Transport Aircraft for IAF

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2017 16:51

JT naughty,naughty! But seriously,IL-76s have been doing fantastic service for the IAF,incident free as well for around 3 decades..and those are the legacy birds.Which aircraft did we use in Op Cactus,which also performed logistic duties escorting our Flankers to Red Flag exercises,etc.in the US and UK? The 476'ss have 10% increase in speed,payload upto 60t,range increase ,glass cockpit,more fuel efficient engines,etc.Plus we're buying two of them for the Phalcon AWACS platform and most probably the tanker versions too to augment the earlier variant,the IL-78s already in service. Buying 3 IL-476s at just $180M,will free another $150m for anything else that the IAF would want. I'm sure a comparative analysis of an IL-476 with the add-ons that Brar has spelt out above,will give far lower figure in both acquiring,operating and sustaining the bird for its lifespan. Why the A-330 was junked for the tanker req. being far too expensive in comparison.

In the C-17 deal which was Snake-Oil Singh's gift to Uncle Sam,appeared out of nowhere when never a priority in the IAF's wishlist,that too when the MMRCA was "top of the pops".OK,it was a "back-scratch" for the N-deal,give Boeing some slack,but we should've spelt out the extra aircraft options in the initial agreement.However, as per usual" our super-intelligent MOD bungle contracts (deliberately could speculate),so that further orders come in at higher prices. It was universally known that the IAF order kept the plant open a little longer and that it was about to close.EXtra C-17s could've brought the price down substantially.Instead we have to pay this fortune for just one bird!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Jun 2017 16:53

I'm sure a comparative analysis of an IL-476 with the add-ons that Brar has spelt out above,will give far lower figure in both acquiring,operating and sustaining the bird for its lifespan.

Show me one such analysis, and one such customer that is being supported by such a deal i.e. long term life-cycle cost and a performance based logistics with an availability clause.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 27 Jun 2017 16:58

Philip wrote:......

The Government of India has requested the possible sale of one (1) C-17 transport aircraft with four (4) Turbofan F-117-PW-100 engines. The sale would also include one (1) AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning System, one (1) AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing System (CMDS), one (1) AN/APX-119 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder, precision navigation equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, warranty, Quality Assurance, ferry support, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $366.2 million.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2017 17:03

Sorry! I'm $36M too low in costs!

Those figs are for USAF ops.We've got to see how well the bird performs in Indian conditions. CAG reports in the future will tell us.No one is disputing the fact that it is a v.good aircraft,larger than the IL-476,etc. but now no longer in production.What's the good of buying a singleton at exorbitant cost? Come on-its 5 times the cost of a single IL-476,not even double! Backscratching Boeing ins the only conclusion one can come to.It makes asinine economic sense.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Jun 2017 17:06

ome on-its 5 times the cost of a single IL-476!

Don't pretend that it does. As has been made evidently clear, you are using a random internet price quote for the aircraft to an FMS notification for aircraft+logistics support+spares+mission systems for another. If and when the MOD picks a new tanker and AWACS platform you will see the same play out once again.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 27 Jun 2017 17:07

What's good of buying a singleton IL-476 then ? We already have 10, had option for 6 more, god only knows what we were doing, now left with 1, therefore buying it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2017 17:50

You mean C-17.Exactly what I've been saying.JLet's look at a "random internet price" of a C-17 shall we?

UK:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4460 ... -deal.html

MoD 'embarrassed' at cost of Boeing C-17 lease deal
By Roland Gribben1 31 Jul 2000

