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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 22 Jul 2014 07:40

LD,

The head of DefMin position is still vacant.

Yours for the taking.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 22 Jul 2014 10:19

partha wrote:Saar, if I understand the report correctly, it will not be built through 49% FDI route. It is through buy and make.

Now that they have cleared 49% FDI I'm guessing the foreign partner might insist on ownership rather than just sell the ToT. If that is not the case then I see no problems.

Amitabh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Amitabh » 22 Jul 2014 11:32

Ajai Shukla makes a cogent argument for a more integrated transport aircraft policy: Midwifing new aircraft

Instead of introducing a third project into the mix (albeit involving manufacture, not development), the MoD must integrate these three efforts, avoiding the duplication of effort and expense.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby rohitvats » 22 Jul 2014 14:08

With this mega project clearance, what has really happened is that breach has been made in the fiefdom of DPSU.

DRDO went to L&T and TATA for manufacture of PINAKA system and has been trying to work with private players on other projects as well. DPSU have simply no accountability on quality or timeline. And we also have clash of interest with MOD standing to gain if contract goes for a DPSU. The private entity can at least be pulled up for delays and be expected to deliver goods on time and with requisite quality.

I expect Services and DRDO to go more for private sector participation in production.

member_23891
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby member_23891 » 22 Jul 2014 15:14

This a very good move from the Modi govt. for a start. Such kind of project which clearly categorised for domestic entities going to infuse lot of confidence in them to make the huge investment in defence sector.

Same time, the production volume for certain categories of weapon systems can be divided between DPSU & pvt. players on the criteria of competitiveness in terms of level of quality, timely execution etc. etc. Those who qualify on most of the qualitative criterias should get the larger share in terms of production volume.

We can not expect DPSU to improve till they feel the heat of competition.

IMO, it will be more appropriate to divest atleast 40% share of non-performing of DPSU. HAL should be divided in to two separate enities as civillian & defence. On other hand OFBs must be overhauled with the essential R& D set up & mandated for the innovation under DRDO monitoring.

member_28677
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby member_28677 » 22 Jul 2014 20:49

I think LD is talking about "production"(assembling ready-made, small imported parts into one plane), not the D(Development) of R&D.

For example, DRDO holds technology for LCA but HAL will manufacture it. So, HAL won't have any "design a plane" capability. This transport project is same. It is just a start. It is wrong to expect that TATA will start making own transport planes within next 10 years. That won't happen so soon.

For D of R&D(in Transport plane area), we have other projects in pipeline, thats where HAL, DRDO are going to rule.

rasiklal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 14 Apr 2011 09:52

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby rasiklal » 22 Jul 2014 21:20

Amitabh wrote:Ajai Shukla makes a cogent argument for a more integrated transport aircraft policy: Midwifing new aircraft

Instead of introducing a third project into the mix (albeit involving manufacture, not development), the MoD must integrate these three efforts, avoiding the duplication of effort and expense.


[Ajai Shulka] and cogent in the same sentence? Doesn't make sense

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8226
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 22 Jul 2014 22:38

Amitabh wrote:Ajai Shukla makes a cogent argument for a more integrated transport aircraft policy: Midwifing new aircraft

Instead of introducing a third project into the mix (albeit involving manufacture, not development), the MoD must integrate these three efforts, avoiding the duplication of effort and expense.

Actually that is not a bad call. We have discussed it here before too: a joint replacement of the Avro/AN-32. Also such a plane is much more amenable to be changed to a civilian RTA. It will be much more marketable than yet another turbofan RTA from an unknown entity instead of well established players.

But, I disagree with the article. Simply because I have no faith in HAL for MTA and NCAD for the RTA, and I know that HAL/NAL won't relinquish control. So let them do their thing. With this decision, at least we will have a desi Avro/An-32 replacement and a civilian version of the plane.

I have no expectation from HAL on MTA. Whom are they trying to fool with the "new development" front? And for how long, a freaking decade? And then what, the plane is still on paper? In the meantime, Embraer is joining the fuselage of their offering and has a long list of orders. The market for such a plane is obvious. All the C-130s that are retiring need to be replaced! On the other hand, I love TASL and its enviable growth record. There is no pretense. They just say they can build to blueprints. But they are good at it. And then look at the other major contributor to the NCAD program: NAL. Mahindra is close to certifying a 5-seater, a 10-seater, and started work on the Nomad for the 20-seater (with just 130 people who are also producing and marketing the 8-seater in parallel) in the same time that NAL has prepared Saras to fly again!

