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.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3891
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby deejay » 27 Apr 2015 11:33

^^^ IAF only provides aircraft, containers would come from the agencies providing / handling the relief, in this case GOI. Men and material is supplied as required by GOI. IAF deploys the aircraft and men under the local administrative control or the concerned Central minitries control.

Sumair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 02 Jun 2001 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Sumair » 27 Apr 2015 11:57

Post-Nepal earthquake evacuation operation success, IAF to buy three more C-17 aircraft

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 063979.cms

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4723
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kartik » 27 Apr 2015 12:30

srin wrote:The key to transport aircraft is availability and payload. So, either we should assemble it locally or we should get a variant of popular civilian aircraft. Otherwise, in a decade or so, essential spares will be very difficult and consequently, very expensive to procure. IL-76 all over again.

Okay - C17s are a strategic buy. But I'm a bit skeptical about the C-130s. Aren't we paying premium for special-ops configured C-130s (which is perfectly fine) and using them as regular transports ?

We should get assembly line to manufacture Boeing (Air India has purchased so many 787s) and Airbus (A-330 is fine) with their modified variants here.


Special Ops configured C-130Js don't just have to be used for Special Ops..after all, such missions will come up mostly during training and exercises and not on a daily basis..in the meanwhile, you cannot have such a useful asset being un-utilized when they can more than handily take up regular transport roles.

And there is no question of getting assembly lines for either 787s or A330s with an order for 27 units..it just won't make any economic sense at all. You'd need to have orders for 100+ of these to be able to justify the massive investment in infra and training that would be required.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4723
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kartik » 27 Apr 2015 12:36

kmkraoind wrote:Next time, IAF should buy a decent number of low cost standardized containers, so that they can pack more neatly and efficiently.
Image
Vikas Swarup ‏@MEAIndia

#IndiaWithNepal 22 tonnes of food packets, 120 large oxygen cylinders moved yesterday. More enroute today morning.


Why? Those standard containers are generally useful when carrying regular cargo, but for relief supplies, there is nothing wrong in carrying it this way, just as long as the cargo is well secured.

kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby kmkraoind » 27 Apr 2015 12:47

Kartik wrote:Why? Those standard containers are generally useful when carrying regular cargo, but for relief supplies, there is nothing wrong in carrying it this way, just as long as the cargo is well secured.


Yep, appears so, they are well secured and are easily moved between ground and craft.
Image
Image
Image
Image

Courtesy by
✈Anantha Krishnan M✈ ‏@writetake

#NepalEarthquake A C-17 GlobemasterIII aircraft gets loaded with relief materials for Nepal. @satbasani @Chopsyturvey

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 27 Apr 2015 14:33

Good news on three more.

The stuff (in those pics) are on pallets (the thin stuff in the very first pic above is a pallet) and the C-17 also can deal with containers (which it has).

BTW, rescue, relief, etc are factored in when the buy such planes - wear-tear etc includes such things. This is not just a military plane.

Viv S,

There is a diff between those birds and the new ones. Unless the IAF gets them upgraded (like heck), I just do not see it happening. First vs. third class.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3409
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Aditya G » 27 Apr 2015 18:24

Austin wrote:Since IAF is opting for A-330 for AWACS/Tanker role , They should simply buy more A-330 for Standard Cargo Transport and Troop/Civic Ferring role....


At present armed forces are chartering civvie aircraft for flights. I have seen atleast 2-3 companies of troops in fatigues descend on a luggage belt at IGI one time.

Perhaps A330 MRTT will play part of the transport role as it has seating intact.

I better solution will be to resurrect Auxilliary Air Force and equip one squadron at Delhi with commercial aircraft for all such mofussil jobs.

tejk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby tejk » 27 Apr 2015 20:36

imho,
1. Containerised cargo is good but there is an issue of reverse logistics. What can be brought back in those containers ? It could lead to piling up of such containers at the destination or wastage of cargo space on the empty legs if brought back.
2. IAF has optimised its flights now by taking cargo to Nepal and bringing back stranded tourists on the return leg.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 27 Apr 2015 22:17

A A-330 tanker/transport has a role to play. The question is how much of it is valid for the Indian scenario. Tom at least, what they IAF is saying is that the C-17 is the best out there for the IAF.

