The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Confirms PD-14 Engine will be used on Indo-Russian MTA
Key technologies to ensure the competitiveness of the product of technical and economic parameters, are the technologies of composite materials. Weight composite parts in a design exceeds 60%. Of them made even such complex and critical part, as a lattice reversing device.
Already on the first test of the engine-technology demonstrator has shown its efficiency in all range of modes, up to take-off, but to show the motor parameters in thermodynamics, acoustics and emissions better than today's counterparts.
Conducted in 2011 by specialists Corporation "Irkut" and CIAM comprehensive economic evaluation PD-14 engine in the MC-21 aircraft with the fuel consumption, maintenance and repair costs and cost control showed that the direct operating costs of the MS-21 with motor PD 14 at 1.1-2.5% lower than the engine PW1400G.
In the past, Russian IL-76 prices have even allowed them to compete with medium airlifters like the C-130. Russia’s problem has been their reputation for poor reliability, and poor service. So far, Russian officials have acknowledged IL-476 talks with India and China. Both countries already use the IL-76 family, but India has just begun supplementing its fleet with Boeing’s C-17s, and China has just introduced its own Y-20.
A little confusing ....................... it is Inglish .............................
Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne told India Strategic that right now, IAF is negotiating for two IL 76-based AWACS with Israel, in addition to the three already acquired. But the future platforms would be western, either the Boeing 767 or Airbus A330.
Karma must favor life cycles!!!!!
It may be noted that the IL 76 aircraft were made by the Soviet Union with factories in its constituent states. Russia is likely to unveil its own version of IL 76 in 2014 but by the time it comes to the market for exports, it would be a while.
Sanku wrote:Of course C 17 was saved from any such embarrassment by making sure no one else got a shot.
So true. Boeing wale kahan moonh chupate after we showed them the IL476 and it's sterling performance not to mention the price.
And of course the PAK_FA "Joint Venture". By that token T-90 is a JV too (because once we buy it, it becomes an 'Indian' product according to Sanku-ji) and we also fit a Catherine TI in it. Truely a huge input for Indian defence industry - almost on the scale of a wind-tunnel being provided as part of the C-17 offset.
Funny how a lot of breastbeating goes on about "saving" Boeing C-17 lines (as if 16 planes would save anything), yet there is complete silence from the usual suspects over India saving the entire Russian military industrial complex through the past two decades and getting monkeys in return
Arnab,bashed to death in the armoured vehicles thread,for years now,the non-availablility of Arjun when we had to act fast and counter Pak's acquisition of Ukranian TU-80UDs has been established.When you also look at the long gestation time for decision-making on any foreign arms purchase,it is little wonder too that the IA opted for a large number of T-90s,the majority to be made locally.We are doing exactly that with the SU-30MKIs.The big Q now is which tank is better for the buck,4 man crew Arjun which weighs around 60t and a 3 man crew 45t+ T-90.I'm all for helping indigenisation.We certainly can afford more Arjuns MK-2 and should build more,plus the terrain varies enormously io\n diff. parts of the country,where both types are needed.There are Qs here however about production capability where all tank production and upgrades are behind schedule.
With the transports,the small number of heavweights make it cost-effectively impossible for us to build them here ,hence the price.capability factor .
You are changing the goal posts for this discussion very cleverly. This is not about which tank is better, T90 or Arjun. That's for another thread.
The point about T90, Su-30 etc are that they are single vendor purchases as is the C17. You can't criticise (like Sanku ji is dong) the fact that the IAF felt that C17s fulfilled its requirements the best and hence did not send out a RFP to everybody and their mother-in-law and then turn around and say single vendor T90 purchase was the correct decision because the Army needed the tanks. You can't also claim "corruption" for the IAF decision due to the lack of RFPs without substantial proof and say there was no "corruption" in the Army's decision to go for the T90s, also without RFPs.
Your point about the Army being in a "hurry" to counter Paki purchases is fine. However, you can't value judge and say that IAF's feeling that it needed a good, reliable and cheap (in terms of weight per KM) transport fast was not right and that they could wait till the Russians got their mythical IL476 up and flying. The best judge of requirements are the folks who do this for a living.
