C-17s for the IAF?

[jai]

another humble opinion - formed following various discussions on our beloved site - is that it seems our vulnerability seems highest right now (With servicablity and low nos of IL 76, delays in MTA's and pending completion of AN 132 upgrades) and should be lesser in a decade - given all the upgrades/inductions/developments underway - both technologically and numerically. May be our planning needs to account for the immediate term - next 10 years - wonder if leasing aircraft could be a short term solution.

[Baldev]

India Seeks To Bolster Transport With 10 C-17s
By vivek raghuvanshi
Published: 5 Nov 2009 17:07
Print Print | Print Email

NEW DELHI - The Indian Defence Ministry is negotiating the purchase of C-17 heavy-lift Globemaster aircraft from the United States through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, say ministry sources.

reported on http://www.defensenews.com

This is really silly - why would you spend money on something that is clearly too much money.

who will believe this 1.7 billion for 10 C17,or probably writer was drunk

[Singha]

what is the sudden gap in capabilities that requires fast-track induction of baseline C-130's ??

imho our transport a/c inventory is woefully short for the wide areas of responsibility. having 50
extra medium transport a/c than the minimum nos we maintain would immediately beef up our
flexibility and throw weight, permit a couple of new powerful airborne brigades, ease pressure on
the aeging AN32, supplement the IL76 on most routes ...

[GeorgeWelch]

another humble opinion - formed following various discussions on our beloved site - is that it seems our vulnerability seems highest right now (With servicablity and low nos of IL 76, delays in MTA's and pending completion of AN 132 upgrades) and should be lesser in a decade - given all the upgrades/inductions/developments underway - both technologically and numerically. May be our planning needs to account for the immediate term - next 10 years - wonder if leasing aircraft could be a short term solution.

My opinion is that even with the An-32 and Il-76 fleet at full strength, the IAF transport fleet is woefully underequipped. One Indian official is quoted as saying that they need to triple their airlift capacity and I feel that is actually conservative.

The An-32 is very small, smaller than the 'half-a-herc' C-27J.

Just for comparison, 10 C-17s would equal the airlift capability of the entire An-32 fleet.

The MRTA is in the C-130 class and India is supposedly looking at buying 40 of them. Even that would hardly put a dent in the airlift shortfall.

And that assumes everything with the MRTA goes perfectly.

They are hoping to start production 7-8 years after a deal is signed. I think 7-8 years is hopelessly optimistic and the deal has been expected to be signed 'shortly' for the last several years.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know they need to be looking at a substantially bigger and more capable fleet.

[Kartik]

I don't want to take sides in this discussion about the C-17 and whether or not its required or not, considering its cost. I would like to see those who suggest the IL-76 option, to show that its in production, and that there is a program to further develop its avionics to match modern standards of numbers of flight crew and workload on each of them. Remember, the next transports the IAF buys will last at least another 25-30 years.

And while the C-17 is expensive, I can attest to one thing- it is extremely maneuverable, something I never imagined seeing in a large transport. I've seen it bank remarkably sharply at very low level at an air show (of course with no cargo on board). Having cargo on board may impose limitations on how maneuverable it is, but it is a valueable feature. Having read on BR, Group Captain Anant Bewoor's description of the first IL-76 landings at Ladakh to induct Bofors guns into Siachen, it was clear that a transport with excess power, and with good maneuverability even in thin air, would be very valueable on the eastern and north eastern fronts. if the IAF believes that the C-17 offers it those benefits, it would certainly influence a decision on its next Heavy Lift Transport.

[Kartik]

Direct Supply of Hawk trainers from UK complete

WARTON, UK --- After completing a flight development contract for the Indian Air Force (IAF), BAE Systems has delivered the 24th and final UK built Indian Hawk.

Following a 3,000 mile journey across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, the aircraft, flown by BAE Systems test pilots, arrived safely at Air Force Station Bidar to join the rest of the Hawk fleet in delivering fast jet training to the IAF.

The aircraft, HT001, which was actually the first IAF Hawk to be built, has, for nearly three years served as a flight test platform and proving ground for the integration of new systems and capabilities onto the IAF Hawk fleet .

As well as development and acceptance flights, HT001 was also a key component in the programme which saw Indian Air Force flying instructors training to teach student pilots on the Hawk. This programme took place prior to the delivery of Hawks to India allowing the Indian training programme to start at the earliest opportunity.

Michael Christie, Senior Vice President, India for BAE Systems Military Air Solutions, said: “Hawk has brought a step change in pilot training capabilities for the IAF and this aircraft, which was the first India Hawk to be built, has been a key part of developing further capabilities for the Indian Air Force.

