Transport Aircraft for IAF

[Khalsa]

Sounds promising.

[uddu]

Mahindra to Make C-390 if selected under MTA | हिंदी में
This is a video on Mahindra to Make C-390 if selected under MTA

[Khalsa]

twitter verse including some retired IAF officers claiming C390 is coming and Brazil might be purchasing the Tejas in return.
Return for HAL to South America if it happens.

[Rakesh]

Logically, Airbus should win because of the TASL-Airbus consortium with the C-295 assembly. But logic never works at the MoD.

Do you mean the A400 M Atlas ?

Yes

[uddu]

Do you mean the A400 M Atlas ?

Yes

Why should they win? That's a totally different aircraft right. And in this category the C390 is said to be more modern and cost effective. Also there are other advantages as well. It's not good to completely rely on Europe for our transport fleet. This balancing act need to be done until we have our own transport aircrafts. Let the Mahindra's make C390.
C295 replacing Avro and there is a need for 50 more of them to replace An-32. Even the Dornier's may be replaced by the same. The production of the same will continue.

[Nikhil_Naya]

Both these A/c have different use cases -
The A400 has higher range at load compared to the C390 for starters...

[uddu]

Acquisition Cost too and expensive to maintain too. There is a greater opportunity to MkIs the C390

[SRajesh]

I feel Brazilian offer would be too good to reject.
A a swap for Tejas and LCh for C390 would go a long way.
Also the civilian variant of C390 has a great potential for Tier II and Tier III connections within India and a potential market in SE Asia

[Avik]

The use case for a turbofan airplane is different from a turboprop aircraft. The turbofan is useful for high speeds and covering longer distances in shorter time. This is exactly the use case for countries in Europe, who will MOSTLY be fighting an operation outside of Europe and will need to mobilize troops to move to support an out of area contingency. Turbofans are not very good at low speeds and are especially not good at low altitude paradrops. They can doit but they are not optimized for it. So, these are benefits and downsides of the -390

In India's context, our out of area contingency will be taken care of by C 17s and Il 76s, and if the airport infra exists and are secured, then even by commercially hired airliners.

So, that brings us to the domestic borders and near abroad situations. For ops in the NE, Ladakh, J&K , we will need airplanes with low altitude capabilities. High speed is not a strict determinant since, for instance, a moving a company of troops from say, Panagarh to Tezpur will not be very different timewise on either a turbofan or a turboprop. The additional context is that turboprops have better rough field capabilities since they dont suck in dust and gravel as much as a turbofan/turbojet. This will be the key determinant on who wins this.

Industrial cooperation while vital will probably be the second factor in this competition. The competition is really between the -390 and the -130. The -400 is not a serious contender, IMHO.

[Rakesh]

Why should they win? That's a totally different aircraft right. And in this category the C390 is said to be more modern and cost effective. Also there are other advantages as well. It's not good to completely rely on Europe for our transport fleet. This balancing act need to be done until we have our own transport aircrafts. Let the Mahindra's make C390.
C295 replacing Avro and there is a need for 50 more of them to replace An-32. Even the Dornier's may be replaced by the same. The production of the same will continue.

All three aircraft in the contest (C-130J, A-400M and C-390) are different from each other.'

The reason why I favour is the A-400M, is due to the Airbus line in India that produces the C-295. Leveraging that line (geopolitically speaking) is an absolute must for India and should not be just relegated to the C-295. Apart from the A-400M, there is also the A320 family which we must produce in India (via a FACO aka screwdrivergiri line). The order book for the civilian airline market for the A320/A350 family is already massive in India. It is foolish to leave that order in a foreign country. Broaden your focus beyond aircraft specs and think of the bigger picture.

A320 family - 820 aircraft on order
A350 family - 60 aircraft on order

The C-390 offer is reportedly contingent upon Brazil inducting the Tejas. HAL can't even deliver Tejas to the IAF on time and we are having wet dreams of delivering Tejas to other countries. If Unkil says no to GE F404 exports, how will we sell the Tejas to a foreign country?