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby vic » 22 Jul 2014 22:56

Hal should do MRTA and NCA while Pvt sector should do RTA military Avro replacement

rasiklal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 14 Apr 2011 09:52

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby rasiklal » 22 Jul 2014 23:18

indranilroy wrote:
Amitabh wrote:Ajai Shukla makes a cogent argument for a more integrated transport aircraft policy: Midwifing new aircraft


Instead of introducing a third project...

But, I disagree with the article....


Shuklaji is wonderful at focusing on a single issue each time, to the exclusion of everything else. Dude wants to scrap MMRCA deal & build a 5-Gen frame, indigenously. To hell with the time it will take.
Now same dude wants to continue with 1 10-year transport airframe project that's produced only a prototype, and then join another foreign 10-year project xport airframe project. To hell with indeginisation! LEt's not waste time on this washout

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8226
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 23 Jul 2014 02:06

rasiklal wrote:
Shuklaji is wonderful at focusing on a single issue each time, to the exclusion of everything else. Dude wants to scrap MMRCA deal & build a 5-Gen frame, indigenously. To hell with the time it will take.
Now same dude wants to continue with 1 10-year transport airframe project that's produced only a prototype, and then join another foreign 10-year project xport airframe project. To hell with indeginisation! LEt's not waste time on this washout


I don't think those are his stands at all.

1. He wants MMRCA scrapped, and F-35s ordered instead. To be fair, he is not alone is believing that. Many here feel that it is lifafa journalism. I don't. Because, otherwise I will have to disclose my lifafas first from SAAB. and then Dassault.
2. He is not asking us to forget the buy-and-make-Indian ideology. He is not against bringing up the private companies either. He is just saying whatever path we take, take a common one, and synergize all efforts. That is not a bad policy for govt. spending.

Both of these are valid arguments. I don't buy them, but that takes nothing away from the argument, which I respect.

P.S. For the record, I may be biased. I like him as a reporter :-)

rasiklal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 14 Apr 2011 09:52

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby rasiklal » 23 Jul 2014 07:35

Roysaab,

I wouldn't be surprised if Shuklaji recommended buying Robotic Klingons armed with death rays. In his many recommendations on MIL HW, Strat, Managment, the dude shows no signs of any familiarity with even popular literature, leave alone professional stuff. I will take Shuklaji seriously when he recommends India buy 5 Squadrons of soon to be mothballed A-10.

member_28373
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby member_28373 » 24 Jul 2014 19:48

I did not see this posted anywhere else. The follow-on order for C-130's

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... uy-401967/


anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby anand_sankar » 24 Jul 2014 21:55

The C-17s are quite a sight in Leh!

Last month when I was there, saw one execute a missed approach and go-around at full load. The aircraft seemed effortless while turning inside the valley.

member_28677
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby member_28677 » 24 Jul 2014 22:10

indranilroy wrote:1. He wants MMRCA scrapped, and F-35s ordered instead. To be fair, he is not alone is believing that. Many here feel that it is lifafa journalism. I don't. Because, otherwise I will have to disclose my lifafas first from SAAB. and then Dassault.
2. He is not asking us to forget the buy-and-make-Indian ideology. He is not against bringing up the private companies either. He is just saying whatever path we take, take a common one, and synergize all efforts. That is not a bad policy for govt. spending.
P.S. For the record, I may be biased. I like him as a reporter :-)


I am anti-MMRCA but F-35 is better option than Rafale geo-politically as well as common sense. I support A.Shukla on this.

