Transport Aircraft for IAF

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 28 Mar 2019 22:26

BIG NEWS!

India concludes price negotiations to acquire 62 C295 transport aircraft

India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) has concluded price negotiations to acquire a total of 62 Airbus Defence and Space C295 medium transport aircraft (MTA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Coast Guard (ICG).

IAF sources told Jane's on 28 March that the MoD's Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC) concluded consultations with Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) - which is in a joint venture (JV) with Airbus for the MTA programme - to procure the 62 platforms for around EUR2.8 billion (USD3.15 billion).

They said the aircraft deal - which would include 56 platforms for the IAF to replace the service's ageing fleet of Avro 748M transports, and six for the ICG - is expected to be signed after a new Indian government assumes office following general elections set to begin on 11 April.

The MTA programme envisages the direct import of 16 C295s and the local assembly/licence-building of the remaining 46 aircraft at a facility set up by the JV near Bangalore. In keeping with the 2013 MTA tender, 24 of these will be imported in kit form for local assembly and include a 30% indigenous content. The level of indigenous content is then expected to double to 60% in the remaining 22 platforms.

Delivery of the first locally assembled C295 is expected to begin within 60 months of the contract being signed, industry sources said.

Senior IAF officers said that while the IAF's C295 version will fulfil its requirement for a tactical airlifter, the ICG variant is expected to operate as a multimission maritime aircraft.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Mar 2019 14:32

IL-76 at Dhaka , Some ATC communication between IL-76 flight crew and ATC recorded.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 06 Jun 2019 15:56

The proposal for a platform

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70

The current aircraft
An aircraft that sits just between a C-130 and a C-17 or IL-76. The An-70 has a relative short take off capability compared to other a/c of its sizes and if adopted allows it to be operated at multiple airfields and ALGs scattered around the country.

The future aircraft
The airframe and the craft has been the subject of multiple proposals including as an refueller as well . Could it be modified to be an AWAC or an EW aircraft.

The engines on the aircraft
The proposals in the previous decade seem to be full of proposals to swap the engine out for a western engine, as well as conversation to a jet engine, sometimes even dropping down to 2 jet engines for a civilian version. Which could be the optimum set up for an EW craft.

The company and the country behind the aircraft
In Deep Sh1t really. They would be very willing to open up to a JV of some sort here. They have approached the following countries in order for a JV.
Russia
China
Saudi Arabia
Turkey

The country behind the country that builds the aircraft
aka the BEAR
Yeah this where the politik comes in. Russian has carefully manoeuvred the An-70 JV conversations into a still birth I believe. It first killed its own domestic JV and except for the Chinese I believe it may have played a part in killing off any JV conversations. This is my hunch and I offer no proof whatsover.

Can we do a trade with our bear brother, we buy another Nuclear Subs and some more Krivaks etc. This will need careful manoeuvring.

The BR Argument

We boys at BR have long drummed our chests at the roll out of Tejas when it comes packed with Western Avionics and Engines. Why ? because it gives us a platform that we can evolve on. Many have spoken favourable of the An-12 and Y-8 Chinese clone approach.

Its high time that we looked this way as well.

Arguments in favour for a platformlike the An-70

- Would relieve termendous pressure on the C-17s and that factory has shut for now.
- Would extend the life of C-130s as well and keep them relegated to special duties, a reason who trumped during their purchase
- Would fill a massive gap from the An-32 to the C-17s.
- A refueller
- A possible EW aircraft
- Maybe an AWACS one day

Don't worry about export, we shall do enough just by saving the import dollars.

Yes I have a fetish for the contra-rotating propellers.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 06 Jun 2019 18:42

If IAF should ever look at a requirement between C-130 and C-17 then A-400 is the only one worth considering.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2019 21:36

Austin wrote:IL-76 at Dhaka , Some ATC communication between IL-76 flight crew and ATC recorded.

i note from the comments that BD posters have got wind of the fact that their economy has crossed TSP, with the recent very sharp shrinkage of the TSPian economy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2019 21:38

C-17 new airframe assembly may have shut down, but every last one of its parts suppliers are there and will remain with a solid parts chain because the usaf alone operates 120 of them. thats exactly why the b52, kc135, kc10, e3 are flying today.

there is no such guarantee about future of the ukrainian ecosystem.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Jun 2019 21:42

If Saras had been a bigger aircraft, it could have been plugged into this requirement. Ultimately, you need to do it yourself. This is not a high end fighter that has to pass stringent requirements. India should have attempted something based on its experience with AN-12/26, C-130, Avro HS 748. This type could have good export potential.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 06 Jun 2019 22:01

I think An-70/188 should be considered for joint development with full TOT, an A-400 is a airbus product buying which we will only get aircrafts but no TOT. In the case of An-70 we can negotiate a good deal considering the state of Antonov and Ukraine today

An-188

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Jun 2019 23:35

Ultimately, a decision needs to made (sooner rather than later). The AN-70 seems promising if the sellers play ball and part with EVERYTHING.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 07 Jun 2019 02:16

Vivek K wrote:Ultimately, a decision needs to made (sooner rather than later). The AN-70 seems promising if the sellers play ball and part with EVERYTHING.

