets tough to follow otherwise.

I have also posted some statistics from the USAF there. Should give some insight for those embarrassed about the IAF.

SivaVijay
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 19:23

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby SivaVijay » 19 Jun 2009 01:51

Err...I have a few questions..

Why do we need more strategic airlift now? Where will we be employing...? any strategic airlift requires a decent stretch of good runway... which I dont think will be there in the forward areas....and how big do we expect to move...?IMHO we need more tactical airlift the kind a Hercules or An 32 gives which allows us to insert force closer to the frontline as soon as possible rather than a strategic airlift(The best use for this I could think was to safeguard the Andamans but for that too IL-76 would do.)

or are we talking of airlifting armour? but for that 10 C17 would be too low to make a decisive impact....

Could some gurus please clarify....

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby bhavani » 19 Jun 2009 01:52

chetak wrote:
sam_kamath wrote:


Quick question Sir... can you land the AN-124 at Leh VS can you land the c-17 in Leh...
Check out the take off and landing distances for the 124 compare them with the 17 you will get the answer.

Do you know we get the deliveries of SU 30's in a An-124 and we get the deliveries from rusia only at pune.. do you know why...find out the answer and you will know why we are getting the c-17.. however if i was you and wanted to really compare i would compare it with the A-400



Leh is at a height of 3300 meters or 10 827 feet. Altitude affects performance and load carrying capacity

You will ideally need detailed performance charts to make a fair comparison.

Such documents may not be available open source.

AN-124s land regularly at Bombay and Bangalore HAL airport and at many other airports in India carrying mundane commercial cargo.

What is your point regarding these aircraft landing at Pune ?


The An-124 did land in Srinagar airport at 5700 feet.

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=54362

i dont know what amount of load exactly it was carrying.

My biggest problem is C-17 is neither a good startegic lifter like the An-124 or a tactical lifter like C-130. It is just too Expensive for what it does.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Katare » 19 Jun 2009 03:05

bhavani wrote:
shiv wrote:Folks - let me state my personal view.

The IL 76 had its first flight in 1971 and production was stopped in 1997

Production of the C-17 really took off only in the late 1980s. The C-17 uses technologies that cannot be applied to the Il 76. The C 17 uses flap blowing (a type of thrust vectoring) to achieve lift at very slow speeds.

It also has thrust reversing that makes it possible to back up and reverse in small airfields. And the Il 76 is incredibly noisy.

And (I need to confirm this) - the C 17 has a cargo cabin wide enough to accommodate even the Arjun. Those of you who have read the story (on BR) of how the IAF transported T 72s to Leh in the Il 76 will know how dicey it was. Imagine an a/c that can do that with relative ease.


Finally the C 17 slow speed performance up close is superlative. Check the video (from Aero India) - watch those flaps taking the exhaust gases and diverting them down 2 min 30 onwards



Shiv,

Just my 2 cents.

C-17 is a great aircraft and it offers a plethora of great neat features. It is one of the most flexible air lifter ever.

But the C-17 is hideously expensive. It offers all these features at such a high price. US capped the production at 191 rather than the original 280. UK could not acquire more than 6, Australia acquired 4, and some others in few numbers. These purchases were done under US pressure to keep the C-17 line alive. They even launched a C-17 Sustainment program. Each plane costs nearly 225 million dollars (2006 prices). With spares and other stuff it is coming to nearly 340 million dollars a plane.

In fact there was huge criticism in UK, that for the short term strategic lift, they could have used the AN-124 which was certified one year before the C-17. The brits bought C-17 because of US pressure.


90% of C-17's features are hardly ever used. The back up capability was shown to work on paved surfaces and causes engine damage on grass or dirt. Even though C-17 is marketed as being able to perform tactical operations, but in reality it is more of a strategic lifter than tactical lifter. If we wanted to buy a huge strategic lifter, we might as well go for a few An-124. which are way cheaper than C-17


Infact at this price C-17 seems to suffer from some disadvantages compared to low technology aircrafts like the An-124 in the strategic realm. Although the AN-124 has greater payload, greater range, greater volume, greater floor area, greater cabin ceiling, greater cabin width than a C-17 and costs half the price, it seems that the sole area in which the C-17 can claim an advantage over the AN-124, the runway performance, was sufficient to disqualify the AN-124 in favour the C-17. Its runway performance compared to An-124 is better at gross loads which is 70 tonnes for C-17 and 120 for An-124.