F-35 has much more to offer than Rafale -
1. Faster gestation/adaptation due to English(no French/translations needed. Small but a significant factor, which cuts productivity into half on ground)
2. Rafale is outdated. F-35 offers hands on next generation technology & packaging.
3. France has nothing to offer in comparison to USA. Unkil has deep spectrum of things(help on building test-facilities, multiple research areas) we can benefit from. France should not even be in UNSC. They know this pretty well and they are trying to rise above their size by pulling a fast one on India.
4. China is building own empire with Pakistan, Brazil, Africa as stooges. Aim of BRICS bank is not to empower India but to establish Chinese rule on Asia(which includes further expansion of funding+sell of new reactors to Pakistan, plus Gwadar port).
5. Russia will not offer anything to India. They are happy & safe as lonely, freezed superpower on iced-hemisphere. They are happy in freezed status and having fun now selling equipment to Pakistan and India both & this is how its going to be whether you like it or not.
6. USA is a dying power in this decade(not due to economy or technology, but due to other ideological reasons - Rise of Islam, general anti-Americanism rising around the world, rise of China fuelling anti-Americanism further). However, technologically USA will remain the superpower for remaining century. And they will keep funding all small stooges here and there to maintain their political capital in the world.
7. USA can offer India much because they have a big depth technology-wise. You never offer your latest to anyone. France has nothing latest to offer, they are lagging behind USA. So, the things which USA will offer you, will be one generation ahead of things u can get from France. And none of the two, will offer you laboratory science so u can't say i will go with France and get older technology, there is no TOT here. 'Exposure to new technology' is all what u will get.
8. India is a big nation(in the ranks of USA and China). It should deal with nations of own size, not with pygmies.
9. USA is pragmatic and not ideologically fixated like French. Also, indian diaspora in USA is bigger than those in France.
10. Of course, the even better option would be go alone. Dump both Rafale and F-35.

It makes more sense to get into a new-generation platform like F-35 than outdated Rafale(France). Both cost same. And it makes even more sense to dump both and focus on local efforts the China way. China has aimed too high, GoI is still fiddling with foreign options.
Last edited by Indranil on 24 Jul 2014 22:36, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Probably this post belongs to the Rafale thread. Please consider moving it.

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby SanjayC » 25 Jul 2014 11:13

Strategic airlift and nostalgia headed for Delhi, in one package
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 984766.cms

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby vic » 25 Jul 2014 11:28

I am anti all imports. Once we ban all imports arms pimps will fall over themselves to sell technology. China faced off both Soviets and USA with limited technology.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Pratyush » 25 Jul 2014 11:50

^^^

I am disappointed to note that the Avro replacement program is not tied with the AN 32 replacement program. I fear, that 10 years down the line we be looking at a separate aircraft for the An 32 replacement, with a separate assembly line to be setup for it.

Resulting in escalated costs for us.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 25 Jul 2014 13:23

^^^
Its a programme specially contrived to give private players an opportunity to "screw-driver assemble" aircraft at likely inflated prices with no strategic planning as Ajai Shukla has rightly pointed out. Breaking HALs monopoly is understandable but disbarring other PSUs is inexplicable. I think a much more fruitful exercise would be to give the production of the Rustam UAV to a new player.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 31 Jul 2014 03:25

Please read this Janes' report,where China's NDU recommend that it build 400 HY-20s,its clone of the Russian IL-76 heavy transport.The need is so that it can reinforce its logistic capability to its outlying territories especially those in dispute with Asian nations.
http://www.janes.com/article/41251/chin ... y-20-fleet

China's NDU recommends 400-strong Y-20 fleet

A new report on civil-military integration by China's National Defence University (NDU) has called for the construction of 400 Xian Aircraft Corporation Y-20 heavy transport aircraft.

A report by China's National Defence University has recommended that the PLA buy up to 400 Xian Y-20 strategic airlifters. (Unknown authorship)A report by China's National Defence University has recommended that the PLA buy up to 400 Xian Y-20 strategic airlifters. (Unknown authorship)

Written by NDU's Center for Economic Research, 'Chinese Military and Civilian Integration Development Report, 2014' was revealed on 25 July by Chinese state media outlets. Containing six parts, the report covers the theory and practice of civil-military integration and reviews its progress in China along with recommendations for its improvement.

While it is not clear whether the NDU report reflects thinking within the People's Liberation Army (PLA) leadership, it is significant as the PLA almost never openly discusses future requirements for major military systems.

The report's treatment of China's transport sector has gained the most attention in the state media, with the most prominent suggestion being that China consider the acquisition of up to 400 Y-20 transports. The report noted that the United States has 700 medium and large transport aircraft, while Russia has 800 and India 200.

The report states that the transports should be organized in 10 'divisions' that would each likely comprise two regiments of 20 aircraft. It also acknowledges that Y-20 development is impeded by domestic engine development - something that was widely known but not previously acknowledged in official publications.

The first Y-20 prototype first flew on 26 January 2013 and a second prototype has entered its testing programme. With future indigenous turbofans the Y-20 would reportedly be capable of carrying a 65-ton payload.

