Indian Military Aviation

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 10 Jan 2010 04:46

GJ, expeditionary/overseas deployment is an important as aspect of the choice.

The A330MRTT's main assets as the IAF sees it is versatility, high uptime, and economy of operation. The MRTT is meant to be a Multi Role Tanker Transport. You don't need to send it into the shop each time you have it change roles.

What the MRTT offers a huge advantage over a single decked IL-76 or C-17, in that it can carry over twice the number of troops plus a belly load of supplies over greater distances.

George J · Post by **George J** » 10 Jan 2010 07:29

Rupak wrote:GJ, expeditionary/overseas deployment is an important as aspect of the choice.The A330MRTT's main assets as the IAF sees it is versatility, high uptime, and economy of operation...........You don't need to send it into the shop each time you have it change roles. What the MRTT offers a huge advantage over a single decked IL-76 or C-17, in that it can carry over twice the number of troops plus a belly load of supplies over greater distances.

So then the question is.........are we getting the MRTT to eventually do away with the IL-76 transports (which can carry 40T of cargo vs 45T on the MRTT) and the IL-78 MARS (which can transfer 105T of fuel vs 111T on the MRTT)...but keep the IL-78 AWACS? And get C-17 for pure heavy lift roles since it can haul up to 77T vs 40T on the IL-76. I think I am beginning to like this logic.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 10 Jan 2010 07:57

^^^ Also is it possible to hold additional fuel tanks in the cargo area? This will boost its capability to refuel many aircrafts.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 10 Jan 2010 08:19

The mantra, as I said earlier is economy of operation and flexibility. The longevity of the IL-76 fleet will be determined both by the success of the MTA, as well as the C-17 in Indian service. I imagine they will still be around for some years to come. Mind you, the Airbus is handicapped by a lack of autonomous cargo handling capability.

George J · Post by **George J** » 10 Jan 2010 08:29

http://www.airbus.com/index.php?id=1343 wrote:.......The A330 MRTT’s significant fuel capacity (111 tonnes/245,000 lbs.) – combined with high offload rates – ensures that all receiver aircraft can be refuelled efficiently and quickly........Thanks to its true widebody fuselage with the optimised Airbus 222-inch cross-section, the A330 MRTT can also be used as a pure transport aircraft, able to carry up to 380 passengers or a payload of up to 45 tonnes/99,000 lbs. It can also easily be converted to accommodate up to 130 stretchers for medical evacuation.

As no additional fuel tanks are needed, the A330 MRTT maintains the lower deck forward, aft and bulk cargo hold payload capacity, unaffected by any air-to-air refuelling equipment.

Ok this is getting tricky. The IL-78 has a TRANSFERABLE FUEL LOAD of 105T from 3 cargo tanks. So its own fuel systems is independent of the fuel that is meant for transfer. The A330 MRTT carries 111T of fuel with no additional tanks as stated above. The A330 MRTT is based on the civilian A330-200 which has a range (w/max. passengers) 13,400 km which I am guessing is made possible by carrying 111T of fuel. If the MRTT starts transferring some of that fuel....then its own range goes down and obvious it cannot transfer ALL of the 111T of fuel so amount that can be transferred is also much less than the IL-78's 105T TRANSFERABLE FUEL LOAD.

Sure the rate of transfer is much higher but HOW MUCH of of the 111T fuel is really meant of other a/c and how much for itself is the key question?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jan 2010 08:34

George J wrote: So then the question is.........are we getting the MRTT to eventually do away with the IL-76 transports (which can carry 40T of cargo vs 45T on the MRTT) and the IL-78 MARS (which can transfer 105T of fuel vs 111T on the MRTT)...but keep the IL-78 AWACS? And get C-17 for pure heavy lift roles since it can haul up to 77T vs 40T on the IL-76. I think I am beginning to like this logic.

Quantity of transport aircraft too makes a difference. In times of war, IL-78 will be dedicated to refuelling, while the numerous IL-76s will be employed for ferrying troops and supplies. However, the number of C-17s that we are purchasing is pretty limited. So, will there be a problem servicing multiple fronts simultaneously?

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 10 Jan 2010 10:19

The IL-78 cannot refuel the P-8 or the C-17. That may be the reason for the MRTT.

All one has to do to convert an IL-78 to an IL-76 is remove the tanks located in the cabin and you have another Il-76, with rear ramp and all the capabilities of a strategic/tactical aircraft.

The present new model Il-76MD-90 carry 50 tonnes. No too far from the 74 tonnes of the C-17A. If the stretched IL-76MF is ever sold, it will haul 60 tonnes. There is an IL-476 in the works.

Having the Strategic Aircraft, the In flight Refueller and the AWACS (Il-76, IL-78 and A-50) all based on the same airframe is a huge advantage. Maintenance, tooling, parts, pilot and mechanic training, simulators are mostly common to all three. This represents an advantage that can offset the disadvantages that these individual aircraft may have when compared to other aircraft (IL-76 vs C-17, IL-78 vs A-330 MRTT and A-50 vs ?)

India has been flying its sole A-50 for just a few months now, an aircraft based on a new generation IL-76. Is it already dissatisfied with it ? Or does it like it ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2010 11:06

I dont think having a dual-role cargo hauler and tanker will work in wartime - not with the palty number of airframes we talk of. anything capable of tanking will just be sucked into a black hole by the need to suckle the sukhois and MRCA deep strike attacks and CAPs. this will drastically affect ability to support the IA with vital cargo and medevac missions.

if we had 150 A330 then sure it would work.

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 10 Jan 2010 11:11

George J wrote:
http://www.airbus.com/index.php?id=1343 wrote:.......The A330 MRTT’s significant fuel capacity (111 tonnes/245,000 lbs.) – combined with high offload rates – ensures that all receiver aircraft can be refuelled efficiently and quickly........Thanks to its true widebody fuselage with the optimised Airbus 222-inch cross-section, the A330 MRTT can also be used as a pure transport aircraft, able to carry up to 380 passengers or a payload of up to 45 tonnes/99,000 lbs. It can also easily be converted to accommodate up to 130 stretchers for medical evacuation.

As no additional fuel tanks are needed, the A330 MRTT maintains the lower deck forward, aft and bulk cargo hold payload capacity, unaffected by any air-to-air refuelling equipment.
Ok this is getting tricky. The IL-78 has a TRANSFERABLE FUEL LOAD of 105T from 3 cargo tanks. So its own fuel systems is independent of the fuel that is meant for transfer. The A330 MRTT carries 111T of fuel with no additional tanks as stated above. The A330 MRTT is based on the civilian A330-200 which has a range (w/max. passengers) 13,400 km which I am guessing is made possible by carrying 111T of fuel. If the MRTT starts transferring some of that fuel....then its own range goes down and obvious it cannot transfer ALL of the 111T of fuel so amount that can be transferred is also much less than the IL-78's 105T TRANSFERABLE FUEL LOAD.

Sure the rate of transfer is much higher but HOW MUCH of of the 111T fuel is really meant of other a/c and how much for itself is the key question?

I believe that "if required" the cabin of A330MRTT can be used to add anything upto 30-40 tons of additional fuel. Further A330 is "supposed" to be more fuel efficient, so consumes less fuel. So the total MTOW and max fuel carrying capacity and or even transferable fuel would be roughly same, the stickler would be "own consumption"

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 10 Jan 2010 12:14

Gilles wrote:The IL-78 cannot refuel the P-8 or the C-17. That may be the reason for the MRTT.

All one has to do to convert an IL-78 to an IL-76 is remove the tanks located in the cabin and you have another Il-76, with rear ramp and all the capabilities of a strategic/tactical aircraft.

The present new model Il-76MD-90 carry 50 tonnes. No too far from the 74 tonnes of the C-17A. If the stretched IL-76MF is ever sold, it will haul 60 tonnes. There is an IL-476 in the works.

Having the Strategic Aircraft, the In flight Refueller and the AWACS (Il-76, IL-78 and A-50) all based on the same airframe is a huge advantage. Maintenance, tooling, parts, pilot and mechanic training, simulators are mostly common to all three. This represents an advantage that can offset the disadvantages that these individual aircraft may have when compared to other aircraft (IL-76 vs C-17, IL-78 vs A-330 MRTT and A-50 vs ?)

India has been flying its sole A-50 for just a few months now, an aircraft based on a new generation IL-76. Is it already dissatisfied with it ? Or does it like it ?

Its not possible to convert the IL78 we use back into a cargo transport.. It was only possible on the earlier variants of the aircraft.. The variant we use is the customised IL78ME which does not support the conversion...
Source- wikipedia

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 10 Jan 2010 19:05

I checked with our friends. The IAF operates IL-78MKI fly with about 85 T of transferable fuel, with about 35 T in cargo hold tanks and the balance in wing tanks. They also do not have cranes, etc in the hold, so limited autonomous ground handling capability.With the existing D-30 (118 kN x 4 for Max TO weight of 210,000 kg) engines that IL-78MKI's have anything more would be greatly compromise handling. The MRTT offers 2 x 320 kN of pow er for a marginally larger TO weight of 233,000 kg. Compare with 4 x 157 kN for the PS-90 on our Phalcon and 4 x 180 kN PW F117-100 on the C-17.

I suppose this puts the MRTT purchase in a new perspective.

P.S. random googling shows that the A330 bruns between 4800-6000 kg/hr in JET-A1, whereas the Volga-Dneper webiste puts Il-76 consumption at 9000 kg/hr.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jan 2010 19:43

How do aircraft handle sloshing of fuel in tanks?

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 10 Jan 2010 21:51

Finite element analysis of resonant sloshing response in 2-D ...by JR Cho - 2005 - Cited by 9 - Related articles
The shape and design concept of the sloshing damper varies depending on the ... works [11] and [15] for illustration of the fuel sloshing suppression linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022460X05000714

Sloshing of fuel is a problem in all vehicles but acute in an environment where the sloshing itself generate sounds with frequencies which interfere the electronics of the vehicle itself

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Jan 2010 22:16

floating roofs in tanks i believe in some cases
(also, lots of moving the fuel around to maintain trim and i would expect some consolidation in core tanks)

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 11 Jan 2010 08:51

Bheem wrote: I believe that "if required" the cabin of A330MRTT can be used to add anything upto 30-40 tons of additional fuel. Further A330 is "supposed" to be more fuel efficient, so consumes less fuel. So the total MTOW and max fuel carrying capacity and or even transferable fuel would be roughly same, the stickler would be "own consumption"

The A-330-200 weighs empty between 110 and 120 tonnes (does it have passenger seats and galleys or not etc). It takes off at 233 tonnes. Theoretically, it can carry a theoretical max load of 113 to 123 tonnes, according to empty weight. There may be "zero fuel weight" limitations that further limit what it can carry in the main cabin, I don't know.

The IL-78 weighs empty (as far as I know) around 90 to 95 tonnes. It takes off at 210 tonnes, so its theoretical max fuel capacity is around 115 to 120 tonnes.

However the A330-200 burns in the 5.5 tonnes an hour. The IAF IL-78 burn 9 tonnes an hour, while flying 50 knots slower than the A-330.

Rupak wrote: P.S. random googling shows that the A330 bruns between 4800-6000 kg/hr in JET-A1, whereas the Volga-Dneper webiste puts Il-76 consumption at 9000 kg/hr.

I read that its the D-30 powered IL-76s that burn 9 tonnes an hour. The PS-90 powered one burns 7.2 tonnes/hr.

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/ ... /specific/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jan 2010 09:16

on a 4 hr mission A330 would burn 20t and transfer upto 95t. not too different in raw terms than IL78 85t.

but being a civilian 2 engined bird and potentially faster maybe it has other advantages in uptime and time to station?

if the transferable loads are so similar, why in 1st place did IAF consider the A330?

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Jan 2010 09:31

Well to a large extent the high SFC for Il-76 family (even the latest IL-78 ) can be attributed to the fact that these aircraft were designed ground up for the Military and around certain requirements (rough field ops , protection against small/medium caliber fire , engines capable of providing extra thrust when under attack and may be need for extra redundancy in terms of controls when compared to an AC built for civilian applications) in comparasion A-330 MRTT is a civilian (low SFC is of primary concern to all operators ) airframe adapted for a specific role hence it inherits the low SFC from the latter. One major beef with legacy RU platforms across all services is their large logistical footprint some of the mechanical modules are too complex and unserviceable not only in India but anywhere in the world (at times not even in RU) thanks to the wierd SU standards (even the nut and bolts are of different specs for which no 'craftsman' screwdriver/wrench exists

).

