Transport Aircraft for IAF

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kartik » 11 Jun 2013 11:27

srai wrote:The IAF is going to need around 100-150 light-medium (>5t) transports to replace both HS-748 and some of the An-32s. MTA will replace the remaining An-32s. The IN could get 12-24 of these for its Medium MPA requirement. The IA might also get 25 of these (5 for each command) along with potential orders from BSF, RAW, and private cargo companies.


Indeed, the C-295 has the leg-up on the C-27J on the MPA front, with C-295 Persuader MPA already operational with the Chilean and Mexican Navies. If a dedicated private sector assembly line starts building C-295s, the type will be easier to support for the MPA role as well, instead of a completely new type.

C-295-MPA capabilities pdf

There is even the SAR version that the Coast Guard will be interested in.

C-295 SAR capabilities pdf

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 11 Jun 2013 17:45

Some pictures of IL-476

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/34737/

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2013 18:05

Looking at the report on the IL-476 in Take-off, it just seem to be worth the while. I would prefer more C-17s instead.

________________________________________________

srai wrote:The IAF is going to need around 100-150 light-medium (>5t) transports to replace both HS-748 and some of the An-32s. MTA will replace the remaining An-32s. The IN could get 12-24 of these for its Medium MPA requirement. The IA might also get 25 of these (5 for each command) along with potential orders from BSF, RAW, and private cargo companies.


Airbus Military launches improved C295W transport for India

According to India Strategic's own estimates though, the figure could touch or exceed 200, keeping in mind the growing requirements of the armed forces, paramilitary organizations like the Border Security Force (BSF) and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), civil operations in India's mountainous Himalayan states and even the secretive Aviation Research Centre (ARC) of India's external intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 11 Jun 2013 18:34

someday brothers someday...we shall have fleets of such mighty beasts...poetry in motion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4iALN9plBg

4:45 it lands at a base with around 50+ heavies on the tarmac. :D I want this!

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Gurinder P » 12 Jun 2013 04:07

Singha wrote:someday brothers someday...we shall have fleets of such mighty beasts...poetry in motion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4iALN9plBg

4:45 it lands at a base with around 50+ heavies on the tarmac. :D I want this!



Sorry bro, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. I do agree that the plane is beautiful, but the plane is a really old design, and the USAF is tendering replacements for them. I also have a personal beef with the boom, and I feel that the USAF method of refueling is rather obtuse, being that an operator has to control the boom and place it into the plane being refueled. Whereas, the drogue method allows the pilots of plane being refueled to fly up and hook and detach when done, plus with the boom, only one plane can refuel at a time, but with the drogue, multiple planes can refuel at one time. But this is my two cents, and I am wondering if one of the Guru's can maybe provide me with information on the advantages of a boom.

Kind regards,

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 12 Jun 2013 05:36

Boeing Transfers 1st C-17 to Indian Air Force
The Indian Air Force (IAF) flew its first Boeing [NYSE: BA] C-17 Globemaster III to India today, becoming the newest operator of the leading airlifter.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 12 Jun 2013 06:13

Boom has higher flow rate i have read. Choice of boom was driven by need to refuel their fleets of big transports and bombers.

I was not exactly marketing the KC-10 here, just wanting that mass of heavies for ourselves in a few sites....IL476, A330, phalcons, C17, AN124.

I feel its inevitable we need some AN124 to airlift the largest elements of our hw more efficiently and supplement the C17 (10 more sure to order).
IL476 can be people mover efficiently. even cargo model 737/A320 can be modded into military style long row seatings for people moving.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 12 Jun 2013 13:02

photos are up in livefist for C17 handover ceremony

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 12 Jun 2013 13:52

Beautiful pictures of IAF C-17 on livefist , US industrial commitment and its ability to deliver on schedule is second to none.

What is the reason for those small fins on the engine ?

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 12 Jun 2013 14:14

I have noticed on a320 also. my wild theory is they correct some turbulent air problem caused by the engine cowl and pylon and make it smoother for the wings (?) have looked at them closely on a320 they are not aerofoils just plain fins and inclined at some 45' to vertical so cannot be lifting devices.

is the C17 unit slated to form from hindon?

gnair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 03:15

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby gnair » 12 Jun 2013 18:29

But this is my two cents, and I am wondering if one of the Guru's can maybe provide me with information on the advantages of a boom.

