Transport Aircraft for IAF

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Sep 2017 17:37

Most western modern SAM systems can deploy DO/DO with the C-17 and even THAAD which has a much larger deployed footprint is transportable using it. I Don't think most of IAF's and IAs modern air defense systems should have any trouble deploying using the C-17 or a combination of C-17 and C-130J. More footprint optimized AD systems (like MEADS and NASAMS) can even be deployed exclusively via the C-130J.

THAAD Launchers :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnRW_jsSBzk

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 01 Sep 2017 18:28

BTW what is HAL's plan B now that MTA is off the table? Hope they are not doing chai-biskoot internally after doing chai-biskoot with the Russians for a decade.

YashG · Post by **YashG** » 02 Sep 2017 00:44

Guys as we discuss the costs of russi and amriki planes, I'd like to add that american platforms and for that matter all western platforms are inherently very well designed - but its a double edged sword sometimes. So we might be paying for some design costs for US platform that wouldnt really be useful to us. To that extent its a built in cost that we can do nothing about. Just to be clear this doesnt mean that the cost differential is not worth it - as higher availability justifies it -but as a caveat we maybe paying some over designing.

For e.g. Americans are increasingly designing their aircrafts for accomodating 0.5% to 99.5% percentile of their population - not for 5% to 95% percentile as earlier. Their decision to do this rises from the fact that US population is ageing and their pool for armed forces is limited. For india the pool is so large that any design that works for 5-95% percentile also will still leave us with no shortage of pilots. As someone who understands something about design ( I teach design - at good places

) I can tell you taking design envelope to 0.5-99.5% is a far larger cost than taking it to 5-95%.
Stuff like this and more adds up to the final cost that we shouldnt be paying.

Russis on the other hand dont do this design so well, so their hardware is cheaper. Physical characterstics of Indians is way diff than US & russis. So a 5-95% demographic design for russians will be something like 10-85% demographic fit for Indians (numbers only guesswork ) but a 0.5%-99.5% demographic design might still be 5-95% or even 3-98% fit for indian. How it affects the user experience is evident in the love in forces for western maal.

Design is often so intangible that you can feel it even if you dont see it. Therefore user experience wise between two products even if same specwise - will leave vastly difference user experiences - users wont be able to tell you sometime why they love a certain hardware but a well designed product will always make a fan out of an user. I think this might be a reason why forces love all maal western. I dont see why with a bit of product design inputs can make desi maal too lovable - who knows LCA might already be there, since NID, Ahmedabad had inputs to LCA.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 11 Sep 2017 11:09

India, U.S. in talks for C-17 deal

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 656203.ece

On June 26, the State Department notified Congress of a possible sale, approving it under the Foreign Military Sales programme. “The validity of the Letter of Acceptance for the sale expires in mid-October and India has to conclude the deal before that or ask the U.S. for an extension,” an official said.

The aircraft, along with associated equipment, technical support and warranty, is estimated to cost $366.2 million.

“The aircraft will be handed over within a month of the contract having been signed after some routine checks and maintenance. The handover will be done in the U.S. itself, and it will be flown to India by Indian pilots,” Pratyush Kumar, president, Boeing India, told The Hindu.

The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) gave its approval for the purchase in December last.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 11 Sep 2017 11:16

Thanks, was wondering what happened to the deal. So we have been still sitting on our back even with the last C 17.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Sep 2017 12:26

Yes,the "white tail" if left in the coop will soon turn "grey"! An interesting titbit found about the A-330 tankers for the RAF.They're being leased at rather high cost,but interestingly some other western air forces are cleverly leasing old Tri-Star aircraft for much less than the Airbus,TRi-Star aircraft with far more tanker capacity (30%%) as well as range/endurance. This is an avenue that the IAF can also pursue/examine,leases for similar or more competitive aircraft than just the Airbus,whose performance is inferior and price superior.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2017 13:01

lockheed tristar is a very old a/c some kind of ancestor the MD11 - of the famous 5 seats in the middle fame 2+5+2

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 11 Sep 2017 16:45

abhik wrote:BTW what is HAL's plan B now that MTA is off the table? Hope they are not doing chai-biskoot internally after doing chai-biskoot with the Russians for a decade.