BRITAIN is in the final stages of hammering out a deal with Boeing to lease four military transport planes for almost the same price it could have bought the aircraft outright.
Negotiations to pay almost £500m to hire the huge C-17 jets for seven years are nearly complete. However, Boeing executives have confirmed that they could have become defence ministry property outright for just over £500m. They are selling for $200m (£133m) a time.
The defence ministry is embarrassed by the cost comparison but insists that the lease package provides better value for money. A spokesman said: "It isn't a fair comparison. You cannot make simplistic comparisons between purchase and lease costs. It would be much more expensive to buy them."
The planes are being leased to the RAF as a stopgap before the delivery of the first military plane developed by the European Airbus consortium. The Government has ordered 25 of the turbo-prop aircraft at $80m (£53m) a time for an outlay of $2 billion, although the plane is still on the drawing board.
Boeing's C-17 lost out in the race for the order from Britain and seven other European nations but has gained a consolation prize by agreeing to meet Britain's immediate needs by taking four planes from a production line dedicated to meeting a US Air Force order.
The eight European countries have now declared their intention to buy 225 Airbus A400M aircraft for $18 billion (£12 billion), an order that BAE Systems says will support 10,000 jobs in Britain. Airbus's entry into the military plane market is considerably cheaper than its Boeing rival, but much smaller.
Military chiefs have been increasing the pressure for a replacement for Hercules planes after the Kosovo war highlighted transport shortcomings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C- ... master_III

US$366 million (flyaway cost for FY 2017)

Canadian experience:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... ntries-pay
New C-17 transport plane purchase costing twice what other countries pay

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson says Canada will purchase another C-17 military transport aircraft from the U.S. but he didn’t explain why the plane appears to be costing taxpayers twice what other nations have paid.
Nicholson said Friday that Canada would pay $415 million for the acquisition. Another $30 million would be spent for 12 years of in-service support.

*(So we now know how much support costs are.Considering a 30 yr lifespan,the costs extra for support should be around just $75M! This does not justify the exorbitant price when some nations have acquired the bird for just $200M)

During the news conference at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Ont., Nicholson was asked about the cost and the fact other nations have paid around $200 million per plane. Nicholson responded that the $415 million was the price negotiated with the plane’s U.S. manufacturer Boeing.
“It’s $415 million and it’s part of the negotiations we have undertaken,” Nicholson said. “The contract has been signed with Boeing. It’s one of the last 10 that will come off the assembly line and I think we are very pleased and proud to have it.”

Aha! We finally have a clue as to the huge price escalation.The last aircraft cost more! It's as if the IAF is buying the last Ferrari! Therefore,IAF,don't use the bird.Let it remain a hangar Queen and sell it for a whopping sum later on just like a famous marque what?!

And now for flying hr. costs:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... LYING-COST!
MiG-29SMT - $5,500 per hour, 6,000 hours guaranteed service life, so it is a bit less than first expected..
Su-24bis Fencer - 4,000+2,400 hours service life
An-124 Ruslan - $11,000-12,000 per hour, due to reduction of operators now $14,000-15,000
Airbus Belouga - $20,000 per hour
Il-76 Candid - slightly over $5,000 per hour

C-17?
http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
MILITARY SPENDING
Costly Flight Hours

C-130J Hercules Cargo Plane — $14,014
C-17 Globemaster Cargo Plane — $23,811
C-5B Galaxy Cargo Plane — $78,817

4 times+ than a legacy IL-76! OK,say 2 IL-76s,it's still twice that of 2 IL-76s.Tsk,tsk.

Just to show you how much we value the IL-76 legacy birds,all are to be upgraded!

IAF moves Rs 4,000-crore proposal to upgrade IL76/78 transport fleet
[IMG]
Indian air force pilots walk away from their Il-76 medium cargo jet after landing at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.*(Wow! They flew all the way to hawaiii!)

Seeking to give new life to its fleet of Russian transport aircraft, the air force has moved a Rs 4,000-crore proposal to upgrade its ageing IL 76/78 aircraft in a deal that could have a substantial spin off for the private defence manufacturing sector.

In a fresh proposal that has been moved earlier this month, the air force has sought the defence ministry’s approval for a comprehensive upgrade of its fleet of 17 IL 76 transport aircraft, as well as the seven IL 78 aerial refuelers that it is operating.

Sources said that the upgrade contract would have a Rs 1,200-crore offsets value, a substantial portion of which is likely to be pumped into the private manufacturing sector that is already tying up with various Russian entities.

Known as the ‘Gajraj’ in the air force, the IL 76 was first ordered in 1983 and has been India’s main heavy lift aircraft before the arrival of the Boeing C 17 aircraft in 2013. The upgrade, sources said, includes new engines for the aircraft that will substantially increase its service life by up to 15 more years.

