Transport Aircraft for IAF

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 01 Nov 2014 23:50

JE Menon wrote:Boys leave Philip alone. His heart is in the right place, always has been.

ALWAYS

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 02 Nov 2014 01:18

India should invite Embraer to set up shop for its line of Civilian E145/175/195 and KC-390. May be one of the private players can partner with them.
Close the sham that is MTA- tired of seeing the pictures of MTA and indo-Russian collaboration for almost 20 years. So far it is nothing but dream and will remain forever.

There is enough market for Embraer range of civilian aircraft. All those involved in regional jet and MTA project should join either the TATA venture or Embraer venture, and if needed design new aircraft based on hands-on experience with these projects.

India should offer firm order for KC-390 in place of MTA. In fact Boeing can help set up shop for KC-390, as they are sales partner for KC-390.
Indian civilian airline should be made to prefer this option, giving then long term business.

This way we will have locally build regional jet, military transport as well as both Jet and propeller based option.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Nov 2014 08:44

^ We need something that slots in between C-130 and Do-228 and can handle the jobs of both Avro and An-32. The Brazilian C-390 is bigger than the Herc but the existing Kawasaki C-1 is the right size for IAF's needs and is in use (only by Japan due to self-imposed export restrictions) since 1970, meaning it is a robust design. However, its range was purposely kept short because of the misguided Japanese mindset postwar and it will need to be increased which should not be a big problem now that Japan is OK to export weapons and is already exporting the Shin Meiwa to us.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 02 Nov 2014 16:20

Brazil, itself, is ordering 3 more C-295 in addition to 12 it already operates. KC-390 is still a paper plane.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Nov 2014 17:03

it will take atleast 5 yrs to certify and offer the KC-390 given its hasnt even made its first flight yet.

imo the c130j has the smaller original version also, not the stretched c130j-30 we took. we can take the smaller version as the gap filler between do228 and c130j-30.
everything will common except a fuselage plug (2 additional pallets). I think both versions are still in active production.

http://www.lockheedmartin.co.in/us/prod ... iants.html

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 02 Nov 2014 17:54

We need something that slots in between C-130 and Do-228 and can handle the jobs of both Avro and An-32.

that is what c-295/c-27j are for.

I was suggesting MTA and C130J class of requirement.

KC-390 is more than a paper plane at this stage. It will certainly happen and will happen faster than MTA. They are progressing pretty much as per schedule.

Not sure if there is anything else that will deepen India's relationship with south American countries, than this kind of venture.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Nov 2014 18:06

The Russians, it seems from that small article I posted above, seem to be going in for an entire line of transports - something they should have done 10 years ago. Outside of consolidating everything within Russian.

It now seems to confirm (if this news item is true) that they made a bad decision on the IL-476.

From what I can see, the MTA is not out - just delayed, par for the course for India (what else is new?). India is waiting for the IAF to decide on the design and perhaps the engine.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Nov 2014 18:35

Ideally, Tata would set up a C-130 plant and meet a whole slew of IAF needs but thanks to our sarkari opacity they are not able to make even an educated guess on future plans. They have gone with C295 because it is capable of the RTA role also, perhaps because they know that the RTA as currently envisaged is a pipe dream.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2014 00:44

Think about it. If there are enough orders for the C-130J, then why would LM pass on the assembly line to Tata. And if there are not enough C-130J to be ordered, why will Tata set up the assembly line?

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 03 Nov 2014 05:09

indranilroy wrote:Think about it. If there are enough orders for the C-130J, then why would LM pass on the assembly line to Tata. And if there are not enough C-130J to be ordered, why will Tata set up the assembly line?

Cost reduction which could result in significant increases in Indian procurement ? Not sure if any of that's possible though

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2014 05:35

KrishnaK wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Think about it. If there are enough orders for the C-130J, then why would LM pass on the assembly line to Tata. And if there are not enough C-130J to be ordered, why will Tata set up the assembly line?
Cost reduction which could result in significant increases in Indian procurement ? Not sure if any of that's possible though

Fair enough. Let's start. Keeping international issues aside and assuming LM itself starts manufacturing the planes here (no licensing fee), does it make economic sense to move the plant to India?