IF they need converted civilian planes, they might as well lease them at the right time. I would think that is far more optimal use of the funds.


BTW, the USAF leases civilian planes like crazy. Even the ANs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8087
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby brar_w » 27 Apr 2015 22:25

Leasing is approved for the USAF if it can demonstrate that surges in demand (usually these surges last for a few years) are not significant enough to warrant a fleet that has staffing, and fleet size implications for decades. If they can show that the surge demands a temporary increase in lift they are allowed to lease. No need to start to increase fleet size of your requirements are only going to spike up for less than a decade.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2263
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby VinodTK » 28 Apr 2015 03:57

Avro replacement order for new patrol aircraft may expand to Rs 17,500 crore
NEW DELHI: The mega Rs 12,000 crore pilot project for the Indian private industry to manufacture military transport aircraft is set to get bigger with the Coast Guard adding its requirement for new patrol aircraft to the plan.

ET has learnt that the Avro replacement programme, for which the Tata-Airbus combine is the frontrunner, will be expanded to add the Rs 5,500-crore Coast Guard requirement for a Multi Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMMA).

Sources said that the Coast Guard has initiated its requirement for six new aircraft for sea reconnaissance to be developed by DRDO and is requesting the defence ministry to club it with the ongoing programme to replace the Avro transport fleet of the air force.

This would give a fillip to the Avro replacement programme that is currently stuck as the ministry is yet to take a view on whether to go ahead with negotiations with the Tata-Airbus combine that has that has emerged as the single bidder.

The total value of this contract is now overRs 17,500 crore for a total of 62 aircraft. Further additions to this number are not being ruled out as the Navy too could have similar requirements.

While it is still unclear how the addition would affect the ongoing process to replace the Avro fleet, sources said that the views of the Gokhale committee that was set up by the Defence Minister to review the project has come in. It is believed that while the report does not have a negative view on taking forward the contract with a single vendor, there is room for ambiguity that will now require a political call by South Block.

Much like the Rafale purchase that required intervention from the top leadership to take forward the procurement, a definite political direction will be vital for the Avro replacement that can go either ways on the basis of the Gokhale committee report.

In the meantime, other competit including an Italian and Ukrainian firm have also written to the Defence Ministry, expressing their interest in the project in a bit to pip the Airbus-Tata consortium that is offering the C295 medium transport airlifter.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2263
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby VinodTK » 28 Apr 2015 04:02

India seeking follow-on support for C-130J aircraft
WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- A Foreign Military Sale deal to provide follow-on support to India for C-130J Super Hercules transports in is in the works.

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees the FMS program, has submitted the required notification of the proposed sale to Congress and said the U.S. State Department had already approved it.

"India needs this support for its Super Hercules aircraft to ensure its aircraft operate effectively to serve its transport, local and international humanitarian assistance, and regional disaster relief needs," DSCA said. "This proposed sale of additional equipment and support will enable the Indian Air Force to sustain a higher mission-ready status for its C-130J fleet."

The value of the support package is about $96 million.

The proposed package deal includes the supply of eight AN/ALE-47 counter-measures dispensing systems, six spare AN/ALR-56M advanced radar warning receivers, as many as 9,000 flare cartridges, spare and repair parts, configuration updates, and support and test equipment.

Logistics services would also be part of the deal.

The principal contractor would be Lockheed-Martin. U.S. government and/or contractor personnel would not be required to travel to India upon implementation of the sale, DSCA said.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Hitesh » 28 Apr 2015 04:19

C-17s offer pressurized holds while Il-76 do not. That makes a big difference. C-17s have proved their worth and mettle during the last couple months. IAF should go for another 10 planes if a budget could be found. I would just do away with the Il-76s and make the C-17 as the mainstay of IAF's strategic airlift.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 28 Apr 2015 06:31

Hitesh,

Commerce is blinding. What will 3 more add. By their 80% availability thats 2ish. For $1++B. What is this pressurized cargo? Where is it going?

If there is a case to be made here, there needs to be proper presentation of facts. The 76s are bringing back people by 200s too.