Source:- IAF moves Rs 4,000-crore proposal to upgrade IL76/78 transport fleet - The Economic Times

PS:24 legacy IL-76/78s are being comprehensively upgraded to serve for another 15 years for what cost? 4,000 crores which is just $620M ! Even less ($100M) than twice the cost of the singleton C-17.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Jun 2017 18:20

Taking non comparable deals and sourcing a FORUM for CPFH data without even providing evidence of the most basic understanding of what is included. Typical!.

I'll give you a hint. Look into what the US O&S cost structure includes and perhaps you will begin to understand why that is not applicable.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2017 18:24

Hard facts posted above.IL-76/78 upgrades for 24 aircraft show how economical it is to acquire,operate,support and upgrade the birds.
UK.Canadian and TIME mag's own stats speak for themselves.Western media not RT,Tass,Sp0ut-nik,whatever.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Jun 2017 18:29

Philip wrote:Hard facts posted above.IL-76/78 upgrades for 24 aircraft show how economical it is to acquire,operate,support and upgrade the birds.
UK.Canadian and TIME mag's own stats speak for themselves.Western media not RT,Tass,Sp0ut-nik,whatever.

I'll repeat - Demonstrate a sense of understanding of what the US O&S cost structure includes before talking about a 'TIME' magazine claim. Once you do that you can then explain how that O&S structure applies to the IAF, and perhaps then we can dig deeper to see how these things compare and we can then share what an applicable CPFH looks like.

Philip wrote::

And now for flying hr. costs:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... LYING-COST!

Il-76 Candid - slightly over $5,000 per hour

Just as a reference to your IL-76 CPFH - Dig into how much a twin engined BA737/A320 burns in terms of fuel per hour and how much that costs. Let's talk about the CPFH of a 4 engined heavy military lifter after that. You can take the claim on the CPFH you have and basically throw it in the trash can.

You may have been joking with a $5000 CPFH but next time add a smiley so that it is obvious.

PS:24 legacy IL-76/78s are being comprehensively upgraded to serve for another 15 years for what cost? 4,000 crores which is just $620M ! Even less ($100M) than twice the cost of the singleton C-17.

On one side you are taking the cost of a new purchase, its mission systems and logistics, and another side is an unspecified (in terms of details) upgrade program where no new aircraft are being purchased. So how does one go about comparing this?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Jun 2017 10:01

Possible sale of Boeing C-17 aircraft to India approved - Pentagon

http://in.reuters.com/article/boeing-pe ... NKBN19H2G5

The U.S. State Department has approved the possible sale to India of one Boeing C-17 transport aircraft, with an estimated cost of $366 million, a Pentagon agency said on Monday.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a statement it notified Congress on Monday of the sale, which includes four turbofan engines, a missile warning system, a countermeasures dispensing system and an identification friend or foe transponder.

(Reporting by Eric Beech; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jun 2017 12:42

From Janes' Intel. Review.

The announcement on 26 June that India is to receive another Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifter has brought to an end a two-year effort to sign up a customer for the last aircraft to roll off the now-closed production line at Long Beach, California. The US Defense Security and

This gives the game away! No one wanted the last "white tail" C-17 and Boeing searched fro a sucker for 2 years.FInally India obliged.Great marketing Boeing!

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 28 Jun 2017 13:52

Philip wrote:Hard facts posted above.IL-76/78 upgrades for 24 aircraft show how economical it is to acquire,operate,support and upgrade the birds.
UK.Canadian and TIME mag's own stats speak for themselves.Western media not RT,Tass,Sp0ut-nik,whatever.

There is no way this includes all aircraft. All aircraft are definitely not serviceable even. There is a IL76 at the Delhi airport that has been without its starboard inboard engine for over 2 years now. permanently parked. Have seen it there every week for the last 2 years.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jun 2017 14:39

Philip wrote:From Janes' Intel. Review.
The announcement on 26 June that India is to receive another Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifter has brought to an end a two-year effort to sign up a customer for the last aircraft to roll off the now-closed production line at Long Beach, California. The US Defense Security and

This gives the game away! No one wanted the last "white tail" C-17 and Boeing searched fro a sucker for 2 years.FInally India obliged.Great marketing Boeing!

I think we should stick to discussing the CPFH and other absurd claims made in your last post.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2017 14:46

the fact that nobody has come forward to provide a uptime based maint package for IL76 tells its own tale.
only the russians have the depth to keep their birds flying , as with bears, mays, backfires - any of these would be hangar queens in our service and they are.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 28 Jun 2017 15:18

Philip wrote:From Janes' Intel. Review.
The announcement on 26 June that India is to receive another Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifter has brought to an end a two-year effort to sign up a customer for the last aircraft to roll off the now-closed production line at Long Beach, California. The US Defense Security and

This gives the game away! No one wanted the last "white tail" C-17 and Boeing searched fro a sucker for 2 years.FInally India obliged.Great marketing Boeing!

Actually this gives your game away. You're peddling IL-476 which is not even in production.

That's after saying IL-76 (an obsolete aircraft) is so cheap.

Then you claim IAF is buying two of "new" IL-476 for Phalcon AWACS, but you chose to ignore the news how mothballed airframes were revived.

You call my comment as naughty when I compared total flying hours of 5 IL-76 versus 1 C-17. But what about many IAF IL-76 which haven't flown for years.

After conceding C-17 is more capable, who's still peddling the 'snake oil' as you call it?

You may have been on the forum as long as I've been, but the tone of your posts never change. In the past I've noticed dr sahib defend your patriotism and have seen moderators protect you. But, I'll say that you've no honour! There's only one master you serve.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2017 15:32

Philip wrote:From Janes' Intel. Review.
The announcement on 26 June that India is to receive another Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifter has brought to an end a two-year effort to sign up a customer for the last aircraft to roll off the now-closed production line at Long Beach, California. The US Defense Security and

This gives the game away! No one wanted the last "white tail" C-17 and Boeing searched fro a sucker for 2 years.FInally India obliged.Great marketing Boeing!

You need to see this
https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/sta ... 7805001728

mody · Post by **mody** » 28 Jun 2017 17:55

The best way forward would be to go the C295W with TASL making the planes in India. 56 as Avro replacement, 4 for BSF, plus we can use the platform for MMPA to replace the Il38s. We will need atleast 24-28 planes for the IN. Maybe CG will also acquire about 4-6 planes. That's a total of 80-90 planes.
Apart from this, Airbus-TASL should be given a mandate to develop a larger version for C295, with payload capacity of 15-18 Tons. This would be the AN-32 replacement. Minimum order quantity for the planes would be 100-120 aircrafts. The newly developed plane would be solely produced in India by TASL-Airbus joint venture.

This would give us the development knowhow that we are looking for, apart from giving us really good transport aircraft.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2017 18:06

Philip wrote:From Janes' Intel. Review.
The announcement on 26 June that India is to receive another Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifter has brought to an end a two-year effort to sign up a customer for the last aircraft to roll off the now-closed production line at Long Beach, California. The US Defense Security and

This gives the game away! No one wanted the last "white tail" C-17 and Boeing searched fro a sucker for 2 years.FInally India obliged.Great marketing Boeing!

IAF had approval to buy 4. Only one was available. Thanks to the Indian procurement process. IIRC, the original order had 6 as options. IST.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 28 Jun 2017 18:12

shiv wrote:
Philip wrote:From Janes' Intel. Review.

This gives the game away! No one wanted the last "white tail" C-17 and Boeing searched fro a sucker for 2 years.FInally India obliged.Great marketing Boeing!
You need to see this
https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/sta ... 7805001728

There's a tweet that makes sense, if other AFs are in need, the respective governments could have persuaded Boeing to make few more once it shutdown the line or Boeing could have made few more whitetails before it closed the line. We missed out on our additional 6 option. Even tiny country like UK has 8 C-17s.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jun 2017 18:28

if other AFs are in need, the respective governments could have persuaded Boeing to make few more once it shutdown the line or Boeing could have made few more whitetails before it closed the line. We missed out on our additional 6 option. Even tiny country like UK has 8 C-17s.