The NDU report also makes four basic recommendations to improve civil-military integration in China's transport sector, including a call to build offshore bases on remote islands and overseas countries.

The first suggestion is to increase investments in dual-use technology, specifically commercial transport aircraft that can also serve military missions such as transport, airborne early warning and control, and aerial refueling.

A second recommendation is to better exploit the capability of civil transport assets, especially maritime assets, to create a reserve strategic delivery capability. Third, the NDU recommends that command of civil transport assets be better co-ordinated and centralized; more reflective of a military structure.

Fourth, the NDU recommends an 'overseas' aspect to civil-military integration, such as building a network of foreign bases or supply depots. It further recommends the strengthening of "strategic frontier islands" and "reefs" by building airports and "large floating platforms" that could facilitate "remote strategic delivery" and serve as supply depots.
ANALYSIS

IHS Jane's analysis has identified strategic transport aircraft as a key capability weakness for China - something that has limited both power projection and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.


The Y-20 is an attempt to address this without relying on imports, although IHS Jane's has previously reported that it was designed with extensive assistance from the Antonov Design Bureau in Kiev. As the NDU report states, engines remain a weakness and the first prototype aircraft was powered by four of the same Perm/Soloviev D-30KP-2 engines that power the Ilyushin Il-76 transport aircraft.

Meanwhile, the reliability of the data in the NDU report on the Y-20 is supported by its suggestions that China strengthen its presence in "strategic frontier islands" and "reefs". Ongoing dredging activities in the Spratly islands and plans released by Chinese state shipbuilders for the airbases and "large floating platforms" recommended by the report suggest that this is a strategic programme for Beijing, albeit one that may lead to conflict with its Southeast Asian neighbours.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 17 Aug 2014 05:22

Where does the MTA program stand?

Just read that LM had offered (in 2007-9 time frame) to move an entire production to India, for the C-130, if India could produce 40 or more.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2014 13:27

Good news, on multiple fronts:

Aug 19, 2014 :: IAF to replace crashed C-130J medium-lift aircraft
Point #1:
The Indian Air Force (IAF) will buy one more Lockheed Martin C 130J Super Hercules medium-lift aircraft apart from the 12 contracted for to make up for the loss of one plane in an accident in March.



Point #2, the much talked about , why C-17:
The IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, told a magazine in an interview that the induction of the C-130Js, as also the heavy-lift Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs had "brought about a paradigm shift in our airlift capabilities".


That is a direct quote!!

The magazine quoted the air chief as saying: "While the C-17 had "enhanced our strategic footprint," the C-130J "has emerged as a significant enabler for Special Operations, besides being extensively deployed for varied tasks".

"We expect to induct more of these platforms as we gain more experience in their utilisation and expand upon their roles," he said, without defining numbers and timelines. IAF does indeed require more combat and transport aircraft, but how many it orders and when would depend upon the availability of funds.


Boom, ...................................... duck for cover. This is a blast that can *take you down*.

As for the C-17s, six have already been delivered and the remaining four of the 10 ordered so far are due within the next four months by end-2014.

The IAF has projected a requirement of a second lot of eight C-17s followed by a third lot of another six. A final decision is pending.


So, potentially 10 + 8 +6 and that is .........................................................

Six brand new ones are waiting. Dunno about the remaining 8.


#NotAwareOfSoMuchMMSClout

#Impressed

#StillCounting

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 19 Aug 2014 14:45

NRao wrote:So, potentially 10 + 8 +6 and that is .........................................................

Six brand new ones are waiting. Dunno about the remaining 8.


Don't see that happening with the C-17 assembly line shutting down next year. As per wiki they only have 13 left for sale. And even if we did buy these we will have to pay at once as the aircraft are almost built. Thats $4-6 billion upfront.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9243
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby brar_w » 19 Aug 2014 16:18

Australia is said to be considering more C-17's that will add months to the line.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2014 18:15

abhik wrote:
NRao wrote:So, potentially 10 + 8 +6 and that is .........................................................

Six brand new ones are waiting. Dunno about the remaining 8.


Don't see that happening with the C-17 assembly line shutting down next year. As per wiki they only have 13 left for sale. And even if we did buy these we will have to pay at once as the aircraft are almost built. Thats $4-6 billion upfront.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5754&start=2200#p1570189

13 "extra" were built, with India being penciled in for 6. These were based on projections.

