Transport Aircraft for IAF

[vaibhav.n]

The way these trucks just saunter inside the C-17 with ample room to spare is beyond belief.

[Shreeman]

The maintenance contract issue was another red herring that doesnt pass the smell test. In any case, we have revisited it all availability to pressurization to maintenance contract to two trucks side by side?

Perhaps some good soul can do a BRM article on it when it is revived. There is ample material in public domain.

[NRao]

Back-of-the-envelope calcs (with plenty of time to kill)

Code: Select all

             Payload (T)      Range (Miles)        Payload*miles      %up-time      Total up-time
                                                 (some units)       * some units

C-17         76                  2762                 209912          @80%: 167929   @10 planes: 1679296

IL-76        50                  2670                 133500          @50%: 66750     @17 planes: 1134750

Sources:

C-17: http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Di ... r-iii.aspx
IL-76: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_I ... te_note-69, and
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircr ... Il-76.html


So, for the 17 IL-76s to be competitive with the 10 C-17s, the IL-76's need to up their up-time to 75%

Look-at-it-other-ways:

C-17 downtime 20%, idle number of resources: 6
IL-76 downtime 50%, idle number of resources: 40

With those down-times (20 and 50%):

You can use 6.7 C-17s to do the work of 17 IL-76s. That is a ratio close to 1 : 2.5.

Would be very interesting if we factored in the number of resources needed (3 vs. 7), turn around time to load/offload, etc. And then normalize all that.

Work for the next gen.

Oh. Do not forget. Add 3 more C-17s to that equation.

[Shreeman]

NRao,

This 50% is coming out of no supporting evidence. What is this cite note #69 on wikipedia? My browser doesnt show it.

The other ridiculous assumption is that you carry 100% useful load all the time. Where precisely do these 1000 tonne loads have to be carried like this?

Have you considered that you arent comparing apples to apples. What about at least upgraded 76s vs C17s?

How about just 78Mkis and the awacs. Thats 9-10. same as 10 C17s. whats their up time?

Will the C17s have this up time when they are 30 year old? The M2000s arent doing so well. And Baki F16s were basically hangar queens for 20 years.

Computing statistics on random numbers does nothing more than GIGO. You can break even a rolls royce if you wanted to get a new ferrari.

If you want to do this right, then you have to use numbers only for comparative age aircraft. Right now, its a blame game.

[Shreeman]

Nrao,

From your link:

The stop-and-start supply of spares, the irregular maintenance and unreasonable price hikes have been a stumbling block for India. Besides the current Ilyushin aircraft maintenance issue, the IAF has been looking for countries other than Russia for special tools and spares and global tenders have been floated for parts and tools related to MiG fighters, AN-32 transport aircraft, Mi-17 helicopters and OSA-AK surface-to-air missile systems. Even the Indian Army sidelined Russia recently by issuing a Request for Information (RFI) for the acquisition of active protection and counter-measure systems for its T-90S main-battle tanks (MBT) bought from Russia.

Its the "charging too much" issue again at the heart of your argument. Do you know what maintenance was left out due to this? And was the availability really 50% or is it another hit pieace like 50% SU 30MKi and 24 squadrons? 1++B is not too much? How much were the russians asking?

This is the problem with your whole argument. The numbers from BR are specifications. Not use by IAF. How does the service use them? In Leh, neither C17 nor IL76 are carrying their max weight.

Unfortunately, the 100% is bad math. If you only use them to carry 25t anyway, then it doesnt matter what the 100% is. You could have an AN224 and it would chsnge a thing.

There are PS90 IL76s in IAF, arent there. What did they do whrn they got rid of tail guns in a bunch? No engine upgrades?

The C17 will in the future work as advertised,because contract! The IL76 cant do this, because --no contract. Thats not contradictory. Why wasnt there a contract when those were bought? What precisely will you do except waive the paper in the air if the C17s dont hold up to the said contract?

Re. F16,M2000 or M21 -- old things fail. More. Often. Bad idea to compare the reliability of an unmaintained old car and a new one. And then blame the car model or maker for it.

I dont have anything for either of the two. I do however consistently argue against propaganda, conscious, or subconscious.

[Viv S]

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.

Why are you assuming the alternative is a case of deliberate falsification? It could well be an honest mistake on the part of whoever took the photograph. He may not have been aware of the A-100 project.

[Viv S]

The other ridiculous assumption is that you carry 100% useful load all the time. Where precisely do these 1000 tonne loads have to be carried like this?

That's mistaken assumption on your part. Its true the C-17 doesn't consistently carry 70 tons but the Il-76 doesn't carry 40 tons either (reducing the utility of the upgrade to 60 tons; MD variant). Same for the An-32 - see Arun's post about it bringing 2 tons of food material to Pokhara airfield (max payload 7.5 tons).

Volume usually maxes out before weight, but it is still useful load. By that metric, the C-17's cargo volume (430 m³) is twice as much as the Il-76 (220 m³). (Not incl. vol over ramp.) Add in this multiplier for payload and the C-17 is competitive if not outright superior to the IL-76 on life-cycle cost. Better availability and flexibility in addition to that.

Now if you're saying that we already have as much heavy lift capability as we need and should focus resources on lower segments (read: C-130) that would be a valid argument albeit lacking conclusive evidence.

[Singha]

The sad truth is the il76 is dead and il476 is unviable due to only rus orders.....750 il76 were sold, 12000 mi17/8 were sold.
C17 should be compared to an124t if Ukraine ever recovers, the a400m and y20.

[Shreeman]

Viv, NRao,

It is NOT a mistaken assumption. I didnt say C17/IL76 ought to carry 70t/50t -- that's NRao's entire point. Here are the numbers from @SpokespersonMoD.