For tactical transport, We should have gone for more just plain jane less expensive C-130 or upgraded IL-76 . I dont know how many C-17 we can afford.

In fairness, for a while it was looking like C-17 would be a dead programme. If it wasn't for the dribs and drabs of orders Long Beach has managed to eke out from the Canadians and others, the line would have been closed by now given the reluctance to give USAF any more a few years back. There was news in 2007, that C-17 line would end in 2009, I think now we are keeping american jobs alive.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlein ... panyNews-2

At 300 million dollars we can buy a brand new phalcon, or about a regiment worth of S-400's or probably equip a brand new Su-30MKI squadron. I just hope they spend these dollars on some thing worth while. I smell something wrong in the C-17 deal. When all the great friends of US did not buy it in any reasonable numbers whay are we buying them.

Daal me kuch kala hai. Guys dont get angry


Good post with lot of data-

Some disagreement corrections-

India signed a deal for 2 Squadrons of Su30MKI with Russia in 1996 for $1.8 Billion. So a squadron of MKI cost us $900Million in 1996. Today it'll cost us well over a billion dollars.

A Phalcon on IL76 now costs ~$500+ MM if recent cost increase for follow-on orders are correct. Also Phalcon manufacturer is promoting C17 Globmaster as the best and most optimum platform for Phalcons.

IAF constituted an expert group to study the available transporters against it's requirements. They concluded that C17 offers best solutions for its cost. Recently Indian armed forces especially IAF has changed its acquisition strategy to look at comprehensive lifecycle cost instead of looking at the upfront capital costs alone. They also are looking very carefully and comprehensively on equipment uptimes, ease of handling, accident rates, automation, state of the art, after sales support, future upgrade potential and MTBO/repair etc rather than leave all these aspects to be dealt later. I think that's where C17 more than justifies its costs for IAF. They have changed their strategy because India can afford to pay higher upfront cost and still acquire sufficient number of aircrafts.

Unless we have these detailed numbers any comparison of upfront capital cost remains useless. I have seen figures for life cycle cost that range anywhere between 2x to 6x of upfront purchase cost. So any comparison that leaves out life cycle cost, equipment uptime etc is probably not going to be correct.

You have two option either trust the competence and integrity of IAF committee or don't trust it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 19 Jun 2009 09:03

Imo a fleet of A320 and A310 freighters for strategic airlift and a fleet of upg AN32 (deal signed on monday) and C130 (vanilla model+IR countermeasures) sounds good.

I am giving up on the MTA.

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby bhavani » 19 Jun 2009 09:33

katare,

I was wrong about the Cost of Su-30MKI sqaudron, but still the cost of 10 C-17 would be 1.5 sqadrons of Su-30MKI. That os quite a hefty price.

Antonovs and IL-76 have a pretty good reputation. i really dont know all the stats, but i doubt if the IL-76 upgraded will cost much more than the C-17 over the life time. Even if we buy an upgraded An-124 which may cost somewhere between 120-150 million i really doubt if it will cost more than the C-17 over the life time.

I am not doubting the integrity of IAF commitee. One thing that really suprising is the pace which the Choice was made and it may get approved soon by our kangress gov. There are so many other pressing requirements like A good SAM for IAF and Army, a a good self-propelled gun for army have been pending for so long, but still this requirements comes out of air and then choice is selected.
If we are looking for a startegic lifter C-17 does not seem to be the best choice. If we are looking for a tactical lifter then the venerable C-130 is a better choice and has better rough field performance and air drop performance than C-17. i just dont seem to understand the requirement

If a Phalcon on Il-76 costs 500 million, then one on a C-17 should cost sowhere between 800-900 Million. Israelis seem to be going towards the Gulfstream G-550, I never heard of a phalcon based on C-17. A platform like the A-330 may be better for phalcon with its long range.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 19 Jun 2009 09:59

Bhavani what we buy today will need to serve us for at least 40 years. I was a young man when Il 76s were bought. I doubt if their serviceability and support will last beyond a time when I am dead. We need to buy something new.

The Il 76 cannot really serve our needs for more than 15 years IMO.

Himanshu
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Himanshu » 19 Jun 2009 10:48

Bhavani..

