Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Seetal

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.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7236
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Pratyush » 24 Feb 2017 11:34

:?: When did that happen??

chiru
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 17 Jun 2009 12:46
Location: mahishooru

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby chiru » 24 Feb 2017 14:01

Pratyush wrote::?: When did that happen??

in Bharat Karnad's self flagellating wet dream :P

vipins
BRFite
Posts: 417
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 17:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vipins » 24 Feb 2017 14:25

Pratyush wrote::?: When did that happen??

It was a C130J which crashed in a hill near chambal river in Raj.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32128
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 16:56

From Livefist
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/835014594821259264
Perplexing piece by @BharatKarnad abt 'IAF C-17 crash' that nobody knows about. Fact: all 10 flying, zero accidents.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2856
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Rakesh » 24 Feb 2017 17:56

Hnair Saar: it occurred in his mind. He has a hard time between imagination and reality.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1465
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Sid » 24 Feb 2017 19:25

His insinuation that "IAF flew it in a mountain", like that was intentional, is perplexing. So we poor SRDEs can maintain and fly old Russian machines (which do not want to fly) but cannot handle TFTA hardware. Why are we even entertaining such thoughts by TOIlet and BC?

Point that IAF was doing night ops at Thoise itself should be a news, encouraging this nation. Instead its turned into a disheartening story.

Night vision equipment have issues with depth perception, which led to lot of hard landings and crashes in Afghan and Iraqi campaigns by US. I won't be surprised if that's what led to this infraction.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ranjan.rao » 24 Feb 2017 22:02

Came across some interesting tidbits on wiki of thoise (didnt know it earlier):
1. THOISE is not a real name but an acronym: Transit Halt Of Indian Soldiers Enroute (to Siachen)
2. Thoise is out of bounds for civilians
3. Indian Oil Corporation Limited is making an oil depot to serve the Indian Army. The construction project is in progress and is monitored from Chandigarh.
4. Thoise is reached via the Khardungla pass, one of the world's highest roads used by motor vehicles.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ranjan.rao » 24 Feb 2017 22:09

At such heights flying itself would be a challenge, on my visit to Leh I saw a helicopter just taking off, hovering and landing very close by in the airport. (much to the chagrin of SHQ who was keen to get off from the musuem and start her cash burning). An army personnel whom I asked told they are getting used to flying in rarified air and controlling in such heights.

If helicopter requires such skill a super hercules at night should require far more skill. Obviously feel sad at the incident, but it's better to have these difficult experiences now than in actual war time.

The sadder part is no millitary (current or ex) or journalist has presented the other or correct side of story, that these accidents are inevitable while flying in such hostile conditions. Again the Ra**i Rona of IAF cant fly even transport aircraft will start.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 360
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Atmavik » 25 Feb 2017 00:01

Time to replug this story

Flying the Bofors into Thoise

http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/history/siachen/1045-bewoor.html

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3333
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kartik » 25 Feb 2017 00:47

I think Bharat Karnad is going senile..

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3601
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby hanumadu » 25 Feb 2017 16:02


vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1359
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 25 Feb 2017 22:49

fast developments, first the HTT-40

The focus on initial cost and operating costs might mean it can be offered on line of credit to nations like Afghanistan, Burma, Baluchistan etc., given the Infra in such places, the landing gear has to be handling roads/open fields

The second seat for the trainer may have to be modded to be an electronic one datalinked to a remote operator like the ones planned for Rustom series. This allows say rookie Afghan pilots to be quickly called onto missions monitored and coordinated elsewhere, part of the datalinks is the beaming of the localized air situation picture to the human pilot in the front seat which is a substitute for a radar.

Dornier as a Seaplane,

It seems a low risk effort, maybe it can gel with the regional connectivity initiative wherein about 10 civilian Dorniers were planned to be added to the fleet to jump start the program. With water landings, may be they can use water bodies as well with GAGAN in operation. NSG might need it not to mention night landings on Salma dam.

Being on skids not sure what kind of sea state it can operate in, larger ships that can handle a IMRH can have an aircraft lift to the side of helicopter deck, the lift can be lowered into the water and the Dornier can be positioned onto the lift for hauling onto the deck. The Dornier in addition to being a seaplane needs to have folding wings, maybe call it a pocket Hawkeye.

MTA looks like a sore thumb, this needs to be revived maybe as a JV with Brazil and has to be in the C-130J class now that forces got a taste of it.

Underwriting all these assets is probably HAL developed and owned engine family

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1778
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cybaru » 26 Feb 2017 06:54

vasu raya wrote:MTA looks like a sore thumb, this needs to be revived maybe as a JV with Brazil and has to be in the C-130J class now that forces got a taste of it.


