Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Jan 2018 00:36

Saras PT-1N, pic courtesy Tarmak's FB page

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jan 2018 02:17

Looks good no?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Jan 2018 03:08

Yes it does. The links don't mention weight reduction on the PT-1N prototype..As far as I can recall, weight reduction was on the list of items that needed to be taken care of.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2018 06:31

The more I look at it the more I feel it is rife for change into a business jet. It is already pressurized. The layout is perfect for switching out the turboprops for turbofans.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 25 Jan 2018 09:43

In HSTT video, the bird looks slightly drunk, is that normal?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 Jan 2018 10:02

I think they were struggling to keep the aircraft on the ground as it got very good Lift.

sum · Post by **sum** » 25 Jan 2018 11:01

Picklu wrote:In HSTT video, the bird looks slightly drunk, is that normal?

Which video saar?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 25 Jan 2018 14:20

HSTT Videos:

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/956074735842091009
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/948123244736913408

Test Flight Videos
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/956167123281170432
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/956169171426975744

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jan 2018 18:29

^^Looks like the chase aircraft was a Kiran

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2018 20:27

the Saras should be used as a tactical ELINT/EW & utility plane for IA among other roles.
US army uses rc12x guardrail a/c for this mission of same size and engine power
https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5012/5477 ... 140a_b.jpg

being cheap and simple to use the IA can buy a lot of these to supplement ground based units.

the BSF can take their share, as can the CG and IN.

the AN32 is oversized for the utility role...and so is the EMB145.

sure other small planes are COTS, but if we do not support our own product, nobody else will.

the test program must now involve HAL and HAL told to productize it asap.

chola · Post by **chola** » 25 Jan 2018 22:22

^^^ Many things are possible once we have a platform we own.

I wonder what is the effort to create our own turboprop. Less effort than a turbofan like the kaveri I am sure since the Czech Republic and Poland make them too.

The possibilities!

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 25 Jan 2018 23:31

What's with the probe / boom / needle in front? Have seen it very rarely. Is it really needed on Saras?

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 26 Jan 2018 01:37

Singha wrote:the Saras should be used as a tactical ELINT/EW & utility plane for IA among other roles.
US army uses rc12x guardrail a/c for this mission of same size and engine power
https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5012/5477 ... 140a_b.jpg

being cheap and simple to use the IA can buy a lot of these to supplement ground based units.

the BSF can take their share, as can the CG and IN.

the AN32 is oversized for the utility role...and so is the EMB145.

sure other small planes are COTS, but if we do not support our own product, nobody else will.

the test program must now involve HAL and HAL told to productize it asap.

Plus IFR should be possible and in fact with the pusher prop config I would imagine relatively easier, which is an advantage of this aircraft for surveillance/COIN role compared with for e.g the Super Tucano that the Americans bought for the Afghans. Even if they have greater loiter time (the endurance of the Saras in fully developed config would probably be 5-6 hours) the SARAS with IFR and restroom and galley facility would be a lot better.

Rishi_Tri wrote:What's with the probe / boom / needle in front? Have seen it very rarely. Is it really needed on Saras?

I had the same question as well. And would it impede the potential use of a small radar in the nosecone?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jan 2018 02:29

Will the U.S. & India finally talk about the F-35?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jan 2018 02:32

We intend to create far more than an assembly line in India, says Vivek Lall of Lockheed Martin

By: Huma Siddiqui | Published: January 24, 2018 5:37 AM

Data point:

What is new on offer?
The aircraft brings the most modern avionics, a proven AESA radar and modernised cockpit, advanced weapons, longer range with conformal fuel tanks, auto ground collision avoidance capability, and an advanced engine with an extended service life. Even with the addition of targeting systems and two 2,000 pound (lb) class joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs), the aircraft has a mission radius exceeding 1,300 km — 30 % greater than that of the closest competitor. Also, many of the advances in systems on the aircraft India would get draw directly from key lessons learned from Lockheed Martin’s work on the F-22 and the F-35. The AESA radar is the result of over two decades of investment, use and experience with AESA technology, and it’s fully operational today.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Jan 2018 03:24

They keep trying to sweeten the deal, because the deal is terrible. No amount of sugar can save it.. Even raffy had trouble being bought in numbers even though it was generation and half more advanced than the old f-16. If they are wise, they will put f-35 on the table.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Jan 2018 04:06

I heard Wilbur Ross the US Commerce Sec speaking at Davos today morning. He was saying he considers the' "forced transfer of technology an act of (economic) war".

