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: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Aug 2015 05:56

BTW, check the news item on the fgfa. RM coined a new phrase: "experimental design".

Russians are not to be trusted??????

Cannot say with certainty, but I think the MTA is DOA.

A quote from the keypub article:

- Who can be our rival in the Indian market and offer an alternative solution?

We compete with Brazilian KC-390, upgraded "Hercules» C-130, a few years will be upgraded on the basis of a Chinese freighter An-12.


That sir, is a quote from the Russian. Same Russian interviewee you mention? That would be a travesty.

http://www.aex.ru/m/docs/7/2015/7/3/2266/

A far better business opportunity would be to open a C-130 line in India.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 05 Aug 2015 08:39

nachiket wrote:
Shreeman wrote:Viv,

This is fudging the data. FOD for fighters -- entirely different intakes, takeoff runs, and engine performance -- and commercial craft can not be compared. If there were other fighters routinely taking off from the strip you would have an argument. Right now, its just false equivalence and bad mouthing an in service aircraft.

The Harriers didn't seem to have this problem. And Viv S is right. The Mig-29's at least have a foreign object screen on their intakes (although I don't know whether it is used during taxi only or even during takeoff). The A320's and especially B737's that routinely take off from the same strip have low mounted engines and should be suffering from the same issues if the runway was that bad.


Nachiket,

Harrier numbers were few to none during this time and their take off run is nothing like the 29. Do note that that the harrier is already notoriously unreliable during take off and landing and many accidents have happened. You cant compare the turbofans of 320/737s with a 29k engine. Do also note that FOD damage, even if routinely suffered by those commercial craft will not be noted here. Noone was happy about the state of the runway, in part permitted to degenerate because of intentions to commercialise the airport, private property around it completely. There were noises about this in the media. Again this is nothing except badmouthing the 29k.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21151
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 05 Aug 2015 18:29

The screens were removed in later birds and I don't think that naval 29Ks operating from a carrier would've had them installed. Anyway,that's what the media report said was the cause. If there are other reasons,then operations out of Dega should suffer the same problems. We had the aircraft with us some time before the Vik-A arrived.So the history of the 29K in IN ops should give a clear picture. The fact is that the runway was in awful state,with urgent repairs being done every year. This may be due to the extra number of flights to Goa including many charters from abroad including....Russia! :rotfl:

PS:Great aircraft though it is,numbers are too small for a C-130J production set up. We are the last in a long line of nations that operate it!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Aug 2015 19:03

As usual FUD and the sun rises from the South. There seem to be problems with the MiG-29K engines post Dabolim and Dega (where they were on a tmp basis in 2013(?)). Which is what the assurance about single engine take-off is about.

But, dog's tail ..........................

On:

PS:Great aircraft though it is,numbers are too small for a C-130J production set up. We are the last in a long line of nations that operate it!


The comment was in reference to "PM Modi certainly won't turn down the business opportunity the MTA represents". So, if the C-130 (NOT the C-130J) were to replace the MTA (per the Russian expert it can), then the 45 MTA C-130 would make perfect business sense for Modiji. France is buying 4 more too and there are perhaps a few more nations that would be still interested.

But ................. zimble logic and reading posts is not a strength. Wot 2 du?



I think Modi should propose selling 105 Indian made C-130s to the Russians.

#BusinessOpportunity

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Hobbes » 06 Aug 2015 06:21

Philip wrote:The screens were removed in later birds and I don't think that naval 29Ks operating from a carrier would've had them installed. Anyway,that's what the media report said was the cause. If there are other reasons,then operations out of Dega should suffer the same problems. We had the aircraft with us some time before the Vik-A arrived.So the history of the 29K in IN ops should give a clear picture. The fact is that the runway was in awful state,with urgent repairs being done every year. This may be due to the extra number of flights to Goa including many charters from abroad including....Russia! :rotfl:
.......


If you repeat something often enough, many people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.
Joseph Goebbels
Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby nachiket » 06 Aug 2015 07:15

Shreeman wrote:Nachiket,

Harrier numbers were few to none during this time and their take off run is nothing like the 29. Do note that that the harrier is already notoriously unreliable during take off and landing and many accidents have happened. You cant compare the turbofans of 320/737s with a 29k engine. Do also note that FOD damage, even if routinely suffered by those commercial craft will not be noted here. Noone was happy about the state of the runway, in part permitted to degenerate because of intentions to commercialise the airport, private property around it completely. There were noises about this in the media. Again this is nothing except badmouthing the 29k.

