+1Karan M wrote:we should buy 36 F-18, and 36 typhoons to complement the 36 rafales so the IAF then has 108 rafale type jets.
at least this mmrca circus discussion will stop.
at least we can then have a thread for each type we operate
Russia Completes Modernization of Indian Navy's Il-38 Fleet
12:01 26.08.2015
According to Ilyushin general designer and deputy general director, Russia has completed the upgrade of all of India's Ilyushin Il-38 anti-submarine aircraft to SD standard.
A Mi-17 V-5 helicopter is demonstrated at the testing facility of the OAO Kazan Helicopter Plant, part of the Helicopters of Russia, a Russian helicopter building holding
© Sputnik/ Maksim Bogodvid
Russia to Implement Mi-17V-5 Helicopter Delivery Deal With India in 2015
ZHUKOVSKY (Sputnik) – Russia has completed the upgrade of all of India's Ilyushin Il-38 anti-submarine aircraft to SD standard, Nikolay Talikov, Ilyushin general designer and deputy general director, said Wednesday.
"We have completed this work, all five of the Indian Navy's aircraft have been modernized to SD standard," Talikov said at the MAKS-2015 International Aviation and Space Salon.
The Ilyushin Il-38N, referred to as the Il-38SD in India, is an improved version of the Il-38 aircraft (NATO reporting name May), equipped with a modern Sea Dragon anti-submarine navigation system, including high-resolution radar, display and thermal imaging subsystems.
According to Talikov, Russia and India are currently in discussions for modernizing the Ilyushin Il-76 (Candid) multi-purpose strategic airlifters and the Ilyushin Il-78 (Midas) aerial-refueling tanker fleet. The two countries are considering a sale of the new Ilyushin Il-76MD-90A transport aircraft, he added.
MAKS-2015 opened on Tuesday in the Russian city of Zhukovsky. More than over 400,000 visitors are expected during the course of the six-day event. About 760 companies from 35 countries are expected to participate in the air and space show.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/business/2015082 ... z3nhD16HZf
jayasimha wrote:can someone in Delhi get more info on this.. may be they can post some photos and share there experience.
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=128436
Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha Chief of The Air Staff (CAS) Inaugurates Induction Publicity Exhibition Vehicle (IPEV)
Thanks for posting. I suspect the IAF will need to go for new build Il-76MD or whatever they are calledPhilip wrote:AWST.
Opinion: After the C-17, A Tier Of Choices
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion ... er-choices
The winners of C-17 line shutting down will be the 40t-50t airlifters like A400M, An-70, C-2 and Il-76MD. They are the next best thing for anyone wanting payload capacity higher than 20t.shiv wrote:Thanks for posting. I suspect the IAF will need to go for new build Il-76MD or whatever they are calledPhilip wrote:AWST.
Opinion: After the C-17, A Tier Of Choices
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion ... er-choices
My guess is size-wise IAF is a Il-76/C-17 user rather than an A-400 which carries half the payload.srai wrote: The winners of C-17 line shutting down will be the 40t-50t airlifters like A400M, An-70, C-2 and Il-76MD. They are the next best thing for anyone wanting payload capacity higher than 20t.
Might be a good opportunity to JV on the An-70.
Opinion: After the C-17, A Tier Of ChoicesPaul wrote:Can you post the article in it's entirety.
Oct 5, 2015 Richard Aboulafia | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Within the next few months, Boeing will deliver its last C-17 airlifter. This has been a remarkable program in many ways, but perhaps the most noteworthy is that the aircraft helped create a brand-new market: exported strategic transports.
Before the U.K. Royal Air Force (RAF) took delivery of four C-17s in 2001, no country outside the U.S. had ever purchased a Western military transport larger than the Shorts Belfast. A few countries, notably India and Libya, bought Soviet transports at “friendship” prices, but otherwise large airlifters were purely for the U.S. Air Force, or the USSR military. Everyone else used C-130s or smaller turboprops.
Yet two years after the RAF received its C-17s, seven NATO nations finally launched the Airbus A400M, after years of delays. While carrying less than half of the C-17’s payload, it does offer strategic range. Also, Japan decided to replace its fleet of aging C-1s—a jet built in the 1960s and less capable than a C-130—with the much larger Kawasaki C-2, now scheduled to enter service next year. Japan plans to buy 44 C-2s, which are around the size of the A400M and also offer strategic range.
Credit: U.S. Air Force
But most astonishingly, Boeing followed its four RAF C-17 sales with another 47 export aircraft. It succeeded by simply offering the C-17 at a competitive price and with a strong level of customer support—incentives that helped make strategic airlifter operations digestible for new users.
The effect of these developments on the military transport market has been profound. The non-U.S., non-Russian segment had historically been worth well under $1 billion in deliveries per year, with Lockheed Martin’s C-130J garnering the bulk of the orders. However, this year the international airlifter market will see deliveries above $6 billion, capping five solid years of record delivery numbers.
In September 2013, right after Boeing delivered the 223rd and final U.S. Air Force C-17, the company announced that the line would close in 2015, noting that another 22 would be built, including 13 on spec, with buyers to be found later. Since then, all but one of those 13 white tails have been purchased. Most recently, Qatar doubled its original aircraft order when it bought another four C-17s at this year’s Paris Air Show.
The C-17 line closure decision had to have been a tough call. On the one hand, the market’s surprising surge, reflected in the deliveries run-up over the last 10 years, offered hope that there would be more to come. Several possible strategic-lift customers have yet to make any kind of product commitment, most notably Saudi Arabia, which could have been good for 10-15 jets. There were even rumors of Algeria seriously eyeing the aircraft.
