Transport Aircraft for IAF

[Rakesh]

The RFI requirements, as you have stated are for the 18-30 tonne category, which precludes the A 400. I am not disagreeing with the IAF RFI, just pointing out that the said RFI rules out the A 400!!

Your reasoning above is displaying a lack of understanding in how the procurement system works. RFI stands for Request for Information. It is not a document that is set in stone. Only when it moves to the RFP and RFQ stages, then the requirements get further crystalized and more defined.

Case in Point ---> MMRCA, MRCBF and now MRFA. In each of these contests, you had aircraft that had varied capabilities (weight, payload, Time on Station, etc). Yet they were all considered and put through the rigours of testing by Air HQ.

In the MMRCA contest, when the RFI was put out in 2002 (I believe) nearly every OEM participated. Then it moved to the RFP stage in 2007. From 2008 till 2010, technical evaluations and field trails were conducted. And on 27 April 2011, only the Rafale and the Eurofighter passed the technical downselect in the MMRCA contest. The Gripen NG, the F-18SH, the F-16IN and the MiG-35 all failed for various reasons. The failed contestants had two turbofans or one turbofan. Some of the failed contestants could carry a heavier payload, some less. The specifications were varied among all the contestants, but Air HQ tested all aircraft that participated in the trials.

In the MRCBF contest, the same occurred. First the RFI was put out. At this stage, even Saab participated with a single engine Gripen E...but only on paper. However when the RFP came out, the Gripen was eliminated due to the fact that the Indian Navy wanted a twin engine fighter. So that left only Boeing and Dassault. When the technical downselect was on-going, Boeing was going to town claiming that they would handily win this contest and trounce Dassault. It was only during the field trials at the SBTF in Goa, is when Boeing's house of cards came crumbling down. It was clearly evident that the arrestor hook at the SBTF (set to the same parameters aboard INS Vikrant) could not handle the bring back weight of the F-18SH. The Rafale, OTOH, passed with flying colours and came out the clear winner.

In the MRFA contest, the same story is occurring again. And in a surprise twist...this past IAF Day (Oct 08th), the Air Chief went on record stating the Rafale would be the easiest to absorb among all the contestants - F-15EX, F-21, F-18SH, Gripen E/F, MiG-35, Su-35 and Eurofighter Tyhoon. He said that any of the aircraft would work, but the Rafale is the easiest to absorb in the fleet.

In highlight of the three examples above, all three aircraft in the MTA contest will be put through their paces. Technical evaluations will be conducted and field trials will be done. But since we are in the RFI stage, every manufacturer is invited to participate....regardless of whether they meet the guideline of 18 - 30 tons, exceed it or even come short of it. Usually OEMs will not participate in a contest if they do not even meet the low end of the scale, as the writing is on the wall for them to read. The same is not true on the other end of the scale, but again with reason.

The AN-125 will not participate, as it is complete overkill. If the C-17 line was still open, Boeing would not participate either. If the C-5 line was still open, Lockheed Martin would not participate either. Again, a pure overkill. Airbus is however participating, even with a positive margin of 7 tons, because they can see a path to winning. Like Boeing, LM, Embraer....Airbus is a FOR-PROFIT organization. Every Euro spent has to see a return in value for the CEO and his shareholders. If Airbus did not see a path to winning in the MTA contest, they would not even participate in this contest.

A perfect example of this is the replacement for Air Force One (the pair of VC-25A aircraft used for presidential travel) for the USAF. When the US' Air Force Material Command put out a requirement for new aircraft, EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) did not participate in the contest as they knew there was zero chance of prevailing. No US Govt would sanction a European company to replace US presidential travel. The contest went to Boeing (the only other contestant), as it logically should have. US Presidents must only travel on US built aircraft.

Thus it is RFI ---> RFP ---> Technical Evaluations / Field Trials ---> Commercial Negotiations ---> Contract Signing.

