Transport Aircraft for IAF

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 28 Jun 2015 04:46

INDIA AWARDS AIRBUS $1.9B MILITARY PLANE ORDER

NEW DELHI (TIP): India’s defence ministry has agreed to buy 56 planes from Airbus for$1.87 billion, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi moves to modernise the country’s military, an official said on May 14.

The ministry’s defence acquisition council, which approves big ticket orders, agreed Airbus and India’s Tata Advanced Systems would jointly build military transport aircraft to replace an ageing fleet.

The deal for the C295s worth 119.

30 billion rupees ($1.87b) was agreed late Wednesday by the council along with other orders worth $875m, the defence ministry official said.

“The council has approved a joint bid by European giant Airbus Defence and Space and Tata Advanced Systems to supply the Airbus C295s,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

India is in the middle of a major upgrade of its Soviet-era military, partly to keep up with neighbouring rival Pakistan and big-spending China.

Since coming to power one year ago, Modi’s government has approved a string of military projects that had stalled under the previous left-leaning Congress government, in part over corruption scandals.

Modi wants to end India’s status as the world’s number one defence importer and to have 70 percent of hardware manufactured domestically by the turn of the decade.

His government lifted the cap of foreign investment in defence to 49 percent last year.

The council last year deferred approval of the project for Airbus, which was the sole bidder.

Under the project proposal, Airbus would build 16 twin-turboprop aircraft in “fly-away condition”, while Tata would assemble the remaining 40 in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad in a technology transfer.

Other orders approved include 145 BAE Systems ultra-light artillery howitzers, Indo-Russian BrahMos cruise missiles for six warships and 197 Russian Kamov helicopters, the official said.

The council, chaired by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, also set up a committee to work out the details for the already agreed purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.
:
:
:

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Jun 2015 04:56

The above is a well deserved wake up call for HAL. TASL has the capability to go head to head with HAL in many key areas. Push comes to shove Tata Group can even rope in JLR for mechanical subsystems and of course, theres the inhouse TATA NOVA for avionics work & the depth of experience in TATA SED. HAL has to start focusing more and more on getting its operations right & keeping its primary customer happy.

Now for some heavy moves in the small arms and arty sector, plus munitions where we need a big change from the OFB, whose production quality is beyond the pale.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2015 05:44

I doubt if Tatas will get into a competitive lungi-dance with HAL. They will take on projects (like a civil airliner) where HAL cannot compete and award HAL with orders for sub-systems

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Jun 2015 06:28

Excellent news. Hopefully someone will wake up cancel that MTA with russians, get airbus as consultants and go on this alone. Those RR engines will do well for hot and high performance required of MTA. Plus if we had any size restrictions from russian use case that can be discarded or just build the A400M in house at TASL/HAL as well.

This will become a good defacto plane for CG duties. End of dorniers I think.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2015 07:09

^^ A400M is too big for a MTA. but I agree airbus or embraer makes so much sense than russia for MTA. the embraer product being license made here in numbers s best bet ... its already in flying shape. or else design our MTA with airbus help and get it ready in 10 yrs when AN32 starts to retire. either way is better than this ilyushin mirage.

>> 56 planes from Airbus for$1.87 billion + $850 mil.

a extremely VFM price

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 28 Jun 2015 07:51

shiv wrote:I doubt if Tatas will get into a competitive lungi-dance with HAL. They will take on projects (like a civil airliner) where HAL cannot compete and award HAL with orders for sub-systems

For now. In 5-10 years, things are going to change.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Jun 2015 07:52

That still leaves the an 32 replacement in the mid 20 as hanging in the air. I would have been happy if the 2 had been clubed.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2015 07:54

Hal has only itself to blame for hanging on to rodina for the MTA instead of seeking other help long ago.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Jun 2015 08:45

Singha wrote:^^ A400M is too big for a MTA. but I agree airbus or embraer makes so much sense than russia for MTA. the embraer product being license made here in numbers s best bet ... its already in flying shape. or else design our MTA with airbus help and get it ready in 10 yrs when AN32 starts to retire. either way is better than this ilyushin mirage.

