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.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 04 Jan 2014 22:18

vivek_ahuja wrote:Instead, watch as we acquire the most diverse fleet of transports known to mankind in a bid to be "diverse" and "fair" to all aircraft manufacturers worldwide.

That said, if there is an option to build a desi transport aircraft, I would welcome it even if adds yet another aircraft type to the existing plethora.

You have two choices. One: HAL's "Joint Venture" with the ruskies to design and produce a C-130 class Medium Transport Aircraft which has hardly seen any progress for years. Two: The Avro Replacement deal which seems to be specifically contrived to create a private player in the sector.

member_28041
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby member_28041 » 04 Jan 2014 22:48

It would be better if we consolidate the three programmes, ie Avro replacements,An-32 replacement and the HAL JV MTA into a single programme.
Just wondering what is delaying the MTA programme so much.I began to hear the term MTA at least 5-10 years back if i remember correctly.

ManjaM
BRFite
Posts: 1217
Joined: 15 May 2010 02:52
Location: Padvaralli

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby ManjaM » 05 Jan 2014 00:11

vivek_ahuja wrote:
nitinraj wrote:There should be a better plan to consolidate the IAF transport aircraft fleet.Ideally there should be two categories : Heavy and medium lift aircraft.

...


Instead, watch as we acquire the most diverse fleet of transports known to mankind in a bid to be "diverse" and "fair" to all aircraft manufacturers worldwide.

That said, if there is an option to build a desi transport aircraft, I would welcome it even if adds yet another aircraft type to the existing plethora.


Mahindra Aero have recently acquired the capability to make General aviation and light utility aircrafts via their acquisition of GippsAero.
In fact, Mahindra have an 18 seat aircraft that is scheduled for certification in 2015. Its closest in specifications to the Do228. While not superior in performance, it might be a good way to get Mahindra Aero and the supplier eco system to work on a replacement for the AN32. An unpressurised utility aircraft with contemporary systems should not be a insurmountable challenge for our engineers and industries. I would imagine, first flight in 7-8 years and certification 2 years from there.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8256
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2014 00:53

The MTA and the Avro-replacement are not in the same class. In my opinion we should have 3 classes of transport.

1. Light transport aircraft (joint replacement for Avros and later An-32) -> payload: 10 Tons, MTOW: 25 Tons.
2. Medium transport aircraft (MTA + Hercules. At current rate MTAs will be replacing the Hercules) -> payload: 20 Tons, MTOW: 75 Tons.
3. Heavy transport aircraft (C-17/IL-476) -> payload: 60-75 Tons, MTOW: 230 -260 Tons.

Additionally you will have the Do-228 and Saras for utility roles.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2014 00:59

IL-476 upgraded version of the IL-76 fully built in Russia is well under way,available at low cost,plus manufacture of 80 AN-124s,even larger than the C-17s (production ceasing in the US) is being restarted in a new agreement between Ukraine and Russia. The IAF's future heavylifter needs can be met by both these types.

More AN-124s On The Way?
Dec 19, 2013 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mor ... ers-02913/

Dec 19/13: Negotiations. The Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers has approved a draft inter-governmental agreement with Russia on serial production of An-124-200 aircraft powered by D-18T engines. It’s part of the process of establishing a joint venture related to An-124 production, which could produce 80 aircraft worth a total of $12.89 billion – about $160 million per plane.

The larger agreement reportedly has Russia invest $15 billion in Ukraine’s government debt (giving them a future lever), and reduces gas prices from Russia to Naftogaz by about 1/3, but may involve some ceding of control over the Ukraine’s pipelines. Military deals like the An-124 and An-70 can also become bit pieces in these dramas. Sources: Russian Aviation, “Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers approved the draft agreement with Russia on production of An-124″ | Interfax-Ukraine, “An-124 plane production recovery program includes production of 80 planes, says Ukrainian premier” | IHS Jane’s 360, “Ukraine, Russia agree to restart An-124 production among raft of economic agreements” || See also Antonov, “Ukraine and Russia continue cooperation on joint aviation projects” | Reuters, “Special Report: Why Ukraine spurned the EU and embraced Russia”.


