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.

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3439
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby rsingh » 04 Jul 2013 21:56

^^^
"Bhartya vayu sena" seems to be hand-painted.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shrinivasan » 06 Jul 2013 11:57

rsingh wrote: "Bhartya vayu sena" seems to be hand-painted.
hand painted in Gujarati style.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3482
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Aditya G » 14 Jul 2013 12:44



The Americans are sucking out all the drama and emotion that desis are familiar with viz-a-viz arms delivery. No wonder we love Russian and Israeli weapons ... :((

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2013 13:20

as regular as dosas coming off a hot tawa or plates of biryani from a big handi...they have built a lot of credibility on delivery timelines with P8/C17/C130J and will reap handsome rewards for it in exercises addl buys.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 15 Jul 2013 22:03

Tender for IAF planes hits air pocket
Not one of the eight foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to whom the Ministry of Defence (MoD) gave the tender papers have responded to the request so far

the tender... seems mindless or it clearly indicates lack of application of mind

the RfP drafters at the MoD and IAF failed to ask a key question. Which Indian industries will be willing to invest anywhere between Rs 15,000 crore to Rs 25,000 crore to set up a new production facility and hire the needed talents, all for only producing 40 planes?

"Such projects involve huge money. They will bring in technology, generate employment and all that. But shouldn’t there be returns on the investment or not?” a representative of one such Indian major noted.


The ostensible idea behind this tender of creating competition for HAL is commendable and exactly what India needs but unless there is full financial support for the private sector, nothing will move forward.

It is clear that HAL and its backers in govt have ensured that:
--no private sector company will come forward
--these companies can then be blamed for being "unpatriotic" or worse
--cutting them out of defense manufacturing for decades.
This should be viewed as the ultimate anti-national act.

Some steps that may make it worthwhile for Indian private companies to come into this game:
* Shelve the flawed MTA project and task the private sector to undertake it with whoever they choose. The combined numbers of the An-32 and Avro replacements would make the project viable.
* provide tax and other incentives for domestic airlines to buy the civil passenger and freight version of the new aircraft.
* Make sure the finished product has low-risk export potential.
The market would explode into several hundreds if this is done.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 15 Jul 2013 23:11

Vic,I'm not sure whether the MTA project can be scrapped now after the deal has been signed with much fanfare. It also is meant to fill a void in the requirements of the transport fleet.HAL can happily manufacture the initial 50+ aircraft which will increase with time. Reg. the Avro replacement,yes,the GOI should've ordered at least 100,which is the number of the Avro fleet,plus as you mentioned,given benefits to civil airlines to acquire the same as regional transports.This way at least 200-300 aircraft would be built at home and exports also flourish.

If the GOI can subsidise Air India to the tune of billions,why can't it take such an initiative? As if the babus in the MOD do not know that such types are also required .The media should highlight the games being played by the MOD/babus/PSUs.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 16 Jul 2013 00:09

Victor wrote:
the RfP drafters at the MoD and IAF failed to ask a key question. Which Indian industries will be willing to invest anywhere between Rs 15,000 crore to Rs 25,000 crore to set up a new production facility and hire the needed talents, all for only producing 40 planes?

"Such projects involve huge money. They will bring in technology, generate employment and all that. But shouldn’t there be returns on the investment or not?” a representative of one such Indian major noted.


The ostensible idea behind this tender of creating competition for HAL is commendable and exactly what India needs but unless there is full financial support for the private sector, nothing will move forward.

So the private sector needs the guaranteed order of at least 7000000000000000000 planes else it won't invest. But we bitch when there are delays by the HAL in setting up a production line LCA with only 20-40 confirmed orders. They are asking for extra numbers(or jacked up prices) so that they can amortize their entire investment with in the deal period. This indicates that they are not looking to make a long term investment. What comes after all the planes are produced? Will they pack up and leave?
Contrived methods such as this(FICV is another that comes to mind) will not magically produce a viable private defence/aviation industry overnight. Rather scrap this and double down on the HAL MTA. We can probably buy an additional 50 of these with the funds saved.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 16 Jul 2013 05:36

abhik wrote:But we bitch when there are delays by the HAL in setting up a production line LCA with only 20-40 confirmed orders.

