Transport Aircraft for IAF

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2011 13:10

so it seems like even IL76 production like from russia will take 5 more years to become fully functional!!

antonov will likely be sold to AVIC-1 and function as its overseas dev center. a version of the An124 will get built with chinese funding for the PLAAF. we cannot hang our hopes on the An124

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Jun 2011 15:16

We need turboprop aircrafts in category of AN-32 and C-130s. Both MRTA and NAL-NCA are turbofan powered. It is high time we launch a indigenous programme for such aircrafts for military use. For heavy use we can think of variant of MRTA which is turboprop powered and for replacement of An-32, something like Joint production of C-27s???????

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jun 2011 17:38

I do not have much hope of anything with the Russians. My feel is that they see India as a banker. And, why would a banker need to know about technologies?

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 12 Jun 2011 20:19

^^^^^^^^^ + 100

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2011 21:09

ukraine are not pushovers in the aerospace thing. they have a large population incl a lot of ethnic russians and a good share of the centers for excellence from soviet era backed by a strong educational system no doubt. some of the key work in nuclear weapons, electro optics, aircraft (antonov), ekranoplans , aircraft carriers (nikolayev shipyard), space rockets, cruise missiles seem to be have been driven out of ukraine. the country did not collapse or get overrun by warlords after fUssr demise and is reasonably well run. so that legacy of excellence must still be there - now ofcourse flush with arms export cash and chinese funding

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 12 Jun 2011 22:32

Singhaji reasonably well run I doubt it. The scenes in their equivalent of our parliament are worse than used to be the case in behar. MPs hitting each other with their shoes and having a real boxing match are not the signs of a well run counntry.
About many russians living in the eastern parts of that country probably is the only saving grace. Like someone said some indian genes in the paki population is their only saving grace.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jun 2011 22:47

Developing relations with the Ukrainians, more than running into resistance from the Russians, India would have to be very careful of internal resistance. I am sure there would a good number who would feel insulted.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 12 Jun 2011 23:33

I am not saying do not do business with them. Because I know them a little better than some people on this board whose knowledge is just theoretical and not practical.
Russia remains our best friend in this world with the important caveat that states only have permanent interest and not permanent friends.
There seeems to be a conspiracy to annoy and make russia look bad in India,s media some of which is ill informed and some paid for by unkil.
Some critisism is justified and part of it is that russia is not the soviet union and it is also changing and part is the painful trasition after the fall of the USSR.
I would not go fishing in the bad waters of Ukraine without Russia,s permission though.

manum · Post by **manum** » 12 Jun 2011 23:39

well as much I can guess...India must have asked Russia first and after no-objection it would have gone further...As russians are too busy giving supplies for China, they cant meet all the Indian demands for spare parts...

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 13 Jun 2011 00:03

snahata wrote: I would not go fishing in the bad waters of Ukraine without Russia,s permission though.

Why not? Russia is fishing around in the waters of Poakistan

Also Ukraine is not a Poak style "bad boy", it has a rich history of its own that was violently suppressed during Soviet days.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jun 2011 00:53

For sceptics about IL-476 production and Russian transport aircraft production.Pl. go through recent posts based upon AWST reports,etc.,which give details about the current situ.,where major dev/prod. progress is being achieved for several types from heavy-lift to med. sized aircraft. Last few aircraft (IL-76) being completed at Tashkent and new IL-476s,with "deep modernisation",cockpits same as that designed for the MTA,starting to roll out later this year,with all future aircraft being finally completed in Russia.Large orders in hand both for domestic and foreign sales,inl. 30+ for China.6 IL-78s are being offered to us for the tanker role.New platforms for future Phalcons too.

C-17s are not going to arrive tomorow either! The IL-476s will arrive before them.

PS:In the nature of arms sales today,we are sometimes seeing supppliers selling arms to both sides.The US is sellin arms to pak and India,likewise Russia has been selling arms to both India and China.However,what we have to see is how important are these sales in terms of being force multipliers or giving one nation an edge over the other.Are these arms also the very latest ? Here is a brief look.

In the Indo-Pak scenario,F-16s have for Pak been some sort of a "guarantee" of US support for the nation.There has been a lot of sentimentlity attached to F-16 sales and the US has obliged PAK.These aircraft did and still do have enough nuisance value for India.Sales of P-3 Orions (7),Harpoon missiles and now 8 ex-USN Perry class heavily modified SW/multi-role frigates will have a considerable detrimental effect on Indian defence capability,giving Pak added strike capability.It is why we did not plump for a US bird for the MMRCA contest,technical inferiority notwithstanding.All that we are getting from the US are transport aircraft and 8 P-8 LRMP aircraft,which though a valuable acquiition,will come without much sensitive US eqpt.
France is also selling Pak a host of advanced weaponry like Agosta AIP subs and PGMs and missiles.