Multi-vendor and RFPs to everybody is a noble idea, which is why I think the Army was wrong in not sending an RFP to the Americans for the Abrahms tanks or even the Israelis for the Merkava. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, don't you think? I'm sure this is one of the rarest of rare times when Sanku ji would agree with me.
amit wrote:
Multi-vendor and RFPs to everybody is a noble idea, which is why I think the Army was wrong in not sending an RFP to the Americans for the Abrahms tanks or even the Israelis for the Merkava. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, don't you think? I'm sure this is one of the rarest of rare times when Sanku ji would agree with me.
Oh no. Sanku ji has an excuse ready. The MoD requirements for the multi-vendor RFP route weren't compulsory back then. But that shouldn't have stopped the IA from trying to find the best tank should it instead of putting their men inside unsafe tincans that compromise their fighting potential and reduce survivability in combat? The principle remains the same. At least the only argument against the C-17 is the high price (in addition to the cardinal sin of being american of course). Nobody has a problem with its performance or reliability.
I don't think we should get PAKFA into this debate for it's not like F-22/35 were on sale if they were then yes that analogy is correct. Having said that C-17 deal is done and dusted heck we are taking delivery in a few months from now; so why this ro-dho ? The only issues I personally have with deals with Unkil is EUMA but then C-17 is a cargo AC not a F-22/PAKFA.
I think - and I'm sure the majority of folks here too - the PAKFA was a damn good move by the IAF. However, let's face it, calling it a JV is a big stretch. The plane we will be getting will be a heavily MKIzed version. JV implies having a say from the drawing board stage. We didn't get that.
Much as the Brahmos is a reworked Moskit with its innards sufficiently changed to call it a Brahmos, so too the FGFA will be a PAKFA with more Indian content than the Su 30.
This is just the nature of the game. Some organizations have the ability to do certain things on a joint project, and it is best to go along with the ride, taking whatever contribution comes best from every stakeholder, rather than worry about % indigenization.
We can have a 100% indigenous 6th generation fighter.
1. Either we develop it at ADA and HAL.
or.
2. The govt. of India buys Sukhoi / UAC as a corporation.
In the future, we are going to see more and more scenario 2.s happening. Similar to Tata JLR and millions of other Indian takeovers.
amit wrote:
Multi-vendor and RFPs to everybody is a noble idea, which is why I think the Army was wrong in not sending an RFP to the Americans for the Abrahms tanks or even the Israelis for the Merkava. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, don't you think? I'm sure this is one of the rarest of rare times when Sanku ji would agree with me.
Oh no. Sanku ji has an excuse ready.
Naming names to essential facts does not change it the fact.
You can call it a excuse, a reason, whatever, but the fact is a fact.
Gents all I can say is C-17 is a marvelous bird, this bird is worth the expense the overall deal includes life time service agreements, offsets etc.. It has enough volume and weight capacity, it can allow for easy transport of everything from helos, howtizers, tanks, Pinaka/Brahmos/Smerch/Prithvi/ Prahaar, Nirbhay and Shaurya launchers. Give us a huge advantage in battle. I say we order another 40 right away.
Septimus P. wrote:Mki, Mig-29K, T-90 and god knows how many orders keep god knows how many jobs in Russia going
Well those at least had the good excuses of
1) being cheap
2) being mostly manufactured here.
And most importantly
of grave importance for the war machine
Alas not cheap! As India had to pay through its nose to make those 'weapons' better than worthless. The "baest and cheap" (or is it "cheap and baest ji"?) is the motto of a karol bag snake oil salesman You want the best product and service - you pay good money for it to the US. As noted earlier, for Russia we paid the 'best price' and received monkeys in return and essentially subsidised their MIC for over 20 years to the risk of our soldiers' lives.
Septimus P. wrote:Mki, Mig-29K, T-90 and god knows how many orders keep god knows how many jobs in Russia going
Well those at least had the good excuses of
1) being cheap
2) being mostly manufactured here.
And most importantly
of grave importance for the war machine
Would be nice if the the quality of the product matched its price. I hope to god MKIs falling out of the sky is not because a serious design or technical flaw. New build MKis are not less pricey either. T-90S currently costs just over 12 crores, not exactly cheap either for a tank that has vastly inferior operational quality so far. We also know exactly how reliable the after sales service has been. Perhaps its time to move away from this cycle of cheap imports and obvious shoddy after sales. Ths emphasis should be on acquiring quality and proven after sales support.
All the whining isn't needed, C-17 with its ability to transport almost every tactical missile and loads of supplies and its ability to carry loads of weight also makes it even more useful for the war machine. I say order another 40 over 5 to 8 years and thats money very well spent.
Septimus P. wrote:
Would be nice if the the quality of the product matched its price. I hope to god MKIs falling out of the sky is not because a serious design or technical flaw..
I think you have adequately demonstrated your understanding.
nachiket wrote:
Nice way to completely ignore the argument.
What argument? You dont have a argument. You want to compare events in past with current set of systems and that is a argument?
That is not even ghost of a argument.
India changed significantly during NDA regime, our economic potential, our way of approaching the world, relationships everything changed.
The world also changed.
Trying to compare a decisions taken a decade or more away in time is not argument, its "hum nahi manegne" (I wont agree)
Mut maano (dont agree) -- your intransigence on comparing the incomparable may be useful for those trying to push their agenda and find suitable shoulders to fire off, but has nothing of note worth debate.
Instead of trying to insist why things should be change before and after a time, what you should do is try and understand the differences in time and evolution of the change.
Septimus P. wrote:
Would be nice if the the quality of the product matched its price. I hope to god MKIs falling out of the sky is not because a serious design or technical flaw..
I think you have adequately demonstrated your understanding.
Looking at your endless boring bs, mindless drivel and sometimes utter nonsensical rubbish I think I prefer my own meagre understand of things, thank you.
Amit,I've not ,moved the goalposts.In fact I've said that fine,we need a larger aircraft than our L-76s,OK,the C-17 fits the bill-only type available,but how many do we really need? There is talk about 20,some say even more.It's why I've given the comparisons with NATO inventories and other US allies.We do not need more than 8-10 max in my opinion.Even the US now do not want such large aircraft-I've quoted from Gates and Obama.They say smaller aircraft can do the job more cost-effectively.Plus ,unlike the US and its NATO allies,we do not have as I've repeatedly said any intercon-strategic role to play .They required these huge transports to move large amounts of troops and their eqpt. quickly and in strength across oceans from the US.
Our major role outside the shores of India is to beef up the A&N and Lakshadweep island territories.We also have some commitments to Isle Maurice and some other small IOR island states.Fortunately they are not to far off the Indian coastline and already substantial infrastructure has been established and assets pre-positioned or based there (we need amphibians too by the way for island operations) .The IN is quite well equipped to supply the two island chains by sea-the best way, without any major interference from either Pak or China.If we do take up Vietnam's offer and use Cam Ranh Bay,the requirement gets interesting.CRB is both a deep water port as well as being able to accommodate air assets too,especially our LRMPs.having either P-8s or TU-142s operating out of CRB,escorted by SU-30MKIs/Super Sukhois or even FGFAs in the future,would give the PRC a real nightmare.Creating a large mountain army with at least 9-10 divisions for the "invasion and liberation" of Tibet is an essential.If we do go along this future path,then the need for more heavyweights,both C-17 and IL-476s would increase.However,with the current dispensation,even the formation of 3 divisions to blunt any PLA offensive in the Himalayas gets our leadership peeing in its pants...sorry,dhotis,afeared of the dragon farting at us!
Therefore,if we have no such ambitions as mentioned above,for the moment for future acquisitions,isn't it more prudent going in for 10 IL-476s at $115 per unit ($!.15B) than spending another $4-5 B for just 10 more C-17s? Russia is getting 39 IL-476s which can carry a 60t load for just $4.5B! That's 4 times as many C-17s.Let's not get into any argument about the non-availability of the IL-476,it is in production.
We save a lot of money by buying extra IL-476s,we are anyway going to buy two more platforms for the extra 2 Phalcon AWACS on order from Israel in any case.We have operated the original aircraft for over two decades and it would be easy to induct,with one crew member less too in the 476.To me,the logic speaks for itself.
PS:Guys,go easy on each other.Don't get personal.The enemy to be kept in mind always is the Sino-Pak axis of eviltude!
PPS:One place where we can put our saved money on bang for the buck and for a larger coverage of the IOR and Asia-Pacific water is on the TU Backfires and Blackjacks-where upgrades are in the pipeline.There are large stocks of mothballed aircraft of both types,esp. the backfires.
I would reject the IL476/Il76 purely on the following grounds
- a bigger bird like AN124 or C17 can move more rapid reaction unit - flights and apron space will be at a premium in places on the border during a emergency...we DO NOT have a Ramstein in Leh or tezpur (to my eternal anger!)
- C17 (and AN124) can easily carry 1-2 T90 / arjun sized tanks or more realistically a few IFVs, extra ammo, missiles and other good stuff
- it can carry big radars and SAM units the IL76 cannot due to width / height
- it could carry the shourya/brahmos TELARs methinks or extra reloads of large missiles from BDL to the units
- it can cart a full load anywhere within india without refueling ... and suffers no temperature or time restrictions upto thoise allegedly
we are barking up the wrong tree with the IL476 .... the MTA and C130 can take care of 95% of what the 476 claims to do.
we should be looking at laying in some AN124 which is also scheduled to restart production. its proven its worth to most demanding customers in moving outsize cargo like even delhi metro railway bogies and wagons. theres a lot these hefty machines can do.
Philip wrote:In fact I've said that fine,we need a larger aircraft than our IL-76s,OK,the C-17 fits the bill-only type available,but how many do we really need? There is talk about 20,some say even more.
How many have we actually bought? Only 10. Even the deal for the extra 6 isn't done yet. You are blaming the IAF for buying too many aircraft when they haven't actually done so. Do you see the fallacy here?
It's why I've given the comparisons with NATO inventories and other US allies.We do not need more than 8-10 max in my opinion.Even the US now do not want such large aircraft-I've quoted from Gates and Obama.They say smaller aircraft can do the job more cost-effectively.
The IAF is a better judge of the numbers they require to meet the IA's current and future airlift requirements.
Plus ,unlike the US and its NATO allies,we do not have as I've repeatedly said any intercon-strategic role to play .They required these huge transports to move large amounts of troops and their eqpt. quickly and in strength across oceans from the US.
Our major role outside the shores of India is to beef up the A&N and Lakshadweep island territories.....
Why do you keep harping on some intercontinental role? We have a lot of airlift requirement inside India to take care of, especially in the northeast. If the proposed mountain strike corps is created, they are only going to increase. The C-17 has a nearly 30 ton payload advantage over our existing IL-76s in addition to the larger volume and width. This means fewer sorties. The IL-76s also have maintenance and uptime issues. There is no question that we needed something better.
As for the US not wanting the C-17, that is because they have already bought nearly 200 of them.
Singha wrote:
- a bigger bird like AN124 or C17 can move more rapid reaction unit - flights and apron space will be at a premium in places on the border during a emergency...we DO NOT have a Ramstein in Leh or tezpur (to my eternal anger!)
Not true, the IL-476 will carry almost the same number of troops as the C17.
Just when I was missing the good old days of 1990s WWF wrestling this Sanku-Phillip vs Amit-Arnab tag team match up gives us something to cheer about; beer and popcorn time .
Septimus P. wrote:
Looking at your endless boring bs, mindless drivel and sometimes utter nonsensical rubbish I think I prefer my own meagre understand of things, thank you.
Your understanding of all issues is indeed meager, and you indeed prefer that, we agree. Good.
negi wrote:Just when I was missing the good old days of 1990s WWF wrestling this Sanku-Phillip vs Amit-Arnab tag team match up gives us something to cheer about; beer and popcorn time .
Negi, one of these days, I will invite you home. A batli will be waiting.
Singha wrote:
- a bigger bird like AN124 or C17 can move more rapid reaction unit - flights and apron space will be at a premium in places on the border during a emergency...we DO NOT have a Ramstein in Leh or tezpur (to my eternal anger!)
Not true, the IL-476 will carry almost the same number of troops as the C17.
that can be fixed with some Ro-Ro double decker seating arrangement based around the frames of standard pallets which can be moved mechanically up and down the center floor. we are talking of just troop transport, not para jumping here.
How the hell can they get lost and land on the wrong runway in this day and age????
If this does not make the case for IL-476 then I wonder what does???
indranilroy wrote:
Not true, the IL-476 will carry almost the same number of troops as the C17.
that can be fixed with some Ro-Ro double decker seating arrangement based around the frames of standard pallets which can be moved mechanically up and down the center floor. we are talking of just troop transport, not para jumping here.
What you are speaking of is called passenger pallets. C-17 can carry 80 passengers (on 8 pallets) + 54 on side seating. Almost the same number can be carried by IL-476.
