Transport Aircraft for IAF

[amit]

What you are speaking of is called passenger pallets. C-17 can carry 80 passengers (on 8 pallets) + 54 on side seating. Almost the same number can be carried by IL-476.

Actually carry passengers is a very bad use of these planes. People occupy floor space, but don't weigh a lot . The C-130J can carry almost the same number of passengers (128 passengers or 92 airborne troops) as the C-17. Therefore the C-130s/MTA/AN-32s etc. will always be preferred as troop transporters over the C-17s/IL-476s etc. So troop transport is as weak as a point of IL-476 as the C-17s.

Now you would understand why IAF was so happy to able to fly non stop to the Andamans with the C-130Js. Rescue missions from the Andamans was the first thing they showcased.

Indranil,

If I'm not mistaken the IL-76's passenger carrying capability stems from the ability to have two deck sitting arrangement (that is literally a second storey). C17 doesn't have this ability. Will the IL476s also have this two-deck arrangement?

[Indranil]

Indranil,

If I'm not mistaken the IL-76's passenger carrying capability stems from the ability to have two deck sitting arrangement (that is literally a second storey). C17 doesn't have this ability. Will the IL476s also have this two-deck arrangement?

No reason to believe otherwise. IL-476's cabin is just longer than the IL-76.

[amit]

No reason to believe otherwise. IL-476's cabin is just longer than the IL-76.

Oh OK thanks. Interesting solution, kinda cool.

[Singha]

here is a pic http://www.apl-chine.com/imagesv/air/av ... l76_15.jpg

C17 carrying paras http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201 ... 6seats.jpg

C17 in people mover mode http://missouri-news.org/wp-content/upl ... 35x300.jpg

if anyone wanted I am sure boeing could double rack those central seats...the cabin is easily high enough. would add 80 more seats probably...but as mentioned not a optimal use of this beast...get the Arjuns in theater!

[Sanku]

if anyone wanted I am sure boeing could double rack those central seats...the cabin is easily high enough. would add 80 more seats probably...but as mentioned not a optimal use of this beast...get the Arjuns in theater!

Getting Arjun's in theator will be a use that C 17s will not see a meaningful use in.

Getting 1 tank at a time in 1 flight is just wasteful in peace and impossibly dangerous to front lines in war.

[arnab]

4
Is the price expensive? On first look, probably - 580 million per aircraft is quite a bit. However, the question is:

a) Whether thats the right number,
b) In the overall lifetime, is the higher upfront cost ameliorated more vis-a-vis the Ruskie aircrafts and
c) Could we afford NOT to buy this aircraft even at the inflated price point?

.

Excellent post

Actually it is not expensive at all if you look at the purchase in terms of 'opportunity cost' - the cost of getting the next best alternative (which apart from 'life cycle' costs all defence acquisitions would need to be considered and thankfully our strategic planners are doing it). Only the simplest of minds (the rediff board poster variety ) would look at the 'total' cost without considering what the price tag is getting us and start jumping up and down.
The base price of the aircrafts are $1.8 bn (approx) @ $180m per aircraft. Add to it around $400 m for the 40 P&W engines. Another $500 mn for spares. Additional costs for the specifications that the IAF have asked to be included (indications are they are top of the line that is used by the USAF). Finally, the costs also include the C-17 Global sustanance program which guarantees a more than 90% availability of the aircraft at all times.

Compare this to the fact that for IL-76 the availability was around 65% - meaning 1/3 of the fleet was not available at a point of time. This is fine in times of peace but simply not feasable in a war like situation.

I think since Kargil the forces have made a conscious decision to move away from russian products in areas which are technology intensive or are huge force multipliers. I think this is a step in the right direction. We are a strongly dependent on imports for our energy sources. It will be very easy for China to choke energy imports in a conflict (in which case Vivek_Ahuja's excellent scenarios may not eventuate at all). The only way to obviate this would be to rely on western technology. China has access to all Russian technology, so we have no advantage in going down that road I'm afraid.

p.s airlifting tanks to the frontline will be 'dangerous', but presumably it would be fine to airlift troops. And also once they are there to leave them without the option of armoured cover is fine too. They should be cannon fodder

pps and did I mention the wind tunnel?

ppps and I would frankly fly in a boeing over a Tupolev any day

[keshavchandra]

Just for a break...
A couple of MIGs are escorting a C-130 Hercules and their pilots were chatting with the pilot of the transportto pass the time. Talk fell to the subject of the relative merits of their respective aircraft with the fighter pilots holding that their planes were better because of their maneuverability, weaponry and the like.

The C-130 pilot replied "Yeh? Well I can do a few things in this old girl that you'd only dream about." Naturally, he was challenged to demonstrate. "Just watch," he tells them. The C-130 continues to fly straight and level, and after several minutes the Herk pilot returns to the air and says, "There! How was that?"

Not having seen anything, the fighter pilots say, "What are you talking about? What did you do?"

He replies, "Well, I got up, stretched my legs, got a cup of coffee, then went in the back and took a p!$$."

[Sanku]

4
Is the price expensive? On first look, probably - 580 million per aircraft is quite a bit. However, the question is:

a) Whether thats the right number,
b) In the overall lifetime, is the higher upfront cost ameliorated more vis-a-vis the Ruskie aircrafts and
c) Could we afford NOT to buy this aircraft even at the inflated price point?

.

The only issue is that the IAF/MoD and all the Boeing cheerleaders decided the above without even looking at any numbers.


Other than the small hitch, it is fine.

I dont know why they wasted so much time for MRCA, they should have brought the Boeing plane through single invite, the numbers would have all worked, trust Shukla et al on that.

What a solid waste of time on MRCA no ? And that too for a deal which is just about twice of this one. Onlee.

[Kersi D]

Me thinks C 17 has been bought to airlift thin ( 1.2 m dia), long (15 - 20 m) tubes made of a aluminum or carbon composites to place in north east, A&N and other islands and maybe Farkhor !!!!

These "tubes" maybe more effective than "tanks"

K

[Sanku]

Me thinks C 17 has been bought to airlift thin ( 1.2 m dia), long (15 - 20 m) tubes made of a aluminum or carbon composites to place in north east, A&N and other islands and maybe Farkhor !!!!

These "tubes" maybe more effective than "tanks"

K

Not Farkhor, but others certainly are far more useful movement.

[amit]

The only issue is that the IAF/MoD and all the Boeing cheerleaders decided the above without even looking at any numbers.

It would be nice change from regular programming if somebody showed the sceptics some numbers, any numbers.

[Sanku]

The only issue is that the IAF/MoD and all the Boeing cheerleaders decided the above without even looking at any numbers.

It would be nice change from regular programming if somebody showed the sceptics some numbers, any numbers.

2G had ZERO loss.

There you go.

[Aditya_V]

Just for a break...
A couple of MIGs are escorting a C-130 Hercules and their pilots were chatting with the pilot of the transportto pass the time. Talk fell to the subject of the relative merits of their respective aircraft with the fighter pilots holding that their planes were better because of their maneuverability, weaponry and the like.

The C-130 pilot replied "Yeh? Well I can do a few things in this old girl that you'd only dream about." Naturally, he was challenged to demonstrate. "Just watch," he tells them. The C-130 continues to fly straight and level, and after several minutes the Herk pilot returns to the air and says, "There! How was that?"

Not having seen anything, the fighter pilots say, "What are you talking about? What did you do?"

He replies, "Well, I got up, stretched my legs, got a cup of coffee, then went in the back and took a p!$$."

Apart from that, flying a Mig-21 at speed as slow as C-130J would be very difficult and they will probably stall, don't forget the take off and landing sppeds of a Mig-21 are very high and they would run out of fuel well before the C-130 makes its journey. So hence can never be a real world scenario

[NRao]

Me thinks C 17 has been bought to airlift thin ( 1.2 m dia), long (15 - 20 m) tubes made of a aluminum or carbon composites to place in north east, A&N and other islands and maybe Farkhor !!!!

These "tubes" maybe more effective than "tanks"

K

well in Kargil India faced situations that were perhaps not expected. After traditional methods failed to dislodge the Pakis India had to pay through the nose to resolve the issue. So, paying is not an issue.

So, flying a single tank is not a topic for discussion, it will pay for itself at some point in time. For when it comes down to flying a single tank it either has to be a fearless leader in ND padding his liner or the armed forces using an alternative they have had to resort to.

Of course with the approval of Putin, Obama and Gates.

[NRao]

The only issue is that the IAF/MoD and all the Boeing cheerleaders decided the above without even looking at any numbers.

It would be nice change from regular programming if somebody showed the sceptics some numbers, any numbers.

That would help if they understand logic and numbers.

Best to place them on your ignore list and this is part of what you see:

This post was made by XXXXX who is currently on your ignore list.

Life is rather peaceful

[member_23455]

Just popped in between the C-17 vs IL-476 crapfest to say that the C130J is a badass piece of Amriki kit or what!

Moaners and groaners may please watch the Ironfist videos and suck it up

[Singha]

some of us have been shouting for 50 more C130J and cancellation of the MTA...it will just be a production contract for HAL.

[negi]

Russia has missed the bus itna senti hone ka zaroorat nahin hai; C-17s have been purchased after successful trials in Leh . Even on paper there was no doubt that C-17 has better lift capability than IL-76 in demanding conditions , IL-476 was never in contention as it was not ready and afaik RU cannot ramp up it's production at the same rate and within similar notice period as Boeing (RU has been struggling with meeting a lot of our orders in time).

[Philip]

Plese,figures on the C-17s price have been posted quoting official statements given to the Indian media.There is a wealth of info on the same available of you look.The point is that whatever the correct figure,and I hope someone asks a Q in parliament on the same,so that this debate can end,it is upwards of $4 B for 10 aircraft,soem give afigure of $4.8B.Official figures for Russia's 39 IL-476-90As are $4.5.That is almost 4 times the price of one C-17 compared with one IL-476.

Granted,the two aircraft are not the same class.The C-17 has a payload of 70t,the IL-476 a payload of 60t and not 43 as some have said,that refers to the older IL-76s made in Uzbekistan.The new Il-476s are being made at Ulyanovsk,at Aviastar's brand new facility,where the entire production of IL-476s and their components will be made in Russia,resolving the problem of spares and support,a problem after the collapse of the SU.The cost-effectiveness of IL-476s vs C-17s is there to see for the open minded.

The Q I repeat is how many C-17s (and for the record no one is casting aspersions upon the performance of the aircraft,only its huge cost) do we really need when we do not have an intercon. strategic role to play unlike the US,and a spread of smaller aircraft from IL-476s,C-139Js,MTAs and others would serve our interests best.This could be done by curtailing further orders of C-17s and using the money saved for the above.I've given comparison figures in earlier posts.I have also said that if we do take up the offer of bases abroad (Vietnam) and plan for a large force (larger than planned) of mountain troops to counter the Chinese in Tibet,by being able to take an offensive deep into Tibet,we would perhaps need more C-17s ,apart from IL-476s ,to airlift the heavy eqpt. and troops required.

It is the latter area where we have not had any worthwhile debate about aircraft for the medium and light role.The replacement requirement for Avros is on and with FM's AW scandal,the chances of the Spartan C-275,which looked a winner is now in serious doubt if FM wares are banned.All AN-32s are being upgraded in a speedy manner,but with the MTA arriving only 2017+,with production likely only towards the end of this decade,there is a gap and urgent requirement where we need smaller aircraft than our two heavyweights.I am a great admirer of the C-130J,it has proved its mettle all over the world over decades.Thus far we have acquired it mainly for special forces needs.I am sure further orders for multi-role needs would be welcomed.

PS:One major reason for the high price of C-17s today is because these are the very last orders of the bird.Production was to have stopped in 2009,but kept on because of v.heavy political pressure from states where the bird/components were made.Boeing used the extra time to wrap up the Indian order and a few small numbers from US allies.The production rate is slow for these orders to eek out as much and stretch production as far as possible for obvious reasons.

[NRao]

This from an ex-CAS:

2012 :: The Indian Air Force and 24 x 7 Capabilities

Our National zone of interest and influence stretches from the Gulf of Hormuz in the West, to the Malacca Straits in the East and beyond. Just like other capabilities, strong and comprehensive aerospace capability is required in today’s scenario to meet our country’s aspirations. I envisage that the capability build up of our aerospace power will be based on four pillars. Very simply put, these are SEE, REACH, HIT and PROTECT. We need to SEE farthest and first. This involves utilisation of space based assets, long range radars, aerostats, AWACS and other ISR sensors. We need to collect and process relevant information in real time. Having SEEN, we need to REACH our area of interest. Trans-oceanic reach by long range combat and transport aircraft, along with air to air refuellers, is the next pillar of our capability. Once we reach, we need to HIT the target. Hit the target with precision; hit it hard. And so, modern weapons are required. While doing all this, we need to PROTECT our assets both in war and peace. This involves all aspects of Air Defence, EW (Electronic Warfare), Cyberspace and Information Warfare.

A clearly stated objective: "trans-oceanic reach" and "transport aircraft" should lay to rest ANY concerns regarding how far Indian assets will need to reach. C-17 fits that bill and the IL-476 will too. If a C-17 is not needed because India does not need to reach far and wide then India does not need the Il-476 either (there is a mere 15 ton diff between the two ACs).

On cost please make SURE that we are comparing apples to apples. There is no indications (and please Putin nor Obama are credible references on this matter. Gates too) actually what is included in the purchase price of the IL-476 that the RuAF is expected to get. AND, will India get it at that very same price? Granted that is the best source we have to discuss, but that is all subject to change.

Nope. Indian order for the C-17 was not the major portion of the Boeing order. The USAF itself had 24 on order when India ordered and then there was some 7 from the UK and some 3-4 from the UAE, and then perhaps a few more. So, the argument that India bought to keep the line humming is ridiculous.

And finally (for this post) there is this huge trend that the IAF wants what even the RuAF cannot even afford!!!! So comparing what the Ru MoD has bought for their transport division (good for them, they themselves were starved for 20 years!!!! Go figure) is not an argument one should make for the IAF. I am dead sure that the IL-476 is a great plane, but that is not all that is taken into account when looking at such a purchase. So, making a statement that the support for the IL-476 will be better than the IL-76 is great - but that is not what I want to see. I would like to know what % availability would it have - in India (not in Russia), ground support systems (C-17 can do with 3 people, the IL-476 needs 5 for the same job - this should translate into faster ground ops and turn arounds, etc)

[NRao]

Apr, 2012 :: Indian air force looks to outsource MRO requirements

Not even a year old.

India's air force could outsource some of its MRO requirements to privately-owned companies in the country.

This comes as defence procurement begins to lean toward western suppliers, with a large number of contracts in the pipeline, amid frustration with the level of support available for the Russian aircraft that are the mainstay of the air force.

Potential areas of cooperation with third-party MRO firms include issues with obsolescence in avionics for regular upgrades in software, training, calibration of test set-ups, ageing studies and radio frequency identification (RFID), say industry sources.

The air force has a large mixed fleet, inadequate spares and support, high attrition of skilled manpower and issues of obsolete equipment.

Lessons have been learnt from the unavailability of spares for India's Russian aircraft, which have often been grounded for long periods. These include Sukhoi Su-30MKIs and various MiG fighter aircraft, the Ilyushin Il-76 and Antonov An-32 transport aircraft and various helicopter types.

"Our core MRO capability [Base Repair Depots [BRD]] will have to function as an interface with the industry. We're starting this with a select transport fleet," says Air Marshal J Chandra, Air Officer-in-chief for Maintenance Command of the Indian air force. BRDs carry out fourth line repair and maintenance of aircraft and equipment for the air force.

"Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd [HAL] is overloaded. There is no choice but to turn to the private sector," says Air Vice Marshal PP Khandekar, Assistant Chief of Air Staff (ACAS).

