Transport Aircraft for IAF

member_26535 · Post by **member_26535** » 10 Apr 2015 22:34

Are we expecting big a announcement tom when Modi visits Toulouse ? - The Tanker and AWACS platform deals ?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 12 Apr 2015 16:47

Meh.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 25 Apr 2015 21:05

Kartik wrote:Just 5 C-17 white-tails remain now, since Australia has confirmed it is ordering 2 more C-17s. Time is running out for the IAF to increase its C-17 fleet size.

FG-Australia confirms order for 2 additional C-17s

The Royal Australian Air Force has confirmed that will acquire two additional Boeing C-17 strategic airlifters, which will bring its fleet of the type to eight.

The deal represents an investment of A$1 billion ($770 million), says the Australian Department of Defence department in a statement. Of this amount, A$300 million will be spent upgrading facilities at RAAF Amberley, where 36 Sqn is based.

Canberra’s interest in additional C-17s has been well documented. In October 2014 defence minister David Johnston confirmed that the country was interested in two to four additional C-17s.

The announcement about two additional aircraft reduces the number of ‘white-tail’ C-17s to five aircraft, says a Boeing spokesman.

With production of C-17s to end in 2015, Boeing decided to build 10 aircraft prior to signing up buyers. Of these aircraft, one was obtained by Canada, bringing its fleet to five aircraft, and two were ordered by an undisclosed customer in the Middle East.

Hope we could get the remaining ones, having seen their significance in Yemen and Nepal.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 25 Apr 2015 21:26

Karthik S wrote:Hope we could get the remaining ones, having seen their significance in Yemen and Nepal.

+1,
C 17 and C 130 performance , availability and usability till date in IAF has been awesome

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 26 Apr 2015 14:09

http://idrw.org/airbus-tata-deal-likely ... ed-by-dac/

Airbus-Tata Deal Likely To Be Approved By DAC

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 26 Apr 2015 19:13

Ashton Carter US Sec Def will be in Delhi in May to discuss the Chinook and Apache, both made by Boeing, among other things. Hopefully discussion about the C-17 and C-130J come up for discussion as well.
I would just as well see all the older transport aircraft retired in a phased manner and stick with operating the C-17 and C-130J to make maintenance, logistics, and training easier for the IAF.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 27 Apr 2015 03:16

dhiraj wrote:
Karthik S wrote:Hope we could get the remaining ones, having seen their significance in Yemen and Nepal.
+1,
C 17 and C 130 performance , availability and usability till date in IAF has been awesome

Here it is boys: Post-Nepal operations, IAF to buy 3 more C-17s

NEW DELHI: Indian Air Force has initiated a proposal to purchase three more Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft from the US for about Rs 8,700 crore, impressed as it is by the cargo carrier's varied utility that includes carrying out of large-scale humanitarian assistance operations such as the ongoing relief effort in earthquake-hit Nepal.

The IAF has told the government that it wants to add three very heavy transport aircraft to its fleet of 10 C-17s that were ordered in 2011 and inducted in 2013, officials said. The IAF has pressed the case for three more C-17s after being informed that only five of the heavy lift aircraft are left for sale as the US defence and aerospace firm has closed down the production line, officials said.

As per the 2011 contract, which was worth $4.7 billion, India had an option clause to purchase six additional C-17s over its order of 10 aircraft. However, a paucity of funds that hit the government in the past two years appears to be responsible for the scaled-down requirement assessment. The proposal will have to be approved by the Manohar Parrikar-led Defence Acquisition Committee. Once signed, Boeing will be liable to invest Rs 2,600 crore in the Indian defence manufacturing sector as per the standard offsets rule of the defence ministry. C-17 has proved its utility, which has used the aircraft in several rescue operations including evacuation of thousands of Indian citizens and others in Yemen.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Apr 2015 03:27

Mort Walker wrote:Ashton Carter US Sec Def will be in Delhi in May to discuss the Chinook and Apache, both made by Boeing, among other things. Hopefully discussion about the C-17 and C-130J come up for discussion as well.
I would just as well see all the older transport aircraft retired in a phased manner and stick with operating the C-17 and C-130J to make maintenance, logistics, and training easier for the IAF.

