Transport Aircraft for IAF

[nachiket]

--DELETED--

[NRao]

You see first MKI was brought into the debate , when pointed out that analogy was wrong.

Not to drag this any further, I brought the MKI into the discussion and do not find anything wrong with what I said. I just do not think you understood what I said. But that is OK.

[nachiket]

No it may not fulfill the exact same role, but that is the WHOLE point is it not. To define the roles in a generic enough manner to have multiple possible solutions. That is precisely the WHOLE aim of DPP to create a true multi-vendor scenario.

And yes, for IAF the role is fairly generic in terms of transporters in the payload range mentioned. These are overlapping segments between tactical and strategic (An 120s are clearly strategic) neither C 17 is pure strategic and neither is Airbus offering a so low to be a hopper flight.

A multi-vendor scenario is not about evaluating everything from a Do-228 to the AN-124 every time the IAF needs to buy a transport aircraft. It is about evaluating very similar offerings in the same class from different manufacturers. The A400M and C-17 are not even remotely in the same class. If the Il-476 can really carry 60 tonnes, then the A400M is not in the same category as the IL-476 either. If the IAF wants a heavy lifter, the IL-476 and C-17 are the only game in town today (not counting the Y-20 for obvious reasons). Back when IAF was evaluating the C-17, even the IL-476 wasn't available. Similarly, if the IAF wants a really big jet to fly outsized loads, they will evaluate the AN-124. They won't send an RFP for the C-5 galaxy, because they know its not available. If they want something to replace the AN-32's (tactical medium transport) they'll look at the C-295 and C-27J. They won't bother with the C-17.

In this segment the important thing is not the payload per se, but more in terms of airfields where they can operate out of and range and for IAF Airbus ranges are more than sufficient where it has traditionally operated and will operate in all foreseeable future.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Payload is the most important thing for any transport aircraft. That is what defines which category they fall under. The C-130 can fly wherever the An-32 can. That doesn't mean it is feasible for the IAF to replace all AN-32's with C-130s. Or vice-versa, to keep flying AN-32's even when they have more stuff to transport and there are C-130's available. Payload is key. Of course operatibility in various conditions matters as well, just like operating cost, etc. That's why they tested the C-17 at our highest airfield. The IAF didn't blindly buy it just looking at brochures.

Well does it seem ridiculous to have Gripen and EF in the same competition? Then why roll eyes at this?

Not necessarily. Saab, claimed on paper at least that the NG version could carry a payload almost equal to the Typhoon. And they had a prototype flying, that could be tested by the IAF (unlike the IL-476). So they had to check out if the Gripen was indeed that capable. Turns out it wasn't.

[Austin]

* Next data point seems to be Aero 2009 and Paris Show 2009
* Indian interest in the C-17 appears in reports around Nov, 2009.
* June, 2010 :: C 17 Globemaster-III is in India for trials
* Deal signed in June, 2011

That is over a 4 year span!!!!

More like from Nov 2009 to June 2011 almost 2 years since trials took place in 2010 , Since getting C-17 to Aero India is more like for display there are many who come there with different aircraft.

A ~ $4 -5 billion deal in 2 years is a record time by Indian Procurement Standards. If they had applied the same haste for other projects then we would have got the Howitzer and MMRCA deal done 8-10 years back.

Another data point http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/08/b ... -c-17.html

For Rohrabacher, the big issue here is local employment, not Pakistan. The C-17 production line, which creates some 5000 jobs at Long Beach (and another 17,000 elsewhere in the US), will shut down by end-2014 after building India’s ten C-17s and the US Air Force’s last seven aircraft.

This has forced a deadline on the IAF, which plans to order at least six more C-17s, but only after evaluating its operational performance when it joins the IAF fleet next June. A top Boeing executive today told Business Standard that, unless additional international orders came in, Sept 2013 would be the cut-off date for the IAF to order additional aircraft. After that date, the process of shutting down the production line would begin.

“As of now, India would need to take a decision on additional C-17s by the third quarter of next year. There are other countries that are expressing interest in the C-17. If they place an order, India’s deadline would extend,” says Mark Kronenberg, Boeing’s International Business Development chief.

[NRao]

Since it is a political decision that time is ok, there is no haste. India did get her 123, which has to be tied to this deal.

For the same reason we cannot compare it to any other procurement.

The only question I would have is is the IAF happy. Seems they are - as best as I can see. But as I have said before the true test would come when they evaluate the first one and then decide to or not to accept the six options.

No matter what India cannot get the 476 till 2020, and by then the cost should esccalate to $200 mil per copy.

[pentaiah]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/il- ... rts-07569/

IL-476: Russia’s New Medium-Heavy Transport Jet
Feb 18, 2013 14:19 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff Civil IL-76TD-90VD
(click to view full)
Russia is reported to have just over 115 IL-76 medium-heavy strategic transport planes, but they’re leftovers from the Soviet era. On Oct 1/12 they unveiled the modernized “IL-476″ variant, and within days Russia’s Defense Ministry had signed a RUB 140 billion contract to begin recapitalizing the VVS fleet, alongside the 60 AN-70 medium tactical transports ordered in August 2012.

The order also launches the IL-476 as a competitor in the global medium-heavy transport market. Production of Ilyushin’s design will be undertaken by state-owned UAC’s Aviastar subsidiary in Ulyanovsk.


Russia’s IL-476

click for video
UAC’s releases refer to IL-76MD-90A aircraft, and the 2 designations can be used interchangeably. The IL-476 has a number of similarities to the new civil IL-76TD-90VD, with quieter and more efficient Aviadvigatel (Perm) PS-90A-76 engines, modern digital avionics and navigation suites, plus a modernized wing design that includes a modified fuel system, reinforced landing gear, and a reinforced body for military missions. Payload has reportedly increased to around 52t/ 57.3 tons, with a range of about 5,000 km fully loaded.

Compared to previous IL-76 aircraft, the IL-476 reportedly offers an 18% boost to range, a 12% improvement in fuel consumption, better performance in hot temperatures and high altitudes, and a 10.6% improvement in cargo load. It also reportedly complies with international noise and emission standards, which affects the routes it can be certified to fly.

This level of performance places them well above competitors like the 35t+ capacity Airbus A400M turboprop, but below the more expensive Boeing C-17′s 77.5t capacity. On the other hand, the C-17′s production line is expected to shut down within a few years, leaving the global medium-heavy market to the IL-476, Airbus A400M, AN-70, and China’s new Y-20.

In August 2011, RIA Novosti reported that future buys are expected to bring the IL-476′s Russian orders to about 100 planes over time, with another 50 planes expected as exports.

In the past, Russian IL-76 prices have even allowed them to compete with medium airlifters like the C-130. Russia’s problem has been their reputation for poor reliability, and poor service. So far, Russian officials have acknowledged IL-476 talks with India and China. Both countries already use the IL-76 family, but India has just begun supplementing its fleet with Boeing’s C-17s, and China has just introduced its own Y-20.

Contracts & Key Events

Competitor: Y-20
click for video
Feb 11/13: Russia’s VVF may be about to recommend withdrawal from the AN-70 program, in favor of the new IL-476 jet transport:

“The Russian Air Force is preparing to brief against the country’s proposed acquisition of the An-70 transport aircraft, according to Russian media reports…. drew particular attention to production delays in the programme, with production models of the aircraft still not ready for static testing…. also cited criticisms about the aircraft’s wings, developed in the 1980s and built by the now-defunct Tashkent Aircraft Production Organization (TAPO) based in Uzbekistan; the electronic control systems; and avionics.

The first An-70 fuselage was completed in December 2012, but work at the Russian plant in the city of Kazan has yet to commence. The delays have caused concerns in Russia…”

If Russia’s political leadership terminates their 60-plane order, it would probably spell the end of the AN0-70 project, and remove a global competitor to the IL-476. See
IHS Jane’s | Flight International .

Feb 5/13: +9 Russia? VVF MTA commander Col. Gen. Vladimir Benediktov says that the force will receive a total of 48 IL-476 heavy transport planes by 2020, rather than the 39 announced by all of the parties concerned.

RIA Novosti appears to be the only source for this report.

Jan 28/13: Testing. Aviastar SP announces that their IL-76MD-90A has performed its 1st major flight test from Ulyanovsk-Vostochny, after it had been painted and all its systems and equipment had been checked and tested. The flight lasted 4 hours 25 minutes, and future test flights will take place from Zhukovsky, near Moscow.

Nov 30/12: Competition. China orders 10 used IL-76s from Russia’s arms vendor Rosoboronexport as an interim measure. Sergei Kornev, head of Rosoboronexport’s aviation equipment department, tells AIN that the follow-on IL-476 is being offered to China, and also to India.

China would later go on to unveil its own Y-20 heavy jet transport, reportedly powered by the same D30K engines that equip the IL-76. The IL-476′s much-improved PS-90A-76 engines would certainly be helpful as templates for boosting China’s own “WS-20″ engine development efforts. A small order for IL-476s would secure them, but China could also ask for a direct engine sale. Or poach engineers as Russia moves to consolidate its aviation work. Or take a leaf from the Americans, and hope the civilian CJ-1000A engine being developed for China’s C919 passenger jet succeeds. AIN | WSJ China RealTime Report re: Y-20 | Flight International re: Y-20.

Oct 4/12: Contract. Russia’s Defense Ministry signs a RUB 140 billion (about $4.5 billion) contract for 39 IL-476s, to begin recapitalizing the VVS MTA’s fleet. Deliveries are expected to run from 2014 through 2020.

This contract would equate to about $115 million per plane, but the VVF will also be paying for spares, training infrastructure and training for the new aircraft, and other initial fielding costs.

They IL-476s will serve in the future Russian air force alongside the 60 AN-70 medium tactical transports ordered in August 2012, and UAC expects about 59 more IL-476 orders from Russia over time. UAC | RIA Novosti | RIA Novosti follow-up .

Initial order: 39 for Russia

Oct 1/12: Rollout. The IL-476 is formally presented by Minister for Industry Denis Manturov, after performing 2 short test flights. Note that some of the statistics in this article, especially percentage improvements, are contradicted by official sources. The IL-476 does offer improvements, but the figures are different. Pravda .

IL-476 unveiled

Additional Readings

Aviastar SP – IL-76MD-90A
Categories: Contracts - Awards, Events, Force Structure, New Systems Tech, Other Corporation, Russia, Transport & Utility

[pentaiah]

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013 ... rojection/

.
Driving Additional Jet Engine Investment

The Y-20’s capabilities are reportedly close to those of Russia’s Il-476, with one important exception: The Y-20’s Russian D-30KP2 engines lack the thrust and efficiency of the Il-476’s PS-90A76 turbofans. In a sign that even China’s aviation Achilles’ heel – engines – is now receiving major resources, China is developing a high-thrust turbofan called the WS-20 to fill this role as part of a major aeroengine resource and technology push. While progress will likely take time, reports suggest China could invest up to 300 billion yuan ($49 billion) in jet engine development by 2035. Acquisition of foreign technology and breakthroughs in recruiting foreign experts could help accelerate China’s jet engine development.

Financial considerations and a belief that Chinese jet engine makers are behind the Russian technical curve will likely motivate Russia to permit transfers of additional jet engines over the next 2-3 years despite the significant risk AVIC will reverse engineer key portions, if not the entire powerplant. Meanwhile, Ukrainian engineers are already readily available, and their Russian counterparts may become increasingly so as Russia moves its aviation contractor headquarters from prime city real estate near aging engineers’ apartments to Zhukovsky Airfield, which lies 45 km from downtown Moscow and is a long commute even under the best of circumstances given the capital’s congested roads.

[Victor]

Even though C-17 is 5 times more expensive, IAF and MoD want to save even more Boeing jobs by doubling the order. We could have bought 100 Il-476s for the same money if they become available. So what if they cost Rs 20,000 to transport each ton over a lifetime of 20 years instead of Rs 10,000 per ton over 40 years? How many times will we land in Leh and Lhasa? And all our airfields are long enough so why do we need STOL? Stupid, corrupt IAF, MoD.

[Singha]

^

the Il-476 supporters would be better served by reading up plans to restart the AN124 and its value proposition. I find it more attractive than this endless debate over the corpse of what is merely the very low end of a strategic transport band.
there is no meat on the corpse anymore, just a few shreds of skin and bones but argumentive indians are still at it.