Please go a little deeper into the purchase of C-17s.. link it to 330MRTT shortlisting.. if you can read the lines from the strategic perspective.. again C-17 can do everything that 76 can do in addition to it's strategic capabilities.. and it can do all this in a much better manner with lower life cycle operating costs and there is great interoperability with like minded forces..

AND OT twist.. C-130J - C-17 - 330MRTT - MRCA ???????

Jamal K. Malik
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 27 Mar 2009 23:03

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Jamal K. Malik » 19 Jun 2009 16:37

First naval air squadron 'the flying fish' celebrates golden jubilee
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090619/808/tnl-first-naval-air-squadron-the-flying.html

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby putnanja » 20 Jun 2009 03:46

Was this posted before?

India signs deal to upgrade AN 32s

A week after a Russian-built AN 32 transport aircraft of the Air Force crashed in Arunachal Pradesh, killing 13 people on board, the Defence Ministry has disclosed that it has signed a deal with Ukraine to upgrade the ageing planes.

Confirming reports from Kiev that a $400-million deal has been signed to upgrade close to 100 of the twin-engine aircraft operated by India, Ministry officials said that a “life extension” contract was inked “recently”.
...
...
Defence Ministry officials said that the upgrade deal has been signed with the Foreign Trade Enterprise of Ukraine and the life-extension program will start this year itself. While the first batch of aircraft will be sent to Ukraine between 2009 and 2013 for refurbishment, the remaining aircraft will be upgraded at the Kanpur-based Base Repair Depot of the Air Force.

The upgrade will include life-extension programs for the engines, new avionics and installation of modern communication equipment. The IAF hopes to extend the life of the aircraft by close to 15 years while the refurbished engines will also improve the range and cargo-carrying capacity of the aircraft.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kartik » 20 Jun 2009 08:43

LUH trials are due to begin soon..apart from the Eurocopter Fennec, which other helis are competing for this contract, now that Bell is not offering its 407 Shen ? the buggers at Bell raised a hue and cry and now aren't even offering their product for the LUH contract..just wasted India's time.
Last edited by Kartik on 20 Jun 2009 08:48, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kartik » 20 Jun 2009 08:46

Eurocopter Fennec AS550 to come to India for LUH trials soon
link

PARIS AIR SHOW: Eurocopter to send AS550 for Indian trials

By Siva Govindasamy

Eurocopter will provide the AS550 C3 Fennec military helicopter for the trials in India's light utility helicopter competition, instead of the AS350 civilian helicopter that was tested in an earlier tender that was later cancelled.

The company has an AS550 with its weapons on display at Paris and Norbert Ducrot, Eurocopter's senior vice-president for sales and customer relations in Asia Pacific, says that the flight tests for India's LUH competition could be begin shortly.

"This time, we have a military version of the Fennec that is ready to go on trial in India. We are waiting for the instructions and we expect the process to begin shortly. We do not know when a contract will be awarded but we are sure that we have the best product for India," he adds.

Industry sources say that the company is favoured to get the contract, given that Bell chose not to offer its 407 this time. Eurocopter was close to winning an earlier LUH tender, but New Delhi cancelled it in December 2007 after Bell and several other companies complained that the EADS subsidiary was unfairly favoured in the selection process. Some also said that Eurocopter did not follow the rules by using the AS350 instead of a military version of the aircraft during the first trials.

Eurocopter, however, always denied any charges of wrong-doing. It added that the AS550 was "exactly the same" as the AS350 "in terms of airframe, systems, main gear box, rotor head, blades, engine and performances". India's former defence minister subsequently exonerated the company of any wrong-doing.

India requires 197 military light utility helicopters, of which 133 are for its army and 64 for its air force. It hopes that deliveries will begin by the end of 2010 after a year-long evaluation, although this is expected to slip. The contract could be worth up to $750 million, and the companies must reinvest 30% in India under the country's offsets policy.

State-owned Hindustan Aeronautics has been asked to develop and manufacture another 187 light utility helicopters, and the company could either do this on its own or with the help of a foreign partner.

The move comes as New Delhi aims to completely revamp its military helicopter fleets by 2020. The AgustaWestland A129, Bell AH-1Z Cobra, Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow, Eurocopter Tiger, Kamov Ka-52 and Mil Mi-28 are in the contest for a 22-unit attack helicopter requirement, and anti-submarine warfare and naval reconnaissance helicopters are also sought. India has also ordered 80 Mil Mi-17-V5 transport helicopters, and continues to induct the HAL Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter.