So at the core US Commerce Dept. does not endorse TOT deals.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jan 2018 04:41

"Forced" is diff from "negotiated". I think (I have not heard/read his speech) he had China in mind.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the likes of ITAR, although a SD (with perhaps inputs from DD and Commerce) list, the holder of IP has the final say. Even if SD says "yes", the IP holder can over rule and say "no". Or if the SD says "no", the IP holder can push and if done hard enough SD has to give way - which is what seems to be happening WRT China - SD says "no", but the IP holder needs to support their share prices and force the SD to allow them to export. That is what he is complaining about - but, it really will not matter. SD/Commerce can only complain.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Jan 2018 05:02

Just reporting what he said. I am not massaging the message.
And Wilbur Ross is $Baire who has Trump's ear.

Its complex and need to hear every voice.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Jan 2018 05:27

NRao wrote:We intend to create far more than an assembly line in India, says Vivek Lall of Lockheed Martin
...
Data point:

What is new on offer?
...The AESA radar is the result of over two decades of investment, use and experience with AESA technology, and it’s fully operational today.

Read the bolded part on what India should learn. American AESA technology "is the result of over two decades of investment". That needs to be drilled into the heads of all decision makers and users in India on what it takes to realize an indigenous advance technology and the continuous long-term support it requires.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Jan 2018 06:33

Rishi_Tri wrote:What's with the probe / boom / needle in front? Have seen it very rarely. Is it really needed on Saras?

It is very common on developmental/experimental aircraft to use that boom to place the pitot tube well ahead of the aircraft for good quality readings. Most recently, you would have seen it on the LCH. On production Saras, the boom will definitely be removed and probably replaced with a weather radar.

I will give you an example of why these things are required. DDM falsely reported that LCA can't fly at high AoA with the IFR probe. Actually, nothing like that was happenning. The real problem was that near Mach 1, the air readings were getting messed up do to the IFR probe. Designer was very confident that the aircraft was safe. But to get clearance, one has to convince the agencies. Thankfully, it has been done now. The problems with the readings will handled in a different way. This is all possible when you are dealing with an aircraft whose flying qualities you are completely sure off. Nobody takes these chances with a new development.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jan 2018 06:57

ramana wrote:I heard Wilbur Ross the US Commerce Sec speaking at Davos today morning. He was saying he considers the' "forced transfer of technology an act of (economic) war".

So at the core US Commerce Dept. does not endorse TOT deals.

Must have been referring to china and the mandatory jv and tot to get in, followed by local partner partner stealing ip and txfering that to another govt sponsored outfit

Just yesterday a cheen wind power co was convicted of defrauding 900 mil royalty from a american co

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jan 2018 07:02

Ramana-ji: There is nothing different in what Vivek Lall has said versus what all other senior executives at LM have said. It is just marketing. There is nothing "India" or "Exclusive" about the F-16 Block 70. Continue peddling the F-16, but just in a different thread on BRF. Old wine in a new bottle. Regardless, the dicussion needs to be kept in a single thread. Otherwise the discussion will be all over the map. Next time, the post will be deleted and the poster will be asked to post in SEF thread.

Cybaru: They are getting zero traction on the F-16 in India. LM's own executives have said as much. Now they have roped in Vivek Lall from General Atomics in the hope that something will move. Nothing will move. If F-35 is offered, it will come with CISMOA/COMCASA. India is not very receptive to the agreement.

srai: Two decades of investment, use and experienced and America will just hand it to us on a silver platter? LOL!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Jan 2018 07:08

Indranil wrote:
Rishi_Tri wrote:What's with the probe / boom / needle in front? Have seen it very rarely. Is it really needed on Saras?
It is very common on developmental/experimental aircraft to use that boom to place the pitot tube well ahead of the aircraft for good quality readings.