I have left the C130 out of this, and tries to avoid duplicate tweets about the same flight. The max load reported in the whole 4-5 days is 58 tons. The sorties seem to be evenly matched by the elderly IL76 vs your air-conditioned and pressurized C-17, (and included the An32 on to show that it does remain in the mix as does the C130, again).

NRao's whole computation is based on 76t vs 50t. Otherwise, his math is entirely meaningless and you cant compare requirements or performance even for the existing fleet.

These are the numbers:

4/29 C-17 flt frm Kathmandu to Palam this morning with 248 pax on board.
4/29 IL-76 with 66 pax and 7 mortal remains arrive at Palam this morning from KTM
4/28 Total: IAF has so far evacuated 2865 persons frm Nepal 2 India by 36 sorties & airlifting 238.5 tons of relief
4/28 An AN-32 aircraft with 2 tons of food material lands at Pokhara airfield. (An 32 can take 8 t? -- I see, 7.5t above)
4/27 Arrival of 207 passengers at Palam from Kathmandu by C-17 Globemaster III this morning.
4/27 C-17 a/c of IAF with 207 passengers on board from Kathmandu is scheduled to land at Palam at 8 AM
4/27 Arrival at Palam from Kathmandu by IAF's IL-76 earlier today - number not given.
4/27 IL-76 of IAF brings back 213 persons frm KTM to Palam. Landed at 5.15 PM, taking the total number of evacuees to 2246.
4/27 2 Antonov-32 aircraft bring back 101 passengers from Kathmandu to Palam.
4/27 2 C-17 carrying comm equipment & Water, 1 C-130J and 1 IL-76 (NDRF teams) return to Palam due to 'congestion' at Kathmandu.
4/26 One C-17 a/c of IAF carrying 58 tonnes of water leaves Palam and is about to land at Kathmandu.
4/26 One IL-76 with 226 passengers on board from KTM is going to land shortly at Palam. (File Pic)
4/26 A view of the C-17 Globemaster III of IAF which brought in 237 passengers from KTM a short while ago
4/25 C-17 is getting readied with Engineering Task Force at Hindan. Will take off shortly for Kathmandu
4/25 A C-17 Globemaster III flt from Kathmandu with 237 Indians on board landed at Palam at 0437 Hr this morning.
4/25 One IL-76 brought back 152 passengers on board from Kathmandu to Palam.
4/25 02 Indians including one baby brought back by the C-17 Globemaster III of IAF from Kathmandu to Palam, Delhi.
4/25 The first C-17 Globemaster III aircraft of IAF has landed in Kathmandu. The second one is en route.
4/25 NDRF personnel, sniffer dogs and other loads get on board IL-76 at Bhatinda for the flt to Kathmandu
4/25 Pic of IAF's IL-76 a/c getting loaded b4 its take off from Bhatinda 2 Kathmandu. It's now air-borne
4/25 IL-76 a/c with 163 NDRF personnel, 5 sniffer dogs and 28 tons of load has taken off from Bhatinda to Kathmandu.
4/25 One C-17 Globemaster III has just taken off carrying 96 NDRF personnel and 15 tonnes of load.
4/25 One C-17 Globemaster III will fly later this A/N from Hindan to Kathmandu carrying Rapid Reaction Aero-Medical Team. (cor)
4/25 An IL-76 a/c of IAF will leave at 1800 hr for Kathmandu from Bhatinda carrying NDRF teams

The IL76 isnt a 1:1 replacement for a C17 because the costs are what they are. The IAF has put up as many IL76s as it liked and as many C-17s. Neither is carrying 70t or 40t.

Yes, there was 1 flight of 58t, but that could also have been two flights instead or this whole load 238.5 put on fewer chartered cargo planes. Plenty of time after day 1, if you plan that way. Germany has done it that way. And the heaviest load is still within 76-90As capacity.

The math being used above doesnt add up to this anecdotal evidence. You ignore one image of IL76s with a caption as "we dont know who they are for", and then trump up another article that is pejorative as "50% availability" without accepting its justifications. Then without assigning roles or uses compute arbitary brochure math.

The costs have to be added up. What are these C17 sorties costing including the capital cost and maintenance. What the IL76 sorties costing on the same basis? Does it justify the upfront sanctionable cost of $$B? If so, fine. But it doesnt appear to be the case.

Singha: The Mig29 was much worse dead, buried, and forgotten. Now both Russian and Indian Navies have what 50+ new ones? There is no evidence of the death of IL76, lets not overemphasize that. New built examples -- 3 in last 6 months have been pictured, seen, reported in this very conversation.

edit: wki -- il76: Payload: 42 tonnes (Il-76M), 48 tonnes (Il-76MD), 60 tonnes (Il-76MD-90A). The footnote says: 60,000 kg for the Il-76MF/TF. C-17: Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo. It not 50/70. Its 60/77. Thats even worse for NRao's numbers, and there is no excuse to use MD numbers. The 78MKIs are 90A, and so can the rest be at a fraction of the cost of a single C17 if they arent.

edit 2: also wiki: C17 US$218 million (flyaway cost for FY2007) -- to India, expect $$2B for the 3 including the maintenance in todays money. Wiki doesnt have IL76 cost, but http://www.deagel.com/Military-Transpor ... 68001.aspx says only $30M. That is peanuts even if its now 10 times more. Its still a third of the C17.

edit 3 -- . During US President Barack Obama's visit to India in late 2010, the White House said the value of the 10-aircraft deal was $4.1 billion. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 7s-367749/) What did India pay? By contrast the 78MKI (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 867031.cms) seems to be about $20-30M. 76s are probably cheaper. Its a 1:10 or greater ratio and you want to buy the Ferrari? No wonder there is the rush to justify breaking the bank.

edit 4 -- Recent C130s are 6 for $$1B. They cant talk $$M now? It has to be $$B?