What is remarkable is that the much larger AN-124s cost only $160M per plane while the IAF's 10 C-17s cost us around $400M-500M per plane!
The cost of the 10 plane order was $4.1B (Wik), but NDTV says that it costs $5.1! in 2010,the cost of the much larger AN-124 was half that of a C-17! With AN-124 production restarting,the IAF should cancel future options of C-17s.

Comparison between the two,the AN-124 is in a class of its own!

Wik stats.
AN-124:

Externally, the An-124 is similar to the American Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, but has a 25% larger payload, and instead of the Galaxy's T-tail, the An-124 uses a conventional empennage, similar in design to that of the Boeing 747. The An-124 has been used to carry locomotives[clarification needed], yachts, aircraft fuselages, and a variety of other oversized cargoes. The aircraft is able to kneel to allow easier front loading; and has an onboard overhead crane capable of lifting up to 30 tonnes of cargo, and items up to 120 tonnes can be winched on board.[14]

Up to 150 tonnes (150 long tons; 170 short tons) of cargo can be carried in a military An-124; it can also carry 88 passengers in an upper deck behind the wing centre section. The cargo compartment of An-124 is 36×6.4×4.4 m (118×21×14 ft), ca. 20% larger than the main cargo compartment of C-5 Galaxy, which is 36.91×5.79×4.09 m (121.1×19.0×13.4 ft)


Specifications (An-124-100M-150)
3 sides view
Container being lifted into the belly of an An-124 using the on-board overhead crane

Data from Antonov.com[42]

General characteristics

Crew: 4-6 (pilot, copilot, navigator, senior flight engineer (+flight engineer, radio man) + 2 loadmasters)
Capacity: 88 passengers or the hold can take an additional 350 on a palletised seating system
Payload: 150,000 kg (330,000 lb)
Length: 68.96 m (226 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 73.3 m (240 ft 5 in)
Height: 20.78 m (68 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 628 m² (6,760 sq ft)
Empty weight: 175,000 kg (385,000 lb)
Loaded weight: 405,000 kg (893,000 lb)
Useful load: 230,000 kg (508,000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 405,000 kg (893,000 lb)
Powerplant: 4 × Ivchenko Progress D-18T turbofans, 229.5 kN (51,600 lbf) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 865 km/h (467 kn (537 mph))
Cruise speed: 800–850 km/h (430 kn (490 mph))

Range: 5,200 km (2,808 nm, 3231 mi)
Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,370 ft)
Wing loading: 365 kg/m² (74.7 lb/sq ft)
Thrust/weight: 0.23
Take-off run distance (maximum take-off weight): 2,520 m (8,270 ft)
Landing roll distance at maximum landing weight: 900 m (3,000 ft)

Flight range

An-124-100

0 tons of cargo= 15,000 km (8,100 nmi)[43]
10 tons of cargo= 14,100 km (7,613 nmi)
20 tons of cargo= 13,250 km (7,154 nmi)
30 tons of cargo= 12,300 km (6,641 nmi)
40 tons of cargo= 11,500 km (6,210 nmi)
72 tons of cargo= 8,700 km (4,698 nmi)
90 tons of cargo= 7,100 km (3,834 nmi)
97 tons of cargo= 6,500 km (3,510 nmi)
104 tons of cargo= 5,900 km (3,186 nmi)
108 tons of cargo= 5,550 km (2,997 nmi)
120 tons of cargo= 4,500 km (2,430 nmi)

Аn-124-100М-150

40 tons of cargo= 11,900 km (6,425 nmi)
92 tons of cargo= 7,500 km (4,050 nmi)
113 tons of cargo= 5,900 km (3,186 nmi)
120 tons of cargo= 5,400 km (2,916 nmi)
122 tons of cargo= 5,200 km (2,808 nmi)
150 tons of cargo= 3,200 km (1,728 nmi)


C-17:
Specifications (C-17)
C-17 in an Aeromedical Evacuation configuration
Vehicles and personnel unloading supplies from three gray C-17s parked together for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Three C-17s unload supplies to help victims of Hurricane Katrina at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, in August 2005.
A C-17 combat off-load of pallets in Afghanistan, June 2009

Data from U.S. Air Force fact sheet,[46] Boeing,[191][192] and AerospaceWeb[193]