If the Dabolim runway was causing engine damage to airliners, that would be a much much bigger story than engine failures on IN Mig 29k's. Airlines would have raised a hue and cry and stopped flying there. We haven't heard a peep from anyone.

As for Harriers, keep in mind that an Engine Failure on Mig-29 == coming back to land with one engine, but Engine-Failure on a Harrier == Crash, every single time. If the runway condition was affecting Harrier engines, it would again be much bigger deal than problems with Mig-29s. Again, never heard of FOD being a huge issue due to runway conditions in the many years the IN has been operating all sorts of aircraft from Dabolim.

The fact that we are hearing about this for the first time means the Russians are likely pushing away the blame from their own design and QC issues. We have enough journalists who'll lap it up enthusiastically.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 06 Aug 2015 07:57

nachiket,

Your conclusions are severly flawed. And perhaps,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 615002.cms

is evidence to the contrary?

You are hearing it for the first time. Not "we".

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2015 10:34

Shreeman wrote:nachiket,

Your conclusions are severly flawed. And perhaps,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 615002.cms


Quote from article - Airlines are very upset at this last-minute disruption.

If the 737s and A320s had been suffering from FOD damage, the airlines would have been expressing relief instead of distress.

And there's no reason why a civilian type designed for hard tarmacs with low mounted wings would be less susceptible for FOD than a rugged military fighter aircraft.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby nachiket » 06 Aug 2015 10:43

Shreeman, that article does not say anything about debris on the runway that could cause FOD. One thing to bear in mind is that rough runway surface does not necessarily mean there is debris on it. It just means the tarmac has degraded, which can happen with or without debris being created. On the flip side, the tarmac can be as smooth as Hema Malini's cheeks and yet have dangerous debris on it if not cleared.
Look at this
Goa airport handles 52 schedule arrivals everyday and as many departures. Out of these 104 flights, 88 are domestic. In addition, Goa handles 600 to 700 charters annually.


So ~100 aircraft movements each day, and only the Mig-29 engines get FO damage because of the dirty runway? Note that none of the airlines are complaining about it. Like Viv S said, they would be happy about the runway work if there was actual danger to the aircraft, even if it was last minute. The DGCA would have had something to say about it as well, not to mention.
Last edited by nachiket on 06 Aug 2015 10:45, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2015 10:44

Philip wrote:The screens were removed in later birds and I don't think that naval 29Ks operating from a carrier would've had them installed.

The MiG-29K omits the (over-wing) louvres present of the MiG-29A. It is however still equipped with a FOD mesh.

Also, all carrier aircraft squadrons routinely rotate to/operate from shore bases. And this is true for all navies from the US to Brazil.

PS:Great aircraft though it is,numbers are too small for a C-130J production set up. We are the last in a long line of nations that operate it!

If the numbers are adquate for the MTA, they're adequate for the C-130J.

In fact, given the lower upfront costs, a C-130J assembly line would require a smaller production order to be economical.
Last edited by Viv S on 06 Aug 2015 10:45, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 06 Aug 2015 10:44

Actually Civilian Jet Engine are far more resistant to FOD Damage and Bird Hits they can even continue flying and using damaged engine with few blades damaged and even if one engine goes off they are ETOPS rated.

You dont need such high tolerance to FOD for military aircraft and the pilot always has the option to bail out or land back safely for twin engine types.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby nachiket » 06 Aug 2015 10:47

Austin wrote:Actually Civilian Jet Engine are far more resistant to FOD Damage and Bird Hits they can even continue flying and using damaged engine with few blades damaged and even if one engine goes off they are ETOPS rated.

You dont need such high tolerance to FOD for military aircraft and the pilot always has the option to bail out or land back safely for twin engine types.

Aircraft survivability not the point. The point is, if this kind of damage was common at Dabolim, the Airlines would be crying hoarse. It would cost them a lot of money to fix and would also be a serious passenger safety issue.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2015 10:51

Austin wrote:Actually Civilian Jet Engine are far more resistant to FOD Damage and Bird Hits they can even continue flying and using damaged engine with few blades damaged and even if one engine goes off they are ETOPS rated.

Applies to military jet engines as well. They need to be as resilient to FOD and bird hits, with additional proviso that they must also be able operate from unprepared airfields, from runways damaged by enemy action, and (possibly) from civilian roads. Fighter aircraft also routinely take off together with the wingman ingesting debris kicked up his flight leader.

You dont need such high tolerance to FOD for military aircraft and the pilot always has the option to bail out or land back safely for twin engine types.