Thanks - you took the words right out of my mouth

Prototype F-16 image
F-35 prototype
Rafale prototype

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 26 Jan 2018 07:47

Indranil wrote:The more I look at it the more I feel it is rife for change into a business jet. It is already pressurized. The layout is perfect for switching out the turboprops for turbofans.

Its takeoff distance will increase significantly.
The wing design which is currently optimized for current cruising velocity & altitude will need to be changed because jet engine would result in a different optimum cruising altitude & speed.

IOW very very significant design and tooling changes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Jan 2018 07:58

The other thing that stands out is the concept of "business jet". Market potential has to be a huge factor in transport aircraft design. A bizjet has a niche place in a lot of western and gulf nations - being owned by high net worth individuals. A market for a bizjet barely exists in India, but a short-haul transport aircraft has a place. In any case the IAF has already placed orders for 15 of these aircraft.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Jan 2018 07:58

Rakesh wrote:...
srai: Two decades of investment, use and experienced and America will just hand it to us on a silver platter? LOL!

Unfortunately there are those in the decision making body who seem to believe it

They get sold on the idea of “100% ToT” and all that marketing crap. End user mentality without the patience for R&D.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Jan 2018 08:00

IAF issues RFI for twin engined refueling aircraft. Refurbished aircraft acceptable. Il-78 excluded.

IAF re-launches $2 billion global hunt for acquiring 6 mid-air refuellers

NEW DELHI: The IAF has once again kicked off the over $2 billion procurement project for six desperately-needed mid-air refuelling aircraft to extend the strategic reach of its fighters and bombers after it was cancelled twice over the last decade due to cost and other issues.

The IAF on Thursday issued the RFI (request for Information) for the six flight refuelling aircraft or tankers and associated equipment. The formal tender or RFP (request for proposal) will be floated after the responses to the RFI are submitted by March 30.

After inducting six Russian-origin Ilyushin-78 mid-air refuelling aircraft in 2003-2004, the IAF had first taken up the case for the acquisition of six additional tankers in 2006. The two-engine Airbus A-330 MRTT (mid-air refuelling aircraft) was twice selected over the four-engine Russian IL-78 in the technical and commercial evaluation.

But both times, issues like the life cycle cost (LCC) methodology used in arriving at the lowest bidder (L-1) as well as pending CBI cases had led to the tenders being scrapped. Interestingly, this time the RFI specifies that the IAF wants twin-engine aircraft, with a two-man crew to ensure fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs, say sources.

This effectively rules out the four-engine IL-78s, leaving the contest open to primarily the Airbus A-330 MRTT and Boeing KC-46A Pegasus. The IAF is ready to even induct second-hand refuelling aircraft if they have adequate operational life left. "Israel will be the main contender for supplying such pre-owned aircraft," said a source.

The IAF urgently needs the six new refuelling aircraft to double the strike range of its fighters and bombers. While the six IL-78s are based at Agra to support operations against Pakistan, the six new tankers are meant for Panagarh in West Bengal with an eye firmly on China.

IAF starts process for procuring six tanker aircraft

The Indian Air Force (IAF) today started the process of procuring six flight refueler aircraft (FRA). This is the IAF's third attempt over the last seven years in procuring such aircraft for expanding the operational reach of its combat fleet. Currently, this requirement is being met by its IL-78s which have been facing maintenance issues, hampering the air to air refuelling capability.

The IAF today issued a Request for Information (RFI) for procuring "six FRAs along with its associated equipment for the IAF to meet air to air refueling requirements", according to the RFI's description.

Air to air refueling or also known aerial refueling is the process of transferring aviation fuel from a tanker aircraft to the receiving aircraft during flight. This allows the receiving aircraft to remain airborne longer, thereby extending its range. This process also allows a fighter jet to take off with complete combat payload and refuel immediately. In addition, for exploiting the full potential of the aircraft to switch from one theatre to another this requirement becomes essential.

Sources explained that the FRA being looked at by the IAF will be a twin-crew aircraft. "It can also be second hand aircraft, provided they have 40 years of life and adequate flying hours," explained sources.