“During its time here at BAE Systems, HT001 has proven to be extremely reliable, delivering excellent service from its time as a training platform for Indian Air Force instructors, through to the on-time and to budget completion of the recent flight development programme.

“The first Hawk was delivered to the IAF in November 2007 and other than this final development aircraft, deliveries were completed in 2008. Whilst this marks the completion of aircraft deliveries by BAE Systems to the Indian Air Force, we continue to provide support services to the IAF, and work closely with our industrial partners, HAL, in meeting the fast jet training needs of the Indian Air Force.”

In arriving at Air Force Station Bidar, the home of the Indian Hawk fleet, HT001 becomes the 860th Hawk delivered across the globe.

BAE Systems is the premier global defence, security and aerospace company delivering a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, information technology solutions and customer support services. With approximately 105,000 employees worldwide, BAE Systems' sales exceeded £18.5 billion (US $34.4 billion) in 2008.

[Rahul M]

I don't want to take sides in this discussion about the C-17 and whether or not its required or not, considering its cost. I would like to see those who suggest the IL-76 option, to show that its in production, and that there is a program to further develop its avionics to match modern standards of numbers of flight crew and workload on each of them.

kartik, the IL-476 page says those very things and adds that production would begin in russia after a flight test in 2010 and subsequent development work. considering that the Il-76 was a very popular bird (960 produced ?) and there's still demand for a rugged transport of its class at many places of the world, that's not entirely inconceivable.
it is difficult to think the russians would simply give up the heavy transport market without a fight. just for comparison, the corresponding numbers for C-17 and C-141 are 205 and 285.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... il-476.htm

MAK Ilyushin has developed a modernized Il-476 project with a new wing, avionics and engines with Perm PS-90A-76. The Il-476 or 'fourth-generation Il-76' will feature PS-90A76 engines, a glass cockpit and a further 13 to 17 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency. As of mid-2008 the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Factory was preparing for the production of a brand-new version of the Ilyushin Il-76, called the Il-476. The Ilyushin Il-476 is equipped with a full numerical flight-control system, a glass cockpit and a new-generation PS-90 engine. The factory will need to upgrade its equipment to manufacture the Ilyushin Il-476, as initially only 20 percent of the necessary equipment was ready. Fortunately, the Ilyushin Group had sufficient financial capability to organize the production.

^^^
reads like a translation from russian and I gather it is from an article by pyotr butowski.

Remember, the next transports the IAF buys will last at least another 25-30 years.

what exactly is so revolutionary in the C-17 (for example) that can't be achieved by the Il-76 with major modifications.
I am asking again, if the 50's C-130 can endure so many iterations and modifications and still emerge as a 'contemporary' aircraft into the 20th century, why can't the much more modern Il-76 do the same ? why does it absolutely have to be a de novo design ?
I would really want to understand this point.

btw, if the IAF is going for only 1 sqn/10-12 odd samples of the C-17, I would guess it is for some different unique requirement and NOT as a replacement for the IL-76.

[GeorgeWelch]

what exactly is so revolutionary in the C-17 (for example) that can't be achieved by the Il-76 with major modifications.

It doesn't have to be anything revolutionary.

The obvious answer is that they simply want a larger, more capable plane.

Compare loading a T-72 on an Il-76
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... oor01.html

with loading a (wider) Abrams on a C-17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eXpp9U-Zt4
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/downloa ... /index.htm

(And of course the T-90 won't fit at all)

Also: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html

Normally, what the Army wants to put inside an IL-76, is far in excess of what can actually be accommodated.

The proposed new engines only increase thrust by 16%, I doubt if that's enough to overcome some of the limitations he mentioned in the Bofors story where they could only fly the guns into Thoise if the temperature was 15C or less!

I am asking again, if the 50's C-130 can endure so many iterations and modifications and still emerge as a 'contemporary' aircraft into the 20th century, why can't the much more modern Il-76 do the same ? why does it absolutely have to be a de novo design ?
I would really want to understand this point.

The C-130 is still relevant WITHIN ITS CATEGORY.

Yes the C-130 is fine for what it is, but the USAF also recognizes that sometimes you simply need a larger plane, like the C-17 or C-5.

Similarly, no matter how much you modernize the Il-76, it won't eliminate the need for a bigger plane.

btw, if the IAF is going for only 1 sqn/10-12 odd samples of the C-17, I would guess it is for some different unique requirement and NOT as a replacement for the IL-76.

It could certainly be viewed as a 'silver-bullet' fleet of sorts to handle missions the Il-76 can't. I've already said the C-17 wouldn't replace the Il-76 but complement it.

