Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Transport Aircraft for IAF

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 885
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kakarat » 05 Jan 2017 13:03

Cybaru wrote:It's possible we may see AEW off this platform as well for future if the deal is signed.


Image

Either we could get this fitted with our own radar or even ask Airbus to develop some thing similar to EMB-145 version, India definitely needs more AEWs
Both EMB-145 and C-295 are almost of the same size

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 05 Jan 2017 13:10

yeah. Hope they give the first few raw to DRDO first to get on with the CG and AEW conversions. If the chappati has undergone testing, we could use that config. Anyways for C295 AEW version, it was IAI that provided the radar.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 885
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Kakarat » 05 Jan 2017 18:57

If DRDO takes up this project and if there is a potential confirmed order then Airbus might provide its current prototype for testing the radar and subsystems till the first purpose built aircraft is ready since there is no order for this type yet

If we want to continue discussions on this we should take it to AEW&C News & Discussion

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1761
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 05 Jan 2017 21:04

Karthik S wrote:We need 5 more C 17s based on initial requirements, if we can get those planes in reserve, it will be good enough. BTW a country like Qatar with 2.3 Lakh citizens needs 8 C 17s? What will they transport and to where?

Probably bought as part of the protection money/reverse jizya paid to the US. With the expected IAF follow up order not coming through ('white tail' which we are buying rolled out of the assembly line over a year ago) Boeing had to dump it someone. Though I don't doubt the Qataris also got some favours from the the US (like a donation of anti tank missiles to the freedom fighters of their choice by the culinary institute).

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12160
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Lalmohan » 09 Jan 2017 19:12

possibly the qataris were going to supply the various sunni 'freedom fighters' around the mid east who were going to do god's work?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2745
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jan 2017 22:20

Nick_S wrote:Exclusive: Indian Air Force Now Won't Ferry Personnel On Its Main Transporter Aircraft Following Crash Inquiry

by Sudhi Ranjan Sen

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/12/15 ... n-homepage

Russia-made medium transporter aircraft AN-32–the mainstay workhorse of the Indian Air Force (IAF)--will no longer ferry personnel, or civilians, the Indian Air Force has told the Ministry of Defence. It has also recommended that the entire fleet of AN-32s to be replaced as soon as possible. :eek:

When DDM posts nonsense like the above, they are detached from reality. Dekho....

AN-32 rescues locals stranded due to heavy snowfall & blockage of roads.

31 persons from Kargil & 46 from Jammu rescued...all on An-32 :)

https://twitter.com/iaf_mcc/status/819130548618555392

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18057
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 16 Jan 2017 17:48

UAC Report has details on IAF Requirement for MTA from UAC Journal http://www.uacrussia.ru/dl.php?f=10840 , Page 31

Then was created in the 2000s, a joint Russian-Indian project multipurpose transport aircraft (MTS), named
India Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA). However, for reasons beyond the "Ilyushin" Examples India ranks is suspended part
in this program.

"Then there was a lot of specific requirement - altitude airfields in mountains up to 5 kilometers, hot, plus high . We are going to put some unusual the number of weapons, including bombs and guns, - says Olga Kruglyako- va.- like it to be a bomber , He bombed, tucked and refueled, but still and cargo carried. We tried to convince them that in an amount such problems can be Only the aircraft, which will be performed poorly take all these functions. "

For such special requirements put forward the Indian side, had put on the aircraft engine PS-90. but this engine with a thrust of 16 tons was clearly more needs machines, calculated tion of 20-ton load of the transported. Without For the specific requirements of the Indian this engine is well suited WABT Wel PD-14 produced by currently in the United Engine Corporation (part of the state corporation "Rostec") for passenger aircraft MS-21. As the first phase of "Ilyushin" It offers the option to PS-90.


IAF wanted to use MTA as a Bomber which can do Bombing , Carry external Guns , Refuell as well as Carry Cargo for Hot and High Condition , 5 km in Mountain area ......UAC told IAF that making MTA as bomber and transport aircraft would make it perform poorly in either roles

IAF wanted 16 Ton PS-90A1 Engine which UAC consider it over thrust for 20T payload aircraft while Russian Airforce wanted modern PD-14 Engine with 14T thrust which UAC mentioned also met IAF requirement.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 16 Jan 2017 18:01

Get more powerful western engines. I hear the PS/Ds require a lot of maintenance...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15839
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 16 Jan 2017 18:45

MTA as a bomber? Which inmate dreamed this up? perhaps the innovative use of IAF transports in '65/'71.in the absence of dedicated bombers barring our handful of Canberras,prompted this requirement. If the IAF want bombers then all they have to do is ask for either backfires or SU-34s,not souped up MTAs!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4740
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 16 Jan 2017 18:56

Philip wrote:MTA as a bomber? Which inmate dreamed this up?