The previous two contests failed due to price issues, making this the third attempt at getting these aircraft, according to reports. Airbus A330 multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) and Ilyushin's Il-78 had competed in the past two tenders.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jan 2018 08:02

Singha wrote:
ramana wrote:I heard Wilbur Ross the US Commerce Sec speaking at Davos today morning. He was saying he considers the' "forced transfer of technology an act of (economic) war".

So at the core US Commerce Dept. does not endorse TOT deals.
Must have been referring to china and the mandatory jv and tot to get in, followed by local partner partner stealing ip and txfering that to another govt sponsored outfit

Just yesterday a cheen wind power co was convicted of defrauding 900 mil royalty from a american co

US has similar policy too if say Airbus want to sell its aircraft then they need to have forces JV , TOT to get in else they get disqualified , Nothing wrong with China India or any other county asking for this , Airbus similar has huge plant in China

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Jan 2018 08:13

Austin wrote:US has similar policy too if say Airbus want to sell its aircraft then they need to have forces JV , TOT to get in else they get disqualified , Nothing wrong with China India or any other county asking for this , Airbus similar has huge plant in China

No this is not the case. Often contractual awards beyond a certain dollar amount require a sizable percentage of the work to be conducted in the US. This does not have to be under the framework of a JV with a local US industry partner or even include TOT. A good example is Airbus Helicopters , producing under its US business Lakota helicopters out of Columbus Mississippi. They have delivered 400 such helicopters to the US Army. Another example is that of Leonardo bidding for the USAF's $ 15 Billion T-X APT program via its own US subsidiary after terminating their partnership with Raytheon and deciding to go alone.

Other companies who have smaller business development goals simply come in and buy businesses in the US and sell their products using the manufacturing capability acquired. SAAB has that strategy and has picked up a few quite iconic small businesses lately for this purpose. BAE Systems USA, which is the main tactical EW supplier to US forces is essentially a collection of US companies acquired, the largest of which being Lockheed's Electronics division (From which all their main EW products orignate) . Rolls Royce too pursued this track and acquired the Allison Engine Company and essentially bought themselves into the JSF program.

Companies may choose to follow the JV path for certain competitive advantages but they don't transfer IP to the peer they have selected from the US unless there is a business case for it. Point is that it is a option but is not mandatory, and the same applies to TOT. Sometimes, the path followed is to simply by off the shelf systems. Many such examples of this also exist the most notable being SAAB radars that the US buys for its Coast Guard vessels and the Littoral Combat Ship. These decisions are based on political, and business/industrial interests in order to maintain competitive advantage with a product.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Jan 2018 09:48

Haridas wrote:
Indranil wrote:The more I look at it the more I feel it is rife for change into a business jet. It is already pressurized. The layout is perfect for switching out the turboprops for turbofans.
Its takeoff distance will increase significantly.

Which is okay. Because business jets hardly work from austere fields. Business jets with similar weight and dimensions do just fine with two 15 kN turbofans.

Haridas wrote: The wing design which is currently optimized for current cruising velocity & altitude will need to be changed because jet engine would result in a different optimum cruising altitude & speed.

IOW very very significant design and tooling changes.

Agree with you that changing the wing means changing the aircraft. But in this case, I don't see a need to change in anything but the airfoil. The sweep, span, structural elements etc. are quite fine. I am sure you know of examples where this has been done before, e.g. 328Jet.

Saras's wing is actually the best thing about Saras. The Verity technology they developed is actually a very cost effective method of building such large co-cured co-bonded surfaces.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Jan 2018 10:04

Indranil wrote:...

Saras's wing is actually the best thing about Saras. The Verity technology they developed is actually a very cost effective method of building such large co-cured co-bonded surfaces.

JEC Asia Innovation Awards 2013

Aeronautics category

Winner: National Aerospace Laboratory, India

Composites wing and empennage

CSIR-NAL has taken up the development of a 14 seater civil aircraft, ‘Saras’. For this aircraft, the entire wing and empennage are being developed using composites. One of the main components of the horizontal tail is the ‘bottom integrated skin’. The entire bottom substructure (5.1m x 1m), which consists of the skin, two spars, elevenribs and eight stringers have been co-cured in one single operation.