Wouldn't a 'land' version of the Shinmaywa US-2 be in the same weight class?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2017 17:27

the sea plane shape is not suited to land ops.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 11 Sep 2017 18:25

We could still collaborate on making a land variant with them, will require major changes but a lot of the subsystems can be carried over. Win-win for both as their production line is pretty stagnant.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 11 Sep 2017 18:34

Still don't get why BRFites have a hard on for sea planes. The Japanese have the C2 transport aircraft which might be just what we need (in high double digit numbers at least).

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 11 Sep 2017 18:49

Why do we want to add to the zoo? Sticking to the proven C-130Js + C-295s(if and when they come) should be sufficient. HAL doesn't need to produce an MTA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Sep 2017 18:58

The IAF is already slated to operate 12 C-130Js. We have built up valuable experience with the type, it works well everywhere including our high altitude air strips. Why complicate matters by introducing yet another type, to perform the same role?

If more MTAs are needed, and I am not entirely convinced they are, just order another batch of the cheaper non-SF variety C-130Js, or (if the orderbook is large enough) set up a local assembly line at TASL.

Edit: Chimay beat me to it.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 11 Sep 2017 21:03

I think the point of the MTA was not just to get a transport aircraft (when any number of proven platforms exist to buy off the shelf) but to get expertise with a large platform and also control some of the design. For example, good as it is, the C130 is never going to be allowed to be modified as a bomb truck or even a AC-130 clone gunship. Or a MPA with our own mix of non-US weaponry.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Sep 2017 21:42

Bart S wrote:I think the point of the MTA was not just to get a transport aircraft (when any number of proven platforms exist to buy off the shelf) but to get expertise with a large platform and also control some of the design. For example, good as it is, the C130 is never going to be allowed to be modified as a bomb truck or even a AC-130 clone gunship. Or a MPA with our own mix of non-US weaponry.

Core design experience we will only get with a new clean-sheet project which isn't economical for the quantities we envision (the export market is already saturated). The best we can hope for is local assembly and component production that can hopefully feed into the global eco-system. In the C-130's case, that would mean TASL expanding its participation in the production process.

Special variants (bomb-truck, gunship, tanker, EW) already exist in the C-130's case and that's a major advantage, if anything. With any other aircraft we'd likely contract with the OEM to undertake & certify modifications to the airframe affecting flight characteristics.

Other minor customizations, with third-party EW gear or weapons for example, are quite feasible. Functionally, its no different from IAI-Gulfstream modifying a G550 for ISTAR or AEW functions.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Sep 2017 23:08

I think India will take up the design and development of 20-40 Tonner. Matter of time.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Sep 2017 15:10

I think India should consider Kawasaki C-2 as replacement for MTA and have them manufactured in India by private sector under collaboration with Japan. The Japanese developed it specifically for short runways and it is suppose to land with 26 ton on a 500m runway.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Dec 2017 05:57

Aircraft engine specialists train Indian Air Force counterparts
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/257201/ai ... unterparts

Propulsion specialists, Tech. Sgt. Jarrod Plotner and Staff Sgt. Ben Wibmerly, third and fourth from right, pose for a photo with engine maintainers for the Indian Air Force, beside a C-17 Globmaster, a recent addition to the IAF. Plotner and Wimberly helped train their Indian counterparts on C-17 engine maintenance procedures in October and November.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Dec 2017 06:29

@VivS

"Core design experience we will only get with a new clean-sheet project which isn't economical for the quantities we envision (the export market is already saturated). The best we can hope for is local assembly and component production that can hopefully feed into the global eco-system. In the C-130's case, that would mean TASL expanding its participation in the production process. "

Thank you for the concise explanation of why we mostly have to buy vs. build. We buy small lots 36 Rafales here, 12 P8s there, 10 C-17s elsewhere. We don't understand amortization of fixed and R&D over units. Light/Medium/Heavy/Hot/Humid categories condemn us into a horse race with the Egyptian AF which has one of everything

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Dec 2017 15:08

Cosmo_R wrote:@VivS

"Core design experience we will only get with a new clean-sheet project which isn't economical for the quantities we envision (the export market is already saturated). The best we can hope for is local assembly and component production that can hopefully feed into the global eco-system. In the C-130's case, that would mean TASL expanding its participation in the production process. "

Thank you for the concise explanation of why we mostly have to buy vs. build. We buy small lots 36 Rafales here, 12 P8s there, 10 C-17s elsewhere. We don't understand amortization of fixed and R&D over units. Light/Medium/Heavy/Hot/Humid categories condemn us into a horse race with the Egyptian AF which has one of everything

If we were smart, we would go buy the design and line of an older mid-sized transporter like the An-32 and build.

There are a thousand and one uses for such a platform — AEW/AWACS, MPA, ASW, ELINT, SIGINT, SAR, civilian regional liner, etc.

So instead of a dozen C130J here, a dozen P-8 there, and waiting on the C-295s, why not take a lower baseline machine that we can build and put to work on our own?

Look at what the PRC has done with their An-12 and An-24 clones. Those are tech from the 1950s and 60s, easily within our capability. Instead of the latest and greatest, just buy or design something we can build cheaply in numbers and experiment the hell out of it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaanxi_Y-8
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_Y-7

Y-8: The baseline unpressurized transport aircraft produced primarily for transport duties with the PLAAF.[7]
Y-8A: Helicopter transport aircraft with rear loading ramp, travelling gantry removed and a hydraulically operated steady under the rear door.[7]
Y-8AF: ASW platform under tests, with extended magnetic anomaly detector at the tail, the latest military version, looks similar to Y-8 Mineral research plane.[7]
Y-8B: Unpressurised freight/passenger transport aircraft for CAAC.[7]
Y-8C: Fully pressurised transport version with the rear cargo ramp of the Y-8B.[7]
Y-8CA: (a.k.a. 'High New 1') Electronic Countermeasures aircraft with extensive arrays of aerials and a ventral canoe.[7]
Y-8CB: ECM variant, characterized by a sharp pointed nose cone.[7]
Y-8D: Export military transport fitted with western avionics. The initial Y-8D was superseded by the Y-8DII.[7]
Y-8DZ: (Dianzi Zhencha 电子侦察 - ELINT)(a.k.a.'High New 2') Electronic signals intelligence version characterized by the cylindrical array just in front of the vertical stabilizer.[7]
Y-8E: Drone carrier aircraft for launching WZ-5 Chang Hong-1(Chang Hong 长虹 - long rainbow) reconnaissance drones, reverse-engineered Ryan Firebees, to replace Tu-4 Drone launchers..
Y-8F: Livestock transport aircraft with three tiers of cages either side of a central aisle, able to accommodate 350 sheep or goats. The livestock transport was developed to allow access to remote seasonal pastures.[7]
Y-8FQ: Maritime Patrol variant with modified tail housing a boom-mounted magnetic anomaly detector to detect submarines.[8]
Y-8F-100: Fitted with more powerful engines, EFIS, colour weather radar, TCAS and GPS.[7]
Y-8F-200: This model has a 2.2m (7 ft 10in) stretched fuselage.[7]
Y-8F-300: Civil transport with western avionics.[7]
Y-8F-400: As for Y-8F-300 but with pressurised cargo hold.[7]
Y-8F-600: Newest civilian transport variant with a redesigned fuselage, Pratt and Whitney turboprop engines, an Electronic Flight Instrument System "glass cockpit", and a two-person crew.[7][9]
Y-8GX1: Electronic Warfare (VHF/UHF Tactical Jamming).[7]
Y-8GX1: Electronic Warfare (VHF/UHF Tactical Jamming).[7]
Y-8GX3: Airborne Command Post and ECM version a.k.a. 'High New 3' based on the Y-8F-200.[7]
Y-8GX4: ELINT platform (project).[7]
Y-8GX7: Electronic attack (radio propaganda/psyops). At least 3 known to be in service stationed in Fujian.[10]
Y-8G: IFR tanker. (project).[7]
Y-8H: Aerial survey aircraft.[7]
Y-8J: AWACS aircraft with British GEC-Marconi Argus-2000 (RACAL Skymaster) L-band pulse-doppler search radar in a large nose radome, with work stations for the operators in the cargo hold. Reputedly fully pressurised but lacking the cargo ramp associated with pressurised cargo holds.[7]
Y-8J: AEW aircraft with Sky Master radar.[11]
Y-8JB: ELINT variant.[11]
Y-8K: 121-seat airliner.[7]
Y-8Q: ASW variant, surface search radar, FLIR, internal bomb bay, SATCOM, and tail MAD.[11] Also identified in one source as Y-8GX6.
Y-8T: C3I command post and battlefield surveillance aircraft based on the Y-8F-400. Some sources claim it is an ECM aircraft.[7]
Y-8U: Experimental aircraft equipped with British Mk 32 aerial refueling pods for the development of Chinese aerial refueling technology.
Y-8W: An AWACS version of the KJ-200 with 'Balance Beam phased array radar mounted above the fuselage.[7] Also identified as Y-8GX5 or Y-8WH.
Y-8X: (Xun 巡 - surveillance) Maritime Patrol Aircraft with western avionics, radar, mission systems and defensive aids. Some aircraft have been known to carry ELINT packages. Equipped with Litton Canada AN/APS-504(V) search radar for maritime surveillance missions. This version is characterized by a larger cylindrical radar radome under the nose similar to that on H-6 bomber.[7]
Y-8XZ: (a.k.a. 'High New 7') a Psychological warfare aircraft for broadcasting TV and radio propaganda.[7]
KJ-200: AEW
Y-8 AWACS: Characterized by the large Rotodome strut supported over the rear fuselage and the triple tail configuration with large trapezoidal auxiliary fins at the tips of the tailplane, similar to the Beriev A-50.[7]
Y-8 AWACS: Another AWACS version was studied at Shaanxi with large radomes at nose and tail in similar fashion to the abortive AEW Nimrod.[7]
Y-8 Geophysical Survey Aircraft: Characterized by the extended magnetic anomaly detector at the tail, for finding potential mine sites, similar in appearance to an anti-submarine warfare platform and is often mistaken for the latter.[7]
Y-8 Anti-Submarine Aircraft: New anti-submarine variant revealed in 2012. The anti-submarine variant has a large air-to-surface search radar, a side-looking ISAR radar and a magnetic anomaly detection tube.[12]
Y-8EW: New EW aircraft.[11]
Y-8 Gunship: A projected gunship version based on the Y-8C with two heavy cannon and ports for three heavy machine-guns on the port side of the aircraft. Weapons aiming and target acquisition achieved by gyro-stabilised optoelectronic sighting system in a ball turret under the nose. A steerable searchlight would be installed in a pod under the port outer wing, as well as ESM and/or ECM pods as required.[7]
ZDK-03: A variant designed specifically for export to the Pakistan Air Force. Consists of a Chinese AESA radar mounted on the Y-8F600 platform.[13] The radar is reported to have a greater range than that of the PAF's Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C radar[14]
ZDK-06: An export-oriented airborne warning and control system featuring the JY-06 active electronically scanned array and Pulse-Doppler radar.[16]
KJ-500: An airborne warning and control system featuring three active electronically scanned array radars arranged in a triangular array, with additional electronic intelligence antennae and further radar antennae on its fuselage to provide 360-degree coverage.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Dec 2017 15:19