Which is exactly where I think they are.
Engine replacement flexibility is enormous.

If we build the avionics ground up along with airframe, how is it any worse than building Tejas

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Jun 2019 07:57

Kakarat wrote:I think An-70/188 should be considered for joint development with full TOT, an A-400 is a airbus product buying which we will only get aircrafts but no TOT. In the case of An-70 we can negotiate a good deal considering the state of Antonov and Ukraine today

What sort of TOT will help us and how ?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Jun 2019 08:08

Khalsa wrote: Which is exactly where I think they are.
Engine replacement flexibility is enormous.

If we build the avionics ground up along with airframe, how is it any worse than building Tejas

It would be a good idea if India takes it over lock stock and barrel.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2019 08:27

worth noting that japan does not export but has built and deployed its own new 4 engine MRMP and 2 engine MTA.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 07 Jun 2019 14:47

Singha wrote:worth noting that japan does not export but has built and deployed its own new 4 engine MRMP and 2 engine MTA.

And japan in general has much smaller requirements than us, case in point being US 2i, ShinMaywa.

chola · Post by **chola** » 07 Jun 2019 16:22

Vivek K wrote:If Saras had been a bigger aircraft, it could have been plugged into this requirement. Ultimately, you need to do it yourself. This is not a high end fighter that has to pass stringent requirements. India should have attempted something based on its experience with AN-12/26, C-130, Avro HS 748. This type could have good export potential.

We must continue with Saras. But the reason the Saras is a 12-19 seater is because we cannot yet fabricate sections that are larger. Partnership would help here.

The technical requirements are not as high as a fighter/turbofan combination we attempted with the Tejas/Kaveri. But that is the issue, we never really attempted a large sized transport in earnest.

srin wrote:
Kakarat wrote:I think An-70/188 should be considered for joint development with full TOT, an A-400 is a airbus product buying which we will only get aircrafts but no TOT. In the case of An-70 we can negotiate a good deal considering the state of Antonov and Ukraine today
What sort of TOT will help us and how ?

Fabrication of large sections again, IMO. The base technology of the transports -- aerodynamic design, fcs and propulsion -- is not that hard. You do not have have high G-requirements or a high envelope. If we use turboprops then I think we can develop it much easier than the Kaveri since we don't have to deal with the high heat of a turbofan's core. The AN-70's counter-rotating turboprop is new and probably more complicated than the base Al-20s on the AN-12 and -32. (Cheen had cloned and built both airframes and engines since the 1970s when their tech level was behind ours.)

So both air frame and engine tech are well within our capability, IMO.

The one hard item is again the fabrication and assembly of large sections.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 07 Jun 2019 17:04

srin wrote:
Kakarat wrote:I think An-70/188 should be considered for joint development with full TOT, an A-400 is a airbus product buying which we will only get aircrafts but no TOT. In the case of An-70 we can negotiate a good deal considering the state of Antonov and Ukraine today
What sort of TOT will help us and how ?

By complete tot i mean complete transfer of blueprints for every components, systems & subsystem and also IP. we should be able to modify the aircraft as required with out interference from OE.

With TOT the aircraft can be maintained and upgraded throughout its life and we can make any no and variant that we want. Like Do228 we can also export

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 07 Jun 2019 17:10

chola wrote: The AN-70's counter-rotating turboprop is new and probably more complicated than the base Al-20s on the AN-12 and -32. .

The An-70 engines are not turboprop but a propfan also called as open rotor engine, unducted fan, or ultra high-bypass turbofan it is a hybrid of turboprop and turbofan which gives speed and performance of a turbofan, with the fuel economy of a turboprop

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan

chola · Post by **chola** » 07 Jun 2019 17:16

^^^ Interesting!

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 07 Jun 2019 17:16

Vivek K wrote:
Khalsa wrote: Which is exactly where I think they are.
Engine replacement flexibility is enormous.