One advantage of a boom as in NATO/USAF refuellng is, on a mission where you've got a broken down jet, there have been cases where it's been towed to the nearest friendly base and put on the glide slope, as unorthodox a procedure as it may seem, an asset or two have been saved rather than ditching.
Drogue systems have significant vortex generation from the wings that cause turbulence during the process.

gnair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 03:15

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby gnair » 12 Jun 2013 18:48

Singha wrote:I have noticed on a320 also. my wild theory is they correct some turbulent air problem caused by the engine cowl and pylon and make it smoother for the wings (?) have looked at them closely on a320 they are not aerofoils just plain fins and inclined at some 45' to vertical so cannot be lifting devices.

is the C17 unit slated to form from hindon?


Singha, your theory is right! (Vortex Generators)They smoothen the airflow heading to the tip of the wings and deflect it backwards towards the tailplane. They also mitigate the effects of adverse yaw.
Western engines typically spin in one direction, either clockwise or anti-clockwise on both sides of the wing. CFM-56 or V2500 X 2 on a A-320 for example. That gives out a slightly imbalanced thrust to one side, making the aircraft want to fly a little sideways. So they mitigate the effect by placing vortex generators in critical areas to correct it. Russian engines I am told spin in different directions on both sides of the wing i am told. But i cannot confirm, i may be wrong!

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Gagan » 12 Jun 2013 20:29

gnair wrote:Russian engines I am told spin in different directions on both sides of the wing i am told.

You're right. Notice the direction markings on the fan in the engines on the IL 476
Image

gnair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 03:15

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby gnair » 12 Jun 2013 20:54

Gagan wrote:
gnair wrote:Russian engines I am told spin in different directions on both sides of the wing i am told.

You're right. Notice the direction markings on the fan in the engines on the IL 476
Image


Holy Crap, that's what you call an 'eye for detail'.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 12 Jun 2013 22:16

Those chines have anything to do with yaw. In fact they are optimized for minimum effect during level flight. Their sole purpose is to allow high lift while takeoff and landing (low speed and high AoA), by delayin flow separation behind the engines.

Image

History: Research for the DC-10 found that stall speed was higher than what was expected by about 5 knots. On further wind tunnel testing, they found that the separation was starting behind the nacelles and at the edges of the slats. NASA-Ames came out with the solution of this chine which delayed flow separation by generating votexes that passed just over the wing. Since then chines have become popular with many planes.

The IL-76s handle this with near full span slats and spoilers.

I don't know what you guys are speaking of on the IL-476. Multiple turbofan engines don't have corkscrew effect or the P-effect.


abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 13 Jun 2013 12:33

^^^
Why not design a new plane from scratch? It could be designed as a spinoff of the Regional Transport Aircraft, use the same manufacturing facilities.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Pratyush » 13 Jun 2013 13:20

^^^

But in the absence of a place to build the plane and an airfield from which to test it. The proposal will come to naught. Truly a catch 22 if ever their was one.

Solving it will take creative thinking to say the least.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 13 Jun 2013 19:25

Pratyush wrote:
Solving it will take creative thinking to say the least.

If there is the intention to solve it within the government which there obviously isn't. They have tied private companies' legs and asked them to hop.

Shukla's article is bang on. The project is designed to fail and to shut out Indian private players from the defence market for good--to the detriment of India's indigenous capability. It will take a revolution to uproot the babu-politician nexus and make India safe.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2013 22:46



Confusing.

Are we to understand that no one knew this? How can anyone design + build aircrafts without certification of every component? (Which is what the FGFA effort should have contributed to.)

Yes, it is a huge risk, but one that must be taken to be able to make planes inside the country.

And a very costly process too.

What should have been done over the past 60 years needs to be done in 10 or less. Risk and cost.

One way to mitigate it is for the GoI to allow huge tax breaks - perhaps a 100% tax break. Allocation of free land, etc. I would imagine and hope this is a strategic move for the nation.

?????

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby sohamn » 13 Jun 2013 23:39

^^^^ Not confusing to me.

