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.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63092
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 04 Feb 2018 21:14

UAE btw has invested in a drone company...has working products . could be using eu/east european contract designers also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adcom_Systems


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby shiv » 04 Feb 2018 21:47

Wiki 32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-32

Wiki 132
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov/Taqnia_An-132

The figures don't put 132 unequivocally ahead, if they are to be believed. An-32 was created out of An26 specially for India and has served us well. As yet there is no evidence that 132 will be better for IAF's unique conditions other than promises by manufacturer. The proof of the pudding, as always will lie in the eating

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 04 Feb 2018 22:06

Singha wrote:i wonder why the saudis put money into antonov? china i can understand.

must be payoffs for something the ukrainians did to please the saudis.


SA is in the process of diversifying her economy, joining the rest of us. This is a step in that direction. MIC being a major component of the goal.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2683
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby chola » 06 Feb 2018 21:18

Getting a good medium-sized transport that you own rights to is more than just about transports.

Cross-posting from the chini mil thread: what you get from a 60-year-old turboprop simple enough that you could experiment with and build out in countless forms over generations.

The Chini Y-8/Y-9 An-12 ripoff.
Image

They also have a similar stable from their Y-7/Ma-60/600 An-24 ripoff.

I hope we can work out control of the C-295 in similar fashion but less likely with an aircraft that Airbus is still selling. The Saudis will have ownership of the An-132 though it will be less advanced. A pity and a missed opportunity IMHO.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 07 Feb 2018 03:54

True, but making a transport aircraft at home will allow similar leverage as well. We may have to pony up costs, but we could own the ip and the modifications and could become exclusive manufacturers of this line. If we really bargain hard, we maybe able to move the whole line here. They (C295) only have 30-40 orders more they need to deliver. what after that?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2683
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby chola » 07 Feb 2018 08:19

Cybaru wrote:True, but making a transport aircraft at home will allow similar leverage as well. We may have to pony up costs, but we could own the ip and the modifications and could become exclusive manufacturers of this line. If we really bargain hard, we maybe able to move the whole line here. They (C295) only have 30-40 orders more they need to deliver. what after that?


The newest variant, C-295W, was certified only 2014 and has new customers for it from Mexico, Bangladesh, Thailand, Mali and Saudi Arabia.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c295w-transport-and-surveillance-aircraft/

Also there are new AEW, MPA and gunship variants planned. So doesn’t seem like it is a platform on its way out.

As I said earlier, it would be far less likely for Airbus to give up IP rights to the C-295 than for Antonov to give those to the An-32 because Ukraine is under pressure and is welling to sell assets. Ukraine is probably an once in a life-time opportunity (unless Russia goes into the tank again.)

But Tata is private sector so it might be able to negotiate more control/ownership over the C-295. It might pursue actual ToT harder than the babus at our PSUs.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63092
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 07 Feb 2018 08:33

Cheen has also purchased the AN70 IP btw. expect the new round of workhorse C130-clone rolling to be done on that. LRMP, AEW etc etc

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 07 Feb 2018 08:51

But Tata is private sector so it might be able to negotiate more control/ownership over the C-295. It might pursue actual ToT harder than the babus at our PSUs.


Well..................

For one there needs to be a vision .................... of what things might look like or mold like. That is the risk one needs to embrace.

That aside, the thing with "China" is that it is a State, unlike Tata. The State not only had vision but had the authority to take risks - funds AND time. Tata has neither. I doubt the Indian State will fund such efforts AND absorb the results without complaining - like the Chinese. And, I am not too sure that the future holds much for an extension of teh C series or for that matter even the An series. There are newer designs for transports and I would like the likes of Tata to build expertise in those areas.

