Transport Aircraft for IAF

[GeorgeWelch]

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

Not if the C-17 was the only competitor to meet the requirements.

[Austin]

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

Not if the C-17 was the only competitor to meet the requirements.

Well a single vendor RFI will generally go where it goes normally > /dev/null

Also a smartly crafted RFI where only a single vendor can apply or appears more eligible then others would meet stiff resistance from competitors and MOD.

Hence there was not much choice but to go through FMS route , atleast with FMS route the deal will be corruption free though expensive one.

[Surya]

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.

Agree on that (I would live with a lesser capacity if I have the supply chain under my control) but I think it would be a huge bite on a large a\c

one has to pray and hope the present plans for the MTA hold true

[Philip]

As said in an earlier post,the MTA has excellent prospects If it is seen as a platform with multiple variants,including civilian.If civilian passenger aircraft can be converted/modified into military variants,the same can be done for the MTA.There are also large export opportunities especially to traditional Russian markets,countres which are also close feiens of India like Vietnam,etc.If also bought by private airlines for both cargo and passenger needs,the number required could easily double.

[NRao]

Even if we have floated an RFI

Who would respond? Outside of the IL-76MF?

[Raman]

Large Package, Large Plane

Paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division await takeoff as they sit next to a Humvee and 105mm howitzer in the cargo hold of a C-17 Globemaster III heavy lift aircraft on Pope Field, N.C., Sept. 10, 2011. As part of a joint Army-Air Force exercise, C-17 crews use parachutes to transport the heavy equipment to the drop zone on the first pass.

[Karan M]

The C-17 deal is one of the most sensible ones India has made. It gets the best aircraft in its class to replace the increasingly obsolete IL-76s and furthermore, the deal comes with excellent facilities as offsets including a critical High alt facility for the Kaveri.

[NRao]

Ouch!!!!

[NRao]

Large Package, Large Plane

Paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division await takeoff as they sit next to a Humvee and 105mm howitzer in the cargo hold of a C-17 Globemaster III heavy lift aircraft on Pope Field, N.C., Sept. 10, 2011. As part of a joint Army-Air Force exercise, C-17 crews use parachutes to transport the heavy equipment to the drop zone on the first pass.

Bundles of simulated supplies are loaded onto a C-17 Globemaster III before an airborne training exercise on Pope Field near Fort Bragg, N.C., Sept. 9, 2011. The airmen are assigned to the 3rd Aerial Port Squadron. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod


A Humvee attached to a parachute falls to the ground during an airborne training exercise on Fort Bragg, N.C., Sept. 8, 2011. The parachute to the right is an extractor chute, used to pull the Humvee from its host aircraft. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod


Paratroopers remove packing from a Humvee after crews used a parachute to transport it from an aircraft during an exercise on Fort Bragg, N.C., Sept. 8, 2011. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

___________________________

There are GPS gudied chutes .................... expensive as hell - some $11K per. The major problem is to recover them after use, takes a long time to get the chute back to the base for reuse.

[putnanja]

Regarding the offset for high altitude engine facility, if I remember right, there were reports that the price of the C17 package was a little bit higher (approx 5-10%) due to the offset obligation

[Added later]

Found the links : Hurdles Cleared For Purchase Of 10 C-17's With Offsets

...
The offsets on the C-17 aircraft would cost India an additional 7-8% in the total amount on the purchase. The US had explained to the MoD that it would be paying more for Indian offsets than it could have got the same services and products from other sources.
...

[Aditya G]

http://pib.nic.in/release/phsmall.asp?phid=36569

I suppose the loader is part of specialized equpt delivered with the C-130

[Karan M]

Regarding the offset for high altitude engine facility, if I remember right, there were reports that the price of the C17 package was a little bit higher (approx 5-10%) due to the offset obligation

[Added later]

Found the links : Hurdles Cleared For Purchase Of 10 C-17's With Offsets

...
The offsets on the C-17 aircraft would cost India an additional 7-8% in the total amount on the purchase. The US had explained to the MoD that it would be paying more for Indian offsets than it could have got the same services and products from other sources.
...

Offsets always make procurement more expensive.

