Transport Aircraft for IAF

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Sep 2011 19:08

C-17's STOL capability is very apparent there are no two ways about it; however if you see the landing gear IL-76 has 20 wheels (4 in a row in front and rest 16 under fuselage) C-17 has a standard 2 wheel arrangement under the nose and 12 under the fuselage so unless C-17's wheelbase accomodates for the number deficiency it's a no brainer that C-17 has a far smaller footprint despite being heavier than the IL-76; imho this have a bearing on the kind of runways both AC can operate from.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Sep 2011 19:16

I think C-17's case is strong only because it's a heavier lifter ,has better STOL performance and obviously a more modern airframe ; somehow talk of operational and maintanance costs do not impress me for there is not going to be much of a difference anyway; we were flying our AC to Ru for overhauls in the past and now they will fly out to Massa (as far as I know in massa it's cheaper to buy new stuff than repairing/fixing it unless you do it on your own).

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Sep 2011 19:23

negi wrote: somehow talk of operational and maintanance costs do not impress me for there is not going to be much of a difference anyway;

Negi; On the contrary Gilles has put the figures out many a times, Il-76 operations (all things taken together) are much cheaper, by factor of 2 to 3.

That debate is settled.

-------------

The STOL capability is also a little over hyped, yes it has STOL "features"; but if it didnt have those STOL "features" it would be a commercial air lifter, very nearly. So the STOL abilities do not give it a extra edge, but basically are critical to keep the handling of the a/c under control -- and make it usable.

For C 17 the STOL basically means being usable in practical sense; nothing more.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Sep 2011 20:54

many a times, Il-76 operations (all things taken together) are much cheaper, by factor of 2

If it is available .......

The cost of worn out non availbility is high

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Sep 2011 21:14

Surya wrote:
many a times, Il-76 operations (all things taken together) are much cheaper, by factor of 2
If it is available .......

The cost of worn out non availbility is high

After the mid-life upgrade, these problems should go away. After all, the way Ils have been flogged coupled with maintenance on a shoe-sting regime (pretty much every equipment in Indian services) -- its a testimony to the inherent design ruggedness that it still works well. It remains to be seen how the C 17s survive in the Indian setup.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Sep 2011 21:21

After the mid-life upgrade, these problems should go away.

Boss I have already told you these aircraft are worn out plus the IAF has struiggled to keep them running optimally.

A spluttering supply line is never going to keep them at the level we need.

It would be great if there was a good supply line as we need also have needs for IL 76s

It remains to be seen how the C 17s survive in the Indian setup.

True - and goes for all new equipment

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Sep 2011 22:20

vishvak wrote:
Viv S wrote:Until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the world's defence market was clearly demarcated into the 'buy American' and 'buy Soviet' camps with only Europeans occasionally selling to both. They never really competed on a level playing field. Also, most of the IL-76s produced were operated by USSR and its successor states. The only major operators outside of it are India, China and Algeria.
Beg to differ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76#Operators - List of operators.
Military and civil operators in 38 countries have operated 850+ Il-76..

Check it again. How many major (operating more than a few units) non-Soviet/CIS users did I miss? Besides Iran. Point being made was in reference to the huge number of IL-76s built; most of them were for the domestic market i.e. Soviet civil and military organisations.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Sep 2011 22:34

Some other reasons why the IAF gravitated towards the C-17: ease of handling (in the air) and 3 people needed to operate the AC.

On IL-76, I am not sure why it pops up in discussion. It is not going to be retained. Naik, June 14, 2011:

He said that IAF's existing Soviet-vintage IL-76 heavy-lift aircraft would last approximately another 10 years, and the induction of the C-17 Globemaster IIIs during this period would be a timely replacement.

By end of this decade it is pretty much bye-bye for the IL-76 The reason is not an issue, she is gone.

What remains are some six tankers IL78s and three + three Phalcons. There were rumblings of getting tankers from elsewhere and to a lesser extent Phalcons on other platforms too.

Need to drop the IL-76 from discussion. No matter what anyone thinks they are out.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Sep 2011 23:23

Its probably early days to write off IL-76 , they are used in AWACS and Refullers the new one awacs are based on IL-76 and who knows the new refuellers might be based on the new IL-476 as is being proposed.