If someone (whoever, not any particular person) wants to push Boeings jnterests at least show some facts instead of blind faith statements. This is not ramjanmabhumi.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Hitesh » 28 Apr 2015 21:01

If the cargo hold is not pressurized and you are carrying people, you are limited to ferry people under 15000 ft. That puts a huge cramp in your ability to ferry people in a wide range of circumstances. Unpressurized holds make for very uncomfortable flights.

Besides, the factory that produces Il-76s have closed down meaning there are little spare parts and you are resorted to cannabilizing spare parts from other planes or go on a treasure hunting mission for spare parts around the world.

The boeing factory has indeed closed down but they have produced a huge depot of spare parts and do have factories producing those spare parts because of USAF's C-17s and other countries's C-17s so India can be assured of spares availability for its planes.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kersi D » 28 Apr 2015 21:05

When IAF opted for the C 17 all hell break loose. Several of us self styled arm experts described it as a white / red / black / orange elephant / donkey mule.

When C 17 proved itself in the Yemen crisis I do not see / hear them.

During the Nepal crisis I do not see / hear these "experts". Where are they ?

Oh they are helping IAF to load relief material on C 17

K

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 29 Apr 2015 01:54

Hitesh, Kersi,

It is not a two horse race.

Please do note that this whole -- we need a 100 tonne transporter -- is unqualified. And it cant be a "forever" requirement unless you have expeditionary designs. India shouldnt need to treat portions of India/Nepal/Bhutan as expeditions. And even then it cant forever be sustained with imports.

Just where are these airfields above 15000 feet. Kathmandu is NOT an example. They arent willing to put tarmak down on places like DBO. Is it Leh? Can it alone host 13? Is it justified?

The C17 has proved nothing. Not in Nepal, and Not in yemen. People arguing against billion dollar imports are still shouting just as they always were. There is no supporting evidence re. the C17 proving itself. Anecdotal evidence of anonymous or passing statements re. a new craft are not evidence. The same fanfare met the MKI, which is clearly out of favor now and crashing and unserviceable.

Nothing changes. Bofors bad --> Kargil. Pakistan gets F16 --> Mig29 or M2000. The common factor is import and screwdrivergiri. IL76 ->IL476 but they arent building spare parts. C17 -> ?? but they are well stocked up?

Neither builds any capacity to actually do a little more than symbolic effort. I know this doesnt change any opinions, but there isnt anything worth gloating over for C17 yet. Produce some numbers, some comparative analysis. Something more than "the IAF is happy".

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 29 Apr 2015 02:55

NRao wrote:Viv S,

There is a diff between those birds and the new ones. Unless the IAF gets them upgraded (like heck), I just do not see it happening. First vs. third class.


From what I can tell, the primary difference between the early and later blocks is the option of range extending tanks and avionics. But otherwise they appear to be quite similar.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -block.htm

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/did ... hip-02756/

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cosmo_R » 29 Apr 2015 03:44

Kersi D wrote:When IAF opted for the C 17 all hell break loose. Several of us self styled arm experts described it as a white / red / black / orange elephant / donkey mule.

When C 17 proved itself in the Yemen crisis I do not see / hear them.

During the Nepal crisis I do not see / hear these "experts". Where are they ?

Oh they are helping IAF to load relief material on C 17

K


+1

Perhaps the critics are trying to figure out where the Antonovs are

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150401/1020315511.html

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cosmo_R » 29 Apr 2015 03:50

Hitesh wrote:C-17s offer pressurized holds while Il-76 do not. That makes a big difference. C-17s have proved their worth and mettle during the last couple months. IAF should go for another 10 planes if a budget could be found. I would just do away with the Il-76s and make the C-17 as the mainstay of IAF's strategic airlift.


So how come you're not drawing the same ankle biters I did when I suggested the same. Hitesh you gotta give me your ankle biter repellent formula :)

We should plead/cajole/threaten Boeing to let us buy a dozen more C-17s and junk the IL-76s. Sell them on eBay.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1598
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby andy B » 29 Apr 2015 04:15

Shreeman wrote:Hitesh, Kersi,

It is not a two horse race.

Please do note that this whole -- we need a 100 tonne transporter -- is unqualified. And it cant be a "forever" requirement unless you have expeditionary designs. India shouldnt need to treat portions of India/Nepal/Bhutan as expeditions. And even then it cant forever be sustained with imports.