General characteristics

Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster
Capacity:
102 paratroopers or
134 troops with palletized and sidewall seats
or
54 troops with sidewall seats (allows 13 cargo pallets) only or
36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients and medical attendants or
Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank,[194] three Strykers, or six M1117 Armored Security Vehicles
Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix of palletized cargo and vehicles

Length: 174 ft (53 m)
Wingspan: 169.8 ft (51.75 m)
Height: 55.1 ft (16.8 m)
Wing area: 3,800 ft² (353 m²)
Empty weight: 282,500 lb (128,100 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 585,000 lb (265,350 kg)
Powerplant: 4 × Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each
Fuel capacity: 35,546 U.S. gal (134,556 L)

Performance

Cruise speed: Mach 0.74 (450 knots, 515 mph, 830 km/h)
Range: 2,420 nmi[191] (2,785 mi, 4,482 km); 5,610 nmi (10,390 km) with paratroops[195]
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
Max. wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277
Takeoff run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,316 m)[191]
Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,060 m)



PS:
AN-124-100M-150 is an operationally improved version of the AN-124 outsize and heavyweight cargo aircraft, capable of transporting single or multiple pieces of cargo weighing up to 150 tonnes (330,000 pounds) as well as outsize cargo. On the outsize cargo front, the AN-124 is the only aircraft that can carry the Boeing 777′s new GE90 engines external link. Its cargo capacity is roughly double that of a C-17 Globemaster III’s external link 77 tonnes (170,000 pounds), all at a significantly lower cost per aircraft.

member_28041
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby member_28041 » 05 Jan 2014 01:25

Philip wrote:Comparison between the two,the AN-124 is in a class of its own![/b]


This is true since the aircraft(AN-124) has the payload but will be very difficult to take off from airfields like leh. Hence no point in comparing C17 and An-124.I think the opening for Heavy lifters are closed in IAF for the next 30+ years once the order of additional C17 are through.
C17 has excellent short runway takeoff/landing performance which is unmatched with a huge internal volume(this is where IL-476 is really left behind)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2014 02:33

Just examine the TO run and landing distances for both.They are almost equal.In fact the AN-124 has a lesser landing distance than the C-17 from the above stats. NATO forces leased the AN-124 extensively in their recent wars.It would be worth the exercise in the future to let the AN-124 land at Leh.However,the beauty of the aircraft is in the huge size of payloads that can be carried,double that of the C-17 including loco engines, plus it can also with 4 MBTs aboard.Transporting most of our tactical and strategic missiles too would be possible.

Some of our IL-76s will within a decade be at the end of their lifespan.Their replacements will have to come from either new IL-476s or AN-124s as C-17 production is ending.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 03:54

FYI only:

Dec, 2013 :: Can Boeing's (BA) C-17 Globemaster Be Saved And What Does Its Demise Mean For The US Air Force?

However, a further 13 aircraft are being built on spec with the hope that a buyer will be found. This so-called "white tail" strategy -- building the aircraft with no guaranteed customers -- represents a $620 million liability, according to Boeing in its second-quarter earnings report. India is said to be interested in six and South Korea is considering four. The remaining three could potentially go to existing customers, such as the U.K., NATO, Australia or Qatar.


So, if these six are acquired, then India should have a total of 16 C-17s. That should complete the requirement for heavy/strategic lift. No need for any further birds.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shrinivasan » 05 Jan 2014 04:03

With US implementing its Pivot East, a bunch of East Asian counties would be offered new or refurbished C-17 or even setup a shared strategic lift fleet like the one for Europe, this will come handy for Khan in times of trouble... I think these and other requirements would keep the line humming for a couple of years more... Last I heard, even LM is busy with the C5, doing MLU or is it Late Life upgrades on C5s.. All this portend to more C-17s being available...Easy pickings...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 04:15

I do not think they will keep the line humming beyond what is out there right now (on the books). But, with a promise of 80% up-time, Boeing, for sure, will have a supply chain, etc that will keep going (unlike others that have no supply chain or claim to have one : ) ).

But, the strategic lift story should come to an end with these C-17. I have not seen any article/comments that have even given a thought to reviving the IL series.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 05:11

Philip wrote:IL-476 upgraded version of the IL-76 fully built in Russia is well under way,available at low cost,plus manufacture of 80 AN-124s,even larger than the C-17s (production ceasing in the US) is being restarted in a new agreement between Ukraine and Russia. The IAF's future heavylifter needs can be met by both these types.

