C-17s for the IAF?

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 02 Dec 2009 13:12

irrespective of C-17's capability. you can argue it is the best , IAF wants it. it knows better etc etc.
but 1.7 Billion Dolar for 10 Transport aircrafts!!!
in my aam admi language it converts into 8092 crores (47.6 Rs=1 dollar, so 1.7 billion=170 crore dollar x 47.6= 8092 crores Rs)

hoping they have considered spare parts, but still that would mean per aircraft costs 809 crore Rs

Instead they can spend that kind of money to build LCA production line with desi spare parts onleee.

few years back we used to get cheap stuff from russia. and porkies from US.
so they were finding difficult to keep the numbers to match our capability.
now we are going the porky way. and porky are now getting birds in numbers from our communist neighbour.

I am paying taxes to buy goldplated aircraft.

bodhi · Post by **bodhi** » 02 Dec 2009 13:24

completely lost now...what has a heavy lifter got to do with a home grown LCA? two different classes and two different missions

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 02 Dec 2009 13:33

^^ I am talking about the cash.
MOD seems to have suddenly become rich.
They were dragging their feet for extra funds for so many desi projects but they cleared funds in a jiffy for 1.7 Billion dollar Transport aircraft deal

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Dec 2009 18:55

VijayKumarSinha wrote:
Kanson wrote:It is an another myth floating around that NVG could bring AC-130 down.

AC-130 has a distinct sound thanks to its propellers. So one doesnt need NVG to tell AC-130 is around and the bearing of a/c can be identified once it starts firing. In this situation, if one cant down the a/c with manpads he cant do that with NVG. What is the effective range of NVG? I bet, in anycase, it will be less than 1000 m. This range is for the object on the land where you can expect back-scattering. For the objects in sky it will be even low.
I don’t know the range of NVG’s I tried looking it up and I didn’t get any specific results. But, what I got is this:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/f ... n_688.html
With night vision goggles (NVGs) pilots can see terrain and objects close to the ground that can't be perceived by the naked eye. At higher altitudes they also can see flares at up to 100 miles (160 km), aircraft lights at up to 50 miles (80 km), and vehicle headlights at 20 to 50 miles (32 to 80 km).
From what I understand, it means that with that equipment at high altitude a pilot can see AC lights from 80 km away (He is viewing it against the sky) I can only imagine that similar NVG’s would allow personnel on ground to see at least 5-6 km in the sky which would be enough to spot a 130 before it arrives at its target – which is the whole point. It’s not sufficient to spot it once it starts firing as was visible in that video all you can do when it starts firing is run for your life and pray that it doesn’t spot you. Also, if you watch the footage of both the gulf wars you will see that in the Night Vision view it was possible to see a very long distance both up in the sky and straight on the ground.

If all else fails resort to divya drishti to spot the enemy.

5-6 km is possible with TI. There are newer gen NVGs but that is not for sale except for their allies. So considering the situation where you are trying to down an american a/c you have to do with lower gen NVGs. Pls check the footage again, if you can see anything that long there is some light source or an explosion or something burning or its a city with its lights that lit up the sky. The same link you referenced has the following line:

But the field of view is limited, and range and quality decrease in overcast conditions. The goggles also reduce visual acuity, inhibit depth perception and lack color discrimination. Weight and forward head pressure are also issues

When there is no light source, range automatically goes down.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 02 Dec 2009 20:24

chiragAS wrote:irrespective of C-17's capability. you can argue it is the best , IAF wants it. it knows better etc etc.
but 1.7 Billion Dolar for 10 Transport aircrafts!!!

I have never seen such a low figure. The amount that generally floats around is between 220 and 250 million US dollars. In recent news, the US senate voted 2.5 billion dollars for 10 new C-17s.

If one goes to the Boeing Website, they provide the average list prices for all their commercial aircraft:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startu ... prices.pdf

In size (weight actually), the C-17 is comparable to a B-777-200 which sells for between 205 and 263 million dollars. The C-17 is however a 4 engine aircraft. Does anyone really think that a military C-17 that has been produced at 200 units can possibly cost less than a commercial B-777 of which over 800 units have been built and delivered?