Every paisa that HAL spends in making (or botching) those 20-40 LCAs will be paid for by Indian taxpayers whether they want to or not. It is not "HAL's money" or even "the government's money". It is our money and we are justified in bitching about the LCA which is nowhere in sight after 30 years. A lot of Indians have far higher expectations and confidence in our own capabilities and are rightfully disgusted.

They are asking for extra numbers(or jacked up prices) so that they can amortize their entire investment with in the deal period.

Every successful defence company in the non-communist world follows this principal. It's called "normal business practice". The centralized philosophy has lost the cold war and the countries that rejected it early on--southeast Asia being a top example--have left us far behind.

This indicates that they are not looking to make a long term investment. What comes after all the planes are produced? Will they pack up and leave?

The experience, expertise and production lines become a long-term asset once they are in place. From there on, it is gravy for India. And of course, for the companies too but hopefully we don't consider profit to be a bad word?

Contrived methods such as this(FICV is another that comes to mind) will not magically produce a viable private defence/aviation industry overnight.

There is nothing "contrived" about the government financing private companies' efforts in defence projects. Every modern economy does this. The remark betrays ignorance about the basic working of successful defense industries worldwide.

Rather scrap this and double down on the HAL MTA. We can probably buy an additional 50 of these with the funds saved.

This is the most foolish route to take for at least two reasons:
* What exactly gives you the confidence to write "the HAL MTA" as if the thing already exists or will be a reality? With few exceptions, HAL gives me the exact opposite belief.
* It completely rejects the potential of India's private industries ever contributing to India's defence like the private industries of all successful countries.

After decades of trying it one way and failing repeatedly, any rational nation would consider giving another way a chance. To blindly reject this natural progression is the kind of thinking that will bring comfort to our military and economic enemies. They have seen that Indian companies don't fear globalization and could make India a top weapons producer in a very short time if they were to be unleashed. The pakis and chinese are OK with the lumbering, inefficient Indian PSUs but the thought of a Tata, Reliance, Mahindra, Pipavav or L&T getting involved will give them severe heartburn. You can bet that they will encourage anti-private company thinking of the kind presented here.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 16 Jul 2013 22:46

Victor wrote:
abhik wrote:But we bitch when there are delays by the HAL in setting up a production line LCA with only 20-40 confirmed orders.

Every paisa that HAL spends in making (or botching) those 20-40 LCAs will be paid for by Indian taxpayers whether they want to or not. It is not "HAL's money" or even "the government's money". It is our money and we are justified in bitching about the LCA which is nowhere in sight after 30 years. A lot of Indians have far higher expectations and confidence in our own capabilities and are rightfully disgusted.
HAL gets its money from the deals it makes with the government. It will be the same with any private sector defence player. So why the double standard?
They are asking for extra numbers(or jacked up prices) so that they can amortize their entire investment with in the deal period.

Every successful defence company in the non-communist world follows this principal. It's called "normal business practice". The centralized philosophy has lost the cold war and the countries that rejected it early on--southeast Asia being a top example--have left us far behind.

This indicates that they are not looking to make a long term investment. What comes after all the planes are produced? Will they pack up and leave?

The experience, expertise and production lines become a long-term asset once they are in place. From there on, it is gravy for India. And of course, for the companies too but hopefully we don't consider profit to be a bad word?

Contrived methods such as this(FICV is another that comes to mind) will not magically produce a viable private defence/aviation industry overnight.

There is nothing "contrived" about the government financing private companies' efforts in defence projects. Every modern economy does this. The remark betrays ignorance about the basic working of successful defense industries worldwide.