Setting up a greenfield factory only to build 40 planes doesn't make sense. Can the government guarantee future orders? Can they use to to manufacture MTA, or can they use the infrastructure to overhaul existing planes ? They should have rather chosen Private Companies for assembly line manufacturing of Rafale. 126 + options for additional 40 would make economic sense for any CEO.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 14 Jun 2013 02:44

Hold on to your horses gentlemen. They are working on it. Yes, this organization will need an airport. But the govt. can't just give an airport away. And let's say the govt. gives an assurance today and can't (because of economic reasons) honour it tomorrow, then what?

These are BIG steps and an important precedent. Can't rush everything.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23574
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby chetak » 14 Jun 2013 04:50

gnair wrote:
Singha wrote:I have noticed on a320 also. my wild theory is they correct some turbulent air problem caused by the engine cowl and pylon and make it smoother for the wings (?) have looked at them closely on a320 they are not aerofoils just plain fins and inclined at some 45' to vertical so cannot be lifting devices.

is the C17 unit slated to form from hindon?


Singha, your theory is right! (Vortex Generators)They smoothen the airflow heading to the tip of the wings and deflect it backwards towards the tailplane. They also mitigate the effects of adverse yaw.
Western engines typically spin in one direction, either clockwise or anti-clockwise on both sides of the wing. CFM-56 or V2500 X 2 on a A-320 for example. That gives out a slightly imbalanced thrust to one side, making the aircraft want to fly a little sideways. So they mitigate the effect by placing vortex generators in critical areas to correct it. Russian engines I am told spin in different directions on both sides of the wing i am told. But i cannot confirm, i may be wrong!


Many large engines have different stages ie LP, IP, HP etc in the same engine rotating in different directions to reduce or minimise the torque.

It would complicate logistics and manufacturing and testing to have left / right engines rotating in different directions. There are easier methods of counteracting torque. The rudders can always be trimmed for asymmetric torque conditions in case of in flight failure.

Nothing stops anyone from having engines rotating in clock wise / counter clockwise for different sides of the wing.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2013 07:51

Establishing an indigenous air craft - civilian or military - is a HUGE, expensive, risky task. So the question should boil down to - do we need it? IF the answer is yes, then they all have to come together and share all these things. There are no shortcuts - neither can a military plane fall out of the sky nor can a civilian one.

I think/feel that India is one of very few countries where such an industry can be build and sustained. But in the short term there should be no doubt that someone will may have to take a huge hit.

BTW, that article did not even mention R&D - perhaps the most expensive part of this vision.

________________________________________

The Gov clearly intends machines beyond 40 planes. Which ones, what, how, etc is TBD, which is the risk part.

I think it is doable. But these CEOs cannot expect to make profits on these machines. They should not. At best they should be provided with some sort of a future safety net. But then I just do not see them taking any risks - perhaps outside of reliance (?????).

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Lalmohan » 14 Jun 2013 12:35

^^^ but as manufacturers of sub assemblies and components they can make profits. so the question is - who will be the (loss making) design lead and uber integrator?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Pratyush » 14 Jun 2013 12:47

Is this a way to get the HAL in on the game through the back door?

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 15 Jun 2013 09:01

The Avro replacement RFPs have gone out to an interesting bunch. Most are known more for military aircraft which will not have a meaningful civil market beyond the IAF requirement of 40. The odd couple are Boeing and Embraer but they don't have anything in the Avro category--a regional passenger plane with military transport capability. They do have a joint project called the KC390, a medium military transport but it is identical to the MTA and hence probably untouchable in India. Besides, it too won't have a civil market which is primarily passenger. A promising, low-risk civil market beyond the IAF requirement is key to this project.

IMO, Indian private coalition should try and get the BAe146 production line which has shut down and develop this plane for both military and civil use. Like the Avro-748, it is also a versatile Avro (RJ series) civil regional passenger aircraft that has played several other roles: freight, firefighter, military transport, military tanker, VVIP plane etc.

Image Image

It was available in 3 basic versions and will make an ideal short and medium haul passenger jet for India with excellent export potential. It was chosen by Druk Air for flying into short and difficult mountain airstrips like Paro, so it is ideal for our ALGs. Unfortunately, 9/11 killed off the production line but otherwise it had proved to be one of the most successful regional jets in Europe. It was reportedly profitable even when operated with half the passenger seats empty.

