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 Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

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.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 763
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Lisa » 28 Jul 2017 17:59

shiv wrote:1.I need a son
2.For that I need a wife
3. but the wife should be exactly 5 feet sevenand a half, should weigh 52 kg and be guaranteed not to get high BP after age 50


How do you PM on this forum

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3264
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 28 Jul 2017 19:38

Lisa: The PM feature does not work properly. Your best bet to contact Hakeemji is to check his profile if he has an email address listed. If not, ask him.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3264
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jul 2017 00:19

Indian Air Force clears 12 national highways as emergency landing strips
http://www.firstpost.com/india/indian-a ... 72615.html

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3264
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jul 2017 00:31

Indian Air Force Set To Get 48 More Mi-17 Transport Helicopters This Year
http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/in ... 26886.html

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3264
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jul 2017 22:47

Indian Air Force’s Jaguar Still Performs Poorly After 20 Years, Says Auditor
https://sputniknews.com/asia/2017073110 ... air-force/

“Against the requirement of 108 autopilots projected by IAF, only 18 autopilots could be integrated on the Jaguar aircraft as of March 2017. The integrated autopilots were also functioning sub-optimally due to malfunctioning of their vital component i.e. Auto Pilot Electronic Unit (APEU). Thus, the flying aid capability envisaged by IAF for the Jaguar aircraft in 1997 remains largely unrealized even after 20 years,” CAG said in a report tabled in Parliament on July 28.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14116
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 31 Jul 2017 23:18

Impirted from France Auto pilots gentlemen. State of the art and all that.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19171
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 31 Jul 2017 23:48

Why does Jaguar need Autopilot now when all these years they could fly low and fast without one ? Too much automation would make pilot lazy :D

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1955
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Marten » 01 Aug 2017 00:52

Is this related to a terrain following radar?

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1479
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Sid » 01 Aug 2017 02:18

Autopilot was requested to aid in PGM capability, not for basic navigation. I think the logic published in media (during that time) was that its almost impossible for pilots for arm and release a PGM munition when pilot is engaged in navigating the plane.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1818
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 01 Aug 2017 13:48

Sid wrote:Autopilot was requested to aid in PGM capability, not for basic navigation. I think the logic published in media (during that time) was that its almost impossible for pilots for arm and release a PGM munition when pilot is engaged in navigating the plane.

It had more to do with the targetting than arming and releasing. The pilot would be overloaded with simultaneous operations of the both flying the aircraft steadily to target and lasing the target for guidance of the PGM. Auto pilot would enable him to fly a steady heading with minimal supervision so that he can track the target for lasing.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3264
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 03 Aug 2017 20:36

Indian report slams Il-76 availability rate
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... te-439958/

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1662
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 04 Aug 2017 07:49

So then why is the IAF requiring the LCA to be IFR capable - only 2 IL78s (32% availability of the 6 aircraft fleet) are available. Will they have time to refuel LCAs - there are 275 MKIs, 60 odd M2ks and 120+ Jags.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 04 Aug 2017 08:11

Vivek K wrote:So then why is the IAF requiring the LCA to be IFR capable - only 2 IL78s (32% availability of the 6 aircraft fleet) are available. Will they have time to refuel LCAs - there are 275 MKIs, 60 odd M2ks and 120+ Jags.

Buddy-buddy from 130 MKI @ 49% availability

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16769
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 04 Aug 2017 08:23

IAF IL-76s are two plus decades old,all to be upgraded.The sooner the better.One cannot expect fantastic serviceability for an old aircraft where the original OEM no longer exists! Uzbekistan.
All old 76/78 platforms will need upgrading immediately.

Same too with the Jags.Jag upgrades have been touted at the last three airshows.MOD lethargy appalling.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1662
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 04 Aug 2017 08:30

shiv wrote:
Vivek K wrote:So then why is the IAF requiring the LCA to be IFR capable - only 2 IL78s (32% availability of the 6 aircraft fleet) are available. Will they have time to refuel LCAs - there are 275 MKIs, 60 odd M2ks and 120+ Jags.

Buddy-buddy from 130 MKI @ 49% availability

Are all MKIs equipped with buddy refueling capability and will IAF be using MKIs as tankers instead of as offensive weapons? So 49% of 50% meaning there will only be 75 MKIs available at a given time?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 04 Aug 2017 08:42

^^That percentage was typed in jest. I have no reports or sources. That said I think that any MKI can be used along with a suitable fuel delivery pack on a pylon

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3303
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby deejay » 04 Aug 2017 09:41

shiv wrote:
So then why is the IAF requiring the LCA to be IFR capable - only 2 IL78s (32% availability of the 6 aircraft fleet) are available. Will they have time to refuel LCAs - there are 275 MKIs, 60 odd M2ks and 120+ Jags.