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Dec 2009 21:59

chiragAS wrote:^^ I am talking about the cash.
MOD seems to have suddenly become rich.
They were dragging their feet for extra funds for so many desi projects but they cleared funds in a jiffy for 1.7 Billion dollar Transport aircraft deal

MoD babus have always fully funded all indigenous programs. Actually you can make a case that DRDO has been given "no accountability free check book" to fund its projects. MoD has funded 10 to 20x increase in budgets with decades longer time schedule.

HAL is sitting on a 28 confirmed order for LCA (another 20 are being processed) while they are not even done with the PVs and have only managed 3 LSPs in last 3 years that too with an engine that doesn't meet IAf requirements and IOC that is far far away.

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 03 Dec 2009 04:45

Gilles wrote: If one goes to the Boeing Website, they provide the average list prices for all their commercial aircraft:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startu ... prices.pdf

In size (weight actually), the C-17 is comparable to a B-777-200 which sells for between 205 and 263 million dollars. The C-17 is however a 4 engine aircraft. Does anyone really think that a military C-17 that has been produced at 200 units can possibly cost less than a commercial B-777 of which over 800 units have been built and delivered?

hmm.. Interesting didnt know that.
Thanks for the link.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 03 Dec 2009 08:19

chiragAS wrote:
Gilles wrote: If one goes to the Boeing Website, they provide the average list prices for all their commercial aircraft:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startu ... prices.pdf

In size (weight actually), the C-17 is comparable to a B-777-200 which sells for between 205 and 263 million dollars. The C-17 is however a 4 engine aircraft. Does anyone really think that a military C-17 that has been produced at 200 units can possibly cost less than a commercial B-777 of which over 800 units have been built and delivered?
hmm.. Interesting didnt know that.
Thanks for the link.

And anyone with any knowledge of how Boeing and Airbus work knows that NO ONE pays list price.

It's kind of like the mattress stores around here where everyone gets a good deal because they give you a 'special' 30% off.

They have no relationship to reality

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 04 Dec 2009 06:36

F117 Engines for C-17s

The C-17’s four F117 engines add a unique thrust reverser system that can be deployed in flight for tactical descents, enables the aircraft to back up a 2-degree incline, and allows tight turns on the ground. This creates faster unloading throughput, and allows the aircraft to use a wider range of runways. Ongoing improvement programs have allowed the F117 engine to exceed established goals for time on wing, in-flight shut downs, and fast support turnaround.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 06 Dec 2009 20:11

GeorgeWelch wrote:
It's kind of like the mattress stores around here where everyone gets a good deal because they give you a 'special' 30% off.

They have no relationship to reality

What are you telling us George, that the C-17 will most likely be sold to India for under the 220 to 250 million dollar bracket that I indicated, or you are just arguing about the price of commercial Boeings (which I agree with by the way) ?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/C-1 ... dia-05924/

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 07 Dec 2009 05:58

Gilles wrote:What are you telling us George, that the C-17 will most likely be sold to India for under the 220 to 250 million dollar bracket that I indicated, or you are just arguing about the price of commercial Boeings (which I agree with by the way) ?

If you agree that list prices aren't real prices, why did you try to base an argument off them?

That's all I'm saying.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 07 Dec 2009 06:45

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:What are you telling us George, that the C-17 will most likely be sold to India for under the 220 to 250 million dollar bracket that I indicated, or you are just arguing about the price of commercial Boeings (which I agree with by the way) ?
If you agree that list prices aren't real prices, why did you try to base an argument off them?

That's all I'm saying.

Thats all you are saying ? Nothing about the C-17 price ? I thought so.

All I was saying is that the list price of the B777-200 (a comparable aircraft in MTOW) is between 205 and 263.5 million dollars and that the C-17 most certainly sells MORE than a B-777-200.