Much faster with a JV.less design/dev. time.Our desi projects have never arrived on time! The Kawasaki transport is an intriguing design,worth looking ta esp. with the current Indo-Nippon bonhomie.US-2 amphibs will be v.expensive and given the small no. required,no point in manufacturing here,but the Kaw. transport has good possibilities. A further study to see its compatabilities with our exg. airstrips,esp. high alt. ones,should be done.

No point in transporting T-90s by heavies,as we aren't using them in the mountains and we have enough of good rail infrastructure to transport them quickly to any sector. where MBTs are required. The IL76/476 can transport T-72s and hopefully a new light tank for the mountains plus LW arty.Even if we get the last "white tail" C-17,future heavy transport platforms are best served by IL-476s,esp. for future AWACS and tankers,standardising on just one platform for 3 tasks,the legacy variant of which has served us v.well for almost 2-3 decades and of which all are being upgraded.

What needs to be fast tracked is the already selected deal for the C-295s.No idea why we're still delaying it going through.Avros are flying antiques and AN-32s even though they've been upgraded can't last forever.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Dec 2017 16:06

Singha wrote:lockheed tristar is a very old a/c some kind of ancestor the MD11 - of the famous 5 seats in the middle fame 2+5+2

The MD-11's ancestor was the Douglas DC-10. The Lockheed Tristar was a competitor of the original DC-10. The only similarity is that both are trijets.