Having one line for C-295, then another line for C-390, then a third line for another aircraft....makes sense how exactly? We need to stop this practice of buying fleets in piecemeal mode.

[Avik]

...ok....so, the country is barely able to fund extra Rafales, but we should buy 80-90 A 400s to meet some obscure, yet to be defined industrial capability?
There are existing complaints from MDL about how much they have learnt from the Scorpene program...the Rafale industrial program is limited to a yet to be established MRO in NOIDA and some components from Nagpur, and yet we should buy 80-90 large sized airlifters?

And I dont agree with the logic of -295>>-400>> A 320. The tooling for all three are different. Going by the same logic, Embraer can help us set up a new line here for the 390>> E2 195>> next gen regional jet/turboprop

The mistake we make is trying to subsume military requirements into giant industrial programs that lead nowhere. The IAF has a requirement for a particular airplane to meet a combat objective. Let it do so and provide them the best tool for it, while utilizing the best industrial offer for it

[Rakesh]

The issue is not funding. The issue is priorities. The MRFA deal is rumoured to cost $23 billion (minimum). And that is just the overall cost of the deal. The life cycle costs - over the next 4 to 5 decades - are not even calculated in this figure. Yet the investment is being made. And if not with the Rafale, it will be with another aircraft. But the MRFA is coming, whether we on the forum agree or not.

Yet there is always the excuse that there is no money for acquiring flying test beds for low bypass turbofans. Used 747s and A-340s can be acquired for around $500 million each, if not less. $23 billion for Rafale (or another MRFA), but $500 million is not available. We have spent less than a $1 billion on Kaveri, but we are about to spend a minimum of $23 billion on the Rafale (or another MRFA). This is a priority issue. Priorities determine Funding.

When MDL complains that they have learnt nothing of value from TKMS (from the upcoming Project 75I contract), then we can revisit this discussion A lot of concessions have already been made from India to TKMS for permitting them to stay in the contest. This is the same TKMS that once exited from the Project 75I contest, before the Navy cajoled & coerced them to rejoin. The MoD is living in a fool's paradise if they believe that TKMS is going to open their crown jewels for them. MDL will find dealing with TKMS' obstinacy is no different from Naval Group. Lets not even get into the long delay (measured via minimum of a decade) the P-75I will face. The level of complexity and the wish list that Naval HQ wants, will ensure that. They could have inducted additional Scorpenes much quicker than before the first customized Type 216 enters service. And for cheaper. Again, Priorities determine Funding.

This is not about the tooling. But rather the money that has already been invested in the A320, A350 and C-295 contracts. If India had purchased 900+ E2 195 aircraft, then by all means the Embraer deal would be the better bet.

A320 family / A350 / C-295 - 936 aircraft on order (820 + 60 + 56). The C-295 order is only set to go upwards.

E2 195 family - ZERO on order. Also known in India as Jeero

And if we are talking about specs, on PAPER, the A-400M carries more and has greater endurance than the C-390. Below is from wiki chacha. Obviously, these numbers have to be tested in the rarified climates of Leh and other such areas in India. And equally important, is the life cycle cost of the A-400M vs the C-390. A lot of factors have to be taken into consideration. Four turboprops aboard the A-400M vs two high bypass turbofans aboard the C-390. Fuel cost will be a huge determining factor. But since we are talking about capability, the comparison below is interesting.

C-390
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_C ... illennium)

Payload: 26 Tons

Range:
5,020 km (3,120 mi, 2,710 nmi) with 14,000 kg (31,000 lb) payload
2,720 km (1,470 nmi; 1,690 mi) with 23,000 kg (51,000 lb) payload
2,000 km (1,080 nmi; 1,240 mi) with 26,000 kg (57,000 lb) payload

A-400M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas

Payload: 37 Tons

Range:
3,300 km (2,100 mi, 1,800 nmi) at max payload
With 30-tonne payload: 4,500 km (2,450 nmi)
With 20-tonne payload: 6,400 km (3,450 nmi)

Q. How many sorties would it take to transport a brigade level of men & material to Leh or Thoise or someplace else in a C-390 vs an A-400M? Now multiply that by 4 - 5 decades of service and imagine the wear & tear, fuel burn, maintenance, consumption of spares, etc.