Also, there were inklings of more follow-on buys from the current user community. In August, the Indian air force said it would like at least three more C-17s; by this time only one of the available aircraft was left. And given U.S. Air Force and foreign-user requirements, there will not be any kind of market for secondhand C-17s. In all, it is virtually certain that Boeing could have sold at least a few more if it had kept the line open another six months or so.
But there were more factors weighted in favor of closing the line. By doing so, Boeing can exit its Long Beach facility, a valuable property. The final C-17 will incidentally be the last jet built in California, once a global center of aviation.
Another problem is the A400M itself. Not only is Airbus eager to sell it on export markets, but two home-market countries—Germany and Spain—plan to sell a combined 26 aircraft out of their own orders. These will likely be sold at a discount, making Boeing’s job that much harder.
The most compelling reason for the U.S. manufacturer to shutter the line was the end of the U.S. market. At first, Boeing hoped to sell C-17s abroad as a bridge to more U.S. Air Force orders, perhaps for a proposed C-17B variant. But the current USAF plan is to simply coast on the fleet of 220 C-17s (plus 51 reengined C-5Ms) for the next 25-30 years. And while international sales of C-17s were remarkable, they could never have sustained the line alone for longer than another 1-3 years.
With the C-17’s death, the international military market will have tiers. For tactical transports, options include Airbus’s C-295 and Alenia’s C-27J. For theater transports, customers can choose between the C-130J and Embraer’s new KC-390, now scheduled to enter service in late 2018. But if anyone wants a strategic airlifter, there is just the A400M, unless Kawasaki decides to export the C-2.
And if a war or other contingency results in the U.S. Air Force needing more strategic lift, without the budget or time required to develop a new replacement jet, it may find itself in the strange position of queuing up to buy A400Ms.
They could get some relatively cheap C-17s from USAF reserves.shiv wrote:Thanks for posting. I suspect the IAF will need to go for new build Il-76MD or whatever they are called
That's debatable really. We originally had a fleet of 16 Il-76s, but even in its heyday it delivered lesser net lift capacity than 10 C-17s, between its lower payload (half as much) and lower serviceability. The IAF requirements have increased esp. in NE & Ladakh, but our ground infrastructure is also being progressively upgraded. The major difference is that our geographical challenges aren't really comparable to that of globally deployed US military or Russia military dispersed across the vast Russian hinterland.shiv wrote:My guess is size-wise IAF is a Il-76/C-17 user rather than an A-400 which carries half the payload.
USAF inactivating two C-17 squadronsBheeshma wrote:Why would USAF sell us their C-17's? The gulf states like UAE, Qatar etc have 8 each and I can't figure out if they can even keep it flying? Yes if IAF can get 6 refurbished C-17's then good but otherwise I can see a opening for IL-476. At 60 tonne payload it is nothing to scoff at.
It doesn't necessarily mean that they're available for sale, but its certainly grounds enough for India to have a talk with them about it. Between the one unsold white-tail and 5 out of 16 grounded USAF C-17s, there's a good possibility that the IAF could round off its C-17 fleet to two full squadrons.Bheeshma wrote:Inactivating doesn't mean they are selling them. If India can convince them to sell 6 then good. Yes 60 tonne is max, same as the often quoted 75 tonne for C-17. In leh it will lucky to land with 30-40 tonnes.
Secondhand hand-me-down C-17s will be virtually useless IMOBheeshma wrote:Why would USAF sell us their C-17's? The gulf states like UAE, Qatar etc have 8 each and I can't figure out if they can even keep it flying? Yes if IAF can get 6 refurbished C-17's then good but otherwise I can see a opening for IL-476. At 60 tonne payload it is nothing to scoff at.
Yes. Endlessly debatable. Hence I say "my guess is". What the IAF might do is anyone's guessViv S wrote:.
That's debatable really.shiv wrote:My guess is size-wise IAF is a Il-76/C-17 user rather than an A-400 which carries half the payload.
Actually the floor area is nearly the same ratio as well. C-17 ~ 110 m². Il-76 ~ 60 m². So even if you stacked all the pallets single layer, you'd still be able to carry almost twice as many in the C-17.Singha wrote:Only if topped up with pallets. For heavy point loads like tanks and trucks the formula will be different though I agree the c17 loading is a cakewalk compared to 45 mins to shimmy a measly t72 on to il76
Because...shiv wrote:Secondhand hand-me-down C-17s will be virtually useless IMO
Well the T-72 is hardly "measly" so there is mo merit is trying to devalue that Russian plane simply to show up the C-17 in contrast.Singha wrote:Only if topped up with pallets. For heavy point loads like tanks and trucks the formula will be different though I agree the c17 loading is a cakewalk compared to 45 mins to shimmy a measly t72 on to il76
Viv S wrote:Because...shiv wrote:Secondhand hand-me-down C-17s will be virtually useless IMO
That would have been true only if the aircraft in question had been retired at the fag end of their service life. While in fact they're being shifted to reserves (not retired), simply because they're excess to requirement with the Iraq campaign having ended and the Afghan one being wound up.shiv wrote:It will inevitably be a "life extension" and will never have the longevity of a new build no matter what theused carused plane salesman says. It is my opinion that this is undesirable. I do not intend to clarify my opinion beyond this point.
Dear Philip-saar. If Russians are paying you for peddling their ware then you are doing a shoddy job because a good marketing guy commands respect by in-depth knowledge of needs and capabilities. Instead you have become an object of ridicule. And if the Russians are not paying you then you should spend less time peddling their ware.Philip wrote:The new IL-76MDs/90s whateverare the best option.No new training required and much commonality for
So, what to do wonlee - they need some good biz schools in Rodina land