If you were to read this DID article http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/C-1 ... dia-05924/ is says :

In contrast, the C-17’s price tends to hover near a modern 747’s, at around $200-250 million. Australia spent about $1.4 billion, and Canada about $1.6 billion, to buy and induct 4 C-17As into their respective air forces; the USA, who does not have the extra expenses that accompany any new fleet aircraft type, was set to spend $2.5 billion for 10 C-17s in the Senate’s FY 2010 defense budget. A $1.7 billion budget might buy India 5 operational C-17s, but it’s very difficult to see how it could buy 10.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Dec 2009 14:01

The recent news item about the 4 MIG-29Ks for the IN being brought to India aboard a single AN-124 and another how a US manufacturer during a truckers strike ferried his trucks straight into the same aircraft to save a huge Canadian order,shows the capability of that aircraft if we really need a super-havyweight as a transport aircraft.I do not see any immediate need for the C-17,our IL-76s are adequate and if upgraded should suffice.This is a US ploy to further integrate US and Indian military forces for the US's future driry work.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 20 Dec 2009 22:55

Russian Air Force Backing Needed For An-124
Aviation Week and Space Technology

Russian Air Force Backing Needed For An-124

Dec 17, 2009

Alexey Komarov/Moscow

Michael A. Taverna/Paris

Russia's big An-124-100 Ruslan freighter appears closer to a new lease on life, provided promised funding and commitments are forthcoming.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently Approved a Plan to Restart Production of an upgraded An-124 version at the Aviastar-SP plant in Ulyanovsk, under the responsibility of United Aircraft Corp. (UAC). Known as the An-124-500, it would feature a glass cockpit for four crewmembers and enhancements to the aircraft's Motor Sich D18-T powerplant that would boost range and payload and double the aircraft's operating life to 50,000 hr. Deliveries would begin by 2014-15.

Schemes to reinstate An-124 production have been kicking around for a while but began to take shape with the emergence of UAC, which devised a business plan acceptable to the Russian and Ukrainian governments. The resurgence in government aerospace and defense spending also played a crucial role.

Volga-Dnepr Group--which with UAC and the Antonov design bureau has led the fight to restart production--says the upgrade was recently validated by Russia's Central Aerohydrodyamics Institute (TsAGI) and the State Research Institue of Civil Aviation. However, for the new plan to go forward, Moscow must agree to invest $500 million to retool the plant and refurbish the assembly line, and launch customers must come forward with firm commitments.

VolgaDnepr says it is ready to commit to 20 of the new An-124s during 2011-20 and another 20 during 2021-27.

According to the air cargo operator, studies show the outsize freight service market has grown 30% annually during the past five years, to more than $1.1 billion, and will reach $7 billion by 2030. Consulting company SH&E predicts this will translate into a need for 70 An-124s.

However, it is not yet clear if the defense ministry, which already has a long list of hardware purchases on its wish list, is interested in a new An-124 acquisition just now. The ministry may place higher priority on renovating the 24 An-124s currently listed in the Russian air force inventory, most of which require a major overhaul.

Niraj_D · Post by **Niraj_D** » 21 Dec 2009 20:28

Juggi G wrote:Russian Air Force Backing Needed For An-124
Aviation Week and Space Technology
Russian Air Force Backing Needed For An-124

Dec 17, 2009

Alexey Komarov/Moscow

Michael A. Taverna/Paris

Russia's big An-124-100 Ruslan freighter appears closer to a new lease on life, provided promised funding and commitments are forthcoming.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently Approved a Plan to Restart Production of an upgraded An-124 version at the Aviastar-SP plant in Ulyanovsk, under the responsibility of United Aircraft Corp. (UAC). Known as the An-124-500, it would feature a glass cockpit for four crewmembers and enhancements to the aircraft's Motor Sich D18-T powerplant that would boost range and payload and double the aircraft's operating life to 50,000 hr. Deliveries would begin by 2014-15.

Schemes to reinstate An-124 production have been kicking around for a while but began to take shape with the emergence of UAC, which devised a business plan acceptable to the Russian and Ukrainian governments. The resurgence in government aerospace and defense spending also played a crucial role.

Volga-Dnepr Group--which with UAC and the Antonov design bureau has led the fight to restart production--says the upgrade was recently validated by Russia's Central Aerohydrodyamics Institute (TsAGI) and the State Research Institue of Civil Aviation. However, for the new plan to go forward, Moscow must agree to invest $500 million to retool the plant and refurbish the assembly line, and launch customers must come forward with firm commitments.

VolgaDnepr says it is ready to commit to 20 of the new An-124s during 2011-20 and another 20 during 2021-27.

According to the air cargo operator, studies show the outsize freight service market has grown 30% annually during the past five years, to more than $1.1 billion, and will reach $7 billion by 2030. Consulting company SH&E predicts this will translate into a need for 70 An-124s.