The only way to persuade a company in making aircraft prior to delivery is to pay a deposit down. In the absence of such a deal the company takes a risk to do so and the risk is always measured.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 28 Jun 2017 19:38

Not to mention that the parts for the aircraft are long lead items. Many of them have to be ordered at least an year in advance. If I recall correctly, Boeing did announce at least an year before shutdown that its planning to shut down the assembly line due to absence of any more orders.

Will · Post by **Will** » 01 Jul 2017 16:54

Lol on a lighter note and no offence :d but at times Philip sounds as if the Russkies have hired him to peddle their wares. Some one did ask the question if there were multiple people under that ID. I for one don't think we should put our neck in uncle sams nose where important equipment like fighter aircraft are concerned but then not everything Russian is made of gold. Every country takes care of its own interests. India should do the same and go with what suits its interests the best and not bankroll somone else's MIC when that someone has started or already is in bed with ones arch enemies.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 28 Jul 2017 08:54

C-130Js arrive in Bengal IAF station

While the stand-off between China and India continues at the Sikkim- Bhutan-Tibetan tri-junction of Doklam, the Air Force station at Panagarh in Bardhaman district got its first set of multi-skilled transport aircraft C-130J Super Hercules manufactured by Lockheed Martin of the United States.

Two C-130J have arrived very recently, while the station — named after Marshal of Air Force Arjan Singh — is awaiting the arrival of four more under a month. The six medium-lift capability C-130J will complete the first squadron of six such aircraft in eastern India.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/e ... 372046.ece

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jul 2017 11:47

Going back in time,legacy IL-76s were made in Uzbekistan. After the collapse of the SU,Russia found it very difficult to source spares,etc. from the Uzbeks.A decision was made to build the entire bird in Russia,think its being done in Taganrog.In IAF colours,over 25 yrs of incident free service.Lauded by the IAF. A former AM,head of the transport /VVIP sqd.,when asked by moi said they performed excellently.

The C-17s were part of the N-deal,def analysts in the US now say that def. deals was the main reason for the N-deal,as the US wanted to cash in on the lucrative Indian market.No problem there,very country would like to tout its wares ,but it was camouflaged by Snake-Oil Singh under the pretext of the N-deal,which as far as US N-plant supplies go,supposedly the main item on the agenda, has been a fiasco.Westinghouse has gone bankrupt and US entities still wanting to sell us N-plants are scartching their heads as how they can circumvent the N-Liability clause,which Russia has agreed to for all its N-plants being supplied. The PM recently gave a terrific boost to Indian desi N-plant building,showing that we wish to as far as possible remain self-sufficient in N-power capability.

The moot point about the C-17 initial acquisition,is its timing.Solely meant to benefit Boeing,no slur on the aircraft's capability. At that time we were desperate for the MMRCA fighters,of which 120 were reqd. Instead,the moolah for this critical requirement was used for the C-17s.The Rafale contract languished for aeons until PM Modi cut the knot ,but ordered only 36 due to the cost factor.Gents can mull over in their minds as to what decision would they have taken if given a choice between Rafales/MMRCAs of C-17s as priority.

Boeing thus kept its plant running for a few more years,keeping US politicos who benefited from the C-17 supply chain happy , Havign plumped for the C-17,we should've seized the option for the extra 4 well-knowing that production would cease once and for all. But Babudom reigns supreme in the MOD and we may get only the "white tail"!

In the meantime,Russian production of vastly upgraded IL-76/476s began a few years ago. 40+ already on order for the Russians,Taking advantage of the new more powerful engines,the IAF is upgrading ALL our existing IL-76s,bringing them upto 476 std.,extra range,payload,etc. Together with the C-17s,and not to mention the C-130Js (more reqd.) the IAF now possesses one of the best heavy-lift fleets of any air force in the world.

In the future however,only IL-476s will be available ,other than the giant AN-124s,should we need more heavyweights,but 10+ C-17s and around 20 upgraded IL-76s is a huge total.Given the smaller airstrips in the mountains and restrictions on heavyweight operations,more C-130Js ,also for spl. forces ops in the Tibetan theatre and more (upgraded) MI-26Ts/Chinooks ,which can also carry large eqpt. meant for the BRO,would be a better bet.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 01 Sep 2017 00:06

C-130J Training Center For Indian Air Force Launched At Hindon

Mahindra Defence Systems dedicated its state-of-the-art C-130J Super Hercules simulator training center in service to the nation at the Air Force base,Hindon.

With a full motion simulator, the C-130J training facility offers complete training solution of training aircrews who operate the C-130J special operations aircraft acquired from Lockheed Martin in 2011.

“We are delighted to partner with Lockheed Martin in this venture in service to the Nation,” said S. P. Shukla, Group President, Aerospace and Defence Sector, and Chairman, Mahindra Defence Systems. “We believe this will help deliver the objectives of the Government of India and the Indian Air Force of building indigenous military capabilities. Mahindra Defence Systems, in its endeavor to support the Make in India initiative of the Government of India, is consistently building the ecosystem through similar programs towards a mission ready IAF,” he added.

The center will deliver qualitative and quantitative training to hone the tactical and operational skills of the C-130Jpilots, combat system operators and loadmasters to conduct special operations across National and International boundaries. Towards this end, the state-of-the-artfull motion simulator offers realistic and holistic learning environment through day and night training scenarios.

“The commencement of formal training on the C-130J Weapons Systems Trainer demonstrates our commitment to meet the defence needs of the Indian Government,” saidPhil Shaw, chief executive, Lockheed Martin India. “In partnership with Mahindra Defence Systems, Lockheed Martin is meeting the increasing global demand for C-130J military flight training with a new training center in India. Lockheed Martin’s Rotary & Mission Systems division will provide lifecycle support to C-130J Super Hercules pilots and aircrew”

Mahindra Aerospace has led the Mahindra Group’s foray into utility aircraft and aerostructure manufacturing since 2008. Its utility aircraft business, based in Australia, currently produces the Airvan 8, the most capable, rugged and versatile utility aircraft in its class. Certified in more than 30 countries, over 220 are in service. Mahindra Aerospace has also developed next-gen 10-seat turboprop, the Airvan 10 which has been certified in US & Australia. Mahindra Aerostructures based at Bengaluru produces parts, components & sub-assemblies for platforms produced by global OEM majors.

Mahindra Defence has companies engaged in catering to needs of all three wings of Defence forces –Army, Air Force and Navy. Our product range includes armoured vehicles, underwater warfare equipment, radars and surveillance equipment’s etc. The company have been supplying customized armoured vehicles to the Indian Army and Para Military Forces and overseas customers. Naval Systems unit based in Pune has been supplying Sea Mines, Decoy launcher & Torpedo launchers, large composite structures for defence applications to the Indian Navy.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 01 Sep 2017 03:57

Philip wrote:Going back in time,legacy IL-76s were made in Uzbekistan. After the collapse of the SU,Russia found it very difficult to source spares,etc. from the Uzbeks.A decision was made to build the entire bird in Russia,think its being done in Taganrog.In IAF colours,over 25 yrs of incident free service.Lauded by the IAF. A former AM,head of the transport /VVIP sqd.,when asked by moi said they performed excellently.

Really? Have you read the CAG report on the serviceability of these flying Junks? It is at 41% for Il-76 and 32% for Il-78. If by performing excellently you mean to say that the plane does take off and remain in the air powered by its engines then its fine otherwise I can do nothing but

at the bolded part.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Sep 2017 08:58

Karthik S wrote:... We missed out on our additional 6 option. Even tiny country like UK has 8 C-17s.

Don't worry, we will do the same with many more on top of the M2K line that could have been transferred to India. We'll dither on the F-16/F35, the Soryus etc. etc. until they go out of production. Then we get interested because we might get them 'cheap'. But what happens is that once closed, the lines have startup costs... and we have given the vendors pricing power.

A little OT but I am coming to the conclusion that Modi & co. display the same lack of urgency and understanding on defense matters as the UPA worthies. We had a doofus RM in AKA in UPA, we have none in NDA. Jaitley' s favored formula is a Solomonic 'cut it in half' not a considered one. He understands zero about defense.