The basic design is simple and rugged and should handle many upgrades and modifications for decades. If chosen and moved on quickly, it has a good chance of becoming operational before the MTA and giving the IAF its An32 replacement much faster. It will certainly be a lower-risk alternative to the MTA, both for Indian and foreign markets.

In the longer term, a project like this will provide a solid foundation to India's private aviation industry and allow it to blossom. Only something like this will stand a chance of breaking the HAL monopoly and letting Indian private companies show what they can do.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Lalmohan » 15 Jun 2013 15:02

Pratyush wrote:Is this a way to get the HAL in on the game through the back door?


i dont have a problem with that per se, but we need to ensure that HAL can operate at the required performance level

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 16 Jun 2013 13:42

Victor wrote:The Avro replacement RFPs have gone out to an interesting bunch. Most are known more for military aircraft which will not have a meaningful civil market beyond the IAF requirement of 40. The odd couple are Boeing and Embraer but they don't have anything in the Avro category--a regional passenger plane with military transport capability. They do have a joint project called the KC390, a medium military transport but it is identical to the MTA and hence probably untouchable in India. Besides, it too won't have a civil market which is primarily passenger. A promising, low-risk civil market beyond the IAF requirement is key to this project.

IMO, Indian private coalition should try and get the BAe146 production line which has shut down and develop this plane for both military and civil use. Like the Avro-748, it is also a versatile Avro (RJ series) civil regional passenger aircraft that has played several other roles: freight, firefighter, military transport, military tanker, VVIP plane etc.

Image Image

It was available in 3 basic versions and will make an ideal short and medium haul passenger jet for India with excellent export potential. It was chosen by Druk Air for flying into short and difficult mountain airstrips like Paro, so it is ideal for our ALGs. Unfortunately, 9/11 killed off the production line but otherwise it had proved to be one of the most successful regional jets in Europe. It was reportedly profitable even when operated with half the passenger seats empty.

The basic design is simple and rugged and should handle many upgrades and modifications for decades. If chosen and moved on quickly, it has a good chance of becoming operational before the MTA and giving the IAF its An32 replacement much faster. It will certainly be a lower-risk alternative to the MTA, both for Indian and foreign markets.

In the longer term, a project like this will provide a solid foundation to India's private aviation industry and allow it to blossom. Only something like this will stand a chance of breaking the HAL monopoly and letting Indian private companies show what they can do.

Both the 146 and the RJ series are maintenance hogs.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Lalmohan » 16 Jun 2013 13:45

indranil - out of interest, do you know which systems are the most problematic?
i have flown this aircraft many times, and really like it for both performance (particularly short field) and comfort
its got quite a good niche position for short hop feeder services

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 16 Jun 2013 13:48

engines. But if you are really interested you can read it from pilots and maintenance crew here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/161256/

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 16 Jun 2013 21:25

indranilroy wrote:Both the 146 and the RJ series are maintenance hogs.

It's not helpful to quote a single maintenance guy's opinion on an internet forum and pass it off as blanket fact. The 146 family was the most successful British civil aircraft program ever and it is still one of the most profitable and popular airplanes flying. The original series did have some engine issues but that didn't diminish the plane's popularity with passengers, pilots and airline accountants. Still, the Avro RJ series did address the engine issue by switching to Honeywell but they closed production before the type was used widely enough to draw up an opinion about its 'maintenance hog' status. In fact the RJX never got produced in part because its predecessor was so popular, nobody wanted to replace it and in part because of 9/11.

The Honeywell engines had lower maintenance costs with higher thrust and more range but this was back in 2002.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Lalmohan » 16 Jun 2013 22:00

it is near perfect for city centre to city centre short airstrip take-off/landings combined with high cruise speeds - makes it a highly desirable commuter and business service jet. four engine reliability (or maybe complexity) and relatively quiet. the underslung engines on a high wing are a good compromise for rough field useage, and its got quite a wide fuselage - so should be quite good for military purposes - i guess in the nato zone it had no natural military mission, but in the indian context - particularly himalayan - it should have been of interest

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 16 Jun 2013 22:11

Victor wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Both the 146 and the RJ series are maintenance hogs.

