Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

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.
nam
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3899
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby 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.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3899
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kartik » 27 Jan 2018 03:24

More info on the Boeing 767-300ER converted into MRTT by IAI Bedek. Article dates back to 2014.

The boom is a feature that the IAF will want, considering that its C-17 and the IN's P-8I fleets can only be refueled by a boom equipped tanker. That is something that the Il-78 Midas tankers don't yet have and would have had to develop if they were allowed to participate in the tanker contest.


LONDON —Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) says it has performed flight tests of a fly-by-wire boom system destined for use on tanker conversions of commercial aircraft.

The company’s Bedek division has been using a former North American AirlinesBoeing 767-300ER aircraft to test the boom system as an optional fit onto second-hand 767s, which the company is offering to potential customers.


Flight trials have been underway from the company’s facilities in Tel Aviv.

The development follows a March 2013 decision by the Brazilian defense ministry to select IAI to convert two 767-300ERs into tankers to replace the Brazil’s aging fleet of KC-137 aircraft, which are based on the Boeing 707 and have been suffering from serviceability issues. The fleet has been retired, leaving Brazil with only its KC-130 Hercules tankers.

It is not clear, however, whether Brazil has opted for installation of the refueling boom system.

“The operational and technological experience gained from Israeli Air Force and IAI’s other customers has been taken into consideration and utilized in the design and development of the new generation B767-300ER MMTT [Multi-Mission Tanker Transport],” the company said Aug. 26.

Currently, one IAI-converted Boeing 767-200ER is flying as a tanker with the Colombian air force, supporting its fleet of IAI Kfir ground-attack aircraft. The aircraft flies air-to-air refueling, troop transport and presidential missions. Using the 400,000-lb. 767-300ER, the aircraft can carry 200,000 lb. (90,000 kg) of fuel, as well as troops and cargo pallets. Converted aircraft are modified with extra fuel tanks in the belly and a cargo door on the main.

The company says it also is offering a Smart Tanker, which can carry out additional tasks in flight such as electronic or signals intelligence or even as an airborne command post.


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3899
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kartik » 27 Jan 2018 05:20

lazy afternoon read. Posting it here for others to get to know just what it took to get the first fighter operations started at Leh. Relate that to how the Tejas single seater and trainer both seem capable of operating from Leh with quite a bit of ease.

First MiG-23BN fighter landing at Leh

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 27 Jan 2018 06:05

Given how difficult it is to acquire new platforms, get 12 MRTT at one go. Time to do away with small orders.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Eric Leiderman » 27 Jan 2018 07:15

6 is iffy 12??is pie in the sky. But the aim of our airforce is aim for the sky, hopefully they get these force multipliers

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 08:39

Indranil wrote: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.

I hope you are not speaking of an American experience and applying it to India. In India business jets are essentially private jets owned by HNW individuals - but used for corporate transport of executives as needed. Most companies in India do not own business jets while that is quite common in the US. Technically a privately owned company in India invests in a business aircraft as a "company plane" but it is also pretty much a private jet for the owner-CEO. That way company profits can be adjusted against depreciation of the jet for tax purposes, which makes perfect sense. The US I guess is different. I have a classmate who owns a private aircraft.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6884
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Prasad » 27 Jan 2018 10:58

The singapore deal for 6 Airbus mrtt itself was north of $3bn. You want MoF to sanction double that amount for $12bn? Fast chance. That we've selected the Airbus and cancelled twice is typical. Same as the hawk and other deals.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 13:59

Prasad wrote:The singapore deal for 6 Airbus mrtt itself was north of $3bn. You want MoF to sanction double that amount for $12bn? Fast chance. That we've selected the Airbus and cancelled twice is typical. Same as the hawk and other deals.

The Airbus isn't in serious reckoning for the contract. This is between the Boeing KC-46A, which will run around $200 mil (plus PBL) and the IAI 767 MMTT at $150 mil+ (plus PBL).

There's quite likely to be a +3 option on the contract. I'd say 9 aircraft is the minimum we're looking at over the next 10 years.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 27 Jan 2018 14:28

Kartik wrote:More info on the Boeing 767-300ER converted into MRTT by IAI Bedek. Article dates back to 2014.

