Transport Aircraft for IAF

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 28 Feb 2013 03:48

KrishnaK wrote:
NRao wrote:Just as a FYI, Boeing guarantees 74% of the time 100% availability and 82% of the partial availability. So, 90% availability is a big, big deal.
That's another made up requirement to exclude all other players so as to favour Boeing exclusively.

Are availability and turn around time related? I would think they are. If so, it would be a funny coincidence for high availability to be considered unimportant in this thread when the current discussion in the Indian Military Aviation thread has:

ramana wrote:Looks like 230 a/c of all types participated.
I would like to know how many repeat flights any of the attack craft made and what was the turn around time?

In 1998 -99 timeframe there was Exercise Gajraj that had a high sortie rate and day-night ops.
Other than different a/c and ~ ten years past, how was Iron Fist different?

indranilroy wrote:Ramana sir,

It would be difficult to extrapolate the availability of planes during a real war even if we knew the repeat flights and turn around time for Iron fist. I mean you could have a plane go through two or more bomb runs with only fuel and armament reload time in between as long as the cumulative time is less than the MTBF.

But can this be sustained over a week. I highly doubt it.

Plus what happens to the logistics behind making the planes fly. At Iron fist only a couple of planes from each squadron flew. Can it hold up to the increased sortie rates of the entire squadron? We (the people) will never know that until a couple of years after a war.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2013 04:40

That's another made up requirement to exclude all other players so as to favour Boeing exclusively.

On iPod so cannot type a lot.

Olden times ignorance was bliss, today it results in bad posts.

sorry.

No. It is called logistics, as in the advertisement by UPS. I have friends who have done Masters and one a PHd in this field. A branch of math.

Also known as supply chain, it is perhaps the #2 item in Indian armed forces' interest. And rightly so.

Said this about 10 years ago, the best part of any deal with the US is supply chain. With a properly implemented offset policy, India would make a quantum leap.

More later if need be.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 28 Feb 2013 05:33

PratikDas/NRao,
That was a troll IED.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 28 Feb 2013 05:47

Sanku wrote:[=As usual the smart art of quoting one line without before and after from some place and attributing it to some one.

I referred prasad-ji to the DPP or MY ACTUAL QUOTES from DPP earlier in the thread (not your imagination of what I said) -- I believe if he wants, he will find exactly what I am referring to.

Those who do not want, can happily take one line of a text and misattribute it.

Saar - pg 19 DPP 2008 (or pg 21 DPP 2011). Since apparently you are so well read-up on the DPP, I thought you would be able to locate it and point out if there is any 'mis-attribution'

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Feb 2013 08:05

Yes,IL-76MDs spares/support suffered because the aircraft was being built in Uzbekistan.This is why entire production has now been shifted to Aviastar's new facility at Ulyanovsk.The Uzbek production will cease with the few current orders on hand if at all.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Feb 2013 08:30

support etc does not suffer because of where the plant is as much as the rest of the supply chain.
we could not get spares forget whole aircraft

you can move the assembly plant but how smooth is the supply chain??

that will be the thing to watch

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2013 10:30

arnab wrote:
Saar - pg 19 DPP 2008 (or pg 21 DPP 2011). Since apparently you are so well read-up on the DPP, I thought you would be able to locate it and point out if there is any 'mis-attribution'

I am sure you are not so intellectually challenged as to understand the inherent dishonesty of taking "one line" from a 6 page document and saying that all the document has is 1 line, or saying that others are only talking about one line.

OTOH it is possible that you did not really understand what you were doing, in which case apologies if you think I am casting aspersions.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2013 10:33

NRao wrote:
That's another made up requirement to exclude all other players so as to favour Boeing exclusively.
On iPod so cannot type a lot.

Olden times ignorance was bliss, today it results in bad posts. sorry.

No. It is called logistics, as in the advertisement by UPS. I have friends who have done Masters and one a PHd in this field. A branch of math.

Actually things have not changed, in the past and now, ignorance first and foremost showed itself as moronic arrogance with poor real world understanding but extreme confidence.

On BRF it is called having a superior hand due to PhD.

It is a well known phenomena, all those afflicted by this disease are very visible, it is first and foremost characterized by assuming things on behalf of others.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2013 10:37

KrishnaK wrote:
NRao wrote:Just as a FYI, Boeing guarantees 74% of the time 100% availability and 82% of the partial availability. So, 90% availability is a big, big deal.
That's another made up requirement to exclude all other players so as to favour Boeing exclusively.

KrishnaK, you will note that "made up requirement to exclude all other players so as to favour Boeing exclusively" is not something IAF has done. They have not even bothered to do the above, they just went with Boeing as asked by MoD. There was no inclusion or exclusion or requirements being made.

