Transport Aircraft for IAF

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by arnab »

Sanku wrote:C 17s are NOT replacing Ils, Americans would like that, but thats not happening, .

Nothing more. No need to ascribe any more to it.
Air Chief Marshal Naik seems to disagree with Air Marshal Sanku :) (note it is a direct quote)
"The IL, which is a 40-tonne plus aircraft, as a fleet has served us very well, but it is aging now. So, one strategy is their up-gradation and overhauling, but they do not have too much life left. The other strategy is the purchase of the C-17 aircrafts, which carries twice the load of an Ilyushin, and has the advantage of landing on shorter air strips," says Naik
http://worldofdefense.blogspot.com/2011 ... ore-c.html
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7812
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Prasad »

Sanku wrote:
arnab wrote:
Mig 29s were called 'hangar queens' not the M-2000 :) Saar why are you debating?
You should not talk about things of which you have no first clue.
Could you post any articles which quote any IAF officer saying the M2K's were hangar queens. This is the first i'm reading this. TIA.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Sanku »

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:C 17s are NOT replacing Ils, Americans would like that, but thats not happening, .

Nothing more. No need to ascribe any more to it.
Air Chief Marshal Naik seems to disagree with Air Marshal Sanku :) (note it is a direct quote)
"The IL, which is a 40-tonne plus aircraft, as a fleet has served us very well, but it is aging now. So, one strategy is their up-gradation and overhauling, but they do not have too much life left. The other strategy is the purchase of the C-17 aircrafts, which carries twice the load of an Ilyushin, and has the advantage of landing on shorter air strips," says Naik
http://worldofdefense.blogspot.com/2011 ... ore-c.html
He talks of TWO independent strategies, quite clearly!! :lol:
Strat 1 -- Upg Ils
Strat 2 -- buy new (in this case unfortunately IAF)

It takes substantial powers of superior comprehension two make it a either/or case.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Sanku »

Prasad wrote:
Sanku wrote: Could you post any articles which quote any IAF officer saying the M2K's were hangar queens. This is the first i'm reading this. TIA.
I can not because

1) This information is from late 80s and early 90s. Since then IAF has managed to a/c all the facilities needed for Mirage 2000. So its not a major issue. In 90s there are few papers online to quote from.

2) This is partially information that I know from interactions with IAF staff directly, so 90s chaiwallas, so to say.

3) The bigger point is that Mirage 2000 needed (I dont know how it is right now) more care in 90s because of its delicate electronics and what not compared to Mig 29 which was far more robust.

IAF was willing to live with the extra work needed because the Mirages performed a very specific role.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Sanku wrote:C 17s are NOT replacing Ils
to repeat a quote from earlier
He (IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik) 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.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Sanku »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sanku wrote:C 17s are NOT replacing Ils
to repeat a quote from earlier
He (IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik) 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.
As per this -- C 17s will perhaps replace Il 76s after 10 years or so. That is not to say C 17s are replacing Ils.

And whether they will do so after 10 years? -- Let me just say that I would like IAF chief to replace the Mig 21s first which the numerous chiefs are planning and promising on replacing for last 20 years or so.

So yeah, I do not take IAF chiefs projection on what will happen 15 years for now as gospel truth. Sorry.
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by rajanb »

I can not because

1) This information is from late 80s and early 90s. Since then IAF has managed to a/c all the facilities needed for Mirage 2000. So its not a major issue. In 90s there are few papers online to quote from.

2) This is partially information that I know from interactions with IAF staff directly, so 90s chaiwallas, so to say.

3) The bigger point is that Mirage 2000 needed (I dont know how it is right now) more care in 90s because of its delicate electronics and what not compared to Mig 29 which was far more robust.

IAF was willing to live with the extra work needed because the Mirages performed a very specific role.

I have heard the same about the M2K about 2 decades ago. That too from a fighter pilot who retired as a senior from the airforce. He called them "Hangar Queens".