[Philip]

Singha,as far as the AN 124 is concerned,Russian numbers aren't enough to justify a resumption of production right now,according to last reports some months ago.However,there is plenty of "meat on the bone" as far as the IL-476/76-90A is concerned,39 of them ordered by Putin and co. ,under production ,with first deliveries next year,plus an expected Russian order book alone of 100+ including tanker variants of the earlier IL-78s.Remember,over 900 Il-76MDs were built for the SU and export customers earlier.these aircraft need replacing and the IL-476/76-90A will have a lot of customers.

If we need right now an aircraft like the AN-124,then like NATO we should just lease them when required as has been done in Afghanistan.

[arnab]

Even though C-17 is 5 times more expensive, IAF and MoD want to save even more Boeing jobs by doubling the order. We could have bought 100 Il-476s for the same money if they become available. So what if they cost Rs 20,000 to transport each ton over a lifetime of 20 years instead of Rs 10,000 per ton over 40 years? How many times will we land in Leh and Lhasa? And all our airfields are long enough so why do we need STOL? Stupid, corrupt IAF, MoD.

heh heh - I'm reminded of that old joke. A man goes to a fish shop and asks for the price of salmon. He is told that it is $25 a kilo. The man is shocked and tells the fishmonger that -'"this is too expensive, the shop next door would have sold it to me for $20, if he had it!" The fishmonger replies - 'Sir if I did not have it, I would sell it to you for $15 a kilo'

The point is, if you are not building it yourself - you are saving somebody else's job - be it US or Russian. If that is the case, I might as well get a proven aircraft from a proven supplier.

[Sanku]

A multi-vendor scenario is not about evaluating everything from a Do-228 to the AN-124 every time the IAF needs to buy a transport aircraft.
[/quote]

Obviously not

It is about evaluating very similar offerings in the same class from different manufacturers

Explain Gripen and EF in MRCA.

Your opinion does not a fact make you know.

[nachiket]

Explain Gripen and EF in MRCA.

I already did. Read the last part of my post.

[Sanku]

Explain Gripen and EF in MRCA.

I already did. Read the last part of my post.

Not fully no, this is what you said.

Not necessarily. Saab, claimed on paper at least that the NG version could carry a payload almost equal to the Typhoon. And they had a prototype flying, that could be tested by the IAF (unlike the IL-476). So they had to check out if the Gripen was indeed that capable. Turns out it wasn't.

Payload is one thing, there is also range, endurance, and many many other factors. EF and Gripen are significantly different, and Gripen prototype was provided just for IAF. There were also Il 476 prototypes, or they could be put together quickly if needed.

If Gripen was a valid contended in MRCA, Il 476 was a far more valid contender, but some one has to express interest for the matter to begin with

[vic]

We have to focus on indigenous "solutions" to defense issues rather than only indigenous replacements. For instance, instead of spending Rs 30,000 crore on C-17s should we have gone in for better rail-road network?

[Sanku]

We have to focus on indigenous "solutions" to defense issues rather than only indigenous replacements. For instance, instead of spending Rs 30,000 crore on C-17s should we have gone in for better rail-road network?

I think this is a valid thought experiment, the money needs to be spent on a solution rather than a product. A better road-rail network might actually work better. However that really expands the scope of complexity of discussions.

Very difficult to address all the trade offs on a forum like this.

[srin]

The way we are going about this entire thing doesn't make sense.

We are operating multiple Il-76 based variants in different roles - tankers, cargo, AWACS - and we've selected A330 for tankers, and we want to do our own AWACS in future. Both Il-76 and A330 are very similar wrt MTOW.

That's a large number to order and it starts becoming economical to manufacture them here. That would alleviate concerns about spare parts etc.

We do need airframes that can serve us (with minor variations) as tankers, cargo, AWACS and maritime patrol (okay, for the bomb truck fans, let me throw in bombers too).

It is not as if we haven't done this before.
We got the basic ALH Dhruv as basic airframe+engines package. We can then play as long as we want with engines (putting Shakti engines) or changing airframe (LCH), downscale it (LUH), etc.

I'm surprised that nobody has offered a JV (like we are doing for MTA) to corner a huge market. I'm equally surprised that we haven't started a pushing for such a thing ourselves.

[Sanku]

I'm surprised that nobody has offered a JV (like we are doing for MTA) to corner a huge market. I'm equally surprised that we haven't started a pushing for such a thing ourselves.

Yours truly has been shouting from the roof tops for something precisely like this, and one of the chief complaints I have with 5 billion khairat to US. This fund could be the corner stone of getting exactly what you outlined.