The private player have no experience in this domain. They have very little to offer. Yet the government has kept out the largest player (ie HAL) and tailor made this deal just for them so that they can jump start in this industry. The private players have everything to gain and could not have had it better. But if they are still asking for more, it doesn't mean that the government should meet their unreasonable demands. There is no absolute need to have a private sector in defence, after all why does it matter what colour the cat is as long as it is catching the mice?
Rather scrap this and double down on the HAL MTA. We can probably buy an additional 50 of these with the funds saved.

This is the most foolish route to take for at least two reasons:
* What exactly gives you the confidence to write "the HAL MTA" as if the thing already exists or will be a reality? With few exceptions, HAL gives me the exact opposite belief.
* It completely rejects the potential of India's private industries ever contributing to India's defence like the private industries of all successful countries.

After decades of trying it one way and failing repeatedly, any rational nation would consider giving another way a chance. To blindly reject this natural progression is the kind of thinking that will bring comfort to our military and economic enemies. They have seen that Indian companies don't fear globalization and could make India a top weapons producer in a very short time if they were to be unleashed. The pakis and chinese are OK with the lumbering, inefficient Indian PSUs but the thought of a Tata, Reliance, Mahindra, Pipavav or L&T getting involved will give them severe heartburn. You can bet that they will encourage anti-private company thinking of the kind presented here.

You seem to have a lot of confidence on the private sector. Can you point out the reasons behind this? The way you put it, sounds like (using Rahul baba's words) they will come riding on a white horse, vanquish all the problems that beset the indigenous defence production and will churning out F-22s like idlis in a Udipi restaurant. All this with in the decade. But the fact of the matter is that there are very few engineering and technological successes in the private sector. Also some of the players do not even have a background in technology/engineering let alone defence or aviation. The private players must first bring out what they bring to the table before before making all these demands.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 17 Jul 2013 11:19

India Commits to New Transport Aircraft

Heightened awareness of the steady growth in regional air traffic among small and medium-sized cities has convinced the Indian government to commit some $2 billion for the development of a 70- to 90-seat civilian aircraft. “This is a strategic sector where there is a need to have a presence in the long term, particularly in view of the rapid growth of our aviation sector,” said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Plans call for India’s National Aeronautics Laboratory (NAL) and Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) to participate in the design and manufacture of the airplane, expected to reach the market in seven years. “Development and production partnerships with Indian private-sector firms as well as overseas institutions are envisaged,” according to a statement from the Prime Minister’s office. “Efforts will be made to leverage the offsets that are available in the defense sector for building critical domestic capabilities in high-precision manufacturing and avionics.”

While the industry has welcomed a robust, indigenous aerospace program, execution requires adequate funding support, accountability, specific timelines, cost and quality targets, monitoring, and, most important, engagement with the private sector in India and abroad, noted Amber Dubey, partner and head of aerospace and defense at global consultancy KPMG. “[There is] no point in reinventing the wheel on technologies and sub-assemblies that may have already been developed elsewhere at a fraction of the cost,” Dubey told AIN.

NAL’s trysts with civil aircraft development have proved checkered. One attempt took the form of the (Regional Transport Aircraft) RTA-70, a 70-seat turboprop announced in 2007. Plans called for it to roll out of the factory this year. “Partnerships were signed but nothing happened,” said one industry official under the condition of anonymity. “It is highly unlikely that HAL and NAL will involve the private sector actively. Besides, they have been unable to make even a basic trainer.”

NAL’s attempt at India’s first multi-purpose civil aircraft, the Light Transport Aircraft, renamed Saras in 1993, started as an Indo-Russian joint venture in 1986, but a lack of funds prompted Ilyushin to withdraw from the project. Of the two Saras prototypes produced, the second crashed in March 2009 during a flight test, killing all three crewmembers. Investigators determined that the test pilots tried to relight an engine with insufficient recovery altitude moments before the aircraft crashed.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 18 Jul 2013 18:37

Austin wrote:India Commits to New Transport Aircraft

Heightened awareness of the steady growth in regional air traffic among small and medium-sized cities has convinced the Indian government to commit some $2 billion for the development of a 70- to 90-seat civilian aircraft.