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 12 Jan 2010 20:19

Perhaps...I am reposting this...but I am Just puzzled that the man said that Su-30MKI has 20* susstained turn per sec which is no where near raptor..!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLDHbAybzo4

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jan 2010 20:23

sumshyam wrote:Perhaps...I am reposting this...but I am Just puzzled that the man said that Su-30MKI has 20* susstained turn per sec which is no where near raptor..!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLDHbAybzo4

The keywords used to attract people to that video are interesting. The video is meant to attract people to cause takleef. I say this because it is a mirror image of what I do to Pakis.

media news Indian Hindu army state sponsored terrorism rss ram sena Rama hindutva bjp air force navy special commandos war terror terrorist jihad mumbai assault human rights women men IT computer Pub Attack alquida Taliban USA uk Russia china India Iraq Iran Pakistan Afghanistan Saudi Arabia turkey Greece France Germany UN sri lanka Netherlands Australia

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 12 Jan 2010 20:50

sumshyam wrote:Perhaps...I am reposting this...but I am Just puzzled that the man said that Su-30MKI has 20* susstained turn per sec which is no where near raptor..!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLDHbAybzo4

How many times do we have to go though the same discussion? At least take a look at locked threads before posting about such old topics.
Also, before posting, you could have done the same thing I did, google and going through old posts. Why do you expect others to spoon feed you?
http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory. ... rnof.shtml

Look for Vishnu's post

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 12 Jan 2010 21:31

US offers its latest fighter to India

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 02791.html

carrot !!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jan 2010 21:38

SanjibGhosh wrote:US offers its latest fighter to India

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 02791.html

carrot !!!

Sugar coated misery?

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 12 Jan 2010 21:51

pandyan wrote:Here is Vivek Ahuja's comparison between the IL 78s and A330. According to his analysis, A330 with 10 hours of endurance has 80 tonnes of fuel available to top-up other crafts. But this analysis seems to assume that A330 burn rate is around 3 tonnes/hr. With similar endurance IL78s would be able to transfer only 40 tonnes of fuel.

Also, another interesting note: in his comparison he is assuming that IL78s have 50 tonnes in primary tank and 35 tonnes in auxiliary tanks. What is the true IL78 capability? Is it 85 tonnes just in auxiliary tanks or is 85 tonnes available only after combining both primary as well as auxiliary?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 30#p603098

I think this post explains why IAF is lusting after A330....

sum · Post by **sum** » 12 Jan 2010 22:01

Guys, urgent info needed:

What are the different makes of Flight Data Recorders and Black boxes we have used till today?

Which country/co have they been from? Have we used indigenous ones also?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jan 2010 23:00

SanjibGhosh wrote:US offers its latest fighter to India

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 02791.html

carrot !!!

LM has always said that the the F-16 could pave the way for the F-35 .............. with the F-16 embedding some of the F-35 techs.

What seems to be new in this is the presentation with the blessing of the DoD and the presentation was made to the IN.

I am not too sure that the IAF would be interested given that the FGFA is supposedly close to fruition.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 12 Jan 2010 23:02

What are the different makes of Flight Data Recorders and Black boxes we have used till today?

Which country/co have they been from? Have we used indigenous ones also?

AFAIK we have been using SAAB FDR's in Su-30MKI. I am pretty certain about it. I'll try to dug up the source.

NAL has already developed FDR for LCRA. Here is the source :

http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/1802/

Here is another one developed by CABS for AN 32:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 2.jpg.html

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 13 Jan 2010 02:35

NRao wrote: LM has always said that the the F-16 could pave the way for the F-35 .............. with the F-16 embedding some of the F-35 techs.

What seems to be new in this is the presentation with the blessing of the DoD and the presentation was made to the IN.

I am not too sure that the IAF would be interested given that the FGFA is supposedly close to fruition.

Well the first scenario which popped in my mind is "Would this also mean that a naval variant of PAK-FA is not yet planned"

With IAF having a definite plan in PAK FA and later MCA for its 5th Gen capability, navy would definitely seek one. F-35 would be the only choice right now if the naval variant of PAK-FA it not planned yet.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Jan 2010 03:35

sunny y wrote:
What are the different makes of Flight Data Recorders and Black boxes we have used till today?

Which country/co have they been from? Have we used indigenous ones also?
AFAIK we have been using SAAB FDR's in Su-30MKI. I am pretty certain about it. I'll try to dug up the source.

NAL has already developed FDR for LCRA. Here is the source :

http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/1802/

Here is another one developed by CABS for AN 32:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 2.jpg.html

IIRC ze Rambha uses a South African FDR....ze swedish stuff I believe is used on ze malay MKM version primarily the IFF and other yehudi isecret stuff that the malays did not have access to...

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Jan 2010 08:04

MKI's FDR is sourced from SA based Aerospace Monitoring and Systems (AMS) which is now owned by Saab Grintek where SAAB AB is a 70% stake holder.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Jan 2010 08:57

negi wrote:MKI's FDR is sourced from SA based Aerospace Monitoring and Systems (AMS) which is now owned by Saab Grintek where SAAB AB is a 70% stake holder.

Aaah ofcourse I forgot this part completely

danke' for the correction...

sum · Post by **sum** » 13 Jan 2010 09:07

Thanks a lot.
More the inputs, better it is.
What abt the LCA FDR? Where is it from?

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Jan 2010 09:29

Hey don't take my word for it

come to think of it I was wondering why is that MKI filght data recorders were sent to England after the recent crash if SAAB AB's SA division is the original supplier.

Dammn where is GJ moni when you need him.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Jan 2010 09:49

negi wrote:Hey don't take my word for it come to think of it I was wondering why is that MKI filght data recorders were sent to England after the recent crash if SAAB AB's SA division is the original supplier.

Dammn where is GJ moni when you need him.

Moi first answer was based on remember from the Camp and Watson's book on ze Rambha onlee...which mentioned that the FDR was South African...but if the company itself has changed hands which I also vaguely remember reading about then you are quite right there....

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 13 Jan 2010 13:33

What abt the LCA FDR? Where is it from?

LCA has HAL Korwa developed FDR. They have been developing FDR's for Jaguar & Mig-27.

http://www.hal-india.com/AvionicsKorwa/products.asp

Here is the link where everything we have developed for LCA alongwith the name of the organisation is mentioned in tabular format....Check out Appendix I

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... ainis.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jan 2010 03:49

Thx.

Self deleted.

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 14 Jan 2010 11:08

A little bit of an update on the An-32 upgrade program.

The aircraft that were supposed to fly to Kiev in Dec and Jan, haven't left. Blame the severe winter across Europe and Central Asia.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 14 Jan 2010 11:23

anand_sankar wrote:A little bit of an update on the An-32 upgrade program.

The aircraft that were supposed to fly to Kiev in Dec and Jan, haven't left. Blame the severe winter across Europe and Central Asia.

Is there any details on what all the upgrade entails?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jan 2010 14:31

one mistake we should NEVER EVER make is another round of the "MCA is the worlds smallest lightest 5th gen bomber" thing. even it means the kaveri-snecma never finds a real host.
import the AL41 if needed but make sure its big enough to carry a good bombload internally.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /fb-22.htm

the FB22 delta winged bomber derivative of F22 that was proposed would carry 24 small bombs
internally and 2.5 times the range using a fat wet wing.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 14 Jan 2010 14:39

Singha wrote:one mistake we should NEVER EVER make is another round of the "MCA is the worlds smallest lightest 5th gen bomber" thing. even it means the kaveri-snecma never finds a real host.
import the AL41 if needed but make sure its big enough to carry a good bombload internally.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /fb-22.htm

the FB22 delta winged bomber derivative of F22 that was proposed would carry 24 small bombs
internally and 2.5 times the range using a fat wet wing.

A single AL41 would be too little and 2 AL41s would be too much for 20 ton a/c. The other option would be to use the engine being developed for MiG-LMFS which will be in the same class as NGFA. It is said that Klimov has already started work on the engine dubbed VK-10.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 14 Jan 2010 15:43

KrishG wrote:
Singha wrote:one mistake we should NEVER EVER make is another round of the "MCA is the worlds smallest lightest 5th gen bomber" thing. even it means the kaveri-snecma never finds a real host.
import the AL41 if needed but make sure its big enough to carry a good bombload internally.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /fb-22.htm

the FB22 delta winged bomber derivative of F22 that was proposed would carry 24 small bombs
internally and 2.5 times the range using a fat wet wing.
A single AL41 would be too little and 2 AL41s would be too much for 20 ton a/c. The other option would be to use the engine being developed for MiG-LMFS which will be in the same class as NGFA. It is said that Klimov has already started work on the engine dubbed VK-10.

Can't we use 2 AL41F1A for nearly the same performance???