He also told me that they used to joke about the Jag and say it managed to take off because of the rotational power of the earth. :D
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Sanku »

rajanb wrote: He also told me that they used to joke about the Jag and say it managed to take off because of the rotational power of the earth. :D
:rotfl:
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Sanku wrote:As per this -- C 17s will perhaps replace Il 76s after 10 years or so. That is not to say C 17s are replacing Ils.
:lolwut
Sanku wrote:Let me just say that I would like IAF chief to replace the Mig 21s first which the numerous chiefs are planning and promising on replacing for last 20 years or so.
So the IAF should freeze all procurement efforts until the LCA production run is complete? :roll:

The IAF has many needs and they can't wait for one to be addressed before moving on to the next. Fortunately the IAF are professionals and can thus work on many different tasks at the same time. Never fear, the C-17 is not slowing down the LCA/MRCA efforts.
Sanku wrote:So yeah, I do not take IAF chiefs projection on what will happen 15 years for now as gospel truth. Sorry.
I put more faith in Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik than in Air Marshal Sanku. Sorry.


We can argue semantics all day long, but it comes down to this: Once the Il-76s are retired, which aircraft will perform their (former) mission? Clearly the C-17 will, thus the C-17 will REPLACE the Il-76.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Virendra »

Little OT:
DBO ALG which was closed in 1966 due to loosened soil consequent to an earthquake had been reactivated by IAF.
Can someone explain how the loose soil problem could've been solved? Or are they living with it as an occupational hazard?
A nice satellite view of DBO here - http://kuku.sawf.org/articles/50911.aspx

Also, there were talks of Nyoma ALG to be upgraded into fully fledged airbase. A proposal in this regard was taken up by MoD last year. Don't know what happened to that one.

Regards,
Virendra
Marut
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 23:05
Location: The Original West Coast!!

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Marut »

Sanku wrote:
"The IL, which is a 40-tonne plus aircraft, as a fleet has served us very well, but it is aging now. So, one strategy is their up-gradation and overhauling, but they do not have too much life left. The other strategy is the purchase of the C-17 aircrafts, which carries twice the load of an Ilyushin, and has the advantage of landing on shorter air strips," says Naik
http://worldofdefense.blogspot.com/2011 ... ore-c.html

He talks of TWO independent strategies, quite clearly!! :lol:
Strat 1 -- Upg Ils
Strat 2 -- buy new (in this case unfortunately IAF)

It takes substantial powers of superior comprehension two make it a either/or case.
And it takes even more substantial powers of super dooper understanding to think it is not an either/or case! See the bold, italicized underlined part in the quote above.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by shiv »

Sanku wrote:
What makes you think they're happy with them?
Hey did somebody really say that? My browser settings don't show the original quote :mrgreen:

I knew a guy who would never change his shirt. When someone asked him why, he would say "Hey I like this shirt, so I'll never change it". The question reminds me of that moron. If I but a Merc today and get rid of my Beamer it doesn't mean I did not like the Beamer. The beamer was old and I wanted a change and liked what I saw in the Merc showroom. But it requires some minimum processing buddhi to figure that out.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Sanku »

Marut wrote: And it takes even more substantial powers of super dooper understanding to think it is not an either/or case! See the bold, italicized underlined part in the quote above.
I will still be around here 15 years hence to tell you that I had got it right -- once again.

Meanwhile I will not stop you from believing what you will. Merely will point out a error when I see it. With irritatingly repeated interjections, which will all turn out right. :mrgreen:
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Sanku »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sanku wrote:So yeah, I do not take IAF chiefs projection on what will happen 15 years for now as gospel truth. Sorry.
I put more faith in Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik than in Air Marshal Sanku. Sorry.
Sure, of course believe what were you want. Its a free world. At least in this part of the world.
We can argue semantics all day long, but it comes down to this: Once the Il-76s are retired, which aircraft will perform their (former) mission? Clearly the C-17 will, thus the C-17 will REPLACE the Il-76.
Once they are retired, wake me up, I will be around. :mrgreen:
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Sanku »

shiv wrote:If I but a Merc today and get rid of my Beamer it doesn't mean I did not like the Beamer. The beamer was old and I wanted a change and liked what I saw in the Merc showroom.
:lol:
Marut
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 23:05
Location: The Original West Coast!!

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Marut »

Virendra wrote:Little OT:
DBO ALG which was closed in 1966 due to loosened soil consequent to an earthquake had been reactivated by IAF.
Can someone explain how the loose soil problem could've been solved? Or are they living with it as an occupational hazard?
A nice satellite view of DBO here - http://kuku.sawf.org/articles/50911.aspx

Also, there were talks of Nyoma ALG to be upgraded into fully fledged airbase. A proposal in this regard was taken up by MoD last year. Don't know what happened to that one.

Regards,
Virendra
Replied in Newbie Thread - http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1187401
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Philip »

There is the above statement from the AM,that "we have not used them too much...substantial life is still in them (IL-76s)".This goes against the grain,the need then for their replacement by the C-17s in the first place if they have been underutilised! One can understand if they were on their last legs like the MIG-21s,but no,the legacy IL-76s have at least a decade+ of life left in them ,though one has to admit,shortage of spares has been a problem.That matter is bing resolved with outside contracts for the same.The only argument,and a genuine one,for buying C-17s is that the Il-76s,which were earlier built in bits and pieces all over the USSR,were not available thanks to the USSR's demise.

However,the situ has now changed with the IL-476s being now all built in Russia and substantial orders for the same by the RuAF.One hopes that a cost-effective comparison is made by the IAF between acquiring the extra 10+ C-17s,which will take a decade to acquire,against acquiring cheaper extra IL-476s which will also be built during this decade. As I said before C-17 production will end before 2020,while upto and beyond 2020,only IL-476s will be built.Given the growing requirements of the IAF thanks to the dragon-pig axis,I forsee a much larger number of heavy-lift transports if the situ deteriorates as it appears to be.

PS:I think that there may be some confusion about Il-76/476 production.The earlier Il-76MDs,IL-78 tankers were acquired from the former plants of the USSR (Uzbek/Ukraine,etc.),which have reportedly built their last aircraft of this type.These legacy aircraft are thus no longer available,why the IAF do not want anymore of them.The IL-476,a deep upgrade of the type however,is now being built with full final assembly within Russia unlike earlier.There are many important improvements incuding more powerful engines,heavier payload,extended range,glass cockpits supposedly with components the same envisaged for the MTA.All future tanker/AWACS derivatives will be of this type.
P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by P Chitkara »

Any officially announced day/month/year the 476 facility in Russia is going to come online? How much will be the lead time between the time the new assembly line becomes operational and the first 476 rolls out :?:
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by rajanb »

Lot of specualtion about the 746 availability that I thought it was Ru's best kept state secret! :eek:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... il-476.htm
The Russian Air Force will start receiving Il-476 heavy transport planes in 2012, the commander of the Russian Air Force's military transport aviation said on Friday 25 December 2009. "I think the Il-476, which will eventually replace the Il-76, will start arriving in the military transport aviation sometime in 2012," Lt. Gen. Viktor Kachalkin said. The plane will be built at the Urals-based Aviastar-SP aircraft-manufacturing plant. The Russian Defense Ministry plans to buy at least 38 Il-476 in cargo and aerial tanker versions in line with the state arms procurement program for the period of 2011-2020.
Cheers
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Surya »

3) The bigger point is that Mirage 2000 needed (I dont know how it is right now) more care in 90s because of its delicate electronics and what not compared to Mig 29 which was far more robust.
Sigh come onafter years on BRF and this BS??

Of coursde Russian stuff seemed robust - there was barely anything modern to get conked off??

Just think back to our last "war" - Kargil
We had one and only one stinking modern aircraft - the M2K.

There were roaring battles between the pro Mig Air Marshals and the M2K ones.

Migs were sent and could do didly squat.

Finally they had to send the M2Ks

That was the wake call for the IAF!!!!
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Austin »

P Chitkara wrote:Any officially announced day/month/year the 476 facility in Russia is going to come online? How much will be the lead time between the time the new assembly line becomes operational and the first 476 rolls out :?:
Yes the first flight will take place end of this this year or early next year , then certification will take a year and half , initial production will start by 2013 , so realistically speaking you can expect IL-476 to come by only 2014.

Under the skin the IL-476 is a new aircraft that would bring many new qualities and capabilities , it would take time before it gets certified and goes into serial production , not a trivial thing to certify a transport or passenger aircraft.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Singha »

when is A400M going to enter serial production or has it already? 2013 per wiki. it has 174 orders on the book though cash strapped partners might reduce as usual.

its payload falls somewhere in between the C130J and IL476.
P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by P Chitkara »

That brings us to the next question. What capabilities will the 476 offer that will be new or significantly better from it's predecessor? Tried googling but could not find much.
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by rajanb »

Surya wrote:
3) The bigger point is that Mirage 2000 needed (I dont know how it is right now) more care in 90s because of its delicate electronics and what not compared to Mig 29 which was far more robust.
Sigh come onafter years on BRF and this BS??