Buddy-buddy from 130 MKI @ 49% availability


If we are unable to fit IFR, why should we question the need for it? If there was no need why was it not brought up before? Is it the case of declaring the grapes are sour because they could not be reached?

To those who apply linear equations to combat - Do some air combat tactics analysis and research. A lot of detailed PHDs on this is available. In India, TACDE and some other organisations have done some excellent research on this. Find your answers. You may have to work hard for exact IAF tactics since they may not be available open source.

For a simple analysis, if you look at ~80% - 90% of mission that IAF will be required to undertake, they will be in range for a Su 30. The refueling needs will be higher for aircraft with shorter legs. The LCA, Jaguars and Mirage 2Ks will benefit more from IFR than a Su 30.

Here are some:

http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/issues/22_3/features/5180-1.htm

Also, if IFR is removed, what capabilities are lost for the LCA, is a counter thought. LCA is a very potent platform. Of course with every reduced capability, the ability of LCA to remain a front line option for IAF drops.

Actual tactics if not available already on open source should not be shared publicly IMO but a keen student should be able to get to it.

Now, since the development of a particular capability is challenging and is taking some effort, should that be dropped? IMO, it should not.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1818
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 04 Aug 2017 15:24


Deejay sir,
The link is not working. Can you post the gist of it here instead of the link.

As an aside, can you please drop an email at DJVIGNESH at g(oogle)mail.com.

Thanks.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19171
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 04 Aug 2017 15:32

The Full CAG Report is here http://cag.gov.in/content/report-no24-2 ... e-services

Covers Akash , IL Jags Aeroengines and others On IL page 39

Low availability is also due to non conclusion of LTMA as per CAG
(c) Non conclusion of Long Term Maintenance Agreement for IL fleet

Another reason for the poor availability of spares and maintenance support was the non
conclusion of Long Term Maintenance Agreement (LTMA) with the OEM. IAF mooted
the proposal for LTMA in April 2011 with M/s Ilyushin Aviation Complex (IAC), Russia
to sustain 70 per cent serviceability of the fleet at any given time. MoD in January 2014
reviewed the proposal and in view of the change in requirement and circumstances,
directed the Air HQ to put up a fresh proposal to be processed by the Ministry for
approval (Acceptance of Necessity). Till date, Air HQ had not processed the proposal
(April 2017).

2.7.7 Recommendations


 The authorisation (policy page) of IL-76 should be revised from 12 to 14 aircraft
by Ministry of Defence.

 Air corridors for air to air refuelling should be designated at the earliest to ensure
smooth air to air refuelling operations and training.

 IAF needs to finalise the Long Term Maintenance Agreement for IL fleet to
sustain the envisaged 70 per cent serviceability.

 Since the IL fleet is going to be operational for the next 20 years or more, MoD
may consider upgrading its avionics to remove constraints in its operations and to
comply with current aviation standards, so as to allow for flying in international
air space since there may be such a requirement in case of eventualities.

 MoD may consider concluding a separate contract for overhaul of aero-engines of
IL-78 aircraft in order to get full benefits of overhaul, instead of getting the
overhaul under the same contract for overhaul of IL-76 aero-engines.

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3303
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby deejay » 04 Aug 2017 15:41

Bala Vignesh wrote:

Deejay sir,
The link is not working. Can you post the gist of it here instead of the link.

As an aside, can you please drop an email at DJVIGNESH at g(oogle)mail.com.

Thanks.


Wow! Its not working for me either and I had accessed it this morning. Also its behind a paywall now.

Anyways, not from the article but from the back of my head and very briefly - Air to Air refuel, allows one to take off max load, max temperature with low fuel and refuel after take off
Air to Air refuel allows mid air refuel en-route (ingress/ egress)
Air to Air refuel allows light fighters packaged with heavier buddies to target at their range limits and ensure return (say 02 heavies for 04 lights strike package)
Increase CAP loiter times

It essentially is a force multiplier and one can get the returns of an MCA while flying an LCA. There are many use cases. Each terrain, geography, target and air defence environment carries its own sets of challenges; IFR will permit options (with largest impact on low range aircraft) which other wise were not available.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59437
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 04 Aug 2017 15:42

imo they should get the supersonic drop tanks qualified for the Tejas asap.

the M2k has them from day1.

the jaguars have drop tanks.

the Mig29 i have seen fly with a underbelly drop tank and the humpback of the UPG will add some fuel ?

Rafales can use upto 3 large tanks - it looks like tanks carrying the plane from some angles.

AAR can only be provided for special missions and platforms - ELINT, AWACS etc at best with 6 refuelers.

the Su30 our main patrol a2a plane has enough internal fuel.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 04 Aug 2017 17:15

Under what circumstances are supersonic drop tanks needed?

