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.
Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1759
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kakarat » 11 Jun 2019 12:50

Philip wrote:AN-70s won't be replacements for an IL-76/476 heavylifter.We need a twin- jet MTA and need to reopen the file for long- term requirements .We lost earlier opportunities to buy out Fokker,Dornier too, where we build the bird for RUAG! I doubt that we would pay a huge sum just for one aircraft type.There is no comparison between Russia's massive state defence enterprises and puny UKR's.The Ru entities have all been reorganised after the collapse of the USSR, many entities esp. in the aviation industry merged or placed under one head for cost- effectiveness.Barring maritime engines which were the UKR's speciality, Russia needs almost nothing from its former republics unlike before.China has lept ahead by employing Ru and former Warsaw Pact scientists in its myriad defence programmes and stealing western secrets.


Yes yes An-70 wont be the right replacement for IL-76 since Russia is no more a partner for the project, If it was then it would have been the perfect replacement

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19834
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 11 Jun 2019 13:35

Please, just look at the disparity in the sizes of each! They are two totally diffetent classes .The 4- engined heavyweight IL-76/476 cannot be a replacement for an MTA.The AN-70 is med-range.Extra C-130s already in service would be a better option.We will have to make do with C-295s until a new MTA programme is mooted.Had babudom not won, the JV for the MTA would've seen thd first aircraft in service by now.Babudom has tried to scuttle the C-295 programme too becos its in the pvt sector where it has no control over the programme..

PS:The turbo-prop AN-70 could better compared with the C-130J.More C-130s would be preferable given its provenance and already in service.
Last edited by Philip on 11 Jun 2019 14:42, edited 1 time in total.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1529
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Khalsa » 11 Jun 2019 14:42

I agree with just the last last half sentence of yours.

Il-76 are not heavy future we need to think about. That is covered off by the C-17. Right now the C-17 and IL-76 are filling up the medium spectrum because no one else can.

Plus lets think outside the transport spectrum as well.
EW
Tanker
AWACS

there is more to this than we can imagine.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1759
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kakarat » 11 Jun 2019 20:27

Philip wrote:Please, just look at the disparity in the sizes of each! They are two totally diffetent classes .The 4- engined heavyweight IL-76/476 cannot be a replacement for an MTA.The AN-70 is med-range.Extra C-130s already in service would be a better option.We will have to make do with C-295s until a new MTA programme is mooted.Had babudom not won, the JV for the MTA would've seen thd first aircraft in service by now.Babudom has tried to scuttle the C-295 programme too becos its in the pvt sector where it has no control over the programme..

PS:The turbo-prop AN-70 could better compared with the C-130J.More C-130s would be preferable given its provenance and already in service.


Payload of IL76- 48T (the legacy MD variant in IAF service)
Payload of An-70- 47T
Sure they are not comparable since Russia is not part of the project anymore

And for your information An-70 is not Turbo-prop but Propfan or ultra high-bypass turbofan which offer the speed and performance of a turbofan, with the fuel economy of a turboprop. There is also a planned variant with conventional Turbofan

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby agupta » 11 Jun 2019 21:02

Interesting discussion re An70. I think we're missing a few key facts:
* There is NO evidence that the Ukes are willing to do ANYTHING more than a JV. For all their desperation... it may be even possible there is nothing left to sell except documents. This was a program from the 80s and 90s and 20 yrs later, much of the workforce and talent could be gone (retired, to China, or ...)

*A airframe program whose only hope of survival depends on a (potential) JV with Turkey ? or a US one ?

* What's the supply or value chain behind this...He Ukrainian Propfan is also dead, right ? Its only 2 users on Wiki seem to be defunct or dead Airplane concepts - the An70 and the Be-42. So one branch is to change the engines and re-engineer. How many more such critical components and sub-systems that would have zero commonality with any established supply chain will this need.

It would have been a nice aircraft for sure. It will be missed. Yes - full design knowledge WOULD be useful to the Indian ecosystem but to expect an easy or cheap conversion to a fleet of aircraft is not a given

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11275
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby UlanBatori » 12 Jun 2019 01:33

Did they find the missing AN32?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1529
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Khalsa » 12 Jun 2019 04:59

UlanBatori wrote:Did they find the missing AN32?

Yes

Manu
BRFite
Posts: 715
Joined: 28 May 2003 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Manu » 12 Jun 2019 05:22

Height of 12 000 feet in Arunachal Pradesh

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19834
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 12 Jun 2019 08:41

Tx K for the engine info.But still not in the class of a jet-engined heavylifter.I still would prefer the Hercules to the AN.Solid support for the bird which I imagine would last at least another 50 years with so many flying.An absolute classic transport.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1529
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Khalsa » 12 Jun 2019 16:09

What have you done to my Phillip you yankee scoundrel ?

Fair enough Phillip, In other news Kiwis have bypassed tender to replace their ageing vintage 4 X C-130 with 6 X C-130Js
nothing beats the deep support there but I repeat. the request is for a platform ... not a plane.

Let me ask this another way, what would it take us to build a Boeing 737 like aircraft ?
We got tonnage of help by looking at Mirage 2000 a/c and got lots of consulting hours as well when we embarked on the Tejas journey.
Where and How do we start that journey for a large transport aircraft ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66410
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 12 Jun 2019 16:34

imo the embraer KC390 is nearing the IOC. we should sign up a Embraer to borrow the KC390 design but upsize it by 50%.

the only other option is the japanese kawasaki c2- again upsize by 50%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_KC-390

HAL has made nothing bigger than an32 and that too from license. it has no exp in design and manufacture of a modern medium sized plane. we will need lots of handholding but we will get there since brazil and japan are viable aerospace powers.

ukraine antonov is good but who knows what clauses the cheen have put in and their best people and designs may have already been purchased by cheen.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby chola » 12 Jun 2019 16:40

The reason I looked at the AN-132 almost exclusively is because I feel that the size and technology level is in our sweet spot. The chances of it being on-time and successful would be very high. Though I love the size of the AN-70, it might be a bit more we can chew with our first bite at a large aircraft.