A quick word on Saudi Arabia: They have a much broader picture they are looking at. They are constructing a huge solar "city", despite the amount of oil they are pumping. The An-132 is but a small cog in the wheel of diversification. They want to teach their population about manufacturing, service industries, etc.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2683
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby chola » 07 Feb 2018 08:56

Singha wrote:Cheen has also purchased the AN70 IP btw. expect the new round of workhorse C130-clone rolling to be done on that. LRMP, AEW etc etc


What the hell! I haven’t heard that one. I thought it would be one of the crown jewels that Ukraine keeps. They sold the An-225 IP to Cheen but that is a white elephant that Ukraine can’t afford to build anyways.

The An-70 is/was a competitor to the A400M even in West European nations! Germany evaluated it and gave it higher marks than the A400M. This is an even bigger opportunity missed if correct.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 07 Feb 2018 10:04

When the MTA deal was in the doldrums,and it was for a v.long time, a plan B should've been prepared.The IAF is somehow always late on the draw and acquisitions are knee-jerk rather than being pro-active.Remember the boast about their being " no plan B",Rafale only.
The AN-70/74 could've easily been sealed given our long relationship with the UKR and the on going AN-32 upgrades.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 947
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby KrishnaK » 07 Feb 2018 10:21

chola wrote:
Singha wrote:Cheen has also purchased the AN70 IP btw. expect the new round of workhorse C130-clone rolling to be done on that. LRMP, AEW etc etc


What the hell! I haven’t heard that one. I thought it would be one of the crown jewels that Ukraine keeps. They sold the An-225 IP to Cheen but that is a white elephant that Ukraine can’t afford to build anyways.

The An-70 is/was a competitor to the A400M even in West European nations! Germany evaluated it and gave it higher marks than the A400M. This is an even bigger opportunity missed if correct.


From Antonov An-70

Antonov proposed a "westernised" version of the An-70, the An-7X. The German government tasked DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (DASA) with the responsibility of evaluating the An-70 and assessing whether it would fulfill the ESR for a common tactical airlifter. Airbus provided data of the aircraft to DASA, who confirmed the data with its own wind-tunnel tests. According to the DASA study from 1999, the An-70 fulfilled the ESR, and that westernisation is possible, but work in key areas would have been necessary and risks existed. Areas identified include the introduction of full authority digital engine control, a completely new cockpit, a new flight-control system computer, the addition of in-flight refuelling capability, as well as modifications to allow paratroopers to be dropped from the rear cargo door. DASA recommended a change in the manufacturing method of the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer components. Also the fuselage manufacturing-method was considered uneconomical. German, Ukrainian and Russian companies had formed the joint-venture "AirTruck" to plan and manage the modifications needed to westernise the An-70.[24]

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kakarat » 07 Feb 2018 10:24

UKRAINE TOUTING INDIGENOUS AVIATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS

Building upon the An-132D’s success (albeit in terms of coming into fruition as a marketable product, the aircraft has yet to secure third-party sales), UkrOboronProm is intent on reviving the An-70 strategic air-lifter. The An-70 was developed through the 1990s and 2000s, but technical complications and cost had resulted in the program getting shelved.

UkrOboronProm states that its objective is to “upgrade … [the] Antonov An-70 [with] new avionics and no Russian components.” It is in contact with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) over the potential program, which will see the An-70 equipped with “advanced digital systems.”

Intended as a competitor to the Airbus A400M and Lockheed Martin C-130J, the An-70 can ferry 47 tons for a range of 3,000 km. It relies on four Motor Sich D-27 propfan engines.

Currently, UkrOboronProm’s An-70 revival effort – also designated An-77 – aims to supplant the aircraft’s Russian components with Ukrainian and/or Western equivalents. In this vein, the An-70/An-77 will also be equipped with subsystems (e.g. avionics) found on competing platforms, thus ensuring that the An-70 provides the same solutions (e.g. computer-aided air release point) as the C-130J, A400M and others.