I think the brazil boat sailed long time ago while we sat there dithering on things. Glad its being called dead. Hope they nail that coffin and start all over again.

Best would be to go alone. Get NAL/ADA/HAL/TASL together and Boeing as consultant and make something in the 20-28T range. Boeing does not have an offering in that space and making a mini C17 would work very well for both parties. They could even take a stake in such a venture and produce it at home or sell it to their customer base. We could keep the engines common for both C17 and the MTA and that would clean out transport logistics and improve uptimes. A lot of LRU, structures, could be used/outsourced from the C17 program and made in India for the Indian Mini-C17MTA program.

What would be the issues here? Other than pissed off Russians. One of the main reasons for failure might be the powerplant again. Russians not keen to see a western powerplant being used. They might have different requirements also and may not need the plane and we may be the only customer.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1359
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 26 Feb 2017 08:04

Cybaru, if engine was the issue with Russia, can they go with two sets of power plants? after all Jaguar re-engining meant moving from Adour to Honeywell. The customer can be offered engine options, nothing short of that works between Western and Russian political divide

don't get me wrong, versatility of the platform leads to numbers, and C-130 is a good example, another reason that I prefer C-130 size aircraft is since Japan's amphibious plane is similar to it except for its fuselage which is designed for water landing. if and when the turbo prop MTA materializes slowly you will see requirements for an amphibious version come out. And maybe another version with a 105mm howitzer mounted on it and I don't think that needs to be the titanium version like the M-777

so instead of the F-16, you may want to get the C-130 line into India or go ab initio with a clean newer design that also caters for civilian operations like the HAL made Dornier.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 26 Feb 2017 08:06

Cybaru,

What you are describing above is very similar to the Kawasaki C-2. If you ask me, we can join hands with the Japanese. It is great risk-mitigation step which makes economic and geo-political sense. Japan is looking for a market and a risk-sharing partner. It is the right size with to carry FICVs to the advanced areas which the erstwhile MTA couldn't.

The barter can be along the following lines: Let the C-2 assembly be in Japan. Let us manufacture agreed upon sub-assemblies. In return, let us cooperate in the development of the YPX project. This assembly line will be in India with building the agreed upon sub-assemblies.

Makes much more sense than a few Shinmaywas.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 26 Feb 2017 08:19

HAL is trying to leverage the Regional Connectivity Scheme (RCS) or UDAN (Ude Desh ka Aam Nagarik) scheme to sell civilian 228s. Not a bad ploy, given that it has the govt's backing.

Bengaluru, December 11, 2016:

The Minister of State for Civil Aviation Mr. Jayant Sinha inaugurated Structural Assembly of HAL–Do-228 (Civil variant) at HAL’s Kanpur facility yesterday. “We are keen to take forward our Regional Connectivity Scheme (RCS) and HAL has an important role to play in this”, he said. The Minister pointed out that there is a marker demand for at least 200 such aircraft and the government would conclude the contract with HAL once the first aircraft is rolled-out.


The private sector is kind of missing out:
Mahindra got badly stuck with its Airvan 10 development. It built two test specimens, but they have been flying with tufts all over their tail for the past two and a half years. As a result, the NM5 and Airvan 18 projects never took off. Thankfully, NAL and Mahindra are getting the NM5 flown back to India, so that they can certify the aircraft here. Let's see Mahindra can leverage its workhorse Airvan 8.

Unfortunately, TASL does not have any of the final assembly line for either the PC-12 NGs or the Do-228 NGs for whom it is building the majority of the aerostructures. Last year, it started delivering the wings and the fuselage for the PC-12 NGs. Again, ahead of schedule.

Its a long path for Saras. It has to be revived, certified for the military use, then civilian use, and then stretched and/or have a jet powered variant.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32128
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 26 Feb 2017 08:27

Cybaru wrote:Best would be to go alone. Get NAL/ADA/HAL/TASL together and Boeing as consultant and make something in the 20-28T range. Boeing does not have an offering in that space and making a mini C17 would work very well for both parties. They could even take a stake in such a venture and produce it at home or sell it to their customer base.

"Consultants" usually work because they already have something to offer that can be built up without much modification. If it is a totally new design - there is a big risk, and if Boeing already has a customer base for that new design why would they want profit sharing with India.

Brazil went in for risk sharing at an opportune moment and came up trumps.

I ideally I would like to see India produce an aircraft that can serve both as cargo "MTA" for air force and as a medium range passenger aircraft. The civil aircraft market is crowded and even biggies (companies) are taking hits like Airbus 380. Russia and even China are nosing in - but don;t have the engines. Russia is going for western engines.