It may be a tad bit bigger, but it will give us some extra range and excellent hot and high performance that we always keep looking for.

It will push
20 tons to 6300 kms
30 tons to 4500 kms or
37 tons to 3200 kms

Gives us expeditionary capabilities that we might want in a pinch. It might even have much much lower operating costs that MTA with those ps-90 engines. Production cost cannot be any cheaper that what the MTA might be. We may not have to order A-330's MRTT if do get one of these platforms. 50-60 might cover our needs for the next 40 years in a variety of roles.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Jun 2015 09:36

Karan M wrote:<SNIP>Now for some heavy moves in the small arms and arty sector, plus munitions where we need a big change from the OFB, whose production quality is beyond the pale.

Red letter day for this country will be when likes of TATA Power SED, L&T and Bharat Forge will be given parallel orders to manufacture artillery guns for army. Between these three, they can do quality work in required time. And help to reduce the time required for production of the massive quantity involved and compress replacement timeline.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jun 2015 09:53

+216 sir. we need to compress our production timelines to build muscle.
wishy washy decade long induction scares none, least of all a munna like TSP who can reach inside Khan's boneyard and snag 100 M109 there, 50 M198 there.

and make no mistake Khan might dispose off older MLRS units to the munna citing need to 'balance' our pinaka (slow) induction. these are proven kit with a lot of options for payload including unitary HE.

srin · Post by **srin** » 29 Jun 2015 10:29

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:<SNIP>Now for some heavy moves in the small arms and arty sector, plus munitions where we need a big change from the OFB, whose production quality is beyond the pale.
Red letter day for this country will be when likes of TATA Power SED, L&T and Bharat Forge will be given parallel orders to manufacture artillery guns for army. Between these three, they can do quality work in required time. And help to reduce the time required for production of the massive quantity involved and compress replacement timeline.

Red letter day will be when *anybody* will be given orders to manufacture artillery guns for the army. Let's not get too greedy here

The Bharat Forge video was very informative: capacity to manufacture a 155/52 every two days - almost 180 guns a year to start with - is pretty good. If it is better (reliability, electronics) than our current Bofors/39, then order a few years worth.

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Jun 2015 09:11

srin wrote:...
The Bharat Forge video was very informative: capacity to manufacture a 155/52 every two days - almost 180 guns a year to start with - is pretty good. If it is better (reliability, electronics) than our current Bofors/39, then order a few years worth.

That's just capacity. They bought the whole gun factory from Austria. To actually manufacture 180 guns/year it will take some lead time (i.e. 2 to 3 years) to shore up SME suppliers for parts/materials, iron out kinks in the supply/distribution chain and internal operations. Also, they will need to recruit/train assembly and QA personnel. All these things take time initially and is costly. Without firm orders for quantities that make good return-on-investment (ROI), no private company will do this upfront.

sum · Post by **sum** » 01 Jul 2015 11:24

Airbus pips Boeing in SoKo too:
Airbus Wins Airborne Tanker Deal Over Boeing

The government has chosen European aerospace giant Airbus to supply in-flight refueling tankers to the country's Air Force. Under the W1.5 trillion deal, Airbus Defense and Space will supply four A330 MRTT aircraft by 2019 (US$1=W1,117).

With the procurement, the Air Force's KF-16s and F-15Ks will be able to fly missions over the easternmost islets of Dokdo for more than an hour, instead of a mere five to 30 minutes without in-flight refueling.

They would also be able to carry out longer missions over the submerged rocks of Ieo.

Airbus won a hard-fought bid over Boeing's KC-46A, which would have seemed the more obvious choice given South Korea's defense reliance on the U.S.

Boeing's defense division also lost an earlier bid in the next-generation jet fighter (FX) project worth W7.34 trillion here.

DAPA said the A330 MRTT has superior functions in terms of staying airborne in remote regions, midair refueling capacity, and personnel and payload capacity. It also got high points on price.

"The A330 MRTT offered a lower initial procurement cost than its rival KC-46A. Its upkeep cost will also be lower in the wake of the weaker euro," DAPA added.