[GeorgeWelch]

4/27 2 C-17 carrying comm equipment & Water, 1 C-130J and 1 IL-76 (NDRF teams) return to Palam due to 'congestion' at Kathmandu.

Yes, there was 1 flight of 58t, but that could also have been two flights instead or this whole load 238.5 put on fewer chartered cargo planes. Plenty of time after day 1, if you plan that way.

Often in emergencies, tarmac space is the limiting factor, and the C-17 is a very space-efficient lifter.

And of course if what you need to transport is too big to fit on an Il-76, then there is no substitute.

[Austin]

IAF Transport Fleet availability has been around 65 %

Internal IAF report criticises serviceability rate for fighter fleet

The operational availability of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) combat, transport, and helicopter fleets has averaged about 60% over the past three years, a recent internal assessment has revealed.

Of these platforms, the report disclosed that the IAF's 780-strong fighter fleet had an overall operational availability rate of 55% between 2011 and early 2014: the lowest of all platform types.

The availability rate for the same time period of trainer and transport assets, including recent acquisitions such as the Pilatus PC-7 Mk II trainer, Lockheed Martin C-130J-30, and Boeing C-17 Globemaster III transporters, hovered at about 65%.

Availability of the IAF's helicopter fleet stood at about 62%.

[Viv S]

Viv, NRao,

It is NOT a mistaken assumption. I didnt say C17/IL76 ought to carry 70t/50t -- that's NRao's entire point. Here are the numbers from @SpokespersonMoD.

I have left the C130 out of this, and tries to avoid duplicate tweets about the same flight. The max load reported in the whole 4-5 days is 58 tons. The sorties seem to be evenly matched by the elderly IL76 vs your air-conditioned and pressurized C-17, (and included the An32 on to show that it does remain in the mix as does the C130, again).

^Source?

NRao's whole computation is based on 76t vs 50t. Otherwise, his math is entirely meaningless and you cant compare requirements or performance even for the existing fleet.

You can compare the more relevant statistic of volume then. The ratio 3:2 (76-50) becomes a more stark 2:1.

These are the numbers:

They aren't comprehensive. All they tell is that the Il-76 was involved but there's no way of comparing the sortie generation rate of the C-17 & Il-76 from the list. Also don't tell how much cargo the aircraft are carrying in addition to passengers.

The IL76 isnt a 1:1 replacement for a C17 because the costs are what they are. The IAF has put up as many IL76s as it liked and as many C-17s. Neither is carrying 70t or 40t.

Call it a 2:1 replacement.

Flyaway cost -

C-17: $220 mil
Il-476: $120 mil (at 2012 prices - RUB 140 bn for 39 units)

The C-17 costs roughly twice as much as the Il-76 and carries twice as much cargo. But delivers greater reliability, better operational availability, better fuel efficiency (per unit cargo), better high altitude performance and the option of carrying outsized loads.

Yes, there was 1 flight of 58t, but that could also have been two flights instead or this whole load 238.5 put on fewer chartered cargo planes. Plenty of time after day 1, if you plan that way. Germany has done it that way. And the heaviest load is still within 76-90As capacity.

If we run with that argument (of leasing being a reliable alternative), there's no need for the IAF to have any heavy lift capability. Do we need a Il-76 if the same job can be done by two C-130Js.

There's a valid argument for capping the C-17 fleet at 10 units with more C-130Js bought to compensate. One will need more information about the IAF's operating patterns to come to a conclusion. The case for new Il-76s on the other hand is very rickety and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The math being used above doesnt add up to this anecdotal evidence. You ignore one image of IL76s with a caption as "we dont know who they are for", and then trump up another article that is pejorative as "50% availability" without accepting its justifications. Then without assigning roles or uses compute arbitary brochure math.

50% wasn't my figure. That said, our entire history with Russian aircraft old and new, as well as feedback from the IAF, suggests that even new-build Il-476s will be outperformed by the C-17 when it comes operational availability.

The costs have to be added up. What are these C17 sorties costing including the capital cost and maintenance. What the IL76 sorties costing on the same basis? Does it justify the upfront sanctionable cost of $$B? If so, fine. But it doesnt appear to be the case.

I can't speak to the maintenance but on capital costs there's certainly a case for the C-17. Same for fuel consumption

edit 2: also wiki: C17 US$218 million (flyaway cost for FY2007) -- to India, expect $$2B for the 3 including the maintenance in todays money. Wiki doesnt have IL76 cost, but http://www.deagel.com/Military-Transpor ... 68001.aspx says only $30M. That is peanuts even if its now 10 times more. Its still a third of the C17.

$120 mil in 2012 for the latest model - Il-76MD-90A (Il-476). [The Ruble has fallen steeply since then but its been coupled with soaring inflation.]

[Shreeman]

George:

58t is less than 60t. And come on, even NATO rents AN124s! What are you transporting that is >>60t and needs to go in one flight. Are India moving PSLV pieces with this thing? And congestion is a reason for continued "strategic" acquisitions? How much do you need to move in one go?

Viv:twitter @SpokespersonMOD daily updates. There are no comprehensive numbers, which is all I have said. Lets not claim the 50% when this is the best available. @ $120M, you can get 3 IL76 == 60x3 = 180t lift instead of 77t. Passanger flights never make it to the density of cargo. You can assume they didnt break the 50t barrier even conservatively. And why is the availability noted above at 65% for C130 and C17, does anybody know?

edit -- the usual case seems to be what you transport. And in the anecdotal numbers 60t seems to be enough. Its not clear the C17 was full, so we cant argue that it wont fit in the IL76 on volume. Yes, C17 will lift 17t more, and yes AN124 and AN224 and C5s will lift even more. But how many of these really really heavy beasts do you need? Cant you rent like the good old NATO if its needed only once a year. IAF gets its aircraft from Russia that way -- in the hold of an AN124.