But thats not the point here. The point is that the offsets package with the C-17 was something that will help Indian self sufficiency in the long term. The DRDO's biggest contribution to national development with big programs is not just the programs themselves but the infrastructure created, which is then used by everyone including DPSUs to pvt players who use it to develop other systems. In this case, the C-17, which is from IAF, came with something which will fall in a similar class. Tomorrow if the TATAs or L&T want to develop an aero gas turbine they don't have to depend on their partner for the crucial high altitude tests but do them in India.

For all the talk of India running to Russia for testing, do most people even realize that the Chinese actually purchased an IL-76 kitted out with the exact same fit that the Gromov test center uses? This was told to me by a person who introduced me to this forum & I verified it to be true. Its this kind of stuff which makes China so dangerous. Their ability to take quick decisions regarding critical infrastructure. In India, gasbags like that Times chap will carp about the "10,000 Crore" LCA but have no issues with imports many times that, whereas former created infrastructure in India and latter creates assembly lines with imported screwdrivers.

[NRao]

http://pib.nic.in/release/phsmall.asp?phid=36569

I suppose the loader is part of specialized egypt delivered with the C-130

And, the C-17 too. (See a few posts above)

One word about offsets (to add to the above KM post). One of the first offsets was when LM sold Poland F-16s. The Polish (being the first time) took a different route - they negotiated to export stuff to the US - mostly finished products. Guess what, LM said yes, but in the long run failed to deliver on the offset. LM, as we can imagine, is not good at either import/export, nor is it good at products outside what it knows about. SO, the entire effort crashed and offsets actually got a bad rap for some year because of this.

Indian offsets, from what I can see, have been designed for success (IMHO). Each company can deliver what they say they can deliver - give and take some (granted Boeing is not into building high alt engine test facilities - but has good amount of experience in the field in terms of system integration).

Now, the accounting part of this offset. For ease of calc let us say the cost went up by 10%, so it cost India .41 billion more. That against the amount plowed in: $1.1 billion + the ROI for engine development (what value can we place on this? ($25 billion or thereabouts?). IF properly done and maintained (unlike the aerostat purchased from Israel) things should bode very well for India.

[putnanja]

...
Indian offsets, from what I can see, have been designed for success (IMHO). Each company can deliver what they say they can deliver - give and take some (granted Boeing is not into building high alt engine test facilities - but has good amount of experience in the field in terms of system integration).
...
Now, the accounting part of this offset. For ease of calc let us say the cost went up by 10%, so it cost India .41 billion more. That against the amount plowed in: $1.1 billion + the ROI for engine development (what value can we place on this? ($25 billion or thereabouts?). IF properly done and maintained (unlike the aerostat purchased from Israel) things should bode very well for India.

Going by Ajai Shukla's recent articles on the Indian offset program, where Lockheed Martin was able to claim even training, travel , boarding and lodging expenses as offsets, I would very much doubt the effectiveness of our offset programs.

MoD flouts offset rules; favours foreign vendors

...RAC MiG was also irregularly allowed to claim the cost of training IAF personnel as an offset. Training costs can now be claimed as offsets, but this was not permitted in the rules under which the contract was signed. Asked for a reaction, the MoD has not responded.
...
...
The MoD decided that ultra-secret electronics --- e.g. Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, which differentiates friendly from hostile targets --- would be procured from Bharat Electronics Ltd and Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. This was done to keep US components out of these sensitive systems. But the Acquisition Wing then permitted Boeing to claim their cost as an offset, as if it had indigenised them.

Furthermore, Boeing is being allowed to claim the cost of Transfer of Technology (ToT) as a P8I offset even though ToT is ineligible for offsets.
...
...

Lockheed offsets mock MoD norms

...
...
The other credits claimed by Lockheed Martin, in connection with the WST are:

(a) Offset credit for US $15 million, for technology transfer. The DPP-2008 has no provision for technology transfer to be treated as offsets.

(b) Offset credit of US $55 million, for contracts that will be given to the Mahindras to operate and maintain the simulator.

(c) Offset credit of US $3 million, for travel savings, which has been calculated in terms of air tickets, lodging, TA/DA etc, for IAF personnel who would otherwise have had to travel to the US. This is not permissible as offsets in DPP-2008.