The A330 MRTT is 58.8 m long with a 60.3 m wingspan, can carry 111 tons of fuel and 43 tons of cargo, and transport 300 personnel to an area up to 8,100 km away.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 03 Jul 2015 15:08

Viv S wrote:
indranilroy wrote:If this is not a farce, then what is? Does anybody want to guess what knowhow, manufacturing tech or indeginization this will bring to India?
In a word - 'squat'.

200 Ka-226s to be ordered. 50 delivered off-the-shelf. Remainder assembled locally @ 30-40 per year. Indigenous content rising to 30% after 3-4 years. And you can bet even the 'indigenous' content will consist of the lowest hanging fruit on the technological tree.

(And this assuming that all specified ToT comes through.)

KA 226 - Total 200. Delivered off the shelf - 50. balance 150
Local assembly 30 per year. Time required is 150/30 = 5 years
Local assembly 40 per year. Time required is 150/4 = 3.75 years

So if we finish the production run in3.75 years, where is the question of indigenous content being 30% after 3-4 years.
So indigenous content will be below 30%

So Screw Driver Technology Only

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 03 Jul 2015 15:10

Philip wrote: It has a service ceiling in excess of 7000m ,,,,,

What is the NETT payload for operating at 7000 m ?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 03 Jul 2015 15:15

Philip wrote:
I find things yet to be made in XYZX,yet to fly/run, yet to pass their trials,yet to enter production and with no idea of the cost as well being touted as better than an existing product readily available which has also passed its trials (twice), as a sick joke upon the nation sadly touted by our very own snake-oil salesmen.

Are you refering to the "latest" Armata tank from Rodina ?? This thread is Transport Aircraft for IAF.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 03 Jul 2015 15:19

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:<SNIP>Now for some heavy moves in the small arms and arty sector, plus munitions where we need a big change from the OFB, whose production quality is beyond the pale.
Red letter day for this country will be when likes of TATA Power SED, L&T and Bharat Forge will be given parallel orders to manufacture artillery guns for army. Between these three, they can do quality work in required time. And help to reduce the time required for production of the massive quantity involved and compress replacement timeline.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jul 2015 13:04

One is talking about our very own LUH,not a tank. There is a fringe element that cannot stomach anything Russian.Good,let them advocate and obtain for us,N-subs,N-reactors,BMos equiv missiles ,MKIs,etc. with TOT from Uncle Sam or anywhere else!

The LTA decision is a very positive one,as it gives the pvt. sector a major breakthrough into the aerospace industry,esp. manufacture of aircraft.HAL must abandon its dog-in-the-manger attitude,as it has not delivered on time in many projects,leading to imports. The smaller less complex aircraft/helo types must be offloaded to pvt. industry,while it concentrates upon the really big expensive complex tkts like the FGA,LCA,AMCA,MTA,AEW&C, etc. Failure on delivery of BTTs,IJTs,etc. have damaged its reputation substantially,leading to the ususal spats between it and the IAF,its only client (barring a few gifts to friends).

Regarding the AN-32 replacement,all 100+ are/have been upgraded/refurbished,barring 5 allegedly that "disappeared" in the UKR! These will remain with us for at least another decade+,as long as their tough airframes are capable of lasting. The C-295s will be worthy complements to them and after the LTAs have been built,production could swing to AN-32 replacements of a suitable type/desi designJV,whatever. The MTA is a serious requirement,as the platform could also be tweaked for dedicated variants from tankers,AEW ,ASW/MRP,EW/ISTAR versions. A passenger variant could also be developed in parallel,saving the need for yet another civil aircraft type.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jul 2015 13:54

Philip wrote:One is talking about our very own LUH,not a tank. There is a fringe element that cannot stomach anything Russian.Good,let them advocate and obtain for us,N-subs,N-reactors,BMos equiv missiles ,MKIs,etc. with TOT from Uncle Sam or anywhere else!

There are very very few people on the forum who'd be happy about more units of a Russian type being acquired in lieu of fewer ones of an Indian type. Few, but they exist nonetheless.