+1 and a reminder to those who think that any buy from the US is a namak haram. The capability that C-17s/C-130s/Chinooks offer for disaster relief alone is worth its weight in gold for diplomatic purposes.

Having these a/c + future Indian made LHDs/LPDs whatever of 40K tonne class more than pay their way when you can project soft power by rescuing Indians and other nationals who ares stranded on foreign shores.

I'd really like to know how the IL-76s and AN-32s fared in this scenario. I don't know. Just want to know.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 27 Apr 2015 03:52

Cosmo,

Know. Before you ignorantly promote made of gold worth the weight in gold. This propaganda re. CXxx is getting needlessly silly.

Check what the 12th wing is doing. Or are they not worth caring now?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Apr 2015 04:14

Shreeman wrote:Cosmo,

Know. Before you ignorantly promote made of gold worth the weight in gold. This propaganda re. CXxx is getting needlessly silly.

Check what the 12th wing is doing. Or are they not worth caring now?

Shreeman, I have not found your posts in the past, present or the future (assuming), informative, useful or even remotely connected to reality. What you post is third grade leftie stuff disguised as pro India. I really don't want to engage with you is that clear? I mean how many times do have to say this in so many ways?

I am putting you on my ignore list. I am hoping you will reciprocate (and encouraging you to do so). My posts are not aimed at the likes of you. Drink the Johnny Walker chill out in your cubicle. Watch the Russian stuff fly on youtube, cheer on the young pioneers. We can be ships that pass in the night. Think of it!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Apr 2015 04:37

Shreeman wrote:Cosmo,

Know. Before you ignorantly promote made of gold worth the weight in gold. This propaganda re. CXxx is getting needlessly silly.

Check what the 12th wing is doing. Or are they not worth caring now?

The C-17 and the C-130 have provided immense value to the IAF. The Yemen rescue and the tragic Nepal earthquake have truly brought into the forefront the lift capacity that the IAF was sorely looking for. This is not to discount the Gajraj or the An-32, but IMHO Cosmo has a valid point. We need to get more of these birds ASAP....optics and politics be damned.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Apr 2015 05:57

I'd really like to know how the IL-76s and AN-32s fared in this scenario. I don't know. Just want to know

IAF did send a IL-76, along with the C-17, etc to Nepal. So, there is some utility value there or left.

However, where the C-17 does take the cake is in availability. With a rate in excess of 80%, it is very hard to beat - recall that the IAF had issued a global tender to support the IL-76s a few years back. That and a few other items (crew size, ground handling equipment, etc), the C-17 should come out far ahead.

WRT the white tails, India does not have the funds to purchase them. The interest has been there ........ for some 13 more.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 27 Apr 2015 06:00

NRao wrote:
I'd really like to know how the IL-76s and AN-32s fared in this scenario. I don't know. Just want to know
IAF did send a IL-76, along with the C-17, etc to Nepal. So, there is some utility value there or left.

However, where the C-17 does take the cake is in availability. With a rate in excess of 80%, it is very hard to beat - recall that the IAF had issued a global tender to support the IL-76s a few years back. That and a few other items (crew size, ground handling equipment, etc), the C-17 should come out far ahead.

WRT the white tails, India does not have the funds to purchase them. The interest has been there ........ for some 13 more.

I know the C 17 production supply chain is lengthy with components manufactures in many states. But could we request Boeing to build more aircraft than the existing white tail ones?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Apr 2015 06:38

One adv is bulky loads like dozers and the trucks and heavy artillery. C17 can take two columns of trucks or 4x4 as photos show. Il76 needs special procedure and 45 mins to load a t72 with inches left on both sides. As a people and pallet mover it is fine. USSR had the much bigger an22 cock for bulkier loads.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Apr 2015 06:40

USAF has 120 c17 and might not need so many. They might be willing to sell us few refurbished ones later.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Apr 2015 06:50

Singha wrote:USAF has 120 c17 and might not need so many. They might be willing to sell us few refurbished ones later.

That the USAF has more than they need is true - Congress forced them to buy some 20-30 when the USAF said they did not need them.

However, not sure if they will part with any. And, if they do which ones? The early versions are of absolutely no use to the IAF. And, why would the USAF part with the newer versions?