[drnayar]

OT.. but have to agree with the good admiral as above, Naval Group has recently complained about HDW enabling technology transfers to build up new competitors.. so will not be surprising if MDL learns anything worthwhile from the French !!

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... rine-tech/

France’s Naval Group has criticized Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems for hurting European submarine vendors by transferring technology to countries that later managed to build their own boats for export.

TKMS “are champions at creating new competitors,” Guillaume Rochard, Naval Group’s head of strategy, partnerships and mergers, said at a round table in Paris to discuss France’s defense-industrial base earlier this month. “They’ve made extremely significant technology transfers to Turkey and Korea, two nations that are now in the submarine export market.”

[Avik]

ok..so, the IAF's requirement is for an aircraft with a payload of 25-27 tonnes, so how exactly is a 37 tonne payload aircraft relevant? Kind of like sending a 16 wheeler truck when the requirement is for an 8-wheeler. Have you considered whether A 400s can consistently operate on ALGs? Have you considered the op-ex that the A 400 will subject the IAF to versus the op-ex budgeted for a smaller plane? By the way, I will just point out one more thing--look at the wing span of the A 400 and see where the outer engines are relative to runway width of the ALGs. Most of the time they're skirting the edge--> perfect situation for FOD

Also, the Scorpene is a Naval Group program. We now have on record comments from MDL that the Scorpene program from Naval Group has not delivered the industrial capability that was envisioned and promised. The TKMS program may also end up with the same result, and therefore, it will not be any different from the chimera of the A 400 promises.

[Rakesh]

C-17s have landed at ALGs in Arunachal Pradesh ---> https://www.firstpost.com/india/indian- ... 87784.html

And since you brought up the issue of wingspan compatibility with ALGs, please see below...

* Wingpsan of C-17: 52 m
* Wingspan of A-400M: 42m

If C-17 can land at an ALG with a 52 m wingspan, then the A-400M can comfortably achieve it. The A400M can certainly land at ALGs in India.

And as for the ALG capabilities of the A-400M, please go here ---> https://en.defence-ua.com/news/how_and_ ... 15500.html

The above link has a YT video linked as well in the article.

Another one: https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stor ... -the-rules

If TKMS is going to end up with the same result (with longer delays), then what is the point of getting this boat? So when TKMS screws us over, it is OK. When Naval Group does the same thing, then it is harakiri.

TKMS' offer is more expensive, more complex and with longer delays. But it is OK.

Three follow on Scorpenes is less expensive, less complex and with less turnaround time. But this is bad.

Why have I heard this logic before?

[Rakesh]

One of the chief goals of the MTA contest is to acquire an aircraft that can carry the Zorawar tank, which is around 25 tons. Only the C-390 (26 tons) and the A400M (37 tons) can carry it. The C-130J apparently cannot, but will have to confirm this. In the rarified climates of India's north and north-east, a 25 ton tank in an aircraft that has a max payload of 26 tons...is going to be quite the feat to pull off and that too consistently. At least with the A400M, there is significant more room to play with.

Who will carry Zorawar tank? Three aerospace firms to vie for Indian Air Force deal at Aero India
https://www.theweek.in/news/defence/202 ... india.html
06 Feb 2025

[Avik]

How is the chief goal of the MTA contest the carriage of the Zorawar? Who made that up..the Week magazine! The SQRs of the MTA contest predate the Zorawar by half a decade at least!
And what happens if the Zorawar is bulked up , as is already being considered? Would it still fit into the A 400?
Thats not how military logistics functions...the bulk of tanks, Zorawar or others will be transported and pre-positioned in theatre by road. Thats why the focus on BRO.
In terms of industrial cooperation, we now have three clear instances of failure, in the last 5-7 years of supposed promises--two in the military domain and one in the commercial domain.
The military industrial cooperation failures are the Scorpene and the Rafale. The failure in the commercial domain is the Alstom WAG 12 loco. And yet we're told that the next Euro solution will be manna from heaven!!