Bailing out isn't a design choice. Its an option of last resort.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 06 Aug 2015 11:05

Viv S wrote:Applies to military jet engines as well. They need to be as resilient to FOD and bird hits, with additional proviso that they must also be able operate from unprepared airfields, from runways damaged by enemy action, and (possibly) from civilian roads. Fighter aircraft also routinely take off together with the wingman ingesting debris kicked up his flight leader.


Military aircraft have FOD grill etc to take care of FOD damage during take off and most western airfiled too are well maintained for FOD issue.

civilian jet engines are far more resistant to FOD and they can keep working even with few percentage of blades lost.

Military fighter aircraft dont carry the burden hundreds of passenger and they are not ETOPS rated too something of stringent requirement for civil types

Bailing out isn't a design choice. Its an option of last resort.


Bailing out is an option they have , something you cant do on civilian aircraft and they carry precious cargo too which is hundreds of human life

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shreeman » 06 Aug 2015 11:20

Viv S wrote:
Shreeman wrote:nachiket,

Your conclusions are severly flawed. And perhaps,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 615002.cms


Quote from article - Airlines are very upset at this last-minute disruption.

If the 737s and A320s had been suffering from FOD damage, the airlines would have been expressing relief instead of distress.

And there's no reason why a civilian type designed for hard tarmacs with low mounted wings would be less susceptible for FOD than a rugged military fighter aircraft.


Viv, I have no idea what you are trying pull here, but I am not responding to this rubbish any more. Here is the parting shot, abuse away:
1. Navy rumors say FOD, 29k bad -- rumor the word of god.
2. Navy actually decides to recarpet -- Navy's actions have an ulterior motive. Navy bad. Find some excuse.

There is no current documented basis for your complaint against 29k, there is documentation of the craply state of the runway. You dont decide to carpet overnight UNLESS it is just unbearable. That is the inference if navy is not the devil.

It is trivial to see the complaints against both goa runway AND terminal. And if blind eyes want to disparage every in-service system on made up grounds (rumors from less than the DDM), then let it be.

Something is wrong with the forum here. Between system--xx is bad, buy amrikhan posts and I want peer reviewed journal quality discussion admins the place is going to pot.

May be its easy for a reader to see through the lets sell our soul to boeing posts, may be not. Not my job.

cheers,

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2015 12:07

Shreeman wrote:Viv, I have no idea what you are trying pull here, but I am not responding to this rubbish any more. Here is the parting shot, abuse away:
1. Navy rumors say FOD, 29k bad -- rumor the word of god.
2. Navy actually decides to recarpet -- Navy's actions have an ulterior motive. Navy bad. Find some excuse.


Why would I abuse you Shreemanji? Can't say I'm that emotionally invested in this debate. But given the record of Russian engines in IAF service incl. the AL-31FP, (original) RD-33, R-29 and R-25, I will confess that I didn't have high hopes from the new RD-33MK.

Also, even if we grant that the MiG-29K engine failures were a result of FOD ingestion (with IN forced to recarpet the airfield) it still leaves us with the basic fact that the engine is unusually susceptible to FOD. Which is surprising considering its design legacy but unsurprising considering its ancestry's service record.

Something is wrong with the forum here. Between system--xx is bad, buy amrikhan posts and I want peer reviewed journal quality discussion admins the place is going to pot.

May be its easy for a reader to see through the lets sell our soul to boeing posts, may be not. Not my job.

This sounds like a political grouse you have sir. Its true that the narrative on the forum vis a vis Russia-US is changing, but that's a predictable result of changing geopolitical realities. You'll need to make your peace with that.

However, none of this changes the IAF or IN's experience with its equipment, which will need to be judged on its own merits (or lack thereof).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21151
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 06 Aug 2015 13:03

The MTA is supposed to also have a civilian passenger version,whereas the Hercules is a dedicated mil transport.

I posted costs also earlier,repeated here.C-130Js cost between $100-120M.Whereas an MTA will cost only $35-40M. One would get at least 3 MTAs for the price of just one Hercules!

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby GeorgeWelch » 06 Aug 2015 13:30

Philip wrote:The MTA is supposed to also have a civilian passenger version,whereas the Hercules is a dedicated mil transport.

I posted costs also earlier,repeated here.C-130Js cost between $100-120M.Whereas an MTA will cost only $35-40M. One would get at least 3 MTAs for the price of just one Hercules!


And the F-35 was going to cost $60 million.

Cost estimates before the first piece of metal has been cut are worthless.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2015 13:31

Philip wrote:The MTA is supposed to also have a civilian passenger version,whereas the Hercules is a dedicated mil transport.