Considering the fact the An-32 bought during the same time is going through MLU phase right now , the existing IL-76 might go through MLU if there is sufficient life left.

I am not too sure if the current D-30 engine that is used on IL-76 have thrust reverser , the series one didnt have one but the new PS-90 do have thrust reverser that will aid in short landing

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Sep 2011 00:15

1) The fact that the tankers and Phalcons are based on the IL-7X platform and their numbers have been acknowledged. However, even though the platform is the same (or modified), none are transports
2) It is the CAS that stated that, no ordinary person. He is quite clear about the IL-76 to C-17 relationship too. IF there was IL-76 MLU thinking he would have considered that before he made a statement
3) IL-76 MLU, is that even talked about - I could not find it
4) Until there is credible talk of IL-76 MLU what use is there to talk about IL-76s when they are - for the time being at least - out in 10 years or so

IL-76s have served very well. But, for whatever reason/s moving forward they are not in the picture. The IAF has also tried to move the tankers to non Russian platform. That too should be an indicator of potential things to come. I very much doubt, left to the IAF, that even the IL-476 would come into the picture. It would be the FMin that would force that issue.

Whatever, the IL-76 is out for the time being.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Sep 2011 11:23

Now if only Chief have their way in this country we would have seen 126 M2K flying today in IAF colours and not waited for a decade( and counting ) for MMRCA.

The problem as I see it with C-17 is its unit cost is too high to have it in any substantial numbers ( we dont know its operational cost or its own nuances once it enters service ) , we might have gifted America this deal for many reason that I dont want to go into but at ~ $400 million per aircraft its expensive.

The closest IAF can get to is IL-476 with a cost of ~ $100 million and it can lug 60 T compared to 70 odd T of C-17 , the latter has its own value when it comes to strategic mobility but the former semi-strategic and tactical mobility at cost effective price cant be ignored.

If you have an aircraft that does 80 % of load of C-17 at 1/4 of the cost then thats sweet sound to MOF.

Regarding the upgrading of IL-76 fleet of IAF it would depend on the technical life left in the aircraft , put it simply as with rational of our armed forces equipment and practices if it has life and if upgrade can add another 15 -20 years to it they would certainly upgrade it , you can see that happening with An-32 fleet.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 17 Sep 2011 17:46

Deleted

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Sep 2011 21:14

Now if only Chief have their way in this country we would have seen 126 M2K flying today in IAF colours and not waited for a decade( and counting ) for MMRCA.

Thanks for that. I had not thought of it from that angle.

The problem as I see it with C-17 is its unit cost is too high to have it in any substantial numbers ( we dont know its operational cost or its own nuances once it enters service ) , we might have gifted America this deal for many reason that I dont want to go into but at ~ $400 million per aircraft its expensive.

Costs include plenty of things. But, let me present a different angle.

I did go to Wiki (some time back) and computed the “capacity” (max takeoff weight * max distance with max take off weight) of the IAF IL-96 fleet (I took 20 IL-76, was told it is a little shy of that) and found that the IAF needed 9.6 – rounding it off to 10 – C-17s to deal with the “capacity” of the IL fleet the IAF has today.

Now, surfing the net I found that the C-17 is 3 times as expensive to operate. So, that meant, from an operating cost PoV, 10 C-17 = 30 today's IL-36s.

So, although the capacity is covered, when the IL-76s are replaced, the opCosts is about 50% more. 10 C-17 are substantial numbers - to at least cover the capacity factor of replacing the IL-76 in the IAF.

More about costs at the tail end.

The closest IAF can get to is IL-476 with a cost of ~ $100 million and it can lug 60 T compared to 70 odd T of C-17 , the latter has its own value when it comes to strategic mobility but the former semi-strategic and tactical mobility at cost effective price cant be ignored.

If you have an aircraft that does 80 % of load of C-17 at 1/4 of the cost then thats sweet sound to MOF.

With talk of six more C-17s India will have 1.5 time the lift capacity it has today. Which would resolve any issues regarding more lift capacity (many seem to have seen such a need).

To think of IL-476 would mean increasing that capacity by 2.5/3 times the current capacity. My research just does not see a need for that, which is why I do not see the IL-476 coming into play.

BTW, it is very important to remember that the C-17 is both a tactical and strategic asset.

Regarding the upgrading of IL-76 fleet of IAF it would depend on the technical life left in the aircraft , put it simply as with rational of our armed forces equipment and practices if it has life and if upgrade can add another 15 -20 years to it they would certainly upgrade it , you can see that happening with An-32 fleet.

Again, to upgrade the IL-76 fleet means excess capacity. IF at all this happens it will come at the expense of any IL-476 thoughts. I cannot see both the IL-76 and the IL-476 coexisting in the IAF.

In fact I just do not see the IL series in the IAF – solely because of the capacity.

Note that there is even talk of more C-17 – perhaps to 25 units. At the same time, as logical as your post is, I do not see any talk of upgrading the IL-76 or purchasing the IL-476, even as speculation. Correct me on this if you can – would appreciate that.

OK, Costs.

Why is it that people forget about the offsets when it comes to cost? In this case it is doubly important. Two wind tunnels for engine development has to mean a TON for India. Given the track record of Kaveri, I would suggest a cost equivalence of some 20 C-17s.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Sep 2011 21:54

NRao wrote:Thanks for that. I had not thought of it from that angle.

Thats the most important aspect considering as we see one chief is not having happy times

and we saw many airchief go with soon signing of MMRCA deal statement

I did go to Wiki (some time back) and computed the “capacity” (max takeoff weight * max distance with max take off weight) of the IAF IL-96 fleet (I took 20 IL-76, was told it is a little shy of that) and found that the IAF needed 9.6 – rounding it off to 10 – C-17s to deal with the “capacity” of the IL fleet the IAF has today.

When did IAF operated IL-96 i suppose you mean IL-76 , The IL-96 btw can carry 93T.

Now, surfing the net I foud that the C-17 is 3 times as expensive to operate. So, that meant, from an operating cost PoV, 10 C-17 = 30 today's IL-36s.

So, although the capacity is covered, when the IL-76s are replaced, the opCosts is about 50% more. 10 C-17 are substantial numbers - to at least cover the capacity factor of replacing the IL-76 in the IAF.

Capacity is one factor , the other is the numbers and requirement , consider this you might want to transport cargo of 30 - 40 T at 20 different location and then you will find IL-76 would be the right platform and then numbers come into play for quicker and simultaneously/faster delivery. { any way i am just creating a scenario to make a point we can always have a situation where one can be better then the other or vice verse }

I can agree that IL-76 cost might be higher those D-30 engines are not exactly fuel efficient i do not know if the IL-76 engine we use are Series 1 type which dont have reverse thruster affecting it STOL capability and to be fair we cant compare a 80's design and operated aircraft with 70's engine to be competitive with modern C-17 that IAF will operate.

A more appropriate with be the IL-476 with more modern PS-90A engine that is suppose to be 15 % more fuel efficient and complies ICAO 4 standards of noise.

With talk of six more C-17s India will have 1.5 time the lift capacity it has today. Which would resolve any issues regarding more lift capacity (many seem to have seen such a need).

Again dont believe in talk in Indian context until you see the deal signed , we are very close to MRMCA dea and this has been the talk for couple of years , they call that IST

To think of IL-476 would mean increasing that capacity by 2.5/3 times the current capacity. My research just does not see a need for that, which is why I do not see the IL-476 coming into play.

BTW, it is very important to remember that the C-17 is both a tactical and strategic asset.

My only argument for IL-476 is if does 80 % of the job of C-17 at 1/4 of cost then MOF will find it an attractive offer , I really dont think your or my research has much impact on what IAF needs and what MOF would approve , in the end it might be a combination of factor and cost would be one of them.

Again, to upgrade the IL-76 fleet means excess capacity. IF at all this happens it will come at the expense of any IL-476 thoughts. I cannot see both the IL-76 and the IL-476 coexisting in the IAF.

No its simply about viability of upgrade , if its viable to upgrade the IL-76 then IAF would do that if its not viable (technically/financially ) then IAF wont , but since we see An-32 getting upgraded from the same period I think IAF could upgrade the IL-76 as well.

In fact I just do not see the IL series in the IAF – solely because of the capacity.

Never say Never in Indian scenario , experience shows any thing is possible

Note that there is even talk of more C-17 – perhaps to 25 units. At the same time, as logical as your post is, I do not see any talk of upgrading the IL-76 or purchasing the IL-476, even as speculation. Correct me on this if you can – would appreciate that.

Believe me we are good at talks , unless you dont see the deal signed its all talks ...right now we are getting the 10 C-17 its a fact , right now we are procuring IL-76 for AWACS its a fact , right now we operate a fleet load of IL-76 for refullers and transport and would do for long time its a face.

Ofcouse even the IL-476 purchase is a talk

Why is it that people forget about the offsets when it comes to cost? In this case it is doubly important. Two wind tunnels for engine development has to mean a TON for India. Given the track record of Kaveri, I would suggest a cost equivalence of some 20 C-17s.

These days every big and small deal has offset clause , so some offset will come with every deal.

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 18 Sep 2011 12:35

Sorry, I dont know much technical about IL-76 / C-17 / IL-476.
But just 1 thing. Were IL-76 / IL-476 available in the time frame C-17's are supposed to come. As far as i know there was only some hot air talk about IL-476. Its just a theoritical exercice as to what IL-476 could have done. Its was not there when decision was made and it is still not there today and most probably wont be teher by the time all C-17 lands in India.
As far as i know and have read, there are no new IL-76 in production. So where were these ghost Il-76 supposed to come even if slected in place of C-17???
Some wise man said "A bird in hand (C-17) is better than 2 in the bush (IL-76 / 476).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Sep 2011 15:25

AWST and other reports indicate that the first IL-476 will be delivered to the RuAF shortly,not later than 2013.They "want it earlier" as I said in an earlier post.The last two IL-76s were being completed at Tashkent,the last of the Soviet era ones.Henceforth,all IL-476 final production will be within Russia.large orders for the same have been placed for the RuAF.

Once production is in full swing,replacing the elderly IL-76s with Il-476s,whose airframe have less life in them,will be an attractive proposition for many reasons,most mentioned in a variety of posts above.A key factor will be that we will have extra numbers to deploy when needed.One recent development that puts a case for some C-17s is the recent report of the IN being tasked with setting up Vietnam's sub capability,their navy having ordered 6 Kilos.The growing Indo-Vietnamese naval cooperation will demand a heavy-lift capability overseas and here is where the C-17s would be particularly useful,the ability to carry large cargoes to Vietnam and other maritime locations as we increase our cooperation with IOR and other friuendly nations who feel threatend by China.As one writes,the SLN and IN are engaged in naval exercises,an excellent step-increased Indo-Lankan naval cooperation which will put a spoke in China's military ideas in the island.New very capable IL-476s will be an excellent complement to the strategic C-17s.They can also be used strategically as in the squashing of the Maldives coup many aeons ago.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2011 20:01

There is no doubt that the 476 is a very capable machine. However, what is the interest from India? Is there any? some direction - in Indian interest in the IL-476 - would be appreciated.

On upgrading the Il-76, I just found out, that they were in 2006 - avionics and the removal of the rear facing turret. I assume that a better engine was not available, so it was not part of the upgrade. However, again, is there any interest in an engine (and perhaps something else too) upgrade?

I agree that CAS statements are subject-to-change, but, they are data points to go by. When it changes the read will change then too. But with the supposed IL-76 engine upgrade, the IL-476, and the resulting support for MOF, where are the data points? IF they are based on the past, I suggest that India has changed .

If what Naik stated that India will buy six more C-17s, why would India buy any more new transports? Is there a reason for it?

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 19 Sep 2011 00:16

First operation for the C-130J in India?

5 IAF planes pressed into Sikkim relief ops

Of the five aircraft being pressed into service, two C-130J Hercules aircraft have been deployed from Hindon to Bagdogra airbase, while two AN-32 aircraft along with another Avro aircraft have been sent for the earthquake relief operations in Sikkim, an Indian Air Force spokesperson said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2011 13:28

NR we require transports of varying sizes to suit the task.If we are extending our "reach" into the Indo-China Sea,and other areas on the international map cementing strategic relationships,then strategic heavylifts like the C-17 would fit the role.For decades we have used successfully the Il-76s and upgraded more versatile and capable aircraft of the type would be very easy to induct given our long experience of them.The pro-active aggro by the PRC in joint collusion with Pak has opened new dimensions for India in all directions.We will need not just capable aircraft but also large numbers of the same which might be required for ops simultaneously in varying directions.