This continuous on again-off again story of the MTA means that we don't have the expertise and no one is interested in collaborating with us because they already have aircraft in that category that they can sell to us rather than wasting time and effort developing something with India that would compete with their own existing project.

Although it is smaller than we need - I support the Saras simply because we have gone so far and must push through and say "fug you" to everyone else in that weight-range category.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1778
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cybaru » 26 Feb 2017 09:46

shiv wrote:I ideally I would like to see India produce an aircraft that can serve both as cargo "MTA" for air force and as a medium range passenger aircraft. The civil aircraft market is crowded and even biggies (companies) are taking hits like Airbus 380. Russia and even China are nosing in - but don;t have the engines. Russia is going for western engines.

This continuous on again-off again story of the MTA means that we don't have the expertise and no one is interested in collaborating with us because they already have aircraft in that category that they can sell to us rather than wasting time and effort developing something with India that would compete with their own existing project.

Although it is smaller than we need - I support the Saras simply because we have gone so far and must push through and say "fug you" to everyone else in that weight-range category.


I agree with the "fug you" sentiment. Absolutely required for many many reasons. Projects like this will eventually allow an aerospace community to mushroom and grow.

I do think consultancy would be easier than risk sharing
1.The market is severely divided into strong holds. The top end has only one left (il-76) now with C17 line shut.

In medium Category you have
C130J, A400M, KC390, AN178, C2 and each has a base with C130J with the widest reach.

Boeing has expertise but no offering in this category. Unless they believe that there is a large midsized transport market that has not been tapped, asking them to invest as risk sharing partners will be difficult. I also believe that the market is very limited and all the forces(countries) that have their specific requirements will end up making their own version. Other smaller forces/countries will end up buying and making do with the offerings that are available.

They can however still sell their expertise, services on manufacturing and design, and walk us through in putting an assembly plant together. This would allow other American based vendors to sell goods and services. They become the conduit for a larger set of suppliers and services all funneled through them. It would make more sense to pay them 300 million, own the IP and let them walk us through the issues of getting such a plane from design into service. This would make a huge difference to their bottom line. Shareholders will love it. Since all the design development happens in India, the export laws won't be such a headache, plus GE gets to sell more engines.

2. Since there is no competition or viable substitutes (turbofan offering) from American stables either from LM or Boeing and we are already their customers, giving this market and service away to another vendor or country doesn't make sense.

They have nothing to invest only charge fees by the planeload, which the russians would charge anyways and won't even let us design the plane. This would allow a clean slate approach to meet our requirements and get us off the ground.

Fusing transport and passenger is hard, can be done, but then they create a competitor. Plus the resources required are huge and we may not be able to differentiate and create useful economic value for airline companies to order by the required numbers.

It makes more sense to make no design tradeoffs for the true blue transport plane and import a popular line to like the 737NG or A321 to get a civil aviation ecosystem going and make it locally. Giving large tax subsidies to local airlines to purchase from this venture, will spur this forward quite quickly. Since a lot of it will be local screwdriver giri and making sub assemblies, this should just go to a host of private players. We can still create the small jet liner market (20-80) by locally designing once we have all the other pieces in place.
Last edited by Cybaru on 26 Feb 2017 23:55, edited 3 times in total.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1778
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cybaru » 26 Feb 2017 10:02

Indranil wrote:Cybaru,

What you are describing above is very similar to the Kawasaki C-2. If you ask me, we can join hands with the Japanese. It is great risk-mitigation step which makes economic and geo-political sense. Japan is looking for a market and a risk-sharing partner. It is the right size with to carry FICVs to the advanced areas which the erstwhile MTA couldn't.

The barter can be along the following lines: Let the C-2 assembly be in Japan. Let us manufacture agreed upon sub-assemblies. In return, let us cooperate in the development of the YPX project. This assembly line will be in India with building the agreed upon sub-assemblies.

Makes much more sense than a few Shinmaywas.


Yes, that certainly makes more sense than shinmaywas. And this is where the private sector can take things and make em better. They are only making 40 and we may end up with close to double the number. It may make sense to make the whole line in India. This will end up becoming the workhorse in the midtop category when the Il-76 retire in another 15/20 years.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ragupta » 26 Feb 2017 21:42

India is the only large market for Medium size transporter. There are so many products in this category, with not more that 50 sold for each category except - C-130J.