It was far more simple. "You have a need for transports, we have decided that we will get you those through FMS, please sign here". Thats about all.

The "made up requirement to exclude all other players so as to favour Boeing exclusively" is what is being done by Boeing cheerleaders like Shukla etc to post facto justify the unilateral and sudden action by MoD/GoI.

More like spinning.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 28 Feb 2013 10:41

Sanku wrote: I am sure you are not so intellectually challenged as to understand the inherent dishonesty of taking "one line" from a 6 page document and saying that all the document has is 1 line, or saying that others are only talking about one line.

OTOH it is possible that you did not really understand what you were doing, in which case apologies if you think I am casting aspersions.

6 pages? The DPP is more than 200 pages long! ( I did refer to page 19 and 21 didn't I?). But that quote is the only bit which refers to the applicability (consideration) of a single vendor program. No confusion really. There are a whole lot of processes in other categories that the DPP has to worry about.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 28 Feb 2013 10:55

Sanku wrote:It was far more simple. "You have a need for transports, we have decided that we will get you those through FMS, please sign here". Thats about all.

But if that was the case why did IAF conduct all those high altitude / short take-off tests in ladakh etc? They could have tested it in the US and decided to acquire it (just like the T-90s tested in Siberia

).

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2013 11:02

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:It was far more simple. "You have a need for transports, we have decided that we will get you those through FMS, please sign here". Thats about all.

But if that was the case why did IAF conduct all those high altitude / short take-off tests in ladakh etc? They could have tested it in the US and decided to acquire it (just like the T-90s tested in Siberia ).

Both wrong statements.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2013 11:03

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote: I am sure you are not so intellectually challenged as to understand the inherent dishonesty of taking "one line" from a 6 page document and saying that all the document has is 1 line, or saying that others are only talking about one line.

OTOH it is possible that you did not really understand what you were doing, in which case apologies if you think I am casting aspersions.
6 pages? The DPP is more than 200 pages long! ( I did refer to page 19 and 21 didn't I?). But that quote is the only bit which refers to the applicability (consideration) of a single vendor program. No confusion really. There are a whole lot of processes in other categories that the DPP has to worry about.

The relevant section is at least 6 pages. But chalo at least you agreed that you could only 200 pages you have arbitrarily picked one sentence.

Not good enough but at least a teeny weeny start.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 28 Feb 2013 11:05

Sanku wrote:...

What you want to include the fact that T-90s were 'tested' under Indian conditions (after the decision had already been taken) and failed and we still went ahead and bought them?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 28 Feb 2013 11:07

Sanku wrote: The relevant section is at least 6 pages. But chalo at least you agreed that you could only 200 pages you have arbitrarily picked one sentence.

Not good enough but at least a teeny weeny start.

heh heh - you are making up stuff on the fly aren't you

show me the relevant 6 pages refering to single vendor purchases

In fact - show me one full page of single vendor specific issues in the DPP

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2013 11:14

Arnab saar, I can not trade banalities with you, you will come back and say that "the sun rises in the west" calmly in a thread on transport plane discussion.

I know enough debate to not feed trolls. Will get back to this thread if a serious poster comes by.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 28 Feb 2013 11:15

Sanku wrote:Arnab saar, I can not trade banalities with you, you will come back and say that "the sun rises in the west" calmly in a thread on transport plane discussion.

I know enough debate to not feed trolls. Will get back to this thread if a serious poster comes by.

Good idea - it will prevent further sankufication of the thread

member_22866 · Post by **member_22866** » 28 Feb 2013 12:16

I think SakuniMama and Arjun the (Tank )Warrior from can never be on the same page.

member_23844 · Post by **member_23844** » 28 Feb 2013 14:38

IAF should go in for additional c-130js and c-17 to augment the transport fleet.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2013 18:27

Surya wrote:support etc does not suffer because of where the plant is as much as the rest of the supply chain.
we could not get spares forget whole aircraft

you can move the assembly plant but how smooth is the supply chain??

that will be the thing to watch

True.

In fact, "Supply Chain" includes things like banking systems (especially inter-national), just-in-time (nobody wants to invest too much into spares that sit idle, or are not there when really wanted), cost of transportation (in the West they have options) and the like.

The latest is fraud detection. Recall a year or so ago reports about fraudulent parts in air crafts?

Then there is the "I am happy" (UPS ad on TV), where the recipient could move and has the option to have the "part" redirected to the current address. Ships, planes move all the time and this feature is very handy.

The issue with Russia is that they have had a need for such a system, but never could justify it. There is a recent article that states that the demand for Russian products will shift from foreign clients to Russian armed forces (which did not generate enough demand all these years). Once this demand is generated we should see their SC improving. But that itself should take 15-20 years.

The US by its size of its armed forces and their distribution demands a great SC - just the nature of the beast.

Indian armed forces will not be able to survive without a great SC, if they want to be a "modern" force (which they do). Supply Chain is a huge component of life cycle costs too. So saying that the base cost of a plane is L1 is not enough - as we witnessed in the IAF tanker decision.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2013 18:41

Reposting:

April, 2012 :: Indian air force looks to outsource MRO requirements

Bet the Russians would love to say they can provide 74% availability.

India's air force could outsource some of its MRO requirements to privately-owned companies in the country.

This comes as defence procurement begins to lean toward western suppliers, with a large number of contracts in the pipeline, amid frustration with the level of support available for the Russian aircraft that are the mainstay of the air force.

Potential areas of cooperation with third-party MRO firms include issues with obsolescence in avionics for regular upgrades in software, training, calibration of test set-ups, ageing studies and radio frequency identification (RFID), say industry sources.

The air force has a large mixed fleet, inadequate spares and support, high attrition of skilled manpower and issues of obsolete equipment.

Lessons have been learnt from the unavailability of spares for India's Russian aircraft, which have often been grounded for long periods. These include Sukhoi Su-30MKIs and various MiG fighter aircraft, the Ilyushin Il-76 and Antonov An-32 transport aircraft and various helicopter types.

"Our core MRO capability [Base Repair Depots [BRD]] will have to function as an interface with the industry. We're starting this with a select transport fleet," says Air Marshal J Chandra, Air Officer-in-chief for Maintenance Command of the Indian air force. BRDs carry out fourth line repair and maintenance of aircraft and equipment for the air force.

"Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd [HAL] is overloaded. There is no choice but to turn to the private sector," says Air Vice Marshal PP Khandekar, Assistant Chief of Air Staff (ACAS).

The provision in military bids that include life support make the need to integrate civil MRO even more imminent.

"Once the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft contract is signed, India will become the best outsourcing opportunity for us as it will enhance the quality of our supply chain. Already, 14 of our suppliers worldwide are presently working on hydraulics and fuel systems," an official from US industrials group Eaton tells Flightglobal.

Shashi Ramdas, a retired Air Marshall and the former chairman of state-owned carrier Indian Airlines, says that challenges remain in breaking out of the "antiquated mindset" of government-owned companies. "Military MRO is no different from civil," he adds. "It will improve the nose to tail ratio and is a model worth replicating."

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2013 19:22

NRao wrote:Reposting:

April, 2012 :: Indian air force looks to outsource MRO requirements

Bet the Russians would love to say they can provide 74% availability.

Lessons have been learnt from the unavailability of spares for India's Russian aircraft, which have often been grounded for long periods. These include Sukhoi Su-30MKIs and various MiG fighter aircraft, the Ilyushin Il-76 and Antonov An-32 transport aircraft and various helicopter types.

Man the entire IAF is grounded. Wow. For long periods of time. Double wow.

If people who wrote the article bothered to actually understand what the IAF folks were telling them, it is not because of nonavailability of spares per se (where will MRO get spares if IAF cant

) -- but to augment capacity of BRDs and HAL by Public-private participation.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 28 Feb 2013 23:56

==self deleted==

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Mar 2013 20:57

negi wrote:Katare sir every time you get your facts wrong and I correct them
Boss it is not even funny any more.

Negi ji, Sorry was busy this week so late reply and OT on top of that...

Glad to see that you have taken the self proclaimed title of "the corrector", no discussion is possible after that because I'll get corrected until I became another Negi. Since 2 negi's is an impossibility in time space continuum, blame Einstein or correct him too, I see no way out of this black hole.

Also, I didn't intend to be funny so I am surprised that you are upset about my inability to keep you amused on sustained basis.

Seriously, this line of argument vitiates atmosphere and forces discussion towards people rather than issues on hand. No one knows it all and truth has many shades and version so let us be all uncorrected but well stated

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Mar 2013 19:07

Data point:

Feb 27, 2013 :: C-17 Engines Pass 10m Hour Milestone

Connecticut, USA-based aerospace firm United Technologies Corp (NYSE: UTX) said that its Pratt & Whitney unit's F117 engine recently exceeded 10m engine flight hours in service with the global Boeing (NYSE: BA) C-17 Globemaster III airlifter fleet.

The F117 is the only powerplant available with the C-17, Pratt & Whitney said. The engine was derived from the units that power Boeing's 757 airliner.