[Viv S]

IAF Transport Fleet availability has been around 65 %

Internal IAF report criticises serviceability rate for fighter fleet

I've seen that Rahul Bedi article before. Appears a bit off - it also claims that the Mirage 2000 has an availability of 50% IIRC. The performance based logistics contract for the C-17 binds Boeing to deliver 85% availability for the entire fleet. If they'd have defaulted and slapped with penalties, it would probably have been reported in the press.

[Shreeman]

^^ This is why you need CAG type reports on this stuff. What really has the transport fleet -- C17s or IL76s really doing. That would be the definitive information. And M2000 did fall to 50%, more than Rahul Bedi reported this. Waiting for upgrades, they "forgot" to order spares. One can guess this may well have contributed to some of the recent crashes.

Also, the disclosure of penalties and such would take its due course. If there is a penalty process, its probably not even complete yet.

edit - the C130 vs IL76 vs C17 is an interesting question. Add C235, AN32, Do228, and HS748 to the list. Clearly, there is rationalization needed in this fleet. And there is MTA to be considered as well. Or do you never want to build any transport in India ever?

edit 2 -- Ooh, and I forgot Saras!

[Viv S]

Viv:twitter @SpokespersonMOD daily updates.

The tweets said that the two types flew the same/similar number of sorties?

There are no comprehensive numbers, which is all I have said. Lets not claim the 50% when this is the best available. @ $120M, you can get 3 IL76 == 60x3 = 180t lift instead of 77t.

We've established that the aircraft rarely fly at max payload. In the IL-76MD's case they will most probably never fly at max payload (the MTOW has increased over the legacy variant, but the cargo volume remains the same).

By both cargo volume, as well as floor area, 1 C-17 = 2 Il-76.

Passanger flights never make it to the density of cargo. You can assume they didnt break the 50t barrier even conservatively.

True. But if passenger airlift were the aircraft's primary role, a civilian airliner would be better suited to the task. As things stand, the aircraft is first and foremost a military transport.

[Shreeman]

^^^ Each tweet noted an individual aircraft. These are all the IL/C17 flights tweeted about. There may have been more that we dont know about.

If only heavy-heavy-heavy lift was required then the competition should be C5 and AN124 super heavies. The C17 is not a bad aircraft. The IL76 is not a bad aircraft. Do you really need to spend $$4+B + $$2++B upfront on the C17s. Thats a lot of money for 13 aircraft. The operating cost is extra. 26 IL7x would only be $3+B at $120M. Isnt $3B worth something today?

edit - And if they are $6B+, then they better have a 80%+ availability without any other costs. That shouldnt be something to gloat about. They are practically gold plated.

[GeorgeWelch]

What are you transporting that is >>60t and needs to go in one flight.

It's not just weight, it's fit. If something is too wide or too tall to fit in the cargo bay, it doesn't matter how much or how little it weighs.

And congestion is a reason for continued "strategic" acquisitions? How much do you need to move in one go?

It's not 'one go', it's about optimizing a continual stream of supplies through a limited airport. By using aircraft that get more supplies in less tarmac space, you're increasing the flow rate.

Its not clear the C17 was full, so we cant argue that it wont fit in the IL76 on volume.

It would be unwise to limit ourselves to one minor example as the ultimate proof of a lack of need. These planes will be in service for decades, and to say "We didn't need their extraordinary capability this time, therefore we will never need it." seems a tad presumptuous.

Cant you rent like the good old NATO if its needed only once a year. IAF gets its aircraft from Russia that way -- in the hold of an AN124.

Rental works fine when:
a) You know your demand well in advance and can schedule accordingly. In an emergency, your rental may not be available.
b) You're not in a war. Companies tend to frown at flying their planes into an active war zone.

[Viv S]

^^^ Each tweet noted an individual aircraft. These are all the IL/C17 flights tweeted about. There may have been more that we dont know about.

Tweet No. 2:

4/28 Total: IAF has so far evacuated 2865 persons frm Nepal 2 India by 36 sorties & airlifting 238.5 tons of relief

Clearly the tweets are nowhere near comprehensive enough to draw any informed conclusion.

If only heavy-heavy-heavy lift was required then the competition should be C5 and AN124 super heavies. The C17 is not a bad aircraft. The IL76 is not a bad aircraft. Do you really need to spend $$4+B + $$2++B upfront on the C17s. Thats a lot of money for 13 aircraft. The operating cost is extra. 26 IL7x would only be $3+B at $120M. Isnt $3B worth something today?

Like I said, until we know more about their operational statistics on IAF missions, I can't say what the optimum number of heavy lifters would be. But the Il-76 certainly comes off second best to the C-17 as far as the choice of airlifters is concerned.

$120 mil is the flyaway cost of the Il-76. The price we pay could be twice as high. More for a similar OEM support contract. Compare the contract prices of the Su-30SM with the Su-30MKI, for example. The latter costs twice because the figure for the former omits several standards expenses as a result of differing accounting systems.

edit - And if they are $6B+, then they better have a 80%+ availability without any other costs. That shouldnt be something to gloat about. They are practically gold plated.

No more than the Il-76 really.

[Viv S]

the C130 vs IL76 vs C17 is an interesting question. Add C235, AN32, Do228, and HS748 to the list. Clearly, there is rationalization needed in this fleet. And there is MTA to be considered as well. Or do you never want to build any transport in India ever?

I'm all for building transports in India, but for the heavy segment we don't have the volumes to justify such a venture.

For the medium segment, the MTA is a dead-end. PAK FA/FGFA redux, wherein we pretend to co-develop an aircraft while underwriting Russian R&D costs, followed by local kit assembly. Also, practically speaking it'll be available only by 2025 and performance at altitude is a concern.
___________________________

The IAF's concerns centre around the twin Aviadvigatel PD-14M turbofan engines intended to power the platform. Sources say the IAF has indicated four major critera in engine performance on paper that don't match stated performance requirements in terms of altitude, re-light characteristics.
.
.
Taking the prospective signing of the crucial agreement on the detailed design phase as the starting point, the joint venture's timelines read like this: 24 months to complete detailed design, 42 months to first flight and 62 months to series production. Those are serious timelines by any stretch.