[Kartik]

Not directly related to the IAF, but of interest nevertheless. Maybe the IAF could buy those Malaysian MiG-29Ns and get them through the MiG-29UPG upgrade and raise another squadron quickly. the highlighted part of the article is the one that is most interesting. having these upgraded MiG-29Ns going for another 15 years would give the IAF a squadron worth of cheap, capable fighters and with the established ground infrastructure for overhauling airframe, avionics and engine, it should be very easy to assimilate. pretty much the same benefits of a second-hand Mirage-2000 purchase, but most likely at a much much lower cost of procurement and upgradation.

Stung by the controversy surrounding the high maintenance bill for the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) fleet of MiG-29N Fulcrum fleet, the Russian defence industry is to roll out a thorough “life support” for RMAF’s newly acquired Sukhoi multi-role jets. Defence industry sources told Malay Mail that the programme would ensure that RMAF’s Sukhoi Su-30MKM Flanker fleet would not suffer the same fate as the 15-year-old Fulcrums. The Fulcrum will be retired from service by end of next year, some 10 years before its scheduled date of retirement. And unlike the Fulcrum, the Sukhoi support contract would be on a government-to-government basis.
The support contract was part of the off-set programme of the RM3.1 billion deal for the Flankers, signed in 2003. Another off-set programme was training of Malaysian astronauts.

“The support contract was mutually insisted by the RMAF and the Russians during negotiations prior to contract signing. Both parties acknowledged the problems faced by the MiG fleet,” the sources added. They said the new arrangement was designed to ensure that the cost of maintaining the 18 Flankers, already delivered to RMAF, would not become prohibitively expensive, unlike the Fulcrums, that was cited as the main reason for its premature retirement. The service centre is expected to completed by the middle of next year at the RMAF Gong Kedak air base on the border of Kelantan and Terengganu, where the Flanker squadron is located.

Defence Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi on Wednesday told Parliament that the government was expected to save RM260 million annually by phasing out the MiG-29N Fulcrum fighter jets on Dec 31, next year. In 1993, the government paid some RM1.3 billion for 18 Fulcrums, 16 single-seater and two twin-seater. The aircraft were delivered in batches from 1995. Ahmad Zahid said the fighter jets were being phased out as it was difficult and costly to maintain some old components and systems for the fighter jets. “The weaponry for the jets has reached the end of its lifespan and extending the lifespan would be costly and not be viable,” he told the Dewan Rakyat. Ahmad Zahid said this when replying to Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud) who wanted to know the rationale for phasing out the Russian-made fighters. According to Ahmad Zahid, each MiG also needed to undergo preventive and restoration work that would cost RM10 million, and RM7 million for engine overhaul every year after completing flights between 1,000 hours and 4,000 hours. He said the cost of maintaining the MiGs was also high as the jets needed to be sent to Russia for overhaul.

The Flankers are expected to assume the role of the Fulcrums.

On the need to send the planes to Russia, the sources said it was not economical for the overhaul or upgrading work to be done locally.
“Only India, that operates a large number of MiG-29s, has the capability to do such programmes in their own country,” the sources said, adding that the issue had actually cropped about four years ago when the Fulcrum fleet celebrated its 10th year anniversary,.

The sources also said the cost of maintenance was not included in the original Fulcrum procurement contract, unlike the contracts for Western-made aircraft. That was the main reason that the Fulcrums initial procurement cost was about three times cheaper than its Western-made counterparts. The sources said back in 1993, Russian arms exporters had not reached the level of sophistication of Western arms manufacturers.

“They (Russians) relied mostly on Soviet-style support system that unfortunately caused a lot of problems to non-traditional clients like Malaysia”. The problem was exacerbated by the Malaysian government procurement policy that only limited the spares and parts suppliers to local companies. Some 20 local companies were involved in supplying parts and spares to RMAF and its authorised maintenance organisation, ATSC Sdn Bhd.

“Everybody wanted to make money and in the end, it was the air force that ended up with high repair bills. The MiG-29s remain in service in many poor countries including Myanmar, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cuba and Peru. Some of these countries are operating even older versions of the Fulcrum.”

The sources said if Malaysia could sell the planes, the Fulcrums could theoretically remain in service for another 15 years.The sources admitted that the Fulcrum saga had seriously damaged any future prospects of arms purchases from Russia. Indeed, Ahmad Zahid told reporters, the ministry was looking to France, United States, Sweden and United Kingdom for its next fighter jets.

[Rahul M]

george, I appreciate your efforts to inform me with info from the very website this forum is a part of !
could it be that I'm aware of those articles ?
anyway, my comments were directed at people who were advocating replacing the Il-76 with the C-17 and should be read in that context.

The C-130 is still relevant WITHIN ITS CATEGORY.

err, where did I say anything about making the Il-76 relevant OUTSIDE its category ??
the herc is relevant within its category after mods.
perhaps same can be done for the Il-76 'within its category' ?