[Tanaji]

. The failure in the commercial domain is the Alstom WAG 12 loco. And yet we're told that the next Euro solution will be manna from heaven!!

Why is WAG12 a failure? Production is ongoing in ELF factory with over 500 built and pulling trains.. just curious to know why you deem this a failure.

[Rakesh]

Some issues to clarify;

1) The MTA contest is designed to replace both the An-32 (27 tons) and the IL-76MD (48 tons). The max payload of both aircraft are like apples and oranges - not even remotely close. But Air HQ is looking at one aircraft to replace both types. This is tricky to do, if you already don't have a favoured aircraft in mind. The light transport role is being fulfilled by the C-295 (replacing the HS 748 Avro), the strategic/heavy transport by the C-17 and the medium transport by the MTA contest + the 12 C-130J aircraft currently in service.

2) The contest is longer than half a decade. It is borne out of the now defunct MTA program between Russia and India. The SQRs have been modified/updated from its original version, as requirements & capabilities have changed over a decade. This should really not be hard to comprehend or grasp. Please see next point.

3) Going back - at minimum - 10 years to 2015...the following had yet to occur ---> Doklam (2017) and Galwan (2020). Post Galwan, the Army felt the need for a light tank....as the T-72 (and perhaps T-90s) deployed were not ideal when compared to their light tank counterparts in the PLA Army. Formal Design & Development of the Zorawar started only in 2022, much after Galwan. So the SQR obviously changed from its original form.

4) The Zorawar was designed from day one to be air transportable ---> https://theprint.in/defence/army-wants- ... te/644727/

“Airportability and palletisation of ammunition would be necessary and finally some measure of compatibility of maintenance with the existing ecosystem of repair and recovery,” he added.

5) The MTA contest does require air transportability of tanks. Here is an article from The Hindu, from Oct 2024, which confirms the same thing as The Week, dated Feb 2025 ---> https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 722466.ece

The MTA fits a critical requirement of the Army which is looking on the process of procuring a light tank weighing up to 25 tonnes for deployment in the mountains especially in Eastern Ladakh. So, IAF needs sizeable number of aircraft to airlift them.

6) The Air Force has been transporting Army tanks since at least the 80s (if not earlier). The main BR website has a well documented article about this ---> https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/iaf/hist ... woor-t72s/

And what happens if the Zorawar is bulked up , as is already being considered? Would it still fit into the A 400?

A400M cargo dimensions
Source: https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/docu ... 400M-2.pdf
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... ifications

Cargo Length: 17.71 m
Cargo Width: 4 m
Cargo Height: 3.85 m
Length Ramp: 5.40 m

C-390 cargo dimensions
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_C-390_Millennium

Cabin Length: 18.5 m
Cabin Width: 3.4 m
Cabin Height: 3.0 m

When Zorawar gets bulked up, how will it fit in the C-390 that has a smaller cargo width and height when compared to the A400M? Bulked up will also increase weight and with the max payload of 26 tons, how will the C-390 be able to carry the Zorawar if the tank goes above 25 tons?

In terms of industrial cooperation, we now have three clear instances of failure, in the last 5-7 years of supposed promises--two in the military domain and one in the commercial domain. The military industrial cooperation failures are the Scorpene and the Rafale. The failure in the commercial domain is the Alstom WAG 12 loco.

There are many more than three clear instances of failure and they include not just Europe, but Russia and even the US. The issue lies not with these nations per se, but rather with our MoD's fantasy of ToT (Transfer of Technology) and in the foolish belief that OEMs - from these nations - will actually adhere to their agreements.

And yet we're told that the next Euro solution will be manna from heaven!!

I prefer to use the term prasad Manna sounds very American

[Rakesh]

. The failure in the commercial domain is the Alstom WAG 12 loco. And yet we're told that the next Euro solution will be manna from heaven!!

Why is WAG12 a failure? Production is ongoing in ELF factory with over 500 built and pulling trains.. just curious to know why you deem this a failure.

Alstom is French.

France is part of Europe. So it is bad.

Only America must lead India to prosperity, freedom and democracy. Thus the takleef.

[VinodTK]

The mistake we make is trying to subsume military requirements into giant industrial programs that lead nowhere.The IAF has a requirement for a particular airplane to meet a combat objective. Let it do so and provide them the best tool for it, while utilizing the best industrial offer for it

100% RIGHT

[Avik]

Tanaji-- WAG 12 is considered a failure because it was supposed to be deployed mostly in the eastern region to haul heavy freight in Jharkhand, Orissa, Chattisgarh. As it transpired, its tractive effort was found inadequate to draw long freight trains in the hills of Chotta Nagpur across the three key mineral ore states of eastern India. This is why, IR had to do two things. Deploy the WAG 12 on other routes which had less elevation. And then order new locos from CLW that combine two WAG 9s to provide 12k hp or upgrade the WAG9 to 9000hp, both of which the IR has done. Separately, it also ordered 1000+ locos from Siemens rated at 9000 hp and these will be deployed on routes alongwith the upgraded WAG9k and 12k in eastern india's mineral belt amongst other routes as well.
To your point about production continuing of WAG 12s, yes, the contract is signed and IR had to take delivery. But if i were a betting man, I'd wager that IR would not order large nos of WAG12 as follow on orders

[Avik]

Now back to -390 versus -400M versus -130. My position is this:
IAF has clearly spelt out a requirement for a 25-27 payload airlifter. The -390 fits the bill. The -400 is a huge overkill. The -400 will also cause much bigger opex and is clearly too big when the payload requirement is far less
Now to the question of airlifting Zorawar: The bulk of the Zorawar's will be forward deployed and pre-positioned by ROAD. Post the recent standoff with China, the bulk of the deployment of tanks and BMPs in Ladakh has happened by road through both the axes. There are ample photos in travelogs of visitors and bikers on youtube.
There might be a mission or two when airlift of Zorawars might be required, for which we have the C 17 and the IL 76.
The way logistics are planned in any organization is to cater for 85 to 90% of mission requirements through your primary tool. The bulk of the airlift missions to our borders are food, fuel, spare parts and troops. Smaller vehicles and arty guns form another sliver of this requirement. This adds upto more than 95% of airlift requirements. This is where the -390 is more than adequate. No organization plans for a 5% mission requirement through their primary platform. If that were the case, all 737s, A 320s, ATRs need to be replaced by wide body 777s and A350s in the off chance of surge in requirements. Might as well replace rifles with RPGs and RLs going by the logic of substituting A 400 for 25-27 tonne payload requirements.
Finally, i think we have learnt the lesson from trying to subsume specific military missions into larger industrial development goals. I think this premise itself is questionable. Therefore, provide the IAF what it needs and build an industrial strategy around that rather than give it something it hasnt asked for and then blow out the budget and also not have the military fleet nor the industrial capability

[Rakesh]

Now back to -390 versus -400M versus -130. My position is this:
IAF has clearly spelt out a requirement for a 25-27 payload airlifter. The -390 fits the bill. The -400 is a huge overkill. The -400 will also cause much bigger opex and is clearly too big when the payload requirement is far less.

The payload requirement is *NOT* 25 - 27 tons. The payload requirement in the RFI is from 18 - 30 tons, as the need is to replace two types of aircraft. This also ensures that there is more than just one aircraft in the contest and to avoid the issue of a single vendor situation. That tiny margin of 25 - 27 tons will eliminate the C-130J right out of the door. The C-130J has a cargo capacity of 19+ tons and the C-130J-30 has a cargo capacity of 21+ tons.