Recently ......................

Aug 7, 2014 :: US defence secretary Hagel arrives in India

Hagel is also expected to remind India that the window for purchase of Chinook and Apache helicopters at current rates will close by September. The US, which has kept aside six Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft for possible purchase by India, is extremely concerned about slow decision-making in the Indian defence ministry and Hagel will be looking to find a new equilibrium with Jaitley


So, there are six out there to be picked up.

The USAF could also part with some of their newer machines. They, IIRC, got some 25 they really did not need, but, 8 perhaps are too many to expect, but that option is there. so, even if there is that fear of line-shutting-down, there are options.

Funds, yes, No brownie points for repeating what this article I posted also said. Repeating the obvious.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 19 Aug 2014 18:48

brar_w wrote:Australia is said to be considering more C-17's that will add months to the line.

My understanding is that they have to first find buyers for the ones that are already in the assembly line(13 aircraft which is a lot more than Australia is likely to buy), only then can they think of extending the production.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2014 20:19

^^^^^

See the first link in my post, the 13 were supposedly accounted for (1 was for Oz).

However, since then they have three less in the pipeline, of which 6 are still penciled in for India.

IF India has the funds, technically, she could absorb all 13. And, then one more.

Mihir.D
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 08:50
Location: Land Of Zero :D !

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Mihir.D » 19 Aug 2014 21:52

Could it be possible to convert these C-17s into tankers also by adding the required hardware ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9243
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby brar_w » 19 Aug 2014 23:54

Mihir.D wrote:Could it be possible to convert these C-17s into tankers also by adding the required hardware ?


Integration is going to be too expensive (unless HAL tries to do it itself like Israeli's do) to bother and the costs compared (to operate) to an A330 tanker would be still high even despite C-17's outstanding CPFH given its capability and performance.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 20 Aug 2014 07:15

USAF has around 120 C17. of this the last lot were forced on them by Congressmen looking to preserve jobs in their areas, USAF had not asked for them.
so we might be able to get a few like 6-10 from that channel.

imo we should get another 15 c17 and solve the heavy lift problem once and for all , for the next 40 years until 2050.

we should start work on whatever the MTA is called now in collab with Embraer or license build their new mil transport and use that to replace the IL76 and AN32 progressively. maybe lay into another 50 C130J on the side. for the SOCOM and give them dedicated fleet of 6 to train with...with more SF oriented kit added on including smart munitions for fire support.

a armed forces without adequate airlift and mobility is mostly one legged.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 20 Aug 2014 08:03

On the Congress forced some C-17s on the USAF, IIRC there were 25 of them. However, I also recall that the USAF was replacing some old ones with some in that batch. So there might now be any from that channel. ?????

However, there is another rather interesting debate going on - relatively silent one - and that is the fear of losing the expertise to build such planes. At times I have wondered if India would be interested in such a venture. Just to get the juices flowing, the one and only stealth featured transport:

Image

The IL-76s in the IAF stables have been upgraded and the last one, from that lot, should be retiring in 2022 or so. Not too far out.


I think India has some good options.

Funds? Dunno.

tushar_m

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby tushar_m » 20 Aug 2014 08:17

IAF to Replace Crashed C-130J Medium-lift Aircraft



The Indian Air Force (IAF) will buy one more Lockheed Martin C 130J Super Hercules medium-lift aircraft apart from the 12 contracted for to make up for the loss of one plane in an accident in March.

The IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, told India Strategic magazine (http://www.indiastrategic.in ) in an interview that the induction of the C-130Js, as also the heavy-lift Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs had “brought about a paradigm shift in our airlift capabilities”.

The IAF had initially acquired six C-130Js, and over three-and-a-half years of operations so far, the aircraft have played a highly significant role in disaster relief, setting global standards. Acknowledging this, the air chief said that six more C-130Js were to arrive by 2016 and would be deployed in eastern India.

As for the lost aircraft, which crashed during a tactical exercise near the Indian capital, he said a replacement aircraft was being ordered to maintain the envisaged strength.

India Strategic quoted the air chief as saying: “While the C-17 had “enhanced our strategic footprint,” the C-130J “has emerged as a significant enabler for Special Operations, besides being extensively deployed for varied tasks”.

“We expect to induct more of these platforms as we gain more experience in their utilisation and expand upon their roles,” he said, without defining numbers and timelines. IAF does indeed require more combat and transport aircraft, but how many it orders and when would depend upon the availability of funds.