The best bet are these 5 that are left over. And, I am dead sure that Boeing invested in some of these so-called white tails with the IAF in mind - that was their expectations.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Apr 2015 06:52

But could we request Boeing to build more aircraft than the existing white tail ones?

Pay for them and sure. Why not?

The problem is not this or that. It is plain simply funds that the MoD does not have.

Who knows with this new Rafale deal some may just spring loose.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 27 Apr 2015 07:47

Rakesh wrote:
Shreeman wrote:Cosmo,

Know. Before you ignorantly promote made of gold worth the weight in gold. This propaganda re. CXxx is getting needlessly silly.

Check what the 12th wing is doing. Or are they not worth caring now?
The C-17 and the C-130 have provided immense value to the IAF. The Yemen rescue and the tragic Nepal earthquake have truly brought into the forefront the lift capacity that the IAF was sorely looking for. This is not to discount the Gajraj or the An-32, but IMHO Cosmo has a valid point. We need to get more of these birds ASAP....optics and politics be damned.

Rakesh,

Not you too! There seems to be an equal split between il76+an32s and c130+c17s by twitter pictures. Check the disaster thread. Total daily sorties to KTM is only 10.

The availability is a function of age. The 76s they are using for KTM trips are how old?

Whats the point of spending ~2B for 3 aircraft? How many regular transporters can you get for that? There was nothing wrong with kathmandus airport. For most things, this experience says you need 737/777/A330s/A350 types available to IAF for moving people in bulk. That is all. India needs them too often to rely on contract services. if they can buy VVIP ones then you can buy half a dozen mix use wide bodies.

As far as C17 use itself goes, the only unique use is Leh cargo load. 10 are more thsn enough for use there. Anywhere else 50 tonnes or 77 tonnes dont matter. What will they do with them? This is only marketing and hype.

Improve the availibility -- Jaguars, Su30s or IL76. This is not a good "we only have 24 sq. argument.".

Availability is a poor excuse for wasting money at this rate.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2015 08:23

NRao wrote:That the USAF has more than they need is true - Congress forced them to buy some 20-30 when the USAF said they did not need them.

However, not sure if they will part with any. And, if they do which ones? The early versions are of absolutely no use to the IAF. And, why would the USAF part with the newer versions?

The best bet are these 5 that are left over. And, I am dead sure that Boeing invested in some of these so-called white tails with the IAF in mind - that was their expectations.

The Air Force will inactivate two C-17 squadrons over the next two years in a budget-saving move, according to new details released by Air Mobility Command Monday.

Sixteen C-17 Globemasters — eight from the 17th Airlift Squadron at Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina, and eight from the 10th Airlift Squadron at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington — will transition from primary inventory to backup inventory, saving the Air Force about $110 million a year, an AMC news release said. That means the planes will no longer receive funding for personnel and flying hours but will continue to get necessary resources to support weapon system sustainment.

Eventually, however, the Air Force plans to transfer the aircraft to the reserve component.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /20766241/

The two squadrons in question converted to the C-17 in 1993 and 2003 respectively. At least the eight newer ones should have enough life to be useful to the IAF.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 27 Apr 2015 08:43

So they have scaled down the expectation from 16 extra C17s to just 3. But the huge backlog (6+ billion for the Rafael, ~3 for Apache and Chinook, 2+ for refulers... Any others?). And all of these will be spread out over a very short period of 3 to 5 years at most.

member_29004 · Post by **member_29004** » 27 Apr 2015 08:56

Singha wrote:USAF has 120 c17 and might not need so many. They might be willing to sell us few refurbished ones later.

USA has 223 C-17's not 120

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2015 08:58

Shreeman wrote:Whats the point of spending ~2B for 3 aircraft? How many regular transporters can you get for that? There was nothing wrong with kathmandus airport. For most things, this experience says you need 737/777/A330s/A350 types available to IAF for moving people in bulk. That is all. India needs them too often to rely on contract services. if they can buy VVIP ones then you can buy half a dozen mix use wide bodies.