However, it is not yet clear if the defense ministry, which already has a long list of hardware purchases on its wish list, is interested in a new An-124 acquisition just now. The ministry may place higher priority on renovating the 24 An-124s currently listed in the Russian air force inventory, most of which require a major overhaul.

Should we show interest?
My honest opinion - Yes!
I'm very sure, its matter of time when UAC will be loaded with appreciable queue of orders...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Dec 2009 22:43

Should we show interest?
My honest opinion - Yes!
I'm very sure, its matter of time when UAC will be loaded with appreciable queue of orders..

No.

Russian Scicom is very good, but have been deprived of funds in the past few decades and therefore are not up to speed or responsive as they can be (IMHO of course). So, there is a huge risk India takes IF India were to depend upon them to deliver what India NEEDS.

And, most of what we read in the news items are political decisions (not a knock on them - that is just a fact of life). So, RU Prez stating that he will fund something is meaningless to India at this point in time. We have to recognize that the old USSR-India relationship has changed a LOT. The risk right now is much larger than 10-40 years ago. Even IF UAC has orders, do those "orders" translate into something good (Complete ToT, etc) for India is the question.

I just cannot see India doing too many JVs in the future. A country as large as India cannot afford to be reliant on JVs. Having said that I would like Indian politics to mature ..................

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Dec 2009 01:46

Its too big - like the Mi 26 - limited use due to high operating costs.

We are not at that point that we need AN 124s.

Niraj_D · Post by **Niraj_D** » 22 Dec 2009 04:14

This might get off topic but, on what timeline India can plan or fulfill the need for such Heavy Aircrafts? We can not deny the fact that say over coming two decade from now we will require indigenous heavy transport platform like C-17, IL-76 or even much bigger like An-124.

I'm not being completely pessimist but, Will we able to develop such system & required powerful engines?? (considering the delays/failures of indigenous efforts in engine development

)
Can we develop such technology completely on our own? or we will always be depending on TOTs?

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Dec 2009 06:10

Niraj_D wrote:quote="Juggi G" Russian Air Force Backing Needed For An-124
Aviation Week and Space Technology
Russian Air Force Backing Needed For An-124

Dec 17, 2009

...

Schemes to reinstate An-124 production have been kicking around for a while but began to take shape with the emergence of UAC, which devised a business plan acceptable to the Russian and Ukrainian governments. The resurgence in government aerospace and defense spending also played a crucial role.

Volga-Dnepr Group--which with UAC and the Antonov design bureau has led the fight to restart production--says the upgrade was recently validated by Russia's Central Aerohydrodyamics Institute (TsAGI) and the State Research Institue of Civil Aviation. However, for the new plan to go forward, Moscow must agree to invest $500 million to retool the plant and refurbish the assembly line, and launch customers must come forward with firm commitments.

VolgaDnepr says it is ready to commit to 20 of the new An-124s during 2011-20 and another 20 during 2021-27.

According to the air cargo operator, studies show the outsize freight service market has grown 30% annually during the past five years, to more than $1.1 billion, and will reach $7 billion by 2030. Consulting company SH&E predicts this will translate into a need for 70 An-124s.

...

Should we show interest?
My honest opinion - Yes!
I'm very sure, its matter of time when UAC will be loaded with appreciable queue of orders...

At this point, it would be better for IAF to just have lease agreement on an as needed basis with VolgaDnepr, the An-124 air cargo operator. This is what NATO countries do in respect to their outsize cargo needs for the Afghanistan operation. IAF could have a lease agreement with VolgaDnepr for 1-2 An-124s available per month/quarter for xx number of hours for airlifting of outsized cargo for UN missions.

This sort of lease arrangement with VolgaDnepr would eliminate the need for the IAF to build a whole infrastructure around a handful of An-124s, which would only be used sporadically.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 27 Dec 2009 06:09

srai wrote: Should we show interest?
My honest opinion - Yes!
I'm very sure, its matter of time when UAC will be loaded with appreciable queue of orders...

At this point, it would be better for IAF to just have lease agreement on an as needed basis with VolgaDnepr, the An-124 air cargo operator. This is what NATO countries do in respect to their outsize cargo needs for the Afghanistan operation. IAF could have a lease agreement with VolgaDnepr for 1-2 An-124s available per month/quarter for xx number of hours for airlifting of outsized cargo for UN missions.