Olga Kruglyako.

Nothing in any Indian text points towards any requirement for a dedicated bomber variant.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 535
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Manish_P » 16 Jan 2017 20:25

Philip wrote:MTA as a bomber? Which inmate dreamed this up? perhaps the innovative use of IAF transports in '65/'71.in the absence of dedicated bombers barring our handful of Canberras,prompted this requirement. If the IAF want bombers then all they have to do is ask for either backfires or SU-34s,not souped up MTAs!


But Philip sir, the SU-34 has just one loo for the pilots... with a Bomber/Transport each crew member can have his own bathroom, jacuzzi and all :D

Seriously though, perhaps it is doable (whether it is efficient is a different question). The Boeing P-8i with all its missiles is primarily derived from the Boeing 737.

And the Russians did make a fine attack helicopter with troop carrying abilities.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 16 Jan 2017 20:51

Austin wrote:UAC Report has details on IAF Requirement for MTA from UAC Journal http://www.uacrussia.ru/dl.php?f=10840 , Page 31

IAF wanted to use MTA as a Bomber which can do Bombing , Carry external Guns , Refuell as well as Carry Cargo for Hot and High Condition , 5 km in Mountain area ......UAC told IAF that making MTA as bomber and transport aircraft would make it perform poorly in either roles

IAF wanted 16 Ton PS-90A1 Engine which UAC consider it over thrust for 20T payload aircraft while Russian Airforce wanted modern PD-14 Engine with 14T thrust which UAC mentioned also met IAF requirement.


I think thats good planning on IAFs part. If they design it for hot and high performance, it will probably do well in all the roles. I am not sure what specially is the issue. Perhaps they certify their platform with pd-14 and use the ps-90A2 for IAF. It will probably allow 20K payload to high airfields! ps90A1 on il204s allow take off weights around 110K kgs. At sea level it may even be closer to 30K loads to short distances. Will make for an excellent platform. Will negate any need to add extra il-476 platforms (refurbed ones will serve for a long time). If Russians are not willing to invest, we should just invite them as consultants and design it all inhouse with a western powerplant and call it a day. We really need to start on this.

This will keep HAL strategically important for the next 30 years. They need this to survive the onslaught of private players that are going to come.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5069
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2017 01:52

I don't agree with the IAF personnel here. A bomber's payload is much more dense and hence its fuselage is kept narrow for low drag. It has better fuel fraction because it has to reach the target and return to the home base without refueling. It typically also has better TWR. A transport on the other hand is optimized to carry the the maximum payload fraction. It's fuselage is voluminous to carry cargo like an FICV. A transport that can double up as a bomber is greatly overdesigned, over weight, over powered with lesser payload capacity and reach.

Also, let us bear in mind the economics too. Let's say that IAF gets 40 such aircrafts. Who else? Russian airforce doesn't need any of these. Is it financially prudent to design and build a plane which will have a production run of 40 some units?

Why not get a transport aircraft which can carry decent loads from the hot and high conditions. I actually think that we should ask for higher payload of 25 Tons because that is what our FICVs are going to weigh.

And then design a variant of this which is as a bomber. Use the wing, landing gears, avionics, engines etc. However, modify the fuselage to carry about 15 tonnes of bombs, and 5 tonnes of fuel. The tail will likely need to be reworked as well.

There will be takers for both the transport aircraft and the bombers as long as we move fast.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4685
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Jan 2017 02:41

Manish_P wrote:Seriously though, perhaps it is doable (whether it is efficient is a different question). The Boeing P-8i with all its missiles is primarily derived from the Boeing 737.
It is hard enough the make an efficacy justification for a supersonic bomber with no stealth in todays age, how will one justify a sub sonic aircraft for the purpose? P-8i carries the harpoon for ships and the Mk. 54 LWT, both to hunt down moving targets of 25 knots in open/under water!! You can adapt a supersonic bomber to a maritime role, not the other way around and even there, we probably have an efficiency degradation in terms of operations cost.