Actually carry passengers is a very bad use of these planes. People occupy floor space, but don't weigh a lot . The C-130J can carry almost the same number of passengers (128 passengers or 92 airborne troops) as the C-17. Therefore the C-130s/MTA/AN-32s etc. will always be preferred as troop transporters over the C-17s/IL-476s etc. So troop transport is as weak as a point of IL-476 as the C-17s.
Now you would understand why IAF was so happy to able to fly non stop to the Andamans with the C-130Js. Rescue missions from the Andamans was the first thing they showcased.
KrishnaK wrote:Sanku must be the biggest troll I've seen on this forum .
Just doing my part in making sure BRF does not turn into a rediff message board,people with a strong opinion but equally lacking in any understanding and knowledge.
Of course this will cause significant cognitive dissonance to some.
4 billion or 5, I guess its a question of capability.
C-17 can carry upto 70 tons of payload, the Il-76 can do 45-50. For Leh, that might reduce, which makes the Il-76 far less effective than the C-17. The C-17 was apparently able to lift a fair load even in Leh in hot and high conditions as opposed to reports of Il-76 being able to do nada.
Now, this spurious Il-476 discussion is useless at the present time, since its highly unlikely to even be available till 2020. If, after 2020, they decide to still go in for only C-17 when the Il-476 is also an option, then we can discuss it and ask why. Till then, no point asking why.
The critical aspect, especially in the scenario of a Vivek_ahuja type conflict in the North and Northeast in the next decade is to bring in the max amount of payload and weapons in the least amount of time, and the least number of flights required, because frankly, we wont know how long our airfields will last, and we have too few of them to focus on transport ops. Plus, given the state of roads there, flying in tanks and heavy equipment will be critical - can an Il-76 fly in a fully loaded T-90 and its equipment into Leh? At this time, seems unlikely. Can the C-17 do it?Yep. Hell, it might be able to even bring in an Arjun for all we know.
Even better, it allows us to do this in fewer trips than the Il-76, which makes it cheaper to operate on a per-ton basis, and means that the airfield is less crowded and can operate other flights. Plus, heavy lifters are always vulnerable in a combat scenario, and thus, must be kept out of danger as much as possible.
How much of a leap in combat capabilities does all this give us? A VAST leap!
Is the price expensive? On first look, probably - 580 million per aircraft is quite a bit. However, the question is:
a) Whether thats the right number,
b) In the overall lifetime, is the higher upfront cost ameliorated more vis-a-vis the Ruskie aircrafts and
c) Could we afford NOT to buy this aircraft even at the inflated price point?
Now, lets say the Il-476 is available at the time when we are looking at more heavy lifters. The Il-476 can carry, what... 60 tons. Derate that for Leh, and it reduces further to the point where it won't be able to bring in a T-90, even in a stripped down config. Even if it can, it'll need a 2nd flight in to bring the supplies and other equipment, meaning that precious time will be wasted on the ground fixing up the tanks for combat. Time that we won't have. The C-17 can bring the T-90 and its supplies, in combat ready config. Again, if the difference is smaller than this, by all means, give it a trial. But till then, any discussion on this is just garam garam dhua from our Musharrafs.
From what I observe there are two themes running parallel in this C17 discussion.
One is about the C17 cost and whether in the long run ability, performance and life time cost makes it a worthwhile buy. There seems to be a consensus among the group that is participating in this line of thinking that as of now the C17, indeed looks like a good buy.
The second meme running through this discussion is the typical conspiracy theory which goes like this American maal > bad, corruption involved and IAF pressured into buying. The other side of coin is simple: "Always buy Ruskie stuff and pour money into their Military Defence complex, you can't go wrong."
IMO everybody has a right to hold their own POV and so, even though I personally think that the first line of discussion is more a fruitful line of thinking - the core BRF line of exploration -, I'm not too bothered by those who take the second approach (like Philip does).
The hot air comes into the thread when fantastic claims are made by the those advocating the second line of thinking to counter the overwhelming amount of data that has been posted about the C17's price and performance. The easy solution is to show counter data to prove that C17 is crap, over priced and there was corruption involved. This "data" is very conspicuous due to its absence.
Verbal diarrhea and the penchant to have the last word, however silly it may be, is no substitute for hard facts.
- almost on the scale of a wind-tunnel being provided as part of the C-17 offset.