This sort of lease arrangement with VolgaDnepr would eliminate the need for the IAF to build a whole infrastructure around a handful of An-124s, which would only be used sporadically.

In fact two of the Antonov 124 operators, one Russian, and one Ukrainian, have decided to market their aircraft together. Antonov Airlines and Volga Dnepr have created a UK based company company called Ruslan International http://www.ruslanint.com/ which is reponsible for marketing and selling An-124 charter services. This company is based on what used to be called Air Foyle. It is Ruslan International that is on contract with NATO to provide An-124 service. It allows a bigger pool of aircraft to draw from, sourced from two different countries and Antonov Airlines is owned by the Antonov Design Bureau that designed and built the An-124 in the first place, which is a big advantage when it comes to supporting such a fleet.

The other three civilian An-124 operators in the world are Russian Polet, Libyan Arab Cargo and Maximus, from the UAE.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 08 Jan 2010 23:30

Its back in the news again. I guess this is really going to happen. The IAF seems keen on operating the C-17.

I read somewhere that the IAF had expressed disappointment for the cancellation of the A-330MRTT because it "would have allowed in flight refuelling of the present and future IAF and Indian Navy Aircraft".

The P-8 Poseidon and the C-17 Globemasters can only be refuelled in flight with a Boom, which the Il-78s do not have. This is why the IAF was so keen on getting the A-330 MRTT. Without them, the P-8 and C-17s will be restricted to what is in their fuel tanks. However, if the IN Tu-142s, which have in flight refuelling capability which was never used, although the IAF have the IL-78s to refuel them, the argument for needing Boom fitted refuellers to refuel P-8s might fall on deaf ears when it comes to convincing those who hold the strings to the purse to pay out.......

A cheaper alternative is to do like the German and Canadian Air Force, is to convert cheap and readilly available Airbus A-310-300s to MRTT with the Boom option (which the Canadian version does not have). They can refuel both the P-8 and the C-17.

Or they can stay with Boeing and become the launch customer for the KC-767

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 08 Jan 2010 23:38

Gilles,

Did any IAF/PIB release/govt official say so? or is it some news channel giving "expert" comments which have policies like Toilet which sells editorials for a price?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 08 Jan 2010 23:54

ravi_ku wrote:Gilles,

Did any IAF/PIB release/govt official say so? or is it some news channel giving "expert" comments which have policies like Toilet which sells editorials for a price?

Not Indian, but Boeing released the news:

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1025.

I just love the part where Boeing writes "There are currently 212 C-17s in service worldwide, including 19 with international customers". From a US point of view, other countries ordering C-17s can be "foreign", or "overseas" customers, but they can only be "international customers" if several countries were joining together to purchase the C-17, which is not the case.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Jan 2010 00:32

Gilles wrote:Its back in the news again. I guess this is really going to happen. The IAF seems keen on operating the C-17.

I read somewhere that the IAF had expressed disappointment for the cancellation of the A-330MRTT because it "would have allowed in flight refuelling of the present and future IAF and Indian Navy Aircraft".

The P-8 Poseidon and the C-17 Globemasters can only be refuelled in flight with a Boom, which the Il-78s do not have. This is why the IAF was so keen on getting the A-330 MRTT. Without them, the P-8 and C-17s will be restricted to what is in their fuel tanks. However, if the IN Tu-142s, which have in flight refuelling capability which was never used, although the IAF have the IL-78s to refuel them, the argument for needing Boom fitted refuellers to refuel P-8s might fall on deaf ears when it comes to convincing those who hold the strings to the purse to pay out.......

thanks for pointing this out Gilles. When the C-17 deal goes through (its only a matter of time), the IAF will then be able to add the requirement for Boom operated IFR for its next MRTT tender. that will most likely push the Il-78 out of the deal, as they don't have that capability in operation. if they say they'll develop it, the IAF could put in requirements of a particular flow rate which the Il-78 may not be able to match, and then claim it as being a high risk proposition, and then go for the A-330 MRTT. Anyway, IMO the A-330 MRTT will win the next tender since the IAF will tailor its requirements around its offerings.

A cheaper alternative is to do like the German and Canadian Air Force, is to convert cheap and readilly available Airbus A-310-300s to MRTT with the Boom option (which the Canadian version does not have). They can refuel both the P-8 and the C-17.