I dont think An-70 has been taken by anyone yet but i also think it is also not going to be taken by India. we dont have enough forward looking people in all departments of the government. With a properly negotiated deal we can get the aircraft with IP. The aircraft can take off from a 600m semi prepared runway with 20t load and will be helpful in the NorthEast but i dont see both our gov or the private sector showing any interest. Antonov also has some civilian aircraft that can compete with atr range whose design can also be bought, but we will only be discussing another lost opportunity after some time

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1319
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Khalsa » 07 Feb 2018 14:30

chola wrote:
Singha wrote:Cheen has also purchased the AN70 IP btw. expect the new round of workhorse C130-clone rolling to be done on that. LRMP, AEW etc etc


What the hell! I haven’t heard that one. I thought it would be one of the crown jewels that Ukraine keeps. They sold the An-225 IP to Cheen but that is a white elephant that Ukraine can’t afford to build anyways.

The An-70 is/was a competitor to the A400M even in West European nations! Germany evaluated it and gave it higher marks than the A400M. This is an even bigger opportunity missed if correct.



I have heard that one before.
There is news about the An-70 gone or almost gone.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Zynda » 07 Feb 2018 17:56

I would first start by asking Airbus to create a separate variant for India called C-295I. I am sure there will be many suggestions for product improvements, modifications after usage by Indian Armed Forces. The work required for these improvements, modifications has to be carried out in India...at least at Airbus India Engineering Centre. Sure Airbus Europe can "assist" but one of the goals should be to build resources who have the practical engineering experience to carry out aircraft design activities OUTSIDE of Govt labs/HAL etc.

Secondly, the fabrication & assembly of newer & modified C-295I variants should happen in India preferrably involving private sector at various levels.

If our initial order book is around 200 or 250 plus (like someone mentioned earlier, combine order book from all operators including civil if needed), it is a substantial order for Airbus to loose. Hopefully they'll play ball.

Ultimately it all depends on the MoD/GoI...The above is a start. At least we would have a resource pool of engineers would have the practical experience of designing & building something rather than do Excel Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V, which is the main activity carried out at many service sector enterprises.

The main catch in the above is having the required moolah for an initial order of 200+ along with the other things.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 07 Feb 2018 18:19

The AN-70++ should be an easy picking lock , stock and barrel.Like the DO-228, should we pick it up we can get whatever we want from both the UKR and Ru.Both gain too.We lost a great opportunity when Fokker closed shop, with so many F-27s in service in India.Why can't we seize such opportunities? It still appears that defence and security is NOT the top priority for the Lutyens Bagh establishment no matter which govt. is in power.We really need a pro-active DM or one supported by a good team of def. advisers drawn from retd. sr. service officers.The MOD babus are mere timeservers and paperpushers.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2683
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby chola » 07 Feb 2018 20:40

NRao wrote:
But Tata is private sector so it might be able to negotiate more control/ownership over the C-295. It might pursue actual ToT harder than the babus at our PSUs.


the thing with "China" is that it is a State, unlike Tata. The State not only had vision but had the authority to take risks - funds AND time. Tata has neither. I doubt the Indian State will fund such efforts AND absorb the results without complaining - like the Chinese.



NRao-ji, I would politely dispute that. Please look at the American eco-system. It is the private firms like Boeing, LockMart, etc. who provide both the vision and the funding.

The famous USAF light fighter competition was between two projects fully funded by two private firms — General Dynamics (YF-16) and Northrup (YF-17.) Northrup lost the competition but that didn’t stop them and they went on to pitch the YF-17 for and won the USN carrier fighter competition. That losing bid became the F-18 which was every bit as successful in its own right as the F-16 winner of the air force competition.

Given time and contracts, we can build up Tata and Ambani (maybe they can build instead just buying the world’s most expensive private jets!) We can have firms that depend on their own ability to generate income through developing and selling good products instead of PSUs who expect government funding for everything and won’t take the initiative on an idea unless the GOI funds it first.