Keeping everything else the same, here are the additional costs:
1. Termination fees for existing workers.
2. Training fees for new workers.
3. Transportation and set up of new assembly line.
4. Infrastructure costs at new location.
5. Additional transport costs of airplane parts. Current suppliers are more near Marietta than Bangalore.

Additional profits:
1. Cost of labour.

The labour cost as a percentage of the total manufacturing costs of a modern airplane is somewhere in the 15-25% range. If we can save a fraction of it by moving the production to India, how many planes would LM need to make to break even?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 03 Nov 2014 06:30

India by itself will need more than 300 C-130s for the near to medium term, not counting any civil needs. As the economy and armed forces expand, this need will grow too. This is almost the existing fleet strength of the US (450) which is already working on a bigger replacement to come on stream by 2024. If India orders 300 C-130s today, LM will do what Delhi says. We are ready to pay a premium to build up our aero infra as is already apparent with the costly Rafale and a mere 56 Avro replacement order. Regardless, a C-130 plant in India will make more sense if it is the go-to maintenance hub for SE Asia and Indian subcontinent. Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures already makes major parts for the C-130, including the ones being flown by IAF.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2014 06:48

How are you coming up with that number. That's more than all the transport aircraft in the IAF inventory currently!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2014 07:58

indranilroy wrote:Think about it. If there are enough orders for the C-130J, then why would LM pass on the assembly line to Tata. And if there are not enough C-130J to be ordered, why will Tata set up the assembly line?

LM had offered a line in India IF the orders exceeded 40 from India.

Just BTW:

India

Lockheed Martin and Tata Advanced Systems have formed a joint venture company in India, Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures, for manufacturing airframe components for the C-130J

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2014 08:23

They will of course offer knowing fully well that it is economically unfeasible for anybody to set up an assembly line for 40 aircraft. I know TASL makes the center wing-box and empennage sections of the C-130J in India.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Nov 2014 08:54

^^^When a day comes where India has a clear policy on (a) Employment of Paratroopers in war-time and for out of area intervention (b) deployment of air-mobile brigade/division for out of area contingency - it might realize how much sense having the C-130 manufacturing line means. For we will finally realize the optimal size of air-lift fleet required. BTW, given the situation obtained today, IAF can hardly airlift a single Parachute Battalion! Go chew on that...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Nov 2014 09:27

JTull wrote:Brazil, itself, is ordering 3 more C-295 in addition to 12 it already operates. KC-390 is still a paper plane.

Not sure how it would qualify as a paper plane when its prototype was just rolled out last week with a first flight planned by the New Year.

Embraer's track record of meeting deadlines is quite impressive and they have de-risked their solution in some ways, for instance going with a COTS flight deck and a proven engine instead of developing an entirely new engine, something that managed to delay the A-400M as well.

Immediate needs would've meant that they couldn't wait till a specialised SAR variant of the KC-390 could be developed..in most other areas, the KC-390 seems like a really sound design. Each time I see that design, I rue the MTA and the Indian involvement in that mirage of a project.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Nov 2014 09:54

rohitvats wrote:^^^When a day comes where India has a clear policy on (a) Employment of Paratroopers in war-time and for out of area intervention (b) deployment of air-mobile brigade/division for out of area contingency - it might realize how much sense having the C-130 manufacturing line means. For we will finally realize the optimal size of air-lift fleet required. BTW, given the situation obtained today, IAF can hardly airlift a single Parachute Battalion! Go chew on that...

Rohit, since my own knowledge on the IA is not much to write about, what exactly is the payload and equipment requirements of a Para Battalion? And won't 10 C-17s and 12 C-130Js along with whatever Il-76s we have left be adequate for that?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Nov 2014 10:45

brazil will face a issue in making the KC390 economically viable as the mil market worldwide is dominated by the big3 and every deal has political pressure. brazil has no levers and natashas around the world, albeit they would have a good product.

we should have approached brazil atleast 5 yrs ago and offered our MTA requirement as guaranteed in exchange for technology and workshare on the product. HAL could have moved out AN32 level of tech and to Embraer assembly level.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 04 Nov 2014 07:08

indranilroy wrote:How are you coming up with that number. That's more than all the transport aircraft in the IAF inventory currently!

Avro replacement 70
An-32 replacement 150
Navy 16
BSF 16
Army 16
Coast Guard 16
Civil 16

I am basing this on requirements over the next decade. A C-130 plant would produce several versions from short to stretched and I think 300 is a probably a minimum.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 04 Nov 2014 07:20

Singha wrote: we should have approached brazil atleast 5 yrs ago and offered our MTA requirement as guaranteed in exchange for technology and workshare

Both Brazil and Indonesia too should have been roped in (dunno about S.Africa). Both are ahead of us in transport design and mfg capability but we could provide the heft of numbers to make a joint venture viable. Too late.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Nov 2014 07:22

rather than a final assembly line to bolt together parts and sections all shipped in, its better to angle for more and more parts manufacture sourced from india as offset. that way atleast we learn something from the root level of materials and such. a bit later some entire sections like tail section or wing could be made here.
these smaller vendors can then provide better support to domestic projects as they would be absorbing machines and techniques from around the world.

we really missed the boat on KC390 design share but its still not too late for a large production line here or atleast good chunk of parts. as mentioned , Brazil has no clout internationally or sops to offer vs the likes of hardened players from US,EU,Russia who dominate the mil transporter markets with natasha relations going back decades to the large markets. I cannot think of one market where they will not fight tooth and nail against the KC390 eating part of their bacon.

only India stands out as a large market with a guaranteed need for 150 who can resist such pressures and make it viable. else how many will brazil afford to buy...not more than 30 given their meager defence budget, no TSP nearby(!) and hardly any serious threats barring the odd Kali cartel type militia or wildcat miners.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 04 Nov 2014 07:28

^ Of course learning (and most importantly *absorption*) is important. But the whole plane should also be made in India in an independent plant, including the parts we make ourselves. We will have the numbers to make it viable. Similar strategy will be followed by TASL-Airbus.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Nov 2014 08:05

for the MTA sure I agree. I was referring to smaller c130j type affairs for more parts. also we should focus not just on structural parts but try to develop suppliers of other things engine materials, wires, cables, rubber, lubricants, avionics so that a diverse set of suppliers across the spectrum is built up.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Nov 2014 09:23

Slovakia is one nation that compared the C-295 and the C-27J and went with the C-27J..and finally a deal for 2 C-27Js was signed.

Slovakia to operate C-27J from 2016

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Nov 2014 09:34

Kartik wrote:
rohitvats wrote:^^^When a day comes where India has a clear policy on (a) Employment of Paratroopers in war-time and for out of area intervention (b) deployment of air-mobile brigade/division for out of area contingency - it might realize how much sense having the C-130 manufacturing line means. For we will finally realize the optimal size of air-lift fleet required. BTW, given the situation obtained today, IAF can hardly airlift a single Parachute Battalion! Go chew on that...
Rohit, since my own knowledge on the IA is not much to write about, what exactly is the payload and equipment requirements of a Para Battalion? And won't 10 C-17s and 12 C-130Js along with whatever Il-76s we have left be adequate for that?

Kartik - I think I should have been less dramatic in the statement I made. The situation is slightly more complex. Coming to a/c required, there are conflicting reports about the number of a/c required for a parachute battalion and parachute brigade.

One IAF source (commentary by senior IAF officer in a seminar) says it requires 7-8 x IL-76 and 32 x An-32 to air-lift a single parachute battalion at full scale. An ex-IA Para officer's comment that I distinctly remember reading talks about 50 x An-32 required to lift a single parachute battalion at full scale. If you compare the two statement, they're close in terms of total manpower lift capability of the a/c involved.

IL-76: 120 x 8 - 960
An-32: 40 x 32 - 1,024
Total: 1,984

OR

50 x An-32 x 40 - 1,600.

While a parachute battalion is likely to have a strength of ~800 personnel, the airlift is required to lift the stores and equipment. Also, the cargo cabin volume and dimensions of aircrafts will also impact the utility of the a/c. So, it is function of tonnage, paratrooper carrying capacity and cargo cabin dimensions+volume.

Don't forget that a parachute battalion also has a platoon equipped with BMP-2 along with other vehicles. And drop using only AN-32 will not be able to deliver them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming to C-17, most think of it as a strategic air-lifter which would be underutilized in para-drop function. However, one must not forget that American expeditionary capability rides on this a/c and hence, it has tremendous flexibility and options when it comes to cargo-drop. A C-17 can drop "single items of equipment weighing up to 60,000 pounds and has a total airdrop cargo weight of 110,000 pounds. Each C-17 has a container-delivery system capacity of 40 containers, with a total rigged weight of 2,350 pounds each."

Therefore, your contention is right that using a mix of C-130, C-17 and IL-76, IAF can NOW airlift and drop a parachute infantry battalion. But we will end up using substantial part of our air-fleet in this effort. Not to mention that any such effort needs to be practiced and prepared for during peace-time.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Nov 2014 10:39

RV, I was under the impression that the IL 76 can drop 210 men.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Nov 2014 10:50

rohitvats wrote: Kartik - I think I should have been less dramatic in the statement I made. The situation is slightly more complex. Coming to a/c required, there are conflicting reports about the number of a/c required for a parachute battalion and parachute brigade.

One IAF source (commentary by senior IAF officer in a seminar) says it requires 7-8 x IL-76 and 32 x An-32 to air-lift a single parachute battalion at full scale. An ex-IA Para officer's comment that I distinctly remember reading talks about 50 x An-32 required to lift a single parachute battalion at full scale. If you compare the two statement, they're close in terms of total manpower lift capability of the a/c involved.

IL-76: 120 x 8 - 960
An-32: 40 x 32 - 1,024
Total: 1,984

OR

50 x An-32 x 40 - 1,600.

While a parachute battalion is likely to have a strength of ~800 personnel, the airlift is required to lift the stores and equipment. Also, the cargo cabin volume and dimensions of aircrafts will also impact the utility of the a/c. So, it is function of tonnage, paratrooper carrying capacity and cargo cabin dimensions+volume.

Don't forget that a parachute battalion also has a platoon equipped with BMP-2 along with other vehicles. And drop using only AN-32 will not be able to deliver them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming to C-17, most think of it as a strategic air-lifter which would be underutilized in para-drop function. However, one must not forget that American expeditionary capability rides on this a/c and hence, it has tremendous flexibility and options when it comes to cargo-drop. A C-17 can drop "single items of equipment weighing up to 60,000 pounds and has a total airdrop cargo weight of 110,000 pounds. Each C-17 has a container-delivery system capacity of 40 containers, with a total rigged weight of 2,350 pounds each."

Therefore, your contention is right that using a mix of C-130, C-17 and IL-76, IAF can NOW airlift and drop a parachute infantry battalion. But we will end up using substantial part of our air-fleet in this effort. Not to mention that any such effort needs to be practiced and prepared for during peace-time.

Thanks for the detailed reply Rohit. So as things stand as of now, the C-17 and the C-130J have brought about the capability to lift an entire Para battalion and drop them over a significant enough range.

The capability exists, but whether or not such a scenario exists in the IA and IAF's doctrine is another topic. Only if it does would such a scenario be practiced in wargames.

This very point you've made underscores the capability transformation being brought about by the C-17s. Those who might wonder as to why the IAF is looking to quickly add another 6 of these before the line closes down for good should simply look to your post in the future. Perhaps someone could archive it, if such a feature even exists on BRF.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 04 Nov 2014 16:07

Since we are on the topic,

Following is an 'abridged' version of a conversation on mail a long while back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Induction & Employment:
Usually, a good sized DZ will be around 2X5 Kms. Parachute Divisions at a minimum need around six of these, a Brigade upto two. There are smaller alternate DZ's identified for emergency and follow-up use along the proposed line of march. At H (-1)hrs, the Pathfinders of the Brigade Recce Company, Signals and Engineer Dets would jumpoff. Their immediate goal is to establish a secure bridgehead for follow-on drops.

Thereafter, the first body of Paratropers would reinforce the DZ and establish contact with the enemy. This relief of Pathfinders by the vanguard should allow the former to begin probing enemy lines for the Main Body. The second wave comprising the Main Body would neutralize enemy strongpoints and surge towards its objectives. Later drops would include Brigade HQ, Field Artillery and Combat Logistics Units.

