Transport Aircraft for IAF

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Sep 2011 20:11

Well the rusis are moving away from the IL based design to the Antanov 148 based design. If Indians decide to fund the project. IMO, it can make its first flight by 2015-16.

But we will not do so and lose another decade in the process. 20 years down the line Our kids will be debating the MRTA on brf with each other while we would have become grumpy old men

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 20 Sep 2011 20:32

Singha wrote: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.

yes.. we are still lingering to the old nehruism socialist idea of building every damn thing on our own.. we don't even have the basic foundation of building large transport aircraft.. why waste time and resource on that rather use the fund on more immediate and tactical need.. .. these days building new aircraft platform is more of joint effort across countries.. Airbus-400 for example... we will be spreading ourselves too thin by getting involved in every freaking need of defense forces.. do little but do it right..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2011 21:31

Phillip,

I am not sure why or how the Air India decision comes into play here. Even at a Boeing level the two (C-17 and 787) do not mix. They cannot. Just cannot. Even the P-8 cannot mix with the civilian siblings, outside of that they share a line in Wichita in the very early phase of the build.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2011 02:26

Indian air force to buy 15 Saras twin turboprops 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.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2011 03:38

Oh, and BTW:

C-130 Stealth. Wind tunnel model.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2011 13:45

I really dont know from where does this confusion come about Il 76s mid life upgradation.

Il 76s are already on a MLU plan. Many references has been posted, but it appears that some posters are selective in looking at data.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories694.htm

Air Chief Marshal Naik disclosed that the IL 76s, first acquired in April 1985, are also under life extension under a contract with Russia. “The life extension of IL-76 aircraft would involve complete overhaul of airframe at the vendor’s premises in Russia… The first aircraft has already been positioned and the servicing has commenced. Various other upgrades would be executed in India. Post-servicing, the aircraft would be available to us for more than 10 years,” he said.

Some info is on BRF itself

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircr ... Il-76.html

In 2006, the first of the Il-76s [K3666] underwent an overhaul and upgradation. This involved a new avionics suite and the removal of the tail gunner turret. (The Il-76 had been only the second aircraft in the IAF's transport fleet to sport a tail gun!)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2011 13:47

One thing is quite clear, if the induction of a heavy lifter was done on the same lines as for MRCA, the C 17 would have met the same fate as the teens.

Only a political decision to not have a multi-bid and give a FMS deal could have bought C 17 in IAF.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2011 15:12

Well it was a political decision to keep US out of MMRCA much like it was a political decision to go for a single vendor C-17 deal.

### OT on ###
FWIW got it from Kangress panwala close to St Antony , the US is mighty pissed up that they were kept out of MMRCA deliberately ( remember stastically US had 2 aircraft in the race and it would have had better chance to win then others ) and that US had pulled all strings to win MMRCA but with the current state of affairs US would be more than happy to see Congress go and BJP win the next time , which seems worrisome to quite a many in the party.
####

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 21 Sep 2011 15:32

Austin wrote:Well it was a political decision to keep US out of MMRCA much like it was a political decision to go for a single vendor C-17 deal.

Now that the deal is done, I think India should jointly develop long-haul cargo planes with Russia, with ToTech signed and numbers committed.

India would need more such planes in future anyways, if not near than far. In such a case, an option should be available with ToTech unlike C-17, and I would hope to have a stringent machine that can fly to India from the farthest corner. It is all about corners and India better have such planes sooner than later.

OT
If not planes quickly, than quicker and bigger ships that can ply oceans safely & directly from SouthAmerica to India non stop with ToTech with Russia. It is even more important though this is not the thread for it, but it is very much essential.

Personal opinion.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2011 15:36

Austin wrote: which seems worrisome to quite a many in the party.
####

Yes I would worry if I were part of BJP as well....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2011 16:12

vishvak wrote:Now that the deal is done, I think India should jointly develop long-haul cargo planes with Russia, with ToTech signed and numbers committed.

That is what they are doing it with MRTA but remember India is a weak player in this game with virtually zero experience in developing a transport aircraft for military or civil aircraft ( if you dont count lic deal like HS-748 or Do-228 ) and the world has moved much ahead and no one is waiting , so the TOT would be a one sided affair not to mention TOT is just one part of matrix the other being industrial production base and suppliers , we need to take small baby steps before we think something big like C-17 class transport aircraft , infact you can just count 3 countries in the world that has expertise in building huge transport aircraft with 50 years of experience under their belt making successful and commercial viable transport model before they reached where there are.

MRTA is a good step in the right direction , simply becuase you have to start from some where before you think of even going some where.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Sep 2011 17:58

NR,"C-130 stealth?" looks as if it is a diff. type cos of the twin jets,while Hercs have props.

I don't understand why with the MTA we have not envisioned a"family" of types including civilian aircraft.Barring some specialised aircraft,many types from both east and west were multi-role.Civilian airliners became transports (AN-26/32).Bears,originally bombers became LRMPs,Comets became Nimrods,etc.,etc.With the MTA we could've also had a civilian passenger version,MRP/ASW version,tanker version,etc.Instead we are going ahead with Saras,and a new civilian passenger jet of 100+ seater capacity which is of similar size to the AEW Embraer plaforms beind developed for the indigenous AEW system,which has been derived from the EMB range of passenger aircraft.Even Airbus has used civilian airliners in military avatars and the best Boeing example is the P-8 ASW/MRP aircraft being built on the same 737 production lines.Following such a policy would cut down the number of teams and programmes required for each type,increase commonality of systems,engines,avionics,etc. and make it far more economical to operate,maintain,train,etc.

There seems to be an undue "independent" attitude with little coherent planning regarding the nation's aviation needs.Entities which have never developed a single aircraft are to me re-inventing the wheel.Saras was a flawed design,overweight and crashed.Let's keep fingers crossed and hope that it will rise like the phoenix!

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 21 Sep 2011 18:49

For some reason, I am just very skeptical of this stealth C-130 stuff. Economies of scale is the only way that they can keep the cost of this thing down and even then I am not sure how many countries would be willing to go in for it. Let's take India for example, in peace time this aircraft is a good load mule and it will only be used within the country, why would we need stealth for it? Stealth is costly to maintain and unless this stealth c-130 has some radical changes from the current stealth tech, maintenance costs will be a big no-no especially for an aircraft of its size. Accepted, in time of war it will come in handy but even then its only a % of aircraft which will cross the border for special ops. If assumed that airforces will then maintain both the "old" c-130 and the new stealth c-130, the former as load mules and the latter for special ops, then this scenario has a direct bearing on the number of aircraft to be purchased and that negates the economies of scale option. Blijj to help this mango Abdul understand why a stealth c-130 would be needed. I see another hangar queen in the making.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2011 18:51

C 130 stealth will be a specialist US spl ops aircraft. I'm guessing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2011 21:45

Phillip,

Nope.

Did not want to distract this thread, but that is LM's proposal (Boeing, of course, has a proposal too - TBD). It is a Super-STOL, Agile C-130 waiting for USAF funds. IF (BIG IF) funds come through THEN we MAY see it in 2020. Much water has yet to flow. I just posted it for kicks (along with 2 replacements for F-22 and a trainer - ref international thread). THIS C-130 is not to be taken seriously - yet.

Back to the thread.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 22 Sep 2011 02:48

Sanku wrote:One thing is quite clear, if the induction of a heavy lifter was done on the same lines as for MRCA, the C 17 would have met the same fate as the teens.

Only a political decision to not have a multi-bid and give a FMS deal could have bought C 17 in IAF.

No that is not "clear". That is only your assumption.
Firstly, how many competitors would have been able to actually field an aircraft for trials if there had been a multi-vendor competition?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Sep 2011 03:54

nachiket wrote: Firstly, how many competitors would have been able to actually field an aircraft for trials if there had been a multi-vendor competition?

Interesting question. The only other machine seems to have been the IL-76MF. And, India took the C-17 decision a good 9 months after some Russians stated that the MF would be positioned to replace the IL-76MDs that India currently uses.

And, the more I think it was more than a gift to the US. It also had something to do with a declining trust with Russia. I think - for the moment at least - it was a combination of the two.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2011 08:38

Philip wrote:I don't understand why with the MTA we have not envisioned a"family" of types including civilian aircraft.Barring some specialised aircraft,many types from both east and west were multi-role.Civilian airliners became transports (AN-26/32). With the MTA we could've also had a civilian passenger version

That is because in good old days oil was like $10 a barrel and today it is $110 barrel (brent crude ) and it will just rise over the years , Military aircraft are never designed with top priority for fuel efficiency but these days they are much better then they used to be still not with the same effeciency as civil aircraft are , even a fuel effeciency of 1 % would yeald significant benefit for the operator over a period of 20 - 25 years.

For military aircraft there are other characteristic like ruggedness , stol operation , operating from semi-prepared/grass run ways etc would be more useful.

You can be assured any airline operator that uses 100 seater MTA over say a embrarer , bombardier or superjet will not be in the business for long.

Instead we are going ahead with Saras,and a new civilian passenger jet of 100+ seater capacity

Civil aircraft are designed for maximum fuel effeciency and greater turnaround time ( 98 to 99 % ) , they also fly on an average 300 to 350 hours in a month to make them self profitable.

Business and military don't go hand in hand

koti · Post by **koti** » 22 Sep 2011 13:29

Business and military don't go hand in hand

You gotta be kidding me.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2011 15:51

koti wrote:
Business and military don't go hand in hand
You gotta be kidding me.

Well selling military equipment for business is a good idea but using military aircraft for commercial civil operation is a bad one.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Sep 2011 16:27

^^^^^

Unless modified substantially ..................... might as well start new.

With modern materials and specific needs (military vs. civilian) the contrast is even more apparent.

Austin,

Is there a reason for the Russians to go the MF/476 route? I would have thought they would (could) have designed a real modern transport plane by now.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2011 21:02

NRao wrote:Austin,

Is there a reason for the Russians to go the MF/476 route? I would have thought they would (could) have designed a real modern transport plane by now.

It would take a hell lot of money and time for them to build a IL-76 replacement , they are already funding and buying the new An-70. I think IL-476 gives them what they want and any one would want to see with new aircraft which is lower fuel consumption , lower maintenance cost , standardisation and more than 25 % increase in payload over existing IL-76 payload.

In this age of lower military funding i can count just 2 -3 countries that are building new transport aircraft , Brazil KC-390, Indo-Russian MRTA in the same class and Airbus A400 ,Russian-Ukrainian An-70 in roughly the same class.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Sep 2011 22:48

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:One thing is quite clear, if the induction of a heavy lifter was done on the same lines as for MRCA, the C 17 would have met the same fate as the teens.

Only a political decision to not have a multi-bid and give a FMS deal could have bought C 17 in IAF.
No that is not "clear". That is only your assumption.
Firstly, how many competitors would have been able to actually field an aircraft for trials if there had been a multi-vendor competition?

Strictly speaking it would depend on how tight or loose the tender was -- I expect 2-3 at minimum and 4-5 at maximum. (C-17; IL versions, Airbus mods)

For a 10+6 type of order, heading into 5+ Billion $ we can quite easily see a significant interest had GoI taken the initiative.

A quick list of Aircrafts which could have competed is on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlift#Strategic_airlift

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2011 22:52

I dont know of any Airbus mods that has strategic lift capability , there were plans to convert the A-380 to cargo transport type with payload of 150 T but that has either been put on hold or delayed.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 22 Sep 2011 23:19

Sanku wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlift#Strategic_airlift

Thank you. This wiki link for the term "AIRLIFT" says it all.

All of the airlifters in the world are categorized as:

* Strategic lift (5 aircraft)
* Tactical lift (13 aircraft)

The ONLY aircraft that appears on both lists is the Boeing C-17.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Sep 2011 23:33

What IL are you talking about?? What airbus ??

When this started a couple of years ago - there was nothing

hell they are scraping around shells and parts to deliver us the existing design let alone be in a position to send something for testing.

and Airbus HAS nothing for a military transporter.

What next?? AN 124??

Seriously sanku - you need to give it up now

You can stick with the 'this was for pleasing USA ' or "its too costly'
but let go the C 17 was not evaluated\tested by IAF, or any other wet dream] mythical aircraft could have been offered at that and this time,.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Sep 2011 23:36

Victor wrote: The ONLY aircraft that appears on both lists is the Boeing C-17.

I was not aware that IAF needed to chose its a/cs based on how wiki lists intersected.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Sep 2011 23:43

Surya wrote:What IL are you talking about?? What airbus ??

When this started a couple of years ago - there was nothingte

They could have sent out a RFI/RFP, and given it 6 months a year. It does not take much to reuse an existing infrastructure to present a a/c if there is a juicy competition.

The a/c were all there, but on slow burner due to economic issues (not technical) -- a potential customer bid would have provided enough reason for them to hurry up.

Also just exactly why was there a reason to be in this unholy tearing hurry for this purchase. Had this purchase not put on a fast burner but treated like others, the list would be different.

C 17 would be out and others in.

By hurrying uncharacteristically C 17 was pushed in.

hell they are scraping around shells and parts to deliver us the existing design let alone be in a position to send something for testing.

Thats a bit of exaggeration and you know that. Sure there do remain issues of spares, but clearly there are enough Ils flying and more being added as we speak.

And of course this does not apply to airbus so...

and Airbus HAS nothing for a military transporter.

Errr?

A 400M

Seriously sanku - you need to give it up now

You can stick with the 'this was for pleasing USA ' or "its too costly'
but let go the C 17 was not evaluated\tested by IAF, or any other wet dream] mythical aircraft could have been offered at that and this time,.

Well a evaluation is only possible if a RFI/RFP is sent. MoD ensured that C 17 would never need by tried really hard.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Sep 2011 23:49

400 M flew barely a year plus ago and then ran into issues and is a loonggggggg way of. hell they are not even sure if they will produce it.

If you are puking about C 17 cost - lets face it A 400 M is going to have cost overruns out of the wazooo if it even makes that far. Its already at 130 million Euors plus per ac at this stage

C 17 was evaluated - I told that long ago and I have to bite my tongue and let the info come out in bits and pieces.

hats a bit of exaggeration and you know that. Sure there do remain issues of spares, but clearly there are enough Ils flying and more being added as we speak.

I wish - but sadly
what flying - we are getting one here and there. China has got nowhere with its requirements. here and there one shell is finallycompleted and delivered. You seriously think the IAF will want to live through what it has gone through in the last decade?? its been an extremely frustrating process for the people involved -

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Sep 2011 23:55

^^^^Evil-mercantile-capitalist-counter-revolutionary agent trying make India slave again by hawking his bhestern produkts....hah! the fatherland will reign supreme inspite of your devious plans...the people of India will see through your plan and finally see the glory in buying IL-XX, which will then rule the skies......thouzand lice on your capitalisht beard...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2011 03:12

The Wiki "intersect" is between Strategic and Tactical airlift!!!! Says much about the C-17.

The other two American planes are out. The C-5s are being replaced by the C-17. (I have some nice closeups of the Hanoi Taxi - a C-141.)

I do not know much about the An-124, but it has not been in any of the discussions here, so I assume it is also on the way out.

IL-76 is out. I very much doubt even the MF has a leg to stand on. the 476 perhaps, let us see.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2011 04:19

2007 :: Military Airlift: C-17 Aircraft Program

For op-costs check out page 9.

Incidentally, the UASF also has extensively used the An-124, you can see that in this report.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Sep 2011 12:12

The IL-76 is history.The last two airframes were reportedly being completed for old customers and future aircraft-476s,would be delivered from Russia.The Q is how fast for exports,as the RuAF who have a large order placed,want theirs yesterday.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2011 12:17

Philip wrote:The IL-76 is history.The last two airframes were reportedly being completed for old customers and future aircraft-476s,would be delivered from Russia.The Q is how fast for exports,as the RuAF who have a large order placed,want theirs yesterday.

You mean the MD or the MF is history? Which model are the last two? Hope MD.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2011 12:20

Surya wrote:I told that long ago and I have to bite my tongue and let the info come out in bits and pieces.

Well Surya, I will change my mind as and when that information becomes available.

Till then I will err on the side of caution.

You seriously think the IAF will want to live through what it has gone through in the last decade?? its been an extremely frustrating process for the people involved -

You know what I want, I want a working line in India for this a/c, with full ToT, to be used as a base for MTA and other transport A/C development in the country.

A la Scorpene...

I think if this unseemly love for C 17s was not seen, we could have tried that approach.

Heck there were so many things we could do, we did nothing, going out and making a gigantic purchase without any view towards long term ToT, tech infusion, competitive bidding. MKIzation.

Nothing.

All the lessons learnt over last 20 years are being applied elsewhere but not in this case.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2011 12:58

Surya wrote:400 M flew barely a year plus ago and then ran into issues and is a loonggggggg way of. hell they are not even sure if they will produce it.

Not so fast its test are going on well
A400M clears key certification tests, says Airbus

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Sep 2011 13:41

Sanku wrote:You know what I want, I want a working line in India for this a/c, with full ToT, to be used as a base for MTA and other transport A/C development in the country.

Building a line is not (economically) posible for a run of 10 (or even 20) aircraft.

Sanku wrote:I think if this unseemly love for C 17s was not seen, we could have tried that approach.

An Indian assembly line for the VHLTA was never an option, no matter who won. The Il-476 was never going to be built in India, the An-124 was never going to be built in India. You simply aren't ordering enough to justify such a move.

Sanku wrote:without any view towards long term ToT, tech infusion

What tech? There's nothing exotic about the C-17. This isn't a fighter where you have stealth secrets or super radars or any number of ECCM devices. It's a transport.

Sanku wrote:MKIzation

What would that even mean on a transport? Integration of Indian weapons? No. Special radar modes? No. Israeli avionics? No.

For this, it absolutely makes sense to buy off the shelf.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2011 13:53

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sanku wrote:You know what I want, I want a working line in India for this a/c, with full ToT, to be used as a base for MTA and other transport A/C development in the country.
Building a line is not (economically) posible for a run of 10 (or even 20) aircraft.

Transferring a line is.

Sanku wrote:I think if this unseemly love for C 17s was not seen, we could have tried that approach.
An Indian assembly line for the VHLTA was never an option, no matter who won. The Il-476 was never going to be built in India, the An-124 was never going to be built in India. You simply aren't ordering enough to justify such a move.

That is what the Americans would like us to believe, however that is not necessarily true.

Also the eventual goal was not be a ad hoc purchase of 20 a/c, whose need suddenly out of the blue.

The ad hoc unplanned purchase of 10+6 a/c is in itself a wrong policy move.

Sanku wrote:without any view towards long term ToT, tech infusion
What tech? There's nothing exotic about the C-17. This isn't a fighter where you have stealth secrets or super radars or any number of ECCM devices. It's a transport.

I am not talking of electronics when I say tech. You wouldn't understand. You are not looking at it from a Indian perspective.

Sanku wrote:MKIzation
What would that even mean on a transport? Integration of Indian weapons? No. Special radar modes? No. Israeli avionics? No.

We have added rocket pods to transports in the past to make the operable from certain airfields.

There is no limit to how a transport may be modified to suite Indian conditions better. The list is long, but I dont want to get into specifics here.

For this, it absolutely makes sense to buy off the shelf.

For Americans yes, for Indians no.

For Indians what made sense was to float a RFI with all the features I mentioned taken care of, and give it enough time to get ourselves a good deal.

We just paid to keep a Boeing line open and for American jobs -- I personally do not think that India needs to offer any such quid pro quo.

US has not done us favors that need repayment.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2011 14:02

Even if we have floated an RFI with every intention to buy the C-17 since it was very much a political deal , it would have given us some bargaining chip specially if prices from rivals would have been very skewed in their favour , it would have helped us bargain better even with offsets and stuff , single vendor deal are always expensive and tilted in favour of the seller , becuase as we can see with a $400 price tag its an expensive bird.

On a second though a RFI would have negated the C-17 purely on cost basis because L1 would then be the criteria ( it happened with new tanker deal ) and would have delayed the deal , so perhaps they decided to opt for Government to Government purchase or FMS as they call it.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Sep 2011 14:12

Sanku wrote:Transferring a line is.

No it's not.

You're going to train all new workers from scratch for such a small production run?

Sanku wrote:That is what the Americans would like us to believe, however that is not necessarily true.

Please point to any evidence that Russia was willing to move the Il-76 or An-124 line to India.

India has 45 MiG-29K on order and there has been no mention of moving that line to India. If they won't do it for 45 planes, why would they do it for 20?

Sanku wrote:Also the eventual goal was not be a ad hoc purchase of 20 a/c, whose need suddenly out of the blue.

The ad hoc unplanned purchase of 10+6 a/c is in itself a wrong policy move.

So you're saying they should order 100 of them

Sanku wrote:I am not talking of electronics when I say tech. You wouldn't understand. You are not looking at it from a Indian perspective.

Then please explain your perspective.

Sanku wrote:We have added rocket pods to transports in the past to make the operable from certain airfields.

You aren't spending $6 billion or whatever so you can launch a few more rockets

Sanku wrote:There is no limit to how a transport may be modified to suite Indian conditions better. The list is long, but I dont want to get into specifics here.

Even a couple of examples would be handy.

Sanku wrote:We just paid to keep a Boeing line open and for American jobs -- I personally do not think that India needs to offer any such quid pro quo.

You paid for a very capable airlifter that provides vital strategic capabilities.

Sanku wrote:US has not done us favors that need repayment.

This wasn't done as a favor to the US, it was done because India thought they needed the capability and the C-17 offered the best solution to their needs.