More AN-124s On The Way?
Dec 19, 2013 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mor ... ers-02913/

Dec 19/13: Negotiations. The Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers has approved a draft inter-governmental agreement with Russia on serial production of An-124-200 aircraft powered by D-18T engines. It’s part of the process of establishing a joint venture related to An-124 production, which could produce 80 aircraft worth a total of $12.89 billion – about $160 million per plane.


All was somewhat good,........................... until ...............................

Dec 19/13 wrote:The Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers has approved a draft inter-governmental agreement with Russia on serial production of An-124-200 aircraft powered by D-18T engines. It’s part of the process of establishing a joint venture related to An-124 production, which could produce 80 aircraft worth a total of $12.89 billion – about $160 million per plane.

The Ukraine recently bowed to Russian pressure and turned away from integration into the EU, a move that set off large protests within the country. The question is whether the Ukraine had much choice, given Russian policies that blocked shipments of goods into Russia, and targeted heavy industry in the Ukraine’s eastern region that depends on the Russian market. Trade was being strangled, and foreign reserves had fallen below the standard 6-month safe level. The larger agreement reportedly has Russia invest $15 billion in Ukraine’s government debt (giving them a future lever), and reduces gas prices from Russia to Naftogaz by about 1/3, but may involve some ceding of control over the Ukraine’s pipelines. Military deals like the An-124 and An-70 can also become bit pieces in these dramas. Sources: Russian Aviation, “Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers approved the draft agreement with Russia on production of An-124″


That was in Dec of 2013 - last month. The good (in blue) was quoted, the bad (in black) was left out.

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

Oct 28/13: Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is non-committal when talking to an audience at the Don State Technical University about the An-124. He says only that “Joint tests are continuing, with the purpose of making a decision about the possible resumption of the manufacture of Antonov An-124 aircraft”. Sources: Interfax-Ukraine, “Lavrov: Russia, Ukraine working to restore An-124 Ruslan production”.

Aug 29/13: Negotiations. Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Boiko says that the Ukraine and Russia have reportedly finalized a draft agreement to resume An-124 batch production. They’re working out the technicalities, and expect to sign an agreement in September-October 2013. Sources: The Voice of Russia, “Ukraine and Russia plan to resume production of An-124 planes”.


Vladimir "the-arm-twister" Putin!!!

I guess they had more leftover green paint.

This is not something to celebrate. Tainted as it comes. Putin will get his planes and Ukraine will pay for them. :)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 05:25

Again, another citing, from a Russian site:

2013 :: Russian Preparations for Reduced Foreign Military Presence in Afghanistan

The capability of the Russian Military Transport Aviation service will be improved substantially by the new Il-476 military transports. At this moment, the service’s 40 transport aircraft can airlift a single airborne regiment (without one battalion). Following the addition of the Il-476 transports to the fleet, by 2018-2020 the service will be able to airlift an entire airborne division.


By then India would have her complete set of 16 C-17s and will need no more strategic airlift capability.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 05:42

For kicks:


Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shrinivasan » 05 Jan 2014 09:39

Rao saheb, that's a C-17 Globemaster right?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby nachiket » 05 Jan 2014 09:50

^^It's a C-5 Galaxy, with some clever change of the camera angle during takeoff.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby dinesh_kimar » 05 Jan 2014 10:28

> Concept 1 : Dornier had a lightweight, twin engined Amphib , from which the Do-228 evolved.

> Concept 2: The 30-35 seater Do-328 uses a Wing based on the Do-228, with some fillers for lengthening it. (In Aero Structure, Wing is most complex to build, and fuselage relatively easy, no?)

> Concept 3:Also, why not initiate studies for making a pressurized version of Do-228 ?

> Concept 4:Wat abt a fully indegenised "J-11" type Do-228, to free us from copyrights and IPR.

The RAUG Do-228 has new engines and propeller, better avionics, same structure. Does HAL now expect us to sign a JV with RAUG for technology transfer ?
NAL and CSIR should have concentrated efforts in this direction, as these are the stuff which India needs now, so why not modify products already in hand, that too, which has been already proven and produced by Dornier (Amphib and 328), and which we know will work.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 05 Jan 2014 10:43

NRao wrote:Vladimir "the-arm-twister" Putin!!!