Indian Air Force airlifter contract bidders push credentials at Aero India
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/air- ... aeroindia/
19 February 2025

The Indian Ministry of Defence's Request for Information relating to the IAF's requirement for a batch of 40, 60, and 80 MTA was released in late 2022. There is an imminent need to replace around 100 ageing aircraft in the IAF, particularly its An-32s and Il-76 transports, over the next seven years. The replacements for these aircraft should have a cargo capacity of between 18-30 tons.

====================================================

Now to the question of airlifting Zorawar: The bulk of the Zorawar's will be forward deployed and pre-positioned by ROAD. Post the recent standoff with China, the bulk of the deployment of tanks and BMPs in Ladakh has happened by road through both the axes. There are ample photos in travelogs of visitors and bikers on youtube.

The bolded part is *NOT* true. There were reportedly up to 140 tanks in Leh during the initial phases, of which 90 tanks were airlifted. Thus the bulk was airlifted and the rest were road transported. See below. Air lifting was important, as it would have taken a considerable length of time to drive them up via road versus air lifting them. Galwan came out of the blue and air lifting was the quickest option. This is the same reason why the IAF has an air lift requirement (for tanks) in the MTA contest.

How are tanks armouring Ladakh sector?
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 722834.ece
06 Oct 2024

What happened after 2020 Galwan clash?

After May 2020, there was a major force accretion as well as reorientation of troops from the western to the northern borders. As the stand-off unfolded, the Indian military went all-out in mobilisation to counter Chinese build-up as well as its ingress into Indian-held territory. The Indian Air Force (IAF) pressed its entire transport fleet, airlifting over 68,000 troops, 330 infantry vehicles and over 90 tanks in addition to artillery guns in the initial phase, according to defence sources. In all, over 9,000 tonnes were airlifted including radars and surface-to-air guided weapon systems.

====================================================

There might be a mission or two when airlift of Zorawars might be required, for which we have the C 17 and the IL 76.

The entire point of the MTA is to replace both the An-32 and the IL-76MD. The MTA will replace the IL-76MD.

[Avik]

so, if the RFI requirement is for 18-30 tonnes payload, how does the -400M with a payload of 37 tonnes fit in? Agree on the -130J and the -390, but still dont see the use case for the -400M. If the use case is REALLY for two aircraft types, then acquire large numbers of cheaper -390/-130 and a small number of -400 although medium tanks cant be transported on the-400M. This is the reason I keep coming back to this point. The -400M is incapable of transporting medium tanks; its an overkill for smaller 90% of cargo, so, what is the use case for the-400M?
Seems to me that the reasonable thing to do is buy and build an industrial base around the -390/-130 with the Tatas/Mahindra and buy a small number of used large military cargo airplanes.

[Rakesh]

The goal of the MTA is to transport light tanks, among other duties. From where are you getting medium tanks? Obfuscation is not helping your argument The Zorawar is a light tank, while the T-72M1 and T-90 are medium tanks. This is not really hard to differentiate or is it? Anything other than light tanks are not optimal in high altitude areas. It is a burden, rather than a positive.

And as for the RFI requirement of 18 - 30 tons versus the A400M's payload capacity of 37 tonnes, that is something that Air HQ and MoD will have to address. As of date, there is no indication at Air HQ or the MoD...that will eliminate the A400M from the contest. But then again, we are still only in RFI mode. Long way to go and I suspect, just like the amendment for including the transport of light tanks in the MTA contest....the max tonnage requirement will also be amended, albeit upwards.

P.S. The A400M is being kept in, primarily and largely due to the Zorawar light tank. If that vehicle did not exist or the need to transport light tanks to high altitude areas (via airlifting) did not exist....then the C-390 becomes more attractive.