As for the C-17s, six have already been delivered and the remaining four of the ten ordered so far are due within the next four months by end-2014.

The IAF has projected a requirement of a second lot of eight C-17s followed by a third lot of another six. A final decision is pending. A window to order a few more C-17s is there but this may be lost if India does not exercise it soon as the factory would be closing in the near future. Boeing though has said that it has made long-term arrangements for spares and service support to the C-17 fleets around the world.

Notably, the C-130J is designed on a platform made half a century ago and has earned the reputation for being sturdy and one of the safest aircraft in the world.

A few years ago, Lockheed Martin had mooted a proposal to shift its manufacturing plant to India if the IAF and civil authorities would commit purchase of a minimum of 40 aircraft, saying it could be deployed economically in India’s tough northeastern and mountainous region on short, unpaved airfields by civil airlines.
The aircraft is also used in VIP configuration in some countries.

Source : IANS



So a total of 10+8+6=24 C17's expected to be in service of IAF????

the production of C17's have stopped i thought with only 13(or so extra) expected to be produced.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 20 Aug 2014 08:29

^^^^^

Original article posted above (on previous page).

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Rien » 20 Aug 2014 09:49

NRao wrote:^^^^^

See the first link in my post, the 13 were supposedly accounted for (1 was for Oz).

However, since then they have three less in the pipeline, of which 6 are still penciled in for India.

IF India has the funds, technically, she could absorb all 13. And, then one more.


Taking a look at the cost here.

http://www.defencenow.com/news/316/boei ... india.html


The actual contract to provide the services such as maintenance and upgrades of the C-17 Globemaster to India is between Boeing Company and Defence Department. The Boeing Company is being awarded the $ 469 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for the IAF C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership Program.

India has become the C-17 Globemaster III airlifter’s largest international customer as it will acquire ten of the strategic airlifters from Boeing. The Indian Defence Ministry signed a contract with the U.S. government to acquire 10 C-17 Globemaster III airlifters for roughly $ 4.1 billion.


4.1 billion + 469 million = 4.569 billion. IN US Dollars. That is 457 million per plane. I refuse to eat grass so the IAF can buy this expensive American junk. IF we have funds indeed. And an obsolete plane that is shutting down production.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-09-18- ... II-in-2015

We already have IL-76s and the MTA. So there is no low or middle end niche for the C-17 to fill. At the high end is the only place it could possibly be useful. And at the high end, how does it compare for the price against the alternatives?

http://aircraft.wikia.com/wiki/Antonov_An-124

Performance An-124-150
Maximum Payload 150 tonnes
Range 5,200 km
Service Life 50,000 hours
Crew 4

All for a price of only US$70–100 million(Wiki). Taking the higher end estimate, we can have 40 of them, and carry more cargo faster and further. Of top of saving 320 million dollars! If we get 10 of them, that's 3.5 billion dollars saved. MoD and CAG must open an investigation into this deal.We're already in a co-production deal with Russia for the MTA, another for the An-124-150m where we replace the Ukraine and became the 50% joint partner will get us technology we couldn't gain otherwise.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 20 Aug 2014 10:49

MTA :rotfl:
IAF is not going to re-engine the IL76 fleet...they will retire within this decade one by one.
the AN32s are being overhauled in Ukraine, but most are 80s made, already 25 yrs old....maybe another 10 yrs lifespan.
how much the IL76-400 will succeed is anyone's guess. Russia had 700 IL76MD but certainly cannot order so many now. unless production orders are high, costs will be high.
the AN124 is even more niche product. lets not get into a Mi26 type deal where we and russia operate a few airframes and thats it.

the C17 will remain in service until 2050 for sure with one re-engine. american airframes even from 1950s era like KC135, C130, B52, B707 have proved immensely durable in global deployment and long duty cycles. there is nothing left to prove there. sure they need proper upkeep but all modern kit does.

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby alexis » 20 Aug 2014 12:16

Rien,

70-100 USD Mn for An-124 has no source. Su-30 MKI itself costs around that figure now! A limited production run of An-124 is going to be expensive.

After recent spat with Ukraine, the project is likely to be delayed.
http://www.janes.com/article/42097/time ... n-re-start

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Rien » 20 Aug 2014 16:23

alexis wrote:Rien,

70-100 USD Mn for An-124 has no source. Su-30 MKI itself costs around that figure now! A limited production run of An-124 is going to be expensive.