Link
___________________________

If we are looking to build locally, we're far better off sticking with the C-130J and building a local assembly line for it. Its already in service so no excess diversification and its a solid platform that can operate from all our high altitude bases.

As for the Avro/An-32 replacement - with the blacklisting of Agusta Westland lifted, the Finmeccanica-owned Alenia ought to be invited to re-enter the competition. Should take care of the MoD's single vendor apprehensions.

[Singha]

the Il76 family apart from higher lifecycle costs and a evolutionary dead end with no financial muscle to keep going suffers from volume limitations. it can barely take a tiny T72 tank. you want to airlift some units of SAMs from the south to replace those damaged by cheeni cruise missiles in tezpur ? - no can do . big radars - no can do ? a few SP guns or MBTs of T90+ ? no can do. and in sheer weight terms it can cart along a lot more ammunition and fuel.

as a people mover the C130 will be cheaper and more reliable.

as a awacs we went for it as we had no option. moment we had glimpse of an option IAF wants A330!

the MTA is even worse. here we are with no handle on the thing and waiting for a new engine that will attempt to resolve its thrust shortfall...and ofcourse we will be the launch customer of this engine. did anyone say AL-55 for IJT ? another slam dunk decision as it was just supposed to a 'derated and smaller' core from the proven AL-31 tech base lol.

the An32 upg's can probably be flogged for another decade but no more. comparison can be done between the C130 short chassis version and the Embraer product that is flying. Embraer needs customers for it and might cut us a good deal on price if we get it all done in brazil. its a decade too late for any JV or IP, we shot ourself in foot with MTA...now we just have to buy

[Cybaru]

Why can't a RR or CFM engine be used for this mythical MTA? Why do we have to use PD-14M? CFM-56-5B3 or the Trent or RB series of engines.

[member_29004]

IAF Transport Fleet availability has been around 65 %

Internal IAF report criticises serviceability rate for fighter fleet

I've seen that Rahul Bedi article before. Appears a bit off - it also claims that the Mirage 2000 has an availability of 50% IIRC. The performance based logistics contract for the C-17 binds Boeing to deliver 85% availability for the entire fleet. If they'd have defaulted and slapped with penalties, it would probably have been reported in the press.

65% is the availability of the whole fleet, not just C-17's or C-130's. IL-76 etc are bound to bring down the statistic of the fleet !

[member_29004]

^^^ Each tweet noted an individual aircraft. These are all the IL/C17 flights tweeted about. There may have been more that we dont know about.

Tweet No. 2:

4/28 Total: IAF has so far evacuated 2865 persons frm Nepal 2 India by 36 sorties & airlifting 238.5 tons of relief

Clearly the tweets are nowhere near comprehensive enough to draw any informed conclusion.

If only heavy-heavy-heavy lift was required then the competition should be C5 and AN124 super heavies. The C17 is not a bad aircraft. The IL76 is not a bad aircraft. Do you really need to spend $$4+B + $$2++B upfront on the C17s. Thats a lot of money for 13 aircraft. The operating cost is extra. 26 IL7x would only be $3+B at $120M. Isnt $3B worth something today?

Like I said, until we know more about their operational statistics on IAF missions, I can't say what the optimum number of heavy lifters would be. But the Il-76 certainly comes off second best to the C-17 as far as the choice of airlifters is concerned.

$120 mil is the flyaway cost of the Il-76. The price we pay could be twice as high. More for a similar OEM support contract. Compare the contract prices of the Su-30SM with the Su-30MKI, for example. The latter costs twice because the figure for the former omits several standards expenses as a result of differing accounting systems.

edit - And if they are $6B+, then they better have a 80%+ availability without any other costs. That shouldnt be something to gloat about. They are practically gold plated.

No more than the Il-76 really.

Whatever the optimum number maybe be, for a million strong Army with ever expanding geo political duties , 10 is not enough for sure. Not when the global super cop has 223, expecting the Chinese to have close to 140.


We require for the immediate future a fleet of atleast 50 C-17's, If IAF and MOD in all its wisdom in 1980's thought that they needed 17 IL-76's, I am sure in our current state and looking at our immediate future, we require atleast 4 times that.

[Singha]

I think people should get used to the fact that billion is the new million.
a well upholstered DDG comes these days for $1b , a carrier for minimum $3b and so on....a bvr aam costs $1 million+ , a RDY radar costs $5 mil

nothing is cheap in defence sector except ak47 and bullets made in dara adam khel back lanes.

good logistics both air and road permit optimal manpower and resource utilization instead of everyone sitting on a new maginot line at the front. when the shit hits the fan, even 50 are not going to prove enough....

the alacrity with which IAF loaded up on the 10 C17 indicates they know what we dont know about the true state and future of the IL76 fleet.

sound logistics are a deterrent "force in being" like SSBNs and A5... you hope never to use it in anger but keeping it "in being" is a opex.

[Singha]

Why can't a RR or CFM engine be used for this mythical MTA? Why do we have to use PD-14M? CFM-56-5B3 or the Trent or RB series of engines.

because our uh "partners" will not permit it and want to support their own indigenous engine makers - who have no record of selling engines to non russian/ukr planes as yet.

[Singha]

first flight of the promising Embraer KC390 -Feb3 , 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y36Ym5nH4DU

certification will probably take around 3 yrs.

payload: 23 tons .