The Saudis left the AN-132 project under reported Russian pressure and the difficulty of setting up an industry. I thought the Saudis were too ambitious since SA never even built a Cessna before. Being in the aircraft industry is simply hard.

We have far more experience and, more importantly, an infrastructure in place as opposed to the Saudis and the AN-32 based design is reliable (despite the recent news) and versatile.

Khalsa mentioned the AN-12/Y-8 but the AN-24/26/32 Y-7 is built in a plethora of mil and civ variants too.

Xian Y-7H: (Huo -cargo) A reverse-engineered An-26 with rear loading ramp for the PLAAF
Xian HYJ-7: (Hongzhaji Yunshuji Jiaolianji - Bomber/transport/trainer) A pilot and crew trainer for H-6 heavy bombers
Xian JZY-01: Carrier-based airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) variant.
Xian MA60-100: Reduced weight improved performance.
Xian MA60-MPA Fearless Albatross: Maritime patrol and ASW variant.
Xian MA40: Reduced capacity 40-seat variant offered for sale in 2002.
Xian MA60H-500: A military cargo version of the MA-60, with rear cargo ramp.
Xian MA600: A much improved MA60, the prototype of which was completed on 29 June 2008.
Xian MA700: the latest civilian variant that sits 68-86 with 185 pre-orders

Now the C-295 will be a direct competitor to the AN-132. But the opportunity for the AN-132 was not there before. We are buying the C-295 for the Avros not the 100+ remaining AN-32s we have so we still need more aircraft than the 60 not to mention a platform for many other things including NETRA and its followons.

We will not get full ownership and export rights from Airbus. We will from Antonov if we replace the Saudis.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2398
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 12 Jun 2019 17:50

C-295 weighs 11t empty, i.e. around 1/2 that of an MKI and around 50% more than Tejas - by no means a "heavy" airframe. This class should have ideally been targeted for designed & made in India rather than screwdriver-giri.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7413
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2019 19:53

Singha wrote:imo the embraer KC390 is nearing the IOC. we should sign up a Embraer to borrow the KC390 design but upsize it by 50%.


Even before the coming together of Embraer and Boeing commercial (which essentially bankrolled Embraer by wiping clean their debt) the two companies had an agreement on the KC-390. It is no coincidence that the aircraft is in the US for testing that could just as easily have happened in Brazil. The USAF has an important decision looming in the mid to late 2020s' around what to do with the Hercules with even the Jercules which is now a nearly 2 decade old design requiring serious upgrades or replacement. An iteration of the KC-390 with more payload and more efficient engines will probably form Boeing's entry to recapitalize the C-130 fleet so I doubt that the two firms would be open to just handing of the design to a third party given how big a potential C-130 replacement market is going to be in the US and around the world in the 2030-2050 time frame.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66410
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 12 Jun 2019 20:05

japani C2++ then, as usual they are in loop of no exports and high unit cost. being a non lethal product should raise less political noises there.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19834
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 13 Jun 2019 02:20

We must take a leaf out of China's book.42 A-320s built a month in 2015! It now makes its own clone of it.
Airbus set up a plant for China.
With huge orders of the same by our commercial airlines, why the thought never entered the GOI's head for the same over here beats one. 42 aircraft a year , one-tenth Chin production rate, would be a fantastic achievement for HAL whose production rates of various platforms is dismal.Various specialised versions of the A-320 could also be built just like P-8I ASW birds based upon the Boeing 737.ASW/ LRMP, AEW/ ELINT tankers and transports could be theoretically manufactured over here.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1039
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Nikhil T » 13 Jun 2019 02:52

^If we want to build 42 A-320 type planes a year, then HAL is not the right entity for it. It demands a different work culture and different infrastructure.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1529
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Khalsa » 13 Jun 2019 05:02

Nikhil T wrote:^If we want to build 42 A-320 type planes a year, then HAL is not the right entity for it. It demands a different work culture and different infrastructure.


Gold struck right here !!

HAL seems to be becoming a failure because we are myopically using it as a looking glass for everything.

HAL must be protected and India must have options

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby chola » 13 Jun 2019 06:53

^^^ Nothing to do with Cheen. It is all Airbus. The management is Airbus. The planning and work schemes are Airbus. The lines are the same at other Airbus completion centers. All the profits (from cheaper chini labor and chini sourced parts) go to Airbus. Everything in short is Airbus.

Cheen has other mass production things we can look at but this is not one of them. It is not even screwdriver giri. There is no chini HAL here to gain TOT. There is no TOT. Just Airbus doing their thing.

That is not to say Cheen doesn't gain greatly from this. A trained workforce and a local plant to spy on is priceless. Cheen holds back European assembled planes to force this plant. https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/12/news/companies/airbus-china-certification-delivery-delays/index.html

BTW, if we want this we have to play hardball with our purchasing.

The Tianjin assembly center in Cheen is one of only four Airbus completion sites in the world, the others are Toulouse (France) and Hamburg (Germany), of course. The only other one outside Cheen is Mobile, Alabama, US. The two biggest markets in the world. We will be the third largest.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests