Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[krisna]

looks like the defence deals are spread all over the major powers of the world--russies, khans, frenchie and rest of europe to avoid any bitterness.

[shiv]

looks like the defence deals are spread all over the major powers of the world--russies, khans, frenchie and rest of europe to avoid any bitterness.

Also everyone would have to unite against us for things to get bad. But it also means that we will never be antagonizing everyone at any given time. This leaves an opportunity open for others to knowingly or unknowingly cooperate to screw India - and we don't even need a conspiracy theory to explain how this could happen.

For example - imagine we have a minor row with Russia regarding delay in supply of spares. If the French know this - they can up the prices of their products sold to us while offering some stuff to Pakistan. This would really put the squeeze on us. So there is a problem with the idea of being "friends with everyone, enemies of none".

[tushar_m]

where are we getting airframes for extra 2-3 AEW&C on orders .....

from what i know new airframes are not available until il476 , so are we converting our own IL76 for AEW&C roles

[NRao]

Can IL78 be converted for AEW&C roles ?????.......

Structurally not possible.

Besides India has become a BIG fan of life-cycle-cost. Compute that for converting an old IL - you may just run out of zeros.

Am not sure what is really happening with the IL-476. Understand that the Russian MoD bought some, but is that a real buy or to convince someone that Russia is also operating it - like the MiG-29s. Hard to tell at this point int time, but IL-76/78s are out of fashion, the TD (which is what the Indian Phalcons are) are very few and far in-between and the IL-476 has yet to take to the sky operationally. Life-cycle is low, cost is high.

[NRao]

So there is a problem with the idea of being "friends with everyone, enemies of none".

Hahahahaha. Nicely put.

Problem do arise when you have a large demand and you are not your own supplier.

[shiv]

where are we getting airframes for extra 2-3 AEW&C on orders .....

from what i know new airframes are not available until il476 , so are we converting our own IL76 for AEW&C roles

IIRC Ukraine has a number of spare Il 76s lying about.

[Singha]

problem is Rus is updating their own A50 with next gen radar so any good airframes lying around in ukr/rus will be reserved for that effort.

my understanding is Bereiv can take any old IL76 , make the structural mods to support the dish and then ilyushin can also install the PS90 engines. I dont think the phalcons need to be specially built up airframes, because the ones we have were unfinished frames lying in tatarstan factory.

[GeorgeWelch]

looks like the defence deals are spread all over the major powers of the world--russies, khans, frenchie and rest of europe to avoid any bitterness.

I don't see any orders from the Chinese . . .

[shiv]

looks like the defence deals are spread all over the major powers of the world--russies, khans, frenchie and rest of europe to avoid any bitterness.

I don't see any orders from the Chinese . . .

Indian communication equipment has Chinese chips, and not just potato chips. Beijing could probably hear every word in military and political communications in India, if the chips worked as the wrapper indicates.

[Singha]

BSNL heavily uses cheen equipment ranging from low end stuff like DSL home modems to upward. they also use siemens, alcalu etc.
ADAG is another one who used generous vendor financing to buy huawei/zte eqpt for their cell network and some others probably did so as well.

[vivek_ahuja]

6 aircraft here, 6 aircraft there, 3 options somewhere else and so on.

These days Indian aircraft procurement is going by the penny-wise, pound foolish doctrine and designed to give the IAF a true circus look. All aircraft manufacturers are welcome to join the fray. Too bad only A330 and Il-78 were around for the deal. I am sure if there were others, the IAF/MOD would have gladly split the orders down to 2 aircraft from each of the three contenders so that nobody misses out on the great Indian tanker sale.

Remember folks, our motto is that nobody goes home a loser. Come one, come all!

<sarcasm off>

I suppose at this point I would have been happier if they told me that the MRTT would replace the Il-78s. At least that way we would have "one" tanker type in service, even if its in lower numbers (on a sidenote, the A330 per aircraft is far more capable than the Il-78, so even if they are replaced, the capability improves). But in all honesty the IAF has not been speaking about retiring the Il-78s anytime soon.

We need about 16 MRTT capability tankers to ensure a high aerial density over the battlefields required for securing air-dominance with China after losing airbases to missile attacks per my calculation. The way it works is that you have 4 aircraft rotating with 4 others to ensure 24x7 service and you have two such sectors to cover. It also makes some available for the ANC and the navy without jeopardizing the IAF operations.

But six aircraft? Six?

[A Sharma]

HAL Connect Jan 2013

[eklavya]

Can 'mega' really be applied to a 6 airplane deal?

The 'mega' applies to "mid air refuelling aircraft" i.e. they are BIG aircraft

http://www.flickr.com/photos/defenceima ... /lightbox/

[merlin]

It will be 6 MRTT + 6 Il78. Not 16 but 12 so we are somewhere close to your numbers. But I agree on the penny packet numbers.

[anand_sankar]

@Vivek Ahuja

It is not just the MRTT purchase, there is deafening silence on the additional AWACS, AEW and ELINT aircraft. The Phalcon seems set to stop at 3, at least with the IL-76 airframe, thats what I hear. While the Embraer-based AEW birds are still in development and the number is still 2-3. There is nothing being talked of ELINT birds.

For most of the 1990s the cash crunch made capital acquisitions impossible. The cash has been there from the early 2000s and we have missed the bus in investing in larger numbers of force-multiplier aircraft, which would have lowered costs. A large part of the blame has to be borne by the defence ministers in UPA I and II. Both Pranab Mukherjee and then AK Antony have ensured that the bureaucracy has killed the acquisition process. I fear these years might again be known as the lost decade. With elections coming in 2014, the Congress is going to dole out freebies in the next two budgets. The hit will be borne in capital acquisitions, the IAF will suffer the most, along with the army. The navy has been lucky as its warship projects are of much longer timespans, and its capital purchases like aircraft are much smaller in numbers.

[Singha]

per my recollection, 2 of these IL78 are actually combi ones (perhaps with 2 instead of 3 fuel tanks and these 2 are removeable) while only 4 are the dedicated types with 3 bolted inside fuel tanks. this was many yrs ago when they first inducted. so these 2 IL78 could presumably be repurposed to other duties like cargo or AWACS without much of a hassle.

why cant we also rope in some used A310 to the tanker role in addn to the A330?. *everyone* and their uncle uses repurposed cargo planes with new engines and avionics for a wide variety of jobs. even rich nations do it, so no H&D loss there. KC135 is still flying decades after delivery.

we really need to get practical and pay some US/EU co to find some 15 A310 or A330 about to retire from passenger to cargo service and instead make tankers out of them.

here is a Luftwaffe A310 tanker! they even left the windows intact
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/bjcc/5966518166/

[vivek_ahuja]

Singha,

That kind of leads to the same issue about the circus, does it not? My point is that when we are already in the process to purchase 6 tankers of a type, why not just go the whole hog and buy the required number and be done with it? The MRTT is also multi-role onlee?

Standardize the fleet is what I am saying.

This is not about H&D as much as improving operational flexibility and efficiency.

And trying to combine your transport fleet with your tankers during wartime is a dangerous folly IMVHO. At best it represents solutions to cost-cutting during peacetime in nations who do not really expect to go to all out war anytime soon.

[vivek_ahuja]

It will be 6 MRTT + 6 Il78. Not 16 but 12 so we are somewhere close to your numbers. But I agree on the penny packet numbers.

The Il-78 will get more and more costly to operate in the next few years. IMHO, as soon as the MRTT arrive, you will see the IAF dramatically reducing its dependency on the Il-78s and that' when their talk of retirement will start raising its head.

On paper the 6+6 = 12 idea sounds good. But remember that the MRTTs will arrive only in 2017? By that time the Il-78s will be long obsolete.

If we stick with the 6 MRTT now, rest assured that in 2020 we will still be operating only 6 tankers, not 12.

Of course, as always I am happy to be proven wrong on this.

[vivek_ahuja]

It is not just the MRTT purchase, there is deafening silence on the additional AWACS, AEW and ELINT aircraft. The Phalcon seems set to stop at 3, at least with the IL-76 airframe, thats what I hear. While the Embraer-based AEW birds are still in development and the number is still 2-3. There is nothing being talked of ELINT birds.

Frankly, if they start transferring the Phalcon system over to some other platform than the Il-76, I am all for it.

My concern, however, is that they will again go down the MRTT route, where three replacements will be designed only in time when the first three are being retired or some such thing.

I don't want three to four different AWACS/AEW types in one air-force. Its not about looking pretty either. It just doesn't make sense unless all types have almost similar capabilities and endurance.

[Singha]

Singha,

That kind of leads to the same issue about the circus, does it not? My point is that when we are already in the process to purchase 6 tankers of a type, why not just go the whole hog and buy the required number and be done with it? The MRTT is also multi-role onlee?

Standardize the fleet is what I am saying.

This is not about H&D as much as improving operational flexibility and efficiency.

And trying to combine your transport fleet with your tankers during wartime is a dangerous folly IMVHO. At best it represents solutions to cost-cutting during peacetime in nations who do not really expect to go to all out war anytime soon.

I believe the A310 and A330 share a lot of commonality incl engines?
in both cases no structural mods are needed as the existing tanks carry around 90+ tons of fuel.
only 3 refueling pods and a pod operator station need to be added.

fully agree we need atleast 25 tankers to cover for downtime in a high intensity scenario.

in another stroke of brilliance I do not think the BBJ 737 we got for national leadership features AAR probe....I dunno whats the plan, maybe soviet style hunkering down in a bunker somewhere 100m under bedrock.

[vivek_ahuja]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the numbers below correct?

Code: Select all

  Tanker       Fuel (internal + cargo pallets; Kg)
A-310 MRTT           ~78,000
A-330 MRTT           110,000
IL-78MKI             105,720       
KC-135               ~80,000 
KC-767                91,043
KC-10                160,200

If they are correct, does it not make the A-310 the smallest hitter in the group?

[Bala Vignesh]

Ok.. A wild idea, can't we use early A320's of AI for tanker conversion?? There are 32 A320's in AI's fleet that are bound to be retired soon, can't these be refurbished into Tankers???

[shiv]

Ok.. A wild idea, can't we use early A320's of AI for tanker conversion?? There are 32 A320's in AI's fleet that are bound to be retired soon, can't these be refurbished into Tankers???

For what reason?

[vivek_ahuja]

in another stroke of brilliance I do not think the BBJ 737 we got for national leadership features AAR probe....I dunno whats the plan, maybe soviet style hunkering down in a bunker somewhere 100m under bedrock.

Oh, don't get me started on that!

When doing the analysis for the scenario, I was forced to consider what exactly the plan was for the Indian "supreme" command in terms of operations when their aircraft is not capable of aerial refueling. The only thing that made sense was that they would just have to keep landing every eight hours and refuel on the ground and take off again.

FYI: that aircraft is still not capable of allowing full fledged staff on board for battle management. So yeah, at any given time a good portion of the higher decision makers will be on the ground somewhere.

[Pratyush]

In the next round of tanker purchase, we will be buying from the Khans. so 6 rus,6 euros,6 khans, that leaves the PRC.

[vivek_ahuja]

Ok.. A wild idea, can't we use early A320's of AI for tanker conversion?? There are 32 A320's in AI's fleet that are bound to be retired soon, can't these be refurbished into Tankers???

For what reason?

I agree with Shiv here.

Putting aside the age of the aircraft and the older design, the aircraft still would be much lower in capability than the IL-78, for example. If the need of the hour is to go after tankers no matter what, then order more C-17s and convert all the Il-76s into the -78.

But we are not there yet in terms of desperation.

[Bala Vignesh]

I was under the impression it would help us by distributing our capability over larger numbers of airframes thus reducing the impact if we lose some airframes and allowing multiple flights to refuel simultanously, giving us operational flexibility.
JMO.

[shiv]

I was under the impression it would help us by distributing our capability over larger numbers of airframes thus reducing the impact if we lose some airframes and allowing multiple flights to refuel simultanously, giving us operational flexibility.
JMO.

I had two reasons for asking the question

1. Flight refuelers are very precious and the idea that it will be OK to lose one or two because we have so many is wrong, as is the idea that we should have more because we are expecting to lose them. We may need more, but having more simply to be able to lose a couple is wrong. We must not lose any. They must never be put at risk - it is totally pointless to put a defenceless force multiplier asset at risk. If the refueler can get shot down, it must not be sent on that mission - its job is to survive and help other pilots survive.

2. If you look at a map of India and the surrounding countries and oceans, where do you think refuelers can fly and still be useful AND safe? There is no way refuelers will be sent flying into Chinese or Paki airspace or even withinn AAM reach of such airspace. So how and where do you think refuelers can be used? For what missions do you think they can be used in wartime?

This is not about not wanting more refuelers, but asking what operational requirements refuelers will be asked to fulfil for India. I can tell you how the US uses its refuelers. It does not put them at risk, and does not lose them, But it uses them for very long range overseas missions, for long range training flights and to extent loiter time or range by refueling over safe airspace. The US uses them for power projection. What will India use them for and how?

[vivek_ahuja]

Shiv,

part of the answer here is the extension to loiter time (over friendly airspace) if and when certain airbases/runways take missile hits (cruise or ballistic). The threat to airbases and other airbase infrastructure remains high but what is also the case is that neither Cheen nor Pakiland have long-range cruise missiles (Cheen does have the CJ-10 Long-Sword but is allocated to strategic uses only within the 2nd Artillery Corps for now; this will change in the coming years though) but do have large quantities of the shorter range ones (applies once again only to Cheen, not Paki boys). A lot of the northern airbases in Assam and Kashmir are at potential risk from these weapons. In which case it is useful to be able to project the same number of aircraft over the battlefields from airbases deeper inside India using tankers.

Note that this in no way is a threat to the tankers, since at all times they are over Indian airspace and protected behind friendly lines. But the dependence of our air-force on front-line airbases remaining operational on a near-continuous basis is something we can do without, if we can, in the coming years.

Note also that airbases disabled during such attacks are by no means lost: they can and will be repaired. But during that time fighters deployed from that airbase and in the air must be able to fight from afar airbases using tanker support or else operations will suffer.

Hence the requirement for around 16 tankers that I was talking about earlier.

[srin]

per my recollection, 2 of these IL78 are actually combi ones (perhaps with 2 instead of 3 fuel tanks and these 2 are removeable) while only 4 are the dedicated types with 3 bolted inside fuel tanks. this was many yrs ago when they first inducted. so these 2 IL78 could presumably be repurposed to other duties like cargo or AWACS without much of a hassle.

why cant we also rope in some used A310 to the tanker role in addn to the A330?. *everyone* and their uncle uses repurposed cargo planes with new engines and avionics for a wide variety of jobs. even rich nations do it, so no H&D loss there. KC135 is still flying decades after delivery.

we really need to get practical and pay some US/EU co to find some 15 A310 or A330 about to retire from passenger to cargo service and instead make tankers out of them.

here is a Luftwaffe A310 tanker! they even left the windows intact
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/bjcc/5966518166/

IAF has had issues with getting spares for IL-76 from Russia, and it had to look elsewhere.

So, unless there is a huge price tag difference, it is better to use the "militarized" version of a large production run civilian aircraft. Even in case of sanctions, you can always scrape for spares from the civilian market. Very difficult to turn the tap off.

And, if we were smarter and more co-ordinated, we'd have used Air India buying from either Airbus or from Boeing to squeeze a deal for local production of air-frames. Once you have the basic airframe in a production line, you keep creating transport, tanker and AWACS variants. And there is no need to keep issuing RFPs.

[vivek_ahuja]

From the report:
Europe pips Russia in mega mid-air refueling aircraft deal

The current contract is the result of a fresh tender floated in 2010, where "life-cycle costs" were also made part of the selection process unlike the first one.

Are you seriously telling me that up till 2010 the MOD/IAF were still invested in the soviet era "Buy airplanes to build air-force" mentality regarding these deals? I mean people buying cars today end up looking at life-cycle costs and you are telling me they were still thinking of the tankers as "airplane purchase onlee" up till 2010!!!

I didn't buy myself an ex military hummer despite the 5000 bucks deal I was getting from an army surplus store because even I knew that maintaining that b***h would suck all of my finances in the long run. So I paid more and bought a regular Korean sedan instead despite paying more up front!

The Il-78/A-330 analogy to me holds the same fundamental ideas, except that when I buy a car, I spend my own money. But when the MOD/IAF buy a tanker, they still spend my money!

[chaanakya]

, they still spend my money!

That happens when you are not in your Dhaaga. You know every other dhaaga is out of bounds for you.

[vivek_ahuja]

IF we decide to purchase long range bombers, wouldnt it be under the IAF? I hope the IAF's mindset towards bombers changes. IMO, we badly need a bomber squadron or two, especially once Nirbhay and Brahmos-A kicks in. Either purchase TU-22M or build a B2-esque stealth bomber

I would definitely not recommend the Tu-22M in any shape or form for a bomber/cruise-missile carrier aircraft (which does not mean Cheen will agree with my assessment! ). In case of the Nirbhay, I would say we are better off increasing its range to around 2000 km and adding a bunch of mobile ground launchers. Cheaper, effective and for our purposes, well defined. Unlike the USA, we don't have targets/countries we need to strike beyond range of ground-based launchers.

[vivek_ahuja]

, they still spend my money!

That happens when you are not in your Dhaaga. You know every other dhaaga is out of bounds for you.

Your point is noted saar. Sorry.

[Aditya G]

Code: Select all

  Tanker       Fuel (internal + cargo pallets; Kg)
A-310 MRTT           ~78,000
A-330 MRTT           110,000
IL-78MKI             105,720       
KC-135               ~80,000 
KC-767                91,043
KC-10                160,200

How about a KC-130J? It should be the cheapest of the lot.

Offload rates per refueling pod can be up to 300 gallons / 2,040 lbs (1,135 liters / 925 kg) per minute simultaneously. The J tanker's offload is significantly greater than previous Herc tankers. As an example, at 1,000 nautical miles, the fuel offload is well over 45,000 lbs. Rapid ground refueling is also a premium capability. In austere conditions/scenarios, the KC-130J can refuel helicopters, vehicles, and fuel caches at 600 gallons / 4,080 lbs (2,270 liters / 1,850 kg) per minute.

Yes it is much smaller. But is IAF aiming for intercontinental reach with IFR in any case?

[Cybaru]

Hopefully someone will convert the 30/50 retired IA/AI planes to refueling needs and push the il-78 midas to be duly convereted to AEW platform giving us a 9 AEW of the same type. Those retired AI/IA planes can last another 30 good years after refurbishing.

[NRao]

Are you seriously telling me that up till 2010 the MOD/IAF were still invested in the soviet era

The first one was written pre-life_cycle days. The IAF selected the EADS one and when asked why they said life-cycle. But the tender did never mention life cycle and the ILs were cheaper (up front). So, finmin asked for "Fresh Tender". Here we are two years and chillar later.

[vivek_ahuja]

Are you seriously telling me that up till 2010 the MOD/IAF were still invested in the soviet era

The first one was written pre-life_cycle days. The IAF selected the EADS one and when asked why they said life-cycle. But the tender did never mention life cycle and the ILs were cheaper (up front). So, finmin asked for "Fresh Tender". Here we are two years and chillar later.

So what you are saying is that the IAF/MOD did its job regarding the whole "life-cycle" issue verbally (gentlemen's understanding) but FinMin said "How about No" and the whole thing was restarted with the proper wording in the document? and that put us back by 5 years?

Dear god in heaven...

[NRao]

So what you are saying is that the IAF/MOD did its job regarding the whole "life-cycle" issue verbally (gentlemen's understanding) but FinMin said "How about No" and the whole thing was restarted with the proper wording in the document? and that put us back by 5 years?

Dear god in heaven...

FICV is stuck for the same reason - this time: no selection criteria was mentioned in tender.

In Life of Pi he mentions Hindus have 33 million Gods. Now you know why. Gods too get tired of such decisions and we poor people appealing to Them.

[Singha]

Cheen has established a A321 asssembly line in Tianjin. apart from continuous theft and learning opportunities, once the euro arms embargo is lifted be interesting to see what the propose to do with the A321. two good guesses would be ressurect the MPA to get something equivalent with the P8 using euro eqpt and a GMTI platform, a third guess would be a cruise missile carrier to replace the H6.