At the same time, the C-17 exceeded 2.5m flight hours while supporting military and humanitarian mission in support of US and allied troops around the globe.

Since 2006, Pratt & Whitney's F117 engines have accumulated more than 6m flight hours in support of worldwide air mobility missions.

This statistic reflects the C-17's increased workload over the past several years. Pratt & Whitney said it took 13 years of operational service for the engine to reach its first 4m flight-hour milestone.

C-17 have been extensively used by the US military for heavy airlift missions in support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

At the same time that the F117 has achieved 10m flight hours, the company said it is also marking with Boeing 15 years of successful partnership on the performance-based logistics contract for the C-17.

The C-17 Globemaster III the world's premier heavy airlifter is operated by four F117 engines, each rated at 40,440 pounds of thrust, enabling the C-17 transport to carry a payload of 164,900 pounds and fly 2,400 nautical miles without refueling.

Pratt & Whitney's F117-PW-100 first entered service in 1993 and is a member of Pratt & Whitney's PW2000 family of commercial engines. The F117/PW2040 has more than 10m hours of military service and 50m hours in commercial use.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Mar 2013 23:20

Katare sir while I can understand at times the limitations of the medium can adversely affect the tone of the conversation; if you believe that I am really wrong in my assertions you should rather confront my points and not the part of my post which could be ignored without any degradation in the SNR. I do not claim to be a know it all if you can furbish data to prove me wrong I will be more than glad to reconsider my stand and admit to my mistake which I have always done when my omissions are pointed out .

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 12 Mar 2013 00:09

India to get strategic airlift muscle with induction of C-17s from June

NEW DELHI: From this June onwards, India will finally begin to add some real strategic airlift muscle. IAF's capability to swiftly transport combat troops and war-fighting equipment to distant battle-fronts will be hugely bolstered with the induction of the gigantic C-17 Globemaster-III aircraft.

Under the largest defence deal inked with the US till now, the 10 C-17 aircraft contracted for $4.1 billion in mid-2011 will begin to touchdown in India in June. All 10 will be place at the Hindon airbase, on the outskirts of New Delhi, by June 2015. ``IAF pilots and technicians are being trained in batches in the US to operate the aircraft, even as the infrastructure comes up in Hindon,'' said an official.
:
:
:

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Mar 2013 03:34

VinodTK wrote:India to get strategic airlift muscle with induction of C-17s from June

:

Karma!!

India is likely to go in for another six C-17s after the first 10 as a follow-on contract,

No RFP, again?

123 was expensive.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Mar 2013 07:41

at this point, other than the yet to restart AN124 product, there is nothing readily available in the C17 volume x tonnage segment. the IL476PS90 is one level below and AN124 is one level up.

every dog looks for the next bigger dog. we can look at the AN124 which has a good track record when it restarts production in ukraine.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Mar 2013 10:04

And off course we will buy Rs 50,000 crore of Foreign flying carpets rather then investing the same amount on Road and Railway network which will add to our own economy and cannot be sanctioned.

amit · Post by **amit** » 12 Mar 2013 10:29

Vic,

Lack of infrastructure investment is a big bugbear and pulls down the country.

However, buying the C17 and road and rail network (infrastructure) are two separate and parallel issues and one cannot replace the other.

Do you seriously think roads and rail network - if they were built - can reach the places where C17 would land during war time/emergencies?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Mar 2013 10:35

roads and rails are also being invested in for the border areas. many emergency mode projects are on. Rajmata herself inaugrated the superlong tunnel work under the rohtang pass that will permit winter transport from manali towards eastern part of ladakh.

see one pic here http://www.bharatexpedition.com/2013/01 ... india.html

not without problems though http://theoktravel.com/work-at-rohtang- ... -halt/888/

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 12 Mar 2013 11:09

Even though i agree with C-17 purchase, the price is causing indigestion to the value conscious Indian in me

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Mar 2013 12:44

Another NATO helo shot down in Afghanistan.There has been a heavy loss of Chinooks in the war.Vulnerability of our transport aircraft and helos in a region where anti-air weapons are rife is worrisome.

Five dead in Nato helicopter crash in Afghanistan
Five members of the NATO-led international force fighting in Afghanistan have been killed in a helicopter crash in the south of the country.
US soldiers patrolling in the mountains of Wardak Province in Afghanistan
Helicopter crashes are fairly frequent in Afghanistan, where the 100,000-strong NATO mission relies heavily on air transport Photo: Reuters

12 Mar 2013

"The cause of the crash is under investigation. However, initial reporting indicates there was no enemy activity in the area at the time," the International Security Assistance Force said following the incident.