Operators

The Brazilian Air Force ordered 28 KC-390, in addition to the two prototypes.
Including Brazilian order, a total of sixty units were ordered for Chile, Portugal, Czech Republic, Argentina and Colombia. Portugal, Czech Republic and Argentina are Brazilian partners in program

--
its order book is quite small at 60 and brazil has a small budget for defence....a 100 plane buy-in from India under MTA will suit both sides quite nicely. being a relatively simple a/c compared to the Rafale, this might also be more in HAL's range to setup a assembly line here first from CKD kits and localizing parts later. A lot of extra roles like MRMP, gunships, SOAR, battlefield jammer, MALD launcher could be worked out later....

though the c130 is more proven, it will cost an arm and leg to localizae anything here, and their order book is strong so chances of a discount for a big order are minimal...khan himself buys so much they are not dependent on others for success.

[Singha]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/meet-t ... 1649242405

Embraer's downright exciting KC-390 tanker-transport has made the leap, or roll really, into the public eye for the very first time. With capabilities loosely analogous to the venerable C-130, but offering the economy and speed of twin turbofan engines, the KC-390 may become a real contender in the lucrative medium air transport marketplace.

The KC-390's higher operating altitude, greater payload and much faster speed already gives it a lead over the present day market dominator, the Lockheed C-130J, and orders are already migrating its way. Commitments for 60 of the jets are on the books, from countries including Argentina (6), Brazil (28), Chile (6), Colombia (12), the Czech Republic (2) and Portugal (6) and other air forces are eyeing the aircraft very closely.

To sweeten the international KC-390 offering, and to alleviate 'new manufacturer' concerns, Lockheed's main competitor, Boeing, has signed on to take care of sales, servicing and training for potential North American and European users, which brings incredible clout to Embraer's largest aircraft project to date.

Another interesting point is that the KC-390 was clean-sheet designed as a transport capable of short and rough field operations, as well as acting as a aerial refueling tanker. In other words, the tanking feature was not an afterthought mission that was added later, as it is with so many other tanker aircraft designs. Thus the jet can refuel many types of aircraft over a large flight envelope, and fighter aircraft won't have to slow way down in order to suckle from either of her refueling drogues.



It will be exciting to see how the KC-390 progresses into the testing phase as the program has implications far greater than just selling a new type of jet to military customers. Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer has grown dramatically in the commercial marketplace over the last two decades, with its popular regional jet aircraft lines, and it has become a serious contender in the business jet and military aircraft upgrade domain as well. Thus, this ambitious military project, if successful, will lead to other even larger projects, especially if product support is satisfactory for the type's new government operators.

For Embraer, KC-390 is really as much a business development delivery vehicle as it is a cargo hauler. It gets Embraer's foot in the door with many militaries and governments around the globe, and if successful, it will provide the company much easier access for the sale of other related and non-related products alike.

The KC-390 itself may also morph quickly as it matures. If it lives up to its cost effectiveness and off the shelf commonality claims (its engines are from the Airbus A320 for instance) then a commercial cargo variant and even an airliner variant of the jet may be on the way. Although, the ultimate accomplishment for the Embraer-Boeing KC-390 team would be to call the Department of Defense a customer, something that is quite unlikely but still not outside the realm of possibility.

Even if 'big' Air Force and 'big' Navy don't purchase the KC-390, Special Operations Command could, which would break an incredibly long lasting medium transport monopoly held by Lockheed's quad-turboprop powered C-130 Hercules. Some aerospace commentators have even suggested that it would be worth selling any US Government operator the KC-390, even at a large loss, just to break the C-130's better part of a century's long hold on the US marketplace.

There is little doubt that Embraer's design appears to be versatile and capable on paper, now we will have to see if this South American hauler has what it takes to wrestle the C-130 down a few thousand feet from its perch as thee aircraft that bridges the gap between strategic and tactical military air transport.

Tyler Rogoway is a defense journalist and photographer who maintains the website Foxtrot Alpha for Jalopnik.com You can reach Tyler with story ideas or direct comments regarding this or any other defense topic via the email address Tyler@Jalopnik.com

[Viv S]

though the c130 is more proven, it will cost an arm and leg to localizae anything here, and their order book is strong so chances of a discount for a big order are minimal...khan himself buys so much they are not dependent on others for success.

Actually the C-130J line is finally running short on orders, so for a large enough order they might be amenable to moving lock stock and barrel to India, likely with re-export rights.

___________________________________

C-130 slowdown prompts cuts at Lockheed plant

Lockheed workers churned out 36 C-130Js in 2011 to meet the U.S. government's demand, but that number dropped to 32 this year and is set to fall to 24 per year starting in 2013. The company said global demand "remains high, but we must match our domestic and international customers' contractual schedules."
___________________________________

The KC-390 might have been a good option but for two issues. One, the C-130J is most certainly cheaper to operate (low aspect ratio wing + turboprop) and two, its already in service allowing for logistical rationalization.

[Singha]

the ones we have in service are all MC130 std and can be the nucleus of a new SOCOM , with more Mi17v and Dhruvs as well and LCH when it comes. we just ordered more SF kit for $74 mil like flare dispensers, decoys and such....so the intended role is clear.

we need to replace the 100 or so AN32 with a basic cargo hauler, so either of c130 (basic cheap model) of kc390 can fit the bill.

[Singha]

in 2008, LM proposed a bigger wider C130XL , I guess the proposal was rejected

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ht-316314/

[deejay]

.... we just ordered more SF kit for $74 mil like flare dispensers, decoys and such....so the intended role is clear.

Flare dispensers are standard fixtures for all flights in active CI Ops areas. Not necessarily SF.

[brar_w]

in 2008, LM proposed a bigger wider C130XL , I guess the proposal was rejected

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ht-316314/

The efficiencies being sought from a future C-130 and C-17 replacement (separate projects) cannot be had from either upgrading the airframes or even having a clean sheet design. Much like the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350 despite of the CFRP and the generally reduced weight a vast majority of the savings and efficiencies would come from the Engines. To that end, the target has been set at around 30% reduction in fuel burn and AFRL is working with a bunch of companies to ensure that there is enough R&D in the pipeline for them to base a program on when they go ahead with it.