The provision in military bids that include life support make the need to integrate civil MRO even more imminent.

"Once the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft contract is signed, India will become the best outsourcing opportunity for us as it will enhance the quality of our supply chain. Already, 14 of our suppliers worldwide are presently working on hydraulics and fuel systems," an official from US industrials group Eaton tells Flightglobal.

Shashi Ramdas, a retired Air Marshall and the former chairman of state-owned carrier Indian Airlines, says that challenges remain in breaking out of the "antiquated mindset" of government-owned companies. "Military MRO is no different from civil," he adds. "It will improve the nose to tail ratio and is a model worth replicating."

[member_20292]

^^^^

How come IAF can afford stuff that RuAf even cannot?

And do not they have much larger numbers than the IAF? Thus, even if they cannot afford much new stuff, they already have very good, high quality, larger numbers of old stuff; that more than makes up
for the lack of cutting-edge.

Yes?
No?

[srin]

Granted,the two aircraft are not the same class.The C-17 has a payload of 70t,the IL-476 a payload of 60t and not 43 as some have said,that refers to the older IL-76s made in Uzbekistan.The new Il-476s are being made at Ulyanovsk,at Aviastar's brand new facility,where the entire production of IL-476s and their components will be made in Russia,resolving the problem of spares and support,a problem after the collapse of the SU.The cost-effectiveness of IL-476s vs C-17s is there to see for the open minded.

Factual correction, Phillip Saar, Illyushin's own website says it is 50t, a mere 7t over the existing 43t.

[nachiket]

Another aircraft that was being touted by some here to be considered as an option instead of the C-17 was the Airbus A400M. Now the A400's payload capacity is 37 tonnes. That is less than that of even the vanilla Il-76 operated by the IAF right now. The C-17 carries more than twice the payload of the A400M.

[NRao]

Granted,the two aircraft are not the same class.The C-17 has a payload of 70t,the IL-476 a payload of 60t and not 43 as some have said,that refers to the older IL-76s made in Uzbekistan.The new Il-476s are being made at Ulyanovsk,at Aviastar's brand new facility,where the entire production of IL-476s and their components will be made in Russia,resolving the problem of spares and support,a problem after the collapse of the SU.The cost-effectiveness of IL-476s vs C-17s is there to see for the open minded.

Factual correction, Phillip Saar, Illyushin's own website says it is 50t, a mere 7t over the existing 43t.

Hmmmmmm... You are right:

Ilyushin

However, there are some that claim that the load was increased. If so it does not reflect on their web site.

It also claims that 6 people will operate it, i was under the impression that it was 5!!!!

[NRao]

Basic Doctrine of the Indian Air Force 2012

A direct quote on "Strategic Airlift" in the IAF context, clearly - as the IAF defines it - India need not compete with any nations (especially the US) on this matter:

CATEGORIES OF AIR TRANSPORTED OPERATIONS

- Strategic Airlift . A strategic airlift is the carriage of passengers or cargo between theatres (inter-theatre), or to any place within an area of interest. The movement of Indian troops by air from the eastern to the western theatre in 1971 and the Maldives operation in 1988 are examples of strategic airlift.

- Tactical Airlift . A tactical airlift is the carriage of passengers and cargo within a theatre (intra-theatre). Tactical airlift is resorted to for rapid and responsive movement within an area of operations to meet specific tactical goals.

I am starting to support the idea of more C-17s.

[Philip]

PS:No,the comparative performance figs between the IL-76MD vs the IL-476-90A given are as follows for the aircraft in production:

Max payload.IL-76MD...48t vs IL-476-90A...60t

TO Thrust kgf. 4X 12,000 vs 4X 16000

MTO 190t vs 210t

476-90A Range,with 60t payload.....4000km, 48t....5300 km (3800/76MD), 40t...6500km (4750/76MD)

Cruising speed.....780-800kmn

Runway length.....2250m 76MD vs 2150m 476-90A

TO run with max TO weight 1,750m 76MD vs 1,600m 476-90A

Fuel Efficiency ,g/t-km232.4 76MD vs 187.1 476-90A

Crew 7 for 76MD vs 6 for 476-90A

So you can see that there is a substantial improvement in performance with the 476-90A over the earlier 76MD. A 20% increase in payload and 25% increase in range for the same.Plus other performance improvements all round.

The development of the specialised variants of the base model will be undertaken by Beriev,such as the new tanker to replace the IL-78.It is likely that the two extra AWACS Phalcons will have the IL-476-90A as the base platform.

NR,we are talking about "intercontinental strategic airlift" not just strategic airlift to a theatre of conflict,which in the Indian subcontinental context is only a few thousand Kms return if the aircraft are located in Central India.Secondly,what major heavy eqpt. did we need to transport in OP Cactus (Maldives) ? Troops and light armoured vehicles.In fact a flotilla of naval small craft would be also required. It is here,in our/IOR island territories that we also need a fleet of large amphibians for support,surveillance,etc.,which do not need an airfield to operate from.Amphibians can also support the fleet at sea.In the Maldives,there are more than "50" seaplane taxis which ferry tourists to the various island resorts,while the GOI doesn't even possess a single amphibian! It is only now that we are sending out RFPs for amphibians for both the IN and CG.There is a huge market for tourism awaiting a shrewd investor.

If we do take up the offer from Vietnam or anywhere else for establishing a base,naval and air,then we definitely need large heavyweights to transport the same,including aircraft,helos,and their accompanying components like engines etc.SAMs,SSMs,anti-ship missile batteries,mobile tracked SAM systems and other armoured vehicles as well.If subs are also to operate from these bases,then torpedoes,sub-launched missiles,etc. can be added to the list.

There is one unknown factor.Some old reports indicated that the usable IL-76MDs,with considerable life left in them would be upgraded,just as the AN-32s are being done.There hasn't been any news for some time.

[NRao]

Max payload.IL-76MD...48t vs IL-476-90A...60t

The point is that the Ilyushin website states 50T!!!!!

[nachiket]

Philip, where are those figures from? There doesn't seem to be a definitive source for IL-476 specs. This pravda link says 52 tons: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economi ... ircraft-0/

Also, it is the IL-76MD-90A which is also called IL-476. There is no IL-476-90A.

[Singha]

If its troops, their basic kit and first line weapons we want to move nothing like comandeering civilian a.c in emergency...a law exists doe that post 26/11 that govt can take any ac on tha tarmac in a real need.
In peacetime too i dont see why a bunch of a310 cannot move people in folded jumpseats and pallets between all our mil airports while an32 and later c130 does the last leg into the advanced landing grounds.
Not everything needs the rough field and stol features of mil haulers.
There would be cos which can provide service and airbus itself would have big mro probably in gulf, singapore or hong kong as second line.

[Philip]

These are latest Feb 2013 figures given in a comprehensive feature on the Il-476 in a reputed Russian mag ("Take-off",Russia's National Aerospace Mag),article by Andrey Fomin,which has sevral pics of the aircraft being built,prototypes and production aircraft.Even if the "ton/tonne" referred to are US and metric,the diff. is just 1.6%The "t" referred to is metric tonnes.The diff between imperial and metric tonnes are almost the same .

Yes,NR,you are right about designation.The new aircraft is called !L-76MD-90A,but since this causes some confusion with the earlier 76MD,the number "476" has also been unofficially used.In fact the title of the feature is the "Ilyushin 476.." The "90-A" refers to the new turbofans.

Before metrication in the UK the unit used for most purposes was the Imperial ton of 2,240 pounds avoirdupois (usually referred to as the long ton in the US), equivalent to 1,016 kg, differing by just 1.6% from the tonne. The UK Weights and Measures Act 1985 explicitly excluded from use for trade many units and terms, including the ton and the term "metric tonne".[7] However, for many purposes the Imperial ton and the tonne are so similar that it is not important to distinguish them, even in writing, and the spelling "ton" is still often used where "tonne" is meant. For example, even the Guinness Book of World Records accepts metrication without marking this by changing the spelling[citation needed]. In the United States metric ton is the name for this unit used and recommended by NIST;[4] an unqualified mention of a ton almost invariably refers to a short ton of 2,000 pounds (907 kg), and tonne is rarely used in speech or writing.

PS:Singha,did we commandeer any civ. a/c during Kargil,any info? In 71 we did.One good thing about open skies and pvt. airlines is that we now have a huge inventory of A-320s,737s and ATRs for any emergency.

[NRao]

Nice way to run a modern air force. Guess even a website needs some comic relief.

If you are not aware troop movement is not an adhoc, seat of the pants, 1919 means of thinking stuff. A lot of effort, thinking, modeling, etc goes into it. I am not too sure how deep India is into such things but bet they do have some investment into such technologies.

When they move troops everything moves - food, etc - and that logistics is on top of the troops moving.

Man!!!!

[NRao]

A few recent articles that we somehow missed:

AERO INDIA

Feb 5, 2013.

At the 9th International Exhibition on Aerospace, Defence & Civil Aviation AERO INDIA 2013, to be held in Bangalore from February 6 to 10, a Rosoboronexport delegation is to present the latest export models of Russian aviation and air defense equipment and discuss the promising areas in military-technical cooperation between Russia and India and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
AERO INDIA 2013 will give a new impetus to strong positive military-technical cooperation between Russia and India and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Here, Rosoboronexport will present the Yak-130 combat trainer, Il-78MK-90 tanker, the newest Il-76MD-90A military transport aircraft, Be-200 multipurpose amphibian, Mi-35M, Mi-26T2, Ka-31 and Ka-226T helicopters, as well as many other new samples of the Russian aircraft industry, including training aids and airborne weapons.

Russian planes and helicopters have proven to be worthy in the Asia-Pacific region. The fact that India’s Republic Day Parade 2012 started with a flyover by the newest Mi-17V-5 military transport helicopters, which were given the honor of carrying the National Flag and the Army, Navy and Air Force flags, was a clear evidence of India’s strong confidence in Russian aviation equipment.

Building an antiaircraft and missile defense system, without which it is impossible to talk about the reliable security of any state, is very promising for the development of a military-technical dialogue with the countries in the region, particularly with India. With its vast experience in this sphere, Russia will showcase a wide range of reliable systems capable of providing assured protection for military installations, administrative and political centers, and infrastructure components in India – the Antey-2500 ADMS, Tor-M2E and Buk-M2E SAM systems, as well as the Pantsir-S1 SPAAAGM system and Igla-S MANPADS.`

Rosoboronexport Deputy Director General Viktor Komardin heading the joint Rostec and Rosoboronexport delegation noted that in cooperation with India Rosoboronexport came over, de facto, from traditional sales pattern to joint development of the latest equipment.

“As of now, the first preliminary design phase of the fifth generation fighter program has been successfully completed and work on the multi-role transport aircraft (MTA) is progressing on schedule. In addition, the BrahMos supersonic missile is to be integrated by the Indian side into a Russian air platform, - said Viktor Komardin. - It is with Russia that India works jointly on truly exclusive, large-scale and mutually beneficial projects. The answer to it is quite simple: no country, except Russia, is willing to give India advanced military technology.”

He also said that in Bangalore India and Russia will continue to discuss the further Su-30MKI fighter modernization program, which will affect virtually all components of the aircraft.
The issues relating to the implementation of offset programs by the Russian side in broad cooperation with Indian partners, as well as the prospects for further cooperation on the offset obligations in the MTC area will also be raised. One such project is a program proposed by Rosoboronexport, which is bidding to supply 197 reconnaissance and surveillance helicopters. The uniqueness of the Russian proposal is that owing to its performance the newest Ka-226T multirole helicopter is perfect for carrying out combat missions specified by the customer; moreover, the offset program proposed by Russia is also very attractive for the Indian industry.

JSC Rosoboronexport – the sole state company in Russia authorized to export the full range of defense and dual-use products, technologies and services. It is part of the Rostec Corporation. Rosoboronexport is ranked among the leaders of the global arms market and accounts for over 80% of Russia’s annual arms sales. Rosoboronexport cooperates with more than 700 enterprises and organizations of Russia’s defense industrial complex. Russia maintains military-technical cooperation with over 70 countries worldwide.

Rostec is Russian corporation established in 2007 in order to assist high technology civil and military goods designing, production and exportation. It comprises 663 enterprises which form 8 military-industrial complex and 5 civil industry holdings. The companies of Rostec are located in 60 regions of Russia and cater for the markets of over 70 countries. Net profit in 2011 was 45.6 billion roubles, and overall taxation totalled 100 billion roubles.

[NRao]

Feb 11, 2013 :: AERO INDIA: United Aircraft boss urges full MTA contract

United Aircraft (UAC) wants a contract for full-scale development of the Indian/Russian Medium Transport Aircraft (MTA) to be signed later this year, following the completion of the current project definition and draft design phase, says UAC president Mikhail Pogosyan.

A group of 30 personnel from Hindustan Aeronautics have been working with their Ilyushin counterparts in Moscow since December 2012 on the draft design, and freezing the specification will enable the current aggressive MTA schedule to be met, Pogosyan said at the Aero India show near Bengaluru.



Meanwhile, Ilyushin general director and general designer Victor Livanov confirms the Aviadvigatel PS-90A76 engine already selected for the Il-76MD-90/90A transport is the primary candidate to power a development prototype and initial batch of production aircraft due to appear in the 2017-2018 timeframe.

The newer and more fuel-efficient PS-14 engine being developed for Irkut's MC-21 narrowbody airliner is likely to power later examples of the MTA. But an earlier Indian proposal to use the CFM International CFM56 has been dropped after an evaluation of its thermal dynamics and required performance when operating from hot, high and dusty airfields.

However, the final engine choice remains the responsibility of the MTAL joint venture and the Russian and Indian air forces. Specialists from both services are working closely with the industry to determine the maximum airfield elevation for operating the MTA from, with "an idea" to increase an earlier maximum target of 10,800ft (3,300m) to 13,400ft. Livanov says that if this is advanced, "the PS-90A76 might not deliver the required thrust and come short in other characteristics".

So, another shoe falls (the first was regarding the Strategic Lift of the C-17 in the Indian context - being valid).

This shoe relates to when the IL-476 would be operational:
1) Ilyushin general director and general designer Victor Livanov confirms (sorry Mr. Putin),
2) the Aviadvigatel PS-90A76 engine already selected for the Il-76MD-90/90A transport is the primary candidate to power a development prototype (to be sure, this is the IL-476 we keep hearing about - it is in the development stage for this engine), AND
3) (drum roll please - sorry) initial batch of production aircraft due to appear in the 2017-2018 timeframe. That is 2017-18. Operational after a few years after that I would imagine? Soooooo.... around 2020ish?

This IL-476 is striking out. With a 50T capacity, ..................................

[member_23455]

So, another shoe falls (the first was regarding the Strategic Lift of the C-17 in the Indian context - being valid).

You mean another bogey shot down. One is never going to convince folks who don't let facts get in the way of opinion in which they are emotionally invested in.

Here's looking forward to the C-17 doing some kick ass stuff of its own like the Herky Bird below

[Austin]

Update on An-70 program

An-70 : Back In the Air [Piotr Butowski/Air International]

An-70-1
An-70-2
An-70-3
An-70-4
An-70-5

[SagarAg]

WOW look at them drop.

[NRao]

Update on An-70 program

An-70 : Back In the Air [Piotr Butowski/Air International]

An-70-1
An-70-2
An-70-3
An-70-4
An-70-5

Is the IAf seriously considering this plane (to be in this thread that is)?

[Austin]

Who knows may be may be not , I cannot read into IAF's mind

I just posted it since it was related to transport and we had discussion on AN-70 some thread back

[vic]

Both PAKFA and MRTA is going in same direction. All Indian money and no India participation in R&D. The only thing we can recover from these JVs is possible license manufacture of engines like PD-14. but I can bet Russians are going to ask for more money for that.