If we build the avionics ground up along with airframe, how is it any worse than building Tejas
It would be a good idea if India takes it over lock stock and barrel.

Agreed and that is what I am advocating for. It needs to be fully owned by us

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 07 Jun 2019 17:23

Considering that our IL-76 will need to be replaces soon, An-70 looks to be a good option. according to wiki it is designed to liftoff from a 600m unpaved runway with 25T load and fly 3000km

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Jun 2019 17:29

Any more news whether the wreakage of AN 32 aircraft has been discovered or not in Arunachal Pradesh?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2019 18:13

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... orry-about

the Y-20 took IP that china had purchased from ukraine of the An-70 (and probably as many engineers that antonov could send) and adopted the C17 style tail.

Its development and induction was very fast which
Points to antonov design and peopleware

The head of kamov revealed a while ago they had designed the z10 helicopter

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 07 Jun 2019 20:45

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Jun 2019 22:46

Before you look at An-70 vs A400 vs A330 MRTT vs anything else, it's important to understand the usecases and requirements and only then decide what fits the bill.

IMO, a heavy airlifter is going to have moderate use in peace time, very heavy use in war and disaster times. At a minimum, you'd want to move atleast a company of troops (preferably a lot more) or upto one medium tank (~45t). STOL is optional - you can use tactical airlifters for those. Most of the time, you're moving resources between theatres. Also needs to have civilian certifications because you may want to use civilian airports, and not just the mil ones. I'll also rule out paradrop duties as a requirement.

From a requirements point of view, what is exceedingly important is availability. No hangar queens. Spares on demand and in reserve. There are two ways of achieving this - manufacture everything locally, or buy a widely available plane with no spares restrictions (eg: a civilian plane derived transport variant).

Given that the number of airplanes aren't going to be too big, even private industry won't be make enough subsystems locally. Then HAL will have to have a small production run (relative to hundreds of Boeing / Airbus aircraft) and own the entire supply chain. IMO, not going to happen and just not worth it.

I'm a bit biased towards the second option - use a civilian derived variant like A330 MRTT (is there anything similar with Boeing ? ). Large production run, wide (and sanction-proof) availability of spares and capability to negotiate for local subsystems manufacturing.

PS: Btw, all this leads me to a completely different thought track - it may be worth doing a bottoms-up design of a new aircraft,etc but with widely and freely (free as in freedom, not free beer) available subsystems. I'll need to chew on that a bit.

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 08 Jun 2019 03:06

I tried to capture the An-32 flight path and search area in this diagram.. The search seems focused on Molo and Tubmin... The last radio call was near Aalo.. Also included some articles of interest

https://twitter.com/bishwa55900127

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 08 Jun 2019 03:37

srin wrote:Before you look at An-70 vs A400 vs A330 MRTT vs anything else, it's important to understand the usecases and requirements and only then decide what fits the bill.

IMO, a heavy airlifter is going to have moderate use in peace time, very heavy use in war and disaster times. At a minimum, you'd want to move atleast a company of troops (preferably a lot more) or upto one medium tank (~45t).

Just giving you an example from the North In the 90s before the 1999 Kargil war and very much a peacetime.

Leh had one division the 3rd
Thoise had multiple brigades
Karu and Nimu had a brigade each

Once winter closed the passes to Leh
4 IL 76s and 3 An-32s would fly from Chandigarh to Leh every day to deliver
fresh food, post, ammo, immediate requirements and move men as per leave or induction and de-induction requirements.

Today Leh has multiple divisions
Kargil has a division
Thoise (gateway) to Siachen has more men than ever.
Multiple ALGs have been activated next to China which used to be Tourist Spots in the 90s.

The requirements for these beasts are greater than ever in peacetime.
These giant beasts execute the wartime requirements during peactime. They spend majority of their lives in peacetime flying really hard and very far.

When the An-12s retired the life of An-32 may have increased due to surplus engines but the life of IL-76 certainly decreased as they were forced to fill the gap that An-12s filled.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jun 2019 07:46

According to one report, it was babu red tape that scuttled the MTA with Ru, over engine selection.That option could be re-examined as so much of time was spent on finalising details.Any new bird proposal will take a decade by IST.Good news about the C-295.
The AN-70 is a good design.AN birds have proved themselves for decades in IN service but the UKR is in deep faeces.Internal political dissension and rampant corruption and inability to resolve its spat with Ru.
Its going the Paki way.No wonder they enjoy a strong mil. relationship!
Alternatively buy a few more C-130s, more expensive though they might be, but if the C-295 deal is executed very quickly, the non-upgraded AN-32s can gradually be retired and cannibalised for spares.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jun 2019 11:03

1937 russian paratroops jump off the wings of heavy bombers after emerging from the bomb bay.

some inspiring rodina footage to warm the cockles of ones heart, noisy. a mans plane, not a womans touch screen iphone plane. this one is raw close to the hw work. gotterdamerung the twilight of the gods ...

chola · Post by **chola** » 08 Jun 2019 12:29

Singha wrote:https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... orry-about

the Y-20 took IP that china had purchased from ukraine of the An-70 (and probably as many engineers that antonov could send) and adopted the C17 style tail.