===
In medium Category you have
C130J, A400M, KC390, AN178, C2 and each has a base with C130J with the widest reach.
===

If none of the above want to setup in India, India can go alone, hire consultant, combined resources from private and public and get it off the ground, using off the shelf components to a large extent, rather than make effort in designing a specific special component. Once you have a designed and integrated products flying, you can tweek it the way you want and later indigenize.

In the past we had to design and develop components for scratch as it was not available, but more and more products and technology is available, so take advantage of it.

MTA is dead, that is a good thing, one more product without Russia and some other players will help India build relationship with other established players.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ragupta » 26 Feb 2017 21:44

http://idrw.org/aero-india-2017-htfe-25 ... ore-126214

htfe-25 fired up at full trust.

Another 2017 good news.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1359
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 26 Feb 2017 21:58

Still looking for a conclusion, or rather a waypoint

while separation of transport and civilian seater requirement is a risk reduction measure, as an import option is Kawasaki C-2 any cheaper than the Shinmaywa?

And if everybody in that product space is not willing to encourage a competitor, no consultancy can be expected either.

Then comes the bartering arrangement, what India has to offer to the NATO member Japan? I heard murmurs about trading LCH, suggestion to outsource the production of their new passenger plane, anything else?
Last edited by vasu raya on 26 Feb 2017 22:34, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5205
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby brar_w » 26 Feb 2017 21:59

NATO member Japan??

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1974
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 26 Feb 2017 22:04

Unbelievable, that blog by Bharat Karnad. IAF has now been forced to issue a statement to deny any C-17 accident.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1359
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 26 Feb 2017 22:07

hi brar_w, nice to see you :-), the statement meant Japan has access to all that NATO has to offer technologically, well almost

so, whats your opinion?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 27 Feb 2017 00:43

ADE's and HAL's collaboration on UAVs is great. HAL plans to convert HTT-40 into a MALE UAV. ADE is struggling with designing an efficient airframe.

Also HTT-40 can be a good test-bed for the ATOL. Replace one of the pilots with the electronic pilot, and have the other (human) pilot as a backup. I wonder if they are going to go down that path while converting Chetak into a RUAV. Once that is done, they can design a dedicated optimized RUAV.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1868
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby abhik » 27 Feb 2017 00:48

ragupta wrote:http://idrw.org/aero-india-2017-htfe-25-hindustan-turbofan-engine-25-fired-up-at-full-thrust-hal/#more-126214

htfe-25 fired up at full trust.

Another 2017 good news.

HTFE-25 produces 25kN dry thrust(?), yet weighs only 350kgs? The Honeywell F124/5 series with similar thrust weighs over 500kg while the RR Adour weighs well over double that of the HTFE-25 (albeit it has afterburners). And the Kaveri with around 50Kn dry thrust weighs over 1200kg, What am I missing here?

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1778
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cybaru » 27 Feb 2017 00:57

Indranil wrote:ADE's and HAL's collaboration on UAVs is great. HAL plans to convert HTT-40 into a MALE UAV. ADE is struggling with designing an efficient airframe.

Also HTT-40 can be a good test-bed for the ATOL. Replace one of the pilots with the electronic pilot, and have the other (human) pilot as a backup. I wonder if they are going to go down that path while converting Chetak into a RUAV. Once that is done, they can design a dedicated optimized RUAV.


Is there a news report or is this from conversations during AI17?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 27 Feb 2017 01:34

News report about what? HAL is ADE's "risk sharing" partner. It will manufacture Rustom IIs. HAL and ADE are partners on the RUAV. HAL's plans for HTT-40 trainer->armed trainer (CAS/COIN aircraft)-> UCAV. These are all old stories now.

By the way, another possible avenue of cooperation that we could have with Japan is: We will buy the US-2s provided they help us modify it and produce it into a land based 20 Tonner.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1778
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cybaru » 27 Feb 2017 01:45

Indranil wrote:News report about what? HAL is ADE's "risk sharing" partner. It will manufacture Rustom IIs. HAL and ADE are partners on the RUAV. HAL's plans for HTT-40 trainer->armed trainer (CAS/COIN aircraft)-> UCAV. These are all old stories now.


Oh, I had not connected the dots. I also didn't realize Htt-40 will end up as a UCAV. Wouldn't it require a substantial design change?

Indranil wrote:By the way, another possible avenue of cooperation that we could have with Japan is: We will buy the US-2s provided they help us modify it and produce it into a land based 20 Tonner.