The above is largely how the process has to work. There are other stages in between, but I am not going to get into the nitty-gritty of that now. The MTA contest now sits in the RFI stage. Every OEM who thinks they have a shot at winning, is going to participate in this contest. However it is up to Air HQ to make the final decision, on who gets the red rose.

As far as the contest between road transport and airlift is concerned, airlift is required when there is no road connectivity. Since, we can hopefully agree that road connectivity will exist by the time these airplanes start to come in, why is there the need for a LARGE fleet of A 400s?

I will go one step even further

Before even the first chosen MTA enters service, EVERY road in the North and North East of India will be world class (at minimum Western equivalence). STILL and DESPITE that fact, the chosen MTA will have an air transportability mission requirement to move light armour (Zorawar, IFVs, etc) at a moment's notice. That requirement is set in stone in the MTA contest and is not open for negotiation or discussion by Air HQ. There is a minimum of 25 tons (the weight of a basic, un-bulked up Zorawar) that has to be air lifted if required.

Air travel will always exceed the ToA (Time of Arrival) of road travel. No matter how good the quality of the road is, it will NEVER exceed the speed of air travel. This is a basic fact that a first standard (or likely even a Kindergarten) student will tell you. As mentioned in an earlier post, rapid and successive counter deployments are crucial in the initial stages of a conflict. Operation Parakram (2001 - 2002) could not achieve its objective, because it took time to mobilize. And by the time the Army's Strike Corps had mobilized...the element of surprise was gone. This gave birth to the IBG (Integrated Battle Group) concept and has been further refined since. And even the IBG has an air transportability requirement to achieve that required element of surprise.

My contention is that the bulk of the MTAs should be -390s/-130s since they fulfill 90% of the mission set. For the marginal utility mission set, I'm ok with acquiring a SMALL number of by then used -400Ms/C17s/Il 76s. This fulfills the mission set while keeping the budget under control.

90% is an incorrect assumption, as one of the primary missions of the MTA is to move light armour.

The A400M would not even be in contention today, had the MoD not foolishly stopped the C-17 order at 10(+1) aircraft. The C-17 order to Boeing should have been at minimum 30 aircraft...if not more. Using the 11 C-17s to move light armour up to the North and North East is a lot of wear & tear on the C-17 fleet. Had we had a 30 or 40 strong fleet of C-17s, then the C-390 makes ample sense. But we do not and thus the existence of the A400M in the MTA contest. Boeing reminded all the foreign customers of the C-17 that the line was closing, but our MoD sat on that reminder and did nothing.

There has to be a middle ground between the An-32 (27 tons) and the IL-76 (48 tons) that the chosen MTA is seeking to replace. That is a combined 75 tons together that has to be replaced by just *ONE* aircraft. If you average/divide that number by two, you get 37.5 tons. The max payload capability of the A400M is 37 tons. Just saying

[Rakesh]

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

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

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

The days of buying multiple fleets are DONE and DUSTED. Air HQ will not buy C-390 and A400M. The practice of buying aircraft for niche roles, is not going to happen any longer. It will be one or the other, but not both.

The IAF is also largely done with Russian aircraft (the Su-57 being the notable exception and even that is still in the infancy stage and with no guarantee of contract signature). There is a reason why Air HQ has put out a MTA contest for replacing both the An-32 and IL-76MD. One aircraft to fulfill multiple missions. See below....

C-295 ---> Replace HS748, Do 228
MTA ---> Replace An-32 and IL-76MD
MRFA, MK1A, Mk2 ---> Replace Jaguar, Mirage 2000, MiG-29 and MiG-21
HAL Dhruv, LUH ----> Chetak and Cheetah
CH-47 ---> Mi-26
IMRH ----> Mi-8, Mi-17
AH-64 ---> Mi-25/Mi-35

The HAL Rudra and the HAL Prachand are new roles that have recently been formed with the induction of IBGs. Also the HAL Prachand is the only helicopter that can operate in the rarified climates of India's North and North East. The AH-64 failed miserably here and had to be towed via truck back to its home base. And the above list goes on. How many Russian aircraft do you see listed (at left) replacing the legacy fleet?