All the spars, ribs and stringers were laid to the net shape on the CFRP contoured tools. Later, these were transformed on to the already stacked skin using the ‘specially developed locating media’ to meet the stringent dimensional requirements. This was then vacuum bagged and cured in an autoclave at 175°C and 7bar pressure. Carbon/epoxy prepreg was used as the basic raw material to realise the structure. The entire co-cured structure has been developed using innovating tooling technology consisting of ‘hybridised silicone rubber tooling and CFRP tools’.

Compared to an equivalent box in aluminium, the weight savings wereabout 25%. The integral construction not only reduced the number of individual parts but also eliminated 2,500 fasteners and lead to a cleaner aerodynamic surface. This technology has resulted in the reduction in manufacturing time and cost. The design of ply development includes the entire sub-structure consisting of bottom skin, front spar, rear spar, ribs and stringers which could be developed in one single shot.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 26 Jan 2018 10:24

^ the civilian Saras is planned to be an 18 seater with toilet. The current version has a larger seat distribution probably to seat commandos/soldiers with equipment. This requires only minor modifications once qualified. They are first qualifying with CEMILAC as the civilian requirements are supposed to be more '"stringent" in cetain areas which can be added on after CEMILAC certification when essential flightworthiness will be established and they will ahve racked up enough flight testing hours to abbreviate DGCA certification. Expect this to be the driver for UDAAN routes.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Jan 2018 11:10

prasannasimha wrote:^ the civilian Saras is planned to be an 18 seater with toilet. The current version has a larger seat distribution probably to seat commandos/soldiers with equipment. This requires only minor modifications once qualified. ...

More for VVIP travel for AMs and ministers, IMO.

To make it 18 seater, the toilet and rear storage has to be removed.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Jan 2018 11:28

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Jan 2018 12:38

shiv wrote:The other thing that stands out is the concept of "business jet". Market potential has to be a huge factor in transport aircraft design. A bizjet has a niche place in a lot of western and gulf nations - being owned by high net worth individuals. A market for a bizjet barely exists in India, but a short-haul transport aircraft has a place. In any case the IAF has already placed orders for 15 of these aircraft.

I know the perception about business jet being a rich man's toy. While that is one side of the story, it is not always the case. At my last job, I used to fly a business jet almost every week, and I am definitely not a high net worth individual. The flights were actually like a ferry service between business locations. Believe it or not, the first two aircraft (PC-12s) were bought to ferry chips (made of silicon not carbon) between facilities. On some flights, a seat or two would be added if required. Later it was changed exclusively for executives. I got to fly in these only a few times. It worked out cheaper for our company to swap these out for two Citations (we needed more seats). But the underlying goal was to save time and money, and not show off.

Agree on the relative market opportunities of transport over business jets.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 26 Jan 2018 20:26

shiv wrote:
Indranil wrote: It is very common on developmental/experimental aircraft to use that boom to place the pitot tube well ahead of the aircraft for good quality readings.
Thanks - you took the words right out of my mouth

Prototype F-16 image
F-35 prototype
Rafale prototype

Thanks for the explanation. Size looked quite big. Pitot tubes can be tricky piece of equipment even on proven aircraft as Air France A330 incident showed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jan 2018 21:36

Remove the toilet? You'll have to provide a hole in the floor then like Indian Rlys. loos for passengers to ease themselves! But Saras could also have a variant replaceingthe pusberprops with jets which would be more useful as a Bizjet.

nam · Post by **nam** » 27 Jan 2018 01:12

I wish companies like Mahindra or any Indian company wanting to get in to aircraft manufacturing, could invest in Saras, in return for production rights.

This way GoI gets to share the R&D burden and India get a private aerospace player.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Jan 2018 01:38

So the IAF has set the requirements in such a way as to make sure that the Il-78 Midas cannot be offered. From a logistics, commonality and training perspective, this is not a great idea, to have 2 totally different fleets of tankers- one Russian and the other Western.