The MTA is a serious requirement,as the platform could also be tweaked for dedicated variants from tankers,AEW ,ASW/MRP,EW/ISTAR versions. A passenger variant could also be developed in parallel,saving the need for yet another civil aircraft type.

The MTA is a papier-mache model that has delivered sweet nothing in the last eight years. What it is, is an excuse to get India to kick in funds to develop a Russian aircraft with minimal work-share, negligible export prospects (given the saturated market), delivering unsatisfactory performance (doesn't meet re-light conditions) confirming to a legacy of atrocious after-sales support, that needlessly complicates logistics with yet another aircraft type.

The whole AEW/EW.. etc etc functions are a waste of time. A military transport aircraft is a fundamentally poor fit for those roles, which are far better suited to be performed by a civilian type. Dedicated passenger transport is an even more fruitless idea. There's a very good reason why airliners fly its customers in 737s & A320s instead of C-17s & A-400Ms.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2015 05:55

Puttering about the web, as a FYI only:

Dec, 2012 :: IAF to induct more transport aircraft, helicopters

The IAF was also looking at replacing IL-76 in the next 10 or 15 years with upgraded versions of AN-32s and C-17s.

2022ish+

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 05 Jul 2015 06:45

Still no news about ordering additional C 17s.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2015 06:47

No funds.

I think until the Rafale issue is resolved they will not commit on the additional C-17s.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2015 11:36

Hasn't production ended? There's always the second-hand market,leasing options,but one doubts if more will be acquired given the huge demand for eqpt. from the services.They're v.costly too when compared with the IL-476 options.Almost 3 for 1 cost-wise.details given earlier.

Why did we choose the Il-76/A-50 as the platform the our Israeli developed AWACS then,if a civilian type was a better choice? we had other options. We are reportedly getting two more AWACS on the same A-50/IL 76 platform.Moreover,if one examines transports and civvy types,very often you find that one platform has been tweaked satisfying both roles. What is the great difference between cargo and passr. variants of civvy types? Just the interior layout,and eqpt. perhaps for loading pallets,etc. The advantage with a mil spec. platform is that it could have higher mil spec performance built into it like shorter TO runways reqd.,etc.,higher hot and high performance,etc.The P-8 is the first mil. aircraft built on the same civilian line.Good for Boeing.

The MTA is a much needed requirement.If the planned MTA with Russia isn't sorted out,and one seriously doesn't know why there has been so much delay (Cong/UPA virus?) then another JV must be found. Hopefully the issue will be taken up by Mr.M on his forthcoming visit.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jul 2015 12:01

>>Why did we choose the Il-76/A-50 as the platform the our Israeli developed AWACS then,if a civilian type was a better choice?

Time and cost. the A50 already had the aerodynamic testing and stuff done by Bereiv and Ilyushin unlike a low volume order to Airbus which they would be unlikely to take up or to Boeing which would offer the 767 that JASDF uses but that plane too is out of production.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2015 13:16

TX.But we've chosen an Airbus widebody for our next desi CABS AEW platform,larger than the EMBs.There was a model of it at AI this year.When I asked the boffin at the display,he said the platform had not been chosen yet,it was announced a little later.I wonder whether any studies have been done for that variant as yet.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jul 2015 16:50

Philip wrote:Hasn't production ended? There's always the second-hand market,leasing options,but one doubts if more will be acquired given the huge demand for eqpt. from the services.They're v.costly too when compared with the IL-476 options.Almost 3 for 1 cost-wise.details given earlier.

'Guesswork' given earlier and refuted with facts proving that the C-17 was cheaper on a cost per unit payload basis (twice the lifting capability at less the twice the cost multiplied by superior availability and turnaround time).

Why did we choose the Il-76/A-50 as the platform the our Israeli developed AWACS then,if a civilian type was a better choice? we had other options. We are reportedly getting two more AWACS on the same A-50/IL 76 platform.

Why is the E-3 based on the Boeing 707? Why is the Wedgetail based on the 737? Why have the Embraer and Gulfstream being chosed for AEW&C function? Why has India opted for the A330 to base our AWACS on?

Moreover,if one examines transports and civvy types,very often you find that one platform has been tweaked satisfying both roles. What is the great difference between cargo and passr. variants of civvy types? Just the interior layout,and eqpt. perhaps for loading pallets,etc. The advantage with a mil spec. platform is that it could have higher mil spec performance built into it like shorter TO runways reqd.,etc.,higher hot and high performance,etc.

No you don't find one platform 'tweaked' to 'satisfy' both roles. A civilian aircraft is an aerodynamically superior design for all regimes.

The downside is the lack of roll-on-roll-off palletized cargo carrying capability unlike a high-wing rear-ramp equipped military transport. Which is useless for an AWACS or a dedicated aerial tanker. As a result, a civilian type will be far superior at both roles.

The P-8 is the first mil. aircraft built on the same civilian line.Good for Boeing.

When did the E-3, E-767, E-7, JSTARS, KC-10, KC-135, Sentinel etc stop being military aircraft?

The MTA is a much needed requirement.If the planned MTA with Russia isn't sorted out,and one seriously doesn't know why there has been so much delay (Cong/UPA virus?) then another JV must be found. Hopefully the issue will be taken up by Mr.M on his forthcoming visit.

We already have an MTA-class aircraft in the C-130J. We're also license building the C-295 in substantial numbers. Both types are well suited for high altitude operations. There's been little movement on the MTA, because the project's premise itself is dubious.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2015 10:29

The C-130J is a 4-engined turboprop not a twin-egined jet like the MTA which outclasses the C-130J in several depts.,including speed,higher service clg,passr. capacity and has a crew of only 3 compared to 5 for the C-130J. However,as said before,the C-130J is also needed for other duties,esp. special ops,and buying more C-130Js which can land on small airstrips in the Himalayas/mountains is a better option than ultra-expensive C-17s which are global strat. transports for the US/NATO's expeditionary warfare requirements. Special variamnts for tankers,AEW aircraft,ISTAR,etc. would be much better served using the MTA rather than the much slower C-130.

MTA:
General characteristics
Crew: 3
Capacity: 70 to 150 passengers

Payload: 20,000 kilograms (44,000 lb)
Length: 37.7 m (123 ft 8 in)
Wingspan: 35.5 m (116 ft 6 in)
Height: 12.95 m (42 ft 6 in)
Max takeoff weight: 68,000 kg (149,914 lb)
Fuel capacity: 25,000 kilograms (55,000 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Aviadvigatel PD-14M[10] turbofan engines, 152.98 kN (34,392 lbf) thrust each

Performance
Maximum speed: 870 km/h (541 mph; 470 kn)
Cruising speed: 810 km/h (503 mph; 437 kn)
Range: 3,250[11] km (2,019 mi; 1,755 nmi) with payload of 20,000 kilograms (44,000 lb)
Ferry range: 7,300 km (4,536 mi; 3,942 nmi)
Service ceiling: 13,100 m (42,979 ft)
Takeoff run: 1,050 metres (3,440 ft)
Landing run: 1,050 metres (3,440 ft)

C-130J:
General characteristics
Crew: five (two pilots, navigator, flight engineer and loadmaster)
Capacity:
C-130E/H/J cargo hold: length, 40 feet (12.31 meters); width, 119 inches (3.12 meters); height, 9 feet (2.74 meters). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 meters); width, 119 inches (3.02 meters)
C-130J-30 cargo hold: length, 55 feet (16.9 meters); width, 119 inches (3.12 meters); height, 9 feet (2.74 meters). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 meters); width, 119 inches (3.02 meters)
92 passengers or
64 airborne troops or
74 litter patients with 5 medical crew or
6 pallets or
2–3 Humvees or
2 M113 armored personnel carriers

Payload: 45,000 lb (20,400 kg)
Length: 97 ft 9 in (29.8 m)
Wingspan: 132 ft 7 in (40.4 m)
Height: 38 ft 3 in (11.6 m)
Wing area: 1,745 ft² (162.1 m²)
Empty weight: 75,800 lb (34,400 kg)
Useful load: 72,000 lb (33,000 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 155,000 lb (70,300 kg)
Powerplant: 4 × Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, 4,590 shp (3,430 kW) each
Propellers: 4 propellers Propeller diameter: 13.5 ft (4.1 m)

Performance
Maximum speed: 320 knots (366 mph, 592 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,060 m)
Cruise speed: 292 kts (336 mph, 540 km/h)
Range: 2,050 nmi (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)
Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,060 m) empty;[73] 23,000 ft (7,077 m) with 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms) payload ()
Rate of climb: 1,830 ft/min(9.3 m/s)

PS:The MTA has been envisaged right from the start as a dual role aircraft not just a mil transport.The C-130J on the other hand is a purely mil transport.

The governments of Russia and India agreed to produce the aircraft for their respective armed forces and for friendly third-party countries, and to develop a civilian variant of the MTA in the form of a 100-seater passenger airplane, for which Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) – owned by the Indian government – will be the lead partner and principal integrator. The Indian portion of the MTA's serial production would take place at HAL's Transport Aircraft Division in Kanpur.[5

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Jul 2015 10:47

Hmm - what MTA ? Do you see one anywhere ? I don't - not even a prototype. And I've been waiting for years.

Till then the specs are just wishes. You don't know if it has turned out to be too heavy or requires a really long runway to take off, what its range would be. No paper plane (or CAD plane) will outclass an in-production plane.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 07 Jul 2015 11:38

17 nos IL76 in service with IAF will have their service life extended to 45 years with mid life upgrade and will serve upto 2033 and hence there is no need for additional C 17.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Jul 2015 14:08

Philip wrote:The C-130J is a 4-engined turboprop not a twin-egined jet like the MTA which outclasses the C-130J in several depts.,including speed,higher service clg,passr. capacity and has a crew of only 3 compared to 5 for the C-130J.

What is the advantage of higher service ceiling for a transport aircraft? Unlike an AWACS its not limited by the horizon. Your passenger capacity calculation is fundamentally flawed as well. Put a C-17-type seating pallet on the (stretched) C-130J and it'll carry more of them than the MTA.

Cargo Dimensions:

MTA: 14m long x 3.4m wide x 3.45m high

C-130J-30: 16.9m long x 3.12m wide x 2.74m high
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FLOOR AREA

MTA - 47.6 sq.m

C-130J-30 - 52.73 sq.m
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Translation: The C-130J has greater capacity than the MTA both for passengers and cargo.

The MTA's sole advantage over the C-130J is a faster speed, and that too only by 150kph. (800kph vs 650kph)

However,as said before,the C-130J is also needed for other duties,esp. special ops,and buying more C-130Js which can land on small airstrips in the Himalayas/mountains is a better option than ultra-expensive C-17s which are global strat. transports for the US/NATO's expeditionary warfare requirements. Special variamnts for tankers,AEW aircraft,ISTAR,etc. would be much better served using the MTA rather than the much slower C-130.

- The 'ultra expensive' C-17s are cheaper than the Il-76 per unit cargo.

- The C-130J is only 20% slower than the MTA.

- For tanker, AEW, ISTAR etc, a civilian variant of an Airbus/Boeing will always be the preferred platform.

The governments of Russia and India agreed to produce the aircraft for their respective armed forces and for friendly third-party countries, and to develop a civilian variant of the MTA in the form of a 100-seater passenger airplane, for which Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) – owned by the Indian government – will be the lead partner and principal integrator. The Indian portion of the MTA's serial production would take place at HAL's Transport Aircraft Division in Kanpur.[5

Sukhoi Superjet 100/95: Passenger capacity ~ 100 pax.

As for exports to 'friendly third-party countries', too late. The global market already saturated -

1. Lockheed Martin C-130J
2. Airbus A-400M
3. Embraer KC-390
4. Kawasaki C-2
5. Antonov An-178
6. Shaanxi Y-9

With the remainder of the market divvied up between the C-27J and the C-295M, the MTA's export prospects are practically non-existent.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Jul 2015 18:15

Better to scrap the mythical MTA and focus on C130 and C-295 for our transport needs. MTA saga has dragged on for more than a decade now, and comes up for discussion only when India-Russia leaders meet!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 Jul 2015 18:26

^^^"Under the project proposal, Airbus would build 16 twin-turboprop aircraft in “fly-away condition”, while Tata would assemble the remaining 40 in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad in a technology transfer."