After recent spat with Ukraine, the project is likely to be delayed.
http://www.janes.com/article/42097/time ... n-re-start


http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/182650.html

"The total production volume for An-124 [planes is] 80 planes," he said, opening a cabinet meeting in Kyiv on Wednesday.

The premier added that the total revenues from the sale of the said transport aircraft is estimated at $12.89 billion.


Putting 12.89 billion /80 is approximately equal to 160 million. That's still 1/3rd the price of the US C-17. At that price we can afford to go for US style airlift capability. The cost advantage is much more one sided than mentioned. We are allowed to pay for goods in rupees with Russia! So instead of losing precious foreign exchange, Russians are going to need to buy stuff from us to come out ahead.

I am suggesting we replace Ukraine as the partner. We can make things cheaper than even China. It's a win/win for both sides. Russia gets more orders and cheaper costs, we get technology and better plane than anything else available on the market.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9243
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby brar_w » 20 Aug 2014 18:01

What is the CPFH of the Russian aircraft? Do you realize that lifetime O&S costs far exceed the acquisition costs? The main areas where the C-17 performs very well is CPFH and its mission reliability while operating both during wartime and peacetime with multiple operators. Another thing you do is take an FMS setup of the cost of the C-17 to India (which includes a lot more things) and compare it to the cost of a Russian system by taking not an FMS like setup but a straight cost from they great resource known as WIKIPEDIA - The same source that mentions the cost of the C-17 to be 218 Million per aircraft (2007 dollars) as the fly-away. Simply put an FMS deal is not simply the unit fly away cost of the aircraft divided by the total number acquired it includes a lot of stuff from spares, to depot's to contracts with the OEM for long term support and training the cost of which differs from buyer to buyer depending on whether the buyer wants a complete training (Most ME customers) or wants just initial training and USAF support (most likely what India negotiated). Coming back to the overall cost of strategic airlift - If you did any sort of math you'd realize that the O&S costs of the aircraft over its scheduled lifetime + life extentions is significantly more (think 2x - 3x) than the unit recurring fly away cost of the aircraft. This has been true for both modern military aircraft (fighters to bombers to transport) and civilian commercial aircraft. Over the years, as technology has matured customers both in the military and commercial domain have been more than happy to pay more upfront for a capability that greatly reduces the overall lifetime cost of the aircraft. For transport aircraft (both military and commercial) this comes from a very low (relatively) CPFH coupled with very high mission reliability/readiness. A peacetime mission availability rate of around 80% will ensure that the fleet planners can count on a much higher wartime readiness and as such plan fleet strength accordingly..Lower that number and one has to buy more aircraft which translates to more expensive acquisition costs, grater lifetime O&S costs, greater logistical footprint, greater training costs and more hours flown per year. In the commercial domain aircraft from Airbus and Boeing routinely achieve dispatch rates of over 99% (with a large enough sample). If the current generation of Commercial jetliners coupled with the AFRL programs maturing designs for the NG heavy lift are any indication the next crop of lifters (C-130 and C-17 replacement) would most likely bring a 25% - 30% lower O&S costs and because of this would easily justify around 50% greater procurement cost.

The rest of your posts is the routine anti-American system position you regularly take..with the exception that you did not call the C-17 obese..
Last edited by brar_w on 20 Aug 2014 18:57, edited 1 time in total.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby KiranM » 20 Aug 2014 18:21

Rien wrote:I am suggesting we replace Ukraine as the partner. We can make things cheaper than even China. It's a win/win for both sides. Russia gets more orders and cheaper costs, we get technology and better plane than anything else available on the market.

And I guess the 'replacement' will happen out of thin air with no capital needed to set up facilities, tooling, training and supply chain of Ukraine's share in a different continent. This is assuming Russians are going to gift us the 'technology'.
If not, all the talk of An-124 being cheaper than C-17 is just hot air.

We do not need Heavy lift aircraft in numbers to necessitate developing ourselves or partnering with someone. We need at the most <50 and best way is to buy it from a line which is available as of now with good life cycle support. There are other ways to ensure or workaround this support during testing times like sanctions. That is why I trust IAF when they choose to pick Khan's maal for transports and not for fighters.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, Google [Bot], ks_sachin, ravikr and 62 guests