The boom is a feature that the IAF will want, considering that its C-17 and the IN's P-8I fleets can only be refueled by a boom equipped tanker. That is something that the Il-78 Midas tankers don't yet have and would have had to develop if they were allowed to participate in the tanker contest.


Kartik, as you sure that C-17 and P-8I require boom refuelling and are not compatible with Midas tankers? Do you have a link?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 14:52

JTull wrote:Kartik, as you sure that C-17 and P-8I require boom refuelling and are not compatible with Midas tankers? Do you have a link?

He's right. Both the C-17 & P-8I are equipped with boom-and-receptacle refueling systems (you can see the symbology above the cockpit). There's no record of either being modified for a probe-and-drogue system. There's no space for a retractable design and a modification like that on the IAF's C-130Js would have quite easy to spot.

(Also worth noting, the C-130Js while modified for PDR still retain the original BRR system.)

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 27 Jan 2018 14:57

So C-130Js can be refuelled using either?

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 15:04

Probe and drogue and flying boom are different systems. Boom is rigid and gives high flow rates - but only 1 a/c can be refuelled at at a time. Probe and drogue is a hose, lower flow rate, can feed multiple aircraft and can be adapted for buddy-buddy refuelling. I don't see India changing over to flying boom anytime soon.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2684
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby chola » 27 Jan 2018 15:12

JTull wrote:So C-130Js can be refuelled using either?


I think there is a possibility of both since the J is an USAF variant and so the boom receiver are built-in and there are pictures of the IAF ones with a probe:
Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2684
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby chola » 27 Jan 2018 15:25

Since we’re on the C-130 and refueling:

The KC-130
Image

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 15:32

JTull wrote:So C-130Js can be refuelled using either?

Yeah.

shiv wrote:Probe and drogue and flying boom are different systems. Boom is rigid and gives high flow rates - but only 1 a/c can be refuelled at at a time. Probe and drogue is a hose, lower flow rate, can feed multiple aircraft and can be adapted for buddy-buddy refuelling. I don't see India changing over to flying boom anytime soon.

Its not a question of either/or. The KC-46 and A-330 are capable of both PDR & BRR operation (assuming they're ordered in that variant). The IAI 767 is being adapted for BRR so will be dual mode as well.

So an IAF tanker will be capable of refueling a C-17 or P-8 with its boom and a Su-30/Tejas/Rafale through its hose. The C-130 & conceived SEF might be able to use either.

KC-46 demonstrates probe-and-drogue refuelling of F/A-18
Airbus to test automatic boom mode for A330 MRTT
IAI Adds Boom to 767 Tanker Conversion

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cosmo_R » 27 Jan 2018 16:50

.."You can pick one up in airline configuration for as little as $9 million, and that’s a pretty good deal for a big—and I do mean big—airplane that can fly 8,000 miles nonstop at a top speed of 469 knots. (A new 767 with an airline interior will set you back $185 million.) Even if you install a beautiful interior, you’ll be hard-pressed to spend more than $50 million for the package....

With aircraft of this vintage, parts and product support as well as getting things like upgraded avionics can be problematic. That’s probably not going to be the case with this airplane for a long time, however. That’s because the U.S. Air Force recently ordered a bunch of them—it will ultimately buy as many as 179—to use as aerial refueling tankers. On Dec. 28, 2014, the Air Force made the first test flight of a 767-2C, which will eventually become the KC-46A “Pegasus” tanker. That means the parts line for the 767 will stay open, even if no one else orders the airplane.

https://www.bjtonline.com/business-jet- ... boeing-767

Now look at what AI has done with their 767s

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Air% ... y-b767.htm

While the IAF has been looking high and low for refuelers

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 17:03

Viv S wrote:
So an IAF tanker will be capable of refueling a C-17 or P-8 with its boom and a Su-30/Tejas/Rafale through its hose. The C-130 & conceived SEF might be able to use either.

You mean a hose/basket will get attached to the end of a boom for the C-130. I'll believe that if and when I see a flying boom tanker in the IAF so I think it is simply speculation.

IAF C-130s have a probe and do not need a separate receptacle for boom unless weight and space have been wasted by having a receptacle too.