The Tejas' Achilles heel is the GE F404 turbofan. Unkil will not permit export of F404 turbofans, when they can sell their own aircraft to Brazil. What will you do then? Unkil was not born yesterday. There is a reason why Unkil is who He is. You don't get to the top spot by being naive. For India, the chickens have come home to roost. We did not invest in our own turbofan and today we are paying the price, both in local and export markets.

Apart from the turbofan issue, HAL is unable to deliver Tejas on time to its own local customer. A contract that was signed in Feb 2021, is now expected to arrive only by March 2026...well over five years later. Brazil is not unaware of this fact.

[Rakesh]

A question to both Rakesh and Avik
1. How is easy will it be to find Civlian Markets for Turboprop Civilian Variants down the line??

In reply to SRajesh-ji:

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

NAL Saras says Hello!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAL_Saras

The Air Force alone wants up to 140 aircraft, with 15 in a LSP order. The civilian market will be even higher.

Why should I buy a foreign OEM's aircraft, when we can achieve the same result with an Indian aircraft? Atmanirbhar Bharat and all that wonderful stuff.

[Rakesh]

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

The IAF has operated both turboprops and turbofans in ALG is the north and north east. And recently, both American (C-130J and C-17) birds have also undertaken the role. The personnel stationed at the ALGs will ensure FOD risk is kept to a bare minimum. Nothing is 100% risk free, but all attempts humanly possible are made. If the American birds can do it, you can be certain the A400M and C390M will be able to do it as well.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. This is why field trials are conducted by the IAF. And this is why OEMs - who send aircraft for trials - do trials and testing of their own. Will Rolls Royce, Ferrari or Lamborghini recommend off roading / navigating mountainous terrain with their vehicles? Will OEMs send their fighter aircraft (F-16) to participate in a transport contest, when they have transport aircraft (C-130J) of their own? Simple logic onlee.

But if you want some reading to do, here go you (courtesy of Google Chacha)...

Turboprops and turbofans have different susceptibility to Foreign Object Damage (FOD) due to their design, though both are vulnerable. Turboprops, with their large, exposed propellers, are at a higher risk of ingesting debris from the ground, but the slower, larger propeller tips are less prone to supersonic shock waves than the high-speed tips of a turbofan at high velocities. Conversely, turbofans, which are often used at higher altitudes and speeds, can be at risk from debris encountered in the air and their internal components are also susceptible to damage from smaller ingested objects.

Turboprop Vulnerability

* Increased risk from ground debris: The large, exposed propeller is the most significant risk factor for turboprops, as it can easily ingest debris from the ground during taxiing, takeoff, and landing.

Slower tip speeds: The tips of a turboprop propeller, which are a major source of FOD risk, are generally limited to a slower speed, which reduces the likelihood of shock waves that can damage the engine.

Vulnerability to loose objects: The large surface area of the propeller can be vulnerable to damage from loose objects, such as rocks, which can be ingested and cause significant damage to the propeller and engine.

Turbofan Vulnerability

Internal component damage: The high-speed rotating parts in the engine core and the bypass duct make turbofans vulnerable to damage from smaller FOD items ingested from the ground or air.

In-flight FOD: While turbofans are less susceptible to ground debris than turboprops, they can still be damaged by FOD encountered in the air, such as birds.

Supersonic tip speeds: At high speeds, the tips of the fan blades in a turbofan can exceed the speed of sound, creating shock waves that can cause damage to the fan and surrounding components.

[andy B]

^^^ Rakesh saar my gut feel is this may very well end up in a split order. For the reason that the C390 whilst being a logical choice won't match up with the payload capacity of the IL76 which are getting long in the tooth. We also don't really know how much airframe life is really left. In the upgrade we will definitely need to replace those vodka burning D30s with something more modern and fuel efficient like one of the PS90 variants. Cost will escalate here...

Here we may very well end up with a 15 to 20 aircraft order for the A400m with its upto 40t capacity relieving the abysmally small C17 fleet.