A US official said all five of the dead are American. The helicopter went down outside Kandahar city, the capital of Kandahar province.

Helicopter crashes are fairly frequent in Afghanistan, where the 100,000-strong NATO mission relies heavily on air transport.

Last August, seven American soldiers and four Afghans died when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in the southern province of Kandahar. Taliban militants claimed responsibility for bringing down the aircraft.

In August 2011, an American Chinook was shot down by the Taliban near Kabul, killing eight Afghans and 30 Americans, including 22 Navy SEALs from the same unit that killed Osama bin Laden in neighbouring Pakistan earlier that year.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Mar 2013 05:57

Do not know exactly where to place this, but, an interesting article:

Dec, 2012 :: Ukraine looking to poach Russian defence deals with India

Ukraine’s USP for India is that nearly 30 percent of the Soviet defence industry was located in Ukraine and the modernisation of the AN 32s is being carried out there. India and Ukraine had signed a deal in 2009 for upgrading 100 AN-32 aircraft of IAF of which 25 have already been upgraded in Ukraine while the rest would be modernised at IAF facilities in Kanpur.

For past three to four decades, ship engines such as the Zorya gas turbines powering Delhi class warships of the Indian Navy are also being regularly sourced from Ukraine. Besides, MiG-23 engines are also being overhauled in Ukraine. Motor Sich of Ukraine supplies helicopter engines. Some of the agreements in the pipeline are 'Kolchuga' electronic support measure system for tracking stealth warplanes and the R-77 missile. The India-Ukraine defence partnership is all set to go from strength to strength and more intense collaboration in aerospace projects is also on the anvil.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went on record as saying that India and Ukraine were already undertaking a number of defence cooperation projects and the just-signed defence cooperation agreement established a new framework for expending this cooperation.

Ukraine is today among the top ten defence manufacturers in the world, something Kiev owes to Moscow as a large number of defence facilities of Ukraine were developed during the Soviet era. These facilities included manufacture of fighter planes and tanks. Now Ukraine has come up as a tough competitor to Russia in these very areas.

Significantly, Ukraine is also set to give Russia the run for its money in the ambitious Indo-Russian MTA project as Ukraine has also offered to co-develop a transport aircraft with the Indian firms which could be used for export purposes also. The facilities to develop transport aircraft were based in Ukraine in the Soviet era and these have been maintained even after its break-up from the erstwhile USSR.

Ukrainian engineers and technicians have also been involved in the Kudankulam nuclear power plant coming up in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu with the Russian assistance. The Ukrainian signatures are also visible in another Indo-Russian defence deal: Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov that is being retrofitted and modernised by Russia for the Indian Navy. Indian naval pilots training for taking off from aircraft carrier now called the INS Vikramaditya are training in Ukraine at its shore-based take off and landing facility.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Mar 2013 16:10

IL-476 First Prototype Pictures

L-476
http://russianplanes.net/images/to102000/101319.jpg.jpg
http://russianplanes.net/images/to101000/100635.jpg.jpg

Cockpit
http://aviaforum.ru/showpost.php?p=1286 ... count=1122

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2013 16:31

the C17 cockpit seems to have 4 times the number of switches, HUDs and strangely joystick controllers (!)
http://s610.beta.photobucket.com/user/c ... x.jpg.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Mar 2013 19:51

Singha wrote:the C17 cockpit seems to have 4 times the number of switches, HUDs and strangely joystick controllers (!)
http://s610.beta.photobucket.com/user/c ... x.jpg.html

The C-17 has common avionics with the F-18 (and IIRC even the AH-64 Apache). A C-17 pilot I spoke with claimed that if one knew how to fly one then s/he could fly the other too.

Boeing had conducted a study long back and moved to a common (was called the Open, IIRC) platform architecture. This joystick in the C-17 is a result of that study.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 18 Mar 2013 00:07

Singha wrote:the C17 cockpit seems to have 4 times the number of switches, HUDs and strangely joystick controllers (!)
http://s610.beta.photobucket.com/user/c ... x.jpg.html

Oh boy, those seats are freaking me out. they look like some sort of airplane thongs.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Mar 2013 04:46

Gurinder P wrote: Oh boy, those seats are freaking me out. they look like some sort of airplane thongs.

You are seeing only one side of it. The part which seems to be protruding is not in the middle. There are two of those on either side (for two legs) with the empty region in between. The empty region is necessary to be able to pull the wheel/stick back. Better visible Here

That joystick instead of wheel in the center looks out of place. They should have gone for a side-stick like Airbus if they didn't want the wheel.