Refuelling Navy P-8s over the sea is not something the I foresee the IAF planning for, and given the fact that the P-8 has a patrol time of 8-10 hours - grabbing an IAF tanker for refuelling seems an unlikely event to me. However our latest friends Amreeka could refuel them over the sea I guess, if the need arises.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 17:43

shiv wrote:You mean a hose/basket will get attached to the end of a boom for the C-130. I'll believe that if and when I see a flying boom tanker in the IAF so I think it is simply speculation.

Hose-drogue under the wings & fuselage. Boom under the tail. Hardly a complicated setup.

IAF C-130s have a probe and do not need a separate receptacle for boom unless weight and space have been wasted by having a receptacle too.

The IAF's C-130Js already have a receptacle for the boom. Wasted weight & space had to be weighed against the cost involved in modifying and qualifying the aircraft without it. The piping for the fuel was already required for the probe located next to it.

Refuelling Navy P-8s over the sea is not something the I foresee the IAF planning for, and given the fact that the P-8 has a patrol time of 8-10 hours - grabbing an IAF tanker for refuelling seems an unlikely event to me. However our latest friends Amreeka could refuel them over the sea I guess, if the need arises.

Better to have it and not need it rather than to need it and not have it. Given that it doesn't stop the aircraft from regular hose-and-drogue refueling, I'm not seeing what your issue with the boom-receptacle system is.

Image

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 17:52

Viv S wrote:Better to have it and not need it rather than to need it and not have it. It doesn't stop the aircraft from regular hose-and-drogue refueling.

Having it and not needing it would be a ludicrous waste like a man buying tampons for himself.That probe on the C-130J would be as much a waste as a 100% useless boom waiting for a call from the Indian navy for refuelling a P8I

The IAF will need refuelling for Tejas aircraft that will come in numbers. Lugging around a useless boom and operator is a choice that I am wiling to bet the IAF will not make. Here is something that we will know in a few years - I am willing to wait and see. It is highly unlikely that the IAF will go and select a tanker aircraft with 33% of its refuelling potential wasted on 2% of its aircraft inventory - or worse, doing it as a "sacrifice" for the navy.

The sort of tanker you are talking about is great for NATO. Not for the IAF

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 27 Jan 2018 18:03

I suggest posters to read the history of aerial refuelers and why the need for jet-based refuelers was felt for refueling jet-based fighters.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 18:18

shiv wrote:Having it and not needing it would be a ludicrous waste like a man buying tampons for himself.That probe on the C-130J would be as much a waste as a 100% useless boom waiting for a call from the Indian navy for refuelling a P8I

The C-17 on international (long range) deployments would be able to employ AAR. Plus the P-8I on extended patrols (its fleet will eventually grow to 18-24 aircraft). As would any other aircraft ordered on the 737 platform (eg. ISTAR). Plus the A-330 based AWACS. To that you can add the F-16 (or F-35), if ordered. The C-130J already has a receptacle so it would presumably employ the boom, where available, for quicker refueling.

The IAF will need refuelling for Tejas aircraft that will come in numbers. Lugging around a useless boom and operator is a choice that I am wiling to bet the IAF will not make. Here is something that we will know in a few years - I am willing to wait and see. It is highly unlikely that the IAF will go and select a tanker aircraft with 33% of its refuelling potential wasted on 2% of its aircraft inventory - or worse, doing it as a "sacrifice" for the navy.

"33% of its refueling potential wasted"? Like I said, the hose-drogues coexist with the boom. The fuel is carried in the cargo bay, so the boom operator isn't taking up room that would otherwise be used for fuel. And the boom (unless extended) is streamlined with the airframe resulting in minimal additional drag.

The sort of tanker you are talking about is great for NATO. Not for the IAF

The NATO isn't IAI's target market. India is.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 18:31

Viv S wrote:The NATO isn't IAI's target market. India is.

You are implying: "IAI's Target market==must have for IAF"

I am saying "snake oil"

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 18:39

shiv wrote:You are implying: "IAI's Target market==must have for IAF"

I'm saying 22 of the largest aircraft in the IAF & IN fleets are designed for boom-receptacle refuelling, with an additional 12 that are capable of it. Numbers that will continue to grow over the next 40 years.