Look at HAL and the N-LCA. They left the prototypes in the corner of a hangar to rot after the Navy began the RFI
for their 57 fighters. What the hell?! Northrup didn’t do that after the YF-17 lost the USAF competition. Northrup couldn’t. Its own treasure was wrapped up in their design. They had to get it to work. Their corporation depended on it.

That is the thing with private firms they live and die by their ability to innovate and compete. Unlike the PSUs.

A quick word on Saudi Arabia: They have a much broader picture they are looking at. They are constructing a huge solar "city", despite the amount of oil they are pumping. The An-132 is but a small cog in the wheel of diversification. They want to teach their population about manufacturing, service industries, etc.


Kudos to the Saudis. But it is a damed shame that after decades of operating a large An-32 fleet and buying parts from the Ukraine, we had no one keeping tabs on the state of our suppliers. We should have known about this opportunity way before the Saudis, frankly. Saudi Arabia fly mostly Amreeki stuff for goodness sakes!

When Cheen and Saudis are picking up bargains in the Ukrainian fire sales we seem completely oblivious to the opportunities.

Now picking up national assets of foreign nations do need vision from government since the tangle of national interest and geo-politics would be beyond a private firm to handle.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 07 Feb 2018 21:20

I would politely dispute that. Please look at the American eco-system. It is the private firms like Boeing, LockMart, etc. who provide both the vision and the funding.


No problem. A good discussion is all we can ask for.

There is a lot to talk about when one says "American eco-system". as an example on Boeing and Lockheed: Lockheed is the 3rd avatar (it failed twice!!!!) and Boeing - if it were not for the 747 - would have more than likely gone under. Look at GE - today. How shaky are they? Point being they all (and a whole lot of others) had some vision and took huge risks. I very much doubt India can take such risks, especially when the GoI is in no position to bail any of these highly important companies out (were they to fail).

Similarly China had the vision and took - as your posts point out - huge risks. Their political system was willing to fund and thus take the risk needed for such efforts. Just look at the number of variants China has churned out. It is no small feat. Imagine the amount of times they must have failed.

IF India wants to compete at those levels I would think it would take a dedicated effort of some 20-30 years, in a highly protected environment (to beat back any competition). I just do not think a C-295 will do too much for India (outside of supplying the min that the Services need) unless India bulldoze head-long into competing.

Neither Boeing nor Lockheed get into anything without thinking they will win!! And, even today, it is brutal. They actually fail a lot - we just do not see it. Not for everyone.

On SA: the goal is way beyond a "An-132". They want to establish a design bureau + manufacturing expertise + sales teams + support teams. etc. An-132 and MIC just happen to be the means to achieve a broader national goal.

Anyways ......................

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 947
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby KrishnaK » 07 Feb 2018 22:19

chola wrote:
NRao wrote:
the thing with "China" is that it is a State, unlike Tata. The State not only had vision but had the authority to take risks - funds AND time. Tata has neither. I doubt the Indian State will fund such efforts AND absorb the results without complaining - like the Chinese.



NRao-ji, I would politely dispute that. Please look at the American eco-system. It is the private firms like Boeing, LockMart, etc. who provide both the vision and the funding.

The famous USAF light fighter competition was between two projects fully funded by two private firms — General Dynamics (YF-16) and Northrup (YF-17.) Northrup lost the competition but that didn’t stop them and they went on to pitch the YF-17 for and won the USN carrier fighter competition. That losing bid became the F-18 which was every bit as successful in its own right as the F-16 winner of the air force competition.
They were backed up by a 4-5% of GDP defence budget of the world's largest economy with very high levels of productivity. That's what allowed the US milind to raise their capabilities to the level they are at. It is simply absurd to talk about India matching that, even proportionally. There's no political will (at this point) to peg the defence budget at 2% of our 2 trillion USD even. Indian capital and consequently out technology is going to be way more expensive. Oh, and China managed to wipe out 10% of its population and the party that did it still claims the sole legitimacy to rule China. India is bound to be like the US eventually. Now is not it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63092
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 07 Feb 2018 22:29

the AN70 freed from russian claws (and with a western engine) could have been our MTA-mki .... and we could have built most of it in india compared to the KC390 of Embraer...and formed the base of many variants including a naval minelayer and missile truck.

as things stand, I dont see the C295 deal happening. we will do nothing and then resort to buying more C130J off the shelf.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63092
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 07 Feb 2018 22:33

Image

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby prabhug » 08 Feb 2018 12:27

Kakarat wrote:UKRAINE TOUTING INDIGENOUS AVIATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS

Building upon the An-132D’s success (albeit in terms of coming into fruition as a marketable product, the aircraft has yet to secure third-party sales), UkrOboronProm is intent on reviving the An-70 strategic air-lifter. The An-70 was developed through the 1990s and 2000s, but technical complications and cost had resulted in the program getting shelved.

UkrOboronProm states that its objective is to “upgrade … [the] Antonov An-70 [with] new avionics and no Russian components.” It is in contact with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) over the potential program, which will see the An-70 equipped with “advanced digital systems.”

Intended as a competitor to the Airbus A400M and Lockheed Martin C-130J, the An-70 can ferry 47 tons for a range of 3,000 km. It relies on four Motor Sich D-27 propfan engines.

Currently, UkrOboronProm’s An-70 revival effort – also designated An-77 – aims to supplant the aircraft’s Russian components with Ukrainian and/or Western equivalents. In this vein, the An-70/An-77 will also be equipped with subsystems (e.g. avionics) found on competing platforms, thus ensuring that the An-70 provides the same solutions (e.g. computer-aided air release point) as the C-130J, A400M and others.


I dont think An-70 has been taken by anyone yet but i also think it is also not going to be taken by India. we dont have enough forward looking people in all departments of the government. With a properly negotiated deal we can get the aircraft with IP. The aircraft can take off from a 600m semi prepared runway with 20t load and will be helpful in the NorthEast but i dont see both our gov or the private sector showing any interest. Antonov also has some civilian aircraft that can compete with atr range whose design can also be bought, but we will only be discussing another lost opportunity after some time


With Ukarine in crisis.Pvt companies should be recommended for JV with ukraine companies.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2210
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 08 Feb 2018 17:43

If we have to resort to screwdrivergiri let's at least target a medium lift, the light transport we can try to build our selves - gotta start from somewhere.

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby prabhug » 08 Feb 2018 18:51

Can somebody explain the aerodynamics of the low wing rear mounted pusher configuration of saras ? Looks like we have departed from existing configs ???

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2683
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby chola » 08 Feb 2018 21:30

prabhug wrote:Can somebody explain the aerodynamics of the low wing rear mounted pusher configuration of saras ? Looks like we have departed from existing configs ???



We did take a departure in configuration from the vast majority of prop designs it seems.

The reasons why most prop driven aircraft are tractor types instead of pushers include:

1) A pusher design with an empennage behind the propeller is structurally more complex than a similar tractor type. The increased weight and drag degrades performance compared with a similar tractor type.

2) Prop efficiency is usually at least 2-5 % less and in some cases more than 15% less than an equivalent tractor installation. This because the propeller passes through the fuselage wake, wing and other flight surface downwashes.


Now the upside include:
a) A pusher may have a shorter fuselage and hence a reduction in both fuselage wetted area and weight. (Design to need balance out disadvantage #1 listed above.)

b) Wing profile drag may be reduced due to the absence of prop-wash over any section of the wing (but need to balance out disadvantage #2)

c) Better safety configuration — the engine is mounted behind the crew and passenger compartments, so fuel does not have to flow past personnel; the cockpit forward of wings and engines improves visibility for the crew.