China has acquired in the last two decade a host of eqpt. from Russia,but these have not been the latest variant of the platforms like Flankers.Thanks to illegal reverse-engineering,Chinese imports of Russian eqpt. is to expected to fall to just 15% of the value of former sales.If on examines carefully the latest Chinese def. systems,cutting-edge systems like its J-20 stealth fighter have more indigenous and stolen input ragher than a straight buy from Russia or elsewhere.On the contrary,the most significant Russian JVs have been with India for the FGFA,B'Mos missile,Flanker production,T-90s,SMERCH MBRLs,the MTA,and less visibly but most importantly in the ATV project and acquisition of naval platforms like Akula-2 SSGNs and surface ships.

The current trend is that Pak and China are getting closer in meshing their defence requirements as their domestic R&D and production improves.Chinese designed warships and subs are on oder for Pak,along with missiles,munitions,UAVs and of course strategic missile and N-warhead tech.! The aim is for both nations to achieve greater indigenous system production capability asap,and being locally manufactured,far cheaper and easier to acquire and maintain.At least thtat's the intention.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Jun 2011 01:52

Philip wrote:30+ for China.

That deal has been frozen for years.

Philip wrote:6 IL-78s are being offered to us for the tanker role.New platforms for future Phalcons too.

C-17s are not going to arrive tomorow either! The IL-476s will arrive before them.

Question: Why would you continue to buy a platform they have proven incapable of supplying spares for?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jun 2011 02:01

Philip saab,

I frankly don't know what to make out of the C-17 deal. I am just happy for one thing, the engine test facility.

Having said that, when did China order those 30 odd IL-76s? You say they will start rolling off from end of Dec. But I read only a few pages back that Chinese/Russians are still negotiating the deal. If you say I will dig out the article.

I somehow find it very difficult to buy the line that the boys in IAF are so enamoured with the new toy in town that they have to have it. I love our ILs, but it seems to be a very difficult for the IAF to keep the required numbers in the air.

P.S.: GW wrote his above post in parallel. He is asking the same questions

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jun 2011 05:11

In all fairness the IL-476 is expected to come on-line around 2014 (some say 2012). The single reason why India/ns would be interested in this date is that the next set of three Phalcons would be hosted on this platform (IL-476) IF everything works out (per Trishul and Prasun: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/201 ... -eyes.html).

Beyond that there is no mention, anywhere that I can find, of an Indian interest in the IL-476 - as a transport. Note that the Phalcon is not a transport platform - it will be heavily modified for the Phalcon and so to call it a IL-476 would not be right.

I did find a AWST article, but that was old - 2009. IF anyone could produce a newer article it would be much appreciated.

The issue, IMHO, is NOT Russian capability to design and build a world class air craft - for sure they can. The issue is if their armed forces can fund the purchase of such technologies in large enough numbers to make the technology feasible. Reorg or not I just do not see them make it. And the way the FGFA contract is written up India says 250 FGFAs, but with a contract that starts-and-stops, it does not show confidence in the relationship.

On the delivery of the C-17s, 24 months after the contract is signed. Boeing produces 15 a year. India has options for six more. So, in 3 years India should have between 10 and 16 C-17s. Just BTW, these new pups are good, better than the ones that flew at AIs. (NOT comparing them to any thing else.)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jun 2011 07:57

GW,et al,please understand the diff. betwen IL-76s,built at Tashkent and IL-476s being built in Russia.IL-76 support suffered because Russia could not control the production in another country.From now on all IL-476s will be built,final assembly in Russia.Russia has assured India and other nations that the issue of support,spares,etc., will not exists in future as it has complete control over aircraft production,etc.There are major differences between the two with increased payload,range,engines,avionics-cockpits will be the same for the MTA,etc.I have quoted AWST issues in previous posts,pl. look them up.One particular article in May isue reg. the much improved transport aircraft production situ.The first of new IL-476s is supposed to roll out in Oct. this year says one report.AN-124 production is unlikely to restart unless new orders are forthcoming.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Jun 2011 08:01

Are the MKIs built completely in Russia? If they are, why do we have a spares problem there?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jun 2011 08:23

The assurances given by the Russians, to the Indians, are WRT the platforms for the Phalcons, just to be sure. Which is why, per Trishul/Prasun, India is "waiting" for 2012/14 to roll around.

The IL-476s better be different. Better everything is to be expected. What is so great about that?