I ask because I can think of several situations where the tanks have to be jettisoned
1. In an emergency when some sort of nifty combat manoeuvring is required
2. For quick acceleration and getaway

The only situation I can think of where the supersonic tanks stay on and the plane flies supersonic is on the way in to a target where the plane thunders inwards on afterburner, gulping fuel from the tanks getting to target quickly, at which point he drops his tanks leaving naked useless pylons, but at least he can deliver what he has. Or else if the airspace is clear he can fly back with empty tanks. This would be useful for "very far away" targets. The US and France regularly fly over water. What would the LCA need them for? What sort of situation would the LCA need supersonic tanks if an air to air refuelling can be done after takeoff with full load and 50% fuel? Standard subsonic tanks would do. Unless the name "supersonic" means "high subsonic'

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1662
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 04 Aug 2017 18:51

deejay wrote:If we are unable to fit IFR, why should we question the need for it? If there was no need why was it not brought up before? Is it the case of declaring the grapes are sour because they could not be reached?

The question is - why delay FOC for IFR when IAF for the foreseeable future will not have enough platforms for LCA's to be refuelled in flight. Putting in IFR is not "rocket science" but will take its required time and analysis. Unless we just want to put up a stick and not complain about the drag penalty.

And this is an added requirement, not an original one. So why delay FOC for it?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5411
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 05 Aug 2017 02:46

IAF is not holding up FOC to LCA for want of IFR or supersonic tanks.

1. They are flight testing the plane with the probe to every corner of the envelop. At some corners it is expected to generate some hiccups, all par for the course. All things that India has to learn. IAF's expectation is to clear all corners before FOC. The actual inflight refueling tests will be completed post FOC.

2. The supersonic tanks have been designed. They are qualifying it before they can put it on the plane. My peeve is that it seems like they are allowing perfection get in the way of good enough. A slightly modified tank from even the Mig21 could have worked. That is the problem of employing a research institute to do work.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46944
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2017 08:02

Manu Pubby write that Jaguars have been fitted with AESA radar. First of 58.

Engine still up in the air.

I don't understand it's best to change out engine along with the DARIN III upgrade.

Don't have to bring the plane to factory twice.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2498
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby fanne » 05 Aug 2017 08:35

That means 2052 is cleared for lca

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46944
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2017 12:20

Yes he did say that. First Jaguar with EL-2052


https://twitter.com/shatrujeet009/statu ... 1421958145

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59437
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 05 Aug 2017 12:24

> Under what circumstances are supersonic drop tanks needed?

long T-shaped CAP intercepts on fast movers is my theory. fly sustained supersonic to head them off. i have heard of f22's / foxhounds doing this and covering 100s of miles in a few mins as befits their king lion role protecting vast 'areas'

speed is a advantage - if you let the attackers get closer to target, they will release standoff a2g weapons from way out too...these days 40km glide weapons and 60km powered weapons are proliferating.

good point about the Bison supersonic tanks....every big name 60s fighter was Mach2 ... the mighty XB70 valkyrie and Foxbat were pushing to the bold new age of Mach3 before it collapsed back to mach1.8 - mach2 as the norm
Image

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3264
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 05 Aug 2017 18:03

IAF’s first Jaguar with advanced AESA radar to fly this month
https://theprint.in/2017/08/04/iafs-fir ... month/amp/

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1820
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cybaru » 06 Aug 2017 03:10

deejay wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:Deejay sir,
The link is not working. Can you post the gist of it here instead of the link.

As an aside, can you please drop an email at DJVIGNESH at g(oogle)mail.com.

Thanks.


Wow! Its not working for me either and I had accessed it this morning. Also its behind a paywall now.

Anyways, not from the article but from the back of my head and very briefly - Air to Air refuel, allows one to take off max load, max temperature with low fuel and refuel after take off
Air to Air refuel allows mid air refuel en-route (ingress/ egress)
Air to Air refuel allows light fighters packaged with heavier buddies to target at their range limits and ensure return (say 02 heavies for 04 lights strike package)
Increase CAP loiter times

It essentially is a force multiplier and one can get the returns of an MCA while flying an LCA. There are many use cases. Each terrain, geography, target and air defence environment carries its own sets of challenges; IFR will permit options (with largest impact on low range aircraft) which other wise were not available.


Interesting points.

I feel the following about A2A refueling.