Doklam was a lucky reprieve for Modi. The next event orchestrated by PRC will test us more and if we 'lose', Modi can kiss 2019 goodbye. The PRC like the Russians in the US election, want regime change.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 01 Sep 2017 10:26

Vips wrote: Really? Have you read the CAG report on the serviceability of these flying Junks? It is at 41% for Il-76 and 32% for Il-78. If by performing excellently you mean to say that the plane does take off and remain in the air powered by its engines then its fine otherwise I can do nothing but at the bolded part.

Vips,
Do understand that there is a difference between how a plane operates and how the fleet operates. What Philip sir and the AM he quoted are alluding to is the performance of the platform, while the CAG is looking at the performance of the fleet. Please understand the difference in the analysis and then comment. The Gajraj, when available, is a very capable aircraft!! If we don't have proper maintenance logistics for an aircraft, any aircraft, its availability will also suffer. Simple as that.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2017 11:50

Adding to BV's observations,remember the age of the IL-76/78s.They're legacy aircraft which were built in Uzbekistan during the Sov. era. Today the entire aircraft is being built in Russia in a new plant (prod. in Uzbek ceased) and deep upgrades have been done.New fuel efficient engines,glass cockpit avionics-the same were to have been used on the dumped MTA,an extra 10t payload,range,etc. Here's a snippet from the net.

Il-476
Initial Operational Capability (IOC): January 2016
Maiden Flight: 22 September 2012
Total Production: 39*(current no. built)
Production Cost: RUB140 billion (USD$2.3 billion)
Unitary Cost: RUB3.6 billion (USD$58 million)....*(C-17 unit cost...$218million!)
Also Known As: Il-76MD-90A
Origin: Russia
Corporations: Aviastar-SP, Ilyushin Aviaton Complex and UAC* (*) lead contractor

C-17 payload 77.5t,IL-476 60t.Range both have in general a 5000km range depending upon the payload ,cargo/troops.

Now I'm an advocate of buying "more of the same" if the price is reasonable to augment an service's inventory.Well knowing that the C-17 prod. would end soon and it was in fact extended mainly becos of the IAF initial order,we should've planned for at least another 4-6 aircraft as this was the very end of production ever. But,as the good MOD has often done in the past,allowe such opportunities to slip.The second batch of Talwars were offered at the same price as the first 3. So ultimately,tx. to our indecision,all that we can now get is the very lasy "white tail" C-17 which nonone else wanted.That too at high cost.Great job done by the MOD! Some Padma award is needed here.

So what heavy transport can the IAF buy in the future? Only IL-476s.Similarly,we should buy extra IL-78 tankers of the upgraded platform.and use more of the platform for AWACS/AEW aircraft as all our Phalcons,including the two extra being acquired will use the new version.It is simple common sense.I can't understand why we want even more expensive A-330s for the task.An A-330-200 costs even more than a C-17....$233.8million!We would be able to get 4,yes around 4 IL-476 platforms for just one A-330!

China has struck a deal with the UKR and Antonov are restarting AN-225 production,which will dwarf both C-17s and IL-476s.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Sep 2017 12:15

top plane is the old c160 transall, rest you know

the A400M with 37t payload is about the same as current IL76. it is an option if that size is right. the new IL76MD90A will up it from 48t to 60t. we can look at our typical mission payloads and weights.

given lack of uptime based contracts from russian OEM i dont think IAF will look at the stretched IL76

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Sep 2017 12:19

my guess is maybe some 2nd hand C17 from usaf stock(they have 120) + more C130-30J (we have the stretch model) + eventually a new gen small transport to replace the AN32 phaseout. could be a range of options like short-chassis original C130J C295 embraer etc.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 01 Sep 2017 12:41

Will we have any use of AN-124 or C-5 size aircraft?

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Sep 2017 13:07

My god, why are we even arguing with Filipov over the C-17?

Ever since we got our 10, the Globemaster has performed the bulk of the IAF's large transport needs including massive evacuations in Yemen and in the Nepal earthquake. It also gave us heavy lift capability to high altitude that we never had before with the Il-76. Especially with Doka La barely in the rearview mirror.

MoD screwed up the requisition order from the IAF or else we would have at least three more instead of fighting with Oz over the last C-17 for our 11th.