At this point the IAF is kind of in a bind. They can try to get their hands on some used C-17s if any are available. Failing that they would have to look at the IL-76 again which they weren't keen on earlier. Buying anything else would mean sacrificing payload, adding one more new type etc.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Dec 2017 17:07

Cosmo_R wrote:@VivS

"Core design experience we will only get with a new clean-sheet project which isn't economical for the quantities we envision (the export market is already saturated). The best we can hope for is local assembly and component production that can hopefully feed into the global eco-system. In the C-130's case, that would mean TASL expanding its participation in the production process. "

Thank you for the concise explanation of why we mostly have to buy vs. build. We buy small lots 36 Rafales here, 12 P8s there, 10 C-17s elsewhere. We don't understand amortization of fixed and R&D over units. Light/Medium/Heavy/Hot/Humid categories condemn us into a horse race with the Egyptian AF which has one of everything

+1
It seems aircraft program viability from a financial point of view is not yet understood in India. For any project to break-even and make profit, there would need to be x quantities production as a minimum for a healthy ROI. One design should be selected and orders aggregated across armed services (IAF, IN, IA, and CG), paramilitaries (BSF, CPF, NSG, etc), and civilian (Indian Airlines & Air India). Case for C-295: instead of 56 orders only by the IAF, 200 units could be aggregated when order are combined for the IN MPR, IA ELINT, BSF, NSG, VIP, and others. Good 15-years production run, and by which time upgrades and new variants could be offered. Any other private enterprise orders would be bonus and extra capacity added as when required.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Dec 2017 18:49

Srai,absolutely right.Why the IAF insists on a supermarket of various types instead of standardising on as few as poss. beats me.No other air force in the world is so profligate.As you've pointed out,the C-295 could be very successful in the regional turboprop civilian market,apart from the various specialised variants.We could easily have a 10-20 yr. manufacturing period with at least one aircraft built every month. C-295s would have greater range and endurance apart from extra capabilities when used for ELINT,EW ops now aboard Dorniers.Then there is the possibility of even exports to friendly nations like SL,Nepal,Afghanistan,and African nations too.Exports of helos,LCAs,light transports would help secure strat. relationships with IOR nations and stymie China.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 04 Dec 2017 19:25

then there is the possibility of even exports to friendly nations like SL,Nepal,Afghanistan,and African nations too.

Isn't that an extremely unlikely expectation? Why would the parent country allow us to export it's product eating into their own industry.. unless we have a full agreement with them on allowing future modifications and total ownership of the same (including rights to selling).

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Dec 2017 20:29

Manish_P wrote:
then there is the possibility of even exports to friendly nations like SL,Nepal,Afghanistan,and African nations too.
Isn't that an extremely unlikely expectation? Why would the parent country allow us to export it's product eating into their own industry.. unless we have a full agreement with them on allowing future modifications and total ownership of the same (including rights to selling).

Airbus is not going to allow export of a platform they are selling right now. Instead of a current aircraft, look for something like the An-32. Antonov has moved onto the An-132. Ukraine is also in pretty dire need of cash and will part with older designs and equipment, IMHO. They sold the An-225 for goodness’ sake.

Here is something we already operate. It might not be as cutting edge as the C-295 or any of the turbofan beauties (C-2, C-17, Il-476, etc.) but it will be something within our technology level that we can build.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Dec 2017 21:08

Manish_P wrote:
then there is the possibility of even exports to friendly nations like SL,Nepal,Afghanistan,and African nations too.
Isn't that an extremely unlikely expectation? Why would the parent country allow us to export it's product eating into their own industry.. unless we have a full agreement with them on allowing future modifications and total ownership of the same (including rights to selling).

Depends on how the agreement is setup. In any case, Airbus would get their fair share on any sales whether domestic or otherwise.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 05 Dec 2017 00:14

chola wrote:
Manish_P wrote:
Isn't that an extremely unlikely expectation? Why would the parent country allow us to export it's product eating into their own industry.. unless we have a full agreement with them on allowing future modifications and total ownership of the same (including rights to selling).

Airbus is not going to allow export of a platform they are selling right now. Instead of a current aircraft, look for something like the An-32. Antonov has moved onto the An-132. Ukraine is also in pretty dire need of cash and will part with older designs and equipment, IMHO. They sold the An-225 for goodness’ sake.

Here is something we already operate. It might not be as cutting edge as the C-295 or any of the turbofan beauties (C-2, C-17, Il-476, etc.) but it will be something within our technology level that we can build.