And I'm saying that a boom equipped aircraft will not be hampered in the slightest when tasked with refuelling a probe-equipped fighter.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 27 Jan 2018 18:49

Instead of what KC-46 can do, the discussion should be about what IAF/IN requirements are.

I haven't seen any evidence that C-17 or P-8I have come ready for Boom refuelling. Without Boom tankers (present or on order) I doubt India would have paid for these. Moreover our pilots would not have been qualified for such and they wouldn't have been able to test the system while accepting the aircraft.

C-17 and P-8I aren't setup for boom refuelling. Period.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 27 Jan 2018 18:51

shiv, IAI solution can't be discarded. It allows us to receive converted 767 lot more quickly and cheaply. A mix of old and new is not such a bad idea, if it helps us to order more than a modest number of 6.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 18:57

JTull wrote:I haven't seen any evidence that C-17 or P-8I have come ready for Boom refuelling. Without Boom tankers (present or on order) I doubt India would have paid for these. Moreover our pilots would not have been qualified for such and they wouldn't have been able to test the system while accepting the aircraft.

India isn't paying for that capability. That's how they were manufactured off the assembly line. We would had to pay to have the capability removed and the equipment replaced with ballast.

Also, yes our pilots aren't qualified for that at the moment. They'd have to do that once the new AAR units are inducted. Shouldn't be too hard, given that most of the work is done by the boom operator (as opposed to the pilot-intensive hose-and-drogue refueling).

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 27 Jan 2018 18:57

The IAF's maintenance issues if any with IL-76s and 78s, would've been bdcos these birds were earlier made in Uzbekistan, no more any longer.Series production of new IL476s and equiv tankers, etc. are now being made totally in Russia.If the platform is so troublesome why are we then getting 2 more for the Phalcon AWACS then?

Excuses are being made for buying far more expensive platforms.More juice to squeeze out if you get my drift. Fortunately the hideously expensive Airbus option was twice canned by the MOD.Given the "huggy" relationship with Israel now, old civvy aircraft with much miles still left in their airframes , modernised and modified to begin a new career as tankers should be a better option than converting C-130Js.They should also be evaluated with new IL-476 platform tanker options and an objective decision taken based upon technical and operating factors and costs too.But it looks that this req. will go to the Israelis if they can offer a cost-effective alternative.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 27 Jan 2018 18:59

JTull wrote:shiv, IAI solution can't be discarded. It allows us to receive converted 767 lot more quickly and cheaply. A mix of old and new is not such a bad idea, if it helps us to order more than a modest number of 6.


Just to add to that, if I remember correctly, IAF picked up a second hand Global 5000 for ELINT after it became available 3-4 years ago and which was modified with Israeli help.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 19:24

Viv S wrote:
shiv wrote:You are implying: "IAI's Target market==must have for IAF"

I'm saying 22 of the largest aircraft in the IAF & IN fleets are designed for boom-receptacle refuelling, with an additional 12 that are capable of it.

Fact. Those 22 aircraft will not need air refuelling for 99% of their airframe lives in their service in India. While our existing fighters - 280 odd Su-30s, 40 odd Mirages right now can do with refuelling and projected, already ordered numbers of Tejas will need that more than ever. I a

Viv S wrote:Numbers that will continue to grow over the next 40 years.
. I do not mean this personally about you, but this actually is the language used by salespeople. Predict the future where it suits them. Numbers of Tejas will grow. What else will grow we don't know.


Viv S wrote:And I'm saying that a boom equipped aircraft will not be hampered in the slightest when tasked with refuelling a probe-equipped fighter.
The aircraft and its sellers will not be hampered one bit. We are going to pay the price for lugging around and maintaining several 100 kgs of unnecessary weight for 99.99% of ops. On civilian aircraft every kg costs Rs 250 now. Multiply that by 500 for every flight of a refueller with a useless boom - 1.25 lakhs per flight.
Last edited by shiv on 27 Jan 2018 19:26, edited 1 time in total.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 434
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby VKumar » 27 Jan 2018 19:26

Why can't HAL become an IAI? Maybe it can start with a JV with IAI and then make refuellers and other aircraft through TOT. and if IAI is not interested, give HAL a budget to buy a second hand Boeing or Airbus and experiment to convert it into a tanker.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 27 Jan 2018 19:28

Absolutely. Get HAL to partner IAI and do this conversion in India.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 19:29

JTull wrote:shiv, IAI solution can't be discarded. It allows us to receive converted 767 lot more quickly and cheaply. A mix of old and new is not such a bad idea, if it helps us to order more than a modest number of 6.