You can sell a civilian passenger version of the C-130J-30 as well. It'll be a better investment for a private airliner than a civilian MTA anyway.

(Not that anybody will be stupid to buy either given that far better options are available from Bombardier, ATR and Embraer.)

I posted costs also earlier,repeated here.C-130Js cost between $100-120M.Whereas an MTA will cost only $35-40M. One would get at least 3 MTAs for the price of just one Hercules!

Figures that are complete horse @#%$. Not least because you're comparing flyaway costs to acquisition costs. Again. (FYI the flyaway cost of the C-130J is about $65 million.)

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby GeorgeWelch » 06 Aug 2015 13:36

Austin wrote:Military aircraft have FOD grill etc to take care of FOD damage during take off


No they don't.

Early MiG-29s has an 'alternate intake' setup, but that was quickly done away with as it was found to be more trouble than it was worth.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4056
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby hnair » 06 Aug 2015 13:47

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Austin wrote:Military aircraft have FOD grill etc to take care of FOD damage during take off


No they don't.

Early MiG-29s has an 'alternate intake' setup, but that was quickly done away with as it was found to be more trouble than it was worth.


Yeah, they do have grills:

Image

This is in addition to the baffled FOD-guard in the nose-gear

FOD-guard@BRWebsite

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Gyan » 06 Aug 2015 15:56

For the cost of 10 C-17s we can get 40 IL-476s, I wonder what would be more available in war?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 06 Aug 2015 16:39

The C-17. The IAF has shown no interest in the IL-476 - so far. So the availability of the IL-476 would stands at a round 0%.

DO not know for sure, but it seems that the IL-476 is dead on arrival. Has it even joined the RuAF yet?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 06 Aug 2015 16:55

OK, IL-476 update:

Janes :: Aug 2, 2015 :: Russian An-140 production halted by Ukrainian sanctions

Among other heart breaks (truly sad), this:

Having effectively bankrolled the on/off An-70 project since its inception in the 1990s, Russia is now unlikely to ever field the four-engined airlifter it has developed with Ukraine, which it was looking to as a replacement for its Soviet-era An-12 'Cub' aircraft. Ukraine also supplies about 35 components for the Ilyushin Il-476 strategic airlifter, which Russia has developed to replace the older model Il-76 'Candid', and the re-start of production of the An-124 'Condor' has been put in jeopardy as well, as the Ivchenko-Progress D-18T turbofan engine used by the aircraft is built in Ukraine.


So, that should be end of that story.

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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby kmkraoind » 07 Aug 2015 10:17

Sitanshu Kar ‏@SpokespersonMoD

An #IAF IL-78 aerial refuelling tanker during transit from #Jeddah to India on 04 Aug 15 after Ex #Indradhanush4.


Image

What are those next besides the engines?

Muns
BRFite
Posts: 294
Joined: 02 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Muns » 07 Aug 2015 10:39

Refueling Pods.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21151
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 07 Aug 2015 12:37

IL-476 is well into production.The first 476 was handed over to Beriev in 2014 for conversion into an AWACS aircraft similar tour A-50 Phalcons. From the report,13 IL-476s are in various stages of production.Approx 40 ordered in the first lot,with over 100 predicted.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/il- ... rts-07569/
IL-476s/ IL-76MD-90As beginning to deliver from the production line, now that testing is done; War with Ukraine boosts IL-476; 1st delivery for conversion to Russia’s new A-100 AWACS plane.

Nov 21/14: A-100 AWACS. Russia’s fleet of about 20 A-50 Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) jets is based on the IL-76, but they’re developing a new AWACS that will be based on the IL-476. The A-100 will feature a more advanced advanced active phased array radar, in place of the older Liana that equips the A-50.

The Beriyev Aviation Scientific-Technical Complex (TANTK) has now received its 1st IL-476/ IL-76MD-90A, and will begin the conversion process shortly. At present, there are 13 IL-76 family aircraft in various stages of production at Aviastar, whose projects include the new Sukhoi 100 passenger aircraft and modernization of Russia’s AN-124 fleet to AN-124-100 “Ruslan” status. Sources: ITAR-TASS, “Russia to develop new AWACS aircraft based on IL-76MD-90A plane”.