As far as the MTA is concerned I have not seen anything anywhere that relates the IL-476/AN-124 to the MTA, other than the 2009 article in AWST (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 060509.xml)

Added l8r:

The discussion of IL-476 can only relate to the Phalcon platform. It is silly to bring it up WRT any Indian airlift capabilities. The MTA is supposed to (from the above article):

The cabin will have the same cross section as the Ilyushin Il‑76—3.45 X 3.45 meters (11.3 X 11.3 ft.)—but will be half the length.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2011 08:33

I had posted some details about the chinese IL76 deal a few pages back. they ordered 38 around 2004 but till date have not got a single one. infact production has not even started because Ilyushin says cost has gone up and the PRC needs to pay more. 'talks' have been on for sometime and one Ilyushin rep said if deliveries can start from Ulyanovsk plant in 2014, they will complete the order around 2025 which indicates a precarious production rate of 4 planes/annum for the chinese order.

so the chinese are not waiting around but working hard with ukrainian/rus help on a turbofan powered version of the An70 instead. I am sure once done they will produce it themselves in some avic plant

, import the engines and go the extra mile to produce almost parts in china.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jun 2011 08:39

It is indeed a sad predicament that the Russians are in. Their armed forces do not have the need to plunk down billions and their industries are running dry. To make matters worse potential clients have options. for their industry the ROI must be bad and they can do nothing about it.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 13 Jun 2011 09:09

^^ I'll put it this way - they are going through a phase of re-structuring and upgradation both at manufacturing-end and the management-level. It is not possible to deliver on their old deal because prices of raw material and labour costs have increased manifolds. Neither are these institutions financially strong enough to absorb the deficits. So, right now all they can do is have a straight face and ask for more money.

They will take time to catch up, but the future of russian arms industry looks shiny bright to me. Once they streamline themselves into something which actually can make profit, they will regain their market share and even increase it. Reason is simple americans can’t provide it cheaper than them and chinese can’t match their quality.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2011 11:19

some merger seems to be needed - tupolev, ilyushin, antonov, sukhoi have overlapping product lines. good rus-ukr ties might help. for helicppters too they should probably just have one co and compete/cooperate with sikorsky/bell/eurocopter. engine also looks like a can of worms with many makers

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jun 2011 11:56

Merger or Consolidation of Russian Aircraft and Helicopter industry has already taken place.

UAC takes care of Civil and Military Aircraft portfolio
http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/

Russian Helicopters takes care of chopper business defense and civil
http://www.rus-helicopters.ru/en/

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 13 Jun 2011 13:46

Acharya wrote:
cheenum wrote:couple of Brahmos BlockIII to Pasighat or Zero would also help...nice welcome gift to the lizard
Already present

Any Public Domain information to support this? I have only seen deployment against the Pigs in Raj / Punjab. None whatsover in NE or J&K or UP-Uttarakhand-Bihar sector.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Jun 2011 23:41

cheenum wrote:
Any Public Domain information to support this? I have only seen deployment against the Pigs in Raj / Punjab. None whatsover in NE or J&K or UP-Uttarakhand-Bihar sector.

Sorry. Chaiwallah source

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 14 Jun 2011 04:31

Singha wrote: now the 1st IL-476 is delivered to jordan, the production line may be finally operational.

Its not an IL-476 that will be delivered to Jordan but a Taskkent built IL-76MF (ie a stretched IL-76MD-90)

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jun 2011 21:17

India to buy more than 16 C-17 airlifters
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 850290.cms

...while the government had accorded approval earlier this month to buy 10 aircraft, the air force was now processing a case for six more of these airlifters. At a later date, "we will add some more," he disclosed but did not specify the number.

Reliable sources, however, say the IAF could opt for eight more aircraft, in which case the deal for the C-17s could touch about $10 billion or so.

10 ordered + 6 planned + 8 envisaged = 24 aircraft.

That is more or less the entire IL-76 transport fleet, not including the 3 Phalcons + 6 Tanker aircraft.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 14 Jun 2011 23:55

Since IAF is going to operate 24 of C 17s then why not go for C17 as next PHALCONs too instead of Il 476 ?

bart · Post by **bart** » 15 Jun 2011 00:40

Manish_Sharma wrote:Since IAF is going to operate 24 of C 17s then why not go for C17 as next PHALCONs too instead of Il 476 ?

C-17s are completely unnecessary and impractical for AEW, modification of a commercial Jetliner designed to fly high and fast efficiently will be optimum for it as they dont need to carry the massive payload of the C-17. There are already a bunch of platforms that are already modified and ready to use for AEW including Boeing 707, 737 and 767, G550, ERJ-145 etc. The Israelis have the latest version of their Phalcon on a modified G550 business jet, which is possible as the electronics have gotten more compact and powerful, and also Israel is a small country. But any commercial platform with good endurance like A320 or even better A330 would be much better than C17.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jun 2011 00:44

Manish_Sharma wrote:Since IAF is going to operate 24 of C 17s then why not go for C17 as next PHALCONs too instead of Il 476 ?