$1.4bn for 3 units. Maybe about $800 mil for the aircraft itself, with the remainder for (performance based) logistics and support. With regard to civilian airliners, the IAF's primary task is transporting military cargo rather personnel. As a military lifter, the A330/787 type is inherently limited without being significantly cheaper to acquire. They'll cost less to operate but then the IAF isn't going to be flogging them as hard as a commercial operator would.

As far as C17 use itself goes, the only unique use is Leh cargo load. 10 are more thsn enough for use there. Anywhere else 50 tonnes or 77 tonnes dont matter. What will they do with them? This is only marketing and hype.

The wide-body allows it accommodate outsized cargo that wouldn't fit into an Il-76 let alone a civilian jet. And while the prospect of airlifting tanks invited a lot of debate, there's plenty of other equipment for Ladakh, NE, A&N that meets that criteria. Are 10 aircraft sufficient? Its possible more (cheaper non-SF) C-130Js would be better investment. Hard to tell without any actual access to information on the existing fleet's rate of utilization, average payload and cargo composition.

Improve the availibility -- Jaguars, Su30s or IL76. This is not a good "we only have 24 sq. argument.".

The Il-76s have already been put through an upgrade, and are nearing the end of their lives. There's only so much you much that can be extracted from them at this point in terms of availability.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 27 Apr 2015 09:04

^^^ I would eagerly wait for the C17 to land anywhere other than Kathmandu or Biratnagar in Nepal. Anna Batti (An 32) and C 130 are more important. That is how one will reach the remote locations. Disaster relief is often a hub and spoke model. 10 C 17's and a few IL 76's are just fine for the Hub. From there it is all short haul, short airfield, unprepared strips, helipads, jungle clearings, roof tops etc.

Doctors, medicines and food packets do not need military loading attention but need to get to the destination on time and in quantity. Rubble removing for saving trapped bodies is the first rescue act but for that the window is immediately after the disaster - 48 to 72 hrs on the outside. An occasional exception not with standing, greater speed and delivery will come from the C 130's and An 32's followed with the helicopters.

I would be happier if we procured some helicopter cranes.

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Apr 2015 09:05

The key to transport aircraft is availability and payload. So, either we should assemble it locally or we should get a variant of popular civilian aircraft. Otherwise, in a decade or so, essential spares will be very difficult and consequently, very expensive to procure. IL-76 all over again.

Okay - C17s are a strategic buy. But I'm a bit skeptical about the C-130s. Aren't we paying premium for special-ops configured C-130s (which is perfectly fine) and using them as regular transports ?

We should get assembly line to manufacture Boeing (Air India has purchased so many 787s) and Airbus (A-330 is fine) with their modified variants here.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 27 Apr 2015 09:24

^^^ This.

Billion dollar boondoggles become useless in 10 years. Su30, IL76, or C17. Build your own or be reduced to parade show strength.

C17 is strategic.
C130 is strategic.
Rafale is strategic.

You know what?
Su30 was strategic.
Mig29 was strategic.

...

Mig21 was strategic.

See?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Apr 2015 09:29

>> Aren't we paying premium for special-ops configured C-130s
yes they are primarily for sf and para regt but can operate as cargo haulers also if needed. if the MTA fails I am sure we can get more basic C130J-30(our current stretched model) or shorter C130J to make up.

as the most widely employed medium transport in the world the c130 will be used till 2050 for sure if not longer.
usaf also has no funding for any next gen VLO large airlifter and the C17 will no doubt with engine change be used till 2050 for sure. the C5 galaxy fleet has low uptime and is in limited use might all go by 2020.

its a romantic idea to use A320 for cargo hauling and indeed it will be ok as a workhorse between major airports but for any STOL ops to fwd airfields or bulky loads, dedicated low-floor mil airlifters are onlee option.
the main use of IAFs transport fleet seems to be take off from places like chandigarh, jorhat , kalaikunda etc and supply the fwd bases not inter-metro ops..so maybe thats why they never explore the option of getting a fleet of A320s cheaply off some parking lot in the desert and using it. old A310 pax planes modded for cargo hauling should be very cheap on the market and many euro AFs use them.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Apr 2015 09:34

Shreeman, HAL is struggling to finish the IJT and NAL has never produced a product ever (saras is still in "trials" after a decade).

we are far from the Cheen level of Y-20 heavy airlifter , COMAC C919 using original + imported kit and glueing something together that really works.

lets accept we are not structured for success and unlike the PRC have no exp of decades of assembling and localizing the AN12 (Y8) and Tu16 (H6) under local nameplates...thats the base on which Y20 and c919 is built....

the only thing stopping them from being a threat to the big boys in this segment is lack of access to modern engines

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Apr 2015 09:38

Shreeman wrote:^^^ This.