Added: There is a reason why the Hecules still uses a turbo prop. Better fuel efficiency, low speed handling, shorter take offs.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 17 Jan 2017 04:36

Indranil wrote:I don't agree with the IAF personnel here. A bomber's payload is much more dense and hence its fuselage is kept narrow for low drag. It has better fuel fraction because it has to reach the target and return to the home base without refueling. It typically also has better TWR. A transport on the other hand is optimized to carry the the maximum payload fraction. It's fuselage is voluminous to carry cargo like an FICV. A transport that can double up as a bomber is greatly overdesigned, over weight, over powered with lesser payload capacity and reach.

Also, let us bear in mind the economics too. Let's say that IAF gets 40 such aircrafts. Who else? Russian airforce doesn't need any of these. Is it financially prudent to design and build a plane which will have a production run of 40 some units?

Why not get a transport aircraft which can carry decent loads from the hot and high conditions. I actually think that we should ask for higher payload of 25 Tons because that is what our FICVs are going to weigh.

And then design a variant of this which is as a bomber. Use the wing, landing gears, avionics, engines etc. However, modify the fuselage to carry about 15 tonnes of bombs, and 5 tonnes of fuel. The tail will likely need to be reworked as well.

There will be takers for both the transport aircraft and the bombers as long as we move fast.


How does it matter if it isn't that optimized. The reduction of range wouldn't be that severe. It will be a good transport, but a shitty bomber with 1/10th range reduced. That still gives plenty of range to do the needful. As we add 120kms SDBs/SAAW and 600 kms Brahmos-M which can be launched from it, highly optimized range will matter less.

No more "Perfectly designed" planes. "Good enough" should our new mantra. Good enough bombers over no bombers is the way to go. Find swiss army knives of units to do things that we can make at home and use them in large numbers. Make MTA for ESM/ISR-ELINT/AEW/Refueling/Transport/MPA/C&C/~Compass-Call/Gunship etc. Let it do the main task well and the ancillary tasks in acceptable mode.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5069
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2017 06:28

I don't think this is a case of asking for gold plated articles. Try and imagine a transport plane which is a bomber too. We can talk then.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55485
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2017 06:38

Wont the c295 ceiling and climb rate be less than emb145?
Also we have a balance beam they have a rotodome housing

We can churn out 5 more emb145 quickly than a new chapati radar or balance beam on c295

Denel wass embraer all sorts of key projects are mysteriously exposed to politically directed censure and corruption charges....we never seem to get going on churning anything out in large nos except russi tanks.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 17 Jan 2017 07:53

Agreed Singha. Someone keeps jinxing us.

Indranil. It doesn't matter, its a bomb carrying unit, it has exit at bottom for rotary launcher or some other mechanism. We cannot design a plane just for bombs, we are never going to buy it in enough numbers. But we can re-purpose and modify design for it to do the job. Like the ruskies say, it will suck at bombing, but it will carry enough payload to make a dent, which is what is needed. C-130s are used in bombing role too and quite effectively. It will do fine in both carrying dumb payload dispersal through rear or carrying external pods like B-52s or through a rotary launcher in belly. It really needs to do transport well and the other long range high altitude profiles well enough. In other roles, even if it isn't stellar, it really will get the job done. The commonality of platform of C295W at low and MTA in mid will allow a lot of flexibility for the forces.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 17 Jan 2017 07:55

Indranil wrote:I don't think this is a case of asking for gold plated articles. Try and imagine a transport plane which is a bomber too. We can talk then.


Which platform are you thinking of that you are balking at the idea of MTA doing bombing runs?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4740
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 17 Jan 2017 08:08

Indranil wrote:I don't agree with the IAF personnel here.

Why stick the IAF with such a decision based on translation of a snippet from a piece offered up by the Russians?

Hot and high requirements require no justification. On the other hand, have we ever heard anyone from the IAF or MoD talk about a dedicated bomber variant?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5069
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2017 09:46

I am not sticking anything to the IAF. How else I am going to identify the people :D .

But this is not the first article on this. The Indian and Russian could never agree on the engine. But this is the first article, I have read that gives a semblance of a reason.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4740
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 17 Jan 2017 10:39

Indranil wrote:I am not sticking anything to the IAF. How else I am going to identify the people :D .