It's not helpful to quote a single maintenance guy's opinion on an internet forum and pass it off as blanket fact. The 146 family was the most successful British civil aircraft program ever and it is still one of the most profitable and popular airplanes flying. The original series did have some engine issues but that didn't diminish the plane's popularity with passengers, pilots and airline accountants. Still, the Avro RJ series did address the engine issue by switching to Honeywell but they closed production before the type was used widely enough to draw up an opinion about its 'maintenance hog' status. In fact the RJX never got produced in part because its predecessor was so popular, nobody wanted to replace it and in part because of 9/11.

The Honeywell engines had lower maintenance costs with higher thrust and more range but this was back in 2002.

Look, I like the plane too. In fact when the RFP first came out and specified that the plane should fly 800 kmph, there were only a few that could do it. It is really good for our ALGs and for unprepared runways. But, I cannot agree with your other arguments here.

1. Most successful British civilian plane doesn't make it any less of a maintenance hog.
2. It is just not one man's opinion (here, herehere, here,
3. Civilian planes always stay out for longer. It is much more cheaper to keep them flying than to replace them.
5. It has 4 engines, the RFP for the 746 replacement clearly says 2 engines (but I guess this can be changed)

Initially, I had also thought that we should just buy that assembly line for dirt cheap prices. But recently I read somewhere that just the assembly line costs 2% of the entire manufacturing costs. So, I guess getting a cheap assembly line would be akin to making Amdahl rolling around in his grave. Besides, I don't know if the assembly line is up for sale. They announced that they might make QT and QC models in 2012.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 16 Jun 2013 23:30

Indranil, none of what you posted takes anything away from the basic fact that the 146 is extremely popular with everybody involved--pilots, passengers and airlines. Arguably, even the maintenance people should like it for the overtime it allegedly provides. In the end, that is all that counts and everything else is moot/fixable. Like we did with the Gnat and Mig-21, we need to be driven by the larger picture, not the minutae. Only this time, we need to do it with the hope and intention of actually absorbing something but even if we can't we still make money.

What is important for us is that the plane has proven to be a tough and dependable design which is versatile enough to meet several requirements, both civil and military, and be continuously improved with newer engines, avionics and materials for decades--the right environment for budding Indian design and manufacturing capabilities in the private aviation sector.

We also need a solution that addresses a large enough market to enable this long and stable development environment. Ideally, the market should encompass several civil and military roles while also having attractive export potential. The requirement should be in the hundreds not the tens and the 146 is probably the only platform out there that has all of this in a proven, low-risk package.

My original post was also meant to point out that the folks who eventually got the RFPs were all either incapable of providing a replacement civil short-medium range airliner with military potential or makers of aircraft that would be a tough sell in the civilian domestic and export market. The two left were Boeing and Embraer who can only offer the KC390 which will be promptly shot down because it would kill the MTA. The RFPs were certainly not sent out without a lot of thought and deliberation. Finally, not giving the RFPs to Indian private companies leaves me with a bad feeling about motives.

gnair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 03:15

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby gnair » 17 Jun 2013 04:52

Re.The BAE-146
I've had personal experience working with this aircraft in South East Asia, about 12 years ago, and they were pretty good as a freighter with dispatch reliability exceeding 96%. It was a very rugged aircraft able to operate out of airfields with 4,500 feet< runway length. Pretty economical on the pocket book too. If someone is looking for an airplane that can move non-palletized cargo in the 1,000< NM segment, this is it. The BAE-ATP is an equally good match in the turbo-prop segment with so much of lineage from the HS-748 but haven't had any personal experience with it.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 03 Jul 2013 07:48

IAF's C-17 Globemaster-III makes its maiden flight to Andaman & Nicobar

......................., the aircraft landed at Port Blair to induct the rotational Infantry Battalion into the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.


The C-17 will boost the IAF's long haul capability and will gradually replace the Russian Il-76.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 03 Jul 2013 10:10

C-17 Air Lifting Mammoth ( Pg 23 - 27 )

http://www.geopolitics.in/july2013.aspx



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kapio and 42 guests