I guess they had more leftover green paint.

This is not something to celebrate. Tainted as it comes. Putin will get his planes and Ukraine will pay for them. :)


On the contrary its just the opposite , if Russia does not bank rolls Antonov it will collapse like a pack of cards , Antonov is just a design bureau and makes engine more than 60 % component of An aircraft in civil and military are made in Russia.

UAC markets An civil variant globally and Russia purchases significant amount of it to keep them in business even at the cost of its own industry :)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2014 12:15

Il476 is neither here nor there. we need something to airlift the largest tanks, radars, SAMs, 155mm guns and IRBM Telars preferably, or a large load of supply pallets. or construction material and eqpt.

the An124 and C17 are the only two out there.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Shrinivasan » 05 Jan 2014 13:28

There is no AN-124 available now, we will probably have to wait for years for the first bird to rollout and then take a number at the end of a loong line. C-17 is available, has a health supply chain and above all comes with an ontime delivery schedule..

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 05 Jan 2014 13:45

indranilroy wrote:The MTA and the Avro-replacement are not in the same class. In my opinion we should have 3 classes of transport.
...

Thats true but the question is how many concurrent programmes we can have to manufacture and possibly design transport aircraft. I dont believe we have the space for both. The private players have already complained that the Avro-replacement numbers are too low. The numbers of MTA are also projected at only 40, the 100 that the Russians were touted to buy will probably never happen. Consolidating the two programmes into one requirement will be the best way forward for the local industry.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2014 16:00

The 10 C-17s bought at huge cost $400-500M per aircraft as against $160M for a much larger AN-124 that has double the payload are enough for the moment.We also have the large fleet of il-76s which are being upgraded.We have enough of heavy transports.Instead of spending another $3B for 6 more C-17s,the same could be used in the MMRCA,FGFA ,MTA and/or LCA programmes.The IAF has more pressing priorities and needs to get the most out of every buck.

However,sometime brfore the end of this decade the IL-76s which cannot be upgraded will have to retire.They can easily be replaced either by new Il-476s (which are being built,extensive details posted after Aero-India) about 80-100 planned for Russia's mil and civil requirements as well as the AN-124s.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Karan M » 05 Jan 2014 16:21

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... RONTPAGE|p

India Awards $1B Contract for 6 More C-130Js
Dec. 31, 2013 - 05:04PM |

INDIA-DEFENCE-AIR FORCE-IRON FIST
Indian Air Force C-130J aircraft takes off after performing an assault landing during the Iron Fist 2013 exercise in February. India plans to purchase six more aircraft, bringing the total inventory to 12. (Manan Vatsyayana / Getty Images)

NEW DELHI — Top brass in the Indian Army and Air Force expressed shock over the Defence Ministry’s decision to award a $1 billion repeat contract on Dec. 27 for six additional C-130J Hercules transport aircraft, saying the military has many more pressing purchases to tackle.

“Our top priority is [to] have fighters as soon as possible, but we are surprised by the MoD move on why the government is not signing the $12 billion Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft [contract with Dassault of France] and instead is buying transport aircraft for us,” a senior Air Force official said.

An Army official pointed out that the service has no combat-worthy artillery systems and that it was hoping the MoD would finalize a deal for 145 ultra-light howitzers from the US. He added that more than $40 billion in Army procurement is in the pipeline but no significant purchased are being made.


The Air Force official pointed out, however, that the service does need the troop-lift capacity the new aircraft will provide, especially for combat and logistics in view of the threat perceptions on the Sino-Indian border.

The military relies mainly on An-32 aircraft for troop lift and other logistical assignments. The Air Force had already ordered six Lockheed Martin C-130Js, and the new order would bring the total inventory to 12.

An MoD source said the Indian government had cleared the deal, ahead of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington in September.

The Indian Air Force bought six C-130J transport aircraft in a $962 million deal in 2007. The Indian Air Force also proposes to buy 10 Boeing C-17 transport aircraft worth over $4.5 billion to add to its transport fleet of Russian-made IL-76 and An-32 aircraft.

India has signed contracts worth over $10 billion since 2002 after Washington lifted sanctions against India. Over $4 billion worth of contracts are awaiting inking, likely to take place within the next three to six months, sources said. These include purchase of 22 Apache attack helicopters, 15 Chinook heavy-lift choppers, four P-8I maritime patrol aircraft, all made by Boeing, and 145 M777 ultra-light howitzers guns.

member_28041
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby member_28041 » 05 Jan 2014 18:44

Philip wrote:The 10 C-17s bought at huge cost $400-500M per aircraft as against $160M for a much larger AN-124 that has double the payload are enough for the moment.



What is the the guarantee that the An-124 price will remain at $160M till the delivery is made?
Didn't they jack up the price of the carrier from $750million to 2.3 Billion? That is almost 3 times the contract price.

So if they increase the price again after the contract is signed....$160M has the potential to become $500M.
There is always many excuses you know : we underestimated the production cost, work was too huge blah blah blah


Is there any funding issues in the development of Il-476?? Just curious since you are promoting it so much.... :P

Go easy on making your posts bold; it is akin to shouting in normal conversation. People can read and comprehend your posts w/o you making large parts of your every other post as bold - rohitvats.
Last edited by rohitvats on 05 Jan 2014 19:15, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: directive not to use bold as a norm.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby abhik » 05 Jan 2014 18:54

Philip wrote:The 10 C-17s bought at huge cost $400-500M per aircraft as against $160M for a much larger AN-124 that has double the payload are enough for the moment.

One will know the actual price of a new built An-124 only after a firm contract is signed and the planes are built and delivered. One can't take this $160M price at face value until then. Remember we the F-35 was also touted to cost only $40M not so long ago.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby rohitvats » 05 Jan 2014 19:21

MTA/C-130 and AN-32 are not in the same league.

Though, I have a feeling that if we absorb something like C-130 into service, the numbers required in An-32 class of aircraft would go down. but this is a hypothesis based on assumption that current number of AN-32 suffice for our needs. As does the overall transport aircraft strength. Which might very well not be the case.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 20:26

Austin wrote:
NRao wrote:Vladimir "the-arm-twister" Putin!!!

I guess they had more leftover green paint.

This is not something to celebrate. Tainted as it comes. Putin will get his planes and Ukraine will pay for them. :)


On the contrary its just the opposite , if Russia does not bank rolls Antonov it will collapse like a pack of cards , Antonov is just a design bureau and makes engine more than 60 % component of An aircraft in civil and military are made in Russia.

UAC markets An civil variant globally and Russia purchases significant amount of it to keep them in business even at the cost of its own industry :)


Again, as usual, the main point is missed. Phillip quoted an article/post. He, as usual, quoted a partial - that which supported his thinking. What he thinks is up to him, but what he posts from an article should be complete for all to read and judge. So, again, the crux of that article he quoted is:

The question is whether the Ukraine had much choice


I just do not think Ukraine is into this AN-124 thinking and although I am not sure I understand your post, I suspect you are saying that the Russians did thsi to actually support their won industry.

_________________

Now, irrespective of the IL-476 or the AN-124, Russia has no military *need* for such planes. What I mean by *need* is a threat. They certainly have old planes that would be better served if replaced - granted.

And, as you suggest they have an industry that is in need of government support.

Which is what is happening: prop up a dieing industry and replace old planes. Both are good reasons to plunge into such an agreement.

But, as can be seen, in the case of the AN-124, the Ukrainians do not really seem to be interested (per that author - *not me* - that Phillip referred me to) and even in the case of the IL-476, there are competing statements as to even when the machine will be ready - which leads me to believe that the Russians themselves are perhaps proping up that industry too!!! In either case it makes sense form proping up a key industries - but not from an military point of view.

_____________________

Coming to India and these gizmos: as far as economies go, I have no trust in the Russians - they, according to me, are out to make money any way they can. Note that the Vikram has come into town, but the support for that ship has yet to be nailed (it has not been signed) - again "cost". Nothing with them is going smoothly: T-90, MTA, FGFA, AL-55I and Vikram come to mind. Not one item in all this is technically related (including the AL-55I) - they are ALL cost related.

I would keep very far away from the IL-476 - from what little is out there I do not trust even their technical info.

And, the AN-124, I am not even sure where India came into that picture - I suspect it was Phillip that is peddling that pup - so I will not even touch that with a 10 foot pole.