[Avik]

so, again, roads have been built and more are being built in Ladakh and the NE. If 90 medium tanks were transported (thank you, by the way, for that nugget of info!) by road immediately after Galwan to Ladakh, then one can assume that more tanks will be inducted by road over the coming years, after all the improvements in the road infra by BRO. If the roads are good enough for medium tanks, then they can take on the Zorawar.
Now, per you, we need to buy lots of A 400Ms to induct Zorawar, when clearly thats the smallest part of the mission set of the IAF's airlift effort. I disagree with this contention of yours. All this assertion that the IAF is keeping the A 400M there to cater to the Zorawar is a bit much! Any large organization will not reject a party that has sent in a proposal in response to the RFI unless there is serious malfeasance. But the chances of the IAF going for the A 400M is low since the vast majority of the mission set will be accomplished by smaller airplanes that have lower op-ex.

[Rakesh]

so, again, roads have been built and more are being built in Ladakh and the NE. If 90 medium tanks were transported (thank you, by the way, for that nugget of info!) by road immediately after Galwan to Ladakh, then one can assume that more tanks will be inducted by road over the coming years, after all the improvements in the road infra by BRO. If the roads are good enough for medium tanks, then they can take on the Zorawar.

Obfuscation yet again

90 tanks were transported to Leh via airlifting and not by road. No one is contesting the fact that the roads built by the BRO cannot handle the weight of tanks. Suprising why this is being brought up

Now, per you, we need to buy lots of A 400Ms to induct Zorawar, when clearly thats the smallest part of the mission set of the IAF's airlift effort. I disagree with this contention of yours. All this assertion that the IAF is keeping the A 400M there to cater to the Zorawar is a bit much! Any large organization will not reject a party that has sent in a proposal in response to the RFI unless there is serious malfeasance. But the chances of the IAF going for the A 400M is low since the vast majority of the mission set will be accomplished by smaller airplanes that have lower op-ex.

The RFI requirements in the MTA are set by Air HQ. So air lifting light tanks (among other vehicles) and that too on a short notice, is a clear cut requirement stated by the IAF. You are more than welcome to disagree with that line of thinking, but Air HQ is the one that has the final say. They wrote the RFI and they know what they want.

The Zorawar has been designed for air transportability and so will the foreign light tank (another boondoggle!) that the Army is looking to acquire. Road travel to a particular theatre of conflict will take a lot longer than air transportability. And when a repeat of Galwan occurs, it will be air transportability that will save the day...just like in Galwan.

Road transport will obviously be vital, but it cannot replace the speed & flexibility that air transportability offers. And this is crucial in the initial stages of a conflict, where counter deployments make all the difference. What surprised the Chinese was the rapid deployment of men & material in Galwan and that was because of air transportability.

Had India solely adopted the road route, the situation in Galwan would be a lot different for India and in a negative way.

[Avik]

The RFI requirements, as you have stated are for the 18-30 tonne category, which precludes the A 400. I am not disagreeing with the IAF RFI, just pointing out that the said RFI rules out the A 400!!
As far as the contest between road transport and airlift is concerned, airlift is required when there is no road connectivity. Since, we can hopefully agree that road connectivity will exist by the time these airplanes start to come in, why is there the need for a LARGE fleet of A 400s?
My contention is that the bulk of the MTAs should be -390s/-130s since they fulfill 90% of the mission set. For the marginal utility mission set, I'm ok with acquiring a SMALL number of by then used -400Ms/C17s/Il 76s. This fulfills the mission set while keeping the budget under control.

[Manish_P]

....
As far as the contest between road transport and airlift is concerned, airlift is required when there is no road connectivity
...

Airlift is required EVEN when there is road connectivity

For speed. For approach via multiple vectors.

[Avik]

Multiple vectors?? Even when most ALGs have limited glide paths! Which the adversary is also aware of and can threaten with SAMs...

But I agree with your larger points--always good to have multiple options..including airlift

My point in this discussion has been this: the BULK of the airlift missions dont require large strategic airlifters. The bulk of the missions can be performed with the -390/-130. For the specialized and few missions such as airlift of tanks, yes, we should have strat airlifters, but those will be fewer in numbers.