Previous reports dating back to 2016 on the IAF's tanker plans had included the re-engined Il-76MD-90A, which had the big advantage of a rather new powerplant with much improved economics and maintenance. But it now appears that this 2-engined tanker RFI is a clear indication that the IAF is pretty much fed up with maintenance and availability issues with the Il-78 and Il-76 fleet in service and doesn't want to have to deal with the Russians for that part of its fleet anymore. OTOH, the IAF's experience with its C-130J and C-17 fleet's high availability would have coloured its view that Western transport/airliner derivatives will be the best option from an availability POV, even if it requires separate spares contracts that won't come cheap.

But from an affordability perspective, the most interesting part of the RFI is the fact that used tankers/cargo airplanes converted to tankers, can be offered. And IAI has done that for multiple air forces, with converted Boeing 767s. If the IAF is really genuine about this, it will be hard to beat the cost proposition for used freighters or even airliners converted into multirole tanker transports. From an AW&ST article on the value proposition for IAI Bedek's conversion of passenger 767-300 into freighters-

IAI Bedek says the cost of a converted Boeing 767 that will deliver 15-20 years of service is about 30% of the price of a new freighter of the type.

and with only 5 global companies capable of offering tankers, of which 3 are OEMs and of which 1 has been pushed out thanks to the twin engine requirement, this is a 4 way race.

IAI Bedek's Boeing 767-300ER MRTT has been selected by the Brazilian AF and for the Korean competition, they offered work-share to KAI. And the 767-200 conversion tanker was supplied to the Colombian AF. So its a proven solution and risk isn't as high as for a unproven supplier.

In the military conversion field, the Brazilian air force has selected the Bedek 767 Multi-Mission Tanker Transport (MMTT) as its future tanker-transport aircraft. IAI Bedek is also competing against Airbus and Boeing to supply four aerial tankers to the Korean air force. “Our offer is strong and attractive. We have a highly advanced system, utilizing proven, efficient commercial platforms and convert them for military use. These aircraft provide the same missions of new-built planes, but cost significantly less,” Melamed said.

Through the conversion process the aircraft is overhauled and equipped with new systems preparing it for the different missions – aerial refueling, transport, VIP, etc. IAI has offered significant work share to the Republic of Korea, practically in subcontracting, and technology transfer for the manufacturing of assemblies. “This package offers excellent opportunity for Korea,” Melamed said.

IAI is one of five manufacturers offering tanker aircraft. The market for these strategic assets is quite limited, with only large air forces able to afford brand new tankers.

LONDON—Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) says that there is growing interest converting Boeing 767-300ERs into aerial refueling tankers.

The company’s Bedek aircraft-conversion division says it has five customers for the conversion program and the first aircraft should enter service with customers in 2017.

Brazil is known to be one of the customers, having ordered two aircraft to replace the Boeing 707-based KC-137s that the country’s air arm operated until October 2013.

Last August, IAI began flight-testing an ex-North American Airlines 767-300ER with an IAI-developed fly-by-wire refueling-boom system, and the company plans to carry out a series of trials with the boom during 2016. To fit the boom, the company has modified the rear fuselage of the aircraft to create a recess, eliminating concerns about damaging the boom system in the event of a tail strike on the longer-fuselage version of the widebody Boeing aircraft.

“With Boeing producing the KC-46, customers who buy a tanker based on the Boeing 767 know that support will be available for their aircraft for the next 30-40 years,” said Yosi Melamed, general manager for IAI Bedek Aviation Group.

IAI multi-role tanker-transport 767s are given a major overhaul, which also includes new engines, new APU, a main passenger-deck cargo door and new avionics, as well as mission systems that allow the refueling operation to be conducted from the flight deck.

Melamed said he was hopeful the company could capture one-third of the market in the coming years, and added he was unconcerned about the potential effect of surplus KC-135s coming onto the market. “With four engines, operating the KC-135 requires a large investment.

Referring to the KC-135, Melamed said, “We have a saying in Israel, ‘What was, was.’ The future is the 767 now.”

So far, the company has delivered one 767-200 tanker conversion to the Colombian air force, which uses the type to support its Kfir fighters and A-37 Dragonfly ground attack aircraft. The 767 was used to deploy Kfirs to Nellis AFB, Nevada, in 2012 for Exercise Red Flag.