It could certainly be viewed as a 'silver-bullet' fleet of sorts to handle missions the Il-76 can't. ...

exactly, in which case there will be no justification to replace all your lead bullets with silver ones at golden prices, that too a much lower number than you originally had !

[D Roy]

Much as I like the C-17 ,

absolute tonnage cannot replace discrete numbers.

however if it is affordable, than the C-17 in the 30-40 range may be looked at.

[Gagan]

The C-17 is the only thing that can carry the Arjun. The Arjun's size and weight is beyond the capabilities of the IL-76

............. Arjun .....................M1 Abrams
Weight : 58.5 tonnes .................61.4 metric tons
Length : 10.638 m..........Gun forward: 9.77 m Hull length: 7.93 m
Width : 3.864 m..........................3.66 m
Height : 2.32 m............................2.44 m

T-72
Weight 41.5 tonnes
Length 9.53 m gun forward 6.95 m hull
Width 3.59 m
Height 2.23 m

[GeorgeWelch]

err, where did I say anything about making the Il-76 relevant OUTSIDE its category ??
the herc is relevant within its category after mods.
perhaps same can be done for the Il-76 'within its category' ?

Well you asked what a C-17 could do that an Il-76 couldn't do, and I was just emphasizing that they are in different classes.

Certainly even if you got a bunch of C-17s, you would still want a variety of smaller aircraft (such as the MRTA) too.

[Kartik]

george, I appreciate your efforts to inform me with info from the very website this forum is a part of !
could it be that I'm aware of those articles ?
anyway, my comments were directed at people who were advocating replacing the Il-76 with the C-17 and should be read in that context.

if you've read that article Rahul, then pray, tell me how does the IAF transport the 46.5 tonne T-90 tanks when as Group Cpt Bewoor said "The max wt of cargo in the IL-76 is 43 tons, so with a T-72 inside, the IL-76 cannot carry even an empty condensed milk tin" ?

or should the IA just keep a fleet of T-72s for another 25-30 years only for the eventuality of needing to transport them to proper air bases under short notice, not to mention theaters like Ladakh ?

Its actually a very valid point that is raised here by George Welch. forget the much heavier Arjuns, the current IAF transport fleet cannot even transport what the IA will be using as its workhorse, the T-90. unless the re-engined IL-76 or IL-476 sees a big increase in cargo capacity AND sees some features that allow for quick loading and un-loading of tanks, introducing tanks and artillery into faraway places inaccessible by road and trains will be out of the question.

The C-130 is still relevant WITHIN ITS CATEGORY.

err, where did I say anything about making the Il-76 relevant OUTSIDE its category ??
the herc is relevant within its category after mods.
perhaps same can be done for the Il-76 'within its category' ?[/quote]

and does it say anywhere that the IAF is planning on replacing the IL-76 with the C-17 ? they are only talking of a purchase of 10 C-17s, so its hardly equal to replacing all the IL-76s. re-engined, upgraded and modernised IL-76s could be used by the IAF for another 25 years at least without any problems for whatever tasks they're used for currently.

exactly, in which case there will be no justification to replace all your lead bullets with silver ones at golden prices, that too a much lower number than you originally had !

agree with you here. a small fleet of C-17s might be all that the IAF may be looking at, similar to the C-130Js which cannot numerically replace all the An-32s even if they're better.

[GeorgeWelch]

if you've read that article Rahul, then pray, tell me how does the IAF transport the 46.5 tonne T-90 tanks when as Group Cpt Bewoor said "The max wt of cargo in the IL-76 is 43 tons, so with a T-72 inside, the IL-76 cannot carry even an empty condensed milk tin" ?

The bigger problem with the T-90 is actually it's width. It won't physically fit in the plane.

New engines or other mods might conceivably bump the payload enough to barely carry the weight of the T-90, but there's no way to increase the width of the cargo hold without basically creating a new plane.

And when you are operating a plane at the outer limits of it's capabilities, you have no margin for hot and high conditions.

In contrast a combat-ready T-90 fits very easily within a C-17's capability envelope so hot and high operations should pose no problem.

And there's lots of other equipment besides tanks that would have trouble fitting within an Il-76 such as helicopters

[Surya]

Kartik

that Mig 29 piece should also be cross posted in the MRCA thread.

Our friends who are enthralled by the Mig 35 could take a dekko

[Rahul M]

george, I appreciate your efforts to inform me with info from the very website this forum is a part of !
could it be that I'm aware of those articles ?
anyway, my comments were directed at people who were advocating replacing the Il-76 with the C-17 and should be read in that context.

if you've read that article Rahul, then pray, tell me how does the IAF transport the 46.5 tonne T-90 tanks when as Group Cpt Bewoor said "The max wt of cargo in the IL-76 is 43 tons, so with a T-72 inside, the IL-76 cannot carry even an empty condensed milk tin" ?