Antonov aircraft.This needs explanation,as there are several types in service,in production and planned (AN-140):
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ant ... ght-05741/
AN-70 Aerial Transports Finally To Be Produced
Jan 29, 2015
Team Antonov’s AN-70

The AN-70 aimed to offer A400M class operational performance or better, for about 40% less cost per aircraft. Total cargo weight is touted as 35-47 tonnes, and depending on the load carried, range is touted as 3,000 – 5,100 km at cruising speed of 700 – 750 km/h. If flown empty in ferry configuration, that range extends to 8,000 km. Redundant fly-by-wire controls and “glass cockpit” avionics, pioneered on the AN-124-100 Ruslan, have been added to the AN-70 as well. Its 14,000 shp Progress/Motor Sich D-27 turboprop engines use Aerosila’s CV-27 8+6 blade configuration of contra-rotating, reversible-pitch propellers, allowing STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) capabilities from unpaved runways only 600-800m long at a reduced 20t cargo weight. At full load, the aircraft can use 1550-1800 meter runways.

A spacious 15,000 sq. foot/ 425 sq. meter cargo area can be used to deliver up to 300 soldiers at absolute maximum capacity, or evacuate up to 200 or so casualties requiring minimal support. More likely scenarios would involve about 130-170 fully-equipped troops. Onboard loading equipment consists of 4 overhead rail electric motor hoists with a total cargo lifting capacity of 12 tonnes, and 2 onboard electric winches with 1.5 tonne traction. An easily removable upper deck and/or roller conveyers, can be added as options to simplify container handling.

By comparison, the A400M will have a maximum capacity of 37 tonnes if it lives up to its full specifications, something that has become less probable due to airframe weight gains. The A400M’s range is also imperiled, though specifications give it about 3,300 km range at full payload. This would give the AN-70 an advantage of over 1,500 km at a similar load. Compared to the AN-70, the A400M is about 4.6 meters longer (45.1m vs. 40.55m), with a wingspan that’s 1.6 meters shorter (42.4m vs. 44.06m). A400M active cargo space is less tall (3.85m vs. 4.1m) and 0.9m shorter than the AN-70 (17.71m vs. 18.6m), though overall internal space is slightly longer (23.11m vs. 22.4m) due to a ramp that’s 1.6m longer.

Both aircraft significantly outclass the smaller C-130J Hercules, which is limited to a load of 21 tonnes. That’s an issue in an era where survivable armored vehicles tend to be at least 25 tonnes, and are often 30-35 tonnes. On the other hand, the C-130J’s flyaway price tag of $65-80 million/ EUR 56 million is less than either the A400M (EUR 120-140 million est.) or the intended cost of the AN-70 (at 40% less than the A400M, EUR 72-86 million).
*C-130Js now cost around 100M min,look at how much our 6 cost us
28-03-2014 · India had recently inducted six C-130J Super Hercules aircraft, which were bought from the US at the cost of around Rs 6000 crore ($1.1 billion)


While all 3 aircraft are considered to be medium tactical transports, new programs for 20t class transports (Embraer KC-390, Irkut/HAL MRTA) and the closure of the USA’s C-17 line, will leave the A400M and AN-70 turboprops, and the turbofan-powered IL-76MF, segmented in a different “medium-heavy” class of strategic transports.

The European FLA/A400M program has been criticized for its rejection of the AN-70, but there are always considerations beyond the base financials. Development of domestic aerospace industries and technologies, albeit at greater expense, is always a factor. Then there’s the longer-term market forecast that saw the American C-17 program reaching its end, leaving a decade or 2 of dominance for a transport that could bridge the gap between strategic and tactical transport options. Who would produce it? Financing the development and refinement of a critical power projection tool that would be likely to see service with Russia is a project not to be undertaken lightly, especially if it means that Ukrainian and/or Russian firms would also be able to compete for future production business in a key aerospace segment.

They almost succeeded in killing their rival. Unfortunately, “almost” doesn’t count.

The AN-70 has kept to its goal of 40% lower costs than the A400M’s original projections, but the A400M’s price has shot upward, leading to a difference that makes an A400M almost 3 times as expensive: $67 million vs. about $180 million, at current exchange rates. What’s emerging is a plane that can be bought for a price close to the C-130J’s, but with base cargo performance that will beat the A400M. If Russia manages to repair its growing image as an unreliable supplier of poor-quality equipment, the AN-70’s performance and cost could make it an attractive competitor for a number of customers around the world.

Past AN-70 projections have involved around 60 aircraft for the Ukraine, and 160 or so for Russia. So far, only 5 aircraft have been ordered by the Ukraine, but Russia’s 60-plane order is a huge step forward for the platform. It remains to be seen whether actual contracts from the 2 countries come close to those past projections.