WTH is assembly with 'ToT'? How to make screwdrivers?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2015 18:33

Fortunately decisions are taken by the professionals who want the MTA. The C-130 is a poor substitute for it and the C-295 falls far short of its performance. Why bring in the Sukhoi Superjet for the passr. role? That aircraft has no mil capability at all. It is relevant only if there is yet another requirement for a civil airliner. The MTA satisfies both mil and civil needs,it is enough. Built in larger numbers it will prove very cost-effective too for both mil/civil ops.The C-295 is an LTA,AVRO replacement,satisfying the light transport role.Perhaps it could replace in some measure the AN-32s after the upgraded ones have retired a decade hence.

The problem is that DRDO/HAL's ambitions are beyond its design capacity. Some years ago it was trying to woo back ex-employees. Some time ago it added the FGFA responsibility onto the IJT team for want of enough scientific manpower! Just look objectively at all its ambitious programmes starting from the BTT,IJT,LCA,FGFA,etc. Its inability to deliver the goods has required roping in foreign entities to sort out HAL's design deficiencies like the IJT/BAe. There is a major shortfall in human resources and its "dog-in-the-manger" attitude was evident when it tried hard to sabotage even the LTA programme,not wanting it to go to the pvt. sector. More JVs with firang manufacturers is on the cards if HAL fails to deliver. With billions of investment pouring into the aerospace sector,the sunshine industry in the country,the floodgates must be opened for the pvt. sector.HAL has enough on its plate with the highest value tkts. in the form of the LCA,FGFA,AMCA,Jag/MIG-29/M2K UGs apart from LCH,ALH,LUH,etc. Mahindras tying up with Airbus for tendering for naval helos is another excellent development.

India's mammoth defence worry, DRDO faces shortage of 2,776 scientists
http://www.firstpost.com/india/indias-m ... 26509.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jul 2015 18:43

The MTA is nothing but a farce. Yet another Russian hanger queen likely. Scrap the program and have Embraer work something out with HAL.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2015 19:03

EMB have no programme similar. Why would they want to start a project with a limited number just for India? The MTA is meant both for India and Russian requirements.Find an alternative civil/mil dual role bird to the MTA first before wanting to scrap it,simply because one has a hatred against Russian wares.

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Jul 2015 19:11

MTA as a non-paper plane seems to be a joke, but a civilian aircraft ?

Which airline would buy it ? And why ?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Jul 2015 19:57

Capacity-wise C130 is pretty close to MTA. And the basic C130 costs much less that the spec-ops variant of C-130J. So makes sense to standardize on C-130s and C-295. Also there is already logistics and infrastructure in place for C130s. With not even the design phase completed for MTA and the disconnect between Russia and India, even if it were to magically kickstart tomorrow, it won't be less than 10 years before the first aircraft is inducted. And franky, the russian engines are no match for the western ones in performance and reliability. So I doubt the MTA would really be state-of-the-art at induction.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2015 09:12

there is also a short chassis version of the C130J that closely matches the MTA. the ones we have are the long chassis C130-30J.

the brazil embraer product is also another option if we want more of a manufacturing share and turbofan engines. they would be on the lookout for customers in a market dominated by others and would welcome a big customer like iaf.

ANY damn thing you name it is a better option than wailing over the dead corpse of the MTA. the unicorn and centaur is dead, long live these noble beasts!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jul 2015 11:34

The point being missed is just one platform for both civil/mil uses. as I said,no harm in acquiring xtra Hercules for Himalayan,spl. forces duties. As mentioned by a member,upgraded Il-76s to 476 std. would be far cheaper options than buying more C-17s.If one really requires C-17s,lease them when needed as NATO did with Russian heavy-lift transports and helos in Afghanistan!