{please spare me the redundant information kartik, what makes you think I'm not aware of that article ?
where have I said that the Il-76 can carry the T-90 ?}
or should the IA just keep a fleet of T-72s for another 25-30 years only for the eventuality of needing to transport them to proper air bases under short notice, not to mention theaters like Ladakh ?
{where does this come from ? strawman arguments really don't suit postors of your stature. if you had cared to read the thread you might have noted this :
(quoting from a post of mine)

perhaps a sqn worth of C-17s can be justified for heavy lift, at most.

}
Its actually a very valid point that is raised here by George Welch. forget the much heavier Arjuns, the current IAF transport fleet cannot even transport what the IA will be using as its workhorse, the T-90. unless the re-engined IL-76 or IL-476 sees a big increase in cargo capacity AND sees some features that allow for quick loading and un-loading of tanks, introducing tanks and artillery into faraway places inaccessible by road and trains will be out of the question.

{which incidentally is quite in line with what I was saying in the previous posts. why then the show of serious disagreement accompanied by ponderous strawmen ?}

......
err, where did I say anything about making the Il-76 relevant OUTSIDE its category ??
the herc is relevant within its category after mods.
perhaps same can be done for the Il-76 'within its category' ?

and does it say anywhere that the IAF is planning on replacing the IL-76 with the C-17 ? they are only talking of a purchase of 10 C-17s, so its hardly equal to replacing all the IL-76s. re-engined, upgraded and modernised IL-76s could be used by the IAF for another 25 years at least without any problems for whatever tasks they're used for currently.

{what's 'it' in this case ? surely not IAF's long term plans ? since we are not privy to it, certainly not on open forum.
the 'it' I responded to was some posts in this thread that have argued for the C-17 in place of the Il-76. in fact, had you read my reply to georgewelch before posting (2-3 posts above yours) you might have known that.}

exactly, in which case there will be no justification to replace all your lead bullets with silver ones at golden prices, that too a much lower number than you originally had !

agree with you here. a small fleet of C-17s might be all that the IAF may be looking at, similar to the C-130Js which cannot numerically replace all the An-32s even if they're better.

--------------
leaving all this aside, do you think the MTA will be able to operate from each dirt strip the An-32 can operate from ? is there a case for a replacement of the An-32 class by a similar class in addition to the MTA in the future ?

[vavinash]

The NAL RTA will hopefully be able to fill that void.

[D Roy]

The Il-76MF with the PS-90A2 engines can do 60 tonnes. its some 20 feet longer than the MD as well. nevertheless its not been serialized.

however the PLAAF pending order for 30 or so IL-76s doesn't inspire confidence and that is probably why the IAF is looking at the C-17 to get new birds quickly. Even the Phalcons got delayed. i think the IAF doesn't want to rely on the Il-76 anymore, the airbus tankers are being ordered instead of the Midas being a case in point.The Uzbeks and the Russians better get their act together on this one. they have a cheaper plane but it still needs to be delivered.

[vasu_ray]

well, to the C-130's credit,

it demonstrated rocket assisted takeoff which can help with, short runway at high altitude + max payload combo

it 'can' fly in hurricanes which translates to zero visibility conditions and turbulence

it would be incredible if other bigger transports could do this stuff

[shiv]

it 'can' fly in hurricanes which translates to zero visibility conditions and turbulence

it would be incredible if other bigger transports could do this stuff

Vasu Ray - If you set such requirements as the standard - nobody in India should buy a scooter or car - only battle tanks.

[shiv]

To get an idea of what IAF transports do you need to see some of my least popular videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTXGiTxz6c


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC-KAF8wQo8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyPeZxa5asY

[D Roy]

he he,

the C-130 has even demonstrated 'super' STOL capability with retro rockets. this was part of a one off experiment done to make it land with special forces in a football stadium and take off from the same during the US embassy siege in Teheran.

here's the youtube link to the credible sport tests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YOtm9UC ... r_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4 ... re=related


moderators may remove this post if it is too off topic.

[Aditya G]

I really dont understand why members are cribbing about the possible c-17 buys.
Nowhere have i seen any evidence of the Il-76 being presently in production or in the future(I take Russian promises of doing so with more than a pinch of salt).So if you cant buy a new one , where is the question of it being 5x times cheaper. ......

Not so fast my friend! From where do you think the IAF IL-78MKI and A-50EI are being produced? China has on order of 30+ airframes which are still pending - taking time since Russia is shifting production from Uzbeckistan to Russia proper.

[vasu_ray]

Shiv, the C-130 isn't specially strengthened to fly into hurricanes, it can, may not be with full payload though

about the scary videos on rockets, if we trust the FCS and rocket engines to take astronauts into space, we should be able to do similar things within aircraft's safety limits using its own FCS. Btw, the retro rockets aren't a good idea.

if the transports we are buying are of any help, we should hear less about issues such as altitude or seasons or runway length limiting payloads; weather or mountains not permitting landings especially in the NE and Himalayan region. Should be able to haul heavy equipment with enough safety margins.

[shiv]

Shiv, the C-130 isn't specially strengthened to fly into hurricanes, it can, may not be with full payload though

about the scary videos on rockets, if we trust the FCS and rocket engines to take astronauts into space, we should be able to do similar things within aircraft's safety limits using its own FCS. Btw, the retro rockets aren't a good idea.

if the transports we are buying are of any help, we should hear less about issues such as altitude or seasons or runway length limiting payloads; weather or mountains not permitting landings especially in the NE and Himalayan region. Should be able to haul heavy equipment with enough safety margins.

Vasu RATO are nothing new. And certainly not new to India. The ability to do a RATO is not a plus point for the C 130 - although it is an aircraft that the IAF has sought for decades. A recent AFM has a photo of an Israeli C 130 doing a RATO. It was the IAF that fitted an Orpheus turbojet on the Fairchild Packet to improve high altitude performance and make a JATO. After all the An 32 does not need RATO/JATO to take off from the highest airfields generally operated by any Air Force in the world - i.e. those in India. I don't think any aircraft in the world currently can operate at full payload from some of the airfields used by the IAF.

Do you know which aircraft was flown into hurricanes by the IAF in the 60s? Any guesses anyone?

[GeorgeWelch]

After all the An 32 does not need RATO/JATO to take off from the highest airfields generally operated by any Air Force in the world - i.e. those in India. I don't think any aircraft in the world currently can operate at full payload from some of the airfields used by the IAF.

The full payload of a tiny aircraft is still tiny.

When I started looking at the transport capability of the IAF I was truly shocked.

I know you don't appreciate comparisons to the US and the US has different needs than India and I have resisted making such comparisons in the past, but this time the sheer difference in scale is mindboggling.

In one year (FY10) the US will purchase more airlift capability than is in the entire IAF

17 C-17 * 77.5 tonnes = 1317.5
11 C-130J * 19.9 tonnes = 218.9
8 C-27J * 11.5 tonnes = 92
35 V-22 * 6.8 tonnes = 238 (it can fly like an aircraft so I'm including it )
1866.4 tonnes US FY10 order

103 An-32 * 7.5 tonnes = 772.5
15 Il-76 * 47 tonnes = 705*
40 Do 228 * 2.3 tonnes = 92
28 HS 748 * 5.1 tonnes = 142.8**
1712.3 tonnes Total IAF capability


*15 Il-76 is per that post by srai, if it's actually 24 then the final Indian number would be 2135.3

**best info i could find is 60 total with 32 in storage

Admittedly this is a very crude way of just adding up the payload capabilities of the different planes. But if you start getting more sophisticated with ton-miles per day, it would look even worse for India.

Yes I realize that India doesn't have any need for the globe-spanning air-bridge the US has, but the point, to me anyways, is that when asked what type of airlifter India needs, the answer is simply 'more'.

[Singha]

amen sir. MORE.

[shiv]

when asked what type of airlifter India needs, the answer is simply 'more'.

No doubt. But more of ability to fly into hurricanes is not the primary consideration. More of reliability and independence from sanctions, high altitude high temperature capability, short and rough field capability and fuel economy are the priorities.

India's transport fleet requires an ability to fly and operate in combat zones BUT 95% of the job done by the transport fleet has little to do with combat zone flying. So what India requires is an ability to do 95% of the job well, with combat zone "capability" in 100% of the fleet, plus a dedicated small fleet that can be reserved for combat zone work alone, with the rest of the fleet adding to combat capability if required.

[Bala Vignesh]

India's transport fleet requires an ability to fly and operate in combat zones BUT 95% of the job done by the transport fleet has little to do with combat zone flying. So what India requires is an ability to do 95% of the job well, with combat zone "capability" in 100% of the fleet, plus a dedicated small fleet that can be reserved for combat zone work alone, with the rest of the fleet adding to combat capability if required.

Shiv Sir, If you don't mind could you please explain this??? I am not able to grasp your point here... Thanks in advance sir...

[shiv]

India's transport fleet requires an ability to fly and operate in combat zones BUT 95% of the job done by the transport fleet has little to do with combat zone flying. So what India requires is an ability to do 95% of the job well, with combat zone "capability" in 100% of the fleet, plus a dedicated small fleet that can be reserved for combat zone work alone, with the rest of the fleet adding to combat capability if required.

Shiv Sir, If you don't mind could you please explain this??? I am not able to grasp your point here... Thanks in advance sir...

As I see it:

What does the IAF transport fleet do?

95% of the time it is transporting people and material from base to base, paradropping supplies in some cases. Given India's weather conditions and the fact that bases range from sea level, to 50 deg C to -25 deg C at over 4000 meters we need aircraft that are reliable, easily maintained, equipped with avionics for bad weather independent of foreign sanctions and have great fuel economy because that is what burns money every day.

Almost any transport aircraft can drop paratroopers. material and light vehicles and the addition of missile warning capability and CM/ECM can be an add on to almost any aircraft. When you have a fleet that does this - you have met 95% of the IAF's requirement. Paradropping after all is "combat zone capability" but the next paragraph describes "combat zone capability" that a lot of jingos feel are "necessary". Yes they may be necessary but the whole fleet does not have to have the capability described in the next paragraph.

The job of injecting material into a combat zone (flying low and slow over a field) or fly around with machine guns in the side mowing down insurgents, or transporting T 72 or T 90s to a battle zone are roles that occupy only 5% or less of the work done by the IAF's transport fleet. If the IAF needs to do this they need only a small fleet of extra aircraft dedicated to this role. For "really heavy lift" an add on fleet of say 4 or 6 c 17s would be good (IMO) and a squadron of C-130 type aircraft fro special ops.

Did you see any of those 3 videos?

[Rahul M]

in fact taking charter of civilian aircraft from the civil transport co's for mundane works could be an idea that can be looked at, freeing up the military a/c for more specialised jobs like re-supplying ALGs, handling sensitive cargo etc.

[GeorgeWelch]

India's transport fleet requires an ability to fly and operate in combat zones BUT 95% of the job done by the transport fleet has little to do with combat zone flying.

Airlift needs increase exponentially during a war. Sizing your fleet so it just meets your needs during peacetime is a recipe for disaster during war.

have great fuel economy because that is what burns money every day.

Fuel economy is relative to the mission. Small cargoes are more efficient with small planes and large cargoes are more efficient with large planes.

The job of injecting material into a combat zone (flying low and slow over a field) or fly around with machine guns in the side mowing down insurgents, or transporting T 72 or T 90s to a battle zone are roles that occupy only 5% or less of the work done by the IAF's transport fleet. If the IAF needs to do this they need only a small fleet of extra aircraft dedicated to this role.

Doing paradrops or transporting tanks is indeed a small part of a transport fleet's job and aren't the primary justification for a combat transport. To me the main qualifications for a combat transport are 'rough' field capability and easy loading/unloading (high wing, body close to the ground, ramp). MANPAD countermeasures are also a plus. Otherwise you might as well use civil transports.

For "really heavy lift" an add on fleet of say 4 or 6 c 17s would be good (IMO) and a squadron of C-130 type aircraft fro special ops.

It's a misnomer that big planes are only needed for transporting outsized cargo. They are also needed when you need to move massive amounts of smaller cargo (pallets). If you have to move 300 tonnes of material, it's not too bad with 4 C-17s (for instance), but it would an absolutely nightmare to try to accomplish the task with 40 An-32. It would be like trying to drain a bathtub through a straw. When you need to move large amounts of cargo, you simply need a larger plane even if none of the cargo is outsized.

And yes, smaller missions call for smaller planes. That's why you need a variety of sizes, small, medium, large and maybe even very large, to efficiently handle any mission. It's about having the right tool for the job.

Getting back to India's airlift requirements, I still say 'more' in every category, but you do have a strong presence in the light and very light categories, so I would put more emphasis in the medium-heavy-very heavy categories.

[vavinash]

The C-17 will hopefully be squashed by MOD. It is an unnecessary expenditure. Il-76 MF would be ideally suited for IAF requirements and budget. If outsized cargo needs to be carried then 4-6 An-124 should be purchased. For the price of 10 C-17's IAF can easily procure 4 Condors and 20 Il-76's or just 30 IL-76's. The C-17 was a mistake that only USAF can afford. Even UK and AUS can only manage a meager handful. Most of the time they just charter the condors.

[GeorgeWelch]

in fact taking charter of civilian aircraft from the civil transport co's for mundane works could be an idea that can be looked at, freeing up the military a/c for more specialised jobs like re-supplying ALGs, handling sensitive cargo etc.

Civilian contracting is a fine option for reducing costs during peacetime, the planes are inherently more efficient than military transports and can move large amounts of material at minimal cost

But . . . you cannot let it affect your fleet sizing.

You have to prepare for worst-case scenario during a war where minimally-prepared airfields and hostile environments prevent civilian aircraft from going where they are needed. Something like a large division of troops that is cut off by the enemy and desperately needs resupply.