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby AmitR » 20 Jun 2009 09:20

Kartik wrote:Eurocopter Fennec AS550 to come to India for LUH trials soon
link

PARIS AIR SHOW: Eurocopter to send AS550 for Indian trials

By Siva Govindasamy

Eurocopter will provide the AS550 C3 Fennec military helicopter for the trials in India's light utility helicopter competition, instead of the AS350 civilian helicopter that was tested in an earlier tender that was later cancelled.



Why aren't we using Dhruv for this role? Again the circus starts.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kartik » 20 Jun 2009 10:06

AmitR wrote:
Why aren't we using Dhruv for this role? Again the circus starts.


before calling it a circus, educate yourself a bit and try comparing the specs of the two helis..Dhruv is twin engined in the 5.5 ton class, and the Fennec in its fully loaded config is only about 2.5 tons. Dhruv is too heavy for a Light Utility Helicopter role that the Cheetah is currently performing..and anyway, HAL is going to start developing a single engined Light Utility Helicopter soon.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21845
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby chetak » 20 Jun 2009 10:13

Kartik wrote:LUH trials are due to begin soon..apart from the Eurocopter Fennec, which other helis are competing for this contract, now that Bell is not offering its 407 Shen ? the buggers at Bell raised a hue and cry and now aren't even offering their product for the LUH contract..just wasted India's time.



The pie has been divided up without the victims being aware!

The leading contenders have cartelised and decided by unwritten agreement as to who should bid for what.

Great white bwanas bringing beeds and trinkets for the natives.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kartik » 20 Jun 2009 10:21

chetak wrote:The pie has been divided up without the victims being aware!

The leading contenders have cartelised and decided by unwritten agreement as to who should bid for what.

Great white bwanas bringing beeds and trinkets for the natives.


I don't think that is true. Bell cited offset clauses as being too restrictive for it to re-tender for the LUH competition..we're better off without them anyway. In case you didn't know, Bell's finances are in doldrums with the US ARH competition slipping out of their hands. they wouldn't have withdrawn from the LUH competition because of some "pie being cut up". the US would rather that its companies win most if not all of the pie.

Bell Helicopter of the United States has blamed India's "restrictive and narrow" offset policy for its decision to withdraw from the country's USD600 million Reconnaissance and Surveillance Helicopter (RSH) competition.
India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) dispatched a request for proposals (RfP) to Textron subsidiary Bell - along with five other overseas manufacturers - for 197(RSHs) on 24 July. Other recipients of the RfP included MD Helicopters and Sikorsky of the US, pan-European Eurocopter, AgustaWestland of Italy and Russia's Kamov.

The procurement, worth around INR30 billion (USD600 million), includes an offset requirement of 50 per cent of the contract value, as well as the transfer of maintenance-related technology to state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

Bell's vice-president of communications, Joseph LaMarca Jr, said on 3 December that the company decided to withdraw from the bidding last month because the offset demands did not provide sufficient scope to allow Bell to submit a competitive bid.

He said: "Bell Helicopter has decided not to pursue the current RfP from the Indian government for the RSH programme. The Bell executive leadership team felt the offset and contractual obligations for this programme do not meet our current business objectives."

LaMarca explained: "The current tender requires the bidder to commit to acceptance in advance of India's offset requirements and terms, or be subject to exclusion from the competition.

"Bell Helicopter has a very limited amount of production content eligible under these terms, and therefore cannot responsibly commit to this obligation, nor commit Bell to the potential financial penalties."


AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby AmitR » 20 Jun 2009 11:18

Kartik wrote:
AmitR wrote:
Why aren't we using Dhruv for this role? Again the circus starts.


before calling it a circus, educate yourself a bit and try comparing the specs of the two helis..Dhruv is twin engined in the 5.5 ton class, and the Fennec in its fully loaded config is only about 2.5 tons. Dhruv is too heavy for a Light Utility Helicopter role that the Cheetah is currently performing..and anyway, HAL is going to start developing a single engined Light Utility Helicopter soon.

When is the "start" of that development going to take place. Given that HAL already has good amount of expertise in helicopter design it should be easy for them.