Plans call for India’s National Aeronautics Laboratory (NAL) and Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) to participate in the design and manufacture of the airplane, expected to reach the market in seven years."

So on the one hand, govt is inviting private sector to splurge on development of 40 planes with the potential of selling more of these in the civil passenger market also but then decides to enter that same market itself?

There is no doubt that this is merely another moneymaking enterprise for politicians and babus. India will never develop a real aerospace capability with these people in charge.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 18 Jul 2013 18:56

^^^
The private companies are "splurging" nothing on development. They are to partner a foreign firm on a ready made aircraft. And as far as the above news is concerned one can expect only PPTs and CG diagrams out of it.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kartik » 23 Jul 2013 11:15

Alenia and ATK to display MC-27J at Dubai Air Show.

The MC-27J gunship is a useful variant of the C-27J..one advantage for the C-27J over the C-295.

mc-27j-partners-set-sights-on-dubai-air-show-appearance

Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Sancho » 24 Jul 2013 08:16

Kartik wrote:Alenia and ATK to display MC-27J at Dubai Air Show.

The MC-27J gunship is a useful variant of the C-27J..one advantage for the C-27J over the C-295.

mc-27j-partners-set-sights-on-dubai-air-show-appearance


Similar varients are on offer by EADS based on the C295 as well as the A400M in future too:

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Missions/ ... ecial.aspx

The question however is, how important these variants can be in the Indian scenario, without air superiority and enemies with advanced air defences...
The gun ship versions of the C130 mainly proved it self in cost-effective CAS roles in Afghanistan, but we will never see a similar scenario against Pakistan or China, while armed MALE drones might be the better and safer solution for us.
However, what makes the C295 most interesting is, the fact that BSF already has decided for it and MPA varients for ICG and IN would be available as well. So next to the 56 for IAF, it offers the potential of around 100 x aircrafts in different Indian forces, which is not possible for most of the competitors. Not to mention that the unit and operational costs are lower than the C27Js too, which again would be a great benefit when you replace a cost-effective uttility transport aircraft and not a tactical one.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 25 Jul 2013 18:50

If the GOI/MOD are really keen on indigenisation,then they should open up the aerospace industry in a major way,allowing pvt. industry to build any type,civilian or military in certain classes.100+ seater passr. regional jet aircraft and below ,all classes of amphibians,multi-role turboprops like the ATR,20-30 passr. aircraft and smaller aircraft of Dornier size and below.there is a huge market for small civilian aircraft as regional transports which could also be used in mil. utility roles.basic mil. trainers should also be opened up as well as light helos.FDI in defence upto at least 45%. Pvt. industry will find its own niche just as it has dine in the auto sector.Apart from aircraft ,helicopters and UAVs,aeroengines,and other key components of cutting edge aircraft tech must be opened up too.With an experienced auto industry in existence,other than MBTs and light tanks,all manner of MICVs should be opened up.

What we have in reality in India,is a closed door policy to wards opening up defence to pvt. industry,where lip service and preaching not practising indigenisation exists.Just one example,how MDL shot down the chances of L&T (who are playing a major role in building our nuclear boats) to build the follow on subs when it is a decade behind with the Scorpene.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 25 Jul 2013 19:47

^^^
What's been stopping the private industry investing in civilian aerospace manufacturing sector?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 25 Jul 2013 20:07

The elephant in the room!

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby vic » 25 Jul 2013 22:16

IDRA did not permit Pvt industry to enter civilian aircraft sector


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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby gnair » 26 Jul 2013 20:59

Sancho wrote:If the GOI/MOD are really keen on indigenisation,then they should open up the aerospace industry in a major way,allowing pvt. industry to build any type,civilian or military in certain classes.100+ seater passr. regional jet aircraft and below ,all classes of amphibians,multi-role turboprops like the ATR,20-30 passr. aircraft and smaller aircraft of Dornier size and below.there is a huge market for small civilian aircraft as regional transports which could also be used in mil. utility roles.basic mil. trainers should also be opened up as well as light helos.FDI in defence upto at least 45%. Pvt. industry will find its own niche just as it has dine in the auto sector.