Thus you must be able to meet ALL transports requirements with your organic fleet.

And if India was ever in the unfortunate situation of having to supply a large military operation solely by air, I'm afraid it would be a disaster of epic proportions as there simply isn't enough capacity to make a dent in the daily requirements of a large army.

[vasu_ray]

shiv, the flying into hurricanes req. is only to highlight the need for all-weather flying in mountains both during war and peacetime, above the mountains the weather is turbulent, not sure how many heavy lift transports will be able to handle that

mobile CAT landing systems as well to be setup on a just prepared runway? stumbled on this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Prec ... ing_System

with WAAS coming in into the Indian airspace, the above system may not be far off and any new transport better have such equipment onboard even as an upgrade

got to land a C-130 on a aircraft carrier with a arresting hook and takeoff using RATO, that would be fun

[Surya]

How efficiently is the IL 76 production line running??

Like the Mig 35 the concern is the supply chain.

In terms of differences Shivs video of the C 17 landing and rolling back at AI was impressive.

If that ability is needed then the IL 76 does not make it.

Maybe the IAF sees a need for a mix of IL 76s and C 17s??

[Bala Vignesh]

Shiv sir,
Thanks for the explanation... I agree with your opinion that for regular air supply duty, civilian cargo aircrafts, with CM/ECM capabilities are much more economic while the actual military cargo aircrafts concentrate on the more specialized work... And as for the videos, yes i have seen them many times over... but i don't think that this fleet should be small... it should atleast come 7 squadrons...

[Rahul M]

The C-17 will hopefully be squashed by MOD. It is an unnecessary expenditure. Il-76 MF would be ideally suited for IAF requirements and budget. If outsized cargo needs to be carried then 4-6 An-124 should be purchased. For the price of 10 C-17's IAF can easily procure 4 Condors and 20 Il-76's or just 30 IL-76's. The C-17 was a mistake that only USAF can afford. Even UK and AUS can only manage a meager handful. Most of the time they just charter the condors.

the condor was not designed primarily as a military transport and is not exactly better at that job than the C-17 which is a superlative a/c indeed if we ignore its price.
I believe there's place for a small no of C-17 for the IAF. the situation is similar to that of the Mi-26, you won't need it everyday and never in very large numbers but when you do need it, nothing else will do !

But . . . you cannot let it affect your fleet sizing.

agree, to some extent. even in the most critical military crisis there would be many situations that does not need a specialised military transport.

Thus you must be able to meet ALL transports requirements with your organic fleet.

that I don't agree. I agree that the fleet needs to increase by a big margin, at a random estimate :
100 MTA class
20-30 light-medium An-32 class for the strips that can't be handled by the MTA
40 medium heavy Il-76 class
10-15 heavy C-17 class.

[Cain Marko]

The full payload of a tiny aircraft is still tiny.

When I started looking at the transport capability of the IAF I was truly shocked.

I know you don't appreciate comparisons to the US and the US has different needs than India and I have resisted making such comparisons in the past, but this time the sheer difference in scale is mindboggling.

In one year (FY10) the US will purchase more airlift capability than is in the entire IAF

17 C-17 * 77.5 tonnes = 1317.5
11 C-130J * 19.9 tonnes = 218.9
8 C-27J * 11.5 tonnes = 92
35 V-22 * 6.8 tonnes = 238 (it can fly like an aircraft so I'm including it )
1866.4 tonnes US FY10 order

103 An-32 * 7.5 tonnes = 772.5
15 Il-76 * 47 tonnes = 705*
40 Do 228 * 2.3 tonnes = 92
28 HS 748 * 5.1 tonnes = 142.8**
1712.3 tonnes Total IAF capability


*15 Il-76 is per that post by srai, if it's actually 24 then the final Indian number would be 2135.3

**best info i could find is 60 total with 32 in storage

Admittedly this is a very crude way of just adding up the payload capabilities of the different planes. But if you start getting more sophisticated with ton-miles per day, it would look even worse for India.

Yes I realize that India doesn't have any need for the globe-spanning air-bridge the US has, but the point, to me anyways, is that when asked what type of airlifter India needs, the answer is simply 'more'.

George, while what you say as regards the IAF needing more tends to make a bit of sense, the larger picture has not completely been taken into consideration imho. FIrstly, as you point out, the USAF etc may need to rely on airlift far more than the Indian services because of their worldwide footprint. The IAF has no such requirement.

Secondly, in light of IAF requirements (mainly within territorial boundaries), the Indian Railway should be considered. India has a very dense railway network, which will be used to considerable effect for strategic needs - the airlift capability will complement this network in areas where it cannot reach or in forward sectors where the need might be immediate.

JMT

CM.