Data was gleamed from the following:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusher_configuration

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4153
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Karthik S » 14 Mar 2018 08:55

Livefist ‏Verified account
@livefist
Following Following @livefist
More
Just in: Indian Air Force now in final stretch to receive @BoeingDefense’s last new C-17 with Letter of Acceptance (LoA) done & dusted. Aircraft being modified to IAF requirements. Delivery date to be decided. (File photo)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 14 Mar 2018 09:48

C-17 just landed at ALG Tuting in Ar.Pradesh.Huge achievement.Apart from troops, a range of AVs/MBTs , missiles can be carried closer to the LAC.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1013
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Vips » 14 Mar 2018 18:17

We should try to cultivate the Ukrainians to get access to Jet engine technology. The Chinese tried the usual tricks to get/ steal/reverse engineer the same taking advantage of the chill in Russian and Ukrainian relationship.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 14 Mar 2018 20:02

Well remember but until the USSR demise Antonov was a renowned Sov. co.and the IAF enjoyed excellent service from both AN-12s and AN-32s still with us.The C- 295 having already been selected a while ago as out AVRO replacement, is the way to go, but the delay appears to be a financial crisis compounded by the PNB N.Modi scam where the actual figure of similar bank frauds and corporate NPAs could be in tens of $billions . Demonitisation and GST crippled the lowest sectors of the economy and real estate in particular, which is one of the largest employers in the country.

Thus as the services have said in the media today, there is barely enough money to keep the service/s running let alone critically reqd. spares, etc. apart from fleet replacement and modernisation.To give you just one example, the cost of the massive dam the Ethiopians are constructing across the Blue Nile , which will be Africa's largest dam, is around $5B. With $10B going for just e6 Rafales, imagine what national development suffers when we have to pay such huge sums for national defence.

In such a situ we have to "cut our coat according to the cloth".Acquisitions must be cost-effective and sustainable operations-wise.However, the LTA requirement has been delayed to the point of protest.In logistic ops in the mountains such smaller transports that can operate from the smallest airstrips are invaluable.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby shiv » 16 Mar 2018 19:07

This Tweet has a beautiful video that brings out something we have discussed about high altitude take offs but we very rarely get to see in a video.
https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... 5850761219

In the second half of the video, the C-17 takes off from Tuting and heads slowly towards a mountain. It looks as if the plane would hit the mountain unless it climbs higher and I was expecting it to climb higher. But what the pilot does is not to force the plane into a climb in that rarefied atmosphere but he simply banks and turns right to clear the same range over a lower ridge. Pilots have to be very sensitive to climb rate at altitude which is dependent on payload, altitude, temperature and power apart from being ready to compensate for single engine failure. There are stories about this on BR. The type of high altitude flying that the IAF has to do is not done by anyone else so regularly.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 16 Mar 2018 21:50

The transport arm of the IAF, including helo pilots, flies in possibly the worst conditions of any air force around the globe.Hats off to them .They do this 24X7,365 days of the year, facing innumerable weather odds to keep our troops fighting from Siachen heights to tropical rainforests.In times of natural disaster they're our saviours.They are true heroes of India and get far less than is their due.We need to do more PR for them so that the nation knows of their dedication and exploits.In fact PR for all the services needs to be ramped up with more professional and refined documentaries.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4153
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Karthik S » 08 Apr 2018 14:49

Finally..

Livefist Verified account @livefist
Following Following @livefist
More
For $262 million, India finally signs contract with @BoeingDefense for last production C-17 Globemaster III, reports


It's expected to join in Aug. Wonder why so long considering it's already ready.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby brar_w » 08 Apr 2018 17:46

From what I understand, It will be joining the fleet by next August. Boeing probably has a lot of internal work to complete for the white-tail in order to bring it to fit and avionics suite of the other IAF aircraft and they will begin when the contracts are signed and they can further contract out these things with their suppliers. But they say "by August 2019" so there is always a possibility that it could come in earlier.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashthor, kurup, Ravishankar, suryag and 34 guests