[NRao]

Analysis for you (provides numbers close to what I had come up with):

IAF Equipment and Force Structure Requirements to Meet External Threats, 2032

Transport Aircraft

The ground infrastructure in terms of roads in the NE has been neglected
over the years, but is now reportedly in process of being refurbished.67
Indian Army would mobilize and move forward to its border posts and
locations by road with induction from the rest of the country being by
rail or road. The Indian Army is expected to deploy eight mountain
divisions68 on the land borders in the NE.69 The enemy is expected to
interdict at least some of the roads required by our army for resupply of
men and material. In a case of land routes of resupply being interdicted,
there will be need for aerial resupply of petrol, oil and lubricants (POL),
ammunition and other essential stores to such army units. There may also,
at times, be need for induction of work reinforcement to some locations
as well as inter-area transfer of troops and equipment to meet emergent
situations. With eight divisions deployed in the area, it would be prudent
for IAF to cater for aerial resupply of at least two divisions engaged in
combat. ‘Inter-area transport of troops’ capability should exist for at least
two mountain brigades.

It is understood that all army units would have integral reserve supplies
for emergencies. A worst-case situation is considered here of reserve not
being available or being already expended. The IAF transport assets
cannot be built up in a hurry; hence, it is prudent to have assets in being
catering for the worst-case situation. One division has approximately
15,000 troops and includes three to four artillery brigades, each with 18
guns. Assuming that each gun fires 150 rounds per day, the replenishment
requirement in terms of ammunition for an artillery brigade would be 18
× 150 × 40 kg = 108,000 kg per day. Thus, for each division, 108 × 3 =
324.0 tons of artillery ammunition requires to be catered for in addition
to 15 tons of food at the rate of 1 kg of dry ration per day per man and
15,000 × 5 kg = 75 tons of small arms ammunition of various calibres per
day. In addition, POL to the tune of 14 tons would also be needed, giving
total airlift requirement of 428 tons per day per division. If IAF caters for
two divisions, this amounts to 856 tons per day.

An IL-76 can, in practice, carry 40 tonnes of load; a C-17 can carry
77 tonnes; and a C-130J can carry 20 tonnes. A Mi-17 helicopter can
carry 3 tonnes up to an altitude of close to 5–6 km above mean sea level
(AMSL); and a CH-47 Chinook can carry 4 tonnes to similar altitudes.70
Air supply of stores will require a mix of airdropping and air landing
due to limited availability of drop zones of required size. Air landing is
not likely to be possible by IL-76 aircraft, while C-17, C-130/Medium
Transport Aircraft (MTA) may be able to land at some forward airstrips
and Mi-17/Chinook helicopters may be able to land at most locations. Of
the total load to be delivered to a division, it is assumed that 60 per cent
can be airdropped and the remainder needs to be air landed, with 20 per
cent of the total air–land load able to be done by C-130 class of aircraft
and the last 20 per cent of the total requiring helicopter carriage due to
topography. Thus, with this calculation, 0.6 × 856 = 513.6 tonnes would
require to be airdropped daily by IL-76 /C-17 aircraft, which would
consume 12.86 or 13 IL-76 sorties or 6.67 = 7 C-17 sorties; alternatively,
this could be done in 26 C-130/MTA sorties (at the rate of 20 tonnes per
sortie).

For transport aircraft, in view of the much greater time needed for
loading and offloading, it is assumed that two sorties are possible per day.
Thus, the heavy-lift effort requires at least seven serviceable IL-76 or four
C-17 aircraft being available for operation in the theatre. Air landing of
171.2 tonnes would require nine C-130 sorties. If the entire airdrop effort
is carried out by Il-76/C-17 aircraft—with C-130s not being required to
78 Journal of Defence Studies carry out any airdrops—then nine serviceable C-130s would be required
in the theatre.”Taking serviceability of 60 per cent for IL-76 and 80 per
cent for C-130 and C-17 aircraft, this translates to a requirement of 12
IL-76 aircraft, five C-17 aircraft and 12 C-130 aircraft in theatre, working
out to one C-17 squadron and 1.5 squadrons each of C-130 and IL-76
aircraft (at the IAF norm of eight to 10 aircraft per transport squadron),
with some spare effort available for emergencies and purely IAF tasks.
Airlifting of 171.2 tonnes by Mi-17 would require 57.06 or 58 sorties
from 29 serviceable aircraft in theatre, which would require a total of 39
aircraft in theatre at average serviceability rate of 75 per cent. By CH-47
Chinooks, this would require 43 sorties from 22 CH-47 helicopters. At
75 per cent serviceability, this works out to 29 aircraft. This translates to
four Mi-17/three Chinook squadrons in the theatre (at the IAF norm of
10 aircraft per helicopter squadron).71

The Mi-17/Chinook helicopters could also supplement the available
firepower in the area in the armed helicopter role. With Indian Army
expanding its aviation corps to include integral intra-theatre helilift
capability and attack helicopter capability, this rotary wing should
be adequate. The IAF’s planned two squadrons of AH-64 Apache
attack helicopters would be deployed in this area and by 2032, should
be expanded to six attack helicopter squadrons in the NE to give each
division dedicated helicopter fire support capability. Indian Army’s
own attack helicopters would cover the shortfall, if any. Eight advanced
light helicopter (ALH) squadrons would be required to provide light air
communication capability to the divisions deployed in the NE. Remnants
of the upgraded Mi-25 attack helicopters would remain on the western
front in view of their limited altitude capability, with light combat
helicopter (LCH) units deployed in the northern areas.