NO OTHER plane the IAF has inducted recently has performed so well and has such wide impact as the C-17. Look at the issues we had/still have with the MiG-29K or the MKI.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Sep 2017 13:33

Karthik S wrote:Will we have any use of AN-124 or C-5 size aircraft?

No. The rare times you might need one, you can rent one out.

Insanely expensive to buy and operate. Building one is more akin to building a large warship than an aircraft assembly line. You buy and build in ones and twos. The chinis won't get anywhere with the An-225. That is nothing but mining of Antonov's resources including its researchers and technicians. Read the article in the China Mil Watch thread. They have built a town in Shaanxi for 2000 Antonov employees and their families. Shaanxi is the manufacturer of the Y-20.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2017 13:37

I've said after choosing and buying 10 C-17s we should've ensured another 4-6 before prod. ended. Lost opportunity. I don't know what leasing old aircraft would entail,from support,reliability,insurance,etc. angles.Always better to own stuff. C-130s are fab. aircraft.They're truly iconic like the Dakotas were. Given their high alt. performance in particular,we should acquire many more. Apart from these heavy lift transports,the new upgraded MI-26T should also be bought along with extra Chinooks. An MI-26 (largest helo with a payload of an AN-12) can recover a downed Chinook (Afghanistan) and would be invaluable transporting the heavy machinery reqd. for our border road infrastructure.One reason for the huge delays are supposed to be the non-availability of heavy engr. eqpt. that typically can be transported by an MI-26.

Wiki:

Afghanistan Chinook recovery[edit]
In the spring of 2002, a civilian Mi-26 was leased to recover two U.S. Army MH-47E Chinook helicopters from a mountain in Afghanistan. The Chinooks, operated by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, had been employed in Operation Anaconda, an effort to drive al Qaeda and Taliban fighters out of the Shahi-Kot Valley and surrounding mountains. They found themselves stranded on the slopes above Sirkhankel at altitudes of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) and 3,100 metres (10,200 ft). While the second craft was too badly damaged to recover, the first was determined to be repairable and estimated to weigh 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb) with fuel, rotors, and non-essential equipment removed. That weight exceeded the maximum payload of 9,100 kilograms (20,100 lb) at an altitude of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) of the U.S. military's Sikorsky CH-53E.[4]

The Mi-26 was located through Skylink Aviation in Toronto, which had connections with a Russian company called Sportsflite that operated three civilian Mi-26 versions called "Heavycopters". One of the aircraft, aiding in construction and firefighting work in neighboring Tajikistan, was leased for $300,000; it lifted the Chinook flew it to Kabul, then later to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan to ship to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, U.S. for repairs. Six months later, a second U.S. Army CH-47 that had made a hard landing 100 miles (160 km) north of Bagram at an altitude of 1,200 metres (3,900 ft) was recovered by another Sportsflite-operated Mi-26 Heavycopter.[4]

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 01 Sep 2017 14:54

We have to give credit to the US Armed forces for pioneering PBL concepts. IIRC, it was US Navy which started PBL on massive scale with F-18s during 90s.

I remember watching Akash Yodha documentary during the early 2000s, when the video commentator had mentioned that India had the largest heavy lift capacity fleet in Asia (perhaps during that time)...so like Bala mentioned, the IL-76 is a good plane as long as it is available. Of course, the C-17 exceeds 76 in almost all parameters and yes, we should have gone for another 6 at least if possible, brining up the total fleet size to 16.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 01 Sep 2017 15:04

US has 187 active and 14 C-17s in reserve, if they could sell us 5 from reserve, we can bring the number to 16.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Sep 2017 16:43

Karthik S wrote:Will we have any use of AN-124 or C-5 size aircraft?

their only real use is in airlifting very heavy or bulky cargo like armour, SAMs, big radars, road mobile ICBMs ... C17 can also do that but there are limits.

the old AN22 used to do the same before AN124.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Sep 2017 16:45

the IL76MD90A is a stretch but the diameter of tube is not increasing. so makes it still useless for airlifting T90 or Smerch..as the current width barely fits a T72. ..despite the 50% more payload weight.