……...Continuing from where Philip left off : the best way to go about this is to create the environment and support system from the ground up. And the best way to do that is a consortium approach among the larger Industrials, that have the funds, motivation and long term interest in the aerospace business, with a clear goal of 'return on investment/profitability of the venture'. Without that, they invariably end up as science projects with no end in sight like the Saras story.
The second is to treat the HAL's of town as one among several minority players/external consultants(Indian as well as foreign entities). At no time should they be given management rights to the program, because of the power and politics factor and a repeat of a MDL-Scorpene type saga. A state governement that has an interest in business & commerce and sees the long term perspective of growth, jobs and tax revenue to their coffers should be made a part of the program from the outset. They should be able to part with some land that is adjacent to an operational or currently non-operational but upgradable airfield that can take in heavy jets in the future. The GOI folks(Masters in mis-management, until proven otherwise) should just please keep their hands off the core project, but assist in areas such as diplomacy in handling multi-lateral treaty regimes, technology embargoes and restrictions such as ITAR, non-tarriff barriers, internatioanl bank transactions and other obstacles with foreign governments, that may have an impact on the project. GOI's only perspective should be 'if the project succeeds, then there is an export opportunity and that means positive forex cash flows into the country that add to the reserve.'
Once the consortium is firmed up, the least risk option is to go for an airframe that best fits the scope of the largest potential for manufacture and the type of airframe the market demands at an optimum cost. Would it be a light twin turboprop, medium twin preasurized turboprop, shorthaul turbofan, medium haul turbofan, considering capacity, operatability, block-hour operating costs, market acceptability and other factors on the ground. The emerging viewpoint among a certain section of aerospace pros with an interest in the Indian market, is to select an existing airframe that may have gone out of production in the last decade, due to financial reasons more than technical but still have strong residue market potential to re-start production.
The justification for this direction of thinking is to be able to get into the game at the ealiest possible time, for making up lost time (lost decades), to mitigate development risk associated with first timers that will cut into operational service-entry timeframes, to avoid getting into a situation of trying to peddle a non-FAA/JAR certified aircraft, that will evaporate market potential in no time.
The advantages of a licenced manufactured product on the other hand are: All previous documentation and system integration manuals are available, tooling, jigs and assembly infrstructure can be quickly built up. FAA/ JAR certifications are done and over with and there is no need for an extensive testing regime that can run years at a time for first timers. And apart from the captive market the extended market region potentially opens up( South Asia, Middle East, South East Asia, Asia Pacific)and in the process a skilled workforce is being developed, support infrastructure is maturing, supplier networks are getting stronger and all this adds to the building blocks of the 2nd venture in line for the consortium namely the - indigeneous product, at some point down the line.
In contrast to this and with all due respect, the RTA-70 is going to be a trying and valiant effort but the possibility of it being a commercial success would be against a lot of odds. We are quite clearly trying to jump a stage in the airframe development business because there is no previous in-country experience (except for the HS-748 of 1960's vintage and the DO-228 that is a light, non-preasurized utility aircraft) No Indian made platform has ever been FAA / JAR certified, meaning if I had a potential customer for a couple of commercial HAL-Dhruvs in say the Republic of Korea, the transaction will not materialize due to the lack of certification. Romania a country of marginal significance by any standards has better experience building commercial transports with the BAC-1-11 than does India. That is the predicament of the situation as it stands today. Donating Do-228's, BN-2's and maybe even RTA-70's in future to Maldives, Mauritius and Myanamar does not constitute a sale. They barely even give back a foreign policy dividend in return.
Some examples of licensed manufacture for the consortium:
BAE-ATP
http://www.airliners.net/photo/West-Air ... e946dfd45c
Fokker-50
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qeshm-Ai ... dbc00db980
Fokker-100
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qeshm-Ai ... (F-28-0100)/2289279/&sid=1b90c0bb247f785969acd1bb133a7552
Boeing 717
http://www.airliners.net/photo/AirTran/ ... dbb4733df6
Dornier -328
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Privat-W ... 73a12501d0
Dornier - 328Jet
http://www.airliners.net/photo/British- ... 73a12501d0

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 26 Jul 2013 21:30

Continuing from where Philip left off : the best way to go about this is to create the environment and support system from the ground up. And the best way to do that is a consortium approach among the larger Industrials,


What Philip has suggested is a half baked solution (NOT entirely his fault for suggesting it tho').

There is a HUGE problem when it comes to infusing civilian planes into the question - it does not matter if they are bought (from Boeing/ATR/EADS/Brazil/etc) or as suggested, an Indian effort to build them here.

The problem is one of infrastructure - just like the military, the civilian side also needs it. There is absolutely no way - none/zilch - that one could increase the number of planes (because the demand for flying is so great) and NOT run into issues of approach road, places to park, taxis, taxi stands, places to eat, toilets, lounges, air conditioning, electricity generation, trash collection, trash disposal, etc, etc, etc. Then they will need more runways, better landing technologies, technologies in the air to manage flight, aprons for parking air planes, ground radars, flight radars. India - as we type - is NOWHERE near ready for such things (on the civilian side that is). Not even close.

IIRC some 10 year ish ago India had placed the largest ever orders for planes with Boeing and Airbus. For whatever reason these deals fell through (I do not know why). But in a way that was a blessing.

Behind ANY transport upgrade is a huge need to upgrade the transportation system. India is no where close to being ready for such an increase in the air sector. Can things change - hope so, but it will take a monumental task (larger than the ISRO effort). The effort to design/build and Indian civilian plane will dwarf the effort to build the infrastructure.

Just buy more C-130J or some similar air crafts for the military and be happy. The civilian sector ..............

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 27 Jul 2013 19:14

Nrao, infrastructure miracles are happening all around us and none of the deficiencies you mention will be a problem in the right peoples hands. Witness our major airports today. 10 years ago, they would have seemed impossible when one confronted the hopeless ineffiency, user-unfriendliness and gangs of seemingly useless officials hanging around in the ramshackle buildings smelling of urine-phenoyl. India will progress very fast if the inefficient, incompetent and corrupt govt understood that like running airports, it is not their job to build jetliners. As thing stand, we are all set to import hundreds of foreign planes to feed Swiss bank accounts.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 27 Jul 2013 20:28

IF. No doubt India can reach the moon.

FYI. The major airports you speak of, they ALL have to meet international standards. If there is flight coming in from abroad that airport falls under one of those international agencies. India pays for all the upgrades. These airports have to be fine. :). Else they cannot be certified for accepting a foreign airline.

That is not my concern. It is the smaller, feeder, airports.

More l8r if need be.

_________________________________________________

Was reading up on Chhatrapati Shivaji in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhatrapat ... al_Airport. Very interesting stuff. They were supposed to complete the work in 2014. Wonder how close they are to finishing it. But even there one gets an idea of how much work needs to be put in - some $2.1 billion worth of proposed work - that is just for one airprort and it does not include cost of approach roads (do not know if it includes the increase in parking, etc). The $2.1 billion is for the upgrade - not a new airport. A new one would perhaps be in the range of $10 billion?

Now assume that a feeder, on an average, will cost (just the airport) about 20% of this (rounding) and a 100 airports (at a minimum).

It can be done, that is not the issue. Will it be planned into either buying these many planes (as was the case about 10 years ago - they did not plan for such an expansion) or as proposed by Philip? Point being it is no use planning to have an Indian industry to design/build 70-90 passenger and associated cargo planes and not planning for the infrastructure.

IF one is even thinking of purchasing - say - a 100 planes for the Indian market, then India should keep around $200 billion aside for the infrastructure.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Victor » 28 Jul 2013 08:59

PM green-signals Navi Mumbai airport
NEW DELHI: Mumbai's infrastructure received a major boost on Friday with the Prime Minister asking the Airports Authority of India (AAI) to award two greenfield airports-one in Navi Mumbai and the other in Juhu (these are in addition to Chattrapati Shivaji)......part of the long list of 50 new low-cost small airports which the government plans to award this year.

The problem won't be infrastructure. Airports and related infrastructure will be coming for sure. The problem will be India missing the boat on building a viable aircraft industry with the govt keeping the private sector out and the PSUs continuing their stellar performance.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 28 Jul 2013 10:06

The problem won't be infrastructure. Airports and related infrastructure will be coming for sure


Am I right in saying you are assuming that?


tushar_m

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby tushar_m » 01 Aug 2013 19:44


jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby jai » 01 Aug 2013 22:26

[quote="Victor"]Tender for IAF planes hits air pocket


I am not surprised- I remember reading the rfp doc published and wondering why is the rip asking for a 800 km cruise speed - from the competing aircraft- clearly only one could - and that's not a hardcore lifter but a civilian conversion, most of the rest were turbo props. Does anyone else notice this or am I wrong - this was a while back so I could be.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby GeorgeWelch » 01 Aug 2013 22:34

Boeing approves one more year of C-17 production on anticipated demand

Boeing has started building as many as 12 more C-17 airlifters in anticipation of signing new orders from international customers, possibly extending the Long Beach, California production line by more than a year.

. . .

"As in the past, Boeing is investing company funds on long-lead components to protect the continued affordable production of C-17 aircraft in anticipation of additional orders from international customers," the company says in a statement to Flightglobal.

. . .

Boeing says it is in discussions with a range of new and existing customers, although previous reports have linked the C-17 to additional orders from India and Australia and possible new orders from Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

. . .

"Now we've been given authorization to go ahead and build airplanes," Kornblatt says. "What we hear from [Boeing] is that they're confident that the next [block of 10 aircraft] is going to get sold."


My first guess would be that they're fairly sure of an additional order from India.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby RoyG » 02 Aug 2013 02:40

This c-17 transport was def a great buy especially with the quality of service and product. The delivery speed is phenomenal.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2013 02:49

US, India Consider C-17 Exchange

Pacific Air Forces Commander Gen. Hawk Carlisle said the United States and India are considering an exchange program for their respective C-17 units. "There are opportunities for us to learn from each other," Carlisle told reporters during a July 29 meeting in Washington, D.C. He noted, however, that the exchange is not yet a done deal. The Indians "are doing some pretty neat things," with their newly acquired C-17s, he said. For example, they regularly land the C-17 and deliver cargo on runways that are located at 11,000 feet to 13,000 feet in elevation, which is "harrowing" for larger cargo aircraft, he said. India received its first C-17 in June. It took delivery of its second one on July 22 from manufacturer Boeing, announced the company. India has 10 C-17s on order; they are slated for delivery by 2014.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2013 02:51


Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Manish_Sharma » 02 Aug 2013 03:50

RoyG wrote:This c-17 transport was def a great buy especially with the quality of service and product. The delivery speed is phenomenal.


Yes after having been resigned to have lousy deliveries, poor used spare parts like hawk trainers from UK and most of russki stuff, these american's are out to spoil us. First C-130s now C-17s, chalo people will say they just come from running assembly line.

But even Poseidon which was to be develped comes bang on time. In spite of my hatred for khan, can't resist to admire their efficiency and being true to word.