But this is not the first article on this. The Indian and Russian could never agree on the engine. But this is the first article, I have read that gives a semblance of a reason.

The reasons offered were always related to performance esp. in hot-and-high conditions. A bomber variant was never a consideration. Not that it would change the engine requirements anyway.

The reliability offered by a FADEC engine would have always been a priority. For a transporter lifting off from a high altitude base in summertime, losing one of its two engines has the potential to become a total nightmare (esp. given the mountainous terrain unsuitable for a simple glide-belly flop).

For 15 months, HAL has been in conversation with the Indian Air Force, a process that hasn’t been smooth. 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 (the official I spoke to requested that Livefist did not report specifics). It hasn't helped that late last year, the United Aircraft Corp. reported a rise in project cost, suggesting that HAL would need to be in for more than the $300 million initially agreed upon when the programme kicked off. Never good. A six-man team from HAL leaves for Russia early next month for what officials described as 'resolutionary discussions'. - Shiv Aroor

Be that as it may the IAF continues to be unsatisfied with the Aviadvigatel PS-90A76 engine that Ilyushin is proposing for the MTA. The PS-90A76 has already been selected for the Il-76MD-90/90A transport and was identified as the primary candidate for powering the development prototype of the MTA as well as the initial batch of production aircraft which are slated to roll out by 2020. However according to sources in HAL the IAF wants an engine that can relight at an altitude that is beyond the capabilities of the PS-90A76 or that of any contemporary high bypass turbofan for that matter. - Saurav Jha

Officials in both countries have shared with ET that the MTA project - which plans to develop a new 20 ton transporter to replace the ageing Indian fleet of An 32 aircraft with a $ 300 million investment from each side - is on thin ground with Moscow now planning to go ahead alone if the Indian side does not come on board.

The main point of contention is the engine for the new generation transporter. Sources in India have told ET that the air force is insisting on a new generation engine with a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) system to give adequate power to the new plane.

However, due to delays in the project, Moscow is now going ahead with a different engine, the PS 90 that powers its new generation IL 76 transporters for the MTA project. The Russian side believes that the new variant of its PS 90 engine will offer adequate performance for the aircraft and a FADEC power plant is not necessary. - Manu Pubby


There's also the other factor. The IAF passed on the Il-476, went out of its way to push the MRTT Airbus' way and issued a global tender for Il-76 support. Acc. to ACM Raha even its relatively new Il-78 are plagued with serviceability issues. Maybe it just didn't want the potential headaches an MTA acquisition might entail, which for all the 'JV' talk would have basically been an Ilyushin product.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 535
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Manish_P » 17 Jan 2017 11:14

Indranil wrote:I don't think this is a case of asking for gold plated articles. Try and imagine a transport plane which is a bomber too. We can talk then.


Indranil Ji

OT for this thread hence just sharing a article from Khan land (with all the resources they have) - Transport-Bombers: A Conceptual Shift in Precision Guided Munitions Delivery

The Bomber-Transport will probably not be ideal for each separate task, but perhaps it might be good enough for some requirements (enabled by advances in technology of guidance and miniaturisation) which would demand certain multi-role characteristics possible and very tempting to consider. A lot of air forces moved from dedicated roles for fighter aircraft to having a good percentage of multi-role ones. Maybe the same can be explored for Bombers/Transporters, by us, with our limited (comparative) resources.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 535
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Manish_P » 17 Jan 2017 11:22

Philip wrote:MTA as a bomber? Which inmate dreamed this up? perhaps the innovative use of IAF transports in '65/'71.in the absence of dedicated bombers barring our handful of Canberras,prompted this requirement. If the IAF want bombers then all they have to do is ask for either backfires or SU-34s,not souped up MTAs!


Philip Sir, this one for you - The Russian Air Force has tested a strategic cargo plane in bomber role :)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18057
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 17 Jan 2017 11:28

Indranil wrote:I don't think this is a case of asking for gold plated articles. Try and imagine a transport plane which is a bomber too. We can talk then.


Olga Kruglyako Deputy Chief Designer of Ilyushin.

I wont be surprised that IAF has asked for such requirement , MTA could easily be a cruise missile carried with rotary launcher and IAF has practised dropping bombs from An-32 , with turbofan they can be do that job with perhaps higher speed.