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 19 Sep 2011 14:34

@Philip sir. You are right in saying that we need varying capabilities related to transports.
But to have those capabilities we need the matching machines also, which incidentally were not available at the time of decision making. So best decision and best machine was chosen based on the availability and capability at the time. As and when new machines arrive and their capability is proven there might be renewed interest from the forces.

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 Sep 2011 14:39

Do our Gajraj's sport D-30KP or the PS-90A engines or a mix of both?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Sep 2011 15:20

koti wrote:Do our Gajraj's sport D-30KP or the PS-90A engines or a mix of both?

The newer AWACS have PS-90 engine but the older transport Gajraj and IAF refullers have D-30 engine not sure which series since there are 3 series in that engine , I would assume the refullers has newer variant of D-30 Series 3 engine.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2011 16:56

Phillip,

I have no quarrel with your post, except that I see a lack of substance (and actually nothing wrong with that too - what you say becomes a data point for me).

However, doing a little more research on the net I came across this 2010 article:

Enhanced Ilyushin IL-76MF to Compete for Indian Transport Aircraft Requirements

Two items of interest:

On September 30th 2010, the upgraded IL-76MF heavy lift transport aircraft made its first flight in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The IL-76MF aircraft is a modification of a mass manufactured IL-76MD military transport aircraft, and it is designed for the same transport and heavy lift purposes as the basic model of the aircraft.

I believe this is a much longer - or a stretched - version of the current Indian IL-76s. Max load: 60T, Max distance at max load: 4000 Kms.

This new generation plane is intended to make a strong case for sale to India as New Delhi has been acquiring U.S. C-17 and C130J Hercules aircrafts -- which are more expensive than the Russian air lifter. India has an estimated requirement for over 25 military heavy lift planes over the next 10 years.

This is a first for me.

IF the Russians want to get their toes in they better do it with either the IL-76MF or the IL-476 (which some seem to imply - more on that later - is an upgraded IL-76MF!!)

I can see the Russians getting a foot in, but IF what the previous CAS stated that IAF wants six more C-17s, then ........................... dunno...............

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 Sep 2011 17:09

Austin wrote:The newer AWACS have PS-90 engine but the older transport Gajraj and IAF refullers have D-30 engine not sure which series since there are 3 series in that engine , I would assume the refullers has newer variant of D-30 Series 3 engine.

If that is the case..

NRao wrote:On upgrading the Il-76, I just found out, that they were in 2006 - avionics and the removal of the rear facing turret. I assume that a better engine was not available, so it was not part of the upgrade. However, again, is there any interest in an engine (and perhaps something else too) upgrade?

NRao ji, there is an upgrade option for the engines. PS-90 engines have around 30% more thrust compared to the older engines. It will help the FOB cause for the gajrajs.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Sep 2011 17:23

Its not just the availability of a new version - its the painful support system which leaves high unavailability.

This is the problem with all ex SU suppliers

Of course now with offsets its also a question of what level of offsets they can offer -

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2011 21:10

This is a quick and dirty analysis (am on the road, so no time to link):

I do not see upgrading the IL-76MD as an option. Since IAF can upgrade only the engines. The capacity remains the same, not too sure of the range - that should improve with a better engine, but not by much I would imagine (8-10%).

The IL-76MF is a brand new plane. Capacity of 60 tons (13 more than the MD). LONGER by 6 meters. Better range (about 15%ish). Selling points to India: IFR, does pretty much what the C-17 does (STOL, unprep strips, lower cost - LOW).

The IL-476 seems to me is nothing but the IL-76MF upgraded with glass cockpit, etc, may be a better avionics. But nothing too much than the MF.

There was one article that clearly stated that Russia expected to replace IAF IL-65MDs with IL-76MFs, which is flying. And, then I suspect their game plan calls for upgrade to IL-476.

On supply chain, the IL-476 should be OK, they - seems to me - are making it a Russian plane in every which way.

Disappointed to see Russia seeking just 38 of these 476s.

China seems to making some noise, what else is new?

So ..................................

Do want to touch on the C-17 as a strategic plane. It is a tactical one too. Also, IF a C-130 can do it (transport) so can the C-17. Where it does shine is if it take three An-32s or C-130s, the C-17 is more cost effective.

I can see what Austin is saying, but with some $30 billion going towards the FGFA, playing the distribution game is not an issue. Will the PMO trump the MOF?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Sep 2011 21:46

NRao wrote:The IL-476 seems to me is nothing but the IL-76MF upgraded with glass cockpit, etc, may be a better avionics. But nothing too much than the MF.

Its got integrated glass cockpit that need just 2 crew to fly it ( no flt engineer ) , it has new wings based on IL-96 design which is more modern then existing wing and PS-90-A76 engine ...all in all it would be 15 - 17 % more fuel efficient and will have reduce maintenance.

Disappointed to see Russia seeking just 38 of these 476s.

About 100 of these type are planned to be purchased for new awacs ,refullers and transport.

China seems to making some noise, what else is new?

China is working with Ukraine to build new transport aircraft in class of IL-476

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Sep 2011 22:13

Indian air force to buy 15 Saras twin turboprops as trainers

The Indian air force will buy 15 National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) Saras 14-seat multi-role transport aircraft for use as trainers.

The twin-engine, push-prop aircraft will be produced by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) in Bengaluru, an industry source said. Three will be delivered in 2014, with another four to be delivered yearly over the next three years.

The air force will use the aircraft to train flight crews for its large and medium-sized transport aircraft, such as the Boeing C-17, Ilyushin Il-76 and Antonov An-32. It may ultimately acquire 50 Saras aircraft, the source said. These will be used for a range of roles.

n addition, the Indian navy may get about 25 Saras aircraft for use as land-based coastal patrol aircraft. A working naval example of the navalised Saras will be rolled out in 2014.

"The maritime version is still in the preliminary design stage," the source said. "It will have modifications to help it perform in the maritime environment."

Three Saras prototypes have been produced so far. The second was lost in a 2009 crash that killed all three of its crew members. Investigators attributed the accident to pilot error, noting that the military test pilots had been trying to relight an engine with insufficient recovery altitude moments before the incident.

The third prototype, which features a new glass cockpit, was a replacement for this aircraft.

The Saras made its first flight in 2004, 18 years after the programme's inception. However, in the following years the NAL struggled to reduce the aircraft's weight, making progress by introducing composite tails and wings, and reducing the number of bulkheads in the aircraft's third prototype.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Sep 2011 22:43

NRao wrote: Now, surfing the net I found that the C-17 is 3 times as expensive to operate. So, that meant, from an operating cost PoV, 10 C-17 = 30 today's IL-36s.

So, although the capacity is covered, when the IL-76s are replaced, the opCosts is about 50% more. 10 C-17 are substantial numbers - to at least cover the capacity factor of replacing the IL-76 in the IAF.

How's that possible? Maintenance typically contributes 15-25% of the aircraft's operating cost - with fuel and labor making the remainder. The latter two are the going to be roughly the same for the IL-76 and C-17 in IAF service (might even be in the C-17's favour marginally). Even if the IL-76 is far far to cheaper to maintain (unlikely), the C-17 isn't going to cost 3 times as much to operate.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Sep 2011 00:25

labor might be less considering how Western aircraft are built with an eye on these sore of things

but spare parts would be costlier.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2011 03:11

Viv S,

I have taken the worst case of all I have found. However, there were a decent amount of Western articles that echoed the same. Now, it is possible that all followed one or two unreliable source. Cannot tell. Should be a good point to chase and report to BR.

Just to be sure, the 3X is between the IL-76MD and the C-17. I have no stats on the MF/476.

Austin,

The base IL-476 transport is out - it is the IL-76MF. The MF came out a year or so ago. The 476 transport is supposed to come out (end of?) next year. THEN it will take 4 years or so for the rest to come out, specially the AWACS.

Since my last post here is my thinking. Russia had time - at least 9 months before IAF decided on the C-17s. Enough time for PMO/MOF/whoever to toss the C-17 out. For whatever reason it did not get tossed out. AND, neither were they able to sell the 76MF as a replacement for the 76MD that the IAF has right now. IF the next six C-17 are signed, then I do not see the 476 come in as a transport. Perhaps as a base for the next Phalcons and tankers, but not the transport.

BTW, on gift: India did bail out Sukhoi too. And just may do the same for the Rafale/EF.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2011 05:04

Upgraded An-32 in Kiev:

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=15390

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Sep 2011 06:59

IAF’S C-130J being loaded with rescue and relief material and equipment for the Earth quake victims of North East. (fotu)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Sep 2011 15:57

The Himalayan earthquake and the role of C-130s indicates the need for more of the type,which I've said many a time are far more relevant to us that super-heavy intercon-strategic aircraft like the C-17,bought basically to keep MMS's promise to Uncle Sam and helping bail Boeing out! Not too long ago I was with a scribe well-versed in the realm of MOD affairs,etc.Being familiar with the needs of the forces,he said that the C-17 was not a priority untiol very recently.I maintain that it has been bought in "indecent haste",no disprespect to the aircraft,but the CAGs adverse remarks on the bankrupt Air India also buying 111 Boeing aircraft indicates a clear favouritism for that co. The CAG actually called the Air India endeavour a "recipe for disaster"! (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_ai ... or_1584676).

Nevertheless,the die has been cast and it wil be a future administration that wil definitely look into this acquisition.NR,as for the IL-76s,from available sources it appears that in future Russian built IL-76s will be of the 476 version with main features being glass cockpits,new engines,fuel efficiency,greater range and payload,etc.,etc.Tanker and AEW/AWACS versions will also be available.Henceforth the aircraft will all roll out of Russin production lines and not from any of the former Soviet states.Once thse aircraft are available for export,as the Russians have a large requirement themselves,it would be worth the IAF's time to take a look.If we are going to challenge the PRC in the Indo-China Sea and all across the IOR,we will need a large number of heavy transports for logistic purposes and 10+ C-17s will be inadeuate to meet varied needs.If existing Il-76s still have useful life left in them,they should be upgraded like the AN-32s which are the true workhorses of the IAF.One wishes that the MTA project is accelerated.What the services need are "birds in the hand" and not new ones in the bush.There are so many transports available both from east and west that I feel that it might be better to sometimes select a type nearerst to our needs for immediate availablity instead of aiming for "perfection" which comes in a decade later!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Sep 2011 16:12

us that super-heavy intercon-strategic aircraft like the C-17,bought basically to keep MMS's promise to Uncle Sam and helping bail Boeing out! Not too long ago I was with a scribe well-versed in the realm of MOD affairs,etc.Being familiar with the needs of the forces,he said that the C-17 was not a priority untiol very recently.I maintain that it has been bought in "indecent haste",no disprespect to the aircraft,

Basically the same old Bullcr@p

political consideration may have been there but it has been pointed out N times that the IAF evaluated it and needs a replacement

yawnnnn

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Sep 2011 16:41

NRao wrote:BTW, on gift: India did bail out Sukhoi too. And just may do the same for the Rafale/EF.

Has India made any JVs / To Techs for C-17s?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Sep 2011 18:04

the AN32 even if upged, does not have the internal volume and payload of the C130J. it would likely take 2xAN32 sorties to do what 1 C130 is doing now, even if it had the range to fly at max payload from delhi to gangtok....

told ya we need more C130.

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 20 Sep 2011 19:16

Philip wrote:The Himalayan earthquake and the role of C-130s indicates the need for more of the type,which I've said many a time are far more relevant to us that super-heavy intercon-strategic aircraft like the C-17,bought basically to keep MMS's promise to Uncle Sam and helping bail Boeing out!

You mean just Boeing Defence? The 787 acquisition is a stupidity of giant proportion though...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Sep 2011 19:27

Singha wrote: told ya we need more C130.

That is the problem no?? More C 130s will kill the MRTA for all intents and purposes.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Sep 2011 19:30

C130 will kill MTA as much as anyone can kill a 10 yr old corpse . sure it will pump more silver bullets into its cold dead heart

the MRTA turboprop version is cancelled, it will only be turbofan iirc from the BR threads on the issue . its just a paper model at this point, with no active project work, no partner selection, nothing much....we will not see the first MRTA in any form before 2025 for sure.