_______________________

On a related matter, I conducted a simple conversion or equivalence test between the C-17 and the IL-476. I took the unrefuled distance they can fly and multiplied it with the max load they can carry and found that about 25 IL-476s = 16 C-17. If someone can come up with a better stat to compare these two please do so (more the merrier).

Why 25 IL-476? Because that was the figure the *Russians* had estimated that the IAF would require for their lift needs. Of course this was way before the IAF even thought of "Strategic" lift, so perhaps we need to BRieze that number? Do not know.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Austin » 05 Jan 2014 20:42

More than military , An-124 has major potential for cargo carrier that transport Extra Large Cargo from Volga Dnepr and Polet the growth of which is continuously rising YoY ... the economic benefits from operating the only type that can transport extra large cargo from 120-150 tons is what is pushing An-124-300 variant for production

Ukraine is happily riding over the waves from the rise in defence spending by Russian Military , export and commercial prospects as they dont have any thing loose and has far much to gain to keep the Aviation industry alive.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 20:59

QED. Thanks!! Appreciate the simple logic.

Good, for *all* of them. Then all the more reasonS that India does not have to get involved - which is my major concern.

Now if we can come up with something similar for the IL-476, that would be great.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 21:22

A data point:

IDR :: Apr, 2013 :: Airlift Capability of the Indian Air Force

In the context of a resurgent and globalised economy, India’s security interests in the future would no longer be confined to its national boundaries or be limited to the region between the Gulf of Aden to the Strait of Malacca but would have even a larger international footprint. Besides, India has entered into a strategic partnership with the lone superpower, the US. The rising status of the nation will surely be accompanied by new responsibilities for maintaining peace and stability in the region or undertake military intervention in different parts of the world either on its own or in collaboration with the strategic partner. Inter-operability of transport forces of the IAF with those of the US Air Force will, therefore, be an important dimension in the plans for modernisation.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 21:25

This is very generic, covers all services ....................

PIB :: Dec 19, 2013 :: Achievements of Ministry of Defence During the Year 2013

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby vivek_ahuja » 05 Jan 2014 22:02

abhik wrote:
Philip wrote:The 10 C-17s bought at huge cost $400-500M per aircraft as against $160M for a much larger AN-124 that has double the payload are enough for the moment.

One will know the actual price of a new built An-124 only after a firm contract is signed and the planes are built and delivered. One can't take this $160M price at face value until then. Remember we the F-35 was also touted to cost only $40M not so long ago.


Also, lest we forget: we are talking about the Russians here. They don't exactly have a record of delivering major products at the original market quoted price.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 22:23

Also, lest we forget: we are talking about the Russians here. They don't exactly have a record of delivering major products at the original market quoted price.


Arre yar, you have to take a dekho from their PoV.

"delivering major products" is one topic, and "original market quoted price" is another.

Now, if they "deliver major products", then they cannot manipulate the price. And if they make the "original market quoted price", then they cannot deliver on the product.

So, they have come up with this novel idea: do not deliver on both and maximize on the investments.

Brilliant!!!!

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby vivek_ahuja » 05 Jan 2014 23:06

NRao wrote:So, they have come up with this novel idea: do not deliver on both and maximize on the investments.


:mrgreen:

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby KrishnaK » 05 Jan 2014 23:18

I doubt the Russians are as stupid as to hurt their own reputation by price gouging solely for the sake of more money. I think they're finding it hard to compete with the US/EU MIC, for contracts in India which are all lowest price from those that meet the criteria. In cases where they have established products which suit our needs like the Mi17v, they seem to be doing fine. In cases where either they don't have an established product or where we have picked up a taste for sherkhan quality kit, they have little option to wave the lower price sticker in the face to get their foot through the door.

No point going with Russian wares for our heavy lift needs. Phillip will continue to hyperventilate.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Virupaksha » 05 Jan 2014 23:29

Show me a country which will sell(ya I know lease) us a nuclear submarine and also give technical support for us to build one?

Oh by the way, which was the country which blocked India from getting cyrogenic tech?

if the difference in tech and cost is marginal, I believe we should go with Russians. In the next 10 years, when our spares run low during a war, guess which country will have sanctions and which country will be running planes to get us spares.

After all without spares during war, all the world "famous" heavy lifts are just garbage on ground and shooting practice.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby vivek_ahuja » 05 Jan 2014 23:36

Virupaksha wrote:Show me a country which will sell(ya I know lease) us a nuclear submarine and also give technical support for us to build one?