Other tasks for IL-76 and C-130 class of aircraft would remain, such
as air supply of troops in the north Jammu and Kashmir region, including
Siachen Glacier, and other operational tasks in WAC, SWAC, CAC, SAC
and MC. These tasks could, it is estimated, be met by one squadron each
of IL-76, C-17 and C-130/ MTA aircraft, while these commands outside
the eastern theatre of operations would require a total of eight Mi-17/
Chinook and 10 ALH helicopter squadrons for IAF roles and missions,
including aid to civil authorities. It should be borne in mind that IAF’s
helicopter force would be supplemented by Indian Army’s own expanded
aviation assets.

The total number of transport and helicopter squadrons comes to two-
and-a-half squadrons of IL-76 and C-130 aircraft each, two squadrons of
C-17 and 12 Mi-17, 11 Chinook and 18 ALH squadrons.

[NRao]

Data point:

The IAF’s Elusive Quest for a New Tactical Transporter

April, 2014 :: By Gp Capt Joseph Noronha

Today, less than half the IL-76 jets can be operationally employed but they will be preserved and kept in service for some more years, perhaps with the help of an upgrade

If the Indian government does take a timely decision to enhance the strength of the IAF’s fleet to 16, half the number is expected to be based at Panagarh. These 16 C-17 planes should be adequate to meet the IAF’s strategic airlift needs for some years, particularly since they will be backed up by the remaining IL-76 aircraft.

[Hitesh]

Shreeman,

Proof is in the pudding.

See the figures in here.



Look at the number of sorties and see which one carried the most and was most available. That graph alone convinced me that IAF was right to go for C-17s. Also see referenced information by NRao regarding the stats on C17s and Il-76s.

Piece of advice - don't fall into the lovefest trap that a certain long time BRF member has fallen into for Russian goods. Some Russian goods are what they are cracked up to be and more (Su-30s and Akulas) and some aren't what they are cracked to be (T-90s and A-50s and maintenance capabilities).

Sometimes it is really occum's razor at work here. I love some Russian products and think that those are superior to Western products but there are some western products that are just vastly superior to Russian products, hands down. It is okay to acknowledge that. You don't have to continually deny the superiority of western products in order to ensure that those russian products that are really useful to stand out on their own like a certain BRF member feels he has to do it all the time.

[Vipul]

We will have to reserve overall comments on SU30's till the data of its real-time availability becomes available. Then we can know for sure whether it is a hangar queen and jet for air-shows or a real work horse/force multiplier for India.

[Vivek K]

NRao, so what if only 50% are operational? Buy twice the number from mother Russia! As it is mother Russia came to poor SDRE Indians help for free (charged billions later) and saved their dark rice eating butts!

[NRao]

The irony of all this is the more C-17s the IAF acquires, the longer the IL-76s, in the IAF inventory, will stay to serve (and preserve Russian supply chain).

Seriously.

[NRao]

Then the flip side of the coin, filed under I-cannot-make-this-up-even-if-I-wanted-to:

Dec, 2014 :: Russia launches Il-76MDM upgrade programme

You cannot beat that stuff.

Russia's Ilyushin has started to upgrade a first Russian Air Force (VVS) Ilyushin Il-76MD 'Candid' military transport aircraft to Il-76MDM standard, company officials have told IHS Jane's . The main features of the upgrade include refurbished engines and upgraded avionics.

The modernisation is being conducted at the VVS's Military Transport Aviation (MTA) maintenance facility based at the Ilyushin division in Zhukovsky city near Moscow.

A senior Ilyushin official told IHS Jane's that the upgrade of the first aircraft will be finished in 18 months. Subsequent aircraft will take less time to complete the process, however. When the modernisation is finished the initial Il-76MDM will undergo state trials. The upgrade process for subsequent aircraft will begin when the trials programme is completed.

So, first plane completes upgrade, say mid-2016. Then tests/trials. THEN if found to be good enough, then other planes start being upgraded.

IHS Jane's was previously told by a VVS senior official that the modernisation of 41 MTA Il-76MDs is planned by 2020. While the Il-76MDM upgrade retains the old D-30KP engine (compared with the PS-90A engine equipping the new Il-76MD-90A/Il-476), the modernisation effort should match the aircraft's onboard electronics with those of the newbuild Il-76MD-90A. This and other efforts mean the cost of modernising the Il-76MD to Il-76MDM is only a third of that of a newbuild Il-76MD-90A.

So, the MDM will be equal-equal except for carrying capacity (40 vs, some 66 tons) (that due to the engines). At 1/3 cost!!!! (So, why even buy the IL-476?)

The existing D-30KP engines are to be enhanced to increase their service life. The overall aircraft's service life will be extended by 15 years.

The upgrade works are planned to be conducted in an aviation repair factory or in the MTA's aircraft maintenance facility. As a result, the Ulyanovsk-based Aviastar-SP plant, which is building the Il-76MD-90A, is not involved in the Il-76MD to Il-76MDM modernisation programme

I bet this was possible due to the IAF upgrades.

And, I bet, now that China and India have opted out of teh IL-476, the IL-476 will not see the light of day except, perhaps, for the A-100.

____________________________________________________________________________________


So, why exactly would te IAF be interested in increasing the IL fleet?

I would think that the IAF would be perfectly happy with buying more C-17s and sparingly using the remaining upgraded IL-76MDs ................... till say 2030.

____________________________________________________________________________________

I am afriad to do any back-of-the-envelop calcs anymore, but here I go:

IL-76MD upgrade = 1/3 the cost of IL-476.

They plan on upgrading 41 of them (of 119 or so).

That means if they had not upgraded the IL-76MDs, they could have bought 13 IL-476s.

They have ordered 38 IL-476.

So, either reduce the number of IL-476s (by 13) or the options for the IL476 are gone (IMHO of course).