Its development and induction was very fast which
Points to antonov design and peopleware

The head of kamov revealed a while ago they had designed the z10 helicopter

I posted this in the chini mil thread way back.

chola wrote:Looks like Cheen is importing Antonov's people not just equipment and designs.

http://micetimes.asia/antonov-leaked-to ... er-needed/

In the County, Pucan (Weinan, Shaanxi province) on an area of 124 square kilometers, completed construction of a Modern open production area Loango, where they will live and work for two thousand employees of the Ukrainian KB Antonov with family members.

The Y-20 supposedly began with the 703 Institute in 2009, had first test flighted in 2013 and then entered service in 2016. This is unnaturally fast.

The rate of production is also unusually fast for an initial plane of this size.

This meant their parts manufacturing and final assembly were already worked out when they had never built an Il-76/C-17 sized craft before? Yes, kinks were probably worked out before from years of experience at Antonov lines by the Ukrainians!

This brings up what those "what could have been" questions in my mind. Just like the Varyag which gave the chinis a jump-start in their carrier program, Cheen had moved on Antonov's personnel to give them a leg up on large transports. And just like the Varyag, the Ukrainians had offered Antonov's projects to India first.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 08 Jun 2019 12:47

Whatever it may be with the Y-20, the An-70 is still available for whoever wants it & it is for our gov and forces to decide. In my opinion getting full tot An-70 or An-178 is the best possible way to have our own transport aircraft at the shortest possible time and also help in RTA development

With the recent development in the Civil aviation scam it has to be seen how it is going to affect Airbus and our A330 AWACS, Tanker & C295 Orders

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jun 2019 21:46

I think with movement on the C-295, reports that 60+ are being contemplated, with first deliveries from the OEM,
the transport acquisitions will settle down apart from the tanker req.Ideally the new variant of the IL-78, the same platform being acquired for the extra Phalcons, would assist in cost-effectiveness, but the IAF have specified a twin-engined bird.This after the same types were rejected earlier.Commonality reduces costs, and adding new types is the bane of the IAF which has probably the most types of aircraft barring the two superpowers and China.

Anything from the UKR is going to be a risk as the country is politically v.unstable. There is every possibility of another uprising in the future to remove the embedded oligarchs who took over from the earlier pro- Ru regime.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 10 Jun 2019 04:14

MTA saga is perhaps the worst of IAF's sins.

Every person knew that AN 32s shall retire, that AVROs have been flying for 50 years, that Dorniers are another 40 years old, and all IAF did was sign for some weird European derivative of Spanish Indonesian bird? It is the most !@#$% decision that has been taken in the last five years under the garb of Make In India, whatever that means.

If IAF can buy Rafales for billions, import C17s, buy C130s it can definitely ask for indigenous building of simple transport ac, MOD babus notwithstanding. If even a single C295 comes to India, it shall be huge opportunity lost. Can't wrap my head round the fact that we are now down to assembling Indonesian birds!!

War in Ukraine has meant that Ukrainians are leaving the country in hordes! A little initiative, let alone planning, and we would have been getting close to FSED of MTA, if Russia was unwilling to dance. This one is totally at the feet of IAF.

chola · Post by **chola** » 10 Jun 2019 12:03

Philip wrote: Anything from the UKR is going to be a risk as the country is politically v.unstable. There is every possibility of another uprising in the future to remove the embedded oligarchs who took over from the earlier pro- Ru regime.

With Ukraine, we are not looking at long term support. We are looking at ownership. Not screwdriver giri like our "ToT" with Roos.

Welcome back, Filipov!

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 10 Jun 2019 15:09

Dear Phillip I thought the problem was the oligarchs were part of the pro Rus govt and these days out of fashion with the power.
ANyway

The An-70 is a platform that we want to "lock stock , barrel and the kitchen sink". getting the same from the IL Bureau for the MTA or the Il-76/78 is not going to happen. The IL-76 is a great heavy lifter and will continue to enjoy small continuous orders.