Is there any news of tunnel testing facility? Which was part of C-17 deal also.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 02 Aug 2013 11:04

Reg. infrastructure,N,R has a point.I've realised years ago that for any nation to develop,its infrastructure,holistically-all round,has to improve.Public transportation is the next priority,not pandering merely to expanding the road network .Look at Europe.Fantastic rail networks making air travel neccessary only for medium and long haul flights.It also has a superb maritime transport service in the form of car ferries.However,the DPSUs have failed us,stark fact.Unless we bring aboard pvt. industry-and what's wrong if pvt. industry flourishes,it will generate more employment and save more forex. ,integrated into our strategic defence planning,otherwise we will be stuck with a max. of 30% of indigenisation.
Last edited by Philip on 02 Aug 2013 15:22, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 02 Aug 2013 14:50

10 more C17 is sure -- to replace the IL76 fleet totally.

then I hope 15 AN124T Ruslan2 with latest engines + 30 PAKDA with hypersonic mach6 brahmos & nirbhay. Agra/Nagpur == Ramstein or bust!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 02 Aug 2013 15:33

10 more? That's a lot of moolah costwise,and there will be a lot of competing priorities like the Rafale,which should be finalised asap. I thought that a large number of IL-76s were being upgraded so that they could last another 10-15 years.In BR's own pages,there are pics of an upgraded IL-76 without the tail turret.AN-124s would be fantastic,but has production resumed? Last news was that it had not,but only IL-476/76 MDs had begun,with large orders from Russia itself.In another report elsewhere,our future tankers will be based upon other (Airbus or Boeing) platforms only because no new IL-76s could be available in time as production has just restarted.

Air Chief Marshal Naik disclosed that the IL 76s, first acquired in April 1985, are also under life extension under a contract with Russia. “The life extension of IL-76 aircraft would involve complete overhaul of airframe at the vendor’s premises in Russia… The first aircraft has already been positioned and the servicing has commenced. Various other upgrades would be executed in India. Post-servicing, the aircraft would be available to us for more than 10 years,” he said.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2013 18:09

I think India has an option of six C-17s (from the last order). With the latest report stating that Boeing is expecting to build 12 more, I suspect six of those will be from India - the remaining six from SA/Aus/Singapore.

On the upgraded IL-76s - they should last until around 2020is, the last one till 2022 (IIRC). Not much beyond that.

The next set of tankers was WON by Airbus. Nothing to do with the IL-476. Russia the last time I checked (3 months ago) had made no headway in selling India the IL-476. India does not seem to have any interest in the IL-476 and rightly so.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby pragnya » 02 Aug 2013 19:09

NRao,

the order for 6 more within 2013 is expected after first few deliveries.

but from a june 2011 report (fwiw), it seems the total number of C-17s may go up to as high as 24.

The Indian Government has just cleared the deal for 10 C 17s for $ 4.1 billion, and together with another six aircraft, the deal would be around $ 6.5 billion, inclusive of the 30 percent offset clause. The US Government, and the Congress, have already cleared the deal under the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme, and it would be sealed once the Indian Government signs the agreement and the US Government issues what is called the LoA, or Letter of Acceptance, possibly by mid-June to sell the aircraft to India.

Reliable sources however say that IAF could opt for eight more aircraft, in which case the deal for C 17s could touch a total of $ 10 billion.


so the boeing line is going to be buzzing for atleast a few more years.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 02 Aug 2013 19:21

16 C17 would be too less for India, considering the huge gap to the next rung which is the C130

we need imho
- 10 super heavies (Ruslan2)
- 25 heavies (C17) - 3 sqdns
- 75 medium C130J
- 100-120 smalls AN32 sized

would impart the much needed balance and rightsizing of missions.

we need airlift bigtime to make up for lack of road infra in mountains, permit better resupply payloads and support the formation of 2 airmobile brigades one for Ladakh-TSP and one for Sikkim-AP. each alone with their complement of artillery, light vehicles, C4I kit and helicopters would cost not less than $1 billion to formate.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, Avinash Rav, Cain Marko, kvraghav, Shakthi and 61 guests