Or they can stay with Boeing and become the launch customer for the KC-767

but it’s a shorter term solution isn't it with the A-310s having used up a part of their service life. its weird that the KC-767 wasn't considered, maybe because no civilian operator in India operates the 767 and their claims are that it will be easy to maintain due to several civilian operators in India using A-330s..

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 09 Jan 2010 00:47

Kartik wrote:
thanks for pointing this out Gilles. When the C-17 deal goes through (its only a matter of time), the IAF will then be able to add the requirement for Boom operated IFR for its next MRTT tender. that will most likely push the Il-78 out of the deal, as they don't have that capability in operation. if they say they'll develop it, the IAF could put in requirements of a particular flow rate which the Il-78 may not be able to match, and then claim it as being a high risk proposition, and then go for the A-330 MRTT. Anyway, IMO the A-330 MRTT will win the next tender since the IAF will tailor its requirements around its offerings.

but it’s a shorter term solution isn't it with the A-310s having used up a part of their service life. its weird that the KC-767 wasn't considered, maybe because no civilian operator in India operates the 767 and their claims are that it will be easy to maintain due to several civilian operators in India using A-330s..

The P-8 Poseidon are already ordered by India, and they are rigged for Boom in-flight refuelling, so the Boom need can already be claimed by the IN, without the C-17. The C-17 would just be an extra argument.

Now hear this: With India having ordered the Boeing P-8 and the Boeing C-17, why not stay with Boeing all the way if they can get a sweet deal on the KC-767? Its already known to be cheaper to buy and to operate than the A-330MRTT. Its a smaller aircraft, its based on an older technology airframe. At the rate things are going, if the C-17s are ordered, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next tanker was a Boeing also. That may be the very reason the Airbus was blocked: to make room for a new contestant.

Kartik wrote: but it’s a shorter term solution isn't it with the A-310s having used up a part of their service life. its weird that the KC-767 wasn't considered, maybe because no civilian operator in India operates the 767 and their claims are that it will be easy to maintain due to several civilian operators in India using A-330s..

The A-310 has an unlimited service life. There are some that have close to 100,000 hours and are still flying. Fed-Ex owns 56 A-310 and 72 A-300-600s, which is practically the same aircraft. There are used A-310s with only 40,000 hours on the market. They sell for only 20 or 30 million, sometimes less. I don't know the price of the MRTT conversion though. Air India had A-310s and experience with operating the type.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Jan 2010 01:21

Gilles wrote:The P-8 Poseidon are already ordered by India, and they are rigged for Boom in-flight refuelling, so the Boom need can already be claimed by the IN, without the C-17. The C-17 would just be an extra argument.

yes, but those are IN P-8s, not those of the IAF. this order is being placed by the IAF, so I don't know if the Finance Ministry would buy the argument that it helped refuel P-8s that belong to another service.

Now hear this: With India having ordered the Boeing P-8 and the Boeing C-17, why not stay with Boeing all the way if they can get a sweet deal on the KC-767? Its already known to be cheaper to buy and to operate than the A-330MRTT. Its a smaller aircraft, its based on an older technology airframe. At the rate things are going, if the C-17s are ordered, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next tanker was a Boeing also. That may be the very reason the Airbus was blocked: to make room for a new contestant.

I don't think that it was done specifically to make room for the KC-767, but it is possible that if the USAF does go for the KC-767, it will be also included in the next tender.

The A-310 has an unlimited service life. There are some that have close to 100,000 hours and are still flying. Fed-Ex owns 56 A-310 and 72 A-300-600s, which is practically the same aircraft. There are used A-310s with only 40,000 hours on the market. They sell for only 20 or 30 million, sometimes less. I don't know the price of the MRTT conversion though. Air India had A-310s and experience with operating the type.

Unlimited service life ?! there's no such thing as unlimited service life. Airbus would've designed those parts to be fatigue resistant to a certain number of hours, try doing more and it won't even fly. it is simply impossible to design parts to be resistant to fatigue forever. maybe they go through periodic inspections and replace parts with any signs of fatigue, but there is no way that the manufacturer certifies them to have unlimited service life. for instance, Boeing certifies its 747s to its customers for a certain number of landings or service life hours, whichever occurs earlier.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 09 Jan 2010 02:09

Gilles wrote:Its already known to be cheaper to buy and to operate than the A-330MRTT.

Surprisingly enough, the A-330MRTT is actually cheaper to buy than the KC-767

Though fuel costs could make the KC-767 cheaper over its lifetime.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 09 Jan 2010 02:11

Kartik wrote:yes, but those are IN P-8s, not those of the IAF. this order is being placed by the IAF, so I don't know if the Finance Ministry would buy the argument that it helped refuel P-8s that belong to another service.

I can't imagine that would actually be a problem. You're all on the same team right?

I know the KC-X RFP required the ability to refuel not only USAF, but also all USN and USMC aircraft.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 09 Jan 2010 02:57

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:Its already known to be cheaper to buy and to operate than the A-330MRTT.
Surprisingly enough, the A-330MRTT is actually cheaper to buy than the KC-767

Though fuel costs could make the KC-767 cheaper over its lifetime.

I don't know the military prices but a civilian A-330-200 is most certainly more expensive than a civilian B-767-200ER. How this can be turned around by adding the refuelling hardware, beats me.

A B-767-200ER takes off at 179 tonnes. An Airbus 330-200 takes off at 233 tonnes, so they are not in the same league at all. The A-330 burns more fuel than a B-767 because its so much larger, but unlike what is written all over the WEB, the A-330 is much more fuel efficient than a B-767. Which is why 767s barely sell anymore and A-330s sell like hotcakes.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 09 Jan 2010 10:34

Govt set to ink record $2.2bn arms deal with US:10 C-17 Globemaster-III
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 425123.cms

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jan 2010 11:39

SRai's leasing option is the best .We don not have global responsibilities like Uncle sam and this dela smacks of a hidden agenda,where Indian troops in future will be doing Uncle Sam's dirty work.

arun · Post by **arun** » 09 Jan 2010 15:41

dinesha wrote:Govt set to ink record $2.2bn arms deal with US:10 C-17 Globemaster-III
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 425123.cms

Boeing Press Release X Posted:

India Submits Letter of Request for Potential Boeing C-17 Order

LONG BEACH, Calif., Jan. 8, 2010 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] announced today that the U.S. government has received a Letter of Request from India's Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Indian Air Force regarding the potential acquisition of 10 C-17 Globemaster III advanced airlifters.

"Boeing is very pleased that the Indian government has expressed interest in acquiring the C-17 to modernize its airlift capabilities, and we look forward to working closely with them," said Vivek Lall, vice president and India country head, Boeing Defense, Space & Security. "We believe the C-17 can fulfill India's needs for military and humanitarian airlift to help it meet its growing domestic and international responsibilities."

The C-17 conducted demonstration flights in February at Aero India 2009 in Bangalore, where members of the MOD and Indian Air Force had the opportunity to see the aircraft's capabilities in action. The Indian Air Force wants to replace and augment its fleet of Russian-made AN-32 and IL-76 airlifters.

"Nations looking to modernize their airlift capabilities turn to the C-17 because it has the highest reliability and mission-capable rate of any airlift aircraft," added Tommy Dunehew, Boeing Global Mobility Systems vice president of Business Development. "It is available right now, without any development risk. Plus, the C-17 is an acquisition success story, with deliveries on or ahead of schedule for the past decade."

A tactical and strategic airlifter, only the C-17 can carry large combat equipment and troops or humanitarian aid across international distances and deliver them directly to small austere airfields anywhere in the world. It can land combat-ready troops on semi-prepared runways or airdrop them directly into the fight. The C-17's ability to back up allows it to operate on narrow taxiways and congested ramps. With a payload of up to 170,000 pounds, the C-17 can take off and land in 3,000 feet or less. ....................

Boeing

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 09 Jan 2010 20:21

Notice how these Press releases both state that the Boeing C-17 can "take-off and land in less than 3000 feet", not that it "can take and land on 3000 foot runways".

They never fail to mention it. NEVER!

Of course the Airbus 310, the Airbus 330, the B-767, the B-757 can all also "take off and land in less than 3000 feet". Most large jets can. I've done it myself with a couple of large jets (with little fuel, and little or no payload).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jan 2010 21:51

Some cool stuff:

[youtube]zUyR0eezwns&NR=1[/youtube]

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Jan 2010 01:56

Gilles wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:Surprisingly enough, the A-330MRTT is actually cheaper to buy than the KC-767

Though fuel costs could make the KC-767 cheaper over its lifetime.
I don't know the military prices but a civilian A-330-200 is most certainly more expensive than a civilian B-767-200ER.

Actually it's not

Gilles wrote:A B-767-200ER takes off at 179 tonnes. An Airbus 330-200 takes off at 233 tonnes, so they are not in the same league at all.

Raw materials is an insignificant part of the total cost of manufacture.

The 767 is an older design produced on an older line with older manufacturing techniques.

Everywhere is said 'older' substitute 'more labor intensive'

The A330 is a more modern design built on a more AUTOMATED line

The A330 is cheaper to build simply because it requires less labor to build it

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Jan 2010 01:58

Gilles wrote:Notice how these Press releases both state that the Boeing C-17 can "take-off and land in less than 3000 feet", not that it "can take and land on 3000 foot runways".

They never fail to mention it. NEVER!

So?

Is your position that the entire Indian government has been hoodwinked and only you can see the truth?

As long as they know what they're getting, what's the problem?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Jan 2010 02:45

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Gilles wrote:Notice how these Press releases both state that the Boeing C-17 can "take-off and land in less than 3000 feet", not that it "can take and land on 3000 foot runways".

They never fail to mention it. NEVER!
So?

Is your position that the entire Indian government has been hoodwinked and only you can see the truth?

As long as they know what they're getting, what's the problem?

The Indian Government ? No, of course not. They are well aware of it. But just wait till they announce the purchase. They too will begin to sing the same song. Just like the Canadians did, although Canadian C-17s have yet to to see an unpaved or short runway in the 2 and a half years since the aircraft as been inducted.

I think the RAF's don't do unpaved runways either.

An Airbus 330 can land in take-off in "under 3000 feet" under certain conditions. I don't see that mentioned in every Airbus press release. Why? Because its irrelevant.

In the C-17 sales, its not irrelevant. Its part of the marketing ploy. It can land and take off in under 3000 feet..........

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Jan 2010 03:06

Gilles wrote:The Indian Government ? No, of course not. They are well aware of it.

then . . . what . . . is . . . your . . . problem

Gilles wrote:In the C-17 sales, its not irrelevant. Its part of the marketing ploy.

So your concern isn't for the Indians, it for the next unfortunate simpleton who has a spare $billion laying around

If the Indians weren't hoodwinked, why do you assume the next would be

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Jan 2010 09:39

GeorgeWelch wrote: So your concern isn't for the Indians, it for the next unfortunate simpleton who has a spare $billion laying around

If the Indians weren't hoodwinked, why do you assume the next would be

My concern is for the Indians. I wrote that those in charge of buying the things for India were aware. I wasn't referring to the people of India, who are the ones who are paying for them.

The people of India, like those of Canada, will be told wonders about the capabilities of these aircraft to justify why India is paying 5 times the price of an Il-76 for an aircraft that can just carry 50% more than an IL-76. Why not get two IL-76s, which together, for less than half the price of a single C-17, can carry 35% more than a C-17 ?

They will be told that the C-17 can carry a MBT that the IL-76 cannot. Carry them where ? To Bangkok ? To Jakarta ? To Sydney ? No, it will be to some remote mountain airstrip on the Pakistani or Chinese borders where the C-17 will be hard pressed to land, let alone land with a MBT in the hold. Just wait for the official announcement. This posting will still be here.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2010 10:47

if I were to buy one today , is the A330-MRTT cheaper to purchase than a KC-767 ?

if yes, its a simple decision because A330 carries more fuel for longer.

if not, the addl cost has to be evaluated against the additional fuel and range of A330(value add),
newer engines and still being built. -vs- older technology, older engines and still not decided
if usaf will go 767 and kc-767 line will start in right earnest? to my knowledge nobody in India
operates 767.

this is one tender where I didnt think any whiff of scandal is possible and no FMS route is needed.

if the americans have managed to overturn a decision for A330, they indeed have got their claws
deep into our system - a big omen.

the other option is KC777-200LR/300ER. is this real? probably a bit too big for our needs -
we need more airframes not just a few supertanker refuelers.