The C390s combined with the C295s can then cater for lower and medium tier lift replacing the AN32s.

The C130Js then get relegated to special ops and other duties. Just my two naya paisa.

[Rakesh]

^^^ Rakesh saar my gut feel is this may very well end up in a split order. For the reason that the C390 whilst being a logical choice won't match up with the payload capacity of the IL76 which are getting long in the tooth. We also don't really know how much airframe life is really left. In the upgrade we will definitely need to replace those vodka burning D30s with something more modern and fuel efficient like one of the PS90 variants. Cost will escalate here...

Here we may very well end up with a 15 to 20 aircraft order for the A400m with its upto 40t capacity relieving the abysmally small C17 fleet.

The C390s combined with the C295s can then cater for lower and medium tier lift replacing the AN32s.

The C130Js then get relegated to special ops and other duties. Just my two naya paisa.

We will have to wait and see how this is going to play out. And if the order indeed gets split, then all the industrial benefits from the C390 and the A400M contracts will go right out the window. The money pot is always finite, so money that could have been invested in one deal...now has to be diverted to funding another aircraft. This has played out time and time again in India. Some examples below;

* The pair of Mirage 2000 squadrons that was purchased in the 80s, was to be supplanted by a Mirage 2000 line in India with an order book of another 110 aircraft. Then the MiG-29 came and that went out the window. And we only get three squadrons of the MiG-29. Had the Mirage 2000 line gone through, the MiG-21s could have been retired much earlier. Keeping the MiG-21 is service for 60+ years is really not a flex.

* The MRFA program will bleed the CAPEX for at least a decade, if not more. This will result in the Tejas Mk1A, Mk2 and even AMCA programs suffering due to budgetary issues. This will also undercut the Super Sukhoi program. It will undermine the amount of Indian weaponry (Astra, SFDR, Rudram, etc) that could have been purchased.

* The TEDBF program suffered because of the Rafale M purchase. The Navy withheld funding for the TEDBF, because they wanted the Rafale M at all costs. Now the TEDBF program is dead and the Navy has switched to a Naval AMCA, which will be infinitely more complex.

There is a market for Embraer in India, even if they do not make the cut in the MTA contest.

[SRajesh]

Rakesh
Saras as per Wki can only carry 19 passengers!!
Which Airline and What route will it serve!!
E 190 can carry 4 times more.
So on Tier II to major hub and Tier ii/Tier III inter connectivity you will need a bigger and more cost efficient aircraft No!!

[Rakesh]

Rakesh
Saras as per Wki can only carry 19 passengers!!
Which Airline and What route will it serve!!
E 190 can carry 4 times more.
So on Tier II to major hub and Tier ii/Tier III inter connectivity you will need a bigger and more cost efficient aircraft No!!

NAL Saras Mk2 indeed carries only 19 passengers. Now please look up regional routes that require 4 times that amount. There has to be a market that exists for the E 190 or whatever other Embraer aircraft. Regional airliners are constantly looking at routes in which they can generate revenue.

Just because E 190 carries more than 4 times the amount of a Saras Mk2, is it profitable for a regional airliner to run? Think of fuel costs, maintenance, number of routes per week, number of passengers carried per week. You can't do a comparison without a proper study.

Indigo, Air India Express, etc are not newbies in this game. If they felt the need for an E 190 type aircraft, they would have bought it. Why are they buying Airbus and Boeing aircraft, instead of Embraer. Find out why

And there is an Indian Regional Jet (IRJ) in the works, post the Saras Mk2 ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL/NAL_R ... t_Aircraft

Why should we invest in Airbus, Embraer, Boeing or whoever else, when we will be having our own fairly soon?

IRJ - seating capacity of 90 passengers
E 190 - seating capacity of 90 - 100 passengers

So we should waste our FOREX and invest in Embraer and get nothing more than a FACO (Final Assembly & Check Out) line in India? OR we can invest in an Indian IRJ and get greater return on value? Come on bro!