We could just copy the design, the only thing that we can get from such an old platform is the proven aerodynamics, everything else we could build ourselves using current generation avionics, panels and control systems. The engines, avionics etc are going to be third party ones anyway.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 05 Dec 2017 10:13

We could team up with Embraer for a C-17 class transport aircraft if needed. Given how quickly they brought out the KC-390, we could have another one in ten years.
Or we could just use civilian ones like the Airbus 330 and get things moving.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Dec 2017 11:38

Manish and others,in recent times the GOI is emphasising that in JVs,we must also have the right to export aircraft,missiles,etc. to countries friendly to both partners.Take BMos for instance.Sev. countries want it and it appears to have been cleared by the BMos Corp. with the approval of both Ind. and Ru. Vietnam is most likely to be the first customer. We,from earlier reports have also emphasised that if we go ahead with the FGFA we should be able to export it.In any case what does it matter in a JV? Both sides get profits from exports whether they are made here or abroad.
In the case of the DO-228,we're still manufacturing the bird ,which RUAG sells abroad! We lost a great opportunity to pick up the company.If the C-295 export clause is refused,even though it is not a JV,then we can certainly dump it and choose another equivalent bird whose OEM accept exports of Indian built transports.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 05 Dec 2017 12:06

Philip wrote:Take BMos for instance.Sev. countries want it and it appears to have been cleared by the BMos Corp. with the approval of both Ind. and Ru. Vietnam is most likely to be the first customer.

But who is likely to be the seller ?

Indian offer to sell Brahmos missiles to Vietnam stalled

Ironically, the biggest challenge to the Brahmos sale has come from joint developer Russia itself that has similar missiles to offer. Russia, which has seen its international market for arms shrink with growing competition from players like China, has Vietnam as one of its major customers for military equipment.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Dec 2017 13:11

Sorry for the tangential post.

Sale of any BMos missile would be by the BMos Corp. whose HQ is in India. Russia has earlier supplied Syria with Yakhont missiles-a batch almost totally destroyed by Israel in an attack,fearing that it might pass it on to the Hiz who attacked an Israeli corvette with an Iranian-supplied Silkworm SSM a few years ago. However,one can be sure that the range would be within MTCR norms.

https://www.outlookindia.com/website/st ... ime/300671

23 AUGUST 2017
Why Brahmos Sale To Vietnam Is No Violation Of Missile Technology Control Regime Commitments.
Brahmos is a ramjet supersonic cruise missile, developed by Russia’s NPO Mashinostroeyenia and India’s DRDO. DR. RAJESWARI PILLAI RAJAGOPALANWhy Brahmos Sale To Vietnam Is No Violation Of Missile Technology Control Regime Commitments

India expressed interest in selling Brahmos anti-ship cruise missiles to Vietnam in 2011 and six years later, it is possible that New Delhi has finally done it. A few days ago, a Vietnamese news report suggested that Vietnam had taken possession of Brahmos missiles from India. The Vietnam foreign ministry spokesperson Le Thi Thu Hang, when asked on the purchase, said it was “in line with Vietnam’s peaceful national defense policies aimed at protecting the country”. However, a day later the Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said“it is not correct” and that the Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry had rejected the report. It is somewhat strange that Vietnam makes claims of taking possession of the missiles and on the other hand, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs denies them.

Brahmos is a ramjet supersonic cruise missile, developed by Russia’s NPO Mashinostroeyenia and India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO). With a flight range of up to 290 km, and at supersonic speed all through the flight (and thus shorter flight time), it is considered as the world’s fastest anti-ship cruise missile. Brahmos carries a conventionalwarhead of 200-300 kg and can be launched from multiple platforms including submarines, ships, aircraft and land.
India and Russia are now considering joint development of the next generation of Brahmos missiles with a longer range of around 600 km in addition to improving the accuracy of the missile. The existing stock of missiles will also be upgraded. An upgraded missile with the extended range was successfully tested in March 2017. Former President and scientific adviser to Defence Minister Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam argued in 2011 for developing “a hypersonic version of BrahMos which can be reused…meaning that the missile should be able to deliver its payload and return to base.”
While the discrepancy in the public statements of Indian and Vietnamese officials needs to be addressed, a more important misperception has to be dispelled. There are some questions if India’s sale of Brahmos missiles to Vietnam will be violation of MTCR commitments. The answer would appear to be no.