Lockheed Martin’s other offset proposals have rung alarm bells within the ministry. They include offset credit of US $20 million for “aircraft engine design services” with Bangalore-based engineering firm, QuEST. This would only be treatable as an offset if the design services were for military engines, but there is no way of ensuring that.

It has proposed offset credit of US $15 million for “manufacture of F-16 avionics components” with Tata Power. While this would indeed be eligible for offsets, Tata Power confirms that there is no ongoing dialogue with Lockheed Martin.

Finally, a whopping offset credit of US $119 million for “manufacture of RFID components” with Bharat Electronics. RFID components are not military equipment under the DPP-2008, and this manufacture does not qualify for offsets.
...
...

IMVHO, if and when India gets the high altitude engine test facility and trisonic wind tunnel facility (which has already been dismissed in one other article that India already has expertise in such windtunnels), it would be more like India having paid extra for it over and above the aircraft price. India might as well have paid for and obtained these facilities through an open tender.

[GeorgeWelch]

Australia to order sixth C-17

[NRao]

...
Indian offsets, from what I can see, have been designed for success (IMHO). Each company can deliver what they say they can deliver - give and take some (granted Boeing is not into building high alt engine test facilities - but has good amount of experience in the field in terms of system integration).
...
.

Going by Ajai Shukla's recent articles on the Indian offset program, where Lockheed Martin was able to claim even training, travel , boarding and lodging expenses as offsets, I would very much doubt the effectiveness of our offset programs.

Thanks. I had not read that article (still have not - just your post). A couple of things.

I had heard such rumblings - did not follow up, which is why I stated "designed". What you are point out is "implementation". BUT, I do share your concerns and I am sure you are better prepared on this topic.

Where there is an Anthony there seems to be a Brutus too!!!! What can I say? Indians shooting India in the foot? Thought it was a Paki trait, guess not. (Just an observation, travel, lodging, etc - if it is part of the offset it should be OK. One cannot charge site seeing tours - visiting Agra, etc - to the project. Other items are a major concern.)

This quota stuff seems to be a problem within the MoD. Wonder why offsets are part of a quota.

IMVHO, if and when India gets the high altitude engine test facility and trisonic wind tunnel facility (which has already been dismissed in one other article that India already has expertise in such wind tunnels), it would be more like India having paid extra for it over and above the aircraft price. India might as well have paid for and obtained these facilities through an open tender.

That is true. India has had expertise since the 70's.

What India never had was a timely setup of a proper wind tunnel facility. I am assuming that this would be a proper set up that would aid India in designing engines without having to lean on non-Indian facilitites. It would be a travesty if that were to happen - perhaps with some very rare exceptions.

During the early stages of the LCA design the then director got UN to fund a tunnel facility ............... it was quashed because of brothers due west objected.

I do not understand the last two sentences of yours. If you get a moment if you could explain it please. Thx.

I do agree with you that this offset stuff is not going in the direction it should be going in and needs corrective measures.

(BUT, that does not mean that the C-17 deal is wrong. I still feel that the C-17 is a great deal.

BTW, I just came across a single article that stated that the IA is interested in transports!!!!!)

[Sanku]

Transferring a line is.

No it's not.

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

There is really no point discussing this with you, after all why would you a American say "yes India bought a lemon at high prices from US because its politicos had a agreement with politicos in US for reasons other than technical"

For those worried about "who would respond to a RFI?" -- that is exactly the worry that stopped the RFI "who will respond to the RFI"

===================

In fact sooner or later this deal will come across CAG in its usual audit cycle.

I for one shall be keenly interested in what they have to say? Will this being like the other Boeing deal that India gifted to US?

[Karan M]

Putnanja, some of the stuff in the article is questionable - while the others about TOT are debatable (there are pros and cons). The clear cut and dry mistake case is the travel allowance stuff and the IFF one. Rest, is a bit subjective. Namely, it relates to "the procedure did not cover this and hence it is wrong" - what if the procedure is amended suitably, then what?

IMHO TOT can be counted as an offset if a clear methodology for valuation is found. Where there is a will there is a way.

"(b) Offset credit of US $55 million, for contracts that will be given to the Mahindras to operate and maintain the simulator."

Nothing wrong with this IMHO. A local company gets the benefits for services.

"Lockheed Martin’s other offset proposals have rung alarm bells within the ministry. They include offset credit of US $20 million for “aircraft engine design services” with Bangalore-based engineering firm, QuEST. This would only be treatable as an offset if the design services were for military engines, but there is no way of ensuring that."

How is it not known? QuEST would know. Besides which, design services for shaping military engine hatches or thermal tests for civil engines, which is preferable? This is just rule book quoting.

"It has proposed offset credit of US $15 million for “manufacture of F-16 avionics components” with Tata Power. While this would indeed be eligible for offsets, Tata Power confirms that there is no ongoing dialogue with Lockheed Martin."

So ask Lockheed to clarify. This could be a straight case of left hand not knowing what right hand is doing in a large company like LM. Mistakes happen.

"Finally, a whopping offset credit of US $119 million for “manufacture of RFID components” with Bharat Electronics. RFID components are not military equipment under the DPP-2008, and this manufacture does not qualify for offsets."

Say what? If RFID tags are used for a military logistics tagging service, then? This is again a case of semantic nitpicking.

Fact of matter is many Indian companies lack the scale to effectively persecute offset orders without adequate investment in infrastructure. Few like TATA group have the muscle to invest and the vision to do so. Rest, the foreign company will try and find some partner to provide some services related to aviation, and defence or sometimes even dual use electronics. Amend the rules suitably to include that.

Also:

"IMVHO, if and when India gets the high altitude engine test facility and trisonic wind tunnel facility (which has already been dismissed in one other article that India already has expertise in such windtunnels), it would be more like India having paid extra for it over and above the aircraft price. India might as well have paid for and obtained these facilities through an open tender."

Does it? India does not have experience in a high altitude engine test facility which is indeed expensive and all Ajai said was L&T set up a trisonic facility in India. He did not mention about cost IIRC and mention it was much cheaper or even exactly the same. We don't know what test equipment or instrumentation came along with it.

All said and done, I think the offsets in this case are worth it. We are getting useful infrastructure. Indian industry is cribbing it is not getting whopping defence oriented orders, but IMO that is easier said than done, when this exercise is just beginning. First liberalize the sector to the extent that the domestic programs automatically build up the infrastructure and the foreign OEMs will beat a path to the door on account of cost, themselves. The offsets game becomes sustainable then. Right now, offsets are poorly accounted for, and infrastructure has not kept pace. They will take time to become game changing.

[GeorgeWelch]

There is really no point discussing this with you, after all why would you a American say "yes India bought a lemon at high prices from US because its politicos had a agreement with politicos in US for reasons other than technical"

Of course there's no point in discussing such a baseless accusation because there's no evidence to discuss.

Not that you'll let the facts get in your way.

[Sanku]

Not that you'll let the facts get in your way.

Assertion from you are not facts.

You dont have facts, only empty assertions, to serve the US interest, which is fine, that is expected from you.

Just dont expect us to swallow it.

[GeorgeWelch]

Not that you'll let the facts get in your way.

Assertion from you are not facts.

Yes they are facts.

We have no evidence of such corruption no matter how much you keep wishing and hoping it would appear.

Until you can actually post such evidence, it remains a fact that we don't have it, right?

[putnanja]

IMHO TOT can be counted as an offset if a clear methodology for valuation is found. Where there is a will there is a way.

"(b) Offset credit of US $55 million, for contracts that will be given to the Mahindras to operate and maintain the simulator."

Nothing wrong with this IMHO. A local company gets the benefits for services.

Something which LM already would have to do is being treated as offset? Whether they give the contract to Mahindras or do it themselves through a subsidiary here, they need someone to operate and maintain the simulator here. How can it be claimed as offset?

...
"It has proposed offset credit of US $15 million for “manufacture of F-16 avionics components” with Tata Power. While this would indeed be eligible for offsets, Tata Power confirms that there is no ongoing dialogue with Lockheed Martin."

So ask Lockheed to clarify. This could be a straight case of left hand not knowing what right hand is doing in a large company like LM. Mistakes happen.

er, if LM tried those kind of mistakes in US, they would be sued! They are trying to fool the system, and we in a generous mode brush it off as honest mistake??

Does it? India does not have experience in a high altitude engine test facility which is indeed expensive and all Ajai said was L&T set up a trisonic facility in India. He did not mention about cost IIRC and mention it was much cheaper or even exactly the same. We don't know what test equipment or instrumentation came along with it.

All said and done, I think the offsets in this case are worth it. We are getting useful infrastructure. Indian industry is cribbing it is not getting whopping defence oriented orders, but IMO that is easier said than done, when this exercise is just beginning. First liberalize the sector to the extent that the domestic programs automatically build up the infrastructure and the foreign OEMs will beat a path to the door on account of cost, themselves. The offsets game becomes sustainable then. Right now, offsets are poorly accounted for, and infrastructure has not kept pace. They will take time to become game changing.

DO we know the instrumentation that comes along with the Boeing order? 5-7% of cost of $4.1 billion is approximately $205-287 million, which is what we paid for these offsets. If we called an open global tender for these facilities, will it cost as much or less?

The offset program is just like our laws. Ideal on paper, but poor in implementation. While we claim billions of dollars of offsets coming back to the country, in reality, it is probably just 5-10% of that.

[Sanku]

We have no evidence of such corruption no matter how much you keep wishing and hoping it would appear.

No?



Clearly you have no clue on things Indian.

[tsarkar]

[url=http://4gwar.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/f ... r-23-2011/]

The IAF & IA used to airdrop BMPs from Il-76 in the 80s and 90s.

Then realized that any transport lights up enemy ADGE like a billboard, and if the BMP is dropped close to objective, enemy defenses at the objective will react before the BMP is unpacked and readied for battle. If dropped far, then the element of surprise is lost and the enemy can use his numerical advantage. The BMP or HMMVV or anything, despite chutes & packaging, was sufficiently rattled and jarred and electronics affected and dials cracked. They need overhaul earlier than a standard land based BMP. The IA & IAF discontinued dropping BMP for these reasons.

I believe there is a Para Mechanised battalion with BMP. Is it 8 Para ex Mahar?

[Austin]

[url=http://4gwar.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/f ... r-23-2011/]

The IAF & IA used to airdrop BMPs from Il-76 in the 80s and 90s.

Then realized that any transport lights up enemy ADGE like a billboard, and if the BMP is dropped close to objective, enemy defenses at the objective will react before the BMP is unpacked and readied for battle.

I am not certain if BMP was ever designed to be the common air dropable Infantary Combat Platform becuase the Russian army for that task uses the lighter BMD platform which is what the role of this specialised platform is.

BMP was more of Ground and Amphibious ICV , the odd ones do get dropped via special chutes but that is the exception not the rule.

[Pratyush]

Don't see this discussed as an alternative to the C 17 is this because it is a US solution.

Or is it because the members think it is vaporware.

If it is vaporware, it is a better vaporware compared to the Rusi vaporware. Or the Rusi vaporware (New build An 124/ Il 76) is better then the khan vaporware.

[GeorgeWelch]

Don't see this discussed as an alternative to the C 17 is this because it is a US solution.

Or is it because the members think it is vaporware.

If it is vaporware, it is a better vaporware compared to the Rusi vaporware. Or the Rusi vaporware (New build An 124/ Il 76) is better then the khan vaporware.

We actually did discuss the C-5A a while back. It's not vaporware and India could surely get them if it wanted to.

The point is that no one actually wants them, and for good reason. LockMart's proposal to sell them to other countries is ludicrous and to sell them commercially is even more ludicrous.

This is the original batch that was built from 1968-1973 WITHOUT jigs on the factory floor so each frame is 'unique'. The B model that was built 15 years later was a massive improvement in standardization and design that made it far more reliable . . . and it's still horribly unreliable.

To give you an idea of how unreliable the A model is, the B fleet has accumulated more hours per frame even though the A's had a 15+ year head start!

"Any time an Air Force maint. guy needs a jackstand, all the ones on base will be stored under a C-5"

The M program will help some, but many of the issues are not related to the avionics or engines and will still be there. The C-5 is an incredibly complicated machine that cannot stay in the air.

[rohitvats]

I am not certain if BMP was ever designed to be the common air dropable Infantary Combat Platform becuase the Russian army for that task uses the lighter BMD platform which is what the role of this specialised platform is.

BMP was more of Ground and Amphibious ICV , the odd ones do get dropped via special chutes but that is the exception not the rule.

BMP-1/2 is very much air-droppable...there are numerous videos of the same from IA/IAF exercises.

Also, Para Infantry battalions have (had?) a platoon worth of BMP-2 as organic assets in IA.

Check this image: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... oorBMP.jpg

Excerpt from article on BR:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... orMGR.html

"I want the Drop Right in Front of their Noses"
This was the demand placed by the APD organising authorities on 44 Sqn. Once again the reader can sense the mood for the dramatic and never before seen capabilities. Which pilot / navigator / flight gunner combination can guarantee a drop at a specific point, and that too from a height of 500 mtrs with a platform carrying a 13 tons BMP? The demand itself is ludicrous and shows total lack of knowledge about heavy platform drops. As usual the organisers had not bothered to consult their own Transport operations Staff, the desire for demonstrating the dramatic rather than the operational had overwhelmed the atmosphere. The disregard for procedural and systematic air dropping exercise was very apparent.

I had done quite a few BMP drops with many parachute clusters for each platform. As the platform hits the ground, the parachutes disengage and the canopy collapses, or should collapse. It does not happen always. At Pokhran on 20 Jan 89, I had done for the very first time Two Very Large Platform drops weighing total 43 tons. More about this in another tale. The parachute cluster did not collapse on impact with the ground and dragged for nearly five kilometres to the great annoyance of the Parachute Brigade staff. They had to retrieve it. What was significant was that the dragging parachute cluster uprooted electric poles and wires, and there was nothing that could be done to stop the cluster. It weighs about two tons all put together. Imagine then, two tons of nylon, metal and webbing heading for the VIPs at Tilpat. Our report had been circulated to all Command HQ and Air HQ. But even if the APD Controllers were ignorant about the Pokhran incident, how can anybody with more than 30 years of service ask for drop in "front of their noses". We were not dropping sky divers, this was an uncontrolled 15 ton behemoth.


The standard drill from an IL-76 is to drop BMPs from the rear door and their troopers jump at the same time from the two front doors, this way the platform falls onto an empty ground, devoid of VIPs, followed by troopers who take longer to reach mother earth, though they exited the IL-76 at the same time. It once again fell upon me to refuse to drop with the intention of achieving a touch down in the centre of the DZ. I explained it in great detail so that it would be abundantly apparent that the flaw was not in the crew being unable to try a Centre of DZ touch down, the flaw was in even attempting it.

I urge the reader to comprehend the absence of knowledge in conduct of air dropping processes in Feb 1989, and my original story of MGR is of Dec 87 vintage. Some things never change. I refused to attempt a drop for the centre of the DZ, and requested the Controllers of the APD to accept a Touch Down at the farthest corner of the DZ. This way the VIPs could see the huge parachute cluster descending and also the paratroopers who were the crew of the BMP. The troopers would land close to the centre of the DZ and run towards the BMP. Late Wg Cdr Badle and the Flt Gunner ensured a touch down where planned, on 18 March 89, in full sight of the VIPs, but not in front of their noses. The aim of inserting these two unrelated tales, is to tell the readers the lack of interest shown by very senior officers in transport aircraft capabilities, limitations, and utilisation. I later saw the TV replay of the APD. After the first few " strikes" no one could see the targets because of the dense black smoke created by "exploding targets". How many readers remember this sad sight? Having seen the neglect in understanding transport aircraft utility and limits, lets get back to 44 Sqn at Agra on 24 Dec 87 at about 2100 hrs.

[Juggi G]

X-Post

Microwave Oven, Coffee Machines and Bunk Beds in IAF's C-130J Super Hercules Cockpits

Microwave Oven, Coffee Machines and Bunk Beds in IAF's C-130J Super Hercules Cockpits
Gautam Datt
New Delhi
September 27, 2011

A microwave oven, a coffee dispenser and bunks to catch up on sleep - cockpits were never so comfortable for Indian Air Force (IAF) transport pilots.

There was no room for crew comfort in the cramped cockpits of Russian aircraft, which have been the mainstay of the IAF's transport fleet for over four decades.

But with the induction of five new American C-130J Super Hercules, the old order seems to be changing. The Veiled Vipers - as the No. 77 Squadron which flies the C- 130Js is known - saw action for the first time after coming into existence in this year when it was asked to send a planeload of relief material for victims of the earthquake in Sikkim this month.

The first aircraft was airborne by midnight, reaching Bagdogra in two-and-a half hours with the first batch of specialised forces, including sniffer dogs that are saviours in quake-hit regions, locating casualties under the rubble.

"Any other aircraft wouldn't have been ready to take off so quickly as it takes time to prepare a plane for a transport flight," Group Captain Tejbir Singh, who commands the squadron, said.

Tejbir has flown Russian An-32s and IL-76 transport aircraft all through his professional career before he was handpicked for IAF's first Special Forces squadron.

An inside view of a C-130J Super Hercules military transport aircraft cockpit.

[Kersi D]

^^^^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...

Yes we must buy the IL xyz, whether it flies or not !!

[Philip]

...and the Coca-Cola dispensing machines too! How decadent can one get,ze running dogs of capitalism,just ye wait until the Il-XXX arrives,where you will have shot glasses to accompany the "Stoli"-essential navigational aid aboard every flight!

[Surya]

now now philip times have changed from the socialist era which you come from

A microwave oven, a coffee dispenser and bunks to catch up on sleep

I wish we could stuff you in the Bear for one of its long patrols in IOR and see what effect it has on you when you are back.

Talking of these as luxuries is the same stupidity as the Generals who did not want AC in tanks.

crew comfort matters

and of course the irony is that you are a fan of useless worthless 'luxury" like Fortnum and Mason

[Singha]

btw the US in the balao and gato class SSKs that did the war in pacific against the IJN were the first to install AC and even ice cream dispensers in the mess room. the voyages to and from pearl harbor were long and crew morale was important.

[Philip]

Surya,F&M can still provide one with my beloved scorpion vodka,and one on occassion gets croc. curry too.But there are other great food halls where one can sniff around for one's favourite exotic comestibles (Caviar House-Londres,Petrosians-Paris),which you could never see on the shelves of a GUM store in Mockba! I enjoyed some delicious caviar escargot at Harrods when first launched-simply divine,reminds one of a rainforest...mmmmm!

Yes,the Bear's fuselage reminds one of a narrow pipe,but when the plebs in the metros mostly live in pipes,what's the problem? I suggest that in any Bear upgrade we throw in a jacuzzi and an ice-cream machine too! After all some Soviet subs had the most amazing crew comforts,why the discrimination?

[rohitvats]

^^^I guess you've been not inside a Bear or you'd not have made the above comment.....I not sure the the crew on Bear would share your humour...

[Surya]

If that was your intention you would not have made this comment

and the Coca-Cola dispensing machines too! How decadent can one get,ze running dogs of capitalism

Now you can backpedal all you want by trying to pass off your F&M needs as humour

Fact remains you think of a microwave or a bunk bed in an transport aircraft as luxuries which betrays your mindset

[NRao]

^^^^^

expecting too much.

1) When one sees undue correlations to things like alcohol, etc, AND misses some very valid poitns:

"Any other aircraft wouldn't have been ready to take off so quickly as it takes time to prepare a plane for a transport flight," Group Captain Tejbir Singh, who commands the squadron, said.

You need to reduce your expectation/s.

2) Microwave. A gizmo used, typically, to warm up left over food. Or, in this case ready-to-eat-meals. People flying the ANs and ILs are used to eating cold stuff. So what is the big deal with a microwave? Dunno.

Luxury - to me - would be a tandoor (with an exhaust) in the cockpit. A cook from Taste of India ................

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

On a more serious note.IL-476. Read that the RuAF is expecting them in 2012-13 time frame. No indications so far that India is even talking to them about it. China I am told has gone the Ukaranian route. So, as I read the leaves right now, only RuAF to fin-support this plane. Right? IF true can it survive?

Best I can come up with is about 60-65 of them (please do NOT sell me the 100 figure again - it is NOT true).

Gievn that IL-76MF is a dud - no one buying it - pretty sure, I am not too sure if the 476 can survive.

India has options for 6 (six) more C-17s. IF they opt for them, bye, bye 476. IMHO of course. ( )


And, what ever happened to this:

April 2010 :: Ukraine offers to co-develop transport aircraft with India

In a bid to strengthen their military ties, Ukraine has offered to jointly develop a medium weight transport aircraft with India.

"Ukraine has offered to jointly produce a 10-12 tonne class weight aircraft with us based on their already existing Antonov-148 commercial aircraft and the proposal is being considered by the government," defence ministry officials told PTI.

The payload carrying capacity of the proposed aircraft -- An-178, offered by the Ukrainians to the Indian Air Force, will be between that of the C-130J and the force's workhorse An-32 aircraft, they added.

The C-130J Hercules, which will be delivered to India in the first quarter next year, can carry around 20 tonnes and the An-32s can carry a payload of around six tonnes.

If the Ukrainian proposal is approved, this will be the second such co-development programme for transport aircraft after India and Russia signed a contract for developing the Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA) few years back.

The Ukrainian government has also offered to manufacture and export the proposed aircraft to friendly countries, officials said.

The IAF already operates a fleet of over 100 Ukrainian An-32 aircraft fleet, which are currently being upgraded in the country's capital Kiev and used to operate the An-12 aircraft, which could carry around 15 tonnes.

During the Soviet era, facilities to develop transport aircraft were based in Ukraine and Kiev has maintained the facilities even after its break-up from the erstwhile USSR in the 90s.

In the recent past, the IAF has taken several measures to augment its transport aircraft fleet, which mainly consists of Ilyushin 76 and An-32 aircraft.

To bridge the gap between payload capabilities of the two aircraft, IAF will procure 12 20 tonne C-130Js from America at over $1.5 billion and co-develop the MTA with Russia.

It also plans to procure around 10 C-17 strategic lift aircraft from the US, which can carry over 70 tonnes of load.

[Katare]

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.

It appears that C17 flies daily to multiple forward airstrips in Afghanistan that are described as "nothing but packed dirt runway" and ~3500ft long. As per the described ari bridge, C5s bring supplies to Europe and C17 delivers them directly to farward areas. Leased Russian aircrafts are used for overflow and odd size cargo only....

The Air Force has consistently praised the C-17’s performance in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom, the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. Nearly 170
C-5 and C-17 cargo planes have been dispatched to create an “air bridge” to this
distant, landlocked theater of operations.12 C-5 aircraft bring cargo and troops from
the United States to staging bases in Europe and the C-17s fly directly to forward
operating bases in Afghanistan. C-17s fly from Ramstein Air Base in Germany to
Afghanistan, approximately 26 hours each way and 10,000 miles round trip.13 C-17s
have also flown missions from U.S. bases directly to forward operating locations in
Afghanistan.14

While distance is clearly a challenge, overflight, and infrastructure challenges
appear to be even more burdensome. Most of the Afghan airfields from which C-17s
operate are short (~3,500 feet), and strewn with debris and potholes. Some airfields
are nothing more than packed dirt. C-5s cannot operate from these primitive
airfields.15 For security reasons, C-17s offload cargo as quickly as possible (usually
with engines running), make unscheduled landings, and fly seemingly erratic routes.16

[shiv]

1) When one sees undue correlations to things like alcohol, etc, AND misses some very valid poitns:

"Any other aircraft wouldn't have been ready to take off so quickly as it takes time to prepare a plane for a transport flight," Group Captain Tejbir Singh, who commands the squadron, said.

I recall reading something around Aero India 2011 time - I can't recall whether it was about C-17 or C-130. I think it was -130. The pilot gets a map on the computer display where he charts out his route/landing approach/flying display routine. The computer works out the exact settings for an optimum, safe and fuel saving flight that puts least stress on the airframe. Those geeks up in Portland, Yamerika or wherever have been up to something it appears.

[kmkraoind]

India to acquire six more C-130J aircraft - IDRW

Browne said that the sixth and last of the aircraft was due in India in the first half of November, and the government had already approved the acquisition of another six aircraft. The first of the six aircraft was delivered in early 2011.

Discussions with the US Government and the company for the new batch were on, and he expected the order to be signed by January 2012, or in about three months from now. “We are very satisfied with the aircraft’s performance,” he observed.

The air chief said that “a full motion simulator is also being installed as part of the company’s offsets obligations and would be ready for utilization by 2012″.

Why simulators under offset category, not under sale package?