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby KrishG » 20 Jun 2009 12:30

Kartik wrote:before calling it a circus, educate yourself a bit and try comparing the specs of the two helis..Dhruv is twin engined in the 5.5 ton class, and the Fennec in its fully loaded config is only about 2.5 tons. Dhruv is too heavy for a Light Utility Helicopter role that the Cheetah is currently performing..and anyway, HAL is going to start developing a single engined Light Utility Helicopter soon.


The HAL Light Observation Helicopter is supposed to co-developed with the winning bidder of this deal. Eurocopter had committed itself to the development during AI-09 itself.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sunilUpa » 21 Jun 2009 00:27

Image

What is this in IAF colors? From Paris Air show 2009.
source - militaryphotos.net posted by Xav

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby putnanja » 21 Jun 2009 00:37

Panel to suggest powerful engine for Jaguar - Ravi Sharma

The Indian Air Force has set up a committee to indicate which new engine will be suited to power India’s frontline but overweight and underpowered Jaguar tactical light strike fighter.

The new, lighter, high performance engine will allow the IAF to improve the Jaguar’s mission performance, especially in medium and high level sortie profiles, undertake missions which are not possible with the existing engine, reduce pilot workload and cut maintenance cost.

...
The multi-billion dollar programme will see an acquisition of 280 engines, including spare engines for around 120 aircraft. The committee is expected to submit its findings before the end of June.

While Honeywell is offering its F125N, a 43.8 kilo Newton (kN) thrust engine, Rolls Royce, whose Adour Mk811 (32.5 kN) presently powers the IAF’s Jaguars, proposes its Adour Mk821 turbofan.

...

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Victor » 21 Jun 2009 00:47

Singha wrote:I wonder if the C-17 could be converted into a maritime strike missile truck?

ya ya I know its strange idea, but I have a spider feel two rotary bomb racks
in fuselage each holding 5 rounds of brahmos-A would put the fear of Kali in any
maritime threats from our northern brothers.

Actually, this seems like a great idea, even with the Il-76 which could carry a formidable load as a maritime patrol and electronic warfare airplane. Few of these prowling around Andamans and Gujarat with appropriate BVR and close-in defensive measures would be quite a deterrent, at least on paper.

It would probably only manage one rotary rack with 5 or 6 rounds but could also carry a whole range of weapons under the wings.
Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kartik » 21 Jun 2009 03:17

AmitR wrote:When is the "start" of that development going to take place. Given that HAL already has good amount of expertise in helicopter design it should be easy for them.


they had a model displayed at Aero India 2005 itself..

image

but there was an initial lack of interest in the LOH from the IAF and only after the GoI placed an order for 187 of the LOH does it seem that the program has gained momentum..the below is from AjaiShukla's blog.

And the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has recognised HAL’s growing competence in helicopter design by nominating it to design and manufacture half of the 384 light observation helicopters (LOHs) required by India’s military. HAL has been given till 2017 to produce 187 LOHs. Meanwhile, the military’s immediate needs will be met by buying 197 LOHs from the international market.

Business Standard has learned that the MoD has imposed a strict timeline on HAL, including --- for the first time ever --- a penalty for delay. Top HAL sources say that if HAL overshoots the 2017 deadline, the MoD will procure more helicopters from the global manufacturer selected to supply LOHs; HAL’s order will correspondingly reduce.

HAL is confident it will produce the LOH two years ahead of the MoD’s deadline. HAL Chairman, Ashok Baweja explained to Business Standard his company’s plan for completing the LOH by 2015. HAL is already working on the conceptual design of the helicopter, which includes detailed specifications of key systems like the fuel system, the hydraulics system and the cockpit. HAL will design and manufacture the core components like the main rotor, tail rotor, gearbox and weaponry. Meanwhile, HAL will buy less critical sub-systems from specialist manufacturers in the international market.

Mr Baweja explains, “It is wasteful to duplicate the efforts of specialists who make individual systems. For example, there are specialist cockpit houses, which mainly design cockpits. You have Honeywell, you have Rockwell, and you have Thales. Our [HAL’s] role will be that of a top-end designer; we will identify systems and write the software that makes them function together.

“Take fuel systems. Those consist of fuel cells, pumps, cut-off valves, fire protection, etc. We can make all these things. But there are specialist companies that do only fuel systems. All we need to do is to identify them. We’ll control top-end design and we’ll do the certification tests.”