Fueling Costs:
1. Fuel costs 10X in air than being fueled on ground.
2. Takes time to refuel the whole strike package of different kinds (2AA / 4-6AG /2 SEAD package)
3. Multiple refuelers may be required for the whole package

Between Enemy zone and Friendly skies:
4. The refuelers are HVAA and will need fighter CAP when in non protected zone between Enemy zone and friendly skies.
5. The CAP for refuelers will need to refuel from the mother ship as well
6. Will require different procedures/cross-training for refueling in hot zone
7. May need AWACS on Patrol as well (most likely refueling will happen in AEW zone only)

Behind Friendly skies:
8. Refueling will take place 100-200 kms from active zone
9. Much relaxed refueling procedures, may not need CAP
10. In case for an all out war, CAP/AEW will be required - Loss will mean long range strike packages will be neutralized

Given number "2", "3" and "8", it might be possible to refuel the whole strike package at forward air bases much faster than what you could do in air. It will be much safer as well. Less things can go wrong. For now, hope IAF gives LCA a pass till it gets way more refuelers in air.
Last edited by Cybaru on 06 Aug 2017 03:21, edited 2 times in total.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1820
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cybaru » 06 Aug 2017 03:14

shiv wrote:
Vivek K wrote:So then why is the IAF requiring the LCA to be IFR capable - only 2 IL78s (32% availability of the 6 aircraft fleet) are available. Will they have time to refuel LCAs - there are 275 MKIs, 60 odd M2ks and 120+ Jags.

Buddy-buddy from 130 MKI @ 49% availability


Won't that be huge loss of their main mandate? Can they do buddy buddy refueling and still carry a full strike package?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46944
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 06 Aug 2017 04:36

Assumption is LCA flies from deep in India and needs refuelling.

Is this true?
Also with Turbofan engine does it need refueling?

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1805
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Katare » 06 Aug 2017 05:41

Wow! Who woulda thunk That Jaguars would be the first fighter aircraft to fly with AESA radar in IAF. An 80s underpowered DPSA would fly Israeli AESA in 2017!!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46944
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 06 Aug 2017 06:27

Still under powered NO?
What happened to re engine plans?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 06 Aug 2017 09:34

Cybaru wrote:
shiv wrote:Buddy-buddy from 130 MKI @ 49% availability


Won't that be huge loss of their main mandate? Can they do buddy buddy refueling and still carry a full strike package?

I think we have some illusions about "main mandate". Main mandate is anything that it can be used for that cannot be done better by some other aircraft in a given situation.

Our Su-30s came as air dominance fighters. We have made them into strike fighters and refuellers and SAR using whatchamacallit tree penetrating radar. We can also use them as mini AWACS I guess.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3142
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 06 Aug 2017 09:57

What happened with midair refuellers, looks like another tender now. We need to go with KC-46A or A330. Considering the delivery and quality of US planes C-17, C-130J, P-8I, I'd prefer KC.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... kfOAN.html

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59437
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 06 Aug 2017 12:45

a330mrtt is also proven. in service with raf & australia among others.
in both kc46 and a330 the refueling operators sit behind the pilot now and use MFD and cameras not lie down at the back peering from a window anymore.

both can be rigged up for cargo , seats, ambulances role ....

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19171
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 06 Aug 2017 16:07

Karthik S wrote:What happened with midair refuellers, looks like another tender now. We need to go with KC-46A or A330. Considering the delivery and quality of US planes C-17, C-130J, P-8I, I'd prefer KC.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... kfOAN.html


Refuelling tender is in cold storage due to financial issue and other priorities

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19171
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 06 Aug 2017 16:10

Singha wrote:a330mrtt is also proven. in service with raf & australia among others.
....


Yep, also makes it easier for AF pilots to move to civilian role once they decide to move on , they can move to any Airbus series with little conversion training

I wonder if they can opt for A330 NEO series it's quite impressive in fuel conservation and capability compared to 20 years old A330

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 06 Aug 2017 17:02

The NEO will be more expensive. The MRTT program will already face significant pricing pressure from Boeing on account of them offering a smaller, cheaper platform and one that is being produced at a stable rate in excess of a dozen a year supporting an order book that is over 170 aircraft. Airbus's immediate concern outside of the European market would be cost competitiveness given the sort of fixed price production lot contracts Boeing is signing for the KC-46 already (see LOT 3 Contract).

At some point in the next 4-5 years however Airbus would have to make the switch or offer the MRTT as a conversion option to used aircraft only since they'll be making the production switch to the new A330 family on the commercial side. Alternatively, they could produce white tails and keep them in anticipation of future awards.

One problem with performance improvements targeting efficiency is that Military aircraft and tankers don't put in as many cycles as civilian airliners so when you work the math it likely won't come out to the same as if you were an airliner so acquisition cost may play a more influential role in the decision making than LCC where the numbers will look different for a military operator than an airline.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arunsrinivasan, Iyersan, Nitesh, ritesh, shivatar, tushar_m, Vidur, Vril and 51 guests