AN-70/72
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72
The An-72 first flew in December 1977.[1] Produced in tandem with the An-72, the An-74 variant adds the ability to operate in harsh weather conditions in polar regions, because it can be fitted with wheel-skis landing gear, de-icing equipment and a number of other upgrades allowing the aircraft to support operations in Arctic or Antarctic environments. Other An-72 versions include the An-72S VIP transport and An-72P maritime patrol aircraft.

In August 2006, a total of 51 An-72 and Antonov An-74 aircraft remain in airline service. Major operators include Badr Airlines (three), Air Armenia (three), Enimex (five), Gazpromavia (12), and Shar Ink (eight). Some 17 other airlines operate smaller numbers of the type


AN-140
Russian An-140 production halted by Ukrainian sanctions - IHS Jane's 360
janes.com 03 Aug '15,

The aircraft has not been cancelled,only "suspended".What Russia will eventually do is to manufacture the UKR components at home,just as it did with the IL-476s,earlier Il-76s were manufactured in Tashkent.Moreover,it is intended to replace a civilian aircraft ,not a mil type.
AN-140 / The AN-140 Regional Passenger Aircraft
The AN-140 regional aircraft is intended for passenger and mixed cargo/passenger transportations. The AN-140 is the substitute for the AN-24 aircraft that has been operated for about forty years.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2793
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby JTull » 07 Aug 2015 13:19

Gyan wrote:For the cost of 10 C-17s we can get 40 IL-476s, I wonder what would be more available in war?


And, have 10 operational at any one time?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2015 17:01

JTull wrote:
Gyan wrote:For the cost of 10 C-17s we can get 40 IL-476s, I wonder what would be more available in war?


And, have 10 operational at any one time?


IF the Russians get them first!!

Russian Air Force to Receive Two Il-476 Transport Planes by 2016

"We are hoping to receive the first two planes, which are called correctly Il-76MD-90A, this year, benediktov said in an interview with Rossiya-24 television.

..............................

Benediktov also said that the Russian air force is expecting to receive up to 35 modernized Il-76MDM transport planes by 2020.


Perhaps the "hoping" is a Russian way of saying things?

But the numbers have already been reduced ............ to 35.

I very much doubt it will reach those numbers.

Add the Ukraine issue, it gets worse.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21151
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 07 Aug 2015 17:49

This end 2014 report though slightly dated,is the most comprehensive on planned production of the IL-476/76MD-90

Il-76MD-90A: first production-standard airlifter got airborne
Il-76MD-90A3 October 2014 saw the maiden flight of the first production-standard Ilyushin Il-76MD-90A (c/n 01-03) that took off from the factory airfield of the Ulyanovsk-based Aviastar-SP close corporation, a subsidiary of the United Aircraft Corporation. An Ilyushin JSC crew led by Honoured Test Pilot Vladimir Irinarkhov flew the airlifter. The first flight, which lasted 4 h 20 min, was dedicated to testing the aircraft, its powerplant and the onboard systems in most of their operating modes. After the factory trials have been completed, the Il-76MD-90A c/n 01-03 will have been delivered to Beriev company in Taganrog before year-end, where it will become the platform for the development of an advanced airborne early warning and control aircraft. *(already delivered)

The Russian government released a directive on the development and productionising of the upgraded Il-76 in Ulyanovsk (Programme 476) on 20 December 2006. The first two Il-76MD-90As - the endurance test example (c/n 01-01) and the flying prototype (c/n 01-02) - were laid down by Aviastar in 2009. A set of assemblies of the endurance test prototype was brought to Zhukovsky, Moscow Region, in autumn 2011 for static tests in TsAGI, and a flying prototype (reg. number 78650) commenced its trials a year later. It conducted its maiden flight in Ulyanovsk on 22 September 2012, launched its tests in Zhukovsky in late January 2013, completed there the first phase of its official test programme that kicked off in July 2013 (38 flights) and was returned to the manufacturer on 4 December 2013 for debugging based on the tests and the customer's requirements specified more accurately. The new requirements called for adnavced communications gear and a defence aids suite in the first place.

In the course of the development tests and the first phase of the official tests, the Il-76MD-90A (c/n 01-02) logged around 60 flights, with the Kupol-III-76M(A) flight navigation suite and its subsystems tested alongside with the fuel and automatic control systems and radio communications equipment. The maximum speed structural endurance modes and limit g-load were tested, flights with the 210-tonne maximum takeoff weight and 170-tonne maximum landing weight were performed and the missed approach procedure with simulated failure of one engine and two engines was tested. Based on the results produced by the first stage of the official trials, a preliminary report was released, giving the nod to the manufacture of the Il-76MD-90A low-rate initial production (batch by Aviastar plant.