[uddu]

60 to 80 MTA is a lower number than the An-32s in Service (Around 100). So this tender will mostly go for C390. For replacing the IL-76, there could be upgrade of the current ones, or a tender between new variants of IL-76S and A400. Even a Govt to Govt deal for about 20 to 30 such aircrafts.
https://www.zona-militar.com/en/2025/09 ... ce-forces/

Modernizing the Indian Air Force’s Transport FleetModernizing the Indian Air Force’s Transport Fleet
https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/moderni ... ort-fleet/

There will be follow on order for the C295.
Regarding Tejas for Brazil, the production of Tejas has picked up. And they don't need the Israeli radars as such. There are no issues in manufacturing Tejas for Brazil other than the American's disagreeing on Engines that will go on the Tejas for Brazil.

[SRajesh]

A question to both Rakesh and Avik
1. How is easy will it be to find Civlian Markets for Turboprop Civilian Variants down the line??
2. Or if you do go down the T-prop route how easy to upgrade to T-fan fits for the Civilian Variants
3. When it comes to Aerial Refuellers which would be better T-prop or T-fan engined aircraft??
The reason I ask is because we need to think of covering many bases here.
The civlian airline traffic b between Tier II and Tier III will grow. So for the possbile short haul or intermediate haul civlian use which would be cost effective in running T-prop or T-fan aircraft??

[Avik]

First in reply to Uddu-ji. Agree with all your points, particularly the numbers. Thank you!

[Avik]

In reply to SRajesh-ji:

1. How is easy will it be to find Civlian Markets for Turboprop Civilian Variants down the line??
Ans) Difficult to very difficult to find civilian markets for turboprop military variants (i think this is what you meant) down the line. Military cargolifters including turboprops are heavier due to heavier landing gear and heavier load bearing floor to carry military cargo. All this adds weight and reduces fuel efficiency. Fuel burn is key to the commercial market. Less efficient, heavy military turboprops will not cut it in the razor thin margin civilian market. There're some exceptions but the exceptions prove the rule! Thats why we dont have a civilian version of the-295. Civilian to military transition are more possible such as the maritime recce version of the ATR. But these again are few and far between. Best is to build an optimized airplane for military requirement and a highly efficient airplane for civilian use. Dual use attempts like AVRO HS 748 are neither here nor there

2. Or if you do go down the T-prop route how easy to upgrade to T-fan fits for the Civilian Variants
I know of only one ATTEMPT thus far. The D 328 from Dornier/Deutsche. Doesnt work. Tprops have straight wings and are usually lower in the wing body joint. T-Fans have heavier engines and require more bracing in the wing. Also wings are swpt back. I will caveat by saying, anything is possible on powerpoint but actual utility of such dual-use is limited to non-existent

3. When it comes to Aerial Refuellers which would be better T-prop or T-fan engined aircraft??

Depends on the fleet that needs to be refueled. If its slow moving helicopters and other turboprops, then a turboprop refueller is better. If its fast jets, then you need a T fan.

[SRajesh]

^^In that case C 390 fits many bills doesnt it??
And the civilian variant of E 190 would not be too difficult as the wings and engines are the same.

[Avik]

The C 390 does tick a lot of boxes. The contest for the MTA is really between the C 390 and the C 130J
Collab with Embraer will also help as there are strong reports that they are working on a next gen turboprop which will be good for India's civ aviation market for routes that dont require the capacity of 737s and 320s

[SRajesh]

And given that Kawasaki are also share holders of the engine builders for C 390, is there any chance of some joint approach with them in future??
We have tried the Souffler and the Pan Cake maker and the Fish/Chip Sellers
No one is willing to part with any tech or help to build our own series of T-fan, T-prop and T-shaft engines!!

[SRajesh]

And one last question to both Rakesh and Avik:
Safety of T-fan engines in the long run especilly using them in ALG’s
How much of an issue is gravel and pebbles on the ground getting into the engine??
Attrition issues over a period of time??

[Manish_P]

Multiple vectors?? Even when most ALGs have limited glide paths! Which the adversary is also aware of and can threaten with SAMs...
...

The adversary can also threaten the ALG itself with ground attack missiles. We don't go "let's not have ALGs then" do we?