Just where are these airfields above 15000 feet. Kathmandu is NOT an example. They arent willing to put tarmak down on places like DBO. Is it Leh? Can it alone host 13? Is it justified?

The C17 has proved nothing. Not in Nepal, and Not in yemen. People arguing against billion dollar imports are still shouting just as they always were. There is no supporting evidence re. the C17 proving itself. Anecdotal evidence of anonymous or passing statements re. a new craft are not evidence. The same fanfare met the MKI, which is clearly out of favor now and crashing and unserviceable.

Nothing changes. Bofors bad --> Kargil. Pakistan gets F16 --> Mig29 or M2000. The common factor is import and screwdrivergiri. IL76 ->IL476 but they arent building spare parts. C17 -> ?? but they are well stocked up?

Neither builds any capacity to actually do a little more than symbolic effort. I know this doesnt change any opinions, but there isnt anything worth gloating over for C17 yet. Produce some numbers, some comparative analysis. Something more than "the IAF is happy".


Shreeman ji while I agree with most aspects of the above post I would humbly suggest that we shouldn't make the call on Rambha so quickly. To say that its crashing and unserviceable is a very broad call with negative connotations. The platform has now been in active service for over a decade and the number of crashes relative to the size of the fleet and hours they fly provide for quite frankly a most impressive record. The serviceability issues are compounded by the fact that the MRO facility is coming online a decade after platform entering service and is simply not ideal.

I think the only way we can ever truly start standing up is if we can encourage engineering and building initiatives at the core level and focus on core R&D which will still take a decade or two to yield proper results. We need to focus on developing the middle market enterprises that support the big giants and produce a plethora of sub components in the larger manufacturing chain (note some of this has started happening already). I much prefer developing smaller core enterprises with diversified skill sets than big monsters straight away in the form of the very large private players. Just my 2 naya paisa.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 29 Apr 2015 04:35

andy,

This was precisely the point. There will never be any mention of an indigenous product. But even in the phoren mall, the same people who say C17 (out of production, buy buy buy) >>>> IL76, also say Rafale (buy buy buy) >>>>Su30.

There is not an iota of truth in either contention. They wont even bother to look over the disaster thread or see flightradar24 (KTM puts out all data of everything coming and going).

Just like American 1M aid >>> 1B indian aid, it sufficient to repeat and repeat the same better than gold nonsense until people stop questioning the new 1++B purchase.

The C17 etc carry a greater commission rate than the IL76s. That is all there is to it. There are two IL76s being shipped for new AWACs to israel as we speak. But must buy moar C17, must buy moar C17.

Bleh.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3904
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Apr 2015 04:44

Hitesh wrote:If the cargo hold is not pressurized and you are carrying people, you are limited to ferry people under 15000 ft. That puts a huge cramp in your ability to ferry people in a wide range of circumstances. Unpressurized holds make for very uncomfortable flights.

Besides, the factory that produces Il-76s have closed down meaning there are little spare parts and you are resorted to cannabilizing spare parts from other planes or go on a treasure hunting mission for spare parts around the world.

The boeing factory has indeed closed down but they have produced a huge depot of spare parts and do have factories producing those spare parts because of USAF's C-17s and other countries's C-17s so India can be assured of spares availability for its planes.



Kersi Saar,

C17s are all fine and dandy, but the point is could some other bird not have done the same thing? Did we absolutely NEED these C17s to get the job done in Yemen and Nepal. What did we do in GWI - largest evac ever? No C17s then sir?

The only purpose behind the C17s imho was quid pro quid for the nuke deal and perhaps that has been worth it - only time will tell.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 29 Apr 2015 04:50

Hitesh wrote:C-17s offer pressurized holds while Il-76 do not. That makes a big difference. C-17s have proved their worth and mettle during the last couple months. IAF should go for another 10 planes if a budget could be found. I would just do away with the Il-76s and make the C-17 as the mainstay of IAF's strategic airlift.


BTW, the Russians had provided an estimate to the IAF, of how many IL-476s the IAF may need, way before the C-17 even came into the picture.