In the near future, the Il-76MD-90A (c/n 01-02) shall commence the second phase of its official tests, during which its sophisticated communications and defence aids suites are to be tested, as are airdrops of combat gear and cargo.

The Russian Defence Ministry is the launch customer for the Il-76MD-90A. On 4 October 2012, it awarded a contract for 39 aircraft with the delivery from 2014 throughout 2020. According to the 2013-25 Aircraft Industry Development Federal Programme at the website of the Russian government, Aviastar-SP is to make a total of 90 aircraft of the type prior to 2020, including 31 Il-78M-90A air tankers and 18 aircraft designed for subsequent conversion to various dedicated applications by Beriev company, with about 45 more to be built in the subsequent five years. In addition, about 15 aircraft in the Il-76TD-90A commercial freighter version are supposed to be manufactured for domestic commercial users and about 40 for foreign ones before 2025. Thus, the Industry and Trade Ministry estimates the overall output under Programme 476 prior to 2025 at 190 aircraft.

The first three LRIP planes were laid down by Aviastar-SP under a contract with UAC - Transport Aircraft in 2010. The first of them, c/n 01-03, was rolled out from the assembly shop on 17 June 2014 and taken to the Spektr-Avia company in Ulyanovsk for painting, during which it was given the proper name Ulyanovsk and reg. number 78651 and then submitted for ground tests and preparations for its first flight. The aircraft made its public debut in mid-August during MATF 2014 International Aviation Transport Forum in Ulyanovsk. A contract on the delivery of the aircraft for its subsequent conversion to a special aircraft was signed by Beriev company at the forum on 15 August 2014. According to the officially published 2013 annual reports by Ilyushin JSC and UAC - Transport Aircraft, the Il-76MD-90A c/n 01-03 will serve a platform for the first example of the advanced A-100 AEW&C aircraft being developed in Taganrog.

According to Ilyushin, after the 3 October maiden flight, the first production-standard Il-76MD-90A will perform five more test sorties in Ulyanovsk, controlled by Ilyushin and Aviastar-SP aircrews, and then another flight with a military crew at the controls. With these missions flown, the aircraft will be delivered to the customer and ferried to Taganrog.

The second production-standard Il-76MD-90A, c/n 01-04, is to follow the first one out of the assembly shop before year-end. The final assembly and systems installation of the third production-standard aircraft (c/n 01-05) are in full swing. Production of parts and units for the ten subsequent aircraft and first Il-78M-90A tanker plane is under way. *(13 being built latest reports posted.)

Nikolai Talikov, chief of the design bureau and deputy Director General / deputy Designer General, Ilyushin JSC, told Take-off that the Il-78M-90A tanker plane is heavily commonised with the Il-76MD-90A, particularly in terms of the wing design. However, its takeoff weight grew up from 210 t to 220 t, which enables it to haul more fuel and refuel more aircraft in flight compared with the Il-78 and Il-78M air tankers used to be built in Tashkent. "In addition, while the Il-78M was a pure tanker aircraft, the advanced Il-78M-90A is being developed as a convertible variant capable of operating as an ordinary transport once it has been stripped of its fuselage fuel cells, if need be, for it will retain the cargo ramp", says Nikolai Talikov. "The first Il-78M-90A is set to kick off its tests in late 2015. A contract with the Defence Ministry for 31 tanker aircraft is being in the pipeline".

This autumn, news came about an upcoming order for Ulyanovsk-built Il-76s to be awarded by the Russian Emergencies Ministry. On 8 September 2014, the Emergencies Ministry and UAC made an agreement on devising the tactical and economic feasibility study of supplying the ministry's air units during 2016-2025 with six Il-76TD-90A aircraft, being a commercial derivative of the Il-76MD-90A airlifter. The air branches of the Federal Security Service and Ministry of the Interior may well become next customers for the advanced Il-76MD-90A aircraft made in Ulyanovsk. The two have displayed interest in such planes fitted with up-to-date powerplants and the avionics suite.

As is known, UAC's strategic objective is to turn Aviastar-SP into its main transport aircraft production facility. The first step towards the objective has been the productionising of the Il-76MD-90A upgraded airlifter, on which Aviastar's efforts are focused now.