It's an interesting idea. I would think the US-2s would require a lot of work plus they are turboprop powered. if we want those, we should just buy those and not talk about making them at home given the requirement is small. They can do other offsets and help elsewhere. For MTA perhaps we might as well start from scratch and do a clean sheet approach.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1359
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 27 Feb 2017 04:43

the timeline for a US-2 de-modified for land use might be near term while the clean sheet MTA may be longer term. US-2 land only version might make the order bigger and hope Japan will not play like France

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 27 Feb 2017 05:48

It is a wrong notion that manned aircraft can't be changed into good UAV platforms. How many UAVs are based on the Long-EZ platform? The Hammerhead, Dominator II, and the LHD UAV are some of the other examples. Closer home, NAL and Kadet systems wanted to modify the Hansa into an UAV. I don't know what happened of that. The thing is if you want to build a UAV, you have very good glide ratio. That can be achieved if you have a narrow fuselage and long wings. If your carry a SATCOM dish then, it defines the fattest part of the fuselage, otherwise it is the engine. Changing the fuselage to the required shape is well within NAL's capability. Let's see.

Tractor configurations, especially single engine tractor configurations are rare, but do exist.

Image
Image
And why not. Both configurations have there advantages and disadvantages. And if the sensors can work in armed super Tucano, then it can on an unarmed version.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 27 Feb 2017 05:51

vasu raya wrote:the timeline for a US-2 de-modified for land use might be near term while the clean sheet MTA may be longer term. US-2 land only version might make the order bigger and hope Japan will not play like France

Resistance will not come from Japan ;-)

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1778
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cybaru » 27 Feb 2017 06:13

Indranil wrote:
vasu raya wrote:the timeline for a US-2 de-modified for land use might be near term while the clean sheet MTA may be longer term. US-2 land only version might make the order bigger and hope Japan will not play like France

Resistance will not come from Japan ;-)


Does it meet our need in terms of payload size, weight and range/altitude to be carried?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1359
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 27 Feb 2017 07:19

The engine thrust is a close match to that of a C-130J, if they make an optimized land version of US-2, maybe it will come close in terms of payload and they would probably have to replace the whole tail section to provide for a loading ramp and an extended cabin etc.

All these changes though are hopefully not treading into their C-2 product space atleast as a export competitor

new req: from the missiles section if PDV is mounted on say a 3 unit TEL, maybe they can find ways to do that on this aircraft especially after air launched Brahmos

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1359
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 28 Feb 2017 21:32

http://idrw.org/aero-india-2017-indo-russian-multirole-transport-aircraft-mta-is-officially-dead/

The issue seems to be IAF wants FADEC on the engines, which Russia doesn't have but isn't willing to substitute with western engines either. IL-76 uses Russian engines and they aren't with FADEC? can India do that development?

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 58075
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 28 Feb 2017 22:21

Us2 is too much rework for little gain.

For mta either go it all alone
License the embraer plane
Get kawasaki to test and license a 30% scaledown of their c2 sharing most parts

Both brazil and japan would welcome a 150 plane market

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 28 Feb 2017 22:23

vasu raya wrote:http://idrw.org/aero-india-2017-indo-russian-multirole-transport-aircraft-mta-is-officially-dead/

The issue seems to be IAF wants FADEC on the engines, which Russia doesn't have but isn't willing to substitute with western engines either. IL-76 uses Russian engines and they aren't with FADEC? can India do that development?


PS-90 engine do have FADEC since long

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/commerc ... 1444423918

There were conflicting requirement for RuAF and IAF for Medium Term Transport , IAF requirement was more broader including ability to bomb , RuAF wanted a pure transport aircraft , diluting requirement was not possible for either nor to reconcile hence MTA is dead.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1359
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 28 Feb 2017 23:00

Thanks Austin.

License production with either Brazil or Japan is the next best option should it give India enough confidence to go with the next generation plane alone.

if one expects a 150 number run, even the US-2 adapted for land use is justified effort, even the 12 numbers for US-2 was only the preliminary requirement, they may want more.

Is Japan ok with a bombing role for transports?

With Ukraine angling for the An-32 replacement contract, can it provide for the Kaveri test bed aircraft under Offsets? or maybe they could have done that with France itself as part of the Rafale Offsets

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 28 Feb 2017 23:21

Singha wrote:Us2 is too much rework for little gain.

Why?

You have all the imporant parts already: high-lift STOL wings, empennage, fuel system, propulsion, avionics, landing gear. All you need is a new khokha for the fuselage. If you want a 20-tonner, it is one of the lowest lying fruits.

Plus you have 4-engines, so it does not have the current engine limitation of the Indo-Russian MTA design. The Embraer design will not pass what IAF is asking for either on that parameter.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Nandy, Aditya_V, Google [Bot], Kakarat, Manish_Sharma, nash, pattnayak, srin, Thakur_B and 53 guests