Billion dollar boondoggles become useless in 10 years. Su30, IL76, or C17. Build your own or be reduced to parade show strength.

C17 is strategic.
C130 is strategic.
Rafale is strategic.

You know what?
Su30 was strategic.
Mig29 was strategic.

...

Mig21 was strategic.

See?

I was thinking more of capability to haul tanks across theatres for rapid deployment, but yeah, the word "strategic" is over used.

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Apr 2015 09:45

Singha wrote:>> Aren't we paying premium for special-ops configured C-130s
yes they are primarily for sf and para regt but can operate as cargo haulers also if needed. if the MTA fails I am sure we can get more basic C130J-30(our current stretched model) or shorter C130J to make up.

as the most widely employed medium transport in the world the c130 will be used till 2050 for sure if not longer.
usaf also has no funding for any next gen VLO large airlifter and the C17 will no doubt with engine change be used till 2050 for sure. the C5 galaxy fleet has low uptime and is in limited use might all go by 2020.

its a romantic idea to use A320 for cargo hauling and indeed it will be ok as a workhorse between major airports but for any STOL ops to fwd airfields or bulky loads, dedicated low-floor mil airlifters are onlee option.
the main use of IAFs transport fleet seems to be take off from places like chandigarh, jorhat , kalaikunda etc and supply the fwd bases not inter-metro ops..so maybe thats why they never explore the option of getting a fleet of A320s cheaply off some parking lot in the desert and using it. old A310 pax planes modded for cargo hauling should be very cheap on the market and many euro AFs use them.

Djibouti could handle civilian aircraft, yet we sent C17s there. I understand if the goal was to land in Yemen, but only air india was allowed to land there.

Kathmandu airport can handle civilian aircraft and so nearby that distance doesn't matter and multiple sorties can be carried out, so again C17s are an overkill there.

We probably do require C-130s for low-level ingress for paradrops, but why use it as a cargo transport.

Point is we are using military aircraft for something completely unnecessary for their use, because there are no alternatives.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 27 Apr 2015 09:47

As usual IAF/MOD / powers-that-be will do not solve a problem till it becomes a catastrophe. And then they wake up

And then perhaps Rodina offers a super duper aircraft which is under development since X years. They are "about" to complete the R&D and start producing 50 a/c per year. They only need US$$ x billion to complete the R&D and about US$$ zbillion to set up a "new special production line for India" and powers-that-be will say tit is a superb win-win solution. And we order 100+ AN xyz / IL abc.

K

PS And 2-3 years later Rodina starts producing same a/c for China !!!!

JAI HIND

PPS Excuse my skeptics

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Apr 2015 10:02

Take the Dornier. HAL manufactures it but it has gained enough expertise to make modifications to it, to give to DRDO as flying testbed for radar, for maritime patrol etc. IN can rest assured knowing that HAL will take care of spares supply.
That's the advantage of manufacturing an aircraft and also owning the supply chain. That's why the MTA project has been such a tragedy and a disaster for us.

We should produce and localize the supply chain as much as possible for transports in multiple weight classes. Then you don't need to shop abroad for specialized applications (tanker, etc) - you just buy the specific components off the shelf.

We should manufacture A330s or we should manufacture 787s too, and use them for AWACS, tanker and bombers. If they don't exist, well, we should co-design with the OEM and conduct test flights here.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 27 Apr 2015 10:09

Singha wrote:Shreeman, HAL is struggling to finish the IJT and NAL has never produced a product ever (saras is still in "trials" after a decade).

we are far from the Cheen level of Y-20 heavy airlifter , COMAC C919 using original + imported kit and glueing something together that really works.

lets accept we are not structured for success and unlike the PRC have no exp of decades of assembling and localizing the AN12 (Y8) and Tu16 (H6) under local nameplates...thats the base on which Y20 and c919 is built....

the only thing stopping them from being a threat to the big boys in this segment is lack of access to modern engines

Singha,

The debate is over cost and affordability. Cost reduces numbers. You end up with 10 after spending all your fortune. Will you flog them or make them last? Fatigue is fatigue. And numbers are the other undeniable fact. Availability is the consequence of flogging and subpar maintenance.

As far as the manufacturing goes, where there is a will there is a way. I have peripheral knowledge of the overall scene. And anecdotal evidence to conjecture there isnt a will. The polity needs HAL to be just this functional. And no more.

There is no substitute for dedicated people (civilian) transports in this scene. There is also no substitute for cargo lifters. Neither the IAF C17s, nor C130s should be getting flogged in these roles.

I bow out. Not my place to be talking here, I tend to get in trouble this side of things.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Apr 2015 10:19

I have long advocated IAF move more into palletized cargo rather than loose packing and hence improve throughput and get itself a fleet of cheap A310 cargo haulers like say the german air force uses (5 x A310) , France has 6. these reduce cost / flying hr and save the airframe life of the mil haulers like a400 , transall , c130 etc. spare parts and servicing will be way cheaper.
http://cdn1.airplane-pictures.net/image ... 285962.jpg

there are lot of B767 and B747 retired from pax service being used in this role as well.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Apr 2015 10:40

Since IAF is opting for A-330 for AWACS/Tanker role , They should simply buy more A-330 for Standard Cargo Transport and Troop/Civic Ferring role.

Chances are 50 % of time IAF would be move standard cargo in pellet/container and not the extra size types and ferring civilian/troops is more cost effective and effecient for A-330 types to do

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 27 Apr 2015 10:53

Next time, IAF should buy a decent number of low cost standardized containers, so that they can pack more neatly and efficiently.

Vikas Swarup ‏@MEAIndia

#IndiaWithNepal 22 tonnes of food packets, 120 large oxygen cylinders moved yesterday. More enroute today morning.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 27 Apr 2015 11:32

^^^ IAF only provides aircraft, containers would come from the agencies providing / handling the relief, in this case GOI. Men and material is supplied as required by GOI. IAF deploys the aircraft and men under the local administrative control or the concerned Central minitries control.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 27 Apr 2015 11:33

^^^ IAF only provides aircraft, containers would come from the agencies providing / handling the relief, in this case GOI. Men and material is supplied as required by GOI. IAF deploys the aircraft and men under the local administrative control or the concerned Central minitries control.

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 27 Apr 2015 11:57

Post-Nepal earthquake evacuation operation success, IAF to buy three more C-17 aircraft

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 063979.cms

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Apr 2015 12:30

srin wrote:The key to transport aircraft is availability and payload. So, either we should assemble it locally or we should get a variant of popular civilian aircraft. Otherwise, in a decade or so, essential spares will be very difficult and consequently, very expensive to procure. IL-76 all over again.

Okay - C17s are a strategic buy. But I'm a bit skeptical about the C-130s. Aren't we paying premium for special-ops configured C-130s (which is perfectly fine) and using them as regular transports ?

We should get assembly line to manufacture Boeing (Air India has purchased so many 787s) and Airbus (A-330 is fine) with their modified variants here.

Special Ops configured C-130Js don't just have to be used for Special Ops..after all, such missions will come up mostly during training and exercises and not on a daily basis..in the meanwhile, you cannot have such a useful asset being un-utilized when they can more than handily take up regular transport roles.

And there is no question of getting assembly lines for either 787s or A330s with an order for 27 units..it just won't make any economic sense at all. You'd need to have orders for 100+ of these to be able to justify the massive investment in infra and training that would be required.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Apr 2015 12:36

kmkraoind wrote:Next time, IAF should buy a decent number of low cost standardized containers, so that they can pack more neatly and efficiently.

Vikas Swarup ‏@MEAIndia

#IndiaWithNepal 22 tonnes of food packets, 120 large oxygen cylinders moved yesterday. More enroute today morning.

Why? Those standard containers are generally useful when carrying regular cargo, but for relief supplies, there is nothing wrong in carrying it this way, just as long as the cargo is well secured.