So what? We should keep giving them blank checks for it?

Times have changed, gentlemen. And they need to adapt as well to a constantly enlarging competition from the global arms market.

We are still buying from them whenever their products are available, competitive and when no other choices are available. But this does not mean we will keep giving them contracts for stuff they haven't delivered, can't deliver or something which is not competitive.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2014 23:39

guess which country will have sanctions and which country will be running planes to get us spares.


Israel.

BTW, I had posted - in the past few weeks - a quote from an Indian person, who essentially stated that there are no friends when a war starts.

In a war situation, it is rather stupid, at a national level, to expect anything from any nation. You are on your own.

__________________

The old Soviets accepted payment for their MiG-21 (and others) in Indian material.

It is said that they "paid" Rs 1 per banana - exotic fruit in Russia I guess. But, then, the cost of banana - in India - went from some 15 paise a dozen to some Rs 1 a dozen.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Eric Leiderman » 05 Jan 2014 23:56

Well the russians are getting repaid in the green stuff now , As they say bananas are for chimps but they are champs. they got their foot in the door and secured the market. They are being paid for their long range foresight.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2014 23:59

I fail to understand NR's logic.His deep suspicion about Russia is his opinion,others like the Indian armed forces in general have theirs,a positive attitude which is why we have bought MKIs,BMos,etc. and are planning more in the future.There is no need to flog the long list!.No relationship however is perfect,even "old friends" like Russia have disappointed us in the recent past with shoddy delivery as contracted.These issues are being resolved and as I posted earlier,mil ties are being given a boost,with long term support agreements planned as of the Nov. jt. meeting between the def. mins of both nations.

However,the AN-124 and IL-476 issue is straightforward.During Soviet days the IL-76 was assembled in Uzbekistan.Its successor,the heavily upgraded IL-476 is now under series production totally in Russia which requires between 80-100 for both mil and civil use.AN-124s far more capable than the C-17s,are also to be produced in a JV with Ukraine.A production fig. of 80 is mentioned.Its cost,even when it was in earlier production is less than half of that of a C-17.This is no secret.These aircraft ar being built because they are needed by the RuAF.

The Ukranian eco situ has forced it to abandon joining the EU.According to economists,it would've resulted in a debt trap ,bankrupting the country.It is too closely tied to Russia for its energy supplies,etc. to reverse course and head for the EU. The two countries have recently agreed upon cheaper energy,etc.,plus a $15B aid package to help Ukraine.AN-124 production restarting is one aspect.Russia is not reviving aircraft production just for kicks! It is steadily modernising its entire armed forces under Putin.AWST not too long ago had a report on the healthy future of its transport aircraft development and production .

The IAF has bought 10 C-17s,making it the largest operator of the type after the US.We also have our whole fleet of Il-76s which have served us very well,supported the IAF in all its trans-continent exercises in the US,UK,etc.These are being upgraded as much as poss. to last another decade each.Once these aircraft start retiring,there will be only the IL-476 and AN-124 as replacements,as C-17 production is ending.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Postby Virupaksha » 06 Jan 2014 00:08

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Virupaksha wrote:Show me a country which will sell(ya I know lease) us a nuclear submarine and also give technical support for us to build one?


So what? We should keep giving them blank checks for it?

Times have changed, gentlemen. And they need to adapt as well to a constantly enlarging competition from the global arms market.

We are still buying from them whenever their products are available, competitive and when no other choices are available. But this does not mean we will keep giving them contracts for stuff they haven't delivered, can't deliver or something which is not competitive.

blank checks -- no.

Oh come on, Vivek, take a balanced approach. Our whole IAF is right now around 80% of russian origin. The migs, MKIs. Exc

Russia if pressured will help us develop our own military equipment. I havent seen US doing that for a single equipment. Today we will buy c-17s and 30 years later we will buy c-38s, with no technical development. I havent seen a single large deal with US which has half decent tot. They are mostly winning deals through govt to govt deals, which skip the 30% offset clause. Where was it for F-414 engine which we had to buy for LCA.

It is israelis who are winning through tenders and competitions.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, Balaji, LakshmanPST, VickyAvinash and 72 guests