WRT the IL-76s, in 2010 itself they were sent to be upgraded, but the upgrades were limited. It was determined - at that time - that the ROI on the IL-76s (that the IAF had) was not worth the while:

Notably, as the Phalcon radars are heavy, the IL 76 airlifters have been upgraded with more powerful PS-90 engines, the cost though for them is quite high and not considered appropriate for upgrading the IAF’s fleet of less than 20 old Soviet-vintage Il 76 aircraft


and:

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.


Somewhere in between:
* IAF issues a global tender for spares, etc
* IL-76 in IAF inventory declines to less than 50% availability, and
* Of course the (in)famous C-17 deal


On the flip side, in 2012 there was an effort to revive the production of the IL-76 (itself):

Russia to resume production of IL-76

which apparently did not pan out.

And the IL-476 has gone nowhere so far(as far as I can see - could be wrong). India did not bite. Nor did China. The Russians by themselves were unable to keep it afloat.

Then, in 2014:

Mass production of advanced transport aircraft Ermak should be started in 2024

Ilyushin Company plans to start the development of next-generation transport aircraft dubbed Ermak in 2016, Interfax-AVN reports.

"In 2016 we are going to start the development of a family of heavy transport aircraft with a payload of 80 tons and more. These are wide-body aircraft. The next-generation transport aircraft was dubbed Ermak. It is planned to start the airliner’s mass production in 2024", - CEO of Ilyushin Company, Sergey Sergeev, said.

He noted that Ilyushin Company is facing a great challenge. The whole transport aircraft fleet must be replaced: light, medium, heavy and long-range heavy aircraft segments. "We hope to start the development of a military-transport aircraft with a payload of under 20 tons as soon as possible (the aircraft will replace An-12 vehicles) in the network of MTA project, which is being implemented by Russia and India", - S.Sergeev added.


So, the IL-476 is not even out, but they have identified a need for redoing the entire line. Including a competitor for the IL-76/476.

THAT from the CEO of the Ilyushin company.


The IL-76 was a great air craft. It did yeoman service within the IAF. No two ways about it. Just that the time has come to replace it. No two ways about it.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 29 Apr 2015 04:59

My position remains -- no $$B export/import to anyone from anyone.

Now, re. IL -- there are recent pictures of the new AWACS for india going to israel on a barge or train floating on the interwebs. Can someone find and post?

This is from 2014:
Image
Painting of first serial Il-76MD-90A aircraft was completed

Painting of first serial Il-76MD-90A transport aircraft was completed. The jet was decorated with “Ulyanovsk” sign and the emblem of Ulyanovsk Region, the press-service reports.

For the first time ever Russian-produced polyurethane enamel was used for painting Il-76MD-90A. The All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Aviation Materials (VIAM) developed special enamels VE-69 and VE-71 for the upgraded “Il” aircraft. «The special feature of this paint is that it is almost matt rather than gloss. It has better spreadability and lower shagreen. VE-71 enamel has high abrasion and temperature resistance when applied to composites. These features are part of requirements set by the Russian military-transport aviation. These enamels also have some special protective properties», - First Deputy CEO of Spektr Avia, Vitaly Alexandrovich Zotov, explained.

The jet in the livery approved by Russian Ministry of Defense was delivered to Aviastar-SP in order to start planned ground and flight testing.

Il-76MD-90A was derived from Il-76MD aircraft, which was manufactured in Uzbekistan by Tashkent Aviation Production Association named after V.P. Chkalov.

Russian Ministry of Defense signed a contract for delivery of 39 Il-76MD-90A transport aircraft in October 2012 at a meeting held by the president of Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin.


This is from 2014: http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/56961/
Image
This is specific to IL78 versions
Deliveries of new Il-78M-90A tanker aircraft to Russian air forces will be started in 2018
Russian Aviaton » Wednesday March 11, 2015 16:57 MSK

Deliveries of new Il-78M-90A tanker aircraft to Russian air forces will be started in 2018, RIA Novosti reports with reference to a source close to the Russian military-industrial sector.

This Il-78M-90A aircraft will be the first tanker aircraft manufactured in Russia. Earlier all the tankers were assembled by Tashkent Aviation Production Association named after V.P. Chkalov (TAPOiCh, Uzbekistan).

“It is expected that the first Il-78M-90A will be delivered to the air forces in 2018,” the source noted.

This February United Aircraft Corporation said that Ulyanovsk Aviation Plant started production of first Il-78M-90A prototype.

Il-78M-90A derived from Il-76MD-90A aircraft will be the primary tanker aircraft used to refuel aircraft operated by long-range, frontline and special aviation.

The jet allows refueling two aircraft simultaneously (like Su-27 and MiG-29) using fueling equipment mounted on its wing. The tail fueling equipment is designed for refueling of long-range and special aviation aircraft


No one is questioning that C17s are out of production or that India is still buying ILs as well. So why is the C17 still in contention let alone being bought out of remaining stock?

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cosmo_R » 29 Apr 2015 05:05

^^^AndyB : "I think the only way we can ever truly start standing up is if we can encourage engineering and building initiatives at the core level and focus on core R&D which will still take a decade or two to yield proper results."

True but we've all been saying the same thing for decades. Point is for two or three dozen a/c you cannot 'manufacture' and become self reliant because you don't have economies of scale. For the longest time, the IAF could not not even source tires for the SU-30 in India because of 'IP' issues.

The pro Russian ankle biters get all silly when we talk common sense: the C-17s and C-130s are the a/c of choice when you need high availability and capacity. But they rejoice when obsolete Russian planes are sent Israel to be refitted as AWACs.

As others have observed, the the IL-76s and AN-x are way past sell by the thought of sending them to Ukraine for service and rely on the Ukies for spares boggles the mind. The MTA is another science project we can fund for the Russians and prolong the HAL stranglehold.

Need money to do this? Close down Air India which buys a lot of Boeings and routinely requires $1bn in subsidies to convert money into national disgrace. Of course, they do provide in flight entertainment (Pilot/co-pilot/cabin attendants punch each other). Sell the 787s/777s and exchange them for the C-17s for the IAF

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 29 Apr 2015 05:12

Cosmo,

This isnt a cohesive post worth a response.

The IL airframes being shipped to israel are new built in russia. When DRDO is buying A330, why is IAF buying moar ILs? Want to spread around $$B.

There are no availability numbers available for same age comparisons. Nor any requirement analysis showing use of pressurization.

The "but its only XX planes" is a side effect of the fact they cost $$B. You will only think xx planes as long as you import.

I have hit a wall with this. Go ahead, import moar.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 29 Apr 2015 06:21

Both the (April 23, 2015) under negotiation IL-76 A-50 Phalcon and the C-17 are options that India held. India held 2 for the Phalcons and 6 for the C-17s.

The replacement to the IL-76 A-50 Phalcon is the A330 based AWACS.

(Russia sends completed air crafts to Israel - A-50s that fly in. What was on those barges is anyone's guess.)

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3548
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Paul » 29 Apr 2015 06:34

Looks like Nepal Air Force is still flogging Caribous, saw one on DD Kathmandu airport.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 29 Apr 2015 07:12

NRao wrote:Both the (April 23, 2015) under negotiation IL-76 A-50 Phalcon and the C-17 are options that India held. India held 2 for the Phalcons and 6 for the C-17s.

The replacement to the IL-76 A-50 Phalcon is the A330 based AWACS.

(Russia sends completed air crafts to Israel - A-50s that fly in. What was on those barges is anyone's guess.)


In that case, they apparently go on the barges/trains now to be assembled before flown, must be part of the new production arrangement. The trains or barges had wings, radome, body and tail separately placed in protective covering. The post noted these were for India and going to Israel (after assembly). No idea why the barges/trains. Didnt appear to have engines. I figured someone else will post them here eventually and ignored. Around the time they first said MpNet was shutting down, someone posted them on one of the various sites.

The point is they are still building ILs and India is still buying them. If A330 is the replacement, why not use it for the options too?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 29 Apr 2015 10:51

Shreeman wrote:In that case, they apparently go on the barges/trains now to be assembled before flown, must be part of the new production arrangement. The trains or barges had wings, radome, body and tail separately placed in protective covering. The post noted these were for India and going to Israel (after assembly). No idea why the barges/trains. Didnt appear to have engines. I figured someone else will post them here eventually and ignored. Around the time they first said MpNet was shutting down, someone posted them on one of the various sites.

The point is they are still building ILs and India is still buying them. If A330 is the replacement, why not use it for the options too?


I've seen the pictures you're referring to, but aside from an unsourced caption there was no way to confirm that the airframes were indeed heading to Israel.

I'm skeptical. No IL-76 airframes would be built/dispatched until an actual contract has been signed with India. And if a $1.5 billion contract had already been signed, it would have been reported in the press. Its far too big an amount to keep under wraps.

Much more likely that they were parts for the new Beriev A-100 for the Russian Air Force.

Russia's A-100 AEW&C platform almost ready for production - Janes

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 29 Apr 2015 11:25

True. No reason for posters to not claim they were russian modernisation. No reason to say they were Indian. Relatively non-controversial, the subject. So I let it pass.

Here though, the immediate question was that the ILs werent being made. That is clearly not the case. There are three types that have shown up in last six months. The other two pictured before, and this one. As long as we agree they are still knocking together IL airframes, there is not much to do but wait for an official release/pressti..e blog post.

They arent restarting a C17 line. That is a real difference. Now the argument is between an in production system and a closed shop. Why wont IAF buy M2000s -> not being made. Why will IAF buy C17 -> not being made. I am scratching my brains on this one for a logical answer. Availability or pressurisation dont cut it. Flying to international airports -- What, is it a prototype?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 29 Apr 2015 11:29

The point is they are still building ILs and India is still buying them.


The real point is that India was offered the IL-476 and India declined that offer (For whatever reason).

As posted above IL themselves have stated they are hitting the drawing board ........... for another heavy (above). Not my statement, it is a quote from the CEO of Ilyushin!!!

There are just too many pointers that the IL-76 is dead - as far as India is concerned. Outside of the two they are [u]negotiating[\u] that is. Even those two are options - NOT new purchases.

So, I have no idea what your argument is.

To me it is simple, in with the C-17, out with the IL-76.

Not my call.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 29 Apr 2015 11:35

I cant argue with that. The IAF went with the american choice -- then. Options are new purchases. Just because they werent negotiated again doesnt make their purchase date 5 years ago. And I thought 2 of the awacs and three of the 17s.

My argument is that the extra three now add nothing. And the long term resolution is starting a heavy helicopter and a heavy plane development now long before the C17s/IL76s are due for retirement. I am simply opposing imports of opportunity rather than need. You have 3 Emb135s?, 5 76s, 2? A330s and an equal unholy mix on the tanker and transport side. This sanction proofing (or bankrolling, who knows) business has gone far enough.

ps -- all design bureaus (ADA, HAL included) are always hitting the design board. Thats what they do. The 76 and 476, and 78 with PS90 and the A50 with PS90 exist and are being built. The images are proof enough. Future designs a la MTA are not relevant. Boeing etc are pitching future designs too. Equally weird ones.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 29 Apr 2015 12:09

I cant argue with that. The IAF went with the american choice -- then. Options are new purchases. Just because they werent negotiated again doesnt make their purchase date 5 years ago. And I thought 2 of the awacs and three of the 17s.


Purchases: 10 C-17s. We know they are coming. Old.
Options: 6 C-17s. We know they may come. Neither old nor new.
New purchases: 7 C-17s. New.

The 2 IL-76 A-50s are options too. But still under negotiations.

My argument is that the extra three now add nothing.


Some cal it "Pivot", India calls it "Act East".

India has reached the SCS. Will need to extend it to Vladivostok.

IAF has IDed 23 C-17s as their need. IF they had teh funds - which they do not.

And the long term resolution is starting a heavy helicopter and a heavy plane development now long before the C17s/IL76s are due for retirement. I am simply opposing imports of opportunity rather than need. You have 3 Emb135s?, 5 76s, 2? A330s and an equal unholy mix on the tanker and transport side. This sanction proofing (or bankrolling, who knows) business has gone far enough.


No idea what you are saying here.

ps -- all design bureaus (ADA, HAL included) are always hitting the design board. Thats what they do. The 76 and 476, and 78 with PS90 and the A50 with PS90 exist and are being built. The images are proof enough. Future designs a la MTA are not relevant. Boeing etc are pitching future designs too. Equally weird ones.


The point is that there is a correlation between the IL-476 and the new proposal. IF the 476 had done very well, I doubt they would have invested in the new plane - so early. There would have been no need. I suspect that the 476 could not compete. India and China the two big backers backed off. Tells you something there.

Also, my recollection is that the Russian MOD did not pay even the base price for the IL-476, expecting IL to make the money via exports. Which did not happen. Which is why I think it failed.

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby member_20453 » 29 Apr 2015 12:54

Actually the C-17 is proving itself ever since it has joined the IAF livery, from Rwanda, Yemen to now Nepal, the bird is flying at very high availability and transporting more than ever out to longer ranges. All the critics need to STFU. By far one of the smartest buy in recent times from IAF. A Single C-17 today arrived with well over 230 Indians onboard. C-17s will continue to be supported, factory or no factory considering there are tens of AFs using plenty of them including the USAF. All this chatter about the IL-76 is useless, the aircraft will never be able to match the reliability, availability of the C-17 in the IAF. I hope they buy the remaining 6 more.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 29 Apr 2015 12:59

I think IAF has a AMC type contract with the vendor of p8, c17, c130 which states a certain % uptime is to be maintained.

we all know russian kit has more downtime in this dept. in the past they made up for it with more airframes but no possible now. their airframe life is also much less. B52 is still hauling coal round 55 years after being built.

the western approach won - just count how many 25+ yr birds like tornados, alphajets, mirage-III, mirage-V, F-solah, M2K, Jaguars are still patrolling the skies and compare to numbers of Mig21, Mig23, Mig29 and Mig25. IAF would retire all the Bisons tomorrow if someone gave them 75 new planes.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 29 Apr 2015 13:44

Facts are few and far between/none. You buy a premium maintenance contract for one lot, fly them to international airports and call it a win. I dont. These aircraft provided nothing unique. Half the countries sent in regular cargo craft. And the IL76s shared the burden. It was a waste of C17 fuselage hours.

The western approach didnt win. Not by an inch. The sukhois are 25+ years now, arent they? As are the Mig29s, and the 31s and the su25s are much oldet. As are the Su22s etc. The Il76s and An32s? The entire chinese air force? What exactly is the point? There are several thousand eastern birds still flying.

And Baki M3/m5s fall out of sky all the time. why? Why exactly is the F16 a lawndart? Did that refueler that just went missing over the channel mean anything? Arent the indian jaguars and M2000s crashing? The claims were the same re. civil craft, now how many B7xx/A3xx have sent people to never never land since we last heard a russian jet die?

The whole claim of supremecy is hollow and reeks of TFTA fandom. I see 25+ year old 76s from russia, china and india on the same tarmak with these fancy jets. IAF ones still carry their tail, so are not even upgraded in any way.

In the end, the salesmen saw the opportunity to cash in on the earthquake, just like the charities. And no amount of denying it will bring back the 1++B dollars into the treasury.

Manufacturing 24 squadrons onlee to demand the rafale is easy. Su30 have 50% availability. Come, on.

And its HALs fault when it screws up the IJT and the LCA, and the HTT. But with the russian stuff they are experts and masters. Quality or suitability had nothing to do with this contest. Like every other aircraft contest since Westland. Not the new Augusta Westland. The original ones, remember them? They werent russian.

This is just as bent out of shape as the arjun vs T90 debate. Importing makes a lot of people rich. Outside of the exporters. Why am I even arguing this? I dont have a horse in this race. I dont support Boeing or Illushin, both are the devil reincarnate.

ps -- the 21 was a short legged interceptor. should have though about this before making 700 (or however many that were assembled) of them.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Nikhil T » 29 Apr 2015 16:12

India orders $96 Million worth of spares and support for C-130Js

From DSCA notification:
The Government of India has requested a possible sale for follow on support for five years for their fleet of C-130J Super Hercules that includes 8 spare AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems, 6 spare AN/ALR-56M Advanced Radar Warning Receivers, up to 9,000 flare cartridges, spare and repair parts, configuration updates, support and test equipment, publications and technical data, technical services, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $96.0 million.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 29 Apr 2015 17:02

did anyone respond to the global tender floated to support the IL76 fleet and maintain a certain uptime?

if not , how are we managing ? are certain airframes being cannibalized to keep the rest flying ?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jandash00, nam, VipinM and 80 guests