The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), an informal group of like-minded countries, seeks to control the proliferation of missiles and missile technology, specifically those that are relevant as delivery vehicles for weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). While addressing the concern that the MTCR may be used to constrain national space technology development or international cooperation in space activities, the MTCR Guidelines categorically states that the regime will not impede programmes as long as such programs do not contribute to delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.
MTCR Chairs have reiterated this point as well on multiple occasions . The MTCR Chair’sstatement at the induction of India into the MTCR in 2016 is a good example, stating that Indian membership “will strengthen the international efforts to prevent proliferation of delivery systems (ballistic missiles or unmanned aircraft) capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction.”
Ambassador Piet de Klerk, the MTCR Chair, while speaking at the 23rd Asian Export Control Seminar, Tokyo, in 2016, stated that “The MTCR aims to prevent proliferation of unmanned delivery systems (missiles or unmanned aircraft) capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, by seeking to coordinate national export licensing efforts.”

Similarly, speaking at the 22nd Asian Export Control Seminar in Tokyo a year earlier, Ambassador Roald Næss, then MTCR Chair, said, “it has been the mission of the MTCR from its origin in 1987 to coordinate national export licensing efforts aimed at ‘preventing proliferation of unmanned delivery systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons.’ In 1992, the scope of the Regime was extended to include delivery means for all WMD.” Explaining the expansion of the scope of the MTCR in 1992, Amb. Klerk said, “Initially the MTCR looked only at missiles as delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. This is also where threshold of a 500 kg payload over a range of 300 km stems from . . . In 1992 it was decided to enlarge the scope to not only missiles but all unmanned delivery vehicles, for all weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons.” He added that the MTCR was one of the four export control regimes with the Australia Group and the Nuclear Suppliers Group focusing on controlling the flow of WMD itself and the MTCR is meant specifically for “non-proliferation of their means of delivery.” Ambassador Klerk makes it abundantly clear that the MTCR is not concerned about unmanned delivery vehicles in general, “but such vehicles in relation to weapons of mass destruction.”

Thus it is clear that the MTCR only prohibits transfer of delivery vehicles if they could contribute to WMD proliferation.
India’s potential sale of Brahmos missiles to Vietnam is thus not in violation of any MTCR rules or any commitments that India made when it became an MTCR member in June 2016. For one, Vietnam is not a country of concern from a WMD perspective. Vietnam does not have and is not thought to have had at any time any WMD programs. Therefore, there is no reason why the transfer of Brahmos to Vietnam would violate the MTCR rules. Secondly, the fact that Vietnam is not an MTCR member is also irrelevant. The MTCR Guidelines make no distinction between exports to member states and to non-member states. In addition, MTCR does not make a decision as a group on any sale/ transfers – it is up to the individual member states to make decisions whether a particular transfer or sale will contribute to WMD proliferation cause. Preventing WMD proliferation is the key guidepost for any of these transactions. The only activity that is strictly prohibited by the MTCR Guidelines “is the export of production facilities for Category I MTCR Annex items.” There may be political and strategic (or other) reasons to object to India supplying Brahmos, but it is difficult to see any legal obligations to the MTCR being a problem.

(The author is senior fellow and heads the Nuclear & Space Policy Initiative at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. She served at India’s National Security Council Secretariat, Government of India from 2003 to 2007. She tweets @raji143)

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 06 Dec 2017 01:52

Manish_P wrote:
Philip wrote:Take BMos for instance.Sev. countries want it and it appears to have been cleared by the BMos Corp. with the approval of both Ind. and Ru. Vietnam is most likely to be the first customer.
But who is likely to be the seller ?

Indian offer to sell Brahmos missiles to Vietnam stalled

Ironically, the biggest challenge to the Brahmos sale has come from joint developer Russia itself that has similar missiles to offer. Russia, which has seen its international market for arms shrink with growing competition from players like China, has Vietnam as one of its major customers for military equipment.

In other words , China turned the screws on Russia which turned the screws on India.
I love the Brahmos but it will be a product for the desi market.

Now lets talk about Nirbhay.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Dec 2017 03:54

^^^
MTCR

chola · Post by **chola** » 06 Dec 2017 13:40

Bart S wrote:
chola wrote:

Airbus is not going to allow export of a platform they are selling right now. Instead of a current aircraft, look for something like the An-32. Antonov has moved onto the An-132. Ukraine is also in pretty dire need of cash and will part with older designs and equipment, IMHO. They sold the An-225 for goodness’ sake.