The world has moved on since Market Garden. Today, a dense ADGES and powerful Armoured units can blow any parachute operation to kingdom come.

Why do you need this many aircraft? You have to reconsider the sequence of the establishment of an airhead. All tps will never be dropped together as that would lead to confusion. Induction would always happen in stages, period. If the objective is within range as it would likely be, induction can also take place via SHBO a safer option.

Advance Resupply airdrops would be required to keep the troops stocked. Generally, upto 20% of all equipment dropped is lost to terrain or to enemy held areas. As a scale of measure, In the Indian scenario, we can assume that we could deploy the entire Parachute Battalion Group in ~20 sorties in the IL-76 class*.

*A single-deck variant (with central seats), an IL-76 can airdrop an entire company of paratroopers or 2 BMP-2 IFV, stores and its crew. I don't want to go into specific tonnage but it includes tps plus A and B Vehs less rear. IL-76 does a rather good job. It drops 126 paratroopers in four streams, but the DZ must be wide enough to take all of them. This results in a very tight dispersal and allows Coys to RV and deploy in a more orderly fashion. An IA Para Battalion has XX BMP-2 IFV's in its Carrier Platoon. These can be employed at a Company level or held as the primary manouvre force by the Battalion CO.

Doctrine:
Much of the current Indian Airborne thinking is in-line with Soviet Doctrine of Mechanised Airborne units.ie, being able to provide depth to a campaign. This is not surprising as most of our officers in the 80's & 90's spent quality time at Pskov and Frunze. Just as folks do at US Army Colleges nowadays.

For the Soviets, it was clear that in order to succeed the VDV required greater firepower, protection and mobility.The expanded role and capability of such units also put less emphasis on the preasure for a quick linkup with own forces. It however also placed them in harms way by temptation to engage heavier Armoured formations. Complete mechanisation also restricted by way of employment of these very same forces. Nevertheless, the Soviet, now Russian VDV remains a highly trained and very potent strike arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 04 Nov 2014 17:02

Ukraine Misses Deadline, Lone Bidder Remains for Indian Aircraft Competition
http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 4311030021
NEW DELHI — A blown deadline by Ukraine’s Antonov means that a joint venture between Airbus and Tata Group has emerged as the sole bidder in a $3 billion deal to sell 56 military transport aircraft to the Indian Air Force, according to an Indian Defence Ministry source.

Airbus Defence and Space has tied up with India’s Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. for the program to replace India’s fleet of Avro transport planes. The MoD refused to give Antonov an extension on its bid after it missed the Oct. 22 deadline.

The Avro replacement program is the MoD’s first attempt to involve only domestic private-sector companies — in the process sidestepping state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL).

The source added that the MoD is unsure whether to award the contract to Airbus, since it awards contracts to single vendors only in exceptional cases.

Airbus and Tata announced their joint bid on Oct. 28. They plan to offer the Airbus C-295 to the MoD, but neither company would comment.

The Air Force, fearing that the tender could be canceled, has asked the MoD to ignore its practice of canceling bids in single-vendor situations and award the contract to the Airbus-Tata team, the source said. An Air Force official agreed that this is an exceptional case.

In July, Antonov informally told the MoD that it could not transfer technology of its AN-148 aircraft, as the majority of the systems are sourced from Russia’s Voronezh Aircraft Production Association. The Russian company has stopped exporting those technologies to the Ukrainian company.

Other recipients of the tender, issued in May 2013, were Alenia Aermacchi, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Ilyushin and Embraer.

However, the procurement process was stopped by the former government, after Praful Patel, minister for heavy industries and public enterprise, complained to former Defence Minister A.K. Antony that HAL should be included in the program.

In July, the new government set aside the complaint and excluded HAL from the competition.

Under the Avro replacement program, 40 aircraft would be license-produced in India and the remaining 16 would be imported.

A senior executive with domestic private firm Larsen & Toubro, which was also negotiating to team with an original equipment manufacturer, said the small size of the program could make it economically difficult.