Alas, people prefer to believe Boeing than a Indian.

[negi]

Arnab you are pursuing a wrong line of argument MKI's primary control systems are Russian with Indian mission computer , the BARS radar is more powerful than the western AC which were built in the same timeframe so using your logic should I say since we did not replace that with western stuff Russians make better firmware for control laws and RADARs than the west ? You see what happens when you see the facts from a prism clouded by one's bias ? The mix of avionics chosen for MKI has primarily to do with what IAF wants that AC for nothing more nothing less. Only the targeting pod and navigation subsystem uses Israeli or French products.

We have also replaced the DL-II and IFF module on P8Is does that give India bragging rights over the west when it comes to such stuff ?

[Singha]

400M - it is already part of some euro consortium and euro unions are loathe to lose jobs
C17 - the max 20 units we may end up with is not a huge order and in no way justifies the huge expense of a production line here. oter than usaf all are single digit holders.
AN70 - cheen has been crawling up its backside for a long time now to harvest technology and ideas.

what else - I dont see any off the shelf design waiting for a interest buyer to sign up.

given the hash we are making of Saras and the RTA with trickle funding and hot air statements, imagining a quick soln to a much larger aircraft is not on.

[Sanku]

given the hash we are making of Saras and the RTA with trickle funding and hot air statements, imagining a quick soln to a much larger aircraft is not on.

Not quick solution, but wouldnt a 5 billion injection into the system fix at least part of the problem? And the fact we have put the money change the situation from hot air to firm commitment?

[member_20453]

Arnab put it quite correctly, the ideal case would be to build something ourselves as long as we don't, we are just feeding jobs elsewhere. As said before we have saved of plenty of Russian and Soviet jobs for decades so this order of 20 and hopefully more C-17s shouldn't be seen in such a light. We haven't done multi vendor deals every time. No body has any issues with the massive order of Mi-17s that keeps the Kazan factory churning out hardware for years. All this job saving bs is hogwash, few years ago before the Russian order of the IL-476; they were looking for buyers to restart the factories and now Boeing is likewise looking for orders to keep the factory running. The Mig factory pratically survives on Indian orders.There is nothing wrong with a business enterprise looking for business and there is absolutley nothing wrong in a willing buyer get what they want. IAF wanted this bird just like they wanted the C-130J or the Mi-17, they ordered it and will evaluate if they can order more before the factory shuts down.

The price for the birds themselves was around 1.8 billion thats 180 mil per bird and 4.1 billion total which includes life time service package + offsets. This is pretty ok to me. Buy another 30, we'd get them for 5.4 billion + another 4 to 5 billion service package with a lot more TOT, local manufacture of all spares and offsets. I think 40 is great number to have of the Prithviraj. Far more useful due to its range, capacity and volume, it allows to carry more of our conventional missile arsenal on board giving great flexibility during a war. Due to reduced use during peacetime, many of them can be stored, we can use this fleet for well over 50 years

[nachiket]

Payload is one thing, there is also range, endurance, and many many other factors. EF and Gripen are significantly different, and Gripen prototype was provided just for IAF. There were also Il 476 prototypes, or they could be put together quickly if needed.

If Gripen was a valid contended in MRCA, Il 476 was a far more valid contender, but some one has to express interest for the matter to begin with

You can't "put together" a 100 tonne aircraft willy-nilly. The IL-76 assembly line wasn't operational beyond building a few left-over half-finished airframes. And the IL-476 has a longer fuselage, new engines, glass cockpit, etc. The first prototype is still undergoing certification tests and it flew more than a year after the C-17 deal was signed like I keep on repeating here. I am not arguing that the IL-476 was not an option, technically speaking. I only made that argument against the A400M (and that argument still stands, your rather creative interpretation of a "multi-vendor" deal notwithstanding). My only argument against the IL-476 was that it did not exist back then. If the IAF had been looking for a new heavy transporter today, it could definitely give the IL-476 a look.

If you are claiming that a flying IL-476 prototype existed back in 2009, please post the links.

[Sanku]

Arnab put it quite correctly, the ideal case would be to build something ourselves as long as we don't, we are just feeding jobs elsewhere.