If IAI is offering a redundant boom system on used aircraft they are simply getting rid of stuff they already have and dumping it on us and making it look attractive.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 19:30

JTull wrote:
JTull wrote:shiv, IAI solution can't be discarded. It allows us to receive converted 767 lot more quickly and cheaply. A mix of old and new is not such a bad idea, if it helps us to order more than a modest number of 6.


Just to add to that, if I remember correctly, IAF picked up a second hand Global 5000 for ELINT after it became available 3-4 years ago and which was modified with Israeli help.

What redundant useless systems did it come with?

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 19:32

Viv S wrote:Also, yes our pilots aren't qualified for that at the moment. They'd have to do that once the new AAR units are inducted. Shouldn't be too hard, given that most of the work is done by the boom operator (as opposed to the pilot-intensive hose-and-drogue refueling).

Most small aircraft are unable to take the high rate of flow offered by the boom system - one more useless redundant feature waiting for those 20 odd aircraft for their 1 in 100 flight need to refuel midair. And if the boom is used with a basket to attach to a probe - the imagined advantage of fast refuelling, use in turbulent conditions and refuelling huge aircraft vanishes.
Last edited by shiv on 27 Jan 2018 19:38, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 19:37

Personally I would favour an aircraft that doubled up as transport/cargo or even elint along with refuelling. The boom lever can, in my opinion can be detached and the operator's seat and controls used for something else. The insides may not need or may not be amenable to too much modification

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1022
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Gyan » 27 Jan 2018 19:43

Philip wrote:The IAF's maintenance issues if any with IL-76s and 78s, would've been bdcos these birds were earlier made in Uzbekistan, no more any longer.Series production of new IL476s and equiv tankers, etc. are now being made totally in Russia.If the platform is so troublesome why are we then getting 2 more for the Phalcon AWACS then?

Excuses are being made for buying far more expensive platforms.More juice to squeeze out if you get my drift. Fortunately the hideously expensive Airbus option was twice canned by the MOD.Given the "huggy" relationship with Israel now, old civvy aircraft with much miles still left in their airframes , modernised and modified to begin a new career as tankers should be a better option than converting C-130Js.They should also be evaluated with new IL-476 platform tanker options and an objective decision taken based upon technical and operating factors and costs too.But it looks that this req. will go to the Israelis if they can offer a cost-effective alternative.


I broadly agree with Philip. If IL76-78 have high running cost, let them participate & lose on LCC.

Though on side note, second hand modified A330 make sense.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17463
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby chetak » 27 Jan 2018 19:50

JTull wrote:Absolutely. Get HAL to partner IAI and do this conversion in India.


might as well murder the project in cold blood.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2506
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby tsarkar » 27 Jan 2018 19:50

^^ Our pilots are making more long ranged sorties, and for those fighters operating from hinterland bases will need a tanker line close to border to tank up before ingress & egress into enemy territory where low level flight is more fuel consuming. So dedicated tankers are a necessity. And many more than six.

The boom is useful for large aircraft like bombers or transports or MPA to top up quickly. All these aircraft below, though equipped with probe & drogue, have very prominent refueling probes. They can carry additional crew for multiple shifts, but need fuel.

Image
Image
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63095
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 27 Jan 2018 20:20

i have read the Tu160 needs some replacement of lubricants and such after 24 hrs of continuous flight. they have done a 30hr test flight and it held up.
these high cost heavies used in strategic role like AWACS, ASW and ELINT will definitely to useful to keep in air as long as possible in a war situation...we do not have a overflow of these units.

the KC46 and A330MRTT conversion afaik leaves the passenger bay clear for cargo or mission pallets and uses the a/c fuel tanks itself (perhaps addl fuel tanks in cargo bay) to keep around 90tons of fuel ready to roll out.

in that sense they can supplement the IL76 & C17 cargo haulers taking pallet cargo and people around, as being high floor they cannot take vehicles and such that low floor, high volume puppies can.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinandan, Ravishankar and 32 guests