PD-14 engine is 15 % more fuel effecient compared to PS-90A1 engine but the latter has 2 T more thrust

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5069
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2017 11:40

Manish_p, No "ji".

I am going through that thesis. Thank you.

Update: I have to agree with that thesis. Transport-cum-bomber aircraft is feasible and viable. There is a caveat though. The bomber is carrying and deploying LACMs from standoff distances. Also, it is interesting that he leaves the C-130s out of the discussion due to its limited capacity. The MTAs are of the same size.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 17 Jan 2017 12:31

If b52 can cause havoc why not MTA? Get over needing su 34 for bombing roles. With more winged bombs coming each programmable to a Target, you basically need A giant bomb truck to launch em, 100/150 kms from Target. New meaning to bang for a buck!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5069
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2017 12:33

B52s are not transport aircraft. They are custom-built bombers.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 17 Jan 2017 12:41

Are you saying MTA can't drop bombs as the b 52 does? We can't design a central or ventral bomb bay into the MTA? It needs to carry 50-2000 saaw/sdbs to location 300-5000 kms to do the job of a squadron of mud movers in santized airspace.

IAf is asking for the right thibgs. Russians don't have a power plant for us and that's where is stuck. We need to delink engine. Russians can certify thier type with thier engine. We need to push forward with something like cf6 engine ( albeit something newer in tech)

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4740
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Viv S » 17 Jan 2017 12:54

Cybaru wrote:If b52 can cause havoc why not MTA? Get over needing su 34 for bombing roles. With more winged bombs coming each programmable to a Target, you basically need A giant bomb truck to launch em, 100/150 kms from Target. New meaning to bang for a buck!

The B-52 can cause havoc when its carpet bombing a sanitized zone. Otherwise its used only as a cruise missile platform at intercontinental ranges. Will eventually be replaced by the new Long Range Strike Bomber (B-21).

In our case, we can just launch the same missiles from the ground. Same effective range (an MTA-type bomber isn't capable of penetration missions). Both our primary adversaries are right on our doorstep rather than an ocean away.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18057
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 17 Jan 2017 13:06

Cybaru wrote:IAf is asking for the right thibgs. Russians don't have a power plant for us and that's where is stuck. We need to delink engine. Russians can certify thier type with thier engine. We need to push forward with something like cf6 engine ( albeit something newer in tech)


They have the power plant in PS-90A1 but they want to use the new generation PD-14 engine which offers 15 % better fuel efficiency lower maintenance etc over PS-90A1 engine but has 2 T of lower thrust.

PS-90A http://www.pmz.ru/eng/products/civil/ps-90a/
PD-14 http://avid.ru/en/pd14/

Using either of the engine has its own merits and demerits too , In the end it boils down to what each AF needs RuAF is happy to use it as thoroughbred transport aircraft while IAF has more multipurpose need for MTA.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 535
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Manish_P » 17 Jan 2017 14:11

Viv S wrote:The B-52 can cause havoc when its carpet bombing a sanitized zone. Otherwise its used only as a cruise missile platform at intercontinental ranges. Will eventually be replaced by the new Long Range Strike Bomber (B-21).

In our case, we can just launch the same missiles from the ground. Same effective range (an MTA-type bomber isn't capable of penetration missions). Both our primary adversaries are right on our doorstep rather than an ocean away.


True. But there can be some missions where having a innocuous looking transport having nasty multirole capability could be useful, where missiles might seem an overkill. IAF certainly have used transports as secondary line bombers (after achieving air superiority) in the past. We would love to have dedicated bombers of course, and we will get the in the future no doubt, but unlike Khan's seemingly unlimited budgets and space (their boneyards alone are mind-boggling) we have to extract the maximum possible out of every platform we get.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55485
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2017 15:15

Cybaru, main problem is the cargo plane floor is very strong and stressed for high point loads like machinery and tanks. might not be amenable to have bomb bay doors that open down like a proper bomber. otherwise the gondola fairings for wheels and high wing box is fine as it leaves the interior clean and clear.

one way is having a large inboard pylon like B52 that can carry some 12 PGMs or 6 ALCMs/missiles. low floor design means no side or ventral pylons are possible.

boeing has managed to launch MALD decoys off the back ramp .... and perhaps smallish hellfire type missiles griffin also.... but a proper rotary bay is hard to imagine unless you want a dedicated bomber conversion not a multi role plane.

I am think SAAW kind of weapons can be dropped off enmasse , and so can decoys .... by a couple of heavies into a area and they turn back inside friendly airspace..either boxes off the back ramp, or sonobuoy type inclined launch tubes arranged in a pre-loaded bank like a diwali box of rockets but released down and then ignition after a few tens of meters free fall

kawasaki P1 LRMP
Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15839
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 17 Jan 2017 18:57

The idea is a one-off capability,rolling bombs off transport aircraft ramps. Transports have been used/modified in Vietnam with heavy MGs,etc. to provide massive firepower for support of ground troops. However,for tactical and strat. bombing roles,a dedicated design is essential,esp. as a transport is sub-sonic,much easier to shoot down by either ground based anti-air systems or enemy helos and aircraft. Perhaps the use of barrel bombs by the Syrians,used to devastating effect in urban warfare has prompted the idea! Adding a bomb-bay for missiles,etc. result in a hybrid whose resultant success for either role is debatable.I'd rather the IAF obtained SU-34s or Backfires instead. Wyy even the IN's Bears are still being used as frontline bombers by Russia,successfully testing Britain's air defences time and again.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5069
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2017 22:26

Cybaru sahab, do yourself a favour and read the thesis that Manish_p has posted. Your questions will be answered.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 17 Jan 2017 22:57



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby brar_w » 18 Jan 2017 00:13

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmG5Q4i5R3s

Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD) Cargo Aircraft Launch System (MCALS) - Jane's Defence Weekly,10-Feb, 2014

"MCALS puts MALD in a 'six-pack', and several dozen of these six-packs could fit into a cargo aircraft hold (a maximum of 150 MALDs can be carried in a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III if the entire bay is allocated). These can then be programmed and launched from the cargo aircraft to give the effect of a swarm," Rodriguez told IHS Jane's , adding: "Each MALD is ejected from the MCALS rack, one at a time. All the MALDs could be connected up to a central planning station on the host aircraft, and as the respective air tasking order is received the MALD can be programmed and ejected near simultaneously."


While the MALD isn't yet a land attack cruise missile (Kinetic) it's not hard to either visualize such a role for it, or to see a smiliar sized cruise missile compatible with the launch system. Anyhow, the MCALS essentially integrates a medium ranged cruise missile launch system into cargo aircraft if that capability is needed.
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Jan 2017 01:16, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Cybaru » 18 Jan 2017 01:06

Indranil,

Little pressed for time, but here is a better read and more recent. Hopefully you will see value! http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA413018 (Look at table 4.3 to 4.5 on pg 59 for an idea of difference of number of Su-34s you would need to carry the same load!)

What would be interesting is to get Tray/Spring type dispensers with 4/5 in forward and ventral sections on each side offloading long range SAAW like munitions programmed for individual targets. It would also carry 12 SDBs on inner wing pylons. This would be a dedicated version for bombing. No dual capacity. (Slide 2 Look at the red colored areas where it says torpedoes/ weapons bay http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... 0Media.pdf ) The middle area will house more bombs and targeting section. This will allow the aircraft to remain 100-150 KMS out of enemy target area. Such an aircraft would either play in sanitized space or get a Compass Call like escort allowing multiple of such platforms to dump large loads with full stealth!! :)

Here is a list of interesting platforms you can have if you have something like the MTA
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... Warman.pdf

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5069
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 18 Jan 2017 02:21

Cybaru,

Thank you for those links. The thesis was more comprehensive in its coverage. Do read it when you have time.

I have a question, will USA fly the C130 gunship into China to fire standoff weapons. Unlikely. In the same way, we are unlikely to use a transport-cum-bomber to launch 100 km standoff weapons. That is not sufficient cushion for such a lumbering plane.

However, I can certainly see them as a cruise missile carrier-cum-launcher. RO-RO pallets for additional electronics at the front, pallets for missile carriage, and another pallet at the back which plugs into special ports for weapons release. They can indeed borrow ideas from torpedo launches from submarines. Although packaging them into standard pallets is not a problem. We are very far from weapon release techniques. I still don't believe there is any reason to jeopardize the MTA for want of this exotic feature.

Question is how many cruise missiles can an MTA sized plane carry. May be 10?

If we do see a need in the future, we can modify the plane accordingly.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dkhare, Gurneesh, MSNbot Media, Shakthi, sum and 18 guests