Overkill. Inefficient.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 15 Jun 2011 00:54

bart wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:Since IAF is going to operate 24 of C 17s then why not go for C17 as next PHALCONs too instead of Il 476 ?
C-17s are completely unnecessary and impractical for AEW, modification of a commercial Jetliner designed to fly high and fast efficiently will be optimum for it as they dont need to carry the massive payload of the C-17. There are already a bunch of platforms that are already modified and ready to use for AEW including Boeing 707, 737 and 767, G550, ERJ-145 etc. The Israelis have the latest version of their Phalcon on a modified G550 business jet, which is possible as the electronics have gotten more compact and powerful, and also Israel is a small country. But any commercial platform with good endurance like A320 or even better A330 would be much better than C17.

Ditto. By the way, that is how IAF found itself in a pickle after they decided on the Il-76 platform. Many problems and delays would have been avoided if they could have picked a western platform such as Airbus 330 which, incidentally, the Israelis suggested. But for some reasons unknown, IAF decided to go for Il-76s. IAF should have gone for Airbus 330 for aerial tankers and AEW platforms. It would solve the spares issue and lower the operating costs of such a platform.

The next step should the substitution of the rotodome with something that offers the same 360 degree surveillance that the rotodome currently offers but without the drag penalty that the rotodome incurs as to lower the operating costs.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 15 Jun 2011 00:59

Manish_Sharma wrote:Since IAF is going to operate 24 of C 17s then why not go for C17 as next PHALCONs too instead of Il 476 ?

More likely would be the 737 since you would have the P-8 and there is already the Wedgetail/Peace Eagle/Peace Eye

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 15 Jun 2011 04:41

Manish_Sharma wrote:Since IAF is going to operate 24 of C 17s then why not go for C17 as next PHALCONs too instead of Il 476 ?

C17s are massive, lumbering giants. they don't have the necessary speed or the long range as a Gulfstream ER Jet. some of the extended range civilian airline models from Boeing or Airbus (or even Embraer)would be the best option.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 15 Jun 2011 04:51

GeorgeWelch wrote:More likely would be the 737 since you would have the P-8 and there is already the Wedgetail/Peace Eagle/Peace Eye

I second that... Boeing 737 would be the best platform...considering the fact that we are going to have 12 P8Is in the next couple of years...

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 15 Jun 2011 05:20

Won't happen unless IAF agrees to purchase Wedgetail which is very highly improbable considering that India refuses to sign CISMOA and other agreements. It has to be an Airbus or Embraer platform. That way, US defense manufacturers can't have US pressure Israel into not selling Green Pines technology.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2011 05:28

Hitesh wrote: But for some reasons unknown, IAF decided to go for Il-76s.

Not quite. At THAT point in time the IAF had a good deal of confidence in the Russian platform and did have nearly as close in the alternative. Turned out to be a bad call, but such is life.

The next step should the substitution of the rotodome with something that offers the same 360 degree surveillance that the rotodome currently offers but without the drag penalty that the rotodome incurs as to lower the operating costs.

Nope. Rotodomes are designed to generate lift for themselves. There is very, very little, if at all any, penalty WRT drag.

Just BTW, the "rotodome" in the Phalcon does not rotate. The radar arrays are in the shape of a triangle inside it and thus provide the needed coverage.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 15 Jun 2011 05:30

Couldn't Phalcon be mounted on a 737 ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2011 05:31

Gurneesh wrote:Couldn't Phalcon be mounted on a 737 ?

They are mounted on the Gulfstream, a much smaller AC

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 15 Jun 2011 05:37

Hitesh wrote:Won't happen unless IAF agrees to purchase Wedgetail which is very highly improbable considering that India refuses to sign CISMOA and other agreements. It has to be an Airbus or Embraer platform. That way, US defense manufacturers can't have US pressure Israel into not selling Green Pines technology.

Why would Boeing not sell 737s to India for its AWACS when it can sell the same platform for P8I?
What if India links up selling 737 for AWACS with AI or IN or IAF buying from Boeing?

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 15 Jun 2011 06:04

Boeing would pressure India to purchase Wedgetail programme but with downgrades, something that India will not accept and India would have to sign CISMOA. With Green Pines technology, IAF avoids the problem of CISMOA and US snooping around the systems or hacking into it but in order to use Green Pines, India would have to use non-US platforms and that includes Boeing..

With P-8I, IN got around the problem by supplying its own ELINT hardware and software and IFF codes. P-8I is not that critical as compared to Phalcons.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 15 Jun 2011 06:12

Hitesh,
The US is quite capable of pressuring Israel to not sell Phalcons Boeing or not. And they did do that in the case of China.