That binary scenario, viz, if we cant make it ourselves all imports are identical is a very typical equal-equalities type of logical fallacy we see in many places (often by same people, such as BJP has one case of corruption, Congress has 100000000000 cases of corruption, but since there is corruption in both parties, all parties are the same)

That is precisely why there is a DPP, to put guidelines in ways where even when we import, we import in a manner which creates
local knowhow
local manufacturing
best prices

i.e. excellent RoI. MRCA and other such multi vendor competition are excellent examples of how even when import is needed, how to do it well.

C 17 is a perfect example of how to do it horridly.

It may serve many interests to miss out the obvious differences, but it does not mean that there are no differences. The equalities buizness is just silly.

[Sanku]

You can't "put together" a 100 tonne aircraft willy-nilly. The IL-76 assembly line wasn't operational beyond building a few left-over half-finished airframes. And the IL-476 has a longer fuselage, new engines, glass cockpit, etc. The first prototype is still undergoing certification tests and it flew more than a year after the C-17 deal was signed

If the RFIs had gone out in 2008, responses and tests would be happening in 2010-12 time frame. Enough time for putting together 1-2 prototypes.

There was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to force a closure on this issue in 1-2 year flat, especially when a 5 billion $ figure is associated.

FAR MORE CRITICAL equipment, at lesser value are put through a far greater due diligence than this.

Here the whole aim seemed to basically acquire C 17 within the year rather than -- do the best for a transport plane requirement.

The whole hurry without multivendor is itself a dead giveaway that something is very rotten.

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

After deliberately creating a situation where no one but one plane could come in -- a claim is made that there was only one plane. Of course there was only one plane, the requirements and steps were done such that ONLY one plane could have a hope.

[nachiket]

^^I am not going to fault the IAF for including a requirement that the aircraft should exist, at least in prototype form when the IAF starts with the process. I am also not going to fault them for not waiting till the IL-476 got ready, because frankly back in 2008-09, it was little more than a paper plane and there was no indication of when it will be ready and in what form. In hindsight, IAF's decision seems to have been the right one, considering that the aircraft is still in the testing phase, while the IAF's first C-17 is all set to be delivered this year.

However, if as you said in your earlier post, that IL-476 prototypes were available or could be "put together quickly", please post some links to back that up. I haven't read anything during that period to draw such conclusions. Other than this, I really have nothing more to add here. Please continue to believe whatever CT you want to. I won't try to change your mind.

[Sanku]

^^I am not going to fault the IAF for including a requirement that the aircraft should exist, at least in prototype form when the IAF starts with the process. .

Many straw men are being knocked down unfortunately.
1) No is faulting IAF. MoD is being faulted. I would say IAF has a small roll in this.
2) MoD is being faulted for not following its own procedures.
3) MoD is being faulted for deliberately hurrying into a deal which side steps many critical points for a effective acquisition.

As to "prove that there was a option" -- well the proof is that there are flying prototypes of Il 476 and Airbus in 2012. Had the tests been conducted in a multi vendor manner, the a/c would very well be there.

There are no CTs. All data is in public domain. Only one has to stop being in denial.

[NRao]

The way we are going about this entire thing doesn't make sense.

We are operating multiple Il-76 based variants in different roles - tankers, cargo, AWACS - and we've selected A330 for tankers, and we want to do our own AWACS in future. Both Il-76 and A330 are very similar wrt MTOW.

Please read the article I posted on the topic of MRO. Here is a single quote:

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.

There seems to be a very good reason for the shift to "Western" things. (That article was from 2012.)

That's a large number to order and it starts becoming economical to manufacture them here. That would alleviate concerns about spare parts etc.

Orders of what? And "here" I assume means India.

We do need airframes that can serve us (with minor variations) as tankers, cargo, AWACS and maritime patrol (okay, for the bomb truck fans, let me throw in bombers too).

"minor"? (See the article I posted quoting the director of the IL-476 program from Ilyshin, on how long it will take to get the IL-476 out to production. Seems to be talking of a bland transport as far as I can see.)

It is not as if we haven't done this before.
We got the basic ALH Dhruv as basic airframe+engines package. We can then play as long as we want with engines (putting Shakti engines) or changing airframe (LCH), downscale it (LUH), etc.

These examples took years. Not that India should not try and build a good transport. But it will take at least 15 years or more.

I'm surprised that nobody has offered a JV (like we are doing for MTA) to corner a huge market. I'm equally surprised that we haven't started a pushing for such a thing ourselves.

(Read on the MTA - it is far from a done deal. They are about to freeze the requirements.)

Do you have an idea of what the demand could be for a heavy transport (for military purposes)?

Russians claimed they had a demand for about a 100 copies. Then they were expecting orders from "partners" (China, India, etc). So, say around 200 copies. To date Russia has two orders: one for 39 and another for 10. None so far from China - I had expected them to place a decent amount by now. And none so far from India. Does not mean that they will not get orders, just that it is not that easy to "corner" a market which is very sensitive.

Russia may solve the parts issue, but they have no supply chain to talk of for sure (granted it is not easy). India is building one very slowly.

Point being, even if India were to venture into this area (heavy military transports) - even a JV, it should take about 15-20 years to push the first one out. So, I feel that India should try but not mix and match to supplant the C-17. The IL-476 is not even close (I am not sure what the RuAF is getting in 2014). And the cost? No idea, but teh $5 billion will not hold any water.

There are two article I posted on page 45, please take a moment to read them. One is on MRO (2012) and the other on the IL-476 situation (Aero India 2013).

[Singha]

for those not aware, the Dhruv first flew around 1992. it entered service in some form around 5 yrs ago and later got the ardigen engine. the comfort factor, plug n play and playing around with Dhruv tech for LUH/Rudra/LCH only happened from around 2007....before that was around 20 yrs of hard work. LUH is not even started properly, the first Rudra has just been handed over and the LCH is a couple yrs away from IOC.

so India making a decent mil transport is not going to happen overnight for sure even if all the money, people and tech tieups were to magically happen in a day. sending 50-100 HAL people to work with ilyushin in russia is a step toward making that happen later. right now we have zero design and test background exp in mil airlifters even in the AN32 size. hopefully if the MTA works out, we will have a platform to play with for sundry roles including rivet joint and jstars. some additional design aspects like provision to fit ram air electric generators and C130 style extra fixed fuel tanks under the wings, redundant electric systems with extra capacity for mission racks can be built in from design stage, modular rest area for extra crew ...

until then the rickety mix of EMB, astra, gulfstreams.....

[NRao]

More out of curiosity, wonder if India did approach Japan for the Kawasaki C-2




Seems to be a copy of the MTA with the Russians and it is 13 years into development. Expensive I would imagine.

[srin]

Singha Saar - it can't be one or the other, it has to be both.

The C-17 requirement didn't come today, the requirement existed, but probably avenues were closed till 15 years ago or we didn't have money 10 years ago.

Procure as you want, but spend money on local development too, so that it pays off later.

If we start co-development today, it may take around 10 years or even 15 years - will the demand for 50t payload truck go away by that time ?

If that is too long to wait, then atleast go for local manufacturing of this Il-476 or the A330 or equivalent, and pay for the design specs too. So, if we decide, it can become our bomber, our tanker and everything needed from that class.

[srin]

More out of curiosity, wonder if India did approach Japan for the Kawasaki C-2




Seems to be a copy of the MTA with the Russians and it is 13 years into development. Expensive I would imagine.

Hmm - MTA seems to be of different weight class ?

Kawasaki C-2: 140t
HAL MTA: 70t

The only thing close is A400M.

[NRao]

^^^^^

Ah, thanks. Got lost in a URL.

The C-290 (Brazil) is close at 23 T (to MTA at 22T) (C-130 at 20T). The two others seem to be around 37T. (Hope I got all that right.)

[nachiket]

^^Srin is talking about the aircraft weight, not payload.

[arnab]

Many straw men are being knocked down unfortunately.
1) No is faulting IAF. MoD is being faulted. I would say IAF has a small roll in this.
2) MoD is being faulted for not following its own procedures.
3) MoD is being faulted for deliberately hurrying into a deal which side steps many critical points for a effective acquisition.

As to "prove that there was a option" -- well the proof is that there are flying prototypes of Il 476 and Airbus in 2012. Had the tests been conducted in a multi vendor manner, the a/c would very well be there.

There are no CTs. All data is in public domain. Only one has to stop being in denial.

What data saar? Can you prove that MoD did not follow the DPP? There would be a parliamentary enquiry if it did not (or you could put in a PIL in court accusing MoD of the same. Afterall it is a $4-$5 bn issue - just do it for the country).

What is the point of a 'prototype' in 2012 which would enter IAF service only around 2020 after evaluations are undertaken? I'm sure if we hang around till 2020 - US /Europe will have another prototype of a transport aircraft available. So should we also wait around for that? or do we hang around only till Rodina gets a chance and then close the gates?

The other chestnut is being bandied about is that far more 'critical' equipment is not being similarly fast forwarded. This is a subjective assessment. I don't think the army or the IAF has put out a list of equipment needed in order of priority. If they have - please show it to us.

So Sanku ji is doing what he does best - pass off opinions as facts

[arnab]

Payload is one thing, there is also range, endurance, and many many other factors. EF and Gripen are significantly different, and Gripen prototype was provided just for IAF. There were also Il 476 prototypes, or they could be put together quickly if needed.

If Gripen was a valid contended in MRCA, Il 476 was a far more valid contender, but some one has to express interest for the matter to begin with

offtopic but - btw the key factor in the evaluation of the MMRCA was the 'MR' bit ('multi-role'). Gripen and the EF are comparable in that role.

Built to replace the Swedish Air Force’s Saab Draken and Viggen fighters, the Gripen project is becoming a popular rival to the European Eurofighter (Typhoon). Saab have won contracts to supply the air forces of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Thailand and South African, beating over Eurofighter to the contracts with its latest incarnation of the Gripen

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2012/01/ ... rival.html

Now even Switzerland is supposedly acquiring it after rejecting both the rafale and Typhoon.

[Singha]

Japan was working on a small lrmp but with four jet engines. With euros scandal ridden and out of favour i wonder if that can fill the medium mrmp role...a downspecced p8 is also on offer.

[srin]

^^Srin is talking about the aircraft weight, not payload.

Yes - talking about MTOW, not the payload weight. Sorry, I should've mentioned it.

[SidSom]

The C-290 (Brazil) is close at 23 T (to MTA at 22T) (C-130 at 20T). The two others seem to be around 37T. (Hope I got all that right.)

Oh Lord. We are going to go through the Arjun vs T-90/72 story all over again when the MTA comes out. One section is going to be calling for scrapping the MTA to convert them to C-130. Brace for it

Edit 1: for formatting

[Philip]

It's a bit late now for thinking about a JV heavylfter.Unortunately we keep on missing the boat.Look at the DO-228,Fokkers,etc.We are the only nation building the DO-228 and yet we let RUAG buy the company and we are nerely the builders/sub-contractors! The IL-476 was a missed opportunity.We could've got involved in some manner,just as doors ad other components are being made for Boeing/Airbus,whoever.Our own requirements would've been about 40 aircraft alone.With several hundreds for Russia over time and other exports.Plus Tanker and AWCS/EW versions.

Similarly,even though the AN-32s are being upgraded and will serve us very well for another decade+,we did not plan for any replacement when Avro orders ended and went to sleep.In the smaller transport arena,we have squandered a splendid opportunity to have designed and developed our own medium and light turboprop transports.Anyway,the MTA is a god step in the right direction.

There was a lengthy very interesting feature on the Indian regional passenger jet,plenty of work done ,MMS impressed but suddenly has gone into cold storage.Here,the global market is already saturated with big players like Embraer,Bombardier,Sukhoi,etc.,whose new jets are taking the market by storm.In 6-7 years time if we're lucky and have developed the jet with production to commence,the market would've been in its waning stage for such jets.Local airlines like Paramount,bought Embraers ,which were very popular.I flew the Delhi -Chennai route a few times on it.V. comfortable.Sukhoi had a full-sized mock-up section of its Superjet-100 at a previous air show.Equaly spacious with a wider cabin with a 3-2 abreast seating pattern.We should've gone in for a JV/local production venture too with any one of these manufacturers as hundreds of them will be built and spares and support will not be a problem.

If we do develop a narrowbody on our own,we may end up being the only operator like the ALH-barring Ecuador and a few "friendlies" to whom we've gifted the same.Similarly with the ATR.It was shown at air shows aeons before it was purchased in large number by our pvt. airlines.There seems to be some lack of vision that has plagued our aviation sector.Look at the state of Saras after it crashed.