“Building only 40 aircraft is a major challenge,” the executive said. “This is so because the program requires a very heavy investment, is capital-intensive and highly complex as no Indian private sector company has ever manufactured, assembled and tested a complete aircraft on its own to date. It is not viable for amortizing the complete investment over these small numbers.”

The executive said he hoped the order would be increased.

“There is a huge risk for the original equipment manufacturer and its Indian production partner if that does not happen,” he said. ■

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 04 Nov 2014 17:25

Pratyush wrote:RV, I was under the impression that the IL 76 can drop 210 men.

IL-76 MD cannot carry those many troops, Ilyushin's website specifies 126 Paratroopers or 145 troop transport. It can carry 210 troops in double deck configuration, I think this configuration is not for Para drops.
http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/1185/

Interestingly a lengthened IL-76 MF can carry 186 paratroopers, Ilyushin claims:

By its transportation capacity,the Il-76MF surpasses Il-76MD by 40%. This is possible due to increased freight compartment volume, installation of new economical engines PS-90A-76, and modernization of the flight navigation complex and other aircraft systems.

By way of considerable extension of the freight compartment length, designers managed to increase the number of transported military personnel and service personnel.

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/1187/

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 04 Nov 2014 17:34

VikB wrote:Ukraine Misses Deadline, Lone Bidder Remains for Indian Aircraft Competition

Interesting, we need to see how this Govt will handle lone bidder situation. What could be the reason for non-interest by Alenia and Embraer?

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 04 Nov 2014 18:03

Alenia - Ukraine mess - its mentioned in the article
Embraer - does not have a ready product

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Nov 2014 18:09

in a lone bidder situation unless one of the other parties comes fwd to say they missed due to some logistic issues and will rebid, there is absolutely no point in floating another global tender. sometimes we just got to accept at point X in the time-space continium , when we need a product at time X+t there may be just one entity capable of delivering.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 04 Nov 2014 18:30

VikB wrote:Alenia - Ukraine mess - its mentioned in the article

Didn't knew the civil war in Ukraine was being fought on Italian soil

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 04 Nov 2014 19:00

Thakur_B wrote:
VikB wrote:Alenia - Ukraine mess - its mentioned in the article
Didn't knew the civil war in Ukraine was being fought on Italian soil

I think he meant Antonov

What stops Alenia Aeramacchi -C27j and Embraer Q400 from competing? Not enough margins!

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 04 Nov 2014 19:29

My bad

Alenia - Finameccanica lafda. all companies under that umbrella are currently banned

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 04 Nov 2014 20:05

Too bad about Antonov but it was a known conclusion. It would have made an excellent Avro replacement and also the perfect RTA. Not sure about An-32 even though that too was a civilian passenger plane originally. What a mess.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 04 Nov 2014 20:13

VikB wrote:My bad
Alenia - Finameccanica lafda. all companies under that umbrella are currently banned

afaik not banned since BJP govt sent them a rfq. It must have been the cockeyed requirement for 40 aircraft.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 04 Nov 2014 21:02

From Ajai Shukla's blog...

Fresh tender likely after Tata-Airbus single bidders for Avro replacement

The defence ministry (MoD) is likely to issue a fresh international tender for building 56 transport aircraft in India to replace the venerable Avro HS-748 in the Indian Air Force (IAF) inventory, say ministry sources.

...
Yet, for various reasons, only one OEM has bid. Amongst those left out is Antonov, of Ukraine, which had partnered Larsen & Toubro (L&T) in a proposal to build the An-132 aircraft in India. However, political turmoil in Ukraine, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, has stalled its bid.

..
..
The Swedish company, which wanted to supply the Saab-2000 aircraft, has not bid because the MoD is unwilling to let it build all 56 aircraft in India. The RfP insists that 16 aircraft must be supplied in flyaway condition. Saab, having shut down its line in Sweden, wants to build all the aircraft in India, which the RfP does not provide for.

Russian manufacturer, Ilyushin, wants to supply the IL-214. However, this aircraft does not have a rear ramp, which the RfP demands. Interestingly, the Avro, which the new aircraft will replace, does not have a rear ramp either.

A senior MoD procurement official say it would be difficult to continue with a single vendor. A waiver would be required for that deviation from the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP).
...