Even the though the spark for this latest discussion of this thread was the missing An-32, actually I was thinking of the Y-8 photo of their multiple aircraft types that got me thinking that we need a platform and not an airctaft.

While we have taken small cool steps like the Saras and license manufacturing of the Dorniers I don't believe anything within the country to pump out a Boeing 737 minus the engines and even something like the old An-12 or hell .... even the C-295 / An-32.

The Ukaranians and the Saudis took it to another level with their An-132 JV. We need something that is the equivalent of that and still transfers enough ToT to us that despite the UKarananians pulling out we are not left high and dry. This can be dealt by the mechanics of the contract and the business set up.

The An-70 seems to propose a large amount of flexibility much life the C-130 or the IL-76.
AWACS, tanker, EW missions all seem to be within grasp.

Tell me why we should not think of the AN-70.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jun 2019 23:13

I think buying a half baked product and finishing it completely for our own use cases is a great idea. I hope we do it. That way when the Il-76 are ready to be retired, we can pump out these birds.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2019 04:18

AN-70s won't be replacements for an IL-76/476 heavylifter.We need a twin- jet MTA and need to reopen the file for long- term requirements .We lost earlier opportunities to buy out Fokker,Dornier too, where we build the bird for RUAG! I doubt that we would pay a huge sum just for one aircraft type.There is no comparison between Russia's massive state defence enterprises and puny UKR's.The Ru entities have all been reorganised after the collapse of the USSR, many entities esp. in the aviation industry merged or placed under one head for cost- effectiveness.Barring maritime engines which were the UKR's speciality, Russia needs almost nothing from its former republics unlike before.China has lept ahead by employing Ru and former Warsaw Pact scientists in its myriad defence programmes and stealing western secrets.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 11 Jun 2019 12:50

Philip wrote:AN-70s won't be replacements for an IL-76/476 heavylifter.We need a twin- jet MTA and need to reopen the file for long- term requirements .We lost earlier opportunities to buy out Fokker,Dornier too, where we build the bird for RUAG! I doubt that we would pay a huge sum just for one aircraft type.There is no comparison between Russia's massive state defence enterprises and puny UKR's.The Ru entities have all been reorganised after the collapse of the USSR, many entities esp. in the aviation industry merged or placed under one head for cost- effectiveness.Barring maritime engines which were the UKR's speciality, Russia needs almost nothing from its former republics unlike before.China has lept ahead by employing Ru and former Warsaw Pact scientists in its myriad defence programmes and stealing western secrets.

Yes yes An-70 wont be the right replacement for IL-76 since Russia is no more a partner for the project, If it was then it would have been the perfect replacement

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2019 13:35

Please, just look at the disparity in the sizes of each! They are two totally diffetent classes .The 4- engined heavyweight IL-76/476 cannot be a replacement for an MTA.The AN-70 is med-range.Extra C-130s already in service would be a better option.We will have to make do with C-295s until a new MTA programme is mooted.Had babudom not won, the JV for the MTA would've seen thd first aircraft in service by now.Babudom has tried to scuttle the C-295 programme too becos its in the pvt sector where it has no control over the programme..

PS:The turbo-prop AN-70 could better compared with the C-130J.More C-130s would be preferable given its provenance and already in service.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 11 Jun 2019 14:42

I agree with just the last last half sentence of yours.

Il-76 are not heavy future we need to think about. That is covered off by the C-17. Right now the C-17 and IL-76 are filling up the medium spectrum because no one else can.

Plus lets think outside the transport spectrum as well.
EW
Tanker
AWACS

there is more to this than we can imagine.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 11 Jun 2019 20:27

Philip wrote:Please, just look at the disparity in the sizes of each! They are two totally diffetent classes .The 4- engined heavyweight IL-76/476 cannot be a replacement for an MTA.The AN-70 is med-range.Extra C-130s already in service would be a better option.We will have to make do with C-295s until a new MTA programme is mooted.Had babudom not won, the JV for the MTA would've seen thd first aircraft in service by now.Babudom has tried to scuttle the C-295 programme too becos its in the pvt sector where it has no control over the programme..

PS:The turbo-prop AN-70 could better compared with the C-130J.More C-130s would be preferable given its provenance and already in service.

Payload of IL76- 48T (the legacy MD variant in IAF service)
Payload of An-70- 47T
Sure they are not comparable since Russia is not part of the project anymore

And for your information An-70 is not Turbo-prop but Propfan or ultra high-bypass turbofan which offer the speed and performance of a turbofan, with the fuel economy of a turboprop. There is also a planned variant with conventional Turbofan