“There is air-conditioning in a helicopter; but should we start designing it? There are half a dozen companies in the world that do air-conditioning, heating, cooling.”

HAL is oozing confidence, coming off two successful designs: the Dhruv ALH which has started selling abroad; and the Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), the design for which has just been completed. And they now have a clear concept of the LOH to work upon: a 3-ton helicopter, powered by a single Shakti engine (as compared to the dual-engine Dhruv).

HAL says that, with the LCH design complete, it’s in-house design centre, called the Rotary Wing R&D Centre (RWRDC), is going full steam ahead on the LOH design. A senior designer explains, “Designers work at peak activity until the prototype is designed; then they are free for the next project. So with the LCH prototype ready, the RWRDC is going ahead full steam on the LOH. The design, we estimate, will be ready in a year.”



So, it appears that the detailed design activity should be progressing as we speak, on the LOH. the LCH itself is undergoing weight reduction activities and should hopefully fly by the year end.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 21 Jun 2009 06:28

talking of c17 but there are also several c5 galaxies in reserve and 6 galaxies do the work of 10 c17 and those c5 would be much cheaper than new c17

most of the time there is no need to carry over 30-40 tons payload and there are food supplies or disaster relief stuff which itself being lower in weight but it almost acquires the whole volume inside il76 and shifting to c17 isn't a big jump in inside volume and cargo capability

c5 is leap forward in volume and cargo capability and it is deliverable if India asks for galaxy rather than c17.

6 c5 won't cost more than 1.5 billion and an124 is not being build anymore or neither is in reserve.

and US will also keep their galaxies for nest 30 years so even if india flies those c5 for next 20 years they will pay for their price and no shortage of spares as well.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby GeorgeWelch » 21 Jun 2009 07:18

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:talking of c17 but there are also several c5 galaxies in reserve and 6 galaxies do the work of 10 c17 and those c5 would be much cheaper than new c17


The C-5 would be a horrible idea for India. The US is far better equipped to handle maintenance on them with a large fleet, plentiful spares and decades of experience. But even they can't keep the things in the air. They have absolutely atrocious MC rates and are very expensive to keep flying.

The C-17 is the 'golden child' of the AMC because it is reliable and dependable, in other words, everything the C-5 is not.

If you send a C-5, you have no idea when or even if it will arrive, and once it does arrive, you can't get it to leave.

There is an effort to address some of these problems (the C-5M program), but it's per plane cost is a substantial fraction of a new C-17 so there is considerable controversy as to whether it is worth it.

Not to mention that the 'reserve' C-5s are C-5A models which are far worse from a quality standpoint. And those C-5As were retired because they were 'bad actors'.

So to get the ones in reserve would be to get the worst planes (bad actors) of the worst model (C-5A) of a horribly unreliable plane to begin with (C-5).

I'm not sure what the right answer is for India's transport fleet, but I am sure that the C-5 is the wrong answer.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby arun » 21 Jun 2009 10:57

Kartik wrote:Eurocopter Fennec AS550 to come to India for LUH trials soon
link

PARIS AIR SHOW: Eurocopter to send AS550 for Indian trials

By Siva Govindasamy {Snipped} ..................


X Posted.

Same story, different source.

Flight tests for the combined Army and Air Force 197 helicopter LUH tender is likely to commence shortly:

Eurocopter to field AS550 C3Fennec for army/air force LUH tender news

20 June 2009

Le Bourget, Paris: Eurocopter will field the AS550 C3 Fennec military helicopter for trials in India's Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) joint tender for the Indian Army and air force. In a previous tender, since cancelled, it had fielded an AS350 civilian version of the helicopter, which had drawn protests from other contenders.

At the Paris Air Show, Norbert Ducrot, Eurocopter's senior vice-president for sales and customer relations in Asia Pacific, revealed that flight tests for the LUH tender were likely to commence shortly.

"This time, we have a military version of the Fennec that is ready to go on trial in India. We are waiting for the instructions and we expect the process to begin shortly. We do not know when a contract will be awarded but we are sure that we have the best product for India," he adds.......................

Of the 197 light utility helicopters sought by the two services, 133 are for the army and 64 for the air force. The MoD expects that deliveries will begin by the end of 2010 after year-long trials.

The contract is worth a potential $750 million. ………………………

Domain B


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests