Transport Aircraft for IAF

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 31 May 2012 23:29

By the way has Indian Airforce or Army even shown any interest in such a product ? By interest I mean serious interest . Has someone asked them what they require in 2020's -2030's ? If not , then I can say this safely that even after successful development of such a product it probably will not be inducted in the forces.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jun 2012 09:56

the pvt sector alone is in a position (by hiring consultants and sourcing technology) to develop something like a PC-21 or IJT Sitara at this point and they will need some handholding and access to our Govt test facilities , infra and manpower also. they cant be expected to jump from nothing to a c-130 sized bird having demanding hot n high specs!!
maybe in hindsight, a decade ago when the HPT32 was on its last legs and Sitara was being considered would have been good to involve them and bring them up to speed by now. at present they can just supply components to spec not design and test it themselves.

the value add of a cargo UAV is unclear to me. for Khan in the congo or kandahar areas in isolated firebases with no access to big mac and XL sodas , who want to avoid truck routes (IEDs) and fly in cargo 24x7 with least risk, the idea of fix wing or rotary UAV makes sense. for us, I dont see why we need it. we do need UAVs for strike and recon.

instead of the MTA, why not a plane that can replace the IL76 / C130 eventually , turbofan powered, a kind of mini C17 if you will. that would have value decades into the future as our needs and ranges grow. smaller MTA types will always be available cheaply with Embraer getting into that segment. its the higher end that is costly and has few choices left.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Jun 2012 10:25

I think there is more value in low-mid segment than the large ones. You only need 20-40 large types, where as you need a good 100-200 mid types. So I think MTA in the 20 ton range is good. I do think that we do need to plan for a MTA-ER type for MMRA/AEW type stuff.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jun 2012 10:27

>> 20-40 large types

if we want to dominate the IOR with a presence from madagascar to indo-china sea you know thats not enough. 75-100 will be needed.
but if the MTA design has scope for upscaling like the C130J was made longer by 20feet maybe its ok to start at the 20t mark. fixed underwing tanks C130J style would be good too.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Jun 2012 10:45

Yeah, that will work as well and keep things simple. Only problem is Under wing tanks may take space where brahmos may go. So if there is a way to add both brahmos and 6000 liters under each wing, that be great. One can always increase and do a Large platform later. For now this *may* give us good grounding. Hopefully we get the LEAP-1A/1B engines to power these versus the russian engines for our needs. Better range, fuel efficiency and higher uptimes.

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 01 Jun 2012 13:04

darshhan wrote:
Amitabh wrote:On the contrary this should be a competition open to the private sector as well as NAL/DRDO --a level playing field.

Am in agreement with those pushing for a C-27/Embraer/refurbished C-130 option. The C-130 option is analogous to buying used Toyota Corollas for a taxi fleet: you really can't go wrong. However operating costs could be an issue.
You are not saying anything contrary to what I have said . I did not say anything about participation. I am fully confident that India can develop such an aircraft , with or without Russia's cooperation.

My question is " Is it not better to allocate resources to projects like UCAVs/Cargo UAVs/AMCA etc ".

Sorry for being unclear; I meant there should be an open competition for unmanned transport vehicles as well.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 01 Jun 2012 17:08

Do you think we would see our C-130s doing this.... on an Indian Carrier. I am not sure if this has been posted before.. but this is crazy. Is
this for real
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5AI3YSV3M

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 01 Jun 2012 17:38

I think our C-130J's are too valuable for us and mainly we don't have the expertise and experience in recovering and launching aircraft using STOBAR system yet.Even if we do i think it is too risky.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Jun 2012 18:07

our carriers are too small

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Jun 2012 22:28

I wonder why no one thought about just landing platform runways, that can be attached/towed to any A/C or large ship. That way, we could have extended runway platforms, land and take off.

we could have them anchored at strategic places on the ocean.. and have dockable arrangements.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Jun 2012 22:48

they tend to break up under anything other than completely flat seas

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Jun 2012 23:07

Also,

Suppose you somehow did make one of them ...

1. how do you make them turn with you if you have to turn hard?
2. How do you make them slow down at the same rate as you are slowing down?
3. How do you protect them?
4. Now you have a runway. How do you store the planes? How do you store the planes, cargo, fuel and ammunition? If you store it in the mother ship, how do transport it to the runway?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Jun 2012 00:08

India is interested in purchasing more C-17s apart from the 10 on firm order from the US as per Dennis Muilenberg of Boeing. The number could be 6 to 8 additional C-17s.

link

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Jun 2012 00:10

just throwing out the possibilities:

1. we should not have to do any hard turns with it. the construction itself should be dismantleable.. just like bridge laying concept [blocks].

2. let us assume there are reverse thrusters /slam down drags for each block.

3. only way I can think is dis-assemble to increase protection [create more block targets, thus reduce damage].

4. special design is needed to lift up/down the planes from A/C heights or connecting block that has within limit inclinations. Cargo the same way.. may be a cargo block could be added, or detached. control room blocks, etc.

?
[too much hollywood here?]

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Jun 2012 02:29

1. A slow moving A/C is a horrible idea. In practice, they need to very agile for their size.

The rest will be a lot of gimmicry ... it will no longer stay a simple light thing being dragged by the A/C carrier at all times. It will be almost as heavy as the A/C if not more with lots of stabilizers, synchronizers, own propulsion system etc. Also remember that this runway will always be in the wake of the aircraft carrier and still stay (almost) flat. And, all this for what? They rather have 2 Chinooks or a Mi-26!

But you can sell this idea to Steven Speilberg for Avatar 2

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Jun 2012 03:10

you are right.. that avatar would be something on the screen!

for transport aircrafts to land on A/Cs, we would need bigger ones, and especially driven by enhanced and powerful nuke power. it would be a giant venture.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jun 2012 04:16

Doolittle raid pangs?! Some recent reports indicate that the MTA is progressing well.At least 200 to be built,100 for Russia,40+ for us an the rest for export.It should be a good platform for specialised roles too,like AEW,ASW/MRP,etc.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Jun 2012 05:56

Lalmohan wrote:our carriers are too small

Not quite true. If that plane could repeatedly land and take off from the Forrestal in under 600 ft, it can land on the Viraat. Instead, our stretched C-130J-30s may be too big but who knows--they have been known to land in as little as 300 feet without a carrier head wind. Interesting that these were unarrested landings and unassisted take offs--ie. no arrester hooks or catapult.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 02 Jun 2012 06:41

Can we use the Kaveri engine for MTA, I mean same design enlarged?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Jun 2012 07:56

it is like saying son's pant can be worn by dad - same deisgn enlarged!

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 02 Jun 2012 08:02

How much load/fuel did the 130 have during these tests?
this is not to take away the fact that what we saw was a visual treat, but how practical was it??

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Jun 2012 11:31

Kartik wrote:India is interested in purchasing more C-17s apart from the 10 on firm order from the US as per Dennis Muilenberg of Boeing. The number could be 6 to 8 additional C-17s.

link

The recent Force Magazine has a quote from AOC of Chandigarh AFB (who himself is veteran TpT Pilot) that C-17 are not coming air-maintenance roles - they have more strategic role to play. 16-18 C-17 in IAF service should allow IA to move at least a brigade worth of troops over large distance. The ideal expeditionary/rapid reaction force structure (for starters) proposed in various think tank circles is 1 x Amphibious bde+1 x Para Bde+1 x Air Mobile Bde - while the amphibious bde is in place in Trivandrum we've been hamstrung in terms of airlift for an air-mobile bde. C-17 should help us address this requirement.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 02 Jun 2012 11:51

indranilroy wrote:1. A slow moving A/C is a horrible idea. In practice, they need to very agile for their size.
http://acidcow.com/pics/20090709/pics/5 ... ier_02.jpg

http://acidcow.com/pics/20090709/pics/5 ... ier_01.jpg

The rest will be a lot of gimmicry ... it will no longer stay a simple light thing being dragged by the A/C carrier at all times. It will be almost as heavy as the A/C if not more with lots of stabilizers, synchronizers, own propulsion system etc. Also remember that this runway will always be in the wake of the aircraft carrier and still stay (almost) flat. And, all this for what? They rather have 2 Chinooks or a Mi-26!

These pictures don't have any aircraft on deck. I don't think it's possible to perform such maneuvers during normal operations without some equipment or men taking a dip.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Jun 2012 11:59

^^^Jamwal, those pics are from the "shakedown" routine of the carrier....this is done after the carrier is built and before it is handed down to the Navy. There is a dedicated QC team of third-party contractors and Navy personnel which puts the carrier through its paces...happens for all other ships as well. Saw this in a Discovery Channel program on Super Carrier.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Jun 2012 13:12

The biggest trouble with the C-130 on an Indian carrier is - where to do you park the damn thing? It'll take up enough space for five fighters. And if its land based coming in just to touch down on a carrier, it defeats the purpose of having a transport aircraft on board (as opposed to employing rotor wing aircraft).

Given the space constraints on the Indian carriers, this is what we need (and it seems are) looking at -

V-22s folded and parked on the USS Bataan

And interestingly you could park one on a destroyer or frigate's helipad, though it'll probably not fit in the hangar(?).

The biggest negative to be looked into may in fact be the damage to flight decks from the engine exhaust. Aside from that, the Navy ought to be making a beeline for it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Jun 2012 20:40

osprey has too many operational complexities from the very nature its design and use. of course, we can consider it if their many defects are corrected, and usability increased. multiple redundancy can't help if only one blade goes bad on either side, and increasing the risk twice fold, by the nature of the design itself.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 02 Jun 2012 20:51

Let's stay as far away from Osprey as possible. It is barely airworthy, especially during hover, VTO, VTL. It has killed many test pilots, techs and engineers during development and still continues to kill people occasionally after induction (directly due to the unreliability of its specialized operational design that makes it a unique aircraft). It would be a great aircraft if it is ever perfected and becomes safe and reliable.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Jun 2012 22:48

SaiK wrote:I wonder why no one thought about just landing platform runways, that can be attached/towed to any A/C or large ship. That way, we could have extended runway platforms, land and take off.

we could have them anchored at strategic places on the ocean.. and have dockable arrangements.

Mobile Offshore Base

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Jun 2012 01:54

SaiK wrote:osprey has too many operational complexities from the very nature its design and use. of course, we can consider it if their many defects are corrected, and usability increased. multiple redundancy can't help if only one blade goes bad on either side, and increasing the risk twice fold, by the nature of the design itself.

With regard to the design - its safer than a regular helicopter. In case of an engine failure, the remaining engine can drive both rotors. And in the unlikely event that both engines fail, it can glide like any fixed wing aircraft for a relative safe crash-landing unlike a helicopter that will plummet in the same situation.

As far as its safety goes, that was the case originally but in service its record's been quite decent -

V-22 Is The Safest, Most Survivable Rotorcraft The Marines Have

Here's a surprise: the V-22 Osprey has turned into the safest, most survivable rotorcraft the U.S. Marine Corps operates. The Osprey had its first fatal accident in ten years last April during a combat mission in Afghanistan, when an Air Force version hit the ground at high speed. But because of safety features built into the airframe, 16 of the 20 personnel on board survived. If you think that's still one crash too many, then you better not look at the safety records of other rotorcraft in theater, because many of them are not faring as well. After 14 operational deployments and 100,000 flight hours, the Osprey is beginning to look like a real life-saver.

That's not the way the V-22 began its history. Conceived as a versatile aircraft that could combine the land-anywhere agility of a helicopter with the speed (280 miles per hour) and range (375 miles) of a fixed-wing aircraft, the Osprey suffered two serious accidents during its development. Those accidents delayed fielding and left a lasting impression on critics, who to this day allege it is a flawed aircraft. The Marine Corps vigorously disagrees, arguing it is a safer and more flexible way of getting troops from ship to shore than any other means available. A mounting body of evidence from operational deployments indicates the Marines are right. Not only is the V-22 less likely to be hit by ground fire than conventional helicopters (because it flies faster and higher), but when it is hit it suffers less damage and if it crashes occupants are more likely to survive.

Over the last ten years, the V-22 mishap rate has been about half the average for the entire Marine aircraft fleet, and it is currently the lowest of any rotorcraft in that fleet. These averages are adjusted to reflect time actually flown, so it really is a surprisingly safe aircraft, considering it only recently entered service. New airframes usually have higher mishap rates than aircraft that have been operated for many years. Of course, none of this would matter if the Osprey couldn't do much, but in fact it is living up to its potential for versatility, conducting everything from night raids and medical evacuations in Afghanistan to logistical support and humanitarian assistance in Haiti. It is also proving to be the most flexible airframe employed by Air Force special operators, who use it for an array of harrowing combat and rescue missions. Readiness rates for the Marine version are around 70 percent, which is quite respectable for a new and novel airframe.

But much of this progress has not been noticed by the political system, which finds it hard to forget the testing accidents that occurred many years ago. In fact, three different amendments are currently pending in Congress to delete some or all of the funding for the Osprey, and the president's bipartisan deficit panel suggested ending production early because the program had a "troubled history" of developmental problems. That's kind of like saying that Mr. Obama does not deserve reelection because he had a tough childhood, without looking at what he's done lately. With only $15 billion left to be spent in a $70 billion acquisition program, it makes no sense to cut the V-22 program just as the Marines are about to reach their inventory goal. Costs are down, readiness is up, and the Osprey has become the safest way of moving troops around combat zones. This is one program that deserves to stay on track.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jun 2012 08:56

it may be the V22 is not used in the harsher roles the Chinook and CH53 are. a car mostly in the garage or driven very gently on interstates only will have a good safety record.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 03 Jun 2012 11:58

Viv S wrote:The biggest negative to be looked into may in fact be the damage to flight decks from the engine exhaust. Aside from that, the Navy ought to be making a beeline for it.

I thought the biggest negative was the rotor wash... which was due to the higher RPM speed of the rotors during VTOL as compared to other helis.

On another note, it seems like the Israelis are seriously contemplating buying V-22s for their spec ops divisions.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Jun 2012 12:25

V-22 seems to have a much larger logistical foot print than a typical chopper; it has simply too many moving parts .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jun 2012 12:48

let us see what the israelis make of it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Jun 2012 14:44

The Osprey is bigger so the US has had to reduce the number of helos it has on its helicopter carriers to accommodate the Osprey. It also requires the presence of two engineers from the Bell-Boeing company on every ship to ensure that everything works smoothly. Barring that, I am sure the aircraft is good.

Development of the Osprey was a tech challenge for the US and it started in 1983. It is getting into service in numbers nearly 30 years later.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 03 Jun 2012 19:41

shiv wrote: Development of the Osprey was a tech challenge for the US and it started in 1983. It is getting into service in numbers nearly 30 years later.

30 Years + loss of dozens of marines(approximately 30) . Just imagine if so many personnel being killed during development of an aircraft in India.Indians including BRFites would have trashed such a plane like anything.

On a sidenote Osprey is now one of the safest airplanes according to Marine corps.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jun 2012 19:56

I am strong supporter of the CH53-new for the IN new LHDs , once the USMC deliveries start. big, brawny, .... could cart a lot more than EC725/NH90 in the marine assault carrier role. even the marine chinook (does it exist) could do flying off the decks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jun 2012 20:32

darshhan wrote: Just imagine if so many personnel being killed during development of an aircraft in India.Indians including BRFites would have trashed such a plane like anything.

On a sidenote Osprey is now one of the safest airplanes according to Marine corps.

success has scope too. people and culture is also important to measure success. sometimes, the driver is mandatory, and hence it must be made successful by any cost, are different aspects of projects.

one should not ignore the failures that happened, and suddenly everything is rosy. scopes changes especially when IAF writes its own requirements... and one little change is enough to test the design again.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 03 Jun 2012 20:39

It also requires the presence of two engineers from the Bell-Boeing company on every ship to ensure that everything works smoothly

that by itself would not be anything new - ie the Osprey is not unique in this respect.

i have come across many people who in careers with lockheed, boeing etc were sent for support duties to ships, aircraft etc.

People have flown multiple missions on Orions and other aircraft trying to debug intermittent problems reported bythe user

also many of these guys are ex service folks themselves

wrt the Osprey in service
the only anecdote I have is an ex marine M 60 operator in our office

He does not like it as it presents a huge target compared to the chinooks

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 04 Jun 2012 05:57

The only use that I would like to see for V-22 is an AEW version for IN's STOBAR carriers. IMHO, Ka-31 performance (endurance and altitude) is inadequate. An AEW version of V-22 could largely resolve those issues.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jun 2012 07:38

indeed, the ceiling and range are around twice that of KA31. does the CDG carry only 2 hawkeye vs 4 on the nimitz class?
though 2 will not guarantee a 24x7 coverage, its better than nothing.

how to refuel this thing in the air and come up with a radar and mission suite will be all new though. nobody else seems interested? plus additional flight testing.

I have a feeling we cannot foot the bill alone for this. if 2-3 other wealthy countries were running with it would be more feasible.