On 7 October 2014 chairing a conference at Aviastar-SP, dedicated to the upgrade of the plant's production facilities and the status of the Il-76MD-90A programme, UAC President Mikhail Pogosyan said: "The transport aircraft construction programme is on schedule, in general. The first production-standard aircraft is to be delivered in 2014. Today, Aviastar-SP's orderbook is sufficient for ramping up the aircraft production steadily. We are to achieve an Il-76MD-90A output rate of 18 units per annum within several years. This will call for drastic consolidation of resources and a hefty increase in the number of basic production workers".


PS:Details about the MTA;s engine maker here:
http://www.airfleet.ru/index.php/ct-menu-item-2

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2015 17:56

Image

Inside the cockpit of an Indian Air Force C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft, which was part of the Indian contingent to the Indradhanush exercises

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2420
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby VinodTK » 17 Aug 2015 05:30

IAF clears proposal to buy three C 17; Boeing says only one plane left to sell
NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force appears to have taken too long to push through a Rs 8,100 crore proposal to buy three new Boeing C-17 transport aircraft. The American manufacturer simply does not have that many aircraft to sell anymore, having pledged four of the last five C-17s in its production line to Qatar.

After months of efforts, the air force, at a Services Capital Acquisition Plan meeting on July 31, managed to push through the proposal to add three aircraft to its existing NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force appears to have taken too long to push through a Rs 8,100 crore proposal to buy three new Boeing C-17 transport aircraft. The American manufacturer simply does not have that many aircraft to sell anymore, having pledged four of the last five C-17s in its production line to Qatar.

After months of efforts, the air force, at a Services Capital Acquisition Plan meeting on July 31, managed to push through the proposal to add three aircraft to its existing fleet of 10 Boeing C-17s that were ordered in 2011. Officials said the proposal is likely to be taken up by the high powered Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) shortly.

However, Boeing officials have gone on record to say that after signing the contract with Qatar the company is left with just one C-17 for sale. With its production facility for the aircraft at Long Beach in shut-down mode, the company has already halted the production line.

Boeing had five C-17 aircraft to sell when the air force first moved the proposal in April, as ET had first reported.

Officials said the air force could get committed aircraft from US inventory or retracted orders of a third country, but the chances of this happening are slim. A solution cannot be ruled out, they said, given that the deal is being processed under the Foreign Military Sales pact.

In April, the air force had impressed upon the government the need to induct three more of the very heavy transport aircraft because the planes have been involved in several rescue operations, including aid to earthquake hit Nepal, since their induction in 2013.

As per the 2011 contract, which was worth $4.7 billion, India had an option clause to purchase six additional C-17s over its order of ten. However, a paucity of funds never saw the follow-on order being processed.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 17 Aug 2015 06:11

There you go. An opening for the IL-476.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 17 Aug 2015 11:23

Russia May Start Exports of Modernized Il-76 Military Transport Aircraft in 2017

No India? :(

Dementyev also said that at least four countries — Iran, Algeria, South Africa and Kazakhstan — had shown interest in buying the Il-76MD-90A (also known as Il-476).
The Il-76MD-90A is a deeply modernized version of the world-famous Il-76 aircraft.

tushar_m

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby tushar_m » 17 Aug 2015 17:19

USAF is decommissioning its C17 Sqds (some 6-8 month old news) for two years.

They might be willing to sell these planes to their new "best friend India" at reduced prices.

The two sqds have 16 planes in total.

Source : http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 420039566/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9505
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby brar_w » 17 Aug 2015 17:48

It would be tough for the USAF to offload some C-17's in the election year even if it makes a lot of sense given that the capacity issue has a reasonable amount of risk. The last few C-17's have been congress-driven procurement decisions but the defense-hawks would get a lot of ammo if the current establishment tries to permanently offload capacity, even though the Obama administration has done extremely well in terms of the defense budgets in its second term ..

tushar_m

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby tushar_m » 17 Aug 2015 18:31

If someone like Trump gets elected then will we see increase in defense spending ?

In one of his interviews he did express interest in sending ground troops to fight ISIS.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9505
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby brar_w » 17 Aug 2015 18:34


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

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby kmkraoind » 19 Aug 2015 09:47

India Inks $120-Million Maintenance Contract For IAF's Hercules Fleet - Vishal Thapar


The contract involves the placement of a Lockheed Martin field service representative at the IAF's C-130J base at Hindan to provide "technical guidance." The contract provides for all spares and consumables to keep the fleet serviceable for the next five years.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21151
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 19 Aug 2015 11:01

Edited out - Post had nothing to do with the thread Philip - JE Menon


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinash Rav, bodhi, Google [Bot], nits, suryag and 221 guests