Here is something we already operate. It might not be as cutting edge as the C-295 or any of the turbofan beauties (C-2, C-17, Il-476, etc.) but it will be something within our technology level that we can build.
We could just copy the design, the only thing that we can get from such an old platform is the proven aerodynamics, everything else we could build ourselves using current generation avionics, panels and control systems. The engines, avionics etc are going to be third party ones anyway.

That would be ideal. But when have we ever RE’ed a full system anywhere? We have no experience or simply even equipment for large aircraft. And we’ve always been good boys who buy phoren with full respect to IP.

We always go for best on market. C-17, C130J, C-295 and even An-32 in its heydey in the 1970s are/were top of the line when we bought them.

The problem with best in class is the firangi will never part with a design they are still selling and even if we were to negotiate a “local” offset, it will lead to mainly screwdrivering together parts made by the OEM. Our organic industrial never really grows because inevitably the contract makes the lines and eco-system (developed for that production run onlee) useless for anything we want to do on our own.

Buying an earlier design no longer on the market can guve us full control of a technology we can experiment with. Again, Iook at the endless Y-8 variants I posted above. We need a platform like that.

Right now, we are hemmed in by the firangi for everything. We need to import from Brazil for every NETRA DRDO builds for goodness’ sakes. BRAZIL, a fellow South nation. A midsized plane of the ERJ-145’s capacity if not sophistication should be and must be something within our industry’s ability to provide.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Dec 2017 01:42

There is a cloud of secrecy that appears to be hanging over BMos for Vietnam.They announced that they had recd. BMos , quickly denied by us.Why did they do so in the first place? Have we quietly delivered some to them? The current Doklam stand-off and tension with China would be on reason why we would want to keep any deliveries a secret.

All sales to clients will be under MTCR rules.Our versions will have the full ER package.

I agree with the above sentiment.A mere purchase isn't good enough, the OEM can leave us dangling for spares,etc. later on.Unless we enter into JVs for contemporary aircraft instead,we will have to reinvent the wheel all alone.When we can't even develop a single aircraft engine for any kind of bird, imagine the problem!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Dec 2017 02:29

The Rolls Royce of transport aircraft in terms of sheer lift capability. She is a beast!

With last-minute approval, India set to snap up world’s last available C-17 Globemaster
https://theprint.in/2017/12/20/india-se ... obemaster/

Two years after special request made to hold aircraft, defence ministry committee clears signing of contract.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Dec 2017 02:51

Indian Air Force Fleet Achieves 12,000 Hours, Commended for Outstanding Performance
http://www.aviation.ca/2017121922653/ne ... erformance

Boeing congratulates the Indian Air Force and 81st “Skylords” Squadron for the C-17 Globemaster III fleet achieving 12,000 flight hours since induction in 2014. The C-17 fleet is a vital part of the Indian Air Force strategic airlift capability, which has successfully conducted relief and humanitarian missions domestically and internationally. The Indian Air Force operates 10 C-17 strategic airlifters that Boeing delivered in 2014. Boeing works with the Indian Air Force to provide sustainment services and modernization of its C-17s that contribute to high mission capable rates.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 22 Dec 2017 02:59

Rakesh wrote:The Rolls Royce of transport aircraft in terms of sheer lift capability. She is a beast!

With last-minute approval, India set to snap up world’s last available C-17 Globemaster
https://theprint.in/2017/12/20/india-se ... obemaster/

Two years after special request made to hold aircraft, defence ministry committee clears signing of contract.

Thank god.
We were meant to grab the last 3 but got 1.
We must become a little more decisive.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2017 05:14

Rakesh wrote:Indian Air Force Fleet Achieves 12,000 Hours, Commended for Outstanding Performance
http://www.aviation.ca/2017121922653/ne ... erformance

Boeing congratulates the Indian Air Force and 81st “Skylords” Squadron for the C-17 Globemaster III fleet achieving 12,000 flight hours since induction in 2014. The C-17 fleet is a vital part of the Indian Air Force strategic airlift capability, which has successfully conducted relief and humanitarian missions domestically and internationally. The Indian Air Force operates 10 C-17 strategic airlifters that Boeing delivered in 2014. Boeing works with the Indian Air Force to provide sustainment services and modernization of its C-17s that contribute to high mission capable rates.

That's really quite some utilization for the fleet. Kudos to Boeing and to the IAF for having achieved such a large number of flight hours in under 3 years, that too with staggered deliveries of the C-17s.