Of coursde Russian stuff seemed robust - there was barely anything modern to get conked off??

Just think back to our last "war" - Kargil
We had one and only one stinking modern aircraft - the M2K.

There were roaring battles between the pro Mig Air Marshals and the M2K ones.

Migs were sent and could do didly squat.

Finally they had to send the M2Ks

That was the wake call for the IAF!!!!
Surya:

They called them hangar queens, but with respect. I have seen, many a time, at an Airforce Mess, pilots joshing each other about the aircraft the other flies. After all, the armed forces ride on a full stomach as well as a sense of humour! Each aircraft has its own place.

Besides, most of the electronics in the MiGs were replaced by western avionics. So to say they weren't "modern" is incorrect. They were modern at the time they were bought. I have had the good fortune of sitting in a Mig-21 and 23 cockpit.
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by rajanb »

One Question I have.

Is the IL 746 same as the IL-76MD-90?

Thanks in advance.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Surya »

Surya:

They called them hangar queens, but with respect. I have seen, many a time, at an Airforce Mess, pilots joshing each other about the aircraft the other flies. After all, the armed forces ride on a full stomach as well as a sense of humour! Each aircraft has its own place.

Besides, most of the electronics in the MiGs were replaced by western avionics. So to say they weren't "modern" is incorrect. They were modern at the time they were bought. I have had the good fortune of sitting in a Mig-21 and 23 cockpit.
rajanb

During Kargil there was very very very very little of anything modern in all other aircraft. There might be a HUD here and some nav system there - but other than that not much. Even the Jags could not do what the M2Ks finally did.

My friends flew Migs while a few of their batchmates flew M2Ks and they realised how "behind" they were. If you check their target plans in case the balloon went up in Kargil - you would have been teriffied


By Parakaram some level of juggad was done to bring up some modern ability (Nitin and i had discussions on this) but its only later the IAF started looking at the "whole system".

Yes air force guys will like their aircraft. I have seen Jag pilots claim that they can hold their own against a SU 30.
The Su 30 pilots snicker. Maybe the odd one will but by and large - not happening.

My friend took me out to his baking 27 and thumped it to show hardy it was. It was. But inside the avionics were bare. Yes his target in war did not need any electronics (hint hint :) ) but still....

We now look at the upgraded 27 and see how far we have come.


Hangar queen implies it spends most of the time in the hangar - the M2K just needed a clean environment for certain maintenance. Maint over (and turnarounds are faster than Migs) - it was available.

So it could not be a hangar queen
Last edited by Surya on 01 Nov 2011 20:32, edited 1 time in total.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Austin »

rajanb wrote:One Question I have.

Is the IL 746 same as the IL-76MD-90?

Thanks in advance.
IL-476 is a marketing name by UAC , for other wise what is referred to as "Deeply Modernised Il-76MD90A"
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Kersi D »

rajanb wrote:
I can not because

1) This information is from late 80s and early 90s. Since then IAF has managed to a/c all the facilities needed for Mirage 2000. So its not a major issue. In 90s there are few papers online to quote from.

2) This is partially information that I know from interactions with IAF staff directly, so 90s chaiwallas, so to say.

3) The bigger point is that Mirage 2000 needed (I dont know how it is right now) more care in 90s because of its delicate electronics and what not compared to Mig 29 which was far more robust.

IAF was willing to live with the extra work needed because the Mirages performed a very specific role.

I have heard the same about the M2K about 2 decades ago. That too from a fighter pilot who retired as a senior from the airforce. He called them "Hangar Queens".

He also told me that they used to joke about the Jag and say it managed to take off because of the rotational power of the earth. :D
Mirage 2000 = Hangar Queens
:eek: :eek: :eek:


Jaguar = Takes off because of the rotational power of the earth (I hv heard that it takes off because the earth is round) :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


MiG 21 = Flying coffins / Widow maker (I wonder how many remember (except maybe Shiv, Philip, old foggies) that this terminology was used for the Luftwaffe F 104 in 1970s and 1980s.
:(( :(( :((


So IAF does not have any "decent" fighter a/c
:?: :?: :?:

Regards
K
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by rajanb »

Austin wrote:
rajanb wrote:One Question I have.

Is the IL 746 same as the IL-76MD-90?

Thanks in advance.
IL-476 is a marketing name by UAC , for other wise what is referred to as "Deeply Modernised Il-76MD90A"
Thanks Austin
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by rajanb »

Surya wrote:
Hangar queen implies it spends most of the time in the hangar - the M2K just needed a clean environment for certain maintenance. Maint over (and turnarounds are faster than Migs) - it was available.
Surya. No way. Hangar Queen meant that the M2K, as you have said, needed a clean environment. Not that it spent more time in the hangar! And I did feel that there was envy that the MiG pilots tried to hide. :D
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Kersi D »

Philip wrote: However,the situ has now changed with the IL-476s being now all built in Russia and substantial orders for the same by the RuAF.

Philip. Please let us work on hard facts.
How many IL 476 have been built till date ?
How many IL 476 can be built by Russia annually ?
How many IL 476 are in service in Russia ?
How many IL 476 have been ordered by Russia ? What is the delivery schedule ?
Which other AF has ordered IL 476 ?
Which other AF already uses IL 476 ?

IL 476 is considered as a "almost totally different" aircraft. Would it not require several hundred / thousand hours of testing before any certification ?

I am sure IAF must have considered the above issues, and many more, before opting for C 17.

I would not be surprised that IAF replaces IL 76 with IL 476 sometime in 2020s. It would be great, if IL 476 flies by that time

K
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by rajanb »

@kersiD

We have. (Dusts off the Vampire abandoned in a field outside Hakimpet AFB) 8)
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Sanku »

Surya wrote:
3) The bigger point is that Mirage 2000 needed (I dont know how it is right now) more care in 90s because of its delicate electronics and what not compared to Mig 29 which was far more robust.
Sigh come onafter years on BRF and this BS??
!
It helps that I have been on bases before and after BRF, perhaps?

As you know, I am one of the posters who rarely speaks of chaiwalla sources, that is because I normally don't talk about over beer conversations with them which are under 15 years old (the conversations that is)
:P
rajanb wrote: Surya. No way. Hangar Queen meant that the M2K, as you have said, needed a clean environment. Not that it spent more time in the hangar! And I did feel that there was envy that the MiG pilots tried to hide. :D
Which is what I said as well. Thanks rajanb, it feels good to be backed up, frankly, though I know its not done as a favor to me or anything, but thanks anyway.
Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Gilles »

Kersi D wrote:
Philip wrote: However,the situ has now changed with the IL-476s being now all built in Russia and substantial orders for the same by the RuAF.

Philip. Please let us work on hard facts.
How many IL 476 have been built till date ?
How many IL 476 can be built by Russia annually ?
How many IL 476 are in service in Russia ?
How many IL 476 have been ordered by Russia ? What is the delivery schedule ?
Which other AF has ordered IL 476 ?
Which other AF already uses IL 476 ?

IL 476 is considered as a "almost totally different" aircraft. Would it not require several hundred / thousand hours of testing before any certification ?

I am sure IAF must have considered the above issues, and many more, before opting for C 17.

I would not be surprised that IAF replaces IL 76 with IL 476 sometime in 2020s. It would be great, if IL 476 flies by that time

K
The IL-476 is not a new aircraft that requires extensive test and certification (B-777 for example). It's like when Boeing modified the original Boeing 737-100 into the stretched -200, then the -300 (improved wing, futher stretched, new generation engine, EFIS but electro-mechanical engine instruments, then into the -400 (further stretched full glass cockpit with ECAM), then the -500 which was a -400 with a -200 length fuselage. Then came the -600, -700 etc which had a new wing. There is very little in common between a Boeing 737-100 and a Boeing 737-900 but Boeing by upgrading little by little was able to keep the original name and and certification process and use just supplemental type certificates to certify what had been modified from the previous model for a quick certification process.

The IL-476 will be a modified IL-76-MD-90. So most of the aircraft is already certified. They will just need to test and certify whatever is new and different, like the center section, the wing box and the wing, as I've already posted. From what I can tell from the pictures of the IL-476 prototypes, it is NOT a stretched version like the IL-76MF. Maybe they will offer both short and long versions in the future I have no idea. The engine pylon shape also indicates that PS-90-76s engines will be mounted on it. Rumors are it will have an EFIS cockpit. It seems that the Maximum Take-off Weight will be 210 tonnes with a 60 tonne payload.
If this aircraft enters production, all parts and systems will be available from suppliers and probably old aircraft will be able to benefit from newly designed and certified improvements.

In 5 to 10 years, the IAF will likely be facing a closed C-17 production line (with whatever number of C-17s it will have purchased between now and then), and a new IL-76 production line. The choices and decisions will be taken then according to the situation that will exist then, according to the needs the IAF will have then, and according to the political situation that will exist then.

As far as the sustainment contract that the IAF was wanting to sign for new suppliers for its IL-76, the contract will NOT include nine upgraded IL-76s which will be upgraded in Russian. Why ?
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Gilles wrote:If this aircraft enters production, all parts and systems will be available from suppliers
Will they? You just got through explaining how there are plenty of parts available for legacy Il-76s, yet somehow Russia is withholding them from India.
Gilles wrote:In 5 to 10 years, the IAF will likely be facing a closed C-17 production line . . . and a new IL-76 production line.
Two big assumptions I wouldn't bank on ;)
Gilles wrote:The choices and decisions will be taken then according to the situation that will exist then, according to the needs the IAF will have then, and according to the political situation that will exist then.
The situation will be that 20 C-17s takes care of the IAF's heavy lift for the foreseeable future and the MRTA (plus a handful of C-130Js) will take care of the rest
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Surya »

Sanku and Rajanb

So by the normal known definition of hangar queen - the M2K is not a hangar queen. If you heard it from someone then they got the meaning wrong.


Thats my point.

If anything it was the migs which were for some time hangar queens because of the lack of parts after SU collapsed - which of course is no fault of the aircraft.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Sanku »

Surya wrote:Sanku and Rajanb

So by the normal known definition of hangar queen - the M2K is not a hangar queen. If you heard it from someone then they got the meaning wrong.
Well hangar queen is not really a dictionary term, people use it in various ways, often to mean high maintenance. That's more often the colloquial usage in IAF based on my experience.
Thats my point.
Fair enough, we have an agreement.
If anything it was the migs which were hangar queens because of the lack of parts after SU collapsed
The serviceability rate NEVER dropped below 70% in worst of the times. It was tough but IAF made sure it had 70% uptime. Now its much better.
Gilles
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by Gilles »

GeorgeWelch wrote: Will they? You just got through explaining how there are plenty of parts available for legacy Il-76s, yet somehow Russia is withholding them from India..
We covered this subject already. I just hate it when you feign amnesia. A little honesty wouldn't hurt in your posts you know? Or is there too much money at stake for you to risk honesty ?

When people were claiming here to have a picture of a T-90 inside an IL-76, I was the one who revealed the aircraft to be an AN-22. When I was wrong about the Arjun weight, I admitted it. When I assumed the IAF IL-76s flew 1000 hours a year, and you said they did not, I researched it and not only did I correct myself, but I posted my source. I am honest, up front and straight. I am sometimes wrong and sometimes make mistakes but am here to to learn as much as to share my experience and knowledge. You, on the other hand, often act like a weasel on this board. You even let people believe you are right when you are wrong, like this claim you made not too long ago about C-17s air-dropping bulldozers from the ramp, in Afghanistan, having the bulldozer bulldoze an un-improved runway and have the C-17s land on that runway. Such a thing never happened and you know it, you never provided proof, or references, but some people read your claim here and take it as the Gospel without further research. And that seems to suit your purposes very well.

Back to the subject:

According to Russian law, all exported Russian military hardware needs to be sold through state owned Rosoboronexport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosoboronexport) So when the IAF needs Russian parts or support for its IL-76s, it has to go through that company. However, a commercial IL-76 operator that needs parts for its IL-76, does not and can deal directly with Russian parts suppliers.

So if the IAF has trouble getting parts for its IL-76s but airlines, even foreign ones, do not, the problem is certainly not a problem of parts supply but a problem between Rosoboronexport and the Indian Government. It could be a conflict between the Indian Government and Rosoboronexport over a sub deal or other....

I suspect that many foreign governments and Air Forces that operated IL-76s, also had government owned "civilian" companies that operated the same aircraft to by-pass having to deal with Rosoboronexport. Since 2005, all press accounts about the Jordandian IL-76MF order talked about a Jordanian Air Force order, and lo and behold, when they aircraft were finally delivered this year, they were painted in the colors of Jordan International Air Cargo. There may be another reason for this, for it is much simpler to get overflight permits for civilian cargo aircraft than for military ones. The down side is that civilian aircraft need to comply with civilian regulations such as noise while military aircraft do not (like noise regulations etc)

So India is attempting to sign a contract with a third party so service its IL-76s. This of course cannot be with any Russian company for Russian law forbids it. But it could be with Ukrainian company, or even an Indian one, as long as that company is directly supported by Ilyushin.

Now this article http://www.defencenow.com/news/206/iaf- ... craft.html states
Apparently, the nine IAF Ilyushins which will be undergoing overhaul and total life extension at the time the contract is expected to be awarded will not be included.
(Its not clear if the 6 IL-78MKI and the 3 A-50s are included in this or not)

Now why would the IAF need to sign a contract with a non Russian company to maintain just 8 of its 17 IL-76 and not the other 9 ? Are they perhaps satisfied that these 9 will be adequately covered under some other RUSSIAN contract ? Or maybe there are parts available for those 9, but not for the 8 to be covered under a new contract ?

Explain this to us, please Mr GeorgeWelch. In a straight manner. Not like a politician deflecting an embarrassing question on the floor of Parliament.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Gilles wrote:We covered this subject already. I just hate it when you feign amnesia.
I'm not feigning amnesia, I don't recall you ever addressing this point before. Of course you've posted a lot, perhaps I've missed it. Perhaps a link back your original post on this would be helpful?
Gilles wrote:A little honesty wouldn't hurt in your posts you know? Or is there too much money at stake for you to risk honesty ?
From the person who went on an on about how Australia HAD to build special dirt runways for the C-17 because none accomodated it (A gross and blatant mischaracterization of what happened there), the person who claimed that the C-17s wouldn't have been able to use Camp Rhino if it rained (false), and the person who CONTINUALLY confuses "hasn't yet" with "can't" ("The C-17 can't land at Alert" oops "The C-17 can't land at Alert with a useful load" oops).

I really don't think you want to get into a historical comparison.
Gilles wrote:So India is attempting to sign a contract with a third party so service its IL-76s. This of course cannot be with any Russian company for Russian law forbids it. But it could be with Ukrainian company, or even an Indian one, as long as that company is directly supported by Ilyushin.
So your theory is that once India gets this deal worked out, it will be all smooth sailing? You have a tremendous amount of faith. So far as I know, nothing has been signed with anybody and it would be interesting to see what if any retaliatory steps Russia takes if such a contract was signed. Too many unknowns yet.

The point that does remain is that Russia (Rosoboronexport) is an extreme pain to deal with. Why? Why does Russia make it so hard to keep the spares flowing? Any explanation you can come up with looks bad.
Gilles wrote:Now why would the IAF need to sign a contract with a non Russian company to maintain just 8 of its 17 IL-76 and not the other 9 ? Are they perhaps satisfied that these 9 will be adequately covered under some other RUSSIAN contract ? Or maybe there are parts available for those 9, but not for the 8 to be covered under a new contract ?

Explain this to us, please Mr GeorgeWelch. In a straight manner. Not like a politician deflecting an embarrassing question on the floor of Parliament.
Perhaps the upgrade contract forbids them from sourcing spares outside of Russia

But I have no idea, you'll have to ask the IAF.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF

Post by arnab »

Sanku wrote: He talks of TWO independent strategies, quite clearly!! :lol:
Strat 1 -- Upg Ils
Strat 2 -- buy new (in this case unfortunately IAF)

It takes substantial powers of superior comprehension two make it a either/or case.
Umm nobody is making it an either / or case saar :) but clearly one of the strategies of the IAF is to buy C-17s as the ILs are approaching end of service life. So your assertion that C-17s are NOT replacing IL-76s is clearly incorrect. Nor does it mean that IL-76 are bad aircrafts because the CAS has clearly mentioned that they have served us well.

See - over reliance on 'shruti' makes it difficult to parse